My problem with the current definition of microaggressions is the part that they can be unintented. This feels strange, as to my knowledge an aggression must be intended otherwise it would not be an aggression but ‘just’ a being inconsiderate or something like that. Calling it an aggression breathes that kind of passive aggressive victim hood that I consider highly toxic.
Only, it’s on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression, and this term is apparently coined (and accepted) already in the '70! (Note: see PS)
So now we’re in the situation where a microaggression (can be unintended) is fundamentally different from an aggression (must be intended) ( !! )
This is ridiculous! To my knowledge, the ad ‘micro’ is only supposed to say something about size right? But in this case it changes the fundamental meaning of the word following it. Why was this lingusitic mutulation of language not burned down decades ago?
…or is this the reason they spell it as one word, microaggression, and not as two words: micro aggression?
My Q: How break this down formally?
- Is my liguistic approach a good way? Is there any liguist here who can help me formalize it?
- Or do we need a philosphical approach?
- or a logical one?
- or another approach?
Please advise, I think attacking this concept could provide a solid path into the cultural marxism stronghold that is put up in the past 50 years.
PS: It could be that in '70 the definition of microaggression did not include the unintented option, and this is sqeezed in at a later stage. Only: The wikipedia page is so heavily edited, that all edits from 2018 already span 500 pages!! How to search effectively to see if and when the unintened part is sqeezed in?