Generation Snowflake

OldNotWIse

chrissb8 wrote: »

"You can't just say that" Yes I can, it's called a f*****g opinion. Just because you don't agree with it you take some stupid moral higher ground and espouse to me why your opinion is right and why I can't have an opinion because there is a modicum of offense you take to my opinion. Well so what. That's the point of a debate it stimulates thought and questions your opinion and forces re-evaluation. If I'm so wrong prove me wrong explicitly instead of always taking some retarded view that I'm already wrong on a moral ground/ PC crap or whatever have you. You're not offended, you're dumb.

Stigura

KungPao wrote: »

Sure, you can't even call your dog N*gger any more.

I have. He's laying on the bed as I type this.

mariaalice

Could the Peru drug smuggling case not be related to this? for example not doing homework and when the teenager is not picked up and challenged about their behaviour they predictive themselves to have got away with it, instead of realising the teacher just isn't bothered with them time an time again they think they have got away with whatever it is. They never got to understand that behaviours have consequences. then when they are adults they are shocked when the world bites them back.

OldNotWIse

mariaalice wrote: »

Could the Peru drug smuggling case not be related to this? for example not doing homework and when the teenager is not picked up and challenged about their behaviour they predictive themselves to have got away with it, instead of realising the teacher just isn't bothered with them time an time again they think they have got away with whatever it is. They never got to under stand that behaviour have consequences. then when they are adults they are shocked when the world bites them back.

what

mariaalice

OldNotWIse wrote: »

what

The interview where she said she did it so she could boast about it!! and never seemed to have made the connection to being jailed for braking the law, now unless she is very very dim that indicated a life of never have had to face any consonances.

ScumLord

mariaalice wrote: »

The interview where she said she did it so she could boast about it!! and never seemed to have made the connection to being jailed for braking the law, now unless she is very very dim that indicated a life of never have had to face any consonances.

It's a side effect of youth. Teenagers and young adults take risks and simply don't consider the consequences. It's probably some left over instinct to attract mates.

It is a thing these days though where people get a little bit of information and assume we know enough about the subject to start making judgements.

mariaalice

ScumLord wrote: »

It's a side effect of youth. Teenagers and young adults take risks and simply don't consider the consequences. It's probably some left over instinct to attract mates.

It is a thing these days though where people get a little bit of information and assume we know enough about the subject to start making judgements.

I will defer to you knowledge on this but having to face consonance as a child is the start of training in how to judge a situation as an adult.

NIMAN

The thing that annoys me is how people are continually being forced to apologise for things they do or opinions they express.

Its not a sin to offend someone or do something minor that others don't agree with.

The latest is the German football manager, who had a scratch n sniff incident at the Euros, then felt the need to apologise to the world the next day. Why did he felt he had to apologise? Who was offended by a guy scratching his stones? If you were, you need to catch yourself on or life is going to hit you really hard some day.

Irish Guitarist

I don't think it's a generational thing. I think it's more to do with people on the internet trying to appear to be holier than thou. I know people who care about whatever the latest issue is (whether it be gay marriage or transsexual men/women using whatever toilet they want) but only on Facebook. These are people in their fifties that I've known all my life and I've never known them to care about these issues outside of the internet but as soon as they get on Facebook you'd think they care about every injustice in the world.

Samaris

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Your first paragraph kind of makes me want to sit in the corner and weep :mad: I thought I had it good.... :eek:

Really not sure if sarcasm or not

Every generation has its troubles, and every generation grows up into them trying to understand how to fit into a world that isn't the one their parents trained them up for. It's always been the same way - or at least since approximately the Industrial Revolution.

I don't really see the point in grumping about damn kids these days. Everyone's parents generation grumped about them too!

Saipanne

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/if-you-re-a-young-white-straight-man-today-you-re-in-trouble-1.2696818

lawlolawl

I heard it best described as: "No one has the right not to be offended".

Sure you can think i'm awful for saying something and disagree 100% with what i say but it doesn't mean i shouldn't say it just to save your feelings. Nor should you hold back in your response to what i said if you feel like taking me to task on it.

