Microaggression Butt-Hurt

tod evans

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
36,071
Fuck these people! :mad:

From Drudge;


College students confront subtler forms of bias: slights and snubs

http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-college-microaggression-20151112-story.html

USC junior Vanessa Diaz was raised in Dallas. But at a party two years ago, she was asked if she could speak English.

When Diaz became offended, the other student tried to pass off the question as a joke. But it did not amuse her, any more than the idea of Mexican-themed parties on Greek Row featuring students in sombreros and fake mustaches.

"Because of the society we live in, it's not OK to be overtly racist," Diaz said. "But that doesn't mean everything is OK."

Interested in the stories shaping California? Sign up for the free Essential California newsletter >>

Some call it the new face of racism — not the blatant acts of bias that recently led to the University of Missouri's campus unrest and resignation of the president and chancellor. Instead, a phenomenon known as "microaggression" — everyday slights and snubs, sometimes unintentional — is drawing widespread attention across college campuses and kicking up a debate about social justice and free speech rights.

Students are sharing their experiences with microaggression on websites and Facebook pages at Harvard, Oberlin, Brown, Dartmouth, Swarthmore, Columbia, Willamette and other universities.

In the last eight years, researchers have conducted more than 5,500 studies on the topic documenting how such seemingly minor slights harm student performance, mental health and work productivity, said Derald Wing Sue, a Columbia University psychology professor and leading expert on the topic.

University of California President Janet Napolitano invited faculty members last year to take training in recognizing microaggression and the messages they send. One handout, adapted from Sue's research, offered examples: Telling people of color they speak English well sends a message they are perpetual foreigners in their own land or asserting that America is a "melting pot" denies the significance of a person's racial or ethnic experiences.

Some critics, however, say they worry that the microaggression movement chills free speech, increases conflict and perpetuates an aggrieved sense of victimhood.

Bradley Campbell, a an associate professor of sociology at Cal State Los Angeles, said the movement is transforming society from a "dignity culture," in which people are taught to have thick skins and refuse to allow others to affect their sense of self-worth, to a "victimhood culture" that advertises personal oppression.

Such a shift, he argued, could increase mental health problems and 1st Amendment conflicts, such as campus speech codes and the recent attempt by University of Missouri students to bar journalists from entering a public area they deemed their "safe space."

He also said that labeling those who unintentionally offend as aggressors seemed harsh, potentially creating more conflict and alienation among groups.

Others defend the focus on microaggression as the next step forward in the country's long, slow march toward greater equality and understanding.

Rini Sampath, USC's student body president of Indian descent who drew national attention when she wrote on Facebook about an ethnic slur hurled at her, said microaggressions should not be shrugged off as trivial.

"People are going to dismiss us … because they say it's political correctness gone too far," she said. "But every day, students walk into a room and someone makes fun of their accent or [gets] kicked out of parties, and we have to take those things seriously. Microaggressions lead to macroaggressions."

See the most-read stories this hour >>
Jerry Kang, a professor of law and Asian American studies at UCLA, said explicit bias may be less visible today, but a growing body of mind-science research has documented that even people who don't consider themselves bigoted take actions belying that. Such implicit biases have been correlated with such behavior as job interview callbacks, hiring men over women, use of police force and funding of minority student organizations, he said.

"The microaggression conversation has helped all of us," said Kang, who was named this year as UCLA's first vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion. "Having multiple vocabulary and methods for measuring how fair and square we are is always a good thing for society."

But students say it's not always easy to call out such slights. At UC Berkeley, Spencer Pritchard, a biracial student majoring in political economy and African American studies, said he tried to laugh off jests by his white and Asian American floormates who expressed surprise that he was articulate and good at math.

"After the fact, I got frustrated and wondered why I let that slide," he said. "I'd like to not let it bother me if I didn't see black people disproportionately going to prison, dying at the hands of police or being pulled by their hair in classrooms. Microaggressions are part of a bigger picture."

At UCLA, Filipino American student Kevin Casasola said he has learned to recognize the harm caused by seeming innocuous slights and is more willing to voice his discontent with them. He said his peers will sometimes ask where he is "really from" after he tells them he was raised in Temecula.

"The covert underlying message is 'Oh, I don't believe you're from here,'" said Casasola, a third-year statistics major. "It perpetuates an idea of xenophobia."

