"Microaggression", the new leftist indoctrination funded by taxation

[st434u]

Warning, watching the following may make your head explode from so many blatant contradictions of logic and fact. It can also cause outbursts of laughter.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_4-BqSIUD8

 

Among other things, apparently saying to someone "I hate you because of XYZ" is now a hate crime. Even asking someone where they're from, telling them they're articulate, or saying "God bless you" when they sneeze can be forms of these "microaggressions". So much for the NAP.

[fractional slacker]

If one commits a "microaggression," do they ask forgiveness with a micro apology?
Microagression definition: when you can't satiate your attention needs, a made up word to reclaim your victimhood status.

[hroc]

Unfortunately most people are under the spell of words, as if words are real.

[Alan C.]

This is to get people to self-attack.

[Jot]

Microaggression: one's lack of ability to differentiate one's psychological problem from an actual form of aggression.

[Donnadogsoth]

Unfortunately most people are under the spell of words, as if words are real.

 

Words are real, hroc, they just aren't of absolute importance.  They're very important but if we take them too seriously we destroy everything.

Warning, watching the following may make your head explode from so many blatant contradictions of logic and fact. It can also cause outbursts of laughter.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_4-BqSIUD8

 

Among other things, apparently saying to someone "I hate you because of XYZ" is now a hate crime. Even asking someone where they're from, telling them they're articulate, or saying "God bless you" when they sneeze can be forms of these "microaggressions". So much for the NAP.

 

What we're seeing here is an attack on truthfulness.  If I can't say "God bless you" after your sneeze, I can't really be Christian around you, as far as it goes.  My Christianity must, here, be concealed, for fear of offending the multiculturalist religion that you belong to.  YOUR religion of multiculturalism, which is based on the lie of equality of all cultures and religions, can be trumped to the skies, but MY religion, which is rationally true, scientifically true, based on a Leibnizian understanding of space-time, cannot, because of you and your lying multicultural religion which is currently, briefly, hegemonic.

 

What this calls for is a flanking action.  Attacking them directly is costly of time and effort.  We're never going to convince them directly.  So we need to flank, philosophically, as by addressing them or their circles in terms of the NAP, and in terms of principle in general.  Right now the principle-engine of the West is off-line, the West is presently dead, it's already dead, and what we are seeing with "microaggression theory" and "hate speech" and the like are blossoms of decay on the rotting body of the West.  Take away the living principle of the cell and the cell dies and begins to dissolve.  Principle is our flank.

[Sayo]

Is this real life? They teaching this to children as well. This is very disturbing.  

 

[shirgall]

The term "microaggression" always makes me think that they are looking for a resolution that involves "microtransactions."

[ResidingOnEarth]

This is to get people to self-attack.

 

Yes!  This ^

 

One of the things I love most about FDR is how it has provided me with a logical and consistent set of ethics which allow my natural empathy to work in my favour without causing hurt to others.  The set of ethics; or rather, "ideas" that I was imbued with as a child did not serve me or others well at all.  Those ideas took my powerful and guiding desire to do what's right and turned it into a continual self-attack and self-deletion mechanism.  I was left feeling unsure and powerless and always deferring judgement of right and wrong to authority.

 

This microaggression idea sounds like just another way of making empathetic people confused and powerless.  If you have a strong desire to be good and do what's right, but you have no rational way of deciding for yourself, what it is right and what is wrong, then you cannot boldly express yourself and take action to further your own interests as everytime you try, those who want to control you will claim that you are doing wrong.  You will have no way of disputing their claim.  At this point, many people will try not to rock the boat and they will defer to authority for answers as to what is right and what is wrong.  This is wonderful for the sociopathic controllers, because they can now make it clear to the empathetic people what they should and should not do.  Obviously: this set of "shoulds" and "should nots" are things which either help the sociopathic controller or at least: don't harm them and their personal agenda.

[Donnadogsoth]

Good observation, ResidingOnEarth.  Would it square with the need to, always, everywhere, operate on principle?  That principle is what separates us from the "sociopathic controllers" and their dupes?

[ResidingOnEarth]

Good observation, ResidingOnEarth.  Would it square with the need to, always, everywhere, operate on principle? 

 

Thanks.

 

I think there are times when principles aren't required eg when it's only preference that's involved.  What colour would you like to buy your pillow in?  <-- no principles needed there.

 

 

That principle is what separates us from the "sociopathic controllers" and their dupes?

 

I expect some sociopaths live by principles.  Their principles might not be UPB though.  Those principles may not facilitate the creation of a healthy society/community.

 

An example I can think of, of a sociopathic principle is the famous "moral principle" put forward by Aleister Crowley:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

 

I think of sociopaths as people who lack the feelings of empathy, compassion and remorse.  I think that is what separates them from the rest of us.  I use the term "empathetic people" for people who (to some degree) have those feelings.

 

I don't think if you lack those feelings you are necessarily bad.  I do think though that people who experience those feelings can  be very easily manipulated by those who don't experience them, if they don't have a solid, rational set of moral principles that they live by.

[Donnadogsoth]

Thanks.

 

I think there are times when principles aren't required eg when it's only preference that's involved.  What colour would you like to buy your pillow in?  <-- no principles needed there.

 

 

 

I expect some sociopaths live by principles.  Their principles might not be UPB though.  Those principles may not facilitate the creation of a healthy society/community.

 

An example I can think of, of a sociopathic principle is the famous "moral principle" put forward by Aleister Crowley:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

 

I think of sociopaths as people who lack the feelings of empathy, compassion and remorse.  I think that is what separates them from the rest of us.  I use the term "empathetic people" for people who (to some degree) have those feelings.

