All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 22, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
41:43
Ep. 377 - Myles Garrett Pulls A Smollett?

The Browns player who assaulted Mason Rudolph with his own helmet has now come up with a predictable excuse. He claims Rudolph used a racial slur. But is this claim believable? Also, yet another left wing mob engages in intimidation, harassment, assault, and other crimes. And yet again they are not arrested. Does the law apply to leftist mobs? Date: 11-22-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So do you remember that fight in the Browns-Steelers game?
Miles Garrett versus Mason Rudolph.
Garrett tears Rudolph's helmet off and smacks him with it.
Well, let's relive the moment just really briefly so we can talk about it.
it. Watch this.
Well, he tackled Rudolph.
Rudolph didn't like the way that he was tackled.
Oh, gosh!
Oh, man.
Oh!
Oh my goodness.
Yes, memories.
The memories.
Well, Garrett got suspended indefinitely, at least for the year, if not longer.
And that was a week ago that it happened.
The week goes by, and the most frustrating thing about what happens next is that it's just so utterly predictable.
You knew it was happening.
You knew it was going to happen.
We all saw it coming.
So Garrett now, Miles Garrett, the aggressor in the situation, the guy that tore the helmet off and hit somebody else with it.
He now, in an effort to excuse his actions and to deflect blame and to get his suspension overturned, or at least minimized, he now says that Mason Rudolph used a racial slur towards him.
Of course, right?
That's just—of course.
Nobody mentioned anything about a racial slur before, but now the claim comes out that, oh, by the way, a week later, but yeah, he said racial slur, just so you know.
First of all, I think that as people have been talking about this, whether or not it's true or whatever, this hasn't been stipulated enough.
But even if it was true, okay, even if Mason Rudolph really did call Miles Garrett a racial slur, that would not in any way justify ripping his helmet off and beating him in the head with it.
I would hope we could all agree with that, but apparently we can't.
Because people are talking about this issue as if the only thing that matters is whether or not it's true that Mason Rudolph said that.
When really, even if he said it, that doesn't do much to negate the fact that Miles Garrett ripped a guy's head off and hit him in the head with it, and could have caused brain damage or worse.
Um, so it's kind of like that.
Maybe you saw that video of, uh, it was viral a few weeks ago of a woman, older woman getting body slammed in the parking lot of a Popeye's by a Popeye's employee.
And the claim that I saw online is that the woman used a racial slur towards that guy.
There was a guy body slamming her.
I have no idea if that's true or not.
I never looked into that story.
It doesn't really matter.
My point is, People were sharing the video, number one, assuming that she used the racial slur, and then number two, assuming that it therefore justifies an old woman being body slammed on the pavement.
Even if she, it's bad if she uses a racial slur, that doesn't mean you can body slam her and potentially kill her.
I mean, just, can't we agree with that?
That there is no, there is no, no word or insult or anything that could be said that would justify physical assault, especially to the point of potentially killing somebody.
We'd hope we could agree with that, but apparently we can't.
Second thing though, there is no evidence that Rudolph said any such thing.
The NFL looked into it, they found no evidence.
Miles Garrett's own teammates said they never heard it or heard about it until just now.
Rudolph's teammates never heard it or heard about it.
So, there's a bunch of people around there You know, while this play is going on, and you've got 22 guys on the field, none of them heard it, and it's not just that they didn't hear the slur, it's that Garrett's own teammates, when they pulled Garrett off, brought him to the sideline, later in the locker room, he apparently never mentioned this to anybody.
He never said, hey, that guy called me XYZ.
You'd think that would have been one of the first things he said, especially when they're in the middle of fighting and he's enraged and you pull him off the guy.
He's saying things.
Wouldn't he be saying something like, he called me this?
In fact, Garrett himself was interviewed by the media immediately after it happened, and he didn't say anything about this.
He's talking to cameras, news cameras.
This was after the fact.
Perfect opportunity for him to do some damage control and say, well, this is what he said to me.
Didn't say that.
So nobody heard it.
Nobody heard Garrett mention it.
Garrett himself didn't mention it.
And all the cameras and mics all over the field apparently didn't pick it up.
Plus, there's been no indication that I'm aware of that Rudolph has a history of using that word.
Rudolph's been playing football for years, has a lot of black teammates.
