There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Microaggression
WTSF?[edit]
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? FU22YC47P07470 (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)
- "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)
What is this?[edit]
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[edit]
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)