Language Police

GrahamH · **#601** by **GrahamH** » Feb 07, 2020 9:18 am

Theme 1: Alien in Own Land
This theme emerges from both focus groups and can be described as a microaggression which embodies the assumption that all Asian Americans are foreigners or foreign-born. An example of this theme was universally voiced by Asian Americans of all ethnicities and manifested in questions or remarks like “Where are you from?” “Where were you born?” or “You speak good English.” The participants were often torn between whether the comments were well intentioned expressions of interest in them or perceptions that they were foreigners and did not belong in America. Furthermore, the meaning construed by recipients is that they were different, less than, and could not possibly be “real” Americans. That this phenomenon has empirical reality was a finding that White Americans, on an implicit level, equated “White” and “American” with one another while Asian and African Americans were less likely associated with the term “American”. On the whole, the participants did not see the questions or “compliments” as benign and curious, but disturbing and uncomfortable.

http://www.oregoncampuscompact.org/uplo ... rience.pdf

romansh · **#602** by **romansh** » Feb 07, 2020 6:48 pm

GrahamH wrote:
By "genuine aggression" do you mean intentional slights

No, not really. Rarely can I do intentional aggression.
I am thinking of the more spontaneous kind, the stuff that just occurs.

Confabulating a little bit here, with some people they have annoyed/disinterested me sufficiently for me to not to ask where they are from. That would be closer to this alleged microaggression.

GrahamH · **#603** by **GrahamH** » Feb 07, 2020 8:20 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
By "genuine aggression" do you mean intentional slights

No, not really. Rarely can I do intentional aggression.
I am thinking of the more spontaneous kind, the stuff that just occurs.

Confabulating a little bit here, with some people they have annoyed/disinterested me sufficiently for me to not to ask where they are from. That would be closer to this alleged microaggression.

So "genuine aggression" is when you feel aggression / disdain?

romansh · **#604** by **romansh** » Feb 07, 2020 9:11 pm

GrahamH wrote:
romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
By "genuine aggression" do you mean intentional slights

No, not really. Rarely can I do intentional aggression.
I am thinking of the more spontaneous kind, the stuff that just occurs.

Confabulating a little bit here, with some people they have annoyed/disinterested me sufficiently for me to not to ask where they are from. That would be closer to this alleged microaggression.
So "genuine aggression" is when you feel aggression / disdain?

That would be genuine aggression yes.

But the point that I think you are trying make is, if I look back at a situation and in hindsight do I think I was being aggressive. And if the answer is yes, then answer would also be yes. For example quite often in the heat of debate on a forum, I might look back and think a post of mine was a bit close to the mark, quite likely a microaggression or more. Or I if respond in kind to a post, yes a micro or meso-agression.

Now if I find a post was taken the wrong way, and a person responds to what I posted, does that make my post a microaggression?

I don't think so.

Are your skill testing questions a microaggression Graham?

GrahamH · **#605** by **GrahamH** » Feb 08, 2020 11:06 am

romansh wrote:

Are your skill testing questions a microaggression Graham?

I hope not. I don't think there is "skill testing" involved. I see it as clarifying your statement so we both understand the distinction being made by "real aggression". I don't see anything personal or any slight in it, but maybe you do.

It seems very relevant to th topic and the concept of "microaggression", which it seems clear can be quite unconscious. So one may not feel any aggression or recognise any slight. That makes it tricky. Doesn't it follow that "microaggression" isn't "real aggression" by your definition, but it can still intimidate or belittle others?

Cito di Pense · **#606** by **Cito di Pense** » Feb 08, 2020 11:19 am

GrahamH wrote:
It seems very relevant to th topic and the concept of "microaggression", which it seems clear can be quite unconscious. So one may not feel any aggression or recognise any slight. That makes it tricky. Doesn't it follow that "microaggression" isn't "real aggression" by your definition, but it can still intimidate or belittle others?

This is looking more and more like a way of granting the advantage to anyone who claims (or can be granted a claim of) entitlement to be offended. Of course you can always include codicils about membership in some oppressed class even if said individual is privileged enough to be attending college. That's how this whole mess started, with college kids. No one who's not being intimidated has any entitlement to feel they're being intimidated when no one's trying to intimidate them; that is, it's not a substitute for another bit of psychobabble, assertiveness training. For my part, I'm convinced that the entitlement is a significant aspect of this, because when someone not entitled to be offended or feel intimidated is being offended or intimidated, it's automatically not originating in anyone's "unconscious".

