Microagressions.tumblr.com
This sounded like a wonderful idea to me, since I am very familiar with the idea of microaggression, if not this terminology.
However, I read the first 20 or so posts on this blog, and found them all awful examples that can only alienate people by making them think that the posters and similar people are all just whingers. I do not think that others' feelings are automatically my fault. If, to take one post as an example, I mention that I had expected someone from a very different cultural background to have a different selection of music, I'm not being racist, but culturally aware. The inverse is people who are shocked to discover that others might like different music. If this person from a different background is annoyed that I had expectations that culture affects musical knowledge, then it's entirely that person's fault.
Microaggression is an important concept in other areas, however. When describing tension in relationships, or mental illness, people often fail to understand the sufferer because each individual instance of a problem seems normal. The overall problem is that there are far too many of these, and a blog that catalogues a lot of individual such moments would certainly help people understand what it is to be a beaten housewife, or live with a person who is ill.
I know very well a number of people in such situations, and have experienced them myself, and describing that sort of life to people is impossible without mentioning this, because they dismiss events that are normal for sufferers because these events are rare but known for them.
Similarly, a blog of microaggressions about all sorts of thoughtlessness and stupidity has been something I've thought of for a while, but obviously not about me being a minority. Instead I had thought of listing all those little moments in which yet another idiot steps into the street in front of me without looking, or when people walking side-by-side don't make way for me going in the other direction until I've stopped and they're about to walk into me and so on.
All those moments when someone jumps a queue because their lives are more important than mine, step in front of me because a little thought is worth more than the time and effort I've lost from braking or stopping running and so on... they add up to a lot of lost time and effort for me, but complaining about one instance does seem trivial.
On the other hand, when on a run I've stopped and started ten times because of thoughtless walkers and been behind smokers twice, choking on their fumes, and it happens at that sort of frequency on every run, then suggesting that they think (about moving earlier, without actually spending any more time on it,) seems like an easy solution to a real problem.
Showing posts with label inspiration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inspiration. Show all posts
Sunday, 23 January 2011
argument, AV
From elsewhere, to serve as inspiration for more complete considerations of the two topics:
Never end with your conclusion! This has caught me out many times before: I build up to it as if making an argument, when what people need is an arbitrary opinion first that you might or might not justify afterwards. What comes first sticks in the mind, so if you start with basic points, consider alternatives, dismiss them and finally lead into the undeniable conclusion you'll have lost people at every turn, and you'll be left with people who don't understand and call you illogical or confused.
If you proceed illogically, with conclusion first and then a few of the more solid justifications, ignoring possible holes or complaints, then you're called a precise and admirable thinker.
Anyway, about AV, anything is preferable to FPTP. Every complaint about the representation of AV can be levelled in some form at FPTP.
For example, the idea that back-room deals between parties after elections are somehow less representative than back-room deals within parties before elections is ridiculous. In FPTP we are limited to two or three major parties, providing us with little real choice. Any AV, AV+ or PR system is likely to give us more choice in party, and therefore each party will better represent its voters. That we'll still have to have compromise in order to have one government doesn't change; what changes is that the compromises will take place on the basis of how many people vote for it, rather than within parties on the basis of what they can get away with.
Never end with your conclusion! This has caught me out many times before: I build up to it as if making an argument, when what people need is an arbitrary opinion first that you might or might not justify afterwards. What comes first sticks in the mind, so if you start with basic points, consider alternatives, dismiss them and finally lead into the undeniable conclusion you'll have lost people at every turn, and you'll be left with people who don't understand and call you illogical or confused.
If you proceed illogically, with conclusion first and then a few of the more solid justifications, ignoring possible holes or complaints, then you're called a precise and admirable thinker.
Anyway, about AV, anything is preferable to FPTP. Every complaint about the representation of AV can be levelled in some form at FPTP.
For example, the idea that back-room deals between parties after elections are somehow less representative than back-room deals within parties before elections is ridiculous. In FPTP we are limited to two or three major parties, providing us with little real choice. Any AV, AV+ or PR system is likely to give us more choice in party, and therefore each party will better represent its voters. That we'll still have to have compromise in order to have one government doesn't change; what changes is that the compromises will take place on the basis of how many people vote for it, rather than within parties on the basis of what they can get away with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)