I would just say not to call people snowflakes because it makes the one speaking look moronic. At this point calling someone a snowflake has about the same relevance as the term "facist" or "nazi" in popular debate. t's become a convenient and lazy term to throw around to try and undermine a person. If ones only retort to an argument is insults and not facts, they have already lost, and if ones only response to another person sharing their feelings is to invalidate those feelings they lack the emotional immaturity to have a discussion on the subject and you may as well consider it closed until they grow up.
No one called anyone anything. This is about a group of people being hurt and offended by a word that suggests they are easily hurt and offended. There is no debate, no argument, no retort, just a a group of people hurt and offended by the existence of a word not directed specifically at them.
To start: most of your reply has nothing to do with the pictures article. Now- the quoted title doesn't read "don't use the word snow flake" it reads "don't call us snowflake." In colloquial English "call" is to "refer to" in which the subject is modified by the word one is "called" or identified as. So no one ever said the existence of the word hurt them, they said being called that word hurt them. Jane is a fine name but if my SO used it in bed to refer to me I would likely be hurt, otherwise it doesn't offend me. Now- when we say "directed specifically at them" do we mean the word or the statement? E.g. I could tell you my brother is awesome if he is next to me but it isn't directed at him- it's directed to you about him. So when you say "directed specifically at them" how specific must I be? Full name, social security number, what are the criteria? So to recap- I have no argument only basic English, you present nothing relevant to debate, and maybe you should look up "retort."
Take the politics out of this and look what it is - name calling. This is bullying plain and simple. Of course it's bad for their mental health they're cyberbullying people.
Well excuse me for pointing out when there is blatant bullying. People commit suicide over cyberbulying and bullying in general. It's a serious matter that needs to be addressed and stopped in all forms. This perpetuates the cycle.
I regret to inform you this is not name calling. At its worst it would be labeling. It's classifying someone who seems to be easily hurt by something they shouldn't and have no legitimate reason to be hurt by. If your self worth is predicated upon everyone catering to you and being careful not to inadvertently insult you, you should seek professional help. Part of growing up and being an adult is learning you probably aren't special and don't deserve extra attention simply because you exist. Instead you have to work, sometimes hard, at earning your place in this world because the world owes you nothing and respect is not a right it's an acquired attribute.
I might ask this: who defines name calling? At its most basic is it not to be called something other than your name? If we add the criteria it must be offensive- well, these people find it offensive, so that's 2/2 no? Secondly, respect is earned- but respect is usually given to those who give respect. Eye for an eye the whole world goes blind, dig two graves and all that. So when we engage a stranger we have the choice to be respectful or not, regardless of wether they are, but we can assume if we expect respect it should be given. We can also assume something will hurt everyone, but not the same thing, so if we would want the respect of not being needlessly hurt, wouldn't we not needlessly hurt others? Asking someone to go out of their way is a bit much to ask a stranger, but asides this discussion I can't recall the last time I've needed to go out of my way to use the word snowflake. In fact wouldn't you have to make an extra effort to call a person a name versus not doing so?
Name calling, as we use it in the vernacular requires it to be offensive. So you are correct that if someone takes real offense, not indignation mind you, then yes, it could be considered name calling. I do think you're confusing basic politeness with respect. We are polite or should be when conversing with a stranger or anyone really. Respect is not needed to be polite just like being polite is not needed to show respect. Generally speaking using the term snowflake is not something you just randomly called someone, stranger or not. Rather it is something you'd call someone after they'd demonstrated the lack of maturity needed to deal with common, if maybe impolite, interaction. Or, when they have demanded unmerited extra attention or service.
Ah. We have it defined. Then it still begs the question why? If they are unaware of their behavior, and the intent is to make them aware, wouldn't it make the most sense to do so in a way which they may be receptive to and listen, as opposed to become hostile or defensive to? If they are sensitive and can't deal with common impoliteness, why would common impoliteness become an effective communication tool? If they are demanding, Is it more constructive to tell them they are a snowflake, does it make them aware of why you feel what they think is a reasonable request is excessive to you? They likely wouldn't ask something they felt was unreasonable unless they were being intentionally rude- in which case wouldn't they be a jerk and not a snowflake? If we react to their common impoliteness as such does that make us either a snowflake or a jerk? Offended by a silly thing or instigating hostility when we know it will likely get a negative response?
Generally, it's not the asking of something they feel is unreasonable that is the issue but it the asking/demanding of something they think is completely reasonable, for them, but is really just unreasonable. And alot of the time they wouldn't be willing or won't do it for someone else but everyone should do it for them. These are also people who can't take constructive criticism because any opinion or idea that runs contrary to theirs is an attack on them personally and "Who do you think you are to tell me _____?" Really it boils down to we don't care. We don't care that they think they're special or whatever. We don't care to maintain the facade of politeness if they're not going to try and behave in a mature fashion. We don't care about them except at how they have affected our day by their attitude/behaviour/entitlement. So they get called a "snowflake" or a "special snowflake" and then we leave and forget all about them except that some snot was acting ridiculous at that place.
