Today on the show, the Democrat debate was last night. We will go over the major takeaways from the show, including the desperate and losing fight by some of the remaining sane democrats to preserve some semblance of sanity in the party. Also, a Republican proposes a bill to fight social media addiction. And is it time to just let Leftists destroy women’s sorts, as they obviously desire? Date: 07-30-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Democrat debate was last night.
We'll go over the major takeaways from the debate, including the fight, the desperate losing fight by some of the remaining sane Democrats, the very few, to preserve some semblance of sanity in the party.
It's an interesting struggle.
Also, a Republican proposes a bill to fight social media addiction.
I'll explain why the bill is bad.
And is it time to just let leftists destroy women's sports as they are so desperate to do?
We'll talk about that today on the Matt Wall Show.
So to be honest, I gave up on the debate last night after about an hour and a half.
I can give my analysis of an hour and a half of the debate.
I gave up.
I went down to the hotel bar because the thing was, I was expecting it to be a two hour debate.
I was mentally prepared for two hours.
And then I realized about, you know, halfway through that it's actually two and a half hours.
And that's when I fell into Deep despair and gave up all hope and I just had to turn it off.
But from what I did see, I will offer my analysis of this very important debate.
A debate which, of course, actually is not important at all because they're going to do, you know, 50 of these things and nobody already, you probably, if you watch the debate, you already probably can't remember 98% of it.
By next week, or even by the debate tonight, you're going to have forgotten all of it.
So it really doesn't matter.
Here's the first point I want to make regardless, not just about this debate, but about all debates.
And I'll say this, when I am dictator of the country, well, there won't be any political debates when I'm dictator because I will be the sole lifetime supreme ruler, but if there were debates and I was in charge, I would have all the candidates standing at the podium on like one of those, like a trap door that you see in some cartoons, and the trap door would open and they would fall into shark-infested waters the first moment they opened their mouths to offer an anecdote.
Uh, there are few things that I hate more, and I hate a lot of things.
There are few things I hate more than anecdotes from politicians in debates.
It's just, it's utterly pointless.
I, I guess they've been told, I guess they focus grouped it and they've been told that some people go for this stuff, but I don't know who those people are.
So it's like, you know, they, you know, let me tell you about Roberta Smith.
Roberta Smith is a crossing guard in Iowa.
She's a single mom of three.
Her youngest child has one leg.
Her second youngest child has three legs.
Roberta just lost her job.
And she got the flu.
And her car exploded.
And her dog has arthritis.
The other thing about Roberta, and it's just, look, even if Roberta exists, which is debatable, this has nothing to do with anything.
Telling us the tragic story of some random person you supposedly met on the campaign trail does not at all prove whatever point you're trying to make.
And if it is a real person, So if it's a fake person, then you're lying.
If it's a real person, it's even worse because you are transparently exploiting their pain.
You're exploiting Roberta's pain with her three-legged child.
Her pain and suffering.
It's not like this is spontaneous.
You obviously rehearsed this.
It is painfully, blatantly rehearsed.
An anecdote meant to emotionally manipulate the audience, and it's irrelevant on top of that, and I hate it, and it needs to stop.
So that's the first thing, is anecdotes.
We need to get rid of those.
And when I am dictator, anyone who offers them will be eaten by sharks.
That's my solemn pledge.
Now, that out of the way, what else?
We'll go through and look at a few of the comparatively notable events from the debate.
The first thing of note, the most notable thing for me, happened Close to the end of the debate, but this I really liked.
Watch this.
We have an administration that has gutted the Clean Water Act.
We have communities, particularly communities of color and disadvantaged communities all over this country, who are suffering from environmental injustice.
I assure you, I lived in Grosse Pointe.
What happened in Flint would not have happened in Grosse Pointe.
This is part of the dark underbelly of American society.
The racism, the bigotry, and the entire conversation that we're having here tonight.
If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I'm afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days.
So that is Marianne Williamson talking about the dark psychic force of collectivized hatred.
