3 ms·

First, touching someone without permission isn't a micro-aggression. Depending on the jurisdiction, the location of the unwanted touching, and the age or power

by ygjb 5y ago

First, touching someone without permission isn't a micro-aggression. Depending on the jurisdiction, the location of the unwanted touching, and the age or power disparity between the two, it can range from harassment to assault. The fact that this discussion is even happening in the context of Black people and their hair is frustrating because the implicit bias is that somehow individual curiosity overrides another persons expectation of freedom from interference or right to not be fondled. If we were talking about a casual grope of a woman's breast because people are naturally curious, I would expect that most people would be moderately outraged. Also, while a "dirty look" is subjective, "leering" is a form of sexual harassment in many jurisdictions. While I appreciate that your perspective that microagressions, silence is violence, and words are violence are Orwellian, your perspective also reveals a pretty clear ignorance of the nuance and impact that these slogans capture. I don't know if it's an ignorance that stems from a lack of knowledge and experience, or a more insidious and willful ignorance that stems from the type of thinking that allows for or encourages "marketplaces of ideas" that tolerate and debate some of the most awful and toxic values, but it doesn't really matter. Up in the thread I stated, and I stand by it, workplace inclusiveness and diversity training is intended to reach those who can be taught, and inform those who can't of the consequences of failing to at least act in a baseline socially acceptable fashion for the duration of the work day. It would be a better world if more people cared about the impact of what they do and say, but in the absence of that, most of us will settle for people who can at least act like they care.

knorker 5y ago
> First, touching someone without permission isn't a micro-aggression. Now you're changing the subject. You and I both know that "oooh, nice hair, can I touch it?" is also counted as "microaggression". A misunderstood social signal (e.g. a raised eyebrow) can be called a micro-aggression. Most migroaggressions involve nothing physical, nor any ill intent. That doesn't make them right. They can still be hurtful. E.g. "you're the whitest black person I know" sure is a stupid thing to say. "Hey, nice hair" is also a thing banned in these trainings. Because the receiver can infer that their hair is unique, exotic, and that they are different and maybe don't belong here. So "hey, nice haircut" is banned from workplaces under all circumstanses. Ok, fine. Nobody needs to comment on appearance in the workplace, why would they? But it's not "aggression". It's nothing like it. And this is what "microaggression" is. This is what's being stamped out. > individual curiosity overrides another persons expectation of freedom from interference or right to not be fondled It does not, I agree. > If we were talking about a casual grope of a woman's breast because people are naturally curious, Jesus christ you're going way overboard in changing the subject. I got it already: You want to change the subject. > Also, while a "dirty look" is subjective, "leering" is a form of sexual harassment in many jurisdictions. But is it a "microrape"? The difference here is a controlling use of language. If someone walks down the street and get checked out by a passer by, they were not "almost raped". To say that they were is insulting to rape victims, a perfectly normal person who just looked at their surroundings, and language itself. > workplace inclusiveness and diversity training is intended to reach those who can be taught, and inform those who can't of the consequences of failing to at least act in a baseline socially acceptable fashion for the duration of the work day. Yup. But I think it's failing at it. There's plenty of bad behavior to stamp out. But it's also being replaced by other bad behavior. Like telling people that being white means that you as an individual have these attributes, and shutting down a colleague saying "you are a man, and therefore can't be a part of this conversation or decision". I don't know if you bought into the "intent doesn't matter" crowd, but if you have, then the fact that inclusivity and diversity training has good intentions doesn't matter. > It would be a better world if more people cared about the impact of what they do and say Diversity & inclusiveness activists at companies don't have a monopoly on these values. And I wish they would stop pretending that they did. Because they sure don't actually live their stated gospel.
- ygjb 5y ago
  I want to say that based on your response, I don't believe that you are arguing in good faith, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't change the subject. I rejected your claim that touching someone without permission is a microagression. It's not, it falls on a spectrum of harassment to assault, depending on who you touch, where you touch them, and where you are when you do it. That's not a microagression. > "microrape" Unless we are talking about moths, please provide a serious academic or published document that actually proposes this as a generally accepted term. I confess that the first time I saw it, I thought you being flippant, but it appears that you actually think this is a commonly used or generally accepted term. I spent some time reading about the term, and asking about it among the D&I folks that I know, and based on that, it's not really a thing that people are concerned with, and aside from some fringe groups on the edges of D&I activism. Most references are related to some shitty humour on reddit and other sites meant to mock folks rather than engage in actual discourse. Aside from your use of the term, I think the question you are really asking is "Does a 'dirty look' count as sexual harassment?", and the answer is, yes, depending on the jurisdiction. I already said that. > "intent doesn't matter" Yeah, intent doesn't matter. This isn't a new concept - look up the etymology of the phrase "The Road to hell is paved with good intentions."; it's a well understood concept and proverb that dates back at least 500 years, farther if you torture some of the translations and transliterations. This isn't to say that intent doesn't actually matter, its a slogan that illustrates that even well intentioned actions that have a negative outcome are still the responsibility of the person who took the action, and that positive intent doesn't balance out negative outcomes. That said, it doesn't really matter what your opinion is on D&I activism, or your thoughts on the role they play in business. I fall back to my original statement that the vast majority of D&I training and related activities are risk mitigation activities. If you don't want to change your beliefs, that's fine. Just act like a decent human being, and treat others with respect while you are operating in a professional context. As for the rest of your claims, it is obvious to me that you are more concerned with your perceived harms to your own freedoms than you are with considering the perspectives of others - unless you have something more meaningful and evidence based to add to the conversation, there isn't much point to continuing it.
  - 5y ago

