all 20 comments

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think this is a question better suited for a conservative forum. I think both terms are overused, would never use them and I and many others on the DR have made no secret of the fact that if given the chance we'd ruthlessly attack the speech of our enemies. Error has no rights. I don't beleive in absolute free speech and consider it a harmful fantasy only a child could possibly embrace.

You also seem to have an unhealthy obsession with what the left may or may not think which is off putting. Whenever I speak I don't hope to maintain some ridiculous standard the left has set up. I couldn't care less what those repugnant freaks consider consistent or right. My only concern is talking to people of tight mind and hopefully convincing them of the truth of our position.

I don't care about 'snowflakes' or 'SJW's' or any other utter horseshit that Republicans spend their lives obsessing over and nor should anyone else. These aren't serious issues and your question is a waste of time.

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't believe in absolute free speech and consider it a harmful fantasy only a child could possibly embrace.

Exactly. How does it make sense to give your enemies free attacks on you?

[–]Popper 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

definitions get changed to mean bad things. But being a snowflake should be good, it means unique, it's good to be unique. Social Justice Warrior, it'd be good to be a warrior fighting for social justice, aka freedom, but not for the right to beat up women in sports or loot businesses. Cancel culture? It'd be good to cancel people for bad things but the woke people want to cancel you for having good views that benefit society.

[–]Richard_ParkerHard-line, right-wing authoritarian 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To the contrary, those not in line with left wing ideology have been far too tolerant. There is a difference between squalling about not using made up or erroneous pronouns, as opposed to finally growing a pair and expressing righteous outrage at what should never have been tolerated in the first place.

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well that's just completely delusional, really. Institutionalised anti-communism has nothing to do with cancel culture today, which entails keeping up with the latest vapid neoliberal take. So much for McCarthyism. I have no idea why you would just randomly namedrop the civil rights movement without elaborating at all, so I am just going to glance over that one. As to the "Satanic Panic", I don't think American Evangelicals have any sympathisers outside their camp, but in all fairness the Satanic Temple literally perform child sacrifice rituals today - yes, really - so perhaps the Evangelicals had a point. The free speech stuff is just complete and utter nonsense, and a total inversion of reality.

As to the snowflake stuff, the extreme neuroticism and emotional instability of American university radicals is plain for all to see. There is nothing that can be said on that topic, there's an endless amount of "liberal meltdown" content catalogued online if you wish to observe this phenomenon for yourself.

[–]UserAetheria 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

SJWs and Leftists aren't very creative. The whole /r/TheRightCantMeme is basically a copycat of 'The Left can't meme.' In this instance, the left were being called 'snowflakes' and all they can do is try to use the same insult back. But it doesn't work because they need their safespaces, censorship, controlled speech. A typical leftist will get triggered by words like 'faggot', 'fatty', wrong pronouns or whatever else. The same can't be said for a rightwinger.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The difference is tolerance levels.

The Right has gotten uppity over certain issues, but it never amounted to much besides silently protesting at home.

Whereas the Left doesn't just cancel people, they also want you dead in real life and scrub all your history.

Case and point, the George Floyd protests last year also lead to the destruction of several monuments that had nothing to do with Saint Floyd.

Even minor things like Pancake syrup or Instant Rice were forced to be censored, because we all know how much those foods remind black people of slavery!

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Unless the right becomes far more intolerant of evil, the left will continue winning by default. It's retarded to tolerate evil. It should be killed in real life until there's no evil left.

However, the real problem lies in our overlords who are above right and left. Politics is the opiate of the masses. (or something like that)

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's not impossible. Countries like Poland show that you can advocate stronger border control policies, or ban gay marriage.

Or look at Japan which has been culturally conservative since forever.

If anything, it seems like the problem is with Western Countries that don't want to act more on their impulses.

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Are you sure that reply is in the right place? If there's a connection to my comment above, it's a bit obscure.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You said the Right needs to be more intolerant to resist the left and that the overlords have an influence over this.

But I was saying there already exists Right-wing countries who do take a hard approach to the opposition with little interference. Thus it's more of a Western issue for why we don't have the same things.

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not privy to their geopolitical plans and decisions. In cases of specific countries and what's behind their current status, inference based on available info is the extent of the energy I'm willing to expend.

Knowing the purpose underlying the reasons that specific countries receive their programming would require knowing far more about their 10/20/30 year plans than I do. Why does one move a bishop to Queens Knight 6? It's for potentially tactical and strategic reasons, and its utility will differ as the situation evolves.

People fail to appreciate the level of control they (our overlords) have over our societies and countries. They own the United States, the 'education' industry, the medical industry, the pharma industry, the food supply, and they're patenting life itself.

All but a small percent of our species is already under their sway, and it appears that the covid hoax is their move to correct their laxness. Much as a cattle rancher would strengthen their fences and round up the strays, the human herd is being corralled and injected with 'helpful medications'. Gates to the pasture will now require an electronic ear tag, and only approved cattle will be allowed through.

Anyway, I'm aware you shill for the covid hoax, but what's in it for you? Don't pretend you believe in it, because you're obviously not that low function. Are you in favor of drastic population reduction? The degree of human stupidity revealed by this hoax is breathtaking, and almost appears to be a presentation of proof that action is needed. What's your angle in this?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, that the entire world is much more complicated. But I disagree that everything about the world requires an advance level of sophistication to understand it.

For example, I just explained to another user that if someone has a heart attack, you try and perform CPR to try and save them. There is absolutely no reason to connect Space Aliens or Robots for why someone might have a medical episode.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Who defines evil?

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Practically, we each define evil, whatever the source of our inspiration.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So by whose definition of evil are things tolerated or not tolerated?

[–]NodeEco-Prussianist, and partial Georgia Guidestone Enthusiast 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To answer as phrased, each of ours. (whatever the source of our inspiration)

[–]AmericanMuskratAlien Overlord Zerp 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

About the "snowflake" term, which has its origins in Fight Club

Kids these days... You think nothing existed before you were around.

Fight Club’s snowflake, though, isn’t its earliest instance as an insult. During the Civil War in Missouri, pro-slavery advocates were called snowflakes for valuing white people over black people. (That’s a diss we can get behind.) Over a century later in the 1970s, black people who were seen as acting too white were mocked as snowflakes. The idea, here, is whiteness—like snow. Fight Club, nevertheless, did help to spread snowflake as a contemporary insult online in the 2000s to tease sheltered, helicopter-parented, everyone-gets-a-trophy young adults. The core metaphor is that such people are delicate like snowflakes, easily hurt by the hard realities of life, and think of themselves as special without realizing they are entitled and privileged— because every snowflake is different, as they say.

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They always try to falsly claim the other side is doing what they are doing.

[–]VulptexVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The original SJW push in the US actually was by social conservatives, arguably the Puritans. In the 20th century they consolidated mostly in the Democratic party. Then the elite Democrats who care about nothing but increasing their wealth and power devised a plot to take over the Republican party by inverting their platform to extreme progressivism and pushing the social conservatives into the Republican party. This way donkeys with elephant masks on could lead all these new rhinos who were confused by their party's sudden change. Now Democrats run both parties.

Conservative SJWs have mostly diffused in recent decades, at least in comparison with the progressives. But they have seen a few resurgences, and right now is one of them.