It’s another day of the week that ends in “day”, and another day where a transgender woman believes they have the authority to set the ground rules on what is and is not allowable speech.
Today’s example is Charlotte Clymer, spokesperson for the progressive bullying organization better known as the Human Rights Campaign.
Chris Field from The Blaze sets the scene for how it all started:
Clymer set people off with this tweet (allegedly in response to recent statements by anti-vaccination advocates):
Not all opinions are equal.
Not all opinions are deserving of our time and consideration.
Not all opinions should be given space in the public square.
If you push a “belief” that is directly harmful to others, you have moved past “opinion” and into a threat to public safety.
— Charlotte Clymer 🏳️🌈 (@cmclymer) June 13, 2019
Now, many people (mostly conservatives — including me) initially believed that Clymer was referring to disagreements over beliefs on LGTBQ issues.
[…]
However, NOTHING in Clymer’s initial tweet said anything about vaccinations, and Clymer has a record of being an unreserved (and crude) trans advocate. So critics of the anti-free speech tweet had every reason to assume Clymer was pushing the typical left-wing propaganda.
Oh there’s zero question that that’s what Clymer was doing, as other tweets that came from her later made clear, like these:
No, Sweetie, you just want the unchecked freedom to spread hateful nonsense that directly harms others, and that bullshit does not belong in the public square. Period. https://t.co/Y4HpcoIHt3
— Charlotte Clymer 🏳️🌈 (@cmclymer) June 13, 2019
—
Once again, gotta love the bad faith framing here. A literal, explicit call for violence is not required to encourage violence and discrimination against marginalized communities.
And the irony with your tragic misunderstanding is that even explicit threats are often ignored. https://t.co/ISv45lTLcH
— Charlotte Clymer 🏳️🌈 (@cmclymer) June 13, 2019
Now, for most people who don’t have their heads stuck up their [word that rhymes with “molasses”],”hate speech” would be defined as something deliberately obscene or vulgar that may or may not have explicitly communicated a threat of physical harm. Like “I hope somebody rapes you so you can see what it’s like”, or “You should have been aborted” or “You’re a piece of Nazi trailer-trash.”
Examples of what could be considered expressly violent speech are “I’m gonna find you and hurt you” or “Better hope you’re never caught walking outside alone.” Things like that.
But in the eyes of the Charlotte Clymers of the world, any speech they find “offensive” is considered “hate speech.” That includes mere political disagreement, calling a transgender woman a man, advocating for a woman’s right to safe spaces in bathrooms, locker rooms, fitting rooms and the like, and/or going on record as stating you find it unfair that transgender women are allowed to compete in women’s sports.
People who don’t cotton to the radical transgender dogma – in particular biological women who are in positions of influence and/or power – suddenly become Public Enemy Number 1, and they must be named and shamed, burned in the social media public square, and exiled into obscurity.
And when you ask transgender activists for detailed specifics on what defines “hate speech” and what doesn’t, they oftentimes won’t answer:
Hey Charlotte! A question on behalf of the censorship skeptics;
Do you have a complete list of speech that goes too far?
Or is it a constantly evolving list?
Or is it just when *you* think speech is harmful?
(This is a serious question – I have no dog in fight etc)
— Alasdair Johnston (@AlasdairJohnst7) June 13, 2019
As of this writing, Clymer has not answered those questions.
Clymer, of course, is not alone in this regard. Conservatives frequently find themselves on the receiving end of charges that they are “inciting violence” for the mere act of criticizing a Democratic politician, especially when that politician is a “progressive woman of color.”
In the end, these are all shutuppery tactics brought to you by the modern Democratic party and their activist allies on the left. These people have rarely met a Republican or conservative whose opinion they didn’t find “offensive” in some way, shape, or form.
So much for that whole “diversity” in thought thing, right? You will be made to conform – or else.
————————
—Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–
Join the conversation as a VIP Member