Saturday, May 2, 2015

“Microaggressions” and “Triggers”

     Ace is on fire:

     We used to call "microaggressions" our personal peeves, but the Social Justice Warriors want to make it sound important (and give it the false sheen of academic rigor), so they called it "microaggressions." Note this word also shifts the party responsible -- it used to be understood that if you had a pet peeve, it was your pet peeve.

     Now comes the word "microaggression" to make it sound like the guy who activated your pet peeve did so voluntarily and, well, aggressively -- instead of it just being you getting annoyed, because you're sensitive.

     For a long time, I've heard Asians, in particular, talking about the particular "microaggression" of asking "Where are you from?" When they say "Fort Lee, New Jersey," the other person says, "No really, but where are you from?"

     Several things here. One, I can see how this would be annoying.

     Two, I don't think many people actually ask the question this way. I think the question is here being deliberately made to sound more stupid than it was actually posed. Like, I'd ask, "I mean, where does your family originate from?"

     But I wouldn't ask that, because now I know it's the Worst Thing Ever to try to find out if the person you're speaking to is of Korean or Chinese, or Korean or Japanese, extraction, because like You Should Just Know Or Something.

     This put me in mind of the scene in Clint Eastwood’s movie Gran Torino where Eastwood’s character introduces his young Hmong protégé to one of his friends, an Irish barber. If you’ve seen it, you know what I’m talking about; if you haven’t, for the love of God, get a copy and see it! It’s one of the best movies of the last few years.

     I’m also reminded of a scene in Frank Herbert’s neglected novel The Santaroga Barrier:

     “I’m going to tell you something, sir,” Burdeaux said. “Maybe you can understand if I tell you about something happened to me here. It’s a thing that would have hurt me pretty bad one time, but here...We were at a Jaspers party, sir. It was right after Willa, my girl, announced her engagement to Cal Nis. And George, Cal’s daddy, came over and put his arm across my shoulder. “Well there, Win, you old nigger bastard,” he said, “we better have us a good drink and a talk together because our kids are going to make us related.” That was it, Mr. Dasein. He didn’t mean a thing calling me nigger. It was just the way we call a pale blond fellow here Whitey. It was like saying my skin’s black for identification, the way you might come into a room and ask for Al Marden and I’d say “He’s that red-headed fellow over there playing cards.” As he was saying it, I knew that’s all he meant. It Just came over me. It was being accepted for what I am. It was the friendliest thing George could do, and that’s why he did it.”

     Dasein scowled trying to follow the train of Burdeaux’s meaning. Friendly to call him nigger?

     “I don’t think you understand it,” Burdeaux said. “Maybe you’d have to be black to understand. But...well, perhaps this’ll make you see it. A few minutes later, George said to me, “Hey, Win, I wonder what kind of grandchildren we’re going to have—light, dark, or in-between?” It was just a kind of wonderment to him, that he might have black grandchildren. He didn’t care, really. He was curious. He found it interesting. You know, when I told Annie about that afterward, I cried. I was so happy I cried.”

     A place – a community – where you don’t have to pre-censor every word you think to utter, because your neighbors are men of good will and know you to be one too. Wouldn’t you love to live in a society like that?

     The Social Justice Warriors are utterly opposed to freedom of speech and thought. In case you’re wondering, you can’t have the second without the first. For reasons beyond the scope of this tirade, our thinking is tied indissolubly to our speaking.

     Time was, showing a friendly interest in a new acquaintance’s heritage was considered mildly complimentary. Now that it’s been deemed a “microaggression,” a form of “othering,” there appears to be a general license to take offense at any such inquiry. Granted that there are still many persons who don’t take offense, to avoid unpleasant public confrontations one must pre-classify all one’s acquaintances as “man of good will” or “touchy bastard looking for a reason to take offense” before daring to speak.

     That reality is a large part of why I limit my public exposure so sharply. When another person takes umbrage at my innocent remark, I rear up on my hind legs and bellow a war cry. The sequel is often quite unpleasant.

     This, too, is part of the SJWs’ agenda: the atomization of American society into discrete, mutually suspicious or hostile groups. Persons who believe themselves surrounded by enemies will naturally look for protectors...and the State is ever ready to step into that role.

     Before I close, a few words about “triggers.” This concept is exculpatory: an argument for excusing violence or other forms of disruption on the part of some Leftist mascot-group. The principal ones are, of course, Negroes, women, and homosexuals.

     The “trigger” concept is tightly tied to “microaggression,” in that it is almost entirely verbal. The “wrong” word is now deemed adequate justification for an abusive or violent response. It’s not that long ago that the notion would have been laughed out of court: “Incitement to riot is not a justification for riot.” But things have changed rather dramatically, and not for the better.

     Present trends continuing, this combination of SJW tactics will drive a redistribution of the American population. There will soon be regions where only one category of persons is accepted: Caucasian, Negro, Mongolian, Amerind, conservative, liberal, what-have-you. Subtle but effective techniques will be applied to exclude those “not of our kind.” Those regions will be enduringly on guard against their “different” neighbors. Such a Balkanization will spell the end of the United States as a functioning national society.

     This effect is already observable in Britain, France, and several smaller European countries. It’s not making them more peaceful or more politically coherent.


Pascal said...

"Persons who believe themselves surrounded by enemies will naturally look for protectors...and the State is ever ready to step into that role. "

From Tocqueville's Democracy in America, book iii, chapter iv

a despot easily forgives his subjects for not loving him, provided they do not love each other.