Wouldn't by default the amount of discussion and disgust to the concept that can be found, the creation or coopting of a special word just for them- show a degree of care? When one doesn't care, one doesn't engage, one ignores and doesn't spend their time thinking or speaking about it. I don't care about the events at the local knitting club, and check my history until now I've never mentioned them and likely shan't again. They are outside my caring. Likewise- if their goal is special attention or treatment, and the desire is to not expend effort or time on special effort or treatment, doesn't propagating special words and discussions of them fail at both things, as they are receiving special treatment (just not what they wanted), and time and effort are being expended? Or is that the point? Does their sensitivity anger or offend others to the point they desire some recourse, and if so- why? Why get upset that someone else is upset?
Okay, so imagine if your local knitting club suddenly decided to hold all their meetings in your driveway. You still don't really care about them but they've now affected you in a manner you can't ignore. You ask them to leave and these snowflakes get all huffy and start blaming you for putting them out of a place to meet. They leave and you go back to ignoring their existence but you were still inconvenienced by them for a brief time. True apathy would mean you would have just driven them over whether they moved or not. However, it's in our nature to have emotions, fleeting though they may be, and you experienced displeasure so you made clear your displeasure to the culprits by telling them to leave. The snowflake part comes into effect when in reaction to your justified response to the inconvenience they react completely out of proportion to the matter at hand. So now your lack of care has move from them to how you conduct your own manner in a social setting. So you drop the facade.
You're missing the point. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not, but I hope it's not. The answer is no or no. As I've repeatedly pointed out a "snowflake" is someone who feels they deserve special recognition or service or advantage even if others are not offered the same. They will act out if they are not given that recognition or service or advantage. They refuse to think it might be them who is at fault it is always someone else's fault. Trying to point out that fault is almost always treated as a personal attack and your desire to take their "rights" away. So we describe them a snowflakes, sometimes to their face sometimes not. I'm not sure how much clearer I can describe it.
Then if they are not blockading a person or occupying their private property, if we reference the previous questions- how can we not ignore them? And to better understand the analogy put forward previously, if we aren't asking them to leave from our property or from blockading us, where do we want them to leave from that they refuse to leave, Our presence, the world? If they feel we are taking their rights and ask us to stop, and we feel we aren't taking their rights and ask them to stop asking us not to take the rights we aren't taking- is one view more valid than the other? If you say you are cold, so I get 4 people to agree with me you aren't cold are you no longer cold? If the crime is being self centered to another and unreasonable from their perspective, don't we then become guilty as well- and in doing ourselves become snowflakes?
You're still missing the point. It's not got anything to with our property or blockading it's the attitude and unwarranted entitlement involved. Unwarranted defined as anything not due to everyone in a society under normal circumstances. Referencing the example I gave you with the knitting circle it's not the fact that they set up camp on your private property but the attitude involved when a legitimate party asked them to stop an unreasonable behavior. Or how about that person accosting a customer service or sales representative because they want that item or this item and after being told it's not available they insist that you go back and check again or get your manager because you're clearly incompetent. Basic common sense should tell them that the worker should have the ability to perform their job otherwise they wouldn't be there. However, because the answer given to them is not what they want to hear the worker must be incompetent and how dare you suggest anything else.
Everyone is self centered to some extent it's part of the human condition. But when we allow that selfishness to impinge on to others under a normal social environment and refuse except that others may have a legitimate grievance or that their behavior has moved outside that polite behavior society mandates in our social interactions we can be called a snowflake. Again I repeat that it's the expectation that they singularly deserve more and should be treated better than anyone else but they would not be willing to extend those same privileges to others that we call them snowflakes.
After your thorough and precise explaination I may think I understand, but would like to run a few examples to be sure. 1. A woman wanting to work or express her opinion in Egypt would be a snowflake- she is demanding things against socially acceptable norms, and is impinging on the accepted and socially agreed upon rights of the man who is responsible for her? Or is it more of a total majority of population that defines social norms? In which case, India, china, and Russia (3 of the most populated countries on earth) all have censorship laws in media preventing circulation of anything deemed "terrible" "violent" or "extreme." They also restrict telecommunications access and internet. The majority of the world lives under censorship, so does asking to be allowed these freedoms constitute being a snowflake, as this is not the social norm by majority?
You know that's not what we're talking about. You keep trying to skew and turn sideways this talk. We're not talking about an issue that impugns another's ability for what should be considered a basic human right. Nor are we talking about what governments institute for all their citizens that we might not consider "right". So let me repeat for the third time "it's the expectation that they singularly deserve more and should be treated better than anyone else but they would not be willing to extend those same privileges to others that we call them snowflakes".
To the first part- that was he question. Who decides what should be a basic human right? In my first example enough if Egyptian and other societies believe something is not anbasic human right but a right to only some humans. In the second example, the most populated nations in earth believe that certain offensive things or things seem as harmful to their social ideals should be censored for the greater good. How do we qualify "society" to properly gauge who is acting outside social bounds? Or is your point that the Egyptian men are snowflakes because they are asking their women to let them be in control but wouldn't let the women do the same?
