Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Idiocy: The Atlantic, on Microagressions

YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 2:51:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
The manifest worthlessness of modern psychology and social science is once again highlighted by the Atlantic's latest piece of intellectual trash "Microagressions Matter." Simba Runyowa wrote the piece, who in all probability dropped out of Oberlin.

His name, entirely reminiscent of such children's stories as "The Lion King" is something shared with animals. What other people associate with his name, young Simba interprets as a microagression. Never mind the cultural context in which that name has been used, or the name's cultural significance (I, too, have a friend who has a cat named Simba, named after the same famed Lion King character). The pop cultural history which gave rise to that association is inconsequential. To Simba, the association is racist.

Simba casts himself, due to this association, as a perpetual victim of microagressions, and decries that this is "a good example" of "behaviors or statements that do not necessarily reflect malicious intent but which nevertheless can inflict insult or injury." But, is he injured? No, he says he "wasn"t particularly offended by the dog comparison." Simba passed sathing judgment on Americans who have the audacity to be culturally aware, and admonished all who have dared to recognize that his name is associated with The Lion King, by stating that he "found it amusing at best and tone deaf at worst." Yes, the rise of professional offense.

After highlighting microagressions's ubiquity, and with some irony, Simba acknowledges that he is both victim and aggressor. He, too, has engaged in the unintentional act of offending someone's peculiar and idiosyncratic sensitivity. But, with more irony, Simba here is engaged in a grandest-of-all species of micro-aggression: though it remains to be seen whether he understands that Simba, lion from greatest children's movie of all time Lion King, is a lion and not a dog. His lack of cultural sensitivity to American pop culture is offensive and his comparing himself, by implication, offends me and it should offend all Americans, and, indeed, the entire western World.

To associate his name with the Lion King, whether his name came first or not (though I doubt it because he just recently graduated Oberlin), it goes without saying that the Lion King is vastly more culturally important and therefore significant than he will ever be. Thus, when in conflict, his name should change lest the good name of the one, true Simba be debased by his parent's culturally insensitive act of imprudence.

My outrage at his brazen microaggressive attack on America, and lack of sensitivity to American culture aside is further buttressed by his microaggressive microaggressions leveraged at the expense of political viewpoints which diverge from his own. While intent is irrelevant to, for example, the girl who had the gaul to associate his--culturally insensitive--name to the Lion King, it appears that intent is the only thing that matters when enforcing norms against such acts of rhetorical violence in the university.

Microagresor Simba writes:

Others have argued that political correctness evangelizes a new kind of moral righteousness that over-privileges identity politics and silences conservative viewpoints. What these critics miss is that the striving for "PC culture" on college campuses is actually rooted in empathy.

Indeed, it may well be that he and others like him do not "intend' to silence viewpoints which diverge from their own, but as he stated above, "the *impact* of his words and actions matter more than his *intent.*" He concludes by saying that "Only the empathy fostered by the dictates of political correctness can help us productively encounter difference."

I hope that the contradiction is not as lost on all of you as it is clearly lost on this hopelessly misguided youth.

Empathetic "intent" is irrelevant by his own standard, though perhaps this logical contradiction is too intellectually sophisticated for a race/gender studies major who dropped out of Oberlin to grasp. One cannot, on the one hand, say that intent is irrelevant when other people do things you don't like, and then, on the other, say that it's the only thing that matters when you do things other people don't like.

This is why Simba, and people like him, should be ushered from our American campuses. He can't even think clearly, much less write coherently; yet decries the misery and woe of an illusory harm predicated on advancing an ideal with all the meaning of a dried up mud puddle and comparable utility.

What Simba, presumably because his university failed to equip him with the intellectual tools to understand and navigate through an ideologically diverse world (more irony, I know), fails to appreciate is that historically marginalized groups do not have a monopoly on the right to be offended and to force others to conform their behavior to facilitate such group's non-offense.

Perhaps because he is so intellectually unequipped, he is unable to appreciate the real impact of enforcement of norms against "microaggressions." Maybe if he'd majored in something worth studying, he wouldn't even regard microagressions as an actual thing, and would therefore be better off.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 3:39:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
So it's okay to micro-aggress as long as you are doing it within the PC rules and as a card carrying PC member?

