March 8, 2013

Multiple regression of microaggression

It would be informative to perform a multiple regression analysis of the demographics of individuals who submit anecdotes to microaggression websites of how they have been victimized:

I'm not going to do it, but, as Yogi Berra said, you can observe a lot just by watching. From reading over examples, I would guess that common factors would seem to be:

- Female (or "'female'" or "female-identified" or "female-bodied")

- Homosexual

- The more recondite the self-described orientation, the better: e.g., a "genderqueer" is more likely to complain about being victimized by microaggressions that is a "lesbian."

- Nonwhite

- Mixed race

-  Visually ambiguous race

- Belong to an ethnicity with a high degree of immigration

- But, born in the USA

- Student 

- Employed in the (nominally) helping professions, but not the real helping professions, such as nursing (see below for nurses' and doctors' attitudes)

- Disabilities

- Mental and emotional illnesses

- Self-absorbed

- Generally hostile personality

As a palate-cleanser, allow me to direct you a page of Medical Acronyms and Doctor's Slang. Examples of what doctors, especially Emergency Room doctors, write in their notes include:

AHF - Acute Hissy Fit

AAA (or Triple A): Ay Ay Ay. Precursor to Status Hispanicus. Wound-up Hispanic female unable to tolerate even the small discomfort of removing an adhesive plaster, but not yet full-blown histrionics.

Acute Pneumoencephalopathy - airhead

APRS - Acute Puerto Rican syndrome (bouts of screaming and yelling)

Blade - Surgeon: dashing, bold, arrogant and often wrong, but never in doubt

BVA - Breathing Valuable Air

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that much of what is called 'racist microaggressions' are really micro-defenses against black aggressions, macro and micro.

If a lot of blacks commit crimes, whites are gonna be more wary. Such wariness is defensive, not aggressive.

Since our society doesn't allow honest airing of grievances about black crime, Jewish abuses, and gay hysterics, many people go for lowkey defensive mechanisms, but these are called micro-'aggressions'.

Anonymous said...

There was once a time when America was indeed an unfair place, and liberals had the guts to speak the truth about these injustices whereas conservatives preferred not to hear them.

So, liberals were good people speaking the truth, and conservatives were bad people who refused to deal with the truth. (There were libs and cons in both parties.)
Libs were good because they told the truth, and cons were bad because they denied the truth.

But as liberal policies began to fail, it dawned on many Americans that the truth was not as simple as liberals made it out to be.
So, liberals began to tell lies about social problems, and cons began to tell the truth.

Thus, it went from 'good liberals telling truth and bad cons telling lies' to 'good liberals telling lies and bad cons telling the truth'.
But if good liberals are so prone to telling lies, aren't they bad liberals, and if bad cons tell the truth, aren't they good cons?

But then, the problem is lots of cons tell lies too and are just shameless whores of the powers-that-be.

Another GOP whore:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-illinois-republican-chairman-under-fire-for-progay-marriage-stance-20130308,0,509529.story

Go where the money and power are.

Anonymous said...

I suspect a large majority are actually white. Virtually all of the feminists, homosexuals, and "gender non-conformists" are likely white. A non-trivial proportion of the supposed racial minority accounts are probably works of fiction by white "anti-racists" as well.

Asian (American) women are likely over-represented to a substantial extent, typically being well educated (at least in the sense of having attended a prestigious university), middle/upper class, left-leaning "women of color".

Anonymous said...

Has anyone done a tally of liberals-who-are-for-'gay marriage' switching positions and opposing it VS conservatives-who-are-anti-'gay marriage' switching to supporting it?

I've heard a whole bunch of cons switching to 'gay marriage'--Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, much of the McCain family, Karl Rove, whole bunch of neocons, NY GOP senators, etc--, but I never heard of a single liberal switching positions to oppose 'gay marriage'.

Why is this?
Are cons waking up to principles of 'equality' or principles of power?

One good thing about this is it's like a controlled experiment that makes us see how POWER works. What is it about 'gay marriage' that makes no liberal switch sides against it while so many cons are switching sides to support it?
Who controls the academia, media, and courts? Who has what to gain by supporting it and who has what to lose by opposing it?
How did America turn into a nation cowed by the 'morality' of the likes of Perez Hilton?

If the powers-that-be can push something as nonsensical as 'gay marriage', what can't they push?

Also, notice all the cons switching to amnesty but no libs switching positions.

Homo-nasty and amnesty.

Anonymous said...

"I suspect a large majority are actually white."

Prolly. 'Micro-aggression' is useful to whites since any namby pamby brat can claim to be a 'victim'.

Anonymous said...

Maybe 'subconscious racism' didn't sound 'creative' enough.
To appeal to young and hip crowd, you gotta make it sound 'trendy', and 'micro-aggression' fits nicely in the age when people like micro Apple products.

It's progressivism you can fit inside your pocket and text about on your smartphone.

http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/textmessageabbreviations.asp

ABU ABT RACIST BIL.

I guess this makes stuff like LGBT appealing to. It's a kind of textese.

Anonymous said...

It seems like one pc way to shame allegedly aggrieved groups would be to point out how skewed their thresholds for aggression and violence are (I'm thinking of the Violence against Women Act), when you take into account the kind of aggression and violence done to hundreds of billions of nonhuman animals yearly in American factory farms in order to keep meat cheap for the 300-million-and-growing population.

And it's not just the ho-hum aggression and violence of nasty, brutal and genetically modified lives in CAFO's. Every month there is a story about some undercover whistleblower who has documented the sadistic things employees at factory farms like to do to the animals. Recently, a 200 lb woman employee at a Wyoming farm was recorded laughing as she bounced up and down on a screaming sow with a broken leg. That seems pretty violent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/wyoming-premium-farms-abuse-humane-society_n_1499707.html

Another turn in this particular screw, which may partially explain the media's slim coverage of these stories: most factory farm employees are "undocumented workers."

