The term originates in the systematic psychological manipulation of a victim by her husband in the 1938 stage play Gaslight, known as Angel Street in the United States, and the film adaptations released in 1940 and 1944.[7] In the story, a husband attempts to convince his wife and others that she is insane by manipulating small elements of their environment and insisting that she is mistaken, remembering things incorrectly, or delusional when she points out these changes. The original title stems from the dimming of the gas lights in the house that happened when the husband was using the gas lights in the flat above while searching for the jewels belonging to a woman whom he had murdered. The wife correctly notices the dimming lights and discusses it with her husband, but he insists that she merely imagined a change in the level of illumination.[citation needed]

The term "gaslighting" has been used colloquially since the 1960s[8] to describe efforts to manipulate someone's perception of reality. The term has been used to describe such behaviour in psychoanalytic literature since the 1970s.[9] In a 1980 book on child sexual abuse, Florence Rush summarized George Cukor's Gaslight (1944) based on the play and wrote, "even today the word [gaslighting] is used to describe an attempt to destroy another's perception of reality."[10]

>>3785265

illumination.[citation needed]

The term "gaslighting" has been used colloquially since the 1960s[8] to describe efforts to manipulate someone's perception of reality. The term has been used to describe such behaviour in psychoanalytic literature since the 1970s.[9] In a 1980 book on child sexual abuse, Florence Rush summarized George Cukor's Gaslight (1944) based on the play and wrote, "even today the word [gaslighting] is used to describe an attempt to destroy another's perception of reality."[10]

Usage

Sociopaths[11] and narcissists[12] use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their own perceptions.[11] Some physically abusive spouses may gaslight their partners by flatly denying that they have been violent.[4] Gaslighting may occur in parent–child relationships, with either parent, child, or both lying to the other and attempting to undermine perceptions.[13]

An abuser's ultimate goal is to make their victim second guess their every choice and question their sanity, making them more dependent on the abuser. A tactic which further degrades a target's self-esteem is for the abuser to ignore, then attend to, then ignore the victim again, so that the victim lowers their personal bar for what constitutes affection and perceives themselves as less worthy of affection.[14]

Gaslighting has been observed in some cases of marital infidelity: "Therapists may contribute to the victim's distress through mislabeling the [victim's] reactions. […] The gaslighting behaviors of the spouse provide a recipe for the so-called 'nervous breakdown' for some [victims] [and] suicide in some of the worst situations."[13][15]

There are two characteristics of gaslighting: The abuser wants full control of feelings, thoughts, or actions of the victim; and the abuser discreetly emotionally abuses the victim in hostile, abusive, or coercive ways.[16]

It is necessary to understand the warning signs of gaslighting in order to fully start the healing process. Signs of gaslighting include:

Withholding information from victim;

Countering information to fit the abuser's perspective;

Discounting information;

Verbal abuse, usually in the form of jokes;

Blocking and diverting the victim's attention from outside sources;

Trivializing the victim's worth; and,

Undermining victim by gradually weakening them and their thought process.[17]

Jay Carter explores the reasons behind gaslighting. He says that only 1% of people consciously use this technique to intentionally hurt the victim; 20% of people use gaslighting as a defense mechanism and only semi-consciously use this technique, while the rest of the abusers unintentionally use this technique once in a while.[18]

>>3785269

Three most common methods of gaslighting are:

Hiding: The abuser may hide things from the victim and cover up what they have done. Instead of feeling ashamed, the abuser may convince the victim to doubt their own beliefs about the situation and turn the blame on themselves.

Changing: The abuser feels the need to change something about the victim. Whether it be the way the victim dresses or acts, they want the victim to mold into their fantasy. If the victim does not comply, the abuser may convince the victim that he or she is in fact not good enough.

Control: The abuser may want to fully control and have power over the victim. In doing so, the abuser will try to seclude them from other friends and family where only they can influence the victim's thoughts and actions. The abuser gets pleasure from knowing the victim is being fully controlled by them.[12]

>>3785265

>>3785269

>>3785282

Gaslighting has been observed between patients and staff in inpatient psychiatric facilities.[19]

In a 1981 article, Some Clinical Consequences of Introjection: Gaslighting, Calef and Weinshel argue that gaslighting involves the projection and introjection of psychic conflicts from the perpetrator to the victim: "this imposition is based on a very special kind of 'transfer'… of potentially painful mental conflicts."[20] The authors explore a variety of reasons why the victims may have "a tendency to incorporate and assimilate what others externalize and project onto them", and conclude that gaslighting may be "a very complex highly structured configuration which encompasses contributions from many elements of the psychic apparatus."[20] Dorpat (1994) describes this as an example of projective identification.[2]

