5 ms·

This seems like a perfect example of why micro-aggressions are bullshit. Any right-thinking person can see that those taking offence to this are wrong, while th

This seems like a perfect example of why micro-aggressions are bullshit. Any right-thinking person can see that those taking offence to this are wrong, while the theory of micro-aggressions posits that because they are offended their feelings are valid and the professor must be in the wrong.

frereubu 6y ago
That's not the way I understand microaggressions, which aren't to do with whether someone is offended or not. The idea is that if, for example, you're black, and day in, day out, there are lots of little things that on their own aren't worth being upset about (for example, people not holding the door for you, pushing in front of you in line, crossing the road rather than walk past you, assume you're low-level staff rather than a manager) it's the cumulative effects of those small - micro - things that really adds up. The whole idea is that they don't matter on their own, and if they were the exception rather than the rule then they'd be easy to ignore. In terms of what you're saying about this particularly case it's pretty simple - what happened here is not a micro-aggression because it's not aggressive at all, so the use of the term here by the dean is simply wrong.
- pixel_fcker 6y ago
  From Wikipedia: > Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal or behavioural indignities, whether intentional or unintentional It’s the unintentional part that I take issue with, which means that it’s not on you to understand the context of my statement, it’s on me to imagine the infinite variety of ways you might interpret my statement and vet them for possible insensitivity before making it, which is obviously impossible. I agree that your definition makes perfect sense but I don’t think the sort of people who spend a lot of time worrying about micro-aggressions agree that the intention of the “aggressor” matters, as is perfectly evinced by this situation: > “We would rather not take his course than to endure the emotional exhaustion of carrying on with an instructor that disregards cultural diversity and sensitivities and by extension creates an unwelcome environment for us Black students.”
  - craftinator 6y ago
    I think at some level this comes down to the age old argument of Ignorance vs the Common Good. An extreme but relevant example: If a person is ignorant of the harmfulness of bleach, and injects their children with it with intent to cure an ailment, are they guilty of a crime? If so, is it the crime of being ignorant? So from that lens, can a person act aggressively without intending to? In a technical sense, I think not. Aggression is, by definition, a state of intent. When we say "act aggressively", we likely mean "act in a way that suggests an aggressive intent". It's our interpretation of intent based on action. An important note here is that it's our interpretation of someone else's intent.
    - echaozh 6y ago
      I don't think emotional offence should be treated exactly like physical harm. Different people may take offence from different actions, and it's not fair to require everyone to judge accurately what is and what is not offensive to all the other people they're going to interact with, especially in a society that is aiming for diversity. In East Asia, where most people think alike, it's easier to guess people's reaction, but it's definitely not so in other parts of the world. For physical harm, however, ignorance should not be an excuse. It may reduce the responsibility, but it should not completely remove it. Not knowing something can kill doesn't change the fact that one had actually killed.
      - bowties2cool 6y ago
        I don't know where you get the impression that in East Asia most people think alike, though I won't call it microaggression but rather self-centered cluelessness. Agree with your other points though.
    - pixel_fcker 6y ago
      You’re right and that’s the crux of it really: intent. That’s why framing someone as being in the wrong regardless of intent is dangerous.
  - crc32 6y ago

frereubu 6y ago

That's not the way I understand microaggressions, which aren't to do with whether someone is offended or not. The idea is that if, for example, you're black, and day in, day out, there are lots of little things that on their own aren't worth being upset about (for example, people not holding the door for you, pushing in front of you in line, crossing the road rather than walk past you, assume you're low-level staff rather than a manager) it's the cumulative effects of those small - micro - things that really adds up. The whole idea is that they don't matter on their own, and if they were the exception rather than the rule then they'd be easy to ignore. In terms of what you're saying about this particularly case it's pretty simple - what happened here is not a micro-aggression because it's not aggressive at all, so the use of the term here by the dean is simply wrong.

pixel_fcker 6y ago
From Wikipedia: > Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal or behavioural indignities, whether intentional or unintentional It’s the unintentional part that I take issue with, which means that it’s not on you to understand the context of my statement, it’s on me to imagine the infinite variety of ways you might interpret my statement and vet them for possible insensitivity before making it, which is obviously impossible. I agree that your definition makes perfect sense but I don’t think the sort of people who spend a lot of time worrying about micro-aggressions agree that the intention of the “aggressor” matters, as is perfectly evinced by this situation: > “We would rather not take his course than to endure the emotional exhaustion of carrying on with an instructor that disregards cultural diversity and sensitivities and by extension creates an unwelcome environment for us Black students.”
- craftinator 6y ago
  I think at some level this comes down to the age old argument of Ignorance vs the Common Good. An extreme but relevant example: If a person is ignorant of the harmfulness of bleach, and injects their children with it with intent to cure an ailment, are they guilty of a crime? If so, is it the crime of being ignorant? So from that lens, can a person act aggressively without intending to? In a technical sense, I think not. Aggression is, by definition, a state of intent. When we say "act aggressively", we likely mean "act in a way that suggests an aggressive intent". It's our interpretation of intent based on action. An important note here is that it's our interpretation of someone else's intent.
  - echaozh 6y ago
    I don't think emotional offence should be treated exactly like physical harm. Different people may take offence from different actions, and it's not fair to require everyone to judge accurately what is and what is not offensive to all the other people they're going to interact with, especially in a society that is aiming for diversity. In East Asia, where most people think alike, it's easier to guess people's reaction, but it's definitely not so in other parts of the world. For physical harm, however, ignorance should not be an excuse. It may reduce the responsibility, but it should not completely remove it. Not knowing something can kill doesn't change the fact that one had actually killed.
    - bowties2cool 6y ago
      I don't know where you get the impression that in East Asia most people think alike, though I won't call it microaggression but rather self-centered cluelessness. Agree with your other points though.
  - pixel_fcker 6y ago
    You’re right and that’s the crux of it really: intent. That’s why framing someone as being in the wrong regardless of intent is dangerous.
- crc32 6y ago