Language policing is a very scary concept and i find it more than a bit ironic that it is usually people who identify as liberals that are telling people what they "can and can't say".

NiallBoo

lawlolawl wrote: »

I heard it best described as: "No one has the right not to be offended".

Come again? Isn't that logically equivalent to "everyone is obliged to be offended"

lawlolawl wrote: »

Sure you can think i'm awful for saying something and disagree 100% with what i say but it doesn't mean i shouldn't say it just to save your feelings.

You, me and everybody else does this all the time - otherwise you'd be calling your boss an a$$hole five times a day. We understand that we're all emotional beings and even if what we're saying is true, it''ll often have a different effect to what you want to achieve.

lawlolawl wrote: »

Language policing is a very scary concept and i find it more than a bit ironic that it is usually people who identify as liberals that are telling people what they "can and can't say".

I would interpret that more as "you can't say that...and expect to bee taken seriously"

Ted111

mariaalice wrote: »

I will defer to you knowledge on this but having to face consonance as a child is the start of training in how to judge a situation as an adult.

and I'll have one last consonant please Carol.

The King of Moo

AREA WOMAN, 56, THINKS YOUNG PEOPLE ARE SOFT AND HAVE IT EASIER NOW.

Samaris

As regards the whole language policing thing.

Is the language really so much the poorer for not using "n*gger"? How about sp*c and chink? Am I really so much the worse off for people's disapproval should I call someone a f*ggot or sandmonkey or c*nt? Personally, I feel oddly unbothered by those words being considered verboten, and not just because I dislike them myself.

Yeah, irony, I used * to get around the censor. (Don't know if spic would get censored).

Look, every ideal can go too far. Socialism can become communism (which doesn't tend to work on a large scale). Capitalism can become greed and doing down others for the sake of a few pence. Social welfare can become a crutch to rely on, rather than just to dip into in dire straits. Rape and gender can become difficult to define. But beware the backlash, where, because one feels it is going too far in one direction, one starts dismissing the whole business because "it's all stupid". Sure, one can argue that one can only take offence, not give it. But on the other hand, don't we all censor our words slightly to avoid unnecessarily hurting our family, friends, and, I would hope, strangers in the street.

The people who -actually- say "I really dislike you, you have a weird smell, and if you blather one more word about Game of Thrones, I am going to shove this printer down your throat, you incredibly annoying git" rather than "I'm up to the eyeballs at the moment, chat at break?" tend to get avoided like the plague, because honestly, does anyone -really- want to live in a society where everyone says exactly what nastier thoughts cross their mind at any given moment because they're too lazy to self-censor and act with a modicum of basic decency to each other?

silverharp

Samaris wrote: »

As regards the whole language policing thing.

Is the language really so much the poorer for not using "n*gger"? How about sp*c and chink? Am I really so much the worse off for people's disapproval should I call someone a f*ggot or sandmonkey or c*nt? Personally, I feel oddly unbothered by those words being considered verboten, and not just because I dislike them myself.

Yeah, irony, I used * to get around the censor. (Don't know if spic would get censored).

Look, every ideal can go too far. Socialism can become communism (which doesn't tend to work on a large scale). Capitalism can become greed and doing down others for the sake of a few pence. Social welfare can become a crutch to rely on, rather than just to dip into in dire straits. Rape and gender can become difficult to define. But beware the backlash, where, because one feels it is going too far in one direction, one starts dismissing the whole business because "it's all stupid". Sure, one can argue that one can only take offence, not give it. But on the other hand, don't we all censor our words slightly to avoid unnecessarily hurting our family, friends, and, I would hope, strangers in the street.

The people who -actually- say "I really dislike you, you have a weird smell, and if you blather one more word about Game of Thrones, I am going to shove this printer down your throat, you incredibly annoying git" rather than "I'm up to the eyeballs at the moment, chat at break?" tend to get avoided like the plague, because honestly, does anyone -really- want to live in a society where everyone says exactly what nastier thoughts cross their mind at any given moment because they're too lazy to self-censor and act with a modicum of basic decency to each other?

the other side is that these people that are full into this are quick to hate men, and white people and they cant police their own behaviour. its an excuse to spew hate and sound virtuous at the same time.

