The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 418 - Feminists Celebrate Empowering Strip Tease

Episode Date: February 3, 2020

Jennifer Lopez flashed her crotch and danced on a stripper pole during the Super Bowl. Feminists have hailed the performance as empowering and liberating, but I'm not sure that description quite fits. Also, is it crazy to suggest that maybe the Super Bowl should be appropriate for the whole family? And in other Super Bowl news, multi-millionaire couple Beyonce and Jay Z sit during the Anthem, which makes sense because they have been treated so badly by this country. 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, friends and neighbors and countrymen. I hope you enjoyed the Super Bowl last night. It's always very traumatizing to watch the Super Bowl. Maybe you can relate, but after your team gets eliminated from the playoffs and the Super Bowl's on and everybody's happy and all the fans of those two teams are very happy. It's like, I imagine it's like going to a wedding right after your wife left you. That's what it's what it felt like to me, only probably worse in many ways, I imagine. The good thing, though, is that fortunately, we did have the good sense to send our kids to bed before the halftime show last night, because it's the Super Bowl on network television starts at 7 p.m. on a Sunday. Why should anyone think that would be a family event?

That's crazy, right? Why would you ever imagine that you could sit down with your family with your kids and watch a football game? That's unreasonable, right? It's unreasonable to expect that you should be able to watch the game with your kids. That's what I've been told anyway, over the past last night and this morning. This is what I'm assured that, no, no, no, the idea that I should be able to watch the game with my kids. That's totally unreasonable. I shouldn't expect that.

So the halftime show, which seemed to arrive to us via Time Portal from 2003, featured Jalo and Shakira. singing their hits from, or lip-syncing anyway, their hits from 17 years ago. I was kind of waiting for maybe Smashmouth to come on stage or Matchbox 20 or the Goo Goo Dolls. I would have preferred any of those three, actually, even Smash Mouth. Maybe Jaw Rule or DMX. But the fact that it was dated was not really the point. And by the way, I am going to tune in. I'm looking forward to watching TRL today to see what Carson Daly thought of it.

But that's not really the point. And the fact that no actual football fan listens to Jennifer Lopez or Shakira is not the point either, because this is something that... Now, I've been suggesting for years that maybe the NFL might want to think about possibly having a halftime show featuring acts, performers that football fans are actually interested in, just an idea, thrown it out there. But that's not the point either. The point is that J-Lo, in particular, decided that this nationally televised broadcast on network TV

was a good forum to do things like shove her crotch directly in the camera then dance around on a stripper pole. Of course, she was barely clothed, there was plenty of twerking and so on. It was the kind of performance that would make a lot of sense in a strip club or even at a Jennifer Lopez

concert for whoever would want to go to something like that because it's something that you would pay to attend and you go into it knowing that she's a 50 year old woman desperate for attention and lacking the artistic skill to get that attention by making actually good music. That's one thing I thought about during the show, by the way, that this woman is 50.

And there were plenty of people bringing that up, oh, she's 50, bringing it up in a positive light. Like they were impressed. Oh, she's 50 and she's still doing this. But I was thinking more, she's 50 and she's still doing this. She's been in the music industry, what, for like 25 years? Hasn't grown at all as an artist. That's one thing you can't accuse Jennifer Lopez of apparently.

Do not accuse her of growing as an artist because she has not at all. Not even a little bit. I remember back in the late 90s, early 2000s, she would always get attention and publicity. She would get herself into the headlines by doing things like showing up to the VMAs without any clothes on. That sort of thing. And that was back, again, the late. 90s, early 2000s.

And here she is 20 years later doing the same stuff as she's old enough to be an AARP member. She's old enough to be a grandmother doing the same stuff. So she's like Madonna in that way. Only Madonna is 93 and still gyrating on stage while screaming, look at me

everybody, please look at me! And then there's the six creepy dudes in the audience that are looking. Now, I have a couple of points I wanted to make about all this. But before we do that, a quick word from Ashford University. You know, everyone has that dream job, that job that maybe seems out of reach, but that you know you're meant to do.

You know it's your vocation, you're calling. Some of us are lucky enough to already be in that job. Some of us are still striving for it. Well, if you're striving, it's very important that you be prepared. And what a lot of people discover is that they need, at least the, bachelor's degree to make that dream of reality. But the way the traditional university system is set up, it's just not feasible or affordable. We talk about this all the time on the show. It's not something that a lot of people are able to do affordably, especially if you're working a job.

If you're an adult, you have maybe a family, you have kids, you've already got a job. Well, going to some four-year institution, going into physical classrooms, taking on the whole workload, that might not, you might not be able to do that logistically. That's where Ashford University comes in. Ashford University's online bachelor's and master's degree programs allow you to learn at your own pace. You can study whatever you're the most comfortable learning, whenever you're the most comfortable learning. One course at a time means that Ashford University's six-week-long courses allow you to take just one course at a time. So again, that's that manageable workload.

Being enrolled in one class at Ashford means that you're still considered a full-time student. And here's a good thing. No standardized tests are required. So the SAT, the GRE, the G-MAT, other standardized test scores are not required for enrolling at Ashford University. I can tell you, for me personally, sitting in a classroom doesn't work. It never has. That's why the flexibility of being able to study wherever you want, being able to take one class at a time, it's all about having a manageable workload again because you've got plenty of other things going on in your life.

So get on the road to learning your degree and make it. your dream job of reality. Enroll now by going to ashford.edu-slash. Again, that's ashford.edu-slash-W-E-U-S-Walsh. Ashford.org. I'll spell that out for you. A-S-H-F-O-R-D. Dot E-D-U-S-Walsh. And start getting your degree today. All right, back to the halftime show. Here's my point about there. Here's my radical position. I think football games should be family events. They should be appropriate for everybody. That's what the Super Bowl should be.

I should be able to watch it with my kids. Now, because I'm not naive, I know that I can't, so that's why I did send them to bed. But it's not like I'm upset that I can't watch HBO's nighttime lineup with my kids. Okay, I'm not turning on premium channels at 10 o'clock at night and saying that that stuff should be appropriate for my kids. I know that it's not going to be, and if there's inappropriate stuff for kids,

that's a good place to put it, HBO at 10 o'clock. All right, we all get it, right? But a football game, the Super Bowl, airing on network television at 7 o'clock, should be appropriate. Of course, the problem is we live in an aggressively stupid culture, a stupid, self-absorbed, sex-obsessed culture where even the incredibly reasonable point

that I'm making right here, The very mild request for a Super Bowl halftime show that doesn't feature stripper polls, even this is viewed as Puritan extremism. Someone told me last night, and when I was saying this on Twitter, someone said, well, so you want to move to a Muslim country where women have to be covered 24-7? Yes, because that's the other option, right? Those are the only two options. Either we've got stripper polls on network TV at 7 o'clock at night during a family event.

Either that or women have to be covered head to toe 24-7 upon penalty of death. There's no room in between. It's one or the other, right? And so those of us who made this point last night were greeted with a flood of responses from people who felt personally attacked that we were advocating for a minimal level of decency and respect for children. How about that? Let's just put it that way. This is not about my own feelings or anything like that, or my tastes or preferences. How about just respect for children?

A little bit. That's all I'm asking of society. It's a little respect. They are people. They exist. They're in society too. And we're constantly worried about how images, ideas, words, thoughts, et cetera, will hurt various groups of people. This is a constant topic of conversation in our culture today.

In fact, even in regards to this game, there was much discussion about the chief's logo and how the chief's team name and mascot and how that might be hurtful to Native American adults who are watching. So if that's a concern, if we're concerned that, say, a 40-year-old Native American man may somehow be traumatized because of the Kansas City Chiefs, if that's a concern that we have to take into account and talk about,

then what about kids who actually are impressionable and do have and are fragile in a way, understandably, they have an excuse to be. They're kids. Did nobody involved in the halftime show, whether J-Lo herself or people at NFL,

people at the network, think it was on Fox, did nobody stop for a second and go, hey, gee, kids are going to watch this. did anyone do that no they didn't do that because they don't care nobody cares about kids nobody's concerned about protecting them we protect the feelings of overly sensitive adults but kids you know who cares nowadays it's not just it's not just that we aren't concerned

about the content children might see it's that the very idea that we should be concerned maybe is insane to people. People see that as insane. The very notion, the suggestion that possibly some of this stuff might not be appropriate for kids. And so maybe we should tone it down a little bit. It's not even, oh, I disagree. It's, oh, my goodness, you're a lunatic for even saying that. People recoil at the mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe, events like the Super Bowl should be appropriate for families. But it's not a radical suggestion. Look, there have always been people who push the boundaries.

There's always been a push, especially on TV, towards overly sexual entertainment and so forth. But there also used to be a strong pushback from the other direction saying, hey, let's keep these things in check a little bit. There are families watching this stuff. So let's keep that in mind. And now there's almost no pushback. And what little there is, the few who do pushback are screamed at with an insane fury. and deranged anger. You're sexist.

