Hacker News Reader

Comment by gdfasfklshg4 | Hacker News Reader

>> microagressing them

> Somehow I'm reminded of the debate over corporal punishment in schools, where pedagogical effectiveness takes a back seat to more primal ideas about punishment, conformity, and order. People used to be beaten for being left-handed, remember.

Can you provide some context to justify comparing microagressions with beating people with sticks?

View on HN

Difference between "agression" and "microagression" is one of scale - and they are at a very different scale, hence the "micro". But the intent to hurt is common.

We can see even in this thread people talking about the need to "toughen" up students.

Some people who think that any form of physical hurt would be completely unacceptable still seem to think that emotional hurt is completely fictional and it's totally OK to inflict arbitrary amounts of it on people, then refuse to believe their own accounts of the hurt.

I don't think I'd argue that emotional pain isn't "real." I have felt negative emotions before, I know that negative emotions actually make me feel bad. I also don't think it's some kind of good thing to make people feel bad. Sometimes it's just a matter of good manners -- respect people, avoid offending them, etc. You are positing that when microaggressions occur there was intent, however, and this is obviously false. In fact, it is exactly the lack of intent that is the focus of most of the conversation -- unconscious bias being the main explanation for why the aggressor commited the micro-act that led to the aggrieved's injury. There is a strong analogy to physical pain here, yes -- we're talking about the arena of ideas where unpleasant conversations and thoughts are inevitable if one is going to become and educated person. In a physical arena, say athletics, a similar situation would be where a coach makes everyone practice until they feel micro-pain, like maybe fatigue in their muscles and shortness of breath, or bumps and bruises from normal contact.

> Difference between "agression" and "microagression" is one of scale

No, you're comparing physical aggression with verbal aggression. Sure, the latter might hurt, but I think many (most?) people would agree that it's not just a difference "of scale".

> But the intent to hurt is common.

No, "microaggressions" are often accused even when there's no intent to hurt. E.g. asking a foreign-looking student "Where are you from?" - which is most often likely asked with genuine curiosity, and no ill intent whatsoever - even if you don't assume the person is a foreigner!

We teach our children that it's fine to be curious, but not to be rude. People we meet do not owe us any form of entertainment. If we get to know them and in the course of discussion they are inspired to share some details of their origins then we'll learn those details. If not we can just read a book.

I admit that society has been impoverished when rudeness is reframed as "microaggression", but that doesn't excuse the rudeness.

When did asking where someone is from become rudeness? It's an icebreaker question...

That has always been rude, but is especially so in today's political context. Immigrants of color know that lots of people in Western nations don't want them around. Random interrogations from random white people don't help them feel better about it.

Rudeness isn't the end of the world, but we should still try to avoid it. I don't get pissed off when adults ask me about or make stupid jokes in light of my obvious physical handicap, but I would still prefer that they not do that. Young children get a free pass, because I don't expect them to know any better.

The whole concept of "icebreaker" seems dubious. If you don't feel comfortable around strangers, that's your thing. It's silly to assume that anyone treasures your company enough that they want to become familiar.

I mean, that's the sort of question I'd expect to see come up in a "introduce yourselves to the group" icebreaker.

Though it doesn't entirely answer your question, several philosophers of speech have identified no metaphysical difference between speech and non-speech, and some find the justifications for a law guaranteeing freedom of speech to be ultimately unfounded[0]. The issue for them is not whether speech causes harm (it does) but whether the harms are sufficient to allow some kind of regulation on speech; there is no evidence showing that speech "invariably causes less harm [than non-speech]". Several have argued this to be the case in the context of hate speech or pornography - it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions - which, as the researchers have noted, may not always be conscious[2].

[0] https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Bris...

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...

[2] Sue, Derald Wing. Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

> it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions

Terrifying

From your 0th citation: "Please don’t cite or circulate it beyond the workshop."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com