Ep. 383 - Terrible And Unlikable Candidate Ends Campaign. The Left Blames Racism
Kamala Harris ends her campaign and the race hustler on the left already know what's to blame: racism. Also, our world leaders act like middle schoolers at the NATO summit. And we discuss how our hook up culture has led to the weirdest kind of prudishness the world has ever seen.
Can't get enough of The Matt Walsh Show? Enjoy ad-free shows, live discussions, and more by becoming an ALL ACCESS subscriber TODAY at: https://dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
You know, Kamala Harris was a viscerally unlikable, chronically dishonest, morally corrupt, thinly veiled authoritarian.
And honestly, I'm shocked she didn't get more support among Democrats for that reason.
Because they tend to go for those types.
But they didn't go for Harris, apparently, and that's why her campaign ended yesterday.
If you heard the news, she dropped out.
They didn't like her.
Why didn't they like her?
Well, because of racism.
Obviously.
The media's already figured that out.
In fact, an article went up in The Independent pinning Kamala's campaign's failure on racism.
And this article went up, I swear it was like 14 seconds after she announced that the campaign was ending.
They already put the article up because they had written it six months ago, probably, and they were just sitting there waiting to publish it.
So as soon as she announced it, the bat signal went up, they grabbed the crowbar, broke the glass, hit the big red button, deployed the It Was Racism article.
And let me read a little bit from this article since we're on the subject.
Title, Camilla is a cop was a racist narrative that killed Harris's campaign dead.
And whatever you think about her, it's deeply unfair.
Killed it dead.
Didn't just kill the campaign, killed it dead.
Didn't kill it alive, killed it dead.
This is written by Frederick Joseph.
It says, There's a saying that almost every black person in America is familiar with.
You have to work two times harder and be twice as good.
This phrase has been passed down for generations from parents and grandparents and to young black people.
It's not just an explanation, it's a warning.
America was built for white people, so if black people want something, it will be much harder.
It began with subtle racism and microaggressions, such as being seen as not likable and being called overconfident.
And it escalated from there.
So this is somebody who uses the phrase microaggression unironically just so you know who we're dealing with.
Which I didn't even think that was a thing anymore.
I thought using the phrase microaggression unironically it's kind of like saying you're triggered unironically.
Which, I figure that people who are apt to be triggered by things probably use a different phrase now, because that one has become so poisoned by the mockery that has been rightfully heaped upon it, but not for this individual, Frederick Joseph.
He says, and it's a microaggression, so if you didn't think that Kamala Harris was likeable, then you're subtly racist.
You have to think that every black person is likable.
Because if you don't... Now, you could think that a white person's not likable, and that's perfectly fine.
What about Beto O'Rourke?
He dropped out.
A lot of people did find him likable.
I found him to be intensely unlikable, Beto O'Rourke.
Like so many other people, which is why his campaign was a failure.
Why he was polling at 0.0%.
So is that a microaggression?
Is that racism?
And if it's not, then isn't it possible that We, in the same spirit that we find Beto O'Rourke unlikable, we also find Kamala Harris unlikable?
From the start, many had fair questions about Harris' policies, the platform she'd be running on, and her prosecutorial record.
These were all important questions, but nothing that would ordinarily be insurmountable for a candidate with her experience and pedigree.
With claim and surging support would also come strategic moves by her opposition to throw her campaign into disarray.
Well, I can only imagine.
Wait, you're telling me that Kamala Harris's political opposition tried to throw her campaign into disarray?
Well, this is the first time that's ever happened!
It must be racism!
You're telling- Well, wait a second, Frederick Joseph.
Are you telling me that the people running against her were trying to stop her from doing well?
What?
This is scandalous.
This is surely the first time in the history of politics this has ever happened.
She's the victim.
This is unfair.
It is so unfair for her political opponents to try to prevent her from beating them.
It's so unfair.
Let's see what else.
It goes on and on.
Racism, racism.
And anyway, I don't think we need to go from there.
