This is why I get skeptical about the concept of microaggressions in a nutshell. Okay, sure there are people out there who can be passive-aggressive, but they are waaaaaaay outnumbered by the people with slightly different body language, verbal tics, and cultural cues than yours (which is true no matter what yours are). Much too easy to read in a meaning that isn't there.

-

folmhaigh said:
"You said I looked pretty but you meant tacky"
No, I'm not one of your girl friends, I meant you look pretty, stop.

basically that?

That would count, yeah. X)

kaydrien said:
This is why I get skeptical about the concept of microaggressions in a nutshell. Okay, sure there are people out there who can be passive-aggressive, but they are waaaaaaay outnumbered by the people with slightly different body language, verbal tics, and cultural cues than yours (which is true no matter what yours are). Much too easy to read in a meaning that isn't there.

To me, the concept was made up by people who want to be offended, or to have a reason to dislike/hate someone.

folmhaigh said:
"You said I looked pretty but you meant tacky"
No, I'm not one of your girl friends, I meant you look pretty, stop.

basically that?

ah i see your a person of culture...and have lived through that...some people think the smallest comment or gesture is something that needs to be decoded...and that gets annoying

kaydrien said:
This is why I get skeptical about the concept of microaggressions in a nutshell. Okay, sure there are people out there who can be passive-aggressive, but they are waaaaaaay outnumbered by the people with slightly different body language, verbal tics, and cultural cues than yours (which is true no matter what yours are). Much too easy to read in a meaning that isn't there.

Microaggressions don't exist in a vacuum, you have to know the cultural background to understand.

For example, in one culture, the phrase "well bless your heart" can be a sick burn, depending on the circumstances.

Racial examples include things like calling a black person "articulate"--to an outsider it sounds like a compliment, but its actually an insult, because it has an unspoken coda "for a black person".

Sometimes the microaggression is hidden by what seems to be a minor insult. A few years ago a shock jock got in trouble for referring to a black woman as "nappy headed", which invokes a long history of hair-based oppression that would be invisible to outsiders.

Calling a woman "honey" or "sweetie", or telling her she should smile more, might seem like minor faux pas, but they are actually microaggressions, because they (intentionally or not) treat the woman as a child. In some cultures!

My point is, microaggressions are real, but they are context and culture based. As a general rule, if someone says they find "x" to be offensive, you should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume they are just offended for the sake of being offended. Even if you don't understand the context, that doesn't mean it isn't real--take it as a learning opportunity.

aethelred said:
Microaggressions don't exist in a vacuum, you have to know the cultural background to understand.

For example, in one culture, the phrase "well bless your heart" can be a sick burn, depending on the circumstances.

Racial examples include things like calling a black person "articulate"--to an outsider it sounds like a compliment, but its actually an insult, because it has an unspoken coda "for a black person".

Sometimes the microaggression is hidden by what seems to be a minor insult. A few years ago a shock jock got in trouble for referring to a black woman as "nappy headed", which invokes a long history of hair-based oppression that would be invisible to outsiders.

Calling a woman "honey" or "sweetie", or telling her she should smile more, might seem like minor faux pas, but they are actually microaggressions, because they (intentionally or not) treat the woman as a child. In some cultures!

My point is, microaggressions are real, but they are context and culture based. As a general rule, if someone says they find "x" to be offensive, you should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume they are just offended for the sake of being offended. Even if you don't understand the context, that doesn't mean it isn't real--take it as a learning opportunity.

Context can matter, I'll give you that one. But, with respect, I don't find your examples very compelling. Either something is intended as an insult or it isn't. If it is (as in your third example), well then that's just rude and nothing you do was likely to change their behavior anyway. If it isn't, then simply letting the person know it makes you uncomfortable should be sufficient to mend matters. Calling intended rudeness a 'microaggression' is just muddying the waters, or even downplaying a truly hurtful act. Calling something that isn't or may not be intended meanly a 'microaggression' implies blame, literally implies aggression on the part of someone who maybe didn't mean anything by it, escalates and reframes the interaction as adversarial.

I don't in any way downplay the struggles or hurts of the world. There are absolutely situations in which every example you gave could be hurtful. I just think 'microaggressions' as a concept is if anything counterproductive to really understanding and getting along with each other, because it can so easily turn a relatively simple request for a- call it a preferred flavor of politeness, I guess?- into an argument or a minefield.

kaydrien said:
Context can matter, I'll give you that one. But, with respect, I don't find your examples very compelling. Either something is intended as an insult or it isn't. If it is (as in your third example), well then that's just rude and nothing you do was likely to change their behavior anyway. If it isn't, then simply letting the person know it makes you uncomfortable should be sufficient to mend matters. Calling intended rudeness a 'microaggression' is just muddying the waters, or even downplaying a truly hurtful act. Calling something that isn't or may not be intended meanly a 'microaggression' implies blame, literally implies aggression on the part of someone who maybe didn't mean anything by it, escalates and reframes the interaction as adversarial.