He's been presumably tackled by black players many times throughout his football life, we can assume.
And as far as we know, he's never used a racial slur before, so why would he all of a sudden start using it now?
All of these factors just make it impossible to believe, or at least very hard to believe.
So it seems like we've got a Jussie Smollett in cleats here situation.
I'll tell you this, if Garrett lied about this, and slandered the man, right after trying to cause brain damage, so first he rips his helmet off and beats him with it, and then later, a week later, lies about it, tries to permanently damage his reputation, then he needs to be sued, not just for physical assault, but also for slander, and he also needs to be suspended from the league for another year.
So tack another year on to however long this suspension was supposed to be.
Because that's actually worse than the original physical assault.
When you think about the long-term damage to someone's career reputation, you could do by making something like that up.
All right, before we go on, a quick word from Honey.
You know, giving holiday gifts is great.
Overspending on all those gifts is definitely not so great.
And that's the hard part about the holidays, is all the money that you're spending.
So why spend more than you have to?
Find the lowest price you possibly can.
And that's very easy if you have Honey.
Honey is a free browser extension that automatically finds the best promo codes whenever you shop online.
Listen, I'm not usually one to get my holiday shopping done early.
You know, I'm usually waiting until Christmas Eve, that kind of guy.
But it's a lot easier with Honey, and I can save a lot of money, so it takes the anxiety out of it, so it's easier for me to do it early.
So I've used it, and I've basically done my holiday shopping.
I saved a ton of money, and now I can cruise to the holidays carefree.
Shopping for the holidays without honey, I think is just, well, it's reckless.
Why would you do it?
Honey's found over, it's over 10 million members, over a billion dollars in savings.
Honey supports over 20,000 stores online and has over 100,000 five-star reviews on the Google Chrome store.
So you know that people like it.
If you're buying holiday gifts this season, then you need honey.
If you're not, You probably know someone who is buying gifts, and so you can at least tell them about Honey.
Honey can help make sure that you're getting the best price for whatever you're buying.
It's free to use, and it installs in just two clicks.
So it's very easy.
Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Walsh.
That's joinhoney.com slash Walsh.
Okay, very briefly, Tesla unveiled this new thing called the Cybertruck.
This is their new truck.
And the Cybertruck is supposed to have, along with various other features, it's supposed to have unbreakable armored glass for some reason.
But they tested the armored glass at the unveiling and it didn't go so well.
Watch this.
Yeah.
Sure?
Yeah.
Oh my f***ing God.
Okay, but really the bigger issue here is that this is the ugliest damn truck I've ever
seen in my life.
It looks like...
What my three-year-old would come up with.
If you asked him to draw a truck, that's, that's what he would draw.
It looks like an early prototype of, of the, of the Batmobile in the dark night was a dark night.
The, was it the bat, the Tumblr Batmobile thing?
It looks like that.
And I don't mean that as a compliment and I'm really, you know, I'm watching this and seeing the cyber truck, because when you hear cyber truck, you're thinking of something futuristic, something really cool.
And then you see it.
And you're disappointed.
And I'm just disappointed in general, because it's the year 2019.
And guys like Elon Musk are supposed to be inventing hovercrafts and cars that shoot laser beams and stuff.
We're supposed to have time machines in our garages.
Time machines are supposed to be everyday items at this point in the year 2019.
And instead, this is what we get.
This is the vehicle of the future.
There's something that looks like it was pasted together from refrigerator boxes and then painted silver.
This is our future.
It really is disappointing.
I mean, if you had to... Back in the 70s and 80s, when they were thinking about the year 2020, they were thinking hoverboards, hovercrafts, flying vehicles everywhere, everyone has a robot slave in their home.
That's what they're thinking.
Aliens have long since visited.
We're cruising across the galaxy.
And nope, nothing.
It's just, it's just this.
Alright, Ann Coulter spoke at Berklee a few nights ago, and the students reacted exactly as you would think they would.
Mobs and protests and everything.
But here's one video of a young woman trying to walk to the talk.
She's trying to get to the speech where Ann Coulter is talking.
And she meets a mob.
And the mob steals her ticket, screams in her face, harasses her, and won't let her pass.
Watch.
Go home!
Every time I see these videos, it just becomes clear to me that the rule of law is apparently
dead.
