Beautiful conversation, Ben & Matt :) We are much more alike than we are different. Don't let the media and their grifter loyalists tell you how you feel or what to think.
If I enter into Brave Search (not even Google; Brave is an alternative), immediately at the top I get the following AI-generated response, without a hint of irony:
"Assessing Racist Tendencies
Racism is a complex and multifaceted issue, and determining whether someone is racist can be a subjective and nuanced task. It’s essential to recognize that racism can manifest in various forms, including explicit bias, implicit bias, and systemic inequalities.
The Context of Matt Walsh’s Film “Am I Racist?”
Matt Walsh’s documentary “Am I Racist?” explores the world of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices, exposing absurdities and contradictions through undercover social experiments. The film sparks debate and controversy, with some critics labeling it anti-trans or racist, while others see it as a satirical critique of the DEI movement.
Key Takeaways
Racism is not solely a matter of individual intention or belief: It can also be a result of systemic and institutional factors, such as policies, structures, and cultural norms.
Implicit bias and microaggressions can be just as harmful as explicit discrimination: These subtle forms of racism can perpetuate inequality and marginalization.
The DEI movement, while well-intentioned, can sometimes perpetuate its own brand of racism and elitism: By creating a culture of “us versus them” and promoting a narrow, essentialized understanding of identity, some DEI initiatives may inadvertently reinforce harmful stereotypes and exclusions.
Your Reflection
In considering whether you might be racist, ask yourself:
Are you aware of your own biases and assumptions, and do you actively work to challenge and overcome them?
Do you recognize and address systemic inequalities and structural racism in your daily life and interactions?
Are you open to listening to and learning from diverse perspectives, and do you engage in respectful dialogue with those who may hold different views?
Conclusion
Ultimately, determining whether someone is racist requires a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved. Rather than focusing solely on individual intentions or beliefs, it’s essential to consider the broader social and systemic contexts that shape our interactions and relationships. By acknowledging and addressing our own biases, working to dismantle systemic inequalities, and fostering inclusive and respectful dialogue, we can strive to create a more equitable and just society.
Follow up
How do implicit biases and microaggressions manifest in everyday interactions?
How do systemic inequalities and institutional racism perpetuate racial disparities?
What are some effective strategies for recognizing and challenging internalized racism?"
I found Ben's comments on Southerners to be annoying. The smugness and certainty of his analysis condescending.
I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's in the deep south a mile from a Civil War battlefield. I grew up in a multi-racial community. The schools I attended were 50% minorities. I also grew up surrounded by Confederate mysticism. To my teenage eyes race was not associated with symbols like the Stars and Bars. I really didn't see racism among my generation. No doubt we were naive and far away enough from the Civil Rights movement to be oblivious to what had come before
To me, it seemed pride in being Southern was based around a sense that everyone looked down on us. Do you want to sound stupid? What accent do you adopt? The Stars and Bars were an FU to 'the man', it was the Dukes of Hazzard, it was being descended from some fighting men who punched way above their weight. Maybe for older folks the flag meant something else. Maybe we were naive and ignorant. What we were not was racist. Did I know racist people? Yup. One or two were relatives. To my recollection those folks weren't the confederate flag waving types.
I have no desire to fly the Confederate Flag, but it saddens me that society thinks the childhood I, and millions of others, had must be a lie. What we say must be cover for some deep-rooted hatred. Matt had it 100% right that many Liberals do not want to understand where "deplorables" are coming from. They'd rather tell deplorables what "their kind " are and what they believe.
I didn't know what racial tension was until I moved to Chicago. To me, folks in the North are more racist than the typical Southerner. To use an Al Gore term - it's an inconvenient truth.
That's very, very true. I lived in San Antonio for three years as a teacher in the barrio and after marrying, visiting my in-laws in Savannah annually. I've also traveled extensively. I live in the north (was in Chicago and burbs for 34 years). As race relations go, the north and south are almost in two different universes. I've come to the conclusion that southerners, black and white, have a demonstrated faith in God. That faith is what guides their thinking.
Racist now has taken the place of communist in the late '40s and throughout the '50s and '60s as that thing you cannot be and can be maneuvered into being percieved as being. And anticommunists were hardly fine people. They were rife with the worst grift and abuse of power illegitimately siezed. Being opposed to communiism was also the prime virtue signal.
So, yeah, time to call BS on much of the antiracism movement. It would be one thing if it served to address a longstanding, soul crushing problem. There is a problem. But it's not being addressed by many of its champions in my view.
