Colloquial usage around here means something close to, "An inability to gracefully accept an external perception of ourselves, because that perception is at odds with our own understanding of ourselves."
This "fragility" must always be accompanied by an accusation - otherwise fragility would not manifest. Without an accusation to deny, no one can be fragile in this sense. The opposite of fragility is callousness - i.e. "Damn right, that's what I said. I meant it. I don't care who it hurt, as long as they get out of the way."
The word "fragility", in its current social context, would appear to be a word intended to belittle. It says, "You think you're a big person, but you are a small person. Because you have denied my truth, you are fragile. Because you have proclaimed your innocence, you are fragile."
To me, there is a glaring fallacy in calling people "fragile" this way - and that is the part when the people who engage in this behavior decide to forgo intelligent discourse and presume that they are correct without hearing the other side of the story. Sometimes people are different than each other, and you can't always win arguments just by calling them "fragile" when they disagree with you, because what we're really talking about sometimes when we say the word "fragile" in this context, is "an impassioned personal defense against accusations thrown at people who look like me, but who do not represent my values." It's not okay to do this. The only thing we do when we call people "fragile" in this way, is we internally invalidate their position, and then we burn the only bridge we ever had with them.
Fragility means something is easily broken. The opposite is toughness, not callousness. Relatedly, resilience means something recovers or repairs easily. Sensitivity is how easily something reacts to inputs.
Fragility in people (AKA "breaking down" or "going to pieces") doesn't need an accusation or necessarily involve external perceptions. If you see an adult, say, trip over something and then start sobbing, they were likely already in a fragile state and the trip was enough to momentarily shatter them. Someone who's "tough" will endure more hardship than someone who's "fragile" before breaking down. Someone who's resilient will be able to put themselves back together again more easily, regardless of whether they were tough or fragile.
Fragility as the original posted used it makes sense: if someone is food/money insecure or physically insecure or socially insecure, it won't take much "damage" to make that insecurity into a crisis.
I view fragile and sensitive in the same light. Though, I do mean it with a negative connotation.
That being said, im not sure i follow the fallacy part. I’m guessing you mean that people who use fragility are doing it shut down discussion. I tend to use it to highlight that there’s a set of people with whom I won’t speak freely for fear of hurting them because their are sensitive. I don’t do this out of nobleness to not harm, i do it to avoid negative emotions from them. In a way I am fragile as well.
> That being said, im not sure i follow the fallacy part. I’m guessing you mean that people who use fragility are doing it shut down discussion. I tend to use it to highlight that there’s a set of people with whom I won’t speak freely for fear of hurting them because their are sensitive. I don’t do this out of nobleness to not harm, i do it to avoid negative emotions from them.
> In a way I am fragile as well.
Yes, you've nailed it. By "fallacy" I mean "an unsound argument", because if I were to think that the person I'm arguing with is "fragile" - that would mean that I have already accepted my position as the correct position, and that the people I'm educating simply aren't able to accept my truth because it would damage their ego.
Arguing with people without ever hearing their side is a great way to become obtuse.
When, during that line of thinking, would I ever ask, "Could I possibly be the one who is wrong? Is there more to this story than just my side?"
It isn’t their arguments that I’m avoiding it is their emotional response to my questions. They may have valid perspective, but if I can’t ask questions and feel safe doing so I won’t.
I think a person being fragile is independent of their arguments. Unfortunately, people who I label as fragile I won’t ever get to hear their arguments fully articulated due to their (as the person) fragility.
> It isn’t their arguments that I’m avoiding it is their emotional response to my questions. They may have valid perspective, but if I can’t ask questions and feel safe doing so I won’t.
That’s fine. Refusing to engage with someone who holds an opposing view because you want to avoid emotional turmoil on both sides is fair and valid. But to go further and call those people “fragile” is actively dismissing their point of view.
