Allow me just one (1) example. I was at a social event at someone's home at which alcoholic beverages were served. Although a religious teetotaler, I was, as a Micro-Aggro Victim (MAV) ... was pressured into imbibing, whereupon the host's 11 year-old challenged me to a game of chess.
I lost. 8 minutes.
CC:
Mr. Algonquin J. Calhoun, Esq.
Does I have a case? Age-ism? Race-ism? (I have high cheek bones ... poss Passamaquoddy ancestor)
The problem with micro-aggressions is that it encourages someone to get angry at those who inadvertently annoy them instead of forgiveness and tolerance - ironic for those pushing “tolerance”.
Another problem with micro-aggressions is that it gives people a sense of entitlement with regard to emotions - I have the right to be offended by your innocent actions, I have the right to angrily confront you and cow you into submission or be in the right if you get mad back.
And it teaches people that if it makes you mad, you’re in the right - which isn’t right. Just because you are passionate about something doesn’t make your interpretation correct. Nor should society cede that the most passionate person is the most correct one - in fact, they are most likely to be irrational.
The micro-aggressions movement is an excuse for irrational extremists to blow up at innocent people in their daily lives, citing oppressions while creating it by suppressing daily actions and berating those who don’t conform to the far left. And that is wrong.