Political correctness and snowflake generation

[surreptitious57]

A snowflake is defined as someone who can be triggered by the words of someone else
That definition applies to a very significant proportion indeed of the global population
One should therefore be very careful when labelling someone as such as it might also apply to them

[Greta]

A snowflake is defined as someone who can be triggered by the words of someone else
That definition applies to a very significant proportion indeed of the global population
One should therefore be very careful when labelling someone as such as it might also apply to them

Exactamundo! Everyone has their sore points that someone else will think is trivial, stupid or unworthy.

There is no need for us little people to fight amongst ourselves in all this. If we put as much energy into demanding accountability regarding immigration policies and multinational company tax breaks as we do into fighting over the things we're told to fight over, I expect we'd make better lives for ourselves.

[TimeSeeker]

A snowflake is defined as someone who can be triggered by the words of someone else
That definition applies to a very significant proportion indeed of the global population
One should therefore be very careful when labelling someone as such as it might also apply to them

Perfect demonstration of a trigger-word is to use the phrase 'God'. It upsets a large portion of this community.

My trigger word is "authority". You want to get me raving mad - try impose your will on me.

[Walker]

Everyone needs a safe space for the body, but to learn at a university, a student needs a safe space for the body, and also a challenging space for the mind.

It helps to know the distinction between challenging and unsafe.

The students in this video are not snowflakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8cLMyDaOlo

The In Your Face process for students that is demonstrated in the video, which is a method to learn how to think about what has been taught, requires:
- a safe place for the body
- an unsafe place for the mind
- trust.

The method can be applied to any content.

A brief video explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST-vED730gk


In the West, when the same spirit of In Your Face! occurs from intellectual passion, it is more informal, less structured with rules. Without rules, In Your Face! often gets fueled by spirits other than University, including alcohol.

[TimeSeeker]

Everyone needs a safe space for the body, but to learn at a university, a student needs a safe space for the body, and also a challenging space for the mind.

It helps to know the distinction between challenging and unsafe.

The students in this video are not snowflakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8cLMyDaOlo

The In Your Face process for students that is demonstrated in the video, which is a method to learn how to think about what has been taught, requires:
- a safe place for the body
- an unsafe place for the mind
- trust.

The method can be applied to any content.

A brief video explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST-vED730gk


In the West, when the same spirit of In Your Face! occurs from intellectual passion, it is more informal, less structured with rules. Without rules, In Your Face! often gets fueled by spirits other than University, including alcohol.

What about learning through failure?

That requires a safe place for the mind. Knowing that I will not be punished for my mistakes makes for a culture where people take initiative.
An environment where people are punished for erring makes for a culture where people follow rules (in fear of punishment).

Both kinds of personality traits are desirable in different contexts. The trouble is that a rule-follower cannot learn initiative, while an independent thinker can learn humility and understanding to understand WHY rules must be followed and WHEN rules must be broken.

The in-your-face model teaches people to make quick decisions under duress, but some times the decision needs not be quick. It needs be well-informed. And EVEN then errors happen.

If you want people to take responsibility you must allow them to err.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But you are still focusing on what the manipulators want you to focus on. Of course, some will simply like focusing on those things and thus might be not be as much dupes as accidental patsies. Most look to me to be duped, though.

Could you give some examples?

[henry quirk]

When 'occupy' was doin' it's shit with sit-ins and public displays and whatnot, it was center stage. As soon as it degraded to rape, defecatin' in the streets, and other degraded and degrading shenanigans, it was quietly shuffled off-stage. It's purpose as entertainment and agenda-pusher was depleted. You're seein' the same kind of thing now with 'metoo': vigor leads to oversteppin' leads to quiet disavowal leads to obscurity. The 'snowflake' (hypersensitive, hyperpolitical, hypervocal) is oversteppin', is bein' lashed back against, will get the politie, but firm, boot as well.

These transitory 'movements' are symptoms and results of...

*Generations of young folks are bein' ushered into adulthood without any rite of passage (without formal acknowledgment) so they look for tribes where they can get a bit of that.

*The (true) powers that be that constantly push and prod 'the people' in directions profitable to those powers. They grind away at the cultural psyche.

[Walker]

What about learning through failure?

There’s learning through failure, and there’s subsidizing failure.

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Subsidize failure and you get more failure.

This is why the refrain, “Too big to fail,” corrupts a system.
Failure initiates a beneficial reset.
Temporary inconvenience, long-term improvement.

A failing government education system getting propped up with the promise that more money will fix everything, is of no benefit.

[TimeSeeker]

What about learning through failure?

There’s learning through failure, and there’s subsidizing failure.

Whatever you subsidize, you get more of.

Subsidize failure and you get more failure.

This is why the refrain, “Too big to fail,” corrupts a system.
Failure initiates a beneficial reset.
Temporary inconvenience, long-term improvement.

A failing government education system getting propped up with the promise that more money will fix everything, is of no benefit.

Skin in the game and feedback loops. The only way to avoid moral hazards and principle/agent problems.

Failure must have a price. But it must not be overtly punished.

Either way - temporal discounting is hard to solve. Religions had good ideas here, but we are burning those down...

[commonsense]

Am I the only person who thinks this is all getting weird? People are frightened of saying what they really feel Incase they get judged? As an English man, and born on the 23 April. Which is Saint Georges day, this day is not celebrated anymore! Reason why? Because it is associated with racism. Madness!
Another thing which annoys me, and I think is unbelievable, that I read, I know this is going to sound trivial, but APU FROM THE SIMPSONS is to be written out as it has now been decided that it is racist, and stereotyping...sheer madness!
Please give me your opinion please

All I can say is that we are daily bombarded with new information and new knowledge that we can choose to ignore or choose to apply.

We can spend time understanding the new, adapting to it, even adopting its best techniques to our own methods. Or we can spend our time doing things the old way, unaffected by the new, contending with costs as high as before and achieving results no better than before.

Change takes effort, drains resources and doesn’t always reveal its benefits until much later. If we are Luddites, then change is not for us. But if we are alive and healthy, our lives are enriched by lifelong learning and, yes, change.

In medicine, it’s been taught that when a patient says he’s in pain, the healthcare provider must believe him. The healthcare professional must not assume that he’s overacting or too sensitive. It is the same with PC. We must not assume that the others are overacting or too sensitive.

Never knowing beforehand that Apu was a racist, stereotypical cartoon character, we never had to be bothered with PC annoyances. Only now do we know that the character is offensive. To the others, not us. To them.

We can continue to support the caricature as long as we are not concerned about how we treat them, the others. And it would by far be more comforting to continue what we’ve been doing than to enact changes in our behavior.

Comforting to us, that is. But impolite toward the others. Rude. Just plain uncalled for. Unless we, deep down, detest them. Then it would be OK to chuck PC. Do things the old way.

Beside all that, changing would be an admission that we have been behaving badly. That we were wrong. That we were bad people.

No, that’s not it.

It’s that now we have new information and knowledge. We’re going to apply it. We’re able to adapt to change. That’s something that’s necessary for the survival of the species. We can do this.

Oh please. Who is 'offended'? Stop being 'offended' 'on behalf of' others.
Apu is a 'racist stereotype' because he is brown, like most Indians tend to be, and he speaks with an Indian accent (which Indians who have English as a second language tend to do)?? PCturds are so racist, they think that portraying a brown person as brown is 'offensive and insulting'. How racist and insulting is that? They are so up themselves that with a bit of luck they will eventually disappear up their own arses.
I think I loathe PCturd hypocrites more than anyone else on the planet. AAAAGGHHHH!

The insult may be just as you say. On the other hand, the real complaint may be that Apu is portrayed as relatively unskilled and uneducated and he is easily recognizable as brown.

The offense may be exactly as you say. On the other hand, the real objection may be that Apu is the sole representative of brown people, i.e. there aren't any characters who, unlike Apu, are doctors, bankers, attorneys, accountants or engineers and such.

The archetype may be harmless. People from India may be hypersensitive. On the other hand, the problem might be the subtle message (so subtle as to be unnoticed by people like you and me) that all browns resemble Apu. Certainly, Apu is brown, like many Indians are. He speaks with a foreign accent, like many people who speak ESL do.

Apu also has a low-paying job. He has, most likely, little job satisfaction. He is a source of amusement, as most cartoon characters should be, rather than admiration, as most role models should be.

Homer, too, is a buffoon. There's no shotage of unsavory characters who are white, but their treatment is balanced by others in the picture. Homer is accompanied by whites who are a CEO, a teacher, a member of the clergy a friendly cop, et al.

I don't pretend to know what upsets anyone from India. Their sole reason for claiming to be offended may be as you described above.

On the other hand, their objections could be completely understandable. Their complaints may even be the same as ours would be under similar circumstances. I really don't know. Neither do you. The difference may be that I assume innocence on the part of others.

I am not feeling offended on behalf of others. I actually have no dog in the Indian fight. It's just that I was raised to be polite.

[Greta]

But you are still focusing on what the manipulators want you to focus on. Of course, some will simply like focusing on those things and thus might be not be as much dupes as accidental patsies. Most look to me to be duped, though.

Could you give some examples?

Already have done.

[Davyboi]

If someone observed, say, that the US flag is ugly and tasteless looking, do you think any snowflakes would melt down about it?

