Thursday, September 1, 2016

Finally. Microaggressions Have Subcategories

Rutgers: to avoid microaggressions, only speak when 'necessary'

"The board warns students that failing to follow these guidelines could lead them to commit a microaggression, which include “microassaults,” “microinsults,” and “microinvalidations.”

[...]

A microassault may include “avoiding someone,” for instance, while an example of a microinsult is telling someone they are strong for a girl. A microinvalidation, meanwhile, could involve asking an Asian or Latino person where they are from."
OMG OMG OMG! Think back quickly - have I microscrewedover anyone lately... OMG. Can't think of any violation of anyone, but I must be punished anyway for not knowing this. I'll, I'll... I'll listen to at least five minutes of Hillary calling Trump racist, if I don't pass out from the pain first.

30 comments:

Steven Satak said...

It's funny how microaggressions never provoke micro-outrage. It's always a full-blown outrage, powered by a full-blown ego that claws like a Bengal tiger, yet bleeds at a touch.

We have a society filled to brimful and overflowing with these wannabee-hidalgos, these pride-filled douchecanoes who have nothing better to fill their time with than to monitor how much 'respect' they're being shown from moment to moment.

Who would have thought that we, as a society, would put to such poor use all the time freed up for us by our predecessor's 'labor-saving devices'?

Rikalonius said...

Orwell completely undersold us on the true stupidity of Newspeak.

Rikalonius said...

Proverbs 16:27-29 Idle hands are the Devil's workshop; idle lips are his mouthpiece. An evil man sows strife; gossip separates the best of friends. Wickedness loves company and leads others into sin.

Hugo Pelland said...

Interesting coincidence; here's what we got from our professor following a class on diversity last week. She sent that literally the same day as this blog post!

"Discussing bias and discrimination is a difficult and emotional conversation, fraught with anguish and dangers of misunderstandings. The best approach is to approach such situations with open-mindedness; avoid being defensive, and be open to learn from each other’s experiences. Often it is truly difficult to know how it feels to be “in someone else’s shoes,” and unfortunately the onus may fall on them to tell you (and you to listen) – because you are not witness to all the daily interactions and exchanges they are subject to. For example, you can watch here a brief primer on “microaggressions in everyday life” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJL2P0JsAS4 ; in light of our discussions on stereotype threats and decision fatigue you may imagine the cumulative effect of these microaggressions takee a toll on the individual being discriminated against. Be willing to listen and understand where they are coming from without making stereotypical assumptions about their social group – if they are overcoming the stereotype and speaking up it is because it’s a real and important problem (and usually, re-occurring) and not because they are emotional, overreact to things, or need “special treatment”. Understand that it is taxing for the person subject to constant stereotyping to either ignore it or to respond to it, to make it his or her job to explain it to others all the time, and to deal with the consequences of this stereotype on a daily basis. Sometimes you may relate to their experience (because your experience in a different culture, or on a different dimension of diversity) or you might not. Listen to learn if your team or organization (often) unintentionally sets up requirements or tasks that systematically discriminate against a particular social or economic group, reflect on what needs to change, and be ready to question the status quo in your role as a leader. Be ready to spend time understanding the roots of the problem, and speaking up for those discriminated and with them, for reducing bias and discrimination in the world around you."

Stan said...

Because this admonition is directed at whites while refering primarily to blacks, one should definitely not refer to any multicultural black behaviors such as stereotyping whites, cops and killing plenty of other blacks. E.g.: refusing to accept spelling corrections because spelling is a "white" thang, that's just multiculture in action, as is all black ghetto crime and hate speech, knock out games, and other multicultural differences from the oppressive white culture and white laws. White culture and white laws are just designed to oppress the blacks by preventing them from their normal culture - moral anarchy. That's why the cops stopped law enforcement in the ghettos. They were given that exact "reasoning".

Because many blacks now want segregated living and their own dorms, for example, then segregation is a black cultural artifact. All neighborhoods with any blacks at all should be patrolled either by all black cops, or left to gangs to provide the segregated power of enforcement. Whites should be banned from entry. And maybe blacks should ban themselves from exit.

Or contrarily, they could become law abiders who wish to assimilate into the culture that has supported them for all these generations.

The decision is purely theirs, and they have already made that decision a thousand times over; those who choose to preserve their own ghetto culture rather than assimilate, will live the ghetto culture of their choice and continue to create stereotypes of everyone else, and blame those stereotypes. Never themselves or the brutal, loathsome environment which they create for themselves That is exactly the thrust of the communist BLM agitators. And still, the choice is theirs to make.

These people are not caricatures or stereotypes; no false image could anticipate the absurdness of their behaviors and demands. News video is all that is required.

So these admonitions to pander to these "victims" has no logical substance; it is pure SJW rhetoric.

Hugo Pelland said...

You make absolutely no sense...

Stan said...

