Topic: Microaggressions, "triggers," and the coddling of the american mind (Read 1447 times)

Its such a interesting way of stifling the population by somewhat giving them what they want. Will the day come when people wake up from this PC dream or 1984 going to really happen!
Its a damn confusing time we are living in and I sure hope things swing back to center soon.

"Under a new grading policy at Mounts Bay Academy in Cornwall, teachers must mark and write feedback in green, while students must reply in purple."

They really swung the other way, huh?

Green means go, which would most likely correlate with "good to go", not so good for marking mistakes. Why weren't the teachers writing in purple?

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/03/20/british-school-bans-red-ink-for-teachers

going so far as to ban using red pens, really now?

"the color red is too negative"

Comedian Colin Quinn NAILS it on PC culture


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-rHqbp4vE

Lunatic who murdered Virginia journalists saw racism in words like “swinging” and “field”


Dark humor from Sonny Bunch: “Instead of going on a killing spree, this guy should’ve gotten a columnist gig at The Guardian.” In fact, knowing what we now know, a phrase like “dark humor” probably would have set him off too.

“Microaggression” logic is a dangerous thing in the hands of a lunatic. Or rather, a more dangerous thing.

The 24-year-old white reporter [Alison Parker], who was murdered on live TV along with her cameraman, used the phrases as an intern at ­WDBJ TV in Roanoke in 2012, according to an internal complaint filed by Flanagan, who was black.

“One was something about ‘swinging’ by some place; the other was out in the ‘field,’ ” said the Jan. 21 report by assistant news director Greg Baldwin, which refers to Parker as Alison Bailey (her middle name)…

“[Those words are] just common, everyday talk. [But] that was his MO — to start s- -t,” Fuqua ­explained. “He was unstable. One time, after one of our live shots failed, he threw all his stuff down and ran into the woods for like 20 minutes.”…

“We would say stuff like, ‘The reporter’s out in the field.’ And he would look at us and say, ‘What are you saying, cotton fields? That’s racist,’ ” Fair recounted.
“Swinging” was presumably a reference to lynching. One time, the story goes on to say, the station manager brought in watermelon for the staff as a treat. You can imagine how well that went.

According to the Times, this same guy protested getting fired by the station by killing his two pet cats. Tossing cat feces at his neighbors’ doors was also a favorite tactic during disputes. I know what you’re thinking: “Didn’t anyone know he was disturbed?” There’s a reference to “meds” in one of his suicide notes — he’d reached the point, he said, where nothing could be done to change his sadness to happiness — but it’s unclear at the moment whether he’d sought help and given up for whatever reason or whether he’d never bothered to begin with.

Oh, he’d also purchased his gun legally. And by the White House’s own admission, the new background-check law they’re pining for wouldn’t have stopped him from doing that.

Charles Cooke asks a good question. After Gabby Giffords was shot, the left collectively concluded without evidence that right-wing rhetoric had contributed to the shooting, if not as a direct influence on Jared Loughner than as a sort of general cultural coarsening that had moved the Overton window towards tolerating more extreme expressions of political rage. Does the same logic apply to Vester Flanagan and “microaggressions”? If we needed Glenn Beck to tone things down at the time in the name of preventing shootings by insane people who were tapping into his angry vibe, we probably need Social Justice Warriors to cool it a bit too, no? Exit question: “Why do we not need to have a ‘national conversation’ about hypersensitivity?”


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/28/lunatic-who-murdered-virginia-journalists-saw-racism-in-words-like-swinging-and-field/

It's exploiting people's natural desire to help those in need; by fashioning themselves as victims, they can milk this desire via donations, attention, and so forth.  The more of a victim people believe you are--regardless of whether you are or not--the more you can milk.  So long as that is a profitable position to be in, these people will wear their weaknesses like strengths with their hands held out for help.  It's not necessarily a conscious thing they do, maybe they really believe they are suffering in some manner and just don't have very wide perceptions, not wide enough to realize that grouping with people who share your convictions doesn't actually help your convictions, but ultimately the problem is this money is not going to any good as the preservation of this so-called victim is in being a victim, not helped; the opposite effect occurs, "helping" them sends the signal to continue being a victim, that's what's getting you paid.  It is for this reason that, for example, the feminist ideology necessitates that it never solves the problem it sought to solve for this would follow the dismantling of the group: there's no need for feminism when all is well.  So to continue thriving, the problem can never be solved, in fact the group gains power when the problem gets worse, so it's always in the interest of feminists for things to be as bad as possible which gives them as much power as possible.  A world where women are at their absolute worst is a world where feminism reigns supreme, which becomes like a shadow goal for the organization, the unspoken intent that not even its members want to realize, paying attention only to the spoken intent.  Such ideologies have but one purpose: destruction.  They die when people lose that need to destroy; even resolution of the ideology involves destruction, the best case scenario for them is that they end ASAP.  Adopting such ideologies is like wearing a big neon sign saying "I am cancer, please save me," but the trick is to figure out how, to figure out what caused this cancer, and of course, to those who benefit from the cancer not being resolved, they do all they can to obscure the truth and ensure that doesn't happen.  So the cancerous entities just keep growing larger, feeding into the interests of those who control the ideology's thought flow, until people catch up to what's happening.

