I’m Getting Grossed Out. I’ll Move On

There’s too much information on the internet. There are too many statistics, too many poorly contextualised soundbites, there’s too much to read, never mind fact check and process, so we outsource that work to people we trust.

Once upon a time that was the news. And once upon a time, they could mostly be trusted to do that work. But as that’s no longer true, we have to make do with pundits. 

The difference is that pundits are so desperate to be first to a story that there's no time for fact-checks and statistical analysis. They shoot from the hip, they lead with emotion, they shape narratives to fit within ten-minute segments (or, increasingly, 140-character tweets). And, generally speaking, they're incentivised to tell their audience what they already believe.

In my article, Trans Activism’s Self-Inflicted Backlash, I name-checked one of my least favourite pundits, Matt Walsh, for his undeniably effective critique of gender ideology. But I’m only human, so I couldn’t resist making fun of him a little first. 

My comments didn’t jibe with what Micheal already believed. 

---

Michael:

The only reason I’m bothering commenting on a post two months after you wrote it (I found it through your recent link) is because I follow you because you are one of the few reasonable voices on Medium, even if we frequently disagree. So, I want to tell you that your assessment of Matt Walsh is completely inaccurate and completely lacking in the nuance I’ve come to expect from you. Let’s go through the evidence you gave:

Believing a father-impregnated 12 year olds should have to go through with a pregnancy: yes. If you believe that that is a human being inside the girl’s womb, of course that is your position. And he would likely advocate that that father receive the death penalty (a point I disagree with him on) and he would point out if the girl could discreetly have an abortion, the father would never be caught.

Reluctant to report his son: a self-admitted weakness in him, that anyone who loves their family likely has and shares. Notice he didn’t say he “wouldn’t” just that it would be difficult.

Point about Catholic priests: controversial but coherent. Priests have access to prepubescent boys as well but the offenders overwhelmingly go for the older ones. It would seem they aren’t choosing their victims because they crave the young (I’m getting grossed out. I’ll move on).

Voting: his stance is that you should be able to pass a 5th grade Civics test before voting. He acknowledges the historical difficulties but he doesn’t agree that the best way to have a democracy is to have as many people voting as humanly possible.

Poison ivy: you really don’t know anyone who has done that [editors note: “that” being walk fearlessly through a patch of poison ivy because he thought he was immune. He wasn’t]? I know like twenty.

He’s just objectively right about the paternity leave thing. Sure, two parents in the house is easier than one but the mother is irreplaceable in breastfeeding so that leaves the man to work.

If you read the article “misogyny” linked to, you’d probably agree, or at least not find it misogynistic. He emphasizes many times that the wife also does not have to earn her husband’s respect.

Anyway, call me a Stan if you want. I’ve always just had a real problem with character assassination. This applies to people I like and don’t like.

Ultimately, I agree with a lot about many other topics and I find you an entertaining read, and if we met in person I’d be pretty confident that we would get along. I just think your assessment of an individual person is dead wrong.

---

Steve QJ:

“Anyway, call me a Stan if you want. I’ve always just had a real problem with character assassination. This applies to people I like and don’t like.”

I agree with this completely. But quoting Walsh's own words, and pretty much leaving it at that, is hardly character assasination.