Ruminations on "Thick Skins" and "Snowflakes"

[notHagoth7]

Additional response:

I suggest that it's much better for one's eternal welfare to get up from one's seat and let others assume one needs a brief bathroom trip than it is to wade through what might well lead to offense.

Reminds me of something said in the NT about how to avert the danger of where some offenses can lead. Such injunctions weren't about *never* getting offended. But included the admonition that offenses would come.

And, more importantly, it was about what to do to pluck out such offenses.

I know of a husband and wife, for example, who were childless for decades, and in order to pluck out continued annual hurt, simply opted out of two Sundays each year: Mothers' Day and Fathers' Day.

[notHagoth7]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

Done.

Your response in your new sig line is quite clever.

I imagine Scott is thick-skinned enough not to take offense. :0)

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, Rain said:

Done.

 

I am done being a snowflake....Rain, put it back up!!  Thus saith Jeanne!!!!  Bulll on Scott!! How's that???

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am done being a snowflake....Rain, put it back up!!  Thus saith Jeanne!!!!  Bulll on Scott!! How's that???

My post was pure spoofery, as USU would put it. I really don't care whether people have sig lines or what they put in them, for the most part. 

[Glenn101]

   I remember sitting in a sacrament meeting some years ago. The speaker, a highly respected former member of the Stake High Council, and a former bishop, spoke somewhat on parenting. He said that when children strayed from the gospel, got in trouble, etc. it was because of a lack of love in the home.

  I was sitting beside the woman who was soon to become my wife and felt her stiffen, then droop. I knew what was going on in her mind. Four of her six children had strayed from the gospel. She had been raising those children by herself for the past ten years and all of her efforts, her energy went into raising, caring for, loving those children. I had seen first hand how passionately she cared for the children that she had still at home and the pain and anguish she felt for those that had strayed. It was like a slap in the face for her. I talked with her for quite some time, days, about that.

 (although I really do try)Now, this lady was, and still is overly sensitive about her children. I am not a mother and really cannot comprehend the depth of her feelings. How she bonded with each of those children. But I am sure that the mothers who post on this forum will understand, and can imagine just hoe my then fiancees felt.

My wife does not call people out, because she tends to overreact and maybe say things that she would regret later. I actually admire the blogger who did reach out to the speakers and listened to them, and found that they had meant no offense.

I do not know that such people are really so thin skinned, because their pain is real. People like my wife, who have such a deep and abiding faith in the Gospel, who believe so deeply in the concept of eternal marriage, and who have been devastated by divorce, or the like, already have some raw emotions. And only a person who has gone through such, or is going through such will be able to fully appreciate just how sensitive some nerves can become. Talking about some things in the gospel can be "brutal" for them.

I am in agreement with much of what Smac said. We can observe people that seem to be too thin skinned. But, maybe we also can try to find out the why's and wherefore's and then maybe reach out to them to see if there is anything that we can do to help them.

I found with my wife that I needed to listen to her, to wait through a private outpouring of anger that was really grief and despair. That has really helped her over the years.

Glenn

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My post was pure spoofery, as USU would put it. I really don't care whether people have sig lines or what they put in them, for the most part. 

I figured that..I was razzin'..practicing not being such a snowflake!

[strappinglad]

Men in the church have been taught to be aware of widows and orphans. We don't see too many orphans nowadays. To a much lesser extent we are aware of widowers but just expect them to muddle through. Men can be just plain oblivious to the pain of others. It usually takes a good smack upside the noggin to smarten us up. That smack often consists of some very hard experiences in life, like those some here have related. Would it really be asking too much to review a written talk to see if there are some words or phrases that might be better worded so as to not give offence to someone who may be dealing with divorce or single parenthood or life choices that bring harm.? Ya, probably, but that shouldn't stop the ' sensitive " folks from suggesting it to the leaders who train others. Maybe the non typical nuclear family people could wear an armband denoting their particular ' differentness' just to raise awareness . I kid, I really do, no I don't, yes I do.

