Here's the problem with all of this.
People like Ben Shapiro ( who part owner of the DW ) always talks about how there needs to be dialogue. That cancel culture is bad and that the best to get rid of bad ideas is to discuss them out in open.
Matt Walsh who works for Daily Wire, while bringing the discussion of gender ideology and transgender, especially for minors to the forefront, has at times gone out of his way to ridicule and put down his critics without real discussion. Now, I do agree that when it comes to transgender stuff for minors, there should be little real discussion, but we know the left doesn't always have those belief. The real problem is that when it comes to adults, the DW had in the past taken the stand that adults can do what they want. But Matt Walsh has openly, without discussion, berated and criticized adult transgenders.
Now, it is obvious that adult transgenders are falling into two camps: those who believe it should be a personal, adult decision, and those who are basically loony tunes and are good with grooming children. The problem is that Matt Walsh has laid down friendly fire, so to speak. It's also obvious from twitter comments that the only way to put down "enemies" is to berate and heavily criticize. That is the only way to "win". That the 'left" does this all the time.
There are issues I see with all of this. First, Daily Wire, and at least Ben Shapiro in the past, has always leaned away against ridicule by using steel man arguments. I realize that commentators on their platform have their own voice, but at the same time culture can't be derived from activism, which is what Matt Walsh in essence is doing here. There is a huge difference between doing a piece called "What is a Woman" to berating people on the internet just to win a culture war. Transgenders who actually agree with him and might have been associated with him ( and ergo the Daily Wire ) may be less inclined to support Matt or the DW.
The other issue with activism is that conservatives are, at some point, going to have to convince the moderate middle that whatever culture war they are engaged in, that it is done in good faith. I used abortion in my example as an extreme case. I think it would be far easier to convince the middle that gender ideology is bad, and that gender ideology and transgenderism in the context of minors is repulsive, using good faith arguments. I think medical professionals and therapists would be far better convinced without Matt Walsh berating people on the internet. Many in these professions already feel a certain way, but don't publicly state that in fear of their jobs. While Matt has convinced state legislatures to enact laws on the conservative behalf, that does nothing to change people's mind on the issue.
While I took much of what the journalist that openly resigned from the Daily Wire wrote at face value, it is obvious that the Daily Wire really can't do real journalism, especially in part due to their commentators. I feel that FOX ran into this years ago, for example with Bill O'Reilly. While it was obvious FOX's main programming was trying to be geared more towards news, their commentators left residue on people's mind's that the news that was presented was somehow related. The fundamental difference here is that the Daily Wire is conservative and hosts conservative activists commentators. Ben Shapiro and the DW has to make a decision, either provide news with a conservative bias while having right wing commentators, or be a right wing activist company.
People can't won't trust them if they can't pick a lane. If they pick the former, the right will say they are just milqtoast ( as they did for years with FOX) and if they pick the latter, moderate conservatives will no longer trust their news reporting.
www.realityslaststand.com
because of this guy
