Political Correctness and Microagression

Night Owl

Night Owl

This Bird Has Flown
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
Never
This is just a video online which I'm sharing to serve as a spring board to open a discussion on the notions of political correctness, free speech, and most of all, on this notion touched upon in the video of 'microagression' and the role and place of anti-discrimination legislation, if it should exist or not, and if so, to what extent etc.

What are your thoughts on all of this?

In all things there's usually pros and cons. I must say, this microagression notion sounds rather absurd and puts one at the mercy of others in their whimsical and subjective ability to be offended. I wouldn't want to study in such a climate.

[video=youtube;i_4-BqSIUD8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_4-BqSIUD8[/video]

Just to comment, and share info rather than expressing my opinion as such. In Australia we don't have a 'Bill of Rights' and/or an enshrined legal principle that directly and explciitly defends free speech -of course in theory that could make free speech vulnerable, yet isn't it so in places where there is legistlation protecting free speech? I can see the pros of such legistlation though. I'm no expert, but what we do have however, is legislation that puts limits on free speech, among which is the Federal 'Racial Discrimination Act 1975' - which prohibits "Discrimination on the basis of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, and in some circumstances, immigrant status" and which covers "discrimination in all areas of public life including employment, provision of goods and services, right to join trade unions, access to places and facilities, land, housing and other accommodation, and advertisements." (Summary). Here is a list of exemptions in regards to actual speech, and as such free speech is in some ways indirectly protected:

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.
Click to expand...
(See: The Act).

Of course there is state specific laws, and that's another whole thing. My opinion: I think the above exceptions are quite apt, and that the Act finds a reasonable balance between allowing freedom of speech, and preventing the equivalent of someone like Hitler rising up and saying 'let's exterminate 'this' race'. It's a catch 22 in some ways though, since if legislation becomes vague enough, by what is defined as discrimination, this just leads to all sorts of nonsense. There's also always going to be the subjective interpretations of such laws too. Maybe pink trousers offend me because I believe pink discriminates against my favourite colour yellow - this is the inevitable can of worms that can be opened when the definition of discrimination is pigeon holed and left excessively to the subjective view of an individual/group.

Any way, I thought I'd share that commentary as something else to comment upon - for or against.

Edit: Prior hearing from others on here, I was somewhere on the fence in regards to somewhat regulating free speech in a very minor way, and having complete and total free speech - or rather I was yet to form a solid opinion on the matter. But now I am of the view of total freedom in regards to speech, with the single exception that private premises, or private institutions in their owned premises, have the right to exercise their autonomy. Thus things as disruptively protesting in a theater, factory or place of worship could be the trigger for being removed from that said premise, not because of a regulation on free speech per say, but the fact that the owner of a place ought to be able to lawfully remove anyone who contravenes their 'codes', just as a houseowner can ask anyone to leave their premise for any reason whatsoever. Yet of course, I'm simplifying my long held but newly clarified view on the matter, but that's the gist of it.
 
Last edited:
This is a good topic. I am generally in favor of complete freedom of speech (with the exception of the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" thing). I think people like Hitler don't rise to power because of freedom of hate speech or freedom of hate ideas, but rather people's receptiveness to such speech and ideas. Sometimes I feel that trying to correct speech and phrases etc in the vein of political correctness is like looking for a cosmetic solution to an internal problem. Or creating an internal problem where there is none. EDIT: I do approve of laws the up the anti of sentences to certain violent crimes via adding the "hate crime" element.
 
Great thread. I feel it is always best to err on the side of free speech. Many American college kids these days are ill equipped to deal with adult reality. This is like the dark side of liberalism. It's way too extreme. Top comedians say they can't perform on college campuses anymore due to the students in the audience being overly sensitive. It is an attack on free speech. Plus it is one step closer to fascist policies where you have to watch what you say lest you get in trouble. This past season of South Park addressed PC culture, microaggressions, safe spaces, hate speech, marginalized groups, etc... I thought they were really exaggerating but once you learn about what is really going on these days you realize how absurd things have become. Plus these kids seem so self righteous and humorless. Yes, of course we shouldn't tolerate certain behavior. But to attempt to abolish any behavior or even speech that could conceivably hurt someone's feelings is ludicrous. I am an atheist and I could care less if someone says God bless you after I sneeze. These kids need to spend some time in a third world country so they can experience real problems. Guess what. Life is harsh. Being coddled and protected when you are a teen ager or young adult does not help you in the long run. Plus the thing that really annoys me is these kids have nothing to lose. I watched this interview by a writer who wrote a story for a magazine on this topic. She was filled with contempt with regard to millenials' current PC attitudes. Back in the 60's if you were ultra liberal and progressive and you were supporting civil rights you had some skin in the game. You were not accepted for the most part by your family and authority figures in the main stream. Now kids can hold these beliefs at their expensive country club colleges and then move back in with their parents after they graduate. This is somewhat equivalent to having sheltered spoiled entitled children who grow up to be narcissistic brats (like Donald Trump). This whole subject bothers me so because it is a great example of taking a good idea (making society more tolerant), and turning it into a bad idea (creating a form of thought police). I am somewhat concerned with how the youth of today will turn out in the future with their exposure to PC culture and social media. One day soon we could have a society with severe limits on free speech and overuse of censorship. I feel sorry for comedians. Comedy for adults will become extinct. Matt Stone and Trey Parker will be lynched. Is this the start of the zombie apocalypse?
 
