Hello Samahl and thank you for your contributions. We hope you'll stay with us and continue to help us improve the wiki.
Here are some links to help you get started:
- The Community Page is a great place to find articles on our wiki that need help and any find out about any projects you can become a part of.
- Our policies and guidelines will inform you how we edit here.
- The help pages can help you learn how to edit and how use the wiki tools and are a great help if you are new to wikis. For test edits, you can create a personal sandbox.
- Recent changes lets you see what other people are editing currently and where you can help.
Do I respond to you here? or do i just speak on my own talk page and you'll get the message? i actually don't know how this works, so any information would be stellar.
Re: "history of the term "colored people" and "people of color".
... You do know that simply quoting a word's etymology doesn't make it right, right? you can say the say the history of any scientific progress until it's most recent breakthrough and that information is outdated and no longer applicable. Granted, we're talking about people here and not science, but the fact remains; EzzyD's comments did not incite violence or promote unequal treatment. regardless of which suffix he added, and it's position related to another word, he did not incite violence or promote unequal treatment.
No... wow, "I'd buy that if white people were ever described as exotic", just wow... no, the definition of a word doesn't change simply because it doesn't concur to your world view. And that article you linked to? it was a god damn blog!!! that's not proof of anything! it was not a scientific journal on how the various electrical signals in the brain light up when presented with objects with relevance to racism or sexism, it wasn't measuring the change in quantity of various hormones in the human body when presented with a visual representation of what is socially deemed racist and sexist. No, it wasn't anything of objective merit, it's just the thoughts and perspective of a specific individual writing her thoughts on the subject. I could list another blog by another random person, and according to your actions, that would somehow prove something, anything, whatever i want to prove, and undeniably prove it. Instead i will provide the actual f*ing definition of "exotic"; of foreign origin or character; not native, introduced from abroad, but not fully naturalized or acclimatized (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exotic)....
Re: "stop victimizing us white guys".
.... excuse me? you're making an awful lot of assumptions here. Assuming EzzyD is white, assuming I'm white. Nothing either of us said gives any implication to our own race, age, sexual orientation, etc. And yet you're demanding that we be white, that we MUST be white, simply because of our opinions. That's actually borderline racist, since you know, you're assuming no one other than white people would think this particular way that you disagree with.
"in what way am i discriminating against him".
You called him a racist, disgusting fuck.
"in what reality, is my behavior in any comparable to the harm caused by rapists and racists",
the non violent kind, you're using words to ridicule and degrade him, as though he was less then human simply because of his opinion to not want to sleep with black women, just the same as if a rapist and racist would think of their victims as less than human because of their gender or race.
"do i come off as overly sensitive?"
Yes. You took issue with two words "colored people". two words. EzzyD didn't say "we should all kill colored people", he didn't say "colored people should not mix with other races". no, he said "colored people turn me off." He's not inciting violence or promoting unequal treatment. He's simply stating he's unattracted to black people. he's not saying all black people are ugly or undesirable. he just said that he's unattracted to them. that's like saying that if someone didn't like eating chinese food, that they're racist towards the entirety of China, and disrespectful of it's people and it's culture. So yes. you are being overly sensitive.
"or is it easier to dismiss what i'm saying because i actually care about this stuff?"
No, i can see you care about this stuff. The fact that you wrote on my talk page is additional testament to the fact that you care about this stuff. And i have addressed your points of concern, which is the opposite of dismissing your opinion, explained why it's my opinion that your opinions are ridiculous, and come to the conclusion that you are overly sensitive. By it's definition, "actually care about this stuff" is a requirement of "overly sensitive". I'm not saying that it's the only requirement, i'm saying it's just one requirement. The thing about you that makes you "oversensitive" is that you are "bruised". You have experience inequality, disrespect, maybe even humiliation for something you were born with, and so you are "bruised". The same words that touch other people in which they don't even feel, cause you stress and discomfort. They are the same words, but you experience them differently because you are "bruised" and so "oversensitive".
