My, albeit trollish, goal here was to cast your "kids these days and their lack of dialectic" rant under the same light that it was attempting to cast. Namely, by attributing to the mere expectation of civil discourse itself the same sin of self-entitlement you imply (whether explicitly in your post, or implicitly by virtue of the context ["downfall of western civilization," and all that]) those trying to shut down the discourse are guilty of. Your basic "shoe's on the other foot" devil's advocacy.
The use of "snowflake" was intended to be the giveaway term for the irony of the post, turning around a term typically used for deriding the "participation trophy" generation and applying it to someone older. But it seems it was too subtle (or perhaps too un-subtle) to achieve that aim. Certainly did not mean to connote any of its uses in left/right political diatribe.
So, sorry if the humor didn't land, no disrespect intended beyond my typical asinine irreverence.
But I stand by my point that "hater's gonna hate" is as viable an entry into the discourse as any well reasoned argument, as much as it may chafe your sensibilities. Its use is not meant to be taken as seriously as you've taken it (or as seriously as you took my post), and it is inherently incapable of shaming or shutting down, as your own analysis suggests. It's just a shorthand dismissal along the lines of "you've just got an axe to grind' or "you just don't ‘get it.’” Read it as such and I think you'll have a better time.
Last edited:
