Talk:Microaggression

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LilliBaldner, Caelenmw (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Oskeans, CKRRKQ.

"unintentional" vs. "unconscious" microaggression

@DBooth: The word aggression is often defined (e.g., in dictionary.com) as an "offensive action or practice" and the word offensive can apply to an action or practice that is perceived by the recipient as offensive even if it resulted from ignorance rather than intent. For example, if someone tells an employee that the way he wears his hair looks unprofessional and he should change it, that microaggression could have been caused by ignorance (not knowing that the man is a Sikh, and his appearance is part of his cultural/religious tradition) and the intent could have been to be helpful. In fact, people who write about microaggressions acknowledge that a large proportion of them can be unintentional. Of course, the term microaggression itself has been criticized on the grounds that the use of aggression as part of the word could cause confusion between relatively minor matters and much more serious acts. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this usage of the word aggression, the fact is that in many contexts (often in psychology) the word is used for much less serious matters than beating someone up or invading their country. In contrast, the word unconscious doesn't fit. The person making the microaggression is not unaware of what they're saying, which is what "unconscious" would suggest, although they might be unaware of the cultural context of their words and their likely effect on others. The words unconscious aggression might apply if someone turns over in their sleep and hits their spouse, but that would probably not be called a microaggression. NightHeron (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The use of the word "harm"

The article in its present form uses the word "harm" repeatedly. I believe that in some of the contexts within this article, the word "harm" conveys more strength and suggests more damage than is warranted. I have changed some of these to "offended", but editor NightHeron prefers the word "harm". NightHeron pointed to WP:BRD as rationale. Within that, I thought that "What BRD is not" supported my view. So, I look to the community of editors. Many have complained that Wikipedia editors are becoming more hostile. I want to resist that, so I defer to the broader community on this point. Amicably, Pete unseth (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Offended" is certainly not the word to use here. What do the RS say? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Communication Studies - 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 9 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cdarcy234, Jmyers100 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Acedimic/Military Microaggressions

Noticed there is no mention of microaggresssions based on not belonging to certain career backgrounds such as going to a certain school or branch of the military. Being asked one of these question in a group can be used to exclude individuals.

Yes, such questions could very quickly draw people together. There is no limit to how many small groupings can potentially form bonds. This raises the matter that different affinities can include some people and therefore not include others. If somebody wants to classify such questions as a type of aggression, this seems to be a smaller level than microaggression. Nanoagression? Picoaggression? Pete unseth (talk)

SiekMeng 175.100.6.136 (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Othering and exclusion is not mentioned as much as it should

The way the article reads now, it's almost as if it's written by someone in a dominant group, somewhat bemused by the existence of these silly things called microagression for which the article doesn't even agree exists because some kind of scientific study is needed.

Whe I first heard the word microagressions it made sense to me instinctively as a member of an "other" group.

It's not so much that i feel wounded, or can't handle it, it's the death by a million cuts. It's the constant messaging that you are OTHER and not ONE OF US. That is how the words and slights end up taking a psychological toll on the person.

I would love it if the article could be cleaned up a bit to seem less judgemental of those experiencing microagressions as overly sensitive or that by calling these out or even acknowledging their existence, we are somehow doing more harm because we are not allowing these people to become "tough"

I am very tough. I am not into playing the victim. But these things are real, they do have an effect. Do some people maybe exaggerate how harmful a word or comment may be? Perhaps. I'm sure it happens. But this is not a fringe belief it's something people experience. Not just "snowflakes" but people who are not easily offended but still have to carry the toll of constantly being "othered" or reminded that they belong to an outgroup.

The article could take this more seriously, and be less, academic on safari, recording the odd behavior of these overly sensitive and irrational aliens. 2603:8000:5000:9B8B:83BD:414:2880:447C (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I sense the pain of the last editor. Living around people who do not embrace you as you hope to be embraced is hard. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion group. I suggest the editor find a source that documents such feelings and cite it. I hope my edit is seen as friendly. Pete unseth (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)