Today on the show, Colin Kaepernick is offended by the flag. He thinks it stands for racism and slavery. At what point does he just leave the country for one that is not so racist and terrible? Also, a congresswoman says it should be illegal to make fun of politicians. And some people online are pointing out that Kamala Harris isn’t African American. It is racist to make this observation, apparently. Date: 07-03-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Colin Kaepernick is offended by the flag.
He thinks that it stands for racism and slavery and all that.
Well, at what point, and it sounds cliche to say, but at what point does he just leave the country in search of one that is not so racist and terrible?
Also, a congresswoman says that it should be illegal to make fun of politicians.
And some people online are pointing out that Kamala Harris is not African American.
It is racist, apparently, to point this out.
But why would that be racist?
We'll try to figure that out today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Okay, a bunch of topics to cover before we wrap things up for the week and get ready for the 4th of July.
Remember, as we head into the 4th of July, that it's important to keep in mind the top three most overrated Fourth of July activities are fireworks, parades, and sparklers.
Now, I have kids, so my Fourth of July is going to be consumed by all three of those awful things.
But if you can escape it, then I would.
There are more worthwhile ways to spend your time on a holiday, like drinking and eating.
Do more of that.
The thing with, of course, as I've said before with parades, a parade is just a festive traffic jam.
You're just basically watching a traffic jam.
Um, with some of the vehicles, you know, dressed up in interesting ways.
Fireworks are fun to watch for about three minutes.
I've never seen a fireworks display that could hold my attention for more than three minutes, because, you know, you see the first firework, and you're like, oh, that was great.
And the second firework, it's like, oh, did you see that one?
Well, of course I saw it.
I mean, I'm sitting in the dark, and there's explosions.
Of course I saw it.
Yeah, it was good.
And then another one, oh, yeah, OK, good, nice.
I think after that third one though, it's kind of like, okay, I get it.
I mean, I get the point.
I understand what you're doing here.
Um, explosions in the sky.
Great.
Can we go home now?
So that's, that's what it is with fireworks.
I would just have more creativity this, uh, this weekend.
Think of more, think of more creative things to do with your time.
Um, speaking of the 4th of July, I want to begin, With this Colin Kaepernick thing.
We talked about it briefly yesterday.
Just to recap, Nike recalled a patriotic American flag shoe after Colin Kaepernick, who they're paying hundreds of millions of dollars to as a sponsor, even though he's not an athlete and doesn't do anything anymore these days.
After he complained, and he said he didn't like it.
Now, this is obviously so self-evidently absurd and disgraceful, such a cowardly surrender to political correctness, that there's not a lot that can be said about it.
Colin Kaepernick reportedly felt that the flag, which is a Betsy Ross flag from the American Revolution, he thought that it somehow represents Slavery, as I pointed out yesterday, well, if that's the case, then pretty much every flag in the world represents slavery.
At least every flag of every country 200 years old or older represents slavery, because they all had slaves.
But the one notable thing about this, which is not very surprising, but at least it does kind of reveal the truth, Is that we finally see that Colin Kaepernick's kneeling stunt has all along been actually about the flag.
It's been about hating the flag and about hating America.
We were told for years that it wasn't about that.
We were told that the kneelers were not protesting the flag or the country or the national anthem.
There was this viral tweet, I don't know if you ever saw it, it got like 300,000 likes on Twitter last year, and it kind of summed up this defense.
It said, Rosa Parks was not protesting the bus, Gandhi was not protesting the food, the colonists were not protesting tea, players are not protesting the flag or the anthem, they are protesting injustice.
Okay, and that's the, it's a protest of injustice.
That's the, Slogan we kept hearing.
The media said it.
LeBron James is one of the highest profile defenders of the anthem protests.
He said the same thing.
Colin Kaepernick, who started it all, said that he was trying to call attention to injustice, also to what he calls police violence.
But it wasn't about the flag, they said.
In case anyone was actually fooled by that, now we know it was indeed about the flag.
It was always about the flag.
Because now he doesn't want the flag on the shoe.
So that can't be about injustice.
That's just about that he doesn't like the flag.
Colin Kaepernick does not like this country.
That much is pretty clear by now.
He's rich and famous and he's free.
And those are all things that he probably would not be if he lived in any number of other countries.
But his privilege has made him bitter.
And he's free to be bitter and he's free to hate this country, but I think he should be honest about where he stands or kneels as the case may be.
Now, um, I wanted to make one other point about this.
We all, we, that's all the stuff that we talked about yesterday.
