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.
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