You're trying to make this something it's not, please stop. I don't know how much clearer I can state it so for the final time "it's the expectation that they "singularly (as in just them)" deserve more and should be treated better than "anyone" else but they would "not be willing" to extend those "same privileges to others" that we call them snowflakes". I don't care what society you're from placing yourself in an exalted position simply because you exist is the point. End of point. This is not about social reform or whatever you're trying to slide it into. Neither of examples you given represent anything even close to the examples I gave you. So let's use your example. It would be a Egyptian woman demanding to be able to work and at the same time denying that any other woman deserves to work. Or that they or they alone should be exempt from censorship. I really can't be any clearer. I'm glad to have held this level of conversation on here. Thank you and farewell.
The thing is though, I hate SJWs and snowflakes as much as anyone else. But there's this weird notion that snowflakes are only left-leaning young people, when in fact I've never seen anyone more triggered and butthurt than an old conservative when you tell them that gay marriage is okay and "family values"/"traditional values" are bogus.
That's so accurate it hurts. I went to a catholic private school for all my life, and apparently one of the kids got kicked out because the school found out they were gay. Talk about them flipping out. Kid never filed a legal matter with the school but they should have.
Exactly. Shit like this is why I don't bring up global issues or politics when I meet my older relatives or their friends, because a) they're impossible to argue with as they NEVER give reasons. They just say "X is wrong, it's against muh values, instead it should be Y like when I was young." and no matter how many arguments you provide, they just repeat the previous statement. And b) they get sooooo offended and go straight for the ad hominems, strawmen and other fallacies. "All young people are so disrespectful, respect your elders (meaning "don't disagree with me ever because I can't handle a rational discussion"), we didn't have the technology you have blah blah blah."
"snowflake" used to mean someone weak. It came to represent some of those qualities and took on a meaning of someone who thinks they are special and unique. I might even argue in that context many conservatives are guilty of the opposite- thinking everyone is like them. That because they "pulled themselves up by the bootstraps" to relative wealth everyone can, or that everyone has the same opportunities, the same values, and anyone otherwise is lazy, not willing to "do what it takes" or are somehow deviant or mentally infirmed. Oddly we are all unique but also very similar to many others at once. Insects and machines can be very efficient because they tend to use interchangeable and near identical components, with only a single path and purpose. Unfortunately diversity means you can't maximize the performance for any one person without expense to the others, as a human I'd rather live in a less than optimum compromise of diversity than be an insect living in identical order.
You make a very good point, however there are two things I'd like to say. Firstly, I think there is a bit of snowflakeism there as well, because many conservatives believe it was THEM who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, and no-one else. They are the hardworking ones, everyone else is lazy etc. That is pretty special-snowflakey. Similarly, not being able to handle liberal opinions is quite weak (and therefore snowflakey) as well.
Secondly, the term snowflake has been kind of changed in the past years, and now it means someone who gets offended easily, which imo applies to people on both sides.
However, I 100% agree with the second part of your comment. I'd rather live in a diverse society that gives everyone equal opportunities than a hive mind.
Imho realistically by that definition I've never met anyone who isn't a "snowflake" unless they were a sociopath or something. I suppose that by the first definition being a special snowflake is in inherent human trait to a socially healthy mind, as most things require us to believe in ourselves even when an action has less to do with our actions and more relies on external factors beyond control. By the second definition everyone is too easily offended by something unless they care about nothing including themselves. But- I also suppose it is the price of that diversity we both prize. Where people are individuals we can't know everyone well, and it would be impossible to live a day without doing something someone could be offended by. So I guess the question is after we find out what upsets someone how we handle ourselves.
I have never used it to for somebody who got offended easy, those are just pantywaists. I have always and will continue to use snowflake to describe those that think they are somehow more special or important than anybody else.
@guest_ You're probably right, I've never thought of it that way. It's just the price we pay for being tolerant of different opinions. And that's a good thing, there is no universal truth and diverse opinions are healthy for society (when they have a factual base of course, I don't think that flat-Earthers are good for society at all). I only wish people discussed more, I see it far too often that people attack each other with ad hominems and strawmen rather than give each other a rational discussion.
@pokethebear Good on you. I've been getting rather confused with these buzz words lately, as they are often being used interchangeably,
@ewqua- we certainly can't know universal truth, so it is odd that many people seem to cling to an opinion as though it were the only truth. I find you can often tell how weak someone's position is by how rabidly they try to defend it. I agree that discussion is rarer than it should be, if we are trying to exchange ideas or share perspectives with people, provoking or allowing provocation to anger merely creates an exchange where people either struggle to be the "winner" or simply to hurt the other- there's no point.
Secondly, the term snowflake has been kind of changed in the past years, and now it means someone who gets offended easily, which imo applies to people on both sides.
However, I 100% agree with the second part of your comment. I'd rather live in a diverse society that gives everyone equal opportunities than a hive mind.
@pokethebear Good on you. I've been getting rather confused with these buzz words lately, as they are often being used interchangeably,