With respect to women in particular, Hilde Lindemann says that in such cases, the victim's ability to resist the manipulation depends on "her ability to trust her own judgments". Establishment of "counterstories" may help the victim reacquire "ordinary levels of free agency".[21]

In the article "Falsifying Reality, Spawning Evil",[22] author David Shasha attempted to discover how one becomes a victim of gaslighting as he dissected the 1944 film Gaslight. According to the article, the gaslighters first choose a target that is vulnerable, mentally weak, easily defeated and manipulated. The victim's ability to defend themselves is usually minimal. In relationships, the manipulation and exploitation of the victim's honesty and love is the main concept in the process of gaslighting. Gaslighting and other methods of interpersonal control are often used by mental health professionals because they are effective for shaping the behavior of other individuals. Gaslighting depends on “first convincing the victim that his thinking is distorted and secondly persuading him that the victimizer's ideas are the correct and true ones."[23]

The main intention of the victimizer is to target the victim's mental equilibrium, self-confidence and self-esteem. It is a dangerous form of abuse because it undermines the mental stability of the victim, who becomes depressed and withdrawn and totally dependent on the abuser for their sense of reality.[24]

>>3785285

In politics

Maureen Dowd was one of the first to use the term in the political context.[5][25] She describes the Bill Clinton administration's use of the technique in subjecting Newt Gingrich to small indignities intended to provoke him to make public complaints that "came across as hysterical".[25][26]

In describing the prevalence of the technique in US politics of the past few decades, Bryant Welch states in his book State of Confusion: Political Manipulation and the Assault on the American Mind:

To say gaslighting was started by the Bushes, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Fox News, or any other extant group is not simply wrong, it also misses an important point. Gaslighting comes directly from blending modern communications, marketing, and advertising techniques with long-standing methods of propaganda. They were simply waiting to be discovered by those with sufficient ambition and psychological makeup to use them.[6]

Frida Ghitis uses the term gaslighting to describe Russia's global relations. While Russian operatives were active in Crimea, Russian officials continually denied their presence and manipulated the distrust of political groups in their favor.[27]

Journalists at the New York Times Magazine, BBC and Teen Vogue, as well as psychologists Bryant Welch, Robert Feldman and Leah McElrath, have described some of the actions of Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential election and his term as president as examples of gaslighting.[25][28][29][30][31] Ben Yagoda wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education in January 2017, that the term gaslighting had become topical again as the result of Trump's behavior, saying that Trump's "habitual tendency to say "X", and then, at some later date, indignantly declare, 'I did not say "X". In fact, I would never dream of saying "X"'" had brought new notability to the term.[5] In 2018, Amanda Carpenter published Gaslighting America: Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us tracing how the tactic started with Nixon, gained traction with Bill Clinton, and exploded under Trump.[32]

>>3785291

In the workplace

Gaslighting in the workplace can occur when individuals perform actions that cause colleagues to question themselves and their actions in a way that is detrimental to their careers.[36] The victim may be deliberately excluded, made the subject of gossip, or persistently discredited or questioned in an attempt to destroy the victim's confidence. The perpetrator may re-route conversations to perceived faults or wrongs.[37] Gaslighting can be committed by any colleague and can be especially detrimental when the perpetrator is someone in a position of power.[38]

Apophasis (/əˈpɒfəsɪs/; Greek: ἀπόφασις from ἀπόφημι apophemi,[1] "to say no")[2] is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up.[3] Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony.

The device is also called paralipsis (παράλειψις) – also spelled paraleipsis or paralepsis – or occupatio,[4][5][6][7] and known also as praeteritio, preterition, or parasiopesis (παρασιώπησις).

>>3785318

Usage

As a rhetorical device, apophasis can serve a number of purposes.

It can be employed to raise an ad hominem or otherwise controversial attack while disclaiming responsibility for it, as in, "I refuse to discuss the rumor that my opponent is a drunk." This can make it a favored tactic in politics.

Apophasis can be used passive-aggressively, as in, "I forgive you for your jealousy, so I won't even mention what a betrayal it was."

In Cicero's "Pro Caelio" speech, he says to a prosecutor, "Obliviscor iam iniurias tuas, Clodia, depono memoriam doloris mei" ("I now forget your wrongs, Clodia, I set aside the memory of my pain [that you caused].")[8]

Apophasis can be used to discuss a taboo subject, as in, "We are all fully loyal to the emperor, so we wouldn't dare to claim that his new clothes are a transparent hoax."

