The wokest white boy this side of the Atlantic, Justin Trudeau, has a nasty blackface habit. Will he be held accountable in the same way that a conservative would be? Of course not. On a related note, remember when Megyn Kelly was fired just for talking about blackface? Also, a new study claims that all "unwanted" sex is rape. We'll talk about why that definition of rape is wrong and dangerous. Finally, NBC gives us all the chance to confess our climate sins. Date: 09-19-2019
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
You know, I want to get serious here for a minute, if you don't mind, right at the start of the show.
Over the last few days, especially during the email portion of the show at the end, we've been talking about the problem of suffering.
And the question of why would a good God allow all this pain and suffering in the world?
And it's a very serious question and one that I've been grappling with.
But, you know, sometimes in the midst of the darkness, there comes a ray of light, a beam of sunshine, a reminder that God is there and he does love us and he wants us to be happy.
And that came last night, I think, in the form of Justin Trudeau in blackface.
A lot of people are wondering, you know, who leaked these photos of the Canadian Prime Minister and Blackface?
Where did that come from?
Is it really too much to speculate that maybe there was some divine intervention here?
Am I overstating it if I say that maybe God has sent these photos to us as a way of saying, listen guys, things are getting pretty serious down there.
Here, have a laugh.
Is that too much?
I don't know.
Because I will say, this whole story makes me very happy.
I enjoy, I love everything about this story.
It is absolutely hilarious.
You know, because the wokest white boy this side of the Atlantic has a long and sordid history of blackface.
Everything about that is amazing and hilarious.
Well, not really amazing, actually kind of expected, but certainly hilarious.
And so we're going to talk about that, and we're going to talk about all the implications, spiritual and otherwise, of this story.
I can't wait to get into it.
But first, a word from Proactiv.
Let me ask you this, parents.
Isn't it important for your kids to be confident as they go back to school?
You remember what school was like.
You remember how the other kids can be.
And going in there not confident in yourself is very difficult.
And that's why it's important, you know, to provide that gift to our kids of confidence.
And having acne as a teen is one of those struggles that can be a major cause of anxiety.
It can be a real confidence killer, especially as they go back to school.
Well, with America's number one acne brand, Proactiv, Now, we can really help to fight acne, as they've been
doing for the last 25 years.
Now, with their Next Generation Acne Treatment System Proactive MD, you can have your kids
going back to school feeling their best.
The thing I love about Proactive's Next Generation Acne Treatment is that it's a very simple,
quick, easy process, and it actually works.
Okay?
So you've got the deep cleansing face wash, you've got the daily oil control with SPF
30, and the Adipoline gel, and there you go.
And that's how you get the skin clear.
Right now, for our listeners, we have a back-to-school offer from Proactive.
You can't get anywhere else with your Proactive MD order you'll receive for free.
Proactiv's On-The-Go Bag, which features their T-Zone Oil Absorber, Body Acne Wipes, and Green Tea Moisturizer, close to $100 value.
And you get all of that, plus free shipping, with a 60-day money-back guarantee.
The only place to get free shipping is through this offer.
So, don't wait.
Go to proactiv.com slash Walsh for this special offer.
It's the only place you can get the free shipping.
Once again, proactiv.com slash Walsh.
All right, so let's get to this great story.
Justin Trudeau, an insufferable, faux-enlightened, faux-liberal, faux-progressive hack who loves nothing more than to flaunt his moral superiority over all of us, all of us mere mortals, has apparently a very nasty habit of dressing in blackface.
Or, as the Daily Beast has put it in one of their headlines, face-darkening makeup.
Because they're not going to come out and say, if it's a liberal, they're not going to say blackface.
Face-darkening makeup is what they're saying.
Well, there's several incidents, at least now, that we know of, of Justin Trudeau in blackface.
Here he is in 2001, dressed as Aladdin for an Arabian Nights-themed party.
Take a look at this picture.
Yeah, that's Aladdin.
He could have dressed like the genie.
He could have done blue face, and I don't think anyone would be upset.
But he went full Aladdin.
And look, you never go full Aladdin.
I love Aladdin too, don't get me wrong.
Great movie.
And honestly, the remake, and I will say this for Trudeau, the Trudeau remake of Aladdin is at least better than Will Smith's remake of Aladdin.
But still, I go with the original, the 90s version.
But if I'm going to dress up as a character from Aladdin, which I have done myself many times, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to dress like the magic carpet.
