Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tulle admits that micro-aggressions are BS

Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 5:25:26 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Original quote:

"The only people who make 'privilege' an ugly word are the people who are offended by it... There is nothing inherently wrong with the term and there is nothing about the way it's used in academia that should warrant offense." [http://www.debate.org...]

*poof*

"The only people who make micro-aggressions ugly words/phrases are the people who are offended by them... There is nothing inherently wrong about them and there is nothing about the way they're used by non-minorities that should warrant offense."

#Kab00m
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 2:43:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 5:25:26 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Original quote:

"The only people who make 'privilege' an ugly word are the people who are offended by it... There is nothing inherently wrong with the term and there is nothing about the way it's used in academia that should warrant offense." [http://www.debate.org...]

*poof*

"The only people who make micro-aggressions ugly words/phrases are the people who are offended by them... There is nothing inherently wrong about them and there is nothing about the way they're used by non-minorities that should warrant offense."

#Kab00m

I'm confused by this comparison because it seems you are conflating a category (i.e., privilege) with an act that would fall under such a category (i.e., microaggression).

Wouldn't the equivalent statement to what she said be "The only people who make 'micro-aggression' an ugly words/phrases...?"
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 6:26:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 5:25:26 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Original quote:

"The only people who make 'privilege' an ugly word are the people who are offended by it... There is nothing inherently wrong with the term and there is nothing about the way it's used in academia that should warrant offense." [http://www.debate.org...]

*poof*

"The only people who make micro-aggressions ugly words/phrases are the people who are offended by them... There is nothing inherently wrong about them and there is nothing about the way they're used by non-minorities that should warrant offense."

#Kab00m

Don't turn into YYW.

First of all, the word microaggressions, like the word privilege, is innocuous. Your analogy doesn't even make sense, as Maikuru pointed out.

You also seem to be unable to tell the difference between someone being offended by being called "fat" and someone being offended by being called "blond."

You can't just insert a word into another phrase and claim that it's true. The things that I would consider microaggressions are things that I CAN show are in and of themselves problematic, not simply because some people hear the word and "feel hurt." The reasons white males "feel hurt" at the word privilege don't make sense and cannot be justified. They boil down to white males perceiving that word means something that it doesn't.

As I said before, I can care about someone being offended at being called fat and not care about someone being offended at being called blond because "fat" carries with it real negative connotations. The connotations white males feel when they hear the word "privilege" are made up and not rooted in history, science, or fact.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 6:35:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 6:26:03 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/17/2016 5:25:26 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Original quote:

"The only people who make 'privilege' an ugly word are the people who are offended by it... There is nothing inherently wrong with the term and there is nothing about the way it's used in academia that should warrant offense." [http://www.debate.org...]

*poof*

"The only people who make micro-aggressions ugly words/phrases are the people who are offended by them... There is nothing inherently wrong about them and there is nothing about the way they're used by non-minorities that should warrant offense."

#Kab00m

Don't turn into YYW.

First of all, the word microaggressions, like the word privilege, is innocuous. Your analogy doesn't even make sense, as Maikuru pointed out.

You also seem to be unable to tell the difference between someone being offended by being called "fat" and someone being offended by being called "blond."

You can't just insert a word into another phrase and claim that it's true. The things that I would consider microaggressions are things that I CAN show are in and of themselves problematic, not simply because some people hear the word and "feel hurt." The reasons white males "feel hurt" at the word privilege don't make sense and cannot be justified. They boil down to white males perceiving that word means something that it doesn't.

"privilege" is one word with its own connotations. "white privilege" isn't. As I have made reference to before (and here is your justification): such a connotation and phrase has the capability (and has been used) to diminish personal achievement or ability.

As I said before, I can care about someone being offended at being called fat and not care about someone being offended at being called blond because "fat" carries with it real negative connotations. The connotations white males feel when they hear the word "privilege" are made up and not rooted in history, science, or fact.