Kamala Harris started out from behind, operating in a system fueled by double standards.
She tried to be the first woman of color to become president in a country with a legacy of racism.
She tried to do it during the xenophobic presidency of Donald Trump.
This isn't a defense of Kamala Harris as a politician, nor is it a defense of her record.
This is a defense of her as a black woman who was treated unfairly.
Defense of black women everywhere who are treated unfairly.
The Black women who work twice as hard and are twice as good, yet still receive less.
Now, hold on a second.
So you're not defending her record?
Well, why not?
Frederick Joseph, what do you think of her record?
Did you think it was a good record?
Because if you didn't, if you're telling me that you didn't like her record either and didn't support her, Then maybe you're starting, is it starting to come together for you now?
Are you maybe starting to see why?
See, you're not defending her record.
Well, a lot of people didn't like her record.
And that's why she had to drop out.
Are you starting to see how this all sort of comes together?
And do you like how these race hustlers, they just pretend that Barack Obama never existed?
We're just gonna pretend that never happened.
Are you really going with the Americans wouldn't support a black candidate because of racism three years after a black president completed his second term in office?
Is that really what you're going with?
This is one of those things.
It's like, you know what it's like?
It's like when people always say, That the, I have a black friend excuse isn't a good defense against racism.
It's kind of the classic, it's considered the classic bad defense against racism.
But actually, I mean, it's, it's a pretty good defense.
It might not be bulletproof, but it's pretty good because it stands to reason that racists probably don't have friends that belong to the race that they're racist against.
Just like, you know, if you call a guy an anti-Semite, and then he tells you that, well, I just got back from my Jewish friend's daughter's bat mitzvah, it doesn't mean he's not an anti-Semite, but it's pretty good evidence that he isn't.
Isn't it?
It's at least evidence in his favor.
To act like it's not even evidence, like it can't even be brought into the discussion, is just absurd.
Of course it can.
Well, it's the same thing with the black president.
We're told that, well, America had a black president, isn't a good defense against the charge that America is systematically racist, but it kind of is, though.
It may not settle the dispute, there have to be other things brought in, but it's a really good piece of evidence in favor of the claim that America is not systematically racist.
And if it isn't, If electing a black man president isn't even evidence that America might not be systematically racist, then what you're really saying is that the claim America is systematically racist is unfalsifiable.
You're saying that nothing could be evidence against it, because if that's not evidence against it, then I can't imagine what... then there couldn't possibly be evidence.
Because that's about as good a single piece of evidence that you could possibly present.
And if you're tossing that out, well, then what you're saying is it's unfalsifiable,
which is another way of saying that your claim has no real support or basis.
And so there you go. Meanwhile, Cory Booker is still in the race, isn't he?
He didn't drop out yet.
So we're going to race him too?
Pretend he's not there?
Oh, there was one other thing from this article.
I skipped right past it, but there's somewhere in here, I believe, he mentions the claim that Kamala Harris, quote, isn't black enough.
He gives that as evidence of racism against Kamala Harris.
But are you... If that claim was made... Oh yeah, here it is.
At one point, it even appeared the social media bots were maliciously spreading tweets claiming she wasn't black enough and questioning her ethnicity.
So you're saying that white racists were attacking Kamala Harris because she wasn't black enough?
That's what you're saying?
Is that how white racists operate?
Is that going to be there?
No, that's not...
Generally, with that kind of claim, if that claim was being made it probably wasn't white people making that claim.
Let's move on.
In fact, there's a lot to talk about today.
But first, before we get to any of that, a word from Paint Your Life.
You know, we just got our painting a few weeks ago.
It's one of our favorite pictures of our kids.
They're standing on a dock at the lake at our lake vacation last year.
And the painting is just great.
It captures not just the kids, but also the background, the lake, the environment.
Every last detail is there.
It's wonderful.
And you can have an original painting of yourself, your children, family, a special place, or a cherished pet.
