Whiners Being Picky

My local Unitarian-Universalist church sent out an email today announcing that they’ll be having “training” on “micro-aggressions.” The email I composed, but haven’t sent and probably won’t, because the people running the church just wouldn’t get it, goes like this:

Thanks, but I already know how to commit micro-aggressions. I’m good at it. I don’t need any training.

Oh, wait. You’re suggesting that I need to learn something about how to detect if people are committing micro-aggressions against me? Well, hey, if I don’t notice it, then it isn’t a micro-aggression, so that should be no problem at all. No training needed.

Oh, wait. You’re suggesting that I may be committing micro-aggressions without knowing that I’m doing it and need training in how to stop? And you have detected this in my personal behavior when, exactly? Have you analyzed my behavior and found anything of the sort? No? Then I’m sorry, but you’re not entitled to think that I need any information on this topic. You’re inappropriately generalizing. In addition, you’re confused about the definition of your own term. If it’s not an intentional (and intentionally insulting) act on the part of whoever does it, IT IS NOT A MICRO-AGGRESSION. It may be rudeness, but it is not a micro-aggression. The tendency to confuse rudeness with micro-aggressions is, I believe, rather widespread. But unless the training clarifies this — unless the training makes it clear that many or most of the things that the alleged victims characterize as micro-aggressions would be better understood as simple rudeness, thoughtlessness, or a misapprehension on the part of the alleged victim — then the training is actually going to be harmful rather than helpful.

And no, I’m not kidding. Well, the first two paragraphs were kidding, but the third one isn’t. The third paragraph is entirely serious. It is simply not possible for a statement or an action to be a micro-aggression if it is not consciously and intentionally an aggression. This is very clear.

The idea that we all ought to be policing our own behavior to detect unintentional slights that could be hurtful to people in marginalized groups is part of the culture of victimhood. It’s part of the assault of postmodernism on logic and society. The rationale is, if someone feels hurt by something I did or said, then that person is automatically right. I have hurt them. This is postmodernism in action: the idea that there is no objective truth, and therefore that all accounts of what happened (and especially the accounts of people in marginalized groups) are to be believed, not questioned or examined. Therefore it’s my job as a white male to start every personal encounter by being careful — by feeling guilty in advanced, lest I say or do anything that causes hurt feelings (also known as “harm” — a favorite weasel term of the Social Justice Thought Police).

I’ve got news for the people at my UU church: If there is such a thing as an unintentional micro-aggression, your sending out that email qualifies. I’m insulted. I’m offended. And if anyone has the right to decide that they’re being hurt by an unintended insult, we all do. The idea that a black or indigenous or gay or deaf or fat person is entitled to claim that they were hurt by a micro-aggression, but that I’m not entitled to do so because I’m white and, at least for purposes of discussion, none of those other things (though I really ought to lose a few pounds) — that’s just bullshit.

This is precisely the kind of bullshit that is being shoveled onto us by Critical Race Theory and the Social Justice Thought Police.

As my mother used to say (quoting the caption of a New Yorker cartoon from the 1930s), I say it’s spinach, and I say the hell with it.

This entry was posted in random musings, religion, society & culture and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Whiners Being Picky

  1. essentialtheatre says:

    The only way to avoid being canceled is to avoid or exclude marginalize people. Not what I want.

  2. Jim,
    In general I agree with your position about UU and their victimhood campaign.
    But I totally disagree with the connection you believe there is with postmodernism.
    IF it must have a connection with a philosophical/artistic movement, it feels must closer to SURREALISM than anything else.

    As you say, in postmodernism (oversimplifying it) reality is something subjective. This doesn’t make the “victim’s” claim of “harm” any more valid than your or anyone else’s claim of “no-harm”. In postmodernism, everyone is entitled to his view/opinion/perception of reality. Nowhere does it say, “if the victim feels so, so it is”. EVERY subjective reality is equally valid.

    (Also postmodernists are not crazy, it is a theoretical, philosophical approach and not a way to go about your everyday affairs. If there is a pizza in front of me, theoretically I could say “there is no pizza in my view” but if I get hungry, I may eat it to the last piece.)

  3. Matt says:

    What gets me is this new UU concept of dogma and original sin. UUs are now required to believe that straight white people are guilty of original sin. We must act a certain way to atone, but we shall all remain guilty. We are not judged by the content of our character or actions, but by the color of our skin and sexual orientation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s