It seems sinister to me to be tracking micro-aggressions with a data base. What is the purpose?

I understand the concept of what a micro aggression is. What is to be done about them, I don't know. I do not think it is helpful to track a persons microaggressive history. I think aggression is a beneficial aspect of society though, and I don't think it should be dampened.

i was just speaking with someone today that when we grew up we watched bugs bunny and Yosemite Sam smoked a cigar and shot pistols (and bugs bunny was a transvestite) and my generation isn't as sensitive as the kids who grew up watching Barney and teletubbies speak baby talk to them for an extended amount of time.

i graduated from college in 2012 so I think I was leaving just as this kind of thing was startingg up. I was getting a little involved in the occupy movement then, I didn't think that the movement did enough - it wasn't aggressive enough. Later I saw stuff like this being thrown around so I guess I can assume this has at least some influence. Anyways I'm glad I went to a school that is engineering oriented, my assumption is this college is more focused on art or being a lawyer.

i get how language can shape the culture, but I'm not sure that microaggression tracking is the way to do it.
 
Last edited:
the said:
It seems sinister to me to be tracking micro-aggressions with a data base. What is the purpose?

I understand the concept of what a micro aggression is. What is to be done about them, I don't know. I do not think it is helpful to track a persons microaggressive history. I think aggression is a beneficial aspect of society though, and I don't think it should be dampened.
Click to expand...

I agree. And micro aggressions are much more likely to become macro aggressions when people feel repressed. In fact, I think there is already a lot of weird passive-aggressive retaliation to the political correctness obsession.
 
Is watching the Washington Redskins play the Kansas City Chiefs like a micro aggression atomic bomb?
 
PintoBean said:
This is a good topic. I am generally in favor of complete freedom of speech (with the exception of the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" thing). I think people like Hitler don't rise to power because of freedom of hate speech or freedom of hate ideas, but rather people's receptiveness to such speech and ideas. Sometimes I feel that trying to correct speech and phrases etc in the vein of political correctness is like looking for a cosmetic solution to an internal problem. Or creating an internal problem where there is none. EDIT: I do approve of laws the up the anti of sentences to certain violent crimes via adding the "hate crime" element.
Click to expand...

Definitely, I don't think free speech caused Hitler's rise to power and espousing and of his ideas by the German populace; and even though some form of free speech permitted such ideas to be espoused and legally enshrined, to blame free speech would be akin to blaming a hammer if it were used for a violent purpose. But yes, free speech has it place in society - it need not be necessarily exercised by barging into a theater, church, synagogue, mosque or library etc., when such speech can be freely said elsewhere in an appropriate and civil forum, even if it's protesting in public spaces (that are not places like the library).

I must say I can't stand the popular thought of my generation, especially those who are tertiary 'educated'. Unlike you [MENTION=731]the[/MENTION] I had the pleasure of attending a liberal arts university, and had to endure the PC nightmare in regards to opinion, but fortunately voicing one's views was permitted, though frowned upon and you'd expect less marks if you went against the academic flow of popular consensus, or even attempted to play the devils advocate so as to carry out authentic critical thinking.

As the years go by, law and regulation is added to law and regulation, detail is added upon detail, until far from being handrails to protect and nurture society, such laws and regulations become so many, so excessive, and so minuscule, that they become the very means of oppressing the members of a society. Welcome to the Police State - towards which every (almost maybe) Western nation is headed in some way, shape or form.