Um, one of the, and I've seen this again online the last couple of days over this shoe thing.
One of the sort of cliched responses to this kind of issue, especially with respect to Kaepernick, is to say, hey, buddy, if you don't like America, you can get out, right?
South Park did a whole episode about that.
Back when South Park was funny, they did an episode about that.
And it does, at this point, sound sort of corny and cliched to say it.
And oftentimes, people are wrong when they say it.
Oftentimes, somebody will simply criticize American culture or American government or the laws or whatever, and then someone will respond with a get out line.
But, see, it doesn't work there, because why should I leave this country just because I think the culture or government can be improved?
Maybe I want to stay here and improve it.
So there's nothing unpatriotic about criticizing the country, in and of itself.
Nothing unpatriotic about that.
In fact, to insist that you can't criticize the country is itself unpatriotic, because that's one of the things that sets us apart, is that you can get up there and say basically whatever you want, at least as it stands right now, although that's probably changing.
As it stands right now, you can get up in public and basically say whatever you want about the state of things and offer your criticism.
That's what set us apart.
It's a perfectly patriotic thing to do.
I think it was either Chesterton or Lewis who made the point that You know, it's not unpatriotic to criticize the country, just like it wouldn't be unloving for you to warn your mother that she's about to wander over the edge of a cliff.
It would actually be unloving if you didn't.
So in the same way, if you love this country, you are going to criticize the things about it that are actually bad.
But I do think the get out response is appropriate sometimes, even if it's cliched.
There's truth to it.
And I think that's the case with the Kaepernick thing.
And here's the difference, because it seems that Kaepernick and many other leftists, such as the ones who want to tear down murals of George Washington and Jefferson, it seems that their beef is with America's current situation, yes, but also with America's past.
They think America is a fundamentally racist country, and that its past sins stain it, and will always stain it, and that it's a country that has no right to exist because the land is stolen, etc.
In other words, they hate America for things that cannot be changed.
We can't change the past.
If you hate America for things that can't be changed, Then, yeah, you really should get out.
That actually is the only logical response.
And why wouldn't you want to get out if that's how you feel about it?
It's like, like I said, the people who can't get over the fact that this country was supposedly built on stolen land, which, of course, by that logic, every country has no right to exist because they're all built on stolen land, quote unquote.
The borders of countries are not generally established through friendly discussion, and especially they weren't established that way in the past.
That's how the map looks the way it is now all across the world.
It's through fighting and dying and that's the way the world has worked.
America is not unique in that way, just like America is not unique with slavery.
But if you really think that America has no right to exist, that the land is stolen, then why are you still here?
I think it's a good question that I've never heard a good answer to.
I would even say that you're morally obligated to leave the country if that's how you feel.
The people say, oh, how can I be proud in this country?
We stole the land.
It's fundamentally racist.
It was built on slavery.
We can't change it.
Even if those things are all true, we can't change it.
There's nothing we can do.
It's not like we can all work together to make those things change.
We can't go back into the past.
We can't get into a time machine.
So if you can't get over that, if you hate the country because of it, if we can't even celebrate our history because of it, if we can't have traditions and a real culture because of it, in your mind, Then I think the only logical thing for you to do is just to leave and go to another country.
Now, like I said, wherever you go, you're going to inevitably end up in an area where there used to be slavery.
Maybe there still is, depending on where you go.
Where, you know, the land was quote-unquote stolen.
I mean, that's gonna be the case wherever you go.
But...
I mean, if you're blaming America, if you're pointing America out as this unique evil, then you must not think that.
You must not realize that.
That must not be the way you see it.
You must think that there are places in the world where it's, you know, where they're not stained by any of these things, where it's all perfect.
Then go to one of those places.
And I think that would work out best for everybody.
It's the most logical and the most moral response.
I personally, people get upset when you hear these celebrities or whatever threaten to leave the country.
I'm not upset by that.
By all means, you should leave.
I would actually have a lot of respect for somebody like Colin Kaepernick.
If he said, you know what?
I'm fed up with this country.
I hate it so much.
I'm gone.
I'm moving to wherever.
I would have a ton of respect for that.
I wouldn't agree.
I would think that you suffer from an extraordinary amount of historical ignorance, but I would at least respect the follow-through.
And I would respect it, too, because you would be making a sacrifice.
Because there are a lot of privileges, there's a lot of comfort in this country that you're not going to find in other countries, and to give that up in order to follow your convictions, even if they are somewhat twisted and misguided, I'd respect that.
But that's not what these people do.
