Generation Snowflake

Fluffy Cat 88

When an 80 year old compares themselves to a 50 year old they probably see someone who hasn't endured hardship like their own generation.

Life is easier nowadays (back breaking manual labour isn't commonplace), we have clean, warm, comfortable homes, reliable cars etc.

But the snowflakes aren't exclusive to any particular generation. There are some utterly useless adults of all ages out there. Ones who never boiled a kettle. Middle aged single men whose mammys still wash their hair. Eejits who have their parents look after their finances.

It's wrong to assume all the useless backstards are of the young generation.

wakka12

Fluffy Cat 88 wrote: »

When an 80 year old compares themselves to a 50 year old they probably see someone who hasn't endured hardship like their own generation.

Life is easier nowadays (back breaking manual labour isn't commonplace), we have clean, warm, comfortable homes, reliable cars etc.

But the snowflakes aren't exclusive to any particular generation. There are some utterly useless adults of all ages out there. Ones who never boiled a kettle. Middle aged single men whose mammys still wash their hair. Eejits who have their parents look after their finances.

It's wrong to assume all the useless backstards are of the young generation.

Yeh now we cant get jobs at all, so much better. As a student its hard to get a job, very hard. The bestI can get is a few ****ty hours here in there as a waiter in a cafe. What Id give for some decent hours of manual labour

Fluffy Cat 88

wakka12 wrote: »

Yeh now we cant get jobs at all, so much better. As a student its hard to get a job, very hard. The bestI can get is a few ****ty hours here in there as a waiter in a cafe. What Id give for some decent hours of manual labour

Manual labour nowadays isn't the same as the 1940s and 50s. The men of that era carried 8 stone bags on their backs, no health and safety in those days.

Manual work (which I do myself) nowadays is safe, still tough sometimes, but do-able. I should have made that comparison in my above post.

I hope you find a better job soon.

ClovenHoof

ClovenHoof wrote: »

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.

You misinterpret me. I did not suggest censorship.

But it's the snowflake generation that say "they can't be challenged on their qualifications".

Of course they can. Why not? Why does this simple idea upset some people?

When a quote seems full of generalisations and guff, I'm entitled to ask if it was based on research or just fired out at random.

We live in an age when people like the Happy Pear Twins and Gillian McKeith sell pseudo science and guff aimed squarely at snowflakers. What's wrong with asking about qualifications?

Lyaiera

Deleted User wrote: »

You misinterpret me. I did not suggest censorship.

But it's the snowflake generation that say "they can't be challenged on their qualifications".

Of course they can. Why not? Why does this simple idea upset some people?

When a quote seems full of generalisations and guff, I'm entitled to ask if it was based on research or just fired out at random.

We live in an age when people like the Happy Pear Twins and Gillian McKeith sell pseudo science and guff aimed squarely at snowflakers. What's wrong with asking about qualifications?

Strong credentials are a good indicator, as is publication of past work in respected journals, as well as the actual titles of their work. However I think there's a lot of extremely valuable work being done by people with no formal qualifications in a particular area coming up with hypothesis and progressing ideas based on their synthesising of diverse fields. They're not doing anything scientific, usually it's a case of good quality scientific journalism, presenting interesting ideas on how things may have significance far outside the author's specific intention. It may be popularising some aspects of science, but equally it could b an attempt to bring attention across particular areas of research to other areas that may not necessarily be aware of each other. Also, it's fun.

I also think there's a lot of bolloxology going on with credentials. Where people use their credentials and achievements (sometimes genuinely spectacular, world-changing research and discoveries) to blunder into fields they have no place in and display absolute, stunning ignorance as to its modern research and areas of interest and demand to be listened to because, "I am a very important scientist don't you know!" And unfortunately some people listen to them purely because they recognise, "Famous Scientist Name" and think Famous Scientist is an expert in the area when really Famous Scientist has transformed into Celebrity Scientist Attention Whore.

Another aspect of this would be people so completely clueless of a field getting outraged at assertions from people familiar with the field and demanding credentials, citation, page numbers, overwhelming consensus, and a library of articles and books published in the last few years for what in many cases is a pretty basic, commonly understood theory or idea in that particular area.

Basically, do some research and engage those critical thinking skills to separate the bull from the real.

Wanderer78

Ah yes, project fear! Tis very lucrative, for the banks anyway!

brummytom

I have to say, as someone who's in this generation, I've never actually met anyone who sets out to get offended. I've been chastised once or twice for using the word 'cúnt', but that's fair enough.

The only times I've ever heard someone complaining about how everything's sexist or racist or whatever is in shítty "click-bait" articles on Facebook.

kfallon

brummytom wrote: »

I've been chastised once or twice for using the word 'cúnt', but that's fair enough.

Whoever chastised you is a cúnt!

Lyaiera

Lyaiera wrote: »

Strong credentials are a good indicator, as is publication of past work in respected journals, as well as the actual titles of their work. However I think there's a lot of extremely valuable work being done by people with no formal qualifications in a particular area coming up with hypothesis and progressing ideas based on their synthesising of diverse fields. They're not doing anything scientific, usually it's a case of good quality scientific journalism, presenting interesting ideas on how things may have significance far outside the author's specific intention. It may be popularising some aspects of science, but equally it could b an attempt to bring attention across particular areas of research to other areas that may not necessarily be aware of each other. Also, it's fun.