I never make any sense to you, Hugo. I have a different worldview from yours, and it is not congruent with yours in any fashion.

Hugo Pelland said...

No, I understand what you're saying and often agree with you, I've told you that before, but you also write ridiculous things sometimes. That reply was such example and that's what the 'this makes no sense meant', i.e. it was filled with nonsensical ideas, illogical conclusions and, honestly, some flat out racist sentences.

Stan said...

One may not mention the black factor, may one. That is verboten in this brave new world. One may consider only how oppressed (by the Oppressor Class, of course) that blacks are (not all blacks, of course, but very many and especially ghetto blacks) due to microaggressions, nanoaggressions, femtoaggressions, and, well, just the existence of non-blacks. So under the ALL NEW RULES of Leftist derivation, I committed the ALL NEW Racial Fallacy: pointing out existing facts from the national news regarding race as it is used by the Left against its enemies.

The facts of Baltimore, NYC, Detroit, etc. overtly abandoning policing of all but the most heinous crimes which cannot be ignored (principally murder), in order to mollify the rioting, pillaging blacks, screaming “Raaaacism!” when police enforce actual laws. This resulted directly after the prosecutorial attack on police in Baltimore by a prosecutor who sided with the rioters. The Ta Nehisi Coates types – phony intellectuals who said that white culture and laws do not and cannot apply to the black culture and it is racist to apply them, said everything I said above well before I wrote it.

Everything I noted above, from spelling correction being racist to black self-segregation in black dorms, all of it has been in the news. I made up nothing. Somehow to mention it is racist.

But you seem ignorant of the current ferment. That doesn’t prevent you from judging me as racist. Or perhaps you do know what is going on and just believe that mentioning actual facts from the national news really is racist. Either way, you are wrong. The USA has laws; the states have laws; cities have laws. Why should (ghetto) blacks be exempt just because they “can’t be law-abiding”: it’s their “culture” to break laws and scream racism when caught, say in burglary, armed robbery, rape, assault, drive-bys, on and on and on.

The prison racial conundrum (percentage of blacks is “too high”) is being rectified by allowing black crime to skate, at least in cities where they riot, pillage, and burn.

The asylum is being run by the inmates.

Perhaps you should look for a source of the real news, rather than the Leftist-filtered MSM.

Hugo Pelland said...

Mentioning blacks is not a problem, but where was it mentioned before your last 2 comments? That's just 1 example of your simplistic and/or irrational approach to complicated topics such as discrimination and prejudice.

Stan said...

OK, I'll explain it to you. Accusations of "microagressions" are (one of the) the favorite weapons used against whites and in particular white males who fail to shed their "privilege" in front of blacks and feminists, and fail to repeat black mantras. Blacks far outnumber feminists. The weapon is essentially a black attack on whites by using an invisible and non-existing infraction designed to commit actual damage to whites while asserting illegitimate power to the blacks due to their race attacks on whites.

You may argue against that, but you are wrong. Blacks now insist that they cannot be racist, because they are the Victimhood Class, constantly oppressed by the presence of whites, who are privileged by their skin color, and with the caveat the Asians and Hispanics are de facto white.

So again, you appear not to know what is going on. I refuse to be cowed by charges of racism.

Stan said...

I should add this: it is definitely simplistic to come into a discussion while ignorant, and to fire off the simplistic charge of racism without even knowing the facts of the matter.

Reacting under the control of an ideology is, indeed, simplistic.

Hugo Pelland said...

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood 'some' things; perhaps you were not being racist 'all' the time. For example, was that specific part an exaggeration, since it was part of some sarcastic comment:
"oppress the blacks by preventing them from their normal culture - moral anarchy"?
Or do you really think that Blacks had a 'normal culture of moral anarchy'?

Plus, regardless of that, you're still not making any sense in terms of the flow of what happened here, in this so-called "discussion" that I just joined. Because here's the order of the things that were said:

Stan's initial post:
Link to an article mentioning micro-aggression and what some college is doing about it. (Turns out it's an individual at that college btw, not the institution itself). Stan writes some funny comment showing he thinks the concept of micro-agression is just a farce, a joke, something that only Hillary supporters would take seriously.

Steven comments:
Something about how he thinks that micro-aggression never provoke micro-outrage. So, basically, he thinks that people make a big deal out of small things, if anything at all.

Rikalonius:
Quotes the Bible.

Rikalonius:
Points out that mainstream media is stupid, because Orwell warned us about that.

Hugo comments:
I thought it was an interesting coincidence that my professor mentioned micro-aggressions the exact same day that Stan does, with a link to a quick intro to what the word refers to.

