Ep. 204 - We Live In The Most Tolerant Civilization Ever, But Leftists Aren't Happy
Today on the show, we live in the least racist, least sexist, most tolerant and open minded civilization ever -- so why aren’t liberals happy? Also, Democratic presidential candidates are coming out in favor of reparations for slavery. We'll talk abut why that idea is insane. And we’ll discuss an old theological chestnut: how we can have free will even if God knows what we’re going to do ahead of time? Date: 02-22-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, we live in the least racist, most tolerant civilization ever to exist on the planet, so why aren't liberals happy?
We'll talk about that.
Also, Democratic presidential candidates are coming out in favor of reparations for slavery, and we'll discuss why that is an insane idea.
And we'll talk about how it is that we can have free will as human beings, even though God knows what we're going to do ahead of time.
That old chestnut.
We'll see if we can solve the riddle today on the Matt Wall Show.
You know guys, I'd really like to focus on the positive for just a minute here.
Jussie Smollett is catching a lot of flack for what he did, staging a hate crime.
But here's the thing.
He did create two jobs at way above minimum wage.
I mean, he paid $3,500 for just, you know, less than an hour's work.
And that's a lot better than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has done.
So far in Congress, I mean, she lost her city, 25,000 jobs.
So Smollett by comparison is an expert job creator.
He has created 25,002 more jobs than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
So that's, that's one thing that I'll, that I'll say for him.
And that's got to count for something.
Um, and let's focus on, let's focus actually on another positive thing here for, for a minute.
We live.
Despite what you may have heard, despite what is advertised, we live in the least racist, least sexist, least homophobic, most tolerant, most accepting, most open-minded civilization ever to exist on planet Earth, and it's not even close.
That's the truth.
Now, we aren't perfect.
I would never say that.
And I would say, as a pro-lifer, That our acceptance and our tolerance and our very welcoming attitude stops, unfortunately, at the womb, which is a massive oversight, which has led to the death of 60 million human beings and counting.
But speaking of issues of race and gender and sexuality specifically, when it comes to that kind of thing, we are without question the most tolerant civilization ever, period.
Um, now that doesn't mean that racism and sexism don't exist.
Nobody's claiming that there is racism and sexism in this country, but it does mean that we in modern civilization, modern Western civilization, I should say, have come as close to eradicating those things, racism and sexism as anyone ever has, which is pretty impressive.
And it means that no matter your race or your gender or your sexual orientation, you can be as successful in this country as your ambition and your intelligence and your skill will take you.
And it doesn't work that way in every country in the world.
And there was a time when it didn't work that way in this country because it didn't work that way anywhere.
But it does now.
And it does here.
And that's pretty incredible.
That's something that we should be grateful for.
Doesn't mean we stop working to make things even better, but why not stop and have a little bit of gratitude for that?
Why not stop and say, wow, I mean, we really are fortunate to live here.
Because the fact is, I don't care who you are.
I don't care who you are.
I don't care what your race is, what your gender is, what, you know, I don't care what of the 57 different genders you belong to.
If you could be born in any time and any place, you would choose right here, right now.
You would not want to go anywhere else in the world at any other point in history.
That's a fact.
And so that's something, isn't it?
Isn't that something, but what we find is that, and this is what gets me is that on the left, they, they just, there is no gratitude.
And there's, I think there's little gratitude anywhere else.
Gratitude is something that's sorely missing in our society.
Uh, I know that, uh, it's even missing from, from, you know, I need to work on being more grateful.
I think we all need to work on it.
But the problem on the left, what you find is that we live in the most tolerant and open civilization in the history of the world, but they seek validation and identity in oppression.
And so for them, it's like unfortunate.
It's not just that they lack gratitude.
It's that they actively wish that it were, that it were otherwise.
and the rash of fake hate crimes to include Smollett's shows how desperate the victimhood
mongers have become. I mean think about Smollett for a minute. He's a gay black man
who is successful or was anyway after he before he destroyed his career you know a millionaire
a gay black man who's a who's a millionaire making tens of thousands of dollars per episode to do
his show which wasn't enough for him which is why apparently one of the reasons why he staged a hate
crime.
Um, so someone.
Who in other parts of the world would face possibly violent persecution, and at other points in history in our own country would have, now is a millionaire, successful, living in this nice part of this city, in a nice fancy high-rise.
And he was so desperate to be persecuted that he had to hire people to do it for him.
He wasn't, you know, apparently that was a job.
We always hear about immigrants doing jobs that Americans aren't willing to do.
Well, oppressing Jesse Smollett apparently is a job that no American was willing to actually do.
So he had to go hire someone to do it.
But it's not just this.
I mean, just think about other recent events, just from the last few weeks.
We had the coveting Catholic thing.
The media spun this dramatic yarn about Catholic students randomly accosting an innocent Native American man.
And then this week on Twitter, like we talked about, leftists dusted off a 50-year-old interview with John Wayne and spent the day scolding his corpse.
And then just a couple days ago, feminists, as I mentioned on the show as well, feminists got very upset because the director of the upcoming Ghostbusters movie said that he wanted to give the movie back to the fans, which apparently is hurtful to women for some reason or another.
And then there were stories I saw yesterday of the vagina monologues being canceled at various colleges because apparently it's now offensive to transgenders to have the vagina monologues because it excludes, you know, because it insinuates that you have to have a vagina to be a woman, God forbid.
The point is that the left apparently now has to dig up the dead or hire Nigerians if they want to be oppressed.
They are reduced to searching for oppression in Ghostbusters movies and in the vagina monologues.
They find martyrdom now in a facial expression.
Think about all of the think pieces that were written about the smirk of the innocent Covington Catholic student.
Oh yeah, he didn't do anything, but look at that smirk!
I'm traumatized by the smirk, by the way that he smiles.
Because they can't just admit that we are the least racist, least sexist, least homophobic, most open-minded and welcoming society ever to exist.
They can't accept it.
They can't admit it.
And rather than express gratitude for the unearned privilege of living in by far the most accepting time and place imaginable, they go around turning over every rock, looking into every crevice with a flashlight, searching desperately to find the faintest hint of something that they might construe as bigotry.
And if they can't find it, then they just invent it.
So what we've achieved in this country, this unprecedented level of tolerance and acceptance, which is supposedly the very thing that these people are fighting for, it's being squandered, it's being wasted on a generation of people who spend their whole lives convincing themselves that they're persecuted.
And that is the great shame.
That after, in this civilization, after we climbed out of the muck of bigotry and racism and slavery and all of that, climbed out of that, built this tolerant civilization, and yet it's being wasted on people who do not appreciate it.
On a related note, Democratic presidential candidates are coming out now in favor of reparations.
So this is happening, folks.
This is really happening.
Reparations is becoming a mainstream Democratic talking point.
Both Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have expressed their support for the idea of reparations, which is the idea of giving payments to black Americans because of slavery, a payment that would have to come from white Americans.
Now, as I said, both Warren and Harris have endorsed this idea.
Here is Harris on a radio show called The Breakfast Club, making her case for reparations.
Well, look, I think that we have got to address that, again, it's back to the inequities.
Look, America has a history of 200 years of slavery.
We had Jim Crow.
We had legal segregation in America.
We've got to recognize back to that earlier point, people aren't starting out on the same base in terms of their ability to succeed.
And so we have got to recognize that and give people a lift up.
Now, this is obviously a crazy idea for a whole host of reasons.
I don't even know where to begin with it.
But first of all, a large percentage of black Americans in this country now are not descended from slaves.
Because people immigrate here from Africa every year.
Thousands of people come here from Africa.
So there's a large percentage of black Americans who came to this country after slavery had already been abolished.
Second, a large percentage, a very large percentage of white people are not only not descended from slave owners, but their ancestors weren't even in the country during the slavery era.
My ancestors were dying of the potato famine while slavery was happening here in America.
So it doesn't make any, to kind of break this down, white people versus black people and say, well, the white people have to pay the black people for slavery, it doesn't make any sense.
Third, even if you limited reparations to only those black Americans who are descended from slaves, and you took money only from those white Americans whose families lived here during slave times, which isn't how it would work or could work, but even if it did work that way, it would still be incredibly unjust.
Because you're punishing people for the sins of long-dead relatives, and you're rewarding other people for hardships that they themselves did not experience.
Now, if this was 1860 and we were talking about reparations, then I would say, okay, yeah, but it's not.
It's 2019.
It's 150 years later.
Fourth thing, liberals love to talk about spectrums, right?
Gender is a spectrum.
Everything's a spectrum.
Well, oppression and privilege is also a spectrum, right?
That also exists.
You have oppression over here and privilege over here, and there's a spectrum as you get closer to privilege.
Slavery was a unique horror, but it's not the only form of oppression.
It was worse in degree from other forms, but it's not alone in the category of oppression.
So if we're giving people payments for historical persecution, then what about Native Americans?
What about women who couldn't even vote in this country until 100 years ago?
What about the Japanese who were sent to internment camps?
What about any other ethnic or racial minority that experienced What about the Irish who were persecuted in their home country and then came here and were discriminated against when they got here?
If you think the Irish have had it easy historically, then I would encourage you to pick up a book and read it.
The point is, it's actually not easy to find people in America whose ancestors did not suffer some form of persecution or discrimination.
It's very difficult to do.
I mean, arguably, most people can say that they belong to a category that at one point in America, and certainly elsewhere in the world, was discriminated against.
So, you pretty much have to limit yourself to white, male, Protestant, Anglo-Saxons.
Probably the only group you can find that has not been widely and historically discriminated against in America.
Now, and that's not because America was uniquely racist or uniquely prejudiced.
It was, for a while, simply non-uniquely prejudiced.
For a very long time, the entire world was tribalistic, discriminatory, suspicious of outsiders, and so on.
That's the way human civilization worked for thousands of years.
But if we're doing reparations, I don't see how you can ignore those other groups.
I think they should get something too, shouldn't they?
And certainly to make them pay reparations would be severely unjust.
So the whole idea, of course, is crazy.
I mean, there's... I hesitate to say this because every time I think things can't get Any dumber they do, but it seems to me that there's no way that this could actually become a policy because it's such a wildly unpopular and insane idea.
But the fact, look, the fact that you've got it so far, and I'm sure others will jump on the bandwagon, but so far you have two Democratic presidential candidates, including the one who a lot of people think is the favorite, Kamala Harris, Who are coming out in favor of this idea.
I mean, that just shows you how far left and crazy extremist wacko the Democratic Party has become.
Barack Obama was the most liberal president we had ever had.
And he was also, as you remember, still is, a black man.
But even he, he didn't, he wasn't not in favor of reparation.
This subject came up a couple of times, and he did not endorse the idea.
So... And that was not that long ago.
So there is this... The Democratic Party is running left.
Very rapidly.
And this is just another symptom of that.
Here's one more symptom, by the way.
I've been meaning to mention this.
Maybe you saw this, but...
Speaking of crazy leftist stuff, the transgender actor, India Moore, who's a biological male who claims to be a female and apparently is the star of some show called Pose, I think on maybe FX or somewhere.
Anyway, he, he sent out a tweet a couple of days ago, which got a pretty big reaction.
The tweet said, if a woman has a penis, her penis is a biologically female penis.
Uh, yeah.
Maybe the most concerning thing about that tweet is the last I saw it, it had like 5,000, it had several thousand likes, people that were agreeing with it.
If a woman has a penis, her penis is a biologically female penis.
That, that's, that is exactly like saying if a square is a circle, it's a circular square.
It just, it, it is a, it's a total non sequitur.
It makes absolutely no sense.
And of course, when you're using a phrase like biologically female penis, then you have just the, the term biologically female now has no meaning.
What does the, what does the term biologically female mean?
If you can have a biologically female male body part.
It doesn't mean anything.
We've just gotten rid of it.
Now, I bring this up for two reasons.
Number one, it's more evidence of how crazy the left has gotten.
But number two, it's important to keep up with this, to understand what the argument is, so you know what you're arguing against.
And there was a time, not that long ago, when uh the left would they would they would acknowledge that there's at least a distinction between biological sex
And gender.
Or I should say, I say they would acknowledge the distinction.
I mean, they invented a distinction between something, between this thing called gender and sex.
And so, but they were at least for a while maintaining that there is something called biological sex.
There is a certain reality to it.
But what they argued is that gender is this other thing that can override biological sex.
That was the argument for a long time.
Now that's gone.
Now they're saying, no, biological sex is not a thing.
It doesn't exist.
If a man decides that he's a woman, then he is now a biologically female woman.
His biological sex is now female because he desires to be female.
So by the force of his own will and his own desire, he can now literally change his biology.
That is the argument that the left makes.
And of course, it should go without saying that if you make that argument, or if you agree with that argument, you lose the right to even say the word science from now on.
And you certainly cannot go around accusing anyone else of being anti-science, because this is the very definition of anti-science.
This is what it means to be anti-science.
All right.
So we've, um, I got a bunch of emails I want to get to.
Actually, actually, hold on.
Before we get to the emails, I had something else.
