The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1014 - 'Preferred Pronoun' Nonsense Reaches A Whole New Level Of Insanity

Episode Date: September 1, 2022

Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm  Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Time Magazine takes virtue signaling to a whole new level by using and promoting so-called Neo-pronouns. At the same time they’re also promoting a phonographic children’s book, which is the real story. We’ll discuss. Also, the White House declares that half of the country are dangerous extremists, a threat to democracy, and should be incinerated in a missile strike. Paraphrasing slightly. An important Daily Wire report reveals just who is benefiting from student loan forgiveness. Winnie The Pooh gets the horror movie treatment. And a Duke volleyball player says she was the victim of racist harassment during a match. You’ll never guessed what happens next. Actually you will.  Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at jeremysrazors.com.    Get the brand new Johnny the Walrus Plushie here: https://bit.ly/3CHeLlu    — Today’s Sponsors:  40 Days for Life is one of the largest pro-life grassroots organizations in the world. “What to Say When: The Complete New Guide to Discussing Abortion” Available on Amazon OR at 40DaysforLife.com Bank On Yourself is a proven alternative to conventional retirement accounts that gives you guaranteed, predictable growth, unrestricted access to your money, plus tax-free retirement income. Get a FREE Report at BankOnYourself.com/WALSH Protect your identity with LifeLock. Save up to 25% OFF Your First Year at www.LifeLock.com/WALSH.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, Time Magazine takes virtue signaling to a whole new level by using and promoting so-called neopronounds. At the same time, they're also promoting a pornographic children's book, which is the real story we'll discuss. Also, the White House declares that half of the country are a dangerous extremist, a threat to democracy, and should be incinerated in a missile strike. Paraphrasing slightly, an important Daily Wire report reveals just who is benefiting from student loan forgiveness. Winnie the Pooh gets the horror movie treatment, and a Duke volleyball player says she was the victim. of racist harassment during a game. You'll never guess what happens next. Actually, you will.

All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show. Rovi Wade has been overturned and this battle is now finally not over, but rather leaving D.C. and going to the grassroots. No group in America is better positioned than 40 Days for Life with about one million volunteers in a thousand cities. 40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities. They have a larger presence in blue states, with California being their largest state where they're most needed.

Some former abortion facility directors say that these videos, Vigils can cause the abortion no-show rate to go as high as 75%, which is detrimental to their abortion business, to say the least. These law-abiding vigils have closed many abortion businesses in America, and nearly half of those closed abortion facilities were in liberal cities where abortion will remain legal, including San Francisco, Chicago, and Seattle. Forty Days for Life is effectively changing hearts and minds in the grassroots to end abortion. You can check out their locations, their podcast, and their free magazine at 40 DaysforLife.com. And it's so important that you do that because what we know,

is that the fight for life is certainly not over at all. It is in many ways, well, it's certainly entering a new phase, a very important phase. If you want more information on this, go to 40 Days for Life. On 40 Days for Life, go to 40 Days for Life.com. You know, when I was a kid, my two younger sisters used to sometimes speak to each other in a secret language they had made up. They claimed that they had invented a whole new dialect with its own unique words and sentence structures and rules of grammar.

it was pretty clear to me at the time, even more clear to me now, looking back in hindsight, that they were just babbling gibberish to each other and primarily doing it to annoy me, and they succeeded. And I sometimes reflect on those more innocent times, and I think about how my annoyance would have turned into crushing despair had I known what sort of world I would find myself in as an adult. If only I had known that I would one day live in a society where lots of people have invented their own secret gibberish languages, and that we would all be expected to listen to this gobbledy

gook and take it seriously and even speak it ourselves. I think if someone had told me that or told me like anything else about modern society, I would have simply gotten on a boat and set sail into the Pacific and found a remote island somewhere far away and isolated and lived out the rest of my days there. In fact, this is an option that I'm still actively considering even now, especially after seeing things like this. Time magazine, attempting to win the Nobel Prize in Virtue Signaling, published an interview last night with the author of a pornography book called Gender Queer. And we'll have more on that book later on. But they tweeted a link to the article with this caption. This is what it says. Time spoke to gender queer author and

illustrator Maya Cobabe about air work, the efforts to restrict access to air writing, and what A make of the current cultural moment. Now, those aren't typos, though it would be impossible to tell if they were. These are rather the pronouns that the author Maya identifies as. This is made clear in the article itself, reading just a small portion of it, it says, Maya Cobabe felt a wave of relief on Tuesday morning, waking up on the West Coast and early morning peek at emails revealed a Virginia court had dismissed a lawsuit seeking to label Cobab's book, Gender Queer, as obscene and restricted sale to minors in Virginia.

The suit was among the latest and an onslaught of challenges to Cobab's memoir, which was the most challenged book of 2021, according to the American Library Association. In the 2019 illustrated graphic memoir, Cobab, who uses E.M. Air pronouns, explores air process of coming out as non-binary and asexual. Cobabe 33 isn't the only author to face serious new challenges to air material. According to research by Penn America, a non-profit organization to advocate for free expression, 1,145 books by 874 different authors were banned from school libraries and classrooms between July 1st, 2021, 2021, and March 31st, 2022.

In the wake of Cobab's win in Virginia, Times spoke with the author and illustrator about air work, the efforts to restrict access to air writing and what A makes of the current cultural moment. Now, it may sound like A, spelled EY, would be like the Fons' personal pronoun, but the Fons lived before our society had one big collective stroke and started babbling nonsensically to each other. These are rather non-binary pronouns, so-called neo-pronounds, which is to say that they are words Maya simply invented in her troubled head and now demands we all use in reference to her. The argument often put forward in defense of neo-pronouns is that although they're made up,

well, so is every other word in the English language. This same talking point has been trotted out today by those looking to defend Time Magazine. But, of course, it isn't true. The English language is learned, not made up. As far as you're concerned, okay, you didn't invent the English language, neither did I. We don't leave children alone to come up with their own words for everything and then slap the label of English onto whatever they come up with. We teach them what words are and what they mean. Now, it's true, obviously, that every word we speak was at some point in the past formulated, right?

