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
-
-
"Microagression reasoning" pattern-matches to pareidolias of controlling shitty partners (mostly but not exclusively male).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 -
Replying to @chaosprime @0knaomi and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 -
You can say that about Psi too, methinks. Even easier with Psi, I'd argue.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
lol, the psi excuse is "my hypothesis was falsified because of the hostile observer", kinda the inverse akshully
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Depends on how many layers of "it's your fault for not believing my claims right away" you put on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.