And I'll tell you why.
Because there's nothing Woker than a white man dressing like a rug to be literally stepped on.
Now that is woke.
That is showing that as a white man, you know your place, which is on the floor, splayed out with people stepping on you.
The idea of dressing like Aladdin, like an Arab man, well, I would never dream of it, but then again, I'm not racist like Trudeau apparently is.
Now, here he is.
It doesn't end there.
Here he is dressing up again in blackface, this time in high school, to perform the Jamaican song, Deo.
You know, that song.
I'm not going to get into it.
I won't sing it.
Don't worry.
But, uh, he, you know, rather than just sing.
So we have culture.
Here we have cultural appropriation, first of all.
Singing this song, originally a Jamaican song.
So we got cultural appropriation with the song.
We've got blackface.
He has taken that lovely song, that upbeat, fun song, and turned it essentially into a Klan ritual.
Shocking.
Utterly shocking.
I am traumatized by all of this.
And it doesn't end there, because Trudeau is apparently addicted to blackface.
This guy can't get enough of it.
I've never seen anything like this.
He can't stop, it's a compulsion.
Here's a third instance, a very grainy video obtained by Global News.
This is allegedly, apparently, Trudeau in what appears to be blackface.
Not sure the context there, but it doesn't matter.
If there's one thing I've learned from the left, it's that context doesn't matter.
You did it, you said it, whatever, that's it.
So, as this controversy is swirling, Trudeau faced the media last night to explain himself, and here's what he had to say.
In 2001, when I was a teacher out in Vancouver, I attended an end-of-year gala where the theme was Arabian Nights.
And I dressed up in an Aladdin costume and put makeup on.
I shouldn't have done that.
I should have known better, but I didn't.
And I'm really sorry.
I think there are people who've made mistakes in this life, and you make decisions based on what they actually do, what they did, and on a case-by-case basis, I think.
deeply regret that we that I did that I should have known better but I didn't.
Is that the only time you've done something like this Mr.
Trudeau? Is that the only time in your life you've ever done something like that? When I
was in high school I dressed up at a talent show and sang Gail with makeup on.
That's not even the best part. It gets better.
It gets much better.
Because he was asked also if there are other incidents of him being racist.
And here's what he had to say to that question.
Mr. Trudeau, you've mentioned the incident in high school, and we've just found out about the photo tonight.
Do you want to tell Canadians about any other instances where you were concerned that you were racist, or that you had walk-throughs around?
I think it's been plenty.
The fact of the matter is that I've always, and you'll know this, been more enthusiastic about costumes than is sometimes appropriate.
These are the situations that I regret deeply.
Is it the only two or are there more?
These are the situations I regret deeply.
I just... I love that answer so much.
That is great.
That is one of the funniest lines I've ever heard from a politician.
Unintentionally funny, of course, but that is an all-time great line.
I don't think you guys understand how great that line is.
I'd just like to see people try that in other contexts.
Like, imagine a cop pulls somebody over and they find meth in the car.
And then the officer asks, are we going to find more drugs if we search your car?
Well, officer, the fact of the matter is that I've always, and you'll know this, been more enthusiastic about chemistry than is sometimes appropriate.
I don't know what's better.
I think the, and you'll know this part of it, just really, I mean, that's just bon appetit.
That's good stuff.
That is right.
Adding that part in just made it all the better.
But even better, maybe than that, was his refrain of, what was it at the end?
These are the situations I regret deeply.
That was his refrain.
Are there any more blackface photos out there?
These are the situations I regret deeply.
Yes, but are there any more?
These are the situations I... Yes, but these are the situations I regret deeply.
Now, um... Okay, let's... Let's, um... Let's talk about this situation on... Yeah, it's hilarious.
It's great.
But...
Let's talk about it on an objective level for a minute, all right?
Objectively, is it automatically racist for a white person to darken their skin, to use face-darkening makeup, quote-unquote, for the sake of a costume party or Halloween or whatever, talent show, whatever?
Is it automatically racist for a white person to be enthusiastic about costumes, as Trudeau puts it?
Well, no.
Of course not.
Um, do I actually think that Justin Trudeau's a racist?
No, I don't.
Uh, I think he's a lot of things, many of them bad, including utterly incompetent as a leader, but no, I don't really think he's racist, no.
Uh, the blackface used at minstrel shows, um, you know, when you say blackface, that's Originally, that's what it meant.
It was that sort of thing.
Now, that kind of blackface was specifically meant to mock black people.
It was meant to be a racially insulting thing, mocking black people, dehumanizing, making a caricature out of them, and it was obviously meant to be offensive.
And so, it was offensive, it was obviously racist.
You know, a white person dressing up as a character or a famous figure of a different race and darkening their skin complexion in the process, you know, no, that's not really racist.
Stupid, maybe, especially these days.
Insensitive, I guess, maybe, but not racist.
And not even insensitive, really.
I mean, it's meant to be, oftentimes in these contexts, it's meant to be a tribute.
And again, it does depend on the context.
So, Ralph Northam with the KKK and the Black... Now that, again, clearly that's extremely racist.
But I would argue that that is a little different from even the Trudeau thing where he's wearing the black face to be Aladdin.
Again, stupid, hypocritical, that's the main thing.
We're gonna get back to that, okay?
The main thing, hypocritical.
It's a lot of things, a lot of ways you could describe it.
Not a smart move.
Racist?
No, I don't really think it's racist.
In fact, wait a second.
I seem to remember Somebody making this exact argument not too long ago.
Yeah, well, let's go back and listen to this from about a year ago.
Listen.
There was a controversy on The Real Housewives of New York with Luann, and she dresses Diana Ross.
And she made her skin look darker than it really is, and people said that that was racist.
And I don't know, I felt like, who doesn't love Diana Ross?
She wants to look like Diana Ross for one day.
I don't know how, like, that got racist on Halloween.
Remember, Megyn Kelly got fired for that.
What you just saw, she got fired for saying that.
She made that argument, and a huge outrage ensued.
Huge, massive outrage.
A much bigger outrage than what is happening right now to Trudeau or what happened to Northam.
Okay, so Megan Kelly simply talked about blackface.
She offered a defense of it in certain contexts, making a totally logical argument, saying, look, if it's meant to be attributed, it's not racist.
She wasn't saying, I've done it myself or I would do it, but no, I don't think it's racist.
She was fired for that!
Remember?
That was like a two-week news cycle of people upset about that.
And yet Trudeau actually wears the makeup himself.
Northam actually wore the makeup.
Northam still has a job.
Trudeau probably, for right now anyway, will still have his job.
I don't think he's going to step down or resign or anything.
So here's my thing.
And it goes back to what we talked about yesterday.
Objectively, I think that this is not, or shouldn't be, much of a scandal.
Objectively speaking.
Because personally, I don't give a crap what costume you wore 20 years ago.
I don't care what costume you wore last week.
I just don't really care.
Okay?
And, you know, as someone of Irish descent, if somebody, if there was a costume of someone dressing up like a drunken Irish leprechaun or something, it wouldn't bother me at all in the slightest.
I don't care.
You go back years and years ago, who cares?
What does it matter?
But at the same time, on the other hand, and here's the rub, think about the argument that the left makes about Republicans Who, for example, get caught in affairs, like Mark Sanford.
Or Republicans like Larry Craig, who end up being closeted homosexuals soliciting gay sex in a bathroom, like Larry Craig did.
What do they say about that?
Well, they say it's not really a scandal.
This is from their perspective.
This is what they say.
Not really, you know, objectively, not really a scandal.
Not a big deal.
If someone's gay, you know, objectively, not a problem.
Even if someone has an affair, well, that's their business.
It's not anyone else's business who cares.
But, they'll say, these Republicans, their whole brand is family values, Christian values.
They're the ones who go around talking about that stuff all the time.
They're the ones who, from their perspective, throw it in your face, so on and so forth, etc, etc.
So it's a scandal for them because of the hypocrisy.
That's the argument.
And I think the same kind of thing applies in the other direction with this blackface stuff or any other example of racial insensitivity among liberals.
Their political brand, Justin Trudeau's political brand, is all about being progressive.
It's all about being racially enlightened, etc.
Their whole MO is to go around accusing everyone else of being racist for the slightest little thing.
So that's what makes it a scandal.
It's the extreme hypocrisy of it.
This is a hypocrisy scandal.
Just like, again, the liberals would say, an affair from a socially conservative Christian, or it turns out that he's gay or whatever, that is a hypocrisy scandal.
It's not even, it's not a sex scandal, it's a hypocrisy scandal.
Well, I would say the same, it's the same thing here.
It's not really a blackface scandal.
This is a hypocrisy scandal.
Again, personally, I don't give a damn what costume anyone wore 20 years ago.
But my lord, the audacity, the sheer audacity to go around screaming racist at everything that moves while you know you have this in your background, that's what gets me.
And that's why Trudeau deserves to be pilloried over this.
And that's why I think I could say, look, if you take someone who is not in the habit of calling everybody racist, And take some more reasoned approach on those sorts of things.
And then it turns out that they, 20 years ago, were wearing a blackface costume.
I would say in the case of that person, politics aside, no matter what political party they're affiliated with, who cares?
Okay, because there's no hypocrisy there.
If they're the ones out there saying, look, people do insensitive things sometimes, and let's not try.
If that's the argument they make, Then it seems perfectly fair to apply that argument to them and say, not much of a scandal.
But if you've got someone who is constantly trying to whip the outrage mob up against others and calling everything racist, well then I think you've got an issue of hypocrisy.
And maybe that's how we thread the needle.
We talked about this yesterday in regards to a different, it was a New York Times editor who Who in the past had sent racially insensitive tweets.
According to the left, they would normally call them racist tweets.
And this is someone, New York Times, liberal, this is someone who had been retweeting things in agreement with getting rid of the SNL guy because of the comments he made about Asians.
So she was participating in cancel culture, and it turns out that she's done similar things herself.
And so we talked about that yesterday, and the argument among conservatives now these days is, well, what do we do?
Because we usually argue that cancel culture is BS, and to try to dig up dirt on people, freak out about jokes or things they said a long time ago, to try to throw that against them, call everybody racist.
We're the ones normally arguing against that.
Do we put that to the side, though, when a liberal's in the crosshairs and say, you know what?
Fine.
Give them a taste of their own medicine.
Now, the argument I made yesterday is we have to have a consistent standard.
And so if we have an argument against cancel culture, and if we're the ones saying, you know, let's be reasonable.
Someone said something or did something offensive a long time ago.
It doesn't mean we need to destroy their life now.
If that's our argument, we can't all of a sudden put that to the side when it concerns a liberal.
But maybe this is how we thread the needle, where we simply say, you know, with these kinds of things, it's an issue of hypocrisy.
And we still have the same standard.
No, we don't think that this is a big deal, but you do.
On the left, the left is the one, they're the ones who say this is a big deal.
And so you should have to live up to your own standards.
So I think that's what we would say to Justin Trudeau.
These are your standards.
By your standards, that stuff is extremely racist and unforgivable.
That's by your standards, as a far-left wacko.
So you should live up to your own standards, not ours, yours.
The right thing for you to do by your own standards would be to resign in disgrace.
And live the rest of your life in, you know, begging for repentance because that's what you would expect of a conservative.
I think everybody has to live by the standards that they set for other people.
And I don't think it's a double standard for us to simply point that out.
What would be a double standard, though, is if we pretended all of a sudden that we actually thought this was a big deal ourselves and that it's automatically racist and all that.
All jokes aside, I know I said it at the beginning, but all jokes aside, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying live by your own standards.
Live by your own rules.
It's called having integrity.
All right, so there's Justin Trudeau.
Let's move on to something else here.
The media this week is trumpeting a study that makes a rather shocking claim.
And I want to talk about this.
The claim is, maybe you've seen this study floating around or articles about it.
The claim is that one in every 16 women say that their first sexual experience was rape.
One in every 16 women between the ages of 18 and 44.
Um, uh, say that the first time, you know, they had a sexual experience, it was right.
Now that is, that's, that is a shocking number.
That is extremely high.
NPR, uh, wrote, did a write-up on this and they say that this is just the quote, the tip of the iceberg.
That in fact, the one in 16 figure, which is over 6% of all women between the ages of 18 and 44, that could even be an underestimate, we're assured.
Now, news reports of this study have, of course, tried to tie these revelations to the Me Too movement and were meant to come away with the impression that America's chock full of rapists and millions upon millions of women have fallen victim to the millions upon millions of predators who are hiding around every corner.
That's the impression we're supposed to take away.
But you take a closer look at the data, and every time you see these kinds of really shocking, seemingly incredible statistics, especially around issues like sexual assault and rape and everything, you gotta take a closer look.
Because, you know, there's no reason to artificially inflate rape statistics.
Rape is horrible enough as it is already.
It's far too common enough as it is already.
