[Tom4784]

Like with Anti-PC people often being the most PC people of all, the right coined a phrase in Snowflake that is more apt towards right leaning attitudes than that of the left.

Nothing more snowflakey than your (sadly all too common) typical Right Winger when they are confronted with the thought of diversity.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Like with Anti-PC people often being the most PC people of all, the right coined a phrase in Snowflake that is more apt towards right leaning attitudes than that of the left.

Nothing more snowflakey than your (sadly all too common) typical Right Winger when they are confronted with the thought of diversity.

That is such total ballony. If people like you did not constantly try to shut down opposing opinions with petty name-calling and other exclusion attempts, terminology such as snowflakes in its current form would not exist. If you want to place blame for the existence of such terminology you should look closer to home.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

That is such total ballony. If people like you did not constantly try to shut down opposing opinions with petty name-calling and other exclusion attempts, terminology such as snowflakes in its current form would not exist. If you want to place blame for the existence of such terminology you should look closer to home.

There's a difference between shutting down an argument because its verging on the side of racism. You of all the people in here, refuse to take on board any opinions that appose yours; at least when it comes to your ongoing rant about a certain religious group. You may go quiet when your opposes come back with some sort of proof to back up what they are saying but within a few days, the same old hymn sheet starts all over again.Neither of these opinions/debates/rants are 'snowflakey'. This is not what the word 'snowflake' was termed for.

In my mind a 'snowflake' is someone who can't listen or join in a debate about a certain subject because they are too sensitive but will go out of their way to shut that debate down, by other means, because they don't like it.

An example of that could be a debate or conversation about bullying. The 'snowflake' who has in the past been bullied and indeed traumatized by that bullying, does not want to join in this conversation because it triggers all sorts of memories. Instead of walking away as an act of self protection, they hang around and tell everyone that they shouldn't be having this discussion because it upsets them on a personal level. They aren't a snowflake because of what happened to them in the past and they aren't a snowflake because they are traumatized by their past. They are a snowflake because they are shutting down a debate because of their own self pity.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

There's a difference between shutting down an argument because its verging on the side of racism. You of all the people in here, refuse to take on board any opinions that appose yours; at least when it comes to your ongoing rant about a certain religious group. You may go quiet when your opposes come back with some sort of proof to back up what they are saying but within a few days, the same old hymn sheet starts all over again.Neither of these opinions/debates/rants are 'snowflakey'. This is not what the word 'snowflake' was termed for.

In my mind a 'snowflake' is someone who can't listen or join in a debate about a certain subject because they are too sensitive but will go out of their way to shut that debate down, by other means, because they don't like it.

An example of that could be a debate or conversation about bullying. The 'snowflake' who has in the past been bullied and indeed traumatized by that bullying, does not want to join in this conversation because it triggers all sorts of memories. Instead of walking away as an act of self protection, they hang around and tell everyone that they shouldn't be having this discussion because it upsets them on a personal level. They aren't a snowflake because of what happened to them in the past and they aren't a snowflake because they are traumatized by their past. They are a snowflake because they are shutting down a debate because of their own self pity.

Some on here like to elect themselves as judge and jury over people whose opinions differ to theirs. I think it makes them feel moraly superior, it doesn't of course. Opposing Islam is not racist - you and others can state it until you are blue in the face but it will not make it so. Trying to force and shame people into your way of thinking, or at the very least not question your thinking is and never will be well-balanced or well-informed because, like you accuse me, you see what you want to see.

You would be within your rights to accuse people of that who were being verbally abusive towards Muslims, threatening them is some way or saying very derogatory things that were clearly recognisable to all as Racist, none of which you can accuse me of doing. I simply oppose the religion because of its second-class treatment of women both here and in the Middle-East, in fact all over the world. We see it every day - to try and claim it is the behaviour of the few is ridiculous. Islam is causing problems all over the world, but hell lets just accuse those that challenge and criticize it as racists rather than address the problems with the religion and the people that blindly follow it. I have yet to see any of you present any actual proof that Islam is a just and tolerant religion who the rest of the world have got completely wrong. You certainly could not convince most that it doesn't treat women as second-class citizens.