Like, why wouldn't you?  I have a friend who, out of curiosity rather than nefarious intent, set up social media accounts with the sole purpose to pose as a victim and to keep an amazon wish list handy in case someone wanted to "help out"; we'll see how it results later.  After seeing things like #GiveYourMoneyToWomen, you just gotta wonder how much of this is real and how much of this is staged.  All I know is, I don't want to share a community with them, and I'm glad they generally dislike Texas.

My observation is that being a victim is a highly desirable status in American academia. It's a form of street cred since the humanities (and to a lesser degree some of the social sciences) abandoned scholarship and became centered around victims and victimhood in recent decades.

Unfortunately, most people have a tough time accessing victim status due to being privileged their entire life (they are in American colleges after all, which cost $10k+ per year). This newfound sensitivity and claims of being offended by everything are their small attempts to access the coveted victim status.

Budum tsss

NO, now calm down.  WE want you worrying about small, mindless gestures and comments.  WE don't want you worrying about the National Debt, the enemies that want to blow you up, Saudi, and many other things.  WE will keep you happy and content until WE need you for something.

By the way, are you employed?  WE have job openings on the Micro Agresssion Task Force for surveillance  camera operatives.  Unfortunately only the night shift, but it pays better than day.  The new growth area is projected to  be Retraining Known MicroAgressive Offenders, programs which are designed to allow deferred adjudication for MicroAgressive Offenders.  Assuming they complete the sensitivity program and stay clean of further Micro Aggressions, of course.  This is a ground floor opportunity, since the state and local agencies will contract with private contractors for this training. 

Let US know if you would like to be considered for an exclusive franchise in your area.

All of it is stupid and unfounded. People should start caring about real problems, like inequality in Saudi Arabia, instead of "PATRIARCHY! MIND RAPE! TRIGGER'D!"
It's your damn problem if something "triggers you"
It's debated if "microaggressions" even exist.
Here are two links wrapping up what I think.

Amazing Athiest "Triggers"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8BY5pO8hQk
Sargon Of Akkad "Microaggressions"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyZhi9q0Vs4

Now, it's not quite microaggressions which are the problem.  It's the ability to define and call out the improper behavior of Others.  WE shall do that.  YOU shall listen carefully, and search your soul carefully for how you have erred.  WE shall look at your speech and also your non-speech under a microscope, and you know that we will.  WE will find every flaw in you and help you in your striving to be Good.

One day, YOU could be one of the WE, if you work hard and agree to everything.

thats one of the biggest issue i see; if our universities are reinforcing that idea to these graduates that their university is going to hold their hand hand make their environment a safe place for them, those graduates will naturally come to draw the correlation that their employers will do the same. even if there is no correlation forming in their minds, they become men tally weak and unable to stand up to their so called 'traumas' and return to normalcy. crudely put, that shit doesnt fly in the workforce. an employer/boss will not put up with some bs from one of these graduates along the lines of "oh it reminds me of the time my dad hit me so i cant do this job sorry go find someone else." unlike the university that might have catered for them unquestioningly in the past, that employee would be fired on the spot. granted there are enough cases of something like this, we would end up with an incompetent and inept workforce as time progresses and more of these coddled students enter the real world. kind of rambling with my thoughts here, but that article really put something that seemed trivial/a joke in a different perspective.

well we got the submission part down already...

That was a great article. Used to grab The Economist first but have enjoyed The Atlantic a lot more lately.
Like they mention in the article the social media kids that always had it around are just now graduating and entering the workforce. Will they dictate or submit when challenged will be the most pressing issue.

Total submission, then the death of the First Amendment, then tyranny... Or total tyranny, then the death of the First Amendment, then submission...

Because it's really about something else entirely. 

What could that be?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

Mostly based off this article (which is an amazing article by the way, and is worth the read), the issue is focused mainly around the american youth enrolled in colleges and universities (USA). The issue is perceived as a joke here on the internet (see reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction for one example) where sensible people ridicule what seems to be the overly entitled expectations of a handful of individuals complaining about needing "trigger warnings." The writer of the article did a great job of defining it as well, linking the term to the work "microaggressions."


imo, the fact that a normal, college enrolled individual with no real history of severe trauma claims that a simple microaggression, which may be as innocuous as asking an asian student "arent you supposed to be good at math?" can illicit a response similar to victims of shellshock/PTSD is ludicrous.
The loud minority that  claims to be affected in life changing ways by these microaggresions are affecting campus life, to the extent that what can be said in the classroom is limited in order to turn it into a "safe space" for the few that think they are really affected by these innocuous, everyday comments.

what is the point then, of going to college, which is supposed to prepare students for the 'real world' if the universities reinforce the idea to those few that they will hold their hands and restrict what can be said if the students dont like it?