The dark psychic force of collectivized hatred.
That is quite a salad of words.
And by the way, how do we defeat The dark psychic force of collectivized hatred.
Well, we have to collect the four unity stones from the four corners of the earth.
She got into that later.
I don't know if you might have missed that part.
Marianne Williamson is a sort of lovably quirky and weird person.
She's also, of course, wrong about, just like everybody else on the stage, she's wrong about everything and her policy ideas are abysmal.
But at least she has eccentric charm to her, which is more than I can say for most of the other characters on the stage.
Aside from Marianne Williamson, if I were to pick four, let's say, takeaways from the debate, they would be this.
The first, and this I thought was interesting, there are people in the Democrat Party, this may actually be a revelation to you, it was sort of to me.
There are still people in the Democrat Party who know how crazy and delusional Democrats seem when they act like genies who can grant, you know, a million wishes, can grant unlimited wishes to anyone who wants them.
That was the most fascinating thing to me in the debate.
Watching the relatively sane ones, and there were a few, again, relatively, in comparison to, you know, considering where the bar is for sanity among Democrats, relatively sane.
Watching them try to desperately rein in The insane ones.
But they are dwindling voices, and of course they stand no chance, because sanity is well outside the Democratic mainstream these days.
So that's what's funny, is the people who are normal, relatively normal and sane, are now fringe in the Democrat Party.
The ones who will get up there and say, as some had to say at the debate, look, we can't just give everyone everything.
We can't just give free everything.
That now is a fringe idea in the Democrat Party.
I did though really appreciate this moment between Hickenlooper and Sanders.
I want you to watch Hickenlooper's facial expression.
Watch this.
The truth is that every credible poll that I have seen has me beating Donald Trump
including including the battleground states of Michigan where so you
see there Hickenlooper just openly rolls his eyes at Bernie Sanders, which is such a
perfect response to Bernie Sanders and And in that moment of rolling his eyes, we were all Hickenlooper.
We were Hickenlooper.
Hickenlooper was us.
He represented us.
Because that's how most of us feel when we watch Bernie Sanders.
It's just, that's exactly that.
Okay, Bernie.
All right.
But this is all part, again, of that kind of sad, desperate, losing battle that some minority fringe members of the Democrat Party are fighting to try and keep the party at least somewhat tethered to reality.
Second takeaway, speaking of not being tethered to reality, last night we got to see Yet again, Democrats up on the stage on national TV, seriously, sincerely advocating reparations.
And this shows you where the party is.
Let's watch this clip here.
We need to recognize that when it comes to the economic gap between blacks and whites in America, it does come from a great injustice that has never been dealt with.
That great injustice has had to do with the fact that there was 250 years of slavery, followed by another 100 years of domestic terrorism.
What makes me qualified to say $200 to $500 billion?
I'll tell you what makes me qualified.
If you did the math of the 40 acres and a mule, given that there was 4 to 5 million slaves at the end of the Civil War, and they were all promised 40 acres and a mule for every family of four, if you did the math today, it would be trillions of dollars.
And I believe that anything less than $100 billion is an insult.
And I believe that $200 to $500 billion is politically feasible today
because so many Americans realize there is an injustice that continues to form a toxicity
underneath the surface, an emotional turbulence that only reparations will be able to...
Ms. Williamson, thank you very much.
Keep in mind, this would have been, as is the case with so many things
you hear from Democrats these days, this would have been unthinkable even,
certainly 10 years ago, even five years ago.
Just like it would be unthinkable to have mainstream Democrats openly advocating socialism,
it would have been unthinkable to have almost every Democrat advocating
putting men in the women's bathroom.
All this stuff would have been thinkable 5-10 years ago, and now it's normal.
Openly advocating reparations.
During Barack Obama, Was not a proponent of reparations.
He opposed reparations.
Or rather, at least, Obama knew that he had to oppose it because it was such a wildly unpopular idea.
