|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 25, 2017 11:21:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 25, 2017 11:50:04 GMT -5
So if you have social anxiety, you're a racist.
Would it be offensive if I met someone who had an Italian last name ending in a vowel and I say, "Ah, a fellow paesano" or am I excused from that because I have a vowel at the end of my last name too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 12:02:19 GMT -5
Heh. I'm actually often uncomfortable with strangers making eye contact if they aren't actually being introduced to me or have some reason to greet me (e.g., cashier at Starbucks has a reason to make eye contact; stranger on subway does not). Particularly if they are male, and particularly if they hold the eye contact.
Now. If you are introduced to someone and avoid eye contact, that feels odd and off. But it's often shyness or social awkwardness, not a microaggression. So I completely and totally disagree on the eye-contact thing.
That said, it IS a problem if someone does make eye contact in social/business situations with others of their race or gender, but not with those who aren't. I had a male superior, long ago, who made eye contact with my male colleagues in our work group, but not with me. It felt very slighting indeed. But that was because he clearly made a difference (one my male colleagues noticed) between me (the only woman) and the men.
I do think jokes that relate to nationality, accent, etc. should absolutely be avoided (unless perhaps you are with very good friends whom you know will not take offense). And it's usually a bad idea to do the "where are you from? I mean, originally." My last name is Hispanic, as many of you know. And ALL THE TIME I get people assuming I'm from Mexico or Puerto Rico "originally." It's really fucking annoying. I don't even get what purpose the question serves. Aren't there a billion suitable topics on which one can make casual conversation without asking personal questions?
Derail/ Of course, I prefer those questions to "do you dye your hair?" "is that your real eye color?" and "have you had 'work' (e.g., plastic surgery) done?" And believe it or not, I've been asked all of those questions in social situations. I find such questions astonishingly rude in general, and particularly if asked in front of a group. If the answer were yes, there's a good chance I wouldn't want to discuss it in front of an entire party. /End derail
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 25, 2017 12:06:23 GMT -5
Well, certainly those ?'s of if you're from Mexico will die off in a few years, once you show you weren't deported and nobody built a fence around you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 25, 2017 12:52:53 GMT -5
A lot of "microaggressions" are in fact pretty rude. The Asian-American friends I had in school got the "Where are you from?" (or, more blatantly, "What kind of Asian are you?") all the time, and I can certainly understand how hearing that for the thousandth time might make someone snap. So while I loathe the term (and the ever-expanding definition of it), I am sympathetic to the original intent behind the concept of "microaggressions." Small things that most people wouldn't think about, or would at worst consider a little rude, but don't see why it's such a big deal, but to certain affected groups, can become a big deal when you have to put up with them all the time.
That said, this is an example of "microaggression theory" out of control. Lacking context. If I am deliberately avoiding eye contact with you because I don't like "people like you," okay, that might be racist. Or maybe I am just socially awkward. Or maybe I have been taught (ironically, this actually was a lesson way back in my teaching days) that in some cultures it is rude/aggressive to make direct eye contact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 13:09:19 GMT -5
You're really fucked when it comes to the NYC subway. Most of us look down or stare off at the advertisements. When someone makes eye contact, it tends to feel uncomfortable. And some will take offense, however fleeting and unintentional it is -- had a crazy guy scream at me once "who the fuck you staring at, bitch?" when my eyes glanced past him. Since random strangers have been assaulted, stabbed, and slashed for just such petty offenses...yeah. It's better as a general rule to avoid eye contact with strangers.
I think I have the closest thing to a solution in my previous post -- if the person makes eye contact with those of the same sex/race/whatever, but not with others in the same context (and we're talking a social/business context and not total strangers) then it is a microaggression and it is rude. (Like Amadan, I get the concept of microaggressions and am sympathetic to the intent, but I think sometimes people use it to encompass stuff that's simply social awkwardness, inadvertence, cultural differences, etc.)