I consider myself neither left, nor right, nor in the middle, and my ideas on such things as on the economy, politics, foreign and immigration policy, social welfare etc., are eclectic and would seem to have traces of all sides (except the extremes!). But the majority of younger members of Gen X and millennials in general are a special brand of extreme progressivism that are so far left that they fall off the scale. [MENTION=14664]dang[/MENTION] described my generation quite well - a generalisation yes, with exceptions, but generally true, sad to say.

Plus these kids seem so self righteous and humorless
Click to expand...

Such traits are the surest sign of dehumanisation - a dehumanisation involving a repression of human nature caused by their very own PC agenda. Sprout tolerance for all, yet strangle anyone who farts in your general direction. I mean I can see the well meaning sympathies of my peers (do I have to say "my") but can't they just chill out and smell the roses.

Edit: I should add clarity to what I meant of being 'so far left', its an ultra left progressivism that's dressed up as more moderate than it is, and yet which still idealises the democratic system, but in a strange twisted way - labeled as moderate and democratic but looks and smells like something else. After all, the majority of my generation is capitalistic even if they deny it. It's hard to describe. If they were as far right in certain aspects, as they were left, I'd be equally abhorrent.
 
Last edited:
the said:
i get how language can shape the culture, but I'm not sure that microaggression tracking is the way to do it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. The thing is microagression is so arbitrary - what is it? One person says this, another that, one person gets offended by this, another by that. And the key thing here is, that it's MICRO - i.e. so small that it really doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things. Actual bullying by way of intent and derogatory words or deeds that target individuals or groups, now that's something to go on, but microagression seems to be a radical and artificial inflation of bullying that extends so far as to include a kind word expressed by person A but which is taken as offensive to person B.

Language certainly can shape a culture, and culture shapes language, but what these well meaning wallies don't get is that there is a proactive way of changing things, and a reactive way of changing things. When it comes to changing subtleties in language let them (if they must) try and change it proactively by way of discussion, civil arguments, peaceful demonstrations etc., not by reactively pointing the finger, bullying anyone who doesn't fit their PC mold by introducing draconian regulations, and by chucking a tantrum like a spoilt child who's mummy won't give him want he wants.
 
The thing about "micro aggressions" is that suppose we were to somehow weed these things out of ourselves at some point. Then what? Pico aggressions? It's already far enough down the Orwellian rabbit hole for me as it is.

People are dumb and rude and ignorant and a lot of the time they are this way due to things outside of their control, but now we are supposed to castrate them for such things?

Just know yourself and when such things are happening learn how to overcome adversity. Tiny nearly insignificant adversity is apparently too much for people to handle these days.
 
Night Owl said:
I agree with you. The thing is microagression is so arbitrary - what is it? One person says this, another that, one person gets offended by this, another by that. And the key thing here is, that it's MICRO - i.e. so small that it really doesn't matter in the bigger scheme of things. Actual bullying by way of intent and derogatory words or deeds that target individuals or groups, now that's something to go on, but microagression seems to be a radical and artificial inflation of bullying that extends so far as to include a kind word expressed by person A but which is taken as offensive to person B.

Language certainly can shape a culture, and culture shapes language, but what these well meaning wallies don't get is that there is a proactive way of changing things, and a reactive way of changing things. When it comes to changing subtleties in language let them (if they must) try and change it proactively by way of discussion, civil arguments, peaceful demonstrations etc., not by reactively pointing the finger, bullying anyone who doesn't fit their PC mold by introducing draconian regulations, and by chucking a tantrum like a spoilt child who's mummy won't give him want he wants.
Click to expand...

The fact that the term micro-aggression even exists simultaneously speaks to how good and how bad we as a culture are faring. Good, because it is as if we have run out of serious problems to worry about (which we haven't). Bad, because we can't prioritize our problems and also appreciate the myriad ways in which our lives have improved. Try discussing this nonsense in Syria for example. Instead of college kids joining the Peace Corps, it seems they would rather meet up on campus to discus their own oppression when in fact it is slim to none. This whole subject seems like the ideal distraction. I am sure you could come up with a pretty convincing conspiracy theory explaining this whole topic. It's like, let's have college kids, our best and brightest, waste all of their time and energy on stifling open discussion and free thought rather than working constructively towards solving urgent real world problems. They care more about what you call someone who is disadvantaged than actually helping said people. I feel like this could be construed as a subtle form of mind control. I am so glad I am done with school. If these kids are going to be our future politicians and such we are screwed. They seem particlularly vulnerable to being manipulated and controlled by devious minds. Just what we need. I still disagree with the law in Germany that limits free speech with regard to Natziism. If some ass hole wants to praise Hitler I don't care. I would prefer to hear from those people than to have them suppress their sentiments until they boil over into outward hatred and violence. At least in Germany they are justified in being concerned about scape goating due to their past. I just think they have good intentions combined with poor policy. But here, is not saying God bless you really helping atheists cope? Yes atheists are a minority, but by definition they could care less about the word God. Being offended occasionally is not tragic. Micro aggressions are not a form of bullying. The dude who said the US is becoming a nation of wimps is not far off. If there is a WW3 and a new draft these kids can worry about micro aggressions as they are dodging bullets. Without free speech our country is royally screwed in the future. I am not kidding. To control language is to control the mind is to control the individual is to control the masses. Or something like that. Ultra PC Culture and social media addiction. Lovely combo there. Fuck'n millennials (micro aggression alert). I am getting old.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to say more about this last night but I was on my phone so I'll go ahead and elaborate a bit more.

