Isn’t there some similarity between not being able to state scientific facts that hurt some people’s feelings and not being able to say that a person doing bad things is a bad person?
I understand the argument that we ought not to necessarily condemn the whole person for one bad act and be careful especially with children, and do believe that we need to leave the door open for genuine remorse and rehabilitation, but actually there are some people out there who struggle to accept norms and morals values because they want to do what they however they want it regardless of the consequences for others, but they still want to be seen as a ‘good person’.
They don’t want to develop a conscience and feel appropriate guilt or shame in-line with common moral values because they would mean facing restrictions and unfulfilled desires and the inability to deal with that leads to “boohoo, that’s so unfair and mean”, “why are you controlling me”, or worse.
I think with people like this we need to be clear, with them, that actually committing a multitude of bad acts does mean that you are in fact a bad person. Saying please and thank you politely does not undo the bigger harms.
Psychologically it would be better to help people to process shame in a healthy way, to enforce boundaries, demonstrate natural consequences and help develop more empathy so people can make better choices rather than to react with ‘be kind’ appeasement where we can’t hurt their feelings, Also to understand that arguing with some people about empathy and boundaries is sadly a pointless exercise.
I don’t think I would agree with Matt Walsh on many other aspects, but I always think that whilst misogynist men do not value women as they should, they do know full well what men can be like and this makes them very qualified to oppose men in women’s spaces.