This Matt Walsh guy

[poppy]

I have not read his blog extensively, but I do agree with a number of articles I have read. He's a Christian. He's conservative. He makes no apology for that. He's opinionated and has a point of view - and for every Matt Walsh there are an equal number of blow-hard, opinionated left leaning liberals. I don't read or relate to their work, but I appreciate them in that their ability to share opinions that I think are sheer insanity is part of what makes America great.

 

This thread, like much of what I read or see in the mainstream press (and very often here in the hive), reminds me of the irony of liberalism: every opinion should be given time to be shared, valued and respected - so long as it's not from a conservative Christian. I love that shockingly different opinions can be held, articulated, and discussed in our country - I just wish it could be done respectfully toward everyone.

 

Would you really? Would you like the Westboro Baptist Church position to be valued and respected equally to whatever your own minister preaches?

 

I don't like the trend of criticism is being reframed as censorship.

[Guest]

I'm just worried Matt Walsh might stumble onto this site and see that mean things were said about him and he'll start crying and never blog again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really. :D

[TeacherZee]

I'm just worried Matt Walsh might stumble onto this site and see that mean things were said about him and he'll start crying and never blog again.

Not really. :D

I don't think so. We would just confuse him. Someone, quick, start a thread on the best type of tinfoil...or the planets from which our friendly aliens hail ;) :p

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't like the trend of criticism being reframed as censorship.

AMEN! x1,000

 

(PS, I took out the extra "is" for you, I just can't stop the editor inside. I appreciate it when people fix my typos, lol.)

[Catwoman]

I'm just worried Matt Walsh might stumble onto this site and see that mean things were said about him and he'll start crying and never blog again.

 

 

Not really. :D

You are so sensitive that way. :D

[Laurie]

 

But, do we really need to be *told* not to watch it? It was written as *Twilight fanfic* for crying out loud! There are so many great books in the world, I wouldn't waste my time reading that sort of tripe. What is the real problem, IMO? That people don't care about deep topics or real reading. What does that harken back to? A problem in our education system. Most people couldn't read Dostoyevsky if they wanted to (which they don't).

 

 

 

 

 

Neither of my parents were college graduates and they probably didn't read Dostoyevsky, but they still had good morals and good taste.  On the other hand, a person can be highly educated and well-read and still be a degenerate.  

 

When Saturday Night Fever was in the theaters I really wanted to see the dancing but I wasn't quite old enough to get into R rated movies.  So my mother took me!  However,  at a certain point in the movie, she leaned over and whispered to me, "We don't have to be entertained like this.  Let's go."  So we left.   That was a good lesson...then, and now.  

 

[IHaveNoIdeawhatIAmDoing]

FYI if you want to read content without improving people's web stats or giving them traffic, run it through this site. http://www.donotlink.com

 

 

That feels wrong to me. Like reading a book and then returning it. 

[Mrs Mungo]

Neither of my parents were college graduates and they probably didn't read Dostoyevsky, but they still had good morals and good taste.  On the other hand, a person can be highly educated and well-read and still be a degenerate.

I don't disagree at all. My point was that I feel it's usually more...oh, what is the word I'm looking for (my son is on a new treatment schedule and my sleep is *seriously* screwed up)...helpful? encouraging? successful? to say something like, "here are ten amazing books that you should pick up today" than to say, "don't read that book!" I mentioned the Dostoyevsky chapter because the name of it is "Rebellion." It was a little joke that I didn't finish explaining because I was off on a tangent, sorry. ;)

 

Likewise, you could say, "here are 20 amazing family movies that you may not have seen" than to say, "don't watch that crap!" I have teenagers, so I'm pretty attune to how these two methods work. Giving alternatives (especially when they are better) works better for people than forbidding something. It is how LLL handles toddlers, but I've found it is the thing that works best with most humans. :D

[*Lulu*]

I don't disagree at all. My point was that I feel it's usually more...oh, what is the word I'm looking for (my son is on a new treatment schedule and my sleep is *seriously* screwed up)...helpful? encouraging? successful? to say something like, "here are ten amazing books that you should pick up today" than to say, "don't read that book!" I mentioned the Dostoyevsky chapter because the name of it is "Rebellion." It was a little joke that I didn't finish explaining because I was off on a tangent, sorry. ;)

 

Likewise, you could say, "here are 20 amazing family movies that you may not have seen" than to say, "don't watch that crap!" I have teenagers, so I'm pretty attune to how these two methods work. Giving alternatives (especially when they are better) works better for people than forbidding something. It is how LLL handles toddlers, but I've found it is the thing that works best with most humans. :D

Oh my gosh, yes.

