Generation 'Snowflake'

[Inverted]

10 hours ago, Harry said:

I'm not saying he's not a lowlife cunt. He obviously is.

But I don't see why any person on the other side of the world would benefit from knowing about what some fuckwit new yorker said to some chicks at a cafe.

If he threatened violence he's broken laws. Hand the tape to the cops. Don't hand it to the masses of people online sitting there with big loud drums who are chomping at the bit for a reason to bang them. They'd be better off to get out from their computer and go and volunteer at a homeless shelter if they really want to heal the world. 

 

 

Sadly in America that's not true. Violence and mistreatment is perpetrated with very little meaningful consequences by authorities against racial minorities, and white guys like him are free to use the authorities as a threat against minorities because they know that those authorities work for people like them.

And no, it's not really important for the world to know about this guy. But why don't you say the same about the other instances of "snowflakeism" in this thread? Is it important for the world to know and laugh about some Australian academic's opinions on diapers and consent?

A racist psychopath with a long history of aggressive behaviour in public has been discovered and his life is being ruined.

The world is a pretty dark and shitty place so when something lovely like this happens we might as well enjoy it, in my opinion. 

 

[Inverted]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23582533/nfl-owners-approve-new-national-anthem-policy

The right wing just doing the usual.

[Dr. Gonzo]

5 hours ago, Inverted said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23582533/nfl-owners-approve-new-national-anthem-policy

The right wing just doing the usual.

I think this is pretty shameful that this is even a big deal in America. But it's probably got something to do with the US military paying the NFL to broadcast the national anthem and the players - but the fact that a silent & non-violent protest about how it's not right how American police murder harass and black people all the fucking time has upset people is baffling me.

Them kneeling during the national anthem isn't disrespectful to anybody other than the people who think it's alright for cops to shoot black people, imo. So the fact that it's rustled so many jimmies in America is pretty fucking sad.

[Cicero]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think this is pretty shameful that this is even a big deal in America. But it's probably got something to do with the US military paying the NFL to broadcast the national anthem and the players - but the fact that a silent & non-violent protest about how it's not right how American police murder harass and black people all the fucking time has upset people is baffling me.

Them kneeling during the national anthem isn't disrespectful to anybody other than the people who think it's alright for cops to shoot black people, imo. So the fact that it's rustled so many jimmies in America is pretty fucking sad.

Well that is just plain and simply wrong. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

39 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Well that is just plain and simply wrong. 

It's not like they're raising their middle fingers at the flag. They're taking a knee - kneeling for something is generally pretty respectful. In fact, when Kaepernick or however it's spelled first started this shit - he just didn't stand up for the anthem. And then people gave him a lot of shit, so he asked his friend, who was a veteran what a better way to protest without offending people. And that lad suggested he take a knee instead.

People say it's disrespectful to American veterans. But isn't it more disrespectful to assume that veterans find it disrespectful - especially when a lot of those soldiers fought for the right for Americans to have the right to peaceful protest.

So in my eyes, those Americans who are super offended at these players kneeling are really just broadcasting that they're okay with America's systematic racism. It's either that... or they're hypersensitive little snowflakes getting offended by a harmless peaceful protest.

[Cicero]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It's not like they're raising their middle fingers at the flag. They're taking a knee - kneeling for something is generally pretty respectful. In fact, when Kaepernick or however it's spelled first started this shit - he just didn't stand up for the anthem. And then people gave him a lot of shit, so he asked his friend, who was a veteran what a better way to protest without offending people. And that lad suggested he take a knee instead.

People say it's disrespectful to American veterans. But isn't it more disrespectful to assume that veterans find it disrespectful - especially when a lot of those soldiers fought for the right for Americans to have the right to peaceful protest.

So in my eyes, those Americans who are super offended at these players kneeling are really just broadcasting that they're okay with America's systematic racism. It's either that... or they're hypersensitive little snowflakes getting offended by a harmless peaceful protest.