To give a bit more context, which I should have done that before it seems, the professor was doing a follow-up on our class from last week where we discussed diversity in the 'workplace'. I mean, obviously... this was about work, not society as a freaking whole nor politics nor colleges; I am doing an MBA, remember? But it was related to what you posted because I thought her comment was a moderate, well-written description of why this is not an easy topic to discuss. In class, which you did not know, we actually discuss gender issues almost exclusively, as this is the bigger issue in tech, in the Bay area, where 100% of my class lives and work.

Then Stan replied...

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan replies:

- He says that this is an "admonition is directed at whites while refering primarily to blacks"
(Blacks had not been mentioned anywhere yet; this is the beginning of 'why' I said you are not making any sense at all.)


- Sarcastically points out that it's horrible to point out cultural differences between Blacks, Whites, and others.
(This seems to be more about political correctness, which I also think is excessive in many cases. The Lyft rider example you posted was great... what a crazy bitch)

- Lists several examples
(Here, I am not sure, hence my initial question... it does sound like it was not just exaggeration on purpose here anymore... maybe I misunderstood)

- Says Blacks want segregation
(I don't know about that; makes no sense in the context. There could be stupid Blacks that want that, so what?)

- But then continued with more examples of Blacks "wanting" segregation
(Again, here, I don't know where the line between real-examples and over-the-top-exaggeration-for-comedic-effect is.)

- Mentions how Blacks could assimilate in the culture that has supported them for all these generations.
(You mean the culture that has ENSLAVED them for generations, and prevented them to vote and have equal rights up until just a few decades ago... right? There is no excuse here, especially coming from a White person. This is just complete denial of the historical context of the USA. This is an example of a fucking racist comment. If you don't like your comment to be called racist, well too bad, this is the internet and you'll get comments like that unless you decide to become the language police and take the power you really want as an old White male who feels threaten by the change he sees around him.

Did you notice what I just did here? I purposely use provocative language to make a point. Sorry if it was a bit too much; I avoid such unnecessary comments... And I don't think you are a racist person at all, to be clear. But the point is that civility and political correctness are closely related. You cannot just pretend that when something offends you, Stan, that it is un-civil, but when someone from another race/gender is offended, they are being overly politically correct.

And that was the point of my professor's note. It's not always easy to shut up and listen to what the other side has to say. It's not always obvious that there is something to learn from the language we use, even when we have no intention to insult anyone.

There is a lot more to say here, but I wanted to keep going on on the comment...)

Hugo Pelland said...

- You continued with a longer paragraph about how Blacks choose to be in ghetto culture. You label BLM as Communists.
(These are just exaggerations... some Black people are certainly like that, but so are some White people too. That's not the point of the BLM at all; see your latest post on that.)

- Next, directly quoting: "These people are not caricatures or stereotypes; no false image could anticipate the absurdness of their behaviors and demands. News video is all that is required. So these admonitions to pander to these "victims" has no logical substance; it is pure SJW rhetoric."
(That was still in response to my comment. It's easy to forget honestly because I was quoting my professor... not some random SJW, self-labelled or not. Remember we had this discussion several months ago, maybe 1 year ago, about what SJW means? This has nothing to do with the comment I posted; hence, I replied...)

Hugo replied:
You make no sense Stan.

Stan replied:
I never make sense to you Hugo.

Hugo replied:
No, I understand what you're saying and often agree with you, I've told you that before, but you also write ridiculous things sometimes. That reply was such example and that's what the 'this makes no sense meant', i.e. it was filled with nonsensical ideas, illogical conclusions and, honestly, some flat out racist sentences.
(still exactly what I think)

Stan replied:
- More stuff about Blacks, Leftists, Oppressor Classes, MSM, etc...
(Still not getting that this has nothing to do with either the original post (yours...) nor what I posted and why it made no sense to go down that path)

Hugo replied:
- Mentioning blacks is not a problem, but where was it mentioned before your last 2 comments? That's just 1 example of your simplistic and/or irrational approach to complicated topics such as discrimination and prejudice.
(again, still relevant here)

Stan replied:
- OK, I'll explain it to you...

Except that you did not explain anything. You just showed that you don't understand the context where the term micro-aggression is used; and you had no reason to suddenly discuss all these random things about Blacks and other topics. You are playing the victim card here, strangely, by pretending that Whites are somehow under attack when it's pointed out to them that some comments can be hurtful, annoying, tiring, etc... even when the person making the comment has no bad intention. And that is what the discussion on micro-aggression really is.

And you see, this is why I cannot go in details every time I write here anymore. It took almost an hour to go over all of this and be careful about what I write and why. I know, it's shocking right? But I actually do take the time to think about what I write and be as accurate as possible so that it's productive. But here, my simple sentence "you make no sense" was completely accurate, and I have now explained why. Of course, you will not see it like that, and you may come back with more, probably very long stuff, and things about how I don't get it, and you do... I won't be able to reply to everything again, this just takes too much time.

