KARL D. writes:

I learned something today that I wish I hadn’t. “Microaggression” is a new term for anything that a white male does that makes nonwhites, homosexuals or women feel even mildly uncomfortable. It seems to be arbitrary and up to the “victim” as to what constitutes a micro-aggression.

Many universities now have microaggression policies whereby a student can be hauled before university administrators if another student accuses him of a micro-aggression. According to this linked story, a student at McGill University had to write a letter of apology or face expulsion for e-mailing a photoshopped image of Obama kicking open a door. How any parent could send their child to these indoctrination camps and then pay thousands of dollars for it is beyond me. We are churning out thousands of Stalinist drones.

Watch the video in the first link if you can. It will blow your mind and either leave you laughing or crying.

Laura writes:

The page from Fordham University breaks “microaggressions” down into “microinvalidations,” “micro assaults,” and “microinsults.” Examples include mispronouncing someone’s name and asking students to write a paper about what their fathers were like when they were growing up. From the webpage at Fordham:

“Microaggressions can be very harmful. For instance, research indicates that they create a hostile campus environment, lower work productivity and problem solving abilities, and create inequities in education. Below are some examples for how microaggressions may manifest themselves in the classroom (taken from University of Denver.)

• Continuing to mispronounce the names of students after being corrected, or not bothering to pronounce the name correctly in the first place.
• Making assumptions of students based on their race or ethnicity. (e.g.”Are you here on an athletic scholarship?”)
• Hosting discussions in class that place students from groups who may represent the minority opinion in a difficult position
• Assigning class projects that are heterosexist, racist, or make other assumptions of students:
  • “Write stories about what your father was like growing up.”
  • “Write about a romantic relationship you had with a member of the opposite sex.”
• Using heterosexist or sexist language:
  • “Magnets are attracted to each other like males and females”
• Assigning projects that ignore socioeconomic differences
  • “You are required to visit four art galleries downtown. There are entrance fees which I think you can afford.”
  • “The textbook is expensive, but I’m sure you can afford it.”
• Singling students out because of their background:
  • “You’re (member of minority group). Can you tell us about a time you were discriminated against?”
• Assuming all students are from the US and familiar with American culture
  • “What do you mean you’ve never heard of this show?”
• Asking people with disabilities to identify themselves
  • “If anyone has a special need and cannot take the test at the normal time please raise your hand”
• Ignoring student to student microagressions:
  • “That party was so retarded”
• Making assumptions about students and their backgrounds:
  • Assuming all Latino students speak Spanish:
    • “Can you translate this for me, Hector?”
  • Assuming all Asians are good at math
• Assuming the gender of any student
• Disregarding religious traditions or their details
  • E.g. holding a class that requires students to sample food during Ramadan
• Assuming all students fit the traditional student profile and are proficient in the use of computers.
  • ‘I will post the class event on Facebook, as I assume that all of you are on Facebook.'”

— End of Initial Entry —

Karl D. adds:

I especially love these two:

Assigning class projects that are heterosexist, racist, or make other assumptions of students:

“Write stories about what your father was like growing up.”

It makes perfect sense. Since we now have numerous Homosexual couples raising children, naturally (or rather unnaturally) there will be an absence of both mothers and fathers. And what of people who were raised in an orphanage? I suppose the “correct” terminology for individual parents should be the rather clinical caregiver, guardian or overseer.

And, regarding “assuming the gender of any student,” there is an old Saturday Night Live sketch called “It’s Pat” which was about a very sexually ambiguous creature named Pat. No one could figure out Pat’s sexuality.  The running joke was people tripping all over themselves trying not to offend Pat by saying something that would mark “it” as either a male or a female. Higher education has become a SNL skit.

Bill R. writes:

“Microaggressions can be very harmful. For instance, research indicates that they create a hostile campus environment, lower work productivity and problem solving abilities.”

Obviously it never occurs to the oh-so-wise administrators at Fordham University that enforcing rules against so-called “microaggressions” might itself make some people feel like they were in a hostile campus environment, lower their work productivity and problem solving abilities and create inequities in education. Actually, I’m sure it does occur to them. They just don’t care about those people, their feelings are not legitimate and don’t count, which, of course, is the very attitude they claim to be opposed to themselves and are attempting to combat with these rules. Obviously those rules are real hostility on campus, officially sanctioned, and meant to be hostile. And what do you want to bet there’s very little “microaggression” you can possibly be guilty of directing at a heterosexual white male at Fordham University?

Buck writes:

This is unsurprising. It’s perfectly logical and to be expected. Like every other element of modern liberalism, we can anticipate that this will also work its way into public policy. Much of it already has. We’re incapable of stopping it. Peruse the hundreds of posted examples and blog entries here. The Wiki entry gives a history though it’s short on citations.

The agenda driven “feelings” of the ever expanding number of cultivated “victims” will continue to increasing instill fear in the yet to be indoctrinated.