At a price that you can afford from PaintYourLife.com.
This is a true painting done by hand by a world-class artist created from a favorite photo.
So this isn't something that they do like on a computer.
This isn't a Photoshop thing where you can make it look like a painting.
They actually have a real artist sit down and paint this thing for you.
It makes a perfect holiday gift, but it's also great for birthdays, anniversaries, weddings.
I gave it as a gift to myself and to my wife, to us.
You can give it as a gift to yourself as well.
You choose the artist who's a work you most admire and work with them throughout the process until every detail is perfect.
It's very hands-on.
They're very receptive to feedback and they're going back and forth.
They want to make sure that you love the painting.
There's no risk.
If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded.
Great for decor.
Also, it's a work of art as well.
With Paint Your Life, you get your favorite memories transformed into a work of art that will be cherished forever.
And right now, as a limited-time offer, get 30% off your painting.
That's right, you get 30% off right now, plus free shipping, which is a big perk as well, to get this special offer text Matt to 64000.
That's M-A-T-T to 64000.
64,000 that's MATT to 64,000, MAT to 64,000.
By the way, did you guys hear about the drama at the NATO summit?
you Yeah, apparently Justin Trudeau was talking behind Trump's back, and then Trump found out about it and was totally pissed.
And he called Trudeau two-faced, then he canceled his press conference, and then Jake told Becky that Dave had a crush on her, and he was all like, what?
And the other people at the lunch table were like, you didn't know that?
And she was like, ew.
And now I'm just like, oh my god, there's going to be so much drama at Sarah's party on Friday.
Because yes, our world leaders are a bunch of middle schoolers, if you didn't know.
That's basically how that works.
Although I did appreciate, with Trump calling Trudeau two-faced, I did appreciate the joke there.
I wish that he had been more explicit with the joke, because of course, this is Trudeau we're talking about.
He's literally two-faced.
He's got two faces, one white and one black.
So that was an accurate assessment.
I wish that Trump had gone all the way with that comeback and made the explicit connection between two-faced and the blackface thing.
He didn't quite do it, but it was still a good comeback nonetheless.
All right.
There's something else I wanted to talk about.
A freelance writer for the New York Times and for some other publications as well, her name is Susanna Weiss.
And according to her bio, she specializes in feminism, sex, and psychonautics.
I don't know what psychonautics are, but you kind of get a general impression of what we're dealing with here.
And she recently attempted to basically instruct the unwashed Twitter masses about the intricacies of consent.
And the main thing Weiss wanted us to know is that consent is necessary in every sexual encounter, even if it's a sexual encounter via text message.
So Weiss tweeted, she said, ask consent for all sexual encounters.
Yes, even sexting.
I just came up with this script.
You're all welcome to borrow.
And she actually provided a script.
of how you might obtain consent in order to sext with someone.
And her script has the would-be sexter saying, I've been having some sexual thoughts about you.
I'd like to share over text if you'd enjoy that.
That's the opening line.
That's how you get consent.
Now, in this scenario, the lucky sextee gives clear consent by saying OK, and then with the blushing smiley face.
Now, what do you do, she doesn't get into this, but what do you do if you open with that, I've had sexual thoughts I'd like to share, and then you get back, instead of okay, smiley face, you get back like a K, with a period, just K, period.
Because everyone knows that that's passive aggressive.
Everyone except for my wife, actually.
Because my wife will do that, she'll send a one word text message with a period, then I always respond by saying, what's wrong, are you okay?
And she says, what do you mean?
I said, well, you can't do one word in a period.
Periods are passive-aggressive in the year 2019.
If it's a one-word or one-letter text, you gotta leave the period off so I know that everything's okay.
Anyway, she doesn't get into the specifics there, but this is the script for sexting, and she doesn't give us a sample of what the sexting itself might look like, thankfully, but I guess we can use our imagination.
Now, there are, of course, a number of problems here.
The first and most obvious problem is that the sexter, in this case, comes across like Spock, or maybe a vaguely self-aware robot.
