I readily admit that I struggle with how to articulate my thoughts on these matters but this seems to get at part of it and in reverse is illustrated to some extent by the interaction I had upthread with you with the face who honestly can see nothing wrong or offensive about her telling a specific person what the reason is they feel a specific way particular way in a specific circumstance (must be confidence from years of White privilege) and reacted, to my ear, with the same “Who me? How could anyone be offended by that? I did no crime here!” defensiveness that happens in the other direction.
It is 100% clear that there are innate biases that result in behaviors by members of one or more subgroups that will commonly offend members of various other (often but not exclusively minority) subgroups. We have internalized stereotypes that we cannot help but to possess and we act on them in subtle ways sometimes. Intended to cause offense or not thousands of pebbles can add up to crushing weights.
It is also 100% clear that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
If someone is coming in behind me I will hold the door open for them, male female does not matter. One woman might read my holding a door for her as a sign of my having sexist beliefs and experience offense, even if they say nothing. Should I not hold doors open for people coming in behind me? Only hold them open for men to avoid possibly offending a particular woman?
Well if I learn that a large fraction of women take offense at that then I should stop holding doors open, or maybe only for males. It would simply be the polite thing to do. If it is just a very small number of vocal women then I might just chalk it up to some people are hypersensitive and continue to do that which I believe is polite to most.
And I would take offense at being told my having held open the door was because I possess sexist beliefs that I am not aware of. Labelling it as such would NOT result in me being more likely to change my behavior. Even if someone showed that statistically I was holding doors open more often for women than for men (which mind you I do not believe to be the case).
Point being the behaviors that result in these small but frequent “hurts” may be the result of innate biases/stereotypes or maybe not. But they sting in either case and a gentleperson should make every good faith effort to avoid doing that which offends. Telling someone that their, to them, innocent action was a sign of racist or sexist beliefs, or the result of White privilege, that the person may or may not be aware of, may or may not be accurate in any particular case. In either case it is likely to sting and to offend, and again, it usually good manners to avoid causing offense.
So how to effectively communicate in each direction?
Do you really think this reaction, the one that you quoted, is the reason for the poll numbers this thread is generating - and continues to generate - even after all the argument by passionate supporters here? In short, do you think it is typical of the majority of people who use this website and have read this thread?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, do you think the reason could be that the name - together with some, shall we say, less than judicious examples - demonstrates a certain penchant for over-sensitivity and taking things the wrong way - such as labelling stuff as “aggression” where it clearly isn’t?
I find this funny, since John hasn’t said my response to him was offensive.
If my post was wildly inappropriate and wrong, again, educate me. Show me a better way to get through to yall. How should things be spelled out? Demonstrate what I should I said after white poster after white poster persisted in not seeing why a minority would find it annoying to be asked “where you are REALLY from”?
I’m sorry but there’s only so many times that I can see a white guy say “well shucks, I went to Asia one time and laughed when people stared at my 6’2 self, so what’s the big deal?” That kind of blindness is eventually going to be called out for what it is, and bluntly so. But obviously you think I should have said something else to John. What is it?
The meme is “distractingly sexy”. At some neuroscience level, there’s an enormous flood of signals coming from key regions of a man’s brain when an attractive women is around. It is impossible to turn these signals off. Thus, the “distraction” is unavoidable.
Now, there are many many many inhibitory systems between those signals and the motor neurons controlling movement. Inhibition at any of these stages will prevent the man from physically doing anything. This is why most of the time men don’t rape women.
There is a certain problem with debating about an issue, where the only possible response for one side is, apparently, to “call out” the other “bluntly”.
Are you claiming that logic and evidence simply cannot be used to persuade? That only ad hominum assertions could possibly work?
And if so, is the fault the fact that the other side is so blinded by bigotry they are unaccessible by reason - or that the arguments that you have been using are unpersuasive?
The thing is, the idea that there are a myriad of potentially hurtful things that someone can inadvertently say or do, or do intentionally without being aware of the consequences to the other person are all true.
Where it gets stupid is when people take it to extremes. Not everything is going to accomodate, celebrate or even tolerate everyone’s special snowflakeness. I mean, I’m a big guy and a fat guy(6’1", 297 lbs, 50" chest, 44" waist) and I don’t get butthurt that things aren’t necessarily designed with me in mind, or that people may view me differently. About the only place I do get irritated is if someone deliberately does something to exclude me based on my size or weight.
But a lot of the people involved in this microaggression stuff are taking the position that ANYTHING that puts them out or that makes them feel anything but warm and fuzzy is a microaggression.
WTF does that mean? All the ones I’ve ever seen are race-neutral, and even at that, unless you live somewhere with a large black population, it’s unlikely that the market is going to be there for black-dad cards (whatever those are). It’s not a freaking aggression of any sort, it’s someone over-sensitive getting butthurt about something stupid.
But this works both ways, right? It’s not just women distracting men (and lesbians), but also men distracting women (and gay guys). So it’s not a gender issue, it’s a human issue. And if you’re so distracted you can’t behave professionally at all times, you need to remove yourself from the workforce and get help.
Excluded middle. I’ve used plenty of logic and evidence to persuade in this thread. That was what my analogies to fat women and poor people was designed to do. None of this precludes being blunt too, and it’s debatable that I’ve even been blunt.
Who has been using ad hominems? As threads go, this one has been pretty mild…as I pointed out early on (maybe I should revise this opinion though).
Are you objecting to that word? Then use another that suits your meaning better. Prejudice perhaps?
I interpreted that as “bigotry”. If that is too harsh, then subsitute something else for “this kind of blindness” that you wish to “call out for what it is” and “bluntly so”.
But think on this as you do - if you don’t like “bigotry”, what makes you thing “aggression” is a good term?
Holding doors open for people is a perfect example. Some people will view this as some sexist action, a microagression if you will. Others think this is just normal behavior living in society.
I see people who complain about microagressions the same way I see people who complain about doors being held open. Nothing will change their minds, and doors will continue to be held open.
An ad hominum argument is one that focuses on the identity of the arguer, rather than the content of the argument. It is not, contrary to popular belief, always a fallacy. It’s a type of appeal to authority in reverse.
How is what you said not an ad hom? Your better argument would be that it is not in your case a fallacy - though, given that folks are arguing on a more-or-less anonymous message board, it is hard to escape the impression that arguments based on “calling out” debaters based on assumptions about their identities is likely fallacious. As in "… white poster after white poster persisted in not seeing … ".
As to “complaining about hypersensitivity”, I’m not complaining about it - I’m debating it. Which is proper, I think, given that it is the subject of this thread, no?
Not “wildly inappropriate” and tried to.
Do not hear yourself? Can you not recognize the EXACT parallel between your response and the response of those who are committing multiple daily microaggressions?
No you can’t and I won’t waste time engaging in useless debate.
How about the word I used, which was blindness? It conveys exactly what I mean: a failure to “see” what someone else “sees”. No need to look for a substitution for a perfectly cromulent word.
Can you appreciate the irony here? Even when softer, less provocative language is used, you’re still perceiving abrasiveness. Your reaction lends credence to the position that it isn’t really the terms being used that is the problem. It’s the subject that is inherently prickly.
You’re getting hung up on “bluntly” too. As if suddenly that word is synonymous with “mean” and “angry”, and can’t possibly simply mean “straightforward” and “candid”.
And my focus was on the content of the argument (“I don’t get why Issue X is a problem because I laugh when it happens to me”), not the arguer. So it isn’t an ad hominem.
If you tried, you did so very ineffectively. So try again, please.
Here is what I posted that apparently offended you:
Keeping in mind that I wrote this after John had repeatedly expressed a failure to see why being interrogated about one’s origins might affect a minority differently than him.
Can you reword this paragraph so it gets my point across (that minorities often feel stigmatized and alienated by virtue of their status as minorties; while whites do not as members of the dominant group) without offending white people like yourself?
I’m asking this sincerely, because you’re right: I don’t get why what I said is offensive. Like at all. It’s like pointing out the sky is blue, to me. So I’m truly struggling to see why this would be a controversial statement to anyone who accepts the existence of white privilege.
should make every good faith effort to avoid doing that which offends. Telling someone that their, to them, innocent action was a sign of racist or sexist beliefs, or the result of White privilege, that the person may or may not be aware of, may or may not be accurate in any particular case. In either case it is likely to sting and to offend, and again, it usually good manners to avoid causing offense.