6 ms·

The Dubious Science of Microaggressions

59 points by gorwell 4y ago

manicdee 4y ago
In the good old days we used to call this “being slighted”. We’d remember those slights and not interact with the people who slighted us often in the past. Labelling the “science” as “dubious” is basically slighting the people attempting to track these slights at something other than a personal level. Just because the stories you hear don’t jive with your take on the zeitgeist doesn’t mean the stories are wrong. It could just be that you aren’t the type of person that gets slighted often simply for existing the way you are. On one hand there’s valid criticism of collection techniques, on the other there’s dismissing the entire proposition that slighting is a thing that happens because you don’t like the way the collection is done. A better critique would look at ways to improve data collection, but that requires quantifying the myriad ways we slight each other. How to write that all down?
- drewcoo 4y ago
  > Labelling the “science” as “dubious” is basically slighting the people attempting to track these slights at something other than a personal level. First, no claiming you doubt is not a slight. Claiming you don't believe it at all because there is no evidence is not either. Second, this piece isn't merely labeling. It explains why microaggressions are not to be believed. > A better critique would look at ways to improve data collection, We don't all agree with your "better" and it's certainly not a requirement. Is this some kind of "criticism slight?" ;-)
- ajross 4y ago
  That's exactly it. All "microaggressions" are is an attempt to put a name on and try to measure an effect ("people are more likely to be jerks to people of other/alien/less-privileged demographics") that we all know is real and happens all the time. But because it involves an attempt to measure something that has partisan lean, people of one partisan group feel an instinctual need to refute it, lest they lose points or whatever. So you get this genre of right-leaning libertarian blog post that literally seems to be arguing that racism must not exist because you can't measure it precisely. And I agree, this is in fact a really hard thing to measure rigorously and there's lots of room for improvement in the field (right up to maybe having picked a needlessly inflamatory name). But if your critique starts from a prior of rejecting the (again, really obvious) hypothesis outright, you're clearly doing worse science, not better.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    Some of us are neither of those partisan groups and just think it's silly.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      It's silly to say that real estate agents shouldn't deny service to people of different races or suggest different homes based on their customers race?
      - grandmczeb 4y ago
        That’s not a micro aggression.
  - svachalek 4y ago
    I think it's fair to demand a certain amount of rigor; we're calling it science, after all. This blog includes demands that venture into the realm of fantasy, however, such as "Establish that an insult/slight is motivated by racism." It's hard enough to establish that a murder is motivated by racism. Let's establish that it happens for certain races and not others, that's empirical enough, and work from there.
  - CoastalCoder 4y ago
    > But because it involves an attempt to measure something that has partisan lean, people of one partisan group feel an instinctual need to refute it, lest they lose points or whatever. I think you make a good point that partisan issues like this can lead to knee-jerk reactions. You point out how this might play out with right-leaning readers, and it seems plausible to me. Any theories for how a partisan topic like this could affect left-leaning readers?
    - ajross 4y ago
      > Any theories for how a partisan topic like this could affect left-leaning readers? It... confirms our priors and gives us a label to call out subtle-but-still-obvious bad behavior in a way that gets results because it can be easily understood? I mean, it's true that it might not be rigorously defined. But that's what it means to the woke hippies. And it doesn't sound so awful to me.
- dshpala 4y ago
  There are myriads of viruses and microbes that our immune system successfully fights every day. Imagine being constantly (slightly) sick instead. What I'm getting at is maybe we need to teach people how to grow thicker skin? To become immune to microagressions?
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Easy to say from a certain perspective. Some of these microagressions are not so micro - such as real estate agents being documented discriminating against black people ~50% of the time (assuming we can generalize from NY)
    - readthenotes1 4y ago
      That is in no way a microaggression. It is big, and completely illegal nowadays. (Not that prohibition is 100% effective)
  - gardenhedge 4y ago
    I am sure that, in a lot of cases, the people aren't really offended but they see an opportunity for content online so they use it.
  - pm90 4y ago
    > What I'm getting at is maybe we need to teach people how to grow thicker skin? To become immune to microagressions? What do you think most people on the receiving end of it do? Do you think they get into fights everytime this happens to them? People already do have thick skins. Most people just accept this as part of being who they are. However we have studies showing that even just being on the receiving end of this can have major issues on one’s health. So the goal here is to identify these issues and try to prevent them from happening.
