People who use the term 'snowflake'?

[yesyesyep]

Aren't the brightest bunch are they?

It's like a script isn't it? Something picked up from the daily mail or another equivalent hate-rag, to shout at people who have the audacity to care about someone other than themselves. It appears to give the user a sense of superiority over someone, when they are just throwing words they like the sound of because they've seen it used to bully others before.

I find it often ties in with people who use multiple exclamation marks after a space. !!!

(Honestly, have a look for the multiple exclamation marks after a space. It's almost poetic.)

I know I probably ABU, but the level of stupidity on this planet at the moment baffles me.

Oops thought this tread was 2 pages not 10, ignore me

Blanche I might have been wrong. There certainly was a motion to ban Julie Bindel speaking at all student unions. I read it in my papers for conference. I thought it had been passed, but I may be wrong.

And no, Julie Bindel has not called for No Platforming of others. Or provide me with a link if it is?

And my link about NUS policy and proposal around Julie Bindel including the words ‘Julie Bindel is vile’ was an official clause in the NUS’s LGBTQ strategy.

www.spiked-online.com/2014/10/17/the-ban-bindel-policy-an-affront-to-students/

A university, on the other hand, is intended to be a free exchange of ideas. This is why it's different.

A university is still a private forum and is under no obligation to host any particular person or view. They aren’t obliged to host flat-Earthers, or conspiracy theorists, or climate change deniers, or racists, or transphobes, or terrorists, or any other person. They can choose to do so if they wish. But they aren’t obliged to. And in cases where they have a reasonable belief that hosting someone will be detrimental to their students, or will contravene the ethos of their forum, they may well decide not to offer that person a platform.

Your comment is entirely illogical; can you not see how on the one hand you can extol the virtues of free speech, but on the other deny them?

There is nothing illogical about my position. I’ve been consistently clear that I dont accept that refusing to offer someone a platform is a contravention of free speech. A no-platformed person still has every right to share their views. They just don’t get to share them via a platform that doesn’t want to host them. Nobody is entitled to an audience.

Feminists including Germaine Greer and Linda Bellos have been barred from speaking at universities in the past for holding views which trans activists see as transphobic. Bristol, however, appears to be the first university to plan on banning such speakers outright.

Which universities? Cardiff considered it but decided not to. I can’t find any other evidence of her being barred from a university.

And in cases where they have a reasonable belief that hosting someone will be detrimental to their students..
Detrimental? Who decides this?

Where I live 'The Snowflake Generation' or 'Special Snowflakes' are the millennials are people born from 2000 onwards). It's a patronizing phrase and means they are self obsessed, precious and unable to cope with the reality of the real world. Definitely not a compliment. I don't know many who use it but I've heard of people saying it.

@abacucat www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/09/gay-rights-london-mosques

Re the Nus: their no platforming policy applies to the following 6 people / organisations:

Al-muhajiroun
The BNP
The EDL
Hizb-ut-tahrir
The Muslim Public Affairs Committee
National Action

The policy prevents people affiliated with these organisations from speaking at NUS events, and NUS officers won’t share a platform with affiliates off campus.

That’s just a bit different from what you confidently asserted as fact earlier, isn’t it?

Detrimental? Who decides this?

the students who vote on these motions

I wonder where the people on the thread who think its a no brainer to no platform non-violent views think this all leads?

Universities are one of the only institutions that are there for free debate and thinking, their actual purpose is to create new knowledge - how are we going to create new knowledge if we only allow in certain views?

Its pretty horrifying to think there are so many on this thread that think this move to protect identities and rights by policing speech is a progressive move.

. .

Op I'm a sensitive type in a family of grandparents with mental health issues. Building resilience in my children is a priority here.

I don't use sensitive as a negative word it's a neutral term describing our physiology rather than any possible moral superiority or mental weakness. The "sensitive snowflake" behaviour I warn myself off exemplifies the negative effects of that energy.

There can be a massive positive effect to having the feelings and insight from the sensitive side.

I took the "you're too sensitive" mantra and swapped it to "no I'm just sensitive, thanks"

I know my grandparents didn't have the lives my children and I have and I don't think traumatised people can pull themselves together.

But please don't think anti snowflakes are a monolithic group of bullying haters. That would be just stereotyping which is ironic!

Blanche You are ignoring any comments saying things you have stated as fact are not true, and only answering things you want to.

