"The same could be said, of course, of me and Matt Walsh, who has gained a healthy following with his regular diatribes against child sexualization, infanticide as birth control, and other supposed bedrocks of the Democratic Party. "
Yeah Ben is not even trying to hide a bias here, if you think the Democratic Party supports "infanticide a…
"The same could be said, of course, of me and Matt Walsh, who has gained a healthy following with his regular diatribes against child sexualization, infanticide as birth control, and other supposed bedrocks of the Democratic Party. "
Yeah Ben is not even trying to hide a bias here, if you think the Democratic Party supports "infanticide as birth control", for one, you are already in Matt Walsh's corner, ideologically and argumentatively, so the rest of this trying to pretend this was some meeting of opposites and "open mindedness" doesn't come off authentically... other than Ben admitting that Walsh also actively opposes legalized gay marriage as some minor point of debate just about "politics" - for the thousands of post-Obergefell legally married gay couples I can assure him it's more than a political quibble, particularly as we've just witnessed how Supreme Court rulings cannot be taken for granted as final. The same Dobbs votes have expressed their views that Obergefell was also incorrectly decided, and the Court makeup has changed since Obergefell if one is keeping track...
There's probably a good trove of critical-eyed documentaries on figures like DeAngelo and stuff like "Race to Dinner" but Matt Walsh is about the worst person to put in charge of it. Who is watching this movie other than people who have already completely bought into the premise. A documentary that is more... subtle... about its biases and conclusions, and with a producer/narrator less focused on "owns" and mockery than they are with just letting the subjects present themselves and viewers form impressions of, let alone in not straight up lying to the interview subjects what the topic and goal of the documentary is, would be a lot more effective in showing the contradictions and excesses in some of the DEI "industry" without a big, fat heavy thumb on the scale. It would probably get a lot more viewers and possibly be more effective than right wingers paying money to see a left wing shibboleth like DiAngelo get "owned". And it's an absolute joke to portray someone like "Matt Walsh" as somehow not being part of any "divisiveness", no that's all on the Bad Other Side ;p
Im not sure if the author is stating he agrees that the Democrats are pro-infanticide (which they are not, unless your definition if infanticida includes abortion, which is an ideological and not factual position). He may simply be saying that Walsh believes it.
Maybe, but it's an odd phrasing, why not just say "The same could be said, of course, of me and Matt Walsh, who has gained a healthy following with his regular diatribes against introducing LGBTQ topics to grade school children, abortion rights, and other supposed bedrocks of the Democratic Party."
Reading more into context I suppose it could be simply a phrasing of Walsh's views then as being oppositional to Ben's - I might have been so irritated at Walsh as the topic that I read too deeply into it. Good point :)
"The same could be said, of course, of me and Matt Walsh, who has gained a healthy following with his regular diatribes against child sexualization, infanticide as birth control, and other supposed bedrocks of the Democratic Party. "
Yeah Ben is not even trying to hide a bias here, if you think the Democratic Party supports "infanticide as birth control", for one, you are already in Matt Walsh's corner, ideologically and argumentatively, so the rest of this trying to pretend this was some meeting of opposites and "open mindedness" doesn't come off authentically... other than Ben admitting that Walsh also actively opposes legalized gay marriage as some minor point of debate just about "politics" - for the thousands of post-Obergefell legally married gay couples I can assure him it's more than a political quibble, particularly as we've just witnessed how Supreme Court rulings cannot be taken for granted as final. The same Dobbs votes have expressed their views that Obergefell was also incorrectly decided, and the Court makeup has changed since Obergefell if one is keeping track...
There's probably a good trove of critical-eyed documentaries on figures like DeAngelo and stuff like "Race to Dinner" but Matt Walsh is about the worst person to put in charge of it. Who is watching this movie other than people who have already completely bought into the premise. A documentary that is more... subtle... about its biases and conclusions, and with a producer/narrator less focused on "owns" and mockery than they are with just letting the subjects present themselves and viewers form impressions of, let alone in not straight up lying to the interview subjects what the topic and goal of the documentary is, would be a lot more effective in showing the contradictions and excesses in some of the DEI "industry" without a big, fat heavy thumb on the scale. It would probably get a lot more viewers and possibly be more effective than right wingers paying money to see a left wing shibboleth like DiAngelo get "owned". And it's an absolute joke to portray someone like "Matt Walsh" as somehow not being part of any "divisiveness", no that's all on the Bad Other Side ;p
Im not sure if the author is stating he agrees that the Democrats are pro-infanticide (which they are not, unless your definition if infanticida includes abortion, which is an ideological and not factual position). He may simply be saying that Walsh believes it.
Maybe, but it's an odd phrasing, why not just say "The same could be said, of course, of me and Matt Walsh, who has gained a healthy following with his regular diatribes against introducing LGBTQ topics to grade school children, abortion rights, and other supposed bedrocks of the Democratic Party."
Reading more into context I suppose it could be simply a phrasing of Walsh's views then as being oppositional to Ben's - I might have been so irritated at Walsh as the topic that I read too deeply into it. Good point :)