I also don't like people who deny the existence of microaggressions and their affect on things. It is absolutely a real thing and does have greater influence than people generally know. There have been tons and tons of experiments on it and if you aren't aware of how people are treating you differently from others then you are just burying your head in the sand. Again, knowing yourself and learning how to overcome adversity is extremely important in self-development. If you are a minority or disabled or part of any sort of group that faces such things it's your job to learn how to navigate these things and change people's perceptions. Not cry and scream and kick and be a little baby about your circumstance. We all come from circumstances that put us in these types of positions at various points in our lives. Sure being a "white cis male" has given this group a ton of affordances but most microaggressions come out of classism, not racism or sexism and if you are fighting the wrong fight on this then it just shows your stupidity and ignorance about the world at large.
 
Controversial opinion time:

I think the level of perceived damage that micro aggression can do is the by-product of our culture. As a society, we've become hyper-aware of anything that looks or feels like an insult, because insults have been shaped to indicate some kind of symptom of a systematic and deep-rooted issue that oppresses some share of the population. Suddenly, it's not 'you're indirectly insulting me with your ignorance' it's 'you're thinking poorly of my ancestors and kinsmen and will probably continue thinking poorly of my ancestors and kinsmen beyond this context and eventually do them real harm and therefore you must be punished to the fullest extent of social justice.' In that context, of course something like micro aggression is going to be a big deal.

And I'm not saying it's not important or useless to think this. I think it extremely positive in that it has drawn attention to the iinequalities and real problems of our society and given voice to people who previously had no voice. However, I also think that, as with any social movement, it's beginning to have other, unintended side effects. When people get into groups, when they feel they have a 'team' behind them and a 'team' to defend, that's when they stop thinking of themselves or the other as an individual. All they see is a member of a group gifted with the benefits/weaknesses of the group as a whole. This is when the context starts to blur and all we're left with is a laundry list of who 'we' are versus who 'they' are.

See the irony here?

It's a touchy issue, I know, but being a 'victim' under the current system has gained social currency. You need only to observe what is perjoratively known as 'the oppression Olympics' and you can see what I mean. Two or three groups have a contest; the one who has ancestors who have suffered the deepest and most demeaning social wounds 'win' the exchange and therefore have the right to express themselves openly with the least consequence for what it is they say. If the group is the 'loser' of the exchange, however, they have to sit down and listen up because they've apparently had their time in the light and their opinion doesn't matter.

Who is being oppressed now? is it any wonder that people are breaking into smaller, even more highly individualized groups and demanding a voice?

Personally, I think the overemphasis on these issues is highlighting our differences more than our similarities. It's one thing to say, 'hey man, what you said there was uncool,' and 'stop! Police! You're under arrest for speaking ignorantly!' That immediately raises the stakes and boxes people in. And if i have learned anything about people in all my years walking this earth, it's that stricter rules wherein people are asked to police themselves create more polarity rather than unity. Humans have a remarkable ability to militarize anything if they are given an enemy. And creating tighter restrictions and constantly bringing up old wounds is a great way the stir up resentment and division and also, create enemies.

This is where we need to stop and consider if those resentful feelings we're stirring up have an outlet that is healthy or if that energy is being pumped back into our culture in other, harmful ways.

tl;dr: there is value in drawing attention to systemic inequality and addressing it, but it comes with unintended consequences that need checking/addressing in order to help achieve the positive goal behind the installation
 
Last edited:
I havent looked, but I suspect microagressions are only being measured from from stereotypically oppressive group (cis white male) to oppressed (lgbt nowhere etc). I think it would be more useful to measure based on power groups. One way aggressions are really backing certain groups into a corner (typically whites).
 
