Today is Monday, the day where I talk about “The Issues”. Today’s issue is “Matt Walsh writes a useless blog”. My friends, you deserve a better blogger than Matt Walsh. I don’t like Matt Walsh because we don’t see eye-to-eye on a number of ideas. For instance, I’m going to start this by saying this piece is an opinion piece based on a number of texts Matt Walsh has created, and if you disagree with me you can still be a good person. If Matt Walsh were to try and make a similar disclaimer, it would have to be something like “I’m going to give you a fact piece based solely upon my biased opinion and if you disagree with me you are a heartless satanic liberal’. Let me take a step back to justify these claims.
Matt isn’t a humorist. I feel that is important to mention, because a humorist can write that his blog is ‘absolute truths’ or that he is a ‘professional truth sayer’ for comedic effect; Matt Walsh does both these things purely out of egotistical delusion. Matt leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I’m going to show you why, along with some help from my good friend Matt Walsh, who wrote down so many condemning items for me to share. Now some of you might be thinking “Steve, why are you doing this?” Because you deserve better, dear reader. Also, I hate Matt Walsh’s blog, and I think you should too.
I have a few problems with Matt’s blog that cause me to categorize his work as uninspired and unreadable. The first is that it infests my Facebook feed, when I’d rather see articles written by intelligent people that have something meaningful to say that isn’t just a biased rant typical of a confused old man pining for the white-washed days of yesteryear. The second problem is that he doesn’t attack actual issues, he attacks straw men that he’s constructed in his head that look nothing like the issue he’s talking about. The third problem is that Matt lives in a fantasy world that doesn’t look anything like the actual world that we live in. Matt’s world is one where white patriarchal Christian conservatism is always right, the Satanic liberals are always pushing an agenda of evil, and his proposed ‘solutions’ are relevant to reality. The fourth problem is that he doesn’t understand complexity, but will always boil a complex issue to a binary stance of either ‘you are with me or against me’.
The fifth problem is that his blog is far too predictable and useless, and that’s the deal breaker for me. Because I like to know what my friends are reading, and I hate Matt’s blog, I started playing a game called “Can I predict what Matt is going to say?” I could almost every time without fail. It is a very easy game to play. Just pick whatever an elitist conservative ‘Christian’ dripping in white privilege would say, and there you go, the blog practically writes itself. If the topic is about unarmed black teenagers being gunned down, his post basically says ‘calm down, those cops have a tough job and maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt’ (even though the facts were in by that point, and the attitudes he opposed were in fact correct, he just wanted to ignore them because the black people were right for once). If the topic is about women’s rights, feminism, abortion, or one of those other topics that is a women’s issue, his post basically says ‘bitches need to stop being so uppity and listen up to what he is about to tell them is right’. If the topic is about suicide, his post basically says that he’s against it, even if a person’s life contains nothing but pain, that life needs to go on suffering because he’s uncomfortable about what his kids will think” or maybe it just shows his complete ignorance about mental health issues and basically says ‘if Robin Williams was right with Jesus, he wouldn’t be so depressed all the time’. If the post is countering claims that he has white privileged, his post shows that he has no idea what white privilege is so you should shut up because Matt Walsh gets to decide what white privilege is now (which is the ultimate demonstration of white privilege). I could go on (posts about poor people, atheists, minorities, etc) but this blog post needs to start going somewhere, and can’t just list every condemning biased post Matt has written. There’s already a blog called What is Matt Walsh wrong about today?; you can read it for more specifics.
The one time I got it wrong was when he wrote a piece called “Sorry, but it’s your fault if you’re offended all the time”. Without reading the piece, I assumed it was going to be his autobiography, because Matt Walsh blog is nothing but a guy whining about how he is constantly offended by some things that do matter and a lot of things that don’t matter. Seriously, I can’t find a cheery piece that he’s written in which he’s not trying to sell tickets and make himself money at some speaking event.
[Edit: Right after writing this piece, but before posting it, Matt Walsh wrote this cheery little number about why it is so great to get married. That’s going to be very funny when you get two paragraphs further into this blog and read how Matt Walsh wants to prevent people from getting married.]
People of the internet, you deserve a better blogger!
I’d like to do a breakdown of a more recent article from Matt that highlights each of the 5 faults I find in his uninspired work. This blog post of propaganda and bigotry was waiting for me in my facebook feed. The article is called ‘There Is No Such Thing as Marriage Equality”. This is a typical article form Matt. Go ahead and play the game where you predict exactly what Matt is going to say. It’s really easy.
Okay, now that you’re predictions are in, go ahead and read the article. Or don’t. It’s pretty much what you’d expect it to be.
Matt has two points as to why gay marriage should not be allowed:
• A relationship between two men or two women is not the same exact thing as a relationship between a man and a woman.
• Gay folks can’t have kids.
The rebuttals to these points are “so what?” and “yes they can”. Matt’s 2000+ word argument can be countered in 5 words. Also, both of these ‘reasons’ why gay people can’t get married are non sequiturs.
Reasoning isn’t Matt’s strong suit, but deception is. To really understand Matt Walsh and the kind of writer he is, I feel like there are 3 things that need to happen before you can really get to the heart of his blog posts. The first is to locate all of the straw men, then all of the non sequiturs, and finally all of the delusions. The second thing to do is cut out all of the ‘woe is me’ and the ‘what happened to the good ol’ days of yore’ and the ‘why is everything so bad now’ which does nothing but inflate his lacking content with a whiney diatribe. That’ll take awhile, because he has a lot of clutter in his articles. He likes to include tangential rants to reinforce that the boogeyman of liberalism is behind every problem. The third thing you do is read what remains once all of the nonsense has been removed from his article. In this particular post, once you cut all of the crap, you’re left with Matt Walsh saying “I don’t think gay people should get married because I don’t like it.”
Straw Man 1 – The article starts off explaining that poor little Matt is mad. Matt is mad because marriage equality is being forced on him and he doesn’t like it. Matt doesn’t like the fact that relationships that don’t involve him in the slightest are occurring, because Matt is a bigot who feels the need to insert his personal philosophies into peoples’ lives to rule over them as a self-entitled white conservative man.
Okay, I’m being intentionally mean, but I wanted to highlight what a straw man looks like. I started making fun of a caricature of Matt Walsh rather than the author who wrote the article I’m talking about. This is the kind of tactic that the actual Matt Walsh uses all the time.
Without straw manning Matt, we start off with Matt Walsh complaining that marriage equality can’t exist, therefore it shouldn’t exist, and therefore gay marriages shouldn’t be allowed. When everyone else in the English speaking world talks about ‘Marriage Equality’, they are talking about the ability for gay people to get married to members of the same sex. When Matt Walsh talks about ‘Marriage Equality’, he’s saying that a gay relationship isn’t the very same exact thing as a straight one, therefore it is null and void. Good straw man, Matt! Those things are not equal. You get a gold star! That’s still no reason to outlaw the real marriage equality, though. Matt just made a bad word game, and a dangerous one at that, which I’ll explain in Straw Man 5.
Straw Men 2 & 3 – Matt Walsh likes to insult people that don’t agree with him. In this article, he calls those people brainless, spineless, foolish, and he doesn’t say it outright but he gets very close to calling all his detractors godless, immoral, liberal, baby-killing Satanists trying to start a religion of debauchery. That’s not a straw man, that’s actually in his article [paragraphs 7 through 10]. You can find other similar rants against his detractors throughout his blog posts.
Specifically, in this one, he picks on people that use emoticons while communicating (which are mostly children, but I guess adults do it to) and Adam Sandler fans. That’s interesting, because I wasn’t aware that gay tolerant people used emoticons while anti-gay marriage folks never used them at all. Also, Adam Sandler is a conservative and that’s common knowledge. His fans are mostly teenage and college boys. These are folks, which in my experience, don’t really care about politics. Odd choices to be the downfall of civilization into ‘liberalism’. Emoticons and Adam Sandlar are annoying, I’ll grant Matt that, but they are hardly indications of poor intelligence. ;^)
Straw Man 4 – Liberalism is the constant boogeyman in Matt’s various posts. Liberalism is a thing, but what Matt Walsh is attacking is actually just a straw man/boogeyman. There are many folks that like to portray liberal thought in a scary way in order to inspire loyalty within their audiences. This is well documented and it is a common tactic found amongst conservative news sources. In this article, Matt claims that the foundation of liberal philosophy is the support of gay marriage and abortion. I don’t think he’s trying to be funny here or exaggerate, he honestly thinks that the wellspring of liberal thought is an abortion-centric place. Clearly this man has some issues when it comes to confirmation bias.