It made up, if that's how you want to put it. But this follows a logical process, and the words all mean something, and that meaning is understood and shared. by everyone who speaks the language. These are the two ironclad rules of language. It must mean something to be a word, and it must be shared. It must be a shared meaning. If either two of these rules are not followed, you don't have a language, you have gibberish. And by insisting that each person can simply come up with their own words and that those words don't need to really mean anything at all, the left is not proposing changes to the English language. Neither are they helping it to evolve, they are instead destroying it, breaking it down, demolishing it,

which is what they do to literally everything. I mean, you look at it like this. The sentence, please pass the salt, contains four words. Now, each of those words came into being at some point in the past. They weren't invented by one single identifiable person, okay, but rather they formed and evolved in a logical and understandable way. There's a whole field of study called etymology, which examines exactly this process of linguistic evolution. But if I were to one day simply decide that instead of saying, please pass the salt, I am going to say, Gabba Gouda Flaviddy, everyone else at the dinner table would look at me confused and assume that I'm either demonically possessed or attempting a very bad impression of a 90s era Adam Sandler. That's because

I cannot just decide on my own to replace existing words. with words that have logical, etymological origins with random sounds that I came up with. That's not how language works. And yet even this example at the dinner table does not capture the absurdity of the left's pronoun nonsense because at least in the case of the dinner table, I can tell you what my gibberish means. It means past the salt. But the person with the neo pronoun can't explain what it means because it means nothing. What does it mean to be an E.M. Air? What is that? Nobody can tell us. Nobody can explain it. Because it's simply nonsense. It's nonsense all the way down. It's nonsense on top of nonsense, on top of nonsense. And when you get to the bottom of the stack of nonsense, you find nothing. You're just hovering in an abyss. It is a made-up word which symbolizes nothing. Nothing that is other than the overwhelming narcissism of the individual who uses it.

Whatever else the non-binary person, quote unquote, claim to be communicating with her pronouns, what she's really conveying is that she is pretentious and self-absorbed in the extreme. That's what all of these pronouns really mean. It means I am incredibly, incredibly self-absorbed. Now, there may be something else going on here, too, as I was thinking about it. It's possible that part of the strategy with the neo-pronown is to, to make the left's other attempts at language manipulation seem less extreme by comparison. Maybe they're pretending to try to get us to use EMA or Z-Zem, Zebra, or whatever,

so that we'll throw up our hands and agree to call a man, she, or a woman, he, so long as they just leave it at that. Now, maybe that's the idea, because, like, in reality, no one is actually going to use those pronouns. No one, no normal person, nobody is going to go around saying, E-M-A, or no one's going to do that. And they must know that no one's going to do it. So maybe part of the idea is, all right, well, if you won't do this, then at least do this other pronoun stuff.

My kids sometimes use a similar strategy. They'll come up and say, hey, daddy, can you buy us a grenade launcher? What? No, I can't. I can't do it? Okay, well, then can we just have ice cream at least? And this might be part of the idea, though I may be doing the left an undeserved favor by assuming that there is clever as, you know, my nine-year-old. And yet we've been so hung up on the gibberish that we haven't even discussed the book that this person wrote.

And that might be another part of the plan here. This is the book that Time magazine is promoting. That book, Gender Queer, is a work of outright pornography with content so explicit and outrageous that I can't show it to you and I can't even describe it to you. suffice it to say that there are explicit images of various sex acts, along with scenes so depraved that you couldn't even anticipate them. So if you're imagining like what a pornographic book might consist of, yeah, it consists of a lot of that kind of stuff, but then also stuff that you wouldn't even think of. It's like just one example, which fair warning, this is highly disgusting and disturbing.

So, but this is one that I will describe to. there is one scene in which the author depicts a conversation with her sister where the sister suggests that she tastes her own vaginal discharge. And then we're shown a panel with her finger covered in that discharge. Now, I told you, it's disgusting. But at the same time, as much as we want to cover our ears and say, I don't even want to hear about this, these are the books they're putting in schools. They're putting these in schools for little kids to read. And what I just described to you is one of the less graphic moments of the book. It's one of the only moments I could even describe. Putting it in schools across the country for kids. And when normal, decent people object to this sort of content being used to educate children,

the left cries out in horror, claiming censorship and fascism. If you don't want explicit pornography taught to your kid in school like it's literature, then you're a fascist. Now, all in all, this whole story perfectly encapsulates our cultural moment, the entire thing, from the pronouns down to the book, right? Because it's inane nonsense on the surface. That's the E.M. Air pronouns. Nonsense on the surface.

And then when you look beneath the surface, what you find is vile, hideous, evil filth. Now, the good news, if we can call it good news, if there can be any good news, is that the nonsense is so nonsensical and the hideous evil is so hideous and so evil that the left is forcing people to finally make a choice. There is no neutral ground anymore. That time is long since past. Are you going to run around babbling absolute gibberish at the behest of narcissists intoxicated by the stench of their own farts? Are you going to do that? Are you actually going, Are you willing to do that? Even if up until this moment you were the sort of person who said,

I just want to be polite and I want to get along with people. And it doesn't hurt me if they want me to use the pronoun. Really? Yeah, I mean, it doesn't physically, well, actually, it would physically pain me to use those pronouns in a non-ironic way. But maybe it wouldn't physically hurt you. Yet, are you really going to do that? Are you going to keep a spreadsheet?

Maybe I'll carry a clipboard around with a spreadsheet, keeping track of all the gibberish words that each person that you know, each egotomaniacal narcissist you know, demands you youth, and before you refer to them or about them, you know, refer to that clip art. Are you going to do that? Are you going to tolerate literal pornography being taught as literature to children in school? Or are you going to finally draw the line and say, no more? I've had enough.

This is it. No. You can cry about it. You can say your feelings are hurt. You can call me a bigot. I don't care. The answer is no. Stop talking.

Stop demanding. No. Are you going to say that? That's the choice they're forcing. It's a time of deciding. I know what my answer is. You have to decide what yours is. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Have you been dreading looking at your 401k or IRA account? balance, you're not alone. But what if I told you that you could build a financial bunker that grows and protects your money during even the worst economic times? The Bank on Yourself Retirement Plan alternative lets you escape the financial carnage plaguing our economy and has never had a losing year in over 160 years. Whether you've been investing for years, if you're just starting out, now's the time to bypass Wall Street and bank on yourself. Bank on yourself helps you reach your financial goals without unnecessary risks. You get guaranteed, and retirement income without any luck or guesswork.

This strategy also lets you take a tax-free retirement income to protect you from the coming tax tsunami so all those 87,000 IRA agents can't get their filthy hands on it. Unlike your government controlled 401K or IRA, you control the money in your plan. Use your money with no questions asked without disrupting your savings growth and your plan doesn't go backward when the markets tumble. Get a free report with all the details of how adding bank on yourself to your financial plan can help you take back control of your money. Just go to bank on yourself.com slash walsh.

That's bank on yourself. dot com slash walsh. This information is for education purposes only is not a solicitation for the purchase of any financial product. All guarantees are based on the claims paying ability of the insurers. Okay, we begin with everyone's favorite

White House Press Secretary Karen Jean-Pair. Daily Wire reports, White House Press Secretary Karen Jean-Pair appeared to admit that President Joe Biden counts everyday Americans among those who constitute the extremist threat that he has repeatedly railed against. These are also the people that Joe Biden has threatened to blow up with fighter jets and has actually on multiple occasions made this threat.

During Wednesday's press briefing, Gene Pair told Real Clear Politics, Philip Wegman, that Biden was concerned about an extreme portion of the country. And she said that this was not limited to only those in positions of leadership within the Republican Party. We have that clip for you. Here it is. For folks sitting at home when the president is talking about preserving the soul of the nation and his threats to democracy, he's not referring to those individuals. He's talking about Republican leadership. Well, let me be very clear. It's not just Republican leadership. It's not just that blanket, right? He is talking about an extreme portion, an extreme part of the party. He's been very,

very, very clear about that. He was just in Maryland, as you all know, and he talked about Governor Larry Hogan and talked about how he is a conservative Republican who does not, who is not in that bucket, right? He was very clear, and he was very purposeful in saying that and being respectful to a conservative Republican who are not part of that extreme. So, again, want to be very clear here. This is not a blanket statement. This is calling out what we have seen for some time since 2017 as the president wrote about in his article right when you are when you are supporting an authoritarian figure as we have seen who is leading currently leading the former the former president you know and and and saying the inciting the violence that you are or

wanting to take away our freedoms you know we need to say something he's not going to shy way from that. Okay, so the MAGA Republicans are extremists, a threat to democracy, taking away people's freedoms, just by voting. Your threat to democracy, voting is a threat to democracy. Now, what we have to understand, of course, is that when she says MAGA Republicans, Ultra MAGA, you know, radical MAGA, whatever term they decide to use today, they're not talking about exclusively fanatical fans of Donald Trump. That's not what they're referring to. Now, if that was what they're referring to, it would still be wrong to call those individuals

extremists and threats to democracy, but this would still be a horrible thing for her to be saying. But it would be a much smaller group than what she's actually referring to. because according to Biden and the White House, and really any Democrat, any leftist, there are, as she described there, there are Larry Hogan Republicans. You're like Larry Hogan and Maryland. You're that kind of Republican conservative. Or you're a MAGA Republican.

That's it. You fall into those two categories. Well, there are, I don't know, 10 or 11 Larry Hogan Republicans in the country. And the only reason a guy like Larry Hogan gets elected there is because there are just no other options if you are a Republican in that state. and given that it's a blue state is the only kind of guy that can actually get elected there. So there's that. Or you're a MAGA Republican. And you could be a MAGA Republican.

Doesn't matter how you feel about Donald Trump. All that means is that you are actually, another way of putting it, what she's actually referring, a conservative. If you're actually a conservative and you believe the things that you say, then you're a MAGA Republican. I certainly would fall into this. I definitely would be included as right as an extremist threat to democracy. I've been told this many times. I'm a terrorist. I'm a stochastic terrorist.

I'm a maggot Republican. Meanwhile, I'm critical of Donald Trump. I criticize them all the time. I'm very open about the fact. I want DeSantis in 2024, not Donald Trump. If we can't have DeSantis that ends up being the nominee, then I'll vote for him over the Democrat, of course.

But I'm openly advocating for somebody else. Ron DeSantis. Still a MAGA Republican. Fine. We're all extremist threats to democracy. So this is, she says it's not a blanket statement. It's not a blanket statement. It's just a statement that applies to tens of millions of people in the country. That's, that's all it is. It's not a blanket statement. I'm just, you know, writing off like half of the

country at least as extremists and threats to democracy. This is a very, to put up mildly concerning moment in history. I used the phrase a few days ago. to describe a similar situation as pre-genicidal, and I really mean that. These are the kinds of language, the kind of language that they're using, the things that they're saying, this is pre-genocide talk. It's the kind of thing you say before you start rounding people up. And so we have seen this escalation, and it has taken on a new urgency. and severity over the last, even just the last couple of months.

Now we have the White House saying half the country are extremist threats democracy. As we talked about on backstage last night, if you watched that show, if you didn't watch, you can go to YouTube or DailyWire.com and watch the episode, which was one of my favorite backstage, by the way, so you should watch. But we talked about yesterday that, you know, Ben Shapiro at the podcast movement conference, his very presence, your presence is harmful to people, not your opinions. Not even that. That'd be bad enough to say your opinions are harmful. Your presence, your physical presence. Well, how do you solve that? How do you solve somebody's presence? And then, of course, we've also been told, especially over the last couple of weeks that we're terrorists. By simply, not even presenting opinions, but by talking about things they don't want us to talk about, presenting facts that they wish were not facts, or at least wish nobody knew about. We are terrorists.

Your presence is a threat. You're an extremist threat by voting for the candidates that you like. You're a terrorist. And there's something else I want you to think about, too, that I also brought up on backstage yesterday. There is, I think, quite intentionally here, a self-fulfilling prophecy. They keep calling us radical, dangerous, violent. None of those words apply. It's not true.

but they want it to apply. They're trying to provoke it. And the thing is using these words about people, when you label entire groups this way and start talking about them like they're dangerous, like they're worthless, like their very presence is a problem that needs to be solved, that has a radicalizing effect on people.

And then you add to that because the other part of this story here is while we're all being labeled and dismissed and talked about like we're, you know, terrorists and criminals. On the other end of the spectrum, there is an increasing lack of accountability. Now there is just no accountability at all. What we find about people on the other side is they can simply say and do anything they want. I know you might say, well, that's been the case for a long time.