You know, like, greetings life form, requesting permission to initiate robotic erotic communication sequence.
Which would be a great way to maybe sweep one of the cone heads off their feet, but it probably will be kind of weird and tend to freak out any normal earthling.
And secondly, we have a sort of chicken and egg problem here.
Because if you don't, you know, you didn't have permission to think sexually about the other person in the first place, and you certainly didn't have permission to ask permission to share the thoughts that you're having.
So I think a real sexting-with-consent script would have to begin with a neutral greeting, something like, hello, and then work its way very slowly over many pages and hundreds of introductory questions to the sexting request.
So it's sort of a Socratic dialogue where you finally get to the sexting part.
It's probably not fair to pick on the sex expert Susanna Weiss here because she's just one small example of a growing trend.
With her notion of consent, this brings to mind, for example, a few months ago, maybe you saw the consent condom, which would require four hands to open.
And NBC News said that it makes a powerful statement about consent.
More troubling, certainly more dangerous, are the affirmative consent laws across the country, especially on college campuses.
And what the affirmative consent law says is that any sexual encounter, Even one that seems to be consensual can turn into rape if consent is not verbal and ongoing.
Now, what does ongoing consent mean?
It means that throughout the act, and really it always comes down to the man, throughout the act the man has to stop and has to be given continuous and explicit consent to continue as it's happening.
And then there's a consent checklist over at Cosmopolitan, which takes it a step further.
Now, at Cosmopolitan, with their consent checklist, item number three on the list, and this is a checklist that you go over before engaging in sexual activity to make sure that you have consent.
Now, here's item number three on the list.
Is consent ongoing before, during, and after an encounter?
They're saying you have to get consent for a sexual act before it happens, while it's happening, and also after it's already happened.
How does that work exactly?
Who knows?
But it does mean that you may become an unwitting rapist if consent for sex is withdrawn after the deed's already been done.
Then Planned Parenthood, which is an organization that, by the way, violates the consent of 300,000 unborn children a year by killing them without their consent.
But they add another wrinkle to this on their website.
They say that consent has to be enthusiastic as well.
So affirmative, ongoing, before, during, after, and also enthusiastic.
The way they explain it, they say, when it comes to sex, you should only do stuff you want to do, not things that you feel you're expected to do.
Which, yes, but how is your sex partner supposed to know if you don't want to do the thing you said you wanted to do?
And what does it have to do with consent anyway?
Because if I choose freely to do something, despite not wanting to do it, I've still consented.
Begrudging consent is still consent.
The begrudging nature of my consent does not erase the fact that it is consent.
So it's like if I walk outside of the grocery store and you know you've got some booth set up and they're soliciting money for whatever, Little League or whatever it is.
And you feel, you don't really want to give to them, but you feel guilty because you still have your change in your hand with your receipt.
You haven't put it in your pocket yet.
And then they stop you.
Sir, would you mind helping?
And you've got, it's like you just, you give them the money because you feel guilty.
Now, it's begrudging.
You didn't want to give, but you did consent.
They didn't rob you.
It wouldn't be fair to give to the Little League fundraiser and then later turn around and say they robbed you because they didn't.
So begrudging charity is not robbery, begrudging sex is not rape.
But it is, I think, ironic that sex in our oversexed age has turned into this.
It's become laden with rules and stipulations and fine print and you've got a packet of information you have to go through and get it notarized and signatures and you've got to get a lawyer there.
That's what it's become.
Even though we live, by all appearances, in a hedonistic, amoral culture.
So there appears to be some kind of paradox here.
And I think what happened is that we fled so far and so fast from anything resembling sexual morality that we basically came full circle all the way around the globe and ran into it from the opposite side.
And we end up with our culture's weirdest and most significant innovation, which is hedonistic prudishness, or prudish hedonism.
We become like this Frankenstein mixture of Victorian England and the 1960s.
It's not very hard to see how it came to this.