Would Mr. Walsh defend people sporting a Swastika if they were "sincere" in their belief that it represented racial awareness? Or a Hamas flag if the claim was that it represented self-determination? The Confederate flag did (does?) indeed represent state's rights, but the only state's right the South would go to to war to defend was the right for whites to own blacks.
I am a big Matt Walsh fan, even when I occasionly disagree , I respect him...frequently while chuckling. Mr.Kawaller I am developing an appreciation for. Initial gut reaction was not favorable- too snide, but consistently, with each interview series , from livestock exhibitions, to Harley gatherings to LA pride debaucheries , he is clever, honest, generous of spirit and frankly fearless .
I haven't many feel good moments, particularly over the morning news, but this counted as one. Thank you.
Does Matt Walsh even understand that DiAngelo doesn't use the term "racist" the way the average person does. I doubt it very much. She makes that very clear in her book. Right-wing pundits are intentionally exploiting the distinction in order to make her seem ridiculous. In her book, she makes it explicitly clear that when she uses the term, she is not talking about a person having animosity toward people of another race. She is talking about a system that we all take part in whether we want to or not. It's a system that creates images in our minds that black people are somehow lesser than white people. For example, what images come to mind when you think of a predominantly white neighborhood, vs. a predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhood? Those images are a product of our system. And this system is the main reason why the median black household has 1/10 the wealth of the median white household.
Everyone on the right seems to hate that book. I guarantee that almost none of them have read it, and the few who did, did not understand it, because they didn't want to understand it. I actually read it. I learned a lot from it, because I read it with an open mind.
I read it. You are talking about what people refer to as "structural racism," which she didn't prove exists any longer, and unconscious bias, which she says only applies to white people. There is no path to redemption, but hiring her as a consultant somehow makes sense, and it infantilizes black people by removing their agency. She is a grifter with a white savior complex.
Her book is poorly written and unpersuasive. See Matt Taibbi's review to be convinced of the former, and John McWhorter's for the latter.
Didn't prove? CRT has been proving it for about 50 years. She is commenting on the subject in a unique way––as a white person to other white people. And if you don't admit that you have biased and unbiased attitudes toward black people, you are fooling yourself. If you get angry at the suggestion, you are proving how fragile and sensitive you are on this issue. She is an insightful academic who has thought deeply and honestly about these ignorant aspects of human nature. Matt Taibbi is a grifter who doesn't give a fuck about the truth. John McWhorter knows he can have a huge audience on the right when he criticizes the left on race issues.
I come from the belief that I am where I am because it is the long term result of thousands of small every decisions I have made in my life. Barak Obama is where he is because this is the result of thousands of small every day decisions he made across the span of his life.
This is the proof that there is no systemic racism, if a black son of a single mom can make the choices that lead him to the highest office in the land; that stands as proof there is no systemic racism.
Thus, if black people don't achieve their goals, it cannot be systemic racism. We have seen the results, THERE IS NO SYSTEMIC RACISM.
For all the people riding the anti-systemic racism band wagon, not seeing this fight was won in 1964, you need to wake up, become woke! Become woke to the fact that white people are not holding black people down, instead black people are holding black people down.
You don’t think people are shaped by their environments? Studies have shown that we can predict how a person will do in life based on what zip code they grow up in. You don’t think life is tougher for the average black person when they have 1/10 the wealth of white people? You ought to stop assuming so much and pick up a book on the subject.
I read a report about the misaligned report which states that black babies cared for by white doctors have higher mortality.
Whilst yes those numbers are real, a deeper dive into the facts reveals that about 3.3% of black babies are under weight, less than 1.5k or less than 3lbs. About 1.2% of white babies are under weight.
If a baby is under weight, they're under the care of a specialist. Specialists are more likely to be white doctors than black doctors. Of course underweight babies are more likely to die under care of a white doctor. So whilst the numbers are real, the root causes are the important truths, which are ignored for a race-baiting headline.
"You don’t think people are shaped by their environments?"
Absolutely. What I see as the difference is how people spend their money. I met a comedian at a taco stand one time. He was part of a troop called "Two Beans & a Flip"—they're two Mexicans and a Filipino. He described how his wife—grew up a poor Filipina—whom he described as having Getto mentality, improves herself by buying more jewelry. She adds value to herself in the form of flashy physical things that cost a lot. Me, I invest in knowledge things—I buy and read books—I spent much of my adult night-life in community college to advance my career prospects.