That said, I am more likely to make eye contact with a female stranger than with a male stranger because she is less likely to interpret it as a sexual come on. Alas, there is a substantial class of male humans who assume any gesture, however fleeting and absent-minded, by a female, is a sexual come-on. Sue me.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 25, 2017 15:29:27 GMT -5
Sigh. This is one of those stories/threads which are pretty much a discussion board's version of click bait. Someone throws up a post about something which compels others to shake their heads in wonder and wag their fingers with disdain. But throwing up a post and a link doesn't mean anyone is going to follow and read the link. I made the effort. This is from the BBC link: And this is from The Huffington Post's UK edition:
My brother-in-law is autistic and in the entire time I've known him, he's never looked me in the eye. Now I was accounting that to his being autistic, but now I guess he's just racist. What I did find more interesting than the actual story was the spin to the story. Google "no eye contact racist" and this sends you to the National Review, The Blaze, The Telegraph U.K., World News Daily, The College Fix, The Washington Times and The Daily Caller among many conservative-to-far-Right sites collectively losing their shit over this latest example of politically correct pearl clutching exposing the flabbiness of diversity and inclusion ideas. Oddly enough, so far the only site to even mention the "autistic staff and students" was the HuffPo. Isn't that weird? If it's autistic people most likely to be targeted by the pronouncement from Oxford U's Equality and Diversity unit and not presumably conservative students and staff, how did that important little fact get omitted? A cynical mind might say, "Because it doesn't fit the prevailing narrative that tickles the reactionary G-Spot of those predisposed to roll their eyes and mock ideas of equality and diversity because its garbage and deserves only merciless mockery." However, I'm more of a skeptic than a cynic, and skeptically most people aren't going to make the effort to go deeper.  They'll just react. That takes no effort at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 25, 2017 21:19:51 GMT -5
Your post is the first one I've seen mention any stories about autism. It seems that the HuffPo story might be the only major one extrapolating that conclusion, but I agree that it's a stupid and reckless conclusion for them to draw. However, nothing else in your post does anything to demonstrate that the actual story isn't ridiculous and totally worthy of mockery or that other outlets reporting it have gotten it wrong in any substantial way. The major narratives surrounding so-called "microaggressions" are mostly total bullshit anyway, and are likely (if not outright demonstrably) socio-culturally harmful, so Oxford's E&D office issuing such an absurd assertion/recommendation (that lack of eye-contact is an example of "everyday racism") that is based on these false narratives is the equivalent of your example of someone reacting to a fake headline without actually doing their homework. Actually, it's a lot worse. |
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 26, 2017 12:38:21 GMT -5
Your post is the first one I've seen mention any stories about autism. It seems that the HuffPo story might be the only major one extrapolating that conclusion, but I agree that it's a stupid and reckless conclusion for them to draw. However, nothing else in your post does anything to demonstrate that the actual story isn't ridiculous and totally worthy of mockery or that other outlets reporting it have gotten it wrong in any substantial way. Whether the actual story is "ridiculous and totally worthy of mockery" is purely in the eye of the beholder. To my mind, it's a total non-story, but others are free to regard it differently. However, whether other, more conservative outlets have gotten it wrong, the omission of the part about autistic students and staff is getting it wrong in a substantial way. Whether the omission was deliberate and purposeful, I'm not in the position to say. As a former newspaper editor, my opinion is that is a key fact to withhold. It's not the job of a journalist to tell the reader what to think. It's the job of a journalist to provide the facts to help the reader think. I'm not entirely sure that's what we have here. With all due respect to Scott O. Lillenfeld and Jason Manning, I don't consider two White academics the go-to experts to determine whether or not microaggressions are "mostly total bullshit." The experts on microaggressions are the people who are on the receiving end of them. Higher education has its own special problems with microaggression.I don't have a lot of empathy for "safe zones" and "triggering" and all of that kind of stuff. For me it's more about treating others with respect and addressing them as normal and ordinary people instead of their outward appearance, race, gender, sexual orientation or things like that exacerbate divisions and stereotyping instead of lessening them. This can be done without silencing, shaming and intimidating the microaggressor. But to do so both sides have to park the privilege. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 26, 2017 12:45:30 GMT -5
