Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Generation 'Snowflake'


football forum
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, nudge said:

Depends on the definition you're using... It's pretty obvious that the generational date cut-offs are pretty arbitrary; it's just a dumb approximation anyway. 

But I think you're missing the point. That whole discussion started after most of the participants of the Apprentice (their ages ranging from 18 to 30+ so probably covering both millennials and the younger generation) weren't able to tell when WWII started. This 22-year-old fuckwit then went on the tele and claimed kids shouldn't be learning about it at schools in the first place because it's "too intense". So regardless what label you put on them, it simply leaves the impression that many young people are either thick as a brick, are way too sensitive and lack resilience to such a degree that they get traumatised by history lessons, or both.

And yes - I know that there are many young people who are nothing like that and that there are also many older people who would fit the definition. The problem is that it's the thick and the overly sensitive ones that are given the publicity to such an extent that it starts looking like a majority trend.

It's just some random instagram faggot, he literally has no clout and his dumbass opinion is being used to generate clickbait/ad revenue for the yellow press.

Edited by Panflute
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
3 minutes ago, Panflute said:

It's just some random instagram faggot, he literally has no clout and his dumbass opinion is being used to generate clickbait/ad revenue by the yellow press.

Fair enough - but when you continuously hear about shite like encouraging "silent clapping" or "safe spaces" at unis or calls to ban certain songs or rewrite certain classics because they are apparently offensive then it's obvious that it's more than just a few random fuckwits craving attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, nudge said:

Fair enough - but when you continuously hear about shite like encouraging "silent clapping" or "safe spaces" at unis or calls to ban certain songs or rewrite certain classics because they are apparently offensive then it's obvious that it's more than just a few random fuckwits craving attention.

Saw this today... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nudge said:

Fair enough - but when you continuously hear about shite like encouraging "silent clapping" or "safe spaces" at unis or calls to ban certain songs or rewrite certain classics because they are apparently offensive then it's obvious that it's more than just a few random fuckwits craving attention.

This is mostly something taking place in the fringes of academia that gets an unusual amount of attention because it provides boomers with something to get angry over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I just find the entire concept bizarre. People have values and they'll react negatively when people offend those values. I'm not sure what's warranted a new word to be invented. It's like "virtue signalling". As if people having opinions about what's right and wrong, and publicly advocating for what they think is right, is some horrifying new trend. Or that it's inherently wrong to sincerely express a moral conviction about something. 

If anything things are better now - offensive movies and tv shows, and even music, used to be banned and censored, even if someone was willing to publish it. Classic works of art like Catcher in the Rye, Ulysses, A Clockwork Orange, or even music like Frank Zappa's, all were hindered.

That's much worse than a piece of work being criticised and shunned, which is mainly what people are so scared about these days. The right to free speech is not the right to have your speech embraced or even accepted. It's definitely not the right to be given an exclusive platform to air your views - like to be invited to speak somewhere, or to be given a book deal or a job at a newspaper. Those are all privileges, which can be revoked. If people think something is an offensive piece of shit and choose not to fund it or hear it anymore, that's just a free society.

And if somebody gets fired because their boss is scared they could attract bad publicity or disrupt their colleague's work, then guess what - that's capitalism.

And if you don't like it, then just stop being such a snowflake.  

People will be mad about liberal outlets debating internally whether to publish right-wing opinions, but have been always accepted it as a given that Fox or Breitbart aren't going to publish progressive thinkers and viewpoints.

If we can't have a perfectly impartial media, then I would at least like to have a combative media with two sides. The worst case is to have a media where one side spews constant disinformation, and the other side refuses to properly defend itself. 

 

Edited by Inverted
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Moderator
42 minutes ago, nudge said:

Didn't know where else to put it... But it did make me chuckle.

 

 

I'm sure those animals with their vast knowledge of the human langage are deeply offended by this. Just a few nights ago I was wondering why I saw that rat crying in an alley. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

football forum
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...