I actually find that the kneeling is most disrepectful towards black individuals who would rather move towards harmony rather inflame racial tension by kneeling for a cause that is more a cultural issue than it is race. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 minutes ago, Cicero said:

I actually find that the kneeling is most disrepectful towards black individuals who would rather move towards harmony rather inflame racial tension by kneeling for a cause that is more a cultural issue than it is race. 

Is it a cultural issue? I think it's a race issue. Maybe a culture of racism... but it's definitely rooted in race. If you've got a statistic that cops are much more likely to shoot you based on the colour of your skin... it might be a culture thing. But it's also very clearly a racial issue.

[Cicero]

30 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Is it a cultural issue? I think it's a race issue. Maybe a culture of racism... but it's definitely rooted in race. If you've got a statistic that cops are much more likely to shoot you based on the colour of your skin... it might be a culture thing. But it's also very clearly a racial issue.

I think its everything to do with culture.

The whole initial purpose of kneeling during the national anthem was in protest of police brutality and needless shootings towards Blacks, yet in the past two years, 50% of fatal police shootings were whites. Blacks were at 26%, whereas the vast majority of these fatal shootings were because the victims had guns or were threatening the officer with lethal force. In fact, more blacks shoot other black people than whites do. In fact, if you are black, you are 20% less likely to be shot by the police vs if you were white. 

 

Again, this just goes back to being a cultural issue. You live in San Diego right? So you know fair well the crime rate of Los Angelas. In LA, blacks are 10% of the population, yet commit 42% of its robberies and 34% of its felonies. Whites make up 29% of the city's population and commit 5% of its robberies and 13%  of its felonies.  

 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I actually know fuck all about LA's crime statistics tbh. Are those of arrests or convicted offenses?

[The Artful Dodger]

Anyone who gets upset about some kneeling during the national anthem is a massive tit, do you get upset when someone doesn't like your favourite telly programme too? 

Crime, across the world, is linked to socioeconomic status. 

[Azeem]

I don't really get the idea of national anthem.

[Inverted]

The most recent development in the left-wing attack on campus free-speech is... a world-famous history professor asking the Stanford Republican Society to collect dirt on a left-wing student to prevent them from speaking out.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/148653/niall-ferguson-wanted-opposition-research-student

Yup, the right-wing is so free-speech and universities are dominated by left-wingers...

[Spike]

9 hours ago, Inverted said:

The most recent development in the left-wing attack on campus free-speech is... a world-famous history professor asking the Stanford Republican Society to collect dirt on a left-wing student to prevent them from speaking out.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/148653/niall-ferguson-wanted-opposition-research-student

Yup, the right-wing is so free-speech and universities are dominated by left-wingers...

You're doing exactly what the right-wingers do. Cherry picking and saying 'Hey, hey, hey, look the left are doing it too!'. You are the exact person you are mocking just on the other side of the river.

[Inverted]

10 minutes ago, Spike said:

You're doing exactly what the right-wingers do. Cherry picking and saying 'Hey, hey, hey, look the left are doing it too!'. You are the exact person you are mocking just on the other side of the river.

That's exactly the point. The difference is that when I bring out a story like this, I'm not trying to say universities are right-wing, or that the right-wing hates free speech.

All I'm trying to do is question the prevailing sweeping generalisation - that unis are left wing, and that the right-wing somehow defends the classical notion of free-speech - by showing that if you wanted to, you could make an anecdotal argument of the complete opposite.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Inverted said:

That's exactly the point. The difference is that when I bring out a story like this, I'm not trying to say universities are right-wing, or that the right-wing hates free speech.

All I'm trying to do is question the prevailing sweeping generalisation - that unis are left wing, and that the right-wing somehow defends the classical notion of free-speech - by showing that if you wanted to, you could make an anecdotal argument of the complete opposite.

  Who are you trying to prove it to? I'd assume most people on here are mature enough to know that no matter the ideology that there will always be people that contradict the 'dogma'. I now understand what you are attempting to do but when searched deep enough someone would be able to find anecdotal evidence to support nearly every argument. It isn't quantifiable to state 'the left is X' or the 'right is Y' because in their very nature they are just arbitrary definitions of two sides to an arbitrary mapping system. It follows the same logic that many 'communists' follow, when pointed out that the 'Great Leap Forward' of Maoist China killed X million people, they'll just deflect with 'that isn't real communism'. 