Or what if they said that military was wildly over-resourced and its funding needs to be slashed.

Or what if they suggested that background checks be compulsory for all people wanting to buy a gun and to ban semi automatic weapons in cities?

Do you think those square-jawed bastions of solidity who so complain about "PC snowflakes" would lift their little panties and squeal like little girls as they always do when their own sacred cows are disrespected? Of course they would.

After all, today the greatest political correctness is to not be politically correct. To show compassion or consideration to minorities is now disallowed as far as right-leaning snowflakes are concerned.

Notice how easy it is to misrepresent people with careless and biased broad brush sweeps? What I said just then was exaggerated and unfair - about as exaggerated and unfair as the usual complaints about political correctness. People taking swipes at others who they will never meet or have the slightest thing to do with, either physically or symbolically. Why do they do it?

Because the whole PC game is slanted nonsense. It's a MASSIVE and quite brilliant con job designed to achieve one thing - division in the masses, and thus achieve control.

Murdoch (and no doubt others) has been working on this project for decades - to isolate the "elite", ie. people who know what they are talking about who tend to falsify his publications' propaganda. Trump is doing the same thing, but with more extremity. So the media fosters a sense of aggrieved outrage and injustice in their customers about changing social mores, to blame the "progressive agenda" and a seemingly shadowy Illuminati style group known as "elites" (they bite the heads off children and sexually molest puppies, didn't you hear!).

Fox indeed - cunning like a fox. Divide and rule. If the people are arguing about trivia like children then we don't notice what's happening at the big end of town, and this helps to maintain the power status quo. Note that the status quo advantages the current dominant players who succeeded in that regulatory environment.

The divide and rule game works every time because there are always malcontents to act as dupes, and I can't see that situation changing any time soon. Rather, as people become ever more agitated due to overpopulation and associated declining living standards, there will be an ever longer conga line of dupes to effectively act as dumb terminals for manipulators of public opinion.

For instance, note that scaring away a few thousand brown people from your nation is largely symbolic. The "tough" governments are still quietly overloading their own citizens with ramped up immigration involving many MILLIONS of people, many of whom are respectable - (even white, for those who care about such things) - but they are still damnable extra bodies being crammed in with the rest of us. (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/program ... ds#history) (https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... ationFlows)

Why do governments do it? Because their corporate masters want more customers. Note that the companies generally either pocket the increased profits or send them overseas. They are also famously avoiding having to pay tax, cruising through tax loopholes that governments never want to fix. The companies sure don't tend to spend the profits from those extra customers on infrastructure to alleviate the accelerating crush loading in cities.

Somehow the media always seems to forget to start a campaign on the serious issues of excessive immigration levels and multinational company tax avoidance, but they can get really excited about some sad trans shmuck just wanting to pee in a public lavatory and keep the campaign going for months, even years. Imagine if that kind of energy was put into getting multinationals to pay tax or to significantly reduce overall immigration levels, or actually try to at least start moving towards renewable energy?

Because the whole PC game is slanted nonsense. It's a MASSIVE and quite brilliant con job designed to achieve one thing - division in the masses, and thus achieve control.! YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! SO RIGHT! THANK YOU!
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!
it's all about control, which makes you think why? I can understand why a country would wish to decive another country! But why would you want to decive your own people?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

All I can say is that we are daily bombarded with new information and new knowledge that we can choose to ignore or choose to apply.

We can spend time understanding the new, adapting to it, even adopting its best techniques to our own methods. Or we can spend our time doing things the old way, unaffected by the new, contending with costs as high as before and achieving results no better than before.

Change takes effort, drains resources and doesn’t always reveal its benefits until much later. If we are Luddites, then change is not for us. But if we are alive and healthy, our lives are enriched by lifelong learning and, yes, change.

In medicine, it’s been taught that when a patient says he’s in pain, the healthcare provider must believe him. The healthcare professional must not assume that he’s overacting or too sensitive. It is the same with PC. We must not assume that the others are overacting or too sensitive.

Never knowing beforehand that Apu was a racist, stereotypical cartoon character, we never had to be bothered with PC annoyances. Only now do we know that the character is offensive. To the others, not us. To them.

We can continue to support the caricature as long as we are not concerned about how we treat them, the others. And it would by far be more comforting to continue what we’ve been doing than to enact changes in our behavior.

Comforting to us, that is. But impolite toward the others. Rude. Just plain uncalled for. Unless we, deep down, detest them. Then it would be OK to chuck PC. Do things the old way.

Beside all that, changing would be an admission that we have been behaving badly. That we were wrong. That we were bad people.

No, that’s not it.

It’s that now we have new information and knowledge. We’re going to apply it. We’re able to adapt to change. That’s something that’s necessary for the survival of the species. We can do this.

