[flagged]
Though his more notable takes are that Russia would win a war against the US because our recruiting ads are gay:
https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1496942410538131468
and that time when Trump wanted a photo op at the church across from the White House and had the priests tear gassed, that they deserved it because Episcopalians are Satanists. (Can’t find that one.)
IIRC also said yoga, anime, Ouija boards, and the Persona series were all Satanist. Maybe I’m just confused and he’s some kind of Catholic insult comic?
(Well, he’d be right about Persona.)
I recently watched a socialist YouTuber argue against Ayn Rand because someone might read her books and fail to understand it was fiction. And thus her books should be banned. That’s an argument against all fiction books but he made this argument with a totally straight face while speaking against the dangers of capitalism in general.
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/10/20/matt-walsh-police...
You're going to argue that it's a joke? Well no wonder we don't understand this kind of humor, it's not funny.
> I recently watched a socialist YouTuber argue against Ayn Rand because someone might read her books and fail to understand it was fiction. And thus her books should be banned. That’s an argument against all fiction books but he made this argument with a totally straight face while speaking against the dangers of capitalism in general.
Smells like tankie to me. I've yet to hear a good leftist argument for the banning of any book. Who was this? I'd like to watch the video, because I do more than argue against the "dangers" of capitalism, and I love a good lefty infight.
But I’m curious, you’re implying you’re anti capitalist, what system do you wish to replace capitalism?
In short, a system without private property. Please email me rather than continue discussion here though! You can feel free to publish our conversation wherever at your whim.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...
I think most Catholic humor is about guilt or their mom’s statue collections rather than calling people pedophiles, maybe he can try that. Or call them angelic instead.
They just want us dead, literally, read it a hundred times. Whether is being killed or suicide, it's the same. Sadly we are an absurd minority (<0.2%) and the tides are already turning for their relief. I gladly don't live in the USA, I would be planning to leave if that were the case
In one breath you decry the supposed calls for violence against your chosen victims and in the very next sentence claim you must commit violence against others because it’s your only option. Do you not see the extreme irony in that?
You’re saying not only are you alone allowed free speech but also you alone are allowed to decide when to commit acts of violence, lest those you disagree with are allowed to speak and say something you find unacceptable and thus “verbal violence”.
> . For one thing, the pronoun situation is all over the map, okay? It’s not clear of the various people mentioned here, which are actually females, though they all use female pronouns.
> the adults are creeps and degenerates and worse either way,
> I was not previously familiar with the term drag mom, though from context it seems that this is just another way of describing a professional groomer.
> And just like cancer, stopping it is not a gentle or a painless process. The farther along the cancer is, the more aggressive you have to be in fighting it. Culturally, we are approaching, if we haven’t already reached, a terminal state, which means we have to be all the more aggressive, which calls for two things.
> You know, this doesn’t stop until police are breaking down the doors at these places and carting the adults away in handcuffs. Charge them all as pedophiles. Throw them in prison, and whenever they get out, if they do get out, put them on the sex offender registry for life.
- Matt Walsh on drag show performers
> In one breath you decry the supposed calls for violence against your chosen victims and in the very next sentence claim you must commit violence against others because it’s your only option. Do you not see the extreme irony in that?
I find it ironic that you're arguing from a position that usually rejects the notion that speech can be considered violence, then accusing me in a post where I never mention physical violence, only forms of speech, as calling for violence against the intolerant.
> You’re saying not only are you alone allowed free speech but also you alone are allowed to decide when to commit acts of violence, lest those you disagree with are allowed to speak and say something you find unacceptable and thus “verbal violence”.
Doesn't need to be me, but if you can't tell the difference between "intolerance," and "tolerant, yet intolerant of the intolerant," that says more about you than me. Do you want to give some examples of people you think were unfairly labeled as intolerant? Maybe some people you thought were "cancelled?" I use quotes because I still haven't found a good definition for that word, people just seem to use it.