As a rhetorical device, it can serve various purposes, often dependent on the relationship of the speaker to the addressee and the extent of their shared knowledge. Apophasis is rarely literal; instead, it conveys meaning through implications that may depend on this context. As an example of how meaning shifts, the English phrase "needless to say" invokes shared understanding, but its actual meaning depends on whether that understanding was really shared. The speaker is alleging that it is not necessary to say something because the addressee already knows it, but is it so? If it is, it may merely emphasize a pertinent fact. If the knowledge is weighted with history, it may be an indirect way of levying an accusation ("needless to say, because you are responsible"). If the addressee does not actually already possess the knowledge, it may be a way to condescend: the speaker suspected as much but wanted to call attention to the addressee's ignorance. Conversely, it could be a sincere and polite way to share necessary information that the addressee may or may not know without implying that the addressee is ignorant.

Apophasis can serve to politely avoid suggestion of ignorance on the part of an audience, as found in the narrative style of Adso of Melk in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, where the character fills in details of early fourteenth-century history for the reader by stating it is unnecessary to speak of them.[9] Conversely, the same introduction can be made sarcastically to condescend to an audience and imply their ignorance.

Another diplomatic use would be to raise a criticism indirectly, as in, "It would be out of line for me to say that this action would be unwise and unaffordable, sir, as I only care about your best interests."

>>3785346

Examples

When apophasis is taken to its extreme, the speaker provides full details, stating or drawing attention to something in the very act of pretending to pass it over: "I will not stoop to mentioning the occasion last winter when our esteemed opponent was found asleep in an alleyway with an empty bottle of vodka still pressed to his lips."[10]

In the 1984 U.S. presidential campaign debates, Ronald Reagan used a humorous apophasis to deflect scrutiny of his own fitness at age 73 by replying, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."[11] In 1988, he applied a harsher apophasis toward George H.W. Bush's opponent Michael Dukakis, who was rumored to have received psychological treatment, "Look, I'm not going to pick on an invalid."[12]

United States President Donald Trump frequently employs apophasis.[13] In 2015, Trump said of fellow Republican presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, "I promised I would not say that she ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground, that she laid off tens of thousands of people and she got viciously fired. I said I will not say it, so I will not say it."[13] In 2016, he tweeted of journalist Megyn Kelly, “I refuse to call [her] a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct."[13] In 2017, as president, he tweeted of the leader of North Korea, "Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me 'old,' when I would NEVER call him 'short and fat?'"[14]

trillion dollar "who farted" poly faux syllogism with a nash principal "hail mary" us18rico with interlocutor idolatry of transendental space ham and pseudo marx closet homo with a twinkie crash in the peanut butter oval for/from discordian muhsatanisms of teh mockingbird judas fehgels

you are welcome

Concern troll

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the troll claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[50] This is a particular case of sockpuppeting.

An example of this occurred in 2006 when Tad Furtado, a staffer for then-Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH". "IndyNH" expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.[51][52] Hodes eventually won the election.

Although the term "concern troll" originated in discussions of online behavior, it now sees increasing use to describe similar behaviors that take place offline. For example, James Wolcott of Vanity Fair accused a conservative New York Daily News columnist of "concern troll" behavior in his efforts to downplay the Mark Foley scandal. Wolcott links what he calls concern trolls to what Saul Alinsky calls "Do-Nothings", giving a long quote from Alinsky on the Do-Nothings' method and effects:

These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means'.[53]

The Hill published an op-ed piece by Markos Moulitsas of the liberal blog Daily Kos titled "Dems: Ignore 'Concern Trolls'". The concern trolls in question were not Internet participants but rather Republicans offering public advice and warnings to the Democrats. The author defines "concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient".[54] Concern trolls just use a different type of bait than the more stereotypical troll in their attempts to manipulate participants and disrupt conversations.

>>3785430

Zersetzung

(German; variously translated as decomposition, corrosion, undermining, biodegradation or dissolution) is a psychological warfare technique that was first used by Nazi Germany as part of the accusation Wehrkraftzersetzung against political opponents (which typically resulted in death penalties)[dubious – discuss]. Decades later, during the Honecker era, the Stasi, the East German secret police used the accusation Zersetzung to silence political opponents by repression.

The "measures of Zersetzung", defined in the framework of a directive on police procedures in 1976,[1] were used in the context of so-called "operational procedures" (in German Operative Vorgänge or OV). They replaced the overt terror of the Ulbricht era.

The practice of repression in Zersetzung comprised extensive and secret methods of control and psychological manipulation, including personal relationships of the target, for which the Stasi relied on its network of informal collaborators,[2] (in German inoffizielle Mitarbeiter or IM), the State's power over institutions, and on operational psychology. Using targeted psychological attacks the Stasi tried to deprive a dissident of any chance of a "hostile action".

