Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Charlamagne & Chanel West Coast Microaggression Dynamics
Pulling from the microaggression lesson in PU, I'll be breaking down a situation I remember from the video below and what I think could have been done better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Di08pcLT-A
I'll be referring to Charlamagne as his nickname, "Charla".
Host: "When it's heating up in there (when you're in an argument or confrontation), like, you literally are stone-cold (you're dominant, you don't overreact). Like, is it just your nature to become literally unphasable?"
Charla: "I mean I've been in worse situations. Like, you know, I've had a gun pointed at me and I treat every situation like it's a gun pointed at me. If I go (if I die) what I'mma do now? Too late."
Everyone laughs
Host: "I mean 'cause it is remarkable, any time someone's getting heated at you, you, it's like, you just keep answering, keep it straight, keep it straight, nothing."
Charla: "Yea, 'cause I don't believe in like, moving off emotion. I believe in moving off strategy and, like, my only strategy is just to tell the truth. It's like whatever I said about you, I'm gonna say it to you, and I'mma continue to say it to you regardless of how mad you get."
Chanel: (cuts off Charla as he's speaking) "But, just because you say something doesn't make it the truth."
Charla: "That's true. That's ma opinion. She's saying that 'cause I said her, I told her she was wack rappin' one time (resurfaces an old microaggression). That's all."
Everyone laughs - social proofing Charla as a Jester and framing his microaggression (value-taking "joke") as a nanoaggression (light teasing) here
Host: (begins hyping up Charla's "joke") "Ahaha, shit!"
Chanel: (feels like she's being laughed at, begins defending herself) "I'm just saying though, you can have opinions, it doesn't mean they're right though."
Co-Host: (smiling excitedly) "Uh-oh. Beef! Beef! Beef! Beef! Beef!"
Charla: (agrees) "She's right and she is right though, it's just my opinion."
Chanel: (tries to end the audience's laughing) "Yeah, we're all entitled to opinions."
Charla: (asking the audience) "That's all. Have y'all ever heard her rap?"
Audience: (supportive and value-adding) Yeah, yeah, woo!
Charla: "Oh, OK. Good for the people that said 'no'." (levels up nanoagression to a microaggression)
Chanel: "Well, no...".
Everyone begins laughing again
Chanel: (feels like she's being laughed at/attacked again, begins angrily defending herself) "Hold on. Hold on...Lil Wayne who co-signed Drake and Nicki Minaj is the same person who co-signed me (celebrity-endorsing herself), I've won a BET Award with Young Money (authority-endorsing herself), I've got songs with...(uses more authority tools to build herself back up after being one-upped by Charla and to persuade the audience her music is good to stop the audience's "attacks"/laughing)"
Audience begins cheering for Chanel
Charla: (plays the Jester style further with another microaggression) "Why you talkin' wit' yo hands doe?" (says this with a "ghetto" slang to imply she's acting ghetto and overreacting)
Audience starts laughing again
Chanel: (getting angrier and more aggressive) "You don't know my muscial track record bro! You don't know my musical track record. (to the audience) Sorry! I can't be (bleep) funny today because he doesn't know my motha (bleep) track record. (to Charla) So get familiar.
Audience begins cheering for Chanel again
Of course, if you watch the video, you know that more happens after that. But, let's stop here for now and analyze a bit.
Charla: "Yea, 'cause I don't believe in like, moving off emotion. I believe in moving off strategy and, like, my only strategy is just to tell the truth. It's like whatever I said about you, I'm gonna say it to you, and I'mma continue to say it to you regardless of how mad you get."
Chanel: (cuts off Charla as he's speaking) "But, just because you say something doesn't make it the truth."
Here, Chanel cuts off Charla while he's speaking. That's verbally aggressive. Worse, she cut him off to deny his authority as someone who delivers the truth. So, it's natural that someone with Charla's personality type is going to want to perform a micro-revenge.
