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.

Op thanks I just saw your reply.

If at work I would not let personally insulting behaviour pass.

(The internet stuff is really to me like complaining the pub's full of drunks every night!)

mooncuplanding

Your use of the word snowflake is absolutely classic. It doesn't add anything to your argument it just dismisses the people you disagree with.

Everybody with half a brain cell agrees with no platforming. Hospitals don't have to provide a platform for people offering homeopathy universities don't have to provide a platform to people who they don't view as intellectually legitimate, for example people who are rabble rousers who don't wish to engage in intellectual, rational debate.

Now where exactly you draw the line is of course contentious. It's a topic that deserves rigorous debate. You dismissing people who disagree with you as snowflakes illustrates quite clearly you're not willing to engage in that debate. It's like me saying well Julie Bindel is a feminazi so she can't come to my university. Divisive language, that just makes rational people lose respect for your argument.

Bit like how the phrase "boils my piss" means nothing but lots of people seem to have heard it, like it and use it loads. 😙

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

Permanentlyfrizzy

I truly don't know what you are trying to say there. You seem to take the point about no-platforming and create bad examples. Of course, if an event is on a particular topic then you get relevant speakers, but that is not the issue on no-platforming. Germaine Greer was no-platformed about her views on trans people - and from what you have written you agree with this, right?

I would absolutely say the people who were behind this are in a snowflake culture, not wanting to hurt the feelz for the trans people. All very nice and kind and caring, but it's still not OK. Her view is a legitimate view and she was taken off the agenda because of people's offence. Do you agree with this?

Everybody with half a brain cell agrees with no platforming.

I completely agree with this - once people actually think about / realise what it is, they understand that they support it. But so many have a confused and warped idea about it, and think it’s a new-tangled thing that’s crushing the life out of free speech.

There has never been a subject on which people understand less, but confidently make assertions about more, than free speech.

Blanchedupetitpois

I don't agree that we have "had all these debates" I believe there has been #nodebate

Trans - absolutely not debated
Islam - absolutely not debated

And there is the problem - we are not allowed to debate because the snowflake culture is stopping it happen

I completely agree with this - once people actually think about / realise what it is, they understand that they support it. But so many have a confused and warped idea about it, and think it’s a new-tangled thing that’s crushing the life out of free speech.

What does no platforming achieve?

At work it tends to be a fear of being branded a snowflake from friends/family because they are not coping with their mental illness.

There's so much stigma around mental illness (I'm not just talking about depression and anxiety) that people are scared to ask for help for the fear of branded weak for not coping. Some of the interpretations on this thread support this snowflake mentality (people should be more robust, it's their fault for being offended by me, they are weak for not dealing with it etc..). Maybe not specifically targeting people with mental health disorders, but this is the result.

The word being used to refer to people as weak, or sensitive. This is what I object to, and I stick with my original post, it tends to go hand in hand with a certainly mentality of people.

Her view is a legitimate view and she was taken off the agenda because of people's offence.

The legitimacy or otherwise of a person’s view has nothing to do with no-platforming. A person can be no-platformed for any reason whatsoever. Because, ultimately, it should be up to a platform to decide what they are / are not willing to host or broadcast.

Germaine Greer herself has a platform. She has a huge audience who listen when she speaks. Should she be made to share pro-trans views simply because she has a platform? Or should she be given the right to decide what she’s willing to share? Every time she shares her opinion, must she be required to share an opposing one, for the sake of debate?

If you answer that question ‘no’ - you agree with no-platforming.

Everybody with half a brain cell agrees with no platforming.

Nope. Universities used to be places of debate. That meant ideas could be expressed that you may not agree with. The threatening of free speech at universities is very serious.

And actually it shouldn’t be up for discussion that all people are equal.

Equal in what sense? Or is that not up for discussion either?

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

Looks like someone is knee deep in the twitter crusades culture wars, snowflake has pretty much become an insult thrown around by the left and right in equal measure now.

Lots of disingenousness on this thread about what no platforming is. No platforming is when someone gets invited to speak, and then others demonstrate and campaign so much that the original inviters feel they have no choice but to rescind the invitation. It is a new phenomena.
( No platforming in the past was purely about those who actually promoted violence against minorities. This is now illegal under hate speech laws. It did not used to be.)

Equal in what sense? Or is that not up for discussion either?

Equal in the sense that all people should be treated with the same fundamental respect and dignity, and granted the same rights, regardless of their race, age, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or disability (save for exceptions in respect of mental incapacity etc).

Of course the proposition - all people are equal - should be up for discussion.

Germaine Greer herself has a platform. She has a huge audience who listen when she speaks. Should she be made to share pro-trans views simply because she has a platform?

G.G. built her own 'platform' by virtue of the public's interest in her views.

University 'platforms' exist for the benefit of their students - where one group insists G.G., for example, be denied it, then they've effectively shaped the discourse of that university to their preference.

No platforming is when someone gets invited to speak, and then others demonstrate and campaign so much that the original inviters feel they have no choice but to rescind the invitation.

Protest / demonstration can be an element of no-platforming but is not always a feature.

Worth remembering that protest is in and of itself a form of free speech that people are perfectly within their rights to engage in.

yesyesyep

I do understand what you are saying there, but for want of a better phrase, from the other side it looks like you cannot say that someone is being 'weak'. Ever. Even if they are.

Life is tough as shit, like really tough. And this snowflake thing for me is that people don't seem to think bad things should happen to them. Well why not them? Why shouldn't bad things happen to you? Why are you so special that life isn't tough for you? Everyone has their shit to deal with, everyone. No one is immune. And your post demonstrates an attitude of someone who is not taking personal responsibility for their lives, they are blaming others' comments and words for their own wellbeing. No good lies there.

Blanche you are a shining example of a left-wing fascist.

Yes protest is a form of free speech, particularly for the powerless. That is not what is happening here. What is happening is that lots of venues will no host certain speakers/discussions because it will require extra security, threats to staff and fear to other users of the venue.

blanched

So you agree that GG should have been no-platformed? Its a no brainer?

And many people who have actual PTSD object strongly to trigger warnings. The language of being triggered comes from PTSD. To talk about trigger warnings when actually you mean - this might upset you - is the equivalent of saying you are a bit OCD when you are organised and tidy.
The BBC did not used to give content warnings, that is a recent phenomena, I suspect in response to complaints. It used to be accepted that after 9pm, adults exercised their own discretion. So if you watched a drama about serial murder, there may be some scenes of violence, and nobody would warn you about that.

G.G. built her own 'platform' by virtue of the public's interest in her views.

What’s your point? Regardless of how she came by it, she has a platform now. According to some on this thread, she should now be required to use that platform to share pro-trans views. I disagree. I think she should be allowed to use her platform to share whatever she likes. And equally, I don’t think any other platform should be made to share her views if they disagree with them.

University 'platforms' exist for the benefit of their students - where one group insists G.G., for example, be denied it, then they've effectively shaped the discourse of that university to their preference.

University platforms exist for the benefit of those who engage with that platform. Maybe the feminist society is unwilling to host GG because of her views on transgenderism - that doesn’t stop another university society hosting her if they do support her views. If none of them are willing to host her, that’s just her tough luck. You’d be hard pressed to find a university society who would host a Nazi, or a flat-earther, or a pedophile. That’s just how it is. Because nobody is entitled to an audience.

Looks like someone is knee deep in the twitter culture wars, snowflake has pretty much become an insult thrown around by the left and right in equal measure now.
Don't have a twitter account; its terminology that appears on comments on news articles.