Snowflakes

Apparently, calling someone a snowflake means the he or she is intolerant and is hostile towards anyone who doesn't share their worldview. I can only wonder why though... Isn't snowflake supposed to be a beautiful word? So full of grace?

I'm not really sure how much conversation this topic can generate as is. Perhaps we could use this thread to discuss if the social left is as over-sensitive as some groups perpetuate as well?

Might as well. Let's shine a light on what those so called libtards really think about the world. Just be careful that you don't end up as insane as them.

LauriJ said:

Might as well. Let's shine a light on what those so called libtards really think about the world. Just be careful that you don't end up as insane as them.

Click to expand...

Can you not use the word libtard please? It insults our intelligence and it makes you look like a living joke.

Snowflake is the most ironic insult in the world, it's thrown at people who are genuinely concerned for their lives and others (just check the notably high amount of physical crimes against poc and transpeople) by a bunch of baby boomers and basement dwellers who are convinced they're fighting in the non existent war on Christmas and who are beyond triggered by basic and benign things that don't effect them like other people asking to be refereed to as "they" instead of he/she

Just because you share a different view from someone, doesn't mean you can insult them with "libtard" or "Snowflake"

Johnny said:

How about the people who fake their concerns to get attention? This is what I think when I hear the word snowflake, tbh. As I believe it's an insult.

Click to expand...

If you're faking concerns for attention, you just plain suck. It makes it harder for people to appreciate the severity of the issues a significant number of people are still facing.

The trouble though, is that you can't just automatically assume someone is putting it on. The fakers are a minority of people and it's better to act with compassion (even if it's cautious compassion) as the default than to immediately assume the worst of someone who may well be telling the truth.

Hands said:

Can you not use the word libtard please? It insults our intelligence and it makes you look like a living joke.

Click to expand...

That's true. And yet people still like to throw these slurs around. Anything to avoid living in a world where a girl who thinks of herself as a dog for example must be tolerated or ELSE. Ring any bells?

LauriJ said:

That's true. And yet people still like to throw these slurs around. Anything to avoid living in a world where a girl who thinks of herself as a dog for example must be tolerated or ELSE. Ring any bells?

Click to expand...

That should be tolerated, quite frankly. It hardly hurts anyone regardless of how others think. It's maybe something worth investigating psychologically, but it's not likely to get anyone hurt - so who cares?

Honestly, you confuse me. Part of what you say makes it sound like you agree with the liberal side and then the rest makes you sound conservative. Where do you stand?

LauriJ said:

That's true. And yet people still like to throw these slurs around. Anything to avoid living in a world where a girl who thinks of herself as a dog for example must be tolerated or ELSE. Ring any bells?

Click to expand...

No that doesn't ring any bells because that virtually never happens and the people who bring up idiotic statement like that do so to delegtimise the struggles of trans people.

If someone has a mental difficulty that causes them to think they're a dog then they should also be treated with respect and kindness. It might be unclear to other people, but I see right through your disengenous behaviour pal and it stinks.

My take on the word "snowflake" at this point is "look, someone who is offended at being insulted/punched/attacked. Let's laugh at them and call them 'weak' for demanding a modicum of respect! Fuck your feelings!".

Needless to say, a society in which people take pride on being cruel to each other and call people who don't like it "weak" is not a healthy one.

LauriJ said:

That's true. And yet people still like to throw these slurs around. Anything to avoid living in a world where a girl who thinks of herself as a dog for example must be tolerated or ELSE. Ring any bells?

Click to expand...

As Hands said, that virtually never happens. Maybe if you didn't make ridiculously hyperbolic generalizations you wouldn't have such a problem with "snowflakes"?

Usually the word "snowflake" is used as an insult by right-wing groups against liberals, claiming that all liberals are "special snowflakes" because a minority of liberals have gender and sexual identities conservatives consider taboo. Some will use the insult to claim liberals are mentally challenged because they believe that not being LGBT is a mental disorder. They use "snowflake" because each and every snowflake is different from the other, which to them, is a close enough analogy to the LGBT to constitute an insult.

The word itself nothing to really take seriously. Both sides of the political spectrum have demanding insults against the other. Insults go both ways.

I think what is more important to discuss is how we can move past insults and move towards proper debate. It often comes up here on Pokecommunity that democracy requires healthy debate, and insults only chip away at this foundation.

Honestly, this post alone makes me think that OP is just trying to troll and that this topic shouldn't be taken seriously unless we discuss what gimmepie suggested. Which is what I will do.

I wouldn't call the left over-sensitive. Progressivism in a social context is obviously going to come off that way, unfortunately. You have to remember that people's livelihoods, lifestyles, and core identities are often being discussed in social progressivism. When we talk about activism for trans* people and other minorities, we have to be sensitive because it's about people. When we discuss economics, for example, we don't need sensitivity unless it intersects with social issues (which, like nearly all issues, inevitably will). So when liberals are being extremely nitpicky about the way you discuss a group of people, it's for a reason. Discussing certain groups in certain ways is pertinent to making sure that those groups are respected and that their needs are addressed. So if you're in a discussion with someone regarding trans* people, and you refer trans* people as "transvestites," then you're going to get some backlash for using an antiquated pejorative that the trans* community has rejected the use of, and people will call you out for it. It might seem overly sensitive, but it's about respecting a person's identity, something that minority groups especially need in a discussion about themselves.