[kllindley]

 

 

[gopher]

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."

Brigham Young (maybe)

[CV75]

I keep a thick snowflake in my freezer... and some flaky skin, now that i think of it.

 

Oh, gross!

[bluebell]

I've been thinking about this thread for a while.....

First, i don't know that it's possible for us to diagnose 'snowflake syndrome' in other people.  We'd have to know them pretty well, i think, to know whether or not they are being thin-skinned or are legitimately and validly hurt by something someone else has done or said.  It's kind of like that whole mote and beam problem.  Theoretically it's possible but in application, there is no way to point out someone's mote in public and not look like the loser that is blind to their own beam.

Second, one way that i think we can become snowflakes (there are probably multiple ways to do it) is to believe that people should know that something is going to hurt us and therefore obviously shouldn't do it.   When we do that, our focus isn't just on how we are hurting, but on the person who hurt us.  That rarely ends well for anyone.  When we focus on a person we can start to see them as owing us an apology or needing to be put in their place or as an enemy who does not care about us or thinks they are better than us, etc. etc.

It helps to remember that it's rarely obvious exactly what is going to hurt another person or cause them emotional pain.  Sometimes you can guess that a topic will be sensitive but even then we still probably won't know how someone who we don't know or don't know well will react to how that topic is presented.  We set people up to fail us when we expect them to know how we personally need to hear something when they don't know us at all.

Fourth, i think that kllindley has it exactly right.  We are becoming a culture that is ready and waiting to express how someone else has hurt us and why they should know better.  We are a society that wears our righteous indignation with pride.  It's going to get to the point that we won't be able to talk about anything of substance or consequence.

 

[Eek!]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."

Brigham Young (maybe)

So.... are you calling me a fool, or was that intentional, in which case... are you calling me a greater fool??

Seriously, we humans have a propensity to treasure our grievances.  What we fail to recognize is that there is a price tag attached, and that price tag is our happiness. It doesn't matter whether the grievance is "justified" or not - it is always "justified" in the eyes of the person who holds it, and that price tag is always attached.

Forgiveness is not something that we give to the other person... for instance, gopher will probably never know whether or not I forgive him for calling me a fool.  Rather, forgiveness is a gift that we give to ourselves, because it restores the happiness that we traded away when we chose to treasure our grievances.  So in this situation, I can choose peace and happiness simply by letting go of my grievances against gopher.  

This is of course easier said than done.  Letting go of all our grievances (including our favorite ones!) calls for a paradigm shift.  It is more than we can normally do on willpower alone.

So we need to change our minds about the value of grievances.  Once we see them as offering us nothing of real value, we can let them go.

Where we do need willpower is, in shifting our paradigm, or in re-programming our minds.  We need to get through to our subconscious, and fortunately we can do that through something as simple as affirmations, provided we exercise the willpower to repeat them often and out loud (the ears have a stronger link to our subconscious), and use them consistently when needed. 

So here is a suggestion for such an affirmation, feel free to roll your own:  "Grievances offer me nothing of value.  I choose peace instead."  

I believe this is consistent with what Jesus taught when he said to "judge not", and I think it is also consistent with the attitude He modelled in his final hours, when by the world's standards He had every reason to tally a list of grievances.  

Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Eek!

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've been thinking about this thread for a while.....

First, i don't know that it's possible for us to diagnose 'snowflake syndrome' in other people.  We'd have to know them pretty well, i think, to know whether or not they are being thin-skinned or are legitimately and validly hurt by something someone else has done or said.  It's kind of like that whole mote and beam problem.  Theoretically it's possible but in application, there is no way to point out someone's mote in public and not look like the loser that is blind to their own beam.