With all due respect to Scott O. Lillenfeld and Jason Manning, I don't consider two White academics the go-to experts to determine whether or not microaggressions are "mostly total bullshit." The experts on microaggressions are the people who are on the receiving end of them. So a BuzzFeed article is more legitimate than peer-reviewed academics, because the peer-reviewed academics are white? People are experts on what they personally feel. It does not follow that "microaggression theory" is valid or useful because a lot of people feel they are microaggressed. Saying that "microaggression theory is bullshit" does not mean that people are not subject to hurtful slights on a daily basis and that society should work on being aware of and reducing those slights. But that isn't what advocates of microaggression theory are advocating. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 26, 2017 14:12:01 GMT -5
With all due respect to Scott O. Lillenfeld and Jason Manning, I don't consider two White academics the go-to experts to determine whether or not microaggressions are "mostly total bullshit." The experts on microaggressions are the people who are on the receiving end of them. Dismissing someone's ideas because of their race is racist. A person's ideas should be evaluated based on the merit of those ideas based on the evidence. A person's immutable characteristics have no bearing on the validity of their ideas and evidence-based claims. Scott Lillienfeld is a highly-regarded expert in the field. Neither your nor anyone at Buzzfeed can claim the same. Also, I said that the "major narratives surrounding so-called "microaggressions" are mostly total bullshit." I didn't dismiss the idea of microaggressions in its entirety. You really need to take care to read things more carefully, because you do this often; don't carefully read what someone actually said and then you strawman their position. Just as you often whine that people who aren't journalists have no place casting judgement on media issues, your evaluation of science is equally amateurish and holds no weight and your dismissal of peer-reviewed science because one scientist is Jewish and one is white is, ipso facto, racist. One of the major problems with microaggression theory (as pointed out in actual published science and not some opinion piece by a random blogger), and one of the main reasons it falls apart under critical scrutiny, is the assumption that microaggressions are mostly intentional, thus "targeted" at someone. They generally are not. They are often the product of irrational, hyperbolic, biased perceptions on the part of the recipient, not malevolent intentions from the other person. There are, of course, racists out there who say and do racist things. But they are usually macro about their racism, not micro. I notice that the author doesn't bother to cite one shred of evidence for his assertions and the creative-fiction-like narrative he's manufactured about microaggressions. However, given that there's been quite a bit more discussion and scientific research into microaggressions since he posted his opinion piece two years ago, I'm still going to give more intellectual weight to actual peer-reviewed scientific evidence from actual highly respected scientists than I feel like giving to a mostly unknown internet blogger with only an undergrad degree in politics. You'll notice that, unlike you, I don't dismiss his claims for a racist reason like you did (i.e., skin color). I dismiss his claims because he provided no evidence and is grossly academically unqualified. On this point, we at least mostly agree. When dealing with new people, I think the best course of action is to approach them by first assuming good intentions and giving people the benefit of the doubt. Microaggression Theory does the exact opposite, which is why I feel that it is harmful garbage. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 26, 2017 17:26:50 GMT -5
