Explaining Why Liberals Are So Desperate To Find Things to Be Offended About

Saying that liberals are weird and touchy is like noting that the sun is hot and water is wet. Granted, some of that is pure politics. For example, the big story of the week is that Donald Trump convinced North Korea to free three hostages. Surely liberals must be happy about that, right?

Politico: Trump thanks Kim Jong Un as he welcomes home detainees from North Korea

CNN: Why Donald Trump talked about 'ratings' standing next to 3 recently freed prisoners?

Are these ridiculous headlines given the situation? Absolutely, but politics is politics. All these media organizations are in the tank for the Democrats and they don’t want to see Trump do well. So, their bias may make you roll your eyes, but it’s understandable.

You might want to make a similar argument about the incredibly obnoxious article Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote this week saying that Kanye West became a white man when he supported Trump. You may think I’m kidding, but the title of his piece is called “I’m Not Black, I’m Kanye.”If I used that exact same logic and wrote a column called “You’re Not A Good White Man If You Don’t Vote Republican,” the same liberals who cheered what Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote would go insane. Now, you could chalk all this up to, “They’re just hypocrites that want to win elections,” but that undersells it. Ta-Nehisi Coates and other liberals are genuinely offended that one prominent black singer is supportive of Trump and has an open mind about political ideas from the other side. They are so desperate to be offended that a single prominent black man simply disagreeing with them about which political party to support drives them out of their minds.

Incidentally, it doesn’t just work that way with celebrities. Last week, a young black woman named Channnnwrote a post about how her dad had a flat tire and a white guy wearing a Confederate flag t-shirt stopped to help her. She admitted that she wasn’t a fan of the Confederate flag, but went on to acknowledge that other people might not see it that way and that whatever the case may be, the guy who helped her was a nice guy. It’s a great story, right? Well, not to some people. One of Twitter’s most better known liberals, Tariq Nasheed who thinks EVERYTHING is racism and white supremacy concluded *** surprise *** that this was just more white supremacy.

This here is why Black parents should teach their children about how white supremacy works at a young age. Just because a SWS does a good deed for an INDIVIDUAL Black person, that doesn't mean he is not going to stop maintaining SYSTEMATIC white supremacy

In other words, the guy that fixed her tire was victimizing her by maintaining “SYSTEMATIC white supremacy.” So, yes, if you were wondering, according to liberals you can be victimized by a good Samaritan who stops to change your tire.

Last week at a website called “the Feed,” a column called “Opinion: 8% Of Prisoners Are Women. That’s About 8% Too Many” was written. In the article, it is suggested that we should effectively eliminate the threat of prison for females because, “Women never commit the most heinous offences.” So prisoners are victims for no other reason than because they’re female.

But, what if a woman does something that allows male liberals to claim they’re offended? Then, they’re happy to go after women, too. A couple of weeks ago, an attractive young white high school student named Keziah Daum wore an Asian-themed dress to her prom and tweeted out a picture of it. So what, right? Except, a young liberal tweeted “My culture is NOT your god*mn prom dress.” That tweet received 179k likes, led to both tweets going viral and happily, has spawned an almost limitless number of memes making fun of the ultra-sensitive liberal.

At some point in history, all cultures have taken slaves, have fought and oppressed other cultures to take land and have appropriated things from other cultures. Becoming furious because someone wears a prom dress from a culture you identify with seems insane on the face of it. It would be like an American yelling at someone from London for wearing a cowboy hat or being outraged because a Canadian wears a Yankee jersey. This is not something psychologically healthy people get upset about.

Speaking of psychologically healthy people, they also don’t file complaints with their colleges because someone made a mild joke,

The fuss started when Richard Ned Lebow, a professor of political theory at King’s College London, and Simona Sharoni, a professor of women’s and gender studies at Merrimack College, ended up in the same crowded elevator during a conference at a Hilton in San Francisco last month.

She said she offered to press the floor buttons for people in the elevator, whom she described as mostly conference attendees and all, except one other woman, white middle-aged men. Instead of saying a floor, Lebow smiled and asked for the women’s lingerie department….Sharoni wrote in a complaint, the details of which he disputed, to the association later that day.

...After glancing at Lebow’s name tag, Sharoni says she went back to her hotel room to check out the association’s code of conduct. She then wrote to Mark A. Boyer, the association’s executive director. He forwarded the complaint to the group’s Committee on Professional Rights and Responsibilities, which determined that Lebow had violated the conduct code.

