The unflattering term ‘snowflake’ is generally associated with the overly sensitive left.
It is a term referring to someone who’s easily hurt emotionally and quick to go on the defense, especially when opinions contradict their narratives.
This was evident at colleges across the nation as classes were canceled following Trump’s election victory. College officials believed the legal adults who were attending their universities needed to be consoled. Of course, those legal adults gave school officials many reasons to be concerned for their emotional wellbeing.
For some reason, this generation of progressive students were not mentally prepared to accept any other election outcome than Hillary taking the presidency. With the media’s help along with Hollywood star power, it appeared she would, in fact, be a shoe-in for the presidency.
After the unexpected happened, millions of millennials were left feeling confused and interpreted the election as a personal attack against them. What transpired afterward begged the question: Did any of their parents instill basic coping traits into them?
Where did liberal millennials seek refuge the day after the election? Where else? Designated areas referred to as “safe spaces.”
If we were at war, a safe space would provide shelter to weather the barrage of bombs being dropped. For liberals, this space represents a location where everyone must believe the same ideology without questioning it. The difference of opinion is neither accepted nor tolerated.
According to the liberal definition of safe space, it is an environment where everyone believes in one line of thought. Nobody there is to be exposed to any criticism or harassment. Anything which contradicts their liberal dogma is simply not permitted in these areas carefully regulated by liberals. Mere opposition is considered to be tangible physical and emotional threats to safe space attendees–as if the government wee calling for their heads to be delivered on platters.
THE MODERN-DAY LIBERAL
According to an article published in the “Evolution and Human Behavior” Journal, 171 men between ages 18 to 40 were compared based on their physiques and political affiliation.
Results indicated that the majority of men who were physically weaker and shorter leaned more left and favored socialism. The study revealed that men who were physically stronger and much more competitive preferred capitalism. While weaker men supported the redistribution of wealth, stronger men favored free trade. While weaker men were more willing to mooch off the success of someone else, stronger men preferred environments where they could win.
Factors measured in the study included height, weight, bicep circumference, and overall physical strength.
In addition, taller, stronger men are generally more successful in business and politics than their shorter, weaker counterparts. Height in men triggers certain positive, unconscious associations. In one study, a disproportionate number of white tall men were discovered to be the CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies.
This study clearly needs more research to be conducted before initial findings can be confirmed. However, if future results are consistent, what’s the takeaway? And, how much of an impact will it have on the future of politics? Looking at the present state of our nation, the findings do seem to correlate with certain patterns.
For example, the movement to marginalize men and feminize them is coming directly from the left. There are no obvious examples that demonstrate conservatives trying to feminize men.
Within the so-called progressive groups where transsexuals and homosexuals thrive, it is undeniable. Although they barely make up 1% of the American population, these special interest groups are a current primary focus of the Democratic party. These groups tend to toss masculinity aside to adopt more feminine traits. This is applauded by feminists, who strive for superiority over men. Role reversal is very evident within liberal circles.
To demonstrate tolerance, Obama became a big advocate for minority groups, providing them with specialized rights. He wanted to be known as the president who was looking out for the little guy. Under his administration, the number of people on food stamps reached the highest in American history. His signature achievement, Obamacare, forced Americans who work and pay for their own health insurance to pay for the health care of those who cannot or refuse to take care of themselves.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, Trump talked a lot about winning during his campaign as well as “Making American Great Again.”
His stance on ISIS was to obliterate them, and his immigration stance was to build a wall to keep illegals out and better secure the American people. From his stances, you can easily surmise which political system the current president and former real estate tycoon prefers.