The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1300 - Slippery Slope Confirmed Again: 50 Year Old Man Competes Against 13 Year Old Girls

Episode Date: January 24, 2024

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a 50 year old adult male has been competing in swim competitions against teenaged girls in Canada -- and changing in their locker room. Nobody is doing anything about it. And hardly anyone is even objecting. Also, Nikki Haley loses badly in New Hampshire, but refuses to exit the race. A lesbian couple booked a wedding venue and now claim that they're being victimized because the owners of the venue are Christians. And Barbie fans cry sexism because the Barbie movie didn't get enough Oscar nominations. But the fans should be grateful it got any nominations at all, considering the film is pure trash.   Ep.1300   - - -    DailyWire+:   Watch Lady Ballers, the Most Triggering Movie in America here: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b   Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, kids entertainment and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc   Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj    - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.    Balance of Nature - Get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer + a FREE Fiber & Spice. Use promo code Walsh at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/   PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month! Enter promo code: WALSH at https://bit.ly/42PmqaX   - - -   Socials:   Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF   Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA   Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA   Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Choice Hotels get you more of what you value. Here's a little tune to help you remember. Same drive, different day. Don't you wish you were getting away? Pack your beds and come on through. Texas, Ohio, Alaska, we're up there too. Comfort in. It's calling your name.

Save on the stay. Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim. Well, I hope you like my little song. Book Direct at choiceotails.com. Today on the Matwawaw Show, a 50-year-old adult male has been competing in swim competitions against teenage girls in Canada and changing in their locker room. Nobody is doing anything about it, and hardly anyone is even objecting. Also, Nikki Haley loses badly in New Hampshire but refuses to exit the race. A lesbian couple booked a wedding venue and now claim that they're being victimized because the owners of the venue are Christians. And Barbie fans cry sexism because the Barbie movie didn't get enough Oscar nominations, they say. But the fans should be grateful. It got any nominations at all, considering the film is pure trash. We'll talk about all that. And more today. on the Matt Wall Show. As we hit toward a presidential election November, there's one thing you can be sure of. 2024 will be a tumultuous year. How will your hard-earned savings fare? Well, you're already seeing the impacts of inflation at the pump at the grocery store. The dollar continues to lose

its buying power faster than wages increase. How are you protecting your savings? Consider diversifying into gold from Birch Gold Group. For decades, gold has been the choice of investors in central banks to hedge against inflation. If you have an IRA or 401K from a previous employer, that's just gathering dust called Birch Gold, and they will help you convert it in. into an IRA in gold. You're not going to pay a penny out of pocket. They will simply convert that 401k into physical gold, which, unlike digital currency, cannot be tampered with.

It's the most reliable thing you can do. Just text Walsh to 9-8-9-8-98, and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of satisfied customers, and the exclusive gold company of the Daily Wire for the past seven years. You could trust, Birch Gold, too,

just like we do, text Walsh to 9-8-9-8-9-8 to claim your free Info Kit that's Walsh to 98-98-9-8 and secure your savings now. Ten years ago, we were told that men would never actually compete against women in women's sports, and then it started happening, and we were told that it would never become a common occurrence. And now here we are today, where there are so many prominent examples of men competing in women's sports and completely dominating the competition that it's easy to lose track of them all. Of course, there's William Thomas, aka Leah Thomas, who went from the 89th ranked male swimmer to a national champion once he started pretending to be a...

woman. There's also the Canadian man calling himself Anne Andres, who set a world record in women's powerlifting. His total weight lifted across squat bench and deadlift was more than 400 pounds higher than the closest woman. And more recently, there's the man we mentioned just yesterday, Haley Davidson, who just won the women's classic in Orlando, which gives him a good chance of getting into the LPGA tour, where the L supposedly stands for ladies. Now, yesterday we played a clip from Davidson's interview a couple days ago on Good Morning. Britain, which, as you recall, was very interested because in the interview, Davidson, a trans athlete, admits the one thing that the trans activist still tried to deny.

Well, I mean, they deny a lot of things, but one of the things they deny is that males obviously have physical advantages over females. He admits that. He says that they do have those advantages, and he says that there should be guidelines in place for this reason. This is one of those admissions that you'd think would, especially in a news interview, would lead to some follow-up questions, such as, why are you competing in a women's golf event that doesn't have any of those guidelines that you say yourself should be in place? And also,

what's the difference between a competitive advantage and cheating exactly? But again, the reporter doesn't ask those questions. Instead, he immediately derails any line of inquiry that could lead to some introspection and pushback against trans ideology. And that's because the position of the corporate press for a very long time now has been that, that's a the trans cult can do whatever it wants. Even when they admit they're cheating, they are untouchable. They are always the victims in every situation, even when they commit mass shootings. They're the victims, as we saw here in Nashville. As for Davidson himself, he assures us that he is an exception to that rule because he has intentionally destroyed his body over the course

of the past several years with hormones and surgeries. And now that he has destroyed his body, his destroyed body is no different from a female's body, because a female body apparently is the same thing as a ruined, destroyed male body, according to him. Now, that's a very weak argument for reasons I already outlined. But there was something he said at the end of that clip that we didn't spend much time talking about yesterday. And I want to play it again right now. Here it is. Such a big problem with you competing in women's golf in particular. I don't understand it. I don't get with the fear of me, person is doing. The 31-year-old who was the first male-born golfer to win a professional

women's event is speaking out exclusively after revealing she's received a number of death threats just days after winning this women's tournament. Are you worried about your safety? A little bit, yeah, I don't go out and do a ton much because of that. I'm not, you know, going out at nights. You know, I watch myself when I sit in a restaurant, you know, I'll always have my back to a wall. Three years on from her gender reassignment surgery and Haley's determined to to keep going and hopes to one day qualify for the Scottish Open. So, quote unquote, Haley Davidson is getting death threats, he claims, and therefore we should feel sorry for him and pretend that he's a woman.

Also, Davidson reminds us that he's just one person, so what's the big deal? One person can't possibly cause that many problems. So just go along with his delusions. These are all familiar arguments and very stupid arguments. But through it, all the reporter is using the guy's fake pronouns and tossing softball questions to lend some legitimacy to the whole charade or the humiliation ritual or whatever you want to call it. But why are people so angry, Davison wants to know? He's confused or pretends to be confused in more ways than one, I suppose. He just can't figure out why people are so

upset. Well, I would suggest that he already answered that question himself, the whole biological advantages bit that he conceded to. It's one reason. People are upset. The other is that this whole agenda is depraved and false and evil. Now, for years, it's been clear where this depravity and evil would lead. Once you give a blank check to a large group of people who suffer from extremely high rates of serious mental illness already, they will take full advantage of the opportunity. They won't stop at beating adult women in sporting competitions. Things will get much darker than that. And indeed, they already have. So here's one recent example, which you may not have heard of. This is a story that first broke a couple of months ago in Canada, courtesy of the rebel news reporter David Menzies, who's one of the few serious journalists left in Canada.

You might remember he's the same reporter who broke the story of that Canadian shop teacher who wore the massive prosthetic breasts to class. So he's the guy that told us about that. And this latest story from Menzies is weirder and even more disturbing than that. And yet it hasn't gotten nearly as much attention as it deserves. I mean, most people probably haven't heard about it, so I want to make sure that you hear about it. And so here we are. Here's how it began. Back in October, Menzies received a tip about the fall classic swimming competition at the Markham Pan Am Center, which is just north of Toronto.

Now, Menzies obtained a scheduling sheet, which showed that 10 swimmers had participated in the competition. And these are not college girls, okay? Nine of the girls were between the ages of 13 and 14. But strangely enough, the 10th name on the list was a 50-year-old man named Nicholas J. Sapida. Sapita, who uses the alter ego Melody Wiseheart, is a professor at York University in Toronto. And his research specialties, Menzies found, include children and youth. So why would a 50-year-old professor specializing in children be competing against 13-year-old girls at a swimming competition? Again, these are not women in college he's competing against, as grotesque as that would be and is.

These are 13-year-olds. Now, when Menzies first went down to the Pan Am Center in October, they didn't have many answers. First, they denied that Zapida had competed against the teen girls. Then they admitted that he had participated in the competition, but they wouldn't say whether he had entered the changing room with 13 and 14-year-old children. They promised some follow-ups that never materialized. They obviously hoped that Rebel News would just drop the story, but they didn't. A couple months later, Menzies was back.

And this time, he tracked the 50-year-old swimmer to the East Bayfield Community Center in Barry, Ontario, which was playing host to the Trojan Cup tournament, which, of course, brings to mind all kinds of ironic metaphors about Trojan horses and the trans agenda. But here's what happened, watch. In any event, we hope to interview Nicholas Sapita. I think he was tipped off that we were here, and he entered the community center through a back entrance. perhaps we can catch him going out.

In the meantime, we're going to watch him swim. Just will you see the perverse visuals of a 50-year-old man lining up against 13 and 17-year-old girls? I'm going to ask you, please stop reporting me. We're in a public place. There's no expectation of privacy. Then we need to call the police.

As you mentioned, I'm going to call Mr. Oakley on you. How you doing, sir? Do you know, wait, who are you? No, we're not doing this. Okay, well, you have no authorization to kick us out. Look at those brave people confronting the reporter, but not confronting the 50-year-old man that is competing against underage girls. And that's exactly what's happening.

There's no longer any denying that that's what's happening. And the response from the community center is not to explain why this is allowed. They don't want to answer any questions about whether this guy is going to be in the changing room with these girls. They just try to hide their faces and threaten him. The justification they use is that filming is supposedly not allowed in the swimming area, even though this is a public facility, as David Menzies points out, and people are filming all over the place. Watch. You have to go outside, okay? You got to go outside.

I don't think so. We're here to cover some perversity happening in this swimming pool. It's got nothing to do with me, David. Okay. Well, it was nothing to do with you. Why are you telling you to leave? Because you can't be doing, you can't take film in here. We see, look, there's people right there in the front row recording.

Look at that woman in the corner. I don't see anybody recording. What are you talking about? That woman right there. Okay. Well, what do you call him very police right now? Okay, you know what? I'm tired of this.

We're going to call the police. We're going, because you have a 50-year-old man changing with 13-year-old girls. Do you think that's right? No comment. No comment. Yes, hi there. I'm at the East Bayfield Community Center, and there is a 50-year-old male that has invaded the change room and showers of 13-year-old girls.

He is on the swimming deck. That's right. He just had a swim in the pool. Now, all these representatives from the community center can do is say, no comment and threatened to have Menzies arrested for filming in the swimming area, even though a lot of other people are filming in the swimming area also. They didn't pretend not to see all those other people filming. It's like a comical display of cowardice, but it's clear these people want to hide something.

So Menzies stuck around to see what it was, and after a while, he discovered that indeed, this 50-year-old creep was using the girls' changing rooms. And when he was exposed for doing this, he panicked and ran away once. We just watched Nicholas Sapida swim against seven other competitors. And guess what, folks? This gender bending grifter came in sixth place. That's right. Swimming against teenage girls.

He came in six out of eight. What a loser. We finally have a definitive answer to where Nicholas Sapita changes and showers. It is in the girls' dressing room. I saw it myself with my own eyes. He didn't go into the male dressing room. He didn't go into the family dressing room. Mr. Sapita, what is your deal?

Why are you swimming with 13-year-olds? Why are you breaking world aquatic rules? Why are you running? What are you? Mr. Sepita, are you a sexual pervert? Why won't you answer these questions? Why are you breaking world aquatic rules?

You transitioned after puberty, did you not? Mr. Sapita, why are you a coward? Do you have a record of sexual perversion? Protect me from these people. Protect us from what? Where are you going? Make Mother's Day even more special at Whole Foods Market. Kick off brunch or dinner with quality cheese and charcuttery with no synthetic nitrates.

Then go seafood. There's an abundance on sale at Whole Foods Market, where it's all sustainable while caught or responsibly farmed. At the bakery, grab seasonal treats like their strawberry pretzel cream pie, and you can't go wrong with a ready-to-heathe Kish Lorraine, Deviled eggs, and fresh-cut fruits to go. Celebrate Mom with Whole Foods Market. Okay, so after somehow coming in sixth place, swimming against teen girls, this 50-year-old man scampers away into the night. And once again, as we see so often, he pretends to be the victim at the end there. Just like the officials in the swim center, he knows that he's doing

something that has no reasonable explanation. At least it has no explanation that he would ever want to say out loud. So instead he offers no explanation and he just runs away. Now, you have to wonder. You have to wonder a lot of things, but the first thing is, where are the parents? All the girls swimming in the East Bayfield Community Center have parents, presumably. What exactly are they doing through all this? Why is it only one rebel news reporter who's objecting it all to any of this? Why is it just this one guy who's chasing this dude out into the parking lot? You know, the Toronto Sun did report on comments from some anonymous parents at this venue. One parent said, quote, the girls were terrified.

It's all so confusing for the kids, said another parent. No one is comfortable. Everybody is accepting of all people, but them swimming against our kids and being in the locker room with them is not appropriate. Quote unquote. So the parents are comfortable speaking anonymously to the media, but they're apparently too cowardly to come out against this guy publicly. And to be clear, speaking out publicly should be the second thing you do. The first thing you should do is confront this man directly. I mean, I can tell you for absolute certain that no man, under any circumstance, would ever be allowed to enter a bathroom or locker room while my wife or daughters are in there.

Nor would I sit back and watch a grown man invade a competition that my daughters are competing in. This is not one of those difficult situations where it's hard to judge people if you aren't in their shoes. Right? No, this is not a difficult situation. There's nothing difficult about it. That man should not be permitted to do what he's doing, period. And if your own daughter is being victimized this way, right in front of you, the only difficulty you should have is in restraining yourself enough so that you don't go to prison. So the cowardice of the parents here is incredible. Even more incredible, given that the son has also confirmed that Sapita was in the changing room with girls as young as eight years old at the East Bayfield Center. on December 1st. The Sun reported that, quote, girls from age 8 to 16 in a swimming Canada sanctioned swim meet, and Barry last week not only found themselves in the same pool as a transgender female swimmer,

but in the same change room too. So we're talking about 13 to 14-year-olds all the way down to 8-year-olds, and this guy has apparently been allowed to change in front of all of them. Meanwhile, the Canadian mainstream media has refused to cover this story, of course. And as of the latest update we have from Rebel News and the Toronto Sun, both Toronto Police and Canada swimming regulator called Swimming Canada are doing everything they can to sneak this guy into events where young girls are present. They've allowed him to compete in these kinds of events since 2019, according to some reports.

At least one rec center has canceled an event that would have involved subpoena, but it appears that's because they were worried about media attention, not the safety of underage girls. I mean, when they could do this without anyone noticing outside of the center itself, they had been doing it. And now that they're getting some attention, they're shutting it down in some cases, again, only because they don't want the scrutiny, not because they're trying to protect the girls. So basically, it's now legal in Canada for 50-year-old degenerates to claim their women and then enter the changing rooms with young girls, girls as young as eight. Now, if at this point you still somehow harbored any doubts or any confusion at all about what the trans agenda is and what its true intentions are and why these people are doing this,

hopefully now you have clarity. And the frustrating thing is that some conservatives, including myself, predicted years ago that it would get to this point. Once you're willing to lie about objective reality and pretend that people can identify as any gender they want, then you have no logical basis for telling a 50-year-old that he can't compete with 8-year-olds. You know, if he can invent his gender, why can't he cosplay as a young child? All of this was easily foreseeable. You didn't need to have a crystal ball or conservative. consult a fortune teller. The roadmap was laid out right in front of us. All you had to do was look

at it and speak up, but not enough people did. And those who did were ignored. Just a few short years after the trans cult took hold of Canada, they have state-sanctioning adult male creeps running around in young girls' locker rooms. A couple decades ago, you know, David Menzies would have been joined by every father and police officer in Ontario chasing that son of a bitch down. And now they're looking at David Menzies like he's the crazy one. Like he has to justify himself for being upset about it. This is the reality of life in Canada now. And that's how slippery slopes work. The slippery slope is not a fallacy, as we've been told so many times. It's an accurate way to describe how cultures change over time, particularly when they are

passive. There are successive changes, each one building on the last, until the country is completely unrecognizable. To make a slippery slope prediction is simply to notice the prevailing logic of the culture. There is no logic to the idea that a man can be a woman because he identifies as one, but if we accept that non-logical logic, then it's not difficult to see what follows from that and what follows from what follows and so on. Canada's farther along the slippery slope than we are, that's for certain. In fact, they've fallen almost entirely to its bottom and now we can either learn from their fall or fall along with them. Now let's get to our five headlines.

Balance of Nature fruits and veggies are a great way to make sure you're getting essential nutritional ingredients every single day. Balance of Nature uses an advanced cold vacuum process that encapsulates fruits and vegetables into the whole food supplements without sacrificing their natural antioxidants. The capsules are completely void of additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides or added sugar. The only thing in Balance of Nature's fruits and veggies capsules are, well, fruits and veggies. Right now, not only when my listeners get 35% off your first order, you will now get a free fiber and spice supplement as well. Balance of Nature's fiber and spice supplement is a revolutionary fiber drink with a unique blend of 12 spices and whole foods. Our office loves Balance of Nature and they use it every day. There's never been an easier way to make sure we're getting our daily dose of fruits and vegetables. Experience Balance of Nature for yourself today. Go to balance of nature.com. Use promo code Walsh for 35. percent off your first order as a preferred customer, plus get a free bottle of fiber and spice. That's balance of nature.com. Promocodewalls for 35% off your first preferred order, plus a free bottle of fiber and spice. From the Daily Wire, former President Donald Trump won the first of the nation primary in New Hampshire

on Tuesday night, beating his former U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, the race was called as Trump Leeds Haley, 53.6 to 45.3% with 36% of the votes counted, according to the New York Times. So this was as of last night. up to the primary polls briefly show that Haley was within striking distance of the former president in the state. The trajectory of the New Hampshire primary changed after Trump captured a strong win in the Iowa caucuses last week. And Haley came in third place behind Florida governor Ron DeSantis. CNN said that the exit polling it conducted in New Hampshire found that a staggering 70% of the people who voted for Haley were not registered Republicans. And that's the key bit right there that the media was reporting.

Here is, this is NBC, I believe, with more on that, on the, all of the non-Republicans who were strangely participating in this Republican primary. Watch. We asked folks coming into the polls, do you identify as a Republican? Do you identify as a Democrat or do you identify as an independent? And here's what we found in this exit poll so far. And I think this jumps right out at you. A minority of voters in this first wave of the exit poll.

in the Republican primary identify as Republicans. A majority, 53% identify as either independence, 45%, or, and this is a high number historically, 8% identify as Democrats. For some context here, in 2016, the last competitive Republican primary, presidential primary in New Hampshire, the electorate was 55% Republican. It was 42% independent and it was 3% Democratic. So in this initial wave, you're seeing some significant differences from 2016. Okay, so Nikki Hilley still loses.

Even, you know, her vote totals were apparently inflated by the fact that a historically disproportionate number of non-Republicans voted in the Republican primary. But she still loses anyway. Of course, it's obviously ridiculous that they allow non-Republicans. to vote in the Republican primary, the open primary concept is totally preposterous. There's no reason why non-Republicans should have any say at all over who the Republican nominee is. Well, there's no good reason why they should have any say at all. There is a reason why they want to have a say, which is, of course, to sabotage the primary, undermine the guy

who's going to be the eventual nominee. And that's what this is about, obviously. It's not about making sure that Trump is the nominee. That's already been, that's decided. That's going to happen. And besides, I still think that very clearly Trump is the nominee that Democrats wanted all along, which is why they've haven't stopped talking about him. They've done everything he can to keep him in the news. But now that he is the nominee, it weakens and undermines him if you undercut his numbers in the primary. And the effort, I think, in New Hampshire, was mostly unsuccessful, but that's the idea.

So, Nikki Haley has lost the first two contests. there's no indication that she will do any better in any other state. Is she dropping out, though? Well, let's find out. Now, you've all heard the chatter among the political class. They're falling all over themselves saying this race is over. Well, I have news for all of them. New Hampshire is first in the nation. It is not the last in the nation.

This race is far. from over. There are dozens of states left to go. There we go. So she's going to drag this thing out. You've heard that the political class. They say that just because we've lost the first two contests and we're losing in the polling in every single state, there's no indication at all that we have any chance of winning a single primary. They think the race is over. So she's not dropping out. And, you know, from a, from a, much as I'm not a fan of Mickey Haley from a purely sort of pragmatic perspective, it doesn't surprise me that she's not dropping out. I don't, there's really no reason for her

to drop out. There's no incentive for her to drop out. Trump's voters hate her regardless. She's not going to get a job in the administration. She's not going to be VP. I think that's pretty clear now. I doubt that she actually wants that anyway, but whether or not she does want that. It's not going to happen. So everything's pretty baked in at this point. She can't win. But if she stays in and she's the only other person in, and she stays in the headlines, it'll help her sell more copies of whatever book. I'm sure she's going to publish in the next few months, helps raise her media profile. And maybe now the move for her is to pivot to being sort of CNN's token Republican Trump hater. You know, that could be the career move for her.

Maybe that's what she's angling for at this point. Her political career is obviously done. I think she probably realizes that. And but but there are, you know, in her spot, there are lucrative options. There are ways that you can, for your brand, right? There are things that she can do. And I think that that's what she's doing. One other note about Haley, we played the clip a few days ago of Nikki Haley claiming that she was excluded from a beauty pageant because she was brown and they didn't know where to put her. They only allowed, the weirdest kind of discrimination we've ever heard of where, according to her in like the 80s in South Carolina, you were allowed to be in a beauty pageant if you were white and you were allowed to be if you were black. but if you were in between on the color color spectrum you were not allowed.

Well, apparently this anti-brown discrimination, this brown erasure, was a big problem where she grew up. Like, this is happening all the time. So here she was in an interview, apparently from years ago, that somebody dug up. And she has a similar story.

Let's listen to that. But it was hard. You know, I remember on the kickball field, going out there and there being two groups and saying pick one. And one was a group of black kids and one was a group of white kids. And they said, which one are you? And I said, I'm brown.

I'm neither. And that was the first time I realized that differences matter. But I grabbed the ball and I ran and before we knew what we were all playing again. Yes, you know, those old black versus white kickball games. You know, black versus white beauty pageant, black versus white kickball. I remember that from the playground days. Recess, you know, in elementary school, the teacher would say, okay, kids. Let's play some kickball.

You know the rules. Go gather with your assigned race, black and white. Oh, Nikki, sorry, not you. This is really a black and white thing. You can go play hopscotch with the Asians over there. This is how it worked for Nikki, apparently. No one has ever heard of this. No one's ever encountered this kind of thing.

But everywhere she went, this was going on. And she's not, what I love about it is that she's not, like it'd be one thing if she was claiming that where she could, grew up all those many, many years ago in the ancient history of the 1980s in South Carolina, if she was claiming that, you know, there was still like Jim Crow era discrimination against anyone who wasn't white. That wouldn't be true, but, you know, at least that would be slightly more credible than claiming that, no, it was actually like, it was a discrimination where it was white and black against Brown specifically. That's the part that I've

find quite funny, because it's clearly not true. Okay, speaking of fake discrimination, Daily Mail has a story on that note. A lesbian couple have hit out at a wedding coordinator who felt the need to inform them of their staunch religious beliefs before they booked them for their big day. Ali Waggie and Jessica Robinson from Wichita, Kansas, fell in love with the barn at Grace Hill when they visited earlier this month. After selecting the countryside barn for their special day, the pair were devastated to receive an email from the coordinators telling Ali and Jessica that, quote, their deeply held religious beliefs keep them from celebrating anything but marriage between a man and a woman. The couple claim that they received the

heartbreaking message after emailing back and forth with the wedding coordinators for months. The screenshot of the email read, I also wanted to reach out and make sure we had an open and honest line of communication, something that we desire with all of our couples. If you decide that our barn is the location you want for your wedding, we have learned that it is most fair to you to know that who we are and where our heart is. And in the past, doing this at the start helps everybody feel so much better moving forward that allows you to make the very best decision for you. While our deeply held religious beliefs keep us from celebrating anything but marriage between a man and a woman, we desire to serve everyone equally

and do not want to keep anyone from using our building who would like to. Our hearts are to serve, regardless of race, creed, color, origin, sexual orientation, gender, or marital status, while maintaining our convictions and beliefs as well. All couples legally permitted, to marry the state of Kansas are welcome to use the barn at Grace Hill. Sharing this with you is the only way we have found that allows everyone to move forward in the most authentic way possible. So that's what the message said. And then this couple, they posted a screenshot of this message on Facebook.

And Ali said she interpreted the meaning of the email as basically it's illegal for me to tell you you can't use the venue so you can. She added, quote, I've cried all night. People suck. So if you have venue recommendations that believe everyone deserves to be celebrated, send them my way. And then there's a bunch of comments. It went viral. And what do you know, another venue owner got in touch with Allie and Jessica and allowed them to use their venue for free. So they got a free wedding out of it, which I'm sure it was not the intention at all. It just so happens that they got the free wedding. Now, this story is great because it takes the entire modern LGBT rights movement, rights, quote, and summarizes it in just a few paragraphs. The whole movement is right here. Everything you need to know about it is right here. Well, I mean, this story and then the one from the opening monologue, those together tell you everything you need to know about the modern LGBT movement.

So let's just review this. go back through again. Allie and Jessica want to get quote unquote married. They decide that they want to use this wedding venue. The person who runs the venue or the people who run it, email them. They're very polite, they're very honest. And they tell them that they can use the venue. They have the legal right to use it according to the laws of the state, I suppose.

And those laws are totally wrong and shouldn't exist. like venue should have the right to deny service to anybody they want for any reason, but never mind that. So they're told they can use the venue, but the people running the venue want them to know in the interest of full transparency that they do not agree with it, and they are opening up their venue to the event out of, like, obligation. And that's what they say. Now, we should also note here that, of course, we're only getting the gay couples version.

They're showing, they say themselves that there's a month-long communication going on. and we are apparently seeing one email from that whole correspondence. So we have no idea what was said before this. We don't know. That's always the way it goes. You know, when you've got these gay couples that come out and complain, they're being discriminated against, and they tell us, like, they give us a little snapshot

into certain portions of this back and forth, this exchange, this controversy. But there's a whole bunch we don't know. So the last. So the lesbian couple, they're not being turned away. They're not being rejected. They're not being deprived of anything. They're simply being told the honest truth in a very polite, non-confrontational, a loving way. Now, did the venue need to be that honest? Did they need to say anything at all? No, but they obviously felt morally obligated to have that level of honesty, which is to say they

did something that they didn't need to do in the sense of going above and beyond morally and ethically. And they're also giving the lesbian couple a chance to make a decision. The venues being honest, they're saying, listen, we're doing this because we have to. We don't agree with it. But, you know, if you want a venue that is doing it not out of obligation or coercion, but because they're really excited about it, then, you know, you should go elsewhere. And they didn't say that part, but that is the implication. So, how? How could the lesbians have responded here? Well, they could have said, thanks for letting us know, we'll go ahead and do the booking

anyway. Or they could have said, thanks for letting us know, we'll go elsewhere. Both those options would be perfectly reasonable, perfectly mature ways to handle it. Instead of course, they select door number three, as they always do, and instead they run to social media to whine and complain and claim that they were up all night crying. like crying about what you freaking babies what are you crying about crying because you discover that there's a human being in this world who doesn't agree with you that's what you're crying about crying because somebody was honest with you about their feelings my god i mean if i stayed up

all night crying every time somebody told me they don't agree with me i would i would literally never sleep i would be going on my 14,000th sleepless night consecutively uh and i would be dead is what would happen. So, you know, I said that this perfectly summarizes the LGBT movement, and you see why. And, and, you know, you all, before we get to that, you also see how, as much as I am scolded, even by my fellow conservatives and many times by Christians who tell me that I'm not, you know, I'm not loving enough in my approach. I'm not gentle and I should be more loving, be more gentle. You know, you catch more flies with honey and all that. And like, I don't even know why you'd want to catch flies in the first place. But, but all that stuff.

Well, okay, here you have someone, right? They could not have been nicer, more gentle, more loving, and it doesn't matter. Okay? It doesn't. It's not like that's what breaks through and gets through to someone. It doesn't make a difference. They still are running to someone. social media and painting you as a bigot and trying to destroy your life and your business. Makes no difference. So you might as well just be blunt and frank. And that's not to say, again, I mean, the way that they handle this, I think it was quite admirable. But my point is that if you're one of these people that says, oh, you just have to be gentle, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. But what you see here is the flight path of leftism that I always talk about.

which is first they demand tolerance, then they demand acceptance, then they demand celebration, and then finally they demand participation. But really what we find out is that celebration and participation are together. You know, they are the same step. So they demand that you actively participate in their lifestyle and that you pretend you like it. You do it with a smile on your face. It's not enough to merely accept. It's not enough to merely accept. It's not even enough to merely participate. You need to participate enthusiastically. So this lesbian couple, they have three of those things. They got tolerance, acceptance, participation, right? The wedding venue, obviously tolerating and accepting. And they were participating in the sense that they were offering up their venue to be used for this event. So they got all three of those. And you would think if you're not a raging narcissist, that would be enough.

But they didn't get the celebration. They didn't also get, they got everything else with a lesbian couple says, no, no, no. We need all that and we need you to be there with your pom-poms cheering us on. And if we don't get that last piece, then we're going to be, we're going to cry all night. We're going to cry. We need you to participate and participate. that you're happy, or we will cry, we will never stop crying. Which goes back to, really the only appropriate response at that point is to say,

I don't care if you're crying, you babies, then go ahead and cry. What do I care? You're not going to use your feelings as a cudgel against me. You're not going to hammer me over the head with your emotional fragility. I don't care. It's, I'm sorry, but that's, it has to come back there. You know, so you might not like my approach. to things, but what you discover is that ultimately you have no choice. Because if you try anything but that, they will use your emotions and your kindness and your gentleness against you. Okay? They will beat you over the head with it into submission until they realize that they just can't. It doesn't. No, it doesn't faze you. Um, absolute nurse. Just, just despicable narcissist.

Okay. Finally, here's another thing to be enraged about. CBS has this. An NYPD sergeant was arraigned on manslaughter charges Tuesday after his indictment was unsealed in the death of a 30-year-old man back in August. Investigators said that he threw a cooler at the man's head during a drug bust. The emotions were high inside the courtroom for the police officer accused and the victim's families.

The local activist said that it's the first step of justice for the family and accountability for the system, the family of Eric Duprey. and local activists walked arm and arm outside Bronx criminal court Tuesday as tense moments unfolded Dupree probably actually in the name anyway

and we have the surveillance footage so this shows the Duran this shows the undercover officer who was there at the scene when Eric Dupree was they were tempted to arrest him in a drug bus

and he fled on his motorcycle or scooter or whatever it is and the undercover cop to try to stop him from fleeing through this cooler at his head and he fell off the scooter and then he died. We have that video footage.

Let's watch that. Okay. So, I mean, it's an impressive throw, first of all. That thing was full, apparently it was full of ice and water and he had picked that thing up and tossed it and hit the guy right as he was, right? It's like a moving tariff. aggregate. So in a sane world, what you'd be doing, because you got an undercover cop,

you got this criminal, he's trying to flee from the scene of a crime, and there's pedestrians and there's kids all around, it's a park, you know, it's a dangerous situation already. When you get into a high-speed chase situation, it puts people's lives in jeopardy. And so you've got this undercover cop is going above and beyond the line of duty, and he's able to just MacGyver it and use what's around in his, in his, in his surroundings to stop this guy. And so in a sane country, not only are you not charging him with manslaughter, but you are giving him an award, right? So if it was up to me, I'd be inviting this guy and I'd be pinning a medal on him for going above and beyond in the line of duty.

But we don't live in a sane society, especially not in New York, so instead he's being charged with manslaughter. And it's obviously an outlawful. rage. It's the fact that they're going after this guy for not only doing his job, but again, going above and beyond to protect his community and subdue a criminal. It's enraging. And really, these situations are remarkably simple, or they should be. Like, people act like they're complicated. But it's not. It's actually very simple. And that is that if you get injured or killed by the police while you are in the process of committing a crime or fleeing from the scene of one, it is almost always your fault. And that is what the law should say. And that's how

the court system should treat it. That if you get injured or killed by the police, when they're trying to stop you for committing a crime or, or detain you under suspicion of a crime, you get injured or kills, almost always your fault. Now, only in the absolute most egregious, most radically outlier kinds of circumstances, could it be anyone's fault but yours? So if this is a, who was it down in Phoenix? Daniel Shaver. This is like a Daniel Shaver situation where you have someone who is the suspect and they have

their hands up, kind of what they claimed happened, Michael Brown, but that was all a lie. hands up complying, right? And then they're just executed on the spot by the police. Well, that's one thing. Then clearly in that case, there should be criminal charges. But outside of that, it's on you, man. Like, it should be on you. That's your fault. And if there's any, if there's anything that appears to be slightly over the line, if there's something that could kind of, you think it'd go either way, there's something that seems a little bit, I don't know about that. I think in those cases, it should be tie goes to the runner every time. And in this case, the runner is the one who's not running. It's the police. That should be, if there's any kind of like slightly, well, I don't know. And in this case, on this one, I don't even think. I don't think there's anything that's over the line.

I don't think it's anything that's confusing or anything about it that should give you any pause at all. It's pretty simple. This guy's committing a crime, suspected of committing crime. They're trying to detain him. He runs away. He's on a scooter. and so they knocked him off of it. And then he died in the process.

Whose fault is that? What are they supposed to do? Just follow you until the gas runs out? And this is, by the way, this is standard. Now, using a cooler is not standard police procedure. That was just him being, that was just him being innovative. But, you know, ramming into a car that's fleeing, putting spikes down, all these, all different kinds of ways. And in any situation like that, if somebody is in some kind of vehicle, whether it's a scooter or motorcycle, a car, and they're fleeing, and you do anything to stop them against their will, it may injure them or kill them.

Whose fault is that? Like the message should be to criminals, the moment you decide to commit a crime, the moment you decide to run away rather than face the consequences for the crime you committed, you're taking your life into your hands. And almost, almost anything that happens from that point is going to be on you. Unless, again, it's the most egregious, most clear case of just an actual execution, which they always claim, BLM is always, he was executed. No, he wasn't. Okay, he wasn't, this guy's an idiot who got himself killed. And to be perfectly frank with you, it's not, you know, it's a shame you threw his life away.

It's always a shame. but is it a great tragedy for the community? Is the community, you know, we always hear the community's suffering. Are they really? Like to have drug dealers and criminals that have taken themselves out of the picture by their own behavior? Is the community worse off now without them? Almost every single BLM martyr you can name. It's just an objective fact, I'm sorry, that their communities are better without them.

Because these are dangerous criminals. these are people who are contributing nothing of value to society. And so there's really nothing to be in tears about, unless it's tears of sympathy for this police officer who's being charged with the crime for doing his job. And it's just yet another case. We are rapidly getting to the point where I don't know how, I don't say how anyone gets into the law enforcement,

business in the first place. I just don't know how you do it. They are making it impossible to do, and of course that is by design. Let's get to Walsh Rowe. Well, if you're like me, there's not a day that goes by where you don't call or text someone you care about. You know, everyone knows I love talk. My favorite thing is to talk on the phone. I do it constantly. My friends of Pure Talk are making it easier and more affordable to connect with the most important people in your life. Pure Talk gives you phenomenal coverage on America's most dependable 5G network. It's the same coverage you know and love, but for half the price of the other guys with unlimited plans starting at just $20 a month. The average family saves almost $1,000 a year.

As a veteran-owned company, Pure Talk, raised $10 million towards veteran debt last year alone. What's more? Well, Pure Talk's customer service team is located right here in the U.S. And they can help you make the switch in as little as 10 minutes. So, I challenge you to stand with a company that champions your values today, and also, by the way, it provides an excellent service. But you've got to go to puretalk.com slash walsh. And right now, you'll save an additional 50% off your first month. That's puretalk.com slash walsh to save on wireless with a company you can be proud to spend your money with.

Again, puretok.com slash walsh. Okay, something a little bit different for was walsh wrong, only because this is a topic I wanted to cover in the headlines. And I ran out of time. so I'm just doing it here. And it's my show, I can do what I want. So rather than was Walsh wrong, it's a little bit different. This is, you know, maybe we'll call this was Kirk wrong. Because Charlie Kirk has been trending with lots of people attacking him and calling him racist for something that he set on his show this week.

And the thing that annoys me about this is that plenty of conservatives were jumping on the dog pile and calling Kirk a racist as well for this. And so let's watch the clip. And we'll find out if Kirk was wrong. Is he racist? Let's listen. And that's why I think this United story and the DEI story hits so hard because we've all been in the back of a plane when the turbulence hits or when you're flying through a storm and you're like, I'm so glad I saw the guy with the right stuff and the square jaw getting to the cockpit before we took off. And I feel better now. No, I mean, like, you want to go thought crime?

I'm sorry, if I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified. Well, that's the game theory. You wouldn't have done that before. That's not an immediate, no, you wouldn't have done that before. That's not who I am. That's not what I believe. It is the reality the left has created. Okay, so I know we're supposed to read comments here, but I don't think that's necessary.

A whole bunch of comments calling Kirk a racist for that. You can imagine, fill in the blanks. Like I said, plenty of people on the right joining in, which I always find disgusting, You know, look, even if you think he's wrong and he's not, but you don't jump on a dog pile against the guy on your own side. Why do you even need to? You know, if there's already 10,000 people screaming, this is racist, he's awful. Why do you need to chime in? Like, yes, I too believe this.

I also would disagree with this. I'll never get that. You got 10,000 people have already said that they disagree. Why do you think you need to also? No one gives a demo you think. Like, why do you also need to just say, and I, and I as well? I, yes, me too. Well, and that's rhetorical.

I know why they feel the need to do it. But in any case, was Kirk wrong about this? Was he racist? No, of course not. What he said was obviously true. The only thing he's doing different is that he's saying the words out loud. You know, he's saying out loud what is the clear implication of DEI, which is that since the airlines have announced their intention to increase the number of minority in female pilots

and decrease the number of white male pilots, that means they are taking something other than merits and skill into account in the hiring process. There is something else. Even if you want to claim that, well, but they also are looking for merit and skill. It doesn't matter. They've brought something else into the picture that has nothing to do with merit and skill, and that is the problem. So it also means that if you see a black pilot, that he could have, he could, he obviously easily could be perfectly qualified for the job. He could be someone who got the job before DEI existed, or he could be someone who got the job when DEI existed, but would have gotten it without DEI.

I mean, all of that is perfectly possible. But he could also be someone who got it because he fit the DEI demo. So there is that wariness and suspicion that happens because we don't know. We don't know. Now, if you have a white male pilot, you know that he has the job based on merit because there is no program, there is no policy, there is no initiative explicitly trying to increase the number of white males in the industry. So he couldn't have gotten a job because of DEI. That's one of the ironies here, is. is that all you're doing this because you want to have fewer white male pilots or whatever, but you're just making people, although you are decreasing the number, and you're taking opportunities away from people that are otherwise qualified, which is horrible, in a way you're making people like biased in favor, even if they won't say it out loud, the way that Charlie Kirk did,

you're making people biased in favor of white male pilots in a way that they're not. they would not have been otherwise. But now they are. Because it's like, well, okay, they're the only ones who, like, especially now, if they have, if they got that job in spite of all the DIA, like, you're a white male and these industries are not interested in you, and you still got the job, well, then you must be super good at your job, that you still got it. Um, so that's, that's what's happening here. Um, and what you might be picking up on is that, yes, D.I has the side effect, of calling into question the skills and competence of everybody in every demographic except white males and also Asians, Asian males in most of these industries too. So that's it. It's like white males

and Asian males in most industries are the only ones who are not called into question now because of it. Whose fault is that? It's not Charlie Kirk's fault. It's DEI's fault. If you don't like it, I don't like it. Well, get rid of DEI, get rid of affirmative action in every form, and then all of this goes away. Then this is not an issue anymore. But if that's the only way. Get rid of any, when it comes to hiring and recruiting in any industry, what you do is you state outright. We don't care about race or gender.

It doesn't matter to us. We are just looking for the best of the best. That's all we're looking for. United could come out and announce. Our one single goal for recruitment is to have 100% of the most qualified people, period, and we do not care what they look like. United announces that and actually enacts it, then, right? None of this is an issue anymore.

But if they won't, then it remains a live issue. The Lady Ballers is the hilarious story of how a group of male losers who can't win against other men decide to identify as women and join a women's basketball league. Yes, it's absurd, it's ridiculous, it's laughable. It's happening right now in the world today. Here's a quick look at what is being called the most triggering movie of the decade. Leftists are losing it over Lady Ballers. Nothing's changed. This movie is a straight up and intentional transphobic hate crime.

What? I see you. The Lady Ballers movie needs to be banned. I'll cancel you. I can get the blinds, please. Total Levin. The most toxic BS you've ever seen. You're a monster.

Yeah. Next level hate speech propaganda. That's it. That's the pitch. Watch the most triggering comedy of the decade. Lady Ballers, streaming exclusively on DailyWire Plus. Don't wait, watch Lady Ballers, the movie that Hollywood didn't make so we did exclusively on DailyWire Plus now. Well, it's a cliche at this point, but no less true, that in our culture,

the demand for racism far exceeds the supply. There's no denying that fact. And it's equally obvious that the same rule applies to other well-worn isms like sexism. There's a huge demand for sexism, but very little of it to be found. So those in search of this elusive resource must resort to increasingly desperate measures. They must look under every rock and every nook and cranny and crevice. They must plunge into the deepest caverns, torches in hand, looking for ways to be persecuted by a patriarchy that is seemingly nowhere to be found. And if they still can't find sexism in any of those places, then they are forced to find it at the Oscars. Which brings us to the most excruciatingly stupid outrage cycle of this new year.

One stupid enough that by December of 2024, it may still remain in the top five stupidest outrage cycles of the year. And then again, all sides are pointing towards this being an especially stupid year. So the competition will be pretty tough. But in any event, the Academy Award nominees were announced yesterday. And I read a list of the nominees. And as expected, I have not seen 95% of the films nominated. I haven't heard of 70% of the 95%.

Oppenheimer, which, of course, I have heard of, led the way with 13 nominations, something called Poor Things, got 11 nominations. Martin Scorsese's 14-hour epic about evil white people, the killers of the flower moon, scored 10 nominations. Meanwhile, Barbie acquitted itself quite well, and much better than it deserved to, with eight nominations. Eight nominations seems like a very respectable tally, but it was not good enough for the crowds on social media, especially because although Barbie was nominated for eight awards, Greta Gerwig was not nominated for Best Director and Margot Robbie, Barbie herself, was not nominated for Best Actress.

Why not? Well, probably because Oscar voters felt that other people happened to be more deserving of an award. And maybe also because eight nominations for a toy commercial is already embarrassing enough for the Academy Awards, 10 would be over the top. So there are many potential reasons, but the outraged masses settled on their own explanation, which is that this is all due to sexism, of course. The Daily Mail reports, quote, Fury is mounting on social media after Margot, Robby and Greta Gerwig were snubbed for Oscar nominations for their film Barbie. The omissions attracted extra attention on the account of the fact that Ryan Gubbotton, Gosseling, who played Ken, did get nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

Some social media commentators leapt to point the finger at sexism. Quote, Ryan Gosling, while deserving, got an Oscar nomination for Barbie while Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie didn't? Wrote one outraged fan on X, completely proving the point of the movie in 20-effing 24, you cannot make this up, the social media user added, referring to the movie's feminist themes. Quote, wait, Ryan Gosseling got nominated for his role as Ken, but Margot Robbie didn't get nominated for Barbie and Greta Gerwig got snubbed for Best Director. Way to justify the literal plot of the movie, wrote another ex-user echoing the theme. A third grouse, quote, if Ryan

deserved an arm, then Margot certainly did. The fact she didn't, she wouldn't have won, isn't the point. It almost feels like the Academy deliberately played into the theme of the movie to get people talking. Hashtag Oscars haven't been about who actually deserves it for a long time. Now, indeed, there were many expressions of grief like this. Someone else wrote, I'm sorry, but the straight white guy and Barbie got nominated and not the actual women who made the movie, all caps. Now, the award for most melodramatic comment, which was retweeted tens of thousands of times. I think had like 30,000 retweets.