Perhaps this explains why it is totally okay for a mouth to use the n word if your skin is dark enough.
NothingSpecial99
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 3:48:16 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:51:23 PM, YYW wrote:
The manifest worthlessness of modern psychology and social science is once again highlighted by the Atlantic's latest piece of intellectual trash "Microagressions Matter." Simba Runyowa wrote the piece, who in all probability dropped out of Oberlin.

His name, entirely reminiscent of such children's stories as "The Lion King" is something shared with animals. What other people associate with his name, young Simba interprets as a microagression. Never mind the cultural context in which that name has been used, or the name's cultural significance (I, too, have a friend who has a cat named Simba, named after the same famed Lion King character). The pop cultural history which gave rise to that association is inconsequential. To Simba, the association is racist.

Simba casts himself, due to this association, as a perpetual victim of microagressions, and decries that this is "a good example" of "behaviors or statements that do not necessarily reflect malicious intent but which nevertheless can inflict insult or injury." But, is he injured? No, he says he "wasn"t particularly offended by the dog comparison." Simba passed sathing judgment on Americans who have the audacity to be culturally aware, and admonished all who have dared to recognize that his name is associated with The Lion King, by stating that he "found it amusing at best and tone deaf at worst." Yes, the rise of professional offense.

After highlighting microagressions's ubiquity, and with some irony, Simba acknowledges that he is both victim and aggressor. He, too, has engaged in the unintentional act of offending someone's peculiar and idiosyncratic sensitivity. But, with more irony, Simba here is engaged in a grandest-of-all species of micro-aggression: though it remains to be seen whether he understands that Simba, lion from greatest children's movie of all time Lion King, is a lion and not a dog. His lack of cultural sensitivity to American pop culture is offensive and his comparing himself, by implication, offends me and it should offend all Americans, and, indeed, the entire western World.

To associate his name with the Lion King, whether his name came first or not (though I doubt it because he just recently graduated Oberlin), it goes without saying that the Lion King is vastly more culturally important and therefore significant than he will ever be. Thus, when in conflict, his name should change lest the good name of the one, true Simba be debased by his parent's culturally insensitive act of imprudence.

My outrage at his brazen microaggressive attack on America, and lack of sensitivity to American culture aside is further buttressed by his microaggressive microaggressions leveraged at the expense of political viewpoints which diverge from his own. While intent is irrelevant to, for example, the girl who had the gaul to associate his--culturally insensitive--name to the Lion King, it appears that intent is the only thing that matters when enforcing norms against such acts of rhetorical violence in the university.

Microagresor Simba writes:

Others have argued that political correctness evangelizes a new kind of moral righteousness that over-privileges identity politics and silences conservative viewpoints. What these critics miss is that the striving for "PC culture" on college campuses is actually rooted in empathy.

Indeed, it may well be that he and others like him do not "intend' to silence viewpoints which diverge from their own, but as he stated above, "the *impact* of his words and actions matter more than his *intent.*" He concludes by saying that "Only the empathy fostered by the dictates of political correctness can help us productively encounter difference."

I hope that the contradiction is not as lost on all of you as it is clearly lost on this hopelessly misguided youth.

Empathetic "intent" is irrelevant by his own standard, though perhaps this logical contradiction is too intellectually sophisticated for a race/gender studies major who dropped out of Oberlin to grasp. One cannot, on the one hand, say that intent is irrelevant when other people do things you don't like, and then, on the other, say that it's the only thing that matters when you do things other people don't like.

This is why Simba, and people like him, should be ushered from our American campuses. He can't even think clearly, much less write coherently; yet decries the misery and woe of an illusory harm predicated on advancing an ideal with all the meaning of a dried up mud puddle and comparable utility.

What Simba, presumably because his university failed to equip him with the intellectual tools to understand and navigate through an ideologically diverse world (more irony, I know), fails to appreciate is that historically marginalized groups do not have a monopoly on the right to be offended and to force others to conform their behavior to facilitate such group's non-offense.

Perhaps because he is so intellectually unequipped, he is unable to appreciate the real impact of enforcement of norms against "microaggressions." Maybe if he'd majored in something worth studying, he wouldn't even regard microagressions as an actual thing, and would therefore be better off.

