FFS "microaggression" main use case isn't intended for people having a good faith intellectual public commentary. This whole "oh sure stupid conservatives might think this, but look at this example of a great conversaion on the same topic bit" completely ****ing misses the point.

Like this has already been explained to you. Repeatedly.

In previous examples, it was mentioned how "where are you from?" CAN be part of perfectly benign and inclusive conversation. It can also be a perncious pattern of implying otherness that minorities experience commonly. The context matters.

So let that be a lesson to you.

Context.

Context.

Consider that.

And stop trying to mock microaggressions because someone somewhere once said somethign resembling one of them in a perfectly fine context.

Sort of unfair to ask FoldN to understand context. He has an adolescent level EQ that has been fostered by the privileged hellhole that logic and decency forgot also known as SMP.

Context indeed. Why don't you realize that practically all of the criticism of microaggressions, why that term may have already gotten away from the critical race theory crowd to become a pejorative like SJW, which it really shouldn't be, is due to the countless examples of their misuse and abuse, lunk heads like the trolls in here not understanding the context, or assigning the wrong context, seemingly just reading off a list and deciding "we know what you really mean," interpreting every statement in it's worst possible way for a good laugh at the fabricated bigot while idiots cheer them on. Context indeed. Yall did it to yourselves.

This comment is directly saying the word "microaggression" has been counter-productive to anti-racism IRL. I'm calling BS, flat out.

This is still another example of "concern trolling". Here FoldnDark is claiming he knows better than IRL activists. LMFAO @that. Why can't these fools just admit that discussions about race personally annoy them... and stop with all this farcical and transparently patronizing crap.

So, the next step is for you to try to provide some of the countless examples of misuse and abuse in order to substantiate your claim.

Beyond that, you need to go beyond just citing a few anecdotes, you need to find some evidence that the examples cited are more representative than non-problematic uses of the term. It seems unlikely to me that any such evidence exists.

Foldn,

Virtually every criticism of microaggressions you have brought has involved you lying about, ignoring, misreading, or divorcing context. E.g., you wanted to claim that "America is a meritocracy" is not a macroaggression despite offering zero additional context.

Oh, I have little doubt that they are used reasonably, and reasonably often. As are they often used unreasonably. Anecdotes abound, in here for sure, but attempting to compile a comparative list would be nearly impossible for obvious logistical reasons (and of course what is reasonable is always up for debate) though it would be interesting to see some researcher try. But, I need not show the unreasonable proportion is high compared to the reasonable at all, and in fact I doubt it must be above 50-50 for the term's good meaning to be severely hampered.

I only need look at how those terms are used in the common lingo, and it's not hard to do a few google searches and see that the criticisms outnumber the support across the political spectrum these days, and likewise, the pejorative use appears to be on the rise. Whether public opinion can be changed is a good question, and if the original good intention of the term can be salvaged, I wouldn't claim to know.

It's almost as if he's deliberately trolling the forum.

The term 'trolling' in antiquated and offensive. We prefer to be called 'disingenuous peoples.'

Oh man, that's a great post.

Correction: I think it is a ridiculous abuse of the term to count that, and many other unsettled political terms among microaggressions not to be uttered for fear retribution, whether administrative or mob shaming. That's counterproductive to discourse, and whether or not some partisans are offended (and claim most minorities must also be) is beside the point. Political discussions tend to offend, and we should not ask people to stop arguing any pariticular side based on that. This is a perfect example of the criticism that many microaggressions amount to being offended that someone disagrees with you.

Legit lol'd at that one, fam.

What is your methodology for doing that?

Eyeballing a few pages of search results doesn't really tell you anything very interesting. I mean, I've read a few criticisms of microaggressions and they were all highly theoretical, by which I mean they just didn't like the concept or objected to the use of the word "aggression". They didn't actually cite examples of misuse.

How do you determine this? Why pivot from "abuse" to "pejorative use"? Am I supposed to care if someone accuses someone of a microaggression as an insult? Or calls something a microaggression when it's not? It seems kind of silly. By abuse I meant something more like someone losing a job, or being suspended from school, due to a perceived microaggression.

I mean, I don't really have words for how inane it sounds to me to try and label trivial deductive logic as "partisan," but even if it were, how is that even criticism? Why should the fact that liberals agree with this deduction mean that it is unfair? I mean, if your goal is a serious, productive conversation, why are the liberals beholden to a standard that they both should not be offended by demeaning statements and should avoid discussing how those statements are, in fact, racist and trivially false, instead of the burden being on the conservative in not opening up the conversation with a naked assertion that is both inherently racist and trivially false?

But OK, I already granted to well named that people who say this may just be dumb and haven't thought it through. Lest we avoid putting these people on the defensive with an accusation of white supremacy, how about we come up with another word for statements that may represent unwittingly demeaning statements made about minority groups? It should probably reflect that such statements are a much smaller deal than lynchings or even using racial slurs. What would you propose?

I was confused by that post. It seems like the last paragraph argues that we shouldn't be concerned if intellectual debate offends some people. But the first is concerned that calling "America is a meritocracy" a microaggression is offensive and thus shouldn't be done?

Yeah, but we're on the interwebs. There is no "fear retribution" here. So, I assume you don't have any problems with that use in this context? Or... is the real reason something different, something that personally annoys you, perhaps?

Dude, you just wrote the perfect argument for not censoring the r-word. Do you ever tire of contradicting yourself ??

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

Offending conservatives is stopping the conversation, but offending liberals is productive debate.

I think if you want the general public to learn about critical race theory and apply it's wisdom to everyday life, use of terms like microaggression, safe space, SJW as pejorative works against that cause. When there are hundreds of articles critical of this movement, spanning most of the political spectrum though largely ignored by one end, it should be no surprise the terms are losing their original good meanings to the general public. If you can't see it after so much lampooning, South Park devoting an entire season to it (have they ever done this before?), article after article, then I don't know if I'll convince you.

There are multiple criticisms of microaggressions, and as I can see they roughly break down to 1) ways they are abused/overreacted to even though they claim to only be small slights, 2) disagreements on why individual terms should be offensive, and exasperation that basically anything and everything can go on such a list, 3) that we should always try not to offend, like in educational and political discussions. Most of the "America" microaggressions fit 3) and sometimes 2), maybe 1).

If a conservative overreacts to something being called a microaggression, liberals had better change up their language, but if a liberal overreacts to a racial slight, he really should just toughen up.

I think those conversations should take place, and if you haven't already, the Coates' - Chait dialogue was riveting, productive, and about as civil as such a conversation can get. I don't think people should be overreacting to minor slights, tattling to administrators or mobs, making demands that others' political speech be suppressed on campus (All Lives Matter posters taken down, the Argus school paper defunded, etc), deplatforming those with whom they disagree. They should instead invite those debates so that they can prove them wrong with better arguments.

Uh one of the arguments is that we, as a whole, should be aware of ways that we marginalize others through our speech, many times inadvertently. If only there was a way or a term to describe and work to improve on that .

foldn: you're mostly just changing the subject again. You claimed there were countless example of abuse of the microaggressions concept. You can't demonstrate that by citing a season of South Park. South Park was mocking the concept, not providing evidence of abuse. It's also not relevant that there are also liberal criticisms of the concept unless those criticisms include evidence of abuse.

Instead you've mostly just changed your argument to something nebulous about it perhaps not being the best persuasive framework for explaining these issues to people. Here again though, the fact that it's contentious doesn't establish that. I'm not aware of any ways of discussing structural racism and white supremacy (i.e CRT) with "the general public" that aren't contentious. Your premise that terms like SJW or microaggression had a "good meaning" for the general public at some point also seems highly dubious.

SJW is a pejorative used by bigots to describe people less racist than themselves, what the **** is FoldN even talking about.

?

Or does bolded not require a descriptor?

Lol oh man, does overreacting include describing them?