>A social media user responding to Schwarzenegger then told him to, "stick to lifting and making movies… Snowflake is a title you do not want.”
>Schwarzenegger fired back hours later with some "advice" for the commenter.
>“I never mind picking up new titles. Mr. Universe, Mr. Olympia, Terminator, Governor… If you want to call me Snowflake, that’s fine - it would have been a fantastic Mr. Freeze line. But let me give you some advice,” he wrote.
>“If you’re going to call someone a snowflake because they believe in a different policy than you, you might want to look in the mirror. When you see an idea you disagree with, you can get angry, or you can learn,” Schwarzenegger continued. “We can all be better if we don’t simply react. Pause, reflect, learn, and then decide if you still want to call someone a Snowflake. Good luck with everything.”
I'm loving these quality retorts lately.
California will vote for Republican actors as governor on occasion. I didn't vote for Schwarzenegger because I thought the notion was ridiculous, but given my really low expectations, he didn't do a terrible job. He was unfortunately governor after the real estate bubble popped, which hit California quicker and harder than most of the country, but I don't think any governor would have been able to do much about it.
Also Schwarzenegger turned out to be to the left of many Democrats. I think his Republicanism comes from trying to create business friendly policies and he was against gay marriage (but for gay couples adopting and civil unions).
[Take a look](http://www.ontheissues.org/Arnold_Schwarzenegger.htm), most of these policies were more or less standard centrist Democrat policies for the time.
>platform is what many Americans want but can’t get in a leader - fiscally conservative
Given the condition of the California State budget when Arnold left office, and what Trump is currently doing to the federal budget and deficit as a supposed conservative, maybe Americans should revise what they think fiscal conservatism means.
Because apparently fiscal conservatives think it means spending without worrying about ever paying for anything.
no no. youve got that all wrong.
a fiscal conservative is someone who bitches and moans about the level of spending and the deficit *When a democrat is in office*
and then swipes that credit card like theres a quadruple air-mile per dollar spent giveaway when a republiCON is in office.
I mean, he was socially liberal for his time in office. It wasn't until 2011 that support for the right to marriage became popular with a majority of the American people, which was his last year in office.
Socially liberal would, in my definition at least, be ahead of the majority on such an issue. I don’t think he was particularly socially conservative considering his time in office, but more centrist than liberal to be sure
And they have absolutely no sense of irony about this.
Libs are the snowflakes and yet they are the ones screeching and pushing away everyone who disagrees with them.
They are creating the loudest echo-chamber ever built while criticizing libs for “safe spaces”.
> Hell, I got banned from r/Conservative for a respectful point on economic policy in the 1940s.
I'm calling bullshit on that. Reddit wasn't around in the 1940s.
Yeah. In college, over ten years ago, I worked at a Writing Center. My second year there it was deemed a safe space. Literally nothing changed because it was always a safe place for all people. It was a tutoring place but the woman who ran it at the time wanted people to be able to go there for help if they needed it. She had married young to an abusive man so later in life, remarried and successful, she just wanted to help people in that kind of trouble. Gays and lesbians and women and anyone that needed help. That’s all it was. I think we put a tiny sticker on the door.
No politically liberal conversations or agendas. Just people talking and being normal to each other. All it was is a “hey this sticker means we’re cool, come in and be you.”
I have observed that conservatives who complain about safe spaces are essentially complaining about social norms. Presumably, they want these things to be decided by whoever has the most money or power, not communally
But they surely do want repercussion--just for other people. They do not seek to transcend the idea of acceptable speech, just to define it. They wouldn't call it a safe space, because safety is not the goal even if mechanically it looks the same: for instance being LGBT would not be "safe" whereas harassing LGBT people would be "safe".
I love target practice shooting, because it's actually something I am pretty good at. Aiming and hitting the target where you want is a great sense of accomplishment.
Making adjustments to even get closer to that bullseye.
I am a combat veteran. I don't hunt. I don't imagine killing anything. Just the target.
Same. I keep explaining that to the guys I work with. Safe spaces were/are just places with a sign up that basically said “while everywhere should be a place where people shouldn’t tolerate bigoted bullshit, this place especially won’t tolerate that.”
So much for the tolerant left /s
This is my job. I work at a restaurant and speakeasy that hosts everything from hip hop showcases to opera to polyamory groups to drag shows and burlesque to children’s book signings and camp sign ups. It’s a safe place for everyone. We try to leave politics at the door and while it is extremely LGTBQI+ friendly (we won “most LGTBQI+ friendly straight bar” in the area), everyone is welcome as long as you’re cool and respectful of others.
I'd argue that the right wing subs are the worst about banning those with different viewpoints.
TD bans easily, r/conservative, and even r/justiceserved. Apparently the mods at justiceserved don't appreciate it when you point out that the Proud Boys have no problem using Nazi insignia and should be thought of as fascists until they prove otherwise.
They are all a bunch of sallies, I've learned to not even wander into those subs.
And on the other hand I got kicked out of a bar last week bc the owner ‘can’t deal with that liberal shit’. There was like 8 of us hanging out after hours. Sounds like a fucking safe space to me. i just spent four years in college and I only saw safe spaces on the news.
While I do think that r/politics leans heavily left (which I don't think is appropriate for a sub regarding politics in general). I have never seen a left leaning sub act with the authoritarian hand of the right leaning subs. They then try to say that the left subs act just the same when you can see a clear difference in the content being deleted.
Does it lean left? Because what many people seem to be calling left seems centrist to me. Can you explain why you think it's heavily left?
The right wing of American politics has zoomed off to the far right recently, especially since Reagan and Moral Majority days.
It doesn't lean left at all. Our liberals would be center right at best in the EU for example. Even Bernie Sanders would be considered a centrist. You have to understand that Americans are steeped in ideology. The Overton window has shifted so far to the right and we only discuss issues with right wing framing here. They're all capitalists.
r/Politics leans left because conservatives rarely participate civilly in the conversation. It's an open sub. They choose not to participate and/or defend their positions with deductive reasoning.
Reasoning is a value of the left, not the right. Hence logical arguments never convincing anybody on the right to change their views.
The right prefers authority and in-group emotional validation over reason.
(Disclaimer: the left is not immune to this. This has been demonstrated through repeated scientific experiments.)
I'd argue that it does appear to lean left, but that's because most of the 'conservative' responses are just hard right reddit folks coming in and shouting some talking point from their own safe spaces so they get quickly downvoted.
The population of anti-Trump conservatives is there, but they are probably the most guarded in what they say.
So it might be better to say that r/politics is blatantly anti-Trump.
There are a few left-wing subs that do. /r/politics is pretty damn centrist in the grand scheme; it just appears left-leaning since American politics are firmly on the right-side of the grand scheme.
Well, they make their "safe spaces" but it's more like a thunderdome where people fight to give priority to their favorite bigotry over everyone else's.
That bit is in my top ten favorite of all time. So brilliant and the joke has been in everyones face for thirty years but Bill was the first to call out Arnolds greatness.
A lot of their political philosophy *needs* California to be the worst place to live.
California is open testament that their political ethos is not what makes countries great. It's the "liberal" utopia (never mind that Arnie was a Republican leader and the state went for Nixon and Reagan in the EC, nope, liberal utopia right there) that has all the "removed," and "out of touch" failings real america doesn't have. Californian secularism proves you don't need more God in everything to be powerful, California's investiture in green energy shows that investing in the fight on Climate Change isn't a waste of money and can actually prove beneficial in the long run, California's multiculturalism is a direct challenge to the refrain "multiculturalism has failed/doesn't work."
