herzog sucks


This seems like a stretch, even for the enlightened centrist. Making and promoting T shirts that call a gay man a fag, and continuously harassing someone publicly for race and sexual orientation, has got to be hate speech by any definition.


So a gay Mexican American man gets brigaded, doxed, and death threats because of years of Crowders racist bigotry... but to the Enlightened Centrism of Herzog that’s juuust fine. No biggie.

Unless of course it happens to her. Then I’m
sure we’d hear all about the epic tragedy and unfairness.

Herzog you are an awful person. Really. Just. Terrible.


Still trying to be the most hated on slog, I see. Good work!


This clickbaity dyke (HA!) sure is licking a lot of corporate puss to justify people clicking her joybutton.

The above comment is a joke aimed at a public figure so you assholes at The Stranger shouldn’t censor or delete it.

(Actually, they’ve deleted comments for a lot less, like implying that Dan’s husband has been whispering neoliberal sweet nothings into Savage’s ear and withholding sex should Dan not comply).


Not to mention Crowder spreading blatant disinformation and propaganda about climate change.


The only footage I could find of Steven Crowder performing stand-up is his 15-minute set at the 2012 Values Voter Summit. He's staying 100% on-topic for the audience and he's still BOMBING. Opinions aside, the man cannot write a joke.

Also, I'll defer to my gay brothers on this one, but is Steven Crowder not totally gay?


As of about an hour ago, YouTube decided to punish Crowder after all, de-monetizing his account until he agrees to stop selling the offending t-shirts.


Thanks for this well reasoned and balanced thought piece. You are always a joy to read.


@10 oh, golly... that’s some “punishment.”


I agree such people shouldn't be banned, but not for Ms Herzog's reason.


"herzog sucks"

I thought lesbians munched?


What a horrible person this Crowder dipshit is. He seems very lacking in compassion, moral values, and integrity. Along with all the cowardly, pathetic, sad little people that support this kind of stuff.

Just a shame for all involved.


3 million viewers or whatever is nice but c'mon, that's not touching YouTube's bottom line - there are more than 10,000 youtube accounts with more than 1 million subscribers.

That being said, Crowder is only embarrassing himself as far as I'm concerned. What a tool! Maza's gotten more attention (and subscribers) for this than for any of his work, so good for him for flipping it to his advantage. I think the real fear is, if we decide you can't denigrate Maza for some random reason, Seb Gorka is going to be next, and eventually a bunch of people you feel are actually problems, but you'll be verboten from discussing it in public (and YouTube is not especially different, legally speaking, from the street corner)


@4 It already did happen to her, and she didn't call for anyone to be deplatformed.


Oh the delicate sensibilities that get ruffled by these twitter tempests. Ignore the trolls Katie.


@16 Hahahahahahahah!

How much is that yearly subscription? About $100. This halfwit actually bought a mug from Crowder for $100... The blatant sheepleness of this is astounding.


@21 She was doxxed? Her partner doxxed — her home address and phone published — harassed by thousands of trolls and months of death threats? Really? No. I don’t think so. She got dragged on social media by overzealous trans activists and did nothing but whine about it. How many trans activists have gone on murder sprees, you think? As compared to rightwing nut jobs.


Crowder sells brilliant pieces of comedy like T-shirts that say “Socialism is for fags” What wit!

But calling this comedy is a canard. And among the retinue of fallacies Herzog leverages in this mindless hot take.

Crowder himself didn’t even utilize “satire” as a defense. He claimed this was part of a debate. It was political speech. That’s what he claimed.

So. Calling a Hispanic man a “Mexican Fag” is political to Crowder. It’s part of a debate. Not a “joke.” And that’s exactly the point.

The “politics” of this is to create hatred and division. The point of politics is power and policy. And Crowder is using his power to target gays and Latinos. And the policy wants is to strip them of rights. That’s what he wants. And Hat speech creates the divisive reactionary polity that gets people killed.

And as for Alex Jones getting deplatformed as some example that undercuts the argument against Crowder. It took YEARS to get Jones deplatformed. YEARS. Even after he directly doxxed Sandy Hook parents and ruined their lives. And it took multiple law suits to get him deplatformed and those law suits PROVED a direct harm from Jones.

So what Herzog is saying is that maybe after Crowder gets someone killed then MAASAYBE in a few years YouTube should do something. Maybe. And sorry that is specious cowardly horseshit.

So. Fuck all these apologists. Fuck Herzog.


@24 for someone with the title "Professor History" you appear to know none of it.


@26 Exactly, you're a blind follower that is more than willing to shell out money to anyone who tells you what you want to hear. Oh, Christ, how idiots depart with their money.


