The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 384 - Identity Politics In Disarray

Episode Date: December 5, 2019

A college professor made the lamest joke in recorded history at the impeachment hearing yesterday. But what's even more lame are the conservatives pretending to be offended by it. Also, a rally for Pete Buttigieg descends into chaos as the Left's system of identity politics continues to collapse around them. And a NYT article advocates being your own soul mate. We'll talk about why the whole notion of self-love is flawed.  Can't get enough of The Matt Walsh Show? Enjoy ad-free shows, live discussions, and more by becoming an ALL ACCESS subscriber TODAY at: https://dailywire.com/Walsh Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Well, as you may have noticed, if you listen to the show, I don't really talk much about impeachment on this show, mostly because the subject bores me, frankly, and I'm not good at pretending to be interested in things that I'm not interested in. That's one of the reasons why I was really bad at customer service jobs, you know, when I was a teenager, because, you know, someone comes into the pizza place and says, hmm, what pizza toppings do you recommend that I get on my pizza? I honestly don't care. I really don't care what pizza. Why would I care? what pizza toppings you get on your pizza. Just hurry up in order, you glutton.

Anyway, so faking interest isn't my strong suit. Also, it seems to me that this impeachment is, for the most part, political theater, and not even very entertaining political theater. And never was that clearer than yesterday when the Dems called up a series of, quote, witnesses who didn't witness anything. And, of course, in a legal sense, when we talk about witnesses, it doesn't have to be in the sense

that they actually witnessed something. But the fact remains, these are people who had no personal knowledge of anything related to the impeachment case. They were college professors. College professors who were all, of course, political partisans, openly hostile to the president. And the only moment of the testimony from them that anyone's talking about today is this line from a professor, Pamela Carlin, who incidentally looks exactly like my 10th grade math teacher. and I think she looks like everyone's 10th grade math teacher, I'm pretty sure. But here's that moment.

Kings could do no wrong because the king's word was law. And contrary to what President Trump has said, Article 2 does not give him the power to do anything he wants. And I'll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president can name his son baron, he can't make him a baron. I think I cringed so hard at that joke that I broke a rib, I think. And you know she had that line planned for months, probably.

She thought of that one. She wrote it down on a note card. She said, oh, this is good. This is good. She practiced it in a mirror 40 times. She was thinking that it would absolutely kill. And then she delivers it. And she gets this awkward pause followed by.

And it's even what's what's. Worst than the awkward pause after a joke is the polite chuckle that she got from a few, the polite, sympathetic chuckle that she got from a few people in the room. In fairness, an impeachment hearing is kind of a tough venue for a comedy routine. So I think it would be hard to make your material land no matter how good it is. But this material would bomb anywhere. And I say this, by the way, as a huge apologist for and fan of puns, I have no problem with puns. I love puns. I will defend puns to my dying breath. It's just that this punn was

punishingly bad. Sorry. Had to throw that in there. And this is all there really is to say about that joke. It's cringy, corny, lame, like the one that I just did. And all puns tend to be. But this was, I think, a few levels beyond that. And the fact that the fact that these people are coming to the hearing with lines like that ready to go, only proves again that this is all performative, it's all theater. And I think that should be our focus. We should focus on that rather than as conservatives engaging in our own performance, pretending to be offended by the dumb joke that this lady told.

Unfortunately, a lot of Republicans and conservatives today and yesterday have chosen the course, pretending to be offended by it. In fact, I only heard about this joke because a bunch of conservatives on social media were angrily shouting about a Dem impeachment witness who attacked the child, attacked the minor, attacked the president's child, and so on. Someone actually said on Twitter, I saw, they said, someone said something like, she went on an unhinged rant against the child attacking the child. And I heard all this and I said, wow, what did this woman say? Really? She attacked it? So then I watched the clip. And no, obviously she didn't attack

Baron Trump. There's no attack here. What exactly is the attack? She's saying that Trump can't make his own son a baron. That's not an attack on the son. Obviously, that's a criticism of the president. Not of the president's child. But we all know that. Right. We all know that she didn't attack the kid. Nobody's really outraged about it or offended. But some people on the right are pretending to be.

And this is a troubling trend that I've noticed on the right. Now, we know about the fake outrage on the left. They do it all the time. And I talk about it all the time. I think it's becoming more and more common on the right. And I'm really not a fan of it because I hate fake outrage on either side. I think it's pitiful. It's pathetic.

It's lame. I don't think it accomplishes whatever you think it's going to accomplish when you engage in it. But some people on the right have decided that the best way to beat the left is to act like a fainting damsel in distress

at every opportunity. Someone today, I was talking about this, someone told me that, well, we're fighting back. This is us fighting. You're fighting by crying about a joke? That's you being a warrior? That's you fighting? No, that's you being a wimp.

It's you acting like a wolf. That's also you undermining everything you've ever said about how the left are a bunch of snowflakes who overreact and so on and so forth. So I don't think that we fight by doing that. I think we just become the very thing that we're fighting, which is a profoundly bad strategy. It's also embarrassing and pathetic. And especially to see men, see grown men, some grown man on Twitter. Why, I never. This joke was just way out of bounds.

I just am so offended by this. I mean, the fact that you're doing it online means you don't have to keep the straight face, but I just, I guess I could sort of respect it if you could keep a straight face while pretending to be offended by that. Some other people said that she invaded Barron's privacy. Invaded his privacy by saying his name? He's the president's kid. Everybody knows his name. It's not an invasion of privacy.

It's a fact. We all know what his name is. We don't need to reach for some way to make the joke into a crime against humanity. We don't have to desperately grasp for a reason to be offended. I think the much better course, really. So if we could choose between being fainting damsels in distress on our fainting couches, just collapsing. Oh, my goodness.

If we could choose between that or being immature trolls mocking this woman for a bad joke, I would say, let's go with the immature troll round. That's better. Let's go with that. It's a corny, lame joke, and that should be our point, and we should leave it there. And then get back to the bigger point, of course, which is that this is all political theater, and this is an example of that. I think that's what we should be. That's what we should be focused on.

All right. By the way, giving holiday gifts is great. great. And the only thing, though, is overspending on all those gifts is definitely not great. So why spend more than you have to? Finding the lowest price is easy if you have honey. Honey is a free browser extension. Emphasis on free. I don't know if you caught that part, that automatically finds the best promo codes whenever you shop online. I can tell you that I use honey for all of my Christmas gifts and for all the Christmas shopping that I did. And I saved a ton of money that way. Look, if you're going to, you're going to be spending money around the holidays, no way around it. So why spend more than you have to is the point. And that's why I used honey. Honey has found it's over 10 million members, over a billion dollars in savings. Honey supports over 20,000 stores online. If you're buying gifts this holiday season, then you need honey. If you're not, you probably know someone who is so you could do them a solid and tell them about honey. Honey can help make sure that you're getting the best price for whatever you're buying. It's free to use. It installs in just two clicks. There's just no reason not to use it. Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Walsh. That's join honey.com slash walsh. Okay, well, if you want to see identity politics at its most hilariously confused, then let's check in with a meeting of Pete Buttigieg supporters. I'm going to show you the video in a minute, just a little bit of setup here. This is a meeting held by black leaders in

South Bend, Indiana, and they're rallying support, trying to rally support, specifically in the black community for Mayor Pete's presidential run. Well, Black Lives Matter showed up, and they weren't happy about this. You see, they don't like Pete Buttigieg recently, we've talked about a little bit, but he's gotten himself in trouble on the racial stuff, especially last week when an old video surfaced of him, if you can believe it, claiming that there's an issue in the inner city with kids growing up without role models, which is one of those obviously correct observations that apparently you're not allowed to say anymore. It'll make you racist. So Pete Buttigid said that a few years ago, and that's one of the reasons why BLM and those folks

don't like them. So they showed up and they weren't happy. They say that these black leaders aren't real black leaders. They're not qualified for that position. They don't speak for the black community. But see if you can, if you notice something. I'll play this clip for you. See if you notice something a little bit strange about the BLM activist who is making this point. There's something kind of conspicuous about him.

And see if you notice it. Watch. Leaders, who organized this? We have a police call. This is Euphoria Calvin Klein. New elixir collection featuring three perfume intense scents, inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch. Solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the euphoria elixir collection by Calvin Klein.

Actually, wait, hang on a second. Before we get to the main point here, can we go back very quickly to 23 to 27 in that video? 23 seconds, 27 seconds. I want to focus on that for a minute. Let's watch that moment one more time. Okay, yeah, that's what I thought. That's, yes, that's an elderly woman running up with a cane

to smack the BLM guy with her cane, but she was restrained by the audience. Just checking. I want to make sure that I saw that right. And yeah, that is what happened there, which is, of course, is awesome. Meanwhile, the BLM guy who's stealing the microphone from black woman and claiming that she isn't a real black leader is not himself black. That's the conspicuous detail here. I'm not going to make any assumptions about what his race or ethnicity is other than to say that he definitely is not a black man.

That much is clear. So to review, this is a non-black man stealing the microphone from black support. of a gay, democratic presidential candidate. How do you even begin to do the intersectional math here? It gets very confusing. And this is one of the reasons why the left is imploding, gloriously, before our eyes. Because the identity politics math has become so confused. They've long since determined, of course, that ideas don't matter.

The truth doesn't matter. forget about that. All that matters is jockeying for position, the scrambling for victimhood status, the placing of people into categories based on their race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and so on. But there are so many categories now, and we've been divided in so many ways that it's just chaos. I've talked many times about the victimhood hierarchy on the left, the victimhood pyramid, Well, it seems the pyramid is crumbling. And this is the result. This is really no different than, well, think about, what was it at the Democrat Town Hall on CNN a few months ago,

where you had a, quote, trans woman that is a man, stealing the microphone from a woman, an actual woman, to go on a rant about how. he's being marginalized and so on. So we're used to seeing that. We've been seeing that on the left now for years, and I've talked about it plenty of times, how these men, these gender-confused men, are superseding, are taking precedent over women.

But this is one of the first times I can think of where you've got a, certainly a non-black guy coming in and just boldly taking the microphone from a black woman. Not just taking the microphone from her, but taking it from her so that he can talk about race issues, so that he can be the one to talk about the situation that the black community is in.

Wow. Speaking of disarray on the left, here's one other example. I don't mean to go backwards, but this related to impeachment. This is Representative Al Green. I'm going to play this for you. Although he's a Democrat, you know, he's got a problem with the way the impeachment hearings are going.

And maybe you can guess what his problem is going to be. Watch. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I love my country, but I also rise today with heartfelt regrets. It hurts my heart, Mr. Speaker, to see the Judiciary Committee hearing experts on the topic of impeachment. one of the seminal issues of this Congress, hearing experts, Mr. Speaker, and not one person of color among the experts. What subliminal message are we sending to the world when we have experts but not one person of color? Are we saying that there are no people of color who are experts on this topic of impeachment? what is the message that we're sending?

Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, I will apologize. But if the committee is wrong, if the Congress is wrong, what will it do? Mr. Speaker, people of color for too long have been ignored by one party and taken for granted by the other. Too often this happens. not always but too often it happens Mr. Speaker, I refuse to be ignored and taken for granted. I came here to represent the people who are

ignored and taken for granted. Yeah, actually, Al, you're in Congress to represent the 9th District of Texas. That's who you're supposed to represent, just to be clear. White and black, but Al Green is worried, not that the constitutional experts

might not be experts, not that there might be something wrong with their testimony, but that they don't have the right skin pigmentation. He's worried that the supposed expert testimony will be coming out of the mouths of people whose skin tone is too light for his taste. But that's not racist, remember? It's not racist somehow.

Now, if the people giving the testimony were all non-white, And then a white guy got up there and said, we need a white person on there to hear from them. That would be racist. Right. But when Al Green does it, it's not racist. Just so you know. I mean, it is racist, of course.

It's definitely racist, but we're not supposed to notice that. All right, moving on. I want to take a look at a piece in the New York Times that I've had on the docket here to talk about for a few days now. the piece written by Bradley Onishi, title is, could I be my own soulmate? Maybe Emma Watson and Lizzo are onto something. Doubtful. It's doubtful they're on to something, but let's find out. Reading a little bit now from the article,

it says, in a recent interview for British Vogue, the actress Emma Watson raised some eyebrows when she described herself as self-partnered. She's approaching 30, and according to Ms. Watson, it took much hard work to recognize that being single and without children doesn't signal failure. It just means that she is going on her journey of self-fulfillment and discovery alone. And that's okay. Miss Watson is not the only person to describe herself and her relationship status in such terms. Lizzo, the rapper and floutist, who is she? Is that? Okay. Who went from underground star to mainstream darling this summer proclaims in her song Soulmate, quote,

I'm my own soulmate. I know how to love me. I know that I'm always going to hold me down. That's just poetry, isn't it? Those are just, those are brilliant lyrics. I'm my own soulmate. I know how to love me. I know that I'm always going to hold me down. Is that even, are we sure that that's Lizzo and not Shakespeare? That sounds like something straight from from Bill Shakespeare. I don't know. Apparently tired of looking for the one, Lizzo realized it was her all along. For most people, the idea of self-coupling, be jarring, but a closer look might reveal it to be more of an end point of a trend. Marriage rates have been declining steadily since the 1970s. Many of us are dating more, but somehow going on fewer dates. Sex is safer and less burdened with shame than in the past and seemingly more available, but we're having less of it than we were a generation ago. And despite all these mixed signals, most of us are still looking for the one. And then it goes on from there. This does not mean that seeing oneself as one's own partner or soulmate is equivalent to

loneliness, while loneliness is an epidemic in numerous developed countries, including parts of the United States, the self-coupling Ms. Watson and Lizzo reference is not the same thing as social isolation. It does not preclude meaningful relationships of all types. Okay. So you get the idea. Loving yourself, being your own soulmate. A few problems here. Most of them are probably pretty obvious. the first is that love is love is love requires an other because love is an act

love is not just a feeling in fact feelings are many times irrelevant to love you think about all the people close to you in your life especially if you're married if you have kids you're not going to every second of the day 100% of the time have warm and fuzzy feelings about those people. Okay, because you're going to be angry with them sometimes.

You're going to be annoyed. You're going to be stressed out, drained, all that. So what do we, if love is just a feeling, then do we say, you know, in those moments as a parent, when you are just ticked off at your kids and you don't want to be around them, you just need some space. does that mean you don't love them in those months? Of course you love them. And that's because, now if love is just a feeling,

then I guess we would have to say that your love for them in those moments is a little bit less than in the moments where you have warm and fuzzy feelings. But that's not the case because we know that love is deeper than that. Love is an act of will. It's a choice.

It is a thing you do. It is sacrifice. And that's why, it comes down to it, the idea of loving yourself, even putting aside this dumb stuff about self-partnering, being your own soulmate, I think most people with two brain cells know that that's ridiculous. But let's, I think a lot of people would say, oh yeah, self-partnered is stupid, being your own soulmate is kind of dumb. But of course, you need to love yourself. No, I would argue actually that loving yourself is meaningless. I would actually say that

you shouldn't love yourself or you shouldn't try to, or at least that it doesn't really mean anything. When it comes down to it, I think the idea of loving yourself is meaningless. Everyone says you have to love yourself, but what do they really mean by that? What does it consist of? What is this? What do you, when you tell me I should love myself, okay, well, what should I be doing exactly? What, if you tell me I should love my wife, well, I know exactly what, what that's all about. I could start talking about what loving your spouse consists of. And it's going to be a lot of, and almost everything I say is going to be action-based. Loving yourself, though. I mean, you can, you can love someone else by taking care of them, giving to them, giving of yourself to them.

And that's what loving someone else is all about, right? But giving to yourself. and giving of yourself to yourself and caring for yourself? Okay, well, that's either simple self-preservation, which is fine. We do need to take care of ourselves. It's not about love. When you go and you're thirsty, you take a drink of water. Is that an act of self-love? Oh, I'm so in love with myself.

Give me the water. No, it's just you do it because you have to. You want to live. So on one end of the spectrum, taking care of yourself, giving two, to yourself is self-preservation. On the other end of the spectrum, it could be selfishness, where you're giving to yourself too much and you're too focused on yourself. But what does love have to do with any of that? To quote the song, what does love have to do with it? I mean, what does love have to do with any of that? Lizzo says, I'm always going to hold me down.

Well, okay, but that's because you care about your own interests. It's not noble. You can't try to make that into some noble act. Well, I'm always going to hold myself down. Yeah, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's natural. It's even healthy to a certain degree. You're taking care of your own inch of, it's not love though. Now, holding someone else down, i.e. taking care of them, that is, that's love. What about feelings? Well, as I already said, feelings are, have almost nothing to do with love, but to whatever extent that they are involved, Okay, well, if you love someone else, then most of the time you're going to feel affectionate towards them. What does it mean to be affectionate towards yourself?

When I look at my children most of the time, it can have the effect of warming my cold, icy heart. It can be very heartwarming and put a smile on my face. So I have a feeling of love and affection for my children. but wouldn't I be a narcissist if I stared in the mirror and just felt my heart warm at my own reflection? I mean, I can look at my kids who are, you know, playing, when they're playing nicely with each other, or, you know, they're being well-behaved and they're just being cute little kids. And I can look at them and, yeah, I have a smile on my face and it's just, and I enjoy sort of just seeing that, seeing the kids being kids. Well, wouldn't I be a narcissist if I could just sit for 15 minutes staring at my reflection? My heart sufficiently warmed by it.

Now, sure, we should have a certain amount of confidence and self-awareness, but that's not love. Or self-assurance, self-awareness too, but self-assurance. So if you want to talk about confidence, self-assurance, fine. But again, that's not love. That's just confidence and self-assurance. So where does the love come in? I don't know. When does that ever help? And it doesn't matter anyway, because this is what I always say. There's way too much focus on how we feel about ourselves and getting our feelings about ourselves right.

And people say really dumb stuff like, well, I've got to work on loving myself first before I can love anyone else. No, wrong. That is totally wrong. And if you go into a marriage or a relationship with an attitude like that, it's going to fail. That's the worst possible attitude. What does that mean? You can't love anyone else until you love yourself? What kind of a selfish bastard are you? I mean, would you say that to your kids? Would you say that to your kids? Oh, sorry, I can't love you today because I'm not really loving myself. Yeah, I'm just, I'm not feeling myself today, so I can't love you kids. Sorry. I'm going to go sit in a corner and really work on feeling good about myself. And once I get there, I can come and show love to you. What an absolutely horrible way to approach relationships. No, I think the best thing is maybe we should all stop worrying so much about how we feel about ourselves. Maybe if we could stop, if we could just stop for five minutes, if we could all pull this off.

And it's difficult for all of us, myself included. But if for five minutes we could just stop worrying about how we feel about ourselves, rather than sitting there, how do I feel about myself? How am I, how are my feelings towards myself? Am I confident in myself? Do I love myself? How about just five minutes, shut up with that, forget about it, who cares how you feel about yourself, and go live your life, live outwardly. Look at the world out there. There's a lot of stuff going on. There are people that depend on you. You have a family. You have friends. You got a life. You have a job. Go go for a walk. I mean, go look at the trees and the sky. I mean, look at anything else aside from yourself, from your own reflection. Think about that. Maybe that's the key here, rather than focusing all the time on our feelings about ourselves. I submit that if somebody, live their whole life, never worrying about loving themselves. Just no concept of that, not concerned about it, but they love other people. I submit that that would be a fulfilling, well-lived life at the end of it.

On the other hand, someone who spends their whole life just working on loving themselves, well, that at the end of their life, they're going to realize that they've done nothing, they've accomplished nothing. They've just been focused and obsessed with themselves the entire time. And they lived their life like this black hole that just sucks everything into itself. No light can escape. All right. So as it turns out, maybe the self-help advice of Lizzo isn't quite as stellar as maybe the media imagines.

You know, leftists have taken over the culture. in Hollywood, in academia, even online, and it's dangerous because they want to shut down open debate. Well, starring Adam Carolla, Dennis Prager, no safe spaces. Is in theaters on Friday, December 6th. So that's coming up, what? That's coming up tomorrow. Adam and Dennis take you out a wild ride to show you the effects of political correctness, identity politics, cancel culture.

The film takes you through the impact on college campuses, big tech and Hollywood. No safe spaces shows us why free speech is important. to a free society, how it's being threatened, and what we can do, importantly, to fight back. It's not your typical documentary. It has animation, recreations, plenty of Adam Carolla's signature humor to help the medicine go down.

No safe spaces takes you behind the scenes on Ben Shapiro's riot-filled trip to UC Berkeley. The God King of Daily Wire has a cameo, and even I'm in the film for a moment. If you can find me, I'll send Prager to your house to wash your car. Apparently. No Safe Spaces rated PG-13 in theaters Friday, December 6th. Go to no-safeaspaces.com slash Walsh for ticket information and theater locations. Okay. Let's go to emails. Matt Walshow at g-mail.com. Matt Walshaw at Gmail.com. This is from Andrew. Says, hi, Matt. I was hoping you could touch on one of the most underreported embarrassments. of our time, I see people calling breakfast Brecky online,

and it sickens me and makes me yearn for the cold embrace of death. Would these people be tortured to death under your regime or just killed as fast as possible? Brecky? What? B-R-E-K-K-Y. So you have grown, now, are these grown adults? Are we talking about nine-year-old saying this? if you're telling me grown men are referring to their breakfast as brecky dear god it's worse than i thought

this this is even worse than i i was um talking to somebody a little while ago grown man and uh and in fact we were talking about his i was in his house and we were talking about his couch which is very comfortable couch and anytime i sit on a comfortable couch i always remark on the fact that it's a comfortable couch. But he doesn't call it comfortable. He calls it comfy. This is a grown man using the word comfy. Oh, it's so comfy.

My God. No. If you're a grown man, you say comfortable, not comfy. And you say vegetable, not veggies. Brecky is just, that's, that is a crime. That is, I can't even put it into words. I refuse to believe it. I refuse to believe that there are grown men saying Brecky for breakfast.

I need examples of that because I just, I don't believe. I refuse. I do believe it, but I refuse to, if that makes sense. This is from Jane says, Hi, Matt, I think you were way too harsh on the woman who emailed about her adult son who lives at home. Your solution was basically for her to just kick his butt to the curb. Yeah. But I think this condescension from people like you to people who live with their parents is really misplaced.

In some cultures, families live together for many generations. You'll have many generations under one roof. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with living with your parents. I would think someone like yourself or pretends to be pro-family would be in favor of family sticking together. Well, Jane, I think family sticking together is a great thing, but what you're talking about is not extended adolescence where a grown man continues living off of his parents depended upon them well into his 30s.

You're not talking about a situation where a 30-year-old man is still living as if he's 14. That was the specific situation I was asked about. It was a grown adult who wasn't working, wasn't contributing, was hanging out in his room all day while his parents support him. That's not traditional. That's not cultural. That's not pro-family. That's a grown adult being a leech and taking advantage of his parents. Now, a situation where multiple generations live together, they all contribute, they all are active and present and contributing members of the family.

fine. I have no problem with that. If you want to go back and talk about the old agrarian societies where you would have the sons would live on the farm still and with their wives and families and they would work the farm, fantastic. I think it would be great if more people live that way. There's a part of me that would like to live that way myself. But that's entirely different, obviously, but from an adult who plays video games all day

while his mommy and daddy pay for his food, clothing, shelter, and everything else. that you can clearly see the difference, right? This is from Jarko says, Hello, Master of Drywit. How can it be possible that voters are called racist because of Kamala dropping when everyone knows Michelle would win

if she wanted to run? I'm not from the USA, so I don't know are people really blind to this, or is it just a media thing? By the way, Kamala means horrible in Finnish. Thank you and take care. Does it really mean that? That's pretty awesome.

Yeah, well, right. Just another example. We talked about this yesterday. There were some people in the media trying to claim that Kamala didn't get any traction for a campaign because of racism. And there are many reasons why that's an absurd claim. You point out Michelle Obama.

Yes, and I think this is pretty conventional wisdom that if Michelle Obama did jump into the race, which I guess it's unlikely that she would, if she did, she would immediately become the frontrunner as a black woman. But we don't even need to talk about Michelle Obama because her husband, a black man, was president for eight years. He won a term in office and then won another one. So that should really put it to rest right there. The idea that Kamala Harris didn't get traction because of her race, meanwhile, the last president we had was black?

That's going to be a difficult case to make. This is from Amy. He says, Matt, I hope this question is not too personal. I've been dating my boyfriend for three years. We're both 27. I love him and want to spend my life with him, but he still has not proposed. We both have good jobs.

Financially, we're in a good spot. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be engaged by now. I've dropped all the hints you mentioned on your show a few weeks ago, but either he hasn't picked up on it, or he just doesn't want to get married. What do you think is three years enough time? Am I wrong for expecting proposal by now? Yeah, three years is more than enough time,

Amy, I have to tell you, at the age of 27. Now, if you started dating when you were 15, it'd be different. But three years, I mean, three months, honestly, three months is enough. By three months, you know. I'll put it another way. I think it's pretty rare that you'll meet someone who was dating someone for three months and didn't think they were marriage material at all. And then eight months later had changed their mind.

That usually doesn't happen. And in fact, that's one of the reasons why people talk about, oh, was love at first sight. Well, love at first sight, of course, doesn't exist. There's no way that you could, except in the general kind of way that we're supposed to love all mankind, I guess you could love a person at first sight in that way. But in any kind of deeper sense, it obviously isn't possible that you could really come to love someone in that way when you just first saw them. What you're calling love at first sight in that case is just you found them attractive. But I think one of the reasons why, you know, if you talk to someone has been

married for 40 years and they'll say, oh, you know, it was love at first sight. Well, I think what they're really expressing is that they knew. very early on that this is someone they wanted to marry. It wasn't literally the first second they saw them, but it doesn't take long. And it definitely doesn't take three years. If you've been with someone for three years and you're still not sure if you want to marry them,

then it's not going to work and you shouldn't marry them. That's my feeling about it. So, yeah, I think you're right to expect it. And what I would say is if you haven't talked to him directly about it, you say you've dropped hints? Well, I would have a really frank conversation with him about it. Forget about all the hints. Just sit down and say, listen, this is my life, too. And if this thing isn't going anywhere, I don't want to date for another five years for no reason. And next thing you know, I'm 33 years old and then we're breaking up. I don't want to do that.

So I would sit down and have a frank conversation with them. I'm not saying just throw them out right away, but if you have not had a direct conversation, I would have it. and if it's clear that in that, and I think it will be clear one way or another, if it's clear in that conversation that he's just not looking to get married or whatever, then I think probably you've got to cut your losses. All right. Finally, this is from Stevens says, Oh, great and wise leader who bequeaths truth, wisdom, and punishment. In the show in which you talk about people eating dogs,

you made a comment about how all animals deserve respect. I think everyone would agree that it would be sick to go around poaching penguins in a city or squashing lizards out of pure joy. But I do not understand where the distinction lies, depending upon which type of animal you speak of. Personally, I enjoy killing some types of animals at a pure recreation. At the angst of my wife,

I purchased a $45 plastic gun that shoots granular salt and is designed to kill house flies, mosquitoes, et cetera. It is so fun that sometimes I will go so far as to set a bait of raw chicken scraps to attract flies. and then I'll just have a shootout for hours upon end. I also enjoy watching the ants come and drag away the carcasses of the dead flies as some of the abdomens of said flies spew out live larvae

that desperate to escape their doom. I've even elevated my attack to wasps encroaching upon my home, which is an entirely new level of risk and adventure. I think it is easy to draw the distinction between house flies, bees, and small birds or lizards, but obviously there is a plethora of animal complexity in between these two categories in which the line begin to blur between what is socially acceptable behavior and what is sociopathic.

Am I a sociopath for enjoying the murder of houseflies or a valiant warrior defending humanity against insect invasion? During your fascist rule, what sort of punishment or praise would be bestowed upon an individual such as myself? When you started getting into enjoying the ants, dragging away the carcasses,

that was a little serial killer-e. Okay, I got a little bit of a serial killer vibe there. Just a little bit. nothing to worry about too much. I'm saying you might have a little bit of serial killer in you, just a smidge, a tad. So, you know, not a big deal. Maybe like you might be 1% serial killer.

I think it becomes a problem when you get to 5%. But stay in the 1 to 3 range, and I think you'll be all right. But the bigger news here is you're saying that there exists on the market, a plastic gun that shoots table salt and kills 4. flies, that's a thing that exists in the world? That's the news. I had no idea that existed. And now I know exactly what I want for Christmas. That is awesome. That's amazing. I've always wanted something like that. And you know why I want it? I want it. And I'm with you. For the most part, I'm with you on this totally. And I want it, yeah, because for the recreation,

also for justice because so many times when you've got a fly problem and you just get angry at the flies and you feel like I need to punish these flies this is about justice they have no right to be in my home they have no right to fly around on my food

yeah no I really do want that so what is that called please tell me it's called an assault rifle please tell me that's what they call it if it's not an assault rifle then that was a missed opportunity of the ages But that's amazing. And no, I think it's great.

I think you've got to kill the flies anyway. You're protecting, it's not so much that you're protecting humanity. You're protecting your family because mosquitoes, flies, these are disease-carrying creatures, and you are defending your family. I think it sounds like you said your wife is not a fan of it. Well, I think that your wife should have more gratitude for what you're doing. You're putting yourself in harm's way. You know, again, flies carry diseases. Mosquitoes can have malaria. And what you're doing is you are valiantly stepping in front of your wife and your children, if you have any, and saying, no, I will shield you. I will protect you. And you're charging into battle to go to war against these plague-carrying beasts. And your wife has the audacity to complain about it. It's amazing to me. As far as the question of, well, that's pretty much all that needs to be said about it, I suppose.

As far as the question, on a slightly more serious level, although I am entirely serious about wanting this gun, on a slightly more serious level, I do think that when we talk about animals and how animals should be treated, and even which ones should be eaten and which one's not, and that sort of thing, I do think part of what we're weighing here, is the capacity that these creatures have for suffering. And that's going to have a lot to do with their consciousness. Of course, we can't know exactly what sort of consciousness any animal has because we can't be inside their minds. But I think it stands to reason. I think we all sort of assume for good reason that dogs have a, in terms of the animal kingdom,

have a pretty high capacity for consciousness and therefore for suffering. And that's why, yeah, if there's a dog on your property, you're not just going to shoot it. Flies, on the other hand, I think, again, we don't really know. But they probably have almost no capacity for suffering or none at all. They probably have basically no consciousness. And so, yeah, I don't think you have to worry too much about it. I wouldn't torture them. I wouldn't capture one and tie it down and tear its wings off to try to get it to talk and tell you where its friends are.

I wouldn't do that. But I think a shot of salt to the brain is to the fly brain is a quick and painless death. Probably better than these flies deserve, to be frank with you. All right. And so thanks for that email. Thanks for letting me know about that awesome product. I'll go look it up right now. And thanks everybody for watching and listening. Godspeed.

If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple, podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Null's show, and the Andrew Claven show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, supervising producer Mathis Glover, supervising producer Robert Sterling,

technical producer Austin Stevens, editor Donovan Fowler, audio mixer, Mike Coramina. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019. If you prefer facts over feelings aren't offended by the brutal truth and you can still laugh

at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to the Ben Shapiro show. We'll get a whole lot of that and much more. See you there.