Ep. 398 - Hollywood Gets The Treatment It Deserves
Ricky Gervais ruthlessly mocked Hollywood at the Golden Globes last night. It was hilarious and well deserved. And to prove Gervais' point, Michelle Williams proceeded to get on stage and deliver a lengthy speech about the glories of feminism and abortion. We'll sort through all of this on the show today. Also, a leftist claims she was verbally assaulted by a Trump supporter at Costco. Her story is the most absurdly fake one yet. It makes Smollett seem believable by comparison.
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
I know that mine was okay, a little bit sleep-deprived, really.
You know, we have an infant in the house who wakes up like three times a night, as infants are prone to do, but then we also have a three-year-old.
Who has recently decided to get into this lovely phase where he also gets up like three times a night and then finally will wake up at 4 a.m.
and and he's ready to start the day at 4 a.m.
He doesn't go back to bed after 4 a.m.
So it's been it's been you know it's it's he our kids are trying to kill us basically they're trying to this is my distress call to the world they're trying to kill us because sleep is a human need and You can't survive without it.
What they're doing is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
I mean, if you were the warden of a prison, and you woke your inmates up six times a night, you would be charged with human rights violations.
This is what our kids are doing to us.
And I tried to explain this to my three-year-old last night at 4 a.m., but he wasn't getting it.
He just doesn't give a damn about the Constitution, honestly.
He's a total lib.
I blame his parents, honestly.
Anyway, so Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes, you know, he actually made
a Hollywood awards ceremony watchable for at least seven minutes,
which is an enormous achievement.
It seems like an impossibility, right?
It seems like making an award show watchable, it's like if an IRS agent made an audit enjoyable,
or if your dentist made it fun to get a root canal.
It just seems like it's not possible, but Gervais pulled it off, mainly by ruthlessly mocking the Hollywood degenerates in attendance.
You've probably seen his opening monologue already, but if you haven't seen it, I'll play it for you now.
This is probably my favorite part of his opening monologue.
We were going to do an In Memoriam this year, but when I saw the list of people that had died, it wasn't diverse enough.
It just, no.
It was mostly white people.
And I thought, nah, not on my watch.
Maybe next year.
Let's see what happens.
No one cares about movies anymore.
No one goes to the cinema.
No one really watches network TV.
Everyone's watching Netflix.
This show should just be me coming out going, well done Netflix, you win.
Everything.
Goodnight.
But no.
No.
We gotta drag it out for three hours.
You could binge watch the entire first season of Afterlife instead of watching this show.
That's a show about a man who wants to kill himself because his wife dies of cancer.
And it's still more fun than this.
Okay?
Spoiler alert, um, season two is on the way, so in the end he obviously didn't kill himself.
Just like Jeffrey Epstein.
Shut up!
I know he's your friend, but I don't care.
And by the way, Afterlife, which is his own show that he's plugging there very cleverly, is a really good show.
And the funny thing about Gervais is, although he's a great insult comic, he's also really good at mixing sentimentality and humor.
So, usually with his shows, he's good at that, but there was very little sentimentality last night, which is good, at least not from Ricky Gervais.
Now, I didn't watch it past the monologue, but I hear that Gervais basically disappeared for the rest of the four-hour ceremony and showed up, you know, a couple of other times.
One of the times that he popped back in, I think at the very end, he made, I thought, his best joke of the night.
And like the other jokes, it was a joke, but also not really a joke at all.
Right, um... Last one, last one.
Come on, guys.
Our next presenter starred in Netflix's Bird Box, a movie where people survive by acting like they don't see a thing.
Sort of like working for Harvey Weinstein.
You did it!
I didn't, you did it!
Please welcome Sandra Bullock.
As you can hear there, the best thing about Gervais' routine was the reaction from the crowd.
You could tell that most of the uproarious sort of laughter was coming from the back of the room, from the somewhat normal people who showed up to watch.
But the front of the room, where the big celebs are sitting, you know, there it's awkward silence, and with a few exceptions.
They showed DiCaprio laughing a few times, which is nice.
But most of the other celebrities grimacing and just straining to get through it.
That's because these people just absolutely cannot laugh at themselves.
They are clinically unable.
It's a clinical condition.
They cannot laugh at themselves.
They really do believe that they are our betters and that their purpose in life is to instruct us and guide us and show us the way.
And when somebody mocks them for doing that, they could only scowl in response.
They have no other response.
You can practically hear the, why I never.
You can practically hear that.
It's an unspoken why I never coming from the Hollywood elites in attendance.
And all of this, of course, proves his point.
