[knorker]

> First, touching someone without permission isn't a micro-aggression.

Now you're changing the subject. You and I both know that "oooh, nice hair, can I touch it?" is also counted as "microaggression".

A misunderstood social signal (e.g. a raised eyebrow) can be called a micro-aggression.

Most migroaggressions involve nothing physical, nor any ill intent. That doesn't make them right. They can still be hurtful. E.g. "you're the whitest black person I know" sure is a stupid thing to say.

"Hey, nice hair" is also a thing banned in these trainings. Because the receiver can infer that their hair is unique, exotic, and that they are different and maybe don't belong here.

So "hey, nice haircut" is banned from workplaces under all circumstanses. Ok, fine. Nobody needs to comment on appearance in the workplace, why would they?

But it's not "aggression". It's nothing like it.

And this is what "microaggression" is. This is what's being stamped out.

> individual curiosity overrides another persons expectation of freedom from interference or right to not be fondled

It does not, I agree.

> If we were talking about a casual grope of a woman's breast because people are naturally curious,

Jesus christ you're going way overboard in changing the subject. I got it already: You want to change the subject.

> Also, while a "dirty look" is subjective, "leering" is a form of sexual harassment in many jurisdictions.

But is it a "microrape"? The difference here is a controlling use of language.

If someone walks down the street and get checked out by a passer by, they were not "almost raped". To say that they were is insulting to rape victims, a perfectly normal person who just looked at their surroundings, and language itself.

> workplace inclusiveness and diversity training is intended to reach those who can be taught, and inform those who can't of the consequences of failing to at least act in a baseline socially acceptable fashion for the duration of the work day.

Yup. But I think it's failing at it. There's plenty of bad behavior to stamp out. But it's also being replaced by other bad behavior. Like telling people that being white means that you as an individual have these attributes, and shutting down a colleague saying "you are a man, and therefore can't be a part of this conversation or decision".

I don't know if you bought into the "intent doesn't matter" crowd, but if you have, then the fact that inclusivity and diversity training has good intentions doesn't matter.

> It would be a better world if more people cared about the impact of what they do and say

Diversity & inclusiveness activists at companies don't have a monopoly on these values. And I wish they would stop pretending that they did. Because they sure don't actually live their stated gospel.

[ygjb]

I want to say that based on your response, I don't believe that you are arguing in good faith, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't change the subject. I rejected your claim that touching someone without permission is a microagression. It's not, it falls on a spectrum of harassment to assault, depending on who you touch, where you touch them, and where you are when you do it. That's not a microagression.

> "microrape"

Unless we are talking about moths, please provide a serious academic or published document that actually proposes this as a generally accepted term. I confess that the first time I saw it, I thought you being flippant, but it appears that you actually think this is a commonly used or generally accepted term.

I spent some time reading about the term, and asking about it among the D&I folks that I know, and based on that, it's not really a thing that people are concerned with, and aside from some fringe groups on the edges of D&I activism. Most references are related to some shitty humour on reddit and other sites meant to mock folks rather than engage in actual discourse.

Aside from your use of the term, I think the question you are really asking is "Does a 'dirty look' count as sexual harassment?", and the answer is, yes, depending on the jurisdiction. I already said that.

> "intent doesn't matter"

Yeah, intent doesn't matter. This isn't a new concept - look up the etymology of the phrase "The Road to hell is paved with good intentions."; it's a well understood concept and proverb that dates back at least 500 years, farther if you torture some of the translations and transliterations. This isn't to say that intent doesn't actually matter, its a slogan that illustrates that even well intentioned actions that have a negative outcome are still the responsibility of the person who took the action, and that positive intent doesn't balance out negative outcomes.

That said, it doesn't really matter what your opinion is on D&I activism, or your thoughts on the role they play in business. I fall back to my original statement that the vast majority of D&I training and related activities are risk mitigation activities.

If you don't want to change your beliefs, that's fine. Just act like a decent human being, and treat others with respect while you are operating in a professional context.

