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.

Yes! What purpose other than an echo chamber would no-platforming achieve?

Another lazy and illogical argument.

For one thing, it’s been proven over and over again that airing out and giving credence to ideas doesn’t challenge them, it gives them authority, regardless of how irrational or unsupportable the idea is. It’s why the BBC was criticised during the Brexit debate for giving equal air time and authority to halfwits with no credentials or relevant experience as they did to genuine experts. Do you think a climate change conference should be required to host someone who believes it’s a conspiracy theory just to ‘challenge’ that idea, despite the fact that 99% of scientists accept climate change?

Bad and lazy arguments are given legitimacy by legitimate platforms hosting them. Bigotry and prejudice is given legitimacy by legitimate platforms hosting them. Fake news is given legitimacy by a legitimate platform hosting it. This isn’t controversial - it’s been shown over and over.

No platform should be forced to host ideas they don’t support. Amnesty International don’t have to share the views of war criminals. Mosques don’t have to let Tommy Robinson rant to their conregations. Rape crisis centres don’t have to hear rapists explain why what they didn’t wasn’t so bad. Greenpeace doesn’t have to give space to Shell arguing in favour of arctic oil drilling. Any platform is entitled to decide what it will be used for.

Nobody is owed an audience. If what you have to say is worth listening to, you’ll get an audience anyway. If you can’t muster one of your own, other platforms don’t owe you one.

Op where do you see it all the time?

I'm not OP but I see it all the time in comment sections of newspaper articles (most recent examples include a child with diagnosed mental health problems and another child with ASD who needed certain adjustments to their schooling which had been recommended by their medical team. )

I see it on local Facebook groups directed at anyone who has a gripe (for example someone was called a snowflake because they have an invisible disability and people were using the disabled car parking space they'd had specifically put in place by the council outside their house).

I see it very often directed towards children who suffer stress and anxiety due to the current education system.

I don't agree with no platforming in most cases but dismissing someone as a snowflake because they disagree with you is only exposing yourself as someone incapable of articulating a logical argument. It's an important issue and you should be able to express why you feel a particular way without resorting to petty name calling. Particular using a choice of word that is very often used in a very offensive way.

I also fairly often see it used to criticise women who object to catcalling in the street.

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?

HErein lies the problem. If people are unable and unwilling to 'share a platform' with people who disagree with them, all we create is firmer division. So all the people wanting peace and harmony (through their kindness and caring) will never ever achieve that. How else do people who support no-platforming suggest that differences get resolved?

I certainly didn't "retract" anything about my use of the term.

I find it a gentle reminder of a human frailty I share with many others. I may joke about my own snowflakery and point out to my children if they are being a bit precious now they are teenagers.

People getting involved in political wrangling, leading to insults on the internet is another style of language.

It's a bit rich though to categorise all users of the term as some on this thread have done.

I made the mistAke of reading YouTube comments once.

It’s an overused and often misused term, but I think some people are deserving of the label. For example the university student who wanted to paint over a WWI mural because it depicted only white men. Or students who want to ban the Daily Mail from being sold at their university.

It’s not an insult I would ever use myself (nor would I use ‘gammon’, they’re both a bit embarrassing IMO), but I don’t mind it too much when it’s used correctly.

I genuinely don't understand why anyone would object to a trigger warning. It causes them no inconvenience and since they're such resilient people they'll no doubt be able to simply ignore it.

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

It’s not political censorship because it isn’t the government doing this. This isn’t complicated.

No platforming is denying the possibility of an audience

No it isn’t. No platforming is saying ‘we will not host you in this arena’. It doesn’t prevent you from getting an audience elsewhere. If you can find someone to host you, you can have an audience. But you aren’t entitled to be hosted. You can’t demand that any particular platform share your views. That is not, and never had been, part of free speech.

I do think by the way that snowflake gets used to quieten people, but this is discourse - everyone everywhere is trying to influence people and 'win' arguments. The more people we have who share our world view, the easier our life is, at a fundamental level.

But even if people use it as an insult, WHY DO PEOPLE THEN ACTUALLY BEHAVE LIKE SNOWFLAKES? Its non-sensical and a circle rounding itself. If someone called me a snowflake (or a dickhead for that matter), so what, I have to deal with the interaction in front of me and not crumble into my feelz

blanche, so basically what you’re saying in an extremely verbose way is that you don’t think views you disapprove of should be expressed in public.

Like Communists and Nazis did, that type of thing.

Thank you Permanent.

Why do some of you get so triggered by trigger warnings? Telling people in advance of broadcasting a piece of film that they might find it upsetting is not insulting their intelligence and certainly not preventing them from seeing/hearing something they might disagree with, it's giving them enough information to make a choice. You might be fine watching footage of dismembered infants while you eat your tea, someone else might prefer to switch over to the cricket results.

And the no-platforming thing can be taken too far (though it's hilarious how much it winds up Julie Bindel, who used to be such a fan of it as long as it was happening to other people) but sometimes it's a matter of what you might call an editorial decision: we have room and time for six speakers at this event, let's not have [person] because [person] is a tiresome ranting bore with nothing new to say. There isn't room or time for everyone to speak at any given event, after all.

And it is a bad and lazy argument to use things which are illegal and can’t be promoted in public (war crimes) anyway to justify no platforming of perfectly legal speech.