Because the hookup culture is not what it was cracked up to be.
It is, in fact, as people like Susanna Weiss realize, It is fraught with danger.
When you put yourself into the role of a stranger's sex toy, the pleasure is sure to be fleeting, and it won't be enough to compensate for the peril that comes with it.
So you've got this ever-expanding list of rules and stipulations and fine print, which is meant to offer protection from some of those perils, but the rules always fail, and so more and more rules are added.
But, here's the point.
Why are these rules necessary to begin with?
They're only necessary because we've thrown out the two ingredients, or, you know, the three ingredients, the main ingredients that make sex truly joyful and also truly safe.
And those ingredients, as much as we hate to admit it, are love, devotion, commitment, also known as marriage.
So, The Cosmopolitans and Susanna Weiss's of the world, they're not giving us rules for sex per se.
Rather, they're giving you rules for sex with strangers who don't give a damn about you.
What they're saying is, if you're going to do this with someone who doesn't care about you, and who you hardly know, well then here's a whole list of rules to keep you safe.
They're trying to spare you from the danger inherent in giving yourself to a person who doesn't know you and doesn't care about you and doesn't love you.
But what they don't want to admit is that the best way to avoid those dangers is just to not do that to begin with.
You don't need to worry as much about the lawyerly stipulations if you're with someone that you know, you love, and you trust.
Um, I mean, you know, think about with something like sexting now, I'll say on the record, probably not a good idea to sext anyone, even your spouse, because nothing you do on your phone is really private.
And so I think everyone would do well to remember that with everything they do online and on their phones and on their computers, none of it is private.
None of it ever will be.
So just to keep that in mind, but, um, Part of what Susanna Weiss is getting at here is that, well, if you do this with someone, you've got to be careful because if it's unsolicited, who knows what's going to happen?
Maybe they'll call the cops on you.
Maybe they'll take your sext and they'll put it online and they'll embarrass you.
Yeah, but again, see, those are the dangers inherent When you're trying to act this way with someone you don't know, and who's not your spouse.
At least, you know, you probably don't have to worry about the cops getting involved if you're being flirtatious with your spouse.
Because marriage affords a certain security that a million consent checklists could never offer.
Now, that's not to say that abuse and assault and things don't happen in a marriage, of course they do.
But, verbal consent, all of these consent rules we come up with, it turns out that they don't really amount to much if they don't begin with the words, I do.
If you're taking those words out, then, as we have discovered, there's really nothing you can do to make this completely safe.
Because you are, at the end of the day, you are giving yourself over to someone who Isn't committed to you.
And you know that they're just using you.
Now, again, bad things can happen in a marriage, but, you know, when it's in the hookup culture, which is what we're talking about here, you go into it, there's really only bad things that can come of it.
If something bad happens in a marriage, if assault, abuse, that's when things go wrong.
But in the hookup culture, it's designed that way.
There's no other possible outcome.
You are giving yourself over, you are making yourself vulnerable to someone who doesn't give a damn, isn't devoted to you, isn't committed to you, doesn't even pretend to be committed to you, and who is just using you.
And you know that, and that's what the arrangement is all about.
All right, let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Tony.
It says, Hi Matt, you've said in many shows that eating dogs is the same as eating other animals.
Have I said that in many shows?
I know I talked about it yesterday briefly, but is that a topic I go back to frequently?
Eating dogs?
Maybe it is.
I disagree because dogs have been completely domesticated over hundreds, maybe thousands of years.
It is thousands, by the way.
Some new breeds of dogs would have zero chance of surviving on their own.
All they know is how to love humans.
Because dogs have basically evolved to be our pets.
It seems wrong to turn our backs on them and eat them.
It seems treacherous, even.
Do you take the stance that we can do anything with animals or is there some moral obligation we have towards them?
Maybe the bad things we do to animals are only bad in relation to ourselves.
For example, if there was a serial killer of dogs, would that person only be wrong because they are themselves being wrathful slash violent?
