The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 312 - Headlong Over The Cliff

Episode Date: August 7, 2019

As we rush headlong into social unrest and worse, there are people who seem to be trying to speed up the process. Also, a white supremacist attacked me for opposing white supremacy. I will respond to the cowardly bigot today. And feminists are concerned that women don’t talk enough. Is that really a problem in our country? We'll discuss. Date: 08-07-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Walsh show, as we rush headlong into social unrest and worse, there are people who seem to be trying to speed up the process, and we're going to talk about that today. Also, a white supremacist attacked me for opposing white supremacy, so I'll respond to that stupid bigot today. And feminists are concerned that women don't talk enough. Is that really a problem in this country? I don't think so, but we'll talk about that today on the Matt Walsh show. So he seemed to be charging headfirst into something here. And there aren't very many people interested in slowing down the process, unfortunately.

I think a lot of people are interested more in speeding it up. Joaquin Castro, a Democrat congressman, brother of Julian Castro, who's one of the guy, one of the one percenters running for it, one percenter in the poll, that is. Might be one percent or financially, too, I'm not sure. Julian Castro running for president. Well, this is his brother who decided to find and post the names and employers of Trump's biggest donors in San Antonio. Castro represents San Antonio. So he was doing this to his own constituents.

You know, you send someone to Congress to represent your interests, but instead he's doxing his own constituents. This, now you can argue, as some leftists have argued, that, well, this is publicly available information. so it's not like he was rooting through their junk mail or something in there. It's publicly available. And, okay, fine, it is. But what's the point of putting those names out there? What's the point of doing it? The fact that it's public, okay, a lot of things are public.

But why are you putting it out there for people? The names, the contact information, telling people, okay, here's where you can find them. Here's where they work. In this environment, what's the point of doing? doing that? With violence on both sides becoming more and more common, what could possibly be the point other than to stoke violence against Trump's donors? I mean, look what happened to Mitch McConnell. He injured himself. He broke his shoulder, I think. And while he was recovering at his house, far-left activists showed up at his house in the middle of the night to protest, quote-unquote,

protest him. One of them is, it says on camera that she hopes someone will come and here's a quote from her, just stab the mother effort in the heart. And of course, Democrats, they've done nothing to discourage this. In fact, it was, I think it was Barbara Boxer who made a, made a funny, witty little quip about how Mitch McConnell must have broke his shoulder tripping over a copy of the Constitution that he left laying around and something like that. Now, it goes through. without saying, okay, it goes without saying that if Donald Trump had made a joke like that about an injured Democrat, imagine, I mean, just imagine that Alexandria Keza-Cortez broke her shoulder in some sort of accident. And then Donald Trump on Twitter made a joke about it.

Not just a joke, but a taunting joke. That's a five-day news cycle easily. But of course, with Republicans, it's just, hey, it's just the way it goes, I suppose. Same thing with Rand Paul. You know, he was assaulted by his neighbor a couple of years ago. He announced over the weekend that he had to have part of his lung removed from the injuries he sustained in that assault. And if you go on Twitter and you look at that tweet that Rand Paul sent out just saying, hey, I had to have part of my lung removed, so I'm going to be kind of out of commission for the next few weeks. Almost every comment, thousands of comments in a row taunting him for it. Ilhan Omar retweeted a tweet. Now, this was before we knew he was removing

part of his long, but last week, she retweeted a tweet mocking Rand Paul for being assaulted. This is where we are now. A lot of what we're seeing now, a lot of the rhetoric being used would have been unthinkable five years ago. Even just five years, forget about 10 or 20 years, just five years ago, this would have been unthinkable. And now it's, it's, now it's all part and parcel. And here's what makes it even worse in my view. As some, you know, prominent voices on the left and on the right seem to encourage violence, encourage more chaos, you know, they aren't doing it really because they specifically want violence.

And that's, I'm not making any excuse for them. Okay, it's actually worse than that. To intentionally foment violence because you want violence, to try to whip up a mob against someone simply because you hate them, that's bad enough. I mean, that's bad, that's really bad. I think this is even worse. This goes back to what I've been talking about over the past few days,

this just disregard for human life. It's not even hatred. It's actually lower than hatred. Hatred is better. It's bad. but it's better than what we're seeing in our culture now, which is people who have disregard for each other. It just doesn't matter.

And those who are throwing red meat into this mob, they're doing it just to get in the headlines, to get attention. They're doing it because it's politically expedient. They're doing it to please their base. And that to me is even worse. worse than doing it simply because you hate someone and you're angry at them. As bad as that is, this somehow, to me, seems even worse. Our country is teetering on the edge of something potentially cataclysmic, I believe. And these people are making a game out of it. Making a game out of it.

It's sickening. And the thing is, in this environment, here's what happens. If you try to cut a course through all of this. If you try to be consistent in your assessments of things, if you're not interested in the basic throwing red meat thing, if you try to maintain a certain standard that you apply consistently so that you don't end up as a member of a mindless mob or as one of the people whipping up a mindless mob,

if you say, I don't want to do that. I don't want to be in the mob. I don't want to be leading the mob. I don't want anything to do with that. Well, if you do that, you're going to be attacked by the sociopaths and whack jobs on both sides. Then what's going to end up happening is that you end up getting both mobs coming at you, which is why most people end up retreating into one of the mobs, because they figure, well, then at least I have some cover from one of the mobs,

even if I'm in another one. If you try anything, the only thing you're allowed to do now in this environment is throw red meat. That's all your letter. Anything more nuanced than that will leave you stranded. It will leave you alienated. And that's been my experience, especially this week. And my experience is typical. There's nothing unique about my experience at all, just to be clear. And there are a lot of people who get the backlash a whole hell of a lot worse than I do. But I thought I could just use myself as an example, because talk about what you know, I guess. Because I think it's instructive or at least indicative. So over this past week, and before this week, but especially this past week, in the wake of the two shootings. And if you've watched the show, if you've read my pieces, you know that I've made a number of points. Not all of them directly connected, but I think there are a lot of different issues at play here with what leads to the shootings and what we should do in response to them. There are a lot of takeaways that one could, well, take away from all of this.

one of the points that I made in response to the El Paso shooting, and I was saying this on Twitter and, you know, after the shooting, and this is not revolutionary. But given that this was a white supremacist who committed a mass shooting, one of the worst mass shootings in American history, targeting Hispanics, you know, I said that white supremacism is stupid, evil, and dangerous. And obviously. And there does exist a certain collection, a certain group of white supremacist extremists in this country and outside of this country. And members of that group have perpetrated in the last few months three of the worst mass shootings in history. Christchurch, Pittsburgh, and El Paso. That's not even within a year. That's within what, six, you know, six, eight months or something. We've got three of them with people with identical ideologies, basically. These are white supremacists driven by that ideology to commit mass murder. Three in only a few months. That's a fact.

And it's a problem. It's not something we can just overlook. We can't pretend it isn't happening because we're afraid that if we acknowledge it, the left might somehow use it against us. That's cowardly. I mean, that's not just cowardly. that's several light years beyond mere cowardice. To be shy about denouncing white supremacy

and to deny the fact that white supremacists have murdered mass amounts of people over the last few months, you know, to be reluctant about bringing that point up, that just makes you a gutless little snake. I mean, coward doesn't even come close to describing it. And I had, as I was talking about this over the weekend, again, points being, number one, obviously white supremacy is disgusting evil, dangerous, stupid.

Number two, this group of people does exist in the world. They're not in a majority, thank God. They're not anywhere close to a majority. They're in a small minority. They are fringe, but they're there. And they're dangerous. I mean, how many mass shootings do we need? Is three not enough for us to say, well, there's definitely a problem here that we need to look at and talk about?

Do we need five, ten? I mean, how many? Is three not enough for us to say, yes. But as I was talking about this, there were several, many, numerous conservatives on Twitter who told me, you're just sucking up to the left saying this. Look at you sucking up. What? You think that's what, sucking up to the left by pointing out that we've got this group of people murdering people and that's a bad thing? That's sucking up to the left? No, that's just being a normal person. That's acknowledging a very real problem. That's just being a human being. That's all that is. Pasadena Playhouse presents Lerner and Lois Brigadune, featuring six-time Emmy Award winner Tyne Daily and a full 21-piece orchestra.

With its a lush score, including Broadway standards like almost like being in love, and the Heather on the Hill. This beloved classic is a heart-stirring journey into a world where time stands still. suffice all logic. Step through the midst of the Scottish Highlands into this timeless love story. Learner and Lowe's Brigadune is on stage at Pasadena Playhouse

beginning May 13th. Tickets are on sale now at Pasadenaplayhouse.org. But at the head of the gutless snakes, speaking of gutless snakes, enter Nicholas J. Fuentes. Nick Fuentes is a white supremacist, an actual white supremacist,

with somehow a following online, which proves, that the, again, these people exist. They're fringe. They're a minority for sure. They are not at all representative of conservatives. I don't even think they are conservatives. And I probably they would also tell you they're not conservatives. But they're there. It's, it, they're certainly there. Fentis is, he's one of those guys who went to that Nazi tiki torch rally, the one where a woman was murdered by a neo-Nazis. He's one of those, he's one of those guys that went to one of those to that thing. And that's, that's basically where he's, that's, that's basically where

stands. Well, Fuentes, here is now, I'll show you, I'll show you, in case you don't, not familiar with him, here's what Flantis looks like. Here's Fentis. You know, and I could only show you a still image because he deleted the video that I'm about to address, or at least he deleted the part of the video that I'm going to address. So I can't, unfortunately, I can't play it for you because he deleted it like a

coward. But on his little white supremacist talk show on YouTube, he launched into a temper tantrum because I said that white supremacy is bad. Because I said, on Saturday, I said, I already told you what I said. And I said that this guy, this white supremacist should be executed. So should the one in Dayton. I've already, I've discussed numerous times over the last few months my evolution on the death penalty. And yeah, if you're a mass murderer, you should be executed. Forentists didn't like that. So he had a temper tantrum, reduced nearly to tears. And again, because he's a gutless punk, He deleted this tantrum. He took it out of his show. But here's what he said. He said, Matt Walsh, Shabbas, goy race trader. That's anti-Semitic, if you're not familiar with the link. Antisemitic lingo there. Matt Walsh, Goy race trader. That's what, and you have to imagine that I'm foaming at the mouth and nearly tearing up, as I'm saying this, because this is, this is, that's, you know, this is, this is, you know, this is, this is, you know, this is, fint of screaming it like a lunatic. So Matt Walsh, Shabbis, Goy, race trader. That's what it is, folks. I know. I know.

some people don't like us to use that expression, but it's totally true. Throwing his own people under the bus. He hates white people. Nobody else talks like that about their own people except for white people, and it's gross. Yeah, okay, keep typing on Twitter.com and then keep typing on Twitter.com. Then he called me a gay slur, starting with F twice. And then he, another word starting with P. And then he says again, race trader, you work for Jews. Okay. So I work for Jews. I'm a race trader. He says that a couple times, gay slurs, blah, blah, blah, blah. I hate white people. And this is all because I said that white supremacism is a problem.

It's bad when white supremacists kill people. And anyone who kills, you know, 20 people should be executed. Now, we're just going to skip past the fact that a guy named Fuentes is a white nationalist. We'll skip past that part. The idea that I hate white people or that I'm attacking my own. Here's the thing, Nick. These are, I'm not attacking my own people. These aren't my people.

If you're claiming the El Paso guy as your people, then go ahead and do that. He's not my people. He's not my people just because of the color of his skin. That's not the way it works for me. Maybe the way it works for you, but not for me. The idea that I hate white people because I specifically denounced racists who walk into Walmart and mosques and synagogues and slaughter women and children, the idea that I hate white people. people for being opposed to that. It's so delusional, so insane, so utterly psychotic that I feel like

I'm wasting my time responding to it. And I suppose I am. But I also don't think we can ignore this because there are people out there who this is how they see the world. And these people are dangerous. I'll just say this. And unlike Nick the Brave, Fuentes, the freedom fighter, I'm not going to delete this or take it down. It's going to stay on YouTube. And so anyone can see it. Let me say this to Fuentes. You are a spoiled brat. You are a spoiled stupid brat who became a neo-Nazi troll for attention. You got into college and realized that you could spit these neo-Nazi talking points and it would get you attention and that's why you're doing it. And I know that you know that about yourself. you and I both know that.

See, man to man, looking each other in the eyes through cameras. You know that about yourself. You know you don't believe half of the crap you say. I'm a race trader because I said that a white guy who kills people should be executed. You don't believe that. Because in order to believe that,

you would have to be a psycho. You would have to be literally psychotic, which I don't think you are. I'm not going to give you that excuse. I think you know better. But the ideology that you promote that you advocate is the exact ideology of three mass shooters who have killed dozens of people. Now, it's true that people on the left, you know, they're going to try to take these mass shooters

and compare all conservatives to them and say that they share an ideology with all of us. They don't. They don't share an ideology with me. They share it with you. These are the kinds of people who would call other whites race traitors, that kind of thing, who are worried about the Jews, who are prone to, you know, accuse someone of working for the Jews. No, that's your crew. It's not mine. The El Paso Shuters Manifesto is indistinguishable from your ramblings. I can't tell the difference. It sounds exactly the same to me. Now here's the thing, little, little Nikki. One of these days,

because you're a young guy. What are you? 17, 18? I don't know. I mean, 15th, I don't know, with the mustache. It looks like it's your first mustache. I mean, it's looking good. I'm not going to hate on the mustache. And it's, you know, it's a cute little, it's your, Your first attempt, I get it. But one of these days, Nick, you're going to grow up and become a man, which you aren't right now. One of these days, you're going to grow up and become a man. And when you do, you're going to look back with remorse and embarrassment on the time you spent advocating white supremacy and crying on the Internet when someone criticizes bigotry and mass murder.

That's going to happen in the future. You're going to look back on yourself using phrases like racist. traitor, and you're going to be so embarrassed, and you're going to go out begging for forgiveness. You know, like many of the prominent white nationalists who have in just the last few years, renounced it and tried to pick up their lives and salvage some credibility and establish some distance from the alt-right, because they woke up from their stupor and they realized, wow, this is so freaking stupid. I look like an idiot. And at the same time, I have associated myself with some of the worst people on earth.

And so a lot of those former alt-right white nationalists, they're trying to distance themselves and pick up their lives and salvage some credibility. And when you begin that process, which you will, good luck. And I mean that. But in the meantime, though, I just want to emphasize that your worldview is extremely, extremely, extremely stupid. And you have aligned yourself with the worst people on earth. Race traitor?

What the hell is a race trader? My ancestors were Irish. Okay. Yours were, well, I mean, your name is Frontis. Okay. And I don't see how I betray you by thinking for myself. The fact that we have similar skin pigmentation does not automatically put us on some kind of team together. And by the way, if your ancestors had the same ideas about racial purity that you do, you wouldn't exist. So maybe cool it with the race trader stuff, big guy. Let me cool it with that. You know, the teams in America, if there are teams, it's not divided by skin pinbentation. It's not divided by, you know, what color your skin is.

That's not how we divide the teams anymore. At least it's not how I divide them. Now, you, that is how you divide them. So you are, along with being indistinguishable from radical white supremacists who kill mass amounts of people, you're also indistinguishable from the race spaders and the identity politics people on the left. You're doing your own version of that. And when I see that on the left, I say it's very, very stupid. And when I see it with you, I say it's very, very stupid as well.

Because those aren't the teams. If you're an American citizen and you're a decent human being, if you're a legal American citizen, you're a decent human being, you value freedom and objective morality and truth and those things. We have the same belief. We have the same fundamental priorities in life. then as far as I'm concerned, we're on the same team. Why would I care what color the person's skin is?

This isn't some after-school special sermon about, you know, racial unity. This is just, I literally don't understand why you would care. What difference does it make? All right. Meanwhile, and I've already spent more time on that that I need to. You know, Fuentes and his people, they represent a dying, thank God a dying ideology. But the problem is, as that ideology dies, as that worldview dies, it apparently is determined to take out as many innocent people with it as it can. And so that's my concern. Meanwhile, checking in with the other side of the coin here, media matters got a hold of a clip of me from the show yesterday.

they posted it online with the caption, The Daily Wires, Matt Walsh, points to an overly feminine influence on boys as a potential cause for mass shooters. Now, let me play. In case you missed the show yesterday, here's the clip that was on Jason Campbell's. Jason Campbell works for Media Matters. He's the one who posted it to try to generate some outrage against me. And here's the clip.

When all boys have is a sort of feminine influence. Now, not all women are like this, but a mom is more likely to say, oh, you still don't hit back. The mom is more likely to, because she's, you know, she's the feminine influence. She's more focused on the fact that her son is hurting. He's got the black eye.

That's what she's focused on. Where as the father, you're worried about his physical pain, but that's not the main thing you're focused on. You want to know, did he swing first? Did you win? You know, that's going to be one of your questions. Boy needs that also. He can't just have the feminine influence.

It's not healthy. All right. Now, so I think that's part of it. And I have to stipulate this. I shouldn't have to stipulate it. But I'm not, look, you could have a boy who grows up with, there are many boys, many, millions, who grow up with no father in the house. They play a lot of video games.

They watch a lot of TV. They're on the drugs. And they don't grow up to become mass shooters. Okay. The vast majority of boys in that category are not going to grow up to become mass shooters. Of course. because for that extra dramatic step of becoming a killer, there's going to be a lot more needed.

But boys are still being put in a disadvantage, even if they don't end up as mass killers. They are still going to end up taking unhealthy risks in some form. They're still going to end up finding unhealthy outlets for their aggression in some form. They're still going to end up confusing. about who they are. And that is in some way going to come out. Now, I've gotten a lot of backlash for this, of course. So it's been coming from both sides. Like I was what I'm saying. White supremacists on one, leftist on the other. I'm a race trader and

a secret liberal on one hand, but I'm also a sexist, far right extremist on the other. It must be a split brain thing. Have you heard of those cases where someone has split brain, the two hemispheres of the brain, so there are two different people? I must be that. I don't know. I should go see a neurologist because otherwise I'm not sure how I can. could be all of those things at once, but apparently I am. Now, normally what happens is media matters takes an out-of-context clip from a conservative commentator. They stir up the outrage brigade, and then the commentator apologizes or clarifies or whatever. I will do neither of those things. Anyone who wants to see the whole point that I made in that, which was the show yesterday,

if you want to see it, and that clip is part of a probably 20-minute monologue where I'm talking about the problem of fatherlessness and how fatherlessness might contribute. to certainly violence generally, but also mass shootings. If you want to see the whole point I'm making, which is a longer point than that one and a half minute clip would indicate, you can go to YouTube and look at it. You can see it on iTunes or SoundCloud or whatever. For now, though, I'm comfortable letting it stand.

And I do, in fact, believe that the feminization of boys is part of the problem. Not the whole problem, not even the main problem. it is a problem and it's part of the larger problem we've been talking about this week. I'm crazy enough to think that, you know, we should raise our boys to embrace their masculinity, to embrace themselves, to grow into that identity. Rather than the other idea is having them choose their own identity randomly when they're three years old. Rather than that, because we know what their basic identity is, right? We know that, okay, this is a boy. We have an understanding of that. They, don't as very young children. And so our job is to help them embrace and grow into that and

figure out what that means. In the extreme cases, when you have a boy, he's going around saying he's a girl, what he's, what he's expressed, what he's really expressing is that he doesn't understand who he is. He's expressing confusion. And so our job must be to cut through that confusion and to lend some clarity to the situation. So yeah, that's what I believe. I'm not going to apologize for that. And I think this is one of those things that most normal people intuitively see is true. The fact that, yeah, it's better to have a dad in the picture. The fact that we are feminizing our boys to a large extent, sometimes literally, sometimes in the most literal sense, we're literally trying to turn them into girls sometimes.

I think that's just obvious to a lot of people. And intuitively, most people can see that it's a problem. But on the left, they are often scandalized by these self-evident intuitive truths. All right. Let's take it down a notch before we get to emails. I wanted to mention one other things because I thought it was funny. So we need a lot. It's been so much heavy stuff this week.

But Time Magazine has an article with, this is the headline in Time. I haven't read the article, I admit. And usually I'm the first to complain about judging articles based on the headline, but I think here you can safely do that. The headline is, we counted every line in every Quentin Tarantino film to see how often women talk. That's the headline. And in the article, I assume they give us the results. We're going to count. Apparently, they watched every Quentin Tarantino movie with a notepad and paper and a pen and just tabulated the cumulative amount.

of minutes that women characters spent talking in every Quinn Tarantino movie. And he's had, what does he, he had nine movies now? And his movies are long, too. It's probably almost like 30 hours of movies they watched. So they could tabulate. I don't know what the results are. Like I said, I didn't read the, I didn't read the article. I don't think it really matters. I mean, maybe it could be fun to watch a bunch of movies and arbitrarily quantify certain things. Like maybe watch every Christopher Nolan movie and tabulate, how many times people in green shirts say the word the? I don't know.

Maybe we could do that. If we're arbitrarily quantifying things in movies, then why not that? But this, of course, is part of the, why did they do this? Well, they did it because feminism has run out of things to do. And they had a lot of time on their hands. That's the first reason. But ostensibly, they were trying to, this is all part of this whole idea that women are, you know, not represented as much in movies and they're not given a chance to talk.

This stretches beyond Quentin Tarantino and beyond movies generally. This is something you hear from feminists a lot, that women are reluctant to talk. They're always being interrupted by men. Feminist paint women as generally these sort of wilting wallflowers who hang out in the corner and are meek and mild and afraid to chime in and say anything. whether in the real world or in movies. And this, again, is just reveals that feminists are living in a universe, that I don't know what universe are living in.

It's not this one. Because I'm pretty sure I'm in this universe. And I don't recognize this is maybe the weirdest invention of modern feminists is this concept that women don't talk enough and are afraid to talk and are constantly being, you know, talked over by men. That, of all the problems in the world, I'm pretty sure that's not on the list. You know, I think women generally do, and this is not a criticism, okay, women do a fair amount of talking. And in movies and in real life, they do a fair amount of it.

I'm pretty sure that if we were to tabulate all of the time that women in this country, let's say in a given day. Let's take all of the talking that is done in real life, on TV, anywhere, in this country, in a given day. I don't know this because I haven't counted it, but I'm pretty sure that we would find that probably like 80% of the talking or more is done by women. It's, I mean, it's at least equal, but it's probably a lot, it's probably quite a bit unbalanced in favor of women. So this is, it's, we're expected to believe. Feminists are so desperate to find persecution that now they're, they're finding in here telling us, well, women don't talk enough.

I mean, certainly, you know, I, I have a wife. I've got four sisters. I've got, I've got one daughter and another on the way. I've got like, I don't know, nine or ten nieces, lost count. I've spent a fair amount of time around women. like anyone has. And yeah, I feel like they hold their own in the talking department.

In fact, it's one of the main complaints that you hear from wives everywhere in the world is that their husbands don't talk enough. Let me ask you, what was the last time you heard that complaint from a man? What was the last time you heard a man complain that the women in his life don't do enough talking? That his wife...

What was the last time a man said to his wife, you know, we don't talk enough. We need to talk more. Why don't you talk? In the whole history of human civilization, has any man ever uttered those words? Maybe a couple, but I have to think it's a rarity. So this, I just, look, if women are being oppressed in this country, personally, I don't see it. But if they are being oppressed, it's not here. It's not in the talking disparity, because that's in their favor. So we're good there. We really are.

All right. Let's go to emails. Matt Walshow at gmail.com. Matt well show at gmail.com. Let's see. A bunch of emails chiming in on the video game discussion from yesterday.

I'll read a couple. And this is from Joseph. Says, Matt, I very much enjoy your podcast. So even with the email being critical, please keep that in mind. Doesn't matter, Joseph. If you're criticizing me, it will hurt my feelings.

So it doesn't matter. You can try to stipulate it all you want. It's not going to say, my feelings. How dare you? He says, let's be extremely generous to you here and assume that video games cause 100% of mass shootings outside of Muslim extremism. All the rest of them, it's the one and only cause. Tally up the number and there's been a couple hundred deaths because of it. Sure, any death is too much, I suppose, but let's compare to alcohol. Well, okay, before we, I'll continue reading, but you say, let's be generous to me and assume that video games cause 100% of mass shootings.

I never said, my whole point, I never said that video games cause any percent of mass shootings. I think if we're talking about direct causes, video games cause zero percent of them. So you say, be generous to me by assuming, that makes it sound like you're saying that I was arguing that video games cause a certain percentage of mass shootings. I wasn't saying that.

In fact, I tried to be clear about that by stipulating it over and over again that video games do not cause mass shootings. I think that like any form of media, they are an influence. They influence people. And so if somebody spends hours a day, years of their life playing video games,

and then they turn into a mass shooter, and we're looking at all of the different influences that may have contributed to it, that's probably going to be one of them. But as I said, it's not even because of the violence in the game. It's because of the isolation. It's because it breeds isolation and addiction. That's the danger of it, which is also the danger of TV and Internet and any form of media.

Okay. So he's going and says, let's compare to alcohol. Alcohol is a substance you drink. It's a substance that you believe the legal drinking age should be lowered. Unlike video games, there's actual conclusive research confirming the damages it causes. It stunts brain development in youth. It is the cause of about half the fatalities on the road. Latest research shows alcohol causing about 88,000 deaths a year.

On top of that, my father worked in law enforcement at a county jail for 33 years. Do you know what type of people were committing crimes? Abusing their spouse and kids? Let me give you a hint. It wasn't gamers. It was people under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol causes broken homes, not video games. On top of that, I'm sure you know the substance is used as a social lubricant,

almost always accompanied by people having premarital sex. By its very nature, alcohol lowers your inhibitions and judgment. So you have one substance that you like that you will defend to the core, which has proven to cause children out of wedlock, addiction, stunted brain development, lower inhibition, fatal car accidents, broken homes, poor physical health, thousands of deaths per year. Yet on the other hand, you have video games which have no conclusive evidence whatsoever to be an influencing factor in some mass murders, and this is what you rail against continually. Why is it they rail against video games and not alcohol when one is clearly a more destructive force

in the world than the other. I don't know, but I can only assume it's because you personally like alcohol. You personally do not like video games. With the extensive data available in the destructive nature of alcohol, if you were so inclined, you could write a piece a hundred times more convincing of its toxic nature than you can of video games, but you're not so inclined, so you don't want this email to be mistaken for me being upset or mad at you. Like a lot of people are, I hardly play games. I realize people aren't perfectly consistent with all their stances and actions. I would just be interested to know how you rationalize such a harsh stance against video games while defending and almost promoting. the use of a substance proven much more destructive. Okay. All right, there's a lot here. So I feel like I have to go through this one by one. So I'm sure I'm going to miss a couple of the points you raised. First of all, a small thing you say video games don't cause broken homes. I would argue that they almost certainly do actually. Probably not as, I mean, not as many as alcohol does. But all you have to do is read some of my emails. Anytime I talk about this, which is rare, I'll get to that in a second. Anytime I talk about this, I hear from women, wives, who say that their marriages have been destroyed

because their husbands just won't stop playing video games. All they do is play video games. They come home from work, they go and play video games for five hours. They don't even see the kids. This is a really common thing. This goes to the addictive nature of video games. And I think it's one of the reasons why some guys are so defensive of it, because they recognize that they're doing this.

There are, I don't know what the number is, okay, Joseph, but there are certainly men out there, husbands who they neglect their wives and their kids to play video games. That's a real thing. Just talk to women. They'll tell you. Unless they're all lying, it's a thing. And yeah, it does contribute to broken homes. And it's, I mean, it's crazy to think that it would, that any guy would choose video games over his family, but some do. That's a thing. It happens. Just like there are guys who choose internet porn over their families. There are guys and women who choose, you know, essentially choose social media and internet over their families because they prioritize those things over their families. So I would quibble with that. You go on to talk about the dangers of alcohol. I agree. Alcohol is dangerous.

Well, you all say I rail against video games constantly. I think I've done two shows about video games. I've written two articles about video games, maybe three. since I start in the last five years I've written I don't know 500 articles three of them have been about video games three and five probably more than 500 articles I don't even know how many I write every day so you know and I've been doing this for five or six years so you do the math um hundreds of articles three of them have been about video games and Joseph's not the only email I got saying why do you always talk about this always talk about it I've talked about it a couple of times in years And I've done, I think what am I on? I'm on my 300th show, I think. And two of them have touched on video games? Two? Out of like 300? Okay.

So the say I constantly talk about it is just not true. Now, you, but it's true, though, that I have not written any articles detailing the dangers of alcohol. I haven't done any show about the dangers of alcohol. I also have never denied those dangerous. I've certainly acknowledged them in many contexts many times. Why haven't I done a show on it? Well, because it's not controversial at all, at all. Everybody agrees that alcohol can be dangerous, that alcoholism is bad,

that drunk driving is bad, that people die from alcohol. I've never heard anyone disagree. I've never heard a single person ever deny that. Now, there are still alcoholics who behave dangerously. So we all acknowledge it, yet it's still. a problem. So we need to address the problem. But what I do on the show is I try to analyze and offer commentary on issues. And I like to focus on issues where there's going to be substantial disagreement because if everyone agrees, I don't even see the point of saying it. What would be the

point of me doing a 45-minute show where my entire point is, it's bad to be an alcoholic. You shouldn't be an alcoholic. Don't drink and drive. Every single person who hears it is going to say, yep, I totally agree. Uh-huh. There's nothing to be said. The fact that video games, that to me, it is self-evident, that there's danger to overconsumption of video games, the fact that so many people disagree, to me, means that we need to talk about it. There's a reason to discuss it, because there is disagreement on the issue. As far as not wanting to criticize alcohol because I like alcohol, Well, that's just not true. Again, I fully acknowledge the dangers of alcohol. I don't deny it. And this idea that I'm reluctant to criticize things that are close to home for me is just not true.

My first show of the week that everyone seems to have forgotten about, at least the people upset about video games, have forgotten. My first show of the week, I was talking about what are some of the contributing factors to this. It was my first show. I didn't mention video games. I talked about the internet. I am on the internet. Right now, I'm on the internet. I'm talking to you. I'm on the internet. I make my living on the internet. I spend a lot of time on the internet. I need people to be on the internet to make a living, to feed my family. It is as close to home as it could possibly be. Yet I have no problem criticizing it. I have no problem saying that the internet has many dangers. And even that, look, I've written articles encouraging people to stop using the internet. Even if that means they're not reading me anymore. It's good. It's good for you. I mean, if you were to never sign on the internet. internet again, it would hurt me because I would lose a listener and a viewer, but it would be good for you. I encourage you to do it. So I have no compunctions about criticizing things that are close to home for me. So I just, I think that that's just, it's, it's an invalid criticism. It's not true. I do it all the time. I, but I do think, on the other hand, it seems to me that

there are a lot of gamers out there who when it comes to games, they, they will not, they will not acknowledge any problem with it because they like it. That's how it seems to me. So I agree that that attitude of not wanting to acknowledge the problems with the things that you enjoy, I agree that that is a problematic, to borrow a word from our friends on the left, it's a problematic attitude. But I think that attitude with this discussion is much more prevalent and obvious on the pro-gaming side.

From Gabe, let's hear from the other side of this argument, says on the topic of video games and their potential effect on real-life violence, I'd like to add my perspective as both a lifelong passionate gamer and as a veteran. People are demanding scientific evidence from you, and there's nothing more scientific in my experience than Marine Corps training. It's no coincidence that recruits are immersed for three straight months in violent speech and violent thought patterns, even outside of the actual combat training. Example, whenever we practice the drill movement inspection arms, my platoon would scream a boondock saint, quote, which is each day we will spill their blood till it rains down from the skies. That's a pretty badass quote, though, if to admit. Desensitization is the clear purpose of such training, but it's a necessary good thing in the context of military service.

Since I was old enough to play them, I've also loved violent video games. In a word, they're awesome, and they're a part of what inspired me to join the Marines in the first place. But if the Marine Corps uses direct exposure to violent language and thought patterns to train more efficient killers, good, just, loving, amazing patriots, but killers nonetheless, it would be insane to assume that violent video games don't make it easier to countenance and perhaps even to commit violence in the same way. Crazy thought. Maybe parents should keep their violent games away from the kids until their brains and social awareness have

developed to the point that they can more easily guard their own psychology against dangerous stimuli. At any rate, when you come into your rightful place, a supreme overlord, the splendid and righteous one, would you allow me to keep my violent games at least until my swift and deserved execution for keeping my apartment at 78 degrees? Gabe, you just ruined it at the end there. 68 degrees, Gabe, 68 degrees is the law. Every, every building in the country will be kept at 68 degrees year round. Oh, Gabe, oh man, you were doing so well. And then you just signed your arrest warrant right there. But in actuality, I think you can't expect climate. because you agreed with me, which, which, you know, in my, in my tyrannical dictatorship,

that is really the only law is you must agree with me. But, so, yeah, I think the point Gabe makes, now, see, I know you're going to say this is because I'm biased, and I am, and maybe it is because I'm biased, but to me, this perspective from Gabe is more credible and more valuable because he is going against, in a way, his own interests. So he loves playing games, yet he's offering a criticism of games. So you can't dismiss it as well. He's just trying to justify what he does. He's doing the opposite.

So to me, that's always interesting when people are willing to do that. But when all you're doing is closing your ears and defending a thing you like to do without even engaging with the opposing arguments, it's just not credible. It's not, and I'm not saying that's what Joseph was doing, but there are people who have been doing that. And to me, it's just not credible. This is interesting, though, that Gabe would make these points. And I think, yeah, to me, it's just obvious. Like, I gave you the studies.

I said, we can play dueling studies, and there are studies on both sides of this. I also pointed out from the methodology that there's, there are only a few ways methodologically to do these studies. And I think, no matter how you do them, the conclusions aren't going to be very useful. because it's going to rely most of the time on self-reported data from people who are obviously biased. So we could do studies on both sides. But as I said, I think that's, it's a pointless exercise. Instead, we could just use common sense. Obviously, as Gabe points out, if a kid is wallowing in this kind of content for years and years,

clearly it's going to desensitize him. It's the same thing with pornography. Now, if someone has a steady diet of pornography from the age of 10 to 25, and then at 25, they become a rapist, are we going to argue that the porn habit was irrelevant, completely irrelevant, had nothing to do with it? It was just a coincidence? Come on. I mean, obviously, it's not irrelevant.

But, of course, we're also not going to argue that the porn caused the rape, the rape, because there are millions of porn viewers out there who never rape anybody. And we all know that. However, probably it's not irrelevant. That's all. It probably was an influencing factor, among many others, that led eventually to this. So if you're stewing in this kind of content, it is going to desensitize you. That's human nature.

It's a psychological reality that we get used to things. We grow accustomed to things. we're very good at that, which can be good, depending on what the thing is. It's good that we're able to adapt to our circumstances. But when the thing we're growing accustomed to is violence and brutality, even if it's fictional violence, that's probably not good. All right. Let's see. I'll see if we had one more here. We had a quite, I can't find, maybe I accidentally deleted it before I Before I got to, there was a question about, oh, here it is. This is from Chilean Chris says, if you claim that physical violence is not okay against speech, how can you justify punching someone that calls your girlfriend or wife a B word? I clearly would punch the heck out of a guy that calls my girlfriend any word like that. However, I do understand, too, that words should be

dealt with words, and if someone calls me a stupid racist moron, I shouldn't be out there punching them. How do you do it to reconcile both ideologies you support, since I'm sure you would also physically defend your wife if insulted by another man. Yeah, well, that's a good question. And this is why, Chris, if I could call you Chris, I don't know if you need the whole name, Chalang, Chris. This is why, Chris, I don't say that violence is never the answer. I don't think that's true. I think that's a blanket statement that's sort of silly and childish. Obviously, sometimes violence is part of the answer. I mean, if you think that there's ever in life, ever in the history of the world been a justified war, then you believe that violence sometimes can be

part of the answer. So I would never say that. Sometimes violence is appropriate. Now, there are stipulations. If you are killing someone, an innocent person, unprovoked, not in an act of self-defense, but as an act of murder, that obviously is wrong, despicable, horrible, evil violence. We should be able to stipulate that and identify that nuance and that distinction without having to make some blanket statement that it's never okay to use force under any circumstance. To me it seems easy to say, yeah, you can use force sometimes, but not if you're killing an innocent person. That's obviously wrong. And even, you know, most of the time, if someone insults you, if you hear an insult, it would be inappropriate to respond physically. But I'm not going to sit here and say that it's never appropriate to respond physically to words.

I don't think that's true. And I think that if you're out with your wife and someone runs up and verbally harasses her, sexually harasses her, I think that you'd be perfectly justified punching that person in the face. Now, this is where prudence comes in because you might say to yourself, depending on the situation, well, if I do this, I'm going to go to jail. And so that's not a smart choice. you know, so sometimes you exercise prudence, you have to measure it and everything. But in principle, I think for a man to respond with force to words can sometimes be appropriate, given the situation.

Jesus says turn the other cheek. I think it's a very important to note that Jesus says turn the other cheek when someone slaps you. He's saying when someone slaps you, turn the other cheek. He never says if someone slaps your what? or your mother or your child, turn the other cheek. Okay, because then it's not your cheek. Then turning the other cheek is just,

there's another word for that, it's looking the other way while your family member is being harassed or assaulted. Jesus didn't advocate that. He didn't say that. I think it's an important distinction, crucial distinction.

Turn the other cheek when you were the one being insulted. When your family's being insulted, when your wife, your mother, your children, no, I don't think you do turn the other. You certainly don't, I mean, you certainly respond in some way, even if not physically. So if someone runs up to you and calls you a bad name and you just ignore them or turn the other cheek, that could be a sign of strength. It could also be a sign of cowardice, depending on the situation.

But that could be a second. But if someone runs up to your wife or a family member and harasses them and you say nothing, that's not strength. That's not you being the bigger man. That is you being scared. That's you being a coward. And so, yeah, that's how I would. distinguish that. All right, we'll go ahead and leave it there. Thanks everybody for watching. Have a great day. Godspeed.

Hey, everyone. It's Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven Show. America has a problem with extremism. People with rigid ideas, secluded with their own, becoming radicalized and increasingly hateful. And that's just the media. We'll talk about it on the Andrew Claven Show. I'm Andrew Claven.