By Matt Underwood So, about those “Don’t Tread on Me” folks and the whole Walz/National Guard situation… it seems the core sentiment here is a pretty cynical one. The general consensus, if you can call it that, is that the rallying cry of “Don’t Tread on Me” has always been, at best, a highly selective sentiment.
The initial reaction seems to be a resounding “Where are they, indeed?” The implication is that these folks, who once waved the Gadsden flag with such fervor, are mysteriously absent when the metaphorical boots start marching on other people. It’s not hard to see why. The comments paint a picture of a group primarily concerned with their own self-interests, or perhaps the interests of a very specific in-group.
The phrase seems to have morphed into something almost ironic. The “Don’t Tread on Me” crew are, in some eyes, the ones doing the treading. They’re seen as being perfectly comfortable with authoritarianism or actions that impinge upon the rights of others, as long as it doesn’t affect *them* directly. It’s a classic case of “rules for thee, but not for me.”
It’s almost as if the entire philosophy boils down to a selfish interpretation. The whole concept becomes a personal mantra: “Don’t tread on *me*,” rather than “Don’t tread on *anyone*.” That’s the critical distinction. The perceived hypocrisy is glaring. They’re the ones who seem eager to see action taken against groups they dislike, while simultaneously complaining about any perceived overreach that affects them.
This sentiment is further reinforced by the idea that this isn’t about principle, but about vibes. The Gadsden flag and its associated rhetoric are simply a fashion choice, a signal of belonging to a certain tribe. The comments suggest the flag’s appeal lies in its aesthetic, its association with a “tough guy” image, rather than any commitment to broader liberty or freedom.
A few comments directly highlight the shift in allegiance based on the color of the person in the White House. It’s been stated quite directly that the “Don’t tread on me” attitude is only triggered when the president has the “wrong skin color.”
This is contrasted with those who are actually being “tread on.” The focus shifts from the ones complaining about the National Guard to those potentially affected by the use of troops. They express the need for action or more people to speak up, implying a sense of abandonment or betrayal.
The comments also point out a rather disturbing trend: the apparent embrace of authoritarianism within certain circles. The “Don’t tread on me” crowd is being seen as supportive of the very actions that infringe upon individual liberties. The gun forums are allegedly full of people loving the “authoritarian vibe” and happily wanting to disarm the Left.
The overall impression is clear: the “Don’t Tread on Me” movement is a facade. It’s a convenient shield, a means of expressing personal grievances while ignoring the rights and freedoms of everyone else. The people using this motto have, in the eyes of the comments, become the very thing they claim to oppose.
It’s about identifying the people you want to be treaded on, or more accurately, the people you think deserve to be treaded on. The core of the sentiment comes down to, it seems, naked self-interest. The “Don’t Tread on Me” crowd has evolved, or perhaps always was, the “Please tread on me, Daddy!” people.