Overall it's just an exercise in futility because unless you can quantify that 'Z is left or right wing' it's just semantics. The right wing through their anecdotal evidence support free speech but at the same time through anecdotal evidence you say that they break that virtue. Then it raises the question, what is their fundamental definition of 'free speech', what is 'free speech' other than an arbitrary definition by the founding fathers of one country.

[Inverted]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

  Who are you trying to prove it to? I'd assume most people on here are mature enough to know that no matter the ideology that there will always be people that contradict the 'dogma'. I now understand what you are attempting to do but when searched deep enough someone would be able to find anecdotal evidence to support nearly every argument. It isn't quantifiable to state 'the left is X' or the 'right is Y' because in their very nature they are just arbitrary definitions of two sides to an arbitrary mapping system. It follows the same logic that many 'communists' follow, when pointed out that the 'Great Leap Forward' of Maoist China killed X million people, they'll just deflect with 'that isn't real communism'. 

Overall it's just an exercise in futility because unless you can quantify that 'Z is left or right wing' it's just semantics. The right wing through their anecdotal evidence support free speech but at the same time through anecdotal evidence you say that they break that virtue. Then it raises the question, what is their fundamental definition of 'free speech', what is 'free speech' other than an arbitrary definition by the founding fathers of one country.

Well the very fact that this thread exists shows that a great deal of people think that the left-wing, student youth is the party responsible for eroding free speech, so I thought an example of why this assumption is flawed might be relevant to the topic. Or are we just meant to shut up and accept that the idea of Generation Snowflake exists?

Free speech is ultimately a politically neutral concept - we see it as generally good - but nonetheless we have a wide range of opinions on what exactly it looks like. This means that in certain cases it can be weaponised, and ultimately the interests with the stronger media voice will want to push a narrative which prioritises their own freedom of speech - and that means freedom to denigrate minorities, political opponents, and other marginalised, weaker sections of the population - and at the same deny or skirt around the extremely privliged access to mediums of expression that their views already possess, and the mainstream acceptance that makes it ultimately easy for their views to circulate.

This creates for example the dichotomy in Britain, where various slurs for or jokes about blacks and gays or whatever are defended as harmless, or at least as protected by the notion of free speech, but a thing like the use of the term "gammon" in relation to the same people who make that argument, is seen as outrageous and something to be stopped.

I'm not trying to make any real stance, except to point out the the mainstream preconceptions that most people have about these issues are shaped according to the desings of those seeking to defend the status quo, and the ultimately weak argumentative strategies they can manipulate people with.

[Spike]

4 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Well the very fact that this thread exists shows that a great deal of people think that the left-wing, student youth is the party responsible for eroding free speech, so I thought an example of why this assumption is flawed might be relevant to the topic. Or are we just meant to shut up and accept that the idea of Generation Snowflake exists?

Free speech is ultimately a politically neutral concept - we see it as generally good - but nonetheless we have a wide range of opinions on what exactly it looks like. This means that in certain cases it can be weaponised, and ultimately the interests with the stronger media voice will want to push a narrative which prioritises their own freedom of speech - and that means freedom to denigrate minorities, political opponents, and other marginalised, weaker sections of the population - and at the same deny or skirt around the extremely privliged access to mediums of expression that their views already possess, and the mainstream acceptance that makes it ultimately easy for their views to circulate.

This creates for example the dichotomy in Britain, where various slurs for or jokes about blacks and gays or whatever are defended as harmless, or at least as protected by the notion of free speech, but a thing like the use of the term "gammon" in relation to the same people who make that argument, is seen as outrageous and something to be stopped.

I'm not trying to make any real stance, except to point out the the mainstream preconceptions that most people have about these issues are shaped according to the desings of those seeking to defend the status quo, and the ultimately weak argumentative strategies they can manipulate people with.