Jonathan S. writes:

I’m pleased that The Thinking Housewife has discovered the hilarious world of microaggressions! Where our motto is, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will OMIGOD YOU NAZI YOU HURT MY FEEEWINGS!!!” In which we institutionalize the notion that The Only True Sin Is to Bruise Somebody’s Fragile Ego. (Especially if you hold them to account for their actions. How dare you judge someone’s actions when feelings are at stake?)

There’s been discussion here before about how “consent” became lord and first principle after it rushed in to fill the vacuum left behind when we abolished the idea that a woman belongs first to her father, later to her husband. Likewise, when we chose full-tilt nihilism and abolished the idea of judging people for their actions, then wispy, ambiguous, ever-changing emotions rushed in to fill the vacuum and act as the primary material of which modern moral judgments are composed. So if some easily-frightened, labile, overmedicated professional victim is triggered by your reminding him that he is not exactly equal in every way, then by the sole criterion left by which modernists can judge anything, you sir are a bad, Bad Person! You have been tried in the court of neurotransmitters, sloshing randomly about in some coward’s head, and though we cannot observe those synapses firing their guilty verdict, you are hereby convicted of FEELBAD!

Yet this makes me happy, because there is a genuine, tangible silver lining around these ethereal, alleged dark clouds: they provide the perfect target for extremely well-deserved mockery! It’s time for a return to the simple pleasures of bullying the neighborhood wimp. What can be more fun than to jeer at the Asian who complains, “Often when I have dinner at people’s houses, they ask me if I would prefer chopsticks, regardless of the meal!” How can we fail to take pleasure in the pain of the bisexual woman who’s angry at the lesbian who says, “I don’t date bisexuals. They’re never faithful”? Can we bear the intense delight of hearing about the woman who was mortified to be asked, “Are you sure you are alright with driving a stick shift?” at several car dealerships, no doubt by salesmen who are speaking from extensive past experience?

The microaggression whiners exist only because we as a society have lost the art of mocking people who choose to be wusses and shaming the losers who angle for gain by pretending to be weaker than they really are. Bullying people who flaunt their victim status is part of a civilization’s immune system. It forces them to develop their strengths rather than their weaknesses.

The microaggressions crowd demonstrate two excellent examples of moral inversion holding that which is low (victim status) as high, and that which is high (courage and an expectation of the same from one’s fellows) as low; and holding that thoughts and words have greater potential for sin than actions. This development isn’t merely whiny and irritating; it is a profound evil masquerading as a good.

Laura writes:

This development isn’t merely whiny and irritating; it is a profound evil masquerading as a good.

Exactly.

I don’t think we should delight in sadistic mockery in response — except when, as you say,  the target involves those who “flaunt their victim status.”

Aservant writes:

I have just crossed the Rubicon with this one.  Seriously.  This is a watershed moment for me.

 I learned about this term earlier today when reading a post about a Canadian university faculty member who was actually “charged” with committing a microaggression by posting a doctored, comedic video of Obama kicking a door in frustration after a press conference.  It seems that some students felt that this was racist, and therefore a microagression.  The Orwellian death-panel of thought police commissars that reviewed the case (please note the sarcasm) agreed; the individual was forced to formally apologize or lose his job.

 I was bursting with laughter as I read this earlier today, just as I am now after watching the video on link provided.  This is what I mean by this being a defining moment for me.  The progressive juggernaut is officially now, in my mind, completely, totally, infantile and absolutely insane.  I’ve known this for quite some time of course, but suddenly the childishness has just been pushed front and center stage without even an attempt to disguise it.  Before learning of “microagressions”, I was often distraught, frustrated and angry when reading about the latest liberal ploy.  Now I just can’t even be bothered to take these people seriously at all.  Yes, I know that they have the power, so although I am being briefly amused by their antics, the situation is still very serious, this I am acutely aware of, but come on, really……….I am almost tempted to go out and try and bait a liberal to accuse me of a microaggession so I can sincerely roll with laughter in his presence.  Really, I don’t think I could refrain from uncontrollable, spasmic laughter if someone were in fact to accuse me of this thought crime…….which of course, when I gathered myself, would be followed with about 15 or 20 minutes of ridicule spilling uncontrollably from my mouth.  And then I would probably disappear into the gulags for the horrible crime of speaking in the manner that people have spoken for centuries in our culture.  Completely. Totally. Insane.

 If anyone learning of this still believes that the conservatively inclined will be able to come to some sort of consensus with these loons and continue to co-exist in the same country with some semblance of rational existence, they are just as deluded as the thought police themselves.

I know the chances are pretty slim as things stand now, but the only answer is dissolution of this vile nation.  It no longer deserves to exist, and from its ashes just may rise a people who once again deserve the blessings that God once bestowed upon this land.

Please follow and like us: