Yes...There is an actual Snowflake Handbook.

[Jude]

This is what we are facing today folks.

"When a student is victimized by a microaggression the appropriate response should be saying “ouch.” And the correct response for the offender should be saying “oops,” according to the guide.
…
“If a student feels hurt or offended by another student’s comment, the hurt student can say ‘ouch.’ In acknowledgement, the student who made the hurtful comment says “oops.” If necessary, there can be further dialogue about this exchange.”

Have a look...You just can't make this stuff up!  

http://humanities.arizona.edu/sites/huma...ide%20.pdf

I weep...

Jude

[BIAD]

From Jude's Link:

'Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together towards common understanding.
Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong.'

'In dialogue, the goal is to find common ground.
In debate, the goal is to win.'

'In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning and find
agreement.
In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.'

From Dictionary.Cambridge.org

'...A serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part:'
SOURCE:

From Oxforddictionaries.com

'A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly,
in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.'
SOURCE:

Do you see the differences...?
The particular University is laying in parameters to test their indoctrination.
A debate can be a forum where two different views can find common ground to solve a
problem.

In this manual, it states it's a combative situation where one's personal views are defended
at the the hopeful cost of destroying the others.
One aspires to construct, the other demands destruction.

These odious places of learning are creating 'dumb-downs'... persons who are unable to
detach their emotions from their opinions due to the fear of being out of a group.
The tutors and official bodies are deliberately proselytiseing these youngsters to think in
one manner and nurturing a mode that doesn't include the nuance of individualism.

It's brainwashing for zombies.

[Mystic Wanderer]

 

[Jude]

From Jude's Link:

'Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together towards common understanding.
Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to prove each other wrong.'

'In dialogue, the goal is to find common ground.
In debate, the goal is to win.'

'In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to understand, find meaning and find
agreement.
In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.'

From Dictionary.Cambridge.org

'...A serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part:'
SOURCE:

From Oxforddictionaries.com

'A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly,
in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.'
SOURCE:

Do you see the differences...?
The particular University is laying in parameters to test their indoctrination.
A debate can be a forum where two different views can find common ground to solve a
problem.

In this manual, it states it's a combative situation where one's personal views are defended
at the the hopeful cost of destroying the others.
One aspires to construct, the other demands destruction.

These odious places of learning are creating 'dumb-downs'... persons who are unable to
detach their emotions from their opinions due to the fear of being out of a group.
The tutors and official bodies are deliberately proselytiseing these youngsters to think in
one manner and nurturing a mode that doesn't include the nuance of individualism.

It's brainwashing for zombies.

Nice catch on that point. I haven't delved fully yet and no doubt there are many subtle nuances like your point.

But damn...some of it is just creepy.

Jude

[BIAD]

Nice catch on that point. I haven't delved fully yet and no doubt there are many subtle nuances like your point.

But damn...some of it is just creepy.

Jude

It is creepy, I agree that something just doesn't seem right about it.

If you look on that particular area of the document and accept that there 'may' be a valid
educational reason for setting a debate arena in this manner, then I would've thought that
an explanation for such hawkish positions of a suggested debate would be above the 'rules'
listed.

But no explanation is there. There are rules of course and these lay out in a manner that is
conducive to urging a debater to speak from the position of emotion.
'...Explain that sharing should be based on one's own feelings, experiences and perceptions...'

Simplicity is a great assistant in anything we do and here with this set of instructions -and that's
basically what this is, the Instructor is being required to posit biased ground rules for a reason
that's obvious throughout the Dialogue Guide.

The mantra is not appreciating diversity, the initial preface states that a liberal white superiority
is standard across the world and sympathy, allowances and some-sort of obligation to the 'lesser'
must be accepted by anyone not fitting into any of the identities listed.

With the base-line being that all white hetrosexual males are beyond reproach when it comes to
interacting with other races, it automatically sets an emotive grievance into the group and forms
a malcontent pyramid with white males 'burdened' with a faculty-forced 'privileged' guilt being
perceived as at the apex and non-Caucasian young men and women, young folk of alternative
sexual preferences and white females, placed on lower levels.

