# When people babble about "microaggressions", their real goal is censorship. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455 "2015-06-13T19:56:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/201 "2015-06-15T21:04:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > One is worse than the other but both are sufficiently bad that measuring how bad one is over another is not an exercise worth engaging in. I find that position surprising. But I’m not sure whether what we disagree about is how bad the policies flowing from white supremacy are, or how bad affirmative action is. I would have thought that even critics of affirmative action would find it to be exponentially less pernicious than any of the policies resulting from white supremacy in America. And I thought my rape analogy was a good one. In the same way that racially-differential treatment is the core wrong in both Jim Crow and affirmative action (according to its critics), unconsented sexual contact is the core wrong in both involuntary sexual intercourse and unconsented hand-holding. But the reason many of us object to calling both things rape or sexual assault is that one is just way worse than the other in both the consequences and the motivations. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/202 "2015-06-15T21:16:42Z")
I don’t think the rape analogy is good because unwanted handholding is not on the same spectrum as rape. It is not true to say that unwanted handholding is a lesser form of rape. It would be like comparing rape to a table. It’s not that one is way worse than the other - the two are a difference in kind not a difference in degree. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/203 "2015-06-15T21:25:44Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think the rape analogy is good because unwanted handholding is not on the same spectrum as rape. It is not true to say that unwanted handholding is a lesser form of rape. It would be like comparing rape to a table. It’s not that one is way worse than the other - the two are a difference in kind not a difference in degree. I chose that example because the criminalization of handholding without express consent was in the [news](http://blog.simplejustice.us/2015/05/18/american-law-institutes-stunning-expansion-of-criminalization/) recently, and because it captures both a difference in effect and in motivation. But the point doesn’t really change if you want to choose, say, forcible rape versus a subway groper (although the latter has a bad motivation, even if not as bad, unlike the people who support affirmative action). ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/204 "2015-06-15T21:26:42Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I don’t know where the idea of my trying to redefine anything or win an argument based on a particular definition comes in. I’m trying to avoid that whole mess; you can think whatever word means whatever you like and I think that’s fine. > > If you think you have access to a “majority definition” of the word racist that doesn’t include selecting only actors of a single race, but which doesn’t do that because there’s some component of power dynamics embedded in it, more power to you, but I don’t know where you found it. There’s a language problem going on there. In the case of feminism and women’s situation, we can speak of _patriarchy_, the entrenched social system that specifically oppresses women, placing them under the control of men; and we can speak separately of _sexism_, which is more simply and reducibly the practice of providing different treatment on the basis of sex (or gender). There is no “reverse patriarchy”. Sexism, on the other hands, can be derogatory towards and insulting to males, or towards females, or towards both at the same time for that matter. In the matter of race, we don’t really have a separate term that refers to the social system based on the subjugation of one race by the other. Historically (in the culture of the United States, specifically) it might make very good sense to use “slavery” for the latter, insofar as everything from Jim Crow laws to the lynchings in Mississippi in the 60s to the spate of police killing of black citizens in the 20teens can be viewed as an epiphenomenon of slavery as it was practiced here… just as women’s inequalities and social situation can still be tied to literal patriarchy and hence are called as such by feminists even though the law no longer says a woman is the property of her father until she is the property of her husband. It’s the remaining bones of the same social system, imperfectly or incompletely dismantled and still partially in effect even to this day. But we don’t tend to use “slavery” in that fashion and so instead there’s a semi-successful attempt to modify “racism” to mean the social system based on a specific racism (or specific set of racisms, if you prefer) rather than the simpler unadorned reference to “unequal treatment on the basis of race”. I don’t like the entire “social justice” cohort’s willful determination to speak only in terms of what historically happened and to resist speaking in general terms. Behaviors and attitudes and etc formerly identified as _wrong_ and therefore wrong in the specific instance (such as white realtors doing it to black homeowners) are now described as if their wrongness is an outgrowth of the whiteness or maleness or cisgenderedness or able-bodiedness or western-civness of the wrongdoer. So that all conceivable analyses of what is wrong or right, proper or inappropriate, applause-worthy or hiss-worthy become tied to who is doing them. That’s seriously appalling and politically stupid. The original appeal to universal rational consideration was that (for example) it’s profoundly unfair to permit some people to drink in public taverns but arrest others for doing the same thing in the same place on the basis of sex or race or whatever. If we cease to ground our arguments in an original appeal for fairness, and instead anchor everything in the relativistic consideration of whose categorical historical role in past oppressions makes their actions OK or not, it won’t take a full generation before a majority perceive it as no more than bickering with no high ground under anyone’s feet. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/205 "2015-06-15T22:05:38Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > But the point doesn’t really change if you want to choose, say, forcible rape versus a subway groper (although the latter has a bad motivation, even if not as bad, unlike the people who support affirmative action). This suffers from the same thing if you are analogizing rape with groping. This is a difference in kind not degree. Comparing unwanted groping to rape devalues the term rape. Rape by definition involves penetration. A better example would be penile rape vs rape with a foreign object. Both are horrible enough that I can condemn both without engaging the discussion of which is worse. Granted historical examples of overt racist practices are not nearly as severe as AA, but that is a difference in degree, not in kind. One key difference is that the historical institutional racism of the past is gone in this country. We still do have AA though, and of course, microaggressions are a new way for people to feel victimized. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/206 "2015-06-15T22:08:41Z")