Oh please. Who is 'offended'? Stop being 'offended' 'on behalf of' others.
Apu is a 'racist stereotype' because he is brown, like most Indians tend to be, and he speaks with an Indian accent (which Indians who have English as a second language tend to do)?? PCturds are so racist, they think that portraying a brown person as brown is 'offensive and insulting'. How racist and insulting is that? They are so up themselves that with a bit of luck they will eventually disappear up their own arses.
I think I loathe PCturd hypocrites more than anyone else on the planet. AAAAGGHHHH!

The insult may be just as you say. On the other hand, the real complaint may be that Apu is portrayed as relatively unskilled and uneducated and he is easily recognizable as brown.

The offense may be exactly as you say. On the other hand, the real objection may be that Apu is the sole representative of brown people, i.e. there aren't any characters who, unlike Apu, are doctors, bankers, attorneys, accountants or engineers and such.

The archetype may be harmless. People from India may be hypersensitive. On the other hand, the problem might be the subtle message (so subtle as to be unnoticed by people like you and me) that all browns resemble Apu. Certainly, Apu is brown, like many Indians are. He speaks with a foreign accent, like many people who speak ESL do.

Apu also has a low-paying job. He has, most likely, little job satisfaction. He is a source of amusement, as most cartoon characters should be, rather than admiration, as most role models should be.

Homer, too, is a buffoon. There's no shotage of unsavory characters who are white, but their treatment is balanced by others in the picture. Homer is accompanied by whites who are a CEO, a teacher, a member of the clergy a friendly cop, et al.

I don't pretend to know what upsets anyone from India. Their sole reason for claiming to be offended may be as you described above.

On the other hand, their objections could be completely understandable. Their complaints may even be the same as ours would be under similar circumstances. I really don't know. Neither do you. The difference may be that I assume innocence on the part of others.

I am not feeling offended on behalf of others. I actually have no dog in the Indian fight. It's just that I was raised to be polite.

Are you really that thick? This is all a bit rich coming from someone who murdered people because they were Asian (but this is entirely typical of PC hypocrisy).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

But you are still focusing on what the manipulators want you to focus on. Of course, some will simply like focusing on those things and thus might be not be as much dupes as accidental patsies. Most look to me to be duped, though.

Could you give some examples?

Already have done.

It would help, because I have no clue what you are saying here.

[Davyboi]

Oh please. Who is 'offended'? Stop being 'offended' 'on behalf of' others.
Apu is a 'racist stereotype' because he is brown, like most Indians tend to be, and he speaks with an Indian accent (which Indians who have English as a second language tend to do)?? PCturds are so racist, they think that portraying a brown person as brown is 'offensive and insulting'. How racist and insulting is that? They are so up themselves that with a bit of luck they will eventually disappear up their own arses.
I think I loathe PCturd hypocrites more than anyone else on the planet. AAAAGGHHHH!

The insult may be just as you say. On the other hand, the real complaint may be that Apu is portrayed as relatively unskilled and uneducated and he is easily recognizable as brown.

The offense may be exactly as you say. On the other hand, the real objection may be that Apu is the sole representative of brown people, i.e. there aren't any characters who, unlike Apu, are doctors, bankers, attorneys, accountants or engineers and such.

The archetype may be harmless. People from India may be hypersensitive. On the other hand, the problem might be the subtle message (so subtle as to be unnoticed by people like you and me) that all browns resemble Apu. Certainly, Apu is brown, like many Indians are. He speaks with a foreign accent, like many people who speak ESL do.

Apu also has a low-paying job. He has, most likely, little job satisfaction. He is a source of amusement, as most cartoon characters should be, rather than admiration, as most role models should be.

Homer, too, is a buffoon. There's no shotage of unsavory characters who are white, but their treatment is balanced by others in the picture. Homer is accompanied by whites who are a CEO, a teacher, a member of the clergy a friendly cop, et al.

I don't pretend to know what upsets anyone from India. Their sole reason for claiming to be offended may be as you described above.

On the other hand, their objections could be completely understandable. Their complaints may even be the same as ours would be under similar circumstances. I really don't know. Neither do you. The difference may be that I assume innocence on the part of others.

I am not feeling offended on behalf of others. I actually have no dog in the Indian fight. It's just that I was raised to be polite.

Are you really that thick? This is all a bit rich coming from someone who murdered people because they were Asian (but this is entirely typical of PC hypocrisy).
[/qs
What a lot of crap! How is APU a racist character? The Simpsons is built on stereotyping, every character is a stereotype! If you had the brains to understand the program you would realise this! So what, a certain minority of people are offended, AND? suddenly Apu isn't to be part of the show? It's an insult!