You know, if they had all just laughed hysterically at, at their, at his jokes and thus at themselves, It would have undercut what he's saying, and it would have
vindicated them a little bit.
But instead, they responded exactly as he and the rest of us expect,
thus vindicating everything that he was saying about them.
And not just the celebrities in the room, also the left-wing media.
Gervais was a hit with the average viewer.
I think that much is clear from the social media response alone.
In fact, Entertainment Weekly did an online poll asking everyone what they thought of Gervais' performance, and the last I checked, it was like 80-20 in favor.
Probably not the response that EW was looking for.
Meanwhile, Lorraine Ali is a TV critic over at the LA Times, and she posted her review of Gervais.
And she put it up on Twitter with this caption.
It said, the Golden Globes, the mood was already sober thanks to an impeachment, threat of war with Iran, and
Australian bushfires.
The last thing anyone needed was Ricky Gervais there telling them they sucked.
No, Lorraine, that is exactly what we all needed to see.
That is precisely what we needed.
Reading a bit from her piece now.
Actually, I want to read a good portion of it because it's just so delicious in all the ways that she definitely did not intend.
So she says, forget the escapist magic of Hollywood.
Nihilism was the name of the game when host Ricky Gervais opened the Golden Globes on Sunday night with a gloom and doom monologue so cynical and made the effervescent Tom Hanks scowl.
Nihilism.
She calls it nihilism.
To attack Hollywood is nihilistic, according to Lorraine Ali.
You know, nihilism is when you think that nothing matters, right?
It's when you think that life doesn't matter, nothing matters.
So, in Lorraine Ali's mind, if you think that Hollywood doesn't matter, then that's the same thing as thinking life itself doesn't matter.
To attack Hollywood is to attack life itself.
It's to attack existence.
So if you don't like Hollywood, you're a nihilist, according to Lorraine.
The 58-year-old former, going back to the article now, the 58-year-old former Golden Globe winner and five-time host also flippantly reminded the packed room that no one cares about movies anymore.
Meryl Streep shook her head.
Eddie Murphy refused to smile.
Quentin Tarantino looked more disturbed than usual.
This is supposed to make us, you know, turn on Gervais.
We're supposed to go, oh, Meryl Streep shook her head.
You're telling me that Meryl Streep didn't like it?
Well, then it must have been terrible.
Meryl Streep shook her head.
The host's acerbic wit was nothing new.
He's certainly offended in the past from the awards stage and the ads for Sunday's telecast
played upon the idea that anything could happen, including Gervais being a jerk.
His knack for ripping on Hollywood and offending the glitterati is well known among the thin-skinned
in the industry.
But at the Beverly Hilton, where the three-hour plus ceremony took place, the mood was already
sober thanks to an impeachment, the threat of war with Iran, and devastating bushfires
in Australia.
Hang on for a second.
Yes, sober, right.
That's been the reaction from the left on impeachment.
They take it very, they have a very sober minded, serious approach to it.
It's not like they're celebrating it.
It's not like they've been jumping, jumping up and down with, with, with shouting, with,
with joy over it.
No, it's, they're very sober, right?
She says the last thing anyone needed was for the smirking master of ceremonies to reprimand
them for having hope or to taunt the room for trying to, to use their influence to change
things for the better.
Yes, that's it.
The problem is they have hope.
Right.
That's our issue.
Our issue with Hollywood is all the hope we get from it.
That's what we think.
When we turn on the TV, and we see a bunch of drug-addled multi-millionaires patting themselves on the back for five and a half hours, we think to ourselves, ugh, these people have too much hope.
Turn that off, there's too much hope.
That's what I said when I came home, my wife was watching the Golden Globes.
Turn off this hope.
Listen, look at all that hope.
All these people with their hope.
Yes, that's exactly it.
Lorraine Ali has her finger on the pulse.
You know, she really understands.
She understands the common man.
She knows what makes us tick.
Gervais' disingenuous call for an apolitical evening was also answered by Russell Crowe when he won for actor in a limited series or TV movie for Showtime's Roger Ailes docudrama, The Loudest Room.
The actor wrote in a statement, Make no mistake, the tragedy unfolding in Australia is climate change based.
Which the actor wrote in a statement read by an audibly emotional Jennifer Aniston.
We need to act based on science, move our global workforce to renewable energy, and respect our planet for the unique and amazing place it is.
Others joined the chorus, including Joker winner Joaquin Phoenix, Carol Burnett Award recipient Ellen DeGeneres, and presenter Cate Blanchett.
See, the drones over at LA Times just are incapable of understanding this.