I think it's, yes, but it's even more of the case now than it was in the past. It's worse now than it's ever been. It seems to me. If you're on the left, you can just do whatever you want. Say whatever you want. No accountability. that also has a radicalizing effect on the other side because people become desperate. When you see the powers that be doing whatever they want, acting lawlessly if they want,

no accountability, makes people desperate. They don't know what to do. And then when they're being labeled this way, it makes them angry, angry, desperate, marginalized. It leads to a potentially volatile situation, which is, exactly what these people want, by the way. All right, this was good from an NBC reporter, Kat Tenbarge is her name. I just wanted to mention this briefly.

She tweeted, more people need to be talking about Jackson, Mississippi. The city ran out of bottled water to give residents yesterday. It's the largest city in Mississippi. It's 80% black. Their water system is failing because of years of neglect. This is environmental racism. Now, the situation that she's talking about is true, and it's a terrible situation. Jackson, Mississippi is one of the many municipalities in our country that's falling apart at the scenes.

Being horrifically mismanaged. People are suffering because of it. She says it's racism. Well, that's interesting. I went and, as other people have done, I went and I wanted to see, like, who are the racist people running this town and who are neglecting the water system and people? are suffering who are these racist people? So I went and I found, well, racist number one is, of course, the mayor. He's run in the city. And his name, by the way, is Chakway Antar Lumumba. Now, it may surprise you to learn that is not the name of a white person. The mayor is a black guy.

But I went and looked at the city council. Maybe that's where all the racists are. There are seven people on city council. Four of them are black. Majority black. In fact, if you go down the Jackson, be government and you look at people in positions of power, it is predominantly black. And so it's a little bit hard to blame racism on this. And also, by the way, of course, and this is the most important aspect, they're all Democrats. I mean, all these cities are being run by Democrats. Many of them have city governments that have a heavy minority presence. A lot of these racist police departments have black police chiefs. So it would seem that we need an explanation beyond anti-black racism,

especially because it's not like the Democrats just took over yesterday. And it's not like they just started electing minorities to lead these cities yesterday. No, it's been the case for a long time. And yet these problems are worse than they've ever been. in many cases. No, it's not, here's what it is. It's not racism. Let me try to help you out, Kat Tembarge.

Racism is not the issue. There is an issue, and you've pointed to it in Jackson, Mississippi, the issue with the water. It is a, it is not racism, but rather a universal disregard for the well-being of human beings. And that disregard, they are, they are very equitable. right, the Democrats that are running these cities are quite equitable in their disregard because they apply it to everybody. Now, they might talk about different groups differently, but they actually have a disregard for the well-being of everyone. They don't care. They don't care because they're corrupt, they're power-hungry, they're not there to help anyone. That's not what they care about. And also, they're beholden to their religion, the religion of leftism, which keeps them firmly implanted in a, in a, in a,

in a fantasy world, not in reality. And when you live in a fantasy world, you cannot solve practical problems in the real world. It is one of the reasons why these cities are falling apart, because they are plagued by practical problems. When I say practical problems, I mean just real problems, things that are really happening to people, that would have potential solutions, but the solutions are also practical. They're not solutions that you can solve by simply talking about it or writing dissertations, writing a thesis, studying about it at college. You can't solve it that way, to solve it by doing things. But that requires you to live in reality and they don't.

So that's the issue, just so you know. Luke Roziak over at the Daily Wire has, I think, a really important report here about the student loan, so-called student loan forgiveness plan, and who actually benefits from it. So here's what he reports. The vast majority of student loans are racked up by people in elite professions like medicine and law who spend years in school before being rewarded with high-paying jobs, a daily wire analysis of Department of Education data shows. A smaller component is billions of dollars in loans to people with less marketable degrees who incur debt that amount to a bad investment, such as $100 million a year in loans for gender and ethnic studies. I didn't even realize it was that much. I mean, I've been saying this whole time that the student loan forgiveness is like we're taken from plumbers and electricians and car mechanics and given the money to gender studies majors.

I didn't realize how true that actually was. A hundred million a year just in gender and ethnic studies loans. This leaves them with salaries that are unable to pay for the loans. The data suggests that President Joe Biden's plan to forgive student loans amounts to a subsidy primarily to Dr. and lawyers, and secondarily to people who acquired knowledge and skills that are not in demand. So this is the majority of student loans, vast majority, belong to people who work in professions that reward them with very high salaries. So it is, in some ways, even worse than, yeah, we're taking from the plumbers, electricians,

car mechanics, blue collar people, and giving to gender studies majors. that's bad enough, but at least the gender studies majors, most of them are unemployed, thank God. Not that they deserve to be given anybody's money. Even worse is you're also giving to people who have jobs and are doing quite well in those jobs. The data suggests that President Joe Biden's plan to forgive student loans amounts to a subsidy, primarily to doctors and lawyers. It says, quote, the bottom line is that this move is a massive debt transfer from those who took out

student loans onto those who chose not to or could not attend college. Biden has said he will cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for those who had received Pell grants and as much as $10,000 for borrowers who make up to make under $125,000 per year or $250,000 for married couples. This would include many doctors who often spend their early career as a low-paid residence on the way to earning big bucks. And even by the way, making $125,000, that's the cutoff. Now, if they actually were focused only on poor and middle income people, then that's where the cutoff would be. Right? They'd put the cutoff at $50,000 a year, $40,000, whatever, $30,000. If you're making $125,000 a year as a single individual, meaning you don't have kids or

dependents or anything, you're doing very well. Now, that's how well you're doing is going to depend on where you live, but really no matter where you live, if it's just you make a you're making six figures? And we're giving $10,000 to those people? I mean, if you're making six figures by yourself with no one else to take care of and you don't have a lot of money in the bank and savings, then that's on you. I mean, you are catastrophically irresponsible. And you don't deserve a dime from anybody else. And then it goes on for that. I would just go and read the report because it lays out, you know, the field of study, the total annual federal loans, annual loan per person. There's a chart here and it goes through that. And you see very

clearly that the vast majority of the loans, again, are to people in these kinds of high-paying professions. And they're going to get this loan forgiveness. This is why it's so important when we talk about this issue. You know, we want to talk about the facts. And we're going to talk about the facts. And We want to be very logical. And we also want to deliver the harsh truth, which I am always very willing to do. The harsh truth is that you made a decision you signed on the dotted line, and you should be the one who has to deal with that. I mean, it's your burden to carry. I'm sorry, you have to carry it, but it is your burden.

