On the use of the word 'Snowflake'

[Trunkage]

I've started trying to 'reclaim' snowflake as it were. By calling people like Donald Trump snowflakes, cause he is, and Jordan Peterson a snowflake, cause he is.

Dunno how effective it will be though.

I find it quite telling that we live in a time where we find the mere concept of individuality objectionable enough to use it as an insult.

Snowflake isn't used as an insult against the concept of individuality (in fact it's mostly used against collectivists who abhor the concept, ironically enough). As Silentpony pointed out it has nothing to do with the concept of individuality and is about those who think themselves completely unique and deserving of similarly unique treatment because of it.

Except it is, and you said so yourself. You DO know what the word 'unique' means, don't you?

If we are going on a scale of snowflake to... IDK water? Peterson is far more of a snowflake than Trump. Trump can take some insults (he even made a joke about himself saying confeve last week.) Peterson gets a slight whiff of power and decides to make sure he's the only one with free speech. Even Trump isn't that bad.

 

[Trunkage]

Like what's the difference between being treated on an individual basis rather than unique

One treats all equally, while the other wants specific people/groups to be held above others. Despite what some may think, the people who fall into the "unique" types are inherently incapable of being individualists, as they see certain types of people as groups that need to be held above others. It's why some attempts to "reclaim" it will inevitable fail, since while someone like, say, Trump, could be described as one, others, such as civil rights activists Dr. Peterson, can't.

So like... any business lobbyist especially when they think rules should benefit them and not opponents or unions, Christian conservatives who think Christianity is the best and every other religions should be expelled, people who call immigrants illegal so they don't have to be fair... Sorry man, I had to, mainly from the ridiculousness of their stances.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

For what its worth I find the more readily someone lobs the insult of snowflake around, the more likely they are to be a snowflake themselves

 

[Kyrian007]

I find the term very useful. If I see or hear someone use it as an insult, I immediately know they will never have anything useful to say and I stop taking them seriously straight away. Its a great time saver for finding out who's willing to have a discussion, and who just repeats what they hear on Fox News or talk radio like a fucking parrot.

 

[Catnip1024]

I don't like it. It's derogatory and an insult - pure and simple. 'Snowflake' is an unusual insult in that it calls someone weak and fragile without using misogynistic or homophobic references.

Which actually kind of makes it better than usual, at least.

That said, it doesn't really imply weakness so much as temperamentalness.

Snowflake is also used as a politicised insult, typically used by those on the right to insult those on the political left. It has become the epithet of choice for right-wingers to fling at anyone who could be accused of being too easily offended - a way of shutting down important arguments.

Eh, like all faddy bullshit political terms, it is now cross-spectrum in scope.

I don't get the big deal. All it does is supplement existing terms, albeit with a little bit more of a political slant. It's a stupid term and the world would likely be a better place without it, but I think that about a lot of terms the media seems to latch onto these days. Any concatenation of words, for starters.

 

[Zontar]

Peterson gets a slight whiff of power and decides to make sure he's the only one with free speech. Even Trump isn't that bad.

That's a new one, of all the things I've seen people claim about Peterson, this is one I've never seen before. Mainly because there's nothing he's ever said that even post-modern collectivists could twist as such, and they can twist a weather forecast into a detailed explanation of modern socioeconomic disparities.

Like what's the difference between being treated on an individual basis rather than unique

One treats all equally, while the other wants specific people/groups to be held above others. Despite what some may think, the people who fall into the "unique" types are inherently incapable of being individualists, as they see certain types of people as groups that need to be held above others. It's why some attempts to "reclaim" it will inevitable fail, since while someone like, say, Trump, could be described as one, others, such as civil rights activists Dr. Peterson, can't.

So like... any business lobbyist especially when they think rules should benefit them and not opponents or unions, Christian conservatives who think Christianity is the best and every other religions should be expelled, people who call immigrants illegal so they don't have to be fair... Sorry man, I had to, mainly from the ridiculousness of their stances.

Not sure what you where going for with the latter part of your comment. Part about radical Christians actually did make sense, the part about illegals being treated the way everywhere that isn't California does, not so much, doesn't really make sense. As with most countries the issue of illegal immigration isn't a partisan one given no side is majority in support of it. Which isn't a surprise given no one has it in their interest to do so, since even ignoring the precedent of federal law being only a suggestion that's set by their tolerance, the right hates illegals because they bolster left wing votes, and the left hates illegals because they actively harm the working and lower class. Honestly while it's no surprise the media pretends the pro-illegal minority are larger then they are, it's literally down to the neo-cons and corprocrats amongst the GOP and Dems, with no one else being anything other then inherently ideologically opposed to illegals if they are being honest about their beliefs.

Although, writing this out I just realised you may have been using people who are pro-illegal as your example, since they are a vocal minority of Democrats who want special treatment above the law. If that's what you where going for, then yeah that works as a good example.

 

[Zontar]

Its a great time saver for finding out who's willing to have a discussion, and who just repeats what they hear on Fox News or talk radio like a fucking parrot.

