You can laugh or you can cry. The Telegraph reports that calling young people "snowflakes" could be damaging to their mental health. My take-away is either: 1) being called overly sensitive makes you overly sensitive or 2) overly sensitive people are sensitive to be being called overly sensitive. Can't decide which.

Don't Call Us Snowflakes

Quote:Being called a "snowflake" is damaging to mental health, young people say.

We have fascists around here who hate being called fascists.  The choice to remain fascists is theirs alone.  The same goes for snowflakes.

Actually calling youths snowflakes can be damaging as any persistent negative statement to youths as they are more sensitive neurologically to it  . And i'm sorry conservatives are massive snowflakes  so your kind has no business calling anybody else snowflakes. And yes min the right always bitching about how their called names .Hypocrisy at it's finest

. . . and so the pussification of America continues . . .

I doubt it's the term as much as the insult that goes with it.

(July 25, 2018 at 12:39 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I doubt it's the term as much as the insult that goes with it.

Yup

Yes, it's hilarious that calling people names hurts their feelings. Maybe conservatives should stop attacking teenagers.

(July 25, 2018 at 12:46 pm)Shell B Wrote: Yes, it's hilarious that calling people names hurts their feelings. Maybe conservatives should stop attacking teenagers.

Even more so when Conservatives always bitch when they get called names

---

(July 25, 2018 at 12:51 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Even more so when Conservatives always bitch when they get called names

That's the truly depressing thing about the current political climate (apart from the rise of nationalism that's stopping just short of full-blown fascism): the underlying mindset of both the Alt-Right and an alarmingly large and vocal portion of the people who resist them are fundamentally identical:

• A love for largely superfluous displays of morality that tend to serve no purpose other than self-reinforcement, 
  
• a dogmatic (and often very unrealistic) view of the way things should be,
  
• being alarmingly thin-skinned when things don't fit that dogmatic view of how things should be,
  
• A conviction that oneself or one's group is more sinned against than sinning (admittedly, this is as much a human thing as a political thing, but Twitter activists have turned it into an art form.)
  
• an increasingly rage-fueled approach to discussion that either doesn't know or doesn't care that it's only feeding each other's rage
  
• A black-and-white view of the world that fails to put the whole spectrum of human ideas into account.
  
• an implicit or explicit desire to get rid of individuals or groups that displease the political hive mind
  
• The fundamental question of: "How dare you worry about your selfish needs and desires when you can worry about my selfish needs and desires?"
  

It's not that hard to see all of these on people on both sides of the political spectrum (and prominent ones at that!), although it seems that, when party politics are in play (and not just activists on the sidelines) the Republican Party  is more likely to embrace them than the Democratic Party at the moment.

To be fair, one side focuses their sympathies on the traditionally oppressed, and the other focuses their sympathies on the oppressors, but, in practice, that doesn't really make much of a difference. It didn't make much of a difference 100 years ago when the Reds and the Whites were fighting over control of Russia after overthrowing Tsar Nicholas II, and it doesn't really make much of a difference now.

I wondering who or what is driving the appeal of style over substance that seems to reflect the current political situation....