I thought Generation Snowflake was defined as a new culture of sensitivity, looking for something to be offended by, and being 'thin skinned' to the extreme. I don't think it's a phenomenon exclusive to the either side but it is definitely popular among those that empathise with right winged politics as they seem to be in a constant flux of being offended by the left, and it exists very strongly in many left-wing organisations, that dictate what nomenclature is preferential. I didn't say anything about people shutting up, did I?

You don't realise but you are manipulating people yourself. You may not realise it but just by virtue of sharing information on the subject you are creating a narrative, which is the exact same thing everyone does for better or worse. When you write statements like 'Yup, the right-wing is so free-speech and universities are dominated by left-wingers...' you are emboldening leftism and putting rightism on the defensive, which can imply some level of delusion amongst people with right views, and clarity amongst lefties. By constantly pointing out the right's hypocrisies while not posting much on the left's you are creating an image for yourself as anti-right and pro-left, which may not be necessarily true, you know the answer to that question yourself but an unrelated party can interpret that differently. For instance if I didn't know you were a reasonable fellow (or seem like one, we don't really know each-other), I'd instantly think you were drinking the left's kool-aid based on this thread, just like many assume that Fairy In Boots is a blithering EDL bigot. It's difficult to ascertain people's character online, and I think as humans we just revert to easily applicable stereotypes that we know well, instead of the complex creatures we are. We don't really try to understand each other, we assume we already know everything. 

Unless there is an objectionable truth in hard data that states that one side is more 'free speech' than the other, you, me, and everyone is just buying into the whirlwinds of identity politics. Which isn't something I believe we should be doing. I think it's a good thing you are questioning that general consensus but I think without realising it you're projecting an ideal that isn't necessarily your intent.

 

[Spike]

@Inverted also 'gammon' is hilarious to me because back home it is a local blackfella word that can mean a plethora of things, kinda like 'fuck' can. 

[Harry]

So I had a dispute today with a female colleague at work....

She pulled me aside to tell me she was offended about an email I had sent an hour before....

I sent an email to 3 male managers and cc’d her discussing a pure work topic. 100% serious. 100% banter free. She was not the recipient of the email but I wanted her to have  visibility of what I was saying as it was relevant to her work as well as mine. Hence the cc.

Her issue was that I opened the email “ Hi Gents”.

She deleted the email and refused to read beyond that line. She took issue with me not using a gender neutral greeting, and that I didn’t know any of them well enough to even know if they actually are gentlemen. She understood the email was not addressed to her but still took issue with it a offensive.

I’m totally baffled by the whole exchange and to be honest pretty peeved off that I’ve been made to feel like a misogynist simply by addressing three men as “Gents”. Is that something I’m not meant to be doing now? Do I seriously just have to apologise and suck it up?

Do I heed her advice and not do it again? And if so, what is the gender neutral version of Gents anyway? I.e. Not a cold term but that actually has some warmth about it. 

[Bluebird Hewitt]

10 minutes ago, Harry said:

If so, what is the gender neutral version of Gents anyway? I.e. Not a cold term but that actually has some warmth about it. 

Cunts?

[Cicero]

18 minutes ago, Harry said:

Do I heed her advice and not do it again? And if so, what is the gender neutral version of Gents anyway? I.e. Not a cold term but that actually has some warmth about it. 

Just say 'All', what I normally do. This is something I'd be willing to adhere to. However, If she were to come up to you for getting offended that you called her a she when she doesn't recognise herself as a female (although biology clearly does) i'd politely tell her to fuck off. 

[Harry]

On 03/06/2018 at 07:06, Inverted said:

Well the very fact that this thread exists shows that a great deal of people think that the left-wing, student youth is the party responsible for eroding free speech, so I thought an example of why this assumption is flawed might be relevant to the topic. Or are we just meant to shut up and accept that the idea of Generation Snowflake exists?