At USC, undergraduate student leaders escalated their campaign against campus bias Tuesday, passing a resolution asking the university to hire administrators to oversee diversity, hold sensitivity trainings and set aside $100 million for scholarships, programming and mentorships for minority students and faculty.

One resolution supporter was Leslie Berntsen, a psychology graduate student whose mother is Nicaraguan and father, white. When she was applying to graduate schools, she said an admissions officer expressed surprise at her high test scores and encouraged her to apply for a scholarship for minorities.

"The implication is that Hispanics couldn't score so high on tests," she said.

Berntsen said that such incidents don't compare with problems of previous generations but are a sign that society still is struggling with race.

"Just because we're doing better doesn't mean we're doing good," she said.

A testy exchange before the vote on the resolution highlighted the continuing tensions in the microaggression debate.

A white male speaker, apparently frustrated by the discussion, questioned the need for diversity training for guest lecturers and whether one student was human at all. He told the packed room that "you guys don't understand how endowments" and university finances work.

Several students groaned, and Cynthia Blondeel-Timmerman, a junior, told the speaker she found the term "you guys" offensive.

"This isn't a men's issue," she said. "How dare you come into this space and say that [females] aren't important."

Shortly afterward, he left in a huff, declining to give his name.
 
If ANYBODY brought this shit into my house they would be out before they knew what hit them.
 
Ostracism is modus operandi for K-selected people. They see it as gentle, humane, non-rights-violating, and effective.

But Ostracism is Genetic Death for the r-selected. Literal, horrible genetic death. To be ostracized feels like being tortured to these people. They can't handle it. That's why they lash out against it so strongly. It means death for them.
 
Ostracism is modus operandi for K-selected people. They see it as gentle, humane, non-rights-violating, and effective.

But Ostracism is Genetic Death for the r-selected. Literal, horrible genetic death. To be ostracized feels like being tortured to these people. They can't handle it. That's why they lash out against it so strongly. It means death for them.

I can't make myself watch that dude who explains this K&R people theory ya'll talk about, Stefan Molyneux?

Can you 'splain what it is please?
 
Can you 'splain what it is please?
"Kapazitätsgrenze" - capacity limit

K selected individuals live overpopulated areas
r selected individuals live underpopulated areas

Among the traits that are thought to characterize r-selection are high fecundity, small body size, early maturity onset, short generation time, and the ability to disperse offspring widely.

Traits that are thought to be characteristic of K-selection include large body size, long life expectancy, and the production of fewer offspring, which often require extensive parental care until they mature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory




its not scientific; but just 'member... r = rural
 
A testy exchange before the vote on the resolution highlighted the continuing tensions in the microaggression debate.

A white male speaker, apparently frustrated by the discussion, questioned the need for diversity training for guest lecturers and whether one student was human at all. He told the packed room that "you guys don't understand how endowments" and university finances work.

Several students groaned, and Cynthia Blondeel-Timmerman, a junior, told the speaker she found the term "you guys" offensive.

"This isn't a men's issue," she said. "How dare you come into this space and say that [females] aren't important."

Shortly afterward, he left in a huff, declining to give his name.

Ha! This sums it up nicely. Rather than take offense at ACTUALLY being called ignorant, she is outraged over his failure to use the newspeak when pointing out their ignorance. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
"Kapazitätsgrenze" - capacity limit

K selected individuals live overpopulated areas
r selected individuals live underpopulated areas


its not scientific; but just 'member... r = rural

Trying to apply this to what HH wrote I'm not seeing it?

Ostracism is modus operandi for K-selected city people. They see it as gentle, humane, non-rights-violating, and effective.

But Ostracism is Genetic Death for the r-selected rural. Literal, horrible genetic death. To be ostracized feels like being tortured to these people. They can't handle it. That's why they lash out against it so strongly. It means death for them.

Either I'm just stupid or there's more 'splainin' required.......:confused:
 
Great. The next thing they will demand is for introverts to talk to them.

They've really gone too far. I don't have that much emotional capital to invest in someone who is not interested in growing up and joining the real world.
 