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb1pdvvoVoQ

Insta-brutalism.

Anonymous said...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/08/healthcare-2-0-is-on-the-way-if-doctors-dont-stop-it/

Rodocs--robot doctors--the wave of the future?

Anonymous said...

I'm a physician.

I've never seen anybody use those abbreviations in a chart.

Anonymous said...

A problem of a lot of these complaints is subjectivism.
There are so many ways so many different people feel about so many different things, that anything can be micro-this-or-that. It's a whole bunch of micro-paranoias or micro-hypochondrias.
In medicine, sickness is measured by the presence of real disease, not on what the patient fears he's ailing from.
If medicine were to go the 'micro-aggressive' route, every hypochondriac should be taken seriously. Subjective fear of sickness would be taken seriously as real sickness.

A clear act where someone is attacked, physically or verbally, for his race, nationality, or whatever can be seen as a social problem on the objective level.
But when people suspect or imagine or project whatever feeling to everything around them, anything can be everything.
In human affairs, there is no perfect objectivism and no perfect subjectivism, but for people to get along, they must agree to certain objective principles and rules.
Otherwise, we end up with an anarchy of subjectivisms where everyone sees everything harassing and tormenting them.
Worse, this habit of seeing micro-aggressions everywhere becomes a kind of masochistic thrill of feeling victimized. Paranoids love to feel stalked and conspired against by everyone. It's like the Tell Tale Heart by Edgar Allan Poe.
And micro-paranoids love to feel justified in their victimization. Since their whole life's worth is invested in progressive ideals of suffering and resisting 'racism' and oppression, they feel good to find tiny dust particles of evil all around them. It's also an easy way to win sympathy, and also an easy way to rationalize one's own failures. If some black kid failed in school, he can say it was all due to hidden micro-aggressions against him. Or, it's like Armond White the idiot critic bitching that he's the poor poor victim of 'white racist liberals' like Georgia Brown and her filmmaker sonny boy.

Since this micro-aggression thing is so subjective in the way it's defined and diagnosed, there's no way to prove or disprove it.
It's therapeutic social consciousness on steroids where we need to listen to everyone and take their suspicions seriously.

But one good thing is that if the progressive community is overloaded with millions of micro-aggression complaints, it won't know what to do with them. It will have opened up a pandora's box of bratty bitchings and whinings so endless that it will drown out all sense to the so-called 'progressive' movement.

With micro-aggressive bitching taking the front stage, the more serious problems in the black community will go ignored.
But then, white liberals would rather deal with 'nice negroes' whining about micro-aggression problems than with really angry negroes shaking their fists and threatening to burn the city down.

Also, in some subconscious way, white liberals may welcome black complaints of micro-aggressions since it's an indirect issue of dealing with the bigger problem of black crime.
White liberals are loathe to talk about black crime and violence. They call dangerous blacks 'youths' and 'teens'.
But by having clean cut negroes whine about 'micro-aggressions', the subject of black crime and violence is indirectly brought up.
After all, why are there 'micro-aggressions' against law-abiding blacks? Because there are too many law-breaking blacks. Though white liberals don't make the connection themselves, by making a big issue of 'micro-aggressions', they have
not-so-inadvertently brought up the issue of black violence and crime.


Anonymous said...

It should just be called 'twitter liberalism'.

Anonymous said...

All this micro-nonsense when the likes of Kagan and Sotomayor are leading the macro-charge against the Constitution.
If the likes of Kagan can help it--and her ilk will fill up the SC in yrs to come as GOP keeps losing--, we'll all be arrested and fined for 'hate speech', and liberals will side with the government.

Anonymous said...

http://youtu.be/dE4eIygCcCM?t=6m55s

Dutch greatness.

Anonymous said...

Woah a bunch of liberals too passive aggressive to do anything but cry on the internet about how random strangers couldn't read their mind let me tell you how shocking this is.

elvisd said...

It's springtime on college campuses, and at Oberlin:

March Marginalization Madness!!

Our Annual Spring Suffering Showdown with Antioch!!!

Easter Diversity Hunt: How Many Aggrieved Groups Can You Join?

Dunk Whitey Booth

Pin the Scarlet Letter on the Righty


Anonymous said...

Will the Violence against Women Act apply to lesbians?

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I have noted none who give any evidence of having considered the possibility that they, themselves, commit microaggressions.

Anonymous said...

A non-trivial proportion of the supposed racial minority accounts are probably works of fiction by white "anti-racists" as well.

My experience too. White "anti-racists" are paranoid fanatics ready to touch off a racial civil war (or a racial MICRO civil war) as away of acting on their personal issues. Real minorities may be self-serving in the way they twist the law to their own benefit but they don't have the same "boil whitey in oil" viciousness as as white "progressives".

Asian (American) women are likely over-represented to a substantial extent, typically being well educated (at least in the sense of having attended a prestigious university), middle/upper class, left-leaning "women of color".

I be to diagree. Most of the Asian Americans I have encountered have too much common sense for that, and are too busy working to support themselves and their families.

rob said...

Steve, your posts on microaggressions are themselves microaggressions. I think you owe some people micro-apologies. Oh, there's no need to microthank me. I just love to microhelp.

ogunsiron said...

I'm pretty sure that I first heard of microaggressions years ago on iSteve when Steve was covering the story of the hate crime hoaxer Madonna Constantine. She was an education prof at some school in NY who herself hung a noose on her office door. She also had this article in which she described white women flicking their long hair as microaggressive enforcers of white beauty standards.

David said...

Remember the old days, when people said "small" instead of "micro"?

As in, small problems, small people, etc.

Anonymous said...

Microcephaly = small brain