Second, one way that i think we can become snowflakes (there are probably multiple ways to do it) is to believe that people should know that something is going to hurt us and therefore obviously shouldn't do it.   When we do that, our focus isn't just on how we are hurting, but on the person who hurt us.  That rarely ends well for anyone.  When we focus on a person we can start to see them as owing us an apology or needing to be put in their place or as an enemy who does not care about us or thinks they are better than us, etc. etc.

It helps to remember that it's rarely obvious exactly what is going to hurt another person or cause them emotional pain.  Sometimes you can guess that a topic will be sensitive but even then we still probably won't know how someone who we don't know or don't know well will react to how that topic is presented.  We set people up to fail us when we expect them to know how we personally need to hear something when they don't know us at all.

Fourth, i think that kllindley has it exactly right.  We are becoming a culture that is ready and waiting to express how someone else has hurt us and why they should know better.  We are a society that wears our righteous indignation with pride.  It's going to get to the point that we won't be able to talk about anything of substance or consequence.

 

I agree with what you have said, but I think that only part of society is waiting to be hurt.  Another part is taking it upon themselves to diagnose 'snowflake syndrome'.  We have a hard time talking about substance because both parts react rather than listen and act together.

[Teancum]

On 9/10/2016 at 1:33 PM, smac97 said:

No, I didn't.  I did not take offense, nor did I call for the author's post to be censored (I provided a direct link to it, for pete's sake).

Can you see a difference between principled, reasoned disagreement and critique (which I did do) and acting like a Snowflake (which I did not do)?

Thanks!

-Smac

If you have to take offense and argue for censorship to be a snowflake than perhaps you did not do that.   But I found your strong and even flamboyant language criticizing the blogger as someone who sounded as offended by what she had to say as you were by what she said. 

And if the blog did not offend you that certainly was not evident in your post at least based on the language you used.

 

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

 ...only part of society is waiting to be hurt.  Another part is taking it upon themselves to diagnose 'snowflake syndrome'. 

Imo both parts of society have the same basic problem, they're just exhibiting it through (slightly) different symptoms.  

Imo the key to peaceful co-existence is not a thickening of skin, but a shifting of paradigm (see my post above).  

 

Edited September 11, 2016 by Eek!

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I agree with what you have said, but I think that only part of society is waiting to be hurt.  Another part is taking it upon themselves to diagnose 'snowflake syndrome'.  We have a hard time talking about substance because both parts react rather than listen and act together.

That definitely could be. I haven't noticed it personally.

I see an almost constant flow of blogs called things like "letter to the woman who looked at me weird at the park" or "things not to say in front of a stay at home mom/working mom/mother with twins/a woman on vacation, etc. on my yahoo news feed. I haven't seen any dedicated to snowflakes (Smac's use of the term in this thread is the first time I had heard it) but I'm not surprised that it's a new theme on the rise. 

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That definitely could be. I haven't noticed it personally.

I see an almost constant flow of blogs called things like "letter to the woman who looked at me weird at the park" or "things not to say in front of a stay at home mom/working mom/mother with twins/a woman on vacation, etc. on my yahoo news feed. I haven't seen any dedicated to snowflakes (Smac's use of the term in this thread is the first time I had heard it) but I'm not surprised that it's a new theme on the rise. 

I see more of the over sensitive thing on blogs or places where people speak individually.  I see more of the other side in groups, discussion boards or groups of friends though they may not specifically say "snowflake". And like I said above I've almost always heard it in connection with "helicopter mom."  More often I hear about people being overly sensitive and the reaction against that in political discussions.

I've known about the term "snowflake" for a long time from a message board I have visited. I was there since before 2001, but I would say I only became familiar with the term about 10 years ago.  According to one source I found the term started from from the 1999 movie Fight Club, don't know if that is true or not. It seems much more well known now though.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Rain

[bsjkki]

I see both sides of the argument.  Sometimes I just want to tell people to buck-up...I can't believe their little tiny offense or trial is worthy of the upset.  But, then, I've seen this used as a weapon to demean people, marginalize and bully others.  They blame the victim and try to tell them it shouldn't hurt and they are getting upset over nothing.  Bully's do this really well and then they get everyone else to believe their victims are just being "sensitive."  I always say Bednar's, Don't Get Offended talk, (often represented in a way he did not express) should be paired with Uchtdorf's Stop It talk and all would be well.  We do need to not be too easily offended because it makes a person miserable and we also need to Stop being rude and offensive.