Colin Kaepernick remains in this country, living off the fat of the land, living off of the privilege and comforts that have been established in his mind, established through oppression and evil and everything, and he takes advantage of it.
So he's way worse than any of the rest of us.
To actually see it that way, and yet to stay here anyway because, oh, well, I'm rich, That is, I mean, you'd have to be some kind of sociopath.
All right.
Democrat Representative Frederica Wilson is not a very smart person.
And when I say that, you might accuse me of making fun of Frederica Wilson, which I am.
But according to Frederica Wilson, I should go to jail for making fun of her.
Here's what she had to say at a press conference yesterday.
Watch this.
Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace.
And there's no need for anyone to think that is unacceptable.
We're going to shut them down.
Okay, a few things here.
it is to shut them down and they should be prosecuted. You cannot intimidate members
of Congress, threaten members of Congress. It is against the law and it's a shame in
this United States of America.
Okay, a few things here. Number one, this woman has, not to continue making fun of her,
especially if it's illegal, but this woman has the most annoying voice I have ever heard
in my life, hands down. She sounds like a cartoon character and she wears the hat of
a cartoon character also. And she says that people who make fun of members of Congress
should be prosecuted. So she is very explicitly coming out against the First Amendment just
so we're clear about what's going on here. She doesn't believe in the First Amendment.
She wants us to repeal it basically, because you would have to repeal it.
Thank you.
in order to make it illegal to make fun of members of Congress, especially when the First Amendment
exists in large part for specifically that, to criticize, make fun of whatever people in power.
That's why we need the First Amendment. So she's saying, no, let's get rid of it.
And she says, but she says, if I heard correctly, she says, when referring to people making fun of
Congress members, she said, there is no need to think that it is unacceptable.
So what does that mean?
There's no need to think that it's unacceptable.
She's saying that it isn't acceptable, but she says there's no need to think that It's unacceptable, which means that it is acceptable.
I'm just, this woman is babbling incoherently.
Maybe what she meant to say is, there's no need to think, period.
That is unacceptable.
Maybe that's what she meant.
There's no need to think, period.
End of sentence.
That is unacceptable.
It's unacceptable to think, in other words.
I think maybe that's what she was trying to say, which, if it is unacceptable to think, then at least Frederica Wilson is safe from any criticism in that regard.
Alright, I said we're gonna blow through them today.
Try to get through as many as we can.
Tucker Carlson did a great segment yesterday.
I don't want to play that segment for you, but before we do, backing up just to give context here, there's been a controversy these past few days over an alleged birtherism movement that has supposedly popped up around Kamala Harris.
People are claiming that Kamala Harris is not a real African American because she's actually half Jamaican and half Indian, which she is.
So it's true.
It's true.
She's not African American.
She's—Jamaica is not Africa.
India is not Africa, so she's not African.
And that's simply a true statement.
It's not a conspiracy theory.
Now, the whole birtherism refers originally to the idea that Barack Obama is either not a natural-born citizen or not a citizen at all, depending on who you talk to.
That was a conspiracy theory.
It was also untrue.
He was a natural born citizen.
But this is true, so it's not a conspiracy theory, it's just, she's not, it's not an insult, it's not racist, it's just a true fact, that's all.
Now this whole thing started with a tweet from a guy named Ali Alexander, who after the debate last week tweeted and said, Kamala Harris is not an American black, she is half Indian and half Jamaican.
I'm so sick of people robbing American blacks like myself of our history, it's disgusting.
Now using it for debate time at Dem Debate.
These are my people, not her people.
Freaking disgusting.
Okay.
Now, if you caught it there, this man himself is black.
He is African American.
from American black slaves. Stop appropriating our history.
It's why you have to remain vague lest your voters find you and your
family history out.
Okay, now if you caught it there, this man himself is black.
He is African-American.
So this began with a black guy saying she's not really one of us. She's with
Different ethnicity, different race, which is fine.
Okay?
Now, when I'm reading Ali Alexander's tweet, I don't read that he's criticizing her race or something or that he's saying anything racist.
He's just saying, from his perspective, it seems to him that she is either explicitly or implicitly trying to, um, As he says, appropriate an identity that doesn't belong to her.
So, given the fact that he's African American, to say that this is a racist thing with Kamala Harris is absurd.
It started with a black man.
He's the one at the forefront here.
Now, the media doesn't want you to know that Ali Alexander is black.
And they really don't want you to know.
And to understand just how much they really don't want you to know, watch this from Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
I don't know if you noticed that.
deleted a post, a tweet that he had over the weekend.
He deleted this message.
Somebody else wrote Kamala Harris is not an American black.
She's half Indian, half Jamaican.
Donald Trump Jr. added on top of that retweet, is this true?
Wow.
And then he went ahead and deleted it.
Kamala Harris's mother was from India.
Father was from Jamaica.
I don't know if you noticed that it was a little bit subtle.
They showed the screenshot of Trump Jr.
's tweet, which is apparently controversial, but did you notice something strange about the screenshot?
In the screenshot, you see Trump's retweet of Ali Alexander, but what's missing from it?
Ali Alexander's photo is not in the... Now, if you go and you retweet someone on Twitter, you're going to be retweeting the text of their tweet along with their profile picture, their avatar, right?
CNN took the time, apparently, to go in and edit it, remove Ali Alexander's face from the tweet, so that nobody would know that it was a black guy who originally said this.
So really, when Don Jr.
retweeted that, he was simply agreeing with, or not even agreeing, just sort of reacting to something that a black guy had said about Kamala Harris.
They don't want you to know that, because then it's harder to paint Trump Jr.
as a racist, so they removed his photo.
I mean, that is remarkable, really.
I know we're used to these underhanded, deceptive tactics, especially by CNN, but that goes several steps beyond what we usually see.
But it gets worse than that for CNN.
The people who are saying is she black enough? That's bull.
That's BS.
But to to to want a distinction to say is she African American or is she black or she
whatever that what's there is nothing wrong with that. All she had to do was say I am black.
No, I'm not African American. That's it.
When she goes down her lineage, many Africans landed on in Jamaica and all these other Caribbean
So she could indeed be African American mixed with others.
But she is a black woman.
She was born here.
So there you go.
First of all, is it really Don Lamon?
I thought it was Don Lemon.
I've been saying Don Lemons.
Is it really Lamon?
Don Lamon?
How did I?
Or is that just something Tucker Carlson?
I don't know.
I really don't watch CNN.
I just see these people's names written.
So I always assumed it was Don Lemon.
Anyway, I guess Lamont sounds a little bit classier, I suppose.
But there it is.
You've got Lamont slash Lemon himself making this point.
And this is a point that, you know, I mean, it goes without saying, but I'm going to say it anyway.
If Kamala Harris was a Republican woman, same ethnicity, Republican woman, and a black guy on the left made this point about Kamala Harris, you would be racist for disagreeing with what the black guy's saying, okay?
If you switch the ideologies around, then the racist thing would be to not jump on the birther bandwagon.
To defend Kamala Harris would be racist.
Because then you'd be accused of, oh, well, you're defending, so you're claiming that being Jamaican and being African American are the same thing, like it's all the same, you're a racist, you're a bigot.
That's usually the racist thing.
To point out the distinction and say, well, Jamaica is not Africa, and it's not the same thing, that's, to point out the distinction is usually the respectful thing, and to deny the distinction is racist, but it's been flipped around now because of the ideological makeup of the situation.
Alright, let's check in with the humorless feminist scolds.
An article over on the website Eater, written by Jaya Saxena, not sure if that's her real name or not, deals with the scourge of restaurants making jokes on their menus.
The headline is, My Girlfriend Isn't Hungry Menu Items Are Thinly Veiled Misogyny.
You know that when we're talking about thinly veiled misogyny, you know it's going to be good.
So let me read a little bit of this article.
It says, it's become a trope that when a heterosexual couple is out on a date, the woman might say she's not that hungry, but proceed to eat some of the man's food.
It seems innocent enough, but complains that these girlfriends must be pulling one over on their boyfriends to snag commitment-free nachos has proliferated to a point where restaurants across the country are offering dishes and menus for the, quote, not hungry date.
Mama D's in Little Rock, Arkansas is the latest restaurant to go viral for the menu addition.
The $4.25 My Girlfriend Is Not Hungry special gives you the option of adding extra fries, wings, or cheese sticks to your already existing meal.
In another light, it would be a lovely way to offer couples a way to split food on the cheap, but it's framed as a burden a man on a date must endure for sex later, the ability to joke about her appetite on social media, First of all, nobody ever said anything about sex.
This person is throwing that in there.
Mama D's isn't the only restaurant to offer such a deal.
Restaurants in Oregon and New York will double your fries.
Tangled Hickory in Wisconsin will double your fries and add extra onion rings.
I'm getting hungry right now reading this.
One Night Stands in Calgary will double your fries and add three honey biscuits for the girl who just wants biscuits and fries for dinner.