Straw Man 5 – No one is arguing that a relationship between two gay people of the same sex is the same as a relationship between two straight people of different sexes. That’s silly. I’m sure everyone can point out the differences. Despite this, Matt is acting as if this is the very obvious truth that everyone is blind to and that he needs to explain to his readers.
But let’s go down this rabbit hole. Is the marriage between a white man and a white woman equal to that of a black man and a white woman? Should one of these things be made illegal because it is not ‘equal’ to the other? According to Matt’s logic, yes, those interracial couples have a different relationship and shouldn’t get married.
Some folks might argue ‘eh, it’s close enough’.
And that’s the million dollar answer right there: “eh, it’s close enough.”
This is the same argument used to justify gay marriage. You’ve got two people, they are in love, they want to spend their lives together, and they want to get married. “Eh, it’s close enough.” Matt doesn’t want to acknowledge that there is wiggle room in where we draw the line on what is and isn’t marriage. Unfortunately for Matt, the line that used to exist is being erased and being replaced with one that does include gay couples, and the people moving the line are the Supreme Court Justices.
Straw Man 6 – Matt’s definition of marriage is weird. Matt seems to think that there is this unchangeable and time tested definition of ‘marriage’ that every single one of us has subscribed to and it can never change or else something bad will happen. That’s not the case, and that’s a blog post for another day, because ‘traditional marriage’ and ‘biblical marriage’ are two ideas that are horrifyingly bad in a modern context or any other historical context.
Matt thinks that there needs to be a chance for human procreation between the married individuals in order for a marriage to be legitimate. That shouldn’t matter, but to Matt it does. He even goes on to explain why couples that get married are selfish if they are not planning on having kids. My overall interpretation of Matt’s thoughts is that people who can’t or aren’t planning to have kids are not in a legitimate marriage.
Hey Matt, I’m married to my wife and my marriage is fine, even though we aren’t planning on having kids. You think my marriage is invalid or selfish? Well screw you. Your opinion doesn’t matter in the slightest to my wife and me. You know whose opinion does matter? The Supreme Court’s opinion, and they are on my side, and we are on the side of gay marriage being a reality.
Again, Matt’s narrowminded ideal of marriage would make it impossible for post-menopausal women, anyone sterile, veterans whose genitals were wounded, or couples that just don’t want kids to get married. Matt, who also wants to restrict sexual relationships to marriage, and marital relationships to those of people having kids, also lives in the 1800’s with the Victorian Era, and he oversteps his bounds when he tries to tell you what your sexual lifestyle should be. It isn’t surprising that Matt does this, he is a delusional man drunk on white patriarchal privilege that thinks he is in an authoritative position that can speak ‘absolute truths’ as to how you should live your life, you minority scumbag.
Non Sequitur 1 – Just because a relationship is different doesn’t mean it can’t be recognized by the state.
Non Sequitur 2 –Matt thinks that because gay people can’t have children that they shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Children have nothing to do with marriage. When I got my marriage certificate, no one asked me if I was planning on having children with my then fiancée. Children aren’t an issue. That’s just Matt pretending he’s the Emporer of the Universe.
Usually it’s a bad sign if both of your points in a debate aren’t related to the argument you are trying to progress.
Matt’s Various Delusions Expressed Throughout The Piece –
•That marriage has a definition we all agree upon, and isn’t some relationship status that fluctuates wildly from culture to culture and time period to time period, starting long before the bible was even a thought
•Liberalism, the boogeyman causing everything to fall apart
•Homosexuality is an implied evil
•Homosexuality is a sign that a civilization is becoming corrupt
•That all forms of Christianity and conservatism are against gay marriage
•That the Supreme Court doesn’t get the final say, Matt Walsh gets the final say
•There is some Liberal conclave working behind the scenes to bring down all that is right with the world in some sort of Lovecraftian horror story, who won’t stop until everyone is forced to have an abortion
•Gay people are infertile, and couldn’t possibly have children via a surrogate mother, a sperm bank, or maybe even a friend of the opposite sex just willing to help out
•There is some concentrated effort by Liberals to dumb the world down in order to achieve some kind of nefarious end that involves gay people being happy
• His own self importance
So what are we left with when we remove all the crazy from Matt’s post? Nothing relevant. If we erase all of the tangents about a liberal conspiracy theory, all of the straw men, all of the non sequiturs, and all the delusions, then Matt Walsh’s post is simply him stating his opinion that he doesn’t like gay people and they shouldn’t be allowed to get married because it makes him feel sad.
People of the internet, you deserve a better blogger!