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

[laughing dog]

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.

Your pedantic interpretation ignores the real possibility that people may interpret teaching the facts is interpreted to mean they ought to feel uncomfortable. This thread has provided real examples of such snowflake behavior.

 

[Metaphor]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950

This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.

You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.

You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.

 

[Metaphor]

Your pedantic interpretation ignores the real possibility that people may interpret teaching the facts is interpreted to mean they ought to feel uncomfortable.

There is nothing pedantic about a plain reading of the law. In fact, such a reading is generally preferable.

Teaching somebody some historical facts is not teaching them they should feel uncomfortable on account of their race.

Even Catholics know that children have to be explicitly told to feel guilt for something they obviously did not do, by claiming they somehow are responsible anyway.

 

[laughing dog]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950

This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.

You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.

You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.

You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

Your pedantic interpretation ignores the real possibility that people may interpret teaching the facts is interpreted to mean they ought to feel uncomfortable.

There is nothing pedantic about a plain reading of the law. In fact, such a reading is generally preferable.

Teaching somebody some historical facts is not teaching them they should feel uncomfortable on account of their race.

Tell that to your ideological compatriots.

Even Catholics know that children have to be explicitly told to feel guilt for something they obviously did not do, by claiming they somehow are responsible anyway.

Nonsense.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950

This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.

You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.

You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.

You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.

To claim that it is "obvious" that something never happened, and the fulcrum of it "not happening" in Metaphor's world seems to be the fact that the person who is displaying it is a child given it's (eloquence and insight), then it is absolutely a clear implication that children "obviously" (cannot/do not have eloquence and insight) so as to display it.

 

[Metaphor]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950

This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.

You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.

You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.

You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.

Your inference was ludicrous. Saying something obviously did not happen (which it obviously did fucking not) is not the same as saying 'no nine year old could be insightful).

Your social media naivete is sad and a little bit scary.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950

This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.

You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.

You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.

You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.

Your inference was ludicrous. Saying something obviously did not happen (which it obviously did fucking not) is not the same as saying 'no nine year old could be insightful).

Your social media naivete is sad and a little bit scary.

So, if it "obviously" did not happen then you can "obviously" tell us why..

Say it plainly, why do YOU think it is "obvious" that "it did not happen"?

 

[Metaphor]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950

This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.

You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.

You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.

You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.

To claim that it is "obvious" that something never happened, and the fulcrum of it "not happening" in Metaphor's world seems to be the fact that the person who is displaying it is a child given it's (eloquence and insight), then it is absolutely a clear implication that children "obviously" (cannot/do not have eloquence and insight) so as to display it.

No. The "eloquence and insight" is not the reason I don't think it happened. The reason it obviously did not fucking happen was because it was a perfect 'just so' story, a modern 'The Emperor's New's Clothes', a virtue-signalling, brownie-point grubbing fantasia where the child is prop, not protagonist.

 

[laughing dog]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950

This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.

You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.

You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.

You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.

Your inference was ludicrous. Saying something obviously did not happen (which it obviously did fucking not) is not the same as saying 'no nine year old could be insightful).

You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion . I feel real pity that your experience leads to such a jaw-dropping low opinion.

Your social media naivete is sad and a little bit scary.

Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.

 

[Metaphor]

You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion .

Yes, I wrote what I wrote, and your ludicrous inference is something you are responsible for.

Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.

I did not say it and don't believe it. Next.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950

This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.

You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.

You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.

You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.

To claim that it is "obvious" that something never happened, and the fulcrum of it "not happening" in Metaphor's world seems to be the fact that the person who is displaying it is a child given it's (eloquence and insight), then it is absolutely a clear implication that children "obviously" (cannot/do not have eloquence and insight) so as to display it.

No. The "eloquence and insight" is not the reason I don't think it happened. The reason it obviously did not fucking happen was because it was a perfect 'just so' story, a modern 'The Emperor's New's Clothes', a virtue-signalling, brownie-point grubbing fantasia where the child is prop, not protagonist.

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?

 

[laughing dog]

You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion .

Yes, I wrote what I wrote, and your ludicrous inference is something you are responsible for

Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.

I did not say it and don't believe it. Next.

You think a child could have that insight, and the only reason you disbelieve this particular insight did happen is its timing and that there is no chance it did. Sorry, that is almost pathologically pathetic.

 

[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.

 

[Metaphor]

You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion .

Yes, I wrote what I wrote, and your ludicrous inference is something you are responsible for

Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.

I did not say it and don't believe it. Next.

You think a child could have that insight, and the only reason you disbelieve this particular insight did happen is its timing and that there is no chance it did. Sorry, that is almost pathologically pathetic.

I disbelieve this particular exchange happened as written precisely because of its timing, the framing, and the political leanings of the child's parents.

I'm also sorry to say your social media naivete seems quite powerful, though I imagine if there were a similar story, written by a conservative parent, with a message that you think would gladden conservative hearts, you'd detect the whiff of bullshit in the air.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

The fact that you can't understand it despite it being clear enough speaks volumes:

In this thread you impute intent and falseness based on what you judge to be bad faith.

In other threads you moan and scream and whinge about others imputing intent and falseness on what they judge to be bad faith.

It certainly appears to be hypocrisy in rank excess.

 

[laughing dog]

You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion .

Yes, I wrote what I wrote, and your ludicrous inference is something you are responsible for

Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.

I did not say it and don't believe it. Next.

You think a child could have that insight, and the only reason you disbelieve this particular insight did happen is its timing and that there is no chance it did. Sorry, that is almost pathologically pathetic.

I disbelieve this particular exchange happened as written precisely because of its timing, the framing, and the political leanings of the child's parents.

Of course you do.

I'm also sorry to say your social media naivete seems quite powerful, though I imagine if there were a similar story, written by a conservative parent, with a message that you think would gladden conservative hearts, you'd detect the whiff of bullshit in the air.

I think this could have happened (unlike you) regardless of who wrote it. Your hypothetical "whataboutism" is pure bullshit.

 

[Metaphor]

In this thread you impute intent and falseness based on what you judge to be bad faith.

No. I disbelieved an obviously fabricated story, and people who naively believed it because it touched them in all the special places accused me of disbelieving for qualities that it allegedly contains that did not cause my disbelief.

You yourself appear to understand that the story did not happen as it was portrayed, because you pre-emptively said that the source of the insight wasn't really that important. But now you want to defend the idea that I ought believe the story.

 

[Metaphor]

I think this could have happened (unlike you) regardless of who wrote it. Your hypothetical "whataboutism" is pure bullshit.

I believe it could have happened. The laws of physics don't prevent it.

I just believe it did not happen as written. Your naivete would be touching on a 9 year old.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's got to be tiring lugging all those different standards around...