In itself, this would be seen as a powder-keg to any rational person, but the idea of creating such
a situation could be argued only on a basis of analysing fallout for a debate only.
If this was so, then the participants would be informed of the leaning before any such discussions
and if not, certainly afterwards.

Either way, it's a social experiment without consent of all parties and is extremely dangerous.

I have my own personal view and I'm reluctant to place it here because it's simplistic explanation
does have flaws.  It's in regards of the 'target' of this type of teaching.
Who are the rules aimed at with the potential to erode self-confidence...?
And in general society, what would this particular section of a society be utilised for in cases of
extreme conflict?

[BIAD]

Here's another article that the Establishment's narrative must be adhered to.

There's no actual 'right or wrong' if one assumes societal caring is the important
concern here, but it could be debated that this accepted action of informing young
people to 'know' what is 'Fake News' is based on the sole belief that established forums
of information are correct and all else is dubious, isn't that a form of control?

When using the word 'Establishment', my personal reason is that in this world of titles,
the want for labelled segregation and identity branding, the 'standard' majority of a
country's population falls under this heading.

Teach schoolchildren how to spot fake news, says OECD.

Thinktank’s education lead raises concerns over social media ‘echo chamber’ and
says ability to discern fact from fiction is vital.

'Children should be taught in schools how to spot fake news, the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development’s education lead has said.
Andreas Schleicher said the ability to distinguish fact from fiction was essential in the modern
age and teachers were well placed to provide guidance.

“Distinguishing what is true from what is not true is a critical skill today,” said the thinktank’s
director for education and skills. “Exposing fake news, even being aware that there is something
like fake news, that there is something that is written that is not necessarily true, that you have to
question, think critically. That is very important.
This is something that we believe schools can do something about.”

The issue of fake news has been to the fore since the bitterly contested US election campaign,
when a number of made-up stories were widely circulated on social media.
Schleicher said it was not a matter of schools teaching a new subject, but of building skills to
help discern the truth into all lessons, from science to history.

“In the past, when you needed information, you went to an encyclopaedia, you looked it up,
and you could trust that information to be true,” he said.

Schleicher was speaking ahead of the annual Global Education and Skills Forum in Dubai,
where he will put forward the OECD’s plans to test young people’s attitudes to global issues
and different cultures, their analytical and critical skills, and abilities to interact with others.

He also raised concerns about what he considered to be another unhealthy modern development
 – the potential for social media to reinforce a person’s own viewpoint and not challenge their
beliefs.

“Social media is designed to create an echo chamber,” he said. “We are likely to talk with people
who are like us. Who think similarly to us. “And that’s precisely, almost the antithesis, to global
competency.”.

Schleicher cited the example of young people from Europe going to fight for Islamic State,
turning “the multi-religious, multi-ethnic powerhouses of the Middle East back to a kind of
monoculture”.

He said: “That’s really I think an outcome of the thinking that there is only one truth and there’
 only one way to live.

“I think that social media can reinforce that. The algorithms underpinning them tend to relate
people to people who are similar, rather than creating spaces for people to discuss debate
and find common ground.” 

The computer-based “global competencies” tests will be taken by 15-year-olds around the
world alongside the OECD’s current reading, maths and science assessments, which are
conducted every three years. 

The results of these assessments – and the rankings of about 70 countries and economies
based on the results – are seen as important by governments worldwide, including in the UK. 

The tests will be taken next year, with the results published in 2019. 
Schleicher said the assessment was about “the capacity of young people to see the world
through different perspectives, appreciate different ideas, be open to different cultures”...'
SOURCE:

We follow rules and laws, we interact in a manner conducive with better survival rates
and we hope to promote our species as a civilised society. Ergo, we all tend to move in
the same direction and if those we deem custodians of this majority suggest means and
ways of bettering ourselves, natural societal-thought is that it's purely for our benefit and
holds no -or the least negative outcomes by following the suggestions.

