Generation Snowflake were in the news again last week. Not for doing anything new or newsworthy, just for being them. If your brow is furrowed right now trying to work out who or what I’m talking about, know that Collins Dictionary have come up with a definition this year – ‘Generation Snowflake: the generation of people who became adults in the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations’. Basically, they’re under 30s who have been pampered by their parents, brought up like ‘special snowflakes’, and as a result are now considered over-sensitive.
Why they’ve been in the news was initially down to a story in Times2. The paper published a piece entitled ‘Welcome to the Sensitive Snowflake Generation’; a look at who the GSF are and what it means to be one of them. In response, The Daily Telegraph published a reactive piece a few days later, entitled ‘In defence of generation snowflake – everyone’s favourite punching bag’.
This is a young versus old debate. Essentially, the youth of today shout about their opinions, loud and clear, and get furiously affronted when their worldviews are challenged by those who – for better or for worse – think differently. Their opponents are the elder generation who mock their PC, healthy ‘n’ safety ways by telling them to buck up.
Most people will sit firmly in one camp or the other. But as I’m neither old nor young (not the parent, nor the child), I find I’m stuck in the middle...
On the one hand, I do think everyone is entitled to an opinion, though as GSF argue, not every opinion should be heard. I am grateful too to the GSF for what they have done to bring issues surrounding equality to the fore, outing discriminatory attitudes as the bane of humanity, which they are. A generation that does this, whilst being far better behaved than the generation before them – drinking in the under 30s is massively in decline – seems like a pretty level-headed generation to me.
That said, there is a ‘however’… The emergence of the ‘quick to be offended’ culture, as propagated by the GSF, I find exasperating. This is largely because it’s a factor I have to consider most days of my working life. As a journalist, I’m often called upon to write my opinion. As the point of an opinion is to spark debate, I’m aware there will be people who won’t agree with me. That doesn’t bother me and nor should it any journalist; it’s part of the job to be challenged and in turn to challenge others.
What bothers me, however, is how some people (the GSF) express their different opinions. They don’t say they just don’t agree with a writer – which they’re perfectly entitled to do. More often than not they claim they’re offended, and this offence then turns to outrage. This changes everything. It takes what could have been a mere debate and turns it into something far more weighty – it casts the writer in the role of evil baddie, intent on hurting people, and the reader of their nasty pros as an angelic defender of the human good.
This offence-taking is then documented, usually on Facebook or Twitter. It then spreads like wild fire. In minutes, re-tweets and shares have blown something fairly innocuous into a career-ending crisis. Often those spreading it have no idea what was originally said; they’ve just read someone else’s take on it and rolled with it because it was OUTRAGEOUS. The writer must then apologise and grovel – or face a lifetime of trolling...
This is my nightmare scenario. In fact, I live in fear of this happening to me most days that I work. And it’s ironic because my views are not what I would consider controversial.
Note here, I do not mean to say we shouldn’t react strongly (or quickly) to things that are actually – and obviously – wrong. If someone writes something that is racist, sexist, homophobic or purposefully discriminatory, in any way, then yes, come down on them like a ton of bricks; I’ll be the first to support you.
What I’m talking about are people sharing a different opinion, and getting utterly slated for it. Like, how did you vote in the EU referendum? And how did you view those who voted the other way? As people entitled to their own opinion as is advocated by our democracy? Or as something else (with a few expletives chucked in)?
I’m not saying I’m any different... I too get outraged by people who disagree with me. And that’s why I’m stuck on the fence here – between the conscientious GSF who fervently believing in ‘what’s right’, and the elder generation who accept that not everyone agrees with everything, and not all opposing views are worthy of outrage and derision.
I suppose it comes down to belief in humanity. I like to look for the good in people. Not because I’m any sort of do-gooder myself, but because I don’t like to think there are many people in the world who are wholly bad. With this in mind, when someone posits a view I don’t like, I tend not to take to social media to condemn them. That just feels like character assassination.
If I react in any way, I’ll put pen to paper to write a considered response. In doing so, I am forced to educate myself on their view, which invariably leads to greater understanding.
Essentially what I’m saying is, Generation Snowflake, you’re on the right track. But at times, tempering the temper is required. You may not like to remember it, but we were all young once.