As for the rest of your claims, it is obvious to me that you are more concerned with your perceived harms to your own freedoms than you are with considering the perspectives of others - unless you have something more meaningful and evidence based to add to the conversation, there isn't much point to continuing it.

[knorker]

> I want to say that based on your response, I don't believe that you are arguing in good faith, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

That's good. Because it's very easy, especially on the internet, of going through the cycle of:

1. This person disagrees with me. They must simply not be informed. Let me explain. 2. Oh, they still disagree. They must just be trolling, then, becasue what rational person would disagree with me when the facts are out. 3. Oh, they actually do disagree? They must be evil.

And it's a fallacy that's easy to slip into, and part of the reason there's so much hate out there.

>> "microrape"

> Unless we are talking about moths, please provide a serious academic or published document that actually proposes this as a generally accepted term.

It's not. The closest thing is immature girls saying they were "almost raped" when actually what they got is an unwanted look, or declined an advance.

My point, though, was to give an example of this clearly incorrect term, to compare it with what I'm saying is the completely incorrect term of "micro aggression".

It can be misogynistic, racist, insensitive, lacking in empathy, and many other things. But "aggressive" seems to me like it's a term chosen for its political weight, not for its accuracy.

> Yeah, intent doesn't matter.

But it clearly does. Obviously it does. The whole legal topic of Mens Rea is dedicated to this.

Murder is morally and legally distinct from manslaughter.

But manslaughter is still a crime. And it's a crime because the perpetrator is morally culpable.

But they're not eqivalent crimes.

Hitting someone with your car on accident is CLEARLY very different from doing it with intent.

"Intent doesn't matter" is another phrase that has a very specific meaning in one setting ("by that I mean that you can't give a sexual comment at work just because it's a compliment"), but is used in its literal form to bully people who admit to making mistakes and improving. It's used to call people unfixably evil, instead of allowing them to improve their behaviour when they didn't realize it was hurtful.

Do you remember this woman: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964489/I-really-ob...

She mocked yelling at a cemetary, where people saw it as hugely disrespectful. And if that had been her intent then it would have been bad.

But turns out she had a collection of photos of herself violating signs. E.g. wearing no shirt and no shoes in front of a sign with "no shirt, no shoes, no service", cigarette and holding a bottle in front of "no smoking, no drinking", walking past a "STOP" sign. (I don't remember exactly the other examples)

Does that context not matter at all to you, for moral culpability?

"Intent doesn't matter" is in a way like "Defund/abolish the police". It's a big slogan, but most people say "oh we don't actually mean that", but there definitely are ones that do. So you should say what you mean, instead, because it's hurting more than it's helping.

"Intent doesn't excuse"

> If you don't want to change your beliefs, that's fine. Just act like a decent human being, and treat others with respect while you are operating in a professional context.

I think the biggest violators of that recommendation is D&I activists.

I'm perfectly able to act as a decent human being without a mob of people calling me an inherently evil white male, born with original sin I cannot wash away no matter how I act, thank you very much.

> As for the rest of your claims, it is obvious to me that you are more concerned with your perceived harms to your own freedoms than you are with considering the perspectives of others

I'm sorry we've had such a huge misunderstanding. That is not an accurate description of my opinion.

But take a specific example: for about a year the "lab leak theory" was censured from social media, and called "racist". The "harm to others" here was actually shutting down a reasonable discussion by calling it "racist".

I still have no idea why it's a racist theory. Like, how does it even help to be a racist, to have this view? (isn't it more racist to critizise wetmarkets?)

Of course nowadays it's actually a mainstream theory, and let's all just forget that the D&I mob mobilized against people who said that it's at least possible that the lab that experimented with the viruses could have possibly been involved.

If we're talking aggression, then shutting down anyone you disagree with, on any topic, by calling them racist with no logical connection: that's (macro)aggressive and not considering the perspective of others.

Nobody wants to be called a racist. Very few want to be racist. It's a big hammer, that leaves a wound that doesn't go away. You'd better be sure.

Another one of those is "pedo". You don't call someone a pedo publicly unless you literally mean that, and you're sure. There's no taking that back, for the accused.