I'm also convinced that this whole mess is some theoretician's attempt to make "communication theory" or whatever the fuck this is become a little more relevant to people who are not theoreticians, and it's fucking tedious to see it sliced and diced ever finer, making it a ridiculous topic for non-theoreticians to endorse. This doesn't mean that people being accused of "microaggression" cannot much more effectively be accused of being socially inept. They're still on the back foot, but somehow, it's more okay to be socially inept or clueless (which gets at the theoretically-dubious unconscious crap) than it is to be "culturally insensitive" toward minorities, even if they are privileged enough to be attending college. Any post-secondary institution worth beans has a Department of Minority Student Affairs, now.

romansh · **#607** by **romansh** » Feb 08, 2020 7:12 pm

GrahamH wrote:
I hope not. I don't think there is "skill testing" involved.

You are not sure? But we debated often enough for me to see you as respectful debater. Of course some times your (and mine) patience is tested and we let off an aggression, a meso, milli or micro depending on the recipient or bystander.

GrahamH wrote: I see it as clarifying your statement so we both understand the distinction being made by "real aggression". I don't see anything personal or any slight in it, but maybe you do.

I agree Graham. But it was a skill testing question, it made me think more clearly to confabulate my intuition.
Not for one minute did I see this post as aggressive. But had I, does it make it aggressive or a microaggression?

GrahamH wrote:It seems very relevant to th topic and the concept of "microaggression", which it seems clear can be quite unconscious. So one may not feel any aggression or recognise any slight. That makes it tricky. Doesn't it follow that "microaggression" isn't "real aggression" by your definition, but it can still intimidate or belittle others?

Well if microaggression isn't aggression, then perhaps we find a better word that describes actions (seen as completely ostensibly harmless by the agent) that people receive as triggering or have been sensitized to be triggered.

I am assuming you are English. Does this assumption belittle you? If you aren't English … is this any reason to be belittled?

GrahamH · **#608** by **GrahamH** » Feb 09, 2020 8:58 am

romansh wrote:

GrahamH wrote:It seems very relevant to th topic and the concept of "microaggression", which it seems clear can be quite unconscious. So one may not feel any aggression or recognise any slight. That makes it tricky. Doesn't it follow that "microaggression" isn't "real aggression" by your definition, but it can still intimidate or belittle others?

Well if microaggression isn't aggression, then perhaps we find a better word that describes actions (seen as completely ostensibly harmless by the agent) that people receive as triggering or have been sensitized to be triggered.

I didn't say it isn't aggression. I said it isn't what you defined as "real aggression".

I dont like the term but the concept seems ok to me. Wouldn't most people feel disrespected and intimidated if treated like a stranger in their home land (the place identify with, grew up in)? Not just by one person, but by many on many occasions?

Does it dispel that feeling to think that most of the people doing that are oblivious of it?

romansh · **#609** by **romansh** » Feb 09, 2020 4:30 pm

GrahamH wrote:
I dont like the term but the concept seems ok to me. Wouldn't most people feel disrespected and intimidated if treated like a stranger in their home land (the place identify with, grew up in)? Not just by one person, but by many on many occasions?

Yes. But you have not shown that asking where they are from is that.
Perhaps we should have word for people who are offended by questions like "where are you from?"
This too is a concept.
So is it OK to ask someone is a foreigner eg with a foreign accent, where they are from and not somebody with a local accent but looks different?

GrahamH wrote:Does it dispel that feeling to think that most of the people doing that are oblivious of it?

Not sure I understand ... a typo here?

GrahamH · **#610** by **GrahamH** » Feb 09, 2020 6:28 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
I dont like the term but the concept seems ok to me. Wouldn't most people feel disrespected and intimidated if treated like a stranger in their home land (the place identify with, grew up in)? Not just by one person, but by many on many occasions?

Yes. But you have not shown that asking where they are from is that.

We have been told, by several posters in this topic, that the question "where are you from?" Comes to mind on seeing people who look like people from foreign places.

GrahamH · **#611** by **GrahamH** » Feb 09, 2020 6:35 pm

romansh wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Does it dispel that feeling to think that most of the people doing that are oblivious of it?

Not sure I understand ... a typo here?

No typo. If you notice my foreign appearance and ask me "where are you from?" I probably infer that is what you have done, seen me as foreign. Should I feel better about that for thinking you are unaware of sending that signal?

romansh · **#612** by **romansh** » Feb 09, 2020 9:48 pm

We have been told, by several posters in this topic, that the question "where are you from?" Comes to mind on seeing people who look like people from foreign places.

Yes ... it turns out what you sound like might be a better indicator.

So if I mistakenly think you are from a foreign place and ask where to clarify is that an aggression? I must admit I must be one of Cito's socially awkward people.

I'm struggling to find the real problem here. Is it OK to ask what someone's heritage is?

Cito di Pense · **#613** by **Cito di Pense** » Feb 10, 2020 5:26 am

romansh wrote:
We have been told, by several posters in this topic, that the question "where are you from?" Comes to mind on seeing people who look like people from foreign places.

