3 ms·

Furthermore, for all that people apparently care about the accumulated effects of microaggressions... Suppose that, every time someone refers to your group—I'll

Furthermore, for all that people apparently care about the accumulated effects of microaggressions... Suppose that, every time someone refers to your group—I'll use blindness for an example—they think "blind people—oh wait, I'd get in trouble for saying that, um, I mean, people who are blind". Might this develop a Pavlovian association of "blind people" = "uh-oh, might get in trouble"? Which, in turn, might lead to subtle resentment, mistreatment, and/or avoidance of blind people? It seems that, to rationally recommend one moniker over the other, one has to consider all the costs and benefits, and I don't think I've seen advocates of "person who is X" address this one.

ksm1717 6y ago
Nobody has addressed it because you are the first person to ever think of it
- waterhouse 6y ago
  Eh, I think it's common enough for people to say they feel like they're walking on eggshells because of all the sensitivity stuff, and I think I've seen a few people say that they now feel uneasy around minorities because they're afraid to encounter one who's been taught to have a chip on their shoulder and might throw a fit at the smallest microaggression. It's not a hard connection to draw. The social justice crowd is unlikely to address it because, with their norms of discussion, mentioning it will likely attract mockery and redirection: "Oh no, we must protect the feelings of the poor white people! How oppressed they are! I'm sure it's just as bad as having ancestors who were enslaved and lynched!" The term "white fragility" might be used; in feminist circles, it might be "what about the menz!?". There's an instance in this thread (flagged) of someone mocking someone who complained about inconveniences. I generally term this "Look at these oppressed people; your complaint is invalid". These argumentative norms seem to prevent the social justice crowd, as a group, from making decisions of the form "Let's make a minor effort to avoid needlessly offending the people that we're nominally trying to win over".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

ksm1717 6y ago

Nobody has addressed it because you are the first person to ever think of it

waterhouse 6y ago
Eh, I think it's common enough for people to say they feel like they're walking on eggshells because of all the sensitivity stuff, and I think I've seen a few people say that they now feel uneasy around minorities because they're afraid to encounter one who's been taught to have a chip on their shoulder and might throw a fit at the smallest microaggression. It's not a hard connection to draw. The social justice crowd is unlikely to address it because, with their norms of discussion, mentioning it will likely attract mockery and redirection: "Oh no, we must protect the feelings of the poor white people! How oppressed they are! I'm sure it's just as bad as having ancestors who were enslaved and lynched!" The term "white fragility" might be used; in feminist circles, it might be "what about the menz!?". There's an instance in this thread (flagged) of someone mocking someone who complained about inconveniences. I generally term this "Look at these oppressed people; your complaint is invalid". These argumentative norms seem to prevent the social justice crowd, as a group, from making decisions of the form "Let's make a minor effort to avoid needlessly offending the people that we're nominally trying to win over".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]