And it still is wildly unpopular because, except with the minority of people who would receive money as payment for injustices that they did not themselves suffer, it of course is unpopular.
There was Don Lemon last night said, I forget the exact statistic. I think he said 76% of African
Americans support reparations in the form of cash payment.
Okay, well, I get it.
Because, of course, if you go up to somebody and you say, do you support being given cash?
I'm actually surprised it's only 76%.
I think almost everybody would say, well, sure, yeah.
I mean, if you're going to give it to me, I'll take it.
But everybody else, it's unpopular with, except for that, the group of people who would receive the money and also hardcore left-wing activists who are the ones driving the party now.
Third moment that I liked, and this is just a small moment, but you need to watch, when we play this clip, watch Elizabeth Warren's hands.
Watch this.
Your estimated net worth is more than $65 million.
That would make you subject to Senator Warren's proposed wealth tax on the assets of the richest 75,000 homes, households or so in the United States.
Do you think Senator Warren's wealth tax is a fair way to fund child care and education?
I don't know if you caught that.
It's sort of subtle, but she's literally rubbing her hands together like a supervillain or something when they're talking about her confiscating money from wealthy people.
She does this.
She does an evil grin and rubs her hands together.
I mean, these people, they're not even trying anymore.
Finally, this for me was a moment.
And it was small.
It was kind of a glancing moment.
I don't think it's something a lot of people are gonna be talking about.
But I'm so fed up with Mayor Pete doing this, so annoyed by it that I have to mention it.
Watch this here.
The minimum wage is just too low.
And so-called conservative Christian senators right now in the Senate are blocking a bill to raise the minimum wage when scripture says that whoever oppresses the poor taunts their maker.
Okay, there is Bishop Pete again bringing religion into it.
This guy, he gives more homilies than the Pope.
And he's even more theologically off-base than the Pope is these days.
The thing that ticks me off about Pete throwing the Bible around, as he so often does, is that it's just so cynical.
Okay.
The fact is, he holds many views that are obviously totally at odds with Scripture.
And he must know that on some level.
I mean, let's just start with the fact that he advocates abortion through every stage of pregnancy, up until the moment of birth.
Now, the idea that Scripture, the idea that Jesus would somehow support that is clearly absurd.
Yet he continues to Bible thump.
And that's the irony now.
That on the public stage, among prominent politicians, Mayor Pete is pretty much the only Bible thumper.
He's the one true Bible thumper on the public stage among politicians, and he's a radical left Democrat.
I can't think of a Republican who tries to make their point by quoting scripture as often as Bishop Pete does.
Now, everybody would point to Mike Pence.
Mike Pence, despite his reputation, is not up there constantly quoting scripture, especially if he's talking about something that is not directly related to it.
That's what Bishop Pete does.
And when I say that he's a Bible thumper, I mean that in the sense, because there's a distinction here.
Just because you quote scripture, doesn't make you a Bible thumper.
A Bible thumper is someone who just rips out a verse, often out of context, and pummels his opponents with it.
He uses it as a bludgeoning tool to beat his opponents over the head.
That's what a Bible thumper is.
And that's what conservatives are accused of doing, but that in fact is what Mayor Pete does.
What he says about the minimum wage, yes, the Bible is very clear that we should not oppress the poor or exploit the poor.
But the whole point that we make here about the minimum wage is that it's not oppressive.
Okay, to having no minimum wage, or if we refrain from raising it to 50, that is not oppressive.
We are not advocating for oppressing the poor.
That's a position that nobody holds.
So this is a strawman argument.
Bishop Pete says, oh, the Republicans should realize the Bible says you shouldn't oppress the poor.
Yes, of course, we all agree we shouldn't oppress the poor.
The other point that we make, that rarely do people like Bishop Pete even engage with, is that by raising the minimum wage, you hurt the poor.
Because now you incentivize companies to automate these jobs, which many of them can do.
We've all been, most of us anyway, have been in a McDonald's recently.
And most McDonald's, at least many of them across the country, have these automated things now where you just go up and you put in your order.