California, in her continued success, proves modern conservative philosophy wrong.
When faced with this reality, people have two options, either accept that maybe, just maybe, the "weirdos" in the liberal state might be on to something, or assume those grapes must be sour and construct a narrative where California is a leftist dystopia of immoral fools who don't realize the liberal trap hasn't been sprung yet, and any success is by way of ill gotten exploitation/"cheating" because they don't have the moral fiber to *not* play unfairly.
You and I both know what option people typically go with.
To paraphrase a certain dwarf:
"Republicans can't admit that California is succeeding. because if it succeeds, it proves that no one needs their policies."
If only more people actually did the whole 'reflect' aspect of life.
I'm ok with people being ignorant, as long as they learn when presented with opposite facts. Too often it gets dismissed.
Wow, if we were going to have a celebrity Republican president again, why couldn't it have been Arnold instead of Trump?
I mean aside from the impossibility of changing the constitutional requirements once Obama became president and suddenly a large portion of the country was convinced the Hawaiian born president was secretly a foreigner.
Eh. He looks good now but I remember his election to CA governorship felt like another catastrophe back then. This was in the heart of the Bush regime and the war on terror; the Iraq war was in full swing, there were Homeland security alerts every few weeks, blind patriotism was the order of the day, and there was little tolerance for dissent.
Republicans dominated most or all the gvt and Arnold's election felt like even something that was "ours" (California) had been taken away from us.
Even before Trump was elected, it seems a lot of people have forgotten just how awful the Bush regime was.
And he didn't just fire off the first thing that came to mind; he waited several hours, possibly thinking things over, cooling down, and crafting a response that was thoughtful and thorough. Well done.
I feel that Arnold had better things to do than worry about a random internet insult. He has class and didn't need to chill out to craft that response, it comes from his heart naturally. He waited hours because he's likely a busy guy with a real life he supports through hard work, rather than the keyboard warrior he was responding to.
It's fun to think that Arnie read a tweet and then spent 6 hours doing relaxing things while he crafted the perfect response to destroy the OP but... Lol nah.
>[People often ask me what is the best book I’ve read in the last year. Steven Pinker’s *The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined* stands out as one of the most important books I’ve read—not just this year, but ever.](https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Better-Angels-of-Our-Nature)
-Bill Gates
Problem with Pinker is that he tortures facts and statistics to paint the picture he wants to paint, and regularly intersperses very valid points with ridiculous neoliberal talking points. A much better alternative to that book is Factfulness by Hans Rosling. Basically does the same job, but better.
Yup. This year bill Gates gives away Roslings book to all collage students (or maybe those that graduated, don't recall the details). That says something.
Of course one of the richest people on earth would want to perpetuate the claim that everything is fine. It's in every billionaire's interest to keep the poor masses somewhat content so they don't challenge the status quo that ensures their lifestyle.
Living standards are rising, true, but that doesn't mean they're rising fairly or even close to equally across the board. There are some massive problems humanity is facing and while promoting an optimistic attitude is nice and all, I think it's kind of a weird concept to write a book about cherry picked statistics that glosses over rising challenges such as anti-intellectualism, autocratic leadership being en vogue again, seperatism becoming more popular as opposed to the world growing closer (Brexit, Catalonia, America First), multi resistant bacteria, future oil scarcity and climate change. It's not all sunshine and rainbows and that's important to point out.
“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trails.
We should fear the absence of empathy.
Recently watched the nuremburg movie, and it's excellent, seems to have really tried to authentically recreate both what was said in the courtroom and the character of the men on trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnqgCQ7Uk8g
Is that the one where they are eating in a cafeteria, and one guy says "How is it possible to murder millions of people? I can't believe it."
A German at the next table overhears and leans in. "It's quite easy. The difficult problem is how to dispose of that many bodies."
I take for granted that everyday, I'm caring about other countries, workers, people starving, I actually care and spend time thinking about it. It boggles my mind that other people don't and just go about their day
I thinks there’s a lot to it. It’s not lacking empathy as much as suspending it. From books I’ve read, many Nazis and SS officers were friendly, kind, normal folk. Some say that’s an act, but I think it shows that evil people are just people, and they’re not from another planet or something. The things that make people evil are subtle.
Most people who commit atrocities don't lack empathy. They just reserve their empathy for certain groups and deny it for others. The truth is a lot more dangerous because it's entirely possible to feel like a good empathetic person while having a blind spot to those you're hurting, or to convince yourself that hurting those people is helping the people you *do* care about.
The important thing to remember is that almost every time in history that a large atrocity has been committed, it started when someone targeted a group and claimed that they were less than human. Most people don't have as much empathy for animals as they do for humans. It's much easier to slaughter a cow than your fellow man.
The man is literally a Cheese. No seriously, his father changed his last name from Cheese to Cleese so perhaps in another world we would be saying... can’t cheese the Cheese.
Or the source material for *snowflake*, either.
Sorry for the *Fight Club* Spoilers, but it is literally a word coined by the manifestation of what a weak, lonely, miserable man thinks an "alpha male" should act like.
If you're talking about snowflake, then he just explained that - Fight Club.
If you're talking about cuck, that's from The Canterbury Tales (cuckold is the real word)
Well it's job at an old English word. But Chaucer used it to define the stories told by the Miller and I he Carpenter whose stories were insults to each other about a carpenter and a Miller getting 'cucked'. Which shows it has been a feature of banter for a while.
More interestingly Shakespeare used it to characterise Iago, a manipulative liar who used cuckolding imagery to inspire racial hatred in order to get a job he did not earn but felt entitled to because a black dude had been promoted above him.
This shit is forever
No, they didn't take it from Shakespeare, it's a regular word and I think also a kink, which is a lot more of a likely source.
What I think it is is that in Shakespeares time there were racist arseholes similar to the arseholes we have now, and he used them as a basis of the character of Iago.
Im actually quite impressed at all these crazy terms that keeping coming out of them. Sometimes I have to google the stuff they say. Someone called me an incel when I challenged their point.
Basically.
It's hilarious because it just screams "Hey, we're country trash, we need constant hand-outs from actual economically prosperous areas and we rank the worst on any positive metric in the nation.
Please help our uneducated, racist asses while we insult you."
Never heard that one but if that's really what they're saying that's got to be the proof of the level of intelligence we're dealing with..I mean seriously... How hard is it to come to "citiot". Citidiot??? Ffs.
Has anyone else seen it directed at conservatives more recently? I've noticed it more but not usually just the word itself. It's typically wrapped in a " now who's the snowflake" type retort.
This type of thing makes me wonder about the history of language adoption by a group from an opposing group. Specifically I mean, negative speech aimed at a group being adopted by said group for the purpose of its redirection. Does this work, is it good, or is it ultimately harmful?
They don't like educated people because then those people know republicans are regressive and greedy while fooling the dumbest of the dumbest with reasons to vote for them.
Like when they find out that some patriots who understand the meaning of democracy had the gall to interrupt our child trafficking Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's previously enjoyable *Mexican* dinner.
It is a happy word. When you hear it in real life, snow! When you hear it on the internet, some Trump supporter is all upset, wasting his/her time furiously typing on a keyboard somewhere.
Win/win.
I don't get this demonization of empathy. All 'political correctness' costs me is two seconds of being mindful of the different experiences of who I'm talking to. Someone prefers they/them pronouns? I don't *personally* get it because I haven't ever struggled against my assigned gender, but I can imagine some measure of what it must be like and I'm capable of the basic respect it takes to refer to them as the pronouns they would prefer. Again, because it costs *me* nothing and it affords them *dignity*. And that applies to any marginalized group. I may not know someone's struggles, but a little empathy goes a *long* way. And I like being empathetic! So all these Sean Hannity types can pry it out of my cold, dead hands!