Even more we need to address those superior souls who think they are the mouthpiece for every Muslim in the world and speak with such knowledge and wisdom with a belief they have right on their side and in a position to judge everyone else. So boring.

There you are - there is rant for you. But not a word of racism in it, although no doubt you will invent some.

Have fun.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Some on here like to elect themselves as judge and jury over people whose opinions differ to theirs. I think it makes them feel moraly superior, it doesn't of course. Opposing Islam is not racist - you and others can state it until you are blue in the face but it will not make it so. Trying to force and shame people into your way of thinking, or at the very least not question your thinking is and never will be well-balanced or well-informed because, like you accuse me, you see what you want to see.

You would be within your rights to accuse people of that who were being verbally abusive towards Muslims, threatening them is some way or saying very derogatory things that were clearly recognisable to all as Racist, none of which you can accuse me of doing. I simply oppose the religion because of its second-class treatment of women both here and in the Middle-East, in fact all over the world. We see it every day - to try and claim it is the behaviour of the few is ridiculous. Islam is causing problems all over the world, but hell lets just accuse those that challenge and criticize it as racists rather than address the problems with the religion and the people that blindly follow it. I have yet to see any of you present any actual proof that Islam is a just and tolerant religion who the rest of the world have got completely wrong. You certainly could not convince most that it doesn't treat women as second-class citizens.

Even more we need to address those superior souls who think they are the mouthpiece for every Muslim in the world and speak with such knowledge and wisdom with a belief they have right on their side and in a position to judge everyone else. So boring.

There you are - there is rant for you. But not a word of racism in it, although no doubt you will invent some.

Have fun.

What do you mean by "I couldn't convince 'most' people that Muslim men don't treat women as second class citizens?" What you aren't getting is, I don't have to convince 'most' people because more people think like me than think like you... at least in the areas I live, work and hang out. Perhaps if I moved to certain towns in the north or out to places like Norfolk, I'd find more people who thought like you do, but I don't plan on doing that.

I have said many times that most Muslims are barely religious. Just as Christians are often only that by name and only go to church at Christmas, the majority of Muslims (the thousands you wouldn't notice) dress in western dress, including the women and never step inside a mosque, but you ignore that and perpetually lump them all together with the terrorists and the misogynists and hate preachers and women in veils. Its like you see all Muslims as one evil person.

Now if you were to suggest that certain types of Muslims treat women like second class citizens, I'd agree with you whole heartedly. There are some institutions within the Islamic faith that treat women appalingly and nobody can really deny that, but when you talk about evil Muslim men, you mean all of them.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

That is such total ballony. If people like you did not constantly try to shut down opposing opinions with petty name-calling and other exclusion attempts, terminology such as snowflakes in its current form would not exist. If you want to place blame for the existence of such terminology you should look closer to home.

Projection.

[bots]

i think Vicky summed it up rather well, and I see no correlation with the term and politics directly. It may come up when someone cant stand the heat as it were but to say its right or left wing specifically just reflects ones own bias

[Crimson Dynamo]

One of the problems is of course social media and virtue signalling


Youngsters (not exclusively but for this example)will pepper their posts with how they want to be perceived based on the current mood of the day. SO they want to be seen as the most inclusive, free-thinking, all encompassing SJW they can to get likes. Hence you get a plethora of "wow, Ant that is NOT COOL" etc comments when they mishear Ant say Avvo and think he says ABBO. Its not that they give a tuppney fck about Aborigines or racism per se but they do care about their friends and followers thinking they do

[Northern Monkey]

I first heard it a few years ago.It started out as “special snowflake” and it was for the young American liberal SJW types that thought they deserved some kind of special treatment(i.e a safe space) because their feelings were hurt when they encountered opinions that didn’t match their own liberal ideology.The same people who get triggered by clapping so they click their fingers or use jazz hands to show their appreciation.These are a special kind of liberal from university culture.
The term has expanded abit now though.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I first heard it a few years ago.It started out as “special snowflake” and it was for the young American liberal SJW types that thought they deserved some kind of special treatment(i.e a safe space) because their feelings were hurt when they encountered opinions that didn’t match their own liberal ideology.The same people who get triggered by clapping so they click their fingers or use jazz hands to show their appreciation.These are a special kind of liberal from university culture.
The term has expanded abit now though.