Why have you linked to an article talking about a campaign to ban homophobic speakers from mosques? Personally I disagree with that campaign. The issue around islamists is far more complex than that article recognises and is upheld by university students who have tried to get MaryAm Namazie banned from speaking at events. She understands what is actually happening in Islam in Britain and with others, is fighting against it. But gets No Platformed by those who call islamophobia.

And that also raises a big point around No Platforming. It is often white liberal middle class students who call for No Platforming of a speaker, but have no real understanding of the issues.

It is just a useful descriptor for people who cannot deal with everyday problems.
There are a fair few people like this unfortunately.
Anxiety etc (unless pathological) is a normal part of every day life. However there is a lot more in the way of amateur dramatics these days. Often from people whose parents have done everything for them and not prepped them for life.

*Detrimental? Who decides this?

the students who vote on these motions*

Yep. I am going to vote not to allow any student to hear this speaker because I think it is detrimental to them, even though I do not really understand the issues. Just about sums it up.

And it is no surprise that most of these debates rage at the most privileged campuses. Its at places like Goldsmiths. Not places like Derby University. There are very good reasons for this, and snowflake is part of it.

And I have a much better understanding of the reality of real mental health problems sadly. I spent time in the past caring for a seriously ill relative. Agree with the comment about anxiety (unless pathological) being normal. Life is not easy. Life is shit at times, scary, anxiety producing, depressing. This is normal, and a very long way from real mental health problems.

Blanche You are ignoring any comments saying things you have stated as fact are not true, and only answering things you want to.

Point out what I’ve missed and I will respond, I don’t know what you’re referring to.

Why have you linked to an article talking about a campaign to ban homophobic speakers from mosques

Because Julie bindel was one of the people calling for this ban. She wanted these speakers no-platformed. You asked for an example of this, so I gave you one.

It is often white liberal middle class students who call for No Platforming of a speaker, but have no real understanding of the issues.

I actually agree with this. But I don’t think it changes the fact that, fundamentally, no-platforming is not a free speech contravention.

Yep. I am going to vote not to allow any student to hear this speaker because I think it is detrimental to them, even though I do not really understand the issues. Just about sums it up

Except it’s ‘we’, not ‘I’, because it’s a democratic vote. The difference between tyranny and democracy is important. And they aren’t voting to not allow students to hear a particular speaker. any student can seek out the views of any speaker they like. they are voting to not provide that speaker with a very specific platform. Do you understand how that’s different?

I’m going to have to leave the thread as I have things to do - good debate everyone

A university is still a private forum and is under no obligation to host any particular person or view. They aren’t obliged to host flat-Earthers, or conspiracy theorists, or climate change deniers, or racists, or transphobes, or terrorists, or any other person. They can choose to do so if they wish. But they aren’t obliged to. And in cases where they have a reasonable belief that hosting someone will be detrimental to their students, or will contravene the ethos of their forum, they may well decide not to offer that person a platform.

The problem with all these labels, Blanche, is that there's no universal view on what constitutes a racist or a transphobe or a climate change denier. Germaine Greer is certainly evidence of this, or Charles Murray in the US.

It shouldn't damage any adult to know that someone they don't agree with is speaking at their university.

Blanche The article you linked seems to be about speakers who were committing hate speech - as they were fined by the courts for it. Yes I can well imagine Julie Bindel said that a mosque, this was about one mosque, said it should not be committing a crime by hosting speakers who commit hate speech.

People who those who tag people as snowflakes are just as bad as those who tag people as gammons. Just because someone has a different opinion to you it just seems really petty to them tag them as a mocking title. I roll my eyes and silently lose a fraction of respect for anyone who uses either term.

Blanche There is no real debate here. There is a lot of disingenousness though.

The term was coined from fight club “ you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake”

Ie a generation who think they are special and different. They are not.

Meh.. tbh I think it's a good word to describe people 'offended' or worse.. 'beheaded' because someone called them the wrong pronoun or something else ridiculous

Because god forbid someone might be offended

An overused word. Just as much as 'like', 'big, 'little' and a few others.

I think it’s pretty normal for older generations to criticise younger generations. Sometimes there is a good reason for it! Now when I look back at my behaviour in the early noughties I definitely fit the snowflake description. I also would have been offended by the characterisation but it was spot on. 😆