For all the idiocy of the SJW movement, there is one thing I like to thank them for. They give something both left and right can join hands to rally against
"Check your facts, not your privilege" - Christina Hoff Summers

If you go to jail for Tax Evasion, you're living off of Taxes as a result of not paying Taxes

"Facts don't care about your feelings" - Ben Shapiro
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:15:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
From the article...

"The only people who benefit from oppression are the ones who are exempt from it"not the ones who suffer through it." -Simba

Yet Micro-Aggressions exempt all the other like-minded minorities as he describes in his own words as being "tone-deaf" to those aggressions...(the dog example)...

He goes on to justify why it is okay to exempt oppression originating from minority groups.

"But it makes sense that marginalized groups would attempt to form coalitions and enlist allies. They are severely underrepresented on most campuses." -Simba

Now this is where the reasoning totally goes off the rails. Simba justifies microaggressions with this reason.

"It codifies the empathy that can help lead to a more inclusive atmosphere."

You can't codify something and then at the same time say you accept other viewpoints, what he is saying is that all others must conform to his thinking in order to be considered inclusive. That's about as intolerant thinking as one can get.

What he is really saying is that Micro-Aggressions is a tool for codifying the entire world under the umbrella of a single culture; which I personally think is an extremely dangerous position to embrace for the continuation of humans as a species.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:33:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:51:23 PM, YYW wrote:
The manifest worthlessness of modern psychology and social science is once again highlighted by the Atlantic's latest piece of intellectual trash "Microagressions Matter." Simba Runyowa wrote the piece, who in all probability dropped out of Oberlin.

Fist paragraph adds nothing to you position, but to expose your anger.

His name, entirely reminiscent of such children's stories as "The Lion King" is something shared with animals. What other people associate with his name, young Simba interprets as a microagression. Never mind the cultural context in which that name has been used, or the name's cultural significance (I, too, have a friend who has a cat named Simba, named after the same famed Lion King character). The pop cultural history which gave rise to that association is inconsequential. To Simba, the association is racist.

Second paragraph is simply not true. He doesn't see the ignorance in US culture that Simba is a human name in Africa as racist. He wrote:

I wasn"t particularly offended by the dog comparison. I found it amusing at best and tone deaf at worst
.

Once again with that start of misrepresenting the article why continue?

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Simba casts himself, due to this association, as a perpetual victim of microagressions, and decries that this is "a good example" of "behaviors or statements that do not necessarily reflect malicious intent but which nevertheless can inflict insult or injury." But, is he injured? No, he says he "wasn"t particularly offended by the dog comparison." Simba passed sathing judgment on Americans who have the audacity to be culturally aware, and admonished all who have dared to recognize that his name is associated with The Lion King, by stating that he "found it amusing at best and tone deaf at worst." Yes, the rise of professional offense.

After highlighting microagressions's ubiquity, and with some irony, Simba acknowledges that he is both victim and aggressor. He, too, has engaged in the unintentional act of offending someone's peculiar and idiosyncratic sensitivity. But, with more irony, Simba here is engaged in a grandest-of-all species of micro-aggression: though it remains to be seen whether he understands that Simba, lion from greatest children's movie of all time Lion King, is a lion and not a dog. His lack of cultural sensitivity to American pop culture is offensive and his comparing himself, by implication, offends me and it should offend all Americans, and, indeed, the entire western World.

To associate his name with the Lion King, whether his name came first or not (though I doubt it because he just recently graduated Oberlin), it goes without saying that the Lion King is vastly more culturally important and therefore significant than he will ever be. Thus, when in conflict, his name should change lest the good name of the one, true Simba be debased by his parent's culturally insensitive act of imprudence.

My outrage at his brazen microaggressive attack on America, and lack of sensitivity to American culture aside is further buttressed by his microaggressive microaggressions leveraged at the expense of political viewpoints which diverge from his own. While intent is irrelevant to, for example, the girl who had the gaul to associate his--culturally insensitive--name to the Lion King, it appears that intent is the only thing that matters when enforcing norms against such acts of rhetorical violence in the university.

Microagresor Simba writes:

Others have argued that political correctness evangelizes a new kind of moral righteousness that over-privileges identity politics and silences conservative viewpoints. What these critics miss is that the striving for "PC culture" on college campuses is actually rooted in empathy.

