I don't think you can avoid a thing that can only exist in the bizarre imagination of counterparty. It's like trying to pacify a jealous boyfriend.
-
-
'unintentional rudeness doesn't exist'
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
“Unintentional rudeness” is a fundamentally different framework than micro aggressions. The word aggression implies hostile intent
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @drethelin @adornofthagn and
little things meant to remind people of their place seem hostile to me tbh
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @drethelin and
i dunno that the microaggresions discourse is good or anything, it'd be a violation of sturgeon's law if a description of a valid and objectionable phenomenon weren't immediately exploded into a swamp of opportunistic dominance maneuvering
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @drethelin and
I verily doubt that the phenomenon even exists as initially defined by Pierce, let alone has the effects it is implied to have Frankly, "as defined and used" a claim of micro-aggression can not be disproved, kind of like "knocking on table summons bad spirits" can't be disproved
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
to me it's obviously a thing from simple observation of shit people do, as to effects, enh, anything can have any effect if you wire up the right cognitions between the one and the other
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @drethelin and
"Microagression reasoning" pattern-matches to pareidolias of controlling shitty partners (mostly but not exclusively male).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
'your assertion that certain speech acts may create an unwelcoming atmosphere is actually flawed pattern matching about what's going on in other people's heads, that's going on in your head' well... no u
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adornofthagn @0knaomi and
lol, she's talking more object-level tho. like "this thing you did is a microaggression against me" mapping to "you did this thing to hurt me on purpose, which is now a grievance that means i get to control you"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
i think the discourse definitely encompasses that, which would be the sturgeon's law bit i was talking about earlier, i just don't think the 10% doesn't exist
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @adornofthagn and
I strongly doubt it exists, but the important feature that makes me aggressively disregard the concept of micro-aggression is that it is impossible to disprove those 10%'s existence, making it like Russel's Teapot, or grandma's multiple peculiarly conflicted supernaturals
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
they're not unfalsifiable, they're just unfalsifiable to a hostile interlocutor
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.