 

I find my life is just as full of redirection and guided choices with my crew now as it was when they were all four and under!

 

Who knew that, at age 12, my best strategy for my son would STILL be hug, food, rest, and distraction?!?!

[Mrs Mungo]

Who knew that, at age 12, my best strategy for my son would STILL be hug, food, rest, and distraction?!?!

EXACTLY! LOL So glad I learned those techniques early on. I still think first, "are they hungry? are they tired?"

[Juniper]

I think his wife is coming out with blog at his behest. Or is it already out?

[Caroline]

EXACTLY! LOL So glad I learned those techniques early on. I still think first, "are they hungry? are they tired?"

 

My oldest is home from college for the summer, and I still think, "Is he hungry? Is he tired?" I think my mom thinks that about me when we are together,

 

As for Matt Walsh...I have read him. I don't agree with him. 

[Guest]

EXACTLY! LOL So glad I learned those techniques early on. I still think first, "are they hungry? are they tired?"

Except that I'm hoping you've gotten past unclasping your bra...

 

 

 

;) :D

[Slartibartfast]

I have not read his blog extensively, but I do agree with a number of articles I have read. He's a Christian. He's conservative. He makes no apology for that. He's opinionated and has a point of view - and for every Matt Walsh there are an equal number of blow-hard, opinionated left leaning liberals. I don't read or relate to their work, but I appreciate them in that their ability to share opinions that I think are sheer insanity is part of what makes America great.

 

This thread, like much of what I read or see in the mainstream press (and very often here in the hive), reminds me of the irony of liberalism: every opinion should be given time to be shared, valued and respected - so long as it's not from a conservative Christian. I love that shockingly different opinions can be held, articulated, and discussed in our country - I just wish it could be done respectfully toward everyone.

 

I am a moderate. I am equally snarky towards both extremes. Matt Walsh does not have any sort of free pass from me because we share the same faith nor does anyone else because they happen to agree with me on one or two points.

 

What I tire of is people just blanket supporting someone just because they say they are of a certain persuasion but then what comes out of their mouth is nonsense. Sometimes Conservatives say dumb things. Sometimes Liberals say dumb things. It is ok. We don't have to agree with whatever dumb thing they are saying just because they have some incendiary descriptor that they carry everywhere in their purse.

 

 

 

[Heather K.]

He does have a distinct style.  His delivery is part of his appeal-- he makes valid, worthwhile points in an in-your-face, often gloriously sarcastic way.  It's attention-getting and intended to be so.  I find myself wanting to repost nearly everything he writes and have to restrain myself.  I love Matt Walsh. :)

[Veritaserum]

This blog is what I read instead:

 

What is Matt Walsh wrong about today?

 

http://whatismattwalshwrongabouttoday.com

 

:-)

[Trish]

I read his bit about convincing his daughter she's beautiful in spite of what Hollywood, advertising or the sides of buses claim is beautiful.

 

I guess I liked it.

 

But there must be some reason everyone's piling on this guy. Bad opinions? Too many of them?

 

I guess when it comes to authors I just read them and don't feel I have to agree with everything they say. And if I don't find them interesting enough, I don't read them.

 

Like Maureen Dowd. I don't agree with a lot of what she says, but I love reading her columns.

[SemiSweet]

This blog is what I read instead:

 

What is Matt Walsh wrong about today?

 

http://whatismattwalshwrongabouttoday.com

 

:-)

I love this!

[Mrs Mungo]

I read his bit about convincing his daughter she's beautiful in spite of what Hollywood, advertising or the sides of buses claim is beautiful.

