Walsh gets a bad rap around here because of his character's view of videogames. Yes, I said character, because he is playing one.
He isn't a commentator, but a comedian like Andy Kaufman crossed with Archie Bunker. He uses his comedy to convey his political views most of the time, but there are cases where staying in character trumps his messaging. Hence, his "views" on videogames, where it wouldn't make sense for a boomer curmudgeon character to be in favor of them.
The guy is brilliant and absolutely hilarious, but most around here are too triggered by his trolling to see it.
I don't think being the right's version of Stephen Colbert would be the flex you imagine it to be. Are you saying his views aren't sincere? If it's all satire and he doesn't mean anything he says, fuck em. And Andy Kaufman is only liked by a niche audience desperate to view themselves as quirky geniuses.
Wrt to the Better Bachelor situation I'd argue that keeping your fucking word is a conservative value, and it's one of the few ways a real conservative walks the walk since letting retard activists tell you how to live your life is a leftist thing. That's why we're in favor of freedom to contract and okay with the enforcement of contracts despite our general suspicion of government power. I don't think cancelling the interview was a breach of contract to be clear, but being dishonest weasels about the whole thing was a very leftist thing to do. Cancelling the interview itself was a pussy move as well, which I point out because these clowns love to talk down to manosphere guys about masculinity. I'd say this is just another piece of evidence that they're LARPing grifters.
I'll also point that these guys are marriage shills, just like Crowder was before he got divorce raped. Going back to the idea of contracts, a real conservative would recognize that signing a contract that the other party is financially incentivized to break is a retard move. These guys would never try to shame a company into investing in a corrupt shithole where they can be robbed of their investment with no legal recourse. Yet they try to shame men into entering contracts with women that corrupt divorce courts financially incentivize women to break. It's very feminist of them.
You are just calling him a grifter over and over in more economic words, which says he isn't sincere in the slightest. Exaggeration is a form of insincerity too, and its probably the most common one among all political grifters who turn "this 300 years cycle is moving a fraction faster" into "THE WORLD WILL FLOOD NEXT YEAR."
I'd say his views are sincere enough, but he understands that it's his job. Political commentary is how he makes money. It's literally his career. So he does what keeps his paying customers happy. In the end it doesn't matter if he really believes as far as he says, but his boomer DW customers who pay the bills want to watch someone who appears to believe that way, so that's what he provides. I'm sure he doesn't like video games, but his real disdain might be a 4 out of 10, while the paying customer wants to see 10 out of 10 hatred for video games, so that's what he gives them.
To me this is a distinction without a difference. I didn’t care whether Anita Sarkeesian was doing what she did purely as a money grift and didn’t hate video games at all, or if she merely disliked them but played it up, or if she was/is a true believer.
The damage is the same whether or not the human garbage that espoused it was sincere.
I think the issue is that his attacks on gamers are largely indistinguishable from the feminists', not that he doesn't like video games. Him and his butt buddy Joel Berry were calling us incels at one point. If he (or his character as you claim) just didn't like video games and simply dismissed them as a waste of time I don't think people here would give a shit. As it stands he's a retarded tradcuck who's useful on certain topics, with troons and CRT being the big ones. But the minute he wanders into lifestyle discussions he exposes his extra chromosome. I wish he'd stick to things like this because it is a net positive. I'll also add that I really don't like how him and his team treated Better Bachelor when he won their Jeremy's Razors contest.
I don't like Walsh because he's the millennial spiritual successor of a neo-con boomer, a complete shabbos goy, and often wrong about things beyond his ken (vidya, Christianity, 'the dissident right'). A perfect example of this is his blatant obfuscation about the pre-Money era transgenderist movement starting with Hirschfeld. When confronted, he merely said he was "a German" instead of a Bolshevik Jew, but sure, he's just pretending to be retarded.
Or maybe we aren't interested in seeing another "character" who plays "nose on nose off" like John Stewart to dodge around criticism.
But if you are correct when are we supposed to take him seriously? Does he come with a manual about when its a joke or when its sincere political opinions? Or is just just when he gets pushback that it suddenly "just comedy bro" for him to say the exact same lines our enemies do?
