# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/241 "2015-06-16T23:02:03Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. In order for there to be affirmative action without racism, it must be _possible_ to have in any way “affirmative action” without it by definition discriminating on the basis of race against the people who benefit from it. There are a finite number of elite college slots - anything that “prefers” people of a given race by definition also makes it harder for people of other races to get into that school. So, tell me about this non racist affirmative action. I posit that it doesn’t exist - anything that fits the commonly understood definition of the words “affirmative action” is definitely racism. An argument could plausibly be made that it’s not necessarily bad - that a little racism is ok, especially if it is making up for a past wrong - but it’s dishonest to claim it is something other than what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2015, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/242 "2015-06-16T23:50:22Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > . . . So, tell me about this non racist affirmative action. I posit that it doesn’t exist - anything that fits the commonly understood definition of the words “affirmative action” is definitely racism. . . . Basing it upon income would serve many of the same purposes, without having any direct reliance on race. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/243 "2015-06-17T01:10:38Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Maybe I got Wikifieid, but this is what it says of the origin of AA: > > _The term “affirmative action” was first used in the United States in Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”[6] It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take “affirmative action” to “hire without regard to race, religion and national origin”. This prevented employers from discriminating against members of disadvantaged groups. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[7]_ For what it’s worth, I think you’re right. It’s an uncomfortable thing that anybody on my side of this has to address (in some way other than by saying “you’re totally wrong about that”) – the language of the desegregation era does seem very much to support the notion of colorblindness and neutrality, and not an aggressive campaign of what its opponents would call benevolent discrimination. I think I can address it, though. First of all, like I said before, “colorblindness” at the time the idea was invented would have had exactly the same function as pro-black discrimination efforts. What would you have done if you were charged with being super-favorable to black people right after Jim Crow? You would have stripped away all the incredibly racist state policies that were oppressing blacks, which would have looked exactly like forcing color-blindness on everyone. Color-blindness and “strong” affirmative action are identical when society is that racist. Second of all, and probably more persuasive: the same people who made the argument for aggressive anti-discrimination measures specifically supported the active, remedial and color-conscious models. King was one, as you discussed above, but if you take the time to review what the big players of the era had to say about this stuff, they remarkably consistently do NOT say that what they want is to eliminate all race consciousness and just let things play out with some sort of notion of equality of opportunity. What they wanted to do was _fix the problem_. Modern conservatives are fond of quoting bits of Brown v. Board of Education and other cases, and MLK’s speeches, and snippets of statements and oral arguments made by the NAACP and various people, in support of the idea that the goal all along has been true neutrality. But really that was _never_ the goal of any of those people. The goal was always to eradicate the vestiges of racial discrimination, particularly against blacks. The means, at the time, was to stop categorizing people based on race, and so there were lots of arguments and admonitions to the effect of “stop categorizing people based on race!”. But it was always the case, and most of the time it was made explicit but it just went without saying, really, that the reason they wanted that to stop happening, the ends of those arguments and admonitions, was to achieve the purpose of the 14th Amendment, which was to right the wrongs of slavery. So I mean, what I would say is: we started with color-blindness as the first try, and it didn’t get us all the way there. And it’s not a betrayal of what those people were after to keep trying. It’s actually very much what their enemies would want us to do to say that we’re color blind now, so that’s the end of that era. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/244 "2015-06-17T01:19:56Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > In order for there to be affirmative action without racism, it must be _possible_ to have in any way “affirmative action” without it by definition discriminating on the basis of race against the people who benefit from it. There are a finite number of elite college slots - anything that “prefers” people of a given race by definition also makes it harder for people of other races to get into that school. > > So, tell me about this non racist affirmative action. I posit that it doesn’t exist - anything that fits the commonly understood definition of the words “affirmative action” is definitely racism. And since i have noted that Affirmative Action is not limited to simply college admissions and have also noted that I do not support quotas, your straw man is of no interest to me. Posters have now come forward to say that, (despite the lack of previous statements to that effect), they were discussing college admissions. I will accept their declarations. However, I have explicitly noted a different view of Affirmative Action that requires no preferences for any specific group. I have already told you about the non-racist Affirmative Action and if you insist on proclaiming that it must be racist, you simply indicate that you are more interested in polemics than facts. ---