Goes to this comment. It said, I don't think men will ever understand how deeply painful this is, a film about women, made by and for women about the difficulties of being a woman in the modern patriarchal world. And they didn't even nominate the leading actress or the female director? Yes, how painful. The deep searing pain of watching as a couple of millionaire women you don't know aren't nominated for Oscars. Well, they were nominated for Oscars in the screenplay and producer categories, but they weren't nominated in the categories you want,

which has caused you unimaginable suffering and pain. I mean, you know, there are people in this world today at this very moment who are malnourished, who are homeless, who are starving, who are dying of horrible diseases, who are watching their family members die. But those people, especially if they're men, cannot understand the depths of pain that this girl on Twitter must be feeling

because Barbie was snubbed at the Oscars. You know, it just, it all makes sense. Meanwhile, it goes without saying that the luminaries over on TikTok jumped on the outrage bandwagon. Here's just one example, watch. No, because literally yesterday, I was thinking to myself that if Barbie, got snubbed with Margot Robbie not being in the best actress category or Greta Ereg not being

in the best director category, then the point of Barbie is just like so in your face at that point. I just checked all of the Oscar nominations like five minutes ago. I would have done it earlier this morning, but obviously I had school. But this is insane. Like they actually had the ball suit. Like they didn't care about public backlash or anything. Like I was literally thinking to myself the other day that it would be so funny if they actually pulled something like this.

But I thought to myself, there's no way. You know, the year of the Barbie movie, Barbie was such a big hit, especially in its messaging. I feel like they weren't. I felt like they weren't going to do it. And they did. Now, I only want to say one thing about that. It was bad enough when literally became a filler word that you used three times in one sentence for no particular reason. But what I can't abide and what I will not allow, I will not allow this new thing found mostly among Gen Z women where they begin a sentence with the words.

no because. Or they put it all together as she did and make it no because literally. Those are three words at the very beginning of your statement that have absolutely no meaning in the context and no reason to be there. You are three words deep into your sentence and you haven't said anything at all. Okay, you've said three things already and you've said nothing. That's an issue for another day. Anyway, the media jumped onto the bandwagon to, Scott Feinberg at the Hollywood Reporter had this to say, though Gerwig and Robbie are nominated in other categories

for writing and producing, and though Barbie did receive eight nominations, including Best Picture, the optics of excluding the women most responsible for a critically acclaimed film that became the biggest blockbuster of 2023 from the directing and lead actress categories are not good.

Yes, those optics. Those optics are very bad. And when awards are given to pieces of art, the most important thing to consider is optics. Now, one thing is for sure, Ryan Gosling is worried about the optics, which is why he, a co-star in the film, wrote a lengthy statement, all but apologizing for being nominated for his own performance. Quote, I'm extremely honored to be nominated by my colleagues alongside such remarkable artists in a year of so many great films. I never thought I'd be saying this, but I'm also incredibly honored and proud that it's for portraying a plastic doll named Ken. But there is no Ken without Barbie, and there is no Barbie without a movie without Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie, the two people mostly.

responsible for this history-making globally celebrated film. No recognition would be possible for anyone on the film without their talent, grit, and genius. To say that I'm disappointed that they are not nominated in the respective categories would be an understatement. Their work should be recognized along with the other very deserving nominees. Now, soon after that statement was posted, America Ferreira, another co-star nominated for her role in the film, posted something similar. Now, of course, the fact that America Ferreira, a woman, was nominated, would seem to greatly undercut the sexism angle. And the fact that Margot Robbie wasn't nominated for best actress, because five other women were nominated for the award would also seem to undermine

the efforts to tie this to misogyny. Like, in fact, in general, anytime you're saying that a woman was not nominated for best actress because of sexism, there's always going to be problem there, assuming that the category is still filled with other women. Now, if we get to the point where there are five nominees for Best Actress and they're all trans-identified males, then you'd have a point, although that will also be hilarious and that will eventually happen. But anyway, that's all the case, if you care about making sense, which most of these people don't. In fact, Gerwig wasn't nominated for Best Director, but a woman named Justine Treat, who directed something called Anatomy of a Fall, was nominated.

So the claim here is that Gerwig and Robbie were denied nominations as part of a sexist conspiracy, even though they both were nominated in other categories, and other women who are not Gerwig and Robbie were nominated in the categories that Gerwig and Robbie were denied. Obviously, trying to connect this to patriarchy and sexism is yet another delusional and desperate attempt by very bored and very shallow people to feel persecuted because they don't know how to find any meaning in life except through a false personal narrative of victimization. You know, that's what's clearly going on here, and that's the obvious part of the story. But the other part, which should be even more obvious, is that the Barbie movie does not deserve to be nominated for anything in the first place.

Okay? I haven't seen it. I don't plan to see it. But even without seeing it, I know that the movie is basically trash. I 100% know that. It's a fact. Like, I cannot be wrong. And I'm not even saying, I'm not worried about the wokenness.

I'm not worried about the feminism, the ideological stuff. I'm not saying it because of any of that. What I do know for an absolute fact is that a film produced by the Mattel toy company for the primary purpose of selling Mattel merchandise cannot be and is not a towering artistic achievement. Okay, you could try to find whatever deep meaning you want in the Barbie movie, but it is without question primarily a giant toy commercial. That is why the film exists. It's why Mattel made $125 million in additional sales in the first few months after the Barbie movie came out.

Sales for Barbie dolls and other Mattel brand dolls were up 25%. That was the fundamental point of the movie to advertise and sell their merchandise, and it succeeded greatly on that front. So all the debates about, what does this movie really mean? What's it all about? What are they trying to say? What they're trying to say is buy a Barbie doll. That's what they're trying to say. Like, that's the message, okay?

That's it. And that's why Mattel is now planning movies based on Hot Wheel Cars and Polly Pocket and Rockam-Sockham robots. Somehow, Uno cards are going to get their own movie now. So as the superhero movie epidemic finally starts to wane, and you might feel like you could finally breathe a sigh of relief and maybe we'll get some real films finally. We'll get back to making real cinema. actual movies, actual art, you know. But no, because now it appears that the Marvel universe will be supplanted by the Mattel universe. Thanks to all you people who pretended that a toy commercial was high art.

Here's the fact of the matter. No film that exists primarily to promote a brand can ever be good. That's why all the Marvel movies suck. because they all exist just to promote the Marvel brand. That's it. That's why they're there. It can't even be a real film. It can only be at best a very well-made and technically impressive commercial. So, you Barbie fans should be quiet.

Calm down, calm yourself, and be grateful for the absurdly overblown accolades that the Barbie movie has already received. It didn't deserve any of them. them, the movie is garbage. And that is why both the film and its fans are today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day. Godspeed.