 

I don't think if you lack those feelings you are necessarily bad.  I do think though that people who experience those feelings can  be very easily manipulated by those who don't experience them, if they don't have a solid, rational set of moral principles that they live by.

 

"Do as thou wilt..." is a more potentially benevolent or at least neutral principled position than one might think.  It presumes every man has his own destiny, and therefore his own sovereignty, and may thereby do anything to further that destiny, with the understanding that one must tread carefully amongst the destinies of others, lest they "wilt" to kill thou for thwarting them.  Sounds a lot like an Anarchy, doesn't it?  I'm not claiming the last word on Thelema, but it is interesting; Crowley was a clever bird.

 

When you say a "solid, rational set of moral principles that they live by," I'm reminded of the Armour of Christ which Christians are advised to don to strengthen them against the Devil.  On Earth there are plenty of real, live, fleshly devils that we need protection from, and the idea of a set of principle as you have described it rings true.  Put on the Armour of Principle for protection against many of the predators swimming in the social waters.

[ResidingOnEarth]

"Do as thou wilt..." is a more potentially benevolent or at least neutral principled position than one might think.  It presumes every man has his own destiny, and therefore his own sovereignty, and may thereby do anything to further that destiny, with the understanding that one must tread carefully amongst the destinies of others, lest they "wilt" to kill thou for thwarting them.  Sounds a lot like an Anarchy, doesn't it?  I'm not claiming the last word on Thelema, but it is interesting; Crowley was a clever bird.

 

I don't think it's a benevolent position.  It's basically rule-of-the-jungle.  I for one don't want that.

 

There's probably a bunch of anarchists that live by that Crowley principle. Just because you're an anarchist doesn't mean you are virtuous and you live by universal, moral principles.  I think there are probably a lot of nihilistic, do what thou wilt anarchists out there.  I don't care for them.

 

I think Crowley was a clever man, but to put it mildly: I wouldn't want to be friends with him!

 

 

When you say a "solid, rational set of moral principles that they live by," I'm reminded of the Armour of Christ which Christians are advised to don to strengthen them against the Devil.  On Earth there are plenty of real, live, fleshly devils that we need protection from, and the idea of a set of principle as you have described it rings true.  Put on the Armour of Principle for protection against many of the predators swimming in the social waters.

 

I like it.

 

To extend that idea.  I see a solid, rational set of moral principles as being more than just the armour.  I see it also as the sword, as you can know with confidence when it is acceptable to strike back and how to strike.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't think it's a benevolent position.  It's basically rule-of-the-jungle.  I for one don't want that.

 

There's probably a bunch of anarchists that live by that Crowley principle. Just because you're an anarchist doesn't mean you are virtuous and you live by universal, moral principles.  I think there are probably a lot of nihilistic, do what thou wilt anarchists out there.  I don't care for them.

 

I think Crowley was a clever man, but to put it mildly: I wouldn't want to be friends with him!

 

 

 

I like it.

 

To extend that idea.  I see a solid, rational set of moral principles as being more than just the armour.  I see it also as the sword, as you can know with confidence when it is acceptable to strike back and how to strike.

 

So, then, we are in agreement thus far.  Would you like to enumerate the principles you know so that we can see which are most applicable to being armour and sword?

 

I'll go first:  Principle of Identity, or Contradiction, as the basis for logical analysis of necessary truths.  Hard to get more fundamental than that, as literally everything that exists falls under its rubric, and someone without a grasp of logic is at a severe disadvantage when dealing with the world.

More on micro-aggressions, from a Leibnizian standpoint.  Leibniz held that all existing things have both perception and "appetition" or desire/will.  Some perceptions are so tiny as to be subconscious, but a sufficient amount of them can impinge on consciousness and become noticeable.  A micro-aggression would be analogous to a single subconscious perception, like one grain of sand on a slowly increasing pile.  Someone with well-trained intuition will pick up on these "grains" and identify that they are forming a pile.  Thus one cultivates one's grievances and trains white people to be medieval Japanese statesmen bowing and fluttering and apologising for their existence before daring to venture any observations or commit any action.

[adamNJ]

The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.  Microaggressions and Safe Spaces are just a sign of how peaceful the world has become.  Not only is it super rare to have a violent death (most of us in the west will die of; cancer, heart attack, or car accident) but now enforcement (in the form of getting kicked out of school) against hurting people's feelings is starting to be incorporated.  It's brilliant.

[ResidingOnEarth]

So, then, we are in agreement thus far.  Would you like to enumerate the principles you know so that we can see which are most applicable to being armour and sword?

 

I respectfully decline.

 

I feel I don't know enough about the core, classical logical principles that are used in logic to have a good discussion with you about it.  Or at least: I don't know the widely used terms to describe them.  I looked up the "Principle of identity".  I understand and accept that.  I'd rather just learn this stuff on my own in, in my own time.

 

Thus one cultivates one's grievances and trains white people to be medieval Japanese statesmen bowing and fluttering and apologising for their existence before daring to venture any observations or commit any action.

 

That's some very powerful & vivid imagery.

 

These very weak and subservient statesmen in your example are exactly the kind of people that I think the sociopathic controllers want us (their slaves, their victims and their citizens) to adopt.  I've met many people who embody the mindset of these statesmen.  I had that mindset to some degree when I was younger.  I feel like i still have some remnants of it left in me now.  Now that I have named it and I can see it for what it is and where it came from; it is loosing it's hold.

 

There is a colloquial term used widely on the web to describe these kind of people: sheeple!  To further the metaphor: that would make the sociopathic controllers, the farmer and the wolves (the farmer being the powerful manipulators at the top of the food chain: eg the Soros: Open Society Foundation).