"fat" carries the same negative connotations as "blonde", bro. Its called "having a blonde moment" for a reason. In any case, "fat" can have obvious roots to being applied. "WHITE" privilege can't. There is no criteria for such a term to be used that is not subjective in nature.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 6:51:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 6:35:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

"privilege" is one word with its own connotations. "white privilege" isn't. As I have made reference to before (and here is your justification): such a connotation and phrase has the capability (and has been used) to diminish personal achievement or ability.

No, it doesn't.

"fat" carries the same negative connotations as "blonde", bro. Its called "having a blonde moment" for a reason.

And yet as descriptors only one of them is negative. You can call someone blond as a descriptor ("blond moment" or "dumb blond" is something else entirely but people still refer to themselves as blond to describe the colour of their hair and not their intelligence). Calling someone fat as a descriptor is generally not okay.

In any case, "fat" can have obvious roots to being applied. "WHITE" privilege can't. There is no criteria for such a term to be used that is not subjective in nature.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 6:52:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Anyway, I'm not interested in this conversation, I just popped in here to say the title of this thread is obviously false and the analogy in the OP is fail.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 7:00:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 6:51:30 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/17/2016 6:35:52 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

"privilege" is one word with its own connotations. "white privilege" isn't. As I have made reference to before (and here is your justification): such a connotation and phrase has the capability (and has been used) to diminish personal achievement or ability.

No, it doesn't.

Oh? You don't think there are a few people out in the world that might say
"Oh, he only got the job because he was white..."?


"fat" carries the same negative connotations as "blonde", bro. Its called "having a blonde moment" for a reason.

And yet as descriptors only one of them is negative. You can call someone blond as a descriptor ("blond moment" or "dumb blond" is something else entirely but people still refer to themselves as blond to describe the colour of their hair and not their intelligence). Calling someone fat as a descriptor is generally not okay.

Because there is no real objective criteria for what makes "fat", just like there is no real objective criteria for what constitutes "white" privilege. There is, however, for "blonde", which is why this construct of "white" privilege, is just as generally 'not okay'.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 7:15:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 7:00:21 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Oh? You don't think there are a few people out in the world that might say
"Oh, he only got the job because he was white..."?

On one in academia would say that. Even if this were true that there are people who say this, it doesn't invalidate the concept of privilege. People have their personal achievements minimized all the time.

I think the major problem with people having a problem with things like privilege is that they are getting their limited information from blogs and non-academic sources. There's a whole body of work people are completely ignoring, and then discounting based on digestible soundbites constructed for the general public.

Because there is no real objective criteria for what makes "fat", just like there is no real objective criteria for what constitutes "white" privilege. There is, however, for "blonde", which is why this construct of "white" privilege, is just as generally 'not okay'.

I'm not following your argument here.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 7:16:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 7:15:43 PM, lamerde wrote:

No one in academia would say that.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 7:17:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 7:15:43 PM, lamerde wrote:

There's a whole body of work people are completely ignoring, and then discounting based on digestible soundbites constructed for the general public by people who aren't doing the research themselves.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 7:45:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Stop making threads like this.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 7:55:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Yeah, it seams like she is hinting that it is BS and merely just a useful model to look at the world through. I didn't want to call her on it, since she didn't specifically state it though.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2016 11:24:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 7:15:43 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/17/2016 7:00:21 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Oh? You don't think there are a few people out in the world that might say
"Oh, he only got the job because he was white..."?

On one in academia would say that. Even if this were true that there are people who say this, it doesn't invalidate the concept of privilege. People have their personal achievements minimized all the time.


I think the major problem with people having a problem with things like privilege is that they are getting their limited information from blogs and non-academic sources. There's a whole body of work people are completely ignoring, and then discounting based on digestible soundbites constructed for the general public.

Because there is no real objective criteria for what makes "fat", just like there is no real objective criteria for what constitutes "white" privilege. There is, however, for "blonde", which is why this construct of "white" privilege, is just as generally 'not okay'.

