Tucker Carlson is being boycotted for comments he made about immigration. Why are people so unwilling to engage with opposing ideas these days? Why do we insist on launching boycotts instead? We’ll discuss. Also, a federal judge rules that cops and schools have no duty to protect children. This is why the Second Amendment is indispensable. Finally, I have to tell you the most underrated perk of marriage. For guys, anyway. Date: 12-19-2018
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, Tucker Carlson is being boycotted for comments that he made about immigration.
Why are people so unwilling to engage with opposing ideas these days?
Why do we insist on boycotting instead?
We'll discuss that.
Also, a federal judge has ruled that cops in schools have no duty to protect innocent kids.
Finally, I have to tell you the most underrated perk of marriage, for men anyway.
We'll talk about all that today on The Matt Walsh Show.
I kept my son up way past his bedtime last night to go and take him to see that new Spider-Man movie.
Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse, I think it's called.
And my feelings about superhero movies are well known.
I've, I've been clear about that, but my son is five years old and this was the first that I'm aware of the first PG rated Spider-Man film.
And I've been waiting for something.
I've been waiting for a superhero movie that you could actually bring a five-year-old to, because I feel like it's a superhero movie.
I mean, five-year-old boys, this is, this is what they're into.
So, um, I couldn't miss the opportunity to finally bring them.
He's a huge, huge Spider-Man fan.
He's nuts about Spider-Man.
And I have to say that my son, he loved the movie.
I actually found it mostly tolerable.
It was unique visually anyway and it had some entertaining moments.
The thing is, I didn't realize that Spider-Man dies in the first five minutes of the movie.
And that's not a spoiler because it happens right away and it's the catalyst for the plot.
So I don't think I'm spoiling anything.
But he does die right away.
He falls down and then he's crushed by Kingpin.
They don't really show it, but still.
It was traumatizing for my son because he's a big Spider-Man fan, and he wasn't expecting that.
I hadn't prepared him because I didn't know that was going to happen either.
Now, Spider-Man is immediately replaced by a bunch of other Spider-Men from other alternate universes, and also there's a new Spider-Man in this universe.
But still, my son was deeply distressed.
After witnessing the death of Spider-Man.
And, you know, I tried to explain to him on the way home because he was so confused.
I tried to explain to him, oh, no, no, well, yeah, that Spider-Man died, but he was replaced by Spider-Man from alternate universes.
Don't you see?
Five-year-old, what an alternate universe is?
And he didn't.
In fact, he was so distressed that on the way home, he said to me, he said, Daddy, I don't think I want to be Spider-Man when I grow up anymore.
And it was the saddest, Moment as a parent probably although when I asked him why his his reasoning kind of made sense because he explained Well being spider-man is dangerous Also, you have to get up in the middle of the night to fight bad guys And he said that he needs to get his sleep So I couldn't really argue with his reasoning but just a warning to parents if you're taking your kids to see that movie be prepared to have a conversation about death and parallel universes Once it's over.
All right Tucker Carlson is once again in the crosshairs.
Liberals are pressuring advertisers to boycott Carlson's show because of comments that he made about immigration.
So far, IHOP has pulled its ad, Ancestry.com, TD Ameritrade, I think nine, eight or nine others or more have also pulled their ads.
I'm just going to read for you what Carlson said on his show last week that got all of this rolling.
And I'll put it in its context.
He said, our country's economy is becoming more automated and tech-centered by the day.
It's obvious that we need more scientists and skilled engineers, but that's not what we're getting.
Instead, we're getting waves of people with high school educations or less.
Nice people, no one doubts that, but as an economic matter, this is insane.
It's indefensible, so nobody even tries to defend it.
Instead, our leaders demand that you shut up and accept this.
We have a moral obligation to admit the world's poor, they tell us, even if it makes our own country poorer and dirtier and more divided.
Now, obviously it's that last sentence that has been the most contentious.
And as far as the comments themselves go, his overall point is not only right, but unassailable.
That is simply not economically feasible.
It is indeed insane to continue importing unskilled workers by the millions, especially as Carlson points out, in an economy, a society where the workforce is more and more in need of people with technical proficiencies and skills.
And we're getting the exact opposite.
So that is a fine and important and completely practical point to make, and it's a point that more people should be making.
But Carlson says that immigration is making our country poorer, dirtier, and more divided.
Well, poorer and more divided, that again is self-evidently true.
Um, it's when you bring in more poor people, you make the country poorer.
And as an economic matter, once again, that's not a smart move.
Uh, more divided.
Obviously it's making us more divided in more ways than one.
We're divided amongst ourselves about the issue of immigration.
Um, not to mention culturally, when you bring people in with a different culture, a different language, they don't assimilate.
You have more divisions there.
So that again is true.
So really this all boils down to that one word dirtier.
Um, He said he's making the country dirtier.
And I do think that that was a gratuitous and unnecessary word to use.
You can point out that...
Many immigrants are unskilled in terms of their value to the marketplace, but to say that our country is dirtier because of them, well, that obviously is unnecessary.
It's beside the point.
That's not the point.
True or not, it's not the point.
And it fits right into the stereotype, anyway, of the bigoted conservative is going around ranting about dirty foreigners.
It's like the It's a stereotype that you're allowing yourself to be tossed in with.
Now, granted, he has been misquoted here in some of the headlines about this, claiming that Carlson called immigrants dirty.
He didn't actually say that.
He said that they make the country dirtier.
That's not the same thing as saying the immigrants themselves are dirty, and he has Himself pointed out that illegals do leave behind a lot of trash at the border and so forth.
So that's a problem.
But still, there's no reason to say it.
Dirtiness is not the point.
It has nothing to do with the point that Carlson himself was making, and the point he was making was a good point about the strain on the economy.
So he detracted from his own point, which isn't a good idea, especially when the point is so important.
The other thing that I wish that prominent conservatives would keep in mind is that When you say stuff like that, when you say anything, right, and you're a prominent conservative with a lot of fans, there's always going to be a group of other conservatives, of, you know, your fans, who maybe, and the kinds who maybe don't think for themselves quite as much,
Who are just going to reflexively defend whatever you say, and they're going to defend it in a far less nuanced and sophisticated way than you originally presented the view.
So now we have to endure the spectacle of some conservatives, not a lot, but some conservatives on social media standing up and saying, no, he's right.
Immigrants are dirty.
It's time someone said it.
Yes. It's not the point. This is the point.
That's not the direction we need to go with this.
We don't need to have a conversation about how dirty immigrants make the country.
It's not the point.
It completely detracts from the important point that we're trying to make.
So I wish he hadn't said that.
However, it is also stupid and gratuitous And unnecessary, to organize advertiser boycotts over one word that you didn't like, and that perhaps was poorly chosen.
If you disagree with Tucker Carlson on this issue, if you disagree with his comments, then why can't you simply disagree?
Just say you disagree, that's all.
Use your words.
That's what I tell my kids.
Use your words.
I say it all the time.
Speak up and explain.
When I hear the twins screaming at each other, and I go downstairs, and my daughter's screaming at my son, I say, use your words.
You don't need to scream.
Just use your words.
What are you upset about?
Use your words.
Engage.
Have a debate.
Not everything has to be a reason for boycotts.
So, rather than boycotting, you could just say something like this.
You could say, Tucker Carlson was wrong to say what he said because... and then fill in the blank.
Explain why he was wrong.
That's how adults handle these kinds of situations, or at least it's how they used to.
You're never going to win an argument with a boycott.
It will never happen.
All the boycott will do is cause the other side to dig in and entrench itself and ignore whatever you're saying.
Now, I know someone might point out that, well, these boycotts have nothing to do with winning an argument.
That's not the point.
The point is just to shut down the opposing view, not to engage with it.
And I agree that that is, of course, the point.
But it's not even effective in that regard.
It's not even effective even if you're the kind of person who would rather shut down the opposing side than engage with it.
Boycotts still are going to be counterproductive for you.
So if you're a proponent of unchecked immigration from the third world, and you want to shut the other side up and not engage with it, rather than actually discuss the issue with them, you aren't going to shut them up by boycotting and trying to silence them.
You only embolden, encourage, rile up.
That's all you do.
So whatever your objective is, boycott culture ultimately will detract from it.
I think in the end, whether you like it or not, and a lot of people obviously don't like it, but in the end you are left with only one truly effective option and that is to meet out on the battlefield of ideas and to fight the battle intellectually with ideas and arguments and simply to present your case.
I think in the end that's the only choice that any of us actually have.
It's the only effective way.
So if you think that Tucker Carlson or anyone else is wrong about immigration, you can kind of vent your frustrations by boycotting and doing all this, trying to get your vengeance on him, but you're not going to win the argument that way.
Even if you succeeded in getting Tucker Carlson fired and getting rid of him, he's just going to be replaced by someone else with the same point of view.
So it's just not going to happen.
You're not going to win the argument.
If you are a fan of unchecked immigration from the third world, eventually you're going to have to make your case.
And that's actually the ultimate point that Carlson was making there.
And it was such a good point.
That's why I was so frustrated they had to throw in the dirtier line.
Because he made the point that in terms of economic, nobody is willing, on the other side of this debate, nobody is willing to actually stand up and defend this economically.
They don't even try.
So instead they look for other things, they want to label you a bigot, they want to do this and that.
Because they can't defend it economically, they can't defend it intellectually.
And I can't even pronounce the word intellectually, so what does that say about me?
This is what I say to people on the left.
Eventually, you're really going to have to make an argument here when it comes to immigration and pretty much any other issue.
You're going to have to eventually actually make your case.
This strategy of trying to punish the other side, it isn't going to work forever.
You're getting some diminishing returns on it, and I think we're at the point now where it just doesn't work at all.
Now, I want to get now to a truly infuriating story here.
A federal judge has ruled that cops and schools have no duty to protect children during a school shooting, or at any other point, I assume.
Yes, that's what's happening.
Let me read a bit from the Miami Herald.
It says, a federal judge has ruled that Broward schools and the Sheriff's office were not responsible
for protecting students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.
That liability, the judge reasoned, only works with incarcerated prisoners
or others who are involuntary committed, not school children,
with the ability to take care of themselves.
With the ability to take care of themselves, as in quotes, according to a motion filed last week
by US District Judge Beth Bloom.
So you have to be a criminal in the custody of the police in order to warrant their protection.
But if you're just an innocent child, well then, you gotta fend for yourself.
The Sun Sentinel on Tuesday reported that Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 unnamed students who say they suffered psychological trauma from the school shooting that killed 17 and injured another 17 in February.
The lawsuit claimed the school district and the Broward Sheriff's Office, along with former school resource officer Scott Peterson and school campus monitor Andrew Medina and former BSO Captain Jan Jordan, failed through action or inaction To protect the students while at the school.
Bloom wrote, the claim arises from the actions of the shooter, a third party, and not a state actor.
Thus, the critical question the court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz.
So she's saying, well, Cruz, look, Cruz didn't work for the state.
What do you want us to do?
Plaintiffs suggest that the essential nature of a public school's role and control over its students requires that schools provide protection and safety for their students.
Yes, plaintiffs would seem to be correct about that, but not according to Bloom.
Bloom says, however, the suggestion that school attendance equates to the level of custody implicating a constitutional obligation to protect has been expressly rejected by the 11th Circuit.
So she's saying, yeah, well, students are in the custody of the school, but they're not so much in the custody of the school that the school should actually protect them from being murdered by a school shooter.
That's what she's, that's her ruling, essentially, to rephrase it slightly.
All right, a few things here.
Number one, that school resource officer hid outside like a coward while children were being gunned down.
If a police officer stationed at a school has no duty to protect the children of the school, what the hell is he doing there?
If he doesn't have a duty to protect them, why is he there?
What function does he serve?
Why is he being paid?
Is he just decoration?
Is he, like, decor?
Is he furniture?
What is he doing there?
If he doesn't have a duty to protect these kids, then what's the point?
To say that police have no duty to protect innocent kids is just perverse.
The people in Broward County were paying that cop's salary, so he damn well had a duty to them.
You can't take money from the public under the guise of protecting and serving the public, and then claim you have no duty to protect and serve them.
It's madness.
Now, I understand it's true that courts have ruled several times in the past in a similar way, finding that cops have no legal duty to protect civilians.
So this is not the first ruling, you know, in this vein.
And I find all of those rulings insane for the reasons stated above, that you are being paid by the public to protect them.
That's why you're being paid.
But we could even put those other cases to the side for a minute.
We could say, well, they're extenuating circumstances, so on and so forth.
What we're dealing with here is different, or it should be different.
Because Peterson was not just any cop, okay?
He was stationed at the school.
He was a school resource officer.
His whole job was to be at that school to ensure the safety of the kids who go to the school.
So, if you want to tell me that Peterson had no obligation to other people in the community, to, like, someone driving by or someone in a building next door, well, I would say that that's still crazy because he's a cop, but that's even different from telling me that he doesn't even have an obligation to the kids in the school he was being paid to protect.
What?
It just makes no sense.
As far as the schools go, Attendance is mandatory at a public school.
If you can't afford private school and you aren't homeschooling, you are legally required to send your kids to public school.
You could go to jail if you don't send your kids to school.
If your kids are absent from school, unexplained absences, too many times or for too long, you could be put in jail for that.
So the schools stand there and they say, give us your kids, you have to, you must, you have no choice.
And now they claim they have no duty at all to protect our kids while they have them in their custody after insisting under force of law and penalty of imprisonment that we should put them in their custody?
That again is just madness.
The whole reason why I support putting armed guards in every public school in America, although now I don't even know if there's a point because if the armed guards don't have any duty to do their job, then what's the point?
But the whole reason why I have previously endorsed that proposal is that attendance in the school is compelled.
The state forces you to send your kids there.
And if they're going to force you to do that, they absolutely must provide a safe environment.
You can't legally compel me to hand my kids over to you if you're not going to recognize your duty to protect them.
Well, you can, I guess, apparently.
But that's not how it should be.
Duty and obligation.
These are not supposed to be a one-way street in America.
It's not supposed to be that I, as a civilian, have a duty to obey police and have a duty to send my kids to school, yet the police and the school have no duty to me whatsoever or to my children.
That's how things work in a dictatorship, okay?
That's how things work in countries that are undemocratic and are not free.
That's not how it's supposed to work in a free republic.
It's not supposed to be a one-way street.
You can't tell me that I have a duty to police.
I have a duty to law enforcement.
They have no duty to me.
I have a, I am obligated to send my kids to school, but they have no obligations to me at all.
It's crazy.
Um, but it all underscores a point that I think is a really important point.
Um, If nobody has an obligation to protect you, apparently, even the ones who ostensibly are being paid to protect and serve, or even the people who demand that you hand their kids over to them, they don't even have a duty to protect your kids, apparently.
So this is why the Second Amendment is important.
Because you really are, you're on your own when it comes down.
When it comes down to it, Uh, you're on your own.
When push comes to shove, you can't rely on anybody else and you got to be able to protect yourself and protect your family.
Now, obviously the second amendment, when it comes to public school, that's, that's not going to be much help because you can't follow your own kid around in school with a gun and you can't send your kids to school with a gun.
So unfortunately when it comes to the public school, the second amendment is basically irrelevant.
Um, But beyond that, in your everyday life and at your home, I think the point is being made extremely clear here, that you need to have the ability to protect yourself.
You cannot rely on the government to do it.