But what happens when complacency sets in and those custodians believe a certain way
is correct that may have a negative impact? How is this action implemented to -not only
ensure the majority or 'Establishment' is kept secure, but to also ensure that this majority
will blindly accept these requirements and not peruse any possible shortfalls?

Well, the complacency alone assists. I would suggest that the Establishment would lean on
'This is how we are and we've gotten this far on our say-so, so surely we will be correct in
our actions'
And there's merit in that.

But how do you out-wit those who perceive the world in a manner that is opposed to
your own goals...? How do you deal with those who want the whole curtain pulled back
to see the full implications of societal control?

You indoctrinate the next generations to never perceive such ideals. You say "look this
way" and never even mention to not look the other way because your persuasion from
an early age, will make the subjects doubt the very thought of looking there -never mind
it's content.

Flying saucers don't exist, why? Because you're not currently sitting on the hull of one and
the Establishment has told you they don't exist. One reason is real only in the fact that you've
no sensory proof at this time.

The other is based on faith that if the information that the majority take in is generally
accepted, then rationality demands that it's true because of herd-instinct tends to shake
out as universally beneficial to all.
Hence, real!

But we never ask for proof, we never stop and question this subtle controlling because
we've been conditioned by those who we trusted within a family setting and society at
large, that what we're told is the correct information.

If the 'established' way is correct, then without the true reasons why the young should
be warned about dubious narratives should create suspicion. In my view, a person should
find their own way and not be 'corralled' to stay away from the flames.

Warnings from Elders are good, but the young should also be able to see the alleged
monsters behind the door.

[BIAD]

If you'll forgive me for grumbling on, I can recall a time before television sets were affordable
to the working-classes in the United Kingdom and if a football (soccer) game was being played,
many of supporters unable to the games would resort to listen to it via the radio.

The audience were required to perceive the playing pitch in quadrants labelled 'A, B, C' and more.
The presenter would relate which section the ball and play were in and using his voice to instil
excitement, a listener would not only have the opportunity to 'imagine' the flowing game, but to
also enjoy the rush of competitiveness.

Move to today, when television sets adorn the majority of homes and are seen as a standard
piece of furniture. The many-faceted world of sports continues, but please... notice the difference.

Where it was that the Presenter used to focus on bringing factual information to assist the listener
in being a participant in the game -granted only as a supporter, today the multitude of moderators,
Presenters and guests from that particular sport seem to be on focused relating personal comments,
points of view and biased narratives during any broadcast of a game.

For those younger than myself, it promotes that idea that everything said on the television is
real, true and should be taken as fair advice. Maybe a lot of it is, but it's a helluva recruiting ground
for those willing to nurture materialism and subtle nonresistance.
Just sayin'

[DuckforcoveR]

If you'll forgive me for grumbling on, I can recall a time before television sets were affordable
to the working-classes in the United Kingdom and if a football (soccer) game was being played,
many of supporters unable to the games would resort to listen to it via the radio.

The audience were required to perceive the playing pitch in quadrants labelled 'A, B, C' and more.
The presenter would relate which section the ball and play were in and using his voice to instil
excitement, a listener would not only have the opportunity to 'imagine' the flowing game, but to
also enjoy the rush of competitiveness.

Move to today, when television sets adorn the majority of homes and are seen as a standard
piece of furniture. The many-faceted world of sports continues, but please... notice the difference.

Where it was that the Presenter used to focus on bringing factual information to assist the listener
in being a participant in the game -granted only as a supporter, today the multitude of moderators,
Presenters and guests from that particular sport seem to be on focused relating personal comments,
points of view and biased narratives during any broadcast of a game.

For those younger than myself, it promotes that idea that everything said on the television is
real, true and should be taken as fair advice. Maybe a lot of it is, but it's a helluva recruiting ground
for those willing to nurture materialism and subtle nonresistance.
Just sayin'

I'm still "young" in a way and although I admit TV is a great for some sports and some occasions, there's still nothing that beats a good radio call. For the exact reasons you say. My eyes can be open or closed but there is an alternate reality that gets played in your mind while your senses are trying to make sense of what you are hearing. This is an example:



I remember this day like it was yesterday. I remember where I lived, what we ate for dinner, and STILL get goosebumps when I hear Bob Uecker call this. He's a living legend to me (although there are many that may disagree with me) and I could listen to him call every ball game for the rest of my life, not ONCE would I miss TV baseball if that was to be the case. But in the video above somebody took his radio call (what you are hearing isn't the TV call) and put the actual game footage with it. The TV call wasn't as meaningful (and couldn't remember it if I tried) because you have the visual so everything else was blocked out. I don't need anybody to tell me what I'm seeing and it takes away from the excitement.