This is not an exclusive racial choice, I've had night-school classmates of all races, and I know white people who have getto mentality. This is why I believe people of color don't get ahead. Their society—family—taught them getto mentality. They seek to improve themselves by buying and displaying flashy things. Does getto mentality increase generational wealth? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. I have three adult children, in their thirties. Two are well educated, the third is taking night classes to improve career prospects. This behavior model—perhaps expectations—I have provided to my children goes to increase generational wealth in my descendants, or my race as it were.
Is this systemic racism? No, this is intracultural behavior which precludes wealth accumulation.
Blaming this on systemic racism prevents seeing the real root cause.
Black people in America have been systematically denied opportunities. That did not end in 1964. Soft racism persisted, and it still does, though it's improving rapidly right now. These people were literally herded into the worst parts of town. They were denied mortgages. They were disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. They were given harsher sentences. (Do you think incarcerating young black fathers is good for the family?) And, white people weren't comfortable hiring them because of their prejudices and unconscious biases. That's how we got here. It's important that white people understand it. Fortunately, that's happening, thanks to progressives.
Black people weren't 'literally herded' they bought where they could afford to buy. They chose to buy homes near black churches, and to live amongst other black people. Are you calling their preference racism?
Black children do poorer in school. I learned to read at home. If children can't learn to read before kindergarten, they're probably not going to read in school. Throwing money at it doesn't seem to help, because our schools are the worst performing schools on Earth, despite being the most heavily funded.
Black people aren't targeted by police for being black, but for being 6x more violent than white people. They're targeted for the crime not the color.
Look what happened when we started releasing convicts on a massive scale, a massive increase in the murder rate, mostly affecting black people. White cops don't kill very many black people, other black people are the overwhelming murderers of other black people. Incarcerating bad people keeps us all safe.
"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 :)
It must be very difficult to interview someone who is fundamentally unlikeable. Great job. I suspect the reason some of his comedy attempts failed is as much to do with how seriously he takes himself as his disdain for the subjects...
Thank you so much for this interview! I appreciated its thoughtfulness and depth. We need more of this in these tumultuous times - the humanizing of each other!!!
Really really really enjoyed that! Thank you!
Beautiful conversation, Ben & Matt :) We are much more alike than we are different. Don't let the media and their grifter loyalists tell you how you feel or what to think.
"but such is the power of art: I’ll take brains and talent over my own politics any day."
Just HAD to stop there and write this. YES!
I aspire to practice that virtue. That sums up why I am drawn to the FP and its writers.
If I enter into Brave Search (not even Google; Brave is an alternative), immediately at the top I get the following AI-generated response, without a hint of irony:
"Assessing Racist Tendencies
Racism is a complex and multifaceted issue, and determining whether someone is racist can be a subjective and nuanced task. It’s essential to recognize that racism can manifest in various forms, including explicit bias, implicit bias, and systemic inequalities.
The Context of Matt Walsh’s Film “Am I Racist?”
Matt Walsh’s documentary “Am I Racist?” explores the world of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices, exposing absurdities and contradictions through undercover social experiments. The film sparks debate and controversy, with some critics labeling it anti-trans or racist, while others see it as a satirical critique of the DEI movement.
Key Takeaways
Racism is not solely a matter of individual intention or belief: It can also be a result of systemic and institutional factors, such as policies, structures, and cultural norms.
Implicit bias and microaggressions can be just as harmful as explicit discrimination: These subtle forms of racism can perpetuate inequality and marginalization.
The DEI movement, while well-intentioned, can sometimes perpetuate its own brand of racism and elitism: By creating a culture of “us versus them” and promoting a narrow, essentialized understanding of identity, some DEI initiatives may inadvertently reinforce harmful stereotypes and exclusions.
Your Reflection
In considering whether you might be racist, ask yourself:
Are you aware of your own biases and assumptions, and do you actively work to challenge and overcome them?
Do you recognize and address systemic inequalities and structural racism in your daily life and interactions?
Are you open to listening to and learning from diverse perspectives, and do you engage in respectful dialogue with those who may hold different views?
Conclusion
Ultimately, determining whether someone is racist requires a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved. Rather than focusing solely on individual intentions or beliefs, it’s essential to consider the broader social and systemic contexts that shape our interactions and relationships. By acknowledging and addressing our own biases, working to dismantle systemic inequalities, and fostering inclusive and respectful dialogue, we can strive to create a more equitable and just society.
Follow up
How do implicit biases and microaggressions manifest in everyday interactions?
How do systemic inequalities and institutional racism perpetuate racial disparities?
What are some effective strategies for recognizing and challenging internalized racism?"