Thats what I thought it meant actually.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

I first heard it a few years ago.It started out as “special snowflake” and it was for the young American liberal SJW types that thought they deserved some kind of special treatment(i.e a safe space) because their feelings were hurt when they encountered opinions that didn’t match their own liberal ideology.The same people who get triggered by clapping so they click their fingers or use jazz hands to show their appreciation.These are a special kind of liberal from university culture.
The term has expanded abit now though.

That's my understanding of the term.

[user104658]

Yep, the idea that it means delicate or easily offended is a misconception / a new adaptation of the meaning... it's originally about the fact (?) that every snowflake crystal has its own slightly different shape and structure and no two are ever the same. It's about uniqueness / "being special in the world" a-la the Fight Club rant;

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile"

A counter to the idea that has been IMPOSED ON WESTERN - ESPECIALLY AMERICAN - CHILDREN SINCE THE 80's... that everyone is super-special and unique and can be the best at something (which is obviously, logically, false). But yeah. If millenials are snowflakes, then the blame lies squarely with the people who raised millenials to believe that they are special.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

Yep, the idea that it means delicate or easily offended is a misconception / a new adaptation of the meaning... it's originally about the fact (?) that every snowflake crystal has its own slightly different shape and structure and no two are ever the same. It's about uniqueness / "being special in the world" a-la the Fight Club rant;

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile"

A counter to the idea that has been IMPOSED ON WESTERN - ESPECIALLY AMERICAN - CHILDREN SINCE THE 80's... that everyone is super-special and unique and can be the best at something (which is obviously, logically, false). But yeah. If millenials are snowflakes, then the blame lies squarely with the people who raised millenials to believe that they are special.

Probably where all the made up genders come from too.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The_Hogfather

Probably where all the made up genders come from too.

I'd be hesitant to say that it's always this... But yes... I do think that a lot of the new "gender or genderless" pronouns and the need to have a seemingly endless list of descriptors on dating / social media profiles is, at least in part, linked to the need to "have something different" and "be unique".

The irony of course being that at this point it has actually become extremely conformist.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

I'd be hesitant to say that it's always this... But yes... I do think that a lot of the new "gender or genderless" pronouns and the need to have a seemingly endless list of descriptors on dating / social media profiles is, at least in part, linked to the need to "have something different" and "be unique".

The irony of course being that at this point it has actually become extremely conformist.

I agree with that, tbh. Male, female, Non-binary. That's enough to cover all the boxes.

Pansexuality is something else that bugs me tbh, it's just a pretentious way of saying bisexual and the justification for it is silly, 'oh we aren't attracted to gender, we're attracted to PEOPLE!' that's just bisexuality.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I agree with that, tbh. Male, female, Non-binary. That's enough to cover all the boxes.

tbh I don't even acknowledge "non-binary", there's no science behind it. From what I can tell, it came from Tumblr.

Pansexuality is something else that bugs me tbh, it's just a pretentious way of saying bisexual and the justification for it is silly, 'oh we aren't attracted to gender, we're attracted to PEOPLE!' that's just bisexuality.

This I agree with. Sexuality is based on being attracted to males, females, or both. If someone thinks they're a "grey gender agender nonbinary leprechaun" or whatever nonsense they come up with, they still look male or female, and would attract people accordingly.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

I'd be hesitant to say that it's always this... But yes... I do think that a lot of the new "gender or genderless" pronouns and the need to have a seemingly endless list of descriptors on dating / social media profiles is, at least in part, linked to the need to "have something different" and "be unique".

The irony of course being that at this point it has actually become extremely conformist.

Honestly I think the endless gender pronouns actually damage how some people see trans people in general. The ones Dezzy listed are fine enough descriptors.

[Crimson Dynamo]

YOLO!

[Tom4784]

I do agree with that but some trans people like to make the distinction.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I do agree with that but some trans people like to make the distinction.

Doesn't mean they're not male or female. They can make whatever distinctions they like, doesn't make it so.

[Crimson Dynamo]

snowflakes triggered by being called snowflakes?

yep that happened

[Kizzy]

And we're back to Muslims again... I didn't see that coming. :/