Microaggressions are fundamentally different from aggressions: How to break down this kind of nonsense

Dear people,

My problem with the current definition of microaggressions is the part that they can be unintented. This feels strange, as to my knowledge an aggression must be intended otherwise it would not be an aggression but ‘just’ a being inconsiderate or something like that. Calling it an aggression breathes that kind of passive aggressive victim hood that I consider highly toxic.

Only, it’s on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression, and this term is apparently coined (and accepted) already in the '70! (Note: see PS)

So now we’re in the situation where a microaggression (can be unintended) is fundamentally different from an aggression (must be intended) ( !! )

This is ridiculous! To my knowledge, the ad ‘micro’ is only supposed to say something about size right? But in this case it changes the fundamental meaning of the word following it. Why was this lingusitic mutulation of language not burned down decades ago?

…or is this the reason they spell it as one word, microaggression, and not as two words: micro aggression? :wink:

My Q: How break this down formally?

  • Is my liguistic approach a good way? Is there any liguist here who can help me formalize it?
  • Or do we need a philosphical approach?
  • or a logical one?
  • or another approach?

Please advise, I think attacking this concept could provide a solid path into the cultural marxism stronghold that is put up in the past 50 years.


PS: It could be that in '70 the definition of microaggression did not include the unintented option, and this is sqeezed in at a later stage. Only: The wikipedia page is so heavily edited, that all edits from 2018 already span 500 pages!! How to search effectively to see if and when the unintened part is sqeezed in?

Thanks again

Guess you are discovering that the rules and regulations of wikipedia reward academic and legitimate (aka mainstream) news sources, which lean progressive.

In general, I’ve found it useful to balance Wikipedia’s take on things, with Encyclopedia Dramatica’s take on things. Although, their article for microagressions is fairly trivial, which seems appropriate for such a thing.

To address your questions though. Microagressions seem to me, merely a political tool that exists in idealistic theory, whereas in reality all it is a defence for insensible sensitivities (a technique to place the onus on the messenger, and not on the person who hurts themselves with the words and actions of others), of which, the correct solution is to treat adults as adults, that is to say, be sincere and become strong.

Politically, viewing everyone is vulnerable children (a result of agreeableness, a feminine personality trait) leans to the humanistic bias that we must protect the vulnerable. One can do that at bullying aggressors (the overprotective mother) keeping their child/kingdom weak and dependent. Or they can do that at bullying the weak to incentivise the transition and motivation to strength (a disagreeable, and more masculine trait). It’s no surprise as women mass migrated into academia, journalism, law, and other white collar desk jobs, that they also brought their personality biases to the table.

I think if you wish to consider it with the seriousness you are seeking, then you would be trying to take things as sensible as the onion articles seriously, which to me seems insensible, as such things are better ridiculed as they are ludicrious from inception - a job that Metokur is fulfilling well enough

Hey thanks for answering,

I think that ridiculing the whole movement will not be good enough to break down the cultural marxism stronghold they’ve put up the past 50 years.

The reason is that they address real issues, only they do it with flawed thinking, which leads to terrible results for everyone.

Sure. Ridicule the flawed approach, not the valid issue.

what do you mean now? I just wrote that I expect that ridiculing won’t be sufficient

I found a study from 2017 by Scott O. Lilienfeld: Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691616659391

That provides me with sufficient ammo I think :slight_smile:

Nevertheless, feel free to keep add your thoughts here

1 Like

I agree humor and ridicule alone would not be sufficient, but it is a good initiator of a discussion. Then, maybe the next step is to highlight how the underlying assumptions beneath microaggressions themselves are problematic in a statistical manner. You have to show that the assumptions are irrational in a concrete, empirical manner to the point of beyond reasonable doubt. That second part, I think is where things become difficult because the underlying premises of microaggressions are not empirical in nature, they are based on intuition. If you can show how the intuition itself is irrational (or at least makes you more susceptible to irrationality), maybe you can get somewhere. Trying to argue non-empirical ideas (those based on belief that do not have the means by which to empirically test them) with empiricism beyond a reasonable doubt is where the foundation breaks. Not sure exactly what approach might do that, because I have not thought about microaggressions on a high level of detail, but I imagine it may lie in the functional flaws of intuitions in general.

I am with you in the concern about microaggressions as a mechanism to justify collectivism.


I think we first need to establish the impossibility of an unconscious aggression, and to clearly show how constructive debate is harmed by trying to maintain it. Without the option of unconscious aggressions, there is much less justification to judge recurring assumptions (although super annoying, I know) as proof that everyone is conspiring against you somehow.

The concept also seems important to the SJ community: If you check the wikipedia page, there are over 500 edits only in 2018! See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microaggression&action=history

I’ll try to write something up on my blog too, will post it.


How do those in this thread feel about having a study group meeting dedicated to microagressions where those here can flesh out and present their arguments and findings. I’m quite keen to hearing about what you have discovered.

I can schedule the topic in for the meetings for say 3 weeks from now?

1 Like

I’m in definitely in. How does such a group meeting work? Is it a special kind of topic? Is it private?

1 Like


So I would schedule in the topic for an upcoming week, probably the second last week of October, via the Meetings category. I’ll mention this thread and cc interested users so they can stay up to date.

To learn more about the meetings and how to join them, see the above linked thread. :blush:

I’ve joined the calendar but the calendar events don’t show the topic of upcoming meetings.
How do I know which week micro aggressions will be discussed?

Refer to Meetings

Before asking, I already checked that page, but now I see it, thanks.
That listing has a random order (not by date)

Yeah, it is by most recent activity. Unfortunately, by title is not available, otherwise I would certainly do it that way, as the current way is a pain in the ass. I can do by date, but they are generally created not in order.

Details at:

Update. I’ve done the workaround suggestion at:


This works for the most recent posts to order them correctly, but I am not going to go through and manually update the dates on the dozens of old meetings (more than a few months ago).

We’re now commencing the 3AM UTC meeting.

To join the video meeting, click this link: https://meet.google.com/oox-rorb-mts

Meeting was a no show, so has been canceled. Hopefully this topic can be presented at the 3PM UTC meeting slot.

Bejamin, sorry for the no show, I got immersed in my own life. Can i email you somehwere? Cannot find message functionality here and your own site redirects to itself. Thanks