@Eliza9917

*I think 'snowflake' refers to people that

• come up with using jazz hands instead of clapping
• need safe spaces at conferences because people might use bad words
• get offended where there clearly is no offence
• get offended on others behalf where its nothing to do with them at all

etc etc etc*

The first one you listed is an inclusion tactic for those with disabilities....
I see so many posts on MN like this which just echo how uneducated the general public are about disabilities & how far behind progression is for those with disabilities in comparison to other minorities.

Op I don’t like the term. But I also don’t see how people using the term ‘Gammon’ are any different- infact, the latter is worse because it’s racist.

There are plenty of idiots both sides of politics, who will use lazy terms to shut down an argument rather than providing a well thought out rebuttal with substantiation.

No it isn’t. No platforming is saying ‘we will not host you in this arena’. It doesn’t prevent you from getting an audience elsewhere. If you can find someone to host you, you can have an audience. But you aren’t entitled to be hosted. You can’t demand that any particular platform share your views. That is not, and never had been, part of free speech

Yet in the same breath, people are complaining that a single word, snowflake, is used to silence people.

People who have been no-platformed due to snowflakes:
Germaine Greer
Julie Bindel
Mary Beard
Peter Tatchell

In all these cases, they were not no-platformed because they demanded an audience. They were on the schedule and snowflakes decided they were too offensive (aka don't tow the party line)

Also on no-platforming: there is a difference between someone saying, at this event we are arranging, we will not invite speakers putting forward [x] view (which any event organiser has every right to do) and people saying that a venue must not ever allow people with [x] view to organise events and invite speakers. The latter version is dubious.

When a political party has a rally for its members, they do not feel obliged to invite one or more members of the party they most disagree with to hop up and 'put their side'. That's not an infringement of free speech.

How can a white person be offended by racism towards a black person? Yes, they can be pissed off, disgusted etc. but offended? I don't think so

I can find racism offensive even if I’m not the person being ‘insulted’. I’m offended that anyone thinks I would be ok to listen or read shite like that.

"You’re rich"

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

Rich has an alternative meaning, which is ‘hypocritical’

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

No. I didn't say that.

You are insisting that free speech means you’re entitled to be listened to.

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

No.

Then why are you insisting that platforms should be obligated to broadcast views which they don’t support?

"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.

Then you support no-platforming.

"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.

If you answer no to this question, it means you support no platforming.

"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.

We are talking about rights, which means we are also talking about entitlement. You’ve already agreed that Christian societies are entitled to not host those they do not agree with. That is no-platforming.

"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.

Then why are the warnings also shown after the watershed?

Do you think it’s wrong that individuals are allowed to make up their own minds about whether they engage with particular content?’

"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.

Please point to the relevant licencing laws.

Again - do you think it’s wrong that people are given the opportunity to decide for themselves what they watch?

"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 really think these are more likely than it simply being the case that these platforms acknowledge that humans experience emotions, that those emotions may be negative in response to some topics, and that these people should be able to decide for themselves what they want to read / watch / listen to?

Also on no-platforming: there is a difference between someone saying, at this event we are arranging, we will not invite speakers putting forward [x] view (which any event organiser has every right to do) and people saying that a venue must not ever allow people with [x] view to organise events and invite speakers.

Agree with this, and as has been shown here some think the latter is also right as it gives the now liberally used term "legitimacy"

When we were about 10 we watched what I think was called World of War or similar it was on early evening and we watched films of concentration camps. People would have hysteria if this was on now.

Grow up and learn about how the world is because it sure ain’t going to change for you

I genuinely don't understand why anyone would object to a trigger warning. It causes them no inconvenience and since they're such resilient people they'll no doubt be able to simply ignore it.

Trigger warnings are completely unevidenced for people with PTSD. It is known that non=PTSD people suffer more anxiety when a trigger warning is given (not great huh!) but no evidence exists as to whether they actually help people who have PTSD. Indeed clinical research would suggest the opposite - people with PTSD who expose themselves to reliving their trauma recover faster and better.

I am not saying they shouldn't have a choice about when they do that exposure, but the culture we have around trigger warnings is one where people with genuine PTSD are presumed to be in a 'permanently damaged' box and I think there is probably a better way.

blanche, so basically what you’re saying in an extremely verbose way is that you don’t think views you disapprove of should be expressed in public.

Like Communists and Nazis did, that type of thing.

Nope, try again. I never said anything of the kind.

I said that no particular platform should be forced to host any view unless they want to. It’s got nothing to do with what I approve of or disapprove of, and everything to do with platforms being able to decide for themselves what they want to be used for.

Don’t you see that you saying ‘you have to use your platform to host this view’ is much more of a contravention of free speech than a platform saying ‘we aren’t going to host this person’?

If a Jewish Society decides they aren’t hosting a debate with David Icke because he’s a lunatic anti-Semite who believes Jews are trying to establish a new world order, are they contravening his free speech? Should it be illegal for them to refuse to host him? Or are they allowed to decide for themselves what messages they are willing to share? That’s what this comes down to.

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

Please point to the relevant licencing laws.

The BBC are a really good example of this snowflake culture.

Other than in a sneery judgemental way which is designed to tell you which side they sit on...

Can you imagine the BBC broadcasting an anti-trans speaker?
Can you imagine the BBC broadcasting someone who speaks out against Islam?

Snowflake was originally used to refer to people that were perceived to consider themselves particularly unique or special.

Then it became applied to certain groups of 'right on' students.

Now it's just an insult thrown around by certain right-wing people, indistinguishable from 'cuck', 'soyboy' or whatever else.