    - 627467 4y ago
      > However we have studies Isn't the argument of the post that some of those studies/findings can be questioned?
- notahacker 4y ago
  > Just because the stories you hear don’t jive with your take on the zeitgeist doesn’t mean the stories are wrong. It could just be that you aren’t the type of person that gets slighted often simply for existing the way you are. Or that a person isn't particularly observant of human behaviour or not arguing in good faith, which is the only possible reason anyone could open a blog questioning the notion someone might receive "substandard service compared with customers of other races" by suggesting it might have something to do with long queues and prices at airport restaurants...
- imgabe 4y ago
  Feeling slighted is a reaction a person has. One can choose to have a different reaction. If someone cuts you off in traffic, you can road rage and curse and be angry, or you can shrug your shoulders and go on with your day. The mistake is putting the responsibility for your own emotional state onto other people.
  - manicdee 4y ago
    Interesting that you would attribute anger at being subjected to dangerous driving as the fault of the victim. The mistake here is expecting everyone else to do your driving for you, and claiming they are being too sensitive when they pull you up on your poor habits.
    - imgabe 4y ago
      Dangerous driving is the fault of the driver. Anger is the fault of the angry person. "You're responsible for my anger" is something abusers tell their victims.
akomtu 4y ago
Conservation of aggression - the 3rd law of inclusion - implies that microaggressions can't be eliminated, as they break into much smaller nanoaggressions when the enough force of equity is applied to them. Most inclusive scientists agree that eventually nanoagressions dissolve into ambient ether of aggression that later collapses into one uberaggression.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Are microaggressions made of plastic, maybe? That would explain the way the teeny tiny microaggression particles behave. And the way they collect in marine life. But should explorers expect to find the Great Pacific Anger Whorl in the near future?
ajcp 4y ago
Labelling a term of art as "dubious science" by looking at the effect of its broad and uninformed general application outside of its field of study is dubious at best.
- thereisnospork 4y ago
  How many social sciences aren't 'dubious at best' though? Even studies of things that are concretely defined and measurable (e.g. all-cause mortality) are fraught with dubiousness.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  It's psychology and sociology. It is dubious science at best. No additional specific examples are needed. (Of course, we may differ on what makes science good science. For me, the ability to repeat an experimental result is essential to good science. Profiting from the results of your research generally seems to lead to bad science)
  - AlotOfReading 4y ago
    Look, there's over a hundred years of positivist theory in the social sciences. Durkheim, the guy who founded the discipline of Sociology, was a hardcore positivist whose primary interest was in replicable 'social facts'. Why is more of the same the answer to the replication crisis?
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      > Look, there's over a hundred years of positivist theory in the social sciences. Therefore... what? What conclusions are we supposed to draw from that? That sociology has lived up to the standards of positivism? That it hasn't? That we should therefore find sociology to be trustworthy? That we shouldn't? What point are you trying to make? Asking honestly, because I can't tell.
      - AlotOfReading 4y ago
asiachick 4y ago
The article's example of getting bad service and assuming it's about racism is not my understanding of microaggression. My understanding of microaggression is more like calling some food "ethinic" food. At least in NYC/SF/LA it kind of seems like all food should be called "ethinic" or no food should be called "ethinic". If someone says "hey, let's go have some ethnic food" what they're perceived as saying is "let's go have some food from outsiders". And it makes perfect sense on some level but at some point, when there's enough people of different backgrounds all living in one place with 2nd and 3rd generations it's time to stop referring to them as outsiders in subtle ways . It's like this joke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crAv5ttax2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crAv5ttax2I
jrm4 4y ago