Free speech is ultimately a politically neutral concept - we see it as generally good - but nonetheless we have a wide range of opinions on what exactly it looks like. This means that in certain cases it can be weaponised, and ultimately the interests with the stronger media voice will want to push a narrative which prioritises their own freedom of speech - and that means freedom to denigrate minorities, political opponents, and other marginalised, weaker sections of the population - and at the same deny or skirt around the extremely privliged access to mediums of expression that their views already possess, and the mainstream acceptance that makes it ultimately easy for their views to circulate.

This creates for example the dichotomy in Britain, where various slurs for or jokes about blacks and gays or whatever are defended as harmless, or at least as protected by the notion of free speech, but a thing like the use of the term "gammon" in relation to the same people who make that argument, is seen as outrageous and something to be stopped.

I'm not trying to make any real stance, except to point out the the mainstream preconceptions that most people have about these issues are shaped according to the desings of those seeking to defend the status quo, and the ultimately weak argumentative strategies they can manipulate people with.

Free speech is such a politicised term. But I feel like its being eroded in the workplace in a way that is detrimental to society. People that say things that offend any one person are treated as if they’ve committed a crime, and are cautioned not to say thing X no matter what it is and how reasonable or not it was to say in the first place. I see many good people made to feel like crap over trivial stuff and have their reality upended with some person trying to coach them to get with the times. Today it was me. 

I honestly believe this is having a detrimental effect on society as it feeds into this narrative that everyone needs to be wrapped in cotton wool and we al need to be fearful we’ll say something that offends someone. All the while those who feel offended by one term or another will become further hypersensitive and direct their focus elsewhere.  I’d argue that has a far more significant collective impact on the health of society for everyone to be living in fear than being a bit more comfortable being themselves. 

[Panflute]

27 minutes ago, Harry said:

So I had a dispute today with a female colleague at work....

She pulled me aside to tell me she was offended about an email I had sent an hour before....

I sent an email to 3 male managers and cc’d her discussing a pure work topic. 100% serious. 100% banter free. She was not the recipient of the email but I wanted her to have  visibility of what I was saying as it was relevant to her work as well as mine. Hence the cc.

Her issue was that I opened the email “ Hi Gents”.

She deleted the email and refused to read beyond that line. She took issue with me not using a gender neutral greeting, and that I didn’t know any of them well enough to even know if they actually are gentlemen. She understood the email was not addressed to her but still took issue with it a offensive.

I’m totally baffled by the whole exchange and to be honest pretty peeved off that I’ve been made to feel like a misogynist simply by addressing three men as “Gents”. Is that something I’m not meant to be doing now? Do I seriously just have to apologise and suck it up?

Do I heed her advice and not do it again? And if so, what is the gender neutral version of Gents anyway? I.e. Not a cold term but that actually has some warmth about it. 

tell her to go kill herself

[Harry]

27 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Just say 'All', what I normally do. This is something I'd be willing to adhere to. However, If she were to come up to you for getting offended that you called her a she when she doesn't recognise herself as a female (although biology clearly does) i'd politely tell her to fuck off. 

You get that I was sending the email to 3 guys though yeah? I’d have less issue not calling her a she if that was her preference. But what she’s saying is effectively “Don’t refer to men as guys”.

Am I not allowed to call out to two guys as gents if there’s a female within earshot? In what way is that offensive?

“Hi all” is about as warm as an ice cube though imo. Its also confusing to use on an email where you have people in cc - Am I now also addressing it to them?

Am thinking I may just be slightly quirky and ironic and just switch to opening all my emails with the line “Fellow humans”.

I guess that would probably offend someone though - maybe someone  who doesn’t believe themselves to be a human behind closed doors or has an alien fetish.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I love the idea of sending a work email with “Hi Cunts,” or “Fellow Humans.” But the cunts one will probably get you sacked, because being professional is a load of shite and fuck society for making me not swear when I fucking want to. And the Fellow Humans one will probably just make you look mental.

Honestly I think her hypersensitivity is ridiculous. The email wasn’t to her, why your opening line had to have her precious little feelings being considered is beyond me.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any tips on something warm and gender neutral to start with. My work emails start off as bland as a slice of fucking toast.