Talk:Microaggression

WTSF?

RationalWiki is supposed to criticize ridiculous concepts like "microagressions", "trigger warnings", "safe spaces", or "mansplaining", NOT support it. And this is coming from a left-leaning black guy. 108.16.6.88 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

What criticism do you recommend? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

FuzzCatPotato, I highly recommend criticism based on peer-reviewed scientific/psychological studies, NOT a bunch of opinion pieces. 108.16.6.88 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Great! Can you show us some? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Whoever created this article has to present the evidence, not me. The burden of proof is on you. 108.16.6.88 (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"I highly recommend criticism based on peer-reviewed scientific/psychological studies" - 108.16.6.88 You recommended critical sources from scientific and psychological studies and you were asked for them. You didn't ask for the proof to support the claims in the article. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been criticized for causing magnafication, which is the exact opposite of what psychologists want people to do. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/) A civil libertarian (not a right-libertarian) who co wrote that paper also noted that the concept of "microagressions" can make it easy to justiry violence against those who commit them, knowingly or not. ClothCoat (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What is this?

I read the examples and some of them can be interpreted as ignorance from people who have never met (or even talked to) a person of a certain race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. A person can make statements which a minority may find uncomfortable. It could be an actual question because of ignorance, or it really is an attack. I sort of get a general idea what the article is trying to say, but I think I need more explanation about what it is.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 22:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I suppose vandalism is the reason why the page made little sense...—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 22:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

One problem is

Microaggression is used to cover various different things/a spectrum of activities from 'ignorance, poor manners, and curiosity which can be enlightened, and attitudes which can be changed' to 'aggressive intentions' which #are# the issue.

And sometimes the accusation of microaggression rather than adopting a more conciliatory approach creates or exacerbates the problem. Or it can be actually disguising the real problems (it is not that X group is being excluded from the management-administrative structure but 'the entire ordinary ranks.' Anna Livia (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And what X sees as microaggression Y sees as mere curiosity/an opportunity for promoting knowledge.

The autocorrect wishes to change 'microaggression' to 'nonaggression' - what behaviour is 'the program' demonstrating? Anna Livia (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)