It is about fragility, like others said, but It is also about uniqueness, in the sense of “oh, so you think you’re soo special!”
Yeah, for conservatives, conformity is a large part of their mindset. A large part of their personality is focused on fitting in to be part of the “in group”. To them, the nail that sticks out deserves to be hammered back into place.
It’s also part of why they get so violently angry when they see things like blue hair or trans people; They’re genuinely afraid that if societal norms change, they’ll need to conform to those new standards. It’s why all of the “they’re gonna turn you trans, they’re putting litter boxes in classrooms, they’re trying to turn your kids gay, etc” type of fear mongering on Fox News actually works. It sounds crazy to anyone who isn’t focused on conformity… But to those who do focus on it, it seems like a genuine potential result of changing societal norms.
Or like “Oh, you think you’re soo different”
Weird insult, still.
The person you replied to went on to argue that someone who thinks they’re unique or special should be mocked, to bring them back down to earth?
Sounds like someone was bullied or abused and is forwarding trauma by justifying that it was correct.
I mean in the grand scheme of things there are only a handful of types of people, maybe a few hundred and those types repeat over and over. Everyone has their own unique experiences, personal drama and relationships, but their behavior and core traits are shared with probably millions of people throughout history. Thinking you are unique is not a rational belief and if it becomes integral to one’s personality (like it has to millions of people before them) I think they should be mocked, just for the sake of getting their heads straight.
It’s not that you aren’t allowed to be the most important character of your story, it’s just that you shouldn’t think that’s because you are something that never was before and never will be after.
The way I think about it is that we’re all “snowflakes”. No two people are exactly the same. So while one can correctly claim to be unique that also applies to everyone else. It’s not like everyone else is the same but you’re unique. Also, being unique doesn’t automatically mean someone is better than others - one can also be uniquely bad.
I think you’ve stumbled on it yourself. If every person is unique and special, nobody can be singled out or given preferential treatment. That would be an impossible task to cater to ~6 billion or what ever we are at now, individually
We’re up to 8 billion now, it’s crazy
I kinda thought so. It is crazy. Incomprehensible
The snowflake metaphor really gives us everything we need. Yes each one has a different crystalline pattern but ALL of them will melt at the same temperature. Thinking your uniqueness extends to everything and frees you from all the rules is the problem. Of course, conservatives love rules too much and don’t even recognize when they are setting up rules for how your crystalline pattern is “supposed to be.”
What if someone IS unique, though? I would consider Socrates unique. He was so determined, stubborn, and self-assured of his belief that he was a clueless fool that he was willing to die for it. What if someone is a once-a-generation brilliant mind or psychological anomaly? What if someone has a schizospectrum disorder and experiences a reality nobody else lives in?
I’d argue that’s not a unique person, but a unique skill of an ordinary person. Interacting with Socrates as a person probably wouldn’t have been extraordinary but experiencing his unique ideas for the time would have.
I’d argue that unique skills, experiences, and relationships are what make people unique.
I figured it had to be about uniqueness. But also, I really do think we’ve all got certain commonalities but our experiences make us quite unique. Hmm. I wonder sometimes if the idea was brought together by people who attended k-12 primarily. Because a lot of the videos we saw way back when brought up the individuality of snowflakes quite often. But also I know there were a lot of projects surrounding us all making our own snowflakes. And it was an idea that just got stuck in their heads (as things tend to because we can’t remember everything but certain things when repeated enough times lodge their way in). A lot of the films we were shown I think were from the 80s, maybe the 70s? And I don’t think schools changed too much until around when smart phones were around. I know it’s for sure a different jungle nowadays. And I was raised in an underfunded school system and (this is going to sound absolutely cruel) but I know a good chunk of Republicans that aren’t vampires but are hella indignant probably weren’t going to particularly well funded schools either. Just some stuff I’m kicking around, nothing for sure in here. Just makes me think. It’s kinda like how certain generations get stuck on certain things. And if there wasn’t much funding the materials would have to be drawn out more, which could expand the exposure/idealism that “every snowflake is unique.”
