Jim Treacher righteously smacks the Bulwark for their horrendously awful take on Steven Crowder and free speech

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:

New piece just up: Even if you're "conservative," you are under no obligation to defend Steven Crowder: https://t.co/H800orBYdo #CuckShed

— Christian Schneider (@Schneider_CM) June 6, 2019

It’s easy to stick up for someone’s right to say something, anything. But free speech is about more than owning the libs. https://t.co/mDLC4CdloR

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) June 6, 2019

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.

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.

"Sure, you could stand on principle. But this guy we don't like is really gross. Why shouldn't the rules be bent or broken to punish him?" https://t.co/EEM4yEq1OR

— Some guy tweeted something ??‍♂️ (@jtLOL) June 6, 2019

"Do you really want to be seen taking the side of that jerk who called the self-described 'queer' a 'queer'? He's not even funny! Just because there's one set of rules for the in-group and another for the out-group, that doesn't mean you should risk your social standing."

— Some guy tweeted something ??‍♂️ (@jtLOL) June 6, 2019

You know what? It's actually not that easy. That's why fewer and fewer people are doing it anymore.

— Some guy tweeted something ??‍♂️ (@jtLOL) June 6, 2019

I wasn't thrilled when @BulwarkOnline sent @MollyJongFast to CPAC so she could mock a cancer patient and explain how socialism and abortion are good. I didn't like it and said so. What I didn't do was try to get her fired or deplatformed or whatever we're calling it this week.

— Some guy tweeted something ??‍♂️ (@jtLOL) June 6, 2019

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