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.

To be honest, all these insulting terms 'snowflake' 'gammon' 'feminazi' to name just a few, should just be jettisoned as they're an attempt to dehumanise, to dismiss an entire group of people based merely on one characteristic. The idea that people may have different beliefs and values but agree on one fundamental issue doesn't appear to occur to those who like to sling those terms about without engaging in any further discussion.

It's really not that ambiguous.

Derxa's earlier post gave a clear view!

It's almost a code word isn't it- call someone a snowflake, or call a group snowflakes, and it's as if you've held up a neon sign saying "I AM A WANKER".

"Nobody has a right to an audience."

Hence snowflakes wanting to unplatform people they disagree with.

"do you also disagree with film age certificates?"

They are about physical age, not mental age. Trigger warnings are about the latter.

Normal people don't get triggered.

Yeah it's one of my pet hates. It just comes across as dickish and cringey at the same time, you can tell whoever's written it thinks it's a right mic drop moment. Pure passive aggressive but the term isn't even on trend anymore. Stop acting like you invented it you sneery bores

Can't stand people who use that term.

Clearly it is ambiguous with so many people starting their replies with 'I thought it meant...'.

I can't be bothered to scroll through to pick out the different connotations, but in general, it's used for people offended on behalf of other people, do gooders, virtue signallers, people with empathy, people who aren't hardy enough...

Some people feel they are justified using the term, but then retract it when shown an example of someone using it in a nasty way. (Such as someone being offended by children being gassed.) Clearly, these people are not using it in the same way.

I see it used all the time to belittle others. It's a bully tactic.

A ‘snowflake’ to me is a person who is so delicate that they can’t take any upset and have no ability to adjust to the world around them. That they want the world to suit them.

'Normal people don't get triggered'.

As someone who works in mental health, that is a disgusting comment.

That's more about your lack of understanding and unsuitability for the role as opposed to my comment.

Sorry dogface. You're obviously one of those who I choose not to converse with. I apologise I didn't twig sooner.

Lol, dogtoy. Genuine error. Sorry.

But you can't be offended or you'd be a snowflake, so that's fine.

The idea that people may have different beliefs and values but agree on one fundamental issue doesn't appear to occur to those who like to sling those terms about without engaging in any further discussion.

It's pretty much the basis of IDPolitics though, so until that goes by the wayside somewhat, its going to continue to happen

" I choose not to converse with"

Are you unplatforming me? Bless.

Why would I be offended? The fact you think I may be is telling.

@dogToy

What a load of reactionary, ill-thought out crap.

You’re rich to be calling others snowflakes when you’re one who thinks just because you’re speaking, others have to listen. Do you think your rights are being contravened because somebody refuses to broadcast your views? Do you feel, equally, that you have to provide a platform for people you whole heartedly disagree with, just because they want to share their views? Where does that end? Does a university Christian society have to provide a platform to a fundamentalist Islamic preacher because that preacher wants to spread their message? Or are they entitled to no-platform him because that isn’t what they want to use their platform for?

I note you ignored my comment about the BBC’s trigger warnings. Is that because you don’t want to admit that you agree with them? And if ‘normal’ people don’t get triggered, why do organisations like the BBC, or Oxfam, feel the need to warn viewers that footage might be distressing? Why do podcasts tell their listeners in advance if the subject is rape, animal abuse, torture or child murder? Is it not because actually they do recognise that many people - ‘normal’ people - find these subjects distressing and should be given the opportunity to decide if they want to engage with them or not?

^Does a university Christian society have to provide a platform to a fundamentalist Islamic preacher because that preacher wants to spread their message? Or are they entitled to no-platform him because that isn’t what they want to use their platform for?*

Yes! What purpose other than an echo chamber would no-platforming achieve? It doesn't make sense. You can only only only get rid of bad ideas through conversation and discussion. You certainly won't get rid of bad ideas by no=platforming them.