So that's the harsh truth, and we need to deliver that. but I also think we we cannot neglect the compassionate argument and this is a mistake that we make on the right I certainly make it all the time where we sort of skip over that I mean say well who cares about that let's talk about logic and facts let's get down to the let's get down to brass tax here

no because then we're kind of seeding that we're surrendering that it's as if oh well they have a compassion on their side we have logic and facts we do have logic and facts we also have compassion them because our position is the more compassionate position on really every topic, including this one, because my position on student loan forgiveness, so-called, the reason that I'm against it, it has to do with the facts, it has to do with logic,

it has to do with the harsh reality and that you have to face it. But it's also a moral position that I've taken and that a lot of us have taken. It's a compassionate position. I have compassion for the blue-collar workers who didn't go to college, didn't incur that debt, but probably have plenty of other debt that they're dealing with, mortgages and car payments and everything else, and who knows what else, medical bills, and who now are being given the burden to support people who are way better off than they are. So I have compassion for them.

It's part of the reason I'm taking this position that the rest of us have. And we can't neglect that. I think we have to be very clear about that. Here's an interesting report from The New York Post says Twitter was ready to start selling only fan-style porn subscriptions in a bid to boost its revenue, but put the feature on ICE earlier this year due to concerns about child porn, according to a new report. The social media site allows users to post-porn but gives them no way to monetize it. Twitter created and considered launching an only-fans-like subscription feature that would let porn stars sell nude photos and videos. So they were going to combine basically only fans in Twitter and put it right on your feed if you're on Twitter. The decision would have been controversial and risked alienating advertisers but could also have helped Twitter differentiate itself from other social media sites. How so?

We're going to differentiate ourselves from other social media sites by being even more pornographic than all the other ones. That's really, that's unique. There's a unique strategy. You know what we're going to do this is the brain trust over Twitter. I have an idea. This is how we're going to set ourselves apart. Listen to this, okay? Listen, we're going to have raunchy stuff. Can you believe it? No one's thought of that on the internet yet. That's what we're going to do. In April, Twitter assembled an 84-person red team to pressure test the decision to allow adult creators to monetize on the platform by specifically focusing on what it would look like for Twitter to do this safely and responsibly. the team

How are we going to profit off of smut? How are we going to profit off of hardcore porn safely and responsibly? The team reportedly found a slate of disturbing holes in Twitter's plan, including that the site is unable to consistently detect and take down non-consensual in child porn. The Red team reportedly wrote,

Twitter cannot accurately detect child sexual exploitation and non-consensual nudity at scale. Launching a porn subscription service, would make the risks worse, the Red Team reportedly found, because smut sellers would be incentivized to flood the platform, and much of the porn would be hidden behind a paywall. The Red Team also reportedly warned that adding more porn to the site would lead to scrutiny from lawmakers, and it would annoy longtime users. There's a couple of points here worth making.

One is that Twitter encountered a fact, which is that, you know, Twitter encountered a fact, which is that when you open the floodgates to pornography, a lot of child pornography and non-consensual pornography, otherwise known as rape, which is what all child pornography also is, that is all going to, you open the floodgates, all that rushes in. It all comes hand in hand. You cannot separate it, which is one of the arguments I have always made for restricting pornography across the board and across the entire internet. There are other arguments you can make for it that I've articulated and others are articulated. But this is one of them, that this all goes hand in hand. And as long as you have this laissez-faire attitude about it and you say, oh, you just say, whatever, leave all the porn alone.

The more porn sites, the better. No restrictions in place, right? Porn hub, it's just there. Anyone can access it. Nothing stopping anyone. As long as you do that. you are providing cover to child pornographers. I mean, the only way to actually seriously battle child pornography

and suppress it, get rid of it, punish it, is to, you know, apply that attitude to all pornography. You know, it's to take a much stricter approach to all pornography. It's the only way to do it. But then the other point here, too, is that the youngest age allows, you know, on Twitter, I believe, is 13. That's their, at least, you know, if they changed it recently, I don't know. But for a long time, anyway, the, and I think it's still the case. That's what their terms of service is, youngest age allowed is 13. Now, there are obviously kids that are younger that are on the platform anyway. But that's what they, that's what they specifically allow,

13-year-olds. So you have to ask yourself, why are they allowing pornography on the site at all when you know and have specifically allowed kids to use it. And not only do you allow it, but you're trying to think of ways to get more porn on the site. And the only reason you stopped yourself is because of the child porn problem. And the only reason that that stopped you probably was just because of the legal implications of that. So maybe that's a question we should ask you. Why have pornography at all on a platform that kids are using? Yet another argument for restricting this stuff.

We've just gotten used to this. We've gotten accustomed to it like it's normal or it should be. On the same platforms that kids use, just throw pornography on there too. Making no attempt to protect the kids from it, none. That's why it's always absurd. You hear the argument from the porn apologists and they say, oh, you know, this is, it's always, there's always been porn in the world. And, you know, back in the day, kids could look at a Playboy magazine.

Well, it certainly wasn't nearly as readily available. they were not being exposed to it at nearly so young an age. And if they were exposed to it, it was not going to be nearly as depraved and disgusting and traumatizing as what kids are routinely exposed to now. But also, there were rules in place. Like, you couldn't, a kid, maybe at a gas station would have a porn magazine on the rack. It would be in plastic of the back of the rack.

But it was expected of the gas station, the attendant. If a kid takes the porn magazine off the rack and goes up to pay for, he's going to be stopped from doing so. Now, is that going to prevent him from ever seeing porn again? No. But there are laws. There are basic laws in place and regulations to put some kind of protection, some kind of insulation. And now with internet porn, there's nothing. There's basically no laws, no regulations.

Nothing at all. No attempt even to protect kids from. I have no patience for the people who say, well, we can't. There's no way to protect kids. We haven't even tried. So you're saying, let's not even try. It's not worth the effort. And what is the downside of trying if you were to at least, before we get into stricter policies or banning porn before we even get there? What about just requiring that porn sites all of them verify ages? And not just by clicking something, but actually verify it. Photo ID, credit card, something. There are ways to do this.

What about that? What is the argument against? That wouldn't stop every kid from ever seeing porn again. It would at least put some sort of insulation there. It would put some barrier of protection. It's something at least. and it would protect at least some kids, some of the times, and that's worth doing. What's the argument against it?