But I mean at the end of the day it’s all bully logic and it’s made to poke fun at people who they think are different and difficult. But I’ve got my thoughts on that too. I will say outside of all things that “staying the course” and being “moderate” at the least (conservative otherwise - I don’t think we’ve really ever been all the progressive - and I guess I am just talking US politics) have already lined up many people for failure with no real reversal. And the thing I keep seeing people pop-up and talk about is if we’re bold enough to keep going or if we can lay our egos down and find alternatives to many of our damaged systems and idealism. And I think a lot of this stuff is used so that we don’t.
But I will also say being around angry or manipulative people (I’ll use the term extremist but I don’t even think you have to be that extreme to be angry) isn’t fun. At least for me personally. And I have walked away feeling marginalized on both sides of the fence. And I think some liberals, while their hearts are (may be) in the right place, have some pretty unrealistic views and sit on their hands quite a bit in a kinda Universalist limbo. And both sides are super susceptible to mediacoholicism and rage. But that doesn’t stop me for a second of voting dem the whole way down on every ballot.
I think I read once on Reddit say that someone considered themselves liberal until they moved into a hyper-liberal space and then slowly rolled to a more conservative space. I don’t think there’s an space under this sun that I would become a conservative. But I will say that I have found myself also disliking (some) people who I suppose would be considered “snowflakes” to hyper-conservatives. Because they have always come off a super manipulative, unable to compromise, and quite often hollow. But there have been some really cool freedom fighters I’ve met too. Who just are (exist), and even if they come from certain spaces just want what’s best for people who have been chronically oppressed. So it’s not so much the idealism. As it is a certain kind of person, and it’s not just someone’s bobbing and weaving around with blue hair. I’d also say it’s not so much the performative nature as I’m a big mo with big expression and love people rocking their panache. It’s just some of these folks kinda remind me of something like…idk. I mean they’re for sure very internet-y. The whole lot of them (both sides). But they kind of remind me of someone constantly adopting everything around them but ultimately lacking their own substance or identity. And I had an ex like that, who was a hipster. And it was always like she was playing at being something, but in reality she was just copying the things around her. And like I guess I hear fake it til you make it and like the idea of like…if you’re copying something it’s cause you like and you want to be it - and what was that thing imitation is the purist form of flattery. And we’re all influenced by all sorts of things and none of us original in that sense. But there’s just something really sad about a person who doesn’t even get to be a person but instead a persona. And I mean that like - all the way to the top. It sucks.
So yeah, here’s my word vomit. Hopping off cause this one was a doozy.
The point of the insult isn’t that snowflakes are unique but rather that they “melt down” at the slightest touch.
Wikipedia and most dictionary definitions talk about uniqueness. Each snowflake is unique. That’s what most people mean by it.
Snowflake is a derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions.
You are not special. You are not beautiful or unique snowflake. Quote from the novel “Fight Club”
I think you are cherry picking. It says it means both. My 5c: If you think you are unique and you don’t give a fuck about what other people think (example would be a goth or punk imo), then not a snowflake. If you melt down at the slightest touch over others not being like the status quo (example would be a Karen imo). Not a snowflake. If you think you are different, and melt down as soon as someone chalanges that difference (example vegan yelling at someone buying a steak imo) then snowflake.
I haven’t claimed it doesn’t imply fragility too. Just that the uniqueness is the primary meaning of it - thus the term snowflake. “I’m unique and thus deserving of special treatment”
If it was primarily about fragility then we’d probably be using some other term as that is not generally the first feature that comes to mind about snowflakes.
I feel like you googled the word and consider that truth without really looking at the nuance of how the phrase evolved.
Long ago, there was a saying that “no two snowflakes are alike.”
Decades ago: We personified it to promote diversity. “We are all individuals, just like snowflakes!” The point of this was to get people to look past stereotypes. People weren’t defined by their ethnicity, they were individuals and you should judge them for the person they are, not by their appearance.
Within the past few years: Conservatives use the term sarcastically. Delicate snowflakes, try so hard to be unique but melt if you look at them wrong! Meaning, instead of fitting in, they want to be different, but when we bully them for being different, they get upset.