The use of Zersetzung is well documented due to numerous Stasi files published after East Germany's Wende. Several thousands or up to 10,000 individuals are estimated to have become victims,[3]:217 5,000 of whom sustained irreversible damage.[4] Pensions for restitution have been created for the victims.

>>3785441

>>3785430

Definition

The Stasi, or Ministry for State Security (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, MfS) by its full name, defined Zersetzung in its 1985 dictionary of political operatives as

… a method of operation by the Ministry for State Security for an efficacious struggle against subversive activities, particularly in the treatment of operations. With Zersetzung one can influence hostile and negative individuals across different operational political activities, especially the hostile and negative aspects of their dispositions and beliefs, so these are abandoned and changed little by little, and, if applicable, the contradictions and differences between the hostile and negative forces would be laid open, exploited, and reinforced.

The goal of Zersetzung is the fragmentation, paralysis, disorganization, and isolation of the hostile and negative forces, in order to preventatively impede the hostile and negative activities, to largely restrict, or to totally avert them, and if applicable to prepare the ground for a political and ideological reestablishment.

Zersetzung is equally an immediate constitutive element of "operational procedures" and other preventive activities to impede hostile gatherings. The principal forces to execute Zersetzung are the unofficial collaborators. Zersetzung presupposes information and significant proof of hostile activities planned, prepared, and accomplished as well as anchor points corresponding to measures of Zersetzung.

Zersetzung must be produced on the basis of a root cause analysis of the facts and the exact definition of a concrete goal. Zersetzung must be executed in a uniform and supervised manner; its results must be documented.

The political explosive force of Zersetzung heightens demands regarding the maintenance of secrecy.[5]

>>3785454

In practice

The Stasi used Zersetzung essentially as a means of psychological oppression and persecution.[14] Findings of operational psychology[15] were formulated into method at the Stasi's College of Law (Juristische Hochschule der Staatssicherheit, or JHS), and applied to political opponents in an effort to undermine their self-confidence and self-esteem. Operations were designed to intimidate and destabilise them by subjecting them to repeated disappointment, and to socially alienate them by interfering with and disrupting their relationships with others as in social undermining. The aim was to induce personal crises in victims, leaving them too unnerved and psychologically distressed to have the time and energy for anti-government activism.[16] The Stasi intentionally concealed their role as mastermind of the operations.[17][18] Author Jürgen Fuchs was a victim of Zersetzung and wrote about his experience, describing the Stasi's actions as "psychosocial crime", and "an assault on the human soul".[16]

Although its techniques had been established effectively by the late 1950s, Zersetzung was not rigorously defined until the mid-1970s, and only then began to be carried out in a systematic manner in the 1970s and 1980s.[19] It is difficult to determine how many people were targeted, since the sources have been deliberately and considerably redacted; it is known, however, that tactics varied in scope, and that a number of different departments implemented them. Overall there was a ratio of four or five authorised Zersetzung operators for each targeted group, and three for each individual.[20] Some sources indicate that around 5,000 people were "persistently victimised" by Zersetzung.[4] At the College of Legal Studies, the number of dissertations submitted on the subject of Zersetzung was in double figures.[21] It also had a comprehensive 50-page Zersetzung teaching manual, which included numerous examples of its practice.[22]

>>3785344

>>3785345

>>3785359

>>3785361

>>3785373

>>3785381

>>3785389

>>3785407

>>3785424

>>3785429

>>3785430

>>3785454

>>3785461

>>3785468

Political context

During its first decade of existence, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) subdued political opponents primarily through the penal code, by accusing them of incitement to war or of calls of boycott.[6] To counteract the international isolation of the GDR following the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, judicial terror was abandoned.[7] From the start of the Erich Honecker era in 1971 in particular, the Stasi intensified its efforts to punish dissident behaviors without using the penal code.[8] Important motives were the GDR's desire for international recognition, and for rapprochement with West Germany, at the end of the 1960s. In fact the GDR was committed to adhere to the U.N. Charter[9] and the Helsinki accords,[10] as well as the Basic Treaty, 1972, signed with the Federal Republic of Germany,[11] to respect human rights, or at least announce its intention to do so. Consequently, the regime of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany decided to reduce the number of political prisoners, which was compensated for by practising repression without imprisonment or court judgements.[12][13]

In linguistics, cataphora (/kəˈtæfərə/; from Greek, καταφορά, kataphora, "a downward motion" from κατά, kata, "downwards" and φέρω, pherō, "I carry") is the use of an expression or word that co-refers with a later, more specific, expression in the discourse.[1] The preceding expression, whose meaning is determined or specified by the later expression, may be called a cataphor. Cataphora is a type of anaphora, although the terms anaphora and anaphor are sometimes used in a stricter sense, denoting only cases where the order of the expressions is the reverse of that found in cataphora.