You're a racist. There are actually people saying that. I know this doesn't surprise you. I'm saying it as if you'll be surprised. But yes, there are people saying that it's not only sexist but racist. If you're criticized in a halftime show, you're a racist. It's argued that it's racist to object to strip teases at halftime because the women are from Latin America. and so

it's racist to criticize that this is the argument and sexist too because you see women flashing their crotches on camera are being empowered

this is very empowering here's a thought if you think this stuff is empowering go online and check out who's defending it because I've gone back and forth with these people many times over many different subjects.

And you see, who are the people valiantly defending a woman's right to dance on a stripper pole in front of children? Well, you've got much-brained feminists, of course. You have stupid feminists. But who else? You've got them and creepy old men. So this is, once again, a coalition of stupid feminists and creepy old men. defending this kind of thing. And anytime we're talking about any kind of degeneracy

of this type, the coalition is always creepy old men and feminists. Why do you think those creepy old men, and this is a question to the mush brain feminist, why do you think the creepy old men are defending your right here? Defending your rights to, you know, strip in front of kids? What do you think it is?

Do you think they're worried about self-expression and free speech? You think that's what it is? Do I need to spell it out? It's just like the men, the men who, who are your allies. They're your allies because they are very outspoken about their belief in your right to get an abortion. Very pro-choice men. Why do you think they're so pro-choice? Do I need to, do I need to get into detail about it? Can you not, put the pieces together? Well, if I need to, I'll explain it's because because they want to use you as a sexual object and they don't want to have to worry about a kid resulting from it. And so that's

why they're perfectly happy to use you, discard you, and then have you discard the baby. Because these are bad men. These are bad, lazy, worthless men who are only concerned about themselves. That's the only thing they care about. And they see you as an object to be used. You are to them, nothing more than a masturbatory aid, essentially. You're like a sex toy, so much so that, again, in order to be able to use you and fulfill their sexual desires, they're okay with you killing their own child. They don't care, as long as they get what they want, which is a few minutes of fun, a few minutes of fun, throw you out, throw the kid out. They don't care. So these are bad men. And they're on your side because they're against you, not because they're for you.

And they're also perfectly happy to see women embarrassing, humiliating, disgracing themselves on national TV because they enjoy seeing it. It's something they enjoy. Because again, these are losers. And it's not like they have meaningful relationships with women. So, you know, they rely on things like raunchy halftime shows. So, you know, that's, that should concern you if you're a feminist. That these are the people on your side. Just, I mean, just something to think about. All right, now I should mention there was one good performance last night.

Demi Lovato, I thought, absolutely nailed the national anthem, which is not easy to sing. And I mean, not that I know, I hold a note about as well as spaghetti strainer holds water, I guess. But it does, from what I can tell, it seems like it's a really difficult song to sing, which is why it's taken down so many people who have attempted it publicly. But I thought she did a beautiful job singing the song. And what made her, I'll tell you what made her rendition. This is a good learning opportunity for any other singer who might attempt in the future. and pretty much any national anthem performance that we remember as being great,

like Whitney Houston, okay, that's probably the gold standard. What made it great is, well, yeah, they're very good singers, but they're just singing the song. They're not worried about showing off their vocal range, even though they have beautiful vocal range, and that's going to come out naturally in the song. But that's not the point. They're not showing, but they're not trying to mix it up and do anything different with it.

It's just a true it's an old traditional song obviously and that's how they're singing it and it's beautiful So I thought that was great, but Jay-Z and Beyonce were at the game and they didn't seem very impressed by The performance watch yes, they're sitting during the anthem and and that's Really they've been criticized for this but I think it's understandable that they would sit during the anthem Because why would you expect them to stand up and show gratitude for the country. Think about what the country has done to them. Think about the persecution and oppression that they've suffered. This country has been very unfair to those people who have been

multi-millionaire celebrities almost their entire lives from a very young age. But very unfair. They've been oppressed. I don't know how they've been oppressed. I can't possibly imagine. And whatever form of oppression they've suffered, I would love me some of that oppression. Give me a slice of that oppression. Give me the oppression that. Give me the oppression that ends with you, you know, having $500 million in the bank. I'll take it. It's kind of like the oppression that Colin Kaepernick has gone through his life, has ended with him being a multi-millionaire absurdly wealthy individual. So, you know, but hey, it's those of us who are not multi-millionaires, maybe we just can't understand that kind of persecution. And so we should just respect the fact

that they are protesting in this way. So good for them. Real heroes, very valiant individuals. All right, I want to get into emails, but before we do, by the way, I also wanted to mention tomorrow, you know, make sure to watch, is the State of the Union address, of course. So make sure to watch backstage and their coverage of the State of the Union on Daily Wire. You're not going to want to miss that tomorrow Tuesday. Okay, let's go to emails. This is from Kelly says, hi, Matt. Wanted to get your opinion regarding our current state of social communication. I was listening to a show you did a while back, episode 103, why it's impossible to have fruitful debates in our culture.

one of the things you talk about is people having opinions that can either be A or B and nothing in between. I really enjoy this particular show you did and feel that the points you make in that episode are really important, considering that things have only become worse since you did the show. So I wonder what you think of our current state as society, and if you think there's any hope to get to a point where people actually accept one another as equals, even if they have differences of opinion. I appreciate everything to do. Well, Kelly, I don't think our ability to have a fruitful discussion is necessarily predicated on accepting one another as equals. To be honest, I'm not even sure what that means.

I know it's something people we say all the time about equality. We all have to accept each other as equals, but I don't know what it means. When you dig down into it and ask yourself what it means to you, I think you'll find that even in your own mind, it's a very fuzzy concept. I think it's a fuzzy concept in all of our minds. Now, I think we should all be legally equal in that the law should protect all of us equally, although it doesn't. Unborn children are not protected under the law as one example, but it should be. So that's a legal concept.

I don't think it has a lot of bearing, though, on our personal interactions with each other on a day-to-day basis. And aside from equality as a legal concept, I'm not sure what it means. Because the fact is you and I are not equal. We're different in many ways. That doesn't mean that one of us is better or worse. It just means that we're very different. And so to say that we're equal, aside from in the legal way,

I'm just not sure what it means or why we would even say it. And I say that we're equal and doesn't mean one is better or worse, but we could be better or worse. I'm sure you're probably the better camp. I'm not a very high bar to get over, but some people are better than others.

There are certainly people in this world who are morally, you know, in terms of intellect and morality and all of these things are better than other people. That's a fact. So, but we use this term. And I just, I think it's something we need to think about. What do we actually mean? Rights, human rights would be another example of this word that we use all the time. And I don't think that any of us know. exactly what we mean when we say it, except in a strictly legal context.

But we use it in a way that is far beyond just legal. Now, if I were to ask you, I know none of this is your point whatsoever, so I'm going off on a tangent, but this is what I do, so you have to expect it. I'll get back to your point in a second. I just want to make this point. If you were to ask the average person, what are rights, what is a right? What are they going to tell you? I think probably the average person would stutter and have no answer at all.

They'd be flummoxed. Even though they talk about rights all the time, next time you hear somebody saying, oh, I have a right to this or that. Stop them and say, what is that? What is it? They'll probably be stumped. Now, if this person you're talking to as a believer, as a Christian,

or, you know, is Jewish, they'll probably give you, they'll probably quote the Declaration of Independence, and they'll say, oh, rights are endowed by the creator. Well, even if that's true, it doesn't actually tell you what rights are. It's like if I said, what are lions? And you said, lions live in sub-Saharan Africa. Okay, it tells me where they are, but it doesn't tell me what they are.

It tells me almost nothing about lions. You haven't narrowed it down very much. So saying they're endowed by the creator, okay, well, what is endowed? What do you mean? And even the idea that rights are endowed by the creator. I know that now I'm getting into real hair. in America, but I'm not even sure if that's true, exactly. It kind of depends on what God concept we're going with here when we say it. So it's going to depend a lot on what your religion

is. Now, Thomas Jefferson was a deist. So for a deist to talk about a God that endows rights, I have no idea what that means, because the deist concept of God is he got the universe rolling and is now just sitting back somewhere in the cosmos not caring what happens with humans. So the idea that he gave us rights, well, maybe, but who knows what that even means. Now, if we're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, well, did that God give us, did the biblical God to talk about rights in that context, does that make sense? I don't know. There really isn't any mention of human rights in the Bible.

That's not something that the biblical writers seem to be concerned about. God doesn't mention it It doesn't bring it doesn't come up in the New Testament Now we are told about respecting people and especially in the particularly Christ in the New Testament we're told quite a bit about Treating people with dignity but that's not Hinged on any concept of universal human rights that that Concept doesn't come up

You would think if that existed It would have been mentioned And if you get out of a religious context completely then then again Again, I have no idea what you mean by rights, aside from strictly in a legal way. We say, God endowed us with a right to free speech. What do you mean by that? Because free speech? Now, that sounds like you can say whatever you want.

That's what free speech is. Except in the Bible, there are a whole bunch of things that we're told we're not supposed to say. And then even, and then the government will give us a bunch of other things we're not supposed to say that aren't necessarily mentioned the Bible. like you're not allowed to call in bomb threats you can't say fire in a crowded theater slander or libel well that is in the Bible but so free speech

it's it's free speech endowed by the creator but there's still a bunch of things you're not supposed to say okay so it's not free you have a right to bear arms well I believe that but not absolutely obviously

we would all agree I don't care who you are we would all agree there are certain arms you shouldn't be allowed to bear, like nuclear arms, for example. Even if that's the only example of something that you think we shouldn't have a right to have, assuming that you would agree, then you don't believe in totally, you don't think that's an absolute right. If it's not an absolute right, then how is it a right at all? What does it mean to call it a right?

You go right down the list. There's really no right you can name that you actually believe in absolutely. There are obviously going to be exceptions. There are going to be limitations. And so how is it a right? This is so far from anything you ask me about. But now I'm, it's something I think about a lot. I think the problem is, when we talk about rights and we talk about equality, we are, we're reaching for something.

There's obviously something there that we are trying to describe. It's a way of talking about something. But what are we talking about? And what I would suggest, and I'm not saying, no, I think we are talking about something real. So I'm not saying these are totally worthless mythological concepts. I am saying that they missed the point a little bit, and they're kind of confusing and vague, and nobody knows what these words mean, which is why we haven't stopped arguing about them. Which is why if you get 100 people in a room, you ask them, what are our, you know, God-given human rights? You're going to get 100 different answers.

Nobody knows. I think it's, we're trying to talk about something. I think we need better language. We need more precise language. I'm not sure exactly what that language would be, so I don't have all the answers. I do know that one thing, and I've mentioned this before, I think that oftentimes when we talk about rights, it would get closer to the heart of the matter and would be more clarifying if instead of talking about rights, we talked about responsibilities.

So even something like the abortion issue, we talk about a right to life. Well, do we have an absolute right to life? No, of course we don't. Because if you believe in capital punishment, you don't think you have a right to life. we have an absolute right to life. If you believe it's in self-defense, that means not an absolute right to life. If you believe that war could be just in some cases,

killing enemy combatants, not an absolute right to life. And certainly on a cosmic scale, we don't have a right to life. God can take our lives anytime he wants. Now, you might say those are obvious exceptions, but they are exceptions, which means that the right to life is not absolute, which means that maybe it's not the best phrase to use. Maybe it's a little confusing.

So maybe a better way of putting this, would be that parents have a responsibility to their children. Maybe that's firmer ground to stand on, actually, than right to life. Parents have a responsibility to their child. That's your child. You have a responsibility to the child. And you do not have the authority to kill innocent human life, especially your child. So, you know, responsibility is a word I think we could use more often.

Dignity. Now, dignity can be also a little bit abstract and difficult to describe, but I think that's part of what we're reaching for when we talk about rights and equality. We're reaching for the fact that as people, life has meaning and value. And so you can't just go killing people and treating people like dirt. So we use these words, rights and equality. It's not exactly right, but we do have dignity. So we have human dignity. We have responsibilities. Okay, now I think we're on firmer ground. We're talking about something. real that most people can understand. Okay, completely irrelevant to anything you were saying. What were you talking about? You were talking about how we talk, how we have meaningful discussions. Okay, what's necessary to have a meaningful discussion? I think to have a meaningful discussion putting equality to the side. I don't think that's necessary at all. I don't think you have to think of someone as you're equal to have a meaningful dialogue with them. I think meaningful dialogue means, first of all, everyone involved in the dialogue has to be interested in having an actual dialogue, which means that they're not saying their part and then waiting for a turn to talk

again while they tune out whatever you're saying, which is how I think most people have conversations, whether it's small talk or meaningful, deep political discussions, whatever it is. I think most people, when they're talking to people, they're really just talking. and the listening part is them waiting their turn to talk again. So you can't do that. And number two, I think everyone involved in the discussion has to be willing to believe

that the other people in the discussion are operating in good faith. That those people talking believe what they're saying and they have reasons to believe it, which isn't to say that all views are equally valid or whatever, because they're not, of course, but just that everyone has a point of view that is real and that they arrived at honestly. Now, the problem is that we know plenty of people participate in bad faith discussions and say things that they don't really mean. And if that's the case, and you're talking to someone who's operating in bad faith, then there's no reason to talk to them at all. But if you're going to attempt to have a dialogue with someone on any issue, you have to be willing to believe, even if it's maybe not true, you just have to be willing to accept

and pretend that this person means what they're saying. And if you have those two things, if you're both operating in good faith and you see good faith in the other person and you believe that they have a real perspective that they've arrived at for some reason, even if it's, in your opinion, not a great reason. If you've got that and you're interested in hearing them out,

then I think you can have a discussion. You can have a debate. It can go somewhere. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why a lot of the discussions between atheists and theists don't go anywhere. Well, one reason is they're just so far apart on such a fundamental issue, so it's going to be hard to have a discussion no matter how you're going about it. But the other problem is that, in my experience, from what I've noticed, both sides tend oftentimes to assume that the other side doesn't really

fully believe what they're saying. I hear this from atheists. who questioned whether we theists really believe what we say. They can't wrap their heads around it. How could you possibly believe this? I was watching some discussion on maybe it was a YouTube or debate or something, but I don't remember where. Atheists were all basically in agreement that Catholics, who talk about the real presence in the Eucharist,

that is that Jesus is really there in the Eucharist in a mystical but real way. The agreement among atheists was they don't really believe that. There's no way they believe that. To them, it's crazy. That makes no sense. So they say, you don't really believe it. Then on the other end, you've got theists who very often will say about atheists. You know that I'm right.

You're just not admitting it. You know deep down and all this. So you don't really believe what you're saying either. Well, if that's how you're going to go into the discussion, it's not going to go anywhere. There's no hope. Why even talk? Whatever you're saying is going to be tuned out by the other person. It will go nowhere.

It's absolutely pointless. you're going to even bother to talk to somebody about an issue like this, you have to at least assume that they really believe what they're saying, even if you don't understand it. And the fact that both sides assume the other doesn't believe what they're saying should be indications to both sides that the other side does believe what they're saying. They believe it so much that they can't even believe that anyone could believe anything else, which if anything else tells you that they really believe what they're saying at least. they believe it you know they're they're very they're firm in their beliefs at the very

minimum okay I did have other emails I wanted to answer well this one I said I was done with the spanking topic but first of all you know that when I say I'm done with the topic it means I'm going to talk about it for the next three weeks so that's one thing but also there was I got I got myriad emails about one particular thing I said when we were talking about the spanking topic on Friday, that apparently I wasn't clear on a certain point. So I wanted to read this email and respond to it because I won't be able to rest until I clarify my point on this because I do want to be understood. So this is from Matthias says, hi, Matt. I know you said you were done with the spanking topic, but I had one last thought

slash objection. In an attempt to explain your position, you said that spanking is a do as I say, not as I do thing because you tell your kids not to hit and then you'd be hitting. But then you said that timeouts aren't do as I say, not as I do, even though your kids can't put each other. in timeout? And you said that if your daughter asks why she can't put her brothers in time out, you would say that she doesn't have the authority. So why couldn't that be the reason why they don't hit? Also, the way you talk about hitting, i.e. we don't hit. It makes it sound like you're saying hitting is never okay. But what about self-defense, et cetera? I just think your position is not well thought out. Okay, so yes, Matthias, I said last week, the crucial thing here

is what a kid can understand. So there's the issue of sort of objectively is spanking ethical and effective in itself, which I think it isn't. But we almost don't need to talk about that because there's also the issue of what the child can understand. So even if maybe you're right on the spanking topic academically, maybe you beat me philosophically on the debate

and you can demonstrate that really actually it is ethical and there is a real distinction between spanking and hitting and so on. Let's just say that that's the case. It really doesn't matter if the kid can't understand this abstract, nuanced philosophical distinction that you've drawn. And, you know, I may not be the smartest bulb, especially when I'm mixing metaphors like that. I may not be the smartest bulb in the cran box.

But I think if I can't understand it, probably an indication that a three-year-old can't. And punishing a kid in a way that they cannot possibly understand and that they lack the cognition to understand is wrong. Let me give you a brief example of an objectively ethical punishment that would be wrong because of the child's inability to understand. And this is one that I've done before. I'm guilty of.

Back when my oldest son was maybe three years old, we were out in public. He was misbehaving. This happened multiple times, actually. Misbehaving. Okay. acting like a three-year-old, you know, like they tend to act. But I couldn't really punish him at the time because of the situation we were in. So when we got home, four or five hours later, I put him in timeout for the thing he had done earlier in the day.

Nothing wrong with timeouts. I don't think anyone would argue that there's something unethical about timeouts. At least I'm not going to argue that. But this was wrong. Me punishing my kid in this context with a timeout was wrong. Why? Because at that age, if you're going to give a child a consequence, it has to be immediate. With the way that they remember time and the way they perceive time, if you punish them for something that happened hours ago,

they aren't going to understand what you're doing. They can't understand it. Now, if you're talking about a 12-year-old and you're punishing them for something they did earlier in the day or even yesterday, they can understand. A three-year-old can't. So if you don't believe me, then go to a three-year-old, ask him what he did yesterday, or even ask him what he did this morning. Most likely he'll tell you some vaguely, some story vaguely related to something that happened a month ago, you know, or six months ago, or last week. Because he has no idea what the word this morning means or what the word yesterday means or four hours ago.

He doesn't know what that means. So I punished my son, but he didn't, understand it. I didn't understand at the time because I was still learning how kids operate. I didn't realize this. But he didn't understand why I was punishing him. Yeah, he had done this thing, but he's not connecting those dots. He can't. So for him, you put a three-year-old in timeout for something they did four hours ago. In their mind, they're going to associate it with whatever they most recently did. So if the most recent thing they did was, you know, they were sitting on the couch, and now you're putting them in timeout,

they're going to think that you put them in time out for sitting on the couch. They're not going to connect the dots. Okay. So that's wrong, because they don't understand. Now to spanking. And this is also why, by the way, this is why you really don't punish, you know, we don't punish infants at all. You don't punish infants for anything, no matter what they're doing, because they couldn't possibly understand the punishment.

And so nothing would come of it. That would be abuse. Put an infant in timeout, you know, like I say, timeouts are ethical, but on some cases they might not be. Put an infant in timeout. That's unethical. Not a spanking. What matters here, or at least one of the things that really matters is how the child perceives

it. And what the child is going to perceive, regardless of whatever academic argument or nuanced distinction you draw as an adult, what they are going to perceive is, dad, is hitting me. And then his child brain is going to say, Daddy says don't hit, but Daddy is hitting. That's what the child is going to think. You bring up the issue of authority with putting my kids in time out. My point there is that when my daughter asked, when my daughter has tried to put her brothers in time out and I say no and she says, why? The answer I give is because you're not mommy, only mommy and daddy's put kids in time out. That was the reason I gave, a reason she could understand.

There's no point in giving a reason for something if they can't understand the reason. So it has to be a very simple reason. What about hitting? When my daughter hits her brother, what's the reason I give for why she shouldn't hit? I don't say only mommy and daddy's hit. No, you can't hit because you're not the mommy. Only mommy's and daddy's hit. You're not allowed to hit.

Only we hit. I don't say that. No parents says it. Even parents who spank when you're telling your kids not to hit, you don't give them the reason that they don't have to. the authority to hit, of course you don't say. That'd be a totally crazy thing to say to a kid. Because from a child's perspective, that's going to be so confusing to be given that reason. Because now they're going to think, wait, so hitting is okay. Hitting is okay. So hitting is okay as long as adults do it. Do you see where that kind of thinking is going to lead a kid?

What you're opening them up to? No, you're not going to say that. So what you say when you say don't hit, the reason that every parent gives is we don't hit, it's wrong to hit, hitting hurts, we don't hurt people. You have to say that, like that, because it's what the kid can understand. You're talking to a three or four year old. You're speaking in very short little sentences. That's all they can understand. You bring up self-defense, sure, but I'm not getting into the ethics of self-defense or rules of military engagement with a toddler. So I say we don't hit. Yeah, I mean, there are exceptions to that obviously, but I'm not getting into the exceptions. And at that age, all that matters is the very basic concept. I need them to get that down. And then later on we can get into the exceptions. It's just like I tell my kids don't steal. We don't steal. Stealing is bad. Now, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about what if you're starving and your kids are starving and you're walking through a cornfield and it's somebody else's cornfield. Can you eat the corn? Even though technically you're stealing the corn. The answer is yes, you can. In fact, in that case, it would be ethical to eat the corn. It'd be unethical not to give your kids. some corn, because as it turns out, do not steal is not an absolute, is not an ethical

absolute. There are cases where stealing is okay. So, you know, in wartime, you send a spy on a mission to go steal the other, the other military's battle plans or whatever. I mean, that's stealing too, but that's ethical. But I don't get into that with kids. What I say to them is, we don't steal. Stealing is bad.

And it's important that I don't do anything that seems to contradict that unless the kids really are starving in the cornfield. So for them, it's a very simple message. The anti-hitting message is very simple for a child. It's an important message. It's a message I need them to get down. I need to lay the basic framework of it. Later on, down the road when they're older, I can start filling in some of the particulars. that we can get into some of that stuff, but we're not at that point yet. They're not old enough

for that. And so I just need them to understand so they can be civilized, gracious, you know, people at this age. I just need them to understand. Don't hit. And I don't want to do anything that might undermine that or might confuse them about it. That's it. So that's the point. Okay. Let's see. One other email, this is from Katie, says, Matt, love the show. On Twitter, you were asking people about issues about, about issues about which they change their minds. Issues they change their minds about. See that what happens when you try not to, you try to, you know, sometimes you try to write that grammatically correct sentence and it comes off confusing. Then you listed a bunch of issues you've flipped on over the years. Then you said,

quoting you, I've increasingly found that ideological labels are irrelevant to me. I've become much more libertarian. I've become both more libertarian and less over time. more conservative and less, these labels are useless and there's nothing more uninteresting than a person whose views align completely with one camp. Quoting me, that's what I said, yes. You often preach about intellectual inconsistency, but here you are talking about the times you've flip-flopped like it's a good thing. What's wrong with a person remaining firm in their convictions? Well, first of all, I criticize flip-flopping when it's done or seems to have been done usually by a politician in a cynical and opportunistic way, not a sincere and authentic way.

So that's bad flip-flopping. Usually when we call a politician a flip-flopper, what we're saying is their opinions change according to surveys, according to the polling data. So that's bad flip-plopping. But if you really just change your mind about something over time, I've never criticized anybody for that because that's a good thing. That shows that somebody is thoughtful and honest and that they're really trying to figure things out.

I do value intellectual consistency, but when I say consistency, I don't mean that your views of today are consistent with your views of 20 years ago. That kind of consistency is not important and is probably a bad sign, if anything. I mean, think about it. If you've never changed your mind about anything major, that means you basically still maintain all of the opinions you had when you were in high school. And those weren't even your opinions. Those were your parents' opinions that you inherited. And those were the opinions that you inherited from your family, from your friends and your community. I mean, the opinions you have as a kid are not really yours fully because you haven't had time to think about it. Your mind is not fully formed yet.

And if your values and opinions haven't changed at all since then, I think that's a sign that you're not thinking. That's why people like to give Bernie Sanders credit because he's been saying the same stuff for 40 years. I don't really give him credit for that. Because number one, he's been wrong for 40 years. But number two, I don't think you should be saying the same. things at 78 that you were saying, you know, when you were in your 30s or 20s or teens. I'm not saying that all of your views and opinions should change completely, but you should have grown and matured and you should have added some layers at least in context onto what you're saying, some texture to it.

And yeah, you probably should have changed your mind about some things. The fact that Bernie Sanders has been doing the same schick for 40 years, 50 years, hasn't changed his mind about anything. tells me he's not a very thoughtful person. He has one simplistic way of looking at things, and it has not grown. There's been no depth added to it at all. I don't think that's good.

So I think we should be constantly refining our positions, rethinking our positions, and analyzing them. We should always be asking ourselves, why, okay, here's what I believe. why do I believe it? What is my reason for believing that such and such is true?

And we should ask ourselves that. And I feel like if you do that survey now where you go through all your beliefs, you say, why do I believe these things? First of all, you're going to discover that there are a number of beliefs you hold that aren't really your beliefs because you have no reason to believe them

that you can think of. It's just something that you've passively inherited. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means, okay, now I've got to take a look at that and figure out is it right or wrong, I don't know. But if you conduct that personal survey now and then you conduct it again 20 years from now, you're going to find different results.

So when I talk about consistency, I think it's not that we need vertical consistency in our ideas where we have the same ideas up and down the age, up and down the years, we're saying the same things. So that's sort of vertical intellectual consistency. I don't think that that is important. I think what's important is horizontal consistency, where all of your current views are consistent with your other current views. Where you have one consistent, where you have your principles, your convictions, your ethical views, and you apply them consistently to all the issues.

And you don't have any beliefs currently that contradict each other. That's the kind of consistency. And none of us are 100% consistent. horizontally with our beliefs. But that's the consistency I think we want to strive for. And when you try to establish that kind of consistency, when you say, okay, I think this about this topic and this about that topic, wait a second, they don't really match up. When we start doing that, that's part of the way we discover that we're wrong about something. That's one of the ways that I found that I consider myself to be wrong about. I mean, I've been wrong about a lot of things. But for example, marijuana legalization. So I'm in favor of it now.

I didn't used to be. But I conducted a personal survey and I found that, okay, I believe this and that about the government's role in society and what I want the government to be doing and yet I want the government to be spending billions of dollars

trying to stop people from smoking weed it didn't really make sense according to my own personal convictions. So I had to change it. I didn't even really want to change it because honestly, you know, I don't, it's not my thing and I'm not a big fan of like potheads.

So it's not even, it's not a belief that I really want it to hold, but I realize that I kind of have to because otherwise I'm being hypocritical in my view. So, all right. We'll wrap it up there. A lot of interesting emails. I do appreciate it. And talk to you tomorrow. 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. you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire Podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Nulls 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. Hey, everyone, it's Andrew Claven, host of the Andrew Claven show. It is time, finally, for the Iowa caucuses. All across the great state of Iowa, corn-fed Americans are leaving their farms and small towns in order to decide which Democrat candidate will best serve the interests of New York and Los Angeles. We'll talk about it on the Andrew Claven Show. I'm Andrew Claven.