OldNotWIse

Samaris wrote: »

Really not sure if sarcasm or not

Every generation has its troubles, and every generation grows up into them trying to understand how to fit into a world that isn't the one their parents trained them up for. It's always been the same way - or at least since approximately the Industrial Revolution.

I don't really see the point in grumping about damn kids these days. Everyone's parents generation grumped about them too!

No!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ClovenHoof

Deleted User wrote: »

First things first, what are her qualifications in sociology, psychology etc?

If it's just a book of her observations about "things", meh.

LOL! You just proved the OP's comment bang on with this.

Anyone should be allowed to write a book, not just experts who played the academic consensus game ffs.

Herb Powell

AH SURE I KNOW, THE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE ONLY USELESS ALTOGETHER

suicide_circus

The problem with the terms "generation snowflake" is that it implies that the entire generation are precious lily livered whingebags where as in fact, it's only a proportion of the generation with this nauseating shrillness.

ellejay

BBDBB wrote: »

So let me see, words we can't actually use

We have the Q word, we already had the N word, the T word and after the Brexit fall out we won't be able to refer to the Uneducated


I think I can see where this is going

what is the Q word and the T word please.
I'm guessing Q u e e n? but not a clue with T

OldNotWIse

ellejay wrote: »

what is the Q word and the T word please.
I'm guessing Q u e e n? but not a clue with T

Transgender and queer. Good guess on the Q though!

Samaris

silverharp wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh quite, and I reckon a lot of my generation would agree with you on that! I am a feminist, in what I hope would be a reasonable sense of the word, believing in equality between the genders (please for the love of god, let us not go this thread though, 'tis but an example!) and there was someone on my facebook who was spewing the really far-wing man-denigrating stuff and honestly, it annoys me as much as the far-wing MRA stuff. But the internet is a ...what's the word... megaphone? It means that fewer voices get more air, but people read them, get angry, and start denigrating the whole movement by the voices of a couple of loud yokes. Same for any of these social movements, there are always some who take it too far - and, of course, "too far" is subjective by the reader! It is not "an excuse.." for the vast majority of people. It is a consideration that they take into their daily lives because they honestly don't like upsetting people or alienating them for want of a bit of common courtesy and consideration for others.

For what it's worth, I agree (as regards Huckleberry Finn)- and most of my age-group that I've happened to have discussions on that line with, which is, of course, a pretty small percentage! - that banning or rewriting books because the mores of the time don't suit today is a very dangerous path. If it's a book like Agatha Christie or Chalet School where "******" is used rather off-handedly (almost exclusively "working like a n*gger"), yeah, sure, it doesn't change anything to get rid of it, but in a book about life at the times such as To Kill A Mockingbird or Huckleberry Finn, it -is- a part of how life was and it's no harm to faithfully record what the author was saying. There is a difference between teaching students to read a book through a lens of changing social mores and removing their access to critical thinking.

bonzodog2

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sure don't dismiss it out of hand. I know it sounds crazy, but it could just work! It'll make great TV too. :eek: :rolleyes:

Caliden

suicide_circus wrote: »

The problem with the terms "generation snowflake" is that it implies that the entire generation are precious lily livered whingebags where as in fact, it's only a proportion of the generation with this nauseating shrillness.

The vocal minority as well.

Kai123

Kai123 wrote: »

Was it not protein from animals that helped evolve our brains?

Foremost of the nutritional factors that prompted the kind of brain development that let to the early human cognitive revolution are polyunsaturated long-chain fatty acids (N-3LCP's), and by far the richest source of these is found in oily fish.

riclad

Every generation thinks kids these days are lazy,or spoilt or something
else and whats that weird noise they listen to , its not music .Its part of growing old, gardai and doctors look young .And some kids get everything paid for ,go to college,
then get a shock when they have to look for a job.

Widdershins

Judging by the reaction of ,apparently mainly very young people to Brexit , I have to say yes, I believe there is something to the Generation Snowflake idea .