Of course, I don’t have enough title space to add the necessary caveat: Not ALL feminists. There, that’s out of the way. For contextual purposes, here is the text of Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
*Cracks knuckles* Perhaps the most pathetic trick in the debate book (a book which I’m not sure actually exists) is to shut down your opponent’s speech rather than argue against it. This is the true mark of someone who either doesn’t know enough to defend their position, or someone who is so philosophically incorrect that he, she, or they can’t defend their position.
“In March 2016, students at Emory University found themselves the victims of “chalkings” proclaiming the oh-so horrifying slogan “Trump 2016.” This unbearable sight caused some at the Atlanta-based school to fret for their safety and condemn the chalky political speech as a form of racial intimidation. Because these students felt so threatened by fairly tame political speech, they demanded their university president condemn the act in the strongest terms possible.
Emory’s president initially said he would not condemn the chalking because it wasn’t his place to pass judgment on electoral politics. After an intense, hour-long meeting with irate activists, the administrator changed his tune and issued a mealy-mouthed statement sympathizing with the aggrieved and promising new measures to ensure more “social justice opportunities.”
Excerpt From: Scott Greer. “No Campus for White Men.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/b9yajb.l
If you’ve heard or read much content from Mad Indies, or myself specifically, you know that I’m no fan of Donald Trump. While I love radical change agents (as Trump promised to be,) I’ve had to pen several articles on his inability to act any different than George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
However, in a functioning democracy beholden to protecting free-speech, especially in a place of tolerance and learning such as a university, phrases such as “Trump 2016” are completely fair game. Unfortunately, many of the same combatants of free-speech also cling dearly to it when they’re interrupting a public event. Seen here:
What an aspiring young woman. I could see her as the CEO of a gender-studies company someday.
As I mentioned in my previous article about Social Liberalism, many modern liberals would rather shut down speech than debate it. A wonderfully terrifying example of this is the ironically hateful anti-conservative group Southern Poverty Law Center, named as such so that it sounds sophisticated in court despite mainly existing to harm the First Amendment. Here is their flattering recollection of someone who uses stormfront.org, an online white-nationalism forum:
“A typical murderer drawn to the racist forum Stormfront.org is a frustrated, unemployed, white adult male living with his mother or an estranged spouse or girlfriend. She is the sole provider in the household. Forensic psychologists call him a “wound collector.” Instead of building his resume, seeking employment or further education, he projects his grievances on society and searches the Internet for an excuse or an explanation unrelated to his behavior or the choices he has made in life.” -SPLC
As hilarious as that description is (credit where credit is due), I did find it interesting that while stormfront.org is dedicated only to white nationalism and NOT anything gender-related, SPLC really wanted to assume that the members were also entirely men. Let’s grant for a moment that many readers of stormfront.org are also Trump voters. A Pew Research poll actually shows that a whopping 42% of women who voted last election actually chose Trump, not Clinton. She certainly did well with women, boasting a 12-point margin, but far from enough to claim that all of Trump’s voters and white nationalists are cucky white dudes masturbating in mommy’s basement.
The most concerning aspect of feminism is its continued advocacy for actually criminalizing speech they disagree with. Here’s a scary excerpt an article written by Tanya Cohen:
Hate Speech Is Violence
“…we must never confuse hate speech with freedom of speech. Speech that offends, insults, demeans, threatens, disrespects, incites hatred or violence, and/or violates basic human rights and freedoms has absolutely no place in even the freest society. In fact, it has no place in any free society…Hate speech is not merely speech, but is, in fact, a form of violence and the international community has established hate speech to be a form of violence many times. Hate speech doesn’t merely CAUSE violence. Hate speech IS violence.”
Tanya amusingly describes the defining freedom of the United States, freedom of speech and ideology, as problematic.
…in the US, fascist political parties like the Republican Party, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party are allowed to freely exist and to spread their hateful ideology…
I hate to borrow a line from the conservatives, but Tanya: If you or any of your feminist buddies don’t like our Constitution, then kindly get the hell out of my country. I strongly dislike the corporate Republican Party and strongly disagree with many economic philosophies of the Libertarian Party. That’s why I created this website and the Mad Indies podcast to combat conservatism. I use my own free-speech to combat the ideas of others that I disagree with, because I’m an adult. Feminists and liberals like Tanya are childish disgraces to the left-wing, and unfortunately we’re judged by imbeciles like them. They’re so tarnishing, in fact, that I’ve occasionally wondered if feminism is a corporate virus planted onto the left-wing to cause infighting and distract us from the real enemy: wealthy oligarchs.
But that’s an article for another day.