This may shock you (ha ha), but the world’s most humorless woman is a professor of women’s and gender studies. Who would have ever guessed?

Perhaps the worst storyline out of all of these issues is the “Someone calls the police on a black person; so all of us should be outraged” stories that have started to become prevalent. At Starbucks, a black manager who had a problem with loitering in her store called the police aftertwo black customers refused to leave or buy anything. A neighbor called the police on three black women and a white woman after she thought they were acting suspiciously. Apparently, they were also rude to her according to the homeowner. In another case, a white student at Yale called the police on a black student who was sleeping in a common area. In every one of these cases, these were treated as racist incidents even though there is absolutely no evidence of that.

These stories, all of which have happened recently, are just a drop in the bucket. Liberals are perpetually offended by just about everything. Why? Because liberals have decided that being offended trumps logic, fact and every other argument that anyone can make. If it were up to liberals, we would not have free speech because too many people say things that contradict liberal ideas. So, they may not be able to put you in jail for believing that you can’t change genders or that it’s not smart to send gay men who may be sexually interested in teenagers out into the woods with them overnight as scout masters, but they can use a variety of different tactics to silence you. Outrage is one of those tactics because again, according to liberals, the second someone is outraged, the debate is over and they’ve won (Of course that only applies to liberals. If conservatives are offended by something, that doesn’t count.)

Of course, liberals love to use whatever they’re outraged about today as an excuse for government action or to gin up their base, but at the most fundamental level, liberal outrage is all about shutting up everyone who doesn’t agree with liberals. That’s the ultimate form of censorship. When you’re so scared that you might offend a liberal that you censor yourself. When you don’t wear the prom dress you want to wear. When you don’t make the joke. You don’t say anything that might make a liberal angry because you don’t want to deal with formal charges or 5,000 outraged liberals on Twitter that feel justified in calling you the worst names you’ve ever heard of because their widdle feelings are hurt. You can give in to their bullying if you like, but down that road lies a new liberal vision of totalitarianism where the bad guys win not because they deserve to or because they have guns pointed at your head, but because people are too afraid to speak the truth. For your sake, for the sake of your kids and for the sake of your country, don’t let liberal outrage determine what you can and cannot say.

Sometime ago I tried to tackle the issue of "Snowflakes" analytically over at Hannity Forums and posted a thread I called "A Word About Snowflakes".

This was an honest attempt to categorize and differentiate "Snowflakes" as they appeared in society and in the events of the world, not an effort to slur anyone but a thesis based in proper observation.

What I soon discovered is that conservatives like myself aren't really allowed to define words or phrases according to observations but that the Left seems to reserve to itself alone the privilege of controlling the language and the definitions used because that is a vital tool used by them for their power and their advancement.

By introducing definition of "Snowflake" that only sought to set forth and limit the idea of who was a "Snowflake" to people evidencing certain qualities I was in fact guilt of trying to not let progressives use the word freely as a club against anyone they wanted to ... and that just would NOT do!

As a consequence of the effort to dismiss my efforts a number of individual progressives at Hannity latched onto a view that a "Snowflake" was really someone willing to argue against progressives no matter if they were even acting offended. Thus they essentially reduced the desire to seriously discuss views contrary to progressivism to form of offended behavior.

Indeed, one of the individuals who would go on to use "Snowflake" most aggressively against people who just disagreed with him posted: "Hey look! I made up a definition of people I disagree with. It's truth now."

Here is that thread's OP:

A Word About Snowflakes

Dane-Geld (by Kipling)

IT is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say:--
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:--
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:--

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
Nor matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Snowflakes are a bit like the Danes of old in this way: if you pay the wages they demand, no matter how trifling the cost may seem, they NEVER GO AWAY.

They only demand more, only tear down more, only grow bolder.

This works the same no matter if you are dealing with what I term a “Type 1 Snowflake” — someone like those seen getting weepy on college campuses, retiring to safe spaces and needing time off from class because something bad happened — or a “Type 2 Snowflake” — the sort that, like Islamist, actively seeks out being offended as a pretext to advancing their own agenda. Make deals with either, even tolerate them, and they seek to expand their territory ... either to expand their safe spaces so that they will never again be offended -- either personally or by proxy of how they imagine others might be offended makes no difference -- or to take away your place so that ultimately there will be no place left for you.

