Not until people stop lazily using terms like
microaggressions,
white privilege and
racism to invalidate other's perspectives and silence anyone who disagrees with their opinions.
One doesn't have to think very hard to realize the absurdity of this list. It is blatantly contradictory, promotes double-standards and encourages people to treat individuals in a specific way based on their
race, which ironically seems to be what the article is criticizing.
Just our of curiosity [MENTION=23222]senza tema[/MENTION], are you a racist? Remember, don't deny it lest your microaggression (and underlying racism) be exposed.
Exactly! This article is insinuating that black people are inherently loud and their loudness should be tolerated as a characteristic of their race; despite the fact that plenty of black people aren't loud at all. By specifying black people instead of
loud people, they are implying that it's a racially-specific trait.
Indeed, but impartiality isn't the goal of social justice warriors. Impartiality and discrimination are both used at the discretion of the SJW to further their agenda, therefore consistency is not a factor.
In your opinion, who gets to define "loud and disruptive"? The definitions are pretty straightforward.
Which will never happen because of individuality. Even members of the same race, neighborhood and family are not born in the same circumstances. Inborn temperaments, "personality types" and numerous other factors will make one person's experience in life vastly different from everyone else. The idealism you're striving for is not even remotely realistic.
lol What a microagressive way of belittling his question, which happens to be a valid point.
Oh...that's your problem. You're using the dictionary instead of the Social Justice Lexicon. There is a difference. And the definitions vary depending on the race, sex and gender of the reader.
That's okay...as long as you're not white.
