> "No where did I say anyone is inferior to me? I said some are snowflakes"
There, where you insult people. It seems clear from the context that you are not including yourself in the snowflakes, instead including yourself as superior to the snowflakes. When someone calls someone else stupid or slow or weak or whiner, it's usually in the context of "and I'm better".
> "get offended by the most random thing imaginable and there is no obligation to cater to everyone's whims and fancies."
Whenever you can split the political divide into compassion/cruelty, it's the Left encouraging or supporting compassion and the right siding with "fuck you, got mine". Who, for example, said you had an 'obligation' to write in a particular way? Instead of the article turning into "yeah, okay, no skin off my nose to remove those words" or "I prefer it this way, feel free to write your own version your way", it turns into namecalling, ego protecting, self-defense.
> "The right, having a meltdown over "just" and "simply": Remove "just" and "simply" else it will ruin my flow of thought"
Saying "X is bad because I trip over it" is not melting down. Saying "you trip over X because you're weak and clumsy and a whining crybaby, you'd never survive an Antartic exploration expedition like a True Scotsman, I have no obligation to do what you demand, I don't need to because I don't trip over X" is. It doesn't engage with the actual issue, doesn't consider whether the change has merit more or less than it costs, doesn't reply about why the style is clearer/better/more fun/more personal, it's a reply to show a) the author is in with the tougher more superior crowd who don't need it, b) the requestor is pathetic.
There, where you insult people. It seems clear from the context that you are not including yourself in the snowflakes, instead including yourself as superior to the snowflakes. When someone calls someone else stupid or slow or weak or whiner, it's usually in the context of "and I'm better".
> "get offended by the most random thing imaginable and there is no obligation to cater to everyone's whims and fancies."
Whenever you can split the political divide into compassion/cruelty, it's the Left encouraging or supporting compassion and the right siding with "fuck you, got mine". Who, for example, said you had an 'obligation' to write in a particular way? Instead of the article turning into "yeah, okay, no skin off my nose to remove those words" or "I prefer it this way, feel free to write your own version your way", it turns into namecalling, ego protecting, self-defense.
> "The right, having a meltdown over "just" and "simply": Remove "just" and "simply" else it will ruin my flow of thought"
Saying "X is bad because I trip over it" is not melting down. Saying "you trip over X because you're weak and clumsy and a whining crybaby, you'd never survive an Antartic exploration expedition like a True Scotsman, I have no obligation to do what you demand, I don't need to because I don't trip over X" is. It doesn't engage with the actual issue, doesn't consider whether the change has merit more or less than it costs, doesn't reply about why the style is clearer/better/more fun/more personal, it's a reply to show a) the author is in with the tougher more superior crowd who don't need it, b) the requestor is pathetic.