I very much appreciate how the concept brought to light bad behavior, but I absolutely do not like the "weak" direction it's going. I'm very familiar with being on the receiving end of these sort of things and it's VERY odd to see people take the opposite tack of the one I've taken. I'm not at all speaking for anyone else, but for me, overwhelmingly, the best "strategy" (kind of weird to say it, it feels more like a survival mechanism) has been to understand that the "aggressor" is the problem in the equation, and I have control over how I react. So for me, even the framing of "microaggression" gives too much power. I'd prefer something like "A-hole flares" or "Jerk flags." Though generally one shouldn't speak for large groups, I will perhaps be so bold to say that black folks my age and older are very used to doing this and it's valuable, and it's something younger people should learn.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  An insult must be both thrown and caught. If you refuse to catch the insult, you refuse to be insulted. Calling it a jerk flag is a great way to take over the transaction.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Completely not though. Often the target isn't the audience for an insult, it's intended to undermine or belittle them in front of their peers. What makes insults insulting is that they draw focus to a real or perceived difference in or loss of status. That's an external perception that you may have some influence over by your response, but to a large degree it's outside of your control in the moment.
daenz 4y ago
I've been a first hand witness of a coworker accusing another coworker of "microagressions" because they disagreed (passionately, I would add) on how to approach a problem. I was privy to the outcome from HR and management as well, which was essentially: "ok, nothing racial was said or suggested, but this person feels a certain way, so be more careful next time." It's really disheartening that people have taken a tool for identifying actual subtle racism and are now using it as a weapon to attempt to tarnish the reputations of others.
- pm90 4y ago
  Every time there is a discussion about ways to remedy a racial issue there is someone posting a “rebuttal” where the supposed remedy went “too far” anecdotally and generalizing from there. Every. Single. Time. Here’s a suggestion: what if that one exaggerated incident that you observed does not reflect on the reality that most people see? What if we try and see if there is a pattern among the population, using tools we have to measure these things, instead of forming our opinions based on the anecdotes that we observe?
  - daenz 4y ago
    My experience isn't "exaggerated", it's the truth, so I'm not sure why you're attempting to diminish it with that language. The conclusion that I am drawing is not that "accusations of microaggressions are invalid because of my experience", it's "I now know that people will deliberately falsely accuse someone, because I've personally witnessed it." Previously, I was inclined to believe accusations. Now, I withhold judgement. There's nothing quite like first hand experience to show what some people can do.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - saghm 4y ago
      > My experience isn't "exaggerated", it's the truth, so I'm not sure why you're attempting to diminish it with that language. I think they're saying the incident is exaggerated compared to the norm, i.e. that it's an outlier, not that you're exaggerating in your description. As for the rest of your comment, I think people have made false claims against each other long before the term "microaggression" came about, and it will likely happen long after the term goes out of common use. Given the near infinite flexibility of language, playing vocabulary whackamole likely will be more of a distraction than anything else.
0xbadc0de5 4y ago
When our daily interactions are so consistently mundane that we need to invent a new category of interpersonal conflict just to satisfy our own narcissistic tendencies, that's progress.
annie_muss 4y ago
Well, I don't think microaggressions are a huge problem, I do think they are a useful word to describe a phenomenon. Full on racially motivated abuse is obvious and easy to understand. When someone tells me to go back to my own country and so on everyone around me can easily condemn that behavior. Microaggressions are much more subtle. When someone is dismissive or rude to you it's very hard to tell whether they were doing that because of your race, gender, or because they are just an unkind person. For each individual action, it's basically impossible to say whether it was racially motivated or not. But after repeating this situation again and again you noticed that on average people are treating you a little bit differently. I don't think it's worth complaining or trying to correct microaggressions. But I do think it's a useful term to describe what happens and to share experiences with others.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Yes exactly. One of the really destabilizing things about them is that each individual event is pretty much deniable or dismissable, even to the person receiving it. They can only be noticed as a pattern over time, and even then it's subtle. And since no one gets to experience life as anyone else, it's very hard to gauge whether you are having more negative experiences than other people. Maybe it's all in my head. Maybe this is normal, everyone is treated this way, I just need to grow a thicker skin, stop overreacting. Maybe I'm imagining it. Maybe I deserve to be treated this way. The fact that it's such a subtle, barely perceptible pattern makes it worse. Hard enough to convince yourself it's happening sometimes, definitely not worth the effort of trying to get other people to see when they've decided not to.
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
We didn’t have that term in India where I grew up. If someone engaged in ‘micro aggression’, the perpetrator was shunned and the victim would avoid said person like the plague. You can’t make perfume from shit. People don’t change.

59 points by gorwell 4y ago

In the good old days we used to call this “being slighted”. We’d remember those slights and not interact with the people who slighted us often in the past. Labelling the “science” as “dubious” is basically slighting the people attempting to track these slights at something other than a personal level. Just because the stories you hear don’t jive with your take on the zeitgeist doesn’t mean the stories are wrong. It could just be that you aren’t the type of person that gets slighted often simply for existing the way you are. On one hand there’s valid criticism of collection techniques, on the other there’s dismissing the entire proposition that slighting is a thing that happens because you don’t like the way the collection is done. A better critique would look at ways to improve data collection, but that requires quantifying the myriad ways we slight each other. How to write that all down?

drewcoo 4y ago
> Labelling the “science” as “dubious” is basically slighting the people attempting to track these slights at something other than a personal level. First, no claiming you doubt is not a slight. Claiming you don't believe it at all because there is no evidence is not either. Second, this piece isn't merely labeling. It explains why microaggressions are not to be believed. > A better critique would look at ways to improve data collection, We don't all agree with your "better" and it's certainly not a requirement. Is this some kind of "criticism slight?" ;-)
ajross 4y ago
That's exactly it. All "microaggressions" are is an attempt to put a name on and try to measure an effect ("people are more likely to be jerks to people of other/alien/less-privileged demographics") that we all know is real and happens all the time. But because it involves an attempt to measure something that has partisan lean, people of one partisan group feel an instinctual need to refute it, lest they lose points or whatever. So you get this genre of right-leaning libertarian blog post that literally seems to be arguing that racism must not exist because you can't measure it precisely. And I agree, this is in fact a really hard thing to measure rigorously and there's lots of room for improvement in the field (right up to maybe having picked a needlessly inflamatory name). But if your critique starts from a prior of rejecting the (again, really obvious) hypothesis outright, you're clearly doing worse science, not better.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Some of us are neither of those partisan groups and just think it's silly.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    It's silly to say that real estate agents shouldn't deny service to people of different races or suggest different homes based on their customers race?
    - grandmczeb 4y ago
      That’s not a micro aggression.
- svachalek 4y ago
  I think it's fair to demand a certain amount of rigor; we're calling it science, after all. This blog includes demands that venture into the realm of fantasy, however, such as "Establish that an insult/slight is motivated by racism." It's hard enough to establish that a murder is motivated by racism. Let's establish that it happens for certain races and not others, that's empirical enough, and work from there.
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  > But because it involves an attempt to measure something that has partisan lean, people of one partisan group feel an instinctual need to refute it, lest they lose points or whatever. I think you make a good point that partisan issues like this can lead to knee-jerk reactions. You point out how this might play out with right-leaning readers, and it seems plausible to me. Any theories for how a partisan topic like this could affect left-leaning readers?
  - ajross 4y ago
    > Any theories for how a partisan topic like this could affect left-leaning readers? It... confirms our priors and gives us a label to call out subtle-but-still-obvious bad behavior in a way that gets results because it can be easily understood? I mean, it's true that it might not be rigorously defined. But that's what it means to the woke hippies. And it doesn't sound so awful to me.
dshpala 4y ago
There are myriads of viruses and microbes that our immune system successfully fights every day. Imagine being constantly (slightly) sick instead. What I'm getting at is maybe we need to teach people how to grow thicker skin? To become immune to microagressions?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Easy to say from a certain perspective. Some of these microagressions are not so micro - such as real estate agents being documented discriminating against black people ~50% of the time (assuming we can generalize from NY)
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    That is in no way a microaggression. It is big, and completely illegal nowadays. (Not that prohibition is 100% effective)
- gardenhedge 4y ago
  I am sure that, in a lot of cases, the people aren't really offended but they see an opportunity for content online so they use it.
- pm90 4y ago
  > What I'm getting at is maybe we need to teach people how to grow thicker skin? To become immune to microagressions? What do you think most people on the receiving end of it do? Do you think they get into fights everytime this happens to them? People already do have thick skins. Most people just accept this as part of being who they are. However we have studies showing that even just being on the receiving end of this can have major issues on one’s health. So the goal here is to identify these issues and try to prevent them from happening.
  - 627467 4y ago
    > However we have studies Isn't the argument of the post that some of those studies/findings can be questioned?
notahacker 4y ago
> Just because the stories you hear don’t jive with your take on the zeitgeist doesn’t mean the stories are wrong. It could just be that you aren’t the type of person that gets slighted often simply for existing the way you are. Or that a person isn't particularly observant of human behaviour or not arguing in good faith, which is the only possible reason anyone could open a blog questioning the notion someone might receive "substandard service compared with customers of other races" by suggesting it might have something to do with long queues and prices at airport restaurants...
imgabe 4y ago
Feeling slighted is a reaction a person has. One can choose to have a different reaction. If someone cuts you off in traffic, you can road rage and curse and be angry, or you can shrug your shoulders and go on with your day. The mistake is putting the responsibility for your own emotional state onto other people.
- manicdee 4y ago
  Interesting that you would attribute anger at being subjected to dangerous driving as the fault of the victim. The mistake here is expecting everyone else to do your driving for you, and claiming they are being too sensitive when they pull you up on your poor habits.
  - imgabe 4y ago
    Dangerous driving is the fault of the driver. Anger is the fault of the angry person. "You're responsible for my anger" is something abusers tell their victims.