What are your thoughts?
P.S.
I'm not a dog owner and don't plan to be.
Smart plan, by the way.
To not be a dog owner.
No, Tony, I don't think there's anything intrinsically immoral about eating dogs.
My point yesterday is it's a cultural convention.
You know, you're talking about how we as Westerners see dogs.
Not everybody sees dogs that way.
Not everybody sees them in the same way.
And, you know, we see cows as a source of food and we tend to cherish dogs and not see them that way.
Um, some cultures have a different attitude towards cows.
Is our attitude correct and theirs is wrong?
I, you know, I wouldn't, well, if they're worshiping.
The idolatry or worship of animals is wrong, but in terms of which animals we domesticate and which we tend to form bonds with and which we don't, that I think is really just a cultural convention.
I don't think that there's any inherent morality going on here.
We do have a moral obligation to treat animals with respect, obviously, all animals.
We shouldn't be cruel, we shouldn't torture animals or abuse them.
But I don't see any reason why eating a dog should be considered intrinsically different from eating a cow or a pig.
Pigs are very smart animals.
Pigs are social animals.
Whatever consciousness dogs have, which I'm not sure, I mean, nobody really knows how that works exactly inside a dog's head, whatever, what sort of awareness a dog has, we know they have some kind of awareness.
It's not the same as people, but I don't think there's any reason to assume That a dog's awareness and consciousness and capacity for suffering is any greater than a pig's?
I don't think there's any reason to assume that.
So, let me ask you this.
What if a dog dies on its own?
Let's say your family dog dies.
You didn't kill it or anything, it's just the dog died.
Would it be immoral to eat your family dog that just died?
I mean, could you articulate any reason why it would be immoral?
Now, I know your reaction.
Your reaction is like my reaction, which is, that's weird.
My first visceral reaction is, yeah, that is wrong.
Yeah, Fido dies.
You're not going to eat Fido.
But that's a visceral reaction.
If you ask me to explain it, I couldn't really explain it.
Why is it wrong?
The dog's dead.
It's not going to hurt him any.
He's already gone.
So I think the answer is that, again, it's a cultural thing.
This is just cultural programming, and that's why we think it's a problem.
In other cultures, they would say, what's the problem?
And like I said yesterday, when it comes to the cultural stuff, this is not cultural relativism that I'm doing here.
Cultural relativism is saying that each culture makes up its own moral rules.
There is no inherent or objective morality, and so whatever is right in a culture is therefore right.
I'm not saying that.
If a culture decides that slavery is okay, it doesn't make it okay.
But there are some things that are just conventions, and I think that this is one of them.
When it comes to your diet, that's a classic example.
Aside from things like cannibalism, this is a classic example of a cultural convention, and that's all.
Let's see.
This is from Matt.
Says, Matt, love the show and I appreciate your insight.
Quick question.
How would you refute Buddhism?
Why does it seem that so many on the left are more likely to embrace Buddhism?
Go Ravens.
Yes, go Ravens.
That's an interesting question and the short answer is I don't know the answer to it because I'm not very familiar with Buddhism.
Certainly not familiar enough about it to speak intelligently about it for very long.
So I'm mainly reading your email because I'm interested to see if other listeners maybe know something about it and want to chime in.
And this is something that I've thought about.
It does seem like, obviously, Buddhism has an appeal in the West, especially among people on the left.
Why is that exactly?
It's an interesting question.
Based on my very limited knowledge of Buddhism, I'll say first of all that I think you have to distinguish between Buddhism as a sort of system of thought, an outlook, a philosophy, Even a self-help method.
So there's that sort of Buddhism and then you have Buddhism as a traditional religion with metaphysical claims.
And I think many Buddhists do practice it as a religion and do believe the metaphysical claims of Buddhism.
But the Western liberals who find Buddhism appealing, the ones you're talking about, they're not looking at it as a religion.
They're going to it for more of the psychological aspects.
Now, The reason why they would flock to Buddhism over Christianity, I think, is easy enough to see.
Christianity makes moral demands, whereas Buddhism, in the form that they find appealing, does not.
I also think that even non-religious people have an innate desire for some kind of system, some kind of philosophy, that brings order and meaning to life.
And so, that's why they're looking at Buddhism.
But then I also think that we should acknowledge that Buddhism, as I understand it, does have certain insights into the human condition.
Insights about suffering, about contentment.
And this is where I might start mangling things, but I think two of the main insights Buddhism offers from a psychological standpoint are, one, that to live is to suffer.
Buddhists were not the first to think of that one, but it is an important insight.
Suffering is a part of life, okay?
That's important, yeah.
And then number two, suffering is born from desire.
So, we suffer because of what we want, in all cases of suffering.
You're suffering because something is not happening that you wish was happening, or something is happening that you wish was not happening.
And that sums up all forms of suffering for human beings.
It's your desire for a thing to stop or for a thing to start, as the case may be, that really creates suffering.
So the Buddhist says, if you overcome desire, if you overcome attachment, If you become unattached from desire, if you live in the present moment while accepting all that is happening without wanting it to be different, then you'll overcome suffering and you'll be content.
And I guess that's supposed to be Zen and so on.
I think there's a lot to be said for, for, for some of that, especially in our culture where we, we've, we have the ad industry and the media and Hollywood, et cetera, constantly trying to convince us that We should want what we don't have and we shouldn't want what we do have.
And we have this effect of desires constantly multiplying.
And you turn on the TV and you develop a desire for something that you didn't even know existed before you turned it on.
And so we're constantly wanting things we don't have, right?
And so yes, the more that we focus on wanting what we don't have and not wanting what we do have, the more we will suffer.
And yes, living in the present moment, accepting it for what it is, is a key to being content and healthy.
I think that live in the moment is one of the wisest cliches that modern culture seems to Seems to enjoy, you know.
Of all the cliches people say, I think living in the moment is actually, there's a lot of truth to that.
If you can manage it.
And this is something that, again, this isn't just Buddhism.
Jesus talks about this in the Sermon on the Mount.
But I think, I think that one of the problems though, with Buddhism is the danger of making people too detached, even indifferent, because that's the balance where, and I think Jesus does a good job of, Jesus does a good job of this, but I think the Sermon on the Mount strikes this balance.
I'm not sure how well Buddhism strikes it, where you want to live in the moment, you can't be obsessed with desires, but you also have to care You should care about the suffering of others.
You should care about the state of the world.
You should care about the state of your soul.
And there are good things that you should desire.
You should desire holiness.
You should desire happiness.
Real happiness.
For yourself and for your family and your children.
Right?
So maybe that's where some of the problems come in.
But I said that I don't know a lot about it.
I'm not going to talk about it.
And I talked about it for 15 minutes.
So that's the way this generally goes.
And now I will enjoy all the emails from people informing me that I know nothing about Buddhism.
Which is basically true.
Let's go, uh, let's see, we'll do one more here.
This is from John, says, Kind Sir, while I do agree with you personally on practically all points on abortion, I am still pro-choice on a governmental level, and I see it, the pro-life position of any termination after conception being equivalent to murder, as a theocratic imposition.
Sans God, the value of human life is arbitrary, so the line of what is or isn't murder is arbitrary as well.
To call terminating a blastocyst murder hinges on the religious belief of inherent value of human life.
It's obvious that many people in the country feel that at least at the earliest stages of development, an embryo doesn't equal a human life.
That being the case, you must admit that your standard is exactly that, your standard, and the imposition of your belief on the other people would be theocratic.
Even though science says life starts at conception, science can't assign value to life.
Our Constitution applying only to citizens would necessarily exempt this life from constitutional protections on life, seeing how it clearly is not a U.S.
citizen.
How would it not be the height of theocracy to force your religious standards on others using the powers of the state?
