4 ms·

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. Lab

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.

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.