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.

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

I have no views either way on whether she should have been no-platformed. But I believe in the right of any platform not to host any one who they do not agree with or support. I would feel the same regardless of who the figure being no-platforms was.

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

Please do explain.

Trigger warnings are virtue signaling at it's finest

"Look at me being all so concerned about the fold with PTSD" They have absolutely nothing to do with the reality for people with PTSD

I have no views either way on whether she should have been no-platformed. But I believe in the right of any platform not to host any one who they do not agree with or support. I would feel the same regardless of who the figure being no-platforms was.

So you have no views at all on GG not being able to express a legitimate analysis of trans genderism because a group of people found it to be offensive? Was it offensive? Was it inciting violence? Hate speech?

There's nowt pleasant about a champagne socialist.

The problem with this "I have no view" is the slippery slope that is now in place. Now it is not acceptable for any university to host a gender critical debate about trans. It is now 'off limits'

And so there is #nodebate

We all fall into line

So you have no views at all on GG not being able to express a legitimate analysis of trans genderism because a group of people found it to be offensive?

But she is able to express that analysis. She just wasn’t given the opportunity to do so in one particular forum. Do you see the difference?

She’s entitled to share her views - that is her right to free speech. But she’s not entitled to use a particular platform to share those views if the platform is unwilling to do so.

The problem with this "I have no view" is the slippery slope that is now in place.

I said I have no view on that specific decision because I don’t want to have a discussion on the merits of Germaine Greer in particular, when we’re actually talking about no-platforming generally.

But she is able to express that analysis. She just wasn’t given the opportunity to do so in one particular forum. Do you see the difference?

The forum is a university, which is meant to be above all else, the free exchange of ideas. Not a sanitised subset of politically correct ones.

No platforming is about withdrawing an invite to speak because of pressure/campaigning. It is not about a university not having decided to invite someone to talk in the first place.
And this is about free speech.

Problem is also that like every other over used phrase it's used to mean about 18 different things!

And snowflake describes a certain kind of over protected individual. This leads to some students objecting to being required to read certain texts for example at university because they are "triggering".
Absolute bloody nonsense.

I never hear the word 'snowflake' used as an insult in RL at all, only on MN. As has been pointed out, it's very silly, as falling snow is actually very powerful, it causes avalanches and blizzards, it's use to refer to entitled children in schools is very incongruous.

The forum is a university, which is meant to be above all else, the free exchange of ideas. Not a sanitised subset of politically correct ones.

can you actually clarify which university you’re talking about? Because I’m not sure Greer ever had been no-platformed. I took you at face value when you said she had been, but I can’t find any confirmation online.

And I think you’re wrong to believe that no-platforming prevents the flow of ideas. Students debating the merits of allowing a person to speak IS a free-flowing exchange of ideas. It’s students debating their beliefs and the line between rights, freedoms and oppressions and deciding where they stand. It’s about them democratically shaping what their university stands for. Isn’t that an expression of free speech?

Also, can you answer my previous question - do you understand that there is a difference between being prevented from sharing your views at all, and being prevented from sharing them in a particular forum?

Of course No Platforming is not about not having invited someone to speak. I have organised many events with speakers. There are always hundreds of speakers I could invite. Those not invited have not been No Platformed.
No platforming is 2 things -

1. Someone is invited to speak and then pressure/protests/threats lead to that person being disinvited.
2. An institution like the Students Union nationally, passes a motion that no one is allowed to host a speaker, in this case Julie Bindel, in any of their buildings.

Those are both direct attacks on free speech.

Whingers, complainers, wusses - basically all those who lack moral fibre (according to DH).

This leads to some students objecting to being required to read certain texts for example at university because they are "triggering". This is ridiculous imo. I can't justify it in any way.

Champagne socialists aren't the same as snowflakes. In my book, champagne socialists = hypocrites, of which, we have many in the family.

For as long as I can remember (and I am in my 50s) both television broadcasts and DVDs have sometimes had warnings - 'some viewers may find the following scenes disturbing' 'may contain distressing images' 'may contain violence or sexual swearwords'. Etc.

It's the term 'trigger warning' that's new, not the simple courtesy of acknowledging that some people are more easily upset than others and might appreciate advance notice that something upsetting is about to be displayed.

The no-debate/no-platform business is a right fucking mess at the moment. And a large share of the responsibility for this mess has to go to alt-right pricks like Milo, whose idea of promotiing and defending freedom of expression has been 'be as obnoxious as you possibly can, whip up your admirers to feel confident in physically attacking people who you don't like, and then start crying about free speech when some of the people you've been attacking decide that actually, they don't want to listen to you or 'debate' with you, because a debate with the alt right is likely to consist of them throwing out as many insults as possible and laughing if the insulted person appears even slightly put out by this barrage of abuse.' These fuckers have nothing new to say. Everyone knows what they think.

Students debating the merits of allowing a person to speak IS a free-flowing exchange of ideas.
The lack of insight that leads to the above sentence is frightening. Do you also think discussing what books to burn is a free flowing exchange of ideas?

And being honest, the groups of students at university who campaign and push for No Platforming and trigger warnings tend to be a pretty intimidating bunch. I know a number of people who are very resilient who have been pretty systematically bullied by these groups of people at a number of universities. And that is often how the motions get passed. Because people are genuinely too scared to stand up to them.

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.

From The Times.

And I think you’re wrong to believe that no-platforming prevents the flow of ideas. Students debating the merits of allowing a person to speak IS a free-flowing exchange of ideas. It’s students debating their beliefs and the line between rights, freedoms and oppressions and deciding where they stand. It’s about them democratically shaping what their university stands for. Isn’t that an expression of free speech?

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?

Also, can you answer my previous question - do you understand that there is a difference between being prevented from sharing your views at all, and being prevented from sharing them in a particular forum?

Sure. There are private forums, or forums that make no pretense of being a free exchange of ideas (a church, for example - they are intended to advance a specific ideology).

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

@abacucat you don’t know what you’re talking about. Some student unions (such as Manchester) have voted (in a democratic process) to no-platform Julie Bindel. There is no rule preventing student unions generally from hosting JB in their buildings. Instead of spreading fake news, why don’t you do a small amount of research.

Did you know, for example, that JB has called for others to be no-platforms in the past? She’s a big fan, as long as she’s not the subject.

And no, the BBC has changed its content warnings and made them more frequent. There are many articles written about this. Whether you agree with it or not, it has changed.

Yeah I think sjw (social justice warrior) is for people who cares about others. Snowflake is for people who are offended by actually offensive things, usually racism.

Both awful terms.