'a problematic way of normalizing bigotry' What is this really saying? I mean, is there any way of normalizing bigotry? Moreover, who would be seeking to normalize unlawful discrimination and prejudice in the first place? If these are the sorts of epiphanies and insights emerging on college campuses today, I feel apprehension for the student body. What kind of pseudo-intellectual mish-mash is being proffered here? And microaggressions. Really? The word itself trivializes the sorts of attitudes/behaviors it attempts to describe. I wonder what Chomsky would think. And what would HE say? Or, for that matter, what about Pinker and his thoughts on diminishing violence? I am sorry.
但这似乎很荒谬。

你睁一只眼闭一只眼可能比我处理得更好。But believe me
当我说这种现象是存在的，它被用来对付各种各样的群体。
The worst case for me was work related. I have seen first hand how black people are treated via
the slights. It is extraordinarily cruel. In the multicultural society of a large university there are all
言语上的虐待可想而知!我见过的最糟糕的是兄弟会的行为。
但其他群体间的情况在课堂上和学生会里都有发生。
One had to have a powerful shell not to be affected by the implicit cruelty.

The importance of this topic to me seems difficult to underestimate, and the fine distinctions which can be made in the course of its analysis require some careful attention. The term "microaggression" is set against its obvious counterpart "macroaggression", the overt aggression we're more familiar with, hence dropping the "macro". The former however is similar in one salient respect to Leibniz's "petite perceptions", perceptions which are within the range of our awareness without being explicitly focused on or thought about, but nevertheless without which there could be no full or explicit consciousness. By this criterion, microaggressions are characteristically unintentional byproduct effects of institutional injustices or systems of oppression which can endure even after the latter have ostensibly disappeared. That can include many different varieties. To take an example from symbolism, if a young man drives around with a Confederate flag on the back of his truck because his father or the people he grew up with did so as well, without ever realizing what it stood for or its history, this would be a case of simple uninformedness or ignorance, but would still fulfill the criterion since the action is perceived as aggressive. There may be cases however where the intent is non-aggressive or benevolent while at the same time deploying a deeply aggressive institutional form or background. In an example taken from aesthetics, a white host of a television program featuring contestants competing for a date with each other asks why it didn't work out for a couple who both happened to be of other than white racial identity, saying to the male, as grounds of his puzzlement: "you're a good looking guy".

The statement is meant as a compliment. But the structure of the claim is microaggressive on account of replacing an aesthetic claim of subjective response with a cognitive claim of object-predication. By way of explanation take the statement "that poodle is a beautiful dog". We know what a poodle is because the concept "dog" is already there. The general concept determines the particular which is given by experience: this animal is a dog. But when one says "that dog is beautiful", we start with the particular given by experience and look for the general concept which is not yet had: why is it beautiful? Perhaps because of its silky fur and noble stance; etc. The point here is that the host's claim is an aesthetic one based on what his specific experiences have convinced him counts as "good looking", and what doesn't, which could be very different from the contestant's experiences, which may find very different general concepts from the same particular. Stating it in the grammatical form of a cognitive claim is a way of claiming also that his own experience, and in this case that of those who share a similar ideal of what's "good looking," are more objectively based and therefore important than those whose experiences might produce a different system of general concepts which are not had before the particular given by experience provokes a search for them. One could then correctly call it a slight with clearly understood contents, but not intended as a slight; and therefore microaggressive.

我想我没有很好地理解。当我读到上面的介绍时，我的结论是，微侵犯等于故意的轻微。我给你的信息似乎是肯定的。不过，我将保留进一步评论，直到有更多关于这个话题的评论。但有一个问题:微攻击和被动攻击是如何比较的?它们似乎是一枚硬币的不同两面，微攻击是两者中更隐秘的一面。细微差别有时让人很困惑。

Terminology: Microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral or environmental slights, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

Microaggressions differ from what Pierce referred to as “macroaggressions”, which are more extreme forms of racism (such as lynchings or beatings) due to their ambiguity, size and commonality. Pierce C (1970). "Offensive mechanisms". In Barbour F (ed.). In the Black Seventies. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent. pp. 265–282.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression#cite_note-13

The term macroaggression has no relevance here. I think the term microaggression is for the most part so unconscious and automatic that we don't realize that we are doing it. It also seems to be dependent upon the attitude of the person(s) being addressed and whether they have grown thick skins. My brother and I are both hillbillies. I am thin skinned and "sensitive". He is thick skinned and oblivious to these slights.

So here is the substance of what I wrote a week ago:
他在州政府工作了三十年。我经常成为目标。有时罪犯。它是否上升到攻击的程度是有争议的。在你看来，挑虱子或惹恼宠物是否会上升到微侵犯的水平也是有争议的。有一件事似乎是不可否认的:它总是故意的;经常恶意;偶尔会顽皮。好的。这是三件事。 Quit being 'micro'.
如果我们考虑种族、肤色、性别、国家或其他受法律保护的阶层，就很难为恶劣的待遇找借口或解释，不管它可能被定性为什么。因为家族中其他人这样做或已经这样做了，而展示和捍卫联邦旗帜，这是一种老套的象征主义。支持失败的事业。这更类似于被动攻击，直到有人开枪。如果我理解正确的话，微侵犯虽然令人尴尬，但相对来说是温和的。这并不是说我正确地理解了它。
各种条件的新描述和术语是常年性的。它们出现了，但当我们更努力、思考得更好时，它们又消失了。微攻击性会持续一段时间，不再引起人们的兴趣。简短地说，会有别的东西取代它，听起来深奥而自鸣得意，直到有人说:等一下。这到底有多大问题?

But microaggression has become such a fertile topic, in my view, because many different parts and aspects of similar phenomena have at length been given a name, and therefore have become able to be investigated under a single heading. Your distinction between passive aggression and microaggression to my mind offers a keen insight into why an additional name has become appropriate. Passive aggression is a state of the subject. It's at first hidden from other people and tends to at some point become explosive when it can no longer be suppressed. Microaggression on the contrary constitutes a state of the object, or better, a state of the contents of perceptions by or within the object, the target of microaggressions, so that sooner or later it can no longer be tolerated and expressions of anger can occur in the contexts of the targets themselves, viewed incredulously by those not affected, as though to say, "what's the big deal?" In terms of philosophy, one could say that the concept of microaggression is Ontic Historicist in character, representing an effort to dispel the Cartesian- Subjectivist baggage under which the passive-aggressive state of mind is understood, in an attempt to bring sociological conditions of coexistence in the post-colonial era under sufficient conceptual management.

我想我理解你对这些不同州的看法。这都说得通。我不相信的是回到德维尔关于相关性的言论。如果“微攻击性”现在是，现在仍然是一个丰富的主题，时间会告诉我们这个故事。如果有什么东西，无论是否相关，取代了生育能力，思想家们就会继续思考。二元论是一个经久不衰的热门话题。早在勒内·笛卡尔(Rene DesCartes)之前，它就以某种形式存在了。最近，泛心论再次出现。并引起了争议和兴趣。我不被现在的泛心论者所感动，尤其是那些坚持己见的人。 consciousness to be property of everything.. I find the notion implausible. Atomic structure,for me, is only lifeforce in living things, not inanimate matter. My favorite analogy asks whether these is conscious intensionality (this may be the wrong meaning, if so, my bad) within a gold nugget. I just don't think so. OK. I am off-subject here. Take it as you wish. My layman's point is there are two domains at loggerheads here: animate vs inanimate. Believe panpsychism or don't believe it. Philosophy asks questions; takes positions and then changes its' mind. As our friend Ken Wilber wrote: and just so.
Warm Regards,
Neuman.

Has anyone found a working definition of these terms microaggression and macroaggression? What domain(s) do the terms come from? Philosophical? Psychological? Sociological?

Because macroaggression = aggression, and microaggression refers to phenomena not typically perceived as aggressive (except by its targets, often due to unexamined institutional histories or traditional relationships), I would put its study as in largest part belonging to the domain of sociological objects.

Sociological in addition because a mediate relation between individuals and groups constitutes a central component of all cases. This mediate relation can work in both directions, however. In the case of the white M.C complimenting a non-white participant on his physical appearance discussed above, the direction is from the unreflective group to the isolated individual, where any expression of displeasure thereupon would be met with consternation and confusion as to why this person is rejecting identification with the larger or more dominant group. There may be cases however where the direction runs from the individual to the group, whose shock at the refusal to participate in the group-identity results in a de-facto exclusion from the group. To my mind, the "high five" strikes me as of this latter variety. As a compulsion to group behavior, its denial entails some kind of exclusion, even if that behavior is entirely arbitrary and impractical. A folk musician imploring members of his audience to clap their hands along with the song being performed, and slighting those who refuse, might be another example.

Does anyone sense a circularity herewith? Or a regressive backtracking? The term, microaggression cancels itself from any sort of relevance., to wit, if it is neither illegal, immoral or fattening, it is not worth consideration. Let's talk about something more important.

有些人受到压迫，有些人对这种压迫一无所知，有些人以微侵犯的形式与被压迫者分享这种无知，这些都是我所认同的事实。我不能一致;一个人可以对自己进行微攻击，欲望可以被重塑为微攻击，健康的大脑和身体状态被作为微攻击进行了富有成效的讨论。这个节目帮助我摆脱了思维的抖动，但留下了一点抖动。这是意料之中的，因为这是一种全新的哲学，而我的固执是深刻而古老的。

我就不重提乔什和雷跟劳伦·弗里曼的事了。我把其中的大部分当作事实。言语伤害。压迫可以用语言表现出来。即使是无意的小冒犯。

我记得一些曾经被认为是轻蔑的轻蔑。他们所处的环境现在被称为消极攻击。在那个时候，如果有人使用一个词，例如，黑色，它会被认为是侮辱。无论是黑人还是非黑人。敏感性的变化。我们有一部电视情景喜剧，名叫《喜黑》。流行，如果我理解正确的话。所以，我已经远离了看电视。我不再感兴趣了。新冠病毒似乎是一个蹲下的好理由。 There are some friends whose company I miss. Yet now, with all that has changed, I don't know where they would stand on a range of issues, some of which were not issues when last we met.