Steven Crowder VS. The Daily Wire — What’s Going On?

On Tuesday, January 17th, conservative talk show host Steven Crowder posted a YouTube video titled, “It’s time to stop…” He says he got an offer from an unnamed conservative media group punishing conservative voices on behalf of “big tech” like YouTube and Facebook. The document spells out the terms of payment, saying that demonetization on YouTube and other platforms would cut pay by 25%. Content strikes for not falling in line with community guidelines is another 20% cut. Being banned off a platform is yet another 10-20% cut. So what’s the problem here?

Crowder says that major players in the conservative movement or “big con,” as he puts it, are in bed with big tech. They’re silencing controversial ideas to make more money on ads. Crowder says he’s been demonetized for years on YouTube and yet he still makes his show, Louder with Crowder, using money from his paid subscribers called the “Mug Club.” He believes in his business model.

Crowder mentioned some other details in the offer that concerned him, including the demanding work schedule, the fact that the company would own the signer’s content and social channels, the high number of ad reads, and more payment cuts for failing to deliver a certain number of episodes per month.

Crowder closed by saying he’s looking to build his own network to support up and coming conservatives. He invited content creators to reach out if they want to partner with him against big tech and “big con.”

The Daily Wire’s Response

One day later, The Daily Wire uploaded a video titled, “Our Offer to Steven Crowder.” Jeremy Boreing, Co-CEO of the company, openly admits the offer came from them. He says he thinks it’s a very good offer, but that Crowder is misunderstanding it. He then goes through the document piece by piece, breaking down the reasoning behind it.

Boreing starts by saying that the offer was a way to open up negotiations, but Crowder was not interested in coming to any agreement. The offer was for $50 million over four years, which he emphasizes several times throughout the video.

Boreing then addresses one of Crowder’s criticisms, saying that the Daily Wire would own the signer’s social channels (aside from Twitter and Instagram) and content while they’re on the team. This is standard procedure for media companies. Part of making their money back is using the signer’s social media for monetization and promotion. He also defends their proposed pay cuts for failing to deliver a specified number of episodes per month. As Boreing puts it, “You can’t pay someone… an unimaginably huge amount of money for their show and then not get the show.”

Boreing then addresses Crowder’s accusation that The Daily Wire is in bed with big tech, saying the assertion is “personally incredibly offensive.” He says The Daily Wire gets demonetized all the time, but their audience and advertisers are on YouTube. It’s the platform that gives them (and Crowder) the best reach. Other platforms like Rumble are nowhere near as big and The Daily Wire hasn’t yet built up their own YouTube alternative. A project like that is a “long term investment,” he says.

Regarding the large pay cuts for demonetization, Boreing says it’s not about punishing content creators, but rather covering the costs of running a business. If a show brings in less money, The Daily Wire pays less money in turn. Boreing says Crowder fails to understand the business model and has “never had to create the company that actually distributes, markets, and monetizes all of that content.”

Boreing asks why it’s so hard for Crowder to “preserve the revenue” on free platforms like YouTube. After all, he could speak his mind freely on paid content such as DailyWire+ without fear of demonetization. Boreing compares this to Crowder’s current model where he will sometimes ask his audience to join him on Mug Club to talk about things that might get him banned from YouTube. But just Mug Club isn’t enough revenue for Boreing. “That’s not a risk that I can take,” he says. He concludes that Crowder’s actions are wrong and that he’s burning a friend in the process.

The Recorded Phone Call

Crowder quickly shot back with another video revealing clips from a phone call he had with Boreing. In it, Boreing can be heard discussing how young talent “can be wage slaves for a little bit” with a company like The Daily Wire before using their newfound fame to go independent.

Crowder accuses Boreing of focusing on the money when “it’s not about the money.” Crowder says it’s about the conservative movement and big tech. He’s concerned about up and coming talent facing these kinds of “slave” contracts. He then plays part of the phone call where he asks Boreing if pay cuts for demonetization would apply to smaller content creators, not just Crowder. Boreing says yes, retorting that everybody loses money when monetization goes away. “You can’t pay the same amount with less revenue.” Crowder can be heard responding, “You need to change your business model or this movement cannot work, Jeremy.”