Finally, I have to point out something. You are a retired person living in some rural area, right? Well, I am someone working full time, going to school and living in an urban area, one of the most diverse in the country actually; and the professor I quoted has an MA and PHD from Harvard where she studied, among other things, sociology. And she even reached out to her colleagues to discuss some questions we had about race bias as many of use were a bit sceptical on some issues. Very productive discussion basically. Yet, you think that by watching the news, the 'good' kind of news of course, you Stan are somehow more aware of what is going on in terms of these complex racial issues, and have it all figured out?

Stan said...

And we're off:
”Or do you really think that Blacks had a 'normal culture of moral anarchy'?”

Remember, we’re talking about ghettos under Democrat influence (moral anarchy), where cops are hated and gangs are the source of local cohesion. So there is a “Lord of the Flies” environment which is dominated by the morality of the gang: kill someone to gain entry to the gang; show any heresy and you die. Cops are dominated by white laws, which are contrary to gang culture; hence, cops are the enemy and white culture and laws are the enemy. This is not my opinion; it is sociology. And it is the normal culture in the deep ghettos sustained by the “blue model”.

Now we get to the meat:

”- Mentions how Blacks could assimilate in the culture that has supported them for all these generations.

(You mean the culture that has ENSLAVED them for generations, and prevented them to vote and have equal rights up until just a few decades ago... right? There is no excuse here, especially coming from a White person. This is just complete denial of the historical context of the USA. This is an example of a fucking racist comment. If you don't like your comment to be called racist, well too bad, this is the internet and you'll get comments like that unless you decide to become the language police and take the power you really want as an old White male who feels threaten by the change he sees around him.”


1. Blacks were discriminated against by DEMOCRAT Jim Crow policies, after the DEMOCRATs lost the Civil War BUT continued their war on blacks via the KKK and Jim Crow. The Republicans fought slavery and fought for civil rights for blacks, ever since the party was formed in response to the the party of slavery (Democrat Party) clear back before the Civil War. In 1964, racist Lyndon Johnson, Democrat president, LOST the vote against the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1964. He immediately turned the tables and gave blacks “permanent” welfare in exchange for their votes, and blacks actually BECAME Democrats after their years of terrorization, physical discrimination, and physical abuse by Democrats. The co-dependence formed between Democrats and blacks has been maintained ever since. Blacks have voted ever since 1869, Constitutional Amendment XV; they have not been owned as slaves since the Constitutional Amendment XIII, 1865. The Republican Civil Rights Act of 1964 marks the time from which generations of blacks have had the choice either to assimilate, educate, and become productive and prosper (and many, many have done so), or to live for generations for free in the ghettos, under Leftist programs which maintain them. That is over half a century of enforced equal opportunity available to blacks, or several generations depending upon how you count them.

"Racism" today is ephemeral and without actual material evidence: on the one hand it is hidden in “institutional” fabrics; on the other hand it is hidden in “microaggressions” which only the Victimhood and Messiah Class can discern. That is what you have done. But in terms of material discrimination, if that can be shown then it would result in heavy hate-crime punishment.

” This is just complete denial of the historical context of the USA. This is an example of a fucking racist comment.”

When you make up history, as you have done, you reveal something about yourself. Especially when you, a leftist, scream “racism” at an enemy of the Democrats and their racial past, and their racial policies even now.

Stan said...

2. Political Correctness:
” And I don't think you are a racist person at all, to be clear. But the point is that civility and political correctness are closely related. You cannot just pretend that when something offends you, Stan, that it is un-civil, but when someone from another race/gender is offended, they are being overly politically correct.”

Expectation of civility is a thing of the past. My comment was civil. It was factual. You assert political correctness as your objection to that? Really? It is now uncivil and incorrect to point out that BLM is associated with burning and pillaging? That incorrectly defined and institutionalized welfare is a culture trap? That ghetto blacks have been trapped for generations? If that is the case, then we live in different universes.

” And that was the point of my professor's note. It's not always easy to shut up and listen to what the other side has to say. It's not always obvious that there is something to learn from the language we use, even when we have no intention to insult anyone.”

Here’s some things I’ve listened to: (Only) Black Lives Matter (and only when shot by cops). Hands Up Don’t Shoot (the lie about Michael Brown). Whites Have Open Season On Blacks. All lies. What else do I need to know, you tell me. If these are not incendiary and inflammatory, then explain how they are civil, and why I'm obligated to listen. And as far as I can tell, the only one “insulted” was you.

Stan said...

”Except that you did not explain anything. You just showed that you don't understand the context where the term micro-aggression is used; and you had no reason to suddenly discuss all these random things about Blacks and other topics. You are playing the victim card here, strangely, by pretending that Whites are somehow under attack when it's pointed out to them that some comments can be hurtful, annoying, tiring, etc... even when the person making the comment has no bad intention. And that is what the discussion on micro-aggression really is.”

