The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 417 - Fighting The Coronavirus With Diversity And Tolerance

Episode Date: January 31, 2020

As the gap between parody and reality narrows more and more each day, CNN complains that Trump's coronavirus task force lacks diversity. Also, a billionaire is donating millions to fight the disease and Gizmodo has found a reason to complain about that. Plus, we talk about an Orwellian brainwashing session at a pre-school in New York. And we continue the debate over spanking. If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at dailywire.com/Walsh Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the show, everybody. So you know how I always say, many conservatives always say that the left is beyond parody at this point? Well, that's not a mere platitude or a slogan. There is a deep and terrifying truth here. And the truth is that they actually are beyond parody, as in it's becoming impossible to satirize them because satire requires that you take the idea you're satirizing and you bring it to an absurd conclusion so as to highlight the flaws within the logic

that you're trying to make a satire of. But if the idea that is being proposed to begin with has already been brought to its most absurd conclusion, then what can you do? All you can do to satirize, it is to point to it and say, look, and that's what satire is increasingly becoming. Case in point. CNN. I suppose I could just stop right there, but let's, let me give you a specific example.

Here's a headline of a real article on CNN.com right now. This is real, I assure you, written by a certified genius named Brandon Tensley, headline Coronavirus Task Force, another example of Trump administration's lack of diversity. No, it gets better, I assure you. The expectations set by that headline are fulfilled within the text of the article. Let me read it to you. It says, it's a statement that's as predictable as it is infuriating. President Donald Trump's administration lacks diversity.

On Tuesday, Trump tweeted photos of a briefing he'd received on the new coronavirus spreading out of China. The president said in his post, we will continue to monitor the ongoing developments. we have the best experts anywhere in the world, and they are on top of this 24-7. Who are these experts? They're largely the same sort of white men and a couple of women on the sidelines who've dominated the Trump administration from the very beginning. By contrast, former President Barack Obama's circle of advisors in the face of 2014 as an Ebola outbreak in West Africa was hardly so monochromatic.

Neither was it so abysmal in terms of gender diversity. Of course, to contextualize Obama administration, on the other hand, on the whole, was far more diverse than Trump's. And yet, as unsurprising as the diversity issue in the Trump era has become, it's still worth pointing out from time to time, especially as the country approaches the 2020 presidential election in earnest. That's partly because the recent photos of the best experts telegraph the kinds of people the administration deems worthy of holding power and even being in close proximity to it.

They communicate a patronage network that everyone, one is operating under as Eric Yellen, an associate professor of blah, blah, blah, okay. But the visuals have come to define the Trump administration, and they say something else, too. They signal which which people in a multiracial, half-beamil country, Trump values the opinions of, mostly white men who are mirror images of the president himself. Now look, the easy thing to do here would be to show you the page on CNN's own website with photos of their anchors and their correspondence.

And you know, you would see if you look at this page that, geez, I mean, that's a lot of whiteness right there. Wow. Look at this. Just white, white, white, white, white. I need sunglasses looking at this. It's so much whiteness. I haven't seen so many white people since I went to a clearance sale at home goods. Or, you know, in fact, I haven't seen this much whiteness since I watched the Democratic

debates. This is just a lot of whiteness. So we could do that and point out that CNN is not holding itself to its own standard, but that wouldn't be fair. It's not fair because it's not fair to hold them to their own standards. Totally unfair. They get a special standard, you see. We all have one standard and they're special. They have a different one. All right? That's just the way it is. It's the way it is, and it's the way it should be for some reason. I can't explain why, but it is. What I really want to say is all joking aside, because this is a serious issue and we shouldn't joke about it. So completely, sincerely. My first reaction, yeah, is to mock and laugh at this article. But I think you should resist that urge. We all should. We should try to listen to what this man is saying. Because he's actually right.

The whole point of this task force is to help monitor and contain this disease and to stop it from spreading here. But let me ask you this. Do you really want, and you have to think about this, do you really want a bunch of cisgendered white men to protect you from a deadly virus? Sure. If they're successful, the positive is that you don't die a horrible death, death, leaving your children orphaned and your spouse destitute. That's the positive. But does that even come close to compensating for the lack of diversity? Is it worth the cost, is what I'm trying to ask you? you continuing to live and not get a deadly disease,

is that worth the cost of the lack of diversity? That's quite an ethical dilemma, you have to admit. Personally, here's my thing. I'm in agreement with CNN on this. When you're dealing with a potential pandemic, the key is to make sure that the people combating it, the people that are tasked with containing it are adequately representative of every demographic.

if it were me as someone who is not a bigot, I'm going to have a task force with, of course, black people, Latinos, women, lesbians, pansexuals, transgenders. Probably I'll throw a couple Asians in there, bisexual Asians, just to be safe. If a white person makes it on the team, they damn well better be drag queens at a minimum. What about a gay white man? Sorry, Sorry, not progressive enough. You're going to need to do a lot better than that. Now, you want to talk about a disabled gay white man? Okay, maybe now you're talking.

What if these people, though, don't have expertise in containing deadly viruses? What if there are other people who would have more expertise and perhaps would be better suited for the job? Doesn't matter, because that's not the point. The point always is to promote diversity in every situation, no matter what. And that way, my diverse, progressive, tolerant task force, if it fails to contain the virus, because none of them have any relevant expertise or any relevant experience in the field of epidemiology, well, then as you're lying there dying, you at least will have the peace of mind of knowing that there are no straight white males on the coronavirus task force.

And you know something? I think that will bring you a lot of peace and comfort in your final moments. So thank you to CNN for that. Really, really wonderful, wonderful stuff. Now, more to talk about, but I'm super excited to tell you about our new sponsor, Tukovas. When I found out that Tukovas was sending me some of their cowboy boots, I felt like the kid in Christmas story waiting for the BB gun. Very excited.

I told my wife, I want to start doing a whole cowboy aesthetic now. And in fact, to be honest with you, my wife, if I'm being honest, was skeptical at first about the cowboy boot thing. And I think it's because she had something in mind, sort of like something tacky and garish in mind. I don't know. But then they came and even she admitted that these are some damn fine boots. I'm paraphrasing. It's not exactly what she said. But that was the sentiment.

And I absolutely love them. I'm wearing them right now as we speak, in fact. And I just can't recommend them enough. Toccova's cowboy boots are handmade with high quality, full-grain leathers by world-class bootmakers. They're built to be comfortable right out of the box, and I can attest that they are. And they're for every occasion, at home, in the office, out on the town. With tons of timeless styles, Tocobos are designed to be as fashionable 50 years from now as they are today. And Tocovus cuts out the middleman and sells directly to you at an honest price.

That's truly amazing, considering the level of quality. These are by far the nicest, this is the nicest footwear I've ever had, but not the most expensive. So I should tell you everything you need to know. In addition to cowboy boots, Toccovas makes leather duffles, men's jeans, belts, bill folds, cardcases, and more. Everything you get from Toccovus comes with the same calculated approach and quality standards that hold true to everything they do. I love these boots. I really do. Can't recommend them enough. I've got my eyes on the jeans and belt next. because you want to make sure to pair the cowboy boots with the right kind of jeans.

So I'm going to be doing that as well. Do what I did. Get yourself a pair of Tikova's cowboy boots today at Toccovas.com slash Walsh. That's T-E-C-O-V-A-S dot com slash Walsh. T-C-O-V-A-S-Walsh. All right. Here's some more unintentional satire because these are fun. Article from Gizmodo,

billionaire Jack Ma has donated $14 million to develop a coronavirus, vaccine, roughly the equivalent of an average U.S. family donating $33. The article from Matt Novak reads, in part, tech billionaire Jack Ma has donated $14.5 million to help develop a vaccine. The coronavirus, Ma is China's wealthiest person with an estimated $41 billion, which means that his donation is roughly equivalent to the average American household donating $33. Ma founded Alibaba, the world's largest online retailer, and is often compared to Amazon.

Ali Baba and Amazon both treat their employees like S, like crap, their owners both own major media outlets. Bezos, who's worth an estimated $117 billion recently donated $690,000 to help Australia battle its bushfires. That bastard. The equivalent of an average American donating less than a dollar. How generous coming from a guy who says he doesn't know how to spend his money. Bezos and Ma would get along just swimmingly. It's good when extremely wealthy people give their money to worthy causes, but you know what's great? Taking that obscene wealth through taxes and spending it to make the world a healthier place for everyone.

Yet again, yet again, we have an article here. This is a leftist expressing their actual point of view. But if you were to take this article, headline everything, and put it on the Babylon B, it wouldn't seem out of place at all. You could take this article verbatim and put it on a satire site. and everybody would have a nice laugh. The only reason I'm acknowledging this particular tripe is that this is a common attitude these days. This thing where a billionaire gives a million dollars

or gives millions of dollars to a cause and then people go, well, that's like if I gave 15 cents, except it's not. Okay, $14 million to fight a disease is the equivalent of $14 million to fight a disease. The money isn't suddenly worth less because it comes from a rich guy. That's not how it works.

$14 million is $14 million is $14 million. This is like if I was starving and a guy pulled up with a truck full of sandwiches with 600 sandwiches and he gave me one sandwich so I didn't starve and then I say, hey, you giving me one sandwich is like a guy with two sandwiches giving me three crumbs. And I throw it back in his face

and starve to death in protest. No, see, the nutritional value of the sandwich doesn't fluctuate depending on the relative sandwich wealth of the person who hands it to you. The sandwich is the sandwich. By the way, did the author of this article, he says it's like a normal person donating 33 bucks? Okay, well, did you, as the author of the article? Did you donate 33 bucks? Because if he didn't, then Jack Ma is still more generous even by his bizarre math.

I can tell you that, and I will admit, I don't know about you, I have donated $0.0 to developing a coronavirus vaccine. I have given no money to that effort. I have not contributed to that effort at all. I haven't done anything for it. Personally, I'm a shame to admit. So anything that a billionaire does is going to be infinitely more than I have done because I've done nothing. And I think that's probably true of the guy who wrote this article. It's probably true of almost all of us. Almost everybody watching right now or listening. I bet you have done almost nothing with respect to the coronavirus. That's the thing about these people who try to dismiss the charitable endeavors of billionaires.

Him giving $600 billion is like me giving three quarters in a TG Max gift card, making up these arbitrary equivalencies. But these people doing that, how many of them are actually giving any money to any charitable causes at all? I mean, even $33 or $10 or $5? I bet many of them are giving zero. None. I'm betting you they sit there, arms crossed, rolling their eyes at people who are helping while doing nothing. Not just sitting there, but they're doing more, they're doing less than nothing.

because they're sitting there criticizing those who are helping while they don't contribute at all. They're like somebody sitting down at a construction site, eating a candy bar, watching men lug heavy things around and saying, that's easy for them. Look how big they are. That's easy to pick up heavy stuff. While they lift nothing, do nothing, contribute nothing of value whatsoever. I think that's probably what happens. But what is this all in service to?

It's all in service to insisting on, as they say at the end of the article, take the money through taxes. They say their position is we need the government to take control, take the money because we can't trust these people to be charitable with their own money. And then when they are charitable with their money, because that interferes with the narrative, now we're going to say, well, yeah, they were charitable, but it doesn't really mean anything because X, Y, Z.

It's extremely pathetic. But I will anxiously await Matt Novak, the author of that article. I'll be anxiously awaiting to hear how much you have donated personally to develop a coronavirus vaccine. All right. What else do we have here? One other article or subject to, to tackle before we get to emails. And I want to leave some time for emails because we were talking

about the issue of corporal punishment spanking during the email portion of the show. And then I was getting into it on social media, which is always a good use of time arguing about complex, important issues on social media. Anyway, I got a lot of emails about that and I want to, so I want to get back into that subject. But first, this reading from an article in the New York Post by Andrea Pizer, and it titled Far Left Agit Prop for Pre-K. Tots What NYC Schools Have Come To, I'm not going to read much of this, but just to give you the gist. In an email says, in an email to parents and caregivers on January 16th, teacher Rosie Clark lays out lessons based on the Black Lives Matter Week of Action for a pre-Kindergarten class at PS-58, located in the well-regarded District 15 in Carroll Gardens. This from teacher Clark writes this year, who is white, by the way, this week, this year, the week February 3rd through 7th, we're starting to talk about these ideas now as we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which was January 20th.

And as we prepare to go into February, Black History Month, I am lucky enough to work at this wonderful school where we strive to help our students understand the complex world around them and think critically about how they can participate in improving it. One of the ways I do that in my classroom is by exploring the 13 principles of the movement for black lives. So this is a white preschool teacher who is teaching her preschool students. So preschool, you're talking like four years old. Teaching a bunch of four-year-olds, the 13 principles of Black Lives Matter. Because this is what we want our preschool teachers to be doing, right? The author of the articles continues, some of the 13 points are unobjectionable, preaching diversity plus acceptance and empathy to children,

who the dad argues naturally love their neighbors. This, by the way, is coming from a dad who alerted the author of the article to that this was going on. Then there's principle six. Transgender affirming. Everybody has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they're a boy or a girl or both or neither or something else. And no one gets to choose for them. Then number seven, queer affirming. The principle here is that everybody has the right to choose who they love and the kind of family they want to, they want by listening to their own heart and mind. And then there's number 12 black women. The teacher writes, there are some people who think that women are less important than men.

We know that all people are important and have the right to be safe and talk about their feelings. Now, who are these people who think that women are less important than men? I don't know. But this is what we're telling preschoolers. Okay. There's more to this article. You can go to NYPost.com and read it. It's worth the read.

Of course, I'm mainly zeroing in on principle number six, transgender affirming. Everybody has the right to choose their own gender by listening to their own heart and mind. Everyone gets to choose if they're a boy or a girl or both or neither or something else, and no one gets to choose for them. Now, I talk a lot about how left-wing gender theory is inherently nonsensical. and impossible to explain or defend. And I've speculated that most people who believe or who pretend to believe this, who espouse it, don't really believe it. And most of the people who pretend to believe the ones that are espousing it don't themselves actually believe it.

And I base this on the fact that 10 years ago, almost nobody thought that a dude could really be a woman magically if he feels like one. Almost nobody thought that 10 years ago. 10 years ago and any time prior, almost nobody was advocating for men to be allowed in the women's locker room or to be allowed on the women's track team and so on. And then almost overnight, there's this shift.

And I really doubt that all of these people who had lived their lives up to that point believing that biological sex exists, it seems unlikely to me that they overnight could have really authentically sincerely changed their minds. So I don't think that really happened.

I think that they're pretending. But here's the other part of this. Because the left knows that they can't defend their position. They know that most sane adults don't believe it, never will. They know that if they asked almost any adult whether a dude should be able to play on a girls' basketball team. And if that adult was able to be honest, felt safe and felt that they could answer honestly without facing some sort of repercussion,

almost any adult would say, no, they shouldn't be allowed to. And that's why they're focusing on children. Leftists play the long game. They've always played the long game. They've never been overly concerned with a short-term situation, to their credit. They're looking at this from a generational perspective. That's why they win. That's why they've won the culture.

Because they're looking generations down the line. And they know that if they can get to the kids, If they can convince the kids, it's not going to matter what you think or what I think. It's irrelevant. Who cares about us? Get to the kids, recruit the kids, brainwash them, and then you have the culture. You have everything. And the good thing for them, for the left-wing brainwashers, is that kids, especially

preschool-aged kids, can be convinced of literally anything. So I say convince the kids, that's really easy. You know what's involved in convincing a four-year-old of something? tell them. Whatever you want to convince them. Tell them. And that's it. They're convinced.

That's all you have to do. Because four-year-olds lack the cognitive tools to discern truth from fiction, plausibility from implausibility, reality from fantasy. They can't do that. All that a child at that age can do is rely on the word of the adults in his life. That's the most rational thing for him to do because he doesn't know anything about the world. And so he's going to rely on the adults around him. He has to do that.

Because they're not going to understand the whys of things. The other day I caught my three-year-old trying to put his finger in a power outlet. And of course, I stopped him, and I was very stern with him. And I explained to him that he can't touch it because he'll get very, very hurt. But, of course, he had no idea what I was talking about. electricity, shock, death, injury. What does any of that mean to a three-year-old? It doesn't.

It doesn't mean anything to him. He just, he has my word, and that has to be enough. And to him, there's no difference between one incomprehensible claim that an adult might make and any other. So if, you know, he'll take my word for it on the outlet thing. If I were to tell him, don't walk on the grass because a dragon will come out of the ground and eat you, he'd believe that too. He'd believe it just like he believed the outlet story. To him, they're exactly the same. He doesn't see a difference. He can't measure plausibility versus implausibility. So, if you get to them, the left knows this, convince them,

then it doesn't matter. Then you don't have to define it. You don't have to defend it or define your terms. I'm always talking about, can you define the word woman? and how that is a pretty conclusive counter-argument to all of this gender madness. And it is, but what the left is saying is, who cares? Yeah, we can't defend it. We don't need to. Because we're going to get your kids. And here's the other part of this.

Many of us, I think, still don't understand this about ourselves. The thing is, when you get to a kid and you tell a kid something, they're going to believe it. but they're also they're going to continue believing it in perpetuity unless you tell them otherwise or unless they're convinced otherwise by other adults you see the telling a kid something at that age it has such a lasting long-term impact that kids will all the way into adulthood could continue believing something that is completely absurd and nonsensical just because they were told it as a kid, unless somebody else comes back around and can deprogram. But if that deprogramming never happens, they're going to

live their whole life, believing that. And that's the true for a lot of us, too, that what we're taught as a child, whether true or not, whether defensible or not, whether reasonable or not, whatever you're taught will maintain a very strong hold over you well into adulthood and possibly forever it is very very very hard for an adult to break away from the indoctrination that he experienced as a youth because that stuff gets seared into the brain the mind forms around it and to extricate it is extremely difficult point being tell preschoolers that boys are girls and they'll believe you because you said it, and they lack the capacity to know the difference. And then if you keep telling them, most of them will continue believing it.

Just as strongly, you know, at the age of 26 and 36 and 56, as they did when they were six. Most people go their whole lives basically believing everything they were taught as kids. Most people, with most things. Not all. but if you can convince this young generation of kids, if they can convert them, then the game is over. Because indoctrinated at that age, even as adults,

it's going to be almost impossible at that point to convince them otherwise. All right, I want to get to emails. Before we do, we've been talking for the last several weeks about the pro-life issue and how important it obviously is and what the left has been doing to shut down and censor those of us who stand for the pro-life cause. And we've gone through it ourselves with people coming after our sponsors and so on. And we've been telling you about live action, which is one of the biggest, most important voices in the pro-life movement. And in terms of attacks from the left, they get it worse than almost anybody.

and that's why until January 31st, which is today a portion of any DailyWire membership, we donated to Live Action with promo code Live Action. And that's today is your last day to do this. So if you go right now, you sign up, use the promo code Live Action to support awareness and education around the world on this issue, join DailyWire, do it right now, make your pro-life voice heard, and at the same time you're also going to be a member of the Daily Wire. So it's a win-win for everybody. Go do that right now.

Well, not right now. wait till the show's over and then go do it. Okay. Bundles of mail talking about the spanking issue. Matt Wallshow at gmail.com. Matt wallshow at gmail.com. I was going to read a bunch of the emails. I think I'll just read one that lays out the objection to my arguments pretty well. And I'll respond to those.

And that will be the conclusion of this topic for now. Okay. This is from Joel. It says, hi, Matt. I love your show, but totally disagree with your spanking take. I think to say that. that those of us who spank our kids are bad parents is very wrong and judgmental. You say that spanking is, do as I say, not as I do, but don't you do many things your kids can't do? You put them

in time out, but you wouldn't let them do that. You take their toys, but you don't let them take from other people. Also, you say that spanking is hitting. You call that the dictionary definition. It's not. This is the dictionary definition of spanking. To strike a person, usually a child, with the open hand, et cetera, especially on the buttocks as in punishment. What about shouting? It's easy to judge parents who spank, but I say shouting is worse slash abusive. You can make all the arguments you want, but those of us who spank our children have seen the results. We know that it's effective. You're trying to tell us we're wrong about what we ourselves have observed.

It comes off as haughty and arrogant. I'll still listen to your show, but I'm disappointed in your position on this. P.S. How do you reconcile your position with the Bible, which clearly gives parents the authority to spank? Okay, so let me go through your points here, Joel, and then I'll circle back around to make a few more general points. First of all, importantly, I never said that parents who spank are bad parents. Never said it. Never implied it.

Never said anything close to that. Judging by some of my emails, you would think that I said it, but I didn't. I simply did not say that. And I don't think it. Obviously, there are plenty of very good parents who spank, clearly. I have always, through my whole career, I have urged grace. and understanding for parents. I've been very consistent about this because parenting is hard. I know. I have four kids. I get it. And just because a parent makes a mistake, it doesn't make them

bad. If it did, then I'd be an awful parent because I make mistakes all the time. Am I saying that spanking is a mistake? Yes, that's my position. That's what I believe. But to say that I think someone's making a mistake as a parent, it doesn't mean I'm saying that they're bad. Two different things, right? Or at least two things that aren't necessarily, don't necessarily go hand in hand. Second, do as I say, not as I do. The point here is that we don't want to undermine our authority by exhibiting the very behavior we're trying to curb in our children. So let's take a less contentious example of this. I always tell my kids to clean their rooms and to clean up after themselves and to, right, be responsible and don't leave stuff laying all over the place.

Like every other parent in the world, I'm telling my kids that all the time. Well, I am not the neatest person. I'm pretty disorganized. My office right now, you can't see it, but there's stuff strewn all over the place, a little behind the scenes. And so my kids, they come into my office and they see what it looks like. I'm undermining my own authority because they can see that I'm not. not following my own instructions.

They can see that I must not take what I'm saying very seriously because I don't do it. So that's something I need to work on. It doesn't mean that they're excused from cleaning their room. They still have to do it because that's their responsibility. And just because one person is not fulfilling their own responsibility doesn't mean doesn't get you off the hook to fulfill yours. But I need to do better. I know that. And as parents, I think we're all guilty of some do as I say, not as I do things.

is spanking one of those things. I think it is, and I'll explain why. First of all, putting a child in timeout is not, doesn't qualify. Because for one thing, I'm not having to constantly tell my kids not to put each other in time out. I don't know about you,

but that's not the kind of thing that you're constantly having to correct in your children, is it? Hitting is. Hitting is a big thing that you have to get your kids not to hit each other. Putting each other in time out,

it doesn't happen very often. But for me, on occasion, actually it has happened. And my daughter, who's very, very maternalistic, and technically the oldest, even though she was a twin, but she was the first to come out. And this is a fact that she's very aware of and makes other people aware of all the time. So she tries to mother the other kids. And on occasion, she's actually tried to put them in timeout. And her brothers have listened to her and actually gone in timeout. But, and I tell her, you can't do that. My reason, though, the reason I give is that she doesn't have the authority to do it.

It's not that putting people in timeout is bad. It's just that it's a matter of authority. And she doesn't have the authority. And actually, you could even argue that timeout as a concept, I guess as adults, we do put ourselves in timeout sometimes, just in the sense of, okay, I need some space, I need to step back, I need to calm down. right that's what timeout is

sit down calm down you need to settle down that's what timeout is all about and as adults we do kind of do that we don't call we don't say I'm putting myself in time out but it's a similar sort of idea you could argue taking toys yes I don't let my kids take other people's toys yet I do take theirs as punishment sometimes

is that a contradiction no because their toys aren't really theirs their toys are mine And I've told them that. I think it's important for them to know. All of their toys are mine and my wife's. Those toys belong to Mommy and Daddy. Those are not your toys.

We graciously are allowing you to play with them. But we bought them. We are the ones who, if they're, we buy them. If they're broken, we fix them. We pay for them. We pay for everything. The house, everything. So this is all ours.

And we are, because we are nice, parents, we let you have toys. It's your responsibility to take care of them. This is a privilege you've been given. We can retract the privilege. The TV. You know, I, I, we let you watch TV sometimes. But that is our TV and our couch. And so you have to be grateful.

And the idea here is not to have a sense of entitlement. So, no, I don't take their toys. I take my own toys back from them. Which, yeah, they're allowed to do. If somebody has one of their toys, they're allowed to take. it back. They shouldn't be rude about it, but yeah, so I don't see that. Now, spanking is different. And here's the issue. You spank young children, right? Assuming you're not spanking a 12-year-old kid, because that would, I hope we all agree, would be really weird and inappropriate.

Most people spank kids like two to six or thereabouts. So you have to think about what they can understand. That's what's important. Is there a distinction between a parent spanking a child and a child hitting another child. Yes, obviously there's a distinction. But if the child can't see that distinction, then in his mind, when you spank him, you are hitting and you are doing what you say not to do. And this is going to undermine your authority,

not to mention make him feel less safe, less secure, because your rules and your words seem arbitrary to him. And that's a problem. So, finding some fine sort of nuanced distinction between spanking and hitting isn't going to do the job. The child doesn't see fine nuances. So here's the question. Here's what you have to ask you.

When you're explaining to your kid why they shouldn't hit, what do you say? Assuming you don't just give the because I said so deal. Assuming hopefully you've given them a reason why they shouldn't do it. Not because you have to justify yourself to them, but because they should understand why your rules are in place. You tell them don't run into the road. If they ask why, of course you're going to tell them because a car might hit you. So if you tell them don't hit, hopefully you give them a reason so they can understand the rules. And I don't know what you say. Here's what I say. Here's the reason I give. I say that they should use their words first and express how they feel with their words. If they're upset or mad or frustrated, use your words. Communicate.

Oh, but he was mean to me. I understand he was mean to you. I'm not saying that he was right. but hitting is not the correct way to communicate your frustration with him. You use your words. You communicate. We don't hit. We use our words. That's the refrain I use with young. Remember, you're talking about three and four-year-old kids.

You can't get into some academic dissertation about the differences of this and that. It has to be very simple. They have to be able to understand it. So that's the simple explanation. I also say that hitting is wrong because it hurts people. And we don't hurt people. Again, simple. A three-year-old can understand it, which is important because I'm saying it to a three-year-old, so they should be able to understand it. Now, here's the issue. The reason that I've given, use your words, don't hurt people. This reason would seem very much to apply to spanking.

It would seem that as the spanking parent, I am not using my words, and I am hurting the child. Maybe not hurting them very much, but when a child hits another child doesn't hurt very much either. when my daughter slaps her brother or something, it doesn't hurt hardly at all. But that's not the point. It's not about the degree of injury. It's just it does hurt a little bit, and we don't do that to people. And spanking does hurt at least a little bit. Otherwise, why are you doing it? And even if you use your words before and after spanking, it still seems like you are trying to communicate with violence, with hitting, rather than with your words. and so at least at least from the child's perspective it is going to seem very much like a double standard and so that's something you have to take into account

is the spanking so important to you is it is it is the is the plus sides so much of a plus that it can outweigh the appearance of a double standard when it comes to violence. Now, I argue that it doesn't just appear to be a double standard. I think it actually is a double standard. But my point is the most you can do is say, oh, it only appears to be one. Well, I would say even that, though,

even if it's only the appearance of, it's still a problem. Okay, then you say spanking isn't hitting. You provide a definition. You say the definition to strike with the open hand, etc. Well, Joel, what's the definition of strike? I'll tell you, dictionary, to deal a blow or stroke to a person or thing, semicolon, hit. Strike is hit. So the definition of spanking is to hit with the open hand.

Spanking is hitting. Obviously, it is impossible to spank a child without hitting them, unless you're a Jedi using the force. Here's the distinction. All spanking is hitting. Not all hitting is spanking. So there's a lot of very violent and abusive forms of hitting. spanking may not be one of those forms, but it is a form of hitting. That's undeniable. Just as all bourbon is whiskey is bourbon. Jupiter is a planet, not all planets are Jupiter, right? Spanking is a subset of a category which is hitting. The category is hitting. It is a subset of that. So it is hitting. It is hitting. It's hitting. You

is hitting. And this means it is perfectly accurate to say that when you spank your child, you hit them. That is perfectly accurate. You are hitting your child. Yes, there is no denying that. You can't deny it. It's in the definition you provided. My point is, if it makes you super uncomfortable to think of spanking as hitting, if it makes you angry when someone says that you hit your child, then maybe that's a hint that you shouldn't be doing it. If you need the euphemism, then maybe that should tell you something. And it's not like I've found some absurd roundabout way of describing spanking to make it sound bad.

I had some people say that, oh, you could describe any punishment to make it sound bad. Putting someone in timeout is imprisonment, right? Okay, but that's not what I'm doing with spanking. I'm not finding some roundabout, elaborate, absurd way of describing it. I'm just defining it. There is no way to define the word spank without the word hit or a synonym. So spank is just a euphemism.

It's just a, it's a word that means exactly the same thing. And so what I'm saying is if, if the definition of it makes you uncomfortable, maybe that should tell you something. You say, what about shouting? Yes, I think shouting and screaming at a kid in anger is bad. We shouldn't do it. I've done it. We shouldn't do it. I agree. We shouldn't do it. Of course, there are extreme cases. You shout, hey, don't run in the road kind of thing. But for the most part, shouting and screaming and anger. You are venting your frustrations at your child or about your child or at least in front of your child.

And you shouldn't be doing any of those. I do it. I have done it. I shouldn't. My point here has never been that I'm the perfect parent. That is not my point. And then you bring up the Bible. What does the Bible say? Well, what does the Bible say about disciplining children? Here's what Proverbs says. Okay. It says, withhold not correction from the child. If thou beatest him with a rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod and shall deliver his soul from hell. Okay, Joel, let me ask you, do you beat your kid with a rod?

Do you? If you don't, and I understand what the Bible says, but I hope you don't, beat him with a rod. I mean, what if, do you beat your kid with a rod? And what would you say if one of your kids' friends came over and they had welts on them? And you asked them where the welts came from and they told you that they were being beaten with a rod by their parents. And don't tell me that beating with a rod doesn't make welts. It does. And there's no way to beat with a rod that doesn't cause bruises.

It just doesn't. You can't. What would you say? Would you say, oh, that's biblical. That's nice. Or would you potentially call the police? peace. So here's my point. If you're not beating with a rod and if you, in fact, would be horrified by a parent who beat their three-year-old with a rod, then you are not taking Proverbs as a literal

step-by-step guide for parenting in the modern age. You are not doing that. Now, I admit that I'm not. If your accusation to me is that I am not literally following Proverbs, the Old Testament, as a guide for disciplining my children, you're right, I'm not. But neither are you. And if you want to say that I'm cherry picking, maybe I am, but you're cherry picking within the verse itself, which seems a lot more arbitrary. Now, it's one thing to look at the entire verse and say, you know, I think this must be non-literal. There must be some metaphor here because I just, you know, I can't square the idea of beating my child with a rod. I'm not going to do it. No way.

My conscience just will not allow that. And so it's one thing to say that, which is what I'm saying. But what you're doing is you're looking at this, you're picking apart the sentence itself and cherry picking certain words. and you like this, you don't like that. I don't like Rod. So I'll make Rod metaphorical. Beating. I don't want to call it beating.

I like spanking. That to me seems a hell of a lot more arbitrary than what I'm doing. And I admit that even what I'm doing is it's a little arbitrary. I do admit that because the main reason why I'm going to look at that verse as metaphor or non-literal, it's not because of the context of the verse or because of my understanding of the original Hebrew or anything like that. it's just because it strikes me as barbaric to beat a child with a rod. Okay? That's my reasoning.

But again, my point is you have the same reasoning unless you are actually beating your child with a rod. And I hope you don't. Because I think that's abuse, yes. So what do I do with that verse? As I said, I take it as non-literal. I think you do. I think almost everybody does. Okay.

So those were your points. A few other points in summary as we wrap up. I do think it's relevant that nearly all the research I've ever read on this subject has come down against it. Research shows that spanking is highly predictive of violent behavior, antisocial behavior, aggression, mental health problems, negative relationships with parents down the line. It shows that it's predictive even of neurological changes in the brain. When I say predictive, I don't mean causal. We cannot prove the causal relationship. That's true. But you can see high, degrees of correlation. And you could say all day that correlation doesn't equal causation. That's true. But it can be indicative of causation. And so there's a lot of very good reason to think that the

correlation here is indicative of causation. That's why the Academy of Pediatrics, for example, 67,000 doctors came out against spanking, said it's ineffective and harmful. I'm not saying their word is gospel. I'm not saying that. But you talk about your experience with your child. Okay, but however you're well-behaved your child is, and I'll take you at your word that he's well-behaved, but how do you know he'd be worse if you didn't spank? Unless you've been conducting parental experiments on your own child, that's the problem with basing this on personal anecdotes. It's better to look at the broader picture, the large picture, not just personally reported data of parents who are looking to justify their own decisions. And if you look at the big picture and the research that's done, almost all of it, really, almost.

almost all of it that I've ever read and you go look at it yourself has concluded nearly definitively that spanking is harmful. And the few outlier studies that I've read, for the most part, at best, find that maybe it won't be harmful. But there has been almost nothing finding a positive correlation. Does that settle it? No. But it is a compelling piece of evidence, isn't it? I mean, if you're told that a certain form of discipline you're using with your child that there's been, that there's volumes of research done about it, and almost all of that research has found that it's harmful, shouldn't, shouldn't that cause you to at least pause and think, you know, maybe there's a problem here? I don't understand how you could just wave it off. That,

I don't understand how anyone could do that. I couldn't. That's why I don't spank, because I have read about it, and the more I've read about it, especially recently, I have found it very persuasive. I have no reason to doubt it other than I would prefer if it weren't true, but that's not good enough. And I think that throws the ball back in your court, considering all the research on this, considering the possibility that you at least might undermine your authority by seeming to contradict yourself, considering your own discomfort with spanking when it is defined in literal terms, considering the risks involved in using this kind of disciplinary method, considering the ethical difficulties that are always going to be inherent anytime an adult uses punitive physical force on a small child,

considering the possibility that even if it works, it might only work by instilling fear in your child rather than respect and love, considering that many established links have been found between spanking and future aggression. Considering all of this, why do it? What's the risk of not doing it? What's the positive case for it? can you launch a positive case that outweighs all of the things I just mentioned? I don't think you can. So, you know, I'm trying to justify my position.

I would say positively justify yours. Tell me why you should do. Why is it better? What reason do you have to think that it's actually better than the alternative, aside from your kids are turning out okay? That's not good enough. My kids are turning out okay too. I don't spank. And I've got four of them. I don't know how many you have. But we don't want to

get into this personal back and forth. That's not what it's about. So there it is. That's my whole case. But I reiterate for the 10th time, because a lot of people seem to be confused on this point about what my personal feelings are. I do not believe or feel that parents who spank are bad parents, or anything close to it. I simply disagree with the method, and these are my reasons. All right. Have a great weekend, everyone. 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 podcast, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael

Null 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 Robin Fenderson. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020. 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.