And that's taking away jobs.
If you go to McDonald's and you say, now all the cashiers that are left who are doing a job that the automated machine thing can do and is already doing, now you have to pay them $15 an hour, guess what McDonald's is going to say?
They're going to say, you know what?
I think the automated things are working fine.
We'll just stick with those.
So you hurt the poor by doing that.
All right, so that's the debate.
A few other things to talk about.
Before we go on, I do want to stop and pay homage for a moment.
There's recently been a movement among Democrats in Congress to unfollow Trump on Twitter.
First, there was one congressman who unfollowed Trump, and he announced it.
He made this very dramatic announcement on Twitter explaining why he unfollowed the president.
And then Congressman Joe Cunningham of South Carolina He posted yesterday this absolutely harrowing video.
He not only unfollowed Trump, but he took a video of himself unfollowing Trump and he posted that video.
Can you imagine the heroism that is required to make a stand like that?
To unfollow Donald Trump on Twitter.
To confine yourself to only seeing his tweets when everybody else retweets them and when the media covers them.
I could only dream of having a tenth of this man's strength and courage.
It's truly generations down the ages.
All right, moving over to the Republicans for a moment.
of praise and erect monuments and find a never-ending source of hope and
encouragement in this one act, this one momentous act, an act that changed the
world. So congratulations to Joe Cunningham. All right, moving over to the
Republicans for a moment. I'm gonna read a little bit from a report in The Hill.
It says, Senator Josh Hawley, a freshman who has emerged as a top Republican
critic of major technology companies in Congress, on Tuesday will introduce a
bill banning social media companies from building addictive features into their
products.
Hawley's Social Media Addiction, well this is what his bill is, Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act, or SMART Act.
I give him credit, though, for making that acronym work.
He barely had to strain for it, so I do like that.
The act would make it illegal for social media platforms to hook users by offering them more content than they requested in order to get them to continue on their respective platforms.
The bill takes aim at practices specifically employed by the country's top social networking sites, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat.
For example, it would ban YouTube's autoplay feature, which loads up new videos for users automatically.
It would ban Facebook and Twitter's infinite scroll, which allows users to continue scrolling through their homepages without limit.
And it would ban Snapchat's streaks, which rewards users for continuing to send photos to their friends.
It would also require the companies to build user-friendly interfaces, with features allowing users to limit the amount of time they spend on the platform, and offering reminders of how much time they spent perusing the platform.
Okay, so these companies would have to not only limit the amount of time, but they would have to Build in some sort of feature, I guess, I don't know, an alarm bell or something would have to go off to let you know, hey, by the way, you've been on Facebook for three and a half hours.
Holly said in a statement, Big Tech has embraced a business model of addiction.
Too much of the innovation in this space is designed not to create better products, but to capture more attention by using psychological tricks that make it difficult to look away.
And then he goes on from there and explains some more about what he's gonna do.
So I have two major problems here.
The first is that the government simply has no business getting involved here.
And I know that sounds like a cliché at this point.
It sounds like a libertarian cliché.
Just something that you say, right?
An assertion.
The government has no business doing this.
But I think it's really true in this case.
You take infinite scroll, for example.
Some people like it.
Some people don't.
I personally don't.
But if you're a lawmaker and you don't personally like something, that's not enough reason to make a law against it.
That's just a taste of things.
There are a lot of things people do online that I don't like.
A lot.
Let's take, for instance, people who use exclamation points too much.
That really annoys me.
It even, I would say, traumatizes me sometimes.
But if I was a politician, I don't think I could make a law Banning the use of exclamation, as much as I would like to, I can't do that because that's just my own personal taste, which has no business in the law.
So what you have to do, which is what Holly's trying to do here, is pretend that this thing he doesn't like is some sort of public health emergency.
And I think the idea that infinite scroll, for example, on Twitter is a public health emergency is obviously absurd.
Second, this is all justified.
I mean, how do you make it a public health emergency?
Well, you say that social media is an addiction.
And it's right there in the name of the bill.
They put the word addiction.
But I really think we need to find other words besides addiction.
Addiction is, ironically enough, an abused term.
It seems we grasp always for the word addiction Social media addiction, TV addiction, sex addiction, food addiction, so on and so forth.
We immediately grab for that word addiction when sometimes a word like compulsion or even simply habit would be better.
Can anyone, whatever happened to bad habits?
Can anyone have a bad habit anymore?
Bad habits used to exist.
It used to be a thing.
People had bad habits.
And yeah, it's a little bit difficult to break a bad habit, but you can do it.
um, replace them with good habits. But the word bad, you rarely hear about bad habits anymore
because everything's an addiction. Anything that's a bad habit automatically becomes an
addiction. Everything's an addiction. The problem though is that, um, whatever word you use,
it's obvious that a person who is, uh, who uses a lot of social media is in a different category
from someone who uses, say, a lot of heroin.
And the main difference, one of them anyway, is that the person using heroin, the way you know they're addicted is that if they just stopped using it all of a sudden, they might die.
Okay?
At the very least, they're going to be in the emergency room if they just stopped using.
There is a real, a very real, not just psychological, but a very real chemical need That the person on heroin has.
They actually need the heroin.
And it's such a real need that they can't just stop.
They have to be weaned off of it.
So it's something, through their addiction, that they've come to need, but it's also killing them.
Okay, there's an addiction.
That is a grade A, 100% real addiction.
And if they just stop all of a sudden, and in fact, even if they're weaned off of it during that process of weaning, it's going to be agonizing.
They're going to be sick.
They're going to be in pain.
They will experience a real withdrawal, and they're going to know it.
That's an addiction.
Does a social media habit fall into that category?
Now, you could say all you want.
You could point to all the studies showing that, well, if you use too much social media, it does this and that bad thing to you.
It's a big problem.
People are using too much internet.
I agree.
I've written about that.
I've talked about that.
I did an entire show about it.
So I agree that we're all way too obsessed with our phones.
And that it is having a profound impact on us as people.
But, if the power goes out in your house, and you don't have cell reception either, and so you can't use social media for 12 hours, are you going to be writhing on the ground in pain?
Are you going to have to go to the... Let me ask you this.
Has there been anyone, I don't care how addicted you claim somebody is to social media, has there been anyone who for some reason was forced to go cold turkey on social media and then ended up in the emergency room because of the physical withdrawal symptoms?
And if the answer is no, and I think the answer is no, then that is not an addiction.
At least it's not the same, we need a different word.
We've got heroin addiction, we know what that means.
We need a different word for this other thing over here.
It's not the same thing.
And as I said, I would nominate either compulsion or habit.
It can be difficult to get over a compulsion.
It can be difficult to overcome a bad habit, but you can do it.
See, here's the thing.
Somebody who is on heroin, you can't just say to them, well, stop doing it.
It's as simple as that.
Just stop.
It's not as simple as that.
But someone who uses a lot of social media, or someone who eats too much, or someone who watches too much TV, or someone who watches pornography.
You could say to them, just stop.
They can stop.
You could tell them, just stop.
And they really can stop.
They are physically capable of doing it.
It's just, do they have the incentive to stop?
Do they have the wherewithal?
Do they have the moral fortitude?
Do they have the discipline?
I mean, that's what it requires to stop doing those things, or at least to regulate your consumption of things like social media or food.
So that is a habit.
And that's why we don't need the government getting involved.
Because all the government needs to say is, hey, people are using too much social media, maybe use less.
That's it.
If you want to pass a bill that says that, that just encourages people to use it less, fine.
But I don't think it's necessary.
Finally, here's a topic we've talked about plenty on this show, but I have a sort of different thought.
That's been in my head recently that I want to share.
You know, this week the ACLU came out in support of the two biological males who we've talked about, who've been dominating the girls track and field circuit up in Connecticut.
