Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Matt Walsh Is My Hero
I just finished listening to Matt Walsh’s appearance on the Joe Rogan Podcast, episode #1895. I listened via my Spotify subscription so I’m not sure if I can provide a link. Interesting discussion, worth the time. They spoke about two issues: what is a woman and gay marriage.
The “What Is A Woman” discussion was great, as usual, even though the two largely agreed. It was interesting to hear the agreement from Rogan’s perspective, and I’m glad people like Rogan think it important enough to provide the platform to Matt Walsh and to the bigger idea about contra-gender-ideology.
What really brought me here to share my thoughts was the gay marriage part, which I believe ended up being a third to a half of the three-hour running time. First things first: Matt Walsh must have immense adrenaline control. Throughout, he remained calm, thoughtful, and articulate. That’s hard to do with a subject like this, complex with disagreement at just about every level of the argument. I want to be like Matt when I grow up.
Another part I found interesting: Matt Walsh rehearsed just about every response to just about every objection that I’ve encountered here at Ricochet and that I’ve used myself. Was Matt listening in since 2012 and taking notes from all of us? He may have been. He gave the response I would have given to just about every one of Joe Rogan’s questions or challenges, although he did so more articulately and appealingly than I ever could. The only weak spot, and it wasn’t all that weak as it was, being articulating the distinction between the institution of marriage and individual marriages, between the reason there is an institution and the reasons individuals might have for wanting to participate in the institution. Following that, discussing why society should create legal entanglements for a relationship that is, according to Rogan’s way of explaining things, ephemeral and highly subjective.
Anyway, I don’t want to rehash the SSM arguments. I’m here to declare my admiration for Matt Walsh. Joe Rogan is alright too, but Matt Walsh says things that I would say and have said; that makes him incontrovertibly correct and probably more handsome too beyond what the glorious beard does for him.Published in General
Walsh: What is a woman?
Rogan: That’s very insightful.
Walsh: What is marriage?
Rogan: Well that’s just stupid.
Agreed. Those who are not listening to his show regularly should be.
I listened to some of that discussion. I found myself agreeing with Walsh on “what is a woman” but disagreeing with Walsh on same sex marriage. But I think it’s good that Joe Rogan is willing to have this discussion.
Joe Rogan has said that when he saw transgender woman beating up actual real women in martial arts, he formed his views on transgenderism.
No that’s not how it went.
Here is biologist Jerry Coyne (who is politically on the Left) arguing that sex is not a spectrum and that such claims undermine public trust in science.
That’s nice and all, but, well, duh. Which is another reason to admire Matt Walsh – not once does he use the phrase “well duh”.
Not true. The public trusts science. It just does not trust the liars that claim they speak in its name.
It would have been easy for Rogan to ridicule or dismiss Matt Walsh on the subject of SSM, except that Matt Walsh earned a base level of respect and benefit of the doubt based on his gender work. Good on Rogan for recognizing that; the result was Rogan hearing arguments about SSM he may never have encountered before and probably not this articulately even if he has encountered them.
Currently about 65 to 70 percent of Americans support same sex marriage. Of course, just because a majority of people support something doesn’t mean it is right or wrong.
But about 50 percent of Republicans support same sex marriage these days.
I support SSM. Mainly because to say / type differently, even here is a risk not worth taking.
Soon they will change it further and allow some sort of polycule protections. I will not even bother to fight that one. This thing has been lost. The smart move now especially for males is to not get married at all. Why form a contract with that much risk and that little pay back.
I watched the Trent Horn review of the show. He does the Counsel of Trent podcast and helps Walsh with his arguments in this particular episode. It’s on YouTube. Recommended.
I like the Wizard of Oz. I like the Tin Man.
Thanks for the update Heavy Water.
And we wonder why we lose elections, with conservatives like these. This was a radical Left-wing thing, just 25 years ago.
I think that you are pretty much right, empirically.
Do they really support it, or do they simply think that it’s no longer an issue worth losing elections over?
I’m sure there could have been improvements to Matt Walsh’s arguments on the spot (and I will listen to the podcast you mention), but that’s difficult to do when there there is no conversational antagonist or when that conversation is in writing with some time to consider responses. Matt Walsh was near perfect as one can get in a real time back and forth.