Is that a double entendre we see there? Focus on the well placed verb provided that is easily misunderstood to be merely a subordinate conjunction.

It's as if Tocqueville wished to convey the notion of the surreptitiousness of the providers.

Too subtle, I know. But there it is, nonetheless, at the heart of the issue. What I have recognized as a Soviet-style media (SSM) has been rapidly providing multicultural ways for us to not love one another.

Anonymous said...

When they talk about "diversity", what they really mean is a convoluted "sameness". We're not supposed to even notice differences anymore, we're supposed to lie to ourselves. Time was, TRUE diversity was appreciated, and celebrated, and even discussed. Now, we're supposed to just play dumb. Like on the radio, where it's become trendy to lead callers to identify that they're black, rather than for the host to infer based on the VERY BLACK voice on the other end that the person is black. Can't have that stereotyping, now. When's the last time you heard anyone OTHER than a black speak in even mild Ebonic?

I'm single, and personally I prefer Asian women, for a whole host of reasons. Yes, I instantly "other" them on-sight, because I notice that they're Asian. I do this because Asian is a GOOD thing to me, and the fact that they look different makes it convenient. (Once I get talking, if they exhibit the touchy, self-absorbed traits of a Leftist American, I step away quickly)

Invariably, one of the first questions I ask is about their heritage. I usually say "what nationality are you?". This usually leads to a pleasant conversation, in which I mention how MY family came here too, from Europe, and we go on from there. If she takes exception the moment the question gets out of my mouth, I again step away, because I know that this is a person with a contrary nature that I don't want to have to deal with.

So from this angle, I'd like to THANK all these contrary morons for wearing their offense on their sleeve. It makes it very easy to discriminate against you, in favor of nice people.

Ominous Cowherd said...

If you want to be ``othered,'' demonstrate to me that you have ``triggers.''

These ``triggers'' sound like what my father's generation called ``fighting words.''

Tim Turner said...

As I grew up in the 6os, I somehow made an enemy of some punk in the early days of the 7th grade.

I was scared, because I wasn't confrontational. But I didn't need a public-funded radio announcement telling me to "report" bullying. Reporting it or making it known to a teacher wasn't the problem. We knew back then that THERE ARE BULLIES. You don't report them to the teacher because that won't solve the problem.

Whatever the teacher does, you have to deal with the punk, because the punk doesn't believe in the teacher's authority. The punk believe he can beat you. And besides, the teacher can't always be there, no matter how powerful the teacher is.

The teacher might intervene, but that doesn't solve the problem.

Listen up, champions of the U.N. THE TEACHER IS ALMOST NEVER THERE. So, at some point, you have to stand up for yourself.

What's more, the punk-bully doesn't respect your authority, else he wouldn't have bullied in the first place.

AND IF YOU INVITE THE BULLY INTO YOUR CLUB (U.N.) IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND HIS "POSITION," you are absolutely setting yourself up for diversity and "other, valid opinions," to drill you up your rear and KILL YOU.

So, if you're a kid getting bullied, you have to stand up for yourself, or appeal to the nearest group you can - your friends or your parents.

You might get flattened. You might win. Or, you might stand up for yourself and JUST BY DOING THAT, convince the bully you aren't worth his time.

Or - as you're getting plastered, the authorities might show up and restrain the punk - or you, if you're unlucky enough to live in a sufficiently Liberal state.

The point? We aren't diverse. Or, if are it makes no difference. I was bullied by white guys as "privileged" as I was.

Racism isn't a "cause of problems," anymore. Bullying (power-mongering), and the lack of societal scorn against it, IS.

Lack of respect for the law, lack of respect for others, LACK OF RESPECT FOR WHAT GOD HAS MADE YOU AND GIVEN YOU is the problem - not some historical grievance someone panders to you as a narrative of your life.

And that isn't made better when you have bureaucrats in the U.N. trying to resolve issues based on politics, envy and the "diversity" of letting the bully have the same vote as the innocent guy.

The left - government in general - doesn't want us to think about things in a personal way like this. They want us to see every problem as a huge societal mess that needs government solutions.

That's wrong. Government doesn't "solve" bullying or hate or greed or ANYTHING. People do. By their personal beliefs and actions. *When needed,* the community of those people with similar beliefs takes actions against bullies.

It's personal. It's not racism, it's not "class-warfare." It's as simple as knowing when another kid wants to compel you or take your milk money. You stand up, because you KNOW that if you don't, the teacher really can't save you every time.

No. Bullying is personal. All the fu**ing public service announcements in the world shouldn't make you believe that the government - THE WORST BULLY - really has your best interests at heart.

You really do have to stand up by yourself. You may get flattened. You may have to cry out for your siblings, parents and friends to help you.

But you have to stand up instead of waiting - or expecting - the government to stand up for you.

The government was supposed to be nothing more than you, via a representative. If you don't stand up, I guarantee you that your rep won't.

MissAnthropy said...

"Such a Balkanization will spell the end of the United States as a functioning national society."

Am I the only one who sees this and says "Good!"? The American Left has been cultivating Balkanization since the changes in immigration policy in 1965. We are now to a point that if we hope to preserve any semblance of the original, "real" America, it's going to have to be isolated to smaller portions of what was once a geographic whole.

There are entire swaths of the geographic USA that are hopelessly beyond repair. They need to be thrown overboard so some of us can actually survive in a lifeboat somewhere.