I'm not following your argument here.

Why is it okay to call some one "blonde"? Usually because they are, right? Blonde hair. Makes sense. Its an objective fact.

Why is it NOT okay to call some one "fat"? Lets be real, there is such thing as a fat person, but, as you state and I agree, "fat" has negative connotations to it. Also, its a fairly subjective term. Fat to you might just be a tad heavy to me, even though we both agree the concept exists, so the recipient of such a label might not consider themselves fat, just a bit overweight and consider it an insult. Or they might not consider themselves fat at all. There is no bench mark criteria for "fat".

Now, on the matter of privilege... how do you call it out? As I drew mention to above, the concept of a subset based privilege has obvious negative connotations, much like being/the label of fat, and much like "fat" as a descriptor, its subjectively applied. How do you correctly and objectively identify when something is based off (white) privilege vs any other possible influence without slipping into insulting some one. My example above demonstrated how such a privilege can be used to minimalize some one's accomplishments, which is pretty insulting.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 12:10:00 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 2:43:27 PM, Maikuru wrote:

I'm confused by this comparison because it seems you are conflating a category (i.e., privilege) with an act that would fall under such a category (i.e., microaggression).

The implication is that usage of the term "privilege" serves as a sort of micro-aggression against straight white males. Like verbal micro-aggressions, it is a term which is (allegedly) used with innocuous intentions, yet it nonetheless offends its target group. The irony is that the reasoning Tulle employed to dismiss the feelings of those who are bothered by the term "privilege" also functions to dismiss the feelings of those who are bothered by various verbal micro-aggressions.
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 12:21:39 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 6:26:03 PM, lamerde wrote:

Don't turn into YYW.

I have nothing against you.


First of all, the word microaggressions, like the word privilege, is innocuous. Your analogy doesn't even make sense, as Maikuru pointed out.

See response to Maikuru:

"The implication is that usage of the term 'privilege' serves as a sort of micro-aggression against straight white males. Like verbal micro-aggressions, it is a term which is (allegedly) used with innocuous intentions, yet it nonetheless offends its target group. The irony is that the reasoning Tulle employed to dismiss the feelings of those who are bothered by the term 'privilege' also functions to dismiss the feelings of those who are bothered by various verbal micro-aggressions."


You can't just insert a word into another phrase and claim that it's true. The things that I would consider microaggressions are things that I CAN show are in and of themselves problematic, not simply because some people hear the word and "feel hurt." The reasons white males "feel hurt" at the word privilege don't make sense and cannot be justified. They boil down to white males perceiving that word means something that it doesn't.

As I said before, I can care about someone being offended at being called fat and not care about someone being offended at being called blond because "fat" carries with it real negative connotations. The connotations white males feel when they hear the word "privilege" are made up and not rooted in history, science, or fact.

Um, no -- privilege definitely carries historically negative connotations. It has always been associated with snobbiness, undeserved good fortune, and callousness towards the under-privileged. There are legitimate reasons for people to perceive the word as a negative one. It's hypocritical to sympathize with women who are offended by the phrase "Man up!" (when used innocuously), but not sympathize with white males who are offended by the term "privilege."
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:33:10 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 5:25:26 AM, Romaniii wrote:
Original quote:

"The only people who make 'privilege' an ugly word are the people who are offended by it... There is nothing inherently wrong with the term and there is nothing about the way it's used in academia that should warrant offense." [http://www.debate.org...]

*poof*

"The only people who make micro-aggressions ugly words/phrases are the people who are offended by them... There is nothing inherently wrong about them and there is nothing about the way they're used by non-minorities that should warrant offense."

#Kab00m

haha
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:43:59 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 7:55:43 PM, Wylted wrote:
Yeah, it seams like she is hinting that it is BS and merely just a useful model to look at the world through. I didn't want to call her on it, since she didn't specifically state it though.

