The Curious Case of Microaggressions

The universe hates me, indicated by its microaggression towards me that caused me to stumble upon this gem a few days ago…

Click to Enlarge

Microaggressions, a term coined by psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce in 1970, are described by UCLA as the “…everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.” This description was originally intended to describe the subtle behavior of white people towards minorities in the U.S. – notice that the word applies nowhere else in the world – the word has been taken up by the Millennial generation to mean any slight that makes a person feel remotely ill at ease.

The cartoon illustrates the problem with these perceived slights vividly. We know what the artist was trying to say, but if we think about the instances illustrated for us, do they really stand out as ‘aggressions’? 1 – In the second panel, there could be any number of reasons for cabs passing you by. It could be they have someone to pick up or already have a passenger you’re not aware of. Or the driver is going off duty. Or they driver is the same race and gender and decide not to pick you up because they know their own kind doesn’t tip well. There could be a billion reasons why you don’t get picked up. I’m a white male; I’ve been passed up by cabs before. It’s not a microaggression. 2 – In the third panel, a young white woman looks cautiously towards our protagonist, because minorities are never seen taking the subway. Could be that our protagonist is playing some crappy music that offends the delicate ear of the little white devil. 3 – The protagonist expects a lowly educated white male to pronounce her name correctly because she has taken the time to master every language. Moreover, maybe he was asking her where she was from because he’d like her number and Brooklyn is a disqualifier for him. It was a disqualifier for the Giants and Dodgers, after all. 4 – The losing weight comment in the fifth panel is something everyone suffers from all kinds of people. Well, almost everyone. My mother remarks that I eat like a bird. Should I get offended? No, I am comfortable with my svelte weight and don’t need to answer to anyone for it. I may be lean but it’s not like my life’s in danger, Mom. So, she’s the one who needs to get over it, not me. 5 – In the sixth panel, yeah, that guy’s a dick. If there was a need to be old-fashioned, why was our protagonist given the project in the first place? But this isn’t necessarily an ‘aggression;’ it’s stupidity on part of her manager. 6 – The seventh panel doesn’t even happen. Why would the caller expect a designer to be answering the phone anyway? 7 – The burger comment is probably coming from some vegan dipshit and has nothing to do with the person suspecting our protagonist is a vegetarian because of her ethnicity. This would be a case of ‘aggression’ but there’s a quick come back for that: Hum favorably while biting into the burger. 8 – In panels nine and ten, yes, these guys are being assholes and our protagonist is right to be upset. But such a situation can happen to anyone. Panel eleven implies one has to be accepted by their peers. This bit is ridiculous. 9 – Why would anyone assume someone wanted something sugar-free? This seems like it would be a case of someone just not doing their job right, not an intentional or even unintentional attack. 10 – In panel fourteen, the cashier may be unintentionally profiling but as I always say, stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. 11 – In panel fifteen, the police are looking for a suspect; could be anyone so they’re going to ask everyone who they are. If the suspect is an ethnic woman, of course they’re going to say something to her.

Look, I know what it is to have a bad day, when it seems like the entire universe and everyone in it is out to get you. Llelena certainly should be irritated by her work situation, in which case I would start working on my resume. But just about everything else, Llelena has to give permission from within herself to be offended. Words are only words and one has to internalize them in order for them to impact us negatively. So, when people remark that sensitive people should grow thicker skin, they’re right. If a person hasn’t realized by now the world is full of idiots and assholes – and idiots and assholes are not exclusive to any group of people – they should expect the hurt that is coming your way. But it doesn’t have to hurt. They only one letting themselves get hurt is themselves. If you think you don’t deserve to be hurt, then don’t be. Getting hurt implies you do in fact deserve it. In the final panel, Llelena recognized she doesn’t deserve it and is going to kick ass tomorrow, too. That’s why she’s the protagonist.

Microaggressions are often not what Millennials think they are. If we scratch the surface of their psychology, we’re sure to find a lot of self-loathing. They protect themselves from it by imagining everyone else is the enemy. Like people of every generation before them, the real enemy lies within. 