Nobody Nobody cares what Russell Crowe or Cate Blanchett think about politics or the state of the world.
And not that they don't have the right to say it, they can say it all they want, it's just that nobody cares.
And that was exactly the point that Gervais was making.
And then finally, this is maybe my favorite part, she says, as for spectacle, the most notable moment, aside from a few awards upsets, was the late arrival of Jay-Z and Beyonce.
The pair stood back during Kate McKinnon's moving tribute to Degeneres before taking their seats, but they at least provided a high-voltage moment in a room full of star power.
This says it all, okay?
To the TV critic in LA, the most notable moment, the most electric moment, was Beyoncé and Jay-Z walking into the room.
Just them simply walking into the room and taking their seat.
That's the water cooler moment in Lorraine Ali's mind.
That's the thing where at work the next day, you're at the water cooler, he said, hey Chuck, did you catch the Globes last night?
Man, did you see Beyonce walking into the room?
Beyonce and Jay-Z?
Man!
Unbelievable!
Unforgettable!
I'll be telling my grandparents about that one.
Or my grandchildren, sorry.
Maybe I'll tell my grandparents too.
That's because Lorraine Ali worships these people, because she worships people like Beyoncé.
Literally worships them as gods.
And she doesn't understand how anyone else could see it differently.
For her, to simply lay eyes on Beyoncé is the defining moment.
But that's not how the rest of us see it.
So Lorraine doesn't get it.
Neither does Vox, predictably.
In response to Gervais' Globes monologue, they published a piece Vox did cataloging all the times that Gervais has made offensive jokes in the past.
So this is kind of the same thing that Media Matters does with us at The Daily Wire all the time, where they come up with these montages and things of defensive things we've said on our show, but it's all of our best stuff.
They're very good at pulling out our best stuff.
So Vox did the same thing with Gervais, pulling out some of his funniest material and publishing it in an article, thinking that we'll all read it and shake our heads in disapproval the way that Meryl Streep would.
And in the headline of the article, how to tell a Ricky Gervais joke.
I mean, he's up there taking swipes at the most powerful people in media and Hollywood.
He's insulting Apple and Amazon.
And that's punching down?
Which is absurd.
But as I said, the main The main ones who didn't get it were in the audience.
The celebrities in the audience.
And nobody proved that point better than Michelle Williams, who is an actress, by the way.
She got up to an Accept an Award and proceeded to launch into one of the most deranged and disturbing speeches I've seen in a long time.
A speech where she's bragging about her own abortions, even as she gets up there pregnant.
and is using this opportunity to brag about having killed one of her previous children.
So I want to talk about that. We'll get to that in just a moment. But first, a word from Ring.
Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer. You know, you might already know about their smart
video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere. These things are, you know,
you see them everywhere now. So everyone knows about this.
But if you haven't gotten Ring yet, let me tell you about it. Ring helps you stay connected to
your home anywhere in the world.
So if there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor, you'll get an alert,
and then you'll be able to see and hear and speak to them.
program.
All from your phone, no matter where you are.
So you can be a thousand miles away, someone comes to your door, you can still talk to them.
We've been using Ring at our house for months now, and as someone, you know, myself, I tend to worry a lot about safety and security at the house.
And so for me, it's been a godsend.
It's great that we could see what's going on at the house, even when we aren't there.
And also for me, I travel a lot.
And so my wife is home with the kids, and I appreciate the fact that, because of Ring, Somebody comes to the door, if it's at night or something, she can figure out who's there and talk to them without actually opening the door.
So I think that's great.
And then also there's the convenience aspect of it as well, which I don't want to understate.
As a subscriber, as a Daily Wire subscriber, you have a special offer on a Ring welcome kit available right now at ring.com slash Walsh.
The kit includes a video doorbell and a chime pro, which is just what you need to start building a ring of security around your house today.
Go to ring.com slash Walsh.
That's ring.com slash Walsh.
Ring.com slash Walsh.
Alright, so at the end of his monologue, Gervais gave advice to the people who would follow him on stage.
Advice that almost all of them disregarded.
But here's the advice that he gave.
It's pretty good advice.
Apple roared into the TV game with a morning show.
A superb drama, yeah.
A superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweatshops in China.
So, well, you say you're woke, but the companies you work for, I mean, unbelievable.
Apple, Amazon, Disney.
If ISIS started a streaming service, you'd call your agent, wouldn't you?
So, if you do win an award tonight, Don't use it as a platform to make a political speech, right?
You're in no position to lecture the public about anything.
You know nothing about the real world.
Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.