[bsjkki]

...and I recognize that today I was "offended" on another thread and reacted in a rude, offensive way.

[gopher]

16 hours ago, Eek! said:

So here is a suggestion for such an affirmation, feel free to roll your own:  "Grievances offer me nothing of value.  I choose peace instead."  

Wise counsel.  Not only do we hurt ourselves further by holding on to offenses, but we often hurt our relationships with others, which brings more hurt to ourselves.  It's a vicious cycle.

[smac97]

So Bret Easton Ellis, author of American Psycho (not the most stellar credential, that), has posted a podcast "attack{ing} 'PC victim culture,' microaggressions, and campus crybabies."

Having only read some excerpts at the above link, I can't vouch for the entirety of what Mr. Ellis is saying.  In fact, I don't agree with everything in the excerpts.  But I think a lot of what he is saying is sensible, and important.  Some examples:

Quote

“But victimizing oneself is like a drug. It feels so delicious,” he mocked. “I get so much attention from people. It is what defines me, what makes me alive. I’m showing off my wounds so you can lick them. Don’t they taste so good? Don’t they make me so important? If you define yourself through a trauma that happened to you, and that is still a part of you, you are probably sick and in need of help.”

“If you cannot read Shakespeare, or Melville, or Toni Morrison because it will trigger something traumatic in you, and you’ll be harmed by the reading of the text because you are still defining yourself through your self-victimization, then you need to see a doctor,” Ellis continued. “If you feel you are experiencing microaggressions because someone asks you where you are from, or ‘can you help me with my math,’ or offers a ‘god bless you’ after you sneeze, and you feel like all of this is some kind of mass societal dis, then you need to seek help. Professional help.”

Ew.  His description here is kinda gross, but sadly apt.  There are many people in our society who turn to "I'm-a-victim-so-validate-me" lines of reasoning in unhealthy ways.  By diluting the concept of "victimhood" to include absurdities like reading Shakespeare (or race-based dormitories, or clapping, or correction of college students' spelling/grammar errors, or replacing "homosexual" with "same gender loving" and "healthy" with "non-disabled individual," etc.), we are demeaning and abusing the word and the underlying concept.  We also do a serious disservice to those who have experienced real trauma, and who are real victims.  

When everyone's a victim, then no one is. I am concerned that our society will soon tire of pandering to self-absorbed yahoos publicly whining about trivialities.  Society will become calloused over and indifferent to the banal grievances of self-declared "victims," if for no other reason that universal victimhood renders the concept trite and commonplace.  But at that point, when in the aggregate society becomes blasé about "victimhood," what happens to people who are in real need?  Refugees?  The homeless?  Victims of domestic abuse?

Back to Mr. Ellis:

Quote

Ellis continued to brand the “widespread epidemic of self-victimization” and “defining yourself” by “a traumatic thing that happened to you in the past” as an illness.

“It is something you need to resolve before you re-enter society,” he stated. “What you are doing to yourself is harming yourself, and seriously annoying others around you. The fact that you can’t listen to a joke, view imagery, and that you categorize everything as either sexist, or racist, or homophobic, whether it is or not, and therefore harmful to you and you just can’t take it, is a kind of mania, a delusion, a psychosis that we have been coddling, encouraging people to think that life should be a smooth utopia built only for them and their fragile sensibility. In essence, staying a child forever. Living in a fairy-tale.”