So it's the right wing equivalent to someone stating they're pro-illegal and then expecting whoever they're talking to to pretend they aren't speaking with a Corporatists?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

That's a new one, of all the things I've seen people claim about Peterson, this is one I've never seen before. Mainly because there's nothing he's ever said that even post-modern collectivists could twist as such, and they can twist a weather forecast into a detailed explanation of modern socioeconomic disparities.

Please explain to me what a 'post-modern collectivist' is.

 

[Zontar]

Please explain to me what a 'post-modern collectivist' is.

Someone who is both a post-modernist and a collectivist. Though I suppose a post-modernist would be enough since I've never seen one who isn't a collectivist. Perfect example would be at the Munk Debate where Peterson and Stephen Fry demolished two of them in a rather one-sided debate.

 

[Kyrian007]

Its a great time saver for finding out who's willing to have a discussion, and who just repeats what they hear on Fox News or talk radio like a fucking parrot.

So it's the right wing equivalent to someone stating they're pro-illegal and then expecting whoever they're talking to to pretend they aren't speaking with a Corporatists?

Not so much I think, I'm not seeing a specific derogatory term there. For equivalency you have to compare it to other timesaver terms for me. SJW, cuck, snowflake, thot... basically hashtag buzzwords that morons use because they find the buzzword in the slanted, tailored media they consume and imitate the pundits that use them.

Speaking to anyone who is using those terms is a waste of time, they are obviously too stupid to do their own thinking... hence parroting those buzzwords.

 

[Zontar]

Its a great time saver for finding out who's willing to have a discussion, and who just repeats what they hear on Fox News or talk radio like a fucking parrot.

So it's the right wing equivalent to someone stating they're pro-illegal and then expecting whoever they're talking to to pretend they aren't speaking with a Corporatists?

Not so much I think, I'm not seeing a specific derogatory term there. For equivalency you have to compare it to other timesaver terms for me. SJW, cuck, snowflake, thot... basically hashtag buzzwords that morons use because they find the buzzword in the slanted, tailored media they consume and imitate the pundits that use them.

Speaking to anyone who is using those terms is a waste of time, they are obviously too stupid to do their own thinking... hence parroting those buzzwords.

Oh, so it's the right wing equivalent to "Alt-Right" and "Incel".

 

[Kyrian007]

Its a great time saver for finding out who's willing to have a discussion, and who just repeats what they hear on Fox News or talk radio like a fucking parrot.

So it's the right wing equivalent to someone stating they're pro-illegal and then expecting whoever they're talking to to pretend they aren't speaking with a Corporatists?

Not so much I think, I'm not seeing a specific derogatory term there. For equivalency you have to compare it to other timesaver terms for me. SJW, cuck, snowflake, thot... basically hashtag buzzwords that morons use because they find the buzzword in the slanted, tailored media they consume and imitate the pundits that use them.

Speaking to anyone who is using those terms is a waste of time, they are obviously too stupid to do their own thinking... hence parroting those buzzwords.

Oh, so it's the right wing equivalent to "Alt-Right" and "Incel".

Not quite. Those are thrown around in an accusatory manner... but they are also in many cases (and in origin) terms of self-identification.

If what you are looking for is a right wing equivalent... not sure I can think of one that works. Insults and accusations thrown by left-wing folk have a tendency to be things like "racist" or "sexist" and frankly those are serious societal problems that need real discussion, even if in a specific situation the accusation is just used to be inflammatory like the buzzwords I mentioned earlier.

Its safe to ignore anyone calling someone else a "snowflake" or an "SJW" because... who cares? Its just an insult. And if it's an accurate description... so be it. However, an accusation of racist or sexist needs to be taken seriously... because it is significant (and decidedly awful) if it is true. Honestly I'm not sure which is worse. Making up chants and hashtag nonsense buzzwords just to get them to "go viral" and get repeated over and over by the brainless masses... or overusing accusations of a much more serious nature and possibly lessening how seriously such accusations should be treated.

 

[Zontar]

Oh, so it's the right wing equivalent to "Alt-Right" and "Incel".

Not quite. Those are thrown around in an accusatory manner... but they are also in many cases (and in origin) terms of self-identification. [/quote]Not sure I can agree with this. I've only ever seen people self identify with "Incel" on reddit, while "Alt-Right" is something I've only seen Richard Spencer self identify as. At this point I'd put them in the same league as "SJW", given that was originally a self identifying term that became an insult after people associated negative attitudes and beliefs with those who self identified with the terms due to, well, the correlation between those who identified with the term and those who held such beliefs.

If what you are looking for is a right wing equivalent... not sure I can think of one that works. Insults and accusations thrown by left-wing folk have a tendency to be things like "racist" or "sexist" and frankly those are serious societal problems that need real discussion, even if in a specific situation the accusation is just used to be inflammatory like the buzzwords I mentioned earlier.

I see your point, and definitely agree that people are far too ready to use those terms when it isn't appropriate.

