HoeMath explains Renee Good
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
Because that's entirely un-fucking-helpful if you actually want to observe, or report, or predict anything going on with people and how they're acting and how they're treating each other right now.
There are about 15,000,000 different goings-on that affect what modern people are like and how they behave. Just because not every observation fully takes into account, oh, I don't know, Jekyll Island or Hamiltonian politics leading up to the American Civil War, doesn't mean these observations are irrelevant, ignorant, or wrong.
As I said before, not everyone has to be a one-stop-shop that delivers to you all the specific things you want to talk about, when you talk about anything. If you're a savvy participant or just listener to any of these news-ish podcast people, you've long since accepted that you don't have to agree entirely with them to appreciate the truth and insight that comes from them. But you've got to be smart about it, at least. For instance, I like Matt Walsh on a lot of things, when he's speaking truths about things he's knowledgeable about. The dude talks 10 hours a day on camera, so obviously he says a lot of stuff I don't care about, don't think is quite right, or is just riffing for infotainment purposes.
You could say the same about any or all of these people--Tucker Carlson, Sam Hyde, Matt Christiansen, Steve Crowder--whoever. They're folk. Take what's valuable, find enrichment in what you like, check their work and their sources if veracity is a priority for you, and ignore the content you don't like.
It's not. Sticking with my Civil Rights example, in order to predict that someone would file a lawsuit for racism, sexism, etc. in the work place, you have to be aware that's possible, and it's possible because of Civil Rights laws.
Anyway, which people are you even talking about? It's obviously not anyone powerful.
Matt Walsh's job is to get otherwise skeptical people to absorb ZOG propaganda by building trust by saying things they agree with. If you were being smart about it, you'd know that.
I don't really have anything else to say except that I think you're nutty. This stuff you've just said about Matt Walsh sounds absolutely fucking delusional. And you barely understand what I'm saying to you about commenters and commenting anyway.
Matt Walsh works for Ben Shapiro. What exactly do you think Shapiro's agenda is?
You're push-pin "therefore"-ing this to a weird degree. Walsh is published under the DW umbrella. However he's one of the bigger properties, and his content hasn't in any way significantly altered since he started being produced and hosted by DW. I don't have to like anyone else at DW, Shapiro included, to like Walsh. There doesn't seem to be inappropriate editorial standards applied to Walsh, and Walsh even often waddles up to and over the line of what's typically considered "on-message" for Shapiro and/or DW.
This association doesn't mean nothing to me, but it doesn't mean much. And anyway, this is just Walsh, who I only mentioned in passing as an example of another dude who talks about stuff. I don't like YouTube, but it's on their platform that a lot of decent content is still found. Same with any platform. I don't have to like the station overall to like a show on the channel.
This is what I meant several messages ago by saying that I don't care about this picayune bullshit. You were unfair and ignorant about hoe_math--applying standards to him that I find misapplied and weird. You're doing it with Walsh. You might even have a better case with Walsh (though "he's with Shapiro" isn't near good enough), but haven't really made that case either.
So far the common denominator is you. You don't just throw the baby out with the bath-water, you expect me to boycott the company who manufactured the tub. It's impossible to live intelligently and navigate the modern information environment this way.