That being said, that article and clip are presented without context. It’s not at all clear what he’s talking about, he appears to have just shown a 3rd party video of some kind and is now commenting on it. Without seeing the video we have no idea what he’s actually talking about. He could have just shown a pedophile attempting to justify cp under the guise of a drag show and is now saying these people (rightly) deserve to be jailed if they’re abusing children, alternatively maybe he’s talking about a male person putting on a hyper-sexual dress and reading to toddlers in a library (which I also find abhorrent as it objectifies women in the worst possible way to young impressionable minds that literally cannot comprehend nuance). But it’s not actually illegal or necessarily something we want to make it illegal. Additionally it is not a call to violence to say the law should be followed. Until you can present a clip in context of him calling for violence you’ve shown nothing.
You on the other hand do call for and justify violence against those who you disagree with in your GP comment. Not sure why you’re denying it now:
> Leftists are forced to lash out
So far in this thread I’ve seen you be intolerant of the tolerant and call for violence against those who tolerate your intolerance.
You’ve responded to me twice in this thread with the same dishonest link attempting to present a false narrative in hopes of not being called out.
You're creating a dangerous precedent here. You should know that various cultures have various things that are considered sexual. I really hope you won't wander into a culture that doesn't sexualize women's breasts and start accusing shirtless women of pedophilia.
I also really hope you won't do the same of women showing their ankles in the USA! Please remember that whatever you find gross, icky, and sexual about a drag show, people genuinely felt the same about regarding women showing ankles, cleavage, etc. In some cultures, people feel the same about women showing their hair!
Given this massive fluctuation in what we all find sexual, perhaps you should err on the side of caution, and save the accusations of pedophilia for the actual pedophiles, you know, the ones that are actually interested in sexually harming children. A pretty easy cross-cultural definition that spares us from disarming a word that should only be used for a crime anybody could relatively safely describe as "the worst we can imagine."
> So far in this thread I’ve seen you be intolerant of the tolerant and call for violence against those who tolerate your intolerance.
I never called for violence, I've always been referring to protest and the like. If you agree with me that speech can be violence, I find that actually quite delightful, but contradictory with the rest of your apparently conservative position.
This sounds similar to conservatives/right-ish people complaining about cancel culture. Generally most of your text strikes me as hyperbole, having actually made an effort to understand conservatives despite not really falling into their camp. Nothing you assert sounds familiar to me.
This matters to me because the thing that made me listen to conservative voices in the first place was that their self-expressed beliefs never lined up with what people told me they thought. Crying wolf etc. At worst they’re religious freaks that don’t want to call a gay marriage a marriage (petty) and think trans stuff is a sexual fetish (out of touch). Yet I’m to believe in 2022 I’m going to get lynched for liking dick. I actively stopped caring about politics bc I can never tell anymore when people are trying to freak me out to get me to listen to them. This being said as someone who grew up gay and scared in the traditional underbelly of the US.
Some specific reactions follow:
> I don't agree with what this guy is saying about wanting trans people dragged away by cops and beaten
Are you referring to some specific event, or is this just what you believe all non-lefty people secretly want? In what context, just generally if a born-X person publicly presents as Y? This version of trans opposition is foreign to me and makes no sense.
> Leftists don't want Matt Walsh giving a talk at a university because he's going to do what he always does and in some form call for violence against LGBT people.
I’ve only ever seen his JRE interview, do you mean explicit, general advocacy of literal physical violence against LGBT persons? I think he exploits general confusion around gender vs sex and concern for children, but I’ve never heard anyone advocate anything close to that. Matt specifically comes off as a troll.
> So... when is that? When will we get to debate Steven Crowder in a public space?
Doesn’t he literally go to public spaces with signs saying “change my mind”?
> Leftists are forced to lash out at the false definition of civility that lets people say "I dunno, trans people are icky, let's just not let them pee in public,” but doesn't let people say "that's fucked up, where are trans people supposed to pee then?"
In the bathroom associated with their biological sex? Also who is preventing trans activists from speaking? I think you have the power dynamics mixed up, every major US institution appears on-board with affirming trans identity. Honestly I don’t really understand why women need a whole separate bathroom to begin with.
https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/10/20/matt-walsh-police...
> Doesn’t he literally go to public spaces with signs saying “change my mind”?
Not anytime recently I'm aware of. He's a single example of the notoriously hard to pin down and debate conservative crowd. He famously dodges debates with liberal intellectuals. Sam something. I'm out right now, can't remember name.
> In the bathroom associated with their biological sex? Also who is preventing trans activists from speaking?
Schools across the usa are limiting trans students rights to use bathrooms, getting banned from participating in sports, etc. Weird legislation is being proposed to check student genitals. It's getting super weird in America and I recommend poking around a bit if interested, though I also avoid usa news now, mostly because it depresses me.
> Honestly I don’t really understand why women need a whole separate bathroom to begin with.
I don't understand why men have a different bathroom lol I think it's a little curious you said it like that instead of "I don't understand why we separate bathroom based on gender " Neither do I for what it's worth but it's kinda moot when LGBT people are being shot because of the rhetoric in the usa right now
> Yet I’m to believe in 2022 I’m going to get lynched for liking dick.
In the usa it's more likely you'll be shot while congregating in places known to serve LGBT people. I don't get why you're like... Downplaying that there's violence against LGBT people in the usa?
To be flippant (and gay): I'm also likely to be shot at a Walmart, a parade, or any other place just going about my business.
Luckily I'm not a teacher, so I don't spend a ton of time in schools.
I'm pretty sure I'm more at risk statistically in going grocery shopping, to the movies, etc.
Fair enough, this guy seems pretty out of touch with reality listening to this clip. I’ll listen more carefully to similar speech in the future.
> Sam something. I'm out right now, can't remember name
Sam Harris maybe?
> I think it's a little curious you said it like that instead of "I don't understand why we separate bathroom based on gender "
I assume men aren’t protesting women (gender or sex) entering their bathroom, the issue has always come across as a protect women from creeps thing. Your version is better though.
> Schools across the usa are limiting trans students rights to use bathrooms, getting banned from participating in sports, etc.
Just more protection stuff afaict, in the case of sports around sex-based physical differences leading to unfair advantage and possible physical harm. Am I uninformed and transpeople are getting banned outright?
> I also avoid usa news now, mostly because it depresses me
Yeah feel that, I just feel helpless and scared reading the news. It’s a beautiful country though, and on a person-by-person basis I’ve found people to be mostly wonderful. I try to hold on to that.
> I don't get why you're like... Downplaying that there's violence against LGBT people in the usa?
Violence against LGBT people is a reality, it’s just rare enough and punished sufficiently now that I’m prepared to mourn but write it off (from a personal risk perspective) as the occasional savage and continue going to gay bars unworried. I’m more frightened about getting mugged on my way to the bar. That or people not listening if it does start getting really bad because people just stop believing us.
To be clear, women have been asking conservatives for specific changes to the law that would better protect themselves. Conservatives have been largely deaf to these requests, and instead have just completed their 50 year political project of gutting Roe v. Wade, which has been a huge step back for women's health and rights. So the idea that conservatives who are championing bathroom bans and sports bans are doing so to protect women doesn't pass the laugh test. In 2022, conservative politicians and SCOTUS justices are far more dangerous to women's health than anything else.
The bathroom and sports bans being made into law by conservatives are not to help women; they are to hurt trans people as a signal to their political base, because they can't signal with gay people anymore. Indeed, they tried the same thing in the decades past with gay people, labeling them a danger to society, the army, public health -- anything. Now being gay is more acceptable in society writ large, but the political animus against them still exists in conservatives circles. So just dusted off the old playbook, crossed out "gay", replaced it with "trans", and they ran it again like it's 1985. Saddest part is that is that it works so well.
He opposes affirmative action and as a result got cancelled at MIT for a _completely_ unrelated talk about climate and life on other planets.
If you yourself disagree with him and do not want to participate in the talk, fine. don't watch it, don't listen to it, don't attend it, and use YOUR speech to recommend others do the same.
What happened here is that he got cancelled so that those who _WANTED_ to associate no longer could. This is not about association, and it's not about speech, it's about preventing others from hearing and it's about harming him for daring to have that opinion.
When the cancel culture stops happening, THEN I'll start believing when people say the things you're trying to say here. Not before.
It seems this person has made a handsome life being a spokesperson for conservative denial of systemic racism in America, I don't see someone actually harmed or "cancelled."
Also it sounds like students did exactly what MIT approves: they protested. For whatever reason the University decided then to move the venue. What exactly is the issue you have with this scenario?