4 ms·

You definition of microagression isn’t usual or useful. That’s why the rest of the argument made sense, but missed the point.

ALittleLight 6y ago
Google defines microagression as - "a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority" That is consistent with the definition I had in mind when I wrote my comment. I do think trying to document unintended offenses is a bad idea. The recipient of the microagression should instead learn not to dwell on minor slights, ignore them, and/or assume good intent instead. It seems very toxic to live as if the people you talk to are secretly hurting you. Better to think of them as nice people with different methods of communication until they prove otherwise.
- villasv 6y ago
  As you can see in that definition, intent is irrelevant. Assuming good intent doesn’t change the fact it is regarded as an instance of discrimination. Might be unintentional, but it still is what is is. You keep saying “imaginary”, but microagression is about what has been said, not relevant to dwell on what the person might have wanted to mean. You keep coming back to this perceived paranoia: “as if people are secretly trying to hurt you”. This is not what this is about. This is people that got hurt, and no matter what others are trying, secretly or not, that hurt is better be documented. It doesn’t mean that someone ought to be punished right away for each comment deemed offensive by anyone. It’s just that these occurrences might be relevant later on and if they’re not documented, it’s gone. Documenting all offenses is a good idea for people who are at risk of finding themselves needing that later. And if you don’t think this happens frequently enough, you haven’t been paying attention.
  - lordloki 6y ago
    It sounds to me like people get hurt by microagressions because they have been taught that microagressions exist in the first place. That is once you have been convinced that microaggressions are a problem you will find them everywhere, since they are primarily a matter of interpretation. The entire concept then creates a negative environment where everyone feels they need to walk on eggshells all the time. This is more unhealthy to society and groups, than the microaggressions. It creates distrust, where assuming the best fosters trust. I see the entire concept of "microaggressions" as a downward spiral.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      Try looking at it in reverse: the stress you feel about "microaggressions" is similar to what people are complaining about. It's a minor thing, something you can live with individually, except that as a constant daily drumbeat. Microaggressions do exactly what you say: force people to feel as if they're walking on eggshells. And telling them "Oh, just shake it off" gets exactly the same response as if I told you to just shake off the accusations of microaggressions. The downward spiral already exists: people do exhibit a range of racist, sexist, etc. behavior on a spectrum every day, from outright asshole behavior to small, incidental assumptions about people that make them feel unwanted and singled out. It afflicts some people more than others. So you can take this as a thought experiment to see why it's a problem for them, and if "just ignore it" doesn't work for you, then maybe we can find a better answer.
      - throwawaygulf 6y ago
        >It's a minor thing, something you can live with individually, except that as a constant daily drumbeat. Your entire argument is based on this pretence that is demonstrably false. Getting reported to HR by these neurotic professional victims is not something you can "just shake off", you literally can't "just ignore it". It's asymmetrical warfare, and the externalities are all on you, the microagressor. All of this reminds me of the 90s when Evangelicals wanted schools to ban students from talking about, wearing clothing with, or playing anything related to Pokemon, because it was an affront and a "microagression" to their religion. Here we are, just a few decades later and leftists and SJWs are now the ones playing the victims, being "microagressed".
    - villasv 6y ago
      > It sounds to me like people get hurt by microagressions because they have been taught that microagressions exist in the first place. And I can assure you that this is not the case. They've always been perceived and caused hurt. The difference is that we now have a name for it and decided that people deserve better. > since they are primarily a matter of interpretation They are not.

ALittleLight 6y ago

Google defines microagression as - "a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority" That is consistent with the definition I had in mind when I wrote my comment. I do think trying to document unintended offenses is a bad idea. The recipient of the microagression should instead learn not to dwell on minor slights, ignore them, and/or assume good intent instead. It seems very toxic to live as if the people you talk to are secretly hurting you. Better to think of them as nice people with different methods of communication until they prove otherwise.

villasv 6y ago
As you can see in that definition, intent is irrelevant. Assuming good intent doesn’t change the fact it is regarded as an instance of discrimination. Might be unintentional, but it still is what is is. You keep saying “imaginary”, but microagression is about what has been said, not relevant to dwell on what the person might have wanted to mean. You keep coming back to this perceived paranoia: “as if people are secretly trying to hurt you”. This is not what this is about. This is people that got hurt, and no matter what others are trying, secretly or not, that hurt is better be documented. It doesn’t mean that someone ought to be punished right away for each comment deemed offensive by anyone. It’s just that these occurrences might be relevant later on and if they’re not documented, it’s gone. Documenting all offenses is a good idea for people who are at risk of finding themselves needing that later. And if you don’t think this happens frequently enough, you haven’t been paying attention.
- lordloki 6y ago
  It sounds to me like people get hurt by microagressions because they have been taught that microagressions exist in the first place. That is once you have been convinced that microaggressions are a problem you will find them everywhere, since they are primarily a matter of interpretation. The entire concept then creates a negative environment where everyone feels they need to walk on eggshells all the time. This is more unhealthy to society and groups, than the microaggressions. It creates distrust, where assuming the best fosters trust. I see the entire concept of "microaggressions" as a downward spiral.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    Try looking at it in reverse: the stress you feel about "microaggressions" is similar to what people are complaining about. It's a minor thing, something you can live with individually, except that as a constant daily drumbeat. Microaggressions do exactly what you say: force people to feel as if they're walking on eggshells. And telling them "Oh, just shake it off" gets exactly the same response as if I told you to just shake off the accusations of microaggressions. The downward spiral already exists: people do exhibit a range of racist, sexist, etc. behavior on a spectrum every day, from outright asshole behavior to small, incidental assumptions about people that make them feel unwanted and singled out. It afflicts some people more than others. So you can take this as a thought experiment to see why it's a problem for them, and if "just ignore it" doesn't work for you, then maybe we can find a better answer.
    - throwawaygulf 6y ago
      >It's a minor thing, something you can live with individually, except that as a constant daily drumbeat. Your entire argument is based on this pretence that is demonstrably false. Getting reported to HR by these neurotic professional victims is not something you can "just shake off", you literally can't "just ignore it". It's asymmetrical warfare, and the externalities are all on you, the microagressor. All of this reminds me of the 90s when Evangelicals wanted schools to ban students from talking about, wearing clothing with, or playing anything related to Pokemon, because it was an affront and a "microagression" to their religion. Here we are, just a few decades later and leftists and SJWs are now the ones playing the victims, being "microagressed".
  - villasv 6y ago
    > It sounds to me like people get hurt by microagressions because they have been taught that microagressions exist in the first place. And I can assure you that this is not the case. They've always been perceived and caused hurt. The difference is that we now have a name for it and decided that people deserve better. > since they are primarily a matter of interpretation They are not.