Either way it doesn’t matter. Matt Walsh is right on that score too: there is no conservative politician talking about SSM marriage the way Walsh is talking about it or the way that so many talk about abortion.
Trent begins his podcast saying basically the same thing.
When Mike Braun, one of my US Senators (I live in Indiana), ran for US Senate in 2018, he said once that he opposes same sex marriage. But I don’t think he has done anything about it as a US Senator or even what one could expect a US Senator to do about it. I suppose he will vote against the same sex marriage legislation that is going to be voted on within the next two or three days.
I used to oppose same sex marriage. But I support it now.
Thanks for sharing.
The closest we came to a politician talking substantively about SSM was Rick Santorum, and he’s long gone. Others may profess to be aginnit, but I doubt that even 1% of those could talk about it the way Walsh (or we here on Ricochet) could talk about it, in depth.
These are the things I have in mind when conservatives insist that we are a center-right country. The pendulum swings back and forth on a few issues, but it seems to swing a bit further left over time.
At the kind recommendation of fellow members I recently subscribed to a number of conservative podcasts (and one liberal one). I have tried out all of them and Matt Walsh’s is the one to which I keep returning.
As for SSM, I was against it and I argued against it, here and elsewhere. Then we had a referendum in my country, which legalised it by approximately a 62/38 vote – I was one of the 38%.
Much of the debate was about surrogacy, with opponents of the proposed change being concerned that legalising SSM would lead inevitably to legalisation of commercial surrogacy. These concerns were dismissed as “scaremongering”. But lo and behold, the practice will be legalised here next week!
People have different views about surrogacy. I think it is immoral, unethical and exploitative. Almost every country in Europe prohibits it – even ones that are otherwise very progressive- and Ireland will be an outlier by legalising it.
It’s tough being a social conservative these days.
slippery slope stuff.
I had originally tried to walk the thin line that allowed civil unions that would proffer the same legal status as marriage to those involved, without using the term “marriage”. My reasoning was to maintain the sacred meaning of Man and Woman bonding together as One and creating a Family…
But the progressives clearly understood that they needed to break down that standard, to create an indistinguishable equivalency. SSM could not be called a civil union, because it implied a difference from marriage, and that could not be tolerated.
Therefore the word “marriage” has been deconstructed to mean anything between two or more biological (and in the case of at least one Japanese man an AI robot) units.
The terms Mother, Father, Family and Marriage now are all suggestive words, with open interpretations of their intended meaning.
I wonder how many more progressive positions you’ll support 10 years from now?
We must pray for a modern-day St. Patrick to drive the snakes out of Ireland once more.
Both the word and the institution have been completely hijacked. I’m one who has consistently argued that to redefine marriage is to destroy it. Many here have opined that marriage was destroyed with the acceptance of no fault divorce, and used that as a reason to roll over on the redefinition of marriage. That’s always been nonsense. NFD certainly weakened marriage, but it could still be held up as an ideal, because it referred to a specific thing that was a specific good. Now the fundamental building block of civilization means nothing. We are paying a huge price for that, but you can bet it’s only a down payment. What so many were, and are, so nonchalant about was/is the proverbial hill to die on.
It’s probably too late to take the word marriage back, but I still think it’s worth fighting for the ideal. I’ve taken to using the terms ordered marriage versus disordered marriage to distinguish between the two. Maybe other terms are better — I’m open to suggestions — but that’s where I am for now.
I find it interesting that Dennis Prager was saying at least a decade ago that, ultimately, the goal was to undefine “male” and “female” or “man” and “woman.” And, I’m not even sure he was talking/thinking about SSM at the time. He may have just been noticing the great leveling effort of the Left to erase all distinctions in the name of “equality.”
Trans-“women” make a mockery of womanhood. Women are being erased. It’s sickening. And it’s related to the push for SSM even if many lack the eyes to see. Matt Walsh gets it.
What I do not understand is women support this stuff.
women fawn over gay men. Love them to death. Want their “men” to be more like the gay ones.
as for trans. Women seem to come from miles around to fawn over them. We had a couple at work over the years. They have a harem of females chatting them up, helping them, running interference for them, covering for them. Not sure why but that is the case.
Did you not hear Biden. All on the right are the radical fringe to be hunted down by the government. That is where we are. Frankly voting GOP at this point may be detrimental to one’s future. All that is being recorded. Sooner or later that data will be used.