Last edited:
Hm, interesting topic. I'm very much in support of social progressiveness, something which has gained a lot of traction in the last few years. More and more, we're shrugging of moralistic restrictions on valid lifestyles. But it does seem to have come with a new flavor of zealot, imposing new restrictions on the way people live.

From my own perspective, there's little point trying to stamp out micro-aggressions. Stopping a person from making, say a racist remark, does nothing to stop racism. It just means the person won't express the bigotry. It won't make them less racist, if anything it'll cause their anger and bitterness to grow. It's an exercise in futility.

Wyote said:
I wanted to say more about this last night but I was on my phone so I'll go ahead and elaborate a bit more.

I also don't like people who deny the existence of microaggressions and their affect on things. It is absolutely a real thing and does have greater influence than people generally know. There have been tons and tons of experiments on it and if you aren't aware of how people are treating you differently from others then you are just burying your head in the sand. Again, knowing yourself and learning how to overcome adversity is extremely important in self-development. If you are a minority or disabled or part of any sort of group that faces such things it's your job to learn how to navigate these things and change people's perceptions. Not cry and scream and kick and be a little baby about your circumstance. We all come from circumstances that put us in these types of positions at various points in our lives. Sure being a "white cis male" has given this group a ton of affordances but most microaggressions come out of classism, not racism or sexism and if you are fighting the wrong fight on this then it just shows your stupidity and ignorance about the world at large.
Click to expand...

It's funny that you say people who are disabled or part of a minority are the ones who cry like a baby about it. From my experience the ones that really kick up a fuss are those who have faced little adversity. Maybe it's to make themselves feel more important or interesting. Or maybe they're just narrow-minded individuals who want the entire world to see things through their limited scope.
 
Jacobi said:
It's funny that you say people who are disabled or part of a minority are the ones who cry like a baby about it. From my experience the ones that really kick up a fuss are those who have faced little adversity. Maybe it's to make themselves feel more important or interesting. Or maybe they're just narrow-minded individuals who want the entire world to see things through their limited scope.
Click to expand...

You are probably right about that. I've seen it from everyone but probably the majority of shit stirring is happening from people who have faced generally less hardship. I was just saying that if you are from a particular group that does face difficulty, it is more beneficial for you personally to figure out how to overcome those things rather than whine and/or become violent or something.
 
Wyote said:
I also don't like people who deny the existence of microaggressions and their affect on things. It is absolutely a real thing and does have greater influence than people generally know. There have been tons and tons of experiments on it and if you aren't aware of how people are treating you differently from others then you are just burying your head in the sand. Again, knowing yourself and learning how to overcome adversity is extremely important in self-development. If you are a minority or disabled or part of any sort of group that faces such things it's your job to learn how to navigate these things and change people's perceptions. Not cry and scream and kick and be a little baby about your circumstance. We all come from circumstances that put us in these types of positions at various points in our lives. Sure being a "white cis male" has given this group a ton of affordances but most microaggressions come out of classism, not racism or sexism and if you are fighting the wrong fight on this then it just shows your stupidity and ignorance about the world at large.
Click to expand...

Certainly, microagressions are a real thing, and can become the roots of macroagressions, and even if not, they can be genuinely hurtful. The only thing is such microagression is so arbitrary and relatively minor (in the sense of not akin to macroagression like physical violence, which say, would warrant legal consequences) that it should be left outside the realm of legal and institutional regulatory ramification. Thus I totally agree with what you said, that it's up to ourselves to be informed and well meaning, and those who are aware and dissatisfied with such microagression to proactively attempt to shift people's perception. Of course at times such microagression is going to be seen where it's not, but if it's left outside the legal realm then such aimless witch-hunting will not matter as much - since it will consist in having to put up listening to such rubbish in a free society, and not behind prison bars, or in a conceptual gulag.

[MENTION=1360]atree[/MENTION] you raise a good point.

there is value in drawing attention to systemic inequality and addressing it, but it comes with unintended consequences that need checking/addressing in order to help achieve the positive goal behind the installation
Click to expand...

Indeed I see such SJW as sincere people who seek equality, even though I believe they're largely misguided, namely in 'their' predominantly moralistic approach which uses the police baton instead of the flower, the sword instead of the plough. It's such a destructive way to go about things, being moderately-aggressive to combat microagression, and creating inequalities and oppressive regulations, in order to stamp out other inequalities - either real or imagined. It's like carrying out surgery with a machete.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top