I don't in any way downplay the struggles or hurts of the world. There are absolutely situations in which every example you gave could be hurtful. I just think 'microaggressions' as a concept is if anything counterproductive to really understanding and getting along with each other, because it can so easily turn a relatively simple request for a- call it a preferred flavor of politeness, I guess?- into an argument or a minefield.

A microaggression is a specific kind of insult, one based on a person's race, gender, creed, etc, and tie into traditional oppression of certain groups. For example, calling a white man a "monkey" is just an insult. Calling a black man a monkey is a microaggression, because for centuries, and even today, there are people who consider black people less evolved than whites; "monkey", in this context, draws on that history and reinforces it. To someone from a different culture, this dynamic isn't obvious; they might be tempted to say, well, maybe the person saying the insult didn't intend to invoke that history. But intent isn't magic; calling a black person a monkey is a microaggression whether the person intends it that way or not.

Basically, as the name suggests, microaggressions are words or acts that imply or suggest actual aggression. They are insults that subtly (or not so subtly) threaten the person insulted. And the intent of the person making the insult doesn't magically delink the insult from the original aggression.

aethelred said:
A microaggression is a specific kind of insult, one based on a person's race, gender, creed, etc, and tie into traditional oppression of certain groups. For example, calling a white man a "monkey" is just an insult. Calling a black man a monkey is a microaggression, because for centuries, and even today, there are people who consider black people less evolved than whites; "monkey", in this context, draws on that history and reinforces it. To someone from a different culture, this dynamic isn't obvious; they might be tempted to say, well, maybe the person saying the insult didn't intend to invoke that history. But intent isn't magic; calling a black person a monkey is a microaggression whether the person intends it that way or not.

Basically, as the name suggests, microaggressions are words or acts that imply or suggest actual aggression. They are insults that subtly (or not so subtly) threaten the person insulted. And the intent of the person making the insult doesn't magically delink the insult from the original aggression.

So if an alien comes and calls a black person a monkey, without knowing the culture and maybe not even meaning it as an insult, since we all are basically monkeys, would it still be a microaggression?
There is no aggression to be found here.
So I would suggest that it would depends on intention or not. That doesn't necessarily imply the awareness of it in any shape or form.

termerie said:
So if an alien comes and calls a black person a monkey, without knowing the culture and maybe not even meaning it as an insult, since we all are basically monkeys, would it still be a microaggression?
There is no aggression to be found here.
So I would suggest that it would depends on intention or not. That doesn't necessarily imply the awareness of it in any shape or form.

Yes, it is still a microaggression. It is the impact of the statement or act on the victim that defines it, not the intent.

Ask yourself this: is it possible to accidentally insult someone? If your answer is yes, then apply that same logic to microaggressions.

If your answer is no, then we have different definitions of "insult", and are talking at cross purposes.

aethelred said:
Yes, it is still a microaggression. It is the impact of the statement or act on the victim that defines it, not the intent.

Ask yourself this: is it possible to accidentally insult someone? If your answer is yes, then apply that same logic to microaggressions.

If your answer is no, then we have different definitions of "insult", and are talking at cross purposes.

Someone could be insulted by something I did say, even if I didn't mean it this way. But it depends, if I knew that it could be interpreted that way, even if I'm not fully aware of it, I would insult the person.
But if someone feels insulted by something innocent, there is no insulter there to find.
That doesn't mean it isn't imported, how the insulted person feels, but it's not me who's aggressive in any way.

So at this point I guess we agree to disagree.

termerie said:
Someone could be insulted by something I did say, even if I didn't mean it this way. But it depends, if I knew that it could be interpreted that way, even if I'm not fully aware of it, I would insult the person.
But if someone feels insulted by something innocent, there is no insulter there to find.
That doesn't mean it isn't imported, how the insulted person feels, but it's not me who's aggressive in any way.

So at this point I guess we agree to disagree.

I think I'm with you on this one. Intent matters more than how a word is received. Someone could use -any- word, with history or not, and make it an insult depending on their intent. It's not that someone was accidentally insulted, it's that the individual has taken offense where none was meant. That is, much as I dislike saying it, a them problem. Focusing more on the specific words than the intent behind them is, I would say, how you wind up with a more toxic social environment where people feel they need to step on eggshells lest someone take offense to it, or risks leading more people to subconsciously see more and more innocuous statements as veiled minor insults.

I feel like once any aggression gets to the point of being described as 'micro', where it's so subtle that either party in a situation may be unsure of whether any insult or slight was intended...there's better things to focus one's thoughts and energy on.