by ygjb 5y ago

knorker 5y ago

> First, touching someone without permission isn't a micro-aggression. Now you're changing the subject. You and I both know that "oooh, nice hair, can I touch it?" is also counted as "microaggression". A misunderstood social signal (e.g. a raised eyebrow) can be called a micro-aggression. Most migroaggressions involve nothing physical, nor any ill intent. That doesn't make them right. They can still be hurtful. E.g. "you're the whitest black person I know" sure is a stupid thing to say. "Hey, nice hair" is also a thing banned in these trainings. Because the receiver can infer that their hair is unique, exotic, and that they are different and maybe don't belong here. So "hey, nice haircut" is banned from workplaces under all circumstanses. Ok, fine. Nobody needs to comment on appearance in the workplace, why would they? But it's not "aggression". It's nothing like it. And this is what "microaggression" is. This is what's being stamped out. > individual curiosity overrides another persons expectation of freedom from interference or right to not be fondled It does not, I agree. > If we were talking about a casual grope of a woman's breast because people are naturally curious, Jesus christ you're going way overboard in changing the subject. I got it already: You want to change the subject. > Also, while a "dirty look" is subjective, "leering" is a form of sexual harassment in many jurisdictions. But is it a "microrape"? The difference here is a controlling use of language. If someone walks down the street and get checked out by a passer by, they were not "almost raped". To say that they were is insulting to rape victims, a perfectly normal person who just looked at their surroundings, and language itself. > workplace inclusiveness and diversity training is intended to reach those who can be taught, and inform those who can't of the consequences of failing to at least act in a baseline socially acceptable fashion for the duration of the work day. Yup. But I think it's failing at it. There's plenty of bad behavior to stamp out. But it's also being replaced by other bad behavior. Like telling people that being white means that you as an individual have these attributes, and shutting down a colleague saying "you are a man, and therefore can't be a part of this conversation or decision". I don't know if you bought into the "intent doesn't matter" crowd, but if you have, then the fact that inclusivity and diversity training has good intentions doesn't matter. > It would be a better world if more people cared about the impact of what they do and say Diversity & inclusiveness activists at companies don't have a monopoly on these values. And I wish they would stop pretending that they did. Because they sure don't actually live their stated gospel.

ygjb 5y ago
I want to say that based on your response, I don't believe that you are arguing in good faith, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't change the subject. I rejected your claim that touching someone without permission is a microagression. It's not, it falls on a spectrum of harassment to assault, depending on who you touch, where you touch them, and where you are when you do it. That's not a microagression. > "microrape" Unless we are talking about moths, please provide a serious academic or published document that actually proposes this as a generally accepted term. I confess that the first time I saw it, I thought you being flippant, but it appears that you actually think this is a commonly used or generally accepted term. I spent some time reading about the term, and asking about it among the D&I folks that I know, and based on that, it's not really a thing that people are concerned with, and aside from some fringe groups on the edges of D&I activism. Most references are related to some shitty humour on reddit and other sites meant to mock folks rather than engage in actual discourse. Aside from your use of the term, I think the question you are really asking is "Does a 'dirty look' count as sexual harassment?", and the answer is, yes, depending on the jurisdiction. I already said that. > "intent doesn't matter" Yeah, intent doesn't matter. This isn't a new concept - look up the etymology of the phrase "The Road to hell is paved with good intentions."; it's a well understood concept and proverb that dates back at least 500 years, farther if you torture some of the translations and transliterations. This isn't to say that intent doesn't actually matter, its a slogan that illustrates that even well intentioned actions that have a negative outcome are still the responsibility of the person who took the action, and that positive intent doesn't balance out negative outcomes. That said, it doesn't really matter what your opinion is on D&I activism, or your thoughts on the role they play in business. I fall back to my original statement that the vast majority of D&I training and related activities are risk mitigation activities. If you don't want to change your beliefs, that's fine. Just act like a decent human being, and treat others with respect while you are operating in a professional context. As for the rest of your claims, it is obvious to me that you are more concerned with your perceived harms to your own freedoms than you are with considering the perspectives of others - unless you have something more meaningful and evidence based to add to the conversation, there isn't much point to continuing it.
- 5y ago