So, if you win, right, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent and your God, and... So...
But, be that as it may, Michelle Williams, who won for something or other, was not going to give up her chance to deliver a homily, and so that's exactly what she did.
I've tried my very best to live a life of my own making, and not just a series of events that happened to me, but one that I could stand back and look at and recognize my handwriting all over, sometimes messy and scrawling, sometimes careful and precise, but one that I had carved with my own hand.
and I wouldn't have been able to do this without employing a woman's right to choose.
-$1.50.
Great.
How about it?
That was a little tiny bit.
-$1.50.
To choose when to have my children and with whom, when I felt supported and able to balance our lives,
knowing, as all mothers know, that the scales must and will tip towards our children.
Now, I know my choices might look different than yours, but thank God, or whomever you pray to, that we live in a country founded on the principle that I am free to live by my faith, and you are free to live by yours.
Women, 18 to 118, when it is time to vote, please do so in your own self-interest.
It's what men have been doing for years.
OK, wow.
There's just so much to unpack here.
First of all, The first thing that jumps out is she's got the audience tearfully applauding self-interest.
I mean, they are applauding self-interest.
Right after Gervais spent seven minutes at the beginning of the show accusing them of being a bunch of pretentious, high-minded, self-interested phonies, and then And then and then Williams gets up and says yay self-interest and everybody everybody Applauds you see the woman in the audience.
I don't know who that was crying She's crying tears of joy at the very thought of self-interest Michelle Williams says we should be self-interested and the woman in the audience.
Oh my god.
That's so beautiful Yes, selfishness.
I agree.
I agree By the way Do you think women, especially these women, need you to tell them to vote with self-interest?
Everybody votes that way, okay?
Women and men.
So what is Williams suggesting?
Is she saying that up until now, women have, as a group, been these selfless martyrs who don't take their own interests into account when they go to the voting booth?
No.
Now, although most people do already vote out of self-interest, so that's the last thing you need to tell anybody to do, and certainly those people sitting up front at the Golden Globes don't need any guidance or any encouragement to be self-interested, but is that actually what we should be doing?
Shouldn't we be voting rather than solely for our own interests?
Shouldn't we be voting for what's best for the country, what's best for our community, what's best for our families, what's best for our children?
Isn't that the more noble approach here?
And wait a second, sidebar, what is Michelle Williams doing talking about women as if they're some separate, distinct, exclusive group?
What is she doing talking about women's bodies?
None of that exists anymore, Michelle, remember?
Keep up with your own ideology here.
You're not allowed to say that stuff anymore.
That doesn't exist.
There is no woman.
There is no man.
That distinction is meaningless.
That's your worldview.
It's not mine, that's yours.
That's what you think.
Now, if we could put that to the side, which we can't, but if we could, then we get to the bit about abortion.
And what, again, what an incredible illustration and vindication of Gervais' point.
You've got this room full of wealthy narcissists wearing outfits that cost more than my car, applauding the murder of children, applauding self-interest and child murder.
You've got a multi-millionaire celebrity winning an award for doing a good job of pretending to be somebody else, bragging about the time she killed her child, and her millionaire friends applauding it.
Now actually, let's go back.
I want to go back and isolate that part.
Let's go back and listen just to the part about abortion because there's a few things worth noting.
As women, and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice.
I've tried my very best to live a life of my own making, and not just a series of events that happened to me, but one that I could stand back and look at and recognize my handwriting all over, sometimes messy and scrawling, sometimes careful and precise, but one that I had carved with my own hand, and I wouldn't have been able to do this without employing a woman's right to choose.
To choose when to have my children and with whom.
When I felt supported and able to balance our lives knowing as all mothers know that the scales must and will tip towards our children.
Okay, again, this women's body stuff, what is a woman's body?
What is that?
That's not a thing that exists anymore, according to Michelle's own worldview.
So I just... Okay, fine, we'll try to put that to the side.
She says that things can happen to a woman's body that they don't choose.
She says abortion enables her to decide when to have kids and with whom.
Now, unless we're talking about rape, this is all nonsense.
Except in cases of rape, which accounts for less than 1% of all abortions.
So in the 99% of cases, when a woman gets pregnant, she did absolutely choose it.
Even if she didn't want to get pregnant, she still chose to do the thing that has billions of times in the past resulted in the conception of a new human life.
That was her choice.
And with whom?
Well, she chose that too.
She chose to have sex with a male member of the species.
They chose to participate in the reproductive act.
That's a choice they made.
You get rid of abortion, you do not at all impinge on choice.
Even slightly.
You do not interfere with a woman's ability