I found Ben's comments on Southerners to be annoying. The smugness and certainty of his analysis condescending.
I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's in the deep south a mile from a Civil War battlefield. I grew up in a multi-racial community. The schools I attended were 50% minorities. I also grew up surrounded by Confederate mysticism. To my teenage eyes race was not associated with symbols like the Stars and Bars. I really didn't see racism among my generation. No doubt we were naive and far away enough from the Civil Rights movement to be oblivious to what had come before
To me, it seemed pride in being Southern was based around a sense that everyone looked down on us. Do you want to sound stupid? What accent do you adopt? The Stars and Bars were an FU to 'the man', it was the Dukes of Hazzard, it was being descended from some fighting men who punched way above their weight. Maybe for older folks the flag meant something else. Maybe we were naive and ignorant. What we were not was racist. Did I know racist people? Yup. One or two were relatives. To my recollection those folks weren't the confederate flag waving types.
I have no desire to fly the Confederate Flag, but it saddens me that society thinks the childhood I, and millions of others, had must be a lie. What we say must be cover for some deep-rooted hatred. Matt had it 100% right that many Liberals do not want to understand where "deplorables" are coming from. They'd rather tell deplorables what "their kind " are and what they believe.
I didn't know what racial tension was until I moved to Chicago. To me, folks in the North are more racist than the typical Southerner. To use an Al Gore term - it's an inconvenient truth.
That's very, very true. I lived in San Antonio for three years as a teacher in the barrio and after marrying, visiting my in-laws in Savannah annually. I've also traveled extensively. I live in the north (was in Chicago and burbs for 34 years). As race relations go, the north and south are almost in two different universes. I've come to the conclusion that southerners, black and white, have a demonstrated faith in God. That faith is what guides their thinking.
Excellent, interesting, humane interview. Well done! If only more of this happened in what passes for "journalism," we'd be much better off.
I really enjoyed this conversation!
Racist now has taken the place of communist in the late '40s and throughout the '50s and '60s as that thing you cannot be and can be maneuvered into being percieved as being. And anticommunists were hardly fine people. They were rife with the worst grift and abuse of power illegitimately siezed. Being opposed to communiism was also the prime virtue signal.
So, yeah, time to call BS on much of the antiracism movement. It would be one thing if it served to address a longstanding, soul crushing problem. There is a problem. But it's not being addressed by many of its champions in my view.
Would Mr. Walsh defend people sporting a Swastika if they were "sincere" in their belief that it represented racial awareness? Or a Hamas flag if the claim was that it represented self-determination? The Confederate flag did (does?) indeed represent state's rights, but the only state's right the South would go to to war to defend was the right for whites to own blacks.
A really good and interesting conversation. Thank you.
That was great.
I am a big Matt Walsh fan, even when I occasionly disagree , I respect him...frequently while chuckling. Mr.Kawaller I am developing an appreciation for. Initial gut reaction was not favorable- too snide, but consistently, with each interview series , from livestock exhibitions, to Harley gatherings to LA pride debaucheries , he is clever, honest, generous of spirit and frankly fearless .
I haven't many feel good moments, particularly over the morning news, but this counted as one. Thank you.
Does Matt Walsh even understand that DiAngelo doesn't use the term "racist" the way the average person does. I doubt it very much. She makes that very clear in her book. Right-wing pundits are intentionally exploiting the distinction in order to make her seem ridiculous. In her book, she makes it explicitly clear that when she uses the term, she is not talking about a person having animosity toward people of another race. She is talking about a system that we all take part in whether we want to or not. It's a system that creates images in our minds that black people are somehow lesser than white people. For example, what images come to mind when you think of a predominantly white neighborhood, vs. a predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhood? Those images are a product of our system. And this system is the main reason why the median black household has 1/10 the wealth of the median white household.
Everyone on the right seems to hate that book. I guarantee that almost none of them have read it, and the few who did, did not understand it, because they didn't want to understand it. I actually read it. I learned a lot from it, because I read it with an open mind.
I read it. You are talking about what people refer to as "structural racism," which she didn't prove exists any longer, and unconscious bias, which she says only applies to white people. There is no path to redemption, but hiring her as a consultant somehow makes sense, and it infantilizes black people by removing their agency. She is a grifter with a white savior complex.
Her book is poorly written and unpersuasive. See Matt Taibbi's review to be convinced of the former, and John McWhorter's for the latter.