Indeed, it may well be that he and others like him do not "intend' to silence viewpoints which diverge from their own, but as he stated above, "the *impact* of his words and actions matter more than his *intent.*" He concludes by saying that "Only the empathy fostered by the dictates of political correctness can help us productively encounter difference."

I hope that the contradiction is not as lost on all of you as it is clearly lost on this hopelessly misguided youth.

Empathetic "intent" is irrelevant by his own standard, though perhaps this logical contradiction is too intellectually sophisticated for a race/gender studies major who dropped out of Oberlin to grasp. One cannot, on the one hand, say that intent is irrelevant when other people do things you don't like, and then, on the other, say that it's the only thing that matters when you do things other people don't like.

This is why Simba, and people like him, should be ushered from our American campuses. He can't even think clearly, much less write coherently; yet decries the misery and woe of an illusory harm predicated on advancing an ideal with all the meaning of a dried up mud puddle and comparable utility.

What Simba, presumably because his university failed to equip him with the intellectual tools to understand and navigate through an ideologically diverse world (more irony, I know), fails to appreciate is that historically marginalized groups do not have a monopoly on the right to be offended and to force others to conform their behavior to facilitate such group's non-offense.

Perhaps because he is so intellectually unequipped, he is unable to appreciate the real impact of enforcement of norms against "microaggressions." Maybe if he'd majored in something worth studying, he wouldn't even regard microagressions as an actual thing, and would therefore be better off.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:42:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:15:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
From the article...

"The only people who benefit from oppression are the ones who are exempt from it"not the ones who suffer through it." -Simba

Yet Micro-Aggressions exempt all the other like-minded minorities as he describes in his own words as being "tone-deaf" to those aggressions...(the dog example)...

He goes on to justify why it is okay to exempt oppression originating from minority groups.

"But it makes sense that marginalized groups would attempt to form coalitions and enlist allies. They are severely underrepresented on most campuses." -Simba

Now this is where the reasoning totally goes off the rails. Simba justifies microaggressions with this reason.

"It codifies the empathy that can help lead to a more inclusive atmosphere."

You can't codify something and then at the same time say you accept other viewpoints, what he is saying is that all others must conform to his thinking in order to be considered inclusive. That's about as intolerant thinking as one can get.

What he is really saying is that Micro-Aggressions is a tool for codifying the entire world under the umbrella of a single culture; which I personally think is an extremely dangerous position to embrace for the continuation of humans as a species.

I think he would respond that microaggressions are usually derrived from stereotypes and ignorance. The codification is just an expectation of people to be aware of their ignorance and that there is a bigger world out there than their preconceived notions. IE: Assuming all people with Mongoloid features are Chinese or saying to a black person the he dies not speak like a black person.

What exactly are you fighting for? A right to apply stereotypes to people who don't fit them?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 4:53:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:42:50 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:15:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
From the article...

"The only people who benefit from oppression are the ones who are exempt from it"not the ones who suffer through it." -Simba

Yet Micro-Aggressions exempt all the other like-minded minorities as he describes in his own words as being "tone-deaf" to those aggressions...(the dog example)...

He goes on to justify why it is okay to exempt oppression originating from minority groups.

"But it makes sense that marginalized groups would attempt to form coalitions and enlist allies. They are severely underrepresented on most campuses." -Simba

Now this is where the reasoning totally goes off the rails. Simba justifies microaggressions with this reason.

"It codifies the empathy that can help lead to a more inclusive atmosphere."

You can't codify something and then at the same time say you accept other viewpoints, what he is saying is that all others must conform to his thinking in order to be considered inclusive. That's about as intolerant thinking as one can get.

What he is really saying is that Micro-Aggressions is a tool for codifying the entire world under the umbrella of a single culture; which I personally think is an extremely dangerous position to embrace for the continuation of humans as a species.

I think he would respond that microaggressions are usually derrived from stereotypes and ignorance. The codification is just an expectation of people to be aware of their ignorance and that there is a bigger world out there than their preconceived notions. IE: Assuming all people with Mongoloid features are Chinese or saying to a black person the he dies not speak like a black person.

What exactly are you fighting for? A right to apply stereotypes to people who don't fit them?

I'm exposing the hypocritical exemptions minority groups give themselves for hateful speech, as they label the exact same speech as a micro-aggression if it originates from another cultural group. We can't afford to promote culture-centric codifications based on arbitrary minority or victim statuses.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:17:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 4:53:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:42:50 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:15:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
From the article...

