Attack of the Evil Liberal Genitalia

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." - John Stuart Mill

“I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it.” – John Stuart Mill (Well I can’t really put a picture of liberal genitalia in this article, can I?)

In his new capacity as Chief Conservative Ranter on the nasty ad-ridden site The Blaze, Matt Walsh continues to occasionally say true things while still being very wrong. I’m not even sure what’s more annoying, his words, or the ads that plague the website like internet herpes.

Just like when he wrote about a lesbian couple who sued Christians, he looks at the actions of a few liberals and then somehow reaches the conclusion that they perfectly represent all of them. He could just as easily apply his fallacy of composition to pop singers instead of liberals, but since he already has what seems like a compulsive fear and hatred of liberals, he jumps at a chance to attack them all at once.

As I said before, all this generalizing and attacking is immature and pointless. Matt Walsh has a history of antagonizing people who disagree with him; it’s how he makes money. Azealia Banks has, according to him, “achieved fame by taking off her clothes and saying inflammatory things about white people.” Similarly, he has achieved fame by spreading hate, insults, and inflammatory things about liberals and whatever other group he disagrees with.

Given Walsh’s history, it’s no surprise that someone who disagrees with him might respond in such a vulgar way. Does this mean I think Banks is a hero who should be applauded for what she did? Absolutely not. It is my humble opinion that sending someone a picture of your genitals in any context other than a mutually consensual situation is rude and childish. So is writing an article that uses such an incident to say, basically, that all liberals are self-righteous entitled brats with no standard of basic decency.

Walsh says that “if you have the right ideology…you can say whatever you want…you are untouchable. You will not be condemned by society. The media will leave you alone. Your bottom line will be unaffected. There will be no boycotts, no resistance, no blow back of any severity or significance.”

He seems to forget that he is media, and he is part of a major portion of society that does condemn them constantly. By writing his articles, publishing them, and thereby proving he has the privilege (or the right) of being able to say whatever he wants, he proves his own words wrong. The people he’s attacking don’t have the privilege of saying whatever they want without resistance because he is the resistance.

What he’s really trying to say, I think, is that the portion of media and society that shares the ideology of the person in question won’t provide any resistance. Of course, if you agree with someone, you’re less likely to criticize them, but even this point is wrong. I am one of those evil progressive liberals who Walsh hates so much, and I will gladly criticize Azealia Banks.

In my liberal value system, everyone has the same inherent worth and should have the same rights and opportunities, and should be equally free to exercise those rights. This is, in fact, the real definition of “liberal”. I also follow an approach of love, because I believe everyone deserves the same kindness I desire to be shown to me. I believe the right way to respond to someone who’s a jerk is with kindness. If they’re legitimately attacking, forceful responses are sometimes appropriate. But stooping to the level of a hateful, vulgar jerk by being a hateful, vulgar jerk in return will do nothing except continue the cycle.

It appears to be true that Matt Walsh didn’t respond to the vulgar attacks on him and his wife in the same vein. His article is mostly restrained, almost surprising considering his usual vitriolic tone. Almost surprising, but not really, because responding with restraint is the only way he can make himself out to be the victim. But the truth is that in this case, there are no victims (aside from possibly Walsh’s wife), there are only antagonists.

The bulk of his article, if you sort out all the exaggeration and fallacies and insults, holds a core truth about the biggest thing that annoys me about extreme progressives. Some of them do seem to have the idea that it’s perfectly fine for someone in an oppressed group to harass, insult, and threaten people who aren’t oppressed, and any backlash against them for doing so is just more oppression. This is not a view I support, and neither do my many liberal friends, as far as I know.

Mr. Walsh, if you would deign to associate with liberals, you might find that most of us are pretty normal people who actually do have standards of decency. Instead of letting your experience with one trashy individual define millions of other people, try reaching out with kindness and see what we might have in common.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s