Better, if she wanted to really challenge Charla's authority, is to ask him a question:
Charla: "Yea, 'cause I don't believe in like, moving off emotion. I believe in moving off strategy and, like, my only strategy is just to tell the truth. It's like whatever I said about you, I'm gonna say it to you, and I'mma continue to say it to you regardless of how mad you get."
Chanel: "How do you know when you're telling someone something that it's the undeniable truth?"
The problem I see here is that there's a competitive frame. So, a good reframe might be:
Charla: "Yea, 'cause I don't believe in like, moving off emotion. I believe in moving off strategy and, like, my only strategy is just to tell the truth. It's like whatever I said about you, I'm gonna say it to you, and I'mma continue to say it to you regardless of how mad you get."
Chanel: "What inspired you to use that strategy as opposed to others?"
Here, you invite him to share more of his knowledge, which can flatter him (which is value-adding) and shift him out of the Jester into another style of dominance.
Charla: "That's true. That's ma opinion. She's saying that 'cause I said her, I told her she was wack rappin' one time (resurfaces an old microaggression). That's all."
Everyone laughs - social proofing Charla as a Jester and framing his microaggression (value-taking "joke") back then to a nanoaggression (light teasing) here
Host: (begins hyping up Charla's "joke") "Ahaha, shit!"
Here, Charla brings up an old microaggressive power move he used on Chanel a while back.
The "I told her she was wack rappin' one time" implies the frame "I told her I know better than her when it comes to music one time". And, in my opinion, that's weak enough for Chanel to use the frame ignoring technique. Especially, since it's in the past.
The thing is, Charla use the "agree and redirect" frame control technique to pull this off. So, he's not contradicting Chanel, which helps to maintain some rapport as he makes the crowd laugh.
What was a microaggression under those past circumstances is now framed as a nanoaggression (light teasing) here due to the new circumstances under which the joke is being delivered (in the past tense and in agreement with Chanel's original point). This means that if you answer with aggression, you're going to look crazy.
Chanel: (feels like she's being laughed at, begins defending herself) "I'm just saying though, you can have opinions, it doesn't mean they're right though."
Co-Host: (smiling excitedly) "Uh-oh. Beef! Beef! Beef! Beef! Beef!"
The problem is, Chanel doesn't view the audience as laughing at the joke, she feels that they're laughing at her. The LOL microaggression communicates "you're laughable". So, her feelings are understandable. The only reason I don't think her perspective is totally accurate in this case is that it's natural people would laugh at Charla's comments due to the style of dominance he's adopted (Jester). So, they're no longer only responding to the message, they're responding to the messenger.
Still, Chanel takes the laughter personally. And, the host seeing an opportunity to promote his show, begins inciting an unhealthy, competitive relationship between the two.
Charla: (asking the audience) "That's all. Have y'all ever heard her rap?"
Audience: (supportive and value-adding) Yeah, yeah, woo!
Charla: "Oh, OK. Good for the people that said 'no'." (levels up nanoagression to a microaggression)
The joke about Charla having said Chanel's rapping was "wack" worked as a nanoaggression back then because he had agreed with Chanel in the same sentence about his lack of authority and framed those thoughts and feelings toward Chanel's music as being in the past.
That's not the case here, which makes his remark more direct and more aggressive. So, his nanoaggression has now become a microaggression. And, Chanel noticing that, loses her cool.
I'm working my way through the microaggression lesson in PU. I think this case study might be good to add to PU as a quiz once it's been deconstructed properly (I'm sure I missed some notes).
I might come back and update it later with the techniques in PU Chanel could have used to deal with Charla more effectively.
What are your guys' thoughts on this?
Interesting situation and analysis, Ali.
Quite a difficult and advanced situation, as this was a type of exchange that you don't normally have in most day-to-day life.
HIDING ANGER, STICKING TO SERIOUS FRAME
Chara: She's only saying that because I told her she was wack rapping one time
Chanel: I'm just saying though you can have opinions, but that doesn't mean they're right though
She is already getting angry there and boiling inside: as we will understand later, she took it personally (you can also notice her leg movement getting more and more pronounced).