The argument is that, well, it's inconvenient for me. The argument, the only argument is from the porn user that he doesn't want to be inconvenienced by that. I just want to have immediate access to all the porn I want. I don't want to put anything in between me and the porn. So your ease of access to pornography, not being inconvenienced, is worth exposing millions of kids to hardcore pornography every single day. It's a indefensible argument. It really is. All right, speaking of indefensible, last thing here,

Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain recently, and so a filmmaker came along and scooped it up and turned it into a slasher horror flick because this is, I don't know how all the laws here work exactly, but it's in the public domain, so they can at least make a movie with Winnie Apparently, there's still some copyright things, like they couldn't give him his trademark red shirt, so they put him in a flannel instead.

But anyway, the trailer for this Winnie the Pooh horror film was just released. Let's watch a little bit of that. You know, you're the first person I ever shown this place to. Why am I so special? Because soon will be Christopher and there you love him. You should be close now. We're not going to find them. We will.

Pooh. Piglet. I mean, we were friends for many years and they're out there. Christopher, we need to leave now. I really need to find out what's happening, okay? You know, I wanted to, most people are having fun with this. I wanted to laugh at it, but I actually kind of hate it. I mean, it's not serious, it's not meant to be taken seriously. I assume it's supposed to be basically a joke, although it is a real movie that's coming out.

But I kind of hate it because just everything about childhood is being perverted and destroyed. It's all corrupted. And now they're doing this to Winnie the Pooh. I mean, not Winnie. Not the Pooh. First they got Pooh-Shai-Sty. Now they got Winnie. All the poos are going down.

And so I don't have the appetite for it or the, or it's like not the right frame of mind because of the cultural context where everything is being taken away from children. and everything is becoming. That's also because it's not really funny because this is like all childhood, everything associated with childhood has been corrupted, and they've done this with everything. So it's not even novel anymore.

And the last, whatever last remaining innocent bits of childhood there are, just like leave them alone. And by the way, I'm not saying that they're destroying my childhood because that annoys me when adults say that, when something like this happens

or some new version of a show that they liked when they were kids comes out. They say, oh, you're destroying my childhood. No, it's not your childhood. Your childhood is over. My childhood's been over for almost two decades. So I'm not worried about my childhood being destroyed. My childhood already happened and it was not destroyed.

I'm worried about my children's childhood currently being destroyed. That's the issue. So leave Winnie the Pooh alone. Damn you. Let's get to the comment section. Testing scams, also known as smishing. That's not what they're known. I'm not calling him that. No one has calls them that. I never heard anyone say smishing.

A mashup of SMS and phishing smithers send you enticing or alarming smithing messages. Oh my gosh, I've been smithed. Now the best thing you can do when you're getting smithed, best thing you do is receive one of these fake messages if you're receiving is to block the sender so you don't get smithed anymore. It's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft and smithing are affecting our lives. your personal information gets exposed to things like smithing so often that it's dangerously easy for a cybercriminal to smish your identity completely. Protect your identity, and you can do that easily with LifeLock by Norton. LifeLock detects and alerts you to potential identity threats that you may not spot on your own, such as smithing. If you do become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated U.S.-based restoration specialist will work to fix it. Nobody can prevent all identity theft or all smishing or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but it's easy to help protect yourself with LifeLock identity.

theft protection starts here. Join now and save up to 25% off your first year at lifelock.com slash walsh. That's lifelock.com slash walsh for 25% off smishing. Michelle says, okay, Matt, you have to tell me what you were talking about at the beginning of your members block yesterday. The segment started with you in the middle of a conversation with Sean. All we heard was that you were in someone's house and afraid they might murder you. Yeah, well, these are the kinds of conversations that you miss out on if you're not a daily I remember and thus cannot watch the members block of the show, which by the way, you definitely want to watch the members block today because we have a special guest on with us.

So you want to watch it? I will. Okay, here's what I was, here's what I was briefly telling him before we went on the air, and then partially when we were still on the air. Here's what it was referring to. A couple of days ago, I rented a U-Haul after work, and when I drove down to someone's house to pick up a couch that my wife had bought. like a used couch because I'm not going to pay full price for furniture.

That's an insane thing to do. There's no reason to do it. And the difference in price sometimes, it's up with something like a leather couch, the difference. You're talking about a difference in like $5,000 potentially. So we found this, she found this really nice couch. And so I just, you know, I got the U-Haul and I drove down to pick it up. I didn't even really think about it until I was in the U-Haul driving down.

and I thought, I don't know if, I'm not sure if this is the kind of thing I can do anymore, because what if this person, who knows, if this person recognizes me, if they know who am, and they don't like me, I'm just like walking into a stranger's house. Oh, the couch is down here in this basement. Come along, Matt. Anyway, it turned out fine, and the person was totally normal, and they didn't indicate that they recognized me at all, so it was completely fine. But I don't know. Rolling the dice, I suppose, all for the sake. of a good deal on furniture, which means that I would do it again.

Zach says, Matt, you're being too hard on Kim. She may be wrong on this one topic, but she's really good on vaccines and other subjects. It's not fair to completely dismiss her and throw her in the trash as you have. Lori agrees, don't be too hard on Kim. I follow you both and tend to agree with you on this one, but she's a very honest journalist. There are quite a few comments like that saying, oh, you're being too hard on Kim. She was the woman I responded to the Daily Cancellation yesterday. Look, there are topics where I can disagree with somebody, but I can still respect them,

and I could even still embrace them as an ally, as the left would like to say. You know, as someone who could still be on my side generally in the culture and be very useful and valuable in the fight. There are topics like that where we can have that kind of disagreement. This is not one of those topics. I'm sorry. Talked in the beginning about drawing lines. This is a line I draw. If you can't get this right, then I just have no use for you. And I cannot respect you. I just can't. If you cannot get this right, if you cannot at a minimum understand why it's wrong to mutilate children, chop their body parts off, castrate them. If you can't understand that, or for whatever reason,

are pretending that you can't, then I can't respect you. I'm sorry, I can't. It is the most horrific thing. It's one of the most horrific things a person can support or advocate for or defend. And so, you know, we have to have some kind of fundamental shared value system for us to be on the same side. But if your value system allows you to defend that, then there is no way, our value systems are shared. They're not even in the same universe. So there are topics where you've got to be on the right side of this one. This is basic level stuff, okay? I mean, I'm not setting the bar very high. I'm really not. I'm not saying you have to agree with me on every single topic. But this, if you can't get over this bar, if you somehow trip on the bar

