Conserving conservatism isn’t easy. Sometimes you’ve got stand up and do what’s right. Well, not what’s right, per se. Because “right” is a dirty word now. Just like “conservative,” evidently:

Free speech is indeed about more than owning the libs. Just as “conserving conservatism” is about more than owning the cons. But you’d never know that from Christian Schneider’s Bulwark screed:

On Crowder’s end, there is no debate that he can say whatever he wants, even if it means he loses ad revenue or has to find somewhere else to host his videos. But Chris Rock had it right when he said just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. As Rock observed, “You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, that don’t make it a good fucking idea.”

Nonetheless, “conservatives”—whatever that means now—sprinted to their keyboards to defend Crowder on primarily specious grounds.

Of course, we are in an era of all-out partisan war, where even the smallest capitulation to decency results in traditional conservatives being cast out. Where one’s manhood is tied to his willingness to direct slurs at other people. The process argument simply gives Trump fans and other disruption enthusiasts the cover to support Crowder on free speech grounds while ignoring what he’s actually saying.

But ultimately, you can’t dodge the central question of the MAGA era: If you consider yourself a decent person, how far are you willing to go to defend indecent behavior in the name of lib-owning?

In the meantime, demonetizing Crowder’s videos until he meets their standards is certainly within YouTube’s powers. Sadly, one thing YouTube can’t do is make him funny.

No one is arguing that it’s not within YouTube’s powers to demonetize Crowder. That’s their prerogative, and even “‘conservatives’ — whatever that means now” understand that.

The issue is that YouTube is applying their arbitrary rules completely arbitrarily, and doing so because someone who actually has a long history of actually inciting violence sicced the outrage mob on them.

PJ Media’s Jim Treacher — who’s not beholden to the MAGA-verse by any stretch of the imagination — has absolutely had it with the Bulwark’s disingenuous posturing and hackery, and he’s calling them out for their disgraceful embrace of the leftist playbook:

And that’s really what this all boils down to, isn’t it? You don’t have to like Crowder’s schtick or agree with everything he says. You don’t have to defend his vulgarity or particular brand of humor. But if you’re going to sit there and justify the campaign to salt the earth with his ashes because you don’t like what he says, you’re not conserving conservatism at all; you’re just crapping on the First Amendment for partisanship’s sake.

Because unlike at the Bulwark, “conserving conservatism” actually means something to Treacher.

And, contra Carlos Maza, it shouldn’t have to be happening to you for you to know that it’s wrong.