The law doesn't matter.
These people are allowed to do this.
Every week we see this stuff.
Why is it every week we get another video of leftist rage mobs assaulting and harassing people, whether they're shutting down traffic or they're not letting people pass or whatever, vandalizing, and yet no police arrest them?
When's the last time you saw a video like this and then you saw the police show up and arrest a bunch of people and throw them in the paddy wagon?
When's the last time?
It never happens.
They're just allowed to do what they want.
There should be 50 people arrested at every one of these events.
The cops should be there in force, and the minute you see someone break the law, like for instance, stealing their ticket from them, that's theft, okay?
Haul them away!
Put them in jail!
They committed a crime!
Let's take control again.
Have some rule of law.
Apparently now, I didn't get the memo, but apparently if you get together with a big enough group of people, the law doesn't matter.
You can do whatever you want.
So if you want to get together, it doesn't even need to be that big of a group.
I mean, you get together with 10 people and just block the traffic in DC, and they'll just let you do it.
It's a couple weeks ago, right?
You got a handful of people sitting in the middle of the road, in traffic, in Washington, D.C.
And that's it.
You can just do it, I guess.
No one's gonna stop you.
It's crazy.
You could put a stop to this stuff.
Just do mass arrests.
Because the moment you see this, and they're harassing people, not letting them pass, this is not free speech.
This is not a protest.
Okay, this is a crime happening.
These people are part of a mob, not a protest.
And so just start arresting everybody.
And you could put a stop to this stuff pretty quickly.
Hey, by the way, if you haven't been listening to Andrew Klavan's fantasy podcast, Another Kingdom, then you gotta go to dailywire.com and subscribe right now to catch up because on Monday, November 25th at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 4 p.m.
Pacific, Andrew and Michael Knowles will be sitting down together to discuss the final season And also they're going to take subscriber questions live from the fans.
The live event will be free for everyone to watch on Facebook and YouTube, but only subscribers will be able to ask questions at dailywire.com.
Plus, subscribers exclusively can watch the entirety of the season, or you can listen free to the newest season on Apple Podcasts.
Go check it out.
Don't miss another Kingdom live discussion happening Monday at 7 p.m.
Eastern, 4 p.m.
Pacific.
I wanted to mention this, too.
We've been talking about the issue with the locker rooms at the school in Illinois, the school board voting to allow boys into the girls' locker room, thereby putting girls in danger, obliterating their privacy.
Well, the video I've played and talked about plenty, the video of the biological male celebrating the decision, gloating, and then the girl crying, expressing her worries about now the fact that she's not going to have privacy when she gets changed, Um, that video was shared by someone on Twitter, someone who's on the side of the boy, okay?
Someone who thinks that the boy has a right to the women's locker room.
And this person's tweet about the video, the only reason I'm mentioning it, the reason I noticed it, is their tweet about the video in support of the boy got over 100,000 likes.
100,000, okay?
Over 100,000 people saw this and agreed with him that, yeah, I'm on the boy's side.
And I just, here's what he says about the video, and specifically about the girl crying about losing her privacy rights.
He says, when we desegregated bathrooms, some white girls also held back tears because a black woman might see them naked too.
And that's it, that's his argument.
So, what we have here is someone, and again, over 100,000 people like this argument.
We have someone accusing a young girl of bigotry Because she doesn't want to be naked around boys.
Think about that.
Think about how creepy and perverse that is.
Think about what a creepy, weird person you have to be to see it like that.
To actually get angry at a young girl, a minor, a child, because she doesn't want to be naked around a boy.
So it's not even just that you support this, but you're actually mad at her for not wanting to be naked around a boy.
Think about that.
And the argument he makes, and this is a popular argument, This is an argument that the LGBT camp, they're always doing this, comparing themselves to the plight of segregated black Americans, or even going back to slavery times, and trying to draw these comparisons.
And it's so disrespectful and degrading.
And it's also idiotic.
Because the point here is that Black people have a right to the same accommodations as white people.
Okay?
That's the whole point with civil rights and desegregation.
But, so, yes, we all agree with that.
That doesn't mean that boys have a right to access the same locker rooms as girls.
You see, it's not hard to understand.
There's a distinction there.