I know you people are targeting me by all your comments and I don't appreciate it. I feel that none of you respect me as a person and it's just not right...

yeah, the OP is from the "show me state" or the land of "big canoes" (Missouri)
and berates the "people down the river" (Arkansas) and makes fun of us not wearing shoes or having teeth.
yes, I too feel targeted.
even IF the Hillbilly is right about my being a Redneck. :eek:
 
Let's also keep in mind that almost nobody pays for their own education. These crybabies are demonstrating on your dime and mine.

Academia brought this on themselves. They promoted this silliness on campus and now they have a mess on their hands. They hand pick their students.

I think the next step will be that colleges are called too big to fail and the federal government will sweep in to take over schools.
 
I can't make myself watch that dude who explains this K&R people theory ya'll talk about, Stefan Molyneux?

Can you 'splain what it is please?
Of course! Basically there's two main successful reproductive strategies in nature.

The first is r for rate. It's just pure speed. The more offspring, the earlier, the better. For "r" think "rabbit". You just have as many babies as possible, because there's unlimited grass for all practical purposes.

The second is K for "Kapacity" (German). With a K strategy, you have controlled amount of offspring and invest a lot of time and effort into those offspring, training them, keeping them alive, etc. For "K" you can think of wolves, or, if you want to match letters, "killer whales". Killer things in general, anyway. They breed for quality and for the limited carrying capacity of the environment. And, in the case of humans, by increasing quality to a high enough level they can then actually gradually increase the carrying capacity of the environment (through technology, etc.)!

Where all this applies to humans is that we are actually both. We can choose to do either strategy, and which one each individual picks will be strongly influenced by his environment. R-selected humans will tend to be more promiscuous, more impulsive, more "living in the moment". Ks are more monogamous, more deliberative in making plans and goal-setting, and more long-term in their thinking. Rs do not not like competition, if at all possible they try to avoid it, bypass it, and undermine it: "Everybody gets a trophy!" Ks, on the other hand, love and embrace competition; they are very comfortable with it. That's their bread and butter. "May the best man win."

An r example would be Woody Allen.

A K would be John Wayne.

An r is a single mom with 8 kids, or 5 kids, (or shoot even 1 if she cannot care and provide for it), all from different dads. She hasn't read any parenting books, she puts no effort into training and disciplining and educating her kids, she just pops em out. Like rabbits. A rabbit does not really care about her young. Mom doesn't care if you get eaten by the wolf, dad's long-gone and definitely doesn't care; just munch your grass and have babies of your own ASAP. So that's one thing that strongly selects for r, that is, causes the r-genes to activate in humans: absence of the father. It's remarkable how strong this is! Girls without their father (not just any man, their biological father) in the home mature earlier. It's an extremely strong effect, even if the father's absence occurs later in life: if parents get divorced when one daughter is 12 and the other is only 7, the younger daughter will go through puberty at an earlier age than the older one! The body thinks "Uh oh, no dad, that means some sort of horrible chaos situation I'm being born into that made my dad be gone -- plague, war, etc."

We are becoming a more and more r-selected society, for a whole avalanche of reasons. This is very unfortunate. Welfare is basically like grass for the Rs. Unlimited resources. Grass/checks as far as the eye can see.

As for ostracism, it is something Ks do. Goes along with competition. Rs hate it. They hate for lower-quality people to be ostracized, because that's the Ks forcing them to compete, and they know they can't compete. It's physically painful for them. To survive, they need to be able to mate with anyone and everyone, they require loose women with low standards. High standards mean The End of The Road for their genetic line. Things like shunning and snubbing are the same idea and activate the same pain response.

I hope that gives you some idea what I'm talking about.

When you think of Rs, think: Rascally Rabbits, Rabid egalitarians, and "who's gonna pay mah Rent?" single moms. Quantity not quality.

When you think of Ks, think: Kwality-driven. Kompetitive. Konservative.
 
Last edited:
Of course! Basically there's two main successful reproductive strategies in nature.

The first is r for rate. It's just pure speed. The more offspring, the earlier, the better. For "r" think "rabbit". You just have as many babies as possible, because there's unlimited grass for all practical purposes.

The second is K for "Kapacity" (German). With a K strategy, you have controlled amount of offspring and invest a lot of time and effort into those offspring, training them, keeping them alive, etc. For "K" you can think of wolves, or, if you want to match letters, "killer whales". Killer things in general, anyway. They breed for quality and for the limited carrying capacity of the environment. And, in the case of humans, by increasing quality to a high enough level they can then actually gradually increase the carrying capacity of the environment (through technology, etc.)!

Where all this applies to humans is that we are actually both. We can choose to do either strategy, and which one each individual picks will be strongly influenced by his environment. R-selected humans will tend to be more promiscuous, more impulsive, more "living in the moment". Ks are more monogamous, more deliberative in making plans and goal-setting, and more long-term in their thinking. Rs do not not like competition, if at all possible they try to avoid it, bypass it, and undermine it: "Everybody gets a trophy!" Ks, on the other hand, love and embrace competition; they are very comfortable with it. That's their bread and butter. "May the best man win."

An r example would be Woody Allen.

A K would be John Wayne.

An r is a single mom with 8 kids, or 5 kids, (or shoot even 1 if she cannot care and provide for it), all from different dads. She hasn't read any parenting books, she puts no effort into training and disciplining and educating her kids, she just pops em out. Like rabbits. A rabbit does not really care about her young. Mom doesn't care if you get eaten by the wolf, dad's long-gone and definitely doesn't care; just munch your grass and have babies of your own ASAP. So that's one thing that strongly selects for r, that is, causes the r-genes to activate in humans: absence of the father. It's remarkable how strong this is! Girls without their father (not just any man, their biological father) in the home mature earlier. It's an extremely strong effect, even if the father's absence occurs later in life: if parents get divorced when one daughter is 12 and the other is only 7, the younger daughter will go through puberty at an earlier age than the older one! The body thinks "Uh oh, no dad, that means some sort of horrible chaos situation I'm being born into that made my dad be gone -- plague, war, etc."

We are becoming a more and more r-selected society, for a whole avalanche of reasons. This is very unfortunate. Welfare is basically like grass for the Rs. Unlimited resources. Grass/checks as far as the eye can see.

As for ostracism, it is something Ks do. Goes along with competition. Rs hate it. They hate for lower-quality people to be ostracized, because that's the Ks forcing them to compete, and they know they can't compete. It's physically painful for them. To survive, they need to be able to mate with anyone and everyone, they require loose women with low standards. High standards mean The End of The Road for their genetic line. Things like shunning and snubbing are the same idea and activate the same pain response.

I hope that gives you some idea what I'm talking about.

When you think of Rs, think: Rascally Rabbits, Rabid egalitarians, and "who's gonna pay mah Rent?" single moms. Quantity not quality.

When you think of Ks, think: Kwality-driven. Kompetitive. Konservative.

I'm out of reps for Tod Evans, but hopefully he reads this, maybe somebody else can rep him and get him back here - it's a pretty thorough explanation of an outstanding model that Stefan and some others have been working out and expanding on lately.

Stefan has gone on for hours and hours and hours on this stuff. It's very interesting. You can literally peel apart political ideologies - conservative vs. liberal - and explain why r's tend to be liberal and K's tend to be conservative, issue after issue. For example, abortion - K's value their young much more than r's. Gun control - r's don't like competition and they know that if K's (John Wayne) can arm themselves then they (Woody Allen) will more likely be a target for criminals whether he arms himself or not - so r's prefer that NOBODY has guns so everybody has more equal standing in becoming a target for criminality and such.

I feel sorry for people who can't listen to Stefan - I don't agree with him on everything but he is one of the best critical thinkers out there these days.
 
I'm out of reps for Tod Evans, but hopefully he reads this, maybe somebody else can rep him and get him back here - it's a pretty thorough explanation of an outstanding model that Stefan and some others have been working out and expanding on lately.

Stefan has gone on for hours and hours and hours on this stuff. It's very interesting. You can literally peel apart political ideologies - conservative vs. liberal - and explain why r's tend to be liberal and K's tend to be conservative, issue after issue. For example, abortion - K's value their young much more than r's. Gun control - r's don't like competition and they know that if K's (John Wayne) can arm themselves then they (Woody Allen) will more likely be a target for criminals whether he arms himself or not - so r's prefer that NOBODY has guns so everybody has more equal standing in becoming a target for criminality and such.

I feel sorry for people who can't listen to Stefan - I don't agree with him on everything but he is one of the best critical thinkers out there these days.

Thanks to HH for 'splaining!

I'm one of 'those' people who can't stand to hear Molineaux speak, if his stuff was in print I'd read it but just the mannerisms and condescending tone are enough to grate on my nerves.