Didn't prove? CRT has been proving it for about 50 years. She is commenting on the subject in a unique way––as a white person to other white people. And if you don't admit that you have biased and unbiased attitudes toward black people, you are fooling yourself. If you get angry at the suggestion, you are proving how fragile and sensitive you are on this issue. She is an insightful academic who has thought deeply and honestly about these ignorant aspects of human nature. Matt Taibbi is a grifter who doesn't give a fuck about the truth. John McWhorter knows he can have a huge audience on the right when he criticizes the left on race issues.
I come from the belief that I am where I am because it is the long term result of thousands of small every decisions I have made in my life. Barak Obama is where he is because this is the result of thousands of small every day decisions he made across the span of his life.
This is the proof that there is no systemic racism, if a black son of a single mom can make the choices that lead him to the highest office in the land; that stands as proof there is no systemic racism.
Thus, if black people don't achieve their goals, it cannot be systemic racism. We have seen the results, THERE IS NO SYSTEMIC RACISM.
For all the people riding the anti-systemic racism band wagon, not seeing this fight was won in 1964, you need to wake up, become woke! Become woke to the fact that white people are not holding black people down, instead black people are holding black people down.
You don’t think people are shaped by their environments? Studies have shown that we can predict how a person will do in life based on what zip code they grow up in. You don’t think life is tougher for the average black person when they have 1/10 the wealth of white people? You ought to stop assuming so much and pick up a book on the subject.
I read a report about the misaligned report which states that black babies cared for by white doctors have higher mortality.
Whilst yes those numbers are real, a deeper dive into the facts reveals that about 3.3% of black babies are under weight, less than 1.5k or less than 3lbs. About 1.2% of white babies are under weight.
If a baby is under weight, they're under the care of a specialist. Specialists are more likely to be white doctors than black doctors. Of course underweight babies are more likely to die under care of a white doctor. So whilst the numbers are real, the root causes are the important truths, which are ignored for a race-baiting headline.
A half truth can be a great lie.
I don't know what you're talking about.
"You don’t think people are shaped by their environments?"
Absolutely. What I see as the difference is how people spend their money. I met a comedian at a taco stand one time. He was part of a troop called "Two Beans & a Flip"—they're two Mexicans and a Filipino. He described how his wife—grew up a poor Filipina—whom he described as having Getto mentality, improves herself by buying more jewelry. She adds value to herself in the form of flashy physical things that cost a lot. Me, I invest in knowledge things—I buy and read books—I spent much of my adult night-life in community college to advance my career prospects.
This is not an exclusive racial choice, I've had night-school classmates of all races, and I know white people who have getto mentality. This is why I believe people of color don't get ahead. Their society—family—taught them getto mentality. They seek to improve themselves by buying and displaying flashy things. Does getto mentality increase generational wealth? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. I have three adult children, in their thirties. Two are well educated, the third is taking night classes to improve career prospects. This behavior model—perhaps expectations—I have provided to my children goes to increase generational wealth in my descendants, or my race as it were.
Is this systemic racism? No, this is intracultural behavior which precludes wealth accumulation.
Blaming this on systemic racism prevents seeing the real root cause.
Black people in America have been systematically denied opportunities. That did not end in 1964. Soft racism persisted, and it still does, though it's improving rapidly right now. These people were literally herded into the worst parts of town. They were denied mortgages. They were disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. They were given harsher sentences. (Do you think incarcerating young black fathers is good for the family?) And, white people weren't comfortable hiring them because of their prejudices and unconscious biases. That's how we got here. It's important that white people understand it. Fortunately, that's happening, thanks to progressives.
Black people weren't 'literally herded' they bought where they could afford to buy. They chose to buy homes near black churches, and to live amongst other black people. Are you calling their preference racism?
Black children do poorer in school. I learned to read at home. If children can't learn to read before kindergarten, they're probably not going to read in school. Throwing money at it doesn't seem to help, because our schools are the worst performing schools on Earth, despite being the most heavily funded.
Black people aren't targeted by police for being black, but for being 6x more violent than white people. They're targeted for the crime not the color.
Look what happened when we started releasing convicts on a massive scale, a massive increase in the murder rate, mostly affecting black people. White cops don't kill very many black people, other black people are the overwhelming murderers of other black people. Incarcerating bad people keeps us all safe.
"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 :)
It must be very difficult to interview someone who is fundamentally unlikeable. Great job. I suspect the reason some of his comedy attempts failed is as much to do with how seriously he takes himself as his disdain for the subjects...
Thank you, Ben! I love your interviews!
Thank you so much for this interview! I appreciated its thoughtfulness and depth. We need more of this in these tumultuous times - the humanizing of each other!!!