Steven Crowder’s Divorce is Bad News for All of Us
Durham Report Stirs DRAMA, Giuliani Sued MILLIONS For Being A Perv, & The US Defaults In 16 Days
May 16, 2023
John Fetterman Is Not Fit To Be A Senator
May 16, 2023WHAT??! STEVEN CROWDER IS GETTING DIVORCED??!!?!
Just kidding. We all know. It was huge news when he announced it– and rightly so, coming from a self-fashioned champion of marriage and family stability. It also came immediately on the heels of former cohost Dave Landau opened up on Michael Malice’s podcast on what a nightmare it had become to work on Crowder’s show, Louder with Crowder.
(On a side note, libertarian comedian and favorite for the LP’s presidential candidate Dave Smith has promised to make Malice his press secretary if he’s elected, soooo let’s make that happen k thanks!)
Anyway, not long after the announcement was made, leaked footage from the Crowders’ Ring camera was widely circulated that showed him verbally abusing his (at the time) EXTREMELY pregnant wife. The conversation also indicated that, despite Crowder’s presumably very large income, the couple only had a single car, which is totally something normal people who don’t have demonstrable control issues inflict upon the people they intend to control.
I’m joking. That’s almost exclusively who does that.
Crowder faced a lot of backlash in the wake of these revelations, with former fans canceling their subscriptions and left-wing journalists entering Thunderdome-esque negotiations to fight over who got to cover it (I assume), but I think we can all agree that the person who’s dealing with the worst of all of it is Hilary Crowder herself. Separated from her family, raising twins, and unpacking years of sustained emotional abuse, I think I speak on behalf of all the Chicks in saying: Hilary, we are with you. Stay strong.
But the wider cultural implications are no walk in the park for the rest of us. Like it or not, Steven Crowder has been and still is a very prominent portrait of the right– plenty of people out there, from Vox writers to fans of The View to sitting Congressmen/women, base their understanding of the average conservative off of personages like Crowder. And this fall from grace is like Christmas morning for them: “Finally! That person we’ve been making sh*t up about for years because we hate him so much ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING VILE!” Every negative assumption, every ungenerous interpretation, every character assassination that’s ever been levied against him? Fact check: true.
And don’t get me wrong– Crowder has been well and truly outed as a piece of sh*t. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for a long time, and I see now that I was wrong. He actually sucks. But what his divorce and the truths behind it don’t prove is that everyone who’s ever appreciated something he’s said necessarily approves of everything he’s ever said. Watching his show, or, hell, even just being adjacent to Crowder by virtue of being a man and a conservative, doesn’t constitute an endorsement of his treatment of his wife.
Of course, you and I know that, but nuance doesn’t matter to progressives and plenty of talking heads on the left. That conservative man was an emotionally abusive spouse, so all conservative men must be. If that logic seems overly simplistic and rather infantile, that’s because it is. But when has mainstream (social) media exercised proper rationality? Our society has been parsing things as complicated as the human experience into smaller and smaller discrete and partisan granules, and the “conservative husband” granule has become an image of a man smoking a cigar as he points to his pregnant wife and warns her, “F*cking watch it.”
Thanks a lot, Steven.
16 Comments
Crowder’s divorce isn’t bad for anyone but Crowder. He’s been a douche-nozzle for years. A correct douche-nozzle, but still.
To learn he verbally abused his wife shouldn’t surprise anyone one bit. One could get a sense he was just a straight version of that snarky jerkwad Milo Yiannopoulos he liked to have on-stage with him. Both are typically correct in their conservative view but they’re just a$$holes about it.
Agreed!
…well, except for the part that it’s only bad for him. I think it’s much worse for his wife and kids. But that’s just me.
And a lot of other wives.
>Crowder has been well and truly outed as a piece of sh*t.
He has been since at least SvenComputer. Blinders aren’t a thing only Leftists like to wear, “we” do it too.
>Congressmen/women
“man n., pl. men
1-a human being: …
2-the human race; mankind: …” – Webster’s (1994)
“Congressmen” covers both sexes.
>it don’t prove is that everyone who’s ever appreciated something he’s said necessarily approves of everything he’s ever said.
Call out everybody for any dumbassery, give kudos to everybody that does something well, and you won’t have that problem… well, not as bad.
LOL, the dictionary reference you used is older than some of the Chickterns. I bet you’re super fun at parties.
And why do I get the feeling you completely missed Rachel S’s point?
The fact that we’ve basically rewritten our language recently is probably one of the biggest causes of problems today.
The generations aren’t talking to each other but simply at each other and since most of recorded knowledge came before this change we have a very big problem as the newer generations have a very poor grasp of the workings of the world and it’s showing.
So you still using thee, thy, thine when referring to your neighbor? Reading Shakespeare and Chaucer in their original vernacular?
I don’t disagree that “kids today” are hugely problematic, but I do firmly believe that there are notable exceptions, Rachel (and other Chicks) chief among them. Let’s build up the good ones.
>So you still using thee, thy, thine when referring to your neighbor?
If I’m feeling silly, yes I will.
>Reading Shakespeare and Chaucer in their original vernacular?
How would that be a bad thing?
>Let’s build up the good ones.
Preventing them from aiding in the destruction of communication between generations and loss of vast amounts of knowledge as they can no longer interpret it as the writer intended isn’t doing this?
>If I’m feeling silly…
I now have the urge to go up to someone and tell them, “I bite my thumb at you, sir.”
To thee I must say LOL
>How would that be a bad thing?
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing at all. I’m suggesting language evolves.
As for the destruction of communication, you would likely be shocked to know how much I agree with you. I’m just saying Rachel S isn’t one of the destroyers. She is one of the preservers. Read more of her stuff; You’ll see what I mean.
>I’m not saying it’s a bad thing at all. I’m suggesting language evolves.
Yet you seem to not understand how the concept works.
>Read more of her stuff; You’ll see what I mean.
I’ve read all her stuff. Using the new language makes you a destroyer no matter what. She is participating despite your ignorance on how it works. Just in this article she doesn’t seem to understand how the concept of smaller and discrete work as she describes painting with very broad brushes as being those things.
Hi! There’s a difference between language evolving over time, which it’s been doing since our distant ancestors first put two grunts together, and the purposeful motte-and-bailey practice of imbuing a word with an insidious, ulterior meaning (like saying “reproductive health” when you really mean “abortion”).
Writing “Congressmen/women” is an example of the former, not the latter.
Thanks!
That is the latest physical dictionary I have, I think. I think all the online dictionaries still have the “human” definition for “man” (usually as definition 2), but in 2010-ish they started actively changing definitions to fit political narratives, really picking up about 2020-ish.
>I get the feeling you completely missed Rachel S’s point?
And I get the feeling you completely missed mine- once you give in to the “shifting definition” word games if the nutters, you lose.
No, I got your point. I just thought it was unnecessary.
Then you are ignoring the fact that one of the greatest weapons of the Left is shifting definitions.
Examples:
regulated
gender
woman
They are changing the legal system without changing it.