of, you know, not defending the sexual mutilation of children, then I got no use for you. That's it. And I don't care. Oh, she was right about vaccines. I don't care. I just don't. That's it. Anthony says, even Matt Walsh, even Matt Walsh has been, I don't know why I just said my name like that. Even Matt Walsh has been effing program to say reach out instead of contact, most annoying phrase ever. I do accept that admonition, actually. I've noticed that about myself, especially recently, that I say, even in emails, and I'm writing an email to somebody. I wanted to reach out and I hate myself when I'm writing it, but for some reason I can't, I have been programmed. I'll have an existential crisis while I'm writing an email and I'll begin it with, oh, I just wanted to reach out. And then I stop and think, no, I don't want to say this.

I don't know what else to say here. I'm sure there's another way to start an email. I don't know how to do it. I think it's just being in an office environment. I've sent too many office-related emails and I have been brainwashed on this one. I admit. So you actually are not banned from the show. I will accept that, that rebuke humbly. Let's see. Finally, Lady Jess says, hey, Matt, a few years ago, I discovered the perfect solution to the lost sock problem. Your system is way too complicated. All you need to do is this. Safety pin your socks together. That's it. It's that simple. Every time you take your socks off, safety pin them together at the top and then throw them in the hamper.

They stay pinned together through the wash and dry cycle so you don't end up losing one in the process. How much time do you think I have in my life? You think I have an extra, an extra 47 hours a week that I can pen it, that I can carve out to sit there safety pinning socks? Yes, that's how long it would take. Forty-seven hours, I've decided. What do you want? So I'm going to have, like, in my closet, just a little tray of safety pins. And I don't have time for that, okay? No one has time for that. It's just, that's, if I have a sock bag, I can throw them in the sock bag. That I can do. Because I can do that whole thing. I can do that in one second. But the safety pin, I got to make sure I have a stock of safety pins. I've got to pin them together. This is a long process. There's the risk involved that I could prick my finger, get blood on the socks. No, not a good solution. Sorry. So since I showed you that Ben is drowning and stuffed Walwurst, his team finally found the one true Walrus, the official, Johnny the Walrus plushy, displaying him in all his cuddly, love. glory, yet here I said, still deprived of what is rightfully mine. I haven't even seen one of these

little walruses, let alone the gargantuan, behemoth walrus that is imprisoned somewhere beyond my reach in an undisclosed location. The outpouring of support during backstage last night was encouraging, but nearly warmed the walrus-shaped void in my heart. Though I, your leader, suffer in relative silence, complaining only with a frequency in direct proportion to the discomfort I've experience. I wish nothing short of the multitudes of all versus for my sweet baby. So go forth to DailyWire.com slash shop or click the link in the description to get your very own. I give you my blessing. Next promo. Your razor is needed. Here at the Daily Wire, we're doing everything we can to loosen the left's grip on the culture. We're making movies and documentaries like

what is a woman that expose radical gender ideology and challenge leftist ideology as well. We're creating kids' content that parents can trust. We even have sued the government over unconstitutional mandates. It's a lot of work, and there's still a long way to go. But you can help with just two simple steps. One, stop shaving with your woke razor. Two, start shaving with your Jeremy's razor. And that is right here.

They did warn me this time, so this is all on me. This is on me, folks. If you're still not shaving with a Jeremy's razor, chances are you're funding leftist plots. building alternatives and the left is betting their bottom billion dollars that you won't use those alternatives. Prove them wrong. Shave with Jeremy's Razors. Go to jeremy'sraisers.com. Get your founder series shave kit today. DailyWire Plus members get 25% off. Jeremy's Razors shut up and shave. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. Well, I'm late to this story,

but only because there's so much fake racism in America that it's hard to keep up. So, and it can become overwhelming at times. You know, one fake racist is handled and then only in another even faker racist comes along. We're completely surrounded on all sides by invisible imaginary races. They are all over the place. They're leaving nooses in NASCAR garages. They're leaving nooses everywhere, actually. They're writing notes and leaving them on people's cars.

They're assaulting obscure television actors in Chicago. They're traumatizing black children at parades. And now they're even attending volleyball games. Let's rewind to last Friday night. There's a women's volleyball match between Brigham Young University and Duke. It's at BYU. After the game is finished, a woman named Lessa Pamplin, who identified herself as the godmother of Duke volleyball player Rachel Richardson,

took to social media and announced that Richardson had been the victim of a dastardly racist incident during the match. Now, she claimed that every time Richardson served, a racist man in the stands shouted the N-word at her. And she said that after the match, this same man threatened her physically, went up to her and told her that she better watch her back as she walks to the team bus. I mean, horrible stuff. The Blaze reports on what happened next. Richardson later claimed in a statement that, quote, my fellow African-American teammates and I were targeted and racially heckled throughout the entirety of the match,

the slurs and comments grew into threats, which caused us to feel unsafe. Richardson alleged BYU officials were notified of the alleged threats and slurs, but failed to take the necessary steps to stop the unacceptable behavior and create a safe environment. Richardson reiterated many of these comments in an ESPN interview on Tuesday. Now, naturally, ESPN took the story and ran. And when I say took it and ran, I don't mean in any sort of journalistic sense. Okay, it's not like they investigated, asked questions, tried to get to the bottom of it. They were not curious about any part of this story.

It didn't even strike them as strange that this is the year 2022 and everybody has a cell phone. And yet nobody caught any of this on film. Someone was screaming racial slurs through the entire match and, nobody got it on camera. It didn't seem curious to them that no other witnesses came forward to confirm the story. They didn't notice that this whole thing sounds exactly like so many other stories that all, and I mean all, every single one turned out to be hoaxes. And it certainly didn't seem odd to them that some guy in the stands would randomly decide to completely destroy his own life permanently for the sake of insulting some girl on a volleyball team. I mean, they weren't worried

about any of that. So they breathlessly reported Richardson's claims as if they were objective fact and spent days screaming with stupid spittle-flect rage about the incident. And when it comes to stupid spittle-flect rage, nobody can top Stephen A. Smith. He's the expert. I'm saying, BYU, you did it by allowing this to happen and not addressing it expeditiously, not addressing it with the level of quickness. that you should have addressed it with. So now instead of looking at that fool, that racist bastard that was spewing that nonsense

towards Ms. Rachel Richardson, instead of looking at that person, now we're looking at the university all the cause of a dereliction of duty that you put forth because you couldn't find it in yourself to address it immediately. Now we ask the question,

well, why? What took you so long? What would the hesitancy about? Did you, were you fearful of a reprimand? Were you fearful of a backlash if you had decided as a human being to do the right thing and protect this young lady and to make sure she wasn't subjected to this for a longer period of time? What was going on? What was the hesitancy about? And since we're talking about BYU, now we're looking at every university. Hmm.