An example of cataphora in English is the following sentence:

When he arrived home, John went to sleep.

In this sentence, the pronoun he (the cataphor) appears earlier than the noun John (the postcedent) that it refers to. This is the reverse of the more normal pattern, "strict" anaphora, where a referring expression such as John or the soldier appears before any pronouns that reference it. Both cataphora and anaphora are types of endophora.

Hypophora, also referred to as anthypophora or antipophora, is a figure of speech in which the speaker poses a question and then answers the question.[1] Hypophora can consist of a single question answered in a single sentence, a single question answered in a paragraph or even a section, or a series of questions, each answered in subsequent paragraphs. Hypophora is used (1) as a transitional device, to take the discussion in a new direction, (2) a device to stimulate interest, since a reader's curiosity is stimulated by hearing a question, and (3) to suggest and answer questions the reader might not have thought of.

A microaggression

is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group.[1] The term was coined by psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce in 1970 to describe insults and dismissals which he regularly witnessed non-black Americans inflicting on African Americans.[1][2][3][4] By the early 21st century, use of the term was applied to the casual degradation of any socially marginalized group, including LGBT, the poor and the disabled.[5] Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership". The persons making the comments may be otherwise well-intentioned.[6]

A number of scholars and social commentators have critiqued the microaggression concept on various grounds, including that it is not well substantiated scientifically, that it is overly dependent on anecdotal evidence, and it assumes without sufficient evidence that slights perceived by the listener or recipient are always due to bias or prejudice. Critics also suggest that avoiding behaviours which may be interpreted as microaggressions restricts freedom and may itself cause emotional distress, and further that this robs both sides of the practice in skills to mediate disputes.[7] Some suggest that while microaggressions are minor relative to serious offences (e.g. assault), and may be unintentional; they may be abused to exaggerate harm, resulting in disproportionate retribution.[8] Some of these critics suggest that the concept is not yet developed well enough to be applied in the real world and that its current applications may be harmful to individuals and society.

>>3785562

Description

Microaggressions have been defined as brief and common daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental communications, whether intentional or unintentional, that transmit hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to a target person because they belong to a stigmatized group.[9] Although these communications typically appear harmless to observers, they are considered a form of covert racism or everyday discrimination.[10] 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.[11] Microaggressions are experienced by most stigmatized individuals and occur on a regular basis. These can be particularly stressful for people on the receiving end as they are easily denied by those committing them. They are also harder to detect by members of the dominant culture,[12] as they are often unaware they are causing harm.[9] Sue describes microaggressions as including statements that repeat or affirm stereotypes about the minority group or subtly demean its members. Such comments also position the dominant culture as normal and the minority one as aberrant or pathological, express disapproval of or discomfort with the minority group, assume that all minority group members are the same, minimize the existence of discrimination against the minority group, seek to deny the perpetrator's own bias, or minimize real conflict between the minority group and the dominant culture.

>>3785569

Categories

In conducting two focus groups with Asian-Americans, for instance, Sue proposed eight distinct themes of racial microaggression:[9][13]

Alien in own land: When people assume People of Color (POC) are foreigners or from a different country.

E.g.: "So where are you really from?" or "Why don't you have an accent?"

Ascription of intelligence: When POC are stereotyped as being intelligent or assumed to be at a certain level of intelligence based on their race.

E.g.: "You people always do well in school." or "If I see a lot of Asian students in my class, I know it's going to be a hard class."

Denial of racial reality: This is when a person emphasizes that a POC does not suffer any discrimination, thus implying they do not face inequality. It correlates to the idea of model minority.

Exoticization of non-white women: It stereotypes these Americans as being in the "exotic" category. They are stereotyped by their physical appearance and gender based on media and literature. One example is Asian-American women portrayed as the submissive or obedient type; alternatively, they may be portrayed or described as Dragon Lady or Lotus Blossom, using symbols from their cultures. On the other hand, Asian-American men are portrayed as being emasculated or are seen as nerdy, weak men.

Refusal to acknowledge intra-ethnic differences: The homogeneity of broad ethnic groups is emphasized and assumed; the speaker ignores intra-ethnic differences. The focus groups identified the statement that "all Asian-Americans look alike" as a main assumption for this theme. Similarly, thinking that all members of an ethnic minority group speak the same language or have the same values or culture falls under this theme.

Pathologizing cultural values/communication styles: When Asian Americans' cultures and values are viewed as less desirable. For example, many people from the focus groups felt disadvantaged by the expectation in school and higher education of verbal participation in class, when Asian cultural norms value silence. Because of this discrepancy, many Asian-Americans felt that they were being forced to conform to Western cultural norms in order to succeed academically.