Crowder says he understands that people like to run businesses differently, but he’s firmly opposed to relying on YouTube revenue as a conservative—so much so that he walked away from $50 million for the sake of those coming after him. He even offers to guide The Daily Wire into a scaled-up version of his own business model. He maintains that taking ownership of a creator’s content is wrong, even with Boreing’s retort that the media company paid to produce this content and should therefore own it. Speaking of plans for a network of his own, Crowder says he will never take ownership of any talent’s work, social channels, or YouTube revenue.

The Bottom Line

So, what’s my take on all of this? I think the disagreement is clear. The Daily Wire has built a successful business model that relies on YouTube revenue. They are not willing to part with it right now. This means they are unable to take on “controversial” talent like Crowder without using heavy pay cuts to make up for lost funds. This leads to softer, more advertiser-friendly content on free platforms like YouTube. The raw, unfiltered content is provided on their paid platform, DailyWire+. This doesn’t mean they’re out to exploit young conservatives and it also doesn’t mean they approve of YouTube’s policies. They just don’t see any other way forward right now.

Then you have Steven. He started out with YouTube revenue as a large part of his income. Over time, he realized he couldn’t rely on it. They demonetized him over and over, but he wasn’t going to censor himself to stay in YouTube’s good graces. Instead, he would fund his show using his own paid platform, Mug Club. His business model today is successful without Google’s money and he’s very proud of that. He believes that big tech’s censorship requires conservatives to cut ties with these platforms. The first step is being financially independent from them.

Both parties agree on a lot, but they draw the (bottom) line in two separate places. The Daily Wire draws the line at demonetization. If any YouTube revenue is lost, it must be met with pay cuts to compensate. Steven Crowder draws the line at getting banned from YouTube (for now). He’s already been demonetized for years and no longer relies on them for revenue. But whether he admits it or not, he still relies on them for exposure. Those viewers contribute significantly to his Mug Club subscriptions. Crowder knows this, but he continues to push hard for a future where sites like Rumble can replace YouTube as a primary platform for conservatives. He believes in cutting all ties with big tech eventually.

And so does Boreing at The Daily Wire, but he doesn’t think it’s realistic to expect that anytime soon. He wants to build alternatives like his own DailyWire+, but in the meantime, he is perfectly happy to play ball with YouTube so he can build his empire of impactful conservative brands and personalities. He wants to compete with big media companies like Disney and Netflix, providing an alternative economy, not just one show. He doesn’t think a subscription-based model like Crowder’s would work for this kind of venture.

Who’s in the Wrong?

Crowder and Boreing disagree on the long-term vision for conservatism. Crowder sees it as a battle for the heart of America where sacrifices must be made to preserve integrity at all costs. Boreing sees it as a strategic path towards true competition and dominance in the market that takes capital to achieve.

I applaud both of their goals, but I’ll be honest, I’m leaning towards Crowder on this one. Hear me out. I don’t think he went about this the right way. I think he’s been unnecessarily confrontational and dramatic about The Daily Wire’s offer. But he’s right about one thing. It’s long past due for conservatives to abandon big tech as much as they reasonably can. I think Crowder’s success with Mug Club and his record-breaking numbers on Rumble speak to the untapped potential of taking risks and exploring other ways to fund conservative voices while still reaching a large audience. I hate self-censorship. I hate that contracts with so many media companies are overreaching and sometimes exploitative (though The Daily Wire isn’t doing anything out of the ordinary in that regard).

At the same time, I appreciate The Daily Wire’s vision of providing more than just a show. We do need an alternative economy for conservatives. We need to fight the culture war, not just the media war. The left brainwashes our kids when they’re at school, when they look at their phone, and when they go to the movies. We need to fight back with alternative social platforms, conservative education, and movies that promote our values. The Daily Wire is doing that, and it takes a lot of money to make it happen. I only worry that they might lose their edge in the meantime.

Crowder has always been at the front lines of conservatism delivering hard hits and taking the brunt of the hate for controversial opinions. I love him for that. His content feels raw and real. The Daily Wire in comparison feels a bit sanitized and their content is less interesting to watch as a result. But that doesn’t mean it’s not important. Their documentary “What is a Woman” changed the conversation on the trans movement. A message of truth with that kind of impact is a huge win for conservatives. Crowder simply isn’t making those kinds of moves yet.

Nobody Wins

It’s sad to see infighting like this. It’s the last thing conservatives need right now. We’re a divided movement after disappointing midterms, looking ahead to a turbulent future of Trumpers versus RINOs. It’s tiring.

I don’t think Crowder will get the kind of reaction he’s going for. He’s stirring the pot and promoting his own brand at the cost of another. It’s going to rub people the wrong way no matter what. His demeanor is needlessly antagonistic. He makes a big deal out of walking away from $50 million when he admits he doesn’t even need it. But The Daily Wire isn’t innocent either. Boreing says $50 million is an “unimaginably huge amount of money.” That might be true for the average American, but in the media space it’s not the killer deal he makes it out to be. The Daily Wire is looking out for their own financial interests at the end of the day. Boreing has also framed this situation as a personal betrayal of friendship on Crowder’s part. Don’t be fooled. This isn’t Crowder attacking Boreing as an individual. It’s a business strategy and a disagreement about the future of the conservative movement as a whole. I hope both parties are able to look past the opportunity for clout and move forward. It’s what’s best for everyone.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Enter your email if you want to be notified when my next post goes live. Thanks for reading. Godspeed.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Does Proposal 3 Legalize More Than Just Abortion?

On November 8th, Michigan citizens will vote on whether or not to adopt Proposal 3, a constitutional amendment to legalize abortion. But what about the claims you’ve heard from conservative sources? Does Proposal 3 legalize late-term abortions? Does it allow abortion and sex change therapy on minors without parental consent? Does it allow anyone to perform an abortion?

Today, I give you the answers. No propaganda, no vague nonsense, no misdirection. Just the facts. I highly recommend you also read the proposal yourself by CLICKING HERE. Let’s get to work.

Does Prop 3 Invalidate Existing Laws?

You’ve probably heard liberals claim that Prop 3 won’t change any existing laws. “It just affects abortion!” they say. This is patently false, as you can clearly see in the proposal language. The introductory section reads:

Constitutional Amendment to: …invalidate all state laws that conflict with this amendment.

This is not just an addition to our Constitution for abortion only. Prop 3 is specifically designed to invalidate existing laws that conflict with it. Keep that in mind. We’ll come back to it.

Sterilizing Kids

Now, let’s go over the body of the proposal language. Here’s the first section:

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Sounds tame enough, right? It seems like they just want women to be able to make all their own decisions regarding pregnancy. Who could argue with that? The problem is how vague the language is. This ambiguity is present throughout the proposal. Whether you believe it’s intentional or not, it opens the doors to some truly horrible things (besides just abortion).

First, this applies to “every individual.” Not just mothers. Not just women. Not just adults. It applies to a 6 year old boy just as much as a 36 year old woman. That’s important. It shows their fear of affirming the biological fact that only women can have pregnancies to begin with. But that’s not all.

“Every individual” is said to have the right to “reproductive freedom.” What does that mean? They define it as the right to make decisions about “all matters relating to pregnancy.” That’s quite broad. After all, sex is directly related to pregnancy. Can a 6 year old boy consent to sex under this proposal? We don’t know. What is clear is their list of examples, one of which is “sterilization.”

Already, we have a case that this proposal would reasonably allow for a 6 year old boy to choose to sterilize himself for life. That’s not conjecture or me twisting words. That’s explicitly allowed in the actual language. Are you starting to see the problem?

Late-Term Abortion

Conservatives say Prop 3 allows for late-term abortions. Is that true? Let’s review the language:

…the state may regulate the provision of abortion care after fetal viability, provided that in no circumstance shall the state prohibit an abortion that, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional is medically indicated to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.

At first, this appears to allow for abortion restrictions after “fetal viability” (defined later on). But this is made irrelevant by the exception for “mental health.” Under Prop 3, anyone could get a late-term abortion as long as their “attending health care professional” said it would protect their mental health. The baby can be perfectly healthy and fully developed, yet still killed at the last second because the mother has anxiety.

Not Just Doctors

Notice they don’t say “doctor,” but “health care professional.” This is important. It means anyone working in healthcare could approve of late-term abortions on “mental health” grounds. That applies to dentists, dietitians, and even veterinarians. But it gets worse. Anyone could perform an abortion as well, as we’ll see in a minute.

Enforcing Rights?

(2) The state shall not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right.

I won’t focus on this section too much, but the wording is a bit strange. Since when are rights enforced by the state? Having a right usually means you’re free to do something without the state impeding you. Does this section imply that the state could arrest people who try to discourage abortion or sterilization, such as parents or counselors? We don’t know.

Infanticide

(3) The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes, including but not limited to miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion.

On the surface, this seems to prevent the state from punishing women for miscarriages. That’s a good thing, right? Yes, but this is a solution for a problem that does not exist. The danger is that this prevents prosecution for any “pregnancy outcome,” real or alleged. This effectively legalizes infanticide. A woman who blatantly murders her baby after it’s born could not be investigated, as this would be an “adverse action” against an “alleged pregnancy outcome.” Nobody should be able to kill a newborn baby, and (almost) no liberal will argue for that. But Prop 3 could make the state enforce it as a right.

Anyone Can Perform Abortions

Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.

This language says the state can’t do anything to prevent anyone from “assisting” an abortion (or other “reproductive freedom”). This allows anyone to perform an abortion as long as the pregnant woman consents. This is even less strict than “health care professionals.”

Invalidating Existing Laws

Now let’s review the language that raises the most questions about existing laws and regulations (such as parental consent):

An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.

At first, this seems to allow for restrictions under certain circumstances. But what does “a compelling state interest” mean? This phrase is part of the strict scrutiny test, which is a judicial standard applied when a law might conflict with the Constitution. For the law to survive, it must be crafted to further a “compelling state interest,” such as protecting public health and safety or regulating violent crime. Not even a constitutional right can prevent the government from carrying out these essential functions. This is why crimes such as defamation are illegal despite the right to freedom of speech, for example.

If the writers of Prop 3 wanted these new “reproductive freedom” rights to be treated like all other constitutional rights, they would have stopped there. But they didn’t. They added the following language, drastically narrowing the definition of a “compelling state interest.”

(4) For the purposes of this section: A state interest is “compelling” only if it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making.

We are given three conditions that must be met. For an existing law to restrict or regulate abortion, sterilization, or any other “reproductive freedom,” it must:

  1. Be for the purpose of protecting the health of the individual
  2. Be consistent with clinical standards of practice
  3. Not infringe on the individual’s decision-making

First, restrictions must be for the purpose of protecting the health of the individual. Does this include mental health? Again, we don’t know. This could invalidate laws preventing tax money from funding abortions, as they protect the conscience of taxpayers and have nothing to do with health. Theoretically, a doctor (or anyone for that matter) could not refuse to perform a late-term abortion on grounds of conscience or religion since this also isn’t concerned with health.

Second, restrictions must be consistent with “accepted clinical standards of practice.” If the “practice” is abortion, who writes these standards? The abortion clinics themselves. This means the abortion industry gets to dictate how abortions are done and remove anything that impedes their business. They make a lot of money from this, meaning they are incentivized to make abortions as expedient as possible. They could ignore health and safety regulations. They could ignore screening requirements designed to ensure that the woman isn’t being coerced into an abortion by an abuser or sex trafficker. They could ignore waiting periods and informed consent laws designed to educate women on the risks of and alternatives to an abortion. It gives abortion providers the power to completely deregulate abortion, making things more dangerous for women.

Third, restrictions must not infringe on the individual’s decision-making. This language is extremely broad, making consent the only real requirement for exercising “reproductive freedom.” Remember, “reproductive freedom” means anything related to pregnancy. A brother and sister could choose to have a baby together. A child could choose to be sterilized for life. A child could consent to sex with an adult, since sex is related to pregnancy. Michigan’s ban on cloning could be nullified, since this is also related to pregnancy. The open-ended language allows for so many horrific possibilities with no room for common-sense regulations applicable to other constitutional rights (via strict scrutiny).

Fetal Viability

One last section to review. Remember the exception for fetal viability I mentioned earlier? Here’s their definition of the term:

“Fetal viability” means: the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of an attending health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.

This seems correct at first glance, but upon further inspection, it actually broadens the definition beyond its original meaning. If you look it up online, you’ll see that fetal viability is defined as “the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus.” That’s it. But Prop 3 adds the condition, “without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” This means babies who could theoretically survive outside the womb with the aid of advanced medical assistance are not protected.

The Rebuttal

The left’s rebuttal to the arguments I’ve made here is that Proposal 3 is only designed to protect a right to abortion. They say the intent isn’t to legalize statutory rape, sterilization of minors, infanticide, or incest. They say they don’t want to erase parental consent or religious freedom. So how do they justify the broad language in the proposal?

They usually bring up other constitutional rights, such as the right to bear arms. The Michigan Constitution says that every person has this right, yet we know kids are excluded and guns are still regulated. Doesn’t the same logic apply to Prop 3?

No, it doesn’t. Regulations on the right to bear arms are tested under their own standard of “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In addition, this and all other constitutional rights can be limited by regulations that further a “compelling state interest,” such as public health and safety. But Prop 3 goes out of its way to redefine “compelling state interest” such that any law infringing on an individual’s “decision-making” is invalidated.

Parental consent laws might infringe on a child’s decision to have an abortion or sterilize themselves. Statutory rape laws might infringe on a child’s decision to have sex with an adult. Informed consent laws might infringe on a woman’s decision to have a late-term abortion. All of these regulations (and more) have to be thrown out.

This is why Prop 3 is so radical. This is why its defenders rely heavily on “intent” to claim that future case law won’t affect anything but abortion. But how can they be sure? It’s funny. Conservative justices are usually the ones who interpret based on original intent. Liberal justices—the ones Prop 3 advocates will vote for—frequently argue that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the times. What happens when the times change? Why leave the possibility open for Prop 3 to be abused at all? Why not clarify the ambiguous language? Why redefine “compelling state interest?” They don’t have an answer.

The Bottom Line

Even if you believe abortion should be legal in some cases, Prop 3 is extremely problematic. What is meant and what is said are very different things. Aside from the goal of legalizing abortion, the problem with Prop 3 is that its language is far too broad. It fails to clarify questions about the age of those affected, the limits of “reproductive freedoms,” and the state’s ability to interfere. It explicitly removes nearly all restrictions on abortion and anything else related to pregnancy. As written, Prop 3 is a disaster. It’s unprofessional at best and downright villainous at worst.

I will be voting NO on Proposal 3 this coming Tuesday. Enter your email if you want to be notified when my next post goes live. Thanks for reading. Godspeed.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

The Insanity of the Pro-Choice Agenda

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”

Psalm 139:13-16 (ESV)

In two days, a bill called the “Women’s Health Protection Act” will go to a vote in the US Senate. Sounds pretty great, right? Shockingly enough, this bill has nothing at all to do with protecting health. It’s specifically designed to guarantee immunity for murder. And don’t worry, there’s a nice helping of virtue signaling in there as well.

The pro-abortion act was passed by the House of Representatives last September. It came shortly after Texas implemented new restrictions on abortion. With a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court, which declined to interfere with the Texas law, there’s real hope that Roe v. Wade might be overturned in June of this year. The death cult is scared, but they aren’t going down without a fight. Even though it’s expected not to make it past the Senate, this new bill is a perfect representation of just how insane the “pro-choice” agenda has become in 2022.

Don’t take my word for it. I encourage you to read through the act in its entirety here. I will be referring to specific sections to give you the highlights. Let’s begin.

Abortion services are essential to health care and access to those services is central to people’s ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the United States.1

In the span of one sentence, murder has been justified not only as “health care,” but as a key component of equality. This is blatant propaganda of Orwellian proportions. It borders on an eliminationist mockery of feminism, declaring that women can only truly be equal with men when they offer up their children to be slaughtered in cold blood. If you believe all people are created equal, as is stated in our Declaration of Independence, it’s impossible to propose that women are lesser without the freedom to murder their offspring; it’s beyond any shred of reason to simultaneously hold that the worth of a child’s life is dependent on whether he or she is wanted.

Reproductive Justice is a human right that can and will be achieved when all people… have the economic, social, and political power and resources to define and make decisions about their bodies, health, sexuality, families, and communities in all areas of their lives, with dignity and self-determination.2

Ah yes, it wouldn’t be a leftist propaganda piece without some good old social justice. Not only do they frame murder as a tenet of feminism and equality, but now they have the audacity to invent a phrase to get the idea across that they’re really, definitely the good guys here. After all, who could disagree with justice?

The funny thing is that in avoiding the question, they beg another more gruesome one. They claim abortion is about granting people the power to make decisions about their bodies. Rather than address whether or not abortion is murder, they insist that this is only about the power of the individual. They miss the point entirely by pretending unborn children are only organs of the mother, but what’s worse are the implications. They specify families and communities here. Are they insinuating that mothers have the right to slice through their relatives and neighbors until the world is to their liking? They would say no, I’m sure. But the language is pretty damning. Perhaps they should hire proofreaders.

Pro-Life is Racist?

Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate systems of oppression… white supremacy, and anti-Black racism. This violent legacy has manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and experimentation on Black women; forced sterilizations; medical experimentation on low-income women’s reproductive systems; and the forcible removal of Indigenous children. Access to… abortion services, has always been deficient in the United States for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC).3

Whew, that’s a lot of desperation in a single paragraph. You can almost see them begging at the feet of minorities to approve of their violent crusade. This paragraph, like many others, was entirely unnecessary for “abortion rights” to be preserved as a result of this bill. They chose to add it for political reasons. They couldn’t just advocate for murder. They had to imply that anyone opposing their bloody tirade is a racist complicit in rape, slavery, and forced sterilization.

Let’s take a look at the logic for a moment. The claim? Restrictions on abortion perpetuate racism. The evidence? “Policies including enslavement, rape, and experimentation on Black women…” The list goes on. None of these “policies” exist today. By their own admission, they’re trying to fix something that isn’t broken. It’s all empty ramblings. The only thing in this list that’s somewhat relevant today in America is the “forcible removal of Indigenous children.” In a stunning turn of events, they’ve suddenly decided to defend the rights of young ones, but only if they’re brown and only to exploit their existence for political clout. If that isn’t the very definition of racism, I don’t know what is. This is not to mention that even with control over the House and the presidency, Democrats still haven’t done anything to reverse the “kids in cages” problem at the border that has existed since the Obama era. The hypocrisy is pungent.

Lastly, they claim that access to abortion has “always been deficient” for minorities in the US. This is simply not true. Let’s take a look at this infographic by the pro-abortion group, Guttmacher Institute.

They claim there’s a horrible problem with income inequality, racism, and discrimination as it relates to abortion. Then they show us the data. As it turns out, white women have the fewest abortions per capita! Minorities have far more abortions. It doesn’t seem like they’re having much trouble finding people to kill their babies for them, even assuming they have less access to necessary funds and available clinics.

Now, I’m not ignorant of their intentions here. They don’t want you to look at the number of abortions per capita. They want you to notice that the rate of decline over time is slowest for white people. Their hypothesis is that the boogeyman of “systematic racism” is somehow cutting off access to abortion (and/or birth control) for minorities. They couldn’t imagine any other alternative, least of all that minorities are just choosing to have fewer abortions for personal reasons. Culture isn’t homogeneous and attributing an effect to a cause without evidence is bad science.

The legacy of restrictions on reproductive health, rights, and justice is not a dated vestige of a dark history. Presently, the harms of abortion-specific restrictions fall especially heavily on people with low incomes, BIPOC, immigrants, young people, people with disabilities, and those living in rural… areas.4

Ah, it seems they anticipated my objection that the evils they wrongfully attribute to pro-lifers are irrelevant to modern times. Unfortunately, they’ve forgotten to list any evidence. What a shame. We only get more empty words.

Don’t Forget Trans People!

The terms “woman” and “women” are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services… which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy—cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others.5

That’s right. They have to satisfy every possible gender-obsessed group they can think of. That includes trans people. But the funny thing is, in appealing to a tiny minority of their audience, they alienate the vast majority. Women are getting tired of confused men intruding on their spaces and identity, removing femininity from language and culture in favor of politically correct androgyny. What ever happened to feminism?

It reminds me of what happened to J.K. Rowling. She preached feminism for years and was loved by the left. When she saw the insanity of the trans movement, she stood by real women in refusing to change her language or her beliefs. She’s since been canceled by the very people who once championed her cause. These days, it’s not enough to be liberal. It’s not enough to be feminist. It’s not enough to advocate for abortion. You have to say men are women. Men can get pregnant. Men can be oppressed by abortion restrictions. I’m again reminded of Orwell’s 1984. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Here are a couple more quotes that stood out to me. “Abortion is essential health care and one of the safest medical procedures in the United States.”6 Murder is safe and essential? Makes sense to me! “International human rights law recognizes that access to abortion is intrinsically linked to the rights to life, health, equality and non-discrimination, privacy, and freedom from ill-treatment.”7 Abortion is linked to the right to life? That’s the saddest thing I’ve heard all day. Also, pro-lifers are apparently anti-privacy now. I wasn’t aware of that one.

Conclusion

I know I’m not changing anyone’s mind with this post. Those of you who support abortion probably can’t stand me. I’m comfortable with that. Those of you who are against abortion probably agree with me. My goal today was not to provide some amazing new insight on abortion itself. My goal was to highlight just how nuts this “pro-choice” movement has become in recent years, to reveal their true agenda. It’s not just about abortion anymore. It’s about changing language to accommodate insane mental gymnastics. It’s about attaching any and all oppression, past and present, to conservatives. It’s about elevating men who wish they were women above actual women.

Do you still think this is about “women’s health?”

Leave your answer in the comments below. Enter your email if you want to be notified when my next post goes live. Thanks for reading. Godspeed.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
  1. Section 2, (a), (1) of the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021, H. R. 3755, 117th Cong. (2021)
  2. IBID, Section 2, (a), (4)
  3. IBID, Section 2, (a), (5)
  4. IBID, Section 2, (a), (6)
  5. IBID, Section 2, (a), (8)
  6. IBID, Section 2, (a), (11)
  7. IBID, Section 2, (a), (16)

The Fall of Anti-Work

For the last few weeks, I’ve been covering the many ideas and problems of the anti-work movement. There’s a lot to cover and it’s been fun breaking it all down. But I could never have predicted that in the middle of my series, the movement itself would break apart in a spetacular display of poetic irony. Today, we’re retelling the disaster of January 25th, 2022.

Earlier this week, an interview was released between Fox News host, Jesse Watters, and anti-work Reddit moderator, Doreen Ford. You can watch it on YouTube here. I think it speaks for itself, but I’ll describe it for those who prefer to read. Watters asks some of the most basic questions one might come up with regarding the anti-work movement. In addition, he probes for a few personal details. What results is utter hilarity.

Doreen appears via a garbled mess of pixels from a cheap webcam. He looks like he hasn’t showered in days. In the background, we see a messy room and an unmade bed. Throughout the interview, Doreen fidgets and seems determined not to make eye contact. The visuals alone are enough to conclude that this individual is a perfect representation of the lazy leftist stereotype. At first, Doreen makes an attempt to explain that the movement isn’t necessarily about removing work, but about allowing people more freedom, flexibility, and respect in their chosen vocations. But he goes off the rails quite fast when Watters asks about laziness.

“Laziness is a virtue in a society where people constantly want you to be productive 24/7”

Doreen Ford, Reddit Moderator

It only gets worse. As it turns out, Doreen is 30 years old and works 20 hours a week as a dog walker. Oh, and he would like to work less than that! When asked about future endeavors, Doreen said he wouldn’t mind working as a dog walker the rest of his life, but might also be interested in teaching philosophy and critical thinking. As you might expect, Watters uses this to his advantage, nearly bursting from laughter at a few points, ending the interview by saying, “Thank you so much. We gotta run. We gotta pay the bills.”

And that’s all it took to bring a movement to its knees. Within the hour, the entire anti-work subreddit (think of it as an online forum) was up in arms. Why was Doreen the one representing the movement? Who approved of letting someone so incompetent on TV, let alone to speak for the 1.7 million members of the community? Who was this awful person who had tanked their credibility for the foreseeable future? They wanted answers.

The War

As soon as the dissension began, the moderator team took action. Whether it originated from Doreen, other mods, or a mix of both, they decided to remove all posts and comments about the Fox News interview, especially critical opinions. The community noticed this and rebelled instantly. What started as outrage for a botched interview evolved into outrage over censorship in the name of damage control. Moderators claimed they were dealing with a “brigade,” meaning cruel comments from people who were not members of the community coming to laugh at them. But in reality, a huge number of long-time anti-work members were banned. It was painfully ironic that the people who believed in freedom from oppressive employers were so eager to silence reasonable criticism from their own community.

In response to this, the moderators closed the subreddit by temporarily making it private. But the damage was done. People knew what had happened and trying to cover it up only made it worse. Someone started a new subreddit called Work Reform. Hundreds of threads all across the website were popping up talking about the dumpster fire that had taken place. The anti-work subreddit was opened again within a day or two, but even more moderator shenanigans were now unfolding behind the scenes.

Doreen was busy. Soon after the interview received backlash, he went to work defending himself and banning people in the process. Needless to say, he didn’t take the criticism well. Eventually, he decided it was a lost cause and deleted everything about the incident from his account’s history. After a post from his own Facebook was uncovered that confessed to what could only be described as sexual assault, his reign was over and he was removed from the subreddit. But Doreen wasn’t going lightly. Another account was created and in only a few hours, it was promoted to moderator and began banning people. The community noticed immediately. After this account received scrutiny, it was deleted and yet another account took up the mantel, defending Doreen at every turn. Even more accounts have surfaced since then. The community was convinced at this point that Doreen was the one making these accounts.

In addition to this, it was revealed that several other moderators had connections with Doreen or problems of their own. One was his roommate. Another had a record of interest in pedophilia, incest, and beastiality. Another was in a relationship with Doreen. This particular mod, looking to calm the masses, also posted a statement on the subreddit sharing, among other things, that he was 21 years old, “long-term unemployed,” and a radical anarchist. Oh, he also already completed several other interviews with media outlets! Everything that could possibly have further eroded any shred of trust left between the moderators and the community was coming to pass. It was looking like the end of anti-work, and for good reason.

The Aftermath

As the insanity started to slow, many moderators were replaced or removed, including the ones I’ve mentioned. New mods were put in place who clearly had more experience not saying things that made them look like complete and utter fools. The front page is void of complaints for the most part. The new and improved statement addressing the recent catastrophe has been received fairly positively. As of now, it looks like the community is on a slow road to recovery.

What cannot be ignored, however, is that this was a huge turning point. The entire community was split several times over into different camps and new subreddits. The embarrassment anti-work now has to deal with is unparalleled. They had a caricature of their cause show the whole world that they are just as disgusting and childish as onlookers might suspect. They learned there were ignorant kids and sexual deviants leading their group. It’s impressive how easily it all came tumbling down. I think it speaks to the kind of people who are attracted not only to the idea of not working, but the power that comes from running an internet space. That they love it enough to do it for free should tell you all you need to know.

By now you’re probably as sick of reading about this little piece of internet history as I am of writing it. I can only take so much degeneracy at once. That said, we’ll likely be continuing this series next week, where we return to a philosophical look at why this strange movement emerged in the first place and what it has become. There’s more to all this than unwashed communists, despite what you’ve seen. Enter your email below if you want to be notified when that goes live. Thanks for reading. Godspeed.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Sources:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/sdesxw/megathread_rantiwork_goes_private_after_fox_news/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/sdz6oy/megathread_part_2_rantiwork_reopens_rworkreform/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/sez90m/megathread_part_3_abolishwork_fox_news_fallout/