By pretending she's not angry and avoiding assertiveness and/or playing the same jester game back on him, she's making herself angrier inside.
That doesn't necessarily mean the best option was to get assertive, though.
Best option was probably to keep up the game and jest back at him, or laugh at it.
SERIOUSNSS VS BEEF AND JESTING: INCONGRUENT APPROACH
Similar issue later: while people are pushing for the "beef" and "humor" frames, she hides her personal anger for a while by holding onto to an incongruent frame: the "serious" frame, for example when she says "yeah, we're all entitled to opinions". That was incongruent.
CHANEL'S DANGER: THAT THE FRAME STICKS
Sometimes social success is about keeping you eyes on the goal.
The goal can be something you want (see for example my latest journal entry: goal was getting information), or something you need to avoid.
In this case, was facing a major danger there: that she could be framed as a poor artist. That's what she needed to avoid.
If that frame expands and worst, of all, if it sticks, it might be dangerous for her career.
In my opinion, best option would have been to laugh it off, and let it slip.
Instead, when she got all angry and worked up, she only increased the danger that from now on, for many people, she'll be framed as a poor artist who blows her own horn but has little actual skills.
The problem is, Chanel doesn't view the audience as laughing at the joke, she feels that they're laughing at her.
Very true.
Her feelings of the situation were not "we're having a laugh", but "they're having a laugh at me, framing me as a poor performer".
Not always easy not to take things personally, as you say, so it's understandable.
The only reason I don't think her perspective is totally accurate in this case is that it's natural people would laugh at Charla's comments due to the style of dominance he's adopted (Jester). So, they're no longer only responding to the message, they're responding to the messenger.
Yes, true, the message mattered less.
Once one has taken a successful jester role, then people expect a joke, and they have the "laugh" ready, so to speak. Even a very mediocre joke would get at least some laugh, at that point.
And, the host seeing an opportunity to promote his show, begins inciting an unhealthy, competitive relationship between the two.
Very true, this was 80% the hosts' job (both the host and the third guy sitting on the couch).
The hosts were inciting and exaggerating both the humor (with their exaggerated laughing), as well as the competitive, value-taking frame ("beef, beef, beef", "I never knew, when was this"), and unluckily for her, Chanel fell for it.
Luckily, the host also eventually moved on.
He might have kept instigating it even more.
FIGHTING A JESTER WITH ANGER: OFTEN POOR STRATEGY
She kept getting angry and replying seriously against a guy who was playing the jester.
That's usually a bad idea, because the jester has a "free hand" to make value-taking jokes, but when you hit back seriously, then you look over-aggressive and too touchy.
You get angry and look like a bitch, and the jester hits back with a "joke" and looks even funnier.
Chara: you need to pay her more, Rob
Chanel: (angry) No! I get paid plenty (...) I struggled before I was on TV
Now he makes fun of her financial difficulties as well, implying she's still on rough waters, and again she gets angry and defending in a serious tone, and thread-expanding on it.
In the end, she probably did the worst she could do: got angry, thread-expanded on her being a bad performer, started defending herself by blowing her own horn, and turning herself into the overreactive target that was easy to poke fun at, and have a laugh at.
P.S.: great formatting, Ali, makes this case study clear and easy to follow with the video embedding, the dialogues, and descriptions of the social dynamics in grey.
Thanks for your feedback, Lucio.
HIDING ANGER
Yeah, that's something I noticed but forgot to note. Possibly because hiding anger is typically a trait seen in passive-aggressives, but my focus was on the more aggressive parts of her approach.
THE FRAME THAT STICKS
It seems you're also noting that by frame-ignoring Charla's value-taking frame, it could have fallen to the floor and into the past as the conversation moves forward. But, by stopping to address the frame, Chanel is thread-expanding on those value-taking parts of the frame which can cause that frame she's diving into to stick. And, Chanel dived into a part of the frame that was one of the worst for her career. If I misunderstood that, let me know.
