Page 5 of 6 [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

25 Feb 2016, 5:37 pm

androbot01 wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
We are not disagreeing about the problem. Subtle forms of discrimination or misconceptions.

Are you basically saying having these terms helps draw attention to it. I understand that, but they can also be a red herring.

There are already some some ways of dealing with misconceptions.

I don't think there's any harm in the terminology. It's just a new way of expressing something. There will always be people who latch on to a cause, like groupies. But to latch on to something means there is something there in the first place.


The problem with that idea is people then wish to identify these micro aggression which are supposed to causing these things. You we just get people accusing people of micro aggression, when other people say thing they don't like. This has happened already.

It is not really getting at the root causes discrimination at all orr anything profound.



heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

25 Feb 2016, 5:56 pm

adifferentname wrote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
Microaggressions are real.


"Micro-aggression" is just another way of saying "I'm offended by x". In all cases where offence is taken where none was intended, the fault lies with the receiver.

Quote:
People who claim not to understand microaggression seem to be on one extreme or the other. They are either insensitive bullies who don't realize they are bullies or they are paranoid people who are afraid that they are going to be accused of microaggressions.


This is, quite simply, bigotry. If you haven't already learned that people have a huge range of ideologies, understandings and beliefs that will almost universally differ from your own, well, consider yourself duly informed.

Quote:
I have experienced microaggressions by staff members of mental hospitals. It's the same thing with race. This stuff happens all the time. Might as well put a name on it. It might be imaginary in some people's minds but the concept is valid and real, even if it is not measurable or prosecutable.


You can call it whatever you like. If it continues to boil down to people taking offence where none is offered I'm going to remain unconcerned.



I find it a little ironic that you are accusing me of bigotry when I meant no offense. This seems like a statement that contradicts your argument.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

25 Feb 2016, 6:08 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
It is not really getting at the root causes discrimination ...

You say that like you know what the root causes are.



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

25 Feb 2016, 6:18 pm

Nebogipfel wrote:
There was a scene from the old TV cop show Dragnet that went viral not long ago, in which the cops lecture a bunch of protesting students about their irresponsible conduct. The scene could be criticized on the basis that it was straw manning protesters or because it's cheesy, but, it could also be said that the scene was at least trying to inculcate some kind of positive responsible social attitudes in its audience. Try to find a show that even looks like it might be doing that now. Mass entertainment has changed. On the whole, it seems hostile to all, as if it wishes to influence communities to tear themselves apart. Market demand might be entirely responsible for this shift, although I'd bet that it isn't.

Mass entertainment is not the only factor influencing bad behavior. Desperation does that. Exhaustion does that, too. It feels as if virtually every societal pressure today is aligned to make people mean. This generalized meanness might account for some of what minorities feel around them, and falsely attribute to racism.






I like the first two, but I don't understand the last one. Could you elaborate on why you posted it? Maybe I need to have watched the show to understand?



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

25 Feb 2016, 6:19 pm

androbot01 wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
It is not really getting at the root causes discrimination ...

You say that like you know what the root causes are.

I didn't say that, but I have some idea how I would go about researching, setting up experiments.

The most important thing with social experiments is to isolate them from our perceptions as humans ans self influence. We can take a leaf out of how animal behaviorists work.

Aggression, mico or not is an action, not a cause.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

25 Feb 2016, 6:34 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
It is not really getting at the root causes discrimination ...

You say that like you know what the root causes are.

I didn't say that, but I have some idea how I would go about researching, setting up experiments.

I've never believed in the validity of the social sciences. The tools to measure behaviour are rudimentary and cannot be trusted.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

25 Feb 2016, 6:47 pm

androbot01 wrote:
I've never believed in the validity of the social sciences. The tools to measure behaviour are rudimentary and cannot be trusted.


Generally speaking you are right, but that is all to do with approach, however that doesn't mean it is totally impossible to be scientific about testing the origin of behaviors. We may need to ask more basic questions first.

Animal behaviorists and biologists are more scientific in their approach.

We have some incredible tools now like fRMI. However even with low tech method you can be more scientific.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

25 Feb 2016, 7:00 pm

heavenlyabyss wrote:
I find it a little ironic that you are accusing me of bigotry when I meant no offense. This seems like a statement that contradicts your argument.


You seem to misunderstand me. I wasn't offended by what you said, I'm just pointing out the intolerance. It should be considered nothing more than an FYI.

When you say something like-

Quote:
People who claim not to understand microaggression seem to be on one extreme or the other. They are either insensitive bullies who don't realize they are bullies or they are paranoid people who are afraid that they are going to be accused of microaggressions


-you're demonstrating hostile intolerance for beliefs that differ from your own. You're classifying the - shall we say (tongue firmly in cheek) 'wrongthinkers' - as bullies or cowards. If you believe this should be classified as something other than bigotry I'd be interested to know why.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

25 Feb 2016, 7:18 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
...However even with low tech method you can be more scientific.

In the matter of human behaviour I will go with my instinct over data that is only superficially scientific.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Feb 2016, 7:32 pm

Unironic use of the term microaggression is an excellent shibboleth for identifying tiresome people.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Last edited by Dox47 on 25 Feb 2016, 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nurseangela
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,017
Location: Kansas

25 Feb 2016, 7:38 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Microaggression is an excellent shibboleth for identifying tiresome people.


Forget "Microaggression". What is "shibboleth"? 8O I gotta go pull out my dictionary again.


_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

25 Feb 2016, 7:42 pm

nurseangela wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Microaggression is an excellent shibboleth for identifying tiresome people.

Forget "Microaggression". What is "shibboleth"? 8O I gotta go pull out my dictionary again.


It's actually pronounced sibboleth.

.
.
.

(Sorry.)


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Feb 2016, 7:45 pm

^

Essentially, its a word or phrase that gives away someone's beliefs or identity; e.g. if some keeps mentioning the patriarchy, I can be fairly certain I'm speaking to a feminist.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

25 Feb 2016, 8:33 pm

Dox47 wrote:
^

Essentially, its a word or phrase that gives away someone's beliefs or identity; e.g. if some keeps mentioning the patriarchy, I can be fairly certain I'm speaking to a feminist.


Or a member of the Quiverfull sect of Protestant Fundamentalist Christianity. It's the opposite of feminism. It's called the Christian Patriarchy and it is one. And they call it that. Look at some of the site's about it. Keywords Titus 2 and more precious than rubies and quiverfull. Also, Christian home keeping. That doesn't mean housekeeping. It means keeping the home up and keeping yourself at home where you belong. No s**t. Duggars too. Ex members stories can be found at no longer quivering.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,629
Location: Long Island, New York

26 Feb 2016, 2:03 am

Using "safe spaces" for every microagression is hurting the people these concepts were invented for including many on WP. It is hurting the reputation of an entire generation who in fact is volunteering at rates higher then vaunted 1960's generation.

Older generations accusing younger ones of bieng spoiled brats has been going on forever. Now it is safe spaces to blame, when I was growing up it was TV and our moms reading Dr. Spock's baby books

Quote:
Norman Vincent Peale was a popular preacher who supported the Vietnam War. During the late 1960s, Peale criticized the anti-Vietnam War movement and the perceived laxity of that era and placed the blame on Dr. Spock's books, claiming that "the U.S. was paying the price of two generations that followed the Dr. Spock baby plan of instant gratification of needs." In the 1960s and 1970s, blame was placed on Spock for the disorderliness of young people, many of whose parents had been devotees of Baby and Child Care.[19] Vice President Spiro Agnew also blamed Spock for "permissiveness".[20][21] These allegations were enthusiastically embraced by conservative adults, who viewed the rebellious youth of that era with disapproval, referring to them as "the Spock generation"
.

Does the above quoted sound familiar?


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Nebogipfel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 509

26 Feb 2016, 3:45 am

Drake wrote:
I like the first two, but I don't understand the last one. Could you elaborate on why you posted it? Maybe I need to have watched the show to understand?


The first two are examples of the old norm in televised entertainment of reinforcing responsible values. The last example represents the more recent shift towards nihilism. Within the context of the show, the heroes had a good reason for doing what they were doing there. But, there is something of note about entertainment whose overwhelming focus seems to be in providing ethical justifications for increasingly sadistic acts of violence from its heroes, in scenario's that are never going to take place in reality.

I wouldn't make a case for disposing of moral complexity or violence in entertainment, and wouldn't support those agendas. Depiction does not equal promotion and tolerance must be given if we expect it to be granted. I just make the observation that what is predominantly getting made is of a type. The persuasive thrust of some of the most popular shows of recent years is to promote self destructive and socially destructive attitudes. If there's a tone of excessive meanness in human relations at present, mass entertainment might be partially responsible for it.



Last edited by Nebogipfel on 26 Feb 2016, 8:25 am, edited 5 times in total.