Categories
crime and punishment folly general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism

Loco Micro Repression

Close but no cakewalk prize.

Modern social justice advocates sometimes come up with legitimate complaints … only to wander off terra firma and into cloud-​cuckoo land.

“Microaggressions” is one of these airy wanderings, and Katherine Timpf has spotted another in the ever-​growing catalog of social justice beefs:

The size of our society’s chairs is now being considered a “microaggression” against overweight people, according to a guide released by The New School, a private college in New York City. 

Proponents of this cause, Timpf notes, insist that “Microaggression is not ‘Micro’ in Impact,” and that the best response to faux pas, slights, indelicacies, and what-​have-​you is snitching to the administration and intervention from same. Quite overbearing, if you ask me. During my too brief college stint it would have been considered an insult — a microaggression? — to think that young adults could not handle minor affronts such as so helpfully listed at The New School.

But let’s get real here. Microaggressions do not justify treating adults as children and setting up college administrators as in loco parentis tribunals — much less Molotov cocktails, sucker punches or bike locks in socks. At best, as has been pointed out elsewhere, Ned’s microaggression justifies Zed’s microretaliation. Nothing more.

So how does one micro-respond? 

Manners; etiquette.

In olden times, a well-​mannered person, when snubbed or otherwise insulted had the option of responding with a cutting remark … without any actual cutting, without even raising the tone of his or her voice. 

Activists and collegians really should look into it.

And not bring up chair size: the micro-​chair/​macro-​posterior issue has too many “microaggressive” jokes built into it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly ideological culture

Trick-​or-​Merry Christmas?

So I’m sitting in Starbucks for a few hours, waiting for my youngest to emerge from a concert. I like Starbucks. Good coffee — at least “good enough,” though pricey. Good wireless Internet — at least good enough … and for free.

But, ’tis the season — the “Christmas Season,” if a tad early. And “the war against Christmas” season, too.

The brouhaha about the new seasonal red Starbucks cups has “gone viral,” but I’m pretty sure there’s more haha than brew here. We so feed off of taking offense, and (by extension) ridiculing others who have taken, or given, offense, that the current cultural tempest in a chai tea cup is more meta than earnest.

In case you haven’t seen it, a putative Christian man, vertically misusing his smart phone camera, records how he got around Starbucks’s alleged “anti-​Christmas” policy, not by boycotting the coffee but by offering his name as “Merry Christmas,” thus forcing Starbucks employees to write the words on his red cup and say the allegedly prohibited greeting (one Starbucks website promises a future “Christmas blend”).

Funny? Sort of.

He misfired early, though.

Starbucks has never sported the words “Merry Christmas” on its seasonal cup, and this year’s design is minimal and elegant, red with the company’s green logo. Hardly worth a complaint, in my view, and I haven’t met anyone who thinks the cup is worth getting all riled up about.

As for “forcing” baristas to say the words, well, just how Christmas‑y is that? Plus, it’s not Christmas yet. It is not even Thanksgiving.

Happy mid-​November. This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Starbucks, coffee, war on christmas, outrage, offense, folly, Common Sense