So, yes, it’s about uniqueness, but when used as an insult, it’s more focused on fragility.
Huh.
I guess the “easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions” part still fits. That’s how I always understood it. But I’ve never actually looked it up. It seems I’m not the only one, though.
It’s fascinating to read all the top comments from people who didn’t know the implication. I would guess that you and others assumed from context that it means “fragile.” It’s a reasonable assumption, and if enough people use it to mean that, then that will be a new meaning of the word.
Language evolves, so it isn’t fair to say that you or they are “wrong,” but it belies the problem with using metaphors in communication. If the listener doesn’t understand the metaphor, they’re more likely to fill in their own guess than they are to ask for clarification or look it up. And that’s not a flaw, that’s actually a fantastic adaptation that makes language possible in the first place. How many words did you learn from the dictionary, compared to how many you learned from reading or hearing them used?
Take the name “Nimrod.” Nimrod was a Biblical character known to be a great hunter. It has frequently been used sarcastically to impugn the hunting skills of the target, most famously by Daffy Duck to describe Elmer Fudd, and then again by Bugs Bunny to describe Yosemite Sam. But most of the people watching the cartoons weren’t Biblical scholars, and the word entered the public consciousness as a generic insult which has come to mean a stupid person.
The term for the phenomenon is “semantic drift.” See also: peruse, awful, nice, and the currently-relevant “weird.”
I did feel kind of stupid when OP posted the definition. But then I saw a couple of other people that shared my interpretation, so that was nice.
Didn’t expect to get such a quality reply! Very interesting. Thanks!
Snowflake doesn’t imply uniqueness, but fragility.
When it comes to the current insult, It is a combination of both.
They think they are special because they know something everyone else doesn’t (the basis of rhe whole Qanon bullshit), but are also fragile because they can’t handle being called out for being terrible people.
deleted by creator
I think you’re not understanding the intended slam.
‘Snowflakes’ are special and unique. (Notably, their crystalline pattern)
Every snowflake is special and unique. (Every single one has unique environmental factors that form their unique shape)
If every… ‘thing’ is special and unique, no ‘thing’ is special OR unique.
It’s basically saying “you value your perceived characteristics higher than they actually are valued in the grand scope”
It’s about fragility
What does this surprise? It’s just another “woke.”
deleted by creator
Antifa… Yes we are anti-facist like how the allies fought in ww2
imply it’s best to just be like everyone else
No it implies extreme fragility.
I can totally imagine an innocent couple sharing a cute nickname like snowflake and then having it ruined by the rest of humanity who are out here in the culture war trenches
Idk it sounds like a compliment…lol
“you’re such a snowflake ❄️”
me: 🥺👉👈
deleted by creator
I think the idea is that saying snowflake as an insult implies that being unique is a bad thing.
deleted by creator
Also “snowflake” isn’t about being unique at all.
Traditionally, that’s what the insult meant. It would seem that modern usage is shifting.
It doesn’t. It implies that being unique is a bad thing.
The use as a complimwnt or insult has changed over time.
It was once a positive about being yourself (unique).
Then it conservatives used it to refer to someone thinking they were special.
Then it was used to mean someone who melted at any criticism, generally referring to conservatives who thought they were special because they ‘know something everyone else didn’t’ (Qanon morons).
When conservatives all someone a snowflake and when people call conservatives snowflakes the insults are slightly different.
All unique snowflakes are still snowflakes.
Also, snowflakes are not unique, which should be obvious to anyone who understands large numbers.
Being a snowflake doesn’t imply you’re just like everyone else. Quite the opposite.
Being called a snowflake in diminishing way implies that it’s better not to be a snowflake and be like everyone else.
Doesn’t the same apply to pretty much any insult?
And why we’re not supposed to use the word “normal” when referring to somebody or what they aren’t…
I don’t think snowflake is intended to be an insult though, is it? I always thought it was a stupid reference to what is perceived as an over sensitive generation (or person).