For two years now, Terry Miller and Andrea Yearwood are the names they go by now.
With their ample supply of testosterone, and their longer legs, and their greater muscle mass, and their larger lungs, and their larger hearts, and innumerable other biological advantages.
They've been snatching up gold medals with times that would barely place them in the top 20 if they were racing against the boys.
It's important to emphasize that.
Because I don't think it's a coincidence.
These are mediocre male track athletes.
Who would not be going to states, certainly wouldn't be winning gold medals, wouldn't even be placing in a boys track meet.
But the ACLU, rather than coming to the defense of the girls who are having their medals stolen from them, the ACLU yesterday came out in support of the two boys.
And they had a petition where they were encouraging us to sign a pledge of support for these two boys who are stealing medals from girls.
And this isn't the first time that these young men have been celebrated as heroes.
A few months ago, Maybe we talked about it on the show, I can't remember.
Bleacher Report ran a glowing profile of Yearwood.
I mean, it's sickening to read this thing.
Portraying her, quote-unquote her, as this gutsy champion of equality.
When in reality, again, he is just a mediocre male athlete who decided that the best way to get a gold medal in a trophy case is to steal it.
Real actual biological girls who are having opportunities and accolades stolen from them.
Unfortunately, you know, this is happening in high school, and you think, well, maybe they get to college and they'll get a break from it.
But no, because there's a guy named Craig, who goes by CeCe now, who's breaking records in women's track at the college level.
But at least these guys are merely breaking records.
You may remember Fallon Fox, who's a biological male.
He was breaking women's faces, literally, in MMA before finally retiring.
One of his victims, one of his most recent victims, he fractured her orbital socket.
He gave her a concussion.
She had to get seven staples in her head because this man was beating her senseless.
After the fight, she said that she felt helpless.
She felt completely overpowered, which is the exact opposite of what women are supposed—this is why we encourage girls, right, to get into sports.
They're not supposed to feel overpowered and helpless.
That's the exact opposite of the sort of feeling and experience they're supposed to have in sports.
But now they go and they're up against men and they feel helpless.
Which they are, to a certain extent.
Because you can't do anything about your biology.
Speaking of being overpowered, a professional weightlifter named Laurel Hubbard recently decided, coincidentally, that he's actually a woman after years of competing against men.
He's competed against men for years.
And then he said, you know what?
I'm actually a woman.
Coincidence.
It turns out I'm a woman.
And he went on to win gold at the Pacific Games last week.
Again, I'm sure it's a total coincidence that these guys, mediocre athletes, discover their femininity and then become gold medal athletes.
I'm sure that's a total coincidence.
Now, some people, the sane ones, are petitioning to prevent Hubbard from competing in women's heavyweight events from now on.
But they're meeting resistance from the woke and enlightened elements in society.
Many leftists are opposing these people or trying to prevent it.
And then many others are just sort of ignoring it.
Now, here's my point.
As you know, I have been staunchly opposed to the male invasion of female sports.
The notion that they should be allowed into female sports is so self-evidently absurd that it barely requires a rebuttal, because reasonable people do not need the issue explained to them.
You go up to any normal, reasonable person, no matter where they fall politically, it doesn't matter, and you ask them, should biological males be allowed to compete against girls?
They're all going to say, of course not.
What?
No.
That's because we know that men and women are different.
We know that men have physical advantages.
We know that men don't, in any meaningful sense, actually become women just because they feel like one and they declare themselves to be one.
This is all, as I said, self-evident.
But, I must admit, there's a part of me, there is an admittedly cynical, maybe vengeful part of me, that, as I've thought more about this issue, I start to think, maybe we should just, and it pains me to even say, but maybe we should just let the left prevail on this issue.
Perhaps we should allow them to do exactly what they're trying to do, which is abolish women's sports.
The left is desperately trying to destroy women's sports, to erase it, get rid of it.
And we as conservatives are desperately trying to preserve it and say, no, we're trying to protect women's sports.