So it is very possible to argue that black people have a right to the same accommodations as white people without also arguing that biological boys have a right to get naked in front of girls.
In fact, the two issues have nothing to do with one another at all.
They're not remotely similar.
Another way of putting it is you can disagree with racial segregation While still agreeing with other forms of segregation that have nothing to do with race whatsoever.
And so, segregating locker rooms and separating boys and girls, that's segregation, yes.
Got nothing to do with race.
This form of segregation over here?
Perfectly acceptable and good and the right thing to do.
By the way, I started going back and forth with this guy, started arguing with him, and finally he pulls out a study And you know how I love it when people try to win arguments by pulling out studies.
Oh yeah?
Well I've got a study that says this!
And I just want to say this, this is a great example of how people, and this is sort of a hobby horse of mine now, is combating the fallacious use of studies, which I think is an epidemic now online, that people, they just, to try to win an argument, they Google, they try to find a headline about a study that proves their point, Don't even read the study.
And then they just say, see, here's a study.
I win.
As if, as if, as if it proves anything.
As if it at all proves your point.
Because you were able to Google and cherry pick and find a headline about a study that seems to sort of support you.
It means nothing.
Okay?
So he sends me a screenshot.
A screenshot, not a link.
Okay?
That's a red flag.
Big red flag here.
Sends me a screenshot of a headline from NBC News.
And the headline is, Trans teens face higher sexual assault risk when schools restrict bathrooms, study finds.
More than one in four of transgender and non-binary students surveyed reported being sexually assaulted in the previous 12 months.
Okay.
Now, the obvious insinuation here, and the reason why this guy was I think it's a guy.
The reason why this person was presenting this to me is because the implication is that making a, quote, trans girl, that is a biological boy who identifies as a girl, making that individual use the boy's facilities with his other biological counterparts, that somehow puts him at risk for sexual assault.
And so what you're meant to take from this headline, what this guy on Twitter and also what NBC News wants you to take from the headline, is that apparently there's an epidemic of trans people, of quote trans girls, again biological, I'm only using this terminology just for the sake of argument to talk about this study.
There's a, there's a, what you, what they want us to take from this is that there's an epidemic of quote-unquote trans girls getting sexually assaulted in the boys' rooms, which is why we need to put them into the girls' rooms.
That's what we're meant to take from this.
One in four.
Wow.
Now, here's the thing.
Even if that were true, it still would not justify putting boys into the girls' room.
Because even if you could Prove that we have some real concern about the safety of these individuals in the boys' room.
That doesn't mean we sacrifice the safety and security of the girls.
It doesn't mean we just put them up on the altar for sacrifice.
No, that would be an argument for giving them a separate facility and saying, okay, now you can go use this other bathroom over here and you can have privacy, you can be by yourself.
In fact, the school that we're talking about in Illinois, that's what they were doing.
They were giving the trans students a separate privacy area.
No risk of sexual assault there, you're the only one in it, right?
So that would be an argument for that.
But that's not the argument that the left is making.
They're saying, no, no, no, don't give them their own private area, put them in with the girls.
So it's actually got nothing to do with sexual assault at all.
But, of course, you know, and this is what, when you see a headline like this, Your BS detector has to be going haywire.
You're thinking, what, one in four?
What?
You're telling me one in four of trans students in the boys' bathroom and locker room are getting sexually assaulted?
What?
That sounds crazy.
There's no way that's true.
And so then I went and googled it, clicked on it, and sure enough, it is crazy, it's not true.
It even says in the second paragraph of the article that this person linked, well they didn't link to, they just gave me the screenshot.
It says in the second paragraph, the study's author admits that there isn't necessarily any causal relationship between the bathroom policies and the sexual assault of trans students.
So they didn't establish any causal relationship at all.
And they're not actually talking about sexual assaults in bathrooms, What the study is saying is they're taking a look at sexual assault in general.
And they're using information compiled by, among others, the Human Rights Campaign, which is a far, far, far radical left organization.
So you've got all kinds of problems with the methodology, that this is far from objective research.
This is completely biased, and they are relying on information from organizations that have an obvious ideological stake in the matter.
But putting even that aside, which you can't really do, but we'll put it aside anyway, What they're saying is, they're looking, for instance, so for example, to get to this 1 in 4 statistic, you could have a transgender student who, for example, was abused at home, and they're lumping that in with the 1 in 4.
