How Should I Feel About the Attack on Paris?

Image from Wikimedia Commons, user Maya-Anaïs Yataghène

What's the right reaction to the Paris attacks?

Should I weep for the dead and the wounded while sending my consolations to the French? Sounds good. It costs me nothing, and it might make someone in France feel better to know that a Texan cares. It might make people think I'm a good person for feeling compassionate.

Should I let the anger flow and call for an overwhelming military response? Sounds good too. It costs me nothing, since I won't be the one risking my life to deliver that response. It might make people think I'm a good person for being so fierce.

Should I stand up for the Muslims who aren't terrorists and plead for tolerance toward them? Another good sounding idea. It costs me nothing, since I live in a country where you can express almost any idea. It might make people think I'm a good person for being so non-judgmental and non-violent.

Should I ignore the attacks and instead spend my time thinking about my own life and concerns? That's good too. It costs me nothing, since it's what I usually do. It might make people think I'm a bad person for being so callous, but I can just ignore them.

Should I actually think about what happened, to understand it as not just an isolated event but as another episode in a long story arc? I don't know if that's a good idea. It would require a lot of thinking on my part, maybe even some research. It would require me to cross my normal cognitive boundaries. It might force me to question beliefs and attitudes I take for granted. It might make people think I'm weird for not choosing from the list of standard responses.

There's a spinning wheel of reactions in my head, and I don't know which is right.

Part of my real reaction is to go with an overwhelming military response. We know that can successfully stop some aggressors, as it did during World War II. We know that some aggressors are not susceptible to civilized discourse, and that killing them is a workable solution. Of course, this falls into the easier-said-than-done category, but it's a possibility.

Part of my real reaction is that doing the same thing we've been doing, responding to attacks with more attacks, doesn't seem to do anything but prolong the conflict. Yeah, it's satisfying to call for heads to roll in the desert to combat the people who are rolling heads in the desert, but is that really going to work? I don't care how good it feels, is it a solution?

Part of my real reaction is darker than the ones listed above. I have to admire the terrorists for knowing exactly how to hurt the West and for being able to pull it off with a minimum of people and materiel. I don't support what they did, but in a tactical sense, it was well played. Will the civilized world's response be as clever and effective?

So far, the answer to that last question has been "no".

Facing Microaggression? Be Micro-offended!

Image from http://www.pdpics.com/

Microaggressions are getting a lot of attention these days, especially in low-grade institutes of higher learning. Here's one description from Wikipedia:

"Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership." Sue describes microaggressions as generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture. Microaggressions, according to Sue, are different from overt, deliberate acts of bigotry, such as the use of racist epithets, because the people perpetrating microaggressions often intend no offense and are unaware they are causing harm."
Microaggression theory

The concept has spawned some new terms like microassault, microinsult, and microinvalidation. Holy microshit, Batman! There's a whole microswarm of evil going on.