Oh. Well. Tell me this history of death threats and doxxing, then.

Please outline how identical a handful of trans activists are to thousands of rightwing white supremacists.

So, your claim is trans activists have a long history of assaulting, bashing and murdering minorities? That harassment from them is exactly the same as harassment emanating from say the Klan? Is this the history you speak of. Because. Yes. I don’t know it.

Go on. Let’s see more solid documentation of which I’m unaware in support of this astounding false equivalence your painting.


I bought a tote bag from NPR for $150 and still have to listen to the tales of transgender Latinx midgets.


[Whatever the reason—and as odious and unfunny as Crowder may be—YouTube is doing the right thing, at least in this case. Crowder is a comic, doing exactly what comics do: Mocking a public figure. There's nothing illegal about that, and if YouTube does reverse its decision and start to ban everyone who mocks people for their sexuality or race, they're going to have to ban a whole lot of queer people of color who enjoy making fun of straight white dudes next. That's not a precedent I'd like to see set.]

If there are these hordes making rhymes-with-speeder jokes, I haven't encountered them, certainly none who maintain such a determined effort.

But I'll make her case for her. One might be a little surprised that she appears not to have heard of the recent ongoing YT kerfuffle surrounding the Make America Straight Again campaign, led by an evangelical pastor named McMurtry. I believe a government-imposed death penalty for homosexuality is the vile campaign's preferred means of living up to its name. A video announcing an event scheduled for Orlando this month drew the ire of, among other content creators, one Mr Snow (who posts as Mr Atheist and has a side channel), who found the MASA video out of acceptable bounds and reported it. Pr McMurtry fired back, calling Mr Snow a pumpkin "because he's the world's biggest fruit", which gave Mr Snow the idea to start a Search Engine campaign worthy of Mr Savage and has led to a large number of comments in threads and on video along the line of, "I'm not saying that Pastor McMurtry is sexually attracted to pumpkins. I'm just saying we don't know."

Mr Snow, in a manner of Mr Savage on the subject of Dr Bachmann, is also well known to have voiced the speculation that the male half of a moderately popular Christian couple posting videos is not straight, with sufficient frequency and disrespect that it might well be called bullying. He at least could make an example of the sort of content provider likely to be banned if the scope were expanded.

[Maza and others are not happy about this, and I deeply sympathize with the man. It hurts to be mocked, especially for intractable characteristics like sexuality or race. Crowder's humor may be cheap, but that doesn't mean it can't wound.]

Given the current climate, I would not care to hazard a guess as to whether Ms Herzog meant that passage sincerely, or wrote it with hopes of adding further mocking sting.


@19 It's not clear that you made it through high school...


We don't have to play this game anymore people of YouTube or Twitter getting into these volleys of nasty pixels going back and forth and now the rest of us are supposed to be outraged about it.

No. Stop this crap. Stop falling for it. Maza is doing just fine. YouTube is right.

This is not hate speech, it's pseudo phony "outrage" speech designed to get our adrenalin flowing. That's what we all secretly enjoy anyway. None of this is real or of any consequence, even if Professor Hysterical tosses in that ever so convenient hypothetical bloodshed.

When you get called faggot on a street, that's hate speech - where are are actual people and actual events.



Your mug isn't filling up with tears every night, but something equally as salty...


Youtube owes no one a platform, full stop.


The entire premise of Herzog's argument about censorship is the notion that these privately owned platforms constitute public squares due to the size of their audiences and hence should be subject to first amendment protections, or something analogous. But the fact is they're not. And conflating them with public forums cheapens the idea of public discourse by effectively privatizing it and pointlessly elevating ad/data-paid content to the level of political speech. Companies should be able to function as companies, with all the rights private companies enjoy, and should not be elevated to the level of public forums (because ultimately they're driven by profit and not the public interest). Calling youtube removing controversial or even threatening content censorship is akin to claiming a private publishing house is censoring art by deciding what to publish or by letting something drop out of print. No one cares about editors, publishers and producers of earlier forms of media saying nay to something.

Youtube is a brand and if the market turns on them because of their hosting some content then they're allowed to adjust their content to meet consumer demands, or not. That's their choice. Railing against or boycotting a product is not censorship either, and is a way to exert pressure through the market. I'm not really sure why this is so hard to understand.


Also, none of this bullshit content represents cultural value. Some ranting, unfunny gadfly isn't going to be missed in the culture. In ten years, cultural historians and literally no one else will care about any of these flash-in-the-pan noise machines. There's a reason for gatekeepers.


Apparently, this has led to another crisis of demonetization of channels and massive reduction in advertising. Ms Herzog will be delighted that the blame is primarily being directed right on the G, as so often happens.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.