And the Tipsy Coyote in Scottsdale, Arizona has named their entire salad menu, My Girlfriend's Not Hungry, because no straight man would deign to eat lettuce.
Which is kind of true, actually.
Let's start with the acknowledgement that it's not a crime to just want three onion rings sometimes.
Actually, it is kind of a crime.
Who would only want three onion rings?
I understand not wanting onion rings at all, but if you're going to have three?
No.
The idea that your girlfriend is intentionally lying to you about how much fried food she wants is based in the men are from Mars and Venus is complicated idea that women are always being coy about what they really mean and it's a man's job to decipher it.
Well, that's kind of true though.
I mean, women are often being... I mean, with women it's always like...
Well, you know, I didn't want to tell you.
I want you to just know, right?
That's why men are always getting in trouble, because they do something that the girl didn't want them to do, but the girl never said she didn't want the guy to do it.
Or they're not doing something that the girl does want the guy to do, but the girl never told the guy she wanted it.
And then when the guy points out, like, why didn't you just tell me?
Then the girl will say, well, I just wanted you to know.
And now credit where it's due to women here.
The reason why women expect men to just sort of know intuitively what they want or don't want is that women do have that ability with men.
So I am convinced that there are times when my wife can literally read my mind.
Like she'll walk into a room and just Let's say I'm a little annoyed about something or something happened, whatever.
She'll walk in the room, she'll immediately sense it.
And not only sense that I'm off or annoyed or angry about something, but she'll even know what it's about right away.
So women have that ability, men don't.
And so that's the frustration.
Women expect men to be able to do that.
We can't do that.
We don't have that ability.
So most of the time, if you want us to know something, if you want us to do something, you just gotta say it.
That's all.
I mean, it's really as simple as that.
Just say, hey, will you do this?
Or will you not do that?
Anyway, that's what that's about.
Back to the article.
Uh, let's see, but aside from the misogyny, there are many reasons why anyone might snag some fries without ordering her own.
Maybe she can't afford it, or understands her partner can't afford two full orders of fries, and is trying to be nice about it.
Maybe she just really wants a salad, but because salads are great in their own right, and also one onion ring because onion rings are also great.
Maybe, like many women, she struggles with disordered eating because we live in a society that asks that women be chill enough to scarf down pizza but also remain 110 pounds at all times.
And she's stuck in a damned-if-you-do situation where her date will judge her no matter what she orders.
Okay, that's just not true.
Men are not going to judge women based on what you order.
We really don't care.
So when you're sitting at the restaurant with your man and you say, Oh, what should I get?
The man doesn't get whatever you want.
He really doesn't care.
Uh, maybe if you're dating and he's paying for it, then he might care if you order the most expensive thing on the menu.
So maybe don't do that.
Although even if you do that, he's not going to, he's not going to let you know he cares.
He'll still pay for it.
Um, but that's the only thing we care about really is the price.
That's actually, let me, let me back up and clarify.
The only thing we care when it comes to ordering food is just the price.
Outside of that, just get whatever.
You want to get three chili dogs, if they're $3 a piece, get five of them if you want.
I mean, it doesn't matter.
Really, just whatever you want.
It's totally fine.
Anyway, I could keep reading this, but I'm not gonna.
You get the idea.
I think.
I cannot imagine writing, like, six paragraphs about a menu joke.
But this is the kind of pettiness that you find among feminists.
Now, do you know where this joke comes from?
It comes from reality.
It comes from real life.
From lived experience.
Women do, in fact, often claim they aren't hungry and then proceed to steal your food.
That's a thing.
It happens.
And, in fact, the whole reason the joke works is that it happens so often that people can relate to it.
And that's the problem with getting offended by a joke.
If the joke works, if you can recognize it as a joke because people are laughing, then that means it's probably true.
That's why it works.
Jokes that are based in unreality, jokes that have no truth to them, no one's going to laugh because it just doesn't make any sense.
So, it's a joke.
Does it tease women a little bit?
Is it giving women a little bit of a hard time?
Yeah, sure.
Fine.
Women are being teased.
Women are, if you want to say it, the butt of the joke in some respect.
And so what?
Who cares?
Women can handle being teased.
They can handle being the butt of the joke.
I mean, it's not a big deal.
Most women can.
Some women can't.
Feminists cannot.
Feminists cannot handle jokes.
They especially cannot handle being the butt of the joke.
They just can't deal with it.
But that's all the more reason to tell these jokes.
Because, I mean, if someone could take a joke, then you should make jokes about them.
If someone can't take a joke, that's all the more reason to make jokes about them.
You know, there is something insidious here.
We talk about how the left is ruining comedy, and they are.
Because they're making it so that we can't joke about the realities and idiosyncrasies of life and of each other.
And the effect is more than just making restaurant menus more boring.
The thing is, the reason we like comedy The reason we like watching a stand-up, you know, do his thing, give his act.
The reason we like to joke about these truths about each other and about life and about our experience is that it's unifying.
It brings us together.
It's kind of a moment for all of us to look at each other and recognize the absurdity of everything and just laugh about it.
And that's why we enjoy it so much.
The joke that always gets the biggest laugh from me If I'm watching a stand-up or even I see a funny tweet or something, the jokes that for me get the biggest laugh, and I think for most people get the biggest laugh, is when it's a joke about something, some personal quirk or whatever, that I thought was unique to me.
Or when someone makes a joke about another person or group of people, and I thought I was the only one who noticed that.
And then I see this joke and that will get the biggest laugh.
Because you're saying, oh, you know, other people experience this.
I didn't realize that.
I didn't know other people experience this.
Other people thought like this.
And that realization brings joy.
It's a good thing.
You laugh.
You're happy about it.
I think ultimately it makes you feel less alone.
I think that's what comedy does.
It makes us feel like we're not as alone in the world because there are other people Who experience life the same way that we do and have noticed, you know, it's like when you're walking around and you see all this absurdity happening and you're thinking, am I the only one who notices this?
Like this doesn't make any sense over here.
This is ridiculous over here.
This is kind of stupid.
And you think you're the only one you feel alone.
And then you hear someone make a joke about it.
You think, oh, I'm not alone.
Okay.
Um, so the joke is not just funny, but it's, it's, uh, it's, um, encouraging in a way as well.
You know, I've been around, Cancer patients who joke with each other, telling sometimes very morbid, dark jokes about their situation.
And that's pretty common.
People in very rough situations, sad situations, joking about it is common.
Why do they joke about it?
Because it makes things a little less scary.
It makes things less lonely, less sad.
I think when you're sick, There are a lot of things about it that are terrible, the fear and the pain and everything, but it's also very lonely because most of the people around you are healthy and they're running around and doing their thing, living their physically capable, healthy lives, and you just feel alone.
When you're around someone else in the same situation, you kind of joke about it.
Now you feel less alone.
and that's what comedy is. Now, you know, when I talk about a joke on a menu, it's a small thing.
That's not really what I'm talking about.
I'm just talking about comedy in general, and jokes in general, and what the left is doing.
That's the point of humor.
And that's what the left wants to take away.
And they want to take away especially the morbid humor, the dark humor, the so-called offensive humor, the so-called sexist humor, the humor that deals with race and ethnicity and identity and all of those things.
But those are the areas, those are precisely the areas where we need humor the most.
We need that unifying force, that thing that tells us it's not as serious as we thought.
I mean, those are, when the people say, oh, well, yeah, you could tell a joke, but I mean, never joke about race, never joke about the other gender.
Those are exactly the things we should joke about.
Those are the funniest jokes, not because it's mean or you're trying to hurt anyone's feelings, but just because it's just, these are our, we all experience it.
All right.
So that's feminism for you.
Let's move on to emails.
matwalshowatgmail.com, matwalshowatgmail.com.
This is from Maria, says, Dear Matt, I have to disagree with your take on mini AOC, though I agree that her parents are messing up.
I have an 8 and 12 year old.
They want nothing more than to become YouTube stars because that's their generation's movie star.
I made a couple of YouTube videos and they begged me to be in them and I've told them no.
I would argue that Minnie AOC's mom's failure is not in putting the idea in her head, but by not protecting her from entering the public arena before she's old enough to even form her own opinions.
Appreciate your show and your opinions on issues.
So I don't think you do disagree.
I mean, we're in agreement.
The basic point here is that we shouldn't be...
We shouldn't be using our kids to make political points.
We shouldn't be turning our kids into viral stars at all, especially not in a political context, because then you're guaranteeing that there's going to be even more hatred and vile comments coming their way, and you're throwing them into a very volatile situation on top of all the other problems with doing that.
So I think we agree with that.
I guess the only thing you're disagreeing with is I said that no eight-year-old naturally wants to be a viral video star, and what you're saying is, well, some eight-year-olds actually do want that.
But as parents, we're supposed to, of course, tell them no, because we're the parents.
Maybe you're right about that.
Look, you know, I don't have an eight-year-old.
As I said, my oldest are six years old.
And there is a significant difference between a six-year-old and an eight-year-old.