I also think there's a lot of bolloxology going on with credentials. Where people use their credentials and achievements (sometimes genuinely spectacular, world-changing research and discoveries) to blunder into fields they have no place in and display absolute, stunning ignorance as to its modern research and areas of interest and demand to be listened to because, "I am a very important scientist don't you know!" And unfortunately some people listen to them purely because they recognise, "Famous Scientist Name" and think Famous Scientist is an expert in the area when really Famous Scientist has transformed into Celebrity Scientist Attention Whore.

Another aspect of this would be people so completely clueless of a field getting outraged at assertions from people familiar with the field and demanding credentials, citation, page numbers, overwhelming consensus, and a library of articles and books published in the last few years for what in many cases is a pretty basic, commonly understood theory or idea in that particular area.

Basically, do some research and engage those critical thinking skills to separate the bull from the real.

I think when someone speaks of a trend towards catastrophising social problems like the author referred to in the OP, I think it is very much part of critical thinking skills to not accept that at face value and say "woah woah woah, what is this trend, is the author clear about what catastrophisation is, and what social problems are being irrationally aggrandised". And I think as part of this asking what the authors credentials are is very relevant. Otherwise it sounds like just a pretty neat sentence with no evidence to support it trotted out by someone with no knowledge of what they are talking about. I don't say qualifications or credentials are the beginning middle and end, but if it sounds like guff, then the authors expertise can be questioned.

gctest50

Fluffy Cat 88 wrote: »

Manual labour nowadays isn't the same as the 1940s and 50s. The men of that era carried 8 stone bags on their backs, no health and safety in those days.

Manual work (which I do myself) nowadays is safe, still tough sometimes, but do-able. I should have made that comparison in my above post.

I hope you find a better job soon.

they did yeah, here's them lads having a great time :

Kerrydude1981

gctest50 wrote: »

they did yeah, here's them lads having a great time :

Fair skills by that lad carrying the slates

tea and coffee

Samaris wrote: »

The Millenials (god, how I hate that term) may have some mild reason to be a tad upset, you know. They grew up in a rich, well-off country which then all of a sudden went to crap when the earliest of us were just going out into the workforce. They had their lives turned upside down, their prospects suddenly cut, mass emigration, and a constant barrage of criticism from the elder generations who, let me point out for the baby boomers, never had it so good themselves as when they were in the peak years of their earning power. Todays young adults are told that they may as well "give up on any prospect of owning a house" and this is treated as being a nasty sense of entitlement that they would even hope for an economy where they could own one, their degrees are close to worthless and now with the UK referendum, there was a strong contingent of the older generation - like the one that this lady is speaking from - who voted to remove all the benefits that they themselves enjoyed from being part of an international community.

And then they get slagged off, weirdly, not just for a political and economic mess -not- of their making, but for having the temerity to be bothered about how other people are treated in their society, and for working for a safer, kinder society to all. It'd be enough to ensure that the young adults of today became jaded and bitter and fought only for themselves, damn the rest, because they've been trodden on quite enough.

Generation Snowflake, huh? I guess I'm not so sorry that despite difficulties that they were not prepared for, I am part of a generation who is able and willing to think of others besides themselves, and even if it goes too far at times, as any ideal can, to keep trying to make society a decent place for everyone.

Keep throwing out dumb names and labels to make your children despise you if you must (for the relatively few bitter buggers that are trying to push this childish intergenerational war). I'm not apologising a whit for "Generation Snowflake"!

I thought the name referred more to being perpetually offended at any perceived un-PC language/behaviour, rather than a sense of entitlement per se.

To a certain extent, we all tell our "kids" about our "treks to school in the snow with no shoes, uphill both ways."

There is a lot of bandwagon jumping, in my opinion. People with no actual interest in the issue at hand, just looking to get "upset" so they can go on social media and get some like/ make a name for themselves. The college students- is this not a way to get their name out there? Some sort of validation when they are at a vulnerable time in their lives- Like me, like me, validate me, validate me.

It's a noble idea to have equality, live and let live, but using it as a weapon for self -serving purposes does the ideal far more harm than good, and these "snowflakers" couldn't give a sh1t about that.

They are a vocal minority, who would ordinarily be sitting in the student bar making an arse hole of themselves, but now (unfortunately imo) social media gives them a platform and a far wider reach.

Maireadio

Maireadio wrote: »

Changing the goalposts.

Not at all, if you read the original post, I said they didn't have architecture degrees. This was in response to a person laying great importance on actual qualifications.

I acknowledge that many studied architecture, visual arts, design, or engineering, often without taking a degree. But my post was always about qualifications.

DEFTLEFTHAND

brummytom wrote: »

I have to say, as someone who's in this generation, I've never actually met anyone who sets out to get offended. I've been chastised once or twice for using the word 'cúnt', but that's fair enough.

The only times I've ever heard someone complaining about how everything's sexist or racist or whatever is in shítty "click-bait" articles on Facebook.

I hope the person who chastised you doesn't use words like dick or prick.

Jayop

It's a load of crap and just another lazy term for idiots to use on the Internet to describe something they don't like. Over the past few weeks anyone on boards who I've seen use it has actually been the one acting all sensitive but there's no reason to point it out to most of them because the irony would be lost.