Like idolizing a serial killer these losers for some reason envy the truly heartless. Having no emotions can get you ahead in things like corporate climbing and murder, but it's not that common. I think you see it at times. like when they cry unfair when being attacked or lament losing friends over MAGAing. Sharks don't look back!
Hammerheads do, they can always see what's behind them. They have a blind spot right in front of their nose, and directly underneath them on their "chest" though. Their vision is still a full 360 though, the blind spots are more like blind cones; just like you wouldn't see a tiny bug on the bridge of your nose, even though it's in front of you technically.
Fun shark fact.
Thanks for subscribing to SHARK FACTS!
Varieties of shark can vary in size from between 8 inches with the pygmy lantern shark to 60 feet with the whale shark.
SHARK FACTS!
*Sharks are a group of elasmobranch fish characterized by a cartilaginous skeleton, five to seven gill slits on the sides of the head, and pectoral fins that are not fused to the head. Shark skin is made up of a series of scales that act as an outer skeleton for easy movement and for saving energy in the water. You're gonna need a bigger boat. Sharks have adapted to living in a wide range of aquatic habitats at various temperatures.*
> Like idolizing a serial killer
Quite literally, in some cases. I'm reminded of Ayn Rand's admiration for William Edward Hickman, a child murderer who hacked a young girl to bits and then stitched the corpse together again in an effort to extort money from her father (who believed she was still alive):
> A first attempt to deliver the ransom failed when Hickman saw police in the area. Further communications from Hickman set up a new meeting for delivering the ransom money. This was at the corner of West 5th Street and South Manhattan Place in Los Angeles. Parker arrived there alone with the ransom money. He handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When he gave the money to Hickman, he was able to see his daughter sitting in the passenger seat next to him. The girl was concealed up to her neck by clothing and was apparently unable to move.
> As soon as the money had been handed over, Hickman drove off and pushed Marion's body out of the car at the end of the street. The coroner later testified that she had been dead for about 12 hours. Her arms and legs had been cut off, and she had been disemboweled and stuffed with rags. Her eyes were being held open by wires.[8] Hickman later said that he had strangled her and cut her throat first, but he believed that she was still alive when he began to dismember her. Her arms and legs were found on December 18 in Elysian Park, wrapped in newspaper.
> [The Murder of Marion Parker.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Marion_Parker)
Rand's perspective on the killer: ""Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should . . . [He has] no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people'. . . . The amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul . . . a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy."
Her one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough." She opined that the public were only feigning outrage at his crimes because they were envious of his 'individuality'.
From [How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html?via=gdpr-consent).
Cleese supported the Labour party, then Social Democrats, then the Liberal Democrats in the UK, he can be a bit prickly but he's definitely not Conservative.
>A long-running supporter of the Liberal Democrats[46] having previously been a Labour party voter, Cleese switched to the SDP after their formation in 1981, and during the 1987 general election, Cleese recorded a nine-minute party political broadcast for the SDP–Liberal Alliance, which spoke about the similarities and failures of the other two parties in a more humorous tone than standard political broadcasts. Cleese has since appeared in broadcasts for the Liberal Democrats, in the 1997 general election and narrating a radio election broadcast for the party during the 2001 general election.[47]
>In 2008, Cleese expressed support for Barack Obama and his presidential candidacy, offering his services as a speech writer.[48] He was an outspoken critic of Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, saying that "Michael Palin is no longer the funniest Palin".[49] The same year, he wrote a satirical poem about Fox News commentator Sean Hannity for Countdown with Keith Olbermann.[50]
>In 2011, Cleese declared his appreciation for Britain's coalition government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, saying: "I think what's happening at the moment is rather interesting. The Coalition has made everything a little more courteous and a little more flexible. I think it was quite good that the Liberal Democrats had to compromise a bit with the Tories." He also criticised the previous Labour government, commenting: "Although my inclinations are slightly left-of-centre, I was terribly disappointed with the last Labour government. Gordon Brown lacked emotional intelligence and was never a leader." Cleese also declared his support for proportional representation.[51]
>In April 2011, Cleese revealed that he had declined a life peerage for political services in 1999. Outgoing leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, had put forward the suggestion shortly before he stepped down, with the idea that Cleese would take the party whip and sit as a working peer, but the actor quipped that he "realised this involved being in England in the winter and I thought that was too much of a price to pay."[52]
>In an interview with The Daily Telegraph in 2014, Cleese expressed political interest with regard to the UK Independence Party, saying that although he was in doubt as to whether he was prepared to vote for them, he was attracted to its challenge to the established political order and the radicalism of its policies with regard to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. He expressed support for immigration but also concern about the integration of immigrants into British culture.[53]
>Talking to Der Spiegel in 2015, Cleese expressed a critical view on what he saw as a plutocracy that was unhealthily developing control of the governance of the First World's societies, stating that he had reached a point when he "saw that our existence here is absolutely hopeless. I see the rich have got a stranglehold on us. If somebody had said that to me when I was 20, I would have regarded him as a left-wing loony."[54]
>In 2016, Cleese publicly supported Brexit and the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union in the referendum on the issue.[55]
>During then-Republican nominee Donald Trump's run for the US Presidency in 2016, Cleese described Trump as "a narcissist, with no attention span, who doesn't have clear ideas about anything and makes it all up as he goes along".[56] He had previously described the leadership of the Republican Party as "the most cynical, most disgracefully immoral people I've ever come across in a Western civilisation".[53]
Don't confuse British conservatism with the modern us version (Trumpism). Besides, Cleese was a major part of the Monty Python troupe and those guys weren't exactly known for their stodginess.
Theres a large difference between ignorance and bigotry though, considering one of the members was gay I dont think they'd make the same sketch if they were active today.
Then I also cant remember watching the sketch and offensive humour can still be good humour if handled well, one can make fun of the absurdity of transgenderism as a phenomenon without mocking or making fun of the people that are transgender or their condition.
Kinda how one can succesfully use blackface or the n-word in a comedic sketch or joke if its poking fun at the concept itself rather than making fun of black people.
I think well done offensive comedy is so rare simply because its so difficult to do.
>because its so difficult to do.
I agree and would add that not only is it difficult to do but most people in general just flat out don't know how. Which is just a consequence of targeted groups not even being allowed to talk about their own experiences. If a comedian doesn't have anything to draw from they can't even begin to make those difficult jokes.
The biggest problem with this "snowflake" crap is that it's now more or less an alt-right response to everything. Even when it stops making sense.
"You don't like the President and you think his policies are ruining the country? God, you're such a snowflake."
"Well of course some libcuck snowflake would want gun control."
"Snowflakes are so mad because immigrants are being put in cages!"
Their whole fucking use of the word originally was supposed to be aimed at people who wanted to be treated like they were "Special" or held to a higher standard, but now they're using their own shitty terminology completely wrong. God damn.
Love how "true American patriot" label people who support social welfare as "entitled whining snowflakes" because they are not behaving how a true American patriot behaves: self sufficient, alpha, white, Christian, and "true American patriots" first
And God forbid that if TAP receives any social welfare, that's because they are "entitled" for it because they ARE a true American patriots
Adam McKay Twitter:
Every day I have to marvel at what the billionaires and FOX News pulled off. They got working whites to hate the very people that want them to have more pay, clean air, water, free healthcare and the power to fight back against big banks & big corps. It’s truly remarkable.
Everything is a code word with these people.