I can say that my six-year-olds, The idea of being a viral star is not even on their radar.
They wouldn't even know what that means.
Maybe at eight it becomes a little bit more on a kid's radar.
But I will say that certainly with this girl, how she's essentially a political satirist, I can tell you, no 8-year-old wants that.
I mean, no 8-year-old even knows what political satire is or understands it.
Okay, there's just... I'm sorry, there's no 8-year-old smart enough to understand political satire.
Most adults don't understand it.
I write satirical pieces myself, and the majority of adults these days are too stupid to understand satire when they see it.
Kids, even if they're not stupid but very smart, which I'm sure this girl's a very smart girl, at 8 years old, they just don't...
They don't.
They don't get it.
They don't understand it.
So she doesn't understand what she's doing.
She doesn't get the humor herself.
She can't.
She's eight.
All right, from Brandon.
Matt, I love the show.
My question was regarding religion.
I've always been a Christian by default, as I've never grown up practicing religion, but my family would go to church on special occasions.
My question is, do you take all stories in the Bible literally?
I've been having issues with my faith because I want to believe all of it, but I have trouble when it comes to fully believing stories that involve talking snakes.
Well, you're gonna get me in trouble, Brandon.
We've talked about this in the past.
My view on it is not a secret.
Although, I guess if you didn't watch the show months ago, maybe it is a secret.
I don't... Well, let's establish a couple things.
First of all, nobody takes the entire Bible literally.
That would not make sense.
To say that, yeah, I take it all literally.
Well, what does that mean?
I mean, because there are things in the Bible.
The Bible is a collection of many different books.
of many different genres.
They're not all the same genre.
The entire Bible is not just a story.
There are, you know, there are psalms, there are lamentations, there's the wisdom literature, you know, there's exhortation, there are epistles, there are, you know, teachings, commandments.
I mean, there are all kinds of things like that, which don't really qualify as stories in my mind.
And among those things, now, something like a commandment, a direct instruction, where God is saying, do this or don't do that, well then, yeah, we take that literally.
That's the perfect example of a thing you do take literally, right?
But something like a psalm, I mean, what does it mean to take the psalms literally?
Well, nobody does.
It doesn't make any sense.
It's poetry.
By definition, you don't take poetry literally.
There's truth there, so you do get at the truth, but when you're taught, when you're reading, if you read poetry literally, you're reading it like a robot.
And then if there's a metaphor or something or imagery, it's like you try to take it literally, then you're just not reading it like a human being.
Jesus tells parables.
Of course we don't take the parables literally, in the sense that when Jesus tells a certain parable, whether it's about the prodigal son, or any other parable, or the Good Samaritan, he's not trying to say that this thing, this event actually happened, like there really was a prodigal son.
But there's a point to the story, a message that we're meant to understand.
So that's the first thing.
And then, related to that, when we're looking at any particular part of the Bible or any particular story or passage in the Bible, if we want to understand how we are to take it or read it, then the first thing we have to do is figure out what genre is it.
So, as I said, the parable's genre.
That's a whole genre.
So, we read a parable.
We recognize, okay, this is a parable.
We don't take it literally.
We are looking for truth.
We're looking for a message.
We're not taking it literally.
We read the Psalms.
What genre?
Well, this is poetry.
Okay, that's the genre.
The question then is, the book of Genesis, what genre is it?
What's the genre?
That's the question.
Now, I'll tell you, the answer to that question, I can't tell you for sure.
I don't know.
That's my answer.
I don't know exactly.
I'm not going to pretend that I can sit here and tell you with 100% certainty.
That's how we are to read every part of the Bible.
I'm not going to tell you that I understand every part of the Bible.
I don't.
The book of Revelation, that's a whole genre I forgot about.
Apocalyptic literature.
There's another great example of a genre that we don't take literally.
Now, the book of Revelation, obviously there's truth there.
There's a message we're meant to understand, a message we're meant to take away from it.
But of course you don't read Revelation totally literally.
I don't, you know, most adult Christians or grown-ups don't actually expect that literal horsemen, you know, guys on horses are going to come out of the sky.
There'd be no reason for that.
It would be, you know, that would be God sort of, it'd be like theatrics.
Why do you, if you have beings in the sky, why do they need to be on horses?
It just, it would be just, you know, theatrical.
Which there's no reason to think that that's literally what's going to happen.
But the horsemen are meant to represent something, and so we're supposed to understand what they represent.
And it's being communicated to us using this sort of imagery because it sticks in our mind more.
And also, I think, because with something like apocalyptic literature, the end of the world, these are concepts that are beyond us anyway.
