The reasoning that the article writer follows, seems to allow for innocent people to be made guilty of a crime that they never actually committed. The writer admits that the "microagressions" may be unintended: but the nature of the word still accuses them as being aggressive. Perhaps the "victim" misunderstood, or is paranoid. Perhaps he or she is oversensitive. Whatever the mindset of the "victim" may be, the perceived assault against them should not be taken with out questions to the contrary.

Do to the shear inability to prove that these vague actions are actually hostile, or even made for the reasons that the "victim" thinks that they are, the accusation of "microagression" becomes a false accusation by default.

In other words, Microagressions can be defined as thus:

A Microaggression is a false accusation of hostility made with no proof. Unlike a provable hostile action, a Micro-aggression is so slight an action, that it's motive cannot be correctly discerned, or even proven that it happened at all; unless the "aggressor" is thoroughly interviewed by an interrogator: but even then, the judgment is a mater of opinion, and not fact. But usually the accusation of Micro-aggression is taken on face value: no questions are asked, and no assumptions are made of the so called victim. A person is judged hostile biased solely on feelings of the "victim", and not by any provable obvious hostile action. It is always assumed that the "victim" is right, and that the "aggressor" is wrong.

More Posts