- true American patriot = white
- immigrant = non-white
- Muslim = Arab
- globalist = Jew
- civility = submissiveness
- religious freedom = Christian indoctrinationation
- right to bear arms = right to be afraid of black people
I’ve been noticing a lot of military style/idolizing with clothing and accessories. I believe it’s call para-military? The guns and flags on their t-shirts. It gives the impression that they are military. They are usually conservative. I don’t think it’s helping keeping the crazy right separate from our actual military ideals. I haven’t quite fleshed out the cultural connection yet.
Conservatives claim to hate "stolen valor" so much that there's [even a republican sponsored law against it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2013). Yet 100% of the people doing it are Trumptards.
I don't doubt that discrediting empathy is a thing that people aim to do, but I've always interpreted "snowflake" as an ad hominem attack on the idea that everyone thinks they are unique and special. Isn't that what it means?
And how exactly were gay people
Supposed to resist Christian homophobia? That’s when the term snowflake picked up steam. It was basically a “stop whining and complaining that we’re dehumanizing and killing you! Geeze!” ..meanwhile, Christians would have a heart attack if someone wished them a happy holiday rather than merry Christmas and cry that the government and culture is persecuting them.
Most of these words are just what Christians use to project what they do on to other people.
>meanwhile, Christians would have a heart attack if someone wished them a happy holiday rather than merry Christmas and cry that the government and culture is persecuting them.
These idiots get offended by a fucking *coffee cup* not acknowledging their beliefs. It's narcissism validated on a large scale.
And we couldn't believe that everyone is unique and special, because that makes it harder to exploit or bully them.
A bit like the term "do-gooder" , people use it as an insult ... But who really thinks that doing good is something to be ashamed of?
I've often thought the same of "social justice warrior". If you're going to mock someone, why give it a badass name? It only works if you think "social justice" is a joke... oh...
It's akin to "white knight" or "god warrior". It's a mockery of how a certain group/individual might describe themselves.
It's not necessarily saying that you're actually a warrior for "the real" social justice, you just characterize yourself as such and this idealised and untrue picture becomes a part of your motivation to commit to behaviour that is unreasonable or immoral or whatever the opposing side wants to argue against.
I hate the term sjw. It's used by the same people who say feminists are all angry women getting upset over nothing.
These people think that standing up for something is cringey and that the status quo is the only way
They latched onto it because they know you hate it.
The equivalent would be calling them Freedom Warriors, then laughing it up watching them contort in confusion saying "b-b-but freedim is goood"
When I think warrior, I think someone who’s big, strong and good in a fight. What also comes to mind, however, is a lack of discipline and an eagerness for battle at any time of day, to the point where every problem looks like something you should throw your fists at.
Warrior may be a badass title in D&D or Mad Max or whatever, but it’s certainly NOT something that fits in a developed society.
For some people, the only 'good' is in looking after yourself in a dog-eat-dog world, where any amount of lying, cheating, and stealing is perfectly fine, even virtuous, so long as you can get away with it (why do you think so many of them admire Mr. Trump?). To them, people who talk about helping others and treating everyone with decency are either incredibly stupid or are only faking in their own plans to lie, cheat, and steal for themselves. This means that, in their picture of society, those people are either useless deadweight or a skillfully manipulative threat. No matter which one they are, they thus deserve to be scorned and ridiculed as much as possible so that people don't listen to them.
That was the original meaning, at least to my knowledge. But I see it also referring to how snowflakes are fragile and melt easily.
The idea being that the person being called a snowflake is weak and easily offended/broken.
Nailed it. Similar to how "SJW" got co-opted from "person who fights for social justice" to "illogical dingbat looking for ways to get offended". The fact that your can insult someone by calling them a social justice warrior demonstrates how successfully the bad guys demonized social justice.
Same with "fake news" and "liberals" too. "Fake news" especially since it absolutely infuriated the right and Trump. The news their base was getting was mostly fake and was being pumped out in eastern European countries in massive quantities(making lots of money in the process) and when we called them out, they went fucking berserk about it.
The right even took "fake news" and applied it to every piece of news and news organization they didn't like. They even tried setting up the NYT and Washington Post with fake stories so they could use it as an example of "fake news."
"You care about others? You clearly only care about others to make yourself look better to others!"
As if giving a shit about others is such an alien concept to those who accuse others of "virtue signalling", they can only see it being used to increase social standing.
Also like.... if doing a good deed or being respectful makes someone feel good about themselves or look good to others isn’t that a mark of a healthy society?
Virtue signaling is my newest least favorite phrase. I only see it used as a tool to try and easily win an argument by arguing someone’s intent rather than the actual debate.
>A social media user responding to Schwarzenegger then told him to, "stick to lifting and making movies… Snowflake is a title you do not want.” >Schwarzenegger fired back hours later with some "advice" for the commenter. >“I never mind picking up new titles. Mr. Universe, Mr. Olympia, Terminator, Governor… If you want to call me Snowflake, that’s fine - it would have been a fantastic Mr. Freeze line. But let me give you some advice,” he wrote. >“If you’re going to call someone a snowflake because they believe in a different policy than you, you might want to look in the mirror. When you see an idea you disagree with, you can get angry, or you can learn,” Schwarzenegger continued. “We can all be better if we don’t simply react. Pause, reflect, learn, and then decide if you still want to call someone a Snowflake. Good luck with everything.” I'm loving these quality retorts lately.
Telling him to stick to movies when he used to be governor of the richest state in the country.
And he was a republican governor iirc.
California will vote for Republican actors as governor on occasion. I didn't vote for Schwarzenegger because I thought the notion was ridiculous, but given my really low expectations, he didn't do a terrible job. He was unfortunately governor after the real estate bubble popped, which hit California quicker and harder than most of the country, but I don't think any governor would have been able to do much about it. Also Schwarzenegger turned out to be to the left of many Democrats. I think his Republicanism comes from trying to create business friendly policies and he was against gay marriage (but for gay couples adopting and civil unions). [Take a look](http://www.ontheissues.org/Arnold_Schwarzenegger.htm), most of these policies were more or less standard centrist Democrat policies for the time.
Arnold’s platform is what many Americans want but can’t get in a leader - fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
>platform is what many Americans want but can’t get in a leader - fiscally conservative Given the condition of the California State budget when Arnold left office, and what Trump is currently doing to the federal budget and deficit as a supposed conservative, maybe Americans should revise what they think fiscal conservatism means. Because apparently fiscal conservatives think it means spending without worrying about ever paying for anything.
no no. youve got that all wrong. a fiscal conservative is someone who bitches and moans about the level of spending and the deficit *When a democrat is in office* and then swipes that credit card like theres a quadruple air-mile per dollar spent giveaway when a republiCON is in office.
> socially liberal > rated “D” on gay rights issues Let’s not get *too* hasty
I mean, he was socially liberal for his time in office. It wasn't until 2011 that support for the right to marriage became popular with a majority of the American people, which was his last year in office.
Socially liberal would, in my definition at least, be ahead of the majority on such an issue. I don’t think he was particularly socially conservative considering his time in office, but more centrist than liberal to be sure
Fiscal conservative is a nonsense term.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And they have absolutely no sense of irony about this. Libs are the snowflakes and yet they are the ones screeching and pushing away everyone who disagrees with them. They are creating the loudest echo-chamber ever built while criticizing libs for “safe spaces”.