[BIAD]

I remember this day like it was yesterday. I remember where I lived, what we ate for dinner, and STILL get
goosebumps when I hear Bob Uecker call this. He's a living legend to me (although there are many that may
disagree with me) and I could listen to him call every ball game for the rest of my life, not ONCE would I miss
TV baseball if that was to be the case.

I envy that feeling! There's nothing quite like it.

It's ironic that a visual medium makes the commentator redundant to some extent and so,
he/she and their cohorts have to resort to offering their 'feelings' and opinions to the audience.
So much so that whole shows are created on the hopes of putting those certain views across!

I always-always listen to my favourite soccer team on the radio... whether the game is on the
TV or not. The commentary does have opinions, but due to the speed of play, these are usually
stunted enough that they don't bog-down the enjoyment.

(I have access to ESPN here in the UK and when possible, I do like to watch the baseball.
There's something very... very good residing in that game)

[Mystic Wanderer]

We follow rules and laws, we interact in a manner conducive with better survival rates
and we hope to promote our species as a civilised society. Ergo, we all tend to move in
the same direction and if those we deem custodians of this majority suggest means and
ways of bettering ourselves, natural societal-thought is that it's purely for our benefit and
holds no -or the least negative outcomes by following the suggestions.

But what happens when complacency sets in and those custodians believe a certain way
is correct that may have a negative impact? How is this action implemented to -not only
ensure the majority or 'Establishment' is kept secure, but to also ensure that this majority
will blindly accept these requirements and not peruse any possible shortfalls?

Well, the complacency alone assists. I would suggest that the Establishment would lean on
'This is how we are and we've gotten this far on our say-so, so surely we will be correct in
our actions'
And there's merit in that.

But how do you out-wit those who perceive the world in a manner that is opposed to
your own goals...? How do you deal with those who want the whole curtain pulled back
to see the full implications of societal control?

You indoctrinate the next generations to never perceive such ideals. You say "look this
way" and never even mention to not look the other way because your persuasion from
an early age, will make the subjects doubt the very thought of looking there -never mind
it's content.

Flying saucers don't exist, why? Because you're not currently sitting on the hull of one and
the Establishment has told you they don't exist. One reason is real only in the fact that you've
no sensory proof at this time.

The other is based on faith that if the information that the majority take in is generally
accepted, then rationality demands that it's true because of herd-instinct tends to shake
out as universally beneficial to all.
Hence, real!

But we never ask for proof, we never stop and question this subtle controlling because
we've been conditioned by those who we trusted within a family setting and society at
large, that what we're told is the correct information.

If the 'established' way is correct, then without the true reasons why the young should
be warned about dubious narratives should create suspicion. In my view, a person should
find their own way and not be 'corralled' to stay away from the flames.

Warnings from Elders are good, but the young should also be able to see the alleged
monsters behind the door.

Very well stated.  

This also applies to religion/spiritualism.  One religion should never be looked upon as THE ONLY TRUTH, in my opinion. This is why we have had wars since it's origin.
Even in Christianity there are so many different branches/denominations who all seem to teach that they are the only true way to believe, not to even mention all the others, like Hinduism, Buddhism, Pagan, Catholic, Islamic, etc.
A person needs to take a look at all that is taught in each, and then choose what resonates with them in their heart. In my opinion, there is some truth to be gained in all of them.
This was the hardest of all my earthly lessons; breaking away from the established religion I was brain-washed with for 14 years during my childhood.
And, to this day, I still find myself looking at some things through the eyes of that indoctrination all those years ago, and saying, "Wait a minute; I know this isn't right."