"The only people who benefit from oppression are the ones who are exempt from it"not the ones who suffer through it." -Simba

Yet Micro-Aggressions exempt all the other like-minded minorities as he describes in his own words as being "tone-deaf" to those aggressions...(the dog example)...

He goes on to justify why it is okay to exempt oppression originating from minority groups.

"But it makes sense that marginalized groups would attempt to form coalitions and enlist allies. They are severely underrepresented on most campuses." -Simba

Now this is where the reasoning totally goes off the rails. Simba justifies microaggressions with this reason.

"It codifies the empathy that can help lead to a more inclusive atmosphere."

You can't codify something and then at the same time say you accept other viewpoints, what he is saying is that all others must conform to his thinking in order to be considered inclusive. That's about as intolerant thinking as one can get.

What he is really saying is that Micro-Aggressions is a tool for codifying the entire world under the umbrella of a single culture; which I personally think is an extremely dangerous position to embrace for the continuation of humans as a species.

I think he would respond that microaggressions are usually derrived from stereotypes and ignorance. The codification is just an expectation of people to be aware of their ignorance and that there is a bigger world out there than their preconceived notions. IE: Assuming all people with Mongoloid features are Chinese or saying to a black person the he dies not speak like a black person.

What exactly are you fighting for? A right to apply stereotypes to people who don't fit them?

I'm exposing the hypocritical exemptions minority groups give themselves for hateful speech, as they label the exact same speech as a micro-aggression if it originates from another cultural group. We can't afford to promote culture-centric codifications based on arbitrary minority or victim statuses.

I fail to see how you come to that conclusion. It is rather evident that he sees the triviality in someone saying "oh my dog's name is Simba too", and not getting one's undies in a bundle over it, yet saying that it is good to expand empathy and reduce ignorance. I don't see any written statements that he would expect any difference behaviors from minority groups.

His point about the the first quote," The only people who benefit from oppression are the ones who are exempt from it"not the ones who suffer through it", was not to provide justification of a different standard for the minority.

It was used in the context that there is no benefit to playing or acting the victim if one does not truly feel a victim. The victimization card and oversensitivity is often cited as a reason to disregard the concept of micro aggressions.

I'm not arguing for or against his point, but you have grossly misinterpreted it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:17:22 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:53:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:42:50 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 4:15:36 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
From the article...

"The only people who benefit from oppression are the ones who are exempt from it"not the ones who suffer through it." -Simba

Yet Micro-Aggressions exempt all the other like-minded minorities as he describes in his own words as being "tone-deaf" to those aggressions...(the dog example)...

He goes on to justify why it is okay to exempt oppression originating from minority groups.

"But it makes sense that marginalized groups would attempt to form coalitions and enlist allies. They are severely underrepresented on most campuses." -Simba

Now this is where the reasoning totally goes off the rails. Simba justifies microaggressions with this reason.

"It codifies the empathy that can help lead to a more inclusive atmosphere."

You can't codify something and then at the same time say you accept other viewpoints, what he is saying is that all others must conform to his thinking in order to be considered inclusive. That's about as intolerant thinking as one can get.

What he is really saying is that Micro-Aggressions is a tool for codifying the entire world under the umbrella of a single culture; which I personally think is an extremely dangerous position to embrace for the continuation of humans as a species.

I think he would respond that microaggressions are usually derrived from stereotypes and ignorance. The codification is just an expectation of people to be aware of their ignorance and that there is a bigger world out there than their preconceived notions. IE: Assuming all people with Mongoloid features are Chinese or saying to a black person the he dies not speak like a black person.

What exactly are you fighting for? A right to apply stereotypes to people who don't fit them?

I'm exposing the hypocritical exemptions minority groups give themselves for hateful speech, as they label the exact same speech as a micro-aggression if it originates from another cultural group. We can't afford to promote culture-centric codifications based on arbitrary minority or victim statuses.

I fail to see how you come to that conclusion. It is rather evident that he sees the triviality in someone saying "oh my dog's name is Simba too", and not getting one's undies in a bundle over it, yet saying that it is good to expand empathy and reduce ignorance. I don't see any written statements that he would expect any difference behaviors from minority groups.

