I'm a lefty of the George Carlin-type, and know that "microaggressions" spring from microaggressive / thin-skinned crybullies looking to police everyone else's thoughts and behaviors with chilling effects; make everyone else walk on eggshells to not cause even the slightest offense to anyone, ever. You know what? F that. Unless they're trustfunders, the real world isn't going to care about any of this made-up, illiberal crap. Supposed "liberals" who don't hold liberal values, common-sense, or anything intellectual because they're delving into political, etiquette, and social mores rather than learning or debating something meaningful. They make a mockery of the cause and beliefs of what was once "liberal."
Meanwhile: economic inequality, climate change, warming arctic, mass shootings, police excessive force of all kinds, celebrity idolatry and a subtle caste system, sexuality exploitation with sex-negativity, race/gender/sex/etc. not ignored and de-biased towards meritocracy instead of victimology, screen addiction, widespread friendlessness, the precariat, downfall of civilization, decline of quality journalism, political-billionaire complex, social media manufactured consent and beliefs, American imperialism.
For some reason, the gods of HN don’t want this topic to reach front page. Yes, it’s political, yes, it’s divisive, but judging by the original thread it seems like there is interest for this topic in this community.
I'm not sure the first submission gives much room for useful and insightful discussion. Is the discussion there any different from other political correctness discussions we had here? If not, then it shouldn't be on the front page.
This story is preposterous for the fact that its cause was its own pitch. It almost wrote itself. When we make the problem larger than it actually is, we will end up immanentizing it.
Of course a panel of authorities on microaggression and social behaviour is going to end up becoming the very thing they resist.
It's legitimately weird to see the Streissand effect on this particular front on the culture war. This case is clearly going to blow up the discussion on who gets to define what, so there are distinct reasons for the story to either a) disappear, or b) be rendered off-limits for s/n reasons.
Do we have what it takes, as a culture right now, to accurately define microaggressions? I don't think so - in fact, I think the academic leaders who seem so intent on pushing this issue, are only making the issue much, much worse.
Any 'ism can be weaponised. Sure, we are not cool with aggression - but what about the kids?