Dismissing someone's ideas because of their race is racist. I didn't read Ohio's post that way. He said, he wouldn't consider them the go-to experts (as opposed to dismissing them) and their "Whiteness" had to do with their lack of lived experience. The writer of the BuzzFeed article was a person of color, who had also interviewed people of color. In the same way as if some academic paper by a man/men found that [insert topic on a woman's issue] was really not usually valid, and so women should stop complaining about it, I would not consider them the go-to expert just because they were in academia and they'd "researched" it. One of the basic parts of the definition of a microagression, everywhere I've checked, is that it is often unintentional. The whole concept of microagressions is supposed to be about educating people. It's wrong to attack people for things they're unaware of. However, when they double-down and insist that because they didn't mean anything bad, no change of behavior is necessary, well, that can be frustrating. Because everyone continuing in the same behaviors because "they don't mean anything bad" results in... microagressions. But yeah, where microagressions are assumed to be intentional, and where people are attacked straight out, it's extremely unhelpful and widens the chasm, for sure. (I don't see that happening by and large; though there is certainly a subset of people who have kind of missed the point of everything and prefer to be offended wherever possible.) All that said, I don't see anything wrong with the OP. It was to teachers in regard to their students. It was in a newsletter. Make eye-contact; it makes people feel seen. Not making eye contact might make them feel disregarded. That makes sense to me. What is the big deal? |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Apr 26, 2017 18:59:07 GMT -5
In the same way as if some academic paper by a man/men found that [insert topic on a woman's issue] was really not usually valid, and so women should stop complaining about it, I would not consider them the go-to expert just because they were in academia and they'd "researched" it. To me, that's still an incredibly biased way of evaluating a person's claims. I can understand the initial visceral reaction for emotionally-charged issues, but reason should eventually prevail for important issues/topics. Ultimately, whether the researcher is a man should not matter; what matters is whether or not the evidence he provides supports the validity of his assertions. If you read his paper and it's obvious that he has a sexist agenda, and is misrepresenting findings and/or manipulating data, then it's reasonable to dismiss his argument. NOT because he's a man, but because he's a sexist (lots of men are not sexist, after all) and shitty at his job. But, summarily dismissing or otherwise ignoring his paper simply because he's a man and it's a topic that involves women is intellectually myopic and is an attitude that, if pervasive, is potentially damaging to society. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that it's true. And, to be fair, just because someone claims something in one scientific paper doesn't mean that it's true either. I see what you're saying and after considering what you and Ohio have said here, I've softened my view of this just a bit. I still object to the idea that avoiding eye-contact is ipso facto "everyday racism," but I can also see how it could be perceived negatively by students if it's done on a consistent basis by an instructor. But, that's the rub; it'd have to be done consistently. If it's just a one-off incident, and the student takes great offense to it, then they're likely being oversensitive and should just fuck off. However, as a college instructor, I also know that sometimes there are times when an instructor has good reason to avoid eye contact with a student. But if there is a pattern of that instructor doing that only with students from a particular group, then I agree there might be an issue of prejudice there. |
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Apr 27, 2017 11:30:44 GMT -5
Dismissing someone's ideas because of their race is racist. I'm dismissing the idea White men are experts on microaggressions. How fortunate then I'm not dismissing Lillenfeld's expertise in the field. Whatever field that may be. I guess I'll accept your statement of how "highly-regarded" he is. I've never heard of the dude and as you didn't mention him until I did, I question how highly-regarded he really is. Christy already pointed out what it was about the Buzzfeed story that made it meritorious. Which naturally you whiffed on entirely in your reactionary zeal to scream "racist!" I emphasized this part because it'll mean something more in about 3...2...1... ...and we have lift off!  There's this thing you do often, Opty, where you project upon others the bad behavior you revel in yourself. This is one particularity egregious example. Allow me to deconstruct in reverse order. "... your dismissal of peer-reviewed science because one scientist is Jewish and one is white is, ipso facto, racist." There you go again. Everything revolves around how fast you can pull the trigger and yell, "RACIST!" For those of whom read before they go running off at the mouth, the actual facts of the matter belie your hysterical bleating. I never said I'm dismissing Lillenfeld and Manning because they were White. I said and I quote: I don't consider two White academics the go-to experts to determine whether or not microaggressions are "mostly total bullshit." The experts on microaggressions are the people who are on the receiving end of them.