 

I guess I liked it.

 

But there must be some reason everyone's piling on this guy. Bad opinions? Too many of them?

 

I guess when it comes to authors I just read them and don't feel I have to agree with everything they say. And if I don't find them interesting enough, I don't read them.

 

Like Maureen Dowd. I don't agree with a lot of what she says, but I love reading her columns.

No, no, it's the fact that people are constantly sharing his columns on Facebook. Like *every day*. And half the time, I don't think the people even read the whole thing or they would have thought twice. Nobody has ever shared anything from Maureen Dowd. LOL

[Word Nerd]

An entire blog dedicated to fisking another blogger is even more off-putting--and every bit as condescending.

[poppy]

He does have a distinct style. His delivery is part of his appeal-- he makes valid, worthwhile points in an in-your-face, often gloriously sarcastic way. It's attention-getting and intended to be so. I find myself wanting to repost nearly everything he writes and have to restrain myself. I love Matt Walsh. :)

So he is a conservative Bill Maher?

[DawnM]

That is who I thought he was too!   I think that is John Walsh though.  

I don't know who Matt Walsh is.

 

Who is he and why would I care what he says?  Is he the missing child guy?

 

[poppy]

No, no, it's the fact that people are constantly sharing his columns on Facebook. Like *every day*. And half the time, I don't think the people even read the whole thing or they would have thought twice. Nobody has ever shared anything from Maureen Dowd. LOL

I think they read the whole thing and agree with him. It's largely telling a certain segment of the population what they want to hear, with a lot of bombast, and scorn for those who would disagree. Kind of like a less balanced, more smug Jon Stewart.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think they read the whole thing and agree with him. It's largely telling a certain segment of the population what they want to hear, with a lot of bombast, and scorn for those who would disagree.

I'm sure that's true of some people. But, surely it isn't true of ALL of the people on my Facebook who share his stuff. I'd like to think better of them than that. I mean, they tolerate being friends with me, right? LOL

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Matt Walsh has the unique ability to set up his own straw man argument...and then fail to tear it down. I have read a few of his blog posts and am consistently amazed at how he can ramble along and still miss the obvious so consistently.

[Greta]

I don't like the trend of criticism is being reframed as censorship.

Agreed. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from response.

[PeacefulChaos]

I don't disagree at all. My point was that I feel it's usually more...oh, what is the word I'm looking for (my son is on a new treatment schedule and my sleep is *seriously* screwed up)...helpful? encouraging? successful? to say something like, "here are ten amazing books that you should pick up today" than to say, "don't read that book!" I mentioned the Dostoyevsky chapter because the name of it is "Rebellion." It was a little joke that I didn't finish explaining because I was off on a tangent, sorry. ;)

 

Likewise, you could say, "here are 20 amazing family movies that you may not have seen" than to say, "don't watch that crap!" I have teenagers, so I'm pretty attune to how these two methods work. Giving alternatives (especially when they are better) works better for people than forbidding something. It is how LLL handles toddlers, but I've found it is the thing that works best with most humans. :D

 

OOOH we need to make these lists.  Or do they already exist?

 

I'm totally serious.  We need lists.  Or I just need a link to already existing lists. 

PLEASE.  :lol: 

[JuanitaL]

Agreed. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from response.

 

Now that's a good word.

[SproutMamaK]

I'm sure that's true of some people. But, surely it isn't true of ALL of the people on my Facebook who share his stuff. I'd like to think better of them than that. I mean, they tolerate being friends with me, right? LOL

 

And this is exactly why I, as a conservative Christian, dislike Matt Walsh. He makes the writren version of a good soundbite for Christians, and then fills his post with an attitude that screams "if this isn't obvious to you, you're an idiot", "don't even bother trying to have a discussion about this", with a nice side of patronizing "it's cute that you disagree with me even though you're clearly wrong so let me set you straight there, kiddo." Christians see a guy making a point they agree with in an hard-hitting way... and fail to see that "hard-hitting" actually means "with a sledgehammer" and is casting a negative light on all of us.

 

Matt Walsh is doing the Christian right way more harm than good by making us all look like patronizing, ego-centric blowhards. Although to be fair, much of the Christian right is doing it themselves by actually liking, sharing, and reblogging his posts as though they share his attitude. So many people I know wouldn't DARE say such offensive and rude things to another person's face, but they have no problem sharing it on facebook... and then when people think all Christians have a holier-than-thou attitude, those same Christians complain that's unfair to them because they're "not like that at all".

 

Edit: hope that didn't sound like I was calling you out, Mrs Mungo. I'm just using your post as an example of how it poorly reflects on Christians when we peddle this stuff.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Matt Walsh has the unique ability to set up his own straw man argument...and then fail to tear it down. I have read a few of his blog posts and am consistently amazed at how he can ramble along and still miss the obvious so consistently.

 

ITA.

 

Making a living answering questions nobody ever really asked, with dubious wisdom and total lack of experience.

 

I think people like him because it's always satisfying to have your own judgmental attitudes voiced and confirmed by somebody else -- especially when you you can't put it out there yourself because you know you can't back it up and you don't want called out on it.

 

So somebody with a following says it (although they are likewise unable to back it up, but who cares) and a lot of people like it so there you go. You were right. It was obviously true.

 

:001_rolleyes:

[KRG]

 

 

Making a living answering questions nobody ever really asked, with dubious wisdom and total lack of experience.

 

 

love this statement!

[SproutMamaK]

total lack of experience.

 

 

But he's been married for, like, 5 whole years! And has TWO young children! Clearly, this man knows what he's talking about. Someone get this man a book deal! (Oh wait... I think they already did.)

 

[Slartibartfast]

ITA.

 

Making a living answering questions nobody ever really asked, with dubious wisdom and total lack of experience.

 

I think people like him because it's always satisfying to have your own judgmental attitudes voiced and confirmed by somebody else -- especially when you you can't put it out there yourself because you know you can't back it up and you don't want called out on it.

 

So somebody with a following says it (although they are likewise unable to back it up, but who cares) and a lot of people like it so there you go. You were right. It was obviously true.

 

:001_rolleyes:

 

Might as well spend time reading the comments on yahoo articles.

[Guest]

I think people like him because it's always satisfying to have your own judgmental attitudes voiced and confirmed by somebody else -- especially when you you can't put it out there yourself because you know you can't back it up and you don't want called out on it.

 

So somebody with a following says it (although they are likewise unable to back it up, but who cares) and a lot of people like it so there you go. You were right. It was obviously true.

 

I think this was the appeal of Dr. laura as well.

[Mrs Mungo]

Edit: hope that didn't sound like I was calling you out, Mrs Mungo. I'm just using your post as an example of how it reflects on Christians when we peddle this stuff.

Not at all, as a non-conservative Christian, I agree that this is how he comes across.

[Heather K.]

 

I think people like him because it's always satisfying to have your own judgmental attitudes voiced and confirmed by somebody else -- especially when you you can't put it out there yourself because you know you can't back it up and you don't want called out on it.

 

Judgment on judgmentalism.... like intolerance of intolerance. Sorry, couldn't resist. So I didn't. :001_smile:

 

I'm not sure when voicing a belief that something is wrong became the unforgivable sin of "judgment."  Unless you're an utter relativist and don't believe anything (Hitler, human trafficking, etc.) is wrong. In that case, at least then you're consistent.

 

It seems more like opinions we disagree with are "judgmental." Those we agree with are not.

 

I like Matt Walsh. I do "put it out there" myself.  I can "back it up."  And I have no problem with people "calling me out on it."

Just my .02.  Please don't paint Matt Walsh fans with such a wide brush. It's a little judgmental. :001_rolleyes:

 

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Judgment on judgmentalism.... like intolerance of intolerance. Sorry, couldn't resist. So I didn't. :001_smile:

 

I'm not sure when voicing a belief that something is wrong became the unforgivable sin of "judgment."  Unless you're an utter relativist and don't believe anything (Hitler, human trafficking, etc.) is wrong. In that case, at least then you're consistent.

 

It seems more like opinions we disagree with are "judgmental." Those we agree with are not.

 

I like Matt Walsh. I do "put it out there" myself.  I can "back it up."  And I have no problem with people "calling me out on it."

Just my .02.  Please don't paint Matt Walsh fans with such a wide brush. It's a little judgmental. :001_rolleyes:

 

Welcome to the forums.

 

We're talking about logic, Heather. I am almost as conservative as Matt Walsh on many religious, social, and political issues, so I am not just judging him because I disagree with him all the time or look down on conservatives. I'm not liberal, intolerant, or an utter relativist. I'm a classical educator, which means that I can recognize Matt Walsh's logical fallacies, strawmen, inconsistencies, and endless hyperbole. His rhetoric is manipulative yet uneducated, and that's what brings about the eyerolls. THAT is what some of us are talking about here.

[poppy]

Judgment on judgmentalism.... like intolerance of intolerance. Sorry, couldn't resist. So I didn't. :001_smile:

 

I'm not sure when voicing a belief that something is wrong became the unforgivable sin of "judgment."  Unless you're an utter relativist and don't believe anything (Hitler, human trafficking, etc.) is wrong. In that case, at least then you're consistent.

 

It seems more like opinions we disagree with are "judgmental." Those we agree with are not.

 

I like Matt Walsh. I do "put it out there" myself.  I can "back it up."  And I have no problem with people "calling me out on it."

Just my .02.  Please don't paint Matt Walsh fans with such a wide brush. It's a little judgmental. :001_rolleyes:

 

Well, his opinions are usually trashing someone or something.  Women who like smutty books, affirmative action, women in the military, gay marriage.  Even when he's writing about something he likes, it's to smear people who disagree with him.  

 

If I wrote that I loved 50 Shades of Gray, affirmative action, women in the military and gay marriage, would you think I was being judgmental?

 

If I wrote that people who don't like affirmative action are racist, people who don't want women in combat are sexist, and people who don't support gay marriage are bigots, would you think I was being judgmental?

 

He's just a slam artist.  It's an art.  But it's not just "an opinion".

 

Which I wouldn't care about if so many of my friends didn't like the guy!

[*Lulu*]

Judgment on judgmentalism.... like intolerance of intolerance. Sorry, couldn't resist. So I didn't. :001_smile:

 

I'm not sure when voicing a belief that something is wrong became the unforgivable sin of "judgment." Unless you're an utter relativist and don't believe anything (Hitler, human trafficking, etc.) is wrong. In that case, at least then you're consistent.

 

It seems more like opinions we disagree with are "judgmental." Those we agree with are not.

 

I like Matt Walsh. I do "put it out there" myself. I can "back it up." And I have no problem with people "calling me out on it."

Just my .02. Please don't paint Matt Walsh fans with such a wide brush. It's a little judgmental. :001_rolleyes:

We had a thread just the other day about the difference between judging and being judgmental.

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/522575-what-does-it-mean-to-judge-someone/?hl=%2Bjudgemental&do=findComment&comment=5809178

[SproutMamaK]

 

 

It seems more like opinions we disagree with are "judgmental." Those we agree with are not.

 

Many of us that have posted here, myself included, have said that we agree with most of his opinions (if not all; I'm not sure since I don't read everything he writes). It's his delivery that's the issue. Even when I think he's right about an issue, I still think he's writing like a smug, self-important jerk about it.

[Heather K.]

Welcome to the forums.

 

I'm a classical educator, which means that I can recognize Matt Walsh's logical fallacies, strawmen, inconsistencies, and endless hyperbole. His rhetoric is manipulative yet uneducated, and that's what brings about the eyerolls.

Thanks for the welcome! I've been on here for 5+ years but am more of a reader than a poster.  :001_smile:

 

I'd be curious to know what specific logical fallacies you're referring to. I've read many but certainly not all his posts. He admits he's not a college grad and is self-educated (great books, etc., which we hopefully all would applaud).  I'm not sure what you mean when you say his rhetoric is uneducated.  Are you simply referring to his lack of formal secondary education? 

