Suspended, and devastated

BrassicWoman

xapprenticex wrote: »

Whats a snowflake?

A thing it will be quicker to google.

xapprenticex

BrassicWoman wrote: »

A thing it will be quicker to google.

Helpful.

Lets make a deal.

I'll use Google while you learn basic English.



:beer: :money:

sangie595

jobbingmusician wrote: »

(Just for balance - it is also possible that this IS a snowflake, and that the investigation might end when other colleagues comes forward and say the complainant was also upset about something innocent THEY had said.)

Yes. It's also possible that the workplace encourages an atmosphere of bullying in which some or all partake.

Given that two managers have been involved here, one has to assume that they consider this more serious than a "i'm sure you're upset but maybe you're overreacting- I'll have a word with ConnieC..." Suspension may be technically a neutral act, but it's rare that it's used unless management think it's necessary. That doesn't mean the OP has done anything really bad - it may simply be a misunderstanding. But it indicates that management are prepared to treat it seriously enough to warrant suspension. That appears, on the surface of it, to be three people who take it seriously!

Just an observation, but the word "snowflake", in this situation is perjorative. According to the urban dictionary is means:
"A term for someone that thinks they are unique and special, but really are not. It gained popularity after the movie "Fight Club" from the quote “You are not special. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Began being used extensively as a putdown for someone, usually on the political left, who is easily offended or felt they needed a "safe space" away from the harsh realities of the world, but now has morphed into a general putdown for anyone that complains about any subject.."

In other words, it had now become another insult to throw at people to dress up those hate crimes and offensive language. If we can't get away with calling it "free speech" or "banter", let's call them a "snowflake". It's their fault for being so touchy....

Perhaps the person has overreacted. Perhaps they are especially sensitive because of something we don't know about. Perhaps the OP is not who or what they claim to be, or maybe they did say something very offensive, whether knowingly or not. But when we start ascribing pejorative labels to people we diminish them. Someone who feels bullied had a right to complain about it, and they have a right to feel the way they do, even if they have misunderstood or overreacted. Management, in this situation, are there to resolve differences and upsets, which can happen in any workplace. Calling people names is simply another form of bullying, and makes people fearful of complaining because others might call them names to mock them.

Les79

sangie595 wrote: »

In other words, it had now become another insult to throw at people to dress up those hate crimes and offensive language. If we can't get away with calling it "free speech" or "banter", let's call them a "snowflake". It's their fault for being so touchy....

Nah, I don't like being so black and white about the issue.

I have absolutely ZERO doubt that you are correct in certain instances. People can use "free speech", "banter" or "snowflake" in a way which is bullying/intimidating. It can also put people off from legitimately putting in complaints. Fully in agreement with you there.

But a lot of people merely don't use it for those purposes!

- Free speech; one may, for example, comment that your post serves to restrict free speech by limiting the phrases that people can use without being accused of bullying. Bit of a double-edged sword when you think about it.

- Banter; it has become synonymous with bullying but not all "banter" is like that. It is effectively "the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks" but the problem is that some people either don't think about what they are saying or are just not very pleasant to begin with, so they give the word a bad reputation. I, for example, will occasionally have "banter" with my partner and it offends nobody.

- Snokflake; ok, that's fairly derogatory but it actually has a fairly specific meaning! It isn't like "free speech" or "banter" which is used to explain away blanket bullying in a vague way, but it is used to describe someone with a specific set of behaviors. I'm in two minds with that, because it is just an example of the English language evolving and adapting.

PS, when you cite Urban Dictionary you know precisely what you are getting; a load of crap!

Example:

According_to_Urban_Dictionary,_Sangie: wrote:

short for sandwich
I'm going to make myself a peanut butter and jelly sangie for lunch.

There are some sangies in the picnic basket.

And:

According_to_Urban_Dictionary,_Les: wrote:

A girl who likes girls
I'm a les looking for fun

xapprenticex

Bad examples, they don't imply U.D. is crap.


Les can be short for Lesbian as described in what you call crap or it can be a bunch of stuff from the source below that would earn you an instant fail if you used it at my University. (SO dont trust anything it says!!)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LES


Or it can be short for a name or whatever it means to you.

Les79

xapprenticex wrote: »

Bad examples, they don't imply U.D. is crap.


Les can be short for Lesbian as described in what you call crap or it can be a bunch of stuff from the source below that would earn you an instant fail if you used it at my University. (SO dont trust anything it says!!)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LES


Or it can be short for a name or whatever it means to you.

Both UD and wikipedia are crap, but yea in different ways...

Wikipedia is very well-written and tries to be neutral. I think it is a shame in some respects that universities don't allow you to cite pages, but fully get their position.

Urban Dictionary is just a place for people to have their opinion of what things mean. They were bad examples I guess, but I was just pointing out that the examples are quite informal and sometimes don't make much sense (I've never heard of a "sangie"!).

A better example would be to quote Urban Dictionary RE: snowflake:

Example_3 wrote:

A very sensitive person. Someone who is easily hurt or offended by the statements or actions of others.

This has nothing to do with politics. Snowflakes can be liberal or conservative. Whether it is a compliment or an insult is a matter of opinion and depends on the context.
Don't criticize Jane for what she did. She's a snowflake and you'll only upset her.

I like that definition! A bit better than Sangie's one, and certainly 1000 times better than the following one (which is probably the "bullying" use of the word which I agree with Sangie over):

example2 wrote:

A clueless and conceited college student that cannot handle critical thinking from others. In other words, a deluded jerk.
Snowflakes are deluded into thinking that they are without question, entitled to preferential treatment.

jobbingmusician

I *certainly* didn't take any definition from UD, who can't even proofread submissions to ensure they are published in correct English.

sangie595

Just to be clear - there is no such thing as free speech, it is simply a useful excuse to claim the right to say whatever toy like, regardless of the consequences on other people. The law prescribes speech in many ways. It always has. It always will. And the term "free speech" usually only trips off the tongues of those who wish to encroach on other people rights and freedoms. Oddly, people who respect others and their rights seldom find a need for the phrase.

Tigsteroonie

ConnieC wrote: »

I'd appreciate any advice or thoughts that can help me get through this...

It's a suspension pending investigation. The investigation might exonerate you. It might find something, but something so minor that they decided not to go down the disciplinary route. They might give you a verbal warning. Or it might be worse. At the moment you don't know.

My advice is to stop second-guessing them, accept the suspension (look on it as free time) and co-operate with the investigation. If you don't co-operate or do so with a bad attitude, the outcome might be prejudiced by your behaviour.

Yes, it's a !!!!!! time, I went through it myself for four weeks back in August. It's really not nice. But I can hold my head high, as I was exonerated.

Les79

sangie595 wrote: »

Just to be clear - there is no such thing as free speech, it is simply a useful excuse to claim the right to say whatever toy like, regardless of the consequences on other people. The law prescribes speech in many ways. It always has. It always will. And the term "free speech" usually only trips off the tongues of those who wish to encroach on other people rights and freedoms. Oddly, people who respect others and their rights seldom find a need for the phrase.

Meh, when I hear the world "free speech" I picture bobbies on the street beating people up when they voice their opinion about the government. Pretty sure I could find a few current real life examples of that right now...

So my interpretation of "free speech" is, effectively, being able to make this post in reply to you and not having to worry about any repercussions.

Sadly, it can be taken too far and does occasionally give rise to people abusing that "right". As per your point. But the phrase in itself is not necessarily an indicator of bullying behaviour.