'I Don't Accept the Idea of Microaggression' (OCON 2015)

An insidious movement on college campuses employs the term "microaggression" to equate objectionable speech with physical force that violates another's rights. In these excerpts from a panel discussion at Objectivist Summer Conference 2015, Yaron Brook and Harry Binswanger explain why the idea of microaggression constitutes a threat to free speech that should be vigorously opposed.

Yaron Brook is the executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Harry Binswanger is a member of the Institute's board of directors. This event was recorded on July 9, 2015.

BUY "DEFENDING FREE SPEECH"

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

EXPLORE ARI

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK

BUY “EQUAL IS UNFAIR: AMERICA’S MISGUIDED FIGHT AGAINST INCOME INEQUALITY”

[Nelapidae]

There is no such thing as a right to be protected from being offended.

[extratrillestrial]

Imagine hearing someone say they experience micro-aggressions without mocking and ridiculing them into tears... If someone says my words are micro-aggression they will be immediately met with macro-aggressions... just because I can

[housewifehoneybee]

They aren't embarrassed is the problem. To them, the person with the most victim "points" seems to "win". It's a competition to see who can be the most offended.

[Joel-estv]

It's not just insulting someone. Calling someone ugly or fat is an insult. Now, challenging somebody's world view, presenting facts that debunk somebody's world view or disagreeing with somebody politically is considered the same as slapping them and thus justifies them using force against you. Absolute nonsense.

[zracer]

How do they prevent you from engaging in a "micro-aggression?" By initiating physical aggression. There's no way out for them, unless we give up the fight for our minds...

[fender]

Excellent points on a movement that needs serious philosophical opposition. It was a pleasure meeting you at a conference several years ago Yaron. Keep up the great work ARI.

[mnwsupercrazy]

This is well said and an explanation as to why we need to stop watching mainstream media

[eliselise]

Thanks for being sane and defending free speech.

[kiinnis]

What scares me is that this was posted in 2016. It's now 2021 and look where America and free speech is today. ( Pray that my comment does not age well 4 years from now.)

[pardisazarmi]

I'm on the left, but I completely disagree with the idea of "microaggressions" because I agree that it completely goes against freedom of speech. Living on a college campus that pushes this on the students is ridiculous and I've experienced it first hand and have been even labeled as an "ableist' due to a comment that was in no ways meant to harm disabled people.

[kendog]

These guys are so right i hope the world wakes up b4 its too late!!

[HeinrichKonig]

The dangerous thing about challenging the social justice dogma on campus is that it is so ingrained from the top down, that trying to rip it straight out by directly and vociferously challenging it will only create more push-back. (TL;DR inbound! Also, go watch The Distributist, he puts this in WAY better terms than I am going to...)

There's 4 groups you need to consider: - 'Bystanders', who just want things to be generally fair but don't have a real stake and don't understand.
- 'Believers', who have an interest in and lean more towards social justice ideas, although not completely, since they don't quite grasp the full implications.
- 'Fanatics', who live and breath social justice, and react to any dissent from those ideas with utter fury and hatred.
- 'Leaders', the ones who planted the seeds of these ideas in the first place. As dedicated as the fanatic, either through belief or a desire for personal gain. They're well-educated, and they want to seem as rational and impartial as possible while upholding their dogma and silencing challengers.

If you go for the throat immediately, the bystanders are going to think you're being irrational over nothing, the believers are going to feel like they're being personally attacked for just being interested in it, the fanatics are going to come after you, and the leaders will provoke you until they can just sit back and watch you get eaten alive thanks to your own defiance.

*To effectively challenge them, you have to play the long game.*

Start out just asking questions about socjus ideology. Probe it like you would any other idea, but don't approach it from a biased standpoint. Everyone will just see you as someone thinking it through, and this'll give you ammunition for the next stages.
When the time is right, you can escalate to saying some common sense things that don't directly challenge stated facts of socjus, but would otherwise undermine the core principles, e.g. "I believe in gender complementation, but I don't know about gender symmetry". Bystanders and believers are going to probably see the rationality behind that without thinking about how it impacts the dogma, but the fanatics and leaders are going to smell a rat. Fanatics might come after you for it, but the leaders can't reveal their hand without seeming extremist, and the fanatics will only damage the image of their side with their own extremism.
After a while of doing this, eventually the fanatics are going to start saying some seriously crazy shit in front of everyone, '#killallmen, death to whites, etc. This is where you go in for the kill: simply flatly state your disagreement with their statements, and add that perhaps this has something to do with why you withhold assent to socjus' other ideas.
Bystanders will see that the socjus side are acting like twats, the believers will begin to question their loyalty to these twats and their ideas, the fanatics look like a load of twats, and the leaders cannot act on you without looking like a bunch of unfair, dogmatic twats to everyone!

Ideological wars are just like real wars: they can't always be won with a direct charge.

[zcoppleman]

Students need to stand up against this collectivist nonsense! Don't follow the foolish herd!

[Publius-]

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington

[Publius-]

"Without debate, without criticism no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive."
President John F. Kennedy

[dianelonero]

I have been dismissed from a college because of being accused of microagressions. I do not know what recourse I have. It is Trinity Christian College

[davee]

The freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all

[valsotto]

i identify as a windows 10, would you like to upgrade to windows 10?

[isaac]

Don't fight against stupidity, no matter what it calls itself. Express your own views vigorously. Life's too short to waste time on it and YOUR actions against their bull legitimizes them. It's not who's going to let you have free speech, it's who's going to stop you?! ;)

[eliciagarcia]

I don’t like the idea of “micro aggressions” because that means if somebody perceives my facial expression or vocal tone or intentions as being an attack on them, then they’re allowed to claim that as truth. It means reality is whatever they perceive it to be. I could say something that touches one of their sensitive spots and then they’re allowed to claim that my intentions were probably to hurt their feelings or to manipulate them or to be abusive. I’m not saying manipulation and abuse aren’t real things, but not everyone is manipulative and abusive and you can’t decide someone is manipulative and abusive based on the fact that they said something or did something that touched one of your sensitive spots or that you perceive as mean. Even if someone DOES say something a little sarcastic or make a bit of a snarly look at you, we don’t need to exaggerate it and claim they are an abusive narcissist and hate them. People don’t always behave perfectly and they especially don’t always behave perfectly according to what YOUR perception of “correct” is. People also forget that their perception of the correct way to act is subjective. It isn’t ultimate truth. For example if you think it’s rude or mean to ask an elderly person their age, it doesn’t mean it IS mean for sure in all scenarios. It means YOU think this is mean because of your own emotions and what YOU would emotionally react to.