These may seem the same, and practically speaking they are functionally the same and both operate in supremacist fashion, but they are not for reasons relating to what else separates what I call a Type 1 from a Type 2.

Examples...

A true Type 1 Snowflake will NOT hang around a forum where different opinions are expressed. They prefer echo chambers, safe spaces and need hugs.

A Type 2 Snowflake may go onto such forums and they seek to silence you wherever you are ... you aren't allowed to have places for even debate among differing views. It isn’t just that they dislike your views, or even that they consider your views to be fundamentally disordered, but that you have a context within which you can express your views are not in accordance to their rules.

A Type 1 Snowflake is not just easily offended but they are also easily offended by proxy, as explained above. That said, their offense may be emotional, even irrational, but it is often honestly felt. That doesn’t make it a good offense, or one that should be tolerated, but it does mean that they aren’t usually faking.

A Type 2 Snowflake ... may be telling the truth about being offended, they may not be telling the truth. They’ve got some other fish to fry and the offense is a pretext for heating up the coals.

A Type 1 Snowflake is fragile. That doesn’t mean that they are the Fluttershys of any crowd, for given sufficient echo chamber effect and anger they can act quite bold. Rather it means that their efforts to eliminate whatever offends them, even to the point of acting as bad as the worst “fascists” they often say they hate, is about their security.

A Type 2 Snowflake is tough. They have a war-face and are coming to take whatever folks say isn't theirs.

A Type 1 Snowflake’s aversion to bad things may, and presently is, causing them to seek to remove evidence of the past that offends them, essentially to forget that past itself.

A Type 2 Snowflake does the same to remove YOUR past, good and bad, so that you will be weakened and unable to resist further encroachments.

Similarly, a Type 1 Snowflake will believe that bad people cause all these offenses.

While a Type 2 Snowflake is looking for a time when whatever other folks may want, they will be under the boot and dealt with if they get uppity. Here I might bring up discussions by Bill Ayers’ bunch about killing millions of Americans who couldn't be reeducated to be servile commies after the revolution.

In essence Type 1s are those who are easily swayed by every breeze of popular opinion, group thinkers and group feelers, they are pathetic ... or would be if they were not so easily mobilized and used by Type 2s.

It’s not entirely unlike how I, on another forum, recently described the two kinds of cultural Marxist to a fellow who passes the Duck Test for same. The many who are indoctrinated, not educated, are those whose function is to be led about by the few who have philosophy and not just ideology. I pointed out that the “many” have been easily appropriated by Islamist through the emotionally charged idea of Islamophobia and that one way for a cultural Marxist to distinguish which kind he was is: “If you eagerly defend against Islamophobia without deep reflection and respond to the dance calls from the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood (even though any clearheaded analysis of the Sharia Law that the MB and OIC seeks to advance should be MORE opposed by the left than even Christianity, not less, given that Islam actually will put your head on a block or toss you off a roof) you are an expendable, a useful idiot. If you find you can resist the rhetoric of Islamophobia you may be closer to a real Marxist, which also means you can still reject indoctrination aimed at manipulating the useful idiots if you find reasons to.”

In short: who is the manipulated and who is the manipulator. Someone with an actual education, rather than indoctrination, can resist manipulations others who have been indoctrinated simply cannot.

Finally ...

* If you're upset by something but you can tolerate it (negative tolerance, not some idiotic notion of positive tolerance) you aren't a Snowflake.

* If you don't much care for what Snowflakes are destroying you may not be a Snowflake (indifference isn't the same thing as offense).

* If you don't care one jot that the Snowflakes are offended you certainly aren't a Snowflake (indeed, we can save the civilization by not caring one jot about what offends Snowflakes, and moreover going out of our way to offend them is probably a positive good).

Incidentally, these three appear to cover the majority of folks here at Hannity.

Again ...

NEVER pay the Dane-Geld!

Addendum: in that OP I may not have made it as clear as I should have that I consider the ability to be offended by proxy, to be offended by things you imagine offend people who are notably of this or that protected class, is often a defining aspect of all genuine Snowflakes. A Type 1 isn't just triggered into emotional distress by things that they think are directed at them but by anything insensitive to any victim class too. A Type 2 will shamelessly take advantage of any opportunity to extract a pound of flesh.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.