His point about the the first quote," The only people who benefit from oppression are the ones who are exempt from it"not the ones who suffer through it", was not to provide justification of a different standard for the minority.

It was used in the context that there is no benefit to playing or acting the victim if one does not truly feel a victim. The victimization card and oversensitivity is often cited as a reason to disregard the concept of micro aggressions.

I'm not arguing for or against his point, but you have grossly misinterpreted it.

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:57:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 3:39:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
So it's okay to micro-aggress as long as you are doing it within the PC rules and as a card carrying PC member?

Correct.

Perhaps this explains why it is totally okay for a mouth to use the n word if your skin is dark enough.

Indeed.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:57:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:17:22 PM, slo1 wrote:

I'm not arguing for or against his point, but you have grossly misinterpreted it.

There is a huge difference between codifying empathy and codifying sympathy, one is tolerant of other viewpoints, the other insists there be one viewpoint.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 5:59:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.

Do you agree that micro aggression theory promotes culture-centric codifications?
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:12:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:59:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.

Do you agree that micro aggression theory promotes culture-centric codifications?

What do you mean by "culture-centric codifications"?
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:15:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:12:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:59:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.

Do you agree that micro aggression theory promotes culture-centric codifications?

What do you mean by "culture-centric codifications"?

what I mean by that is that everything should be viewed through the cultural lens of the arbitrarily defined minority or victim group. Other cultural viewpoints should be discounted on the basis that they are oppressors by default.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:27:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:57:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:17:22 PM, slo1 wrote:

I'm not arguing for or against his point, but you have grossly misinterpreted it.

There is a huge difference between codifying empathy and codifying sympathy, one is tolerant of other viewpoints, the other insists there be one viewpoint.

If you have the idea that all opinions and observations are morally equivalent, maybe. However "codifying" does not mean cuff you and stuff you for telling a very light skinned African American that they don't look black. For f's sake he admittes that he has said insensitive remarks not out of spite but instead a lack of awareness.

I fail to see how this article is anything more than a long winded reminder that it is a benefit to be broad minded and empathetic to others rather than if you don't comply we will destroy you.

Again I ask you and others what exactly are you fighting for? An ability to apply stereotypes against individuals without any judgement against you for such ignorance?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:27:12 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:17:22 PM, slo1 wrote:

I'm not arguing for or against his point, but you have grossly misinterpreted it.

There is a huge difference between codifying empathy and codifying sympathy, one is tolerant of other viewpoints, the other insists there be one viewpoint.

If you have the idea that all opinions and observations are morally equivalent, maybe. However "codifying" does not mean cuff you and stuff you for telling a very light skinned African American that they don't look black. For f's sake he admittes that he has said insensitive remarks not out of spite but instead a lack of awareness.

I fail to see how this article is anything more than a long winded reminder that it is a benefit to be broad minded and empathetic to others rather than if you don't comply we will destroy you.

Again I ask you and others what exactly are you fighting for? An ability to apply stereotypes against individuals without any judgement against you for such ignorance?

what in the hell are you going on about? that has nothing to do at all with my statement.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:32:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I just corrected your statement that the author thinks a person who says their pet has the same name as him is a racist.

This bike of hyperbole that you peddle can only take you so far.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:33:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:27:12 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:17:22 PM, slo1 wrote:

I'm not arguing for or against his point, but you have grossly misinterpreted it.

There is a huge difference between codifying empathy and codifying sympathy, one is tolerant of other viewpoints, the other insists there be one viewpoint.

If you have the idea that all opinions and observations are morally equivalent, maybe. However "codifying" does not mean cuff you and stuff you for telling a very light skinned African American that they don't look black. For f's sake he admittes that he has said insensitive remarks not out of spite but instead a lack of awareness.

I fail to see how this article is anything more than a long winded reminder that it is a benefit to be broad minded and empathetic to others rather than if you don't comply we will destroy you.

Again I ask you and others what exactly are you fighting for? An ability to apply stereotypes against individuals without any judgement against you for such ignorance?

Jumping in, not on the microagression part, but this. I have had this thought and discussion many times. Anyone can say whatever they please, there is no "PC police" to charge you with anything. I don't know what they want either. I assume they want people to stop getting in their face when they say stupid things. Good luck with that.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:47:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:29:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:27:12 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:17:22 PM, slo1 wrote:

I'm not arguing for or against his point, but you have grossly misinterpreted it.

