• UC system has fallen to Microaggressions
    70 replies, posted
[QUOTE=.Lain;47925965]really cool seeing people get blinded by hatred and spout 'PC' without thinking political correctness is such a vague term. i hate to say it, but it has become an utter buzzword within groups like /pol/ and internet discussions. and people have just taken to using it for any old thing that annoys them about societal progress or a lack thereof it doesn't demonstrate any understanding of who you're criticizing, at all[/QUOTE] FP has become so amazingly reactionary in the past few years. I just don't get it. The forum seems to hate SJWs more than it does racists. Xenophobic, bigoted and misogynistic posts regularly fill pages and gather tons of positive ratings. People saying things vaguely progressive are regularly called SJWs. Gun rights is seen as the most important thing in America, as is the elimination of anything deemed PC, while at the same time, posters also list legalizing pot and gay marriage at the top of what they demand from their governments. It's an amazingly odd mishmash of the most terrible parts of conservatism (sans guns rights, neutral on that one) and mainstream liberalism. It's brogressive but even more hypocritical.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;47926012]First time I hear it too. Apparently it's "unintended discrimination". [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory[/url][/QUOTE] Seems like a lot of this would be completely impossible to avoid in day-to-day situations because of how different everyone's life experiences have been. I guess that's why there are books about it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47925994]I don't even know what microaggressions actually are but I assume it's related to dogwhistle racism/sexism/etc? Little statements or actions that are totally innocent at face value but that take on a whole different meaning when someone uses them with an attempt to disparage?[/QUOTE] Wikipedia has one example: [quote]One famous example of a race-related microaggression happened when during the 2008 US democratic presidential primaries Joe Biden described Barack Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Sue wrote that while on the surface Biden's comment sounded like praise, the message heard by African-Americans was "Obama is an exception. Most Blacks are unintelligent, inarticulate, dirty and unattractive."[/quote] It's stuff that is innocent at face value but in context can be considered disparaging. Like the phrase 'Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough' is innocent enough on its own, but if you're saying that directly in response to minorities discussing discrimination, you're effectively saying their complaints are illegitimate and if they're not succeeding it's because they're not working hard enough. The fact that it is heavily dependent on context means that it's real easy for someone to be overly aggressive about labeling innocent expressions microaggressions, and equally easy for someone to cherry-pick examples, pluck them out of context, and complain about political correctness.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47926018]FP has become so amazingly reactionary in the past few years. I just don't get it. The forum seems to hate SJWs more than it does racists. Xenophobic, bigoted and misogynistic posts regularly fill pages and gather tons of positive ratings. People saying things vaguely progressive are regularly called SJWs. Gun rights is seen as the most important thing in America, as is the elimination of anything deemed PC, while at the same time, posters also list legalizing pot and gay marriage at the top of what they demand from their governments. It's an amazingly odd mishmash of the most terrible parts of conservatism (sans guns rights, neutral on that one) and mainstream liberalism. It's brogressive but even more hypocritical.[/QUOTE] Don't be PC now.
It is now safe to turn off your PC
[QUOTE=catbarf;47926043]Wikipedia has one example: It's stuff that is innocent at face value but in context can be considered disparaging. Like the phrase 'Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough' is innocent enough on its own, but if you're saying that directly in response to minorities discussing discrimination, you're effectively saying their complaints are illegitimate and if they're not succeeding it's because they're not working hard enough. The fact that it is heavily dependent on context means that it's real easy for someone to be overly aggressive about labeling innocent expressions microaggressions, and equally easy for someone to cherry-pick examples, pluck them out of context, and complain about political correctness.[/QUOTE] Even then though, the problem isn't the words being used. The problem is the context they're said in. Any phrase can offend if said in the wrong context. "It's a beautiful day" would be an unwise thing to say to someone who had just had their eyes gouged out. Discouraging the use of the phrase "It's a beautiful day" isn't going to make the situation any better.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;47926012]First time I hear it too. Apparently it's "unintended discrimination". [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression_theory[/url][/QUOTE] Fighting against "microaggresions" sounds a lot more important than fighting against "slightly oversimple platitudes."
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47925685]Where does that PDF say that anything has been banned, it just looks like they're listing examples of something. Is this just another case of a conservative website finding something completely banal and exploding it for clicks, and then FP falling for it[/QUOTE] Did you read the article? It doesn't say the phrases were banned. The closest it comes that is saying that some phrases were deemed unacceptable, I don't see that as being far from the truth of the situation. Is this just another case of liberals on facepunch responding to strawmen of conservative points?