akomtu 4y ago

Conservation of aggression - the 3rd law of inclusion - implies that microaggressions can't be eliminated, as they break into much smaller nanoaggressions when the enough force of equity is applied to them. Most inclusive scientists agree that eventually nanoagressions dissolve into ambient ether of aggression that later collapses into one uberaggression.

drewcoo 4y ago
Are microaggressions made of plastic, maybe? That would explain the way the teeny tiny microaggression particles behave. And the way they collect in marine life. But should explorers expect to find the Great Pacific Anger Whorl in the near future?

ajcp 4y ago

Labelling a term of art as "dubious science" by looking at the effect of its broad and uninformed general application outside of its field of study is dubious at best.

thereisnospork 4y ago
How many social sciences aren't 'dubious at best' though? Even studies of things that are concretely defined and measurable (e.g. all-cause mortality) are fraught with dubiousness.
readthenotes1 4y ago
It's psychology and sociology. It is dubious science at best. No additional specific examples are needed. (Of course, we may differ on what makes science good science. For me, the ability to repeat an experimental result is essential to good science. Profiting from the results of your research generally seems to lead to bad science)
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  Look, there's over a hundred years of positivist theory in the social sciences. Durkheim, the guy who founded the discipline of Sociology, was a hardcore positivist whose primary interest was in replicable 'social facts'. Why is more of the same the answer to the replication crisis?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    > Look, there's over a hundred years of positivist theory in the social sciences. Therefore... what? What conclusions are we supposed to draw from that? That sociology has lived up to the standards of positivism? That it hasn't? That we should therefore find sociology to be trustworthy? That we shouldn't? What point are you trying to make? Asking honestly, because I can't tell.
    - AlotOfReading 4y ago

asiachick 4y ago

The article's example of getting bad service and assuming it's about racism is not my understanding of microaggression. My understanding of microaggression is more like calling some food "ethinic" food. At least in NYC/SF/LA it kind of seems like all food should be called "ethinic" or no food should be called "ethinic". If someone says "hey, let's go have some ethnic food" what they're perceived as saying is "let's go have some food from outsiders". And it makes perfect sense on some level but at some point, when there's enough people of different backgrounds all living in one place with 2nd and 3rd generations it's time to stop referring to them as outsiders in subtle ways . It's like this joke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crAv5ttax2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crAv5ttax2I

jrm4 4y ago

I very much appreciate how the concept brought to light bad behavior, but I absolutely do not like the "weak" direction it's going. I'm very familiar with being on the receiving end of these sort of things and it's VERY odd to see people take the opposite tack of the one I've taken. I'm not at all speaking for anyone else, but for me, overwhelmingly, the best "strategy" (kind of weird to say it, it feels more like a survival mechanism) has been to understand that the "aggressor" is the problem in the equation, and I have control over how I react. So for me, even the framing of "microaggression" gives too much power. I'd prefer something like "A-hole flares" or "Jerk flags." Though generally one shouldn't speak for large groups, I will perhaps be so bold to say that black folks my age and older are very used to doing this and it's valuable, and it's something younger people should learn.