As for the UFOs, all a person has to do is look up into the night sky to know we have been lied to. It might take several nights, but once you see a "star" doing zig-zag patterns in the sky, it tends to wake you up.   Then you have to open your mind and start the research to learn the truth for yourself. 
Unfortunately, with so many people looking down in a trance state at their cell phones these days, many will miss ever discovering this particular truth.

I just wanted to throw in my two cents as examples.  There are examples we could use for just about everything we are taught... and most of it is all lies, even how we came to be here on this planet, who really discovered America, we must depend on oil for energy, our doctor knows best, the government will take care of us, and on and on the lies flow.

My point being... as you said, our beliefs are "based on faith that if the information that the majority take in is generally
accepted, then rationality demands that it's true because of herd-instinct tends to shake out as universally beneficial to all.
Hence, real!"

And that is NOT how it should be, because it is all an illusion used for control .  

[Jude]

And in general society, what would this particular section of a society be utilised for in cases of
extreme conflict?

Sacrificial Lambs would be my guess..

Jude

[BIAD]

Here's a video that shows how debating has changed and how how many
of the young people from Universities and Colleges take their feelings and
faculty-nurtured guilt into a forum where specific issues are discussed.

It's fine that people have different opinions and it's normal to show verve
behind their veracity to lay their case before the one who they wish to convince.
But the goal of a debate -in my view, is to show a confident display of information
with rational facets of fact to use in persuasion.
The 'winning' is secondary and merely an outcome.

But with this 'snowflake' document it seems that the success aspect is everything
and I'm struggling to find any paragraph that refers to ethical honesty and the act
of only using verifiable facts.

It tends to lean more towards weasel-words like 'story-telling' and 'metaphors' to
use as tools in a debate arena.
Freaking' story-telling?!!!

Anyway, listen to the level of emotions from either debater in this video and see
what you think. You can skip to near the end if you wish as the subjects are not
relevant to what we're discussing on this thread.

Caveat: Everyone is entitled to have their own political view.

[Jude]

Here's a video that shows how debating has changed and how how many
of the young people from Universities and Colleges take their feelings and
faculty-nurtured guilt into a forum where specific issues are discussed.

It's fine that people have different opinions and it's normal to show verve
behind their veracity to lay their case before the one who they wish to convince.
But the goal of a debate -in my view, is to show a confident display of information
with rational facets of fact to use in persuasion.
The 'winning' is secondary and merely an outcome.

But with this 'snowflake' document it seems that the success aspect is everything
and I'm struggling to find any paragraph that refers to ethical honesty and the act
of only using verifiable facts.

It tends to lean more towards weasel-words like 'story-telling' and 'metaphors' to
use as tools in a debate arena.
Freaking' story-telling?!!!

Anyway, listen to the level of emotions from either debater in this video and see
what you think. You can skip to near the end if you wish as the subjects are not
relevant to what we're discussing on this thread.

Caveat: Everyone is entitled to have their own political view.

Well said.

In Uni we had debates either planned or spontaneous on the grounds. It was the era of debates.

It seems that waaaaayyyyyy back then we prided ourselves on research, facts, the art of rebuttal and even our understanding of argument in Psych 101. Shouting to be louder, name calling, tears etc were simply a sign of weakness and a piss poor debate artist.

AND...sometimes we even took the opposite side to understand what the hell we were debating!

I'm getting so tired.

Jude

[BIAD]

...Shouting to be louder, name calling, tears etc were simply a sign of weakness
and a piss poor debate artist.

AND...sometimes we even took the opposite side to understand what the hell we
were debating!

Jude

I never fully appreciated the seasoned politicians of ago who could debate in a
manner that implied they weren't really interested by the way they sat back,
looked arrogant and kept their voice in a mono-tone.

It was merely a ploy to enrage the opposition and get them to deliver their
'killer' blow' early in the debate. After energy has been wasted in emotive breathing
and posturing, the smooth-tongued bastard in the silk suit would move in and
destroy any attempt of building a narrative or decent argument.

Pros.