You know that white people don’t scream “microaggression”, right? Well, white Rad Fems do, but they are trivial in this context as I said before (and they discriminate against black fems and male-female trans so they’re a hate class of their very own). So who, exactly, is screaming such things? Until you admit that leftist blacks are wholly involved with and invested in such things, you exhibit head-in-the-ground Leftist denialism. The Leonard Bernstein Syndrome. Microagressions – which exist only in the fevered minds of Leftist Victims and professional agitators – are now punishable in many college/university settings. You won’t accept that, and I’m not going to look it up for you. Too bad.

”And you see, this is why I cannot go in details every time I write here anymore. It took almost an hour to go over all of this and be careful about what I write and why. I know, it's shocking right? But I actually do take the time to think about what I write and be as accurate as possible so that it's productive. But here, my simple sentence "you make no sense" was completely accurate, and I have now explained why. Of course, you will not see it like that, and you may come back with more, probably very long stuff, and things about how I don't get it, and you do... I won't be able to reply to everything again, this just takes too much time.”

And explanations don’t connect with you either. Why is that? Am I illiterate? Does no one understand what I’m saying? No, that is not the case. It’s just you, Hugo. You have made up a fantasy reality where microaggressions are real things which must be punished; where BLM makes sense and must be listened to over and over and over (never mind the huge fires and destroyed businesses in the background). You actually think that discrimination is an American thing, when it is not and never has been: it’s purely a Democrat Thing. For two centuries it has been solely a Democrat thing. (You really shouldn’t pull your superior “knowledge of history” on me; you cannot gain from that).


Stan said...

”Finally, I have to point out something. You are a retired person living in some rural area, right? Well, I am someone working full time, going to school and living in an urban area, one of the most diverse in the country actually; and the professor I quoted has an MA and PHD from Harvard where she studied, among other things, sociology. And she even reached out to her colleagues to discuss some questions we had about race bias as many of use were a bit sceptical on some issues. Very productive discussion basically. Yet, you think that by watching the news, the 'good' kind of news of course, you Stan are somehow more aware of what is going on in terms of these complex racial issues, and have it all figured out?”

Hugo, look back over the attack, just above. Here you have pulled the Appeal To Authority Fallacy, in bold. Then you pull the denigration fallacy of Ad Hominem Abusive, claiming in essence that not living in a bicoastal region where smart people live, and reading only biased news, and that issues are way too complex for country bumpkins, so that I cannot know what’s what... because the elites know what’s what and they say otherwise.

Pure bigotry based on nonsensical fantasy reality. Under that logic, no one who is not a PhD in sociology from Hahvahd, working or at least living in the bicoastal intellectual fountains of Truth, who doesn’t restrict news to the MSM prefiltered pap, is completely without merit. OK, got it. But I’ve known all along of the elitist bigotry that absolutely consumes the Left. And a realistic look at the history of the Left, domestic and international, shows otherwise. Completely contrary otherwise.

And it’s fascinating, your incredible belief in your professor as THE fount of Truth, after rejecting ALL of the sources of contradiction (quotes) in the evolution discussion as being either trivial or non-sensical. It merely reinforces my observations that once a person starts adhering to fantasy-as-truth, that defect follows into many or all facets of intellectual life. Truth, if contradictory, cannot compete with the comfort of the fantasy. Contradiction would force reassessment and possible change in worldview. Thus the fantasy is elevated to Truth over mere fact.

Stan said...

I need to address this:
"You label BLM as Communists."

BLM has been co-opted by a number of parasitic radical groups, including communists. This is documented. Look it up. It's not a label, it's a description of the underpinnings of the movement. And BTW, it has also been documented that some of the instigators of the Brown rioters were paid (by Soros iirc) to go riot in Ferguson. Not to mention the instigation of the black "leaders" who show up to those affairs, and even including Obama (if I had a son...).

Hugo Pelland said...

- No, when bringing up micro-aggressions, we are NOT talking about ghettos under Democrat influence. That's the main point here. You're the one who went on some irrelevant tangent, many tangents actually.

- But regarding the comment on ghettos, you did not answer the question. Not at all. The question was: do you really think that Blacks had a 'normal culture of moral anarchy'?
Your answer is that 'ghettos' have some sort of normal culture of moral anarchy. You purposely removed the notion of race, which is what I was asking about. I will take this as evidence that you are 'not' racist, thankfully, as you recognize that it's gang members and the ghettos they control that are bathed in moral anarchy. Yes, they happened to be occupied by more Blacks, but not only Blacks, and certainly not the way they are 'because' of Black culture. Right?

- You also avoided the point when discussing history. You made a stupid, yes really stupid, comment about how Blacks are not integrated in White culture. Own it, it was a racist comment. Be it on purpose or not.