Don't see anything in there where I dismissed either one for being Jewish. That's you projecting your own bullshit. It doesn't matter to me how many degrees or books or scientific peer-reviewed journals these two gentlemen have written. I really don't care about that. Possessing a lot of degrees and attaboys for well-reviewed research means fuck-all to me when White men aren't on the receiving end of the microagressions they are writing about. All the citations and certifications in the world can't change the immutable fact of White males more likely will be the perpetrators of microagressions belittling, embarrassing, humiliating and demeaning people of color than they ever will be the recipients. Now this may come as a shock to you Opty, but White men aren't the experts on everything. They really aren't. "... your evaluation of science is equally amateurish and holds no weight..." Yeah, that's just you trying to insult me and I don't care about that. Change "science" to "journalism" and right back at ya, pal. "... you often whine that people who aren't journalists have no place casting judgement on media issues..." I don't whine. Little kids with skinned knees after falling off their bikes and hungry dogs looking for table scraps whine. What I do is point out people who aren't journalists ( that's you) have no place casting judgment when they don't know what the fuck they are talking about. I'm not a college instructor or an attorney or a doctor, though some here are. which means while I may have an opinion on college instructors, attorneys and doctors and whatever the topic is relating to those professions, those in the profession are the experts, not me. While I'm entitled to my opinion on anything, I'm not an authority on everything. Ipso facto: If I want to know how a college instructor handles adverting eye contact with a student, I won't go to you. When you want to know how to drill down past a screaming headline to get to the real deal about a news story, don't come to me. We'll both be happier that way. And now we've reached the Whitesplaining portion of our show. Bor-ing!  I notice you didn't bother to cite one shred of evidence against the author's assertion. You just sniped at his academic achievements. Were you this hyped about the "intellectual weight to actual peer-reviewed scientific evidence from actual highly respected scientists" when the discussion was about The Bell Curve? In my memory you were remarkably silent about that, which I enjoyed immensely. Your silence, not The Bell Curve. I noticed you provided no evidence his claims are off-target beyond your own admitted biases where you called microaggressions "bullshit." By the way, how do you know the author is "grossly academically unqualified?" You take a peek at his transcript? Oh well then, fuck it. I changed my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 27, 2017 15:59:35 GMT -5
In the same way as if some academic paper by a man/men found that [insert topic on a woman's issue] was really not usually valid, and so women should stop complaining about it, I would not consider them the go-to expert just because they were in academia and they'd "researched" it. To me, that's still an incredibly biased way of evaluating a person's claims. I can understand the initial visceral reaction for emotionally-charged issues, but reason should eventually prevail for important issues/topics. Ultimately, whether the researcher is a man should not matter; what matters is whether or not the evidence he provides supports the validity of his assertions. If you read his paper and it's obvious that he has a sexist agenda, and is misrepresenting findings and/or manipulating data, then it's reasonable to dismiss his argument. NOT because he's a man, but because he's a sexist (lots of men are not sexist, after all) and shitty at his job. But, summarily dismissing or otherwise ignoring his paper simply because he's a man and it's a topic that involves women is intellectually myopic and is an attitude that, if pervasive, is potentially damaging to society. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that it's true. And, to be fair, just because someone claims something in one scientific paper doesn't mean that it's true either. Just to be clear (and to repeat myself ) I would not summarily dismiss a study on a women's issue just because it was written by a man. I would read it. I would consider it. However, it could also be that I would deem their conclusions or assumptions erroneous, perhaps due to lacking in experiential knowledge on the matter. Yes, I want facts, and the data may well be peer-reviewed fact; the conclusions, assumptions, and opinions, not so much. For example, to riff off the whole-Chelsea-Clinton-not-wanting-to-be-interrupted scenario: let's a say a man does a study on women in boardroom meetings being interrupted. The data indicate that only about half of women are interrupted. The data further indicates that the more likely a woman is to protest against such interruptions, the less likely she is to be promoted, or even liked by her colleagues. I wouldn't dispute the data. But let's then say, that the male researcher concludes that women protesting against interruptions is harmful for their careers, and for the advancement of women in general; it doesn't happen often enough to indicate it's really due to sexism; and women who are interrupted should not make such a big deal out of it. I would dispute those conclusions, and I would not be able to help but think, because this researcher was a man that he was not only not factoring the other negative aspects to women (present and future) of being interrupted (how that might affect their confidence, job performance, self-esteem, the confidence of others in them as capable, strong leaders, etc.) but also taking a very narrow view of what the solution should be. Sometimes not having experienced a thing can create biases and/or blind spots that people are incapable of seeing or accounting for. That's not an indictment; it's just human nature. (And to be fair, sometimes having experienced a thing can create biases and blindspots...which is another good reason to never summarily dismiss anything.  ) If a woman researcher had made those same conclusions, I would wonder if she'd had any personal experience with being interrupted too. If she claimed she had, I'd then say that conclusion was fine for her, if that was the way she personally chose to deal with it (along with any other women who choose to deal with it that way) but I would still disagree that "research indicates women protesting against interruptions is harmful to women." |
|
They'll just react. That takes no effort at all. 
)