On the Benefits of Being Snowflakes

I don't live in the kind of bubble that popular opinion since November has suggested leftists and academics like me live in. Indeed, I think many of us don't fit that characterization. Rather, I am well aware of the kinds of things folks of different backgrounds and political perspectives say about folks like me. One of the latest trends I'm seeing is use of the word "snowflake" to disparage us. This is much preferable to other words that are used. "Libtard," for instance, may be the worst of the lot, given not only its implication that leftist and liberal perspectives are stupid, but also its marginalization  of people based on disability by invoking the word "retard" as an intended insult. While not as marginalizing, "snowflake" in these contexts is still meant to belittle leftists and academics as weak.

I would like, though, to reclaim "snowflake," given its potentially positive connotations. Consider that every snowflake is different. Claiming an identity as a snowflake is thus a celebration of diversity. Additionally, while an individual snowflake may be easily crushed, if you put a whole bunch of snowflakes together, you get something very strong that can make a tremendous impact -- a snowstorm. This, then, adds to the celebration of diversity as it recognizes the substantial power that can occur when a great number of diverse people work together even as they maintain their diversity. Indeed, as I write this, it occurs to me that snowstorm might work as a replacement metaphor for the problematic melting pot that has been used to symbolize the goal of U.S. democracy.

So, yes, I'm a proud snowflake.

Curt Schilling -- A Matter of Character

In September 2015 I wrote on this blog about applying the character argument to Lance Berkman when he becomes eligible for voting in elections for Major League Baseball’s Hall of Fame. I had planned to write a similar post this winter about Curt Schilling, who both is currently on the ballot and has a much stronger case for election. Indeed, there’s a good likelihood Schilling will be elected at some point, and were I a Hall of Fame voter, the only thing that would keep Schilling off my ballot is that the ballot has a limit of ten names, and I might have ten names that go before him. Barring that, I would vote for him, and I consider Schilling a Hall of Famer.

I also would not apply the character guideline when voting for the Hall of Fame. To me, it’s a judgment I would not wish to make and that I would not see as something that should play an important role in my voting.

That said, I was prepared to write a post about how folks who can vote and who do apply the character criterion should consider applying it to Schilling. Based on inflammatory things Schilling has said in recent years, there ought to be questions about his character. Fortunately, though, I do not have to advance the argument, because people who are in much greater positions of visibility, including some voters, are already doing so.

Perhaps predictably, Schilling has responded to folks advancing that argument, claiming that they would vote for him if he had said "Lynch Trump" and that "There are some of the worst human beings I’ve ever known voting. There are scumbags all across." His response is exactly indicative of the problem. There seems to be little if any self-reflection and self-evaluation on Schilling's part. In the past, he has made disparaging remarks about various groups based in willful ignorance, and when called out on it he has relied on tired tropes about fictional bogeymen such as political correctness and people getting offended too easily. Now, as he faces legitimate questions about his character, Schilling continues his pattern of blaming others rather than taking responsibility for himself.

Two years ago Schilling claimed that he lost Hall of Fame votes because he is a Republican, a claim that does not appear to hold up when we consider the many other Republicans who have been elected. His current claims seem to echo that sentiment, suggesting that his political positions are at the heart of arguments about his character. Curt's politics do have something to do with this, bit it's not simply the expressing of particular political positions that constitutes the problem; rather, it's the way in which those positions are expressed, the kinds of sentiments through which they are expressed, and the kinds of demeaning and marginalizing assumptions that inform those positions (at least as they are expressed). Curt's losing votes not because he's a Republican, but ... well, frankly, because he appears to be a jerk. And that certainly is a matter of character.