Even though people who are not a fan of guns, people who are not supporters of gun rights, what they tell you is, well, you know, you don't need a gun, just call the police.
Okay, well you can call the police, and hopefully the police will come, but the police have apparently no obligation to show up.
They have no obligation to do anything for you.
So, you've got to have that ability yourself.
If that was not already clear to you, it should be now.
One last thing.
As we gear up for Christmas, and I'm wearing my, as you can see, my Beautiful Christmas sweater, make Christmas great again, although Christmas was always great, of course.
I feel it's worth saying something as we are just a few days before Christmas, and I was thinking about this this week, that there are a lot of underrated perks of marriage.
Um, benefits that aren't discussed very often.
And I think that some of these underrated benefits and perks of marriage, the reason why they aren't discussed is because they're kind of one-sided in favor of either the wife or the husband.
So nobody wants to talk about them because it might alert the other side to the iniquity here.
But, um, I have to mention it anyway, because just because it's so wonderful.
All right.
Here's the thing, men.
If you get married, you will never have to go Christmas shopping again.
It's great.
Okay?
It is- The holidays are wonderful.
Because I can rem- I remember when I lived alone as a bachelor for five years, and Christmas time rolled around, and my family wasn't as big back then.
I didn't have as many in-laws.
I didn't have as many nieces and nephews.
Now I'm up to like- I think I have like 18 nieces and nephews now.
I've lost count.
Although, I don't need to keep track anymore.
That's the point.
But, um, back then, I didn't have as big of a family.
I still had a big family though and it was up to me as a single individual to buy Christmas presents for everyone in the family.
And so I was like that stereotypical man running around the mall 30 minutes before closing on Christmas Eve trying to do all my Christmas shopping right then and there.
I had no idea what I was doing.
I didn't know what to get anyone.
I didn't know what anyone wanted.
I was clueless.
And then I got married.
And now my wife does all the Christmas shopping.
All I have to do is get her... I just have to take care of her.
I gotta get her gifts.
Right?
But she does everything else.
And she's great at it.
And she likes it.
She likes shopping.
She's like some kind of Christmas shopping guru.
She buys meaningful gifts, creative gifts.
She gets people things that they want without even looking at a list.
She just kind of like knows what they want and she buys it for them.
I don't understand it, but that's what she does.
She'll be out at a store or something in June, and she'll see something and she'll say, oh, that would be a great Christmas gift for so-and-so.
And then she'll buy it right there on the spot in June.
It's incredible.
And then by the time it's December 1st, she's done all the Christmas shopping.
And then there's also the added excitement as a man.
On Christmas, when people are opening their gifts and I get to find out what I got everybody.
And then when they come up to me and they say, oh, thank you.
I always say something like, I'll say, I'll say, oh, you're welcome.
You know, I, I, I'm glad you liked that one.
I thought, I thought it was your taste.
So that's why, you know, I'm glad you like it.
Now, I think they know the truth.
I think everyone in my family knows that my wife does all the shopping because the gifts are way too thoughtful to have come from me, but still.
I'm telling you guys.
Christmas is, if you want to make Christmas great again, get married.
And Christmas is a breeze.
You don't have to worry about Christmas shopping at all.
I do contribute some, so I don't want you to think I'm some kind of lazy oaf and I don't contribute.
We usually get bottles of bourbon for various men in the family for Christmas.
And so my wife will send me out to go buy the bourbon.
And it's a huge sacrifice that I have to make, honestly.
You know, it takes me upwards of 15 minutes to go to the liquor store and buy bourbon for a few of the men in the family.
But it's a cross that I bear, and I try to have the right heart about it because it's the holidays.
So, get married.
That's the moral of the story.
I think there are better reasons.
Don't only get married for that reason, but it's at least, I don't know, I think it's a top 20 reason.
At least.
Alright, I'll talk to you guys tomorrow.
Godspeed.
Democrats embrace their identity as the party of white men.
President Trump signals he's willing to cave on the wall, but at least Republicans just voted to free thousands of criminals from prison.