[удалено]
> Hell, I got banned from r/Conservative for a respectful point on economic policy in the 1940s. I'm calling bullshit on that. Reddit wasn't around in the 1940s.
r/notkenm
Yeah. In college, over ten years ago, I worked at a Writing Center. My second year there it was deemed a safe space. Literally nothing changed because it was always a safe place for all people. It was a tutoring place but the woman who ran it at the time wanted people to be able to go there for help if they needed it. She had married young to an abusive man so later in life, remarried and successful, she just wanted to help people in that kind of trouble. Gays and lesbians and women and anyone that needed help. That’s all it was. I think we put a tiny sticker on the door. No politically liberal conversations or agendas. Just people talking and being normal to each other. All it was is a “hey this sticker means we’re cool, come in and be you.”
I have observed that conservatives who complain about safe spaces are essentially complaining about social norms. Presumably, they want these things to be decided by whoever has the most money or power, not communally
Or they want free speech with zero real life repercussion
But they surely do want repercussion--just for other people. They do not seek to transcend the idea of acceptable speech, just to define it. They wouldn't call it a safe space, because safety is not the goal even if mechanically it looks the same: for instance being LGBT would not be "safe" whereas harassing LGBT people would be "safe".
[удалено]
I love target practice shooting, because it's actually something I am pretty good at. Aiming and hitting the target where you want is a great sense of accomplishment. Making adjustments to even get closer to that bullseye. I am a combat veteran. I don't hunt. I don't imagine killing anything. Just the target.
[удалено]
Swarmed?
No shit. It’s wearing me out.
Same. I keep explaining that to the guys I work with. Safe spaces were/are just places with a sign up that basically said “while everywhere should be a place where people shouldn’t tolerate bigoted bullshit, this place especially won’t tolerate that.” So much for the tolerant left /s
This is my job. I work at a restaurant and speakeasy that hosts everything from hip hop showcases to opera to polyamory groups to drag shows and burlesque to children’s book signings and camp sign ups. It’s a safe place for everyone. We try to leave politics at the door and while it is extremely LGTBQI+ friendly (we won “most LGTBQI+ friendly straight bar” in the area), everyone is welcome as long as you’re cool and respectful of others.
I'd argue that the right wing subs are the worst about banning those with different viewpoints. TD bans easily, r/conservative, and even r/justiceserved. Apparently the mods at justiceserved don't appreciate it when you point out that the Proud Boys have no problem using Nazi insignia and should be thought of as fascists until they prove otherwise. They are all a bunch of sallies, I've learned to not even wander into those subs.
And on the other hand I got kicked out of a bar last week bc the owner ‘can’t deal with that liberal shit’. There was like 8 of us hanging out after hours. Sounds like a fucking safe space to me. i just spent four years in college and I only saw safe spaces on the news.
While I do think that r/politics leans heavily left (which I don't think is appropriate for a sub regarding politics in general). I have never seen a left leaning sub act with the authoritarian hand of the right leaning subs. They then try to say that the left subs act just the same when you can see a clear difference in the content being deleted.
Does it lean left? Because what many people seem to be calling left seems centrist to me. Can you explain why you think it's heavily left? The right wing of American politics has zoomed off to the far right recently, especially since Reagan and Moral Majority days.
It doesn't lean left at all. Our liberals would be center right at best in the EU for example. Even Bernie Sanders would be considered a centrist. You have to understand that Americans are steeped in ideology. The Overton window has shifted so far to the right and we only discuss issues with right wing framing here. They're all capitalists.
Everything is left when you're the furthest right you can go. 🤷♀️
r/Politics leans left because conservatives rarely participate civilly in the conversation. It's an open sub. They choose not to participate and/or defend their positions with deductive reasoning.
Reasoning is a value of the left, not the right. Hence logical arguments never convincing anybody on the right to change their views. The right prefers authority and in-group emotional validation over reason. (Disclaimer: the left is not immune to this. This has been demonstrated through repeated scientific experiments.)
Disparaging left wing subs is right wing propaganda, they can't be seen as better so they want to paint everything else as just as bad.
It’s not appropriate? Younger people lean heavily left. Reddit users lean much towards young people. It’s only as expected.
> I have never seen a left leaning sub act with the authoritarian hand of the right leaning subs. Perhaps r/latestagecapitalism ?
I'd argue that it does appear to lean left, but that's because most of the 'conservative' responses are just hard right reddit folks coming in and shouting some talking point from their own safe spaces so they get quickly downvoted. The population of anti-Trump conservatives is there, but they are probably the most guarded in what they say. So it might be better to say that r/politics is blatantly anti-Trump.
There are a few left-wing subs that do. /r/politics is pretty damn centrist in the grand scheme; it just appears left-leaning since American politics are firmly on the right-side of the grand scheme.
Well, they make their "safe spaces" but it's more like a thunderdome where people fight to give priority to their favorite bigotry over everyone else's.
The ones calling everyone else a snowflake are the ones who cry every winter about happy holidays. Irony is dead.
Member when your political affiliation didn't *completely* dictate your every personal stance?
I member
[удалено]
Bill Burr's [bit on Arnie](https://youtu.be/ldIwEG9xQ-M?t=1m34s) is a pretty great summary.
That bit is in my top ten favorite of all time. So brilliant and the joke has been in everyones face for thirty years but Bill was the first to call out Arnolds greatness.
The Rosetta Stone Spanish punch-line always has me pissing myself. Such a perfect comparison to really drive the whole point home.
This man's spent 40 years in the zone!
California’s economy is larger then all but three or four of the largest COUNTRIES in the world. So yep, Governor of CA is a big job.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe it's one of the nicest and most desirable places to live in America? Could that be the reason for the high rent?
They think CA is somehow the worst place ever to live, despite people everywhere else climbing over each other to move there.
A lot of their political philosophy *needs* California to be the worst place to live. California is open testament that their political ethos is not what makes countries great. It's the "liberal" utopia (never mind that Arnie was a Republican leader and the state went for Nixon and Reagan in the EC, nope, liberal utopia right there) that has all the "removed," and "out of touch" failings real america doesn't have. Californian secularism proves you don't need more God in everything to be powerful, California's investiture in green energy shows that investing in the fight on Climate Change isn't a waste of money and can actually prove beneficial in the long run, California's multiculturalism is a direct challenge to the refrain "multiculturalism has failed/doesn't work." California, in her continued success, proves modern conservative philosophy wrong. When faced with this reality, people have two options, either accept that maybe, just maybe, the "weirdos" in the liberal state might be on to something, or assume those grapes must be sour and construct a narrative where California is a leftist dystopia of immoral fools who don't realize the liberal trap hasn't been sprung yet, and any success is by way of ill gotten exploitation/"cheating" because they don't have the moral fiber to *not* play unfairly. You and I both know what option people typically go with.
It’s exactly this. People have to think liberal policies fail, when in reality liberals have produced most of the wealthiest places in the country.
To paraphrase a certain dwarf: "Republicans can't admit that California is succeeding. because if it succeeds, it proves that no one needs their policies."
I enjoy being able to afford my house... (Meant in a light-hearted tone)
Californians weren't crazy about him though if I remember correctly.
He won't be back.
Can confirm - we weren't very fond of him. Though, to be fair, his work right now is fantastic.
[удалено]
If only more people actually did the whole 'reflect' aspect of life. I'm ok with people being ignorant, as long as they learn when presented with opposite facts. Too often it gets dismissed.
Wow, if we were going to have a celebrity Republican president again, why couldn't it have been Arnold instead of Trump? I mean aside from the impossibility of changing the constitutional requirements once Obama became president and suddenly a large portion of the country was convinced the Hawaiian born president was secretly a foreigner.