However, whatever the numbers are, however common it is, whatever the real percentage is, it's too high.
We can all agree with that.
So there's no reason.
It's the same thing that the left does with mass shootings.
I would be the first to say, I think everyone would agree, that mass shootings are too common.
They happen way too often.
Even one is too much.
It's a terrible tragedy.
You don't need to go and try to inflate it and say there are 200 mass shootings a year or something like that.
There's not 200.
There's maybe, I don't know, there's these days it seems like there's five, six, seven a year, which is way too many.
Maybe more than that, but still, they feel the need to go and inflate the statistics,
and that's what they do with rape and sexual assault.
Now, here's the key portion of the NPR report I'm going to read it to you.
It says, about 6.5% of women, an estimated 3.3 million nationwide, said that their first sexual experience was rape.
The average age of most victims was about 15 when they were assaulted.
The average age of their partner or the assailant was 27.
Hawks notes.
Hawks is the primary author of this study that's being quoted.
This suggests a major power discrepancy and possibly a difference in physical size as well.
She says more than 26% said they were physically threatened during the encounter.
46% said they were physically held down.
Over half, 56% of them, said they were verbally pressured into having sex.
And 16% said that their partner threatened to end the relationship if they didn't have sex.
These forms of coercion were not mutually exclusive.
The definition of rape is—this is Hawks now again—she says the definition of rape is any sexual encounter that's unwanted or non-consensual.
And when a woman or girl is coerced into having sex that she doesn't want to have, that is still considered a rape.
Now there's quite a lot going on in these few paragraphs.
I want to break them down a little bit.
First of all, NPR misquotes the study's findings.
I went and read the study for myself.
They say the average age of most quote-unquote victims was actually, they say it was 15 and the assailant was 27.
Well actually the study says the average age of most victims was 15 and a half, 15.6.
And the average age of the assailant, quote-unquote, was six years older.
So that would make the average age 21, not 27.
It's a significant difference.
More to the point, verbal pressure has been lumped together with physical force.
Dr. Hawks says any sexual encounter that's unwanted or non-consensual is rape.
Now, the or in the phrase unwanted or non-consensual makes it clear that the sexual act could be in every sense consensual, meaning both partners actively, affirmatively agree to participate in it, and yet it may still count as rape.
That's what we're being told.
This is obviously madness, and it's not just this study.
This is what's happening now.
It's what's happening on college campuses.
It's what's happening, you know, this is what we hear from feminists.
That rape is not just non-consensual sex, it's also unwanted sex.
And what they hope you do is you allow them to conflate the two, and you go away saying, oh yeah, sure, unwanted, non-consensual, same thing.
No, it's not.
Unwanted and non-consensual are two completely different things.
Now, it's true that if something is non-consensual, it's probably unwanted.
But just because it's unwanted doesn't mean it's non-consensual.
Now, traditionally, I guess we have to say traditionally now, rape is something that hinges entirely on consent.
The Department of Justice defines rape this way.
This is what the Department of Justice says.
The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
I don't mean to get graphic there, but I think it's important to establish that this is what the federal government considers rape to be.
And I would agree.
That's rape.
And it is important that we keep these distinctions in mind.
Now, of course, we understand that verbal consent is not always legitimate consent.
So just because there is a verbal agreement, yes, I will do this, that doesn't mean that it's really consent.
Because somebody could be incapable of offering full consent.
That's what statutory rape is all about.
A minor, a child, is not capable of consenting, no matter what they say, not capable of offering full consent because they lack the psychological and emotional faculties to make that sort of decision.
And for a similar reason, you can't get consent from a woman by drugging them, by slipping a roofie or whatever.
That is non-consensual.
Because you have drugged them, you have removed their ability to knowingly and with full understanding consent to do whatever it is.
That's one of the reasons why unwanted cannot enter into the definition of rape.
Because rapists themselves could try to use this, and sometimes do try to use it, as an excuse, as a defense, by arguing that the victim really wanted it.
And we say, no way.
Because the only question we need to ask is this.
Did you have sex with somebody who did not or could not consent?
If so, you're a rapist.
If not, you're not.
Now, that doesn't mean... So, here's the problem.
The issue.
There are many different sort of categories of sex.
The problem in our culture now is that what we want to say is the only kind of immoral sexual activity is non-consensual.
Everything else is moral.
We only allow for two moral categories of sex.
Non-consensual equals immoral.
Consensual equals moral.
Now, we can all agree that non-consensual does equal immoral.
All non-consensual sex is obviously immoral.
But, what I would argue is that there are forms of consensual sex that are also immoral.
And, But we've removed that, and so we don't have the language anymore to condemn some forms of immoral sex.
We don't have the language for it, so instead we try to find a way to say, oh, no, that's actually not consensual, or that actually is rape.
So, for example, they use the example of a man who pressures a woman to have sex by threatening to end the relationship.
Now that's wrong.
That's immoral.
A guy that does that, at a minimum, is a jerk.
He's not a rapist, though.
Because the woman, if she is a mentally competent adult, she can make her own choice.
She's not being forced to do anything.
If she's being forced, either physically or through a physical threat of some kind, then that is rape.
She's not consenting.
She doesn't really have a choice.
But if the man is just trying to emotionally, you know, and there's no force or anything, she can choose to do it or not.
And if she chooses to do it, she could terminate the act at any time.
She could walk out of there at any time, and she should walk out.
Her situation, however unpleasant it may be, cannot be compared to a woman who is physically held down against her will and violated.
Those are two different things.
But what I would say about that second woman, who has a choice but is being pressured, no, she's not being raped.
It is immoral, though.
Because the man is not respecting her, and this is selfish on his part.
So there are a lot of things, ways we could describe it and say it's immoral, but again, the problem is in our culture, we don't have the language anymore to call consensual forms of sex immoral.
Because we say as long as it's two consenting adults, it's all moral, it's all fine, go for it.
And then when we come across these kinds of consensual sexual activities that are clearly still immoral, since we don't have the language, we say, oh, okay, there must be some way in which it's actually not consensual, even though it is.
And this new definition of rape, though, it doesn't just make everyday jerks and bad boyfriends into rapists.
It would turn any man who has ever used any form of persuasion—flattery, sweet talk, whatever—into a sex criminal.
I mean, arguably, any man who's ever hit on a woman is now a rapist, because that's a form of sort of persuading her.
In all of those cases, it could be argued that the woman didn't really want to, wasn't really into it, and thus was raped.
Any wife that has ever had begrudging or unenthusiastic sex with her husband, not because she was forced, but just because she doesn't want to, he wants to, so she does it.
According to Dr. Hawks and this study and much of the media, she's now a sexual assault survivor.
She has been raped by her husband.
Now, I think Dr. Hawks is right that by this definition, the actual percentage of quote-unquote rape victims is way, way, way higher than 6%.
And that's sort of the point.
Because what they're really telling us is, no, 6% of rape, no, the actual percentage is 95 or something.
They are turning pretty much every woman Who has been in a sexual relationship into a rape victim.
Now, to make matters worse, the standard is inconsistently applied.
Because if a man who convinces a woman to have sex is a rapist, what about a woman who seduces a man?
That does happen.
That's a thing.
And in fact, I think feminists would not deny that, right?
Women are empowered, independent, and they have their own sexual power, and so sometimes they want to have sex with a man.
It's not just always the man initiating it, right?
Isn't that what feminists would agree with?
So what about a woman who takes charge of the situation, she finds a man that she desires, and does her own form of convincing?
Is she not now a rapist?
What about men who weren't as into it as the woman?
That does happen.
What about a man who wakes up the next day and regrets it?
That happens too.
Despite what we're told.
This is not just a phenomenon that women experience.
So should they all be rape victims?
.
What about strippers who are coaxing money out of men's pockets now?
Are they rapists?
Prostitutes strutting on the street corner?
Rapists?
I mean, isn't any woman who uses emotional pressure of any kind to extract any concession or compromise out of a man now essentially guilty of assault?
Now, it's true that men can be manipulative in getting what they want out of a relationship.
It's also true that what a man wants out of a relationship, oftentimes, is sex, okay?
That's a reality of men.
But women, to put it mildly here, okay, women have been known to employ their own forms of manipulation, particularly emotional manipulation, to achieve their own ends in relationships.
That is definitely a thing that happens.
So if the man is a rapist, then so is she.
Coercion, pressure, manipulation is far from a one-way street, as anyone familiar with male-female relationships knows.
Now, and this is all to say nothing of pressure and coercion in other contexts.
By this standard, isn't any effective salesman who convinces somebody to buy something they don't really want, isn't he now a thief?
What about a homeless person who guilt trips people out of their pocket change?
Is he now guilty of robbery?