- No, again, micro-aggressions are NOT examples of flat out racism and NOT about Blacks specifically. It's a lot more about women and other ethnic groups that live in the US. It's specifically NOT related to hate crimes. In short, you have no idea what you are talking about. And I am not blaming you, I learned a lot about that just in the last 2 weeks... I thought it was just a silly small thing exaggerated way over board. I still think it's not a huge deal but I get the context better now. And I am actually a "victim" of these micro-aggressions apparently, even though I don't care at all. Any idea why?

- "(Only) Black Lives Matter " is a complete lie. Here's a very simple analogy I heard recently which makes it obvious why it's wrong: A family is having dinner, 2 parents and 3 kids. Little Jimmy did not get any desert, and he wants some, so he asks if he can have some. The father says 'no'. Little Jimmy replies: my appetite matters! The father replies, not Jimmy, not only your appetite matters. But is that what little Jimmy meant? Of course not, he meant that his appetite matters 'too'. And that is what actually makes more sense at the end of 'Black Lives Matter'. They matter... too. And why it makes no sense to say 'White Lives Matter' or 'Blue Lives Matter', because we already have that as the default state. But of course, the BLM does certainly include 'some' people who push it way to far and do seem to imply that they are at war against white, cops, etc... but that is NOT the point of the entire movement.

- I have not been insulted by anything here. How can you be so wrong about that? I am just pointing out how your painting a very simplified version of what micro-agressions are, how it does NOT relate to BLM but I discuss it anyway because YOU brought it up, and I am not saying I have the answers to everything, nor my professor. Actually, you are the one who sounds like that... you think you have it all figured out; that's what I said. Hence, you also got the charge of bigotry and appeal to authority completely wrong. But it's not surprising, because you clearly don't take the time to read anything here carefully, nor examine the arguments, the context, the facts, the opinions. You just spit out your gut feeling about the situations.

Hugo Pelland said...

So, in short:

- No, I am not going to admit that 'leftist blacks are wholly involved with and invested in such things' as micro-aggressions, because that is simply not true. Especially not in the context I brought up. But clearly you are not interested in that.

- No, I never said that micro-aggressions should be punished. You infer a bunch of things that are simply not there and are not interested in the context of what I was quoting and not even the context of the article YOU linked to. You prefer to give your own opinions as truth.

- No, I don't adhere as fantasy as truth. The projection is strong on that one after the evolution discussion... you're the one who believes in magical intelligent design. You said it directly! That's what I finally understood about the whole evolution discussion! But, you know what, I was surprised you had not replied and now I see why, I had missed that 1 summary sentence... let me go fix that.

Stan said...

You are completely acculturated Leftward. If someone mentions a condition in which blacks live, then it is to be labeled immediately with the standard Leftist pejorative: RACIST. Of course people who go around placing labels are doing that in order both to deflect the argument which they fear, and to delegitimize the speaker they are attacking. That’s precisely what you have done. Rather than to address the issue of whether there is or is not a black culture, you label the concept and the speaker as racist. Frankly, that behavior is despicable.

Now. If you had actually read any books by blacks discussing black culture you know the answer. If you wish I’ll note some of the books on the subject in my library. Or not, if you actually don’t care.

”No, again, micro-aggressions are NOT examples of flat out racism and NOT about Blacks specifically. It's a lot more about women and other ethnic groups that live in the US. It's specifically NOT related to hate crimes. In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.”

Here's data from the simplest web search:
Students See Many Slights as Racial ‘Microaggressions’
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/as-diversity-increases-slights-get-subtler-but-still-sting.html?_r=0

Microaggressions: More than Just Race
Can microaggressions be directed at women or gay people?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/microaggressions-in-everyday-life/201011/microaggressions-more-just-race

Young, Gifted, and Black: Facing Microaggressions as a Young College Professor
http://www.forharriet.com/2015/01/young-gifted-and-black-facing.html#ixzz4JTRI0mkz

Microaggressions
Definition: “Racial microaggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults towards people of color.” Those who inflict racial microaggressions are often unaware that they have done anything to harm another person.
http://www.div17.org/TAAR/media/topics/microaggressions.php

Working While Black: 10 Racial Microaggressions Experienced in the Workplace
http://www.crunkfeministcollective.com/2014/11/11/working-while-black-10-racial-microaggressions-experienced-in-the-workplace/

Stan said...


A Day in the Life of Black Men: Microaggressions, a Subtle Form of Racism
http://www.northstarnewstoday.com/news/a-day-in-the-life-of-black-men-microaggressions-a-subtle-form-of-racism/

Racial Microaggressions: The Schooling Experiences of Black Middle-Class Males in Arizona’s Secondary Schools
http://www.journalofafricanamericanmales.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/FINAL-ALLEN.pdf

Unmasking 'racial micro aggressions'
Some racism is so subtle that neither victim nor perpetrator may entirely understand what is going on—which may be especially toxic for people of color.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/02/microaggression.aspx

Do you want more proof that you are saying things that are not true, except in the fantasies you create in your own mind? These links are just half of the first page returned on a search. There is much, much more, of course. And you could have found the truth if you had cared to look.

Stan said...

”And I am actually a "victim" of these micro-aggressions apparently, even though I don't care at all. Any idea why?”

Sure. Because every human gets slighted by other humans. If there is a difference between the humans, such as young/old or in-tribe/out-tribe, or any such, then it is a microaggression today because people are being trained to get all huffy/sweaty about normal human behavior. A young waitress walks past me with a coffee pot but doesn’t fill my cup: OMG: microaggression/scream/head for the puppy room/fainting couch/counselors/social media.

Or grow up, she didn’t mean anything by it. That’s the characteristic of microagressions; it is an unintended assault perceivable only by the Victimhood Classes using microscopes to examine microscopic behaviors for possible offense, for which they are always on DEFCON 5 alert.

”Of course not, he meant that his appetite matters 'too'. And that is what actually makes more sense at the end of 'Black Lives Matter'. They matter... too. And why it makes no sense to say 'White Lives Matter' or 'Blue Lives Matter', because we already have that as the default state. But of course, the BLM does certainly include 'some' people who push it way to far and do seem to imply that they are at war against white, cops, etc... but that is NOT the point of the entire movement.”

It is typical of Leftism to excuse behaviors of Victimhood groups because the Victims are deficient. In this case, they are forgiven for being as illiterate as a child, which is as racist as racism gets. The Left iconizes the declared “deficiencies” of blacks as reasons why they must be coddled and why their statements must be translated into meaningful English as you have attempted to do.

Stan said...

Here’s what BLM says about itself:
http://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
”When we say Black Lives Matter, we are broadening the conversation around state violence to include all of the ways in which Black people are intentionally left powerless at the hands of the state. We are talking about the ways in which Black lives are deprived of our basic human rights and dignity.”

And,
”It goes beyond the narrow nationalism that can be prevalent within Black communities, which merely call on Black people to love Black, live Black and buy Black, keeping straight cis Black men in the front of the movement while our sisters, queer and trans and disabled folk take up roles in the background or not at all.”

Yeah. Even BLM admits that there is a black culture. Good grief.

”#BlackLivesMatter is working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. We affirm our contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression. We have put our sweat equity and love for Black people into creating a political project–taking the hashtag off of social media and into the streets. The call for Black lives to matter is a rallying cry for ALL Black lives striving for liberation.”

Black “liberation” from the “deadly oppression” of the “state”. We’ve heard it all before from the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam.

As far as I can see, beyond the false premises, BLM is looking for reasons to riot in front of appliance stores with big plate glass windows. The “deadly state” gives morality to all that.

- I have not been insulted by anything here. How can you be so wrong about that? I am just pointing out how your painting a very simplified version of what micro-agressions are, how it does NOT relate to BLM but I discuss it anyway because YOU brought it up, and I am not saying I have the answers to everything, nor my professor. Actually, you are the one who sounds like that... you think you have it all figured out; that's what I said.””

Well contrary to your Ad Hominem, we in the country have DSL, terabyte laptops, satellite connections to the MSM, AND we read non-MSM-tainted news as well. We get books in two days from Amazon or other vendors (get an average of two a week). We have brand new cars and smart appliances. We also have connections with the biological necessities of vegetation and the ruminants which use it, their breeding and birthing, growth and health. People from here travel abroad constantly; we have done a lot, but have quit. I’ve been around the world, and spent time in many countries with many cultures, creating technology abroad as well as at home in the USA. So your bigotry is a major aggression, not a microaggression. Your false caricature labeling is straight out of Leftist ignorance and the Leftist need to assign Class. That’s something that I never seen anyone around here do. Except me, as I classify Atheists and Leftists as models of fantasy and irrationality. I’ve yet to see a reason not to do so.

Stan said...

”Hence, you also got the charge of bigotry and appeal to authority completely wrong. But it's not surprising, because you clearly don't take the time to read anything here carefully, nor examine the arguments, the context, the facts, the opinions. You just spit out your gut feeling about the situations.”

Denialism is a premiere trait of Atheism and Leftism. Merely denying that you did what you did does not remove the fact of it. And calling the analysis of fallacy, “gut feeling” is demonstrably false: you did not care to show ”WHY” the analysis is wrong; you merely declare it wrong, and then tack on your phony attack to cover yourself. Classic deflection fallacy.

You maintain that your ignorance of the subject, coupled with your fantasy of what is true, with complete self-assurance:

”- No, I am not going to admit that 'leftist blacks are wholly involved with and invested in such things' as micro-aggressions, because that is simply not true. Especially not in the context I brought up. But clearly you are not interested in that.”

It was ridiculously simple to refute this “truth” statement. Not only that, but your “context” was in error, and further the actual context was mine, as I stated it. And it was absolutely, as I demonstrated, correct.

