A strange form of communication has arisen on the far left in recent years. It should be stressed that this isn’t the language of any of my democrat friends, this is a fringe movement. Nonetheless, it is exclusively a movement of the left. It is what is known as “glitter bombing” someone. It is the practice of battering someone through an offensive touching. Essentially, if the carrier disagrees with another’s values, they sneak up and cast an unwanted substance on the person in an attempt to embarrass the speaker into submission and bring notoriety to their cause.
For years, those on the right that protest the abortion of the unborn outside of abortion clinics have been held up as examples of inappropriate speech. In the 1990′s these protesters could be found holding up signs of aborted babies. These pro-lifers have honed their message with more effective messages in recent years. Now days, fringe speech has been taken to the next level.
For years, animal rights advocates on the left have thrown paint on real and fake fur clothing they disagreed with. Last week, a reality television start got “flour bombed” at a press conference. For the past year, almost every GOP presidential candidate has gotten “glitter bombed” due to their support of traditional marriage.
This is a startling development in political messaging. Rather than articulating a message, many young people are being taught that assault and battery are superior forms of communicating a message. What is even more striking is the fact that these attacks aren’t on rogue ideas. These attacks are against millennium-held traditions of western culture. Against ideas that are older than America herself.
While we’re preaching to the choir here, it is important to draw a line in the sand in saying that an assault and battery on those with whom we disagree is not an effective or articulate manner in which to communicate a message. It reveals the assaulter to be on the fringe of our societal dialogue and it does nothing to push the conversation further. Additionally, young people, having been through a year or two of college, shouldn’t be so quick to assume that they know better than thousands of years of culture and morality. For them to assume that a viewpoint that is different than theirs is bigotry reveals more about them than it does of the speaker.
It is ignorant for those who preach tolerance to be intolerant of the ideas of others. If a young American wants to win a “civil rights” argument, they should be quick to respect the right of others, rather than quick to commit a battery on those with whom they disagree. Until then, local prosecutors should prosecute such crimes for what each one is — assault and battery.