All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 30, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:00:28
When Everyone Is Hitler | Ep. 851
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
A Washington Post columnist decides that Hitler had a dog.
You have a dog.
Therefore, you are Hitler.
James Comey gets slapped by the inspector general and we'll check the mailbag.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
All right, so we've got a lot to get to today.
But before we get to any of it, let me remind you that this month is indeed National Life Insurance Awareness Month.
I know you had set the month aside to celebrate that.
I know that you had big plans for National Life Insurance Awareness Month.
But since I've mentioned it now twice, I'm now in your head.
So now's a good time for you to get life insurance because here is the reality.
Are you an adult?
Are you a responsible human being?
Make sure that your family is taken care of in case you get hit by a bus in the next 10 minutes.
Like, go right now and buy life insurance over at PolicyGenius.com.
Right now is a great time to buy life insurance, it turns out, because prices are the lowest they have been in 20 years.
And PolicyGenius has made it easier than ever for you to get covered.
PolicyGenius is the easy way to shop for life insurance online.
In minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers and find your best price.
Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape, And Policy Genius doesn't just make life insurance easy, they can also help you find the right home insurance, auto insurance, disability insurance.
Policy Genius makes it supremely easy to do all this.
You don't want to think about your impending doom for the rest of the entire month, or next month, or the month after that.
Instead, what you should be doing is getting it done right now, then you never have to think about this again until you plot, at which point it won't help you to think about it because you'll be dead, but at least your family will have the money that they got from the life insurance policy you were responsible enough to buy through.
Policygenius.com.
So head on over to Policygenius.com, get quotes, apply in minutes.
You can do the whole thing on your phone right now.
Policygenius, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
Alrighty, so we begin today with a quick recap of the rise and fall of James Comey.
We didn't have a chance to do this on the podcast yesterday because this news broke after the podcast was over.
But here is the story.
So James Comey, former FBI director, hero of the republic for a brief moment in time, brief shining moment in time.
Well, a report came out yesterday from the Office of the Inspector General over at the DOJ, and basically what it found is that he leaked classified information to the press through a friend.
Now, it wasn't heavily classified.
It wasn't super-duper top-secret classified.
It wasn't like he set up a private server like Hillary Clinton or something.
Instead, what happened is something fairly simple.
He created a series of memos.
He then leaked those memos to one of his friends who was outside the government.
That person then proceeded to hand those over to the New York Times.
And that was, in fact, a violation of law, but not bad enough that he was actually going to get prosecuted.
Now, James Comey then declared himself exonerated.
There are so many ironies in this story.
It's like layer, it's an onion of irony.
You take off that top layer, another layer of irony, and then another layer of irony, all the way down to that core of granite iron irony.
It's just, it's fantastic.
So, James Comey was, he started off, you'll recall, as an enemy to the Democrats, right?
Because in 2016, James Comey Made the grave error of going out in public and spilling on how Hillary Clinton violated the law six ways from Sunday.
And then he said, but we're not prosecuting her because I've changed the law conveniently for her.
I've changed the law now.
I'm rewriting it.
She's not going to be prosecuted, but she did some bad stuff, guys, some bad stuff.
And the Hillary Clinton campaign rightly said, well, if you're not prosecuting me, then why are you spilling all this crap out in public?
Right now, irony layer number one, the entire Democratic Party was super happy that Robert Mueller then did the exact same thing to Donald Trump on the Trump-Russia and obstruction of justice stuff.
Because that's what the Mueller report was.
It was all the reasons why Trump is bad.
Also, we're not prosecuting him.
But here you are and just vomit all this material right out there in public.
Okay, so James Comey did that in 2016.
It was very bad.
Then the Democrats flipped, and by 2019, it was really good.
Okay, so that's irony number one.
Then, James Comey, right before the election, reopens the investigation into Hillary Clinton, and has to notify the entire world about it, like five days before the election, and then a couple days later, he says, oh yeah, by the way, we didn't really find anything, and this really hurts Hillary Clinton.
So, he is the enemy, right?
He's the person who cost Hillary Clinton the election, supposedly.
Then it turns out that he's a hero of the Republic.
Why?
Well, because he started keeping tabs on President Trump.
He was suspicious of President Trump.
And because he was suspicious of President Trump, he started keeping memos.
And he refused to just say out loud what he'd already told Trump, which is that Trump wasn't under investigation.
It turns out the reason he wasn't saying that is because Trump was kind of under investigation by Comey and the FBI.
The reason Comey was keeping memos was presumably in order to provide the basis for an obstruction of justice charge.
Or in order to gather information on Trump-Russia kind of stuff.
So Comey was either fibbing to Trump, or he was unwilling to say something that was eminently true to the American public.
One of these two things was obvious.
Okay, so he ends up getting fired, and now he's a hero of the republic again.
So he went from being democratic enemy to democratic hero, which in and of itself is a certain level of irony, especially because he probably cost Hillary Clinton the election in the view of Democrats.
Okay, so for two years, He's hero of the republic because he was fired by Trump and this was obviously Trump trying to stop the Russia investigation.
Then a couple things happened.
One, the Russia investigation comes to nothing.
And two, it turns out that James Comey is in fact a leaker.
And that he lied about leaking.
And that James Comey is in fact a self-aggrandizing tool who is not very good at his job.
Which is unfortunate for James Comey.
Not great for James Comey.
So the OIG analysis comes out yesterday and James Comey, in another layer of irony, then declares himself exonerated.
This is the same guy.
This is the same guy who declared that President Trump was supremely wrong for declaring himself exonerated by the Mueller report.
So which is it?
Well, he wasn't exonerated here.
Not only was he not exonerated, the report's pretty damning.
Basically, the OIG found, and this is a direct quote, that, consistent with the Inspector General Act and department regulations, this matter was referred to the OIG in July 2017 by then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe following the FBI's determination that Comey may have shared memos that contained classified information with his personal attorneys.
And they say, yes, the memos were number one FBI records, so he called them personal records.
They were not.
They were FBI records.
Second, Comey violated department and FBI policies pertaining to the retention, handling and dissemination of FBI records and information.
They say Comey's actions with respect to the memos violated department and FBI policies.
And then they say that he failed to return memos after being removed as FBI director.
He improperly disclosed FBI documents and information through a third party to a reporter.
They say that he improperly disclosed the presence of this information to his attorneys.
In other words, there are a bevy of violations here.
They didn't rise to the level of the criminally prosecutable, but he definitely violated a bunch of internal FBI regulations, his employment agreement, and all the rest.
And the OIG concluded that Comey's behavior really damaged the FBI.
They said, quote, the responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information falls in large part to the employees of the FBI who have access to it through their daily duties.
On occasion, some of these employees may disagree with decisions by prosecutors, judges or higher ranking FBI and department officials about the actions to take or not take in criminal and counterintelligence matters.