Re: "btw, i love sex"
That's nice, good for you, i hope you have lots of it. I'd be mildly surprised (not betting that you haven't, not calling you a liar if you have, just mildly surprised) if you tried anything other than vanilla sex (i.e, experimenting with bondage, having your partner (man/woman) tying you (or vice versa) up and pleasuring you in various creative ways. BDSM; mixing pain, humiliation, power with pleasure, etc. Elaborate Role Play, immersing yourself in the belief that your partner is no longer your partner, but the character in book/comic/videogame/film/etc). I say this because you took issue with fetishizing, and how can you take issue with fetishizing without also taking issue with fetishes. If you understood fetishes, you would also understand fetishizing, that there's a time and a place but in itself is not harmful as long as it's consensual.
Re: "Am i only allowed an opinion if i'm considerate and composed 100% of the time, and even then, only when i take care not to hurt the feelings of white people?"
No, you should be considerate and composed to everyone, of all races and genders. calling someone a disgusting racist fuck is rude. especially since his comments did not incite any violence or promote inequality in anyway. regardless of what race he is, you're being incredibly and unnecessarily rude because of his sexual preference. which is not racist since he's not inciting violence or promoting unequal treatment. In fact, it's so ridiculous, that it would be the equivalent of me calling you a homophobe because you don't prefer the company of men. You don't like taking a cock in your asshole or your mouth, and so you must be a homophobe.
"1) Are you white? If you aren't, I apologize for the assumption. However, judging from the way you talk, I am pretty sure you're white."
No, I'm Chinese-Australian. My parents are immigrants. I don't have an accent speaking English, I know how to read and speak Chinese (albiet with an accent), I'm from a middle class family and i have had decent education. I don't even look wholely asian, my skin is lighter than most due to my mixed blood (Russian ancestry). Not that any of that has anything to do with anything. My background, my DNA has nothing to do with the words being typed right now. The ideas i present stand on their own merit (as are yours), dragging unnecessary details regarding someone's race or gender does not make your ideas any more right, and only worsens your own position because it would appear you can't use logic or reason to defend your own ideas.
"2) Oh, marvelous, dictionary definitions. It's funny, because the examples they give are food and plants. I would like to point something out here though: when people refer to women as exotic, they aren't actually using the first definition, but rather, the second (strikingly unusual or strange in effect or appearance). They consider brown women "unusual" and "strange" by virtue of being brown, or wearing their culture's clothing, or speaking with a non-European accent. Foreign white women don't get this treatment. Nobody thinks of French or German or Russian women as exotic, or at least, not a significant amount of the population."
You are assuming you know what "People" know "when people refer to women as exotic..", "They consider..." "Foreign white women don't get this treatment". "No one thinks...". You assume you can speak for the entirety of humanity. You are but ONE person, you can ONLY speak for yourself. Don't not presume to think you're allowed to speak for the entirety Earth. That paragraph right there just proves how arrogant you are. I will now begin to destroy your entire argument.
"when people refer to women as exotic, they aren't actually using the first definition, but rather, the second". That's already been proven wrong since i used the first definition, despite you claiming to speak for the entire human race, I, without realising, already proved you wrong. Am I lying? because i don't concur with your world view, i MUST be lying. And yet, i'm not. The Truth is independent of what an individual's world view is. I also used it in the second definition as well. That's right, i used it in both definitions. There aren't that many black people in Australia, the ones i've personally seen are immigrants from Uganda or something. In a population of mostly Caucasion, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese, Chinese immigrants, a Black person is "strikingly unusual or strange", they are also "of foreign origin or character; not native, introduced from abroad, but not fully naturalized or acclimatized". Does that mean we treat them any different as we would any human being? no. Do we not serve them food, or exclude them from the health care system? no. They are people, they learn, they love, they live. Their skin is a bit different though. And that's it. Their skin is a bit different to the larger population. That's all. We recognize that difference, and nothing else happens. No beatings occur, no unfair treatment occur. We see that they have black skin, and then we forget about it when we're looking both ways before we cross the street, because not getting hit by a car while crossing the street is more important than the color of a stranger's skin.
"Anyway, there haven't been any studies about the effects of exotification and racial fetishization, because most scientists are white and they don't care about this stuff. Even then, it takes money to run experiments, money that scientists of color won't necessarily have access to. Since this is the case, all we have to go on are people's experiences with it. There are many, many Asian women (and other WOC) out there who speak out about the degradation, dehumanization, and objectification they go through regularly. Why shouldn't we listen to them? Do you think they're all lying? If someone tells you something hurts, do you not believe them until you hook them up to an MRI?"
... "most scientists are white".... you have got to be joking... in Australia, and i assume in every other civilised country in the world, Academic Merit is based solely on Academic Merit, not race. I've just illustrated that Australia, at least Adelaide, has a big population of Italian/Greek/Vietnamese/Chinese immigrants. I personally know several that are currently doing their PhD's in their respective fields. Their existence is directly counter to your beliefs.
"most scientists are white and they don't care about this stuff".
Wrong. Milgrim's experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment), conducted by Stanely Milgrim (who's an American white person), started when reports came of Nazi soldiers doing horrific things during World War 2 simply because a person of authority told them to do it. His experiments proved that it was true, someone with enough authority can actually compel a subject to do horrific things simply by commanding it. This experiment was started because Nazi soldiers were doing horrific things to prisoners of war (e.g. Jews). A group of people were in distress, and white people empathized and attempted to explain why, i'm not saying black people didn't, i'm not saying asians didn't, i'm simply saying that some white people empathised, and put into motion the events that lead to this experiment in understanding why this horrific event transpired. Another example is the experiment "Social Emotion and the Brain", an experiment performed by Susan T. Friske (http://neurocritic.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/spanner-or-sex-object.html) which Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated. Susan T Friske is a white american woman teaching at the Princeton University. She was concerned about how women were treated and she took proactive measures and prove her claims in an attempt to change social norms.
These are just two examples of scientific progress being made in an attempt to change social perspectives. two examples of the White Americans you believe can't empathize or are indifferent to the struggles of minorities. (most scientists are white and they don't care about this stuff')
"There are many, many Asian women (and other WOC) out there who speak out about the degradation, dehumanization, and objectification they go through regularly. Why shouldn't we listen to them? Do you think they're all lying? If someone tells you something hurts, do you not believe them until you hook them up to an MRI?"
No, I don't have to see an MRI result to know if someone's hurting, I don't think anyone is like that. The fact that their are political rallies all over the world that are against actual discrimination and sexism is proof that not everyone simply stands by and lets racism and sexism happen. Even back in a time when that was a socially acceptable behavior, the fact that change later occurred and is still occuring is proof that no everyone condones pain and lets it happen. But you know what the difference is? those are REAL examples of degradation/dehumanization/objectification; Unfair wages, the right to vote in a political election, sitting wherever the fuck they wanna sit on a bus, Martin Luther King Jr's Million Man March! Those are REAL examples of sexism and racism being fought against. Pain and humiliation suffered and endured being fought against.
But this? what is this? "he doesn't want to sleep with coloured women, he must be racist". No, that's you being petty. that's you being fixated on two words and demanding justice, that he be "called out on his racism". You don't know his intent, you just assumed he was deliberately being disrespectful. EzzyD said he didn't want to sleep with coloured people. You took issue because he used the term "coloured people", not a single person had their rights taken away, was beaten or humiliated by the two words. You took issue in the context of which he used it, that he was turned off by coloured people, EzzyD's lack of erect penis did not take away the rights of black people, nor were they beaten or humiliated by his lack of erect penis. He didn't say that all black people were ugly, that everyone should think that they're ugly. No, all he said was that his penis won't rise for a black woman. that's all he said. and because of his lack of erection, you would label him a Racist, as though he was less than human because his penis won't swell in excitement.
"3) Calling someone racist is not discriminating against them. It's not a slur. It's not even an insult, because that would imply the intent is to inflict harm rather than reduce it. I am saying he is racist because he is doing racist things, specifically, using the word "colored", and claiming to find black people - as in, all black people - unattractive. Question: Silver Warden also explained why the latter is racist. Why didn't you have a problem with what he said?"
Calling someone Racist, is the same as calling them a Thief, a Liar, a Pedophile, a Criminal of Any Nature. They, according to society, did something wrong, and so all society must know what they did. And that's nice, more power to you. But what happens when you call someone a Pedophile, what actually happens? That person is shunned. He is treated like a diseased animal, something, no longer a someone, but a something to be avoided at all cost. Physical proximity is out of the question, even loose association is shunned. No one wants to be "that guy who's friends with the Pedophile". Being labeled a Racist/Pedophile/Whatever, might be what that person deserves. But EzzyD, a racist? for not being turned on by coloured women? You would brand him as something less than human because of his sexual preference? He is not hurting anyone, he is not inciting violence or promoting unequal treatment, he simply stated in the most crude way that he does not wish to bed a black woman. In fact, you demanding he must be all inclusive in his sexual preferences, you dictating that all who do not follow your own specific code of conduct regarding sexual relations must be branded a "racist" for it, makes you a villain at the very least.
I don't have a problem with Silver Warden, I don't agree with his opinion since it mirrors yours, but he didn't lash out against EzzyD for his opinion. He spoke coherently, articulated his ideas clearly. And though i still disagree, i will let him be. You on the other hand are insulting, and horribly misinformed. Just as you would call EzzyD out on his racism, i will call you out on your ignorance and oversensitivity.
"4) I'm not going to go into further detail about my sex life, but here's the thing: fetishizing inanimate objects is okay because it doesn't hurt anyone. Hell, fetishizing body parts doesn't hurt anyone either. Fetishizing aspects of people's identities does hurt people, however. I don't have any stats for racial fetishization, but 61% of bisexual women report being a victim of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner, compared to 44% of lesbians and 35% of straight women. 46.1% of bi women are rape survivors compared to 13.1% of lesbians. If you don't think this has anything to do with the hypersexualization and/or fetishization of bisexuality in our society, then I don't know what to tell you."
That's nice, you're providing statistics of women being hurt. The last thing i said in that paragraph was that "Fetishism" has a time and place, and that as long as both parties are consensual, then fetishicism in itself isn't harmful. You've just provided statistics of women being hurt, i assume not consensual, so... kind of pointless. hurting people without their consent is wrong, hurting people with their consent (i.e via fetish) is totally okay (and welcomed in some cases). Hence, your statistics, in this context, don't really mean anything as they're statisitics of unwanted pain, of rape, not of consensual fetish. In fact, i reject your opinion and your implication. You're implying that only people who indulge in fetishism commit rape, that all rapists are fetishists. Which is completely untrue.
Fetishism is also any sexual act that society deems strange and not the norm. Taken back a few generations, Homosexuality could hypothetically be considered a form of fetishism. If you continue to stand by your own statistics and it's importance, then you're also forced to accept the fact that homosexuals and homosexuality is part of the reason for the existence of those numbers.
"Please desist with the condescension and consider that you might be taking this a bit personally. It seems like people on this wiki have some weird associations with the word "racism" (maybe personal experiences of being called racist?). I'm not calling anybody KKK members, or implying that you intentionally seek to hurt POC. A lot of people (including POC) have racist tendencies, just as a lot of people have sexist, queerphobic, transphobic, etc. tendencies. So many toxic beliefs about POC, and women, and queer people, and trans people, are ingrained in society and culture, that it's pretty much impossible to get away from it all. Unless you are constantly actively resisting it, you're very likely doing something wrong, or at least facilitating it through inaction."
This, this right here? THIS IS YOU BACK TRACKING. this is you stubbornly holding onto your persecution complex. You have admitted that EzzyD's comments have done no harm "I'm not calling anybody KKK members, or implying that you intentionally seek to hurt POC". Not a single black person has been physically harmed or had their rights taken away because of EzzyD's comments. Racism is a serious issue. Even recently, the Uyghyr people of east central asia are feeling persecuted by the people's republic of china, their lands are slowly being taken, their culture being suppressed. In retaliation, massacres of chinese nationals residing in "uyghyr territory" aren't uncommon. This is an example of racism. on both sides. People dying to defend their beliefs and their culture despite the other side being adamant in destroying that culture. Treyvon Martin was recently shot to death, his attacker got off with minimal criminal charges. The contents of that case is a case of racism among other things. but this? this is one man saying he does not wish to bed black women. This is not racism. This is a matter of sexual preference. This is not racism. There is very real racism out there. If EzzyD were to spread vicious uncalled for propaganda with actual racist agendas, I can assure you that this wiki would be on fire with people disagreeing with him and calling for the suspension of his account. By your own pettiness, you are actually diluting the definition of racism. If every little nonpolitically correct term falls under the umbrella of racism, then you are making light of actual racism by painting them all with the same brush. How can anyone take racism seriously if a simple matter of word choice that has not harmed anyone or their rights be considered racist. Racism is a very serious issue, do not dilute it with your own insecurities.
No, i will not desist with the condescension. Your opinions are stupid. I've noticed that you had no retort to my previous examples of your brand of racism?
1)If you don't like eating Chinese food, then you must be a racist and disrespect the entirety of China, it's culture and it's population.
2)If you don't like taking a cock in your mouth or your asshole, you must be a homophobe.
those two examples are exactly the same thing as "if you're not sexually attracted to black women, you must be racist", just with the subject matter switched out.If you say one is racist, then you can't say the other isn't racist. In either case, no one is being hurt, no one has their rights taken away. The worst case scenario is that someone has their feelings hurt. That just illustrates the ridiculousness of your brand of racism, and why i don't deem it racist at all. Kaspar Sinclair (talk) 06:52, June 1, 2014 (UTC)
"I'm not up to responding to your every single point in detail right now, especially since you seem to have selective reading issues that make discussions with you grating, not to mention your propensity for making straw man arguments. I might later, but I thought I'd inform you just in case.
That's okay, take as long as you need. Apparently this "debate" is being watched by others. I'll admit that i do Appear to have Selective Reading issues. A couple weeks ago, I got into a debate with Warden Mage Ferris. He too saw that I had "selective reading issues", even made a funny joke out of it. "We should open up a butcher's shop, call it Kaspar's Cold Cuts". He said that because it looked like i was just cutting up his sentences and taking them out of context. I later explained that I didn't include the rest of his paragraphs because I agreed with them, it was just those specific things that i "cutted out" that i disagreed with and argued against. He understood and we eventually had an intellectual, thought provoking discussion.
That is not going to happen here.
Your arguments are stupid, I've explained why, in detail so you can understand why I disagree with your thinking. You are basing so much simply on assumption; assuming who i am, who EzzyD is, and your most arrogant assumption is that you know what "most people think". And I'm going to use logic and examples to tear down each and everyone of your "arguments", just so everyone reading this will understand why it's stupid and dangerous to label people as Racist, why your over sensitivity, however justified, is misplaced.
"1) I'm sorry for assuming you were white (though by your own admittance, you do have light-skinned privilege). You're right that opinions should stand on their own merit, but a person's background gives insight into why the person in question might hold that opinion. You may or may not pass for white, but your white features do give you something of a leg up over darker-skinned POC in similar conditions, because colorism is a thing."
Maybe. Maybe not. I could be offended by that, but i honestly don't care enough to be so. While others may be swayed by your statement "but a person's background gives insight into why the person in question might hold that opinion", I am not. I don't care if you're black, of spanish descent, or whatever other minority. It doesn't make your opinion any more or any less right. I personally think your opinion is wrong regardless of your race. A person is not racist because he prefers the company of one kind of person rather than another. Nothing you say, can change that belief. People are free to make love to whomever they choose, and when you labeled EzzyD's comment, the exercise of that free will, as racist, you are attempting to shame him into your confined, corrupted thinking. By exposing your words as crap, i hope to inspire people to love in the intimate/emotional/physical sense whomever they want to love.
"2) We are using two different definitions of fetishization. You think I'm talking about specific fetishes, like foot fetishes or leather fetishes. I'm talking about people isolating one part of a person's identity and sexualizing it. I have explained this to you multiple times, but you seem unable to grasp the concept."
It doesn't matter. I'm speaking about leather fetishes, i'm speaking of bondage; of pain, pleasure, humiliation and power, entwined and obscured within each other. I'm speaking of racial fetishes; of yellow fever; a fascination with Asians, of a "taste of dark chocolate"; a fascination with Black people. I speak of wanting to caress the cheek of Disney's Princess Jasmine, and for that reason, finding the courage to speak to a girl of Indian descent, of romancing her and clothing her in fine blue silk, and making love to such a fine woman beneath the moonlight and ever bright stars. It does not matter. There is a time and a place for such behavior. Obviously Rape is not condoned. But as long as both parties are consensual, i see no reason why fetishism, each and every definition of the word, is in itself harmful. Do the people that are objectified in the bedroom, during the lover's most intimate moments, no longer deserve respect nor kindness after their night of passion? no. They're people, despite being objects of fetishism, they are people, and like all people deserve respect. My point is, Fetishism and Respect are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can be attracted to an asian woman for their skin tone, for their accent, solely for those, and still respect her as a human being.
"3) You gave me examples of white scientists conducting experiments that have nothing to do with POC, and in fact, nothing to do with empathizing with people different from yourself. Surprise, surprise, a female scientist cares about the effects of rape culture and objectification on women. Are all minorities the same to you?"
You claimed white people do not care for minorities. I provided examples that proved you wrong. Stanely Milgrim was not Jewish, yet he sought to better understand the horrors visited upon them. Susan T Friske sought to expose the sexism against women, all women, of every race, and did so in a scientifically explainable way, an indisputable way. How dare you belittle their accomplishments simply because they weren't black, that their research did not benefit black people exclusively, specifically, and so they somehow "don't count". Madonna G Constantine, the author and researcher of "Perceptions of Racial Microaggressions amongst black supervisees in Cross-Racial Dyads".(http://psy6129.alliant.wikispaces.net/file/view/Constantine+%26+Sue+2007.pdf/32428767/Constantine+%26+Sue+2007.pdf) The experiment specifically lists the subjects as of African-American descent. There. That's proof that black researchers exist, and that they're paid to do social research in an attempt to benefit black people. The experiment in itself is flawed, so terribly flawed, but it's existence is proof that there are black researchers, and that research done to benefit black people exists. there. (http://www.faculty.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/3.2.3%20SED%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf) Here's some more evidence, according to this 2007 survey, 1821 black people earned their doctorates between July 1,2006 and June 30, 2007. That's 1821 black people in a single year that have done research to better society as a whole. What was your claim? White people don't care for minorities? Wrong. I just proved that they do. that Black people aren't researchers and that there are no researches regarding black people? Wrong. You even helped me find the evidence by pointing me in the right direction. How about you do some god damn research before you start running you mouth and exposing your own persecution complex.
"4) Racism isn't just active violence or hatred. It's an institution, and is made up of many small parts. Google microaggressions if you're honestly open to learning new things."
"The concept of racial microaggressions is one of the relatively new theories of Social Psychology that purport to contribute to the understanding of factors that influence intergroup relations. Commonplace, public experiences or situations such as being stopped for a check-up at an airport, being ignored by a waiter/waitress at a restaurant or being assigned to a particular task by an employer, might seem irrelevant or innocuous situations under most circumstances. However, when such situations are interpreted as being linked to racial differences, they become distinct, and take on a different connotation. As a result, people who perceive themselves as being subjected to them may experience emotional pain or other negative feelings." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression)
This? is this the Microaggressions you were talking about? Because read the last two sentences. "when such situations are interpreted as...", "people who perceive themselves as being subjected to....". Why, it would almost seem that Microaggression, by definition, is caused by oversensitivity on the subject's part. you are perceiving racism that may not be there, you are interpreting normal, social events as events that are subtly racist. It could be a racist situation, it might not be, the only judge for it is your own perception.
Seriously, you telling me to find out more about it as though it'll prove your point, just massively backfired on you. Because from where i stand, it looks as though you didn't even know what the word means and you've just waved it about to make yourself more knowledgeable than you actually are.
"By the way, you are being substantially ruder than I've been this entire discussion. I'm sure this means something, but I'm not interested in speculating about your deeper psychological motives and processes. Also, stop equating homosexuality with liking dicks."
How about you answer my loaded questions first. Yes, their loaded, I know that, you know that, everyone reading this knows that. And yet I'm going to force you to say it anyway.
1) Does not eat chinese food mean that you are disrespectful of China's culture and people, and thus make you a racist? 2) Does not wanting to take a dick in your mouth and asshole make you a homophobe? (the definition of homosexuality is to have romantic feelings for another man, despite my taking this example to it's most extreme, the example is still applicable). 3) Does not being sexually attracted to black women make you a racist towards all black people?
If your answer to any one of those questions is Yes, explain why it isn't also Yes to the other questions. and if your answer is Yes to all the questions, you've just illustrated how ridiculous "microaggression" is. Kaspar Sinclair (talk) 15:20, June 1, 2014 (UTC)