Useful to justify the implementation of policies that chill free speech...
Tsar of DDO
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:46:44 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
That all said, I don't sympathize with anyone who takes offense to words that weren't communicated with offensive intent. In those situations, I think the burden is on the 'offendee' to emotionally cope with it.

I seriously doubt that all or even most SJWs use the term "privilege" without any offensive intent, however...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 4:29:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:46:44 AM, Romaniii wrote:
That all said, I don't sympathize with anyone who takes offense to words that weren't communicated with offensive intent. In those situations, I think the burden is on the 'offendee' to emotionally cope with it.

I seriously doubt that all or even most SJWs use the term "privilege" without any offensive intent, however...

I agree, the word privilege should not be used as a weapon. That would be alienating and counterproductive. People who attempt to do so are as misguided as those who believe privilege doesn't exist. The term is simply a descriptor of one's contextual advantages and is as fundamental as any other sociological construct. There seems to be a lot that is being unduly read into the term, which suggests that the construct itself isn't the problem, but rather individuals' reactions to it.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 4:34:54 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 12:10:00 AM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/17/2016 2:43:27 PM, Maikuru wrote:

I'm confused by this comparison because it seems you are conflating a category (i.e., privilege) with an act that would fall under such a category (i.e., microaggression).

The implication is that usage of the term "privilege" serves as a sort of micro-aggression against straight white males.

That is fascinating. How would you define microaggression?

Like verbal micro-aggressions, it is a term which is (allegedly) used with innocuous intentions, yet it nonetheless offends its target group. The irony is that the reasoning Tulle employed to dismiss the feelings of those who are bothered by the term "privilege" also functions to dismiss the feelings of those who are bothered by various verbal micro-aggressions.

Do you believe straight white males are the only people who are privileged? If not, do you think they are uniquely privileged?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 4:46:08 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/17/2016 6:26:03 PM, lamerde wrote:

As I said before, I can care about someone being offended at being called fat and not care about someone being offended at being called blond because "fat" carries with it real negative connotations. The connotations white males feel when they hear the word "privilege" are made up and not rooted in history, science, or fact.

Fat should carry negative connotations, because being fat has negative consequences and is, in the vast majority of cases, entirely preventable. There are some things to which shame is a justified response, and eating oneself to death while huge segments of the globe starve is at the top of that list, right underneath pitying oneself while doing it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:03:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Really, I think women have been harmed by ideas that they should be happy no matter how fat they are. The Dove "real beauty" or whatever they are campaigns... they're psychologically deleterious to women. Beauty is, by definition, not something that everyone can have. Some people are fat and ugly. This is a fact. Lying, and telling some fat person that they're beautiful doesn't make them beautiful.
Tsar of DDO
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:25:00 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 4:29:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

There seems to be a lot that is being unduly read into the term, which suggests that the construct itself isn't the problem, but rather individuals' reactions to it.

Welcome to the worldview of people who are annoyed when they get shamed for committing micro-aggressions.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:28:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:25:00 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/20/2016 4:29:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

There seems to be a lot that is being unduly read into the term, which suggests that the construct itself isn't the problem, but rather individuals' reactions to it.

Welcome to the worldview of people who are annoyed when they get shamed for committing micro-aggressions.

So we've come full circle. Well done, Romanii haha
Tsar of DDO
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:40:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:25:00 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/20/2016 4:29:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

There seems to be a lot that is being unduly read into the term, which suggests that the construct itself isn't the problem, but rather individuals' reactions to it.

Welcome to the worldview of people who are annoyed when they get shamed for committing micro-aggressions.

Like I said... I can justify what makes a micro-aggression an aggressive behaviour beyond "someone feels bad about it." There's a reason only non-whites are asked "where are you really from?" There's a reason someone might "innocently" ask to touch a black person's hair. There's a reason why people say "you don't act black!" And it's the reasons for these things that are the problem.
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:40:48 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:25:00 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/20/2016 4:29:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

There seems to be a lot that is being unduly read into the term, which suggests that the construct itself isn't the problem, but rather individuals' reactions to it.