They may even, in some situations, distrust the legitimacy of those supervisory, prosecutorial, or judicial decisions.
But even when these employees believe that their most strongly held personal convictions might be served by an unauthorized disclosure, the FBI depends on them not to disclose sensitive information.
Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility.
By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees and the many thousands more former FBI employees who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.
Comey said he was compelled to take these actions.
But it doesn't matter, because they have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with department policy.
Comey's unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.
In a country built on the rule of law... I mean, this is the OIG just slapping Comey across the grill.
In a country built on the rule of law, it is of the utmost importance that all FBI employees adhere to department and FBI policies, particularly when confronted by what appear to be extraordinary circumstances or compelling personal convictions.
Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a special counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure.
What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information obtained during the course of FBI employment in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.
The DOJ declined to prosecute, but that is bad news for James Comey.
And it also does speak to real questions that folks have about the honesty and objectivity of the FBI.
And this is just another black mark for the FBI.
On the left, the suggestion was that the FBI went after Hillary Clinton too hard.
On the right, the suggestion is that the FBI basically concocted the Trump-Russia investigation to go after the Trump campaign under the Obama administration.
And we still are awaiting an OIG report about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
There are two plausible theories about the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.
Plausible theory number one is that it was initiated in good faith based on information received by the FBI that there were several low-level aides to the Trump campaign who were meeting with Russian sources, and so they initiated the investigation, and then it spun out of control.
That confirmation bias, people like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page at the FBI who hated President Trump and who were deeply suspicious of him, they started to find information where they were seeing it.
They were just looking for data and they found the data they were looking for.
It didn't matter that they were missing the entire forest.
They spotted the trees that they wanted and they honed in on those trees.
Right?
That is theory number one.
Initiated in good faith, but pursued wrongly.
Theory number two was initiated always in bad faith.
That basically the FBI received information via the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And then they initiated the investigation based on a desire to harm the Trump campaign.
And they were planning to spring that on the Trump campaign late in the campaign if they thought that he was going to They thought that he was going to win or post campaign if he actually did win.
Right.
That is theory number two.
And we'll find out which one of these is true.
What is certainly true is that faith in the FBI, in the competence, core competence of the people at the highest level in the FBI has to have been shaken by all of this.
I mean, James Comey was the head of the FBI, and it turns out that not only was he incompetent, he was happy to violate departmental policy in order to in order to pursue his own personal agenda, which is exactly the accusation that critics of the FBI on behalf of Trump are making.
Which is that the FBI is sometimes politically driven.
By the way, the left has had similar criticisms of the FBI going all the way back to the FBI targeting Martin Luther King Jr., right?
So this is a bad time for the FBI.
Andrew McCabe, who is the acting FBI director, ends up getting fired for doing the same thing.
He had leaked information to the media that he thought would help him and help his bosses in his job.
He said that he did so at the behest of James Comey.
Comey denied it.
So the leadership of the FBI has a real problem.
And this is not good.
I mean, if we've been talking this whole week about the undermining of faith in institutions, if people in power at institutions do a crap job, it turns out that does a fairly solid job of undermining faith in those institutions overall.
So that report, very bad for James.
James Comey naturally came out and said, well, now I want an apology.
Dude, you're not getting an apology from anyone.
Just go take some more pictures of yourself standing over vistas of grain.
He's such a weird dude.
Like now, James Comey's entire job consists of taking Instagram photos in front of nature.
If you watch his Twitter feed, his entire Twitter feed is like him staring up at a giant redwood.
Or him standing on a road.
Well, I guess he can go be a nature photographer or something because he's never going to get a job anywhere near the intelligence community ever again, given his malfeasance here.
Okay, meanwhile...
I have to comment on a couple of pieces in the Washington Post yesterday.
So apparently it was my birthday because the Washington Post decided to run not one but two editorials targeting me yesterday, which is just a party.
There's nothing I love better than just sitting here doing my job and suddenly there are a couple of op-eds in the Washington Post.
But thank you guys for really Making sure that my exposure continues to grow.
So I appreciate that from the Washington Post.
We'll get to that in just one second because not only are there two op-eds that were directed against me, they are both awful.
I mean, just objectively, I'm going to be trying, I know, look, I'm invested in this.
They are attacking me, but I'm pretty sure these are bad op-eds.
I will explain why in just a moment.
First, let's talk about how you sleep better.
And so, as I've told you many times, I am not good at sleeping.
I'm good at some things.
I'm not good at others.
Can't, I don't have a good jump shot.
I'm good at talking.
Not good at sleeping.
Okay, so how can I make my sleep quality better?
Well, I did this by going and getting a Helix Sleep mattress.
The beautiful thing about a Helix Sleep mattress is that it is personalized to you, right?
That's quite wonderful.
That means that you take a two-minute sleep quiz, and they will match your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
No matter how you sleep, on the side, on your back, hot sleep, or whatever, Helix can make what your body needs.
Just go to helixsleep.com slash Ben, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they will match you to a customized mattress That will give you the best sleep of your life.
When I'm on the road, I have a really tough time sleeping because I'm away from my beloved Helix sleep mattress.
It's so good that I got one for my sister and her husband upon the occasion of their wedding.
For couples, Helix can even split that mattress down the middle, and that'll give you the individual support needs and feel preferences that you want for each side.
They've got a 10-year warranty.
You try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll pick it up for you if you don't love it.
But you will.
Helix is offering, right now, up to $125 off all mattress orders for our listeners.
Get up to $125 off at helixsleep.com slash ben.
Again, helixsleep.com slash ben for up to $125 off your mattress order.
So, solid deal, risk-free, go check it out.
I promise, it's gonna make your life a whole hell of a lot better.
Okay, so, let's jump into these insane editorials from the Washington Post.
So, this, herein lies the Washington Post's argument.
Everyone on the right is Hitler.
Everyone is Hitler.
And they will make this argument till their face turns blue.
It's one of the reasons why President Trump is president is because everybody who happens to be even slightly right of center is tired, sick of tired, of being labeled a white supremacist.
They're tired of being labeled racist.
They're tired of being labeled all the bad words in the universe simply because they disagree with Nancy Pelosi on tax policy and abortion.
And as we'll see, the left doesn't understand this.
So when people like me say, you know what?
Why don't you have a conversation with us?
Because we actually agree on white supremacy being evil.
We all agree that Nazis suck.
We're all on the same page here.
The first response of the left is, ah, but aren't you a Nazi?
And it's like, God bless it.
You're making my argument for me.
My whole argument is that we are having a tough time conversing with one another and people are getting angry and they are responding in dramatically Reactionary fashion.
Because you keep calling them something they are not.
If you keep calling people Nazis, eventually they just throw up a giant middle finger, and the middle finger has a giant T on it.
Right?
That's the Trump middle finger.
That's what it was.
Right?
You went at the right long enough, you kept calling us white supremacists, you kept calling us Nazis, and then Trump was out there basically saying you're all schmucks, and we're like, okay, fine, that guy.
Do it.
So the left's response to this is, but aren't you Nazis though?
Aren't you Nazis?
Now, here is the greatest example of this I have ever seen.
So, yesterday, in the Washington Post, there's a piece by a woman named Eve Fairbanks.
The piece is titled, The Reasonable Rebels.
Conservatives say we've abandoned reason and civility.
The Old South used the same language to defend slavery.
Okay.
This is literally the Hitler dog argument.
This is Hitler had a dog.
You have a dog.
Thus, by logical deduction, you are Hitler.
What the actual eff- It turns out, you know who has called for reason and civility?
Like, a lot of people over the course of all of human history have called for reason and civility.
And by the way, I would note that the Old South did not make its bones on calling for reason and civility.
They made their bones on firing on Fort Sumter, for God's sake.
They initiated the largest war in the history of the United States, ending with the deaths of 600,000 people.
That was not reason and civility.
Also, You know how I know that conservatives today are not like the Old South when they call for reason and civility?
Because I'm not whipping black folks while I'm calling for reason and civility, you moron!
Because I don't own slaves, you dumbass!
Like, what are you even talking about?
This is... It is exactly the Hitler dog argument.
It is exactly the Hitler dog argument.
Right?
Hitler used to eat vegetables.
Do you eat vegetables?
Do you?
DO YOU?! !
Hitler liked art.
Do you like art?
Hitler listened to classical music.
You listen to classical music.
You keep saying reason and civility.
You know who else used to say reason and civility?
Hmm?
Only difference between you and the slaveholders is that they held slaves.
Yes, that is a big difference.
That is a very, very large difference.
And so I'm not exaggerating.
This is a very, very long piece making exactly this argument.
You ready?
Here it is.
After the El Paso shooting, Ben Shapiro, a popular conservative podcaster, thank you very much, asked Americans to draw a line between the few conservatives who are white supremacists and those who, like him, aren't.
First of all, no, I didn't ask Americans to draw a line between the few conservatives who are white supremacists and those like me.
I said that it is non-conservative by definition to be a white supremacist, because conservatism is about values.
Conservatism is about the sacrosanct nature of the individual.
Conservatism is about judging individuals as human beings.
It is not about group identity.
That cuts directly against conservatism.
So no, you get it wrong in the first sentence, and then it gets worse.
Almost all Americans are on the same side, he said, and we should be mourning together.
In his telling, we aren't for one simple reason.
Too many on the political left are castigating the character of those who disagree, lumping conservatives and political nonconformists together with racists and xenophobes.
And then we get to the good part.
Yves Fairbank says, I grew up in a conservative family.
The people I talk to most frequently, the people I call when I need help, are conservatives.
I'm not inclined to paint conservatives as thoughtless bigots.
Wait, but- BUT!
Yeah.
But, a few years ago, listening to the voices and arguments of commentators like Shapiro, I began to feel a very specific déjà vu I couldn't initially identify.
It felt as if the arguments I was reading were eerily familiar.
I found myself googling lines from articles, especially when I read the rhetoric of a group of people we could call the reasonable right.
These are figures who typically dislike President Trump, but often say they're being pushed rightward, sometimes away from what they claim is their natural leftward bent, by intolerance and extremism on the left.
The reasonable right includes people like Shapiro and radio commentator Dave Rubin, legal scholar Amy Wax and Jordan Peterson, a Canadian academic who warns about identity politics, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, the New York Times columnist Barry Weiss, and the American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Summers, self-described feminists who decry excesses in the feminist movement, the novelist Bret Easton Ellis, and the podcaster Sam Harris, who believe that important subjects have needlessly been excluded from political discussions.
They present their concerns as principally freedom of speech and diversity of thought.
Ooh, I see why they gave her this space in the Washington Post.
Because she was reminded of a thing.
What was the thing she was reminded of?
HITLER!
outrage and derision directed their way by haughty social gatekeepers.
So it felt frustrating.
When I read Weiss, when I listened to Shapiro, when I watched Peterson or read the supposedly heterodox online magazine Quillette, what was I reminded of?
Ooh, I see why they gave her this space in the Washington Post, because she was reminded of a thing.
What was the thing she was reminded of?
Hitler!
That's what she...
What?
She was reminded of slaveholders.
That's what she was reminded of.
Oh my god.
My childhood home is just a half hour drive from the Manassas battlefield in Virginia, and I grew up intensely fascinated by the Civil War.
I loved perusing soldiers' diaries.
During my senior year in college, I studied almost nothing but Abraham Lincoln speeches.
While I wrote my thesis on a key Lincoln address, Civil War rhetoric was almost all I read.
Not just that of the 16th president, but also that of his adversaries.
Thinking back on those debates, I finally figured out the reasonable rights rhetoric is exactly the same as the antebellum rhetoric I'd read so much of.
The same exact words, the same exact arguments.
Rhetoric, to be precise, in support of the slave-owning South.
So, I say that we're on the same side, because Nazis suck, and she reads, from that, I'm a neoconfederate.
And so is Barry Weiss, and so is Jordan Peterson, and so is Jonathan Haidt.
All of us saying, why don't we have like a conversation and talk about stuff?
We're just like the people who decided to fight a civil war to secede from the United States while enslaving millions of black people.
Exactly the same.
The same, guys.
Because you're crazy.
And you're proving my point.
My whole point is that you are separating America by calling me a slaveholder.
By likening me to a neo-confederate.
You are separating America.
That was my entire argument.
And your response is, but aren't you though?
But aren't you a neo-confederate?
Okay, seriously.
Seriously.
She says, if it sounds absurd Shapiro and his compatriots aren't defending slavery after all, it may actually be because many Americans are unfamiliar with the South's actual rhetoric.
When I was a kid in public school, I learned the arguments of Senator John Calhoun, who called slavery a positive good, and Alexander Stevens, the Confederacy's vice president, who declared that the South's ideological cornerstone rested upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man.
But such clear statements were not the norm.
Pro-slavery rhetoricians talked little of slavery itself.
Instead, they anointed themselves the defenders of reason, free speech, and civility.
This is such unbelievable horse bleep.
Hey, you know who else called themselves defenders of reason, free speech and civility?
Abolitionists.
Hey, everyone was.
Many people talk this way.
Why?
Because sometimes conversation is a good thing.
Like if she studied the period of the Lincoln The Antebellum South and the Antebellum North.
If she's talking about that period, you know what was one of the things that happened?
There was this thing, I hate to remind her, called the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where they had a conversation about slavery.
And you know when things went wrong?
When people started beating the crap out of each other with canes on the floor of the Senate.
When people started firing on each other.
When a whole group of people were enslaving a whole other group of people.
That was the big problem, not the conversation, guys.
Not the conversation.
That was the problem.
The war had to be fought because some people were holding other people in bondage.
And they weren't going to give up those people who were in bondage without using violence.
That is not reason and civility on the part of the South.
That's holding people in bondage.
Do you not know what slavery is, you stupid ass?
She says, it might sound strange that America's pro-slavery faction styled itself the guardians of freedom and minority rights, and yet it did.
In a deep study of antebellum Southern rhetoric, Patricia Roberts Miller, a professor of rhetoric at the University of Texas at Austin, characterizes the story that pro-slavery writers wanted to tell between 1830s and 1860s as not one of demanding more power, but of David resisting Goliath.
They stress the importance of logic, facts, truth, science, and nature much more than Northern rhetoricians did.
Um, does she have any, like, anything to back this up?
At all?
She says they chided their adversaries.
And also, does that make it inherently bad to talk about logic, facts, truth, science, and nature?
Again, this is the problem.
She's saying some people use these arguments in bad ways.
They use these words in bad ways.
Therefore, the very use of the word is bad.
What a... I mean, I can see why she doesn't like logic.
I can see why she doesn't like facts or truth, because they cut really strongly against her argument.
She says, they loved hyperbole.
Events were the most extraordinary spectacles that had ever challenged the notice of the civilized world, too alarming and threatened to destroy all that is valuable and beautiful in the institutions of our country.
All over, they saw slippery slopes.
This argument is literally A is is a hyperbolic slippery slope argument.
Her entire argument is that if you have a conversation with me, you end up a neoconfederate.
Her argument is that I and Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt are all neoconfederates, which is about as hyperbolic as it gets.
This is all insane and self defeating, of course.
She says all of this is there in the reasonable right.
The claim that they are the little people struggling against prevailing winds.
The argument they're the ones championing reason and common sense.
The allegation that their interlocutors aren't so much wrong as excessive.
They're just trying to think freely and are being tormented.
The reliance on hyperbole and slippery slopes to warn about their adversaries intentions and powers.
The depiction of their opponents as an orthodoxy, an epithet the antebellum South loved.
Okay.
She is literally making the exact opposite argument of the argument she thinks she is making.
So she is saying that all of this sort of rhetoric is unique to the South and also to the reasonable right.
She is literally making that argument about the right in this article.
It's like everything that she says was the rhetoric of the antebellum South is exactly the sort of rhetoric she is using in the article itself about her own enemies.
She says, in Ben Shapiro, who ascribes right-wing anger to unwise left-wing provocation, I hear a letter printed in the Charleston Mercury, which warned that if the mad career of the hot-headed abolitionists should lead to acts of violence on the part of those whom they so vindictively assail, who shall be accountable?
Not the South.
Oh, really?
Is that what you hear?
Really?
That's where you get that?
Good for you, lady.
And then she goes on to talk about How we're not victims, right?
I'm not a victim.
The right is... I've never claimed that the right is a victim.
I have said that the left-wing argument that everyone on the right lacks character is a nasty crap argument and that this article is garbage.
That her entire perspective on the character of her opponents is malign.
That it is terrible for the country.
That it prevents exactly the sort of political debate we need to function as a republic.
She says, is it true that it's career-ending to be of the reasonable right?
Shapiro's recent The Right Side of History was a New York Times number one bestseller.
Yes, you know why?
Not because of CNN, not because of the New York Times, not because of the Washington Post, but because you have excised more than half the country by calling them racist, sexist, bigots, and homophobes.
So when I write a book that explicitly derides Sectionalism and tribalism and factionalism that explicitly rips on white supremacy multiple times.
There's a big audience for it.
This article is insane, but don't worry, there's another insane article.
If you don't like that one, I have another insane article for you.
We'll get to it.
In just one second.
First, let's talk about finding good people on your staff.
So I'll be honest with you.
I have one good producer and one good producer only.
Her name is Rebecca.
She's the only serious person who's ever in the room for our shows.
All of my other producers, they're good at what they job, at their job like half the time.
And then on Friday, they insist on wearing Hawaiian shirts.
It's very bizarre.
Well, if you're looking to upgrade your staff, what you actually need is ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire, in fact.
ZipRecruiter sends your job postings to over 100 of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there.
As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E, ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
Honestly, everybody here is fairly good.
And we're constantly adding new producers.
We're constantly hiring.
And that's why we do use ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
But I want everybody except Rebecca to know their job is not safe.
So ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
Once again, ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
Rebecca drew the short straw on that ad today.
So Rebecca's wearing a Hawaiian shirt today.
Ooh, that totally undercuts the premise of that ad read.
In any case, back to this article from the Washington Post.
I love this.
They say, many reasonable right figures find themselves defending the liberties of people to the right of them.
Not because they agree with those people, they say, but on principle.
Ooh, they have principles.
You know who else had principles?
Hmm?
Do you?
It was Hitler.
Hitler had principles!
Like, what the?
Sam Harris, a popular podcast host, has released three lengthy shows about Charles Murray, a political scientist who is often booed at campus speeches and whose 2017 talk at Middlebury College ended when students injured his host.
Murray argues that white people test higher than black people on every known test of cognitive ability and that these differences in capacity predict white people's predominance.
Well, actually, that's not exactly what Charles Murray argues, and if you read his books, what you would recognize is that he explicitly says that IQ differentials among races are At least largely not due to genetics.
He says we don't actually know what IQ differentials based on race are based on.
There is malleability in IQ.
Not total malleability, but some malleability in IQ.
It could be environment.
It could be nutrition.
It could be a variety of factors.
Could be environmental.
Could be genetic.
He doesn't know.
Okay, that's what Charles Murray says.
But Sam Harris's point is we actually have to investigate science and then use the best data available when we make arguments.
And she's saying that Sam Harris defending Charles Murray on the basis of we need to investigate science means that Sam Harris is a neoconfederate.
She says Harris's claim is implausible.
Hundreds of scientists produce controversial work in the fields of race, demographics, and inequality.
Only one, though, is the social scientist nationally notorious for suggesting that white people are innately smarter than people of color.
Well, because he wrote a best-selling book on IQ.
That would be the why right there.
But apparently, she says, because Harris chooses to invite this one on his show, suggests he is not merely motivated by freedom of speech.
It suggests he is interested in what Murray has to say.
Ooh, he's interested in a social scientist examining data.
Wow, that means that he's a neoconfederate racist, obviously.
So much neo-confederate racism.
Racism, racism everywhere.
So again, this piece started by pointing out that I had suggested that we're all on the same side against white supremacy and that it is bad for the left to declare everyone a white supremacist because that separates us artificially.
And her response is, you know who would say that?
White supremacists.
Well done, Washington Post, you stupid... Man, I want to curse like Dave Chappelle here.
You stupid MFers.
I mean, you guys are just terrible at your jobs, but We're not done.
So that was, I told you there were two editorials in the Washington Post.
That was only one of them.
I got another one for you.
Are you ready?
This one is just as good.
It turns out, aside from reasonable conversation being bad, also debate is bad.
Debate is also bad.
So this article is by Donna Zuckerberg, a Silicon Valley-based classics scholar and the author of Not All Dead White Men.
Oh great.
She says the problems with online debate me culture.
She says anyone who regularly expresses ideas on the internet, especially women who express ideas critical of men, has encountered that bane of online discourse.
The man who appears seemingly out of nowhere to insist on a debate.
Scary men wanting to bait.
Cat calling, as AOC would put it.
Because, as we all know, the most vicious form of sexual abuse and harassment is to say, let's have a serious talk about marginal tax rates.
That's how I hit on my wife, by the way.
That's how it first got started.
She was walking by, I was like, wanna talk about some top marginal tax rates?
I'd cut your capital gains taxes, let me tell you that.
Wanted to bait the death penalty?
That actually did happen on our second date.
In any case, this idiotic Washington Post column, the second one, again, on the same day, they're so good at their jobs.
They say, a classic example came a few weeks ago after Barstool Sports founder and president Dave Portnoy threatened on Twitter to fire his workers if they tried to unionize.
After representative AOC joined the chorus of critics suggesting that such threats violated labor law, Portnoy fired back, hey AOC, welcome to Thunderdome, debate me.
She ignored the request and in a follow-up tweet, he naturally suggested that she had run from the challenge like a terrified child.
Apparently he's the bad guy.
So she attacks his business, suggested he's a criminal.
He says, fine, let's have a debate over it.
He's very evil.
He initiated this.
You see, she yelled at him that he was going to go to jail.
And then he was like, OK, let's debate about this.
And what a bad man he is.
Very bad.
But he's not the only bad man, and this is where I come in.
Ocasio-Cortez is a popular target of debate-me dudes who can be high-profile media figures or not entities.
In August 2018, the radio host and Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro offered her $10,000 to argue with him in a public forum.
Well, actually, I offered her $10,000 to appear on the Sunday special, which, as anyone who has ever watched the Sunday special recognizes, is not actually a debate forum.
It's actually a discussion forum.
I know the left doesn't know the difference.
She refused, likening the challenge to a catcall.
Unworthy of a response.
Because, that's me.
I am famous for my catcalls.
The Orthodox Jew who slept with one woman in his life after he was married.
That's my thing.
I catcall women all the time.
Ask around the office, man.
It is me.
I am just... That's all... In fact, I just hire women so I can catcall them.
Like Mitt Romney, I have a binder full of them.
Shapiro has long made to bait me part of his public persona.
Nonsense!
Nonsense!
I've debated a multiplicity of left-wing figures, ranging from Piers Morgan on guns on CNN to Cenk Igor over at Politicon.
I've challenged, I believe, precisely two people to debate ever.
One was AOC when it became clear that she was the fresh face, so fresh, so face of the Democratic Party.
The other was Bernie Sanders, who is a man, as it turns out.
So it's not sexual harassment because, number one, I was not sexually harassing AOC, and number two, I certainly would never sexually harass Bernie Sanders.
That seems weird in a variety of ways.
It says targeting both men and women, although he himself has ignored debate requests.
Yes, that's true.
I have ignored many debate requests.
Because, again, you know what happens in a free country?
People challenge each other to debates.
Some people say no.
Some people say yes.
This is not a bad thing.
But according to this article in the Washington Post, it's a very, very bad thing.
A very evil and very bad thing.
And you know who is the worst?
Here's where the article gets spectacularly great.
You know who was the worst when it came to debate me culture and wanting to debate people?
Socrates.
Socrates is cancelled.
I'm not kidding.
That's where this classic scholar goes.
Apparently they were right to hemlock that old bastard.
Washington Post, man.
They are great at their jobs over at the editorial page.
We'll get to more of this stupidity in just one second.
First, let's talk about going to the post office.
So the truth is I kind of like the post office, but it takes a lot of time to get there, to get back.
I have to spend money on gas.
I have to wait in line.
Why would I do any of that stuff?
I'll be frank with you.
I am lazy and I like to do stuff from my computer.
If you are like me and you are also lazy and like to save money and do stuff from your computer, you should be using stamps.com.
Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.
Postal Service direct to your computer.
Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
Once your mail is ready, you just hand it to your mail carrier or you drop it in a mailbox.
It is indeed that simple.
Stamps.com is a no-brainer.
It saves you time, it saves you money.
It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.
Stamps.com, again, you're gonna save yourself a lot of time and a lot of money.
I don't like going to the post office anymore because it's so much easier to do it right here.
And right now, my listeners get a special offer.
That includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale.
No long-term commitment.
Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, and type in Shapiro.
That is stamps.com.
Enter Shapiro as your code.
Alrighty, so we're gonna get to more from the illustrious Washington Post editorial page in just one second.
Socrates, guys, is canceled.
Socrates is... I'm sorry to inform you that several thousand years after his death, He has now been canceled.
And it turns out that they were right to demand his suicide, according to this columnist for the Washington Post, because I once said that AOC should discuss politics with me.
And so did Dave Portnoy, which is bad.
Very, very bad.
Can't do that.
We'll get to more of that in just one second.
First, you need to go over and subscribe over at dailywire.com.
Why should you do this thing?
You should do this thing because cancel culture is coming for everyone, including for this show, but you help protect us by becoming subscribers.
We are growing by leaps and bounds, our team, and you should join up.
Also, because you get all sorts of goodies.
For example, you get our Sunday special on Saturdays, which is pretty spectacular.
So, you should go check it out.
Do we have a clip from this week's Sunday special?
Okay, so let's play that thing.
Everything that the left is trying to do is a threat to who we are as the nation.
Everything that we are built on, all the principles that we're built on, is on the line when it comes to the policies that the radical left is putting forward.
And if we don't stop those, the next generation, our children and our grandchildren, aren't going to know the same America that we know.
If you didn't recognize that voice, that is indeed Liz Wheeler.
It's a good, far-ranging conversation on politics.
We disagree about Trump and his tweets.
She's a big fan.
As you know, I am a little more divided on that question, but the discussion is really good.
You get that early when you become a subscriber.
You also get all sorts of great stuff behind the paywall, and it is that glorious time of the week when I give a shout-out to a new Daily Wire subscriber.
Today, it is Hunter Knox on Instagram, who clearly respects our show enough to dress up for viewings.
In the picture, Hunter, a handsome German shepherd, sits at the coffee table donning a fantastic American flag bowtie, an elite beverage vessel, at the ready, right next to a laptop emblazoned with Ted Cruz for Senate, and taxation is theft stickers.
That is one smart dog.
Good doggie.
The caption reads, Hunter wakes me up in the morning to get, to one, get fed, two, get let out, three, watch the Ben Shapiro show.
We can't wait for Daily Wire to move to the best country in the United States.
But if you have a pet, as we have already discussed, this means you're like Hitler.
Hitler also had a dog.
fantastic place.
And that is a spectacular dog.
Great picture.
And thank you for sharing.
You too can be featured or your pet can be featured over.
But if you have a pet, as we have already discussed, this means you're like Hitler.
Hitler also had a dog.
So if you have a pet, if you have a pet and you want to take a picture of your pet next to the Tumblr, You have a great... Our people who select these, they really like the pets.
So go check that out right now at Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Also, more good news for you.
The Daily Wire has turned four years old.
As a thank you to our fans, we are giving away one month of our premium monthly subscription to anyone who uses the code BIRTHDAY for all of August as we celebrate this milestone.
We've been giving away that free first month for our new premium monthly subscribers.
Bad news, August is over, like, right now.
So go do it right now.
Again, just use the code BIRTHDAY.
Time is quickly running out.
Yep.
There's only one day left.
One day more to get this deal.
So subscribe today and come join the fun.
We're having such a good time.
Everybody's wearing Hawaiian shirts.
That could be you.
Go check us out at dailywire.com.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast.
That's real bad.
And you know who was the best exemplar of a person who was constantly trying to debate people?
That old bastard Socrates.
That jerk.
You know, the guy from Plato's Republic, who was one of the foundational figures of Western civilization?
That guy?
Really bad, it turns out.
Really messed up.
According to this brilliant classic scholar, Donna Zuckerberg in the Washington Post.
Quote, as the editor of an online publication that runs articles about the intersections of classical antiquity and the modern world, often from a feminist and progressive perspective, I've gotten my fair share of debate me challenges.
Many of these have come after I began writing about far-right interest in ancient Greece and Rome in 2016.
Blocking some of my would-be adversaries on Twitter seemed to just energize them and convince them I was afraid to engage.
Oh, poor you.
Poor you.
Poor baby.
A call to debate may seem intellectual, even civilized.
In theory, well-structured and respectful debates are an ideal opportunity to reach an audience that isn't fixed in its views.
In reality, however, most debate me types seem to view them mainly as a chance to attack their opponent's credibility.
Their model is not Lincoln and Douglas, but rather Socrates.
Wow, terrible.
Using Socrates as a model.
Also, just to get this straight, apparently, according to that, you guys should coordinate.
Walk down the hall to that other op-ed columnist, because the other column was saying that Lincoln-Douglas debates were bad because a lot of slaveholders wanted reasonable civil discussion.
Now this one is saying that Lincoln-Douglas debates were good.
Those were over slavery, by the way.
That Lincoln-Douglas debates were good, but Socrates was bad.
So can you make up your minds which discussions and debates are allowed from classical literature?
Can you make up your minds?
She says Socrates was bad.
He's cancelled.
By needling their interloculars with rapid fire questions, they aim to reveal, as they see it, their opponent's ignorance and stupidity, and their own superior intelligence and logic.
And then she talks about how at one time a white nationalist YouTube personality decided to appear in her Twitter mentions and insisted that she called the classics inherently fascist.
She said, My actual nuanced argument is that the long enmeshment of the classics and white supremacy both in Nazi Germany and in the pre-Civil War American South continues to inform how we understand the ancient Mediterranean and that progressive classical scholars should discuss that legacy and confront it.
It is no surprise that someone like this whom I ignored would draw on stoicism, which has emerged as the favorite philosophy both of corporate executives and the far right.
Ah, the Stoics are cancelled.
Marcus Aurelius is cancelled, guys.
This feminist scholar says it?
I guess we're done.
She says these modest men also identify with Socrates, the original debate-me troll.
The Platonic texts show Socrates pulling any number of Athenians into debate, and although some are eager to argue with him, others can hardly wait to escape him by the end of the dialogue.
Plato's Eurypthro concludes with Eurypthro insisting he has to leave, while Socrates calls after him, complaining they haven't yet figured out the nature of piety.
Many of the dialogues end when the interlocutor has been bludgeoned into submission and seems to find it easier to agree with Socrates than continue further.
Every debate me man's dream.
Socrates is cancelled, guys.
Socrates is cancelled.
It's just, this is so insane.
But there is a deeper agenda, okay?
The deeper agenda is we can't have discussions, right?
That really is the deeper agenda.
If you call for a reasonable discussion, it's because you're a Nazi.
Also, if you say, let's discuss or debate, it's because you're like Socrates, and Socrates was a pre-Nazi, so you're a Nazi.
In other words, there is no argument to be had with you, because the very fact that you are asking for a reasonable conversation shows how unreasonable you are, you see.
And the very fact that I refuse to engage with you shows how reasonable I am on the left.
Because, premise reinforced, you're a bad person, guys.
And then when all of us out here, we're like, okay, well, I guess we can't have a conversation.
And they're like, well, now you don't want to have a conversation with me?
You bad people, you.
Obviously, this is not good for the country.
It's actually kind of dangerous to suggest that every one of your political opponents actually is a white supremacist for wanting a reasonable conversation, or that if somebody says, you know what, you have a different idea than I do, let's get together and discuss it or debate it publicly, that that is inherently an act of violent male oppression.
How the hell do you think republicanism works?
Discussions are inherently, but this is unfortunately becoming a thing on the left.
And I'll provide you a perfect example.
Okay, so there was a really fascinating study that came out yesterday.
Okay, I knew about the study a few weeks in advance, because I had actually talked with one of the people who helped conduct the study, who is not on the political right.
Okay, well, this study was all about the genetics of same-sex sexuality.
Now, my perspective has always been that homosexuality, homosexual activity, and orientation, that this was, like most human activity, a combination of genetics and environment.
I was never a believer because the evidence did not support it that you are quote-unquote born this way in a binary way meaning that genetics determines 100% of your sexual orientation.
I think for some people that may be true.
I think for the broad majority of people, that is not true.
That genetics interacts with environments, interacts with epigenetics, and that you come out sort of how you come out, right?
I mean, that seems like a perfectly reasonable position given the fact that there are already twin studies that showed that among genetically identical twins, only half of those genetically identical twins ended up either both straight or both gay, right?
That when you had one gay twin, half the time the other twin was straight, which suggests obviously that this is not genetically encoded the same way that, for example, race would be, right?
If you are genetically identical, one of you is black, you're genetically identical, the other one of you will be black, right?
I mean, that's just the way that genetics works.
Okay, so...
This new study comes out and the new study basically suggests that this stuff is kind of nuanced, just like most things in life.
And this should not be particularly controversial, frankly.
This should not be like a big deal, because what exactly does it undermine?
I mean, is it the suggestion now that we should now prosecute people again for homosexual activity like that?
That doesn't undermine the libertarian argument that if you're doing something consensual, that doesn't harm anybody else.
You should be able to do what you want.
