YouTube and Google say “Sieg Heil” to the speech nazis.

Louder with Crowder Big Brother is watching!

After left-wing Vox writer Carlos Maza complained that he’d repeatedly made fun of him on YouTube, Steven Crowder was informed by the platform Wednesday that his massively popular channel had been demonetized — a decision that came less than 24 hours after the company admitted that he had not violated its policies. “Our teams spent the last few days conducting an in-depth review of the videos flagged to us, and while we found language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don’t violate our policies.” YouTube said Tuesday in reference to videos by Crowder that Maza said targeted him for his sexual and racial identity. As an open platform, it’s crucial for us to allow everyone. Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site.” I already mentioned two of Crowder’s videos, which were called “There are two genders: Change my mind.” Maza and Youtube are full of shit. Crowder was respectful and gave people a fair chance to air their opinion, but he didn’t just accept the mostly confused and irrational arguments: He asked clarifying questions, like any good interviewer, and the respondents couldn’t reply sensibly.

But on Wednesday, amid continued pressure from the Left, YouTube abruptly changed course and told Crowder that he could no longer earn ad money from his videos, issuing a new interpretation of its Community Guidelines to rationalize the decision. “Even if a creator’s content doesn’t violate our community guidelines, we will take a look at the broader context and impact, and if their behavior is egregious and harms the broader community, we may take action,” YouTube said in a statement Wednesday. “In the subsequent days, we saw the widespread harm to the YouTube community resulting from the ongoing pattern of egregious behavior.

This decision and YT’s BS explanation for violating THEIR OWN guidelines is not just about complaints from fools who can’t defend their own irrational opinions. It reflects the true ANTI-DEMOCRATIC nature of Google’s culture, which is intolerant of any dissent from the LGBTQ partyline, because their agenda is indefensible! Just like the Nazis, and Ingsoc (of 1984), Google/YouTube (the worst of the Big Tech monoliths) and their beloved LGBTQ allies can’t defend, only suppress. They fool no one but themselves. Like I said in my previous post, they are AT WAR WITH REALITY!

Changing language to suit an agenda is war. Part one.

A war of words…

Few people think about language, they just talk. But language reflects the reality of the culture that uses it. Or does language create the reality? Or both? A noun refers to a physical thing, not it’s actions. Verbs are the actions. Human beings are responsible for their actions and their words, but things are not responsible. I will deal with that idea in part three.

Things, nouns, don’t act, they are acted upon. This morning I drank coffee. You weren’t there, yet you picture what I just wrote, because my words, reflecting the reality of my action, acted upon you. How? When you read the italicized sentence (or if you heard me say it), you instantly formed a picture. Had you not, my sentence would have made no sense. So language stimulates your forming of a mental image while it reflects or describes my action. The details of the picture–the cup, brand of coffee, how I adulterated the coffee–were not specified, so you filled those in, based on how you would tailor that action to yourself. You might have assumed I drank from a cup of sorts, that I made it just before I drank it, and therefore it was hot. But for all you know, I could have been drinking cold brew from a jar or can. Nevertheless, I described my reality, you created your own version, so language both reflects or describes AND creates!

A pronoun (I, me, he, she, herself, you, it, that, they, each, few, many, who, whoever, whose, someone, everybody, etc.) is a word that takes the place of a noun. In the sentence Joe saw Jill, and he waved at her, the pronouns he and her take the place of Joe and Jill, respectively. There are three types of pronouns denoting animate organisms: subject (she, he); object (her, him); or possessive (hers, his). Those pronouns can describe human beings or animals, including insects, but not inanimate objects, minerals or plants. Why not plants? While even plants reproduce sexually, they are not animate. Most plants are hermaphrodite, even if some of them (hazel, for example) keep their male and female flowers apart. But some plants are dioecious, i.e. they have separate sexes. Some wild plants, such as nettle and red campion, are dioecious. If your holly never has any berries, that’s probably because it’s male. In the world of nature, many plants and virtually all animals, the male, even if just a part of a single organism, fertilizes and the female (or female part) is fertilized.

But pronouns that refer to sex also denote animate organisms. Subject pronouns act (she poured), object pronouns are acted upon (was poured for her), possessive pronouns denote use or ownership (the cup is hers). Plants neither act nor own, and though they can be acted on they are never referred to by their sex, at least in English. Pronouns for inanimate (i.e. lacking consciousness or power of motion) organisms or objects are it, singular, and they, them, plural. Okay Uncle Curmudgeon, what’s your point? Pronouns represent nouns, and all nouns that reproduce sexually are represented by pronouns that are male OR female, but only if they are animate. Even parts of organisms that reproduce sexually have clear anatomical and functional differences and are identifiable as male or female. Even surrogate or laboratory produced babies and animals were inseminated or impregnated.

To summarize, if a noun is animate and reproduces sexually, pronouns representing that noun are either male or female. Which brings us to the so-called transgender or transsexual. The latter term is far more accurate, because all reproduction is either sexual or asexual. Whether you separate gender identity from sexual identity or not, genders don’t reproduce sexually, only sexes do. Human beings do not reproduce asexually! Therefore, making up pronouns like Xe or whatever, or insisting on being referred to as they because you reject your biological sex, or claiming that gender is merely cultural and has nothing to do with your sex, then creating a class of crime called misgendering, is all part of the same thing: A war on reality, which starts with a war on your own native language. It’s irrelevant whether another culture recognizes non-binary genders, or whether any person “identifies” as non-binary, or even if they change their appearance using drugs, hormones or surgery. The world of sexually reproducing animate nouns, which includes EVERY person, IS binary. Tough if you don’t like it. It should be clear that the use of the made up word “misgendering” is war: war on our language, which is war on reality.

N.Y. competes with Cali for most screwed up!

Well, this explains why someone would move TO New York…

Exhibit one: The “Euphemism for I love aborting babies” bill, the Reproductive Health Act, wasn’t bad enough. What, exactly, is reproductive health?

Exhibit two: A Medicaid audit revealed the following: “Medicaid made improper payments of $933,594 for drugs, procedures, and supplies to treat ED. Of that, Medicaid paid $63,301 for 47 sex offenders (30 of whom were classified as a level-2 or a level-3 sex offender). Medicaid paid $285,641 for ED drugs approved to also treat BPH or PAH for 14 sex offenders (11 of whom were classified as a level-2 or a level-3 sex offender).” Office of the New York State Comptroller, Division of State Government Accountability.

Or, as the inimitable Jim Goad put it in Takimag.com: “If you are a convicted rapist living in New York State who’s having trouble achieving and maintaining an erection in order to give a new victim a right proper coercive rogering, take heart—the state’s Medicaid program will provide you with erectile dysfunction medicine at no cost!” What more need I say? Bureaucrats are already claiming its about computer errors. Sure, blame the computer. Just note the division of the Comptroller, that last word is a bitch.

For this next item, I need a disclaimer. I love cats, and they love me. Recently I moved to a place where pets are not encouraged, so I found my two cats wonderful homes. Both were rescue cats. The orange male was declawed as a kitten, and the black and white female was never declawed. My daughter took her, and a lonely widow took him, and her daughter keeps thanking me, sending pictures of him on her mom’s lap. But, have you ever owned an expensive piece of furniture that was monumentally comfortable and attractive? Sit with that question while we ponder the next item.

Exhibit Three: As the New York Times reports: New York lawmakers on Tuesday passed a ban on cat declawing, putting the state on the cusp of being the first to outlaw the procedure. New York State joins several cities in banning declawing, including Los Angeles and Denver; several other states, including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts, are also considering bans, according to the Humane Society of United States, which hailed the New York bill.

“Declawing is a convenience surgery, with a very high complication rate, that offers no benefit to the cat,” said Brian Shapiro, the group’s New York director, adding that the procedure causes “an increase in biting and litter-box avoidance, which often results in the cat being surrendered to an animal shelter.” The declawing bill now awaits the signature of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (who is really more of a dog guy); on Tuesday, he said his office would review it. If the bill becomes law, those who violate it could face a $1,000 fine.

New York, New York, where unborn babies are not afforded the basic rights of a human being, state legislators have determined, in a bipartisan vote no less, that cats need stricter protection. “Convenience procedure?” As Steve Martin says, “well excuse meeee!” Aren’t most abortions also “convenience procedures”? A baby would be inconvenient. So say, couched in various euphemisms, most women who choose elective abortion. Both cats were happy in my home, but they are gone, and I still own the most comfortable, slimline leather recliner. I estimate it bears more than 100 claw marks. My daughter has my claw-owning cat, and I own a torn up recliner that’s too comfortable to give up.