Welcome to the worldview of people who are annoyed when they get shamed for committing micro-aggressions.

You seem to be conflating constructs with acts again, as I mentioned in regards to the OP. Privilege is to microaggression as an example of privilege is to an example of a microaggression. In the response above, however, you are equating the response to privilege (the construct) to microaggressions (the acts). I"m afraid it does not follow.

To clarify, I was stating that the construct of privilege, not actual examples of privilege, is being unduly bogged down by mischaracterizations. The same could certainly be said about microaggressions. Is that what you meant?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 10:03:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:28:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/20/2016 5:25:00 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/20/2016 4:29:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

There seems to be a lot that is being unduly read into the term, which suggests that the construct itself isn't the problem, but rather individuals' reactions to it.

Welcome to the worldview of people who are annoyed when they get shamed for committing micro-aggressions.

So we've come full circle. Well done, Romanii haha

Thank you, sir ;)
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 10:10:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 10:03:05 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/20/2016 5:28:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/20/2016 5:25:00 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/20/2016 4:29:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

There seems to be a lot that is being unduly read into the term, which suggests that the construct itself isn't the problem, but rather individuals' reactions to it.

Welcome to the worldview of people who are annoyed when they get shamed for committing micro-aggressions.

So we've come full circle. Well done, Romanii haha

Thank you, sir ;)

The sort of distinctions between "constructs" and "people's reactions to them" or whatever is illusory, as well. The standard of what makes a microaggression a microaggression is how minorities react to actions taken by non-minorities.

The sort of searing irony is that the real issue behind this discussion is "which groups have a right not to be offended and which groups do not?" Non-minority reactions to micro-aggressions are disregarded as "problematic," yet minority reactions to non-minority actions are the basis argued for changing non-minority behavior.

But of course, I doubt anyone in the social sciences or psychology could appreciate the tension. Critical thought isn't really something that goes on there, anyway.
Tsar of DDO
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 10:58:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:40:19 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 3/20/2016 5:25:00 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/20/2016 4:29:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

There seems to be a lot that is being unduly read into the term, which suggests that the construct itself isn't the problem, but rather individuals' reactions to it.

Welcome to the worldview of people who are annoyed when they get shamed for committing micro-aggressions.

Like I said... I can justify what makes a micro-aggression an aggressive behaviour beyond "someone feels bad about it." There's a reason only non-whites are asked "where are you really from?" There's a reason someone might "innocently" ask to touch a black person's hair. There's a reason why people say "you don't act black!" And it's the reasons for these things that are the problem.

So saying "Man up!" without actually meaning anything sexist isn't a micro-aggression ?
Romaniii
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 11:25:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 5:40:48 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 3/20/2016 5:25:00 PM, Romaniii wrote:
At 3/20/2016 4:29:02 PM, Maikuru wrote:

There seems to be a lot that is being unduly read into the term, which suggests that the construct itself isn't the problem, but rather individuals' reactions to it.

Welcome to the worldview of people who are annoyed when they get shamed for committing micro-aggressions.

You seem to be conflating constructs with acts again, as I mentioned in regards to the OP. Privilege is to microaggression as an example of privilege is to an example of a microaggression. In the response above, however, you are equating the response to privilege (the construct) to microaggressions (the acts). I"m afraid it does not follow.

To clarify, I was stating that the construct of privilege, not actual examples of privilege, is being unduly bogged down by mischaracterizations. The same could certainly be said about microaggressions. Is that what you meant?

No, man... I'm not talking about anything other than actions here. No constructs. The gist of what I'm saying is this -- the reason why people are offended by being told that they have X privilege is the same as the reason why people are offended by micro-aggressions. Both reasons are similarly irrational, because like you said, it involves unduly reading meaning into terms.