Well, what I'm saying is, Um, maybe there's something to be said for getting out of the way and saying, you know what?
Fine.
We're going to sit back.
We're going to kick up our feet and we're going to watch it happen.
And we're going to wait for the inevitable and not far off day when the top competitors in every women's sport are men.
I think if we stopped resisting this madness, I think the time would shortly come when entire teams of testosterone-fueled men are winning basketball and soccer championships against women.
There would certainly be nothing to prevent that eventuality if the leftists have their way.
So maybe we let them have their way.
Let them reap what they sow.
Let everybody experience in the very real In a very real and tangible way, the consequences of progressive ideology in action.
Because it's one thing for us to argue about this in the abstract, which I've been doing until my face is blue, but it's another thing to see the lunacy manifested before you in the form of, say, a six-foot, five-inch male putting up 80 points a game in women's basketball.
I mean, you take a guy Who would be, say, a sixth man in basketball.
Or maybe not even that.
You take a guy who would make a team in the NBA, but would hardly see any playing time.
Take a guy like that.
Put him in the NBA.
He's going to get 80 points a game.
He'll be like Wilt Chamberlain in his 100-point game, except he'll do that every game.
That's how vast the disparity is.
And so maybe we just let that happen.
Could be an educational experience that the country needs.
Because I can sit here and insist that the left's claims about gender are crazy and destructive.
I think sometimes though, you know, they say it's better to show than tell.
Well, maybe we should just show.
Maybe we should just say, all right, fine.
See what happens.
Now, what do you do?
If your child, you know, you tell your child not to touch the hot stove, if he's not going to listen to you, Eventually, he's going to have to just touch it himself.
You know, in my house, we have a pellet stove in the basement.
It gets very hot.
Heats the house.
Energy efficient, though.
I highly recommend it.
But, as I said, it gets really hot.
And so, of course, we tell our kids, don't touch the stove, don't touch the stove, don't touch the stove.
We keep saying it.
But, of course, eventually, our youngest, one day, when we had our back turned, he went up and touched the stove.
And he burned his hand and it hurt.
He was fine.
But he recovered quickly.
But it really hurt for a minute.
And he hasn't touched the stove since.
That was a lesson that he just, it doesn't matter how many times we said it, he just needed to experience that for himself.
And he did.
And, uh, and, and he's fine now and he's not going to touch it again.
So maybe we're at the point where our culture needs to just touch the hot stove and learn the hard way.
And the hard way will involve the total dismantling of women's sports and the undoing of nearly everything feminists have worked for over the past several decades.
That's the other irony here, is that we as conservatives are trying to preserve the gains of feminists, of feminism, while feminists hate our guts.
We're the ones trying to help them.
We're trying to tell them, listen, these men are taking everything from you.
They're undoing all of it.
We're trying to help you.
So maybe we say, you know what?
I have that thought.
Part of me thinks that way.
In the end, and I'm not the first person, people have said this to me, so I see the appeal of that strategy.
In the end, I cannot fully adopt that strategy because I know that leftists are not going to be the ones first and foremost punished.
They have sort of human shields.
I have a daughter who might one day want to be an athlete.
Why should she suffer?
who are going to have their sports taken from them.
So the leftist touched the stove, but it's the innocent girls who get burned.
And it's hard, I can't, so that's the problem.
I have a daughter who might one day want to be an athlete.
Why should she suffer?
You know, why should she be punished for the sins of deranged leftists who are so drunk
on their ideology that they can't tell the difference between boys and girls anymore?
I want leftists to taste their own medicine.
But I don't think innocent girls should have to taste it.
And so that's the conundrum.
When they have these girls, girls like my daughter or your daughter, who they're using as human shields.
What are we supposed to do?
I'm not sure how best to navigate it.
But I will say that there is at least Something to be said for letting leftists experience the consequences.
It's not giving up.
It's not a surrender.
It's just letting them see how crazy this actually is.
Something to think about.
And we'll leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Godspeed.
If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
