Snowflakes in action: the actual reality of "snowflakes" in the world and the consequences

[Metaphor]

When one is a righteous conservative who sees leftist conspiracies in the saying of a child

I don't believe the child pictured in that meme, or any child anywhere, uttered those words.

then clearly those statements are evil because they contradict that snowflakes deeply held religious beliefs - beliefs that make entertaining the notion one could be wrong impossible.

The belief that feeling bad when reading about atrocities means you want to inflict those atrocities is an idiotic statement devoid of any sense (at best), and at worst it is actually evil - to imply white people with a modicum of human emotion are actually secretly sadists and their secret sadism is betrayed by that human emotion.

 

[Metaphor]

I thought it was obvious that the meme was made in the context of the efforts to ban books about history from classrooms.

Rhea, I will say this: what seems 'obvious' to you, firmly embowered in your leftist enchanted wood, may not seem 'obvious' to anyone with an outside perspective.

Metaphor seems to be arguing about what it means if it had absolutley no context at all.

On the contrary, I am arguing about the plain meaning of the words that are written in English. It seems to me that nobody is now willing to defend the plain meaning of those words, even though many of you rushed to 'like' the meme when Elixir posted it.

Now, if you agree that the plain meaning of the words in the meme are actually quite a bad thing to express, I agree. If you think all should have been aware of the True Meaning, that reflects only your own circumstances and your own investment in seeing a meme that triggers the correct feels.

There was no reason for the plain meaning of the words in a 'quote' in an obviously concocted fable to say something obviously bad. The True Meaning of the words could have been made with plain language, instead of needing to be interpreted by the seers of the leftist scrying-ball, willing to impart the True Meaning to those who'll listen.

So I think it is fairly safe to assume the meme had context and its meaning is embedded in that context. Of banning books about history from schools.

And all the replies are also assuming that context, wth the sole excption of Metaphor’s.

The plain meaning of the words in the meme say that the negative emotional state that some white people have from reading about atrocities inflicted by white people is a sure sign that those white readers want to repeat the atrocities.

If the Childlike Empress of the meme had meant 'white people who want to ban books that portray white atrocities from school libraries to protect white children's feelings mean they want the atrocities to happen again and they want to repeat them', then those words could have been used instead.

Which would also actually be a wrong thing to say, but not as wrong and evil as what was actually said.

 

[Toni]

When one is a righteous conservative who sees leftist conspiracies in the saying of a child

I don't believe the child pictured in that meme, or any child anywhere, uttered those words.

then clearly those statements are evil because they contradict that snowflakes deeply held religious beliefs - beliefs that make entertaining the notion one could be wrong impossible.

The belief that feeling bad when reading about atrocities means you want to inflict those atrocities is an idiotic statement devoid of any sense (at best), and at worst it is actually evil - to imply white people with a modicum of human emotion are actually secretly sadists and their secret sadism is betrayed by that human emotion.

Well, like you, I disagree with the meme.

Perhaps unlike you, I have known white people who did want to inflict harm on not white people—because they were not white. My mother’s stepfather was a member of the Klan, something I did not know until nearly 2 decades after his death. I heard him say things that I knew were disgusting as early as at 6 years of age. He wanted to harm them and he wanted me to think terrible things about black people, too. OTOH, I know that he raised a couple of kids who were orphaned during the Great Depression, and that he made a point of very generously donating apples from his orchard to local elementary schools. He was not wealthy at all but in some ways, he was very kind and generous. In other ways he was an absolute racist. Hearing what I heard him say absolutely did change how I felt about him. I still loved him but I did not want to spend any time in his company if I didn’t have to. I didn’t fully understand what some of the things he says meant, but I knew how they made me feel. That was more than enough.

 

[Metaphor]

There’s another meme going around—showing the image of a young Ruby Bridges walking to school under guard as white adults hurled insults at the kindergartener going to a white school. The meme reads something like: If she was brave enough to endure this, then your child should be able to read about it.

I tremendously agree with that statement. I’ve been horrified by history that I learned but frankly, I was horrified at what I heard come out of my grandfather’s mouth when I was 6 years old.