The Etymology of 'Idiot'

If there is one sure fire way to spot an idiot, it would have to be the way some people – usually conspiracy theorists (ironically also referred to as ‘truthers’) – think they have figured out what some words actually mean or how words are sometimes used against them. 

For example, I recall one particularly idiotic truther tried entertaining his disturbingly large audience of 200 people with the revelation that the word ‘youngster’ is really referring to youngsters as being ‘young stars’ as human beings are in fact beings of light. Nevermind that the etymology (the study of the origin of words and their historical usage) of the word ‘young’ stems from the Old English word ‘geong’ and Middle English word ‘yong’ which both refer to someone as being from the early part of life or as possessing the looks of someone who looks as though they belong to the early part of life. The suffix ‘-ster’ is also derived from Old and Middle English (and Proto-Germanic) and at when added to a word refers to that thing as belonging to a specified group or as doing something specific. Unsurprisingly, the word for a youngster is ‘enfant’ in French and ‘junge’ or ‘kind’ in German, words that have ZERO to do with this truther’s claims about young people being the children of stars. Certainly one can just make up out of thin air their own etymologies, but that doesn’t mean their imaginings are true. [The same person completely ignored some key definitions of ‘defense’ and intentionally narrowed the meaning of the word to make a rather poor argument in their favor regarding imperialism.]

Then there’s this ridiculous conspiracy theorist meme, depicted on the left. In actuality, the word ‘govern-’ as it relates here is derived from the Old French word ‘governor’ which is itself derived from the Latin ‘gubernare,’ itself derived from the Greek word ‘kybernan’ meaning to pilot or captain a ship. Meanwhile, ‘-ment’ was imported from the French and Latin ‘-mentum’ and means the result of an action. As one clever commenter wrote on English.stockexchange.com “If ‘-ment’ always referred to the mind, then a replacement would be a brain transplant, punishment would be a headache, and an attachment would be a neural implant.”

More recently, another truther tried to explain in her Youtube video that when police ask you if you understand what they are saying, answering ‘yes’ means you are giving them permission to stand over you. Nevermind that the word comes from the Old English usage of ‘understandan’ which simply means to perceive the meaning of words or ideas spoken to you. That’s it. If what this conspiracy theorist is saying is true, then you simply have to tell police you don’t understand them when they ask you if you understand and it’s like a get-out-of-jail-free card!

Conspiracy theorists / truthers (‘-ists’ and ‘-ers’ is used in a very similar fashion to ‘-ster’, btw) claim to want to make you think, but when you do and actually do research the things the talk about and come to a ‘real’ conclusion, they’ll have none of it. They’ll throw every ad hominin attack or straw man fallacy in the book at you. Conspiracy theorists are alarmingly delusional and should be hospitalized before they hurt someone or themselves. Or, we can invite them to leave and start their own country. I know, I know, they’re too lazy for all that. A few idiots ruin it for the rest of us.

[‘Idiot,’ by the way, comes from the Old French and Latin word ‘idiota’ meaning ‘ignorant person.’ Unsurprisingly, the usage of idiot’ has risen exponentially with the advent of the internet.]

I Percieve a Mistake

“Belief that a perceived phenomenon is self-authenticating does not make it so.” – Peter Boghossian

Peter Boghossian is what I call a “power atheist;” sort of a kinder, gentler militant atheist on the front lines of the New Atheism movement (currently spearheaded by the usual suspects, i.e. Dawkins, Harris, etc.). Who Peter Boghossian is is not particularly relevant to his quote I’m about to criticize, but I felt like mentioning him by name because for the most part, I think he’s a pretty smart guy. Still, we’re all guilty of saying silly things at times. I do it perhaps more often than not, especially when I’m around my cats. As the hand that feeds them, they respectfully remain silent when I err.

So he tweets the afore mentioned gem a few days ago, and it brought to mind something I said about The Truth a couple of blogs back. I wrote, “…there is seemingly no such thing as completely correct knowledge beyond the self-evident truths of internal observations such as ‘I am seeing yellow’ which I could easily dispute but won’t bother because such truths don’t mean anything to anyone other than yourself anyway.” Now, you see how I said something silly? I said I could easily dispute an internal observation. But can I?