I see people being no-platformed because the 'opposition' has such a flaky argument and they also just want praise heeped upon them by the already converted

blanched, that’s a pretty poor argument. A rape crisis centre is not a platform for anybody, its purpose is just simply not at all to be any sort of arena for political or philosophical discussion and it would be entirely inappropriate for anybody to try and make it one.

No platforming is not simply “not having an audience”, indeed, if there was no audience then no platforming would be pointless and unnecessary. No platforming is denying the possibility of an audience, not the lack of an audience.

We already have laws in place which prevent incitement to violence and obscenity, no platforming is the prevention of expressing perfectly legal opinions.

Watersheds are for children. There used to be an assumption that grown adults were capable of deciding for themselves what to watch and exercising sensible caution and researching what they consume if they find a subject particularly distressing.

It’s infantilisation which suggests that material for public consumption needs to be vetted by people who hold a politically fairly extreme viewpoint before it can be passed for general consumption.

In other words, it’s nothing more than political censorship.

I had understood snowflakes to be young people who have grown up being told they're amazing at everything, then arrive in the workplace with an over-inflated sense of their own worth and an inability to take criticism.

I'm not sure these people really exist.

That's my understanding of the term, too, but they definitely exist. I work with a couple of them.

I cannot believe people are defending no platforming

It is utterly demonstrative of the problem around snowflakes

Op where do you see it all the time?

Does a university Christian society have to provide a platform to a fundamentalist Islamic preacher because that preacher wants to spread their message?

A university would have a duty to ensure that platforms at their university were not only available to Christians. Which is all that needs to be said about that one. If the only means for a religious figure to address students is via the Christian Society, then yes, that University has a real problem with free speech.

Ordinarily it would happen through an Islamic Society or a general religious philosophy society. And they have laws already in force to prevent incitement to violence.

@Blanchedupetitpois

You began by insulting me yet then ask direct questions. I'll answer anyway. They're pretty simple. Being a simple woman, I should do ok.

"You’re rich"

Comfortable. School fees make a dent in our income though.

"you’re one who thinks just because you’re speaking, others have to listen"

No. I didn't say that.

"Do you think your rights are being contravened because somebody refuses to broadcast your views?"

No.

"Do you feel, equally, that you have to provide a platform for people you whole heartedly disagree with, just because they want to share their views?"

Me, as a mother and businesswoman and wife? No.

"Does a university Christian society have to provide a platform to a fundamentalist Islamic preacher because that preacher wants to spread their message?"

Fuck both of them, but still no. I would think a university is failing in its duty if it bows to snowflake-pressure to unplatform a speaker because some snowflakes disagree with their views.

"Or are they entitled to no-platform him because that isn’t what they want to use their platform for?"

You moved on to entitlement predictably quickly. A narrow-minded bunch of bigots can do what they want and I suspect a Christian society is one of those special cases where direct discrimination is legally permissible.

"I note you ignored my comment about the BBC’s trigger warnings. Is that because you don’t want to admit that you agree with them?"

I thought I covered it with my comment about film warnings. The news can be shown before the water shed to it's to protect physically young people.

"and if ‘normal’ people don’t get triggered, why do organisations like the BBC, or Oxfam, feel the need to warn viewers that footage might be distressing?"

Two different reasons. The BBC legally has to because of licencing laws. Oxfam etc do it for dramatic effect.

"Why do podcasts tell their listeners in advance if the subject is rape, animal abuse, torture or child murder? "

Choice? Dramatic effect? Because podcasting is in the domain of millennial snowflakes? Titillation? Advertising?

Do you feel, equally, that you have to provide a platform for people you whole heartedly disagree with, just because they want to share their views?

Well this is where it can get very slippery slope, different people can be triggered by very low thresholds.

One example there are some on Social Media who are deeply offended of some assume their gender, therefor who should not be given the platform in this instance.

"different people can be triggered by very low thresholds."

I was nearly killed by an explosion in a gun component factory. Trigger warnings trigger me.

Why will no one authenticate my anxiety and validate my feelings?

Redrosereb, I see it on social media on a daily basis. Comments particularly around brexit amongst other topics.

I also see it in my workplace too.