”- No, I don't adhere as fantasy as truth. The projection is strong on that one after the evolution discussion... you're the one who believes in magical intelligent design. You said it directly!”

That’s a lie; you know it is a lie. You keep doing the same lying crap over and over. I have never mentioned intelligent design. I have demonstrated the fantasies which constitute the entire body of “evidence” for evolution, and shown that such fantasies do not constitute science by any cogent definition. And that’s all. Talk about projection of fantasy “truths”.

I really have trouble wanting to converse with someone who lies about what I state my positions to be, who insists that his own fantasies are “truth” as you have done microaggressions, who refuses to admit to his own obvious logic fallacies, and who designates me as an inferior being within his own caricature.

Like so many times in the past, I have trouble finding reasons to respond to such stuff. Facts just roll off of you, and your opinions are stated with such self-righteous self-confidence that it makes you too annoying to allow into my day.

Hugo Pelland said...

So you complain I use labels instead of arguments, only to then label me as Leftward, despicable, illiterate, racist, ignorant, irrational...

But was there anything about the actual notion of prejudice on society? Nope...

So not much to say but correct a few innacuracies:
. I didn't say there was no such thing as Black culture
. I didn't say micro aggressions cannot be about race
. Everything you linked to looks interesting, but you clearly didn't read them, or misunderstandood, because of your response to my question "do you know why I am also a "victim" ? " I'll ask again, do you want to know?
. And, the waitress example is wrong; that's not what micro aggressions refer to.
. You seem to imply I have something against 'the country'? Funny, I just came back from my parents place, a town in the countryside where I visited my brother-in-law's poney stables and bee hives. Ya, I grew up with a field behind my house...
. You still don't understand why I joined this thread in the first place, and you continue to be all over the place because of that.
. Basically, overall and as usual, you really don't know what I believe, agree with or support, nor why. You 'think' you know and it's fascinating to read.

To conclude, let me say something similar but with a completely different conclusion: facts just roll off of you, and your opinions are stated with such self-righteous self-confidence that it makes it interesting to see what other deflection and rationalization you'll come up with.

This is why I cannot stop reading and engaging here because every time I think there's nothing left for me to learn, you come up with something new. The discussion on Evolution is the best example; it took me so long to get to the 1 thing that really makes you think that way: confusing reliability and complexity with intentional (necessarily intelligent?) design. Or just today, with the Reuters "scandal". I thought it was interesting to learn from you something about how support for Trump might be hidden by some news channel; it would be possible. This instance sounded really intense and, well, it was false of course. But it was still interesting to quickly get to know about that and I learned about opposing views thanks to your blog.

Stan said...

”So you complain I use labels instead of arguments, only to then label me as Leftward, despicable, illiterate, racist, ignorant, irrational... But was there anything about the actual notion of prejudice on society? Nope... So not much to say but correct a few innacuracies: .

I didn't say there was no such thing as Black culture .


” But regarding the comment on ghettos, you did not answer the question. Not at all. The question was: do you really think that Blacks had a 'normal culture of moral anarchy'?
Your answer is that 'ghettos' have some sort of normal culture of moral anarchy. You purposely removed the notion of race, which is what I was asking about. I will take this as evidence that you are 'not' racist, thankfully, as you recognize that it's gang members and the ghettos they control that are bathed in moral anarchy. Yes, they happened to be occupied by more Blacks, but not only Blacks, and certainly not the way they are 'because' of Black culture. Right?”


Wrong. But I’m through looking up facts for you to show you that you are wrong on each and every point. Get your own books by black authors. In the ghettos under discussion, black gangs are the black culture. Denying that is demonstrative of a vast ignorance of the entire Baltimore fracas.

”I didn't say micro aggressions cannot be about race.”
Here’s what you said:
” - No, again, micro-aggressions are NOT examples of flat out racism and NOT about Blacks specifically.”


Everything you linked to looks interesting, but you clearly didn't read them, or misunderstandood, because of your response to my question "do you know why I am also a "victim" ?

I don’t care why you’re a victim. Victims are a dime a dozen; they’re everywhere.

" I'll ask again, do you want to know? . And, the waitress example is wrong; that's not what micro aggressions refer to. .

You don’t know what you are pontificating about. Read the links I gave you.

You seem to imply I have something against 'the country'?

Your words, not mine. I didn’t imply. You said it straight out when you were denigrating everyone who is not you and your professor.

”Funny, I just came back from my parents place, a town in the countryside where I visited my brother-in-law's poney stables and bee hives. Ya, I grew up with a field behind my house... . You still don't understand why I joined this thread…

I actually no longer care about anything you say.
Hugo, just go away. Don’t make me ban you. But I will if I have to. You are done here.

Hugo Pelland said...

Sure, have a nice day!