Second-class citizenship: This theme emphasizes the idea that People of color are being treated as lesser beings, and are not treated with equal rights or presented as a first priority.

E.g.: A Korean man walks into a bar and asks for a drink, but the bartender ignores the man when he serves a white man first.

Invisibility: This theme focuses on the idea that Asian Americans are considered invisible or outside discussions of race and racism. According to some focus group members, recent dialogues on race in the United States have often focused only on issues between whites and blacks, excluding Asian-Americans.

In a 2017 peer-reviewed review of the literature, Scott Lilienfeld critiqued microaggression research for hardly having advanced beyond taxonomies such as the above, which was proposed by Sue nearly ten years ago.[14] While acknowledging the reality of "subtle slights and insults directed toward minorities", Lilienfeld concluded that the concept and programs for its scientific assessment are "far too underdeveloped on the conceptual and methodological fronts to warrant real-world application".[14] He recommended abandonment of the term microaggression since "the use of the root word 'aggression' in 'microaggression' is conceptually confusing and misleading". In addition, he called for a moratorium on microaggression training programs until further research can develop the field.[14]

In 2017 Althea Nagai, who works as a research fellow at the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, published an article criticizing microaggression research as pseudoscience.[15] Nagai said that the prominent critical race researchers behind microaggression theory "reject the methodology and standards of modern science."[15] She lists various technical shortcomings of microaggression research, including "biased interview questions, reliance on narrative and small numbers of respondents, problems of reliability, issues of replicability, and ignoring alternative explanations."[15][16]

>>3785581

Race or ethnicity

Main article: Racism

Social scientists Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, and Torino (2007) described microaggressions as "the new face of racism", saying that the nature of racism has shifted over time from overt expressions of racial hatred and hate crimes, toward expressions of aversive racism, such as microaggressions, that are more subtle, ambiguous, and often unintentional. Sue says this has led some Americans to believe wrongly that non-white Americans no longer suffer from racism.[17] One example of such subtle expressions of racism is Asian students being either pathologized or penalized as too passive or quiet.[9] Another is a teacher correcting a student's use of "indigenous" in a paper by changing it from upper- to lowercase.[18]

According to Sue et al.,[9] microaggressions seem to appear in three forms:

Microassault: an explicit racial derogation; verbal/nonverbal; e.g. name-calling, avoidant behavior, purposeful discriminatory actions.

Microinsult: communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person's racial heritage or identity; subtle snubs; unknown to the perpetrator; hidden insulting message to the recipient of color.

Microinvalidation: communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group.

Some psychologists have criticized microaggression theory for assuming that all verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities are necessarily due to bias.[19][20][21] Thomas Schacht says that it is uncertain whether a behavior is due to racial bias or is a larger phenomenon that occurs regardless of identity conflict.[22] However, Kanter and colleagues found that microaggressions were robustly correlated to five separate measures of bias.[10] In reviewing the microaggression literature, Scott Lilienfeld suggested that microassaults should probably be struck from the taxonomy because the examples provided in the literature tend not to be "micro", but are outright assaults, intimidation, harassment and bigotry; in some cases, examples have included criminal acts.[19] Others have pointed out that what could be perceived as subtle snubs could be due to people have conditions such as autism or social anxiety disorders and assuming ill will could be harmful to these people.[23][24]

>>3785582

Gender

Further information: Sexism

Explicit sexism in society is on the decline, but still exists in a variety of subtle and non-subtle expressions.[25] Women encounter microaggressions in which they are made to feel inferior, sexually objectified, and bound to restrictive gender roles,[26] both in the workplace and in academia, as well as in athletics.[27] Microaggressions based on gender are applied to female athletes when: their abilities are compared only to men, they are judged on "attractiveness", and individuals are restricted to or requested to wear "feminine" or sexually attractive attire during competition.[26]

Gendered microaggressions and more overt aggression can also be found in violent rape pornography.[28]

Other examples of sexist microaggressions are "[addressing someone by using] a sexist name, a man refusing to wash dishes because it is 'women's work,' displaying nude pin-ups of women at places of employment, someone making unwanted sexual advances toward another person".[29]

Sexuality and sexual orientation

See also: Transphobia, Homophobia, Biphobia, and Heterophobia

In focus groups, individuals identifying as bisexual report such microaggressions as others denying or dismissing their self-narratives or identity claims, being unable to understand or accept bisexuality as a possibility, pressuring them to change their bisexual identity, expecting them to be sexually promiscuous, and questioning their ability to maintain monogamous relationships.[30] Transgender people classify being labelled as being of a gender other than the one with which they identify as an example of microaggression.[31]