There is a huge difference between codifying empathy and codifying sympathy, one is tolerant of other viewpoints, the other insists there be one viewpoint.

If you have the idea that all opinions and observations are morally equivalent, maybe. However "codifying" does not mean cuff you and stuff you for telling a very light skinned African American that they don't look black. For f's sake he admittes that he has said insensitive remarks not out of spite but instead a lack of awareness.

I fail to see how this article is anything more than a long winded reminder that it is a benefit to be broad minded and empathetic to others rather than if you don't comply we will destroy you.

Again I ask you and others what exactly are you fighting for? An ability to apply stereotypes against individuals without any judgement against you for such ignorance?

what in the hell are you going on about? that has nothing to do at all with my statement.

OK let me simplify. This article's purpose is not to justify a double standard. It is rather contrived to imply he is trying to justify minorities to be non-pc.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 6:58:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:47:09 PM, slo1 wrote:

There is a huge difference between codifying empathy and codifying sympathy, one is tolerant of other viewpoints, the other insists there be one viewpoint.

If you have the idea that all opinions and observations are morally equivalent, maybe. However "codifying" does not mean cuff you and stuff you for telling a very light skinned African American that they don't look black. For f's sake he admittes that he has said insensitive remarks not out of spite but instead a lack of awareness.

I fail to see how this article is anything more than a long winded reminder that it is a benefit to be broad minded and empathetic to others rather than if you don't comply we will destroy you.

Again I ask you and others what exactly are you fighting for? An ability to apply stereotypes against individuals without any judgement against you for such ignorance?

what in the hell are you going on about? that has nothing to do at all with my statement.

OK let me simplify. This article's purpose is not to justify a double standard. It is rather contrived to imply he is trying to justify minorities to be non-pc.

Ok then, what do you think codifying empathy means?
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:53:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:32:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I just corrected your statement that the author thinks a person who says their pet has the same name as him is a racist.

This bike of hyperbole that you peddle can only take you so far.

This is false. You misrepresented the article and what I said.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:54:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:15:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:12:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:59:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.

Do you agree that micro aggression theory promotes culture-centric codifications?

What do you mean by "culture-centric codifications"?

what I mean by that is that everything should be viewed through the cultural lens of the arbitrarily defined minority or victim group. Other cultural viewpoints should be discounted on the basis that they are oppressors by default.

Then to that extent, yes.
Tsar of DDO
Geographia
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 7:55:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:51:23 PM, YYW wrote:
But, with more irony, Simba here is engaged in a grandest-of-all species of micro-aggression: though it remains to be seen whether he understands that Simba, lion from greatest children's movie of all time Lion King, is a lion and not a dog. His lack of cultural sensitivity to American pop culture is offensive and his comparing himself, by implication, offends me and it should offend all Americans, and, indeed, the entire western World.

To associate his name with the Lion King, whether his name came first or not (though I doubt it because he just recently graduated Oberlin), it goes without saying that the Lion King is vastly more culturally important and therefore significant than he will ever be. Thus, when in conflict, his name should change lest the good name of the one, true Simba be debased by his parent's culturally insensitive act of imprudence.



I am 90% positive that the author was referring to his classmates dog, and not to Simba the lion. While I agree with everything else, that just seemed odd to me.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:02:09 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 7:55:59 PM, Geographia wrote:
At 10/17/2016 2:51:23 PM, YYW wrote:
But, with more irony, Simba here is engaged in a grandest-of-all species of micro-aggression: though it remains to be seen whether he understands that Simba, lion from greatest children's movie of all time Lion King, is a lion and not a dog. His lack of cultural sensitivity to American pop culture is offensive and his comparing himself, by implication, offends me and it should offend all Americans, and, indeed, the entire western World.

To associate his name with the Lion King, whether his name came first or not (though I doubt it because he just recently graduated Oberlin), it goes without saying that the Lion King is vastly more culturally important and therefore significant than he will ever be. Thus, when in conflict, his name should change lest the good name of the one, true Simba be debased by his parent's culturally insensitive act of imprudence.



I am 90% positive that the author was referring to his classmates dog, and not to Simba the lion. While I agree with everything else, that just seemed odd to me.