 

As for his being a "smug, self-important jerk,"  delivery styles are a matter of taste. I'm pretty conservative but can't stand Bill O'Reilly.  Some personalities just rub you the wrong way.  But it's Matt's blog.  If there's anywhere you should be free to use your own, unedited voice it's your blog.  No one has to read it. :001_rolleyes: 

 

Matt's a unique voice championing some important issues.  It's always good to get conversations started! 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Thanks for the welcome! I've been on here for 5+ years but am more of a reader than a poster.  :001_smile:

 

I'd be curious to know what specific logical fallacies you're referring to. I've read many but certainly not all his posts. He admits he's not a college grad and is self-educated (great books, etc., which we hopefully all would applaud).  I'm not sure what you mean when you say his rhetoric is uneducated.  Are you simply referring to his lack of formal secondary education? 

 

As for his being a "smug, self-important jerk,"  delivery styles are a matter of taste. I'm pretty conservative but can't stand Bill O'Reilly.  Some personalities just rub you the wrong way.  But it's Matt's blog.  If there's anywhere you should be free to use your own, unedited voice it's your blog.  No one has to read it. :001_rolleyes:

 

Matt's a unique voice championing some important issues.  It's always good to get conversations started! 

 

LOL. No, I am not referring to his lack of college degree. I have no idea why you would assume that. And I am not going to go locate his logical fallacies for you. And I'm not the one who said "smug, self-important jerk." And I never said he should not be free to speak as he wishes on his blog. (Nobody said that.)

[Guest]

Welcome to the forums.

 

We're talking about logic, Heather. I am almost as conservative as Matt Walsh on many religious, social, and political issues, so I am not just judging him because I disagree with him all the time or look down on conservatives. I'm not liberal, intolerant, or an utter relativist. I'm a classical educator, which means that I can recognize Matt Walsh's logical fallacies, strawmen, inconsistencies, and endless hyperbole. His rhetoric is manipulative yet uneducated, and that's what brings about the eyerolls. THAT is what some of us are talking about here.

ITA. i don't read the guy, so I can't say. I did stumble across one of his posts before and thought it was hilarious, so who knows? I might like him if I read anything by him regularly. But, let me use a comparison with Dr. laura. I used to listen to her radio show years ago. I enjoyed it! I agree with many of her stances and it was definitely a psychological boost to hear her pronouncements against daycare and "not raising your kids," because I wanted that affirmation for leaving the workforce to raise my kids.

 

But it is true her delivery was always biting, bashing, cruel and condescending. She was ever-smug about her superior decision to bear only one child later in life, when she was well-equipped to devote her time to raising her son. She "answered" all the callers' questions with her formulaic framework and it was 85% of the time (I just made up that stat) negatively framed.

 

Ultimately, listening to her brought out a condescending attitude in myself. It was corroding my ability to empathize with others, to see that all problems have many facets, to realize there are no pat, knee-jerk answers to life's big questions. I turned her off.

 

I do not know if Matt Walsh is running on the same type of platform, but it seems like it by reading this thread.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'd be curious to know what specific logical fallacies you're referring to. I've read many but certainly not all his posts. He admits he's not a college grad and is self-educated (great books, etc., which we hopefully all would applaud).  I'm not sure what you mean when you say his rhetoric is uneducated.  Are you simply referring to his lack of formal secondary education?

She means he appears to be uneducated. That his style of rhetoric is one that lacks any substance whatsoever. She was pretty detailed in naming the types of logical fallacies one consistently finds in his arguments.

 

 

As for his being a "smug, self-important jerk,"  delivery styles are a matter of taste. I'm pretty conservative but can't stand Bill O'Reilly.  Some personalities just rub you the wrong way.  But it's Matt's blog.  If there's anywhere you should be free to use your own, unedited voice it's your blog.  No one has to read it. :001_rolleyes:

 

Matt's a unique voice championing some important issues.  It's always good to get conversations started!