Some LGBT individuals report receiving expressions of microaggression from people even within the LGBT community.[32] They say that being excluded, or not being made welcome or understood within the gay and lesbian community is a microaggression.[30] Roffee and Waling suggest that the issue arises, as occurs among many groups of people, because a person often makes assumptions based on individual experience, and when they communicate such assumptions, the recipient may feel that it lacks taking the second individual into account and is a form of microaggression.[32]

>>3785589

Intersectionality

Further information: Intersectionality

People who are members of overlapping marginal groups (e.g., a gay Asian-American man or a trans woman) experience microaggressions based in correspondingly varied forms of marginalization.[33][not in citation given] For example, in one study Asian-American women reported feeling they were classified as sexually exotic by majority-culture men or were viewed by them as potential trophy wives simply because of their group membership.[34] African-American women report microaggressions related to characteristics of their hair, which may include invasion of personal space as an individual tries to touch it, or comments that a style that is different from that of a European-American woman looks "unprofessional".[35][10]

People with mental illnesses

Further information: Disability abuse

People with mental illness report receiving more overt forms of microaggression than subtle ones, coming from family and friends as well as from authority figures.[36] In a study involving college students and adults who were being treated in community care, five themes were identified: invalidation, assumption of inferiority, fear of mental illness, shaming of mental illness, and being treated as a second-class citizen.[36]

Media

Members of marginalized groups have also described microaggressions committed by performers or artists associated with various forms of media, such as television, film, photography, music, and books. Some researchers believe that such cultural content reflects but also molds society,[37] allowing for unintentional bias to be absorbed by individuals based on their media consumption, as if it were expressed by someone with whom they had an encounter.

A study of racism in TV commercials describes microaggressions as gaining a cumulative weight, leading to inevitable clashes between races due to subtleties in the content.[37] As an example of a racial microaggression, or microassault,[9] this research found that black people were more likely than white counterparts to be shown eating or participating in physical activity, and more likely to be shown working for, or serving others.[37] The research concludes by suggesting that microaggressive representations can be omitted from a body of work, without sacrificing creativity or profit.

Pérez Huber and Solorzano[38] start their analysis of microaggressions with an anecdote about Mexican "bandits" as portrayed in a children's book read at bedtime. The article gives examples of negative stereotypes of Mexicans and Latinos in books, print, and photos, associating them with the state of racial discourse within majority culture and its dominance over minority groups in the US. The personification of these attitudes through media can also be applied to microaggressive behaviors towards other marginalized groups.

A 2015 review of the portrayal of LGBT characters in film says that gay or lesbian characters are presented in "offensive" ways.[39] In contrast, LGBT characters portrayed as complex characters who are more than a cipher for their sexual orientation or identity are a step in the right direction. Ideally, "queer film audiences finally have a narrative pleasure that has been afforded to straight viewers since the dawn of film noir: a central character who is highly problematical, but fascinating."[39]

>>3785598

Ageism and intolerance

Microaggression can target and marginalize any definable group, including those who share an age grouping or belief system. Microaggression is a manifestation of bullying that employs micro-linguistic power plays in order to marginalize any target with a subtle manifestation of intolerance by signifying the concept of "other".[40][41]

Perpetrators

Because perpetrators may be well-meaning and microaggressions are subtle, the recipients often experience attributional ambiguity, which may lead them to dismiss the event and blame themselves as overly sensitive to the encounter.[42] If challenged by the minority person or an observer, perpetrators will often defend their microaggression as a misunderstanding, a joke, or something small that should not be blown out of proportion.[43]

>>3785617

Effects

A 2013 scholarly review of the literature on microaggressions concluded that "the negative impact of racial microaggressions on psychological and physical health is beginning to be documented; however, these studies have been largely correlational and based on recall and self-report, making it difficult to determine whether racial microaggressions actually cause negative health outcomes and, if so, through what mechanisms".[44] A 2017 review of microaggression research pointed out that as scholars try to understand the possible harm caused by microaggressions, they have not conducted much cognitive or behavioural research, nor much experimental testing, and they have overly relied on small collections of anecdotal testimonies from samples who are not representative of any particular population.[19]