I begin to diverge a bit from Mr. Ellis here.  Certainly the Snowflake / Self-Victimization phenomenon is unhealthy in many ways.  However, I think the pushback we are starting to see against such things may end up being used for a convenient excuse for our society to become even more vulgar, more coarse, more profane than it is now.  On this point I am grateful that the Restored Gospel includes teachings about respect and kindness in communications, and reverence for the sacred.  Think about how nice society would be if, on the one hand, the self-victimizing folks would stop complaining about banal trivialities, and, on the other hand, everyone re-discovered the inherent value of courtesy, kindness, and respect in communications (interpersonal, artistic, political, etc.)?

Back to Mr. Ellis:

Quote

“When I first started hearing professional victims demanding that things shouldn’t be posted or shown, or posts should be blocked, or people should be punished and shamed and blamed or fired because they offended the victim on some level, I’d laugh at how ridiculous it all was. But then get queasy when a certain faction would try and appease the victims, elevating them to hero status,” confessed Ellis. “But now a backlash is beginning against PC victim culture perpetrating itself onto the rest of us, instead of letting victims wallow in their own self-victimization, proudly asserting it, demanding everyone pays respect to their pain. A pain that, honestly, no one really cares about, except other victims. Because a victim is not active. A victim is passive. A victim is someone who can’t move on, and so it’s doubly frustrating to listen to their complaints.”

I think Mr. Ellis is correct here.  But I am also concerned that this "backlash" may extend well beyond the boundaries of the "PC victim culture," and may engulf people who really do need kind words, compassion, understanding, patience, and love.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Edited September 29, 2016 by smac97

[mnn727]

I think the OP needs to develop a thicker skin!

If the blog writer thinks being single in this Church is hard, try being married and childless.

[Five Solas]

On 9/10/2016 at 11:40 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

...

But a while ago, an anti-Mormon on this board was making sport of calling me "Snowflake" because I took issue with his anti-Mormon comments.

...

He called you a "snowflake" & you called him an "anti-Mormon."  And you were right & he was wrong because he is an anti-Mormon who makes anti-Mormon comments and that's a stone cold truth apparent to everybody, everybody who isn't themselves anti-Mormon, of course. 

Aligns perfectly with the last line of your sig: And the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none – and thus he whispereth in their ears. – R. Scott Lloyd

The biggest, baddest, nastiest anti-Mormons are the ones who object to your labeling--which serves to demonstrate how very right you were to label them as such to begin with.  Your logic is, dare I say it, a bit like a snowflake...

;0)

--Erik

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

He called you a "snowflake" & you called him an "anti-Mormon."  And you were right & he was wrong because he is an anti-Mormon who makes anti-Mormon comments and that's a stone cold truth apparent to everybody, everybody who isn't themselves anti-Mormon, of course. 

Aligns perfectly with the last line of your sig: And the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none – and thus he whispereth in their ears. – R. Scott Lloyd

The biggest, baddest, nastiest anti-Mormons are the ones who object to your labeling--which serves to demonstrate how very right you were to label them as such to begin with.  Your logic is, dare I say it, a bit like a snowflake...

;0)

--Erik

I called him anti-Mormon, because, by definition, that's what he is. People who come out in aggressive, public opposition to Mormonism ought to bear with pride the appellation they've earned so well (note another quote in my sig, "I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up"). 

I didn't really mind being called "snowflake" all that much. I never objected at the time. I only brought it up here to illustrate that the term can be wielded by critics against those who resist their attacks. 

Edited to add:

Thank you for mentioning my sig. I had begun to think nobody ever notices it. 

Edited October 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On September 29, 2016 at 8:54 AM, mnn727 said:

I think the OP needs to develop a thicker skin!

If the blog writer thinks being single in this Church is hard, try being married and childless.

I imagine it can be hard for some. 

On the other hand, a former Young Women general president is childless. So are a beloved and well-respected couple who recently moved from our ward. 

I think there's not a lot to be gained from comparing hardships as though there were a competition over who has it worse. 

Edited October 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd