Talk:Snowflake (slang)

Untitled

This term was first used by Denzil Washington character in the 1989 film Glory when he refers to another black soldier as being a snowflake. Please correct the page accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.86.37 (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sticking to sources & not overemphasizing Fight Club in background

Text was recently changed to say usage has been pejorative since at least the 1800s with edit summary of "wording per the two cited sources". But the sources don't say this. The first source cited doesn't mention the 1800s and specifically refers to past positive usage. The opening sentence is: "We use to love them because, just like us, every single one is unique. Now snowflakes are roundly reviled." [1] The second source mentions the isolated usage in 1800s, but says it never extended past Missouri in the 1800s. Of the modern usages says snowflake was previously positively and was "the stuff of self-help books and inspirational posters and elementary school assurances. The imagery before negation is lovely; we are each unique snowflakes, each worth treasuring because each is uniquely beautiful" [2] I added these quotes to article.

Also, the entire first paragraph of the Special/Unique snowflake was deleted so that it then began with Palinuik’s Fight Club quote. This seems to be overemphasizing Palinuik and removing relevant referenced background information regarding usage for unique snowflake. The exact quote from the Merrian Webster source which said snowflake did not begin with Pallinuik was deleted with edit summary saying Merrian Webster is not saying it [3] but this isn't interpretation of the source. It’s an exact quote from the source.

I think this article has the potential to be a lot less disruptive than Generation Snowflake, if we stick closely to the sources. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't really necessary to say "according to talking head, 'blah blah blah blah blah'". It's actually quite clunky. Just summarizing the article is usually better than quoting it directly. Also, I don't agree that Fight Club is overemphasized. It is almost certainly the source of the current slang usage. The Merriam Webster article alludes to possible earlier usages in the entitled/unique sense but gives no examples. You have not provided any either, so your claim that the term was originally positive is unsupported. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

These are not chunky block quotes. They are short quotes (from quality sources: Merrian Webster and The Boston Globe). The problem with “summarizing” is when the “summary” does not reflect what the source actually says.

For example, Merrian Webster does not say it’s possible it didn’t originate with Palahniuk. They say it did NOT originate with Palahniuk. According to Merrian Webster, and I quote: "Palahniuk was hardly the first person to use the metaphor. It's the stuff of self-help books and inspirational posters and elementary school assurances". You’ve deleted all the referenced text and quotes which say it was previously positive and did not originate with Fight Club, and then say there’s no evidence it used to be positive. What’s going on here? I get that you believe the term began with Fight Club. You’ve made that clear on talk:Generation Snowflake. But you are not a reliable source. Merrain Webster is. Even if Merrian Webster is wrong about this (and I don’t believe they are wrong), it’s still a highly relevant source. What this source says should be accurately reflected in the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You are POV pushing. There is no evidence of previous positive use of the term and the sources do not reflect this. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Merriam Webster's claim is pure speculation. They provide no sources or examples of pre-FC usage, and neither do you. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It’s not POV to include direct quotes from Merrian Webster. Are you seriously saying that I have to find an old inspirational poster from 30+ years ago to include the text According to Merrian Webster: “Palahniuk was hardly the first person to use the metaphor. It's the stuff of self-help books and inspirational posters and elementary school assurances.”? This isn’t my interpretation of the source. It’s a direct quote from the source.--DynaGirl (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You are using appeal to authority here. ("You are not a reliable source. Merriam Webster is.") Sure it was published on the Merriam Webster website, but it was not written by "Merriam Webster", it was written by one of their writers (probably Emily Brewster). Further it is not written as a scholarly article with footnotes etc, it is written for popular consumption. Without examples, it is pure speculation that "snowflake" was used in self-help books pre-Fight Club. The statement in the article is far too vague to assert this as a fact, and it even contradicts the previous statement that "That use very likely has its genesis in Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 cult-favorite book Fight Club....". MaxBrowne (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, it seems the "authority" you should refer to here is actually Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Direct quotes, which are relevant to the understanding the term, from a high quality source such as Merriam-Webster can be added to the article and they shouldn't be deleted based on original research. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Even though its Merriam Webster, if the gentleman is asking for an actual example and is not given one by you, Merriam Webster or anyone else, then the Merriam Webster speculation shall not count.--Mapsfly (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not actually how wp:verify works. We can include a direct quote from Merrian Webster, even if a wikipedia editor is asking for a specific example and even if he doesn't personally agree with what the source says. The current text says According to Merriam-Webster, however, "Palahniuk was hardly the first person to use the metaphor. It's the stuff of self-help books and inspirational posters and elementary school assurances. The imagery before negation is lovely; we are each unique snowflakes, each worth treasuring because each is uniquely beautiful. Palahniuk's denial of the individual's snowflake status struck a chord.". That is a direct quote from the reliable source. The Merriam-Webster source cited says that [4]. We edit based on reliable sources, not user opinions or original research. DynaGirl (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Just like Richard Lewis' "the blank from Hell" he gets credit for the phrase until someone else can pinpoint the phrase being used beforehand. Even though many believe it was used long before. If you can not show us a poster or whatever your referring to, then Fight club stays as the origin. I don't care how much credibility Merriam Webster has, they never sourced it or even gave specifics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 01:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor opinion that Merriam Webster is not to be trusted because they didn't show a poster isn't the sort of thing we can base our editing on. If you can find a reliable source that says Merriam Webster isn't to be trusted here, due to lack of poster, then we could add that argument to the article.DynaGirl (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Very late to this discussion, but DynaGirl is correct. The positive use of describing "every child" as a "Snowflake" very much pre-dates Palahniuks reversal of the metaphor. When Palahniuk says "you are not special, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake" he is actually disputing / contradicting a long held positive statement. For example, Eugenia Hepworth Berger in (at least as early as) 1987 writes "Children are like snowflakes. At first they appear to be alike, but on close examination they are all different. Focus on their similarities. But understand their differences", meanwhile later book in 1992 "Bringing Out the Giftedness in Your Child" states "Children are like snowflakes: each is unique, special, and vulnerable".[5] I am not sure if Berger is the originator of the concept within educational circles, but definitely by the late 80's the concept of teaching children by rote was being abandoned and personalised learning was being promoted and was commonly referenced in the UK and US. Koncorde (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Dynagirl was way too fixated on a single article written for popular consumption rather than as an academic piece. The article is also somewhat confused and at first credits Palahniuk with the term, then contradicts itself. She used the "appeal to authority" fallacy just because it was published on the Merriam Webster site in order to push a point of view, and could not justify her assertion that the term was previously perceived as positive when called out for it. Can mention the use of the simile in educationalist literature; that doesn't mean it had any real currency outside of academia, or was necessarily perceived as positive, prior to it appearing in a best-selling novel and blockbuster film. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Her single article is the only authoritative one. You have no sources saying Palahniuk invented it to support the claim that he "has often been credited" (the article in the UK Metro should probably be removed, it is using wikipedia as its source as it often does, hence its "general unreliability" on perennial sources). Instead you have his claim that he invented it, and you have Mirriam Webster article saying that he definitely didn't and referencing "It's the stuff of self-help books and inspirational posters and elementary school assurances.". I have provided at least two sources dating back to the 80's in educational literature using similar terminology which were broadly published - not just academia - and were popular ideas. There are dozens of books using the term or similar, or referring to concepts of a snowflake with regards to child education. In some they are literally calling some children "snowflake children"[6][7] some referencing the inspirational posters and again including the age old "every child, every human is unique and special" analogy[8] while in others they reference Perkins "Snowflake Model of Creativity"[9] or making the same statements[10] and others (dating back to the 1980's, again) wholesale repeat the same refrain of Palahniuk refuting the treatment of children as snowflakes (to quote "each child is special" "scientists tell us no two snowflakes are alike" "anarchists of education tell us no two children are alike")[11] (If Hilldrup doesn't know people are inferring children are snowflakes, he's making a strange refutation). Meanwhile the idea of each snowflake being unique is such a popular analogy that it is a popular enough to just be referred to as such in any number of themes and areas, but particularly around humanity.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

None of this changes the fact that the Fight Club movie definitely popularised the modern pejorative use to which a relatively direct line can be inferred, but we should be clear Palahniuk was either knowingly or unknowingly was rejecting an already long popular analogy. It is clear that the use of "snowflake" as an analogy for humans is much older than 1996. Koncorde (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

As I've said I don't regard the Merriam Webster article as especially authoritative, it makes vague references to self-help books and posters without giving any examples. I think this essay by Palahniuk is quite relevant though, in which he discusses what was actually on his mind when he wrote that line. "I wasn't insulting anyone but myself". [20]. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Sorry this discussion is bringing back bad memories. I found Dynagirl very frustrating to deal with due to her insistence on using low quality sources, linking to a terrible sitcom etc, then she'd misrepresent my arguments. I'm glad the use of the insult is fading anyway, these days the word "snowflake" gets more hits for the data storage company. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There really isn't a more authoritative source on word usage origins than a dictionary talking about the very thing and denying a persons claim (regardless of if the source provides specific examples of its uses on posters). It is certainly more authoritative than the author making the claim. Meanwhile I have provided a wealth of such examples in any case demonstrating the usage of the concept of snowflake meaning a child that is "unique and special" has been well founded for at least two decades before Chuck decided to counter the analogy. If it wasn't a known quantity his analogy wouldn't work. It would be the equivalent of someone saying "you child is not a unique and special cup of tea". There must be a point for it to reference, that reference is the well established ideal that children (like snowflakes) are unique. Koncorde (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Dictionaries don't "talk", and an anonymous article that makes vague unsourced assertions and uses words like "lovely" does not carry the same weight as a dictionary no matter where or by whom it's published. It is a source, but it is hardly "authoritative" or the last word on the subject. Despite multiple previous misrepresentations, I have never claimed that Palahniuk invented the usage, only that he is usually credited with the modern popularity of its use as an insult. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Dictionaries do talk. They are an organisation, organic and filled with people, who every year, month, week etc make announcements on new words, or new meanings of words, or changes. For instance last year they said the word of the year was "They".[21] Meanwhile they publish Words of the Week articles every week, and produce articles discussing the usage of words.

In short you seem to be expressing an extreme amount of confidence in the lack of significance of an article published by a reliable source that is both a subject matter expert, and a professional organisation with an editor and board of specialists talking about this very subject.

And I am not saying you say Palahniuk invented it. I am saying our article says he invented the entire "metaphor" despite it only being his unverified claim to such a title, and it being refuted by an authority on the subject that points out what can be easily verified by just searching for usage of the term. All other articles appear only to be referencing his claim, or talking about it entirely distinct of Palahniuk. Koncorde (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Tagging in @Aquillion, Doug Weller, Bishonen, JzG, Acroterion, and GorillaWarfare: for additional opinions. All have contributed to the article in the last 18 months, and Aquillion recently did some tidy up of the most egregious issues which Max reverted partially. Koncorde (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It's equally unsatisfactory to have the article effectively saying "the dictionary says this is lovely". I'm not a fan of excessively long quotes and appeals to authority, especially when "the dictionary" is actually an article written more for entertainment purposes than academic rigour. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware of me saying that, or suggesting the article says that, or including some excessively long quotes. I am stating that your position (and Mapsfly for that matter) held that somehow the Miriam Webster website lacks standing for their content because of a variety of unsupported personal opinions is not only observably and demonstrably false, but as DynaGirl pointed out: directly contradicts WP:VERIFY and is blatant WP:OR. Repeating the claim that this is an "appeal to authority" is at best an attempt to disrupt the normal process of sourcing to reliable sources.

To be clear: I am not nor have not, made any argument supporting DynaGirls version of the article - I am merely pointing out that she was correct in her assertions. Arguments made against her position were at best ridiculous, and in the case of requesting the reliable source show their working out, definitely intentionally a disruptive and misleading POV held by yourself. We do not apply any equal stringency to the other sources used to support the claim as you do to Miriam Webster. Koncorde (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Saying "according to Merriam Webster" as if a rather confusing and contradictory article has the same status as a dictionary entry is the very definition of "appeal to authority". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You keep pressing this "appeal to authority" as if it is a gotcha, when there is no evidence supplied to deny that MW is an unreliable source for any of their content. There is nothing confusing about the MW article. That is your opinion, for which you have provided no evidence nor refutation beyond your personal feelings. Unless you can find some policy to back up your position you've been rejecting the content of a reliable sources out of hand for personal reasons I cannot fathom. Koncorde (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You are just as bad as her when it comes to misrepresenting what I say. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Then do you care to explain why MW article cannot be used as a reference as to why the use of Snowflake as a pejorative predates Fight Club, when it clearly does so in at least two prior cases, and also why the metaphorical use of the word Snowflake to refer to a person as being unique and special pre-dates the use of Fight Club? Koncorde (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

snowflake slang as topic

This is an article on broad topic of snowflake slang and I think we need to be careful not to push this article toward a specific usage of snowflake, especially in the lead. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"Snowflake slang" is not a thing. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Snowflake as slang is the topic of the article. This isn’t an article on one specific use of the word “snowflake", it’s an article on the broad topic of the multiple slang uses of the word. Also, you’ve objected to 2 words, the phrasology of “snowflake slang” which you say is “not a thing” and “don’t use it”. Ok, but you used this rationale to delete over 1200 bites of text, including a repeat of deletion of the entire first paragraph of the unique snowflake section, making it again seem like it started with Fight Club, when this is not in accordance with multiple reliable sources. [22].

Regarding your objection to the phrasology “snowflake slang” to describe this broad topic, seems the answer here is also to just stick very closely to the reliable sources. Merrian Webster uses the phrasiology: “Snowflake as a slang term” [23], which seems like a reasonable alternative to the phrase “snowflake slang”, if you find that objectionable. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Some editors seem to be conflating two different things. "Calling" someone a snowflake, or "referring" to someone as a snowflake, is not the same as comparing a person's qualities to the qualities of a snowflake (uniqueness, specialness, beauty, strong when numerous, etc.). Calling someone a snowflake (slang) is universally derogatory, and appears to be the focus of this Wikipedia article. Comparing a person's qualities to the qualities of a snowflake can subjectively run the range from positive to negative ('special' or 'entitled'? - 'delicate' or 'too fragile to deal with confrontation'? - etc.), but when the actual "snowflake" label is hurled at a person, it is always as an insult. Even in our "Snowflake Day" elementary school classroom example, the teacher and students never called each other 'snowflakes' while celebrating certain qualities as positive. I have to agree with User:MaxBrowne that there is no history of positive use of the term when applied to a person; metaphorical comparisons notwithstanding. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I also agree that calling someone a“snowflake” was derogatory with respect to it’s distinct usage in the 1800s, and that it also tends to be derogatory today (although there has been recent reclaiming of the term as a positive). However, according to the sources, using “snowflake” as slang is metaphorical in that it’s either a comparison to the uniqueness, beauty, fragility or white color of snow. The use in Fight Club is described as metaphorical and is believed to be the inspiration for special snowflake etc. We can’t really have an encyclopedic article article about snowflake as slang without discussing the metaphors. The usage of it as a slang term is derived from the metaphors. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Merely chiming in at the end of a conversation, not responding to anyone in particular... Indeed, the title of the article should probably change to "Snowflake (person)" or—perhaps better still—"Snowflake (personality)", because it really deals with the qualities of a person or a type of personality, rather than a feature of slang, which would be more suitable for a dictionary entry. Besides, there seems to be a substantial overlap between this entry and the Generation Snowflake entry, which, with the exception of the "other uses" (of the 1860s and the 1970s) reads a specialized subsidiary entry of this more general entry. Perhaps the structure of this article should reflect it in a more prominent way, perhaps with a hatnote {{See also|Generation Snowflake}} in the lead. Moreover, a reference to the respective Wiktionary entry {{Wiktionary|snowflake}} at the beginning of the article would be most appropriate. 78.98.114.103 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Introduced in 2016?

This is included in the category "Internet memes introduced in 2016," yet I heard YouTuber Internet Aristocrat (no known as Mister Metokur) using the phrase frequently clear back in 2014. His original channel is gone now, so I can't link to any examples, but there are plenty of mirrors of his old videos. I'd almost go as far to say that he's the one who coined the phrase. –Nahald (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no question this phrase predates 2016. A ten-second google search yields countless results from years before: 2013 2011, hell, even 2008! - Mocha2007 (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Snowflake, and derivatives is a very old insult in a variety of guises. However, in the very specific usage intended here it is a much more recent creation. Historically calling someone a snowflake was the equivalent of saying someone was "special". I.e. they were pretentiously unique, overly obsessed with themselves. Very much akin to calling someone a "princess" (and would be used in a similar homophobic way in some cases). It then took on an ironic tone and was often used in the "unique and special snowflake" guise as an insult about how someone thought that they were superior and better than others, but mocking how fragile they really were. These two versions became early roleplaying memes (like 1990 through 2000's), particularly for the old online message board groups. A snowflake would be the (usually female) member of the party who just had to be the most beautiful, lusted after, slutty but virtuous, special combination of race, class and abilities with a tragic rapey backstory who would derail games with their dramatic oversensitivity to not being the centre of attention (and what they would do to get it back on them). This is where "white knight" and similar truly took hold (and the first "denizens of the internet" type lists).

Roll on early MMORPG and similar and the usage started to transfer, then ended up slipping into what is relatively common parlance. However it started to take on a wholly new political meaning as a more generic insult for people who were perceived to overly dramatic and sensitive.

However, citing this to reliable sources the meaning as portrayed in this article (or its history) beyond personal opinion and memory is going to be a struggle. Koncorde (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Snowflake being used to go after Right wing Politicians who cannot take criticism

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_60d2b807e4b0da66c2d928d5

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/don-lemon-donald-trump-snowflake-capitol-riots-b1786066.html

In two cases Jimmy Kimmel and Don Lemon accused former President Trump of being a snowflake. In the 2020's Snowflake has been used in rants directed against former president Trump over allegations of censorship threats.73.71.164.202 (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eywB_0ty-k

Also there is a political ad showing Republicans being labeled as Snowflakes because they cannot concede the 2020 elections.73.71.164.202 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/10/trump-impeachment-giuliani-syria-middle-east-kimmel-trevor-noah

Here is another example of Snowflake being used against the Trump Administration73.71.164.202 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/right-fragility-trumpists-adopt-woke-habits/617712/

https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/ben-joravsky-bret-stephens-nyt-right-wing-snowflakes/Content?oid=71562754

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/13/fragile-patriotism-right-wing-snowflakes-triggered-by-any-criticism-of-america/

Here are other examples of Right Wingers being accused of being snowflakes.2601:640:C681:C260:70A4:B5AC:516F:7CA2 (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The article already covers this kind of stuff. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol of (a supposed) fragility, or of (supposedly) being threatened with annihilation

The snowflake is so easily melting in the sun—everyone is so easily offended. 2003:E8:5F02:9A48:1D42:C5D7:5B9F:5D4B (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculously long "see also" section

Would be better with no see also section at all than the current collection of random links. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that most of those links seem to have either no connection or very little connection to the article topic. A lot of the articles behind them are...questionable too. A couple that seem useful to me are Culture war, Social justice warrior, Identity politics and virtue signalling. Thoughts? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, if they're not already linked in the current article, but SJW and "virtue signaling" are simply right wing insults. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)