But the left is very unhappy about this study.
Very, very unhappy.
So, what does the study say?
Well, there's an op-ed about it by Stephen Phelps and Robert Wedow.
Phelps is a biologist, Wiedau is a sociologist and geneticist, in the New York Times.
And here is what the study found.
It says, A study published Thursday in Science looked at DNA and sexual behavior of nearly 500,000 people.
It found that the sex of your sexual partners is, in fact, influenced by your genes.
But it also found it was not possible to predict your sexual behavior from your DNA alone.
The study suggested, in other words, that biology shapes our most intimate selves, but it does so in tandem with our personal histories, with the idiosyncratic selves that unfold in the larger cultural and social context.
The researchers, who included one of us, Dr. Wiedow, analyzed the genetic markers of people who responded to the question, have you ever had sex with someone of the same sex?
From these data, the researchers estimated that genetic differences account for roughly one-third of the variation in same-sex behavior.
Okay, so, not an extraordinarily high percentage.
Not like 80%, it's not 90%, it's like a third.
And as the study actually says, somewhere between 8% and 25%.
The study also identified several DNA sequence variants associated with having had a same-sex experience.
In other words, there's not a gene that turns on and says, okay, now you're gay, or now you're straight.
Instead, there are genes that range from associations with more risky sexual behavior to Sort of a certain level of fluidity in terms of sexual desire.
Again, all of this is nuanced, which is fine.
Science can be nuanced, right?
So yes, your sex life is influenced by your genes.
Now, again, I'm not sure who is arguing your sex life is not influenced by your genes.
I mean, I think that, again, as biological entities, it would be bizarre if your sex life was not influenced by your genes at all.
The entire binary argument that either you are born 100% this way or you are born 100% not this way and you just choose to be gay or something, I always thought that was a dumb argument and a waste of time.
This conclusion fits with our personal experiences and intuitions.
Sexual desire is typically stable, something we often are aware of from our first longings.
Furthermore, one of the several DNA variants identified in Thursday's study is involved in gonad development, which accords with previous research that links sexual orientation to hormone exposure.
But the study's findings also complicate the relationship between genetics and sexuality.
For one thing, the results make clear there is no single biology of sexual behavior.
It turns out, for example, that the genes influencing same-sex behavior in females are often different from those that shape behaviors in males.
Okay.
It also turns out that the genes associated with having occasional same-sex experiences are unlinked to having exclusively same-sex experiences.
So, in other words, people who are bisexual have a different genetic profile than people who are exclusively homosexual.
Or people who consider themselves straight, but have strayed into same-sex territory briefly, have a different genetic profile than people who exclusively are interested in same-sex experiences.
In addition, people who only occasionally have same-sex partners tend to have genetic variants associated with having more sexual partners overall, and with personality traits like openness to new experience, which Makes perfect sense.
Again, if you are a person who is experimenting, you would imagine that your genetic profile would probably be more risk-seeking, right?
In contrast, the study found that exclusively same-sex behavior had little correlation with the biology of personality.
For some people, same-sex behavior may be a form of exploration.
For many others, it is not.
Okay, so this seems like a study that is interesting.
It does give the lie to the Lady Gaga, baby, I'm born this way, therefore I have no influence over my human behavior kind of stuff.
But it doesn't undercut any of the arguments for same-sex civil rights, for example.
It doesn't undercut the libertarian argument, again, the non-harm J.S.
Mill principle, John Stuart Mill principle, that you should be able to do what you want so long as you're not hitting me in the nose, right?
What it does do is it undercuts one of the key arguments that the left has been holding for 40 years and that is not true by evidence.
And that argument is again that sexual orientation is just as genetically encoded as race.
In just as binary a way.
And the sexual orientation is just as immutable as race.
Which again, was fairly obviously not true.
Because what we have seen generationally is vast changes in sexual behavior.
And I'm not even talking homosexual or bisexual versus straight.
I'm talking even within straight communities you've seen vastly more sexual partners over the last 40 years.
Okay, was that genetically encoded or environmental?
Probably had something to do with the environment.
We're seeing dramatic escalation in same-sex experimentation in recent years.
Is that a great shock, considering how the media has portrayed this sort of exploration?
No, not really.
I mean, the only people who are undercut by this argument are the folks who suggest, on the one hand, that sexuality is entirely a choice, which is not true.
I mean, your drive is not entirely a choice.
And the people who suggest that sexual behavior is not at all a choice for anyone.
That it is entirely ingrained and genetically based, entirely no environmental, no choice aspect of it at all.
It turns out, again, like most things in life, This is a nuanced topic.
Now, why is this important?
Well, it's important, number one, because it does have some public policy ramifications.
So, for example, you are a young person who's experiencing same-sex desire, and you don't want to experience same-sex desire, and so you go see a psychologist to talk about that.
The entire left says, waste of time, you can't do that, it'll damage you, it's really bad.
Okay, well, the evidence is not necessarily there for that.
That's why the left likes to, when it talks about, for example, gay conversion therapy, they like to go to electrocuting people, which is insane and ridiculous and horrible.
They're not talking about the 17-year-old who's conflicted about sexual desire and may have desires in multiple directions and wants to talk to somebody about it, right?
But, more than that, the reason that this is relevant is because there is a push by the left to shut down this study.
And so, the New York Times has a piece today called, Many Genes Influence Same-Sex Sexuality, Not a Single Gay Gene.
The piece is by Pam Bellick.
And Benjamin Neal, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, one of the lead researchers, he said, I hope the science can be used to educate people a little bit more about how natural and normal same-sex behavior is.
Now again, natural and normal does not mean moral in the traditional religious sense, because lots of people have lots of desires.
That does not necessarily mean that fulfilling those desires in action.
Is not sinful, but sure.
I mean, if you want to say genetically normal, that at least it is genetically based to a certain extent, of course, that's true.
Homosexual activity exists in the animal kingdom as well.
Benjamin Neal says it's written into our genes and it's part of our environment.
This is part of our species.
It's part of who we are.
OK, that's fine.
And again, I don't really see the problem with that.
But there is a problem with the study, and it's the left objecting.
Even before its publication Thursday in the journal Science, the study has generated debate and concern, including within the renowned Broad Institute itself.
Several scientists who are part of the LGBTQ community said they were worried the findings could give ammunition to people who seek to use science to bolster biases and discrimination against gay people.
In other words, shut down the science because it might not achieve the result we want.
If the results had been that there is one gay gene, And that sexual orientation is immutable, unchanging, and entirely genetically based, not entirely environmental, then you release the findings.
But if it cuts against that, then you can't release the findings because it undercuts our argument.
Here's an idea.
Have a better argument.
There are plenty of good arguments for same-sex civil rights.
I've made a bunch of libertarian arguments on that basis.
I think that those are perfectly valid arguments.
They're worthy of debate and disagreement.
But if you're basing your bad arguments on bad science, maybe you should change your argument instead of trying to shut down the science.
But unfortunately, this is the tendency of a lot of people on the left.
No debate, no discussion.
Whenever things get dicey for your argument, you just try and shut it down.
Shut that stuff down.
Cancel it.
Steven Reilly, geneticist and postdoctoral researcher who's on the steering committee of the Institute's LGBTQ affinity group said, quote, I deeply disagree about publishing this.
It seems like something that could easily be misconstrued.
In a world without any discrimination, understanding human behavior is a noble goal, but we don't live in that world.
In other words, the narrative should trump science.
This is not a scientist.
This is a political activist.
The whole goal of science is to achieve objective, verifiable facts about the world so that we can operate within those facts.
And you can still pursue exactly the same agenda that you are pursuing, Stephen Reilly.
But maybe your arguments have to suck less.
Maybe your arguments should be based on, I don't know, the science, since you are in fact a geneticist.
Discussions between Dr. Neal's team and colleagues who questioned the research continued for months.
Dr. Neal said the team, which included psychologists and sociologists, used suggestions from those colleagues in outside LGBTQ groups to clarify wording and highlight caveats.
That's amazing.
So they were pre-screening the results with activist groups.
Can you imagine this happening on the right?
Can you imagine it?
Truly.
Pre-screening scientific results with advocacy groups for a particular political narrative?
This is insanity.
It truly is.
And we're seeing this happen more and more broadly.
If they're doing it in science, they will certainly do it in politics.
They'll do it anywhere.
Dr. Neal is gay.
Okay, Dr. Neal, who's one of the leads on the study, is gay.
He said, I definitely heard from people who are kind of, why do this at all?
And so there was some resistance there.
Personally, I'm still concerned it's going to be deliberately misused to advance agendas of hate, but I do believe that the sort of proactive way we've approached this, and a lot of the community engagement aspects that we've tried, were important.
The moment the study was published online Thursday afternoon, the Broad Institute took the unusual step of posting essays by Dr. Riley and others who raised questions about the ethics, science, and social implications of the project.
Joe Vitti, a postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute, said, quote, as a queer person and a geneticist, I struggle to understand the motivations behind a genome wide association study for non heterosexual behavior.
I have yet to see a compelling argument that the potential benefits of this study outweigh its potential harms.
Since when is the study of science about the potential benefits versus the potential harms?
I mean, really.
There was a solid case to be made in the 1850s by every religious person across the world that the potential benefits of discovering evolutionary biology outweighed, that the harms outweighed the benefits.
Should that have shut down the study of evolutionary biology?
In no way should that have happened.
But this is the left.
Censorious, nasty, attempting to shut down debate in dramatic ways.
Pretty incredible.
Again, that study does not undermine any of the case for same-sex rights at all on a libertarian basis.
But you can't make the argument the same way you were making it before.
So change your argument, guys.
Don't shut down the science.
And now it becomes, if you even discuss this stuff publicly, then you will be talked about as a neoconfederate.
Because after all, discussing things publicly, as we have learned, makes you a Nazi.
Unbelievable stuff.
Okay, time for some things I like and then a quick thing that I hate.
So things that I like.
My wife and I have been going through all the old Alfred Hitchcock movies.
And so the other night we watched Vertigo.
Vertigo has become sort of a... It's become a fascinating piece because so many people I think overrate this film.
Some people rate this the best film ever made.
I don't see that at all.
It certainly got some creativity to the direction of it.
Jimmy Stewart is great in it.
Jimmy Stewart is a really underrated actor just as an actor.
But the film...
Vertigo.
A feeling of dizziness.
A swimming in the head.
Figuratively, a state in which all things seem to be engulfed in a whirlpool of terror.
of the trailer for Vertigo, which still is enjoyable.
Vertigo, a feeling of dizziness, a swimming in the head.
Figuratively, a state in which all things seem to be engulfed in a whirlpool of terror, as created by Alfred Hitchcock in the story that gives new meaning to the word suspense.
I don't want to talk.
All of the old previews are so cheesy and wonderful.
So you should go check out Vertigo if you have time.
Also, I'll give you a preview of next week's Things I Like.
If you have time over the weekend, go watch Dave Chappelle's special, because whoa.
Cannot believe that dude got away with saying that stuff.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So I'll tell you the thing that drives me absolutely up a wall and that is corporate virtue signaling.
So one of the new things is that corporations, first of all, capitalism always wins, right?
Capitalism always wins because the capitalists are going to find a way to profit off of your own desire to virtue signal.
So do you really think that Cadbury chocolate is involved in the anti-racism fight?
Like who thought, who looked at the chocolate bar and they're like, this chocolate bar seems like it doesn't care about racism enough.
Who does that, exactly?
Okay, so Cadbury has now pushed what they call the Unity Bar.
The Unity Bar.
Which, like, what?
Are we gonna have... I'm waiting for rockauto.com to engage in racial statements about, like, mufflers.
Why would you expect your corporations to engage in political statements about... I think we can all fairly assume that Cadbury opposes racism, since pretty much everybody does, who is of good heart.
And I have no reason to suggest that the Cadbury...
Like the old kind of eggs, the chocolate eggs, that those suggest some deep, dark plot against black people.
In any case, Cadbury pushes the Unity bar in India, and we have a little bit of their ad for this.
It says, India's first chocolate, dark, blended, milk, white.
It's a bar that has united in one bar.
United in one bar.
Amazing.
The Unity Bar, guys.
The Unity Bar.
There are a couple problems with this bar.
Made to celebrate India and her people because sweet things happen when we unite.
A couple problems with this.
The bar is segregated.
So if you actually look at the bar... All of the squares are in their proper place.
They didn't mix it all and swirl it all into one melting pot of chocolate.
Nope.
You got the dark chocolate on the opposite end of the white chocolate.
They can't come anywhere near each other.
They are separated dramatically by race.
So their Unity Bar was kind of a fail.
Also, it is amazing to me, if you are buying your products based on the virtue signaling of the corporations that push this sort of stuff, you're an idiot.
If you really believe that Nike cares about Colin Kaepernick kneeling, you're a moron.
Hey, Nike doesn't care about it.
Nike wants to sell you shoes.
If you really think that Cadbury is like sitting in the back office going, how do we fight racism today?
I know the unity bar!
As opposed to, a lot of people out there keep talking about this racism thing.
You know, it'd be a viral marketing campaign if we did something about racism.
Which do you think is more accurate?
But hell, you want to buy a chocolate bar because it makes you feel good about yourself by getting all fat?
Enjoy yourself.
All right.
We'll be back here a little bit later today for two additional hours of content.
Otherwise, we'll see you here on Monday.
Well, we won't, actually.
Forget it.
I'm not seeing you here on Monday.
We'll see you here on Tuesday.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Adam Sievitz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.
▲
Export Selection