I don't find his voice unique and I *definitely* don't believe they are the types of posts that lead to actual conversations. Once again, we must point out that he say whatever he wants on his blog. We can complain about how crappy we think his blog is here. That's how free speech works. It annoys a lot of us because they are constantly reposted on people's Facebook feeds and *not* because those people want to have a conversation about it. In fact, it is my experience when I say, "this bit isn't even true" or "that is not why people don't like that thing" that people say, "I POST WHAT I WANT, I DON'T LIKE PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH ME ON MY OWN FACEBOOK."

[Heather K.]

She means he appears to be uneducated. That his style of rhetoric is one that lacks any substance whatsoever. She was pretty detailed in naming the types of logical fallacies one consistently finds in his arguments.

 

 

I don't find his voice unique and I *definitely* don't believe they are the types of posts that lead to actual conversations. Once again, we must point out that he say whatever he wants on his blog. We can complain about how crappy we think his blog is here. That's how free speech works. It annoys a lot of us because they are constantly reposted on people's Facebook feeds and *not* because those people want to have a conversation about it. In fact, it is my experience when I say, "this bit isn't even true" or "that is not why people don't like that thing" that people say, "I POST WHAT I WANT, I DON'T LIKE PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH ME ON MY OWN FACEBOOK."

 

I personally find tremendous substance in his posts.  He frequently points out contradictions in people's thinking that are great food for thought. And I've had good conversations with people because of many of them.  It's SO sad that people don't want to discuss what they post! Our FB pages shouldn't be little, untouchable shrines to ourselves.  In fact, I often post things with the plea, "Please discuss!"

 

LOL. No, I am not referring to his lack of college degree. I have no idea why you would assume that. And I am not going to go locate his logical fallacies for you. And I'm not the one who said "smug, self-important jerk." And I never said he should not be free to speak as he wishes on his blog. (Nobody said that.)

 

I know you didn't refer to him that way, which is why I quoted it separately from the quote I pulled from you. I was attempting to respond to several points at once. I think I just figured out how-- sorry if I did it incorrectly before. :)  I, too, am a student and teacher of logic, and I understand what the fallacies listed are. I simply don't find his writing to be full of logical fallacies.  I'm sure a few slip in now and then, as they do with us all.  My point about it being his blog was simply in defense of his voice-- the style he's chosen to say his piece.

 

Y'all have strong Matt Walsh reactions.  He's clearly onto something. :001_smile:

[poppy]

Can you give an example of that food for thought? Because I have to be honest. The stuff of his I've read, I've mostly rolled my eyes. Perhaps it is more useful if you already agree with him. I can see the value in his approach if the goal is 'rally the loyal troops' , but, it is not persuasive writing.

[Heather in Neverland]

Controversy and smugness sells. I find that there are pieces of his writing that I agree with...definitely some more than others... I like the 50 Shades piece but did not like the immigration piece, for instance. But the smug, sarcastic packaging sometimes gets to me. I feel the same way about Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. There is usually something they say that I agree with but I have to dig through the arrogance to get to it. All of these outspoken "professional opinion-havers" are OK in small doses, but too much of it and I start to feel yucky.

[Heather K.]

Lol, it definitely has a strong 'rally the troops' component. :)

 

Some 'food for thought' I've read and discussed with others:

 

1. On the Hobby Lobby ruling- pointing out the widely misunderstood (or blatantly false) accusation that HL wouldn't pay for birth control. When in fact it pays for 16 of the 20 forms. The "Get out of my bedroom but leave your wallet" syndrome, he calls it. A liberal family member read the post and said they'd only heard that HL would pay for NONE, because that's what the mainsteam media was reporting.

 

"Whether any employer covers birth control or not, none are trying to stop women from accessing it. The issue here is whether a private company should be forced to pay for birth control, not whether it should be allowed to sneak into your house at night and check to make sure you don’t have a bottle of Yaz in your medicine cabinet. If your boss is in your bedroom, call the police. Or stop inviting him in. When you ask him to pay for what you do in the bedroom, you are inviting him in. Want him out? Good. Then stop making your birth control into a national headline. Deal with it yourself, privately." (http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/06/30/want-birth-control-go-buy/#W9YQR4QpuKOGSmbk.99)
 

2. On challenges that he, as a white man, has no right to express opinions on 'race issues' or 'women's issues':

False Premise #1: You need to be a member of an Approved Victim Groupâ„¢ in order to objectively evaluate a topic relating to an Approved Victim Groupâ„¢.