Education is bound to make any person with feeling uncomfortable. A good teacher can present the lesson while helping the students process the information in a way that is not too overwhelming.

I have not here or anywhere said that books that talk about atrocities should be banned. I think obviously there is age-appropriate material and individual libraries may want to vet books.

What I said was that the plain meaning of the words in the meme that was posted by Elixir are both nonsense and evil (feeling bad about atrocities does not mean you want to inflict them, and making people feel guilt over feelings is something I expect from Catholics, not grown-ass 'freethinkers'). And now I'm told I'm just too autistic to understand the True Meaning of the plain words. And even the True Meaning, as explained, is false (though less evil).

 

[Elixir]

I believe the child was most likely placed in the meme to reflect that the "insight" that Meta likes to deny disparage and attack, is not complicated or subtle, it is simple and childlike. Yet it alludes to a chilling fact to which adults turn their backs. A fact to which Americans (you're exempt, Meta) must pay heed at this time, or pay a terrible price.
Atrocities happened.
Some people say 7 wasn't enough* they want to do it again, and if matters proceed at the current pace at the current vector, they will get the chance to do it again sooner than later.

Those people are the ones most in favor of banning books about what their political forerunners have done.
Why do you want to ban those books, Meta?

* the real number est. 12-14m

 

[ZiprHead]

So Metaphor has gotten you all gulled into another small tangent off the main subject of the thread. Reminds me of a saying about not feeding certain under-bridge dwelling creatures.

 

[laughing dog]

When one is a righteous conservative who sees leftist conspiracies in the saying of a child

I don't believe the child pictured in that meme, or any child anywhere, uttered those words.

No need to confirm that you see leftist conspiracies.

then clearly those statements are evil because they contradict that snowflakes deeply held religious beliefs - beliefs that make entertaining the notion one could be wrong impossible.

The belief that feeling bad when reading about atrocities means you want to inflict those atrocities is an idiotic statement devoid of any sense (at best), and at worst it is actually evil - to imply white people with a modicum of human emotion are actually secretly sadists and their secret sadism is betrayed by that human emotion.

You take the saying out of context which permits your vile interpretation quite clear. There is no need to repeat it. The problem is not that anyone does not understand it. The problem is that every person with a modicum of human understanding is repulsed by it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is simply teaching the truth can cause students to be uncomfortable because "my people" did that. I see this as being used to prohibit teaching the uncomfortable bits of history.

The law does not prohibit causing students to be uncomfortable. It doesn't even prohibit causing them to be uncomfortable on account of their race. It doesn't even prohibit teaching material that causes students to be uncomfortable on account of their race. It prohibits teaching material that tells them they ought feel uncomfortable about their race.

A distinction that won't stop prosecuting people when the students are uncomfortable about being like the evildoers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So just to be clear, your belief that such things can be obvious insofar as you also believe it is NOT obvious that a known Republican with a documented track record of bad faith action is passing laws that look like bad faith in bad faith?

You'll have to translate this into coherent English.

Just because you don't like what he said doesn't make it incoherent.

 

[Metaphor]

You take the saying out of context which permits your vile interpretation quite clear. There is no need to repeat it. The problem is not that anyone does not understand it. The problem is that every person with a modicum of human understanding is repulsed by it.

It wasn't a 'saying', and it was not out of context. They were plain words which you concocted a True Meaning for, then implied I was autistic for not participating in your secret leftist business rituals.

 

[Metaphor]

The problem is simply teaching the truth can cause students to be uncomfortable because "my people" did that. I see this as being used to prohibit teaching the uncomfortable bits of history.

The law does not prohibit causing students to be uncomfortable. It doesn't even prohibit causing them to be uncomfortable on account of their race. It doesn't even prohibit teaching material that causes students to be uncomfortable on account of their race. It prohibits teaching material that tells them they ought feel uncomfortable about their race.

A distinction that won't stop prosecuting people when the students are uncomfortable about being like the evildoers.