Recipients of microaggressions may feel anger, frustration, or exhaustion. African-Americans have reported feeling under pressure to "represent" their group or to suppress their own cultural expression and "act white".[45] Over time, the cumulative effect of microaggressions is thought by some to lead to diminished self-confidence and a poor self-image for individuals, and potentially also to such mental-health problems as depression, anxiety, and trauma.[43][45][46][47] Many researchers have argued that microaggressions are more damaging than overt expressions of bigotry precisely because they are small and therefore often ignored or downplayed, leading the victim to feel self-doubt for noticing or reacting to the encounter, rather than justifiable anger, and isolation rather than support from others about such incidents.[48][49][50] Studies have found that in the U.S. when people color perceived microaggressions from mental health professionals, client satisfaction with therapy is lower.[51][52] Some studies suggest that microaggressions represent enough of a burden that some people of color may fear, distrust, and/or avoid relationships with white people in order to evade such interaction.[46] On the other hand, some people report that dealing with microaggressions has made them more resilient.[47] Scholars have suggested that, although microaggressions "might seem minor", they are "so numerous that trying to function in such a setting is 'like lifting a ton of feathers.'"[53]

>>3785621

Public discourse and harm to speakers

Kenneth R. Thomas claimed in American Psychologist that recommendations inspired by microaggression theory, if "implemented, could have a chilling effect on free speech and on the willingness of White people, including some psychologists, to interact with people of color."[20] Sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning have written in the academic journal Comparative Sociology that the microaggression concept "fits into a larger class of conflict tactics in which the aggrieved seek to attract and mobilize the support of third parties" that sometimes involves "building a case for action by documenting, exaggerating, or even falsifying offenses".[54] The concept of microaggressions has been described as a symptom of the breakdown in civil discourse, and that microaggressions are "yesterday's well-meaning faux pas".[55]

One suggested type of microaggression by an Oxford University newsletter was avoiding eye contact or speaking directly to people. This spurred a controversy when it was pointed out that such assumptions are insensitive to autistic people who may have trouble making eye contact.[23][24]

Culture of victimhood

In their article "Microaggression and Moral Cultures", sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning[54] say that the discourse of microaggression leads to a culture of victimhood. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt states that this culture of victimhood lessens an individual's "ability to handle small interpersonal matters on one's own" and "creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims".[56] Similarly, John McWhorter, linguist and social commentator suggests that "it infantilizes black people to be taught that microaggressions, and even ones a tad more macro, hold us back, permanently damage our psychology, or render us exempt from genuine competition."[57][58][59]

Emotional distress

In The Atlantic, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt expressed concern that the focus on microaggressions can cause more emotional trauma than the experience of the microaggressions at the time of occurrence. They believe that self-policing by an individual of thoughts or actions in order to avoid committing microaggressions may cause emotional harm as a person seeks to avoid becoming a microaggressor, as such extreme self-policing may share some characteristics of pathological thinking.[60] Referring especially to prevention programs at schools or universities, they say that the element of protectiveness, of which identifying microaggression allegations are a part, prepares students "poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong".[60] They also said that it has become "unacceptable to question the reasonableness (let alone the sincerity) of someone's emotional state", resulting in adjudication of alleged microaggressions having characteristics of witch trials.[60]

Writing for The Federalist, Paul Rowan Brian argued that microaggression theory pools trivial and ignorable instances of racism with real, genuine prejudice and exclusion.[61] Amitai Etzioni, writing in The Atlantic, suggested that attention to microaggressions distracts individuals and groups from dealing with much more serious acts.[62]

>>3785628

Political correctness

Ralph Nader has similarly criticized the concepts of announcement of trigger warnings and political correctness on campuses as creating too much sensitivity.[63] Viv Regan, writing for Spiked Online, wondered whether the comfort provided by having a convenient label for alleged rudeness outweighs the damage caused by overreaction.[64]

According to Derald Wing Sue, whose works popularized the term, many critiques are based on the term being misunderstood or or misused. He said that his purpose in identifying such comments or actions was to educate people and not to silence or shame them. He further notes that, for instance, identifying that someone has used racial microaggressions is not intended to imply that they are racist.[65]

>>3785551

History

The word anthypophora is present in Ancient Greek[2] and is mentioned by the Roman orator Quintilian in his book Institutio Oratoria. In Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian merely identifies anthypophora as a device used to verify the truth of something, and does not mention raising a hypothetical question or objection.[3] An earlier work by the Greek rhetorician Gorgias mentions anthypophora in its current definition, that is, presenting an opposing argument and then refuting it.[2] The 16th-century English rhetorical handbook The Arte of English Poesie, reputedly by George Puttenham, gives the current definition of Anthypophora as well as numerous examples.[4]

Hypophora vs. anthypophora

In recent times, a division has arisen between the definitions of hypophora and anthypophora. The Century Dictionary identifies hypophora as the dissenting statement or question and anthypophora as the reply to the question.[5] Thus the two terms have come to embrace both elements of hypophora, as well as dealing with the whole concept.