Alright, here’s the problem: If a personal and emotional tie to an issue makes you more likely to ascertain and identify the truth in it, then our court system needs to be drastically reworked. Most people would consider it a grave injustice if a man was on trial for murder and the prosecution stacked the jury box with the families of murder victims. Or if someone was charged with vehicle theft and his fate was to be decided by a jury of people who just had their car stolen last week.

(http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/03/white-men-have-no-right-to-give-their-white-man-opinions-because-theyre-white-men/2/#ZmSqxXDSS1IpLbua.99)

 

3. On HGTV cancelling an upcoming show because the hosts (brothers) had openly supported traditional marriage:

"If we really wanted to punish the film and TV industry for employing disreputable characters, I’m not sure why we’d start with a couple of dudes who want to renovate old homes, instead of going after, say, Woody Allen. Woody Allen is a crusty old liberal, alleged child rapist, pervert who married his own adopted daughter. And he’s beloved in pop culture. Nobody boycotts his movies, or the production company, or the theaters that show his films.

Roman Polanski drugged and raped a child and then fled the country to avoid prosecution. He’s also a darling of movie critics and the Hollywood liberal elite.

Eddie Murphy likes to troll street corners for transvestite hookers, yet he still gets roles in children’s movies.

Several women have accused Bill Clinton of rape — not just affairs, rape — but he’s a hero to the left.

Sean Penn, Michael Moore, and Oliver Stone were BFFs with Hugo Chavez, a murderous socialist tyrant. But they never seem to get the Benham brothers or Brendan Eich treatment.

Mike Tyson was actually convicted of rape, but that certainly doesn’t mean he can’t get hilarious and quirky cameos in big budget Hollywood comedies.

The point is, you turn on the TV or crank up the Pandora and you’re going to be watching or listening to a stream of deviants, junkies, rapists, pedophiles, adulterers, and crooks, yet we don’t bat an eye until someone quotes the Bible or endorses traditional marriage."

(http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/08/christian-hating-liberal-fascists-demonstrated-tolerance/#XFqwMoTOyOLVewhP.99)

 

All food for thought. :001_smile:

 

[Slartibartfast]

Matt's a unique voice championing some important issues.  It's always good to get conversations started!

 

 

 

I don't find him to be unique. It isn't hard to find people who are sarcastic, caustic, and incendiary. It isn't difficult to find people who constantly contradict themselves and engage in hyperbole. Those types of voices are a dime a dozen, which is why I said one might as well read yahoo comments. 

 

 

For instance, 

 

 

  

 

"Look, I’m going to be diplomatic about this: every moment, modern American liberalism continues to plunge deeper and deeper into a state that can be charitably described as a dark and hellish insanity. If I was in a bad mood, I’d be blunt."[/size]

 

*yawn*

 

 

 

 

 

 

"-I don’t think all liberals are Satan. There can only be one Satan. And he’s a liberal."

 

*bored now*

 

 

 

I imagine that even a Saudi Arabian Islamic cleric would take one look at how American left wingers react when anyone deviates ever so slightly from their established orthodoxy, and say to himself, â€œman, these people REALLY need to chill.â€

The Cult of Leftism has many tenets, and it demands full compliance with all of them, but nothing in its creed compares to the sanctity of their two great sacraments: child murder and sodomy. You must not question these, but tolerance alone will not be good enough. You must celebrate them, too. You must worship at their altar.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

 

Like I said, I am a moderate and all of that looks ridiculous and silly. I have no desire to read that nonsense.

 

I have however read books by Bob Woodward and Peggy Noonan but those types of voices are becoming more rare.

[zoobie]

Although I disagree heartily with his politics, it's just awful writing too. Run that crap through a grammar checker or something. It's also not his personal, private blog. It's a public blog designed to create revenue. 

 

None of those quotes is (see? none = singular) a novel or informed argument for debating the issues.