FIGHTING A JESTER WITH ANGER: OFTEN POOR STRATEGY
Yes, yes, yes. If you listen closely, you can actually notice that mid-way through the interaction, the biggest laughs coming from the audience are no longer from Charla or Charla's jokes. The audience begins laughing harder at watching Chanel's (entertaining) overreactions to Charla's jokes. Then, they get even more entertainment from watching the host work to "reel it in".
THREAD-EXPANDING
I think "thread-expanding" is referred to as "thread-amplifying" in the TPM dictionary, but I'm not totally sure since thread-expanding has no entry. The only difference I could see was that thread-amplifying was defined as being in the context of seduction, so I'm guessing thread-expanding might be revolving around any contextual social situation.
Lucio, they sound like synonyms, but is there a real difference between the two terms that's worth memorizing?
Yeah, that's something I noticed but forgot to note. Possibly because hiding anger is typically a trait seen in passive-aggressives, but my focus was on the more aggressive parts of her approach.
Yes, just to be clear, my message wasn't to correct yours, but to add something on top of it :).
by stopping to address the frame, Chanel is thread-expanding on those value-taking parts of the frame which can cause that frame she's diving into to stick.
Exactly.
Potentially a risk to her rapping career, yes, as well as to her general reputation.
Now for a lot of people, her reputation is "a mediocre artist with a big ego who thinks she's good, but the world disagrees". Not exactly the reputation you'd want.
She might be able to change that if she drops a few golden tracks or to shake it off eventually, but still, it's best to make it easier on yourself, rather than harder.
The audience begins laughing harder at watching Chanel's (entertaining) overreactions to Charla's jokes. Then, they get even more entertainment from watching the host work to "reel it in".
Exactly, great point.
She turned herself into a buffoon.
And I'm not even saying that as a criticism but as a description.
It can be tough to be criticized and not taking it personally, and it can be tough not to get angry, so as you also said, I actually understand her and feel for her.
THREAD AMPLIFYING / EXPANDING
I think "thread-expanding" is referred to as "thread-amplifying" in the TPM dictionary, but I'm not totally sure since thread-expanding has no entry.
Yeah, so similar and so much overlap that I don't think it makes sense to diversify -albeit we might add it as a second entry later on-.
For thread amplifying, you stress the thread to make it more salient, more important, better, or worse.
Take for example that John's thread on how to ostracize someone, when we advised surfacing the story of that guy as an asshole by asking a common friend to share a story about him.
So when Jon wanted to amplify the thread, he'd drop comments like:
Oh wow
Really?
That's crazy
Unbeliavable!
Plus, various facial expressions of disgust, head shaking, etc.
If he wanted to expand, he'd ask questions or drop comments that would lead the storyteller to dig deeper, and talk more at length, for example:
Wait, I didn't get it, he did X and Y? What for (so you make her to paraphrase the story and add more details)
Come on, he didn't really say that (you want her to confirm the story, which makes her talk more)
That sound like a real asshole thing to do, and what did you tell your girlfriend? (no she adds more details)
So as you can see, they're both reaching the same end goal, and sometimes it can be difficult to even distinguish.
Ah, thanks for all the clarification, Lucio. Very, very insightful.
If we were to establish a difference, it seems that thread-amplifying is more about nudging engagement for a thread while thread-expanding is about encouraging engagement for a thread (which is what causes it to use more social effort).
Your post helps with my understanding of the microaggression lesson in PU, so thanks again!
P.S. Here's a picture from the video that describes/illustrates the dynamic well:
If we were to establish a difference, it seems that thread-amplifying is more about nudging engagement for a thread while thread-expanding is about encouraging engagement for a thread (which is what causes it to use more social effort).
You can see amplifying as "nudging" for more, yes.
And you can also see amplifying as something you for the audience, as if to say "wow, listen to that", or "look at that, can you believe it?", you are broadcasting that what's happening deserves all their attention because it's important, or unusual/crazy/great.
The picture you posted is perfect, his face amplifies her overreaction, like saying "f***ck, listen to miss crazy there, totally going whacko".