So brave. That racist bastard who doesn't exist, but he's a bastard. Stephen A. Smith, by the way, has been in broadcasting for decades. and still does not understand how microphones work. I wish someone would explain to him. You don't need to scream. We can hear you. The microphone amplifies your voice.

But it wasn't just Smith screaming about this. The news media got in on it, of course. Other athletes and celebrities spoke out. LeBron James got in on the action as expected. And then, as also expected, the story started to fall apart, as we all knew. It would. Back to the blaze. It says, BYU police, who investigated the incident, determined that the fan who was banned

for yelling the racial slurs was not, in fact, the person who shouted them. The Salt Lake Tribune reported. And further stated that they had yet to find any evidence that anyone shot at them at all. When we watched the video, quote, when we watched the video, we did not observe that behavior from him. BYU police, Lieutenant George Bessendorfer told the newspaper, BYU associate athletic director, John McBride, confirmed that university officials came to the same conclusion. He said, quote, various BYU athletics employees have been reviewing video from BYU, TV, and other cameras in the facility that the volleyball team has access to for film review. This has been ongoing since right after the match on Friday night.

The person who was banned was the person identified by Duke as using racial slurs. However, we have been unable to find any evidence of that person using slurs in the match. In fact, no evidence has surfaced proving that anyone shot at racial slurs at all. Instead, students who attended the game attest that they never heard any slurs. So, no cell phone video of this slur, despite the fact that it was supposedly being shot at repeatedly throughout the match. No security camera footage either, and no witnesses. A little bit more on the witnesses. The Blaze says, the Cougar Chronicle of BYU's student-run newspaper cited multiple students on the record who were in the student section of the game and never heard any slurs.

Indeed, Bessendorfer has confirmed that no student who sat in the section where the slurs allegedly came from, nor anyone who attended the volleyball match, for that matter, has come forward to report that who the person was or that they heard it at all. Even more importantly, Bessendorfer also said, no one has come forward to say that they heard the slur being shoted during the match. A police report which the Tribune obtained shows that BYU officials placed a police officer near the Duke Pinch after they were alerted to the racial slurs, but no one in that section identified the person making the slurs, nor did the officer hear any. After police review of the video evidence failed to confirm the person BYU officials'

banned was the one who made the slurs, Bessendorfer said that the investigation was taken over by BYU officials. BYU released their own statement saying, quote, following Friday night's volleyball game, we spent hours reviewing video of the event to try and figure out what happened exactly. We understand that the Duke player's experience is what matters here. They felt unsafe and hurt, and we were unable to address that during the game in the manner that was sufficient. For that, we truly do apologize. So there are no witnesses, no video evidence, no evidence of any kind that anything like this actually happened, and yet they apologize.

I mean, you apologize for not addressing it. If it wasn't happening, how could you address it? But the feelings of a member of a victim class must be affirmed and validated no matter what, even if it didn't happen. She feels like it happened, which means that it might as well have happened. That's the message. This is always the message because what they cannot do is admit the truth. And here's the truth, okay? This is the truth.

this kind of racism, the kind alleged by the Duke volleyball player, is extremely rare in the United States, virtually non-existent. It has been that way for a long time. It is so rare that most people will never encounter anything like it. For most people, it is essentially over. Now, there are certainly still racism in America. Much of it is the kind of racism that we aren't supposed to acknowledge at all. There's anti-white racism, which is embedded into our system and our institutions. There's anti-black racism, too, certainly. We just heard an example of it yesterday with a Senate candidate claiming that black people don't know how to obtain photo IDs. That's racist.

Both anti-white and anti-black racism come in many other forms as well, and they're often perpetrated by the very people who call themselves anti-racist. But the sort of anti-black racism that propels somebody to shout racial slurs, or to leave threatening notes or to hang nooses around and so on, is for all intents and purposes with extremely rare potential exception over. And I know that because nearly every story about an incident of this sort over the past two decades has been fake. If this sort of thing was common, you would think that at least there would be more real incidents than fake ones. What's more, you'd actually think that there would be no fake incidents at all because there'd be no need or appetite to fake them. There's also something else.

And this is the primary reason why I dismiss all of these stories out of hand. The minute I heard about the Duke thing is like, that didn't happen. I don't even, I don't need to know anything else. It just didn't happen. And here's how I know. Human beings are social creatures. We respond to social incentives. There is no social incentive at all for a white person to go around shouting racial slurs or hanging nooses or whatever.

All of the social incentive runs the other direction. direction. The consequence for behaving in that way is the destruction of your entire life. If there was a man in the stand, shouting slurs, and all signs point to no such man existing, but if he's there, we have to assume that he is insane and suicidal. I mean, because it's inconceivable that somebody who would just self-immolate like that for any other reason. What this means is that even if there are white racists walking around, and I'm sure there are because there will always be racist in every race and against every race. But even the actual racists are almost certainly not going to behave in the ways that the race hoaxers pretend they behave. Now, if you didn't know better, you might think the people who claimed their advocates for racial equity would consider this a victory.

Most people aren't racist, and most of the ones who are racist aren't going to say so out loud. Mission accomplished. Except that's not the mission they were trying to accomplish. They want to be victims, because in our upside-down world, victimization means power. And so if they cannot find the racist in real life, they'll simply invent them. And if you doubt them, you're racist too. You cannot deny the racism without being racist, which means by denying it, you validate it. That's the trick. And it's clever, I have to admit. But it also means that the race hoaxers are today finally, once or for all.

Canceled. And that will do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the members block with a special guest today as well. Hopefully we'll see you there. If not, Godspeed.