And so if the Holy Spirit were to inspire someone to write about the end of the world in a totally literal way, We wouldn't understand it.
It would be total nonsense to us.
Because it's beyond us.
And so instead, especially when we're dealing with concepts that are beyond our comprehension, that is especially when imagery and parable and metaphor and all that, that's especially when those come into play.
And I think that's why Jesus used parables a lot.
Because As Jesus, he knew, knows, that we are very limited in our cognitive abilities.
And so he uses, he expresses these ideas in a way that we will understand.
And also a way that will just stick with us.
Again, the story of the prodigal son.
That's a story everyone remembers.
If Jesus had just said in a very literal way, hey listen, if you go out and you sin and you stop sinning, God will forgive you.
And he did say that in a literal way many times.
But all the times that he said it literally, the thing that we all remember the most is that story.
Because that's just how we are.
That's how our minds work.
So we think about the genre.
Going back, I'm babbling now.
What's the genre of Genesis?
Well, that's the question.
My answer again is, I don't know exactly.
I can, but I think that the answer probably is that Genesis is not a, especially the first few chapters of Genesis, the creation account, is not literal.
And, uh, I mean, I've done a whole show on this.
You can go back and watch that show.
There are many reasons why I think that, um, one of those reasons, not the only reason, but one of those reasons is that when we look at the science, it's just, we know, we know for a fact that that is not how, that is not literally how the world came about.
Just like there are passages in the Bible which, in a literal sense, seem to indicate that the Sun orbits the Earth.
There are passages, there are several passages in the Bible, if you read literally, that's what it would seem to indicate.
There are also passages that would seem to indicate, literally, that the Earth is flat.
Now, we know that that is not true, that that's not the way it is, and so we have to interpret those Bible passages with the reality of the situation in mind.
In light of reality, we have to interpret those passages.
There was a time when a lot of people didn't know that the Earth orbits the Sun.
And so they read those passages and they thought that those passages, you know, affirmed the truth that the Sun orbits the Earth.
Once it became clear that that's not the case, we had to go back and say, okay, well, I guess we were wrong with our interpretation of those passages.
We can't cling to our old interpretation when the reality is right in front of us.
It's just, you can't get around it, uh, so to speak.
Pun intended.
So I think it's the same thing with, um, with the creation account.
It's just the seven day, 6,000 year old earth.
It's just the science.
I'm sorry.
The science doesn't work.
And, and I, there are, I know there are people, there are, So, that's how I would look at that.
Christian scientific authorities who are not authorities who will claim otherwise and they'll
throw a lot of statistics and facts at you but they're just, it's not true.
Doesn't work. So that's how I would look at that. All right, and I can look forward now to
many angry emails.
From Jacob, this says, hey Matt, I'm a student at Utah State University, and because I'm getting closer to graduation, there are some upper level classes I have to take with certain attributes.
I'm taking a class called Perspectives on Race, because it fulfills two attributes in a single class, which is nice.
However, this week we were given an assignment called the Privilege Activity, where we are asked a series of questions, and based on our answers, we will tell us how privileged we are compared to our classmates.
Along with the activity, we were given a blog to read about white males and how white males have it the easiest of all people because of their supposed privilege.
I'm not mean or vile or even that big of an idiot, but more and more I'm trying to understand why my status as being white and male and straight has made me the enemy of all people.
Just wondering about your thoughts on this and hope that you get a chuckle reading the questions.
I wish I could say I get a chuckle out of that.
It's more just, Jacob, I don't know how much money you're spending Going to Utah State University and, uh, I'm not saying you're wasting your money.
I mean, hopefully you have a plan and you'll go out and use that degree.
I'm sure you will.
A lot of people do, but I mean, if I was you, I'm sure it already does, but it would tick me off that I'm paying all this money to go to this school.
And this is what you're wasting my time with a privilege activity.
I'm reading a blog by some, what, by some liberal to lecture me about race.
I mean, this is what your way like this.
This useless propaganda?
Okay, give me useful information.
This doesn't count.
So it's just a total waste of money, and it is also a lie, of course.
And so it ticks me off.
And we will leave it there.
Hope you guys have a great 4th of July.
God bless America and God speed.
Here is a surprising thing.
The left virtually owns all the most powerful means of communication, and they're using that to constantly sell sexual malfeasance, racial division, and self-lacerating anti-Americanism.
You would think at this point the public would be utterly convinced, but instead, people are beginning to turn away.
This is a great time for conservatives to offer a 21st century version of the founding ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