I've noticed most Yankees don't find him offensive and lots of Southerners do.......

Anyway HH's brief synopsis was much appreciated as it permits me, and hopefully others, to grasp the concept.....
 
If you are your own person, you combat microagression (that term sucks, btw) on your own time, your own dime, and in your own home. Someone insults you or your ancestors or even the type of dog you have? You may ask them to leave. You may even have something choice to say back to them, depending on what it was. You might even "educate" them until they get bored, leave, and never talk to you again. Insulted that people think you don't speak English? Smile back and say "no, I'm fluently bilingual" or "I ONLY speak English" if that's the case. OMG so terrible!!! Instead, the whole world has to tiptoe for her. Fuck that. Yes, I'm being insensitive to people with sexual dysfunctions. Bite me. Unless you don't have any teeth left. Here's my middle finger. Unless yours was blown off in the war, and now I'm obviously reminding you of what you used to have. Seriously, these kids would have protested just over a dozen years ago that "Hasta la vista, baby" was used in a movie. Life will do its best to keep coddling them, but a few are going to fall hard on their butts (apologies to the flat-asses out there) and realize how stupid they are.
 
Of course! Basically there's two main successful reproductive strategies in nature.

The first is r for rate. It's just pure speed. The more offspring, the earlier, the better. For "r" think "rabbit". You just have as many babies as possible, because there's unlimited grass for all practical purposes.

The second is K for "Kapacity" (German). With a K strategy, you have controlled amount of offspring and invest a lot of time and effort into those offspring, training them, keeping them alive, etc. For "K" you can think of wolves, or, if you want to match letters, "killer whales". Killer things in general, anyway. They breed for quality and for the limited carrying capacity of the environment. And, in the case of humans, by increasing quality to a high enough level they can then actually gradually increase the carrying capacity of the environment (through technology, etc.)!

Where all this applies to humans is that we are actually both. We can choose to do either strategy, and which one each individual picks will be strongly influenced by his environment. R-selected humans will tend to be more promiscuous, more impulsive, more "living in the moment". Ks are more monogamous, more deliberative in making plans and goal-setting, and more long-term in their thinking. Rs do not not like competition, if at all possible they try to avoid it, bypass it, and undermine it: "Everybody gets a trophy!" Ks, on the other hand, love and embrace competition; they are very comfortable with it. That's their bread and butter. "May the best man win."

An r example would be Woody Allen.

A K would be John Wayne.

An r is a single mom with 8 kids, or 5 kids, (or shoot even 1 if she cannot care and provide for it), all from different dads. She hasn't read any parenting books, she puts no effort into training and disciplining and educating her kids, she just pops em out. Like rabbits. A rabbit does not really care about her young. Mom doesn't care if you get eaten by the wolf, dad's long-gone and definitely doesn't care; just munch your grass and have babies of your own ASAP. So that's one thing that strongly selects for r, that is, causes the r-genes to activate in humans: absence of the father. It's remarkable how strong this is! Girls without their father (not just any man, their biological father) in the home mature earlier. It's an extremely strong effect, even if the father's absence occurs later in life: if parents get divorced when one daughter is 12 and the other is only 7, the younger daughter will go through puberty at an earlier age than the older one! The body thinks "Uh oh, no dad, that means some sort of horrible chaos situation I'm being born into that made my dad be gone -- plague, war, etc."

We are becoming a more and more r-selected society, for a whole avalanche of reasons. This is very unfortunate. Welfare is basically like grass for the Rs. Unlimited resources. Grass/checks as far as the eye can see.

As for ostracism, it is something Ks do. Goes along with competition. Rs hate it. They hate for lower-quality people to be ostracized, because that's the Ks forcing them to compete, and they know they can't compete. It's physically painful for them. To survive, they need to be able to mate with anyone and everyone, they require loose women with low standards. High standards mean The End of The Road for their genetic line. Things like shunning and snubbing are the same idea and activate the same pain response.

I hope that gives you some idea what I'm talking about.

When you think of Rs, think: Rascally Rabbits, Rabid egalitarians, and "who's gonna pay mah Rent?" single moms. Quantity not quality.

When you think of Ks, think: Kwality-driven. Kompetitive. Konservative.

It's an interesting theory, but where's the evidence?
 
Back
Top