It seems to me all valuations of human life at any stage and in any form should be, for the purposes of non-theocratic state, completely arbitrary and drawn on a compromise of public consensus.
Can't wait to hear why I'm wrong.
Well, I agree with much of what you just said there, believe it or not, John.
You say that without God, the value of human life is arbitrary.
This is probably true.
But you must see the problem for your position.
I assume that you still think that murdering born humans should be illegal, right?
Not to mention rape, slavery, kidnapping, theft, and so on.
All of that should be illegal, I assume you would say?
Well, by your logic, these are also theocratic impositions, as you say, because they all hinge on the belief, the doctrine, of the value and dignity of human life.
And that doctrine lies at the foundation of our country.
It's very much a spiritual doctrine.
So we can have this argument about whether or not America was founded on Christianity.
America was not founded on Christianity, that much is clear.
But it's also clear that it was founded on a belief in God, on a belief in the supernatural.
And that's why it says in our founding documents, in the Declaration of Independence, everything there about created equal, everything about human rights that are inherent to human beings.
Well, I have never heard of a, I've never heard anyone explain what human rights could be Without introducing some element of the supernatural into it.
Because without that, then human rights are, well, you said yourself, arbitrary.
Where does it come from?
Now, you could certainly argue that without God, the case against abortion is rather weak, because who says that unborn children have a right to life?
What does it mean?
Where does that right come from?
Which, okay, fine, I agree with you.
But then, who says that anybody has a right to life?
What does it mean for anyone to have a right to life, or to have any other right to anything else?
Where does that come from?
And I'm not sure how an atheist solves that problem, but if you manage to solve it for born people, then I think you've also solved it for unborn people.
Whatever you have to do in your mind to come up with some idea of born people having human rights, and having the right to be free from murder and torture and all these things, However you do that in your head, without God, well, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to the unborn as well.
But if you can't solve it, then you must either say that all laws are arbitrary and grounded in nothing, and that human rights are a fiction, or you must say that human rights and human dignity have some other source.
And I'm not sure what that other source would be.
That's not my problem to solve.
I think it's yours.
But whatever that other source is, if it exists, it's the source from which the unborn draw as well.
So I think that's the issue that you run up against.
Now, if you want to take a totally nihilistic approach and say that life has no meaning, none of this means anything, there's no reason really why anybody should be protected from murder or rape or anything else, But, you know, we do it just because it makes it easier on us.
It's easier to have a society if we all pretend that it's wrong to rape and murder and kill.
If that's what you want to argue, then we could have that argument.
But I think you have to make it clear that that's where you're coming from, as a nihilist who just doesn't value human life at all.
And I admit that that would be a more difficult conversation to have.
Because if we're starting, you know, if we do not have a starting consensus that at the very least human life has value, if we can't even agree on that, then it does make it more difficult to have the conversation.
But if that's not the world you want to live in, if you want to live in a world where things have meaning and it's wrong to kill people, you know, and murderers should be punished because what they did is terrible.
If you want to live in that world, then I don't see how you exclude the unborn from that.
I think that is the arbitrary thing to do.
See, it's not me drawing an arbitrary line.
I think it's you.
If you agree that human beings generally should be protected from these things, what I'm saying is, yeah, I agree.
I'm with you.
So, these are human beings.
Why exclude them?
What reason is there to exclude them?
I kind of would say that the burden of proof is on you to come up with a good reason for it.
I think that our starting point, our default position, should just be assuming that all human beings in any stage of development should be protected from murder.
I think that's our default.
If you want to draw a line and start excluding people, then I think the burden of proof is on you to come up to explain your reason for that.
And I don't think that you've done that here.
But I appreciate the email.
And I appreciate everybody for listening and watching.
Have a great day.
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 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.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
There's no question the left owns American culture, but sometimes that backfires on them.
The media told the Democrats this Ukraine story was a bombshell.
They told Kamala Harris she was a top-tier candidate, but you can't tell a good story without a core of truth.