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;47925215]UCR doesn't really care about stuff like this. [editline]11th June 2015[/editline] The one UC i could stand would be UCR. They give out grants like hotcakes. my friend didn't get his cal-grant in time the first year, and they covered almost everything with a $20,000 grant to him. all he had to pay was for housing afterwards. I actually chose UCR over UCLA because of how free and open they are, and the fact they're ranked pretty high on ethnic and social equality, primarily as a result of their lack of frats and sors.[/QUOTE] [sp]we go to the same college[/sp] UCR Still does have a lot of fraternities on its campus, not to the scale of other UC's, but their presence is still known.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47926043]Wikipedia has one example: It's stuff that is innocent at face value but in context can be considered disparaging. [/QUOTE] That's the first time I read Biden's statement and I don't see how that's anything but incredibly racist [b]at[/b] face value. [editline]10th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;47926113]Did you read the article? It doesn't say the phrases were banned. The closest it comes that is saying that some phrases were deemed unacceptable, I don't see that as being far from the truth of the situation. Is this just another case of liberals on facepunch responding to strawmen of conservative points?[/QUOTE] But it doesn't even say that those statements are unacceptable. It lists them as examples of something that might be disparaging in incredibly specific contexts.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47926146]That's the first time I read Biden's statement and I don't see how that's anything but incredibly racist [b]at[/b] face value.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it varies. Some of the examples in the pamphlet in the OP are things like 'You are a credit to your race' and 'I'm not racist, I have several black friends'. Those are kind of blatant. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47926092]Even then though, the problem isn't the words being used. The problem is the context they're said in. Any phrase can offend if said in the wrong context. "It's a beautiful day" would be an unwise thing to say to someone who had just had their eyes gouged out. Discouraging the use of the phrase "It's a beautiful day" isn't going to make the situation any better.[/QUOTE] That's why the linked pamphlet says in big bold text: [quote][b]The first step in addressing microaggressions is to recognize when a microaggression has occurred and what message it may be sending. The context of the relationship and situation is critical. [/b][/quote] I'm not the biggest fan of this whole microaggression theory because it's really, [i]really[/i] easy to misapply, but the OP seems like sensationalism. There are a few eyebrow-raising examples in that pamphlet but most of them are pretty straightforward examples of casual racism and sexism.
the irony here is that i've never had a single professor ignorant or dumb enough to say most of the things on this list to a student to begin with
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;47926114][sp]we go to the same college[/sp] UCR Still does have a lot of fraternities on its campus, not to the scale of other UC's, but their presence is still known.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I liked that. We don't technically have a frat-row, though.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47926168]Yeah, it varies. Some of the examples in the pamphlet in the OP are things like 'You are a credit to your race' and 'I'm not racist, I have several black friends'. Those are kind of blatant. That's why the linked pamphlet says in big bold text: I'm not the biggest fan of this whole microaggression theory because it's really, [i]really[/i] easy to misapply, but the OP seems like sensationalism. There are a few eyebrow-raising examples in that pamphlet but most of them are pretty straightforward examples of casual racism and sexism.[/QUOTE] Yeah, some of these I do kinda get. What bugs me are the "I don't see race" and "we're all part of the human race" ones. Like, yeah, maybe in very, very specific circumstances those would be considered offensive, but I can see far more situations in which I imagine that would just be them honestly expressing their feelings.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47926146]That's the first time I read Biden's statement and I don't see how that's anything but incredibly racist [B]at[/B] face value. [editline]10th June 2015[/editline] But it doesn't even say that those statements are unacceptable. It lists them as examples of something that might be disparaging in incredibly specific contexts.[/QUOTE] So you don't think that they're saying those disparaging statements are unacceptable? Even if they were talking about very specific situations the articles point would still stand. They didn't say this directly, but I assume they would be against limiting a teacher from saying many of those phrases in any situation because they don't see anything inherently wrong with them. If a student reacted poorly it would be on them, not the teacher to change the way they look at it.
You can't say race is a social construct then turn to minorities and give them special treatment for their 'social construct' racial differences.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;47926197]the irony here is that i've never had a single professor ignorant or dumb enough to say most of the things on this list to a student to begin with[/QUOTE] "Professor, I'm having some issues understanding the work here. Could you go over the bit about matrix transformatio-" "Affirmative action is racist. I believe in the most qualified person for the job. Besides, you're a woman, why do you even need math?" [editline]10th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;47926263]So you don't think that they're saying those disparaging statements are unacceptable? Even if they were talking about very specific situations the articles point would still stand. They didn't say this directly, but I assume they would be against limiting a teacher from saying many of those phrases in any situation because they don't see anything inherently wrong with them. If a student reacted poorly it would be on them, not the teacher to change the way they look at it.[/QUOTE] No, not at all. You're inventing context for why that PDF exists when all we know is that it's a summary of a concept from a book.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47926293]No, not at all. You're inventing context for why that PDF exists when all we know is that it's a summary of a concept from a book.[/QUOTE] What? Why would they care to tell people that certain phrases are bad unless they are implicitly saying that under certain circumstances they are unacceptable? You're just obfuscating. People tell you certain phrases are bad so that you don't use them.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;47925151]What the actual fuck.[/QUOTE] "I believe the most qualified person should get the job" is a phrase that basically does nothing other than support the status quo. The reality of the world is that the most qualified person often does not get the job: see every study that shows that resumes with black-sounding names are more likely to not receive an interview than identical resumes with traditionally white names. The sentiment is nice in a vacuum, but when applied to the real world (as it often is) it's useless and shows ignorance of the world's systematic inequalities
[QUOTE=sgman91;47926325]What? Why would they care to tell people that certain phrases are bad unless they are implicitly saying that under certain circumstances they are unacceptable? You're just obfuscating the simple truth. People tell you certain phrases are bad so that you don't use them.[/QUOTE] They didn't say those phrases are bad. You're adding words to the PDF again.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47926346]They didn't say those phrases are bad. You're adding words to the PDF again.[/QUOTE] From the PDF: "Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental [B]slights, snubs, or insults[/B], whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate [B]hostile, derogatory, or negative messages[/B] to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership" I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from those are all bad things.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47926382]From the PDF: "Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental [B]slights, snubs, or insults[/B], whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate [B]hostile, derogatory, or negative messages[/B] to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership" I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from those are all bad things.[/QUOTE] And then in the next line it says context needs to be considered.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47926388]And then in the next line it says context needs to be considered.[/QUOTE] So when you said: [QUOTE]They didn't say those phrases are bad.[/QUOTE] What exactly did you mean? Because all the words they use to describe the phrases are all ways to say that something is bad. I also already responded to it being for specific situations when I said: "Even if they were talking about very specific situations the articles point would still stand. They didn't say this directly, but I assume they would be against limiting a teacher from saying many of those phrases in any situation because they don't see anything inherently wrong with them. If a student reacted poorly it would be on them, not the teacher to change the way they look at it." Whether they're talking about specific context or not is irrelevant to the point.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47926395] What exactly did you mean? Because all the words they use to describe the phrases are all ways to say that something is bad.[/QUOTE] No, they're phrases that can mean something bad depending on the context with which they're used. Conversations don't exist in a vacuum. Two identical sentences can mean something completely different when said by different people, in different places, or at different times. I don't get what's hard to understand about that. Nowhere does that PDF advertise itself as a code of conduct, either.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;47925211]how are half of these remotely racist or sexist or whatever like “Where are you from or where were you born?” what is this supposed to imply???[/QUOTE] If you read [url=http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf]the PDF[/url] you'd see the context is "When Asian Americans, Latino Americans and others who look different or are named differently from the dominant culture are assumed to be foreign - born". The implication is that if you don't look familiar (i.e. like the majority) then you HAVE to be from outside the US. It's inherently racist/exclusionary.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47926418]No, they're phrases that can mean something bad depending on the context with which they're used. Conversations don't exist in a vacuum. Two identical sentences can mean something completely different when said by different people, in different places, or at different times. I don't get what's hard to understand about that. Nowhere does that PDF advertise itself as a code of conduct, either.[/QUOTE] I don't think you're reading what I'm actually saying. I'll just leave it at I totally understand what you're saying, but it's irrelevant.
[QUOTE=sgman91;47926465]I don't think you're reading what I'm actually saying. I'll just leave it at I totally understand what you're saying, but it's irrelevant.[/QUOTE] And I don't think you're reading what the PDF is actually saying: [quote=The PDF]The first step in addressing microaggressions is to recognize when a microaggression has occurred and what message it may be sending. [b]The context of the relationship and situation is critical.[/b] Below are common themes to which microaggressions attach.[/quote] The article states up front and in bold face that the CONTEXT of the phrases is what makes them potentially discriminatory, not that all of the phrases/actions themselves are inherently discriminatory (though many of the ones on the list are).
[QUOTE=sgman91;47926465]I don't think you're reading what I'm actually saying. I'll just leave it at I totally understand what you're saying, but it's irrelevant.[/QUOTE] I understand what you're trying to get at but where I feel you're erring is assuming the source the OP provided (not the PDF) and the comments of the front page have any greater understanding of the context with which this PDF was created than we do.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;47926484]The article states up front and in bold face that the CONTEXT of the phrases is what makes them potentially discriminatory, not that all of the phrases/actions themselves are inherently discriminatory (though many of the ones on the list are).[/QUOTE] I've never denied that and have literally directly addressed it. [editline]10th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;47926532]I understand what you're trying to get at but where I feel you're erring is assuming the source the OP provided (not the PDF) and the comments of the front page have any greater understanding of the context with which this PDF was created than we do.[/QUOTE] If a rational and possible interpretation is available, then there's no reason to assume a false interpretation. That goes for any textual criticism.
[QUOTE=Arrows;47926286]You can't say race is a social construct then turn to minorities and give them special treatment for their 'social construct' racial differences.[/QUOTE] Uh, yes you can. The racism that minorities face is generally structural racism that exists because of these social constructs [editline]10th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;47926543]I've never denied that and have literally directly addressed it. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;47926263]So you don't think that they're saying those disparaging statements are unacceptable? Even if they were talking about very specific situations the articles point would still stand. They didn't say this directly, but I assume they would be against limiting a teacher from saying many of those phrases in any situation because they don't see anything inherently wrong with them. If a student reacted poorly it would be on them, not the teacher to change the way they look at it.[/QUOTE] If by "addressed" you mean "ignored and then kept on trucking" then yeah you addressed it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.