U Of Washington Study Links ‘Microaggressions’ To Whites-No Whites included in study

a reply to: seasonal

While I would admit I don't give much credence to "microaggressions," I still am trying to understand.

Using your rice example; I assume most people like rice in one form or another, so is it only a microaggression when it concerns an Asian person?

If so, it seems to be a mangled, convoluted form of racism itself. Where, the only criteria for whether or not offense is present is based solely on "race."

On my end, I'm making the exact same assumption and thought processes across the board with no deviation whatsoever. Why would this be "OK" for some races, but not others?

a reply to: Serdgiam

Microaggression it seems is a theoretical bridge beginning in actual racism, winding through stereotypes and ending up in Thoughtcrime.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: luciferslight

Are jokes considered microaggressions?

Well if the jokes are about minorities then yes they are microaggressions. And the jokes are 100% white students fault, according to the study.

We can't tell if jokes about whites are microaggressions, they were omitted from the study, I imagine it was an oversight. Right?

Seriously the study is the joke, and so is the U of W.

Why are redneck murder cases the hardest to solve?
Because all the DNA matches and there are no dental records.

What is the scariest thing about a white person in prison?
You know he did it.

What does a white woman make for dinner?
Reservations.

What do you call a mob of white people in Detroit burning down the city?
A hockey victory.

What do you call it when a white man dancing has a seizure?
An improvement.

What do you call a white man in court?
The lawyer.

Why do so many white people get lost skiing?
It’s hard to find them in the snow.

The Winter Olympics.
Letting white people win at sports no one else can afford to learn.

How does every black joke start?
With the white guy looking over his shoulder.

Where's the safest place to stand while white people are playing basketball?
Under the hoop.

a reply to: dragonridr

Funny stuff.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: seasonal

80% of CRT is bull#, 15% is such a non-starter that it may as well be and 5% is probably worth further consideration. CRT has done exponentially more to fuel right-wing propaganda than it has to improve race relations.

What is CRT? Terms and conditions states not to do this for a reason.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Serdgiam

Microaggression it seems is a theoretical bridge beginning in actual racism, winding through stereotypes and ending up in Thoughtcrime.

I suppose my issue with it is that I'm not a fan of treating someone differently based on the color of their skin. Its a bit anathema to my own thought process, whether its to treat said skin colors with kid gloves, or the more typically denounced negativity.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, as I might be wrong, but I currently don't see the benefit of changing my assumptions about delicious foods based on the skin color of the person I'm dealing with.

Actually, if I'm perfectly honest, I feel like it stems more from a victim mentality than being a true path beyond "racism." In that, it would seem to perpetuate racism nearly as readily as the more overt, common forms.

I dont think there is a such a thing as a micro aggression in Scotland

oh wait , maybe calling someone a # is considered a micro aggression here

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Critical Race Theory

It began as a theoretical movement within American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reaction to critical legal studies[4][verification needed] and is loosely unified by two common themes. First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.[5] Scholars such as Derrick Bell applauded the focus of civil rights scholarship on race, but were deeply critical of civil rights scholars' commitment to color blindness and their focus on intentional discrimination, rather than a broader focus on the conditions of racial inequality.[6][page needed] Likewise, scholars like Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Mari Matsuda embraced the focus on the reproduction of hierarchy in critical legal studies, but criticized critical legal scholars for failing to focus on racial domination and on the particular sources of racial oppression.[7]