If people go ahead and attempt to sue when the plain meaning of the words of the statute are against them, they have a costly loss coming to them. And when that costly loss is compounded when the winning side is awarded costs. And, once something has been established, even the losses will stop as there will not be a prima facie case to even be taken to court.

 

[Metaphor]

So Metaphor has gotten you all gulled into another small tangent off the main subject of the thread. Reminds me of a saying about not feeding certain under-bridge dwelling creatures.

When you 'liked' Elixir's repost of a virtue signalling Tweet, did you read the words attributed to the Childlike Empress, and did you agree with those words?

 

[Metaphor]

So just to be clear, your belief that such things can be obvious insofar as you also believe it is NOT obvious that a known Republican with a documented track record of bad faith action is passing laws that look like bad faith in bad faith?

You'll have to translate this into coherent English.

Just because you don't like what he said doesn't make it incoherent.

Jarhyn appears to be making an accusation that I denied something that I haven't denied. But I can't really tell, to be honest.

 

[ZiprHead]

So Metaphor has gotten you all gulled into another small tangent off the main subject of the thread. Reminds me of a saying about not feeding certain under-bridge dwelling creatures.

When you 'liked' Elixir's repost of a virtue signalling Tweet, did you read the words attributed to the Childlike Empress, and did you agree with those words?

Sorry. I don't respond to people such as you.

 

[Metaphor]

Why do you want to ban those books, Meta?

I don't want to ban books. If you can show where I said I wanted to, I'd be obliged.

I want the people on this thread to admit that the plain meaning of the words in the meme that you posted is actually an evil sentiment to have (that white people's distress at atrocities is a sign they want the same atrocities to happen), that indeed the people who 'liked' the meme did so mindlessly (unless they actually think it is insightful to say somebody's distress at reading about atrocities is a sure sign they want the atrocities to happen), and that the additional importation of a True Meaning, while plain and obvious to the same people who mindlessly 'liked' the meme is indeed an imposition on the text that is against the plain words of the text.

 

[Metaphor]

So Metaphor has gotten you all gulled into another small tangent off the main subject of the thread. Reminds me of a saying about not feeding certain under-bridge dwelling creatures.

When you 'liked' Elixir's repost of a virtue signalling Tweet, did you read the words attributed to the Childlike Empress, and did you agree with those words?

Sorry. I don't respond to people such as you.

Of course.

 

[Toni]

I thought it was obvious that the meme was made in the context of the efforts to ban books about history from classrooms.

Rhea, I will say this: what seems 'obvious' to you, firmly embowered in your leftist enchanted wood, may not seem 'obvious' to anyone with an outside perspective.

Metaphor seems to be arguing about what it means if it had absolutley no context at all.

On the contrary, I am arguing about the plain meaning of the words that are written in English. It seems to me that nobody is now willing to defend the plain meaning of those words, even though many of you rushed to 'like' the meme when Elixir posted it.

Now, if you agree that the plain meaning of the words in the meme are actually quite a bad thing to express, I agree. If you think all should have been aware of the True Meaning, that reflects only your own circumstances and your own investment in seeing a meme that triggers the correct feels.

There was no reason for the plain meaning of the words in a 'quote' in an obviously concocted fable to say something obviously bad. The True Meaning of the words could have been made with plain language, instead of needing to be interpreted by the seers of the leftist scrying-ball, willing to impart the True Meaning to those who'll listen.

So I think it is fairly safe to assume the meme had context and its meaning is embedded in that context. Of banning books about history from schools.

And all the replies are also assuming that context, wth the sole excption of Metaphor’s.

The plain meaning of the words in the meme say that the negative emotional state that some white people have from reading about atrocities inflicted by white people is a sure sign that those white readers want to repeat the atrocities.

If the Childlike Empress of the meme had meant 'white people who want to ban books that portray white atrocities from school libraries to protect white children's feelings mean they want the atrocities to happen again and they want to repeat them', then those words could have been used instead.

Which would also actually be a wrong thing to say, but not as wrong and evil as what was actually said.

We all get that you did not 'get' the meme and were horrifically offended by it. But probably a lot of us, myself included, have run across that meme several times in various social media settings. I'll wager that we all of us understood immediately that it was in response to attempts to ban certain books and to restrict history lessons to those that will not give offense to white children('s parents. I seriously doubt white children will be offended or made to feel personally responsible although they may start to think hard about things they hear at Grandpa's dinner table. Which is the real point, I think, of such attempts to restrict learning about history or any tough subject).

You didn't get it the same way that we did, even though I tend to agree with you that the meme was a bit off the mark and I'm not certain I'd credit a child with coming up with those words. It's not impossible but it's also not certainly absolutely true, either.

I think all of us would do well to remember that posts on forums such as this often come across as being far more harsh than perhaps the author intended. There are at least two bad effects from this: the outrage is amped up unnecessarily and people quit hearing each other and instead want to trump the other person. And if someone always responds to everything with which they disagree with outrage, it becomes more difficult to take that person very seriously. Any good point they might have made tends to be diminished. Outrage needs to be used sparingly if it is to do anything other than to inflame passions. I think there's quite enough of that in the world these days. At least in terms of political passions for BEING RIGHT which a lot of people confuse with being loudest or having the last word.

 

[Metaphor]

We all get that you did not 'get' the meme and were horrifically offended by it.

I'm not offended by it. I think it's ridiculous. I called it out for being an obvious concoction (with which an increasing number of people seem to agree), and I called out how stupid the plain meaning of it was. For this, I was accused of being a Nazi and an autist.

But probably a lot of us, myself included, have run across that meme several times in various social media settings. I'll wager that we all of us understood immediately that it was in response to attempts to ban certain books and to restrict history lessons to those that will not give offense to white children('s parents.

I have no doubt that in your insular leftist circle, you've come across the meme more than once. That is part of the point. The meme is an obvious feelgood concoction of an event that never happened, and even the vile plain meaning of its words seem to be no barrier to its ability to appeal to a certain class of people. The words quoted in the meme are plainly ridiculous, yet Jarhyn described its wisdom as if it were transcendent.

You didn't get it the same way that we did, even though I tend to agree with you that the meme was a bit off the mark and I'm not certain I'd credit a child with coming up with those words. It's not impossible but it's also not certainly absolutely true, either.

I believe a child coached by a parent whose Twitter name was 'happyqueer' probably could have said something like it, but the point is the fakeness. It's fake even if the words are a good paraphrase of the coached Childlike Empress's response. It's such an obvious and distasteful virtue signal.

But beyond that, even the True Meaning (divined here by the Prophetess Rhea, though any in the Order of the Seers might have done it) is false and distasteful. People might want to 'ban' books (though the choice of a school library to carry or not carry certain material does not mean 'banned') that show the atrocities in order to spare feelings of distress, not because they want the atrocities to happen again.

I think all of us would do well to remember that posts on forums such as this often come across as being far more harsh than perhaps the author intended. There are at least two bad effects from this: the outrage is amped up unnecessarily and people quit hearing each other and instead want to trump the other person. And if someone always responds to everything with which they disagree with outrage, it becomes more difficult to take that person very seriously. Any good point they might have made tends to be diminished. Outrage needs to be used sparingly if it is to do anything other than to inflame passions. I think there's quite enough of that in the world these days. At least in terms of political passions for BEING RIGHT which a lot of people confuse with being loudest or having the last word.

It seems to me that some people on this board oppose the absolute mildest criticism of any kind, like pointing out fakeness, if the criticism is somehow perceived to be coming from the wrong person or is aimed at the wrong person or idea.

Here's my summary: that meme was concocted by a leftist virtue-signaller, was 'liked' and 'shared' by people of similar faith, and has every element of fakeness it would be possible to squeeze into such a construct. Now, all of that I wouldn't mind, but the fawning response to the 'words of wisdom' is really unpleasant to behold, because the plain meaning of the words are ridiculous, and the True Meaning is slightly less distasteful and not as obviously wicked, but still false.