Walsh gets a bad rap around here because of his character's view of videogames. Yes, I said character, because he is playing one.
He isn't a commentator, but a comedian like Andy Kaufman crossed with Archie Bunker. He uses his comedy to convey his political views most of the time, but there are cases where staying in character trumps his messaging. Hence, his "views" on videogames, where it wouldn't make sense for a boomer curmudgeon character to be in favor of them.
The guy is brilliant and absolutely hilarious, but most around here are too triggered by his trolling to see it.
"Pretending to be a faggot" isn't any better a defense than "pretending to be retarded" is.
Case in point.
If you're snookered by the likes of Walsh and the Daily Wire I'd be more worried if you approved of my opinions.
I don't think being the right's version of Stephen Colbert would be the flex you imagine it to be. Are you saying his views aren't sincere? If it's all satire and he doesn't mean anything he says, fuck em. And Andy Kaufman is only liked by a niche audience desperate to view themselves as quirky geniuses.
The DW's true purpose is to attempt to define the boundaries of acceptable conservatism and police anything straying outside of them.
Wrt to the Better Bachelor situation I'd argue that keeping your fucking word is a conservative value, and it's one of the few ways a real conservative walks the walk since letting retard activists tell you how to live your life is a leftist thing. That's why we're in favor of freedom to contract and okay with the enforcement of contracts despite our general suspicion of government power. I don't think cancelling the interview was a breach of contract to be clear, but being dishonest weasels about the whole thing was a very leftist thing to do. Cancelling the interview itself was a pussy move as well, which I point out because these clowns love to talk down to manosphere guys about masculinity. I'd say this is just another piece of evidence that they're LARPing grifters.
I'll also point that these guys are marriage shills, just like Crowder was before he got divorce raped. Going back to the idea of contracts, a real conservative would recognize that signing a contract that the other party is financially incentivized to break is a retard move. These guys would never try to shame a company into investing in a corrupt shithole where they can be robbed of their investment with no legal recourse. Yet they try to shame men into entering contracts with women that corrupt divorce courts financially incentivize women to break. It's very feminist of them.
You are just calling him a grifter over and over in more economic words, which says he isn't sincere in the slightest. Exaggeration is a form of insincerity too, and its probably the most common one among all political grifters who turn "this 300 years cycle is moving a fraction faster" into "THE WORLD WILL FLOOD NEXT YEAR."
To me this is a distinction without a difference. I didn’t care whether Anita Sarkeesian was doing what she did purely as a money grift and didn’t hate video games at all, or if she merely disliked them but played it up, or if she was/is a true believer.
The damage is the same whether or not the human garbage that espoused it was sincere.
Calling Anita human is quite a stretch.
I think the issue is that his attacks on gamers are largely indistinguishable from the feminists', not that he doesn't like video games. Him and his butt buddy Joel Berry were calling us incels at one point. If he (or his character as you claim) just didn't like video games and simply dismissed them as a waste of time I don't think people here would give a shit. As it stands he's a retarded tradcuck who's useful on certain topics, with troons and CRT being the big ones. But the minute he wanders into lifestyle discussions he exposes his extra chromosome. I wish he'd stick to things like this because it is a net positive. I'll also add that I really don't like how him and his team treated Better Bachelor when he won their Jeremy's Razors contest.
To say nothing of him swearing fealty to that little goblin Shapiro.
I don't like Walsh because he's the millennial spiritual successor of a neo-con boomer, a complete shabbos goy, and often wrong about things beyond his ken (vidya, Christianity, 'the dissident right'). A perfect example of this is his blatant obfuscation about the pre-Money era transgenderist movement starting with Hirschfeld. When confronted, he merely said he was "a German" instead of a Bolshevik Jew, but sure, he's just pretending to be retarded.
Or maybe we aren't interested in seeing another "character" who plays "nose on nose off" like John Stewart to dodge around criticism.
But if you are correct when are we supposed to take him seriously? Does he come with a manual about when its a joke or when its sincere political opinions? Or is just just when he gets pushback that it suddenly "just comedy bro" for him to say the exact same lines our enemies do?
kek