Isn't persuasion of all kinds, in all contexts, problematic at best and violent assault at worst?
See, this is what happens when coherent definitions are broadened into these ambiguous, incoherent, all-encompassing
concepts.
So rape went from the definition that the Department of Defense provides, or the Department
of Justice, a very specific, very clear thing. We all know what it is. It went from that to this
broad sort of concept that just stretches and covers almost all forms of sexual activity after
a while.
And what happens when you do that?
After a while, everyone is a rapist.
Everyone's a rape victim.
The word no longer means anything.
And there are many problems that come from that.
One of them is, and this is not a small problem, is that the real victims, the real rape victims, Of which there are many, are left high and dry.
Because they have been lumped in with all of this stuff, and they get lost in the shuffle.
And they're being told that their experience of being physically forced, of being physically by force violated, that awful, traumatic, unimaginable All right, let's move on.
One other thing to mention before we get to emails.
to a woman who has begrudging sex with her husband.
That is not fair to the real victims.
That is horrendously unfair.
All right, let's move on.
One other thing to mention before we get to emails.
So NBC now, if you go to their website, you'll have an opportunity to confess your sins,
to repent, to repent and be saved.
NBC has a place for you to go and to anonymously confess your climate sins.
I'm not making this up.
This is real.
Remember yesterday, we talked about that seminary, the Union Theological Seminary in New York, where people were confessing their sins to plants.
Sitting there, literally talking to plants, confessing their sins.
Well, here they are.
Now you have an opportunity to confess to a website.
About what you've done to plants.
So if it's too awkward for you to confess to plants about what you've done to plants, then you can always go to the website and anonymously confess it.
Here's a screenshot of the page.
It says, climate confessions, even those who care deeply about the planet's future can slip up now and then.
Tell us, where do you fall short in preventing climate change?
Do you blast the AC?
Throw out half your lunch?
Grill a steak every week?
Share your anonymous confession with NBC News.
Now, I'll show you this.
It's difficult for me to talk about, but I did offer my own confession.
I wrote my own confession.
I said, you know, I slaughtered a whole family of polar bears and then left my fridge open, so the meat went bad, so I dumped it in the river.
I'm sorry.
And look, I know everyone's done that before.
It's one of those things.
We've all been there.
Common mistake.
One of those sort of everyday slip-ups where you say, oh man, I'm such a bonehead.
But honestly, I feel bad about it.
And it felt good.
I've been carrying this moral burden of a sin on my shoulders for so long.
It felt good to get it off my shoulder.
And I would encourage everyone.
Really, to go to NBC News and offer your own similar sorts of confessions.
Just get it off your chest.
It feels so much better to be relieved of that burden.
All right, we'll go to emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Josiah.
Says, greeting supremely bearded glorious one.
Whilst I greatly enjoy your show, I must run the risk of Bringing on your wrath to speak my truth, the ending to your show is very peevish and doesn't make sense.
Every show you say, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, the Michael Knowles show, and the Andrew Klavan show.
It makes absolutely no sense to say including when you name all the shows.
It would be like Anderson Cooper telling you to check out the other Democrat candidates, including, and then proceeds to name every single one.
I beg you to drop the including from all future shows, and the future and the world will just be a little bit better of a place.
We all need to do our part.
Okay.
Is there any more criticizing you want to do, Josiah?
Any more bullying?
You want to come and just slap me in the face?
Is there any more abuse you want to heap on me?
Because that's what I'm here for, apparently.
No, actually, I think including, you can say including and then list all of the things.
For example, if I were to go to McDonald's and say, what's included in the number one value meal?
And I'm asking them, what are all of the things in the value meal?
And so they're gonna say Big Mac, fries, and a soda.
If I said, what's included in the number one value meal?
And they said, ah, Big Mac and some other stuff.
I would say no.
I said, what's included in it?
Name me all the stuff!
So Josiah, not only are you a bully, but you're wrong.
From Simon says Arby's Arby's tastes better than Chick-fil-a.
How can I ever believe a thing that comes out of your mouth again?
I got so many emails because I said that Arby's is better than Chick-fil-a I gave my argument which is bulletproof now all these people who have who have sent me emails Again bullying me because because of what I said about Arby's none of them have even tried to present an argument Give me facts Simon Give me facts and logic.
Evidence.
Do your research.
Don't just sit there and say, oh no, Chick-fil-A is better than Arby's.
Why is it better?