Of course he was. My analysis (read: outrage) there (and intentionally mocking tone) is based on his failure to appreciate the cultural meaning of Simba the lion.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:08:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 6:32:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I just corrected your statement that the author thinks a person who says their pet has the same name as him is a racist.

You failed to understand the point of what I was saying, then.

The whole point was that he is talking about the name "Simba" which so obviously connects to the Lion King more than anything else. Mention of the dog is irrelevant, and should at the first inquiry indicate sufficiently to you how incredibly stupid his offense is.

What... is everyone who shares a common name with a dog going to feign victimization now? Hardly. I've known dogs of all names; ranging from the most anglo-saxon (e.g. "Jake," a most typical dog name; or "Lucy," or "Maggie" or "Beatrice") to even the most exotic (e.g. "Simba," "Nala," or "Moufassa"), or even as pedestrian as the names of colors (e.g. "blue") or aesthetic objects (e.g. "spot").

Does any boy named Jake have a right to be offended that someone had the audacity to use *his* name as a name for a dog? Of course not, and no reasonable person has a right to claim any quantum of offense if a dog happens to be named something exotic, such as "Simba." Do exotic names share some special kind of privilege? No.

I had initially thought that this was obvious to anyone with the neurons firing in their brain, though I make room for the possibility of no such illumination in your case. Silly me...

This bike of hyperbole that you peddle can only take you so far.

What you call hyperbole, I call being offended at his failure to appreciate the cultural significance of the name "Simba." I also give zero fvcks about the dog.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:20:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 7:54:00 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:15:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:12:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:59:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.

Do you agree that micro aggression theory promotes culture-centric codifications?

What do you mean by "culture-centric codifications"?

what I mean by that is that everything should be viewed through the cultural lens of the arbitrarily defined minority or victim group. Other cultural viewpoints should be discounted on the basis that they are oppressors by default.

Then to that extent, yes.

So I can't really explain it in any fewer words...why is it so hard to understand for some??
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:44:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 2:51:23 PM, YYW wrote:
The manifest worthlessness of modern psychology and social science is once again highlighted by the Atlantic's latest piece of intellectual trash "Microagressions Matter."

But they only matter a wee tiny little bit.

Oh, boy, just the title makes me laugh. And I repent in dust and ashes if that intimidates anyone.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 10:21:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 8:08:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 6:32:23 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/17/2016 5:45:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Maybe YYW can explain it better than me, I tend to be less wordy in my explanations.

I see no point, Slo misrepresented what I said.

I did not misrepresent anything. Pertaining to the authors story where someone mentioned they have a pet with the same name.

You wrote:. To Simba, the association is racist.

The author wrote: I wasn"t particularly offended by the dog comparison. I found it amusing at best and tone deaf at worst

But other slights cut deeper. As an immigrant, my peers relentlessly inquired, "How come your English is so good?""as if eloquence were beyond the intellectual reach of people who look like me.
.

How you got to claiming the author is declaring racism is beyond me, but please do continue on going off and create your own false narrative about how victimized the author is.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I just corrected your statement that the author thinks a person who says their pet has the same name as him is a racist.

You failed to understand the point of what I was saying, then.

The whole point was that he is talking about the name "Simba" which so obviously connects to the Lion King more than anything else. Mention of the dog is irrelevant, and should at the first inquiry indicate sufficiently to you how incredibly stupid his offense is.

What... is everyone who shares a common name with a dog going to feign victimization now? Hardly. I've known dogs of all names; ranging from the most anglo-saxon (e.g. "Jake," a most typical dog name; or "Lucy," or "Maggie" or "Beatrice") to even the most exotic (e.g. "Simba," "Nala," or "Moufassa"), or even as pedestrian as the names of colors (e.g. "blue") or aesthetic objects (e.g. "spot").

Does any boy named Jake have a right to be offended that someone had the audacity to use *his* name as a name for a dog? Of course not, and no reasonable person has a right to claim any quantum of offense if a dog happens to be named something exotic, such as "Simba." Do exotic names share some special kind of privilege? No.

I had initially thought that this was obvious to anyone with the neurons firing in their brain, though I make room for the possibility of no such illumination in your case. Silly me...

This bike of hyperbole that you peddle can only take you so far.

What you call hyperbole, I call being offended at his failure to appreciate the cultural significance of the name "Simba." I also give zero fvcks about the dog.