Okay, so they're taking abuse and assaults that happen far outside of any bathroom, and they're somehow trying to link it to the bathroom.
It's just completely arbitrary and absurd.
Obviously, if a trans student is abused at home, terrible thing.
It's got nothing to do with bathroom policies at school.
Clearly.
So what happened with this study?
Clearly what happened with the study is...
What the study's authors wanted to discover, what they were looking for, they wanted to find that these biological males who identify as females are somehow at risk in the male bathroom.
That's the result they were trying to find.
They didn't find it.
They didn't find what they were looking for.
So instead, in fact, what they found is there's no correlation at all.
There's no issue here.
These students are not at risk in the male bathroom.
That's what they found.
But they tried to find a way of presenting the information so that there would still seem to be kind of a link.
And then the media helps them out by coming up with a headline like this that is completely and totally misleading, and this really is how fake news works.
So the headline here is technically true, so they can always claim that they didn't lie, but it's also obviously grossly misleading.
This is what I always say with studies.
If someone throws a study at you, and it doesn't mean anything until you've read it, and in fact, we should not be, you know, we should not be presenting study.
You shouldn't be presenting a study as evidence for your claim unless you have read the study.
Not read a headline about it, not read an article about it, but you need to have actually read the study itself, the entire thing.
If you haven't done that, then you have no business quoting a study.
None.
And in fact, to quote the study that you haven't read is dishonest, and it is a form of lying.
Because you know that you're trying to support an argument, and you're using this, but you don't actually know if it's a legitimate study or not, and you know that you don't know that, but you're using it anyway, so that's dishonest and it's lying.
You know, it's something a lot of people do on both sides, and I think we need to get a hold of that.
Okay.
Let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Trevor.
Hey Matt, I wanted to ask you something that may seem trivial at first, but it's been on my mind for a while.
That is, how can I critically think better?
I ask this question because I'm really into history, philosophy, and theology, but I find that I hold most of my views because I just happen to agree with someone.
When I discuss my views with people, they compliment me on my knowledge or my opinion on the subject, but I can't help but remember that I only hold my views mainly because I've just heard other people make the points.
The only thing I've done is memorize ideas and agree or disagree with them.
I'm not sure if I'm being too hard on myself, but I can't help but feeling a little bit like a fraud.
How can I get better at coming up with my own original takes on things and then building my convictions off of them?
Also, I study history at university, so it would only help if I got better at thinking critically.
I also, I ask you because out of all the conservative speakers I have listened to, you seem to have the most nuanced takes.
I never hear the typical right-wing talking points, and I can't really predict what you're going to say about a certain topic.
And I'm always interested with your take and rationale behind it, not exactly trying to flatter you, although take it how you want.
Just thought you were a top-notch example of thinking for yourself, and then letting those original thoughts shape your beliefs.
Would love to hear your advice.
Well, Trevor, see, I have to disagree with you.
Number one, I'm not a top-notch thinker.
I'm a little mediocre, let's be honest.
Hit or miss.
Number two, I don't think you need help thinking critically because you're obviously doing a great job of it.
This email, what you're describing here, this is critical thinking.
What you're doing right now is critical thinking.
And this is exactly the sort of self-reflection and self-analysis that most people never engage in.
So you are already way, way, way ahead of the curve.
And people who lack critical thinking skills, which most people do in my experience, certainly never have this thought process that you're having right now.
So, and I think it's great.
I mean, I think it's great that you're, the fact that you're saying this about yourself and noticing this about yourself is a really good sign.
So what you're doing here is asking a really basic question, a question that is a starting point for all critical thinking, and a question that, again, I'm betting most people in this country and across the world have never asked themselves.
And the question is this.
Why do I believe the things that I believe?
And what you've discovered is the same truth that any one of us would discover the first time we ask this question to ourselves, the first time we Sincerely and seriously ask this question of ourselves.
What you find is that you believe most of what you believe because you have passively inherited those beliefs.
From your parents, from your friends, from the media, from the people around you, from the culture, etc.
So it's just been this sort of, you know, like a sponge just soaking in things but not really thinking much about them.
You don't have necessarily good reasons For some of the things that you believe.
You have talking points, which you've memorized, but that's not the same as having a reason.
And this is the case for everyone before they've really taken on the task of critical thinking.
So, you know, don't feel bad about it.
You should feel proud of yourself that you're thinking about this and engaging in this process in the first place.
So here's the good news.
Just because you've inherited certain convictions, Just because you don't really have necessarily good reasons for thinking some of the things you think, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong about those things.
It doesn't mean that all your beliefs are wrong.
But it does mean that they could be wrong, right?
For all you know.
So, now you have to take those beliefs, sort of metaphorically, pull them out of your mind, place them on the table in front of you, and inspect them.
Do an honest inspection.
And so here are just some ideas on how, you know, how we can become critical thinkers.
And I give this advice not as an expert, but as a, as a, I guess, a striver, I suppose, like you.
So I think the first step, when you notice that you believe something, but don't have great reasons for believing it, the first step is to do what you've already done, which is to acknowledge and say, okay, you know, I might be wrong about this.
And now with that simple acknowledgement, you're setting yourself up for an objective analysis of the question.
Because you can't objectively analyze anything if you're not willing to admit that you might be wrong.
So if, on any subject, you've never said to yourself, I might be wrong about this, then you've never objectively considered it.
No matter what it is.
Whatever the conviction, belief, whatever is, If you've never at any point considered the possibility that you could be wrong, then you've never looked at it objectively, which probably means you have no good reason for thinking it.
Okay, so once you've done that, now you're ready for objective consideration.
And so that's good.
And now I think it's a simple process of listening to, looking at, reading.
Giving a fair hearing to all of the sides of the issue in question, whatever it is.
Seek out the very best arguments and the most articulate defenders of the various different views.
Let them speak for themselves.
Don't seek out one side's version of what the other side says.
Don't do that.
Let that side speak for itself, and really challenge yourself.
Find the people, because it's very easy, and we all do this sometimes, we make ourselves feel better about our convictions by only engaging with the dumbest people on the other side of it, so that we feel even better, because we can leave saying, oh wow, these people don't have any arguments, they're a bunch of morons.
And depending on what it is, I mean, there are issues, in my opinion, where The other side really has no good arguments at all.
And you can hear them out, but we've been talking about it this week with the bathroom thing.
I've heard out the other side, and they really don't have any good arguments.
I mean, there are positions that are just flat-out stupid and wrong, and there's only so far you can go in taking them seriously.
So that's true.
But, you know, that's not the case with so many other issues.
And so you seek out the other side, let them speak for themselves, And now you're formulating your own views, and this is pretty exciting.
It's very freeing.
Because now you're doing this honest investigation, and you're developing your own perspective, your own ideas.
And when you consider the issue, don't worry about Whether the ideas and opinions you feel forming are consistent with what people have always told you or with what you want to believe or anything else, just let your brain and your mind do its own work.
And then as you engage with all the sides, you listen to the arguments, now you've kind of fueled your brain and you can really work it over in your head.
So something I'll do, Maybe this is because I'm schizophrenic, I don't know, but I'll have arguments with myself in my head.
I don't know if this is... I guess probably a lot of people do this.
This is what I do.
I have arguments with myself in my head all the time.
And if I have a viewpoint that I want to defend, that I believe, That I think I'm right about, so I'm turning it over in my head, and I try to argue against myself, and I try to anticipate what an intelligent person might say in response to that view, and so now I'm just going back and forth in my own mind.
And I think that's what critical thinking consists of for everybody in one form or another.
Just one good tip is when you're arguing with yourself in your mind, try not to, especially if there are people around you, don't verbalize anything because you'll look crazy.
One other thing to think about here, I think another good test, another good thing for a critical thinker to do is to constantly be holding your views up against your other views to see if they're consistent.
I think this is one thing we should always be doing, is to look for internal consistency within your worldview.
And if you discover that... So, if you have an opinion on an issue, and the arguments you present, you discover, are not consistent with the arguments you present on some other topic.
Where, in other words, you present arguments on one topic, but those arguments, if applied to your position over here, would actually defeat your own position.
And I think a lot of people have a worldview full of stuff like that.
It's just a tangled web where it's just a mishmash of conflicting, contradicting ideas.
And that's a problem because now you don't have a coherent worldview.
And now also, you know that you must be wrong about some of this stuff.
Because in order to be right about this over here, you got to be wrong about that.
And so that's another thing we have to be analyzing and figuring out and trying to establish a worldview that's coherent, And we are, you know, we have certain basic principles that we are consistently applying across the board to everything.
But you're on a great path already, so congratulations for that.
Let's see, this is from Joseph, says, Matt, I'm finally able to say I was able to see the great theocratic emperor in person.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee lecture, and I loved every second of it.
Don't have a beard, so I couldn't ask a question in person.
That is a rule.
You have to have a beard to ask a question.
So thank you for following that rule.
I love that you changed the topic and talked about masculinity.
The speech reminds me of an expanded version of the C.S.
Lewis quote, we make men without chess and expect of them virtue and enterprise.
You mentioned the type of education system you would send your kids to outside of home.
I think what you described would be the best, but is it attainable?
You said not government run, which also means not government funded.
If it's totally private, wouldn't it be hard for the middle class and lower class to attend these schools?
Thanks for all you do.
Yeah, well, we live in a society right now, Joseph, where it is in many ways structured around the current educational system and dependent upon it.
So any significant change to the system would require, necessitate, a major change to the way our society is structured.
And there's no getting around that.
So, but my point is that we have to start by realizing that the current system is horribly, fatally flawed and bad for children and counterproductive and harmful and all these things.
And we start by realizing that.
And even if the total solution, the ultimate solution is far in the future, we can at least start heading in that direction.
So when we're taught, when we're noticing that there's something in society That is some major thing in society that is fundamentally flawed.
Yeah, that's going to mean that fixing it is a real long-term solution, and it's going to require a lot of sacrifice, and it's way in the future.
So that is the case with the education system.
I think the ultimate goal for us should be to get rid of the government-funded, state-sponsored education system completely.
I think that education should be a fundamentally private endeavor.
I don't think the government should be running it.
But is that something that is a realistic goal for the next five years?
No.
but I do think it should be a goal. Let's see.
Do one other real quick here.
From Antonio says, hi Matt, in your opinion, is it possible to establish a deep affinity or friendship or a love relationship with someone who thinks in the opposite way on issues that are fundamental for us, such as abortion or child abuse in cases of gay slash transgender propaganda in schools?
Well, Antonio, you could definitely have a friendship with someone who disagrees with you fundamentally on anything, I think.
There's no reason why you can't be friendly with, and even friends with, someone who you disagree with on everything.
But if you're talking about a romantic relationship, potentially a marriage, with someone who's diametrically opposed to you on the most basic issues, then that I would be very wary of and I would warn against.
Especially with something like abortion and transgenderism among children and child abuse, because if you marry someone who disagrees with you on those things, you've got two big problems.
One is that your worldviews are so opposed, so separate, that I think you're going to have trouble establishing that kind of intimate and complete bond that you need in a marriage, because you just see the world through completely different lenses.
The other, on a more practical level, and this is something that I think people need to take into consideration, On a more practical level, especially if you're a man, pro-life, you know, against child abuse, against transitioning children, which is child abuse.
Well, if you marry a woman who disagrees with you on that, you have no guarantee, first of all, that she won't kill your child in the womb.
You have no guarantee she won't.
What if you guys end up conceiving a child when you didn't mean to or intend to?
Now you know that you're married to someone who at least considers it an option to go and kill the child.
And I just, that's not a situation I'd ever want to be in.
And then also, even after the child is born, you know, what if the kid has a normal phase when he's three or four years old and starts going around saying that he's a girl?
Normal thing for, it's a normal phase for children of both genders to go through.
And a normal confusion for them to have, especially if it's never been explained to them.
What a boy and girl is.
Well, you're married to someone who might be inclined to encourage that and fuel it.
And next thing you know, you know, it's like the James Younger case and you're married to someone who's trying to change your son into a girl.
So I would, that's a big risk, especially these days.
And especially with the lack of power, legally, that men have over these situations.
So as a man, you gotta be, these are questions you gotta be talking about with a woman that you're dating.
And I really think you gotta be 100% on the same page, at least with that stuff, before even considering marriage, so.
Thanks for the question, thanks everybody for watching and 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, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
▲
Export Selection