Yes ... it turns out what you sound like might be a better indicator.

So if I mistakenly think you are from a foreign place and ask where to clarify is that an aggression? I must admit I must be one of Cito's socially awkward people.

I'm struggling to find the real problem here. Is it OK to ask what someone's heritage is?

It's no hangin' matter, romansh. It's no capital crime. It's just crass. Pigeonholing people according to their heritage is an old, old game. It's only human, if that's what you're asking. There are people on the receiving end of this who don't accept it easily, and they're the ones in a position to do something about it, themselves. But what happens? Some clever Dickey with a lexicon of psychobabble to complete calls it a "microaggression" to try to be of some use to posterity by remaking humanity.

It's only really not OK for "white" people to ask (we probably should say "pink", instead). The ranks of pink people are (or seem to be) dwindling because reasons, and many of the ones who are left are letting their natural pigeonholing tendencies run wild.

GrahamH · **#614** by **GrahamH** » Feb 10, 2020 8:11 am

romansh wrote:
We have been told, by several posters in this topic, that the question "where are you from?" Comes to mind on seeing people who look like people from foreign places.

Yes ... it turns out what you sound like might be a better indicator.

So if I mistakenly think you are from a foreign place and ask where to clarify is that an aggression? I must admit I must be one of Cito's socially awkward people.

I'm struggling to find the real problem here. Is it OK to ask what someone's heritage is?

I'm struggling to see why people struggle. You aren't asking to clarify a mistake though, are you? You are asking expecting to confirm a perception of foreignness. And why does that matter? Why do you have to put your perception of foreignness on them? Talk to them like a local and let them tell you what it pleases them to tell you about heritage or whatever.

If it's social ineptitude, a limited repertoire of opening question without regard to what that says about you or your interlocutor, then cito says you needn't worry. If you offend someone it's up to them to do something about it. There's a "social justice" word for that, isn't there?. After all, what's the point of attempting to educate the inept?

If only people on the receiving end would just "receive it easily" Who the hell do they think they are, huh?

But isn't that all the more confused? If "people on the receiving end" should do something about it, like, say, petition a university to educate the inept, that's a problem, So they should shut up and take it. Is that it?

GrahamH · **#615** by **GrahamH** » Feb 10, 2020 8:13 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
It's only really not OK for "white" people to ask (we probably should say "pink", instead). The ranks of pink people are (or seem to be) dwindling because reasons,

Great Replacement Theory now, is it?

Cito di Pense · **#616** by **Cito di Pense** » Feb 10, 2020 8:55 am

GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
It's only really not OK for "white" people to ask (we probably should say "pink", instead). The ranks of pink people are (or seem to be) dwindling because reasons,

Great Replacement Theory now, is it?

If it's not OK for someone who "looks foreign" to ask someone else who "looks foreign" where he's from, please tell me why, other than that it's a crass opener for a conversation. It's not really just that you don't know what you're talking about, Graham. It's that you're trying to present a theory in which nobody knows what he's talking about, except for, you know, "pinkness". You don't seem interested in the situation of people who reside someplace they weren't born. It's as if your point is that being born somewhere has rights attached other than the ones granted to citizens by birth, such as not having to deal with social ineptitude.

GrahamH · **#617** by **GrahamH** » Feb 10, 2020 9:07 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
You don't seem interested in the situation of people who reside someplace they weren't born.

Untrue. This applied to anyone who feels they belong in the place they reside being treated as foreigners because of an ethnic minority appearance to members of an ethnic majority. But that wasn't ambiguous, was it?

What were you saying about dwindling "pinkness"?

Cito di Pense · **#618** by **Cito di Pense** » Feb 10, 2020 9:17 am

GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
You don't seem interested in the situation of people who reside someplace they weren't born.

Untrue. This applied to anyone who feels they belong in the place they reside

So, then, this is about people who "feel" they belong. They belong, by rights granted to citizens by birth, and immigrants belong wherever they are granted residence. People cannot be compelled to recognize every nuance of somebody's feelings of belonging, and this whole long circus is about the psychological torment inflicted by people who have no interest in wacky buzzwords like "microaggression". No one is entitled to feel offended, Graham, but feeling offended is all "microaggression" is about.

GrahamH · **#619** by **GrahamH** » Feb 10, 2020 9:22 am

What were you saying about dwindling "pinkness"?

Cito di Pense · **#620** by **Cito di Pense** » Feb 10, 2020 9:25 am

GrahamH wrote:What were you saying about dwindling "pinkness"?

There are virulent racists, Graham, they are not committing "microaggression", and they are not being abetted by people who you and other say do commit such imaginary offenses. Find somebody else's chain to yank, if you just want to quotemine somebody's posts.

Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Re: Language Police

Who is online