I had one other thing I wanted to, I wanted to talk to you about, um, a very important thing, actually.
Uh, so I wanted to talk about soap for a minute.
Um, I was thinking about this last night because these are the kinds of things I think about.
You see, when I was a single man.
I had two different types of soap in my apartment.
Only two.
I had bathroom soap, and I had kitchen soap, and that's all.
And whatever needed to be cleaned in the kitchen, I would use the kitchen soap for that.
And whatever needed to be cleaned in the bathroom, I would use the bathroom soap for that.
And if I ran out of bathroom soap, I would take my kitchen soap and I would bring it to the bathroom and I would use it as bathroom soap.
You know why?
Because it's just soap.
Soap is soap.
All soap is basically the same.
But then I got married.
And now I have 14 different kinds of soap just in my shower.
And masses of different soaps on the bathroom counter and soaps of all sizes and consistencies and some soap even that is just there for decoration.
So there is soap to be used and soap to be viewed and soap for each individual body part.
I have three soap dispensers by my kitchen sink.
There are even different kinds of soap for the laundry.
And there's just soap everywhere.
We spend $19,000 a month literally on soap.
And why?
Why do we do this?
All soap, as I said, is the same.
I've got news for you.
You could bathe with laundry detergent and you'd be fine.
Okay?
That's... When I was a kid, we took baths with laundry detergent.
We walked to school uphill both ways.
It's just out of control is my only point.
And if you add that to, as I've already discussed, my wife's pillow addiction, um, it's just all the blankets everywhere, all the pillows and the candles and the soap.
And I'll tell you this, that if we were on the Oregon trail or something, we would be screwed because we'd need a whole new suite.
We need, we need a whole separate wagon just for the soap and we need a separate pack mule just for the blankets and the pillows.
And this is why we can't go on road trips anymore, because when we go on road trips, 87% of our luggage consists of various soft, fluffy things.
Do you know how many soft, fluffy things I bring with me if I'm traveling alone?
None.
And I don't bring any soap either.
Do you know why?
Because wherever I'm going in modern civilization, they're going to have that stuff when I get there.
So my point simply is, I'm not sure what my point is.
I'm just complaining.
But also I want to say that ladies, I think, far be it for me to suggest this, but I think you could maybe condense things down a little bit, a little bit of efficiency here.
So here's my suggestion.
Okay.
To all women.
Choose four soaps that you like for the whole house.
You get four soaps.
Now, all you really need is one.
Two is extravagant, but I'll give you four.
Choose two pillows and two blankets, and that's all you need.
You don't need any more than that.
And you can donate the rest to charity or whatever you want to do with it.
All right.
Now that I've gotten that off my back, I'm going to get to some of your emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
mattwalshow at gmail.com is the email.
Um, there's a lot of interesting, uh, emails.
That's why I wanted to give it some extra time.
So.
This is from Albert.
It says, Hi Matt, Albert here.
Love your show.
I listen all the way from Africa.
I've heard you speak twice about classroom situations involving students disrespecting teachers, such as that young man who was assaulted and the one who was recently arrested.
As a teacher myself, I'm very appreciative of how well you understand our situations and what we have to deal with.
You're always spot on in your analyses of the classroom incidents.
Well, hi Albert, and thank you for listening all the way from Africa.
And thank you for that comment.
You know, I'm sometimes accused of...
Hating teachers or, you know, being against teachers or whatever, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I'm a big critic of the public school system here in America, and I'm a critic of the teachers union, and I do believe that there are some really bad teachers out there who unfortunately become like these educational parasites that you can't get rid of, mainly because of the union, so I do believe that.
But there are also a lot of very good teachers, and I fully realize, and I've said many times, as you allude to, That teachers these days are put in a really impossible situation, and we need to appreciate that.
Because they have to deal with these out-of-control, you have to deal with these out-of-control kids, kids who've had no discipline or respect or anything instilled in them at home, and then the teachers are tasked with trying to teach in spite of that.
And to make matters worse, whenever one of these out-of-control kids gets really out of control and becomes an intolerable distraction in an educational environment, whatever the teacher then does to deal with that situation, to address the problem, will be opposed By the bad kids, bad parents, who refuse to believe that their precious little child is actually an enormous brat, or worse.
And so, you know, I think about that, and I think about my own experience in school, and I have a lot of respect for and sympathy for the good teachers who are burdened with dealing with that.
I certainly wouldn't want to deal with it.
So thanks again.
This is from Nathan.
He says, Matt, Anthony asked a question about God and suffering last episode, but you kind of skipped over the part of the question I really wanted to hear your opinion on.
He led with, I paraphrase, how can God have a plan for us while also allowing us freedom of choice?
I've wondered this a lot as a Catholic, and I can't come up with an answer on my own.
It seems to me silly for God to have a plan for us, seeing as He allows us free choice and also knows all the choices we'll make.
It doesn't really fit with the definition of a plan.
If He has a course He wants us to take, it seems like that would involve violating our free will, which kind of violates a lot of theological ideas.
For example, people often say, as I used to say, that it was God's plan that I ended up with my wife.
But everything that led to our meeting could have changed if I made a different choice.
Is it possible for God to lead us to a certain thing without violating our ability to freely choose?
Thanks for your input, and God bless.
You're right.
Now that you mention it, I did skip over that, because Anthony asked—there was an email yesterday, So, this obviously is a classic question as well, and it's a classic challenge to believers.
and, you know, how can God allow suffering? So I kind of focused on that element and not on this.
So, this obviously is a classic question as well, and it's a classic challenge to believers. If God
knows what we are going to do, how do we have the choice to do anything else other than what
he knows we're going to do anything?
Anyway, if we do something other than what he knew we'd do, doesn't that mean that he is an omniscient?
But if we can't do anything else, doesn't that mean we aren't free?
And so we don't have free will.
Now, I actually think that the more serious and the more difficult challenge, Nathan, isn't related to God's knowledge of our actions, but actually it's related to God's knowledge of His own actions.
So a popular atheist argument is that the Christian conception of God is a logical contradiction.
And it's a logical contradiction, they say, because if God is omnipotent, then He can do anything.
If He's omniscient, then He knows everything.
But if He knows everything, If he knows everything, then he knows what he himself is going to do in the future.
But if he knows what he's going to do in the future, then he can't do anything else other than what he knew he was going to do.
And if he did something else, then that would mean that he's not omniscient.
But if he couldn't do anything else other than what he knew he was going to do, then that would mean that he's not omnipotent.
So it's the same kind of challenge, but I think framed in a way that's even more, well, challenging, I guess.
The answer to both, though, I think is the same, and it has to do with the nature of time.
So there's a problem in the way that we talk about this question, because our premise is flawed.
We say that God knows—this is the way we put it—we say, well, God knows what we are going to do, or what He is going to do.
But that assumes You're talking in the context of a future.
That assumes that there is a future for God, and assuming there's a future assumes that He exists in time.
So it assumes that He is in time, and He knows what I'm going to do tomorrow, because He can look sort of into the future, like He's looking into a crystal ball, and see it.
But that's incorrect.
Time is a dimension of reality.
Time itself has a beginning.
Everybody agrees with that.
Even atheists agree that time—we haven't always had time.
It is possible to be outside of time, because time has a beginning.
And the creator of time, God, obviously has to be outside of it, because He created it.
So what that means is, it's not that He knows what will happen, It's that He knows what is happening.
Everything is now for Him.
It is an eternal now.
Right?
So, remember that the Christian conception of God also includes changelessness.
We say that God is changeless.
And to be changeless means that you have to exist outside of time, because time is an agent of change.
Time is potentiality.
So I am in time, and that means that there's always a potential.
Like, I could do this, I could do that.
I'm always becoming something.
When you're in time, you're always in a state of flux, a state of change, a state of becoming.
But God has no potentiality.
God is only actuality.
He is actuality itself.
He is the ground of all being.
This is kind of like the philosophical idea of God that's been developed through Christian thought.
God is the I am, right?
He is existence, the now.
So He doesn't see the future, He sees the now, and all is now.
Um, another way of looking at that is if I had a, okay, so to use a prop, so I have this mini cigar.
Sometimes I smoke the mini ones because the bigger ones take forever.
Anyway, so you have this, so there's many cigars.
So, so basically like you look at something like this, right?
And, uh, if this is my life, if my, if this little thing cigar here is my life, then if you're listening on iTunes, you can't really see that.
But so I have to experience this, right?
Like along this.
So I start here, this is my birth.
And then I go to here, to here, to here.
And so I'm experiencing my life, uh, sequentially one moment at a time.
And then I get to the end of my life, which is the other end here.
And then I die.
And I can only see my life one little centimeter at a time, right?
But God can look at this, and He sees the entire thing all at once.
He's not watching it happen inch by inch.
He sees the entire thing.
Like, this is my life.
He sees it.
So, obviously, the whole idea of Someone existing outside of time, we can't wrap our head around that.
We can't fully conceive of what that means, but we know that is the case for God, and so that is the way of sort of dealing with this challenge of God knowing what we're going to do.
As for your point about God not planning your marriage to your wife, I agree with that.
I have said that my wife and I We're not fated in the stars.
We were not destined to be together.
I could have married someone else.
She could have.
She could have said no to me when I proposed.
She could have left me at the altar.
And frankly, maybe she should have.
She probably could have done better, honestly.
But she didn't.
And so we had this choice.
And this is why, at least in the Catholic rite, I'm not sure about other churches, but I know that when I got married, one of the first questions
that we were asked by the priest is, are you here of your own free will and volition? And the
point is that it has to be your choice.
It has to be free will.
And if you're not there of your own free will and volition, then it's not a valid marriage.
A marriage cannot occur unless you choose it.
The sacrament of marriage is bestowed by the spouses onto each other through their own choice.
And that's what makes it so exciting and beautiful and wonderful and romantic and terrifying, is that it wasn't meant to be.
It was a choice that you made.
It is a choice.
It was one of a million other choices you could have made, yet you made that choice.
And now, through that choice, you are meant to be.
Now, you weren't before.
When I met my wife, first second I met her, I thought, wow, she's beautiful.
But no, love at first sight.
How can I say I loved her when I didn't know her?
You know, love is a choice, marriage is a choice, and once you make that choice of marriage, now you're meant to be until you die.
So what does it mean for God to have a plan for us, yet for us to have free will at the same time?
I think it just means that God is the ground of being, of existence.
He holds us all into existence, providing the context for our choices, consenting to everything that occurs, which isn't to say that He makes the choices for us.
But every second that we exist, He is allowing us to exist.
And ultimately, He works all things to His greater glory, but He chooses to work with the raw material of our choices.
Hopefully that answered the question, sort of.
Let's see what else from Aaron.
He says, why did you stop doing your podcast in your car?
I'm sure I'm not the first one to ask you this, and I'm not quite sure why you haven't addressed it, but I will send you this question every day until you answer it.
So you might as well do it now.
Well, Aaron, with that kind of threat, I suppose I have to answer.
And the answer is that I stopped doing the shows in my car because my car is in the shop.
Um, let's do, uh, let's do one more email.
Let's see.
From Tim, he says, your show is brilliant.
I'm going to copy your tattoo anyway.
Go for it.
It's not, it's not a trademark.
Matt, in yesterday's show, an emailer mentioned that Democrats should be protecting the unborn because of their victim status.
The main reason why they don't care about unborn, the unborn status as a victim is because they don't vote.
The unborn don't vote.
I promise you the only way Dems will care is if Dems could somehow win votes from the unborn.
I think that's a very good point.
And I'll read one more from Sari.
It says, Hi Matt.
I'm a stay-at-home mom of four children.
I love your podcast.
Don't agree with everything you say, but appreciate being challenged by your point of view.
You've said some very interesting things that really make me think.
I want to address your perspective on this drag queen story hour.
As a Christian mom, I am personally disgusted by this recent development.
You had mentioned a point I had never considered, and that was that drag queens tend to dress as over-sexualized versions of my gender.
Got me to thinking that if a drag queen really wanted to represent the female gender, they would don yoga pants, a pink graphic tee that says, we'll work for tacos, and put his hair in a messy topknot or messy bun.
I personally don't dress this way because I love my husband and children, believe I should take a little more care with my appearance for their sake, since they have to look at me, but the majority of my demographic has reverted to the style preference, mostly out of humor and convenience.
Anyway, just thought you made an excellent point.
I myself am concerned about the long-term effect of these new cultural norms, what they will have on my children.
Yeah, I think that's a good point, and that's the thing, and that's why You know, that's why minstrel shows were so and blackface is so racist and horrible, because it reduces someone's identity to a shtick, basically.
And To a costume and a shtick.
And that's the same thing that drag queens do and drag shows and everything.
It's taking the female identity and making it into a cartoon, making it into a shtick, into a costume.
And of course that is a degrading, demeaning, cheapening sort of thing.
So that was an excellent point.
Thank you for emailing.
Thank you everyone for watching and I'll talk to you next week.
Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, Jussie Smollett heads back to Hollywood, the justice system utterly fails underage victims of a major political donor, and voter fraud is a reality.