readthenotes1 4y ago
An insult must be both thrown and caught. If you refuse to catch the insult, you refuse to be insulted. Calling it a jerk flag is a great way to take over the transaction.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Completely not though. Often the target isn't the audience for an insult, it's intended to undermine or belittle them in front of their peers. What makes insults insulting is that they draw focus to a real or perceived difference in or loss of status. That's an external perception that you may have some influence over by your response, but to a large degree it's outside of your control in the moment.

daenz 4y ago

I've been a first hand witness of a coworker accusing another coworker of "microagressions" because they disagreed (passionately, I would add) on how to approach a problem. I was privy to the outcome from HR and management as well, which was essentially: "ok, nothing racial was said or suggested, but this person feels a certain way, so be more careful next time." It's really disheartening that people have taken a tool for identifying actual subtle racism and are now using it as a weapon to attempt to tarnish the reputations of others.

pm90 4y ago
Every time there is a discussion about ways to remedy a racial issue there is someone posting a “rebuttal” where the supposed remedy went “too far” anecdotally and generalizing from there. Every. Single. Time. Here’s a suggestion: what if that one exaggerated incident that you observed does not reflect on the reality that most people see? What if we try and see if there is a pattern among the population, using tools we have to measure these things, instead of forming our opinions based on the anecdotes that we observe?
- daenz 4y ago
  My experience isn't "exaggerated", it's the truth, so I'm not sure why you're attempting to diminish it with that language. The conclusion that I am drawing is not that "accusations of microaggressions are invalid because of my experience", it's "I now know that people will deliberately falsely accuse someone, because I've personally witnessed it." Previously, I was inclined to believe accusations. Now, I withhold judgement. There's nothing quite like first hand experience to show what some people can do.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - saghm 4y ago
    > My experience isn't "exaggerated", it's the truth, so I'm not sure why you're attempting to diminish it with that language. I think they're saying the incident is exaggerated compared to the norm, i.e. that it's an outlier, not that you're exaggerating in your description. As for the rest of your comment, I think people have made false claims against each other long before the term "microaggression" came about, and it will likely happen long after the term goes out of common use. Given the near infinite flexibility of language, playing vocabulary whackamole likely will be more of a distraction than anything else.

0xbadc0de5 4y ago

When our daily interactions are so consistently mundane that we need to invent a new category of interpersonal conflict just to satisfy our own narcissistic tendencies, that's progress.

annie_muss 4y ago

Well, I don't think microaggressions are a huge problem, I do think they are a useful word to describe a phenomenon. Full on racially motivated abuse is obvious and easy to understand. When someone tells me to go back to my own country and so on everyone around me can easily condemn that behavior. Microaggressions are much more subtle. When someone is dismissive or rude to you it's very hard to tell whether they were doing that because of your race, gender, or because they are just an unkind person. For each individual action, it's basically impossible to say whether it was racially motivated or not. But after repeating this situation again and again you noticed that on average people are treating you a little bit differently. I don't think it's worth complaining or trying to correct microaggressions. But I do think it's a useful term to describe what happens and to share experiences with others.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Yes exactly. One of the really destabilizing things about them is that each individual event is pretty much deniable or dismissable, even to the person receiving it. They can only be noticed as a pattern over time, and even then it's subtle. And since no one gets to experience life as anyone else, it's very hard to gauge whether you are having more negative experiences than other people. Maybe it's all in my head. Maybe this is normal, everyone is treated this way, I just need to grow a thicker skin, stop overreacting. Maybe I'm imagining it. Maybe I deserve to be treated this way. The fact that it's such a subtle, barely perceptible pattern makes it worse. Hard enough to convince yourself it's happening sometimes, definitely not worth the effort of trying to get other people to see when they've decided not to.

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

We didn’t have that term in India where I grew up. If someone engaged in ‘micro aggression’, the perpetrator was shunned and the victim would avoid said person like the plague. You can’t make perfume from shit. People don’t change.