What a Surprise: Leftwing Webzine "The Bulwark" Runs Silly Fart of an Article Not Just Defending YouTube's Censorship of Steven Crowder, But Enthusing About It

The actual headline:

Just Because You CAN Defend Steven Crowder Doesn’t Mean You HAVE To
It's easy to stick up for someone’s right to say something, anything. But free speech is about more than owning the libs.

The article is pretty senseless, but it makes two claims:

1) It's okay to joke about forbidden things if you're comedian, but only if you are on the level of Dave Chappelle. Because very few people are on the level of Dave Chapelle, the leftwing webzine The Bulwark is creating a safe harbor for free speech which 5 or 6 people in the entire world may take advantage of.

Everyone less funny than Dave Chappelle is to be censored vigorously, with the leftwing webzine The Bulkwark's left-curious writers cheerleading the censorship.

2) If you called for Samantha Bee to be "censored" over calling Ivanka Trump a "feckless c---t," you're a hypocrite, and also, you must therefore support the censorship of Steven Crowder.

The writer for the leftwing magazine The Bulwark makes a very large error in claiming any conservatives called for the "censorship" of Samantha Bee. What people did was point out that Samantha Bee was being given a free pass, and even praise, for saying something we'd be censored and deplatformed for if we'd said it.

We were demanding one of two things; 1, that we be permitted to enjoy the same rights of public free speech that Samantha Bee and other leftwing comics beloved by the staff of the leftwing webzine The Bulwark enjoy, or, if we can't have that first preference, then 2, that Samantha Bee be forced to endure the same penalties that we would.

One rule -- not two.

That's not calling for "censorship." That's calling for Freedom for ourselves, and if we are not permitted that, then a fair and even application of a stupid, censorious rule.

The other thing this idiot misses, which apparently the leftwing editorial staff of the leftwing webzine The Bulwark missed, is that Samantha Bee was not in fact censored, by YouTube or anyone else, but Steven Crowder is being censored.

That's a pretty big fact to miss, don't you think? That one guy is being censored while Samantha Bee wasn't censored and wasn't even threatened with censorship?

That rather makes the two situations pretty different, no?

But seriously: Someone explain to me in what way The Bulwark is any different in content or political bias from Salon, The New Republic, or The Huffington Post.

posted by Ace of Spades at 11:53 AM

| Access Comments