 

[RobertEHouse]

Generalization is the key insult here, not politics but the stupidity of people whom lump people in one group or another. It does not matter if it's Liberal or Conservative as everyone has painted ever person now with a black or white brush.

As for words they are nothing if you actually have enough self-confidence, which appears to be the main driving force going on here. If people do not want words like snowflake/ e.t.c to actually not feel like an insult.Then actually teach people to develop self confidence and to stop telling the world to change for them because they cannot cope. The world does not owe anyone anything and people are just plain jerks so learn to believe in yourself , folks.

 

[dscross]

As for words they are nothing if you actually have enough self-confidence, which appears to be the main driving force going on here. If you want words like snowflake e.t.c to actually not feel like an insult,then actually teach people to develop self confidence and to stop telling the world to change for them because they cannot cope.

So, what are you saying here? That it's ok to have derogatory insults in everyday vocabulary because people need to learn to 'toughen up'?

 

[Kyrian007]

I see your point, and definitely agree that people are far too ready to use those terms when it isn't appropriate.

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Not nearly as disturbing as the number of those claims that really do hold water though.

I guess the point is, I find it fair to ignore the epithets generally used by right wingers. They are just childish insults that prove the users stupidity and are easily ignored. The left throws around their own accusations, but those need to be taken seriously and considered. So we can admonish those who would wrongfully accuse, and more importantly (and as is disturbingly more often the case than I'd like to see in 2018) in case those accusations have merit.

 

[RobertEHouse]

As for words they are nothing if you actually have enough self-confidence, which appears to be the main driving force going on here. If you want words like snowflake e.t.c to actually not feel like an insult,then actually teach people to develop self confidence and to stop telling the world to change for them because they cannot cope.

So, what are you saying here? That it's ok to have derogatory insults in everyday vocabulary because people need to learn to 'toughen up'.

No,you missed the point...

What i was saying was that a person needs to develop self confidence. That does not require being insulted to do that, but it requires a firm understanding of one's own skills, talents and abilities. When someone understands themselves they cannot be put down by words alone.

 

[dscross]

As for words they are nothing if you actually have enough self-confidence, which appears to be the main driving force going on here. If you want words like snowflake e.t.c to actually not feel like an insult,then actually teach people to develop self confidence and to stop telling the world to change for them because they cannot cope.

So, what are you saying here? That it's ok to have derogatory insults in everyday vocabulary because people need to learn to 'toughen up'.

No,you missed the point...

What i was saying was that a person needs to develop self confidence. That does not require being insulted to do that, but it requires a firm understanding of one's own skills, talents and abilities. When someone understands themselves they cannot be put down by words alone.

I think you are going off on a tangent about self-confidence and taking insults well. I agree with that statement, but the thread isn't really about that. It's about the use of the word. I object to it being used because it's a derogatory term. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[RobertEHouse]

As for words they are nothing if you actually have enough self-confidence, which appears to be the main driving force going on here. If you want words like snowflake e.t.c to actually not feel like an insult,then actually teach people to develop self confidence and to stop telling the world to change for them because they cannot cope.

So, what are you saying here? That it's ok to have derogatory insults in everyday vocabulary because people need to learn to 'toughen up'.

No,you missed the point...

What i was saying was that a person needs to develop self confidence. That does not require being insulted to do that, but it requires a firm understanding of one's own skills, talents and abilities. When someone understands themselves they cannot be put down by words alone.

I think you are going off on a tangent about self-confidence and taking insults well. I agree with that statement, but the thread isn't really about that. It's about the use of the word. I object to it being used because it's a derogatory term. What are your thoughts on that?

I believe it is fine to use the word,it perfectly describes people whom just seem a little to self absorbed.It should not be used to generalize a whole group, political or otherwise.

 

[dscross]

As for words they are nothing if you actually have enough self-confidence, which appears to be the main driving force going on here. If you want words like snowflake e.t.c to actually not feel like an insult,then actually teach people to develop self confidence and to stop telling the world to change for them because they cannot cope.

So, what are you saying here? That it's ok to have derogatory insults in everyday vocabulary because people need to learn to 'toughen up'.

No,you missed the point...

What i was saying was that a person needs to develop self confidence. That does not require being insulted to do that, but it requires a firm understanding of one's own skills, talents and abilities. When someone understands themselves they cannot be put down by words alone.

I think you are going off on a tangent about self-confidence and taking insults well. I agree with that statement, but the thread isn't really about that. It's about the use of the word. I object to it being used because it's a derogatory term. What are your thoughts on that?

I believe it is fine to use the word,it perfectly describes people whom just seem a little to self absorbed.It should not be used to generalize a whole group, political or otherwise.

It is not usually used to describe someone who is self absorbed when I've heard it used, and I doubt many people actually use it that way. It is used as a tool to insult someone having an 'upset' emotional response. It has morphed into a general putdown for anyone that complains about any subject.

You don't have to agree with anything someone's feeling. However, it's important to note that, for whatever reason, they are having an emotional response and that emotional response is valid. It doesn't matter if you agree or not, people are allowed to feel. Remember that the converse of being "sensitive" is Insensitivity.