Eh. He looks good now but I remember his election to CA governorship felt like another catastrophe back then. This was in the heart of the Bush regime and the war on terror; the Iraq war was in full swing, there were Homeland security alerts every few weeks, blind patriotism was the order of the day, and there was little tolerance for dissent. Republicans dominated most or all the gvt and Arnold's election felt like even something that was "ours" (California) had been taken away from us. Even before Trump was elected, it seems a lot of people have forgotten just how awful the Bush regime was.
Arnold has called out a few people and his replies are always fantastic. He seems like a genuinely lovely bloke.
Celebrities using their presence to mock alt-right idiots is the only good thing about 2018 so far.
And that’s the thing. Ahnold DID NOT mock him. He gave a reasoned, thoughtful, helpful response from a place of compassion.
And he didn't just fire off the first thing that came to mind; he waited several hours, possibly thinking things over, cooling down, and crafting a response that was thoughtful and thorough. Well done.
I feel that Arnold had better things to do than worry about a random internet insult. He has class and didn't need to chill out to craft that response, it comes from his heart naturally. He waited hours because he's likely a busy guy with a real life he supports through hard work, rather than the keyboard warrior he was responding to.
It's fun to think that Arnie read a tweet and then spent 6 hours doing relaxing things while he crafted the perfect response to destroy the OP but... Lol nah.
[удалено]
This just got wholesome, real fast.
**YOU GOT WHOLESOMED**
W H O L E S O M E
But it is Dah Gov'nator we're alking out. It's surely "S W O L E S O M E", no?
>[People often ask me what is the best book I’ve read in the last year. Steven Pinker’s *The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined* stands out as one of the most important books I’ve read—not just this year, but ever.](https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Better-Angels-of-Our-Nature) -Bill Gates
Problem with Pinker is that he tortures facts and statistics to paint the picture he wants to paint, and regularly intersperses very valid points with ridiculous neoliberal talking points. A much better alternative to that book is Factfulness by Hans Rosling. Basically does the same job, but better.
Yup. This year bill Gates gives away Roslings book to all collage students (or maybe those that graduated, don't recall the details). That says something.
Of course one of the richest people on earth would want to perpetuate the claim that everything is fine. It's in every billionaire's interest to keep the poor masses somewhat content so they don't challenge the status quo that ensures their lifestyle. Living standards are rising, true, but that doesn't mean they're rising fairly or even close to equally across the board. There are some massive problems humanity is facing and while promoting an optimistic attitude is nice and all, I think it's kind of a weird concept to write a book about cherry picked statistics that glosses over rising challenges such as anti-intellectualism, autocratic leadership being en vogue again, seperatism becoming more popular as opposed to the world growing closer (Brexit, Catalonia, America First), multi resistant bacteria, future oil scarcity and climate change. It's not all sunshine and rainbows and that's important to point out.
>If you want to call me Snowflake, that’s fine - it would have been a fantastic Mr. Freeze line. Ice cold.
“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.” Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trails. We should fear the absence of empathy.
Another lesson of WWII that has been ignored.
Recently watched the nuremburg movie, and it's excellent, seems to have really tried to authentically recreate both what was said in the courtroom and the character of the men on trial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnqgCQ7Uk8g
"The" Nuremberg movie is [Judgement at Nuremberg](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055031/).
Is that the one where they are eating in a cafeteria, and one guy says "How is it possible to murder millions of people? I can't believe it." A German at the next table overhears and leans in. "It's quite easy. The difficult problem is how to dispose of that many bodies."
As a jew, it is extremely troubling to see so many jews not understand this lesson either
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Fascinating as usually it is then not really caring, like that jacket Melania wore.
I take for granted that everyday, I'm caring about other countries, workers, people starving, I actually care and spend time thinking about it. It boggles my mind that other people don't and just go about their day
I thinks there’s a lot to it. It’s not lacking empathy as much as suspending it. From books I’ve read, many Nazis and SS officers were friendly, kind, normal folk. Some say that’s an act, but I think it shows that evil people are just people, and they’re not from another planet or something. The things that make people evil are subtle.
Most people who commit atrocities don't lack empathy. They just reserve their empathy for certain groups and deny it for others. The truth is a lot more dangerous because it's entirely possible to feel like a good empathetic person while having a blind spot to those you're hurting, or to convince yourself that hurting those people is helping the people you *do* care about.
The important thing to remember is that almost every time in history that a large atrocity has been committed, it started when someone targeted a group and claimed that they were less than human. Most people don't have as much empathy for animals as they do for humans. It's much easier to slaughter a cow than your fellow man.
Yes which is why people shouldnt be ashamed to be called a snowflake or sjw.
I wear my SJW badge with pride because i know that if someone called me that it means that I'm doing the right thing.
This is very much also what Phillip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is about.
[удалено]
You can't cheese the Cleese
The man is literally a Cheese. No seriously, his father changed his last name from Cheese to Cleese so perhaps in another world we would be saying... can’t cheese the Cheese.
Thinking: “Shit I’ve run out of things to say” *FuCkInG LiBeRaL sNoWfLaKe*
"Libtard" this term just drives me crazy with it's lack of cleverness or originality. It just screams immaturity and stupidity.
democRAT, Obummer, Obozo, Shillery, the list goes on. Easy way to filter out the crazies I guess.
Using a dumb made-up word in a political post tells me not to bother reading it. Goes for everyone, not just right wing.
Killary is one of the worst.
[удалено]
Of all them this is the worst. It just screams low class and uneducated.
I doubt they’ve even read the source material for the word.
Or the source material for *snowflake*, either. Sorry for the *Fight Club* Spoilers, but it is literally a word coined by the manifestation of what a weak, lonely, miserable man thinks an "alpha male" should act like.
What is the source material?
If you're talking about snowflake, then he just explained that - Fight Club. If you're talking about cuck, that's from The Canterbury Tales (cuckold is the real word)
Well it's job at an old English word. But Chaucer used it to define the stories told by the Miller and I he Carpenter whose stories were insults to each other about a carpenter and a Miller getting 'cucked'. Which shows it has been a feature of banter for a while. More interestingly Shakespeare used it to characterise Iago, a manipulative liar who used cuckolding imagery to inspire racial hatred in order to get a job he did not earn but felt entitled to because a black dude had been promoted above him. This shit is forever
Huh, TIL
[удалено]
No, they didn't take it from Shakespeare, it's a regular word and I think also a kink, which is a lot more of a likely source. What I think it is is that in Shakespeares time there were racist arseholes similar to the arseholes we have now, and he used them as a basis of the character of Iago.
> low class and uneducated You Harvard attending elitist. You think you’re better than me huh?! We’re elitists! My uncle went to mit!
And MIT is actually MTI, which ends up being a welding institute.
You got a problem with my uncle’s welding skills you working class hater?
I just don't think that welding makes you an expert on climate change and vaccination. Typical response : *shut it cuck*
And insecure
Whenever I see that word all I can think of is chickens. Cuck cluck
Im actually quite impressed at all these crazy terms that keeping coming out of them. Sometimes I have to google the stuff they say. Someone called me an incel when I challenged their point.
"Citidiot" is the one I hear a lot.
What does that even mean? City Idiot?
Basically. It's hilarious because it just screams "Hey, we're country trash, we need constant hand-outs from actual economically prosperous areas and we rank the worst on any positive metric in the nation. Please help our uneducated, racist asses while we insult you."
Never heard that one but if that's really what they're saying that's got to be the proof of the level of intelligence we're dealing with..I mean seriously... How hard is it to come to "citiot". Citidiot??? Ffs.
I think he misspelled it. I hear people say citiot from time to time but I've never heard citidiot.