Oh, because you feel like it is?
You like it more?
Not good enough.
I gave you my reasons.
I said very clearly that a chicken sandwich is good.
But the ceiling on a chicken sandwich is lower than the ceiling on a burger or a roast beef.
Beef is a better meat than chicken.
It is a superior meat to chicken.
Chicken can be pretty good.
Chicken cannot be great.
You see what I'm saying?
Beef can be great.
So that's why.
Yes, the restaurants that serve beef dishes, beef sandwiches, they have an advantage because they simply chose the better meat.
A good roast beef sandwich, you take a good roast beef sandwich and a good chicken sandwich, which one is better?
The roast beef, because beef is better.
Do you understand now?
Are you really gonna sit there and tell me?
If I go to Arby's and I get a roast beef sandwich with barbecue sauce, And an onion ring on it.
And I get the curly fries.
Okay, and I get a large soda.
Enough to give me a heart attack right there on the spot.
You're gonna tell me that that's not better than a chicken sandwich?
My God.
You people.
Finally, from John, says, Matt, with Eli Manning getting benched, what are your thoughts on whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame?
Yeah, I've been arguing about this online.
This is how I spend my time.
Very good use of time.
Eli Manning, quarterback of the New York Giants, former quarterback now, he's been benched.
And so now there's a conversation.
What is he, 38 years old?
Does he belong in the Hall of Fame?
I think, first of all, if he did not have the last name Manning, I don't think we'd even be talking about it.
I think, no, he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.
So there are two different questions.
Does he belong in the Hall of Fame?
And will he get into the Hall of Fame?
Now, those are two different questions, two different answers.
Will he get into the Hall of Fame?
Yes, he'll get into the Hall of Fame because he has the last name Manning.
And because the Hall of Fame is sort of bogus now, it's become more of the Hall of Pretty Good.
So any player who plays for a long time and is pretty good gets it into the Hall of Fame.
And so the Hall of Fame is almost meaningless now.
What the Hall of Fame is supposed to be, is a place to commemorate and remember and honor the all-time great talents.
Generational, transformative talents.
Those are the people who are supposed to make it into the Hall of Fame.
Eli Manning is not that.
Look at Eli Manning's stats.
His stats are pedestrian at best.
Whether you're looking at his QBR, you're looking at Career completion percentage, career, you know, yards, TD versus INT ratio.
He's got, he's got what, like 240 some interceptions.
His win-loss percentage is exactly 500.
The only thing he's got going, he's got Manning, and he's got two Super Bowl rings.
But Super Bowl ring, look, a Super Bowl ring, Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring.
Joe Flacco has a Super Bowl ring.
Quarterbacks don't win Super Bowls by themselves.
They've got a defense.
They've got a whole other offense.
They've got an offense around them.
So, Eli Manning, yeah, he won a couple Super Bowls.
Good for him.
He didn't do it by himself.
Not even close to that.
He didn't even do it primarily by himself.
To beat Tom Brady in the Super Bowl, the first thing that needs to happen is the defense needs to slow down Tom Brady.
If they've done that, that's already more than half of the job done, without the quarterback even throwing a single pass.
So I don't think on the strength of that he should make it to the Hall of Fame.
I think you have to look at him individually.
How good was he?
What did he achieve?
You have to look at his individual stats, and they are pedestrian.
They're not very good.
So, Eli Manning has, for most of his career, been pretty decent.
He's flashed moments of greatness.
And then for the last few years, he's been really, really bad.
And I just think that trajectory does not justify the Hall of Fame.
If it did again, Joe Flacco should be in the Hall of Fame.
Joe Flacco has been, you know, for much of his career, he's been okay.
He had a brilliant Super Bowl run in 2012.
Maybe the best postseason run, statistically, of any quarterback ever.
He was brilliant.
He was great.
That's how he got paid $120 million at the end of that season.
And recently, he's been bad.
So it's a similar kind of trajectory.
If Eli Manning makes it in, Joe Flacco makes it in.
Just let everybody in.
Open the doors and let everybody in the Hall of Fame.
Let me in.
Maybe I should be in the Hall of Fame.
Alright.
That's it for that.
We'll leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thank you for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe and if you want to help spread
the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show,
Michael Noll Show, and the Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, Associate Producer Alexia Garcia del Rio,
Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, our Supervising Producer
is Mathis Glover, and our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Donovan Fowler, audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
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.