**Author:** ![phantom\_lamb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@phantom\_lamb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phantom_lamb)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/245 "2015-06-17T01:45:59Z")
Sheesh, I used to consider myself a liberal but will have to rethink that definition cause there’s no way I want to be in the same camp as the likes of **Robert163**. I have to unfortunately agree with **Richard Parker**. I am very disappointed in how the left are embracing a bully mentality which isn’t helping anyone, really. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/246 "2015-06-17T02:04:52Z")
Here is Kennedy’s [Executive Order 10925](http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html) that includes several statements beyond “not discriminating.” The one to which I referred is in boldface. It was recognized in the manner I described. As an example, when Richard Gerstenberg became chairman of General Motors, pointing to the Executive Orders, he declared that corporate policy was to include a demonstration by any manager seeking to hire that he (pretty much all “he” at that time), had sought candidates outside traditional channels and had taken affirmative action to seek minority or women applicants. The manager was not required to hire any of those applicants, but he had to demonstrate that he had sought them. > [@](#): > > "(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. **Such action shall include, but not be limited to** , the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; **recruitment or recruitment advertising;** layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/247 "2015-06-17T13:09:56Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Luther King] I am positive, moreover, that the money spent would be more than amply justified by the benefits that would accrue to the nation through a spectacular decline in school dropouts, family breakups, crime rates, illegitimacy, swollen relief rolls, rioting and other social evils. [/QUOTE] He may have been positive, but he was wrong nonetheless. The major urban riots happened after the Civil Rights bill was passed, black illegitimacy is over 75%, and crime rates shot up during the sixties. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/248 "2015-06-17T13:46:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > He may have been positive, but he was wrong nonetheless. The major urban riots happened after the Civil Rights bill was passed, black illegitimacy is over 75%, and crime rates shot up during the sixties. > > Regards, > Shodan I don’t understand. What was he wrong about (and what “money spent” was he referring to)? Are you saying that MLK Jr.'s political-economic preferences and philosophy was instituted? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Understander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3da27b/32.png) [@The\_Understander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Understander)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/249 "2015-06-17T13:48:29Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Basing it upon income would serve many of the same purposes, without having any direct reliance on race. It would indeed. This is the kind of moderate suggestion that tends to be ignored by bomb thrower types, though, not to mention the sensationalist media. For my part, I am unaware of affirmative action supporters that oppose institutions taking income or other standards into account when attempting outreach. ---
**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 17, 2015, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/250 "2015-06-17T13:50:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > He may have been positive, but he was wrong nonetheless. The major urban riots happened after the Civil Rights bill was passed, black illegitimacy is over 75%, and crime rates shot up during the sixties. > > Regards, > Shodan > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t understand. What was he wrong about (and what “money spent” was he referring to)? Are you saying that MLK Jr.'s political-economic preferences and philosophy was instituted? Not only did his economic program not come to pass, we also continued for another couple of decades brutal housing discrimination about which he was largely unaware (that, among other things, de facto segregated many schools nearly as harshly as de jure segregation did). Oh, and then we embarked on a program to lock up one in three black men while simultaneously making the punishments more harsh during and after confinement. I doubt King anticipated Lee Atwater. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/251 "2015-06-17T14:09:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t understand. What was he wrong about… Rioting, crime, and black illegitimacy. > [@](#): > > …and what “money spent” was he referring to? I don’t know what “money spent” King was referring to. I was referring to the “money spent” on the Great Society, which cost a lot more than $50B. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/252 "2015-06-17T14:27:20Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Rioting, crime, and black illegitimacy. Still don’t understand. MLK Jr. says that “the money spent” on something (apparently you don’t know what) would be worth it by reducing dropouts, crime, illegitimacy, etc. How can you say that he was wrong if you don’t know what “money spent” he was talking about (and if it was actually spent)? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/253 "2015-06-17T14:35:11Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It implies that English is superior to other languages. English is superior to all other languages because it is the best language for limericks. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2015, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455/254 "2015-06-18T01:12:50Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > So, you deliberately used the wrong words. > > Fair enough. I can now dismiss your complaint as deliberately distorted rather than mistaken. After a great deal of thought, I’ve decided to toss you a note here for the use of ‘deliberately distorted’. Please don’t question another poster’s truthfulness and intent in the future. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-people-babble-about-microaggressions-their-real-goal-is-censorship/722455.md?page=12)