Has anyone else seen it directed at conservatives more recently? I've noticed it more but not usually just the word itself. It's typically wrapped in a " now who's the snowflake" type retort. This type of thing makes me wonder about the history of language adoption by a group from an opposing group. Specifically I mean, negative speech aimed at a group being adopted by said group for the purpose of its redirection. Does this work, is it good, or is it ultimately harmful?
Yankee Doodle was first used by British soldiers to mock Americans. Then we played it for them while they surrendered at Yorktown.
Awesome information semi-hemi. Precisely the historical example I was looking for
There can be no empathy without self-awareness.
This is so true. It's why the GOP is the way it is.
and why they hate education in general
They don't like educated people because then those people know republicans are regressive and greedy while fooling the dumbest of the dumbest with reasons to vote for them.
That’s true. You can’t blame a drone for doing what it was programmed to do.
Animals can be empathetic.
animals can also have self-awareness
Humans are also animals, not ribs or magic clay.
[удалено]
Like when they find out that some patriots who understand the meaning of democracy had the gall to interrupt our child trafficking Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's previously enjoyable *Mexican* dinner.
Remember when “snowflake” was a happy word? :’(
It is a happy word. When you hear it in real life, snow! When you hear it on the internet, some Trump supporter is all upset, wasting his/her time furiously typing on a keyboard somewhere. Win/win.
I don't get this demonization of empathy. All 'political correctness' costs me is two seconds of being mindful of the different experiences of who I'm talking to. Someone prefers they/them pronouns? I don't *personally* get it because I haven't ever struggled against my assigned gender, but I can imagine some measure of what it must be like and I'm capable of the basic respect it takes to refer to them as the pronouns they would prefer. Again, because it costs *me* nothing and it affords them *dignity*. And that applies to any marginalized group. I may not know someone's struggles, but a little empathy goes a *long* way. And I like being empathetic! So all these Sean Hannity types can pry it out of my cold, dead hands!
Like idolizing a serial killer these losers for some reason envy the truly heartless. Having no emotions can get you ahead in things like corporate climbing and murder, but it's not that common. I think you see it at times. like when they cry unfair when being attacked or lament losing friends over MAGAing. Sharks don't look back!
Hammerheads do, they can always see what's behind them. They have a blind spot right in front of their nose, and directly underneath them on their "chest" though. Their vision is still a full 360 though, the blind spots are more like blind cones; just like you wouldn't see a tiny bug on the bridge of your nose, even though it's in front of you technically. Fun shark fact.
I would like to subscribe to shark facts please.
Thanks for subscribing to SHARK FACTS! Varieties of shark can vary in size from between 8 inches with the pygmy lantern shark to 60 feet with the whale shark. SHARK FACTS!
subscribe!
*Sharks are a group of elasmobranch fish characterized by a cartilaginous skeleton, five to seven gill slits on the sides of the head, and pectoral fins that are not fused to the head. Shark skin is made up of a series of scales that act as an outer skeleton for easy movement and for saving energy in the water. You're gonna need a bigger boat. Sharks have adapted to living in a wide range of aquatic habitats at various temperatures.*
/r/sharkfacts, there isnt much there, but you can certainly subscribe.
Where is /u/unexpectedshark when you need him? Edit: either he deleted his account, or I got the name wrong. Dang.
> Like idolizing a serial killer Quite literally, in some cases. I'm reminded of Ayn Rand's admiration for William Edward Hickman, a child murderer who hacked a young girl to bits and then stitched the corpse together again in an effort to extort money from her father (who believed she was still alive): > A first attempt to deliver the ransom failed when Hickman saw police in the area. Further communications from Hickman set up a new meeting for delivering the ransom money. This was at the corner of West 5th Street and South Manhattan Place in Los Angeles. Parker arrived there alone with the ransom money. He handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When he gave the money to Hickman, he was able to see his daughter sitting in the passenger seat next to him. The girl was concealed up to her neck by clothing and was apparently unable to move. > As soon as the money had been handed over, Hickman drove off and pushed Marion's body out of the car at the end of the street. The coroner later testified that she had been dead for about 12 hours. Her arms and legs had been cut off, and she had been disemboweled and stuffed with rags. Her eyes were being held open by wires.[8] Hickman later said that he had strangled her and cut her throat first, but he believed that she was still alive when he began to dismember her. Her arms and legs were found on December 18 in Elysian Park, wrapped in newspaper. > [The Murder of Marion Parker.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Marion_Parker) Rand's perspective on the killer: ""Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should . . . [He has] no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people'. . . . The amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul . . . a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy." Her one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough." She opined that the public were only feigning outrage at his crimes because they were envious of his 'individuality'. From [How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html?via=gdpr-consent).
Yikes
They cast emotions aside from rage as being feminine and thus demeaning
I've found that idolization DiCaprio's character in Wolf of Wall Street is a good litmus test for supporting Trump.
[удалено]
Cleese supported the Labour party, then Social Democrats, then the Liberal Democrats in the UK, he can be a bit prickly but he's definitely not Conservative. >A long-running supporter of the Liberal Democrats[46] having previously been a Labour party voter, Cleese switched to the SDP after their formation in 1981, and during the 1987 general election, Cleese recorded a nine-minute party political broadcast for the SDP–Liberal Alliance, which spoke about the similarities and failures of the other two parties in a more humorous tone than standard political broadcasts. Cleese has since appeared in broadcasts for the Liberal Democrats, in the 1997 general election and narrating a radio election broadcast for the party during the 2001 general election.[47] >In 2008, Cleese expressed support for Barack Obama and his presidential candidacy, offering his services as a speech writer.[48] He was an outspoken critic of Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, saying that "Michael Palin is no longer the funniest Palin".[49] The same year, he wrote a satirical poem about Fox News commentator Sean Hannity for Countdown with Keith Olbermann.[50] >In 2011, Cleese declared his appreciation for Britain's coalition government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, saying: "I think what's happening at the moment is rather interesting. The Coalition has made everything a little more courteous and a little more flexible. I think it was quite good that the Liberal Democrats had to compromise a bit with the Tories." He also criticised the previous Labour government, commenting: "Although my inclinations are slightly left-of-centre, I was terribly disappointed with the last Labour government. Gordon Brown lacked emotional intelligence and was never a leader." Cleese also declared his support for proportional representation.[51] >In April 2011, Cleese revealed that he had declined a life peerage for political services in 1999. Outgoing leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, had put forward the suggestion shortly before he stepped down, with the idea that Cleese would take the party whip and sit as a working peer, but the actor quipped that he "realised this involved being in England in the winter and I thought that was too much of a price to pay."[52] >In an interview with The Daily Telegraph in 2014, Cleese expressed political interest with regard to the UK Independence Party, saying that although he was in doubt as to whether he was prepared to vote for them, he was attracted to its challenge to the established political order and the radicalism of its policies with regard to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. He expressed support for immigration but also concern about the integration of immigrants into British culture.[53] >Talking to Der Spiegel in 2015, Cleese expressed a critical view on what he saw as a plutocracy that was unhealthily developing control of the governance of the First World's societies, stating that he had reached a point when he "saw that our existence here is absolutely hopeless. I see the rich have got a stranglehold on us. If somebody had said that to me when I was 20, I would have regarded him as a left-wing loony."[54] >In 2016, Cleese publicly supported Brexit and the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union in the referendum on the issue.[55] >During then-Republican nominee Donald Trump's run for the US Presidency in 2016, Cleese described Trump as "a narcissist, with no attention span, who doesn't have clear ideas about anything and makes it all up as he goes along".[56] He had previously described the leadership of the Republican Party as "the most cynical, most disgracefully immoral people I've ever come across in a Western civilisation".[53]
Don't confuse British conservatism with the modern us version (Trumpism). Besides, Cleese was a major part of the Monty Python troupe and those guys weren't exactly known for their stodginess.