 

[Jarhyn]

Judgmental, much?

* I totally doubt that a 9yo actually said that.

Yes, but when I doubted the story, I was ridiculed for disbelieving it.

* it triggered at least one RW extremist to jump to the usual righteous condemnations, so whether or not the kid said it, the meme works.
I would change “the only white people who feel…” to “the white people who most feel”.

That is still an illogical inference. Feeling bad about past injustice usually means you would not want it to happen again.

No, you were ridiculed for imputing intent when you whine, complain, and moan when anyone imputes intent of someone you support doing something you support, and then... You impute intent on things!

You were ridiculed for your hypocritical actions and statements.

 

[Toni]

We all get that you did not 'get' the meme and were horrifically offended by it.

I'm not offended by it. I think it's ridiculous. I called it out for being an obvious concoction (with which an increasing number of people seem to agree), and I called out how stupid the plain meaning of it was. For this, I was accused of being a Nazi and an autist.

But probably a lot of us, myself included, have run across that meme several times in various social media settings. I'll wager that we all of us understood immediately that it was in response to attempts to ban certain books and to restrict history lessons to those that will not give offense to white children('s parents.

I have no doubt that in your insular leftist circle, you've come across the meme more than once. That is part of the point. The meme is an obvious feelgood concoction of an event that never happened, and even the vile plain meaning of its words seem to be no barrier to its ability to appeal to a certain class of people. The words quoted in the meme are plainly ridiculous, yet Jarhyn described its wisdom as if it were transcendent.

You didn't get it the same way that we did, even though I tend to agree with you that the meme was a bit off the mark and I'm not certain I'd credit a child with coming up with those words. It's not impossible but it's also not certainly absolutely true, either.

I believe a child coached by a parent whose Twitter name was 'happyqueer' probably could have said something like it, but the point is the fakeness. It's fake even if the words are a good paraphrase of the coached Childlike Empress's response. It's such an obvious and distasteful virtue signal.

But beyond that, even the True Meaning (divined here by the Prophetess Rhea, though any in the Order of the Seers might have done it) is false and distasteful. People might want to 'ban' books (though the choice of a school library to carry or not carry certain material does not mean 'banned') that show the atrocities in order to spare feelings of distress, not because they want the atrocities to happen again.

I think all of us would do well to remember that posts on forums such as this often come across as being far more harsh than perhaps the author intended. There are at least two bad effects from this: the outrage is amped up unnecessarily and people quit hearing each other and instead want to trump the other person. And if someone always responds to everything with which they disagree with outrage, it becomes more difficult to take that person very seriously. Any good point they might have made tends to be diminished. Outrage needs to be used sparingly if it is to do anything other than to inflame passions. I think there's quite enough of that in the world these days. At least in terms of political passions for BEING RIGHT which a lot of people confuse with being loudest or having the last word.

It seems to me that some people on this board oppose the absolute mildest criticism of any kind, like pointing out fakeness, if the criticism is somehow perceived to be coming from the wrong person or is aimed at the wrong person or idea.

Here's my summary: that meme was concocted by a leftist virtue-signaller, was 'liked' and 'shared' by people of similar faith, and has every element of fakeness it would be possible to squeeze into such a construct. Now, all of that I wouldn't mind, but the fawning response to the 'words of wisdom' is really unpleasant to behold, because the plain meaning of the words are ridiculous, and the True Meaning is slightly less distasteful and not as obviously wicked, but still false.

You're actually wrong about the term ban. School districts, libraries, school boards, and even broader groups do 'ban' books. They ban them from their premises, from their curricula and sometimes, there area book burnings. These, unfortunately, are not relegated to Nazi Germany but take place in the US and elsewhere.

In my town, a group of conservative Christians or rather "Christians" were unable to ban books about Halloween from their school's library so what they would do is, the mothers would simply check out as many volumes of Halloween themed books from their school's library as they could, until there were no more on the shelves and lock them up in the trunks of their cars until after Christmas when there would be little or no demand for them. Nauseating, yes. But at least it was confined to that one school building.