Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Have YOU been accused of microaggressions??

Page 8 of 10 [ 152 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,134
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Jan 2023, 3:28 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Ok, thank you for clarifying. Yet it is a term used by social justice advocates whithin a social justice political context and it was not in common use by the general population.


Personally, that's why I try to use it in normal and relatable contexts, not just specific political discussions.

Language tends to evolve as a result of words starting as brand-new, obscure coinings but gradually becoming more widespread until they're no longer jargon or slang.


Maybe, but currently they are political and contested.


More so, they're perceived as political. That doesn't mean they are.

There's a tendency for people to politicize any sort of marginalized identity. For some reason indigenous issues or black issues or queer issues are inherently political in the eyes of some. That doesn't mean they are.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,885
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?

23 Jan 2023, 3:32 pm

I'm embarrassed to say I learned about microaggressions from a South Park video game. :oops:

There's a character in it called PC Principal, and he basically tells you why everything you say is sexist, racist, homophobic, or just extremely offensive. But he does very violent and hypocritical things in the name of political correctness, go figure. He also tells you when your enemies are using a microagression and that you need to hit them.
.For example, your enemies taunt you by saying "Run home to your mommy and cry", or something to that effect, is not PC, because not all children have mothers for parents, and it gives the message that crying is a weakness and not a healthy, normal human reaction.



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

23 Jan 2023, 3:39 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Ok, thank you for clarifying. Yet it is a term used by social justice advocates whithin a social justice political context and it was not in common use by the general population.


Personally, that's why I try to use it in normal and relatable contexts, not just specific political discussions.

Language tends to evolve as a result of words starting as brand-new, obscure coinings but gradually becoming more widespread until they're no longer jargon or slang.


Maybe, but currently they are political and contested.


More so, they're perceived as political. That doesn't mean they are.

There's a tendency for people to politicize any sort of marginalized identity. For some reason indigenous issues or black issues or queer issues are inherently political in the eyes of some. That doesn't mean they are.


They are if they are discussed within the context of an ideology such as Critical Race Theory.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,134
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Jan 2023, 4:10 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
They are if they are discussed within the context of an ideology such as Critical Race Theory.


How is thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence ideological?

Those conversations might not be politically correct in some circles, but that doesn't make them ideological.

At times it seems like any attempt to value other perspectives is inherently dismissed as ideological, but the argument for why that is always seems to boil down to it's ideological because I disagree.

So, what exactly makes some people's rights a political matter?


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

23 Jan 2023, 4:33 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
They are if they are discussed within the context of an ideology such as Critical Race Theory.


How is thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence ideological?

Those conversations might not be politically correct in some circles, but that doesn't make them ideological.

At times it seems like any attempt to value other perspectives is inherently dismissed as ideological, but the argument for why that is always seems to boil down to it's ideological because I disagree.

So, what exactly makes some people's rights a political matter?


CRT is a unified system of beliefs with a specific epistemology and with significant political influence. It's not just about thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence. I fundamentaly disagree with it's epistemology. It's conclusions are flawed and ultimately harmful in the real world.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,134
Location: Right over your left shoulder

23 Jan 2023, 4:50 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
They are if they are discussed within the context of an ideology such as Critical Race Theory.


How is thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence ideological?

Those conversations might not be politically correct in some circles, but that doesn't make them ideological.

At times it seems like any attempt to value other perspectives is inherently dismissed as ideological, but the argument for why that is always seems to boil down to it's ideological because I disagree.

So, what exactly makes some people's rights a political matter?


CRT is a unified system of beliefs with a specific epistemology and with significant political influence. It's not just about thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence. I fundamentaly disagree with it's epistemology. It's conclusions are flawed and ultimately harmful in the real world.


How exactly are it's conclusions flawed? I hear this claimed quite often but no one's ever been able to coherently explain where the problems exist.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

23 Jan 2023, 7:31 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
They are if they are discussed within the context of an ideology such as Critical Race Theory.


How is thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence ideological?

Those conversations might not be politically correct in some circles, but that doesn't make them ideological.

At times it seems like any attempt to value other perspectives is inherently dismissed as ideological, but the argument for why that is always seems to boil down to it's ideological because I disagree.

So, what exactly makes some people's rights a political matter?


CRT is a unified system of beliefs with a specific epistemology and with significant political influence. It's not just about thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence. I fundamentaly disagree with it's epistemology. It's conclusions are flawed and ultimately harmful in the real world.


How exactly are it's conclusions flawed? I hear this claimed quite often but no one's ever been able to coherently explain where the problems exist.


Before talking about it's conclusions you should notice it's postmodernist epistemology which denies any objective reality. That means that there is no objective value in things but we assign value as individuals and as a culture. This includes ethics for example, but they also go as far as to label science and scientifically proven theories as a social contract. That to me is madness.



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,495
Location: Outter Quadrant

23 Jan 2023, 8:23 pm

Intended practicality VS misunderstood Microaggression? :roll:


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

24 Jan 2023, 12:34 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
They are if they are discussed within the context of an ideology such as Critical Race Theory.


How is thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence ideological?

Those conversations might not be politically correct in some circles, but that doesn't make them ideological.

At times it seems like any attempt to value other perspectives is inherently dismissed as ideological, but the argument for why that is always seems to boil down to it's ideological because I disagree.

So, what exactly makes some people's rights a political matter?


CRT is a unified system of beliefs with a specific epistemology and with significant political influence. It's not just about thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence. I fundamentaly disagree with it's epistemology. It's conclusions are flawed and ultimately harmful in the real world.


How exactly are it's conclusions flawed? I hear this claimed quite often but no one's ever been able to coherently explain where the problems exist.


I think some people believe there is an "instinctual" memory passed on through the genes.
I believe Nietzsche talked about this in terms of German culture, and Hitler used it to his advantage.
Personally, I think it is all nonsense.
I have no time for "collective guilt". 8)



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,134
Location: Right over your left shoulder

24 Jan 2023, 12:38 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
They are if they are discussed within the context of an ideology such as Critical Race Theory.


How is thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence ideological?

Those conversations might not be politically correct in some circles, but that doesn't make them ideological.

At times it seems like any attempt to value other perspectives is inherently dismissed as ideological, but the argument for why that is always seems to boil down to it's ideological because I disagree.

So, what exactly makes some people's rights a political matter?


CRT is a unified system of beliefs with a specific epistemology and with significant political influence. It's not just about thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence. I fundamentaly disagree with it's epistemology. It's conclusions are flawed and ultimately harmful in the real world.


How exactly are it's conclusions flawed? I hear this claimed quite often but no one's ever been able to coherently explain where the problems exist.


Before talking about it's conclusions you should notice it's postmodernist epistemology which denies any objective reality. That means that there is no objective value in things but we assign value as individuals and as a culture. This includes ethics for example, but they also go as far as to label science and scientifically proven theories as a social contract. That to me is madness.


It's probably worth noting that that criticism is largely only fair for the first wave of Critical Theorists and it's quite the stretch to cite that as a reason for inherently dismissing any conclusions that result from applying Critical Theory.

So but now that we've covered that part, how exactly are it's conclusions flawed?


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,134
Location: Right over your left shoulder

24 Jan 2023, 12:39 am

Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
They are if they are discussed within the context of an ideology such as Critical Race Theory.


How is thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence ideological?

Those conversations might not be politically correct in some circles, but that doesn't make them ideological.

At times it seems like any attempt to value other perspectives is inherently dismissed as ideological, but the argument for why that is always seems to boil down to it's ideological because I disagree.

So, what exactly makes some people's rights a political matter?


CRT is a unified system of beliefs with a specific epistemology and with significant political influence. It's not just about thinking critically about how race can impact one's existence. I fundamentaly disagree with it's epistemology. It's conclusions are flawed and ultimately harmful in the real world.


How exactly are it's conclusions flawed? I hear this claimed quite often but no one's ever been able to coherently explain where the problems exist.


I think some people believe there is an "instinctual" memory passed on through the genes.
I believe Nietzsche talked about this in terms of German culture, and Hitler used it to his advantage.
Personally, I think it is all nonsense.
I have no time for "collective guilt". 8)


It's not that you're not on the same page as the conversation, you're in a different book entirely. :lol:


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
You can't advance to the next level without stomping on a few Koopas.


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

24 Jan 2023, 3:02 am

funeralxempire wrote:

It's probably worth noting that that criticism is largely only fair for the first wave of Critical Theorists and it's quite the stretch to cite that as a reason for inherently dismissing any conclusions that result from applying Critical Theory.

So but now that we've covered that part, how exactly are it's conclusions flawed?


My greatest objection is it's dismissal of the conclusions of scientific research as being biased because the researchers where white males. And since most of scientific progress was achieved by white males, the entire historical scientific body must be biased. Of course that is only when the scientific conclusions are not in line with the ideology. For me this is an automatic big "No".



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

24 Jan 2023, 3:24 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
My greatest objection is it's dismissal of the conclusions of scientific research as being biased because the researchers where white males. And since most of scientific progress was achieved by white males, the entire historical scientific body must be biased. Of course that is only when the scientific conclusions are not in line with the ideology. For me this is an automatic big "No".
The problem is not only scientists but the test subjects, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias

The correct approach to detected biases is not to dismiss everything but to investigate the bias and re-calibrate the results. Yeah, physicist here.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

24 Jan 2023, 3:40 am

magz wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
My greatest objection is it's dismissal of the conclusions of scientific research as being biased because the researchers where white males. And since most of scientific progress was achieved by white males, the entire historical scientific body must be biased. Of course that is only when the scientific conclusions are not in line with the ideology. For me this is an automatic big "No".
The problem is not only scientists but the test subjects, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias

The correct approach to detected biases is not to dismiss everything but to investigate the bias and re-calibrate the results. Yeah, physicist here.


Ok, this seems a reasonable bias. But the idea that the identity of the researcher somehow influences the scientific method, to me that's irrational. And they claim this kind of bias about hard sciences too, not only humanities.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

24 Jan 2023, 4:07 am

The scientific method has been carefully developed to avoid interference between the results and the researcher's disposition.
It's never perfectly implemented but this is the ideal.

Particular experiment results - nearly every result at some moment - might need to be recalibrated because the researchers overlooked their own biases. That still stays perfectly within the scientific method.

A trend to look for groups other than white males and their contribution to the knowledge of the humanity should not threaten science. Our numeral system was invented in India, Algebra is an Arabic invention, people of every ethnicity can contribute to the knowledge of the Humanity and if something is scientifically correct, science accepts it. Science is not "white", even at its historical foundations you'd obviously overlook plenty of Asians and North Africans if you claimed so :lol:
Current investigations on various traditional non-European agriculture methods (i.e. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9321000471 ) are good examples of how indigenous knowledge of various cultures can be integrated into mainstream science.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

24 Jan 2023, 4:30 am

magz wrote:
The scientific method has been carefully developed to avoid interference between the results and the researcher's disposition.
It's never perfectly implemented but this is the ideal.

Particular experiment results - nearly every result at some moment - might need to be recalibrated because the researchers overlooked their own biases. That still stays perfectly within the scientific method.

A trend to look for groups other than white males and their contribution to the knowledge of the humanity should not threaten science. Our numeral system was invented in India, Algebra is an Arabic invention, people of every ethnicity can contribute to the knowledge of the Humanity and if something is scientifically correct, science accepts it. Science is not "white", you'd obviously overlook plenty of West, South and East Asians if you claimed so :lol:
Current investigations on various traditional non-European agriculture methods (i.e. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9321000471 ) are good examples of how indigenous knowledge of various cultures can be integrated into mainstream science.


Other major civilisations have contributed to science as well of course. And it is of great significance. But what the West has achieved the last three centuries is unprecedented advance that has transformed human civilisation in a profound way.