Let’s say I say to myself “I am seeing yellow,” because I am. I’m seeing yellow and the fact that I’m seeing yellow is self-authenticating. Now, it may be the case that someone is prodding my brain with an electrode which is in turn is making me see yellow, but the fact that I’m seeing yellow cannot be disputed within me. The neuroscientist/asshole prodding my brain may argue that I am not seeing yellow, not from his perspective, but therein lies the rub: If, according to Sammy Scientist, I’m not seeing yellow – which appears self-evident – how do I know Sammy Scientist exists? I experience him as much as the yellow color I’m seeing, so if I’m not seeing yellow, am I even experiencing Sammy Scientist? Regardless of the how the stimulus is administered, the resulting internal observation cannot be refuted. Even if I’m tired and in fact hallucinating a cup of coffee (a delusion since it’s not there when I reach for it), I cannot deny that I saw a cup of coffee. This is the route by which Descartes came to his conclusion that he, as a thinking thing, exists. His conclusion does require an amendment, though. Even if someone or something planted in Descartes’ ‘brain’ each words cogito, ergo, and sum so that the thought appeared continuous, thus giving rise to the internal sentence “cogito ergo sum,” it cannot be denied that something – whatever I or Descartes may really be – is receiving data to record/perceive. With that in mind (excuse the pun), we can take up the issue of whether external reality matches internal reality. That is, we can deny the external reality of an internal observation on the basis of how a stimulus is given. That’s why I ended my particular quote with “…such truths don’t mean anything to anyone other than yourself anyway.”

I’m sure – I hope – this was the context for Boghossian’s quote. (So, maybe it’s not silly after all.) Boghossian’s quote was probably given in the context of an argument with a theist who may have said something to the effect that they know Jesus is real since they have experienced Jesus within (felt Jesus’ presence, for example). And Boghossian likely responded that such an experience doesn’t qualify as an external reality, as would I. One cannot say they have felt Jesus and then claim – as a matter of necessity – that Jesus exists external to one’s self. Our theist in this example simple cannot be sure that even though they have felt the presence of Jesus, they can’t be sure what triggered the internal observation; it may have been drugs, an evil demon, or worst of all, simply an overriding desire to believe. That’s why I get a little irritated when theists attempt to convert me; they think they’ve overcome solipsism.

Of course, we all act like we’ve overcome solipsism, every day, all day, with everyone we meet and know. Christ, we even allow anecdotal evidence (eyewitness testimony) in a court of law! But you can’t take away from someone what they’re experiencing inside. You can’t take away from me the fact that I am seeing yellow when I am seeing yellow, even if I’m a robot being shown slide after slide of yellow. (Great, now we can’t deny the internal observation of robots.) You can’t separate me from the phenomenon even if you know precisely what triggered the phenomenon. A disbeliever has no evidence with which to contradict anyone’s internal observation. Even if Sammy Scientist showed me an MRI of my brain as I saw yellow and said, “That blip right there is you seeing yellow,” the blip and what I experience are not the same thing. Or is it? Doesn’t seem like it; measuring something is not the something itself, hence The Problem of Substance, or, The Problem of Mind, in this case. On the other hand, I cannot expect to convince a disbeliever since they likewise cannot share what I experience, not yet anyway. (God help us when technology makes that possible.)

Update: Boghossian posted this quote last night from a discussion with a gentleman we’ll call Nathan, because that’s his name…”Self-authentication means there's no corrective mechanism (CM). If no CM then how is the perception differentiated from a delusion?”  Well, delusions are what a disbeliever of your perceptions calls your perceptions. As I pointed out above, there is no CM for a perception. Perceptions are the starting point for all, more complex thoughts, be they axioms of reason or articles of faith.  You can only argue for a delusion in the case of complex thoughts, not lone perceptions. It surprises me that Boghossian doesn’t understand this.