Trev said:

Honestly, this post alone makes me think that OP is just trying to troll and that this topic shouldn't be taken seriously unless we discuss what gimmepie suggested. Which is what I will do.

Click to expand...

Yeah, let's go with that. Anything to keep this thread on rails. For the record, I'm really not affiliated with anything, just a guy who has opinions. Call me a conspiracy junkie or whatever but there are articles where people are afraid of these 'libtards' supposedly destroying and subverting traditional American mores. So yeah, demanding respect for girls who thinks of themselves as dogs would be a totally valid concern for them.

LauriJ said:

Yeah, let's go with that. Anything to keep this thread on rails. For the record, I'm really not affiliated with anything, just a guy who has opinions. Call me a conspiracy junkie or whatever but there are articles where people are afraid of these 'libtards' supposedly destroying and subverting traditional American mores. So yeah, demanding respect for girls who thinks of themselves as dogs would be a totally valid concern for them.

Click to expand...

Okay, this conversation will not be continuing if you continue to use the term libtards. You are perfectly capable of typing liberals or left-wing people. The point of this forum is to have discussions respectfully, and if you can't stop using insults, you should stop replying.

First of all, a person who thinks they are a dog will never affect you in any way at all. You will not die, you will not be hurt physically, and you will not suffer mentally if you see a person who thinks they are a dog. It doesn't matter what you or anyone thinks about an identity. A person's identity is their identity, and no one has the authority to criticize a person's identity.

Second of all, progressivism is not the movement that created this subculture. Progressivism might have created an evironment in which people of this culture feel comfortable expressing their identity, but it did not create this subculture. I guarantee that this subculture has been around long before the progressivism movement began in the U.S.

Third, traditional American mores have been detrimental to the existence of several minority groups, so, yes, progressives are going to fight against the systemic oppression of their identities. People of Color did it, women did it, the lesbian and gay community did it, the bi and trans* community is doing is, and several of those groups are still doing it. Remember that the values of a society are able to change and shift over time. If they didn't, we'd still have slaves, women would still be oppressed, and the LGBT+ community would still be hiding.

Fourth, if you continue to generalize the entire progressivism movement by one subculture that emerged because of the environment created by the movement, you are blatantly misunderstanding what the movement actually is. You should also realize that a liberal is not a progressive, though they may share similar values and an individual can be both at the same time.

Just seconding what Trev has already pointed out, but in a fancy-smancy mod post, unless you're discussing the relevancy of a derogatory term there is no need to use one. Since nobody here is talking about whether or not "libtard" is an acceptable term, there's no need to repeatedly use it to describe the socially left.

Maybe it's just me, but I see "snowflakes" as people who can't operate smoothly in society when they are capable of doing so. (So, for instance, a person with a disability isn't a snowflake while a person who makes a scene when they don't have to is.) I personally don't buy the left/liberals being overly sensitive idea. Sure, there are some, but look at the people talking about the war on Christmas and you'll see the same thing.

One thing I do see are a lot of young people who might be considered snowflakes or at least get called that. I think this is the core group people think of or use as examples. And I think that's a shame that it gets so political because it's completely normal for young people to experiment and take things very seriously. That some of them will find and latch onto ideas and identities that others find strange or uncomfortable is just because there is a lot of information and examples out there and it's relatively easy to be exposed to them.

To be a little more clear let me use an example. It's fairly easy for, say, a 14 year old who is just finding out that they're not straight to come across information on the internet that talks about the history and struggle of gay people, some of it scholarly, a lot of it distilled from more scholarly sources into simpler, more digestible bites. So our 14 y/o sees some truth in this that resonates with them and they see the conclusions someone else has drawn and it feels right to them. They take up the message that queer people have been victimized and so on. Now they are aware of this problem and so they'll see it manifesting where others might not. Someone else who hasn't had the same experience (perhaps they are not gay and didn't go down the same rabbit hole) doesn't have the same context and so sees the end results of a young person claiming there is discrimination everywhere as ludicrous.

And really, I think that's what it boils down to. Different contexts. What you're exposed to, what you've read and learned, affects how you see the world. Most people don't do things that seem irrational to them. So when you see someone who you would call a snowflake, probably they are only doing what they see as rational and acceptable.

I don't know why you guys are taking someone who keeps using the term "libtards" and talking about things that didn't happen as someone who is arguing in good faith.

The core American value is freedom. How in the Sam heck could you, or anyone else, consider freedom of self to be unamerican?

Hands said:

I don't know why you guys are taking someone who keeps using the term "libtards" and talking about things that didn't happen as someone who is arguing in good faith.

The core American value is freedom. How in the Sam heck could you, or anyone else, consider freedom of self to be unamerican?

Click to expand...

I don't think most people are specifically talking to the OP. They've simply let a more open discussion grow from what was said.

gimmepie said:

Perhaps we could use this thread to discuss if the social left is as over-sensitive as some groups perpetuate as well?

Click to expand...

It's more about what comes out of being overly sensitive, which is frequently pro-censorship rhetoric. Overly sensitive people often don't want other people to be allowed to offend them. The problem is currently worse on the left, but it happens on both sides and I've noticed that it tends to worsen the longer they've held power. What's worse, both sides have people who refuse to call those people out, either out of some misplaced sense of camaraderie or because they don't see how rules that stifle expression they don't like will eventually be used against them. That behavior only allows those arguments to take root and grow out of control, though, which is how the situation got so bad on the left to begin with. That's why I think it's always important to speak out against censorious arguments, all the more when they're made by people ostensibly on your side.