**Bone** : You realize, don’t you, that AA is a very amorphous term and can apply to all sorts of activities, starting with simple outreach programs. I’m really at a loss how you can throw every aspect of AA into the “racist” bin. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/207 "2015-06-15T22:14:30Z")
Hmm. I am being too imprecise. When I refer to AA I am specifically talking about quota based hiring and admission, or those policies that use race as a criteria to weight hiring or admission. For example, when applying for college back in the day to the UC system, the Asian folks knew to not disclose they were Asian because it would make admission harder for them because the UC system employed racist admission practices. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/208 "2015-06-15T22:25:06Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > And what about his statement makes you think he cares even 1% about the problems that AA is trying to fix? What about his statement leads you to conclude he isn’t enthusiastically supportive of AA? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/209 "2015-06-15T22:38:46Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This suffers from the same thing if you are analogizing rape with groping. This is a difference in kind not degree. > > Comparing unwanted groping to rape devalues the term rape. Rape by definition involves penetration. > > A better example would be penile rape vs rape with a foreign object. Both are horrible enough that I can condemn both without engaging the discussion of which is worse. > > Granted historical examples of overt racist practices are not nearly as severe as AA, but that is a difference in degree, not in kind. One key difference is that the historical institutional racism of the past is gone in this country. We still do have AA though, and of course, microaggressions are a new way for people to feel victimized. I see now. I disagree with a lot of your factual premises that cause you to think white supremacy is similar to AA. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/210 "2015-06-15T22:39:27Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > And this is where nonsense takes you. > > Affirmative action by it’s very definition is racist. It can’t be otherwise. It is discrimination whichever way you slice it but both those statements are utterly neutral. > The knee-jerk reaction to having that fact merely stated does the debate no good at all and allowing such statements to be punished as “micro-aggressions” is idiotic. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > AA is racial discrimination, surely. But American leftists generally reserve the term “racist” for policies that further white supremacy > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > For the sake of clarity I’d be happy instead to say that “AA is racially discriminatory” but I suspect those wanting to be offended will find reason enough in whatever term is used. Not one of these claims about Affirmative Action are accurate. They can be accurate when AA is reduced to favoring one race via quotas. However, there is more to AA than college admission quotas and any broad claim that AA is racist is dumb. On the most basic level, it ignores that fact that a substantial portion of AA–even when poorly implemented using quotas–is based on sex, not race. On the more specific level, it ignores the ways in which AA has been implemented that do not involve quotas or any other preference for either race or sex. Labeling AA “racist” is simply a lazy way to put a negative label on it so that even when it is neither racist nor sexist, it comes with a scarlet letter that one may hang around the neck of those served, (while allowing racists to continue to go their merry ways because they are claiming to be anti-racist by opposing AA). AA can be racist. Any claim that it is always racist appears to demonstrate a desire to ignore facts. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/211 "2015-06-15T22:45:51Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Granted historical examples of overt racist practices are not nearly as severe as AA, but that is a difference in degree, not in kind. Doh. This is supposed to be, “Granted historical examples of overt racist practices were much more severe than AA …” Screwed that one up. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/212 "2015-06-15T22:58:20Z")
Micro aggressions suffers from the same problem as white privilege. The terminology leads to more arguments than to solution finding. Aggression - makes it sound like I meant to exclude or insult you. Using a gender specific term to someone who prefers none, referencing 3rd world development challenges and unintentionally making a student from the 3rd world feel devalued. This has been in the news thanks to a New York Times bit: > **[Opinion | In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas (Published 2015)](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0)** > > Universities, rather than being forums for free expression, are encouraging “safe spaces” to protect delicate sensibilities. However, this concept has been around for a long time. [http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/\_files/seminars/Article\_Campus\_Racial\_Climate\_for\_Latinos.pdf](http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Article_Campus_Racial_Climate_for_Latinos.pdf) > [@](#): > > Chester Pierce, a professor of psychiatry and education at Harvard, first introduced > microaggressions in 1969 in referring to incessant “offensive mecha- > nisms” aimed at Blacks on a daily basis and “which are designed to reduce, > dilute, atomize, and encase the hapless into his ‘place.’ The incessant lesson > the black must hear is that he is insignificant and irrelevant” (Pierce, 1969, p. > 303). The terms and concepts have been used for awhile: > [@](#): > > One significant study, by Daniel Solórzano > (1998), documents microaggressions endured by Chicana/o scholars as > stunning “acts of disregard” that included nonverbal gestures, stereotypical > assumptions, lowered expectations, and racially assaultive remarks, such as: > “You’re not like the rest of them. You’re different.” > “I don’t think of you as a Mexican.” > “You speak such good English.” > “But you speak without an accent.” (p. 125) I would argue that this goes towards class as well - I was the target of some of this due to a low SES standing, though I was a white male. It made me angry (hell, still does). I usually just called people out on it though, a nature of my personality (and no doubt I was comfortable pushing back thanks to some undefined amount of white privilege). Which then brings me full circle. Is telling a poor white kid to “check their privilege” a form of microaggression? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2015, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/213 "2015-06-15T23:55:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Not one of these claims about Affirmative Action are accurate. They can be accurate when AA is reduced to favoring one race via quotas. However, there is more to AA than college admission quotas and any broad claim that AA is racist is dumb. > > On the most basic level, it ignores that fact that a substantial portion of AA–even when poorly implemented using quotas–is based on sex, not race. > On the more specific level, it ignores the ways in which AA has been implemented that do not involve quotas or any other preference for either race or sex. > Labeling AA “racist” is simply a lazy way to put a negative label on it so that even when it is neither racist nor sexist, it comes with a scarlet letter that one may hang around the neck of those served, (while allowing racists to continue to go their merry ways because they are claiming to be anti-racist by opposing AA). > > AA can be racist. Any claim that it is always racist appears to demonstrate a desire to ignore facts. I could be wrong, but I think everyone understood by context that the AA under discussion was programs designed to prefer students or candidates on the basis of race. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/214 "2015-06-16T00:22:36Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I could be wrong, but I think everyone understood by context that the AA under discussion was programs designed to prefer students or candidates on the basis of race. The problem with that, of course, is that the unqualified statements sit there promoting a belief that is not accurate. We have had posters argue that all AA must be racist. As long as such posts are submitted without qualification, they are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/215 "2015-06-16T00:30:34Z")
That’s not how language works. Meaning if often context-dependent. It is not necessary to include qualifications when those qualifications are clear from the surrounding posts. In a thread about stuffed animals, it is not necessary for me to clarify that the bears stuffed with polyester are teddy bears and not grizzly bears. The posts only “promote a belief that’s inaccurate” if people misread them. But, of course, that’s the case with most posts or language of any kind. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/216 "2015-06-16T00:50:11Z")
For further information, here is the faculty training from the University of California: [http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/programs-and-initiatives/faculty-diversity-initiatives/faculty-leadership-seminars.html](http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/programs-and-initiatives/faculty-diversity-initiatives/faculty-leadership-seminars.html) > [@](#): > > Providing interactive seminars, tools, and resources to broaden faculty leaders’ capacity to support faculty diversity and enhance department and campus climate toward inclusive excellence, this effort is funded by President Janet Napolitano’s Presidential Initiatives under the President’s Post-Doctoral Fellowship Program. > > Seminar goals: > > Help participants gain a better understanding of implicit bias and microaggressions and their impact on departmental/school climate; > Increase participants’ effectiveness at recognizing and interrupting/addressing microaggressions when they occur; > Discuss tools and strategies for developing an inclusive departmental/school climate. [http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/\_files/seminars/Tool\_Recognizing\_Microaggressions.pdf](http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/217 "2015-06-16T01:34:07Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > For further information, here is the faculty training from the University of California: > > [http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/programs-and-initiatives/faculty-diversity-initiatives/faculty-leadership-seminars.html](http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/programs-and-initiatives/faculty-diversity-initiatives/faculty-leadership-seminars.html) > > [http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/\_files/seminars/Tool\_Recognizing\_Microaggressions.pdf](http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf) Thanks for these posts, by the way–interesting background stuff. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/218 "2015-06-16T01:42:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That’s not how language works. Meaning if often context-dependent. It is not necessary to include qualifications when those qualifications are clear from the surrounding posts. In a thread about stuffed animals, it is not necessary for me to clarify that the bears stuffed with polyester are teddy bears and not grizzly bears. > > The posts only “promote a belief that’s inaccurate” if people misread them. But, of course, that’s the case with most posts or language of any kind. And where, in this thread, was there a specific declaration that “Affirmative Action” was only referring to college entrance protocols? The three posts I quoted certainly made no distinction regarding the type of AA being condemned. Yes, the thread began with a discussion of the actions of a student government, but there has been no serious discussion of college admissions in this thread; the context you are inferring does not seem to be there. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/219 "2015-06-16T02:41:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And where, in this thread, was there a specific declaration that “Affirmative Action” was only referring to college entrance protocols? The three posts I quoted certainly made no distinction regarding the type of AA being condemned. Yes, the thread began with a discussion of the actions of a student government, but there has been no serious discussion of college admissions in this thread; the context you are inferring does not seem to be there. I realized this in post #207 after \*\*John \*\*pointed it out. I understood the discussion that \*\*RP \*\*and I were having in the context that he is describing and made that explicit with #207. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/220 "2015-06-16T02:44:21Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Which then brings me full circle. Is telling a poor white kid to “check their privilege” a form of microaggression? I would say that “check your privilege” is worse than microagression. The vast majority of the microagressions are not _intended_ to be hurtful. More often than not they are even meant as a compliment. “Check your privilege”, as used, means “shut up, you have no right to speak!”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455.md?page=12)