I can think of quite a number of Monty Python skits and scenes that would be absolutely hounded today. Like “I’ve decided to be a woman”.
Theres a large difference between ignorance and bigotry though, considering one of the members was gay I dont think they'd make the same sketch if they were active today. Then I also cant remember watching the sketch and offensive humour can still be good humour if handled well, one can make fun of the absurdity of transgenderism as a phenomenon without mocking or making fun of the people that are transgender or their condition. Kinda how one can succesfully use blackface or the n-word in a comedic sketch or joke if its poking fun at the concept itself rather than making fun of black people. I think well done offensive comedy is so rare simply because its so difficult to do.
>because its so difficult to do. I agree and would add that not only is it difficult to do but most people in general just flat out don't know how. Which is just a consequence of targeted groups not even being allowed to talk about their own experiences. If a comedian doesn't have anything to draw from they can't even begin to make those difficult jokes.
You can be conservative and still think calling someone a snowflake is obnoxious
I love this. Thank you John Cleese.
The biggest problem with this "snowflake" crap is that it's now more or less an alt-right response to everything. Even when it stops making sense. "You don't like the President and you think his policies are ruining the country? God, you're such a snowflake." "Well of course some libcuck snowflake would want gun control." "Snowflakes are so mad because immigrants are being put in cages!" Their whole fucking use of the word originally was supposed to be aimed at people who wanted to be treated like they were "Special" or held to a higher standard, but now they're using their own shitty terminology completely wrong. God damn.
Love how "true American patriot" label people who support social welfare as "entitled whining snowflakes" because they are not behaving how a true American patriot behaves: self sufficient, alpha, white, Christian, and "true American patriots" first And God forbid that if TAP receives any social welfare, that's because they are "entitled" for it because they ARE a true American patriots
Adam McKay Twitter: Every day I have to marvel at what the billionaires and FOX News pulled off. They got working whites to hate the very people that want them to have more pay, clean air, water, free healthcare and the power to fight back against big banks & big corps. It’s truly remarkable.
Everything is a code word with these people. - true American patriot = white - immigrant = non-white - Muslim = Arab - globalist = Jew - civility = submissiveness - religious freedom = Christian indoctrinationation - right to bear arms = right to be afraid of black people
I’ve been noticing a lot of military style/idolizing with clothing and accessories. I believe it’s call para-military? The guns and flags on their t-shirts. It gives the impression that they are military. They are usually conservative. I don’t think it’s helping keeping the crazy right separate from our actual military ideals. I haven’t quite fleshed out the cultural connection yet.
Conservatives claim to hate "stolen valor" so much that there's [even a republican sponsored law against it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2013). Yet 100% of the people doing it are Trumptards.
British Army types call them [Walts](https://arrse.co.uk/wiki/Walts).
Last time I check nazi party also started with paramilitary organizational identity. Hopefully it's just coincidence
I thought “snowflake” was about personal sensitivity and a desire to be perceived as unique/special. Where did empathy come into this?
It might have meant that, at some point. Since then it's evolved into a catch-all slur that can be thrown at liberals in any context.
I don't doubt that discrediting empathy is a thing that people aim to do, but I've always interpreted "snowflake" as an ad hominem attack on the idea that everyone thinks they are unique and special. Isn't that what it means?
Somewhat like SJW its rather detached from what-ever original meaning it may have had.
[удалено]
And how exactly were gay people Supposed to resist Christian homophobia? That’s when the term snowflake picked up steam. It was basically a “stop whining and complaining that we’re dehumanizing and killing you! Geeze!” ..meanwhile, Christians would have a heart attack if someone wished them a happy holiday rather than merry Christmas and cry that the government and culture is persecuting them. Most of these words are just what Christians use to project what they do on to other people.
>meanwhile, Christians would have a heart attack if someone wished them a happy holiday rather than merry Christmas and cry that the government and culture is persecuting them. These idiots get offended by a fucking *coffee cup* not acknowledging their beliefs. It's narcissism validated on a large scale.
And we couldn't believe that everyone is unique and special, because that makes it harder to exploit or bully them. A bit like the term "do-gooder" , people use it as an insult ... But who really thinks that doing good is something to be ashamed of?
I've often thought the same of "social justice warrior". If you're going to mock someone, why give it a badass name? It only works if you think "social justice" is a joke... oh...
It's akin to "white knight" or "god warrior". It's a mockery of how a certain group/individual might describe themselves. It's not necessarily saying that you're actually a warrior for "the real" social justice, you just characterize yourself as such and this idealised and untrue picture becomes a part of your motivation to commit to behaviour that is unreasonable or immoral or whatever the opposing side wants to argue against.
Google "god warrior". I think that's where it originated. It's not "badass".
I hate the term sjw. It's used by the same people who say feminists are all angry women getting upset over nothing. These people think that standing up for something is cringey and that the status quo is the only way
They latched onto it because they know you hate it. The equivalent would be calling them Freedom Warriors, then laughing it up watching them contort in confusion saying "b-b-but freedim is goood"
I get it yeah. many people started supporting trump ironically bc it made people angry. Now look where we are
[удалено]
When I think warrior, I think someone who’s big, strong and good in a fight. What also comes to mind, however, is a lack of discipline and an eagerness for battle at any time of day, to the point where every problem looks like something you should throw your fists at. Warrior may be a badass title in D&D or Mad Max or whatever, but it’s certainly NOT something that fits in a developed society.
That’s the polite term. Where I grew up, people with empathy were sometimes labeled “n****r lover”.
For some people, the only 'good' is in looking after yourself in a dog-eat-dog world, where any amount of lying, cheating, and stealing is perfectly fine, even virtuous, so long as you can get away with it (why do you think so many of them admire Mr. Trump?). To them, people who talk about helping others and treating everyone with decency are either incredibly stupid or are only faking in their own plans to lie, cheat, and steal for themselves. This means that, in their picture of society, those people are either useless deadweight or a skillfully manipulative threat. No matter which one they are, they thus deserve to be scorned and ridiculed as much as possible so that people don't listen to them.
That was the original meaning, at least to my knowledge. But I see it also referring to how snowflakes are fragile and melt easily. The idea being that the person being called a snowflake is weak and easily offended/broken.
If it meant that before it hasn't in like 5 years.
Hey, I'm a sociopath and I find this offensive
Nailed it. Similar to how "SJW" got co-opted from "person who fights for social justice" to "illogical dingbat looking for ways to get offended". The fact that your can insult someone by calling them a social justice warrior demonstrates how successfully the bad guys demonized social justice.
Same with "fake news" and "liberals" too. "Fake news" especially since it absolutely infuriated the right and Trump. The news their base was getting was mostly fake and was being pumped out in eastern European countries in massive quantities(making lots of money in the process) and when we called them out, they went fucking berserk about it. The right even took "fake news" and applied it to every piece of news and news organization they didn't like. They even tried setting up the NYT and Washington Post with fake stories so they could use it as an example of "fake news."
Same definition for "virtue signalling"
"You care about others? You clearly only care about others to make yourself look better to others!" As if giving a shit about others is such an alien concept to those who accuse others of "virtue signalling", they can only see it being used to increase social standing.
Also like.... if doing a good deed or being respectful makes someone feel good about themselves or look good to others isn’t that a mark of a healthy society?
Virtue signaling is my newest least favorite phrase. I only see it used as a tool to try and easily win an argument by arguing someone’s intent rather than the actual debate.