5 ms·

I hate that you've called this "aggression", like it's a kind of morally reprehensible violence. People like to feel puffy hair, black person or not. Ask a whit

I hate that you've called this "aggression", like it's a kind of morally reprehensible violence. People like to feel puffy hair, black person or not. Ask a white person with dreds if anyone has ever felt their hair. In Japan, people like to feel my arm hair, which is blonde and almost invisible and completely foreign to East Asians. It's harmless. It's completely natural that humans are interested in the physical variety of other humans. Now, you can obviously say or do something racist or mean while touching that hair, but the act of touching hair cannot itself be deemed aggressive without knowing the context. You would have to understand the social context of black people (apparently) being tired of being touched all the time in order to know that you should avoid doing this specific thing, which makes this a "faux pas".

ygjb 5y ago
> People like to feel puffy hair, black person or not. > ... > In Japan, people like to feel my arm hair, which is blonde and almost invisible and completely foreign to East Asians. It's harmless. Do you extend this perspective on unwanted touching to other parts of the body without consent? People like to do things to and with other people. The thing that makes doing that a form of aggression is doing those things without consent. > Ask a white person with dreds if anyone has ever felt their hair. Please point to the cultural and historical legacy of white people being stripped of their freedom, dignity and agency when comparing the experiences of white folks to Black folks. That sets aside the entire discussion of cultural appropriation related dreadlocks which is related to, but not at the core of the point I am trying to make. > Now, you can obviously say or do something racist or mean while touching that hair, but the act of touching hair cannot itself be deemed aggressive without knowing the context. You would have to understand the social context of black people (apparently) being tired of being touched all the time in order to know that you should avoid doing this specific thing, which makes this a "faux pas". The fact that you dismiss the documented experience of Black people as "apparently" being tired of being touched all the time says pretty much everything anyone in the audience needs to know about whether you are arguing in good or bad faith. The point is further driven home by the fact that you are contrasting your own anecdotal experience with an awareness of the social context of why this is an issue.
- knorker 5y ago
  To address what parent post asked in the first sentence though: Is it "aggression"? Isn't that like calling "a dirty look" a "microrape"? I'm not saying I don't understand how it can be an unwelcome experience to be touched and prodded, but "microaggression" is a term out there like "silence is violence" and "words are violence" in the possibly most literal real-life version of Orwell's writings, even (in its overtness) possibly outweighing the real life society he was describing at the time.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Given he was writing about a mix of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, I don't think the tendency for social justice people to assign overly provocative words to their ideas is worse than those places.
    - knorker 5y ago
      I don't think you're familiar with Orwell, and the meaning of Orwellian. Did my comment read to you like I didn't know what real life societies he was writing about? I explicitly described how they fit into my point exactly in order to make people not reply with comments like yours.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        Maybe you are just bad at writing clearly.
        knorker 5y ago
        I see now that my failure was in assuming an educated reader. And you're right that having an accurate model of the reader is indeed important for clear communication.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    If I come up to you, violate your personal space, and start running my hands over your body, you will absolutely see it as aggressive. If you think that's not the case, go out and try doing that to the first 10 men you see on the street. Heck, try it with a couple of cops. So yes, calling more modest unwanted touching a microaggression is perfectly appropriate.
wpietri 5y ago
I'm sure you do hate it. Many people hate recognizing that their own behavior has been harmful to others. > the act of touching hair cannot itself be deemed aggressive without knowing the context I have never in my life had random people walk up and start petting me. Be honest. If I walked down the street feeling the hair of each man I passed, how long do you think it would be before I got punched? So white people already know perfectly well you don't just go around touching strangers. It's just that some will make an exception for black people because they are seen as other/lesser. I would add that your notion that a microaggression is ok due to white ignorance of the experience of black people at the hands of white people is itself a racist notion. And giving an example in Japan doesn't change much for me, as as Japan is a notoriously racist place. (For those unsure, a quick Google of "racism in Japan" will help. And I think you could understand that what's harmless to you as a high-status foreigner is not always going to be harmless for other people. Especially, say, a marginalized group whose inferior status was established America's founding and persists to this day.
- garfieldnate 5y ago
  When reading your original post, I thought there was an implicit assumption that any case of a white person feeling a black person's hair was automatically classified as a racist "micro-aggression". Re-reading your original post, I think I probably misunderstood you, but I'll explain my thoughts a bit here since we have a thread started. >Many people hate recognizing that their own behavior has been harmful to others. I've never felt a black person's hair. I'm generally not a touchy person. >I have never in my life had random people walk up and start petting me. I actually think we're talking about different things. In my mind I was seeing a friend ask another, "hey, sorry, I know it's weird, but can I feel your hair? I'm curious what it feels like." The friend says "yes" or "no" and the interaction goes on from there. There are countries/cultures where strangers will touch others, but it's a pretty foreign concept to me. >your notion that a micro-aggression is ok due to white ignorance The word "aggression" implies willing injury or intimidation of another person. Hurting someone's feelings on accident is also bad, but it doesn't make sense to label them the same way. You're absolutely right to say that the context was completely different in Japan, and that's exactly the point. You can't unilaterally label an action like touching hair as aggressive in all contexts. If someone thinks fuzzy hair is neat and they don't have any sense of a racial divide, then they would feel curly caucasian red hair or African dreadlocks and not think anything was different about the two actions. If you classify all interactions between all white people and all black people in terms of their racial differences, then how do we properly get rid of racism? If in the US a white and black person have to keep slavery in the back of their minds during every interaction, how are they ever supposed to act normally or integrate? How do we ever expect to overcome our differences if we have to constantly remind ourselves of them? I really like concrete initiatives for helping those that have been historically and presently disadvantaged: paying meaningful reparations, fixing police and the justice system, UBI, etc. But I dislike social notions that impede communication and drive wedges between people. After all of the actions that we take to help everyone in our society to thrive, the end goal has to be social harmony, and I think we need to be careful not to attribute all unpleasant interactions to voluntary aggression or racism.

ygjb 5y ago

> People like to feel puffy hair, black person or not. > ... > In Japan, people like to feel my arm hair, which is blonde and almost invisible and completely foreign to East Asians. It's harmless. Do you extend this perspective on unwanted touching to other parts of the body without consent? People like to do things to and with other people. The thing that makes doing that a form of aggression is doing those things without consent. > Ask a white person with dreds if anyone has ever felt their hair. Please point to the cultural and historical legacy of white people being stripped of their freedom, dignity and agency when comparing the experiences of white folks to Black folks. That sets aside the entire discussion of cultural appropriation related dreadlocks which is related to, but not at the core of the point I am trying to make. > Now, you can obviously say or do something racist or mean while touching that hair, but the act of touching hair cannot itself be deemed aggressive without knowing the context. You would have to understand the social context of black people (apparently) being tired of being touched all the time in order to know that you should avoid doing this specific thing, which makes this a "faux pas". The fact that you dismiss the documented experience of Black people as "apparently" being tired of being touched all the time says pretty much everything anyone in the audience needs to know about whether you are arguing in good or bad faith. The point is further driven home by the fact that you are contrasting your own anecdotal experience with an awareness of the social context of why this is an issue.

knorker 5y ago
To address what parent post asked in the first sentence though: Is it "aggression"? Isn't that like calling "a dirty look" a "microrape"? I'm not saying I don't understand how it can be an unwelcome experience to be touched and prodded, but "microaggression" is a term out there like "silence is violence" and "words are violence" in the possibly most literal real-life version of Orwell's writings, even (in its overtness) possibly outweighing the real life society he was describing at the time.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Given he was writing about a mix of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, I don't think the tendency for social justice people to assign overly provocative words to their ideas is worse than those places.
  - knorker 5y ago
    I don't think you're familiar with Orwell, and the meaning of Orwellian. Did my comment read to you like I didn't know what real life societies he was writing about? I explicitly described how they fit into my point exactly in order to make people not reply with comments like yours.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Maybe you are just bad at writing clearly.
      - knorker 5y ago
        I see now that my failure was in assuming an educated reader. And you're right that having an accurate model of the reader is indeed important for clear communication.
- wpietri 5y ago
  If I come up to you, violate your personal space, and start running my hands over your body, you will absolutely see it as aggressive. If you think that's not the case, go out and try doing that to the first 10 men you see on the street. Heck, try it with a couple of cops. So yes, calling more modest unwanted touching a microaggression is perfectly appropriate.

wpietri 5y ago

I'm sure you do hate it. Many people hate recognizing that their own behavior has been harmful to others. > the act of touching hair cannot itself be deemed aggressive without knowing the context I have never in my life had random people walk up and start petting me. Be honest. If I walked down the street feeling the hair of each man I passed, how long do you think it would be before I got punched? So white people already know perfectly well you don't just go around touching strangers. It's just that some will make an exception for black people because they are seen as other/lesser. I would add that your notion that a microaggression is ok due to white ignorance of the experience of black people at the hands of white people is itself a racist notion. And giving an example in Japan doesn't change much for me, as as Japan is a notoriously racist place. (For those unsure, a quick Google of "racism in Japan" will help. And I think you could understand that what's harmless to you as a high-status foreigner is not always going to be harmless for other people. Especially, say, a marginalized group whose inferior status was established America's founding and persists to this day.

garfieldnate 5y ago
When reading your original post, I thought there was an implicit assumption that any case of a white person feeling a black person's hair was automatically classified as a racist "micro-aggression". Re-reading your original post, I think I probably misunderstood you, but I'll explain my thoughts a bit here since we have a thread started. >Many people hate recognizing that their own behavior has been harmful to others. I've never felt a black person's hair. I'm generally not a touchy person. >I have never in my life had random people walk up and start petting me. I actually think we're talking about different things. In my mind I was seeing a friend ask another, "hey, sorry, I know it's weird, but can I feel your hair? I'm curious what it feels like." The friend says "yes" or "no" and the interaction goes on from there. There are countries/cultures where strangers will touch others, but it's a pretty foreign concept to me. >your notion that a micro-aggression is ok due to white ignorance The word "aggression" implies willing injury or intimidation of another person. Hurting someone's feelings on accident is also bad, but it doesn't make sense to label them the same way. You're absolutely right to say that the context was completely different in Japan, and that's exactly the point. You can't unilaterally label an action like touching hair as aggressive in all contexts. If someone thinks fuzzy hair is neat and they don't have any sense of a racial divide, then they would feel curly caucasian red hair or African dreadlocks and not think anything was different about the two actions. If you classify all interactions between all white people and all black people in terms of their racial differences, then how do we properly get rid of racism? If in the US a white and black person have to keep slavery in the back of their minds during every interaction, how are they ever supposed to act normally or integrate? How do we ever expect to overcome our differences if we have to constantly remind ourselves of them? I really like concrete initiatives for helping those that have been historically and presently disadvantaged: paying meaningful reparations, fixing police and the justice system, UBI, etc. But I dislike social notions that impede communication and drive wedges between people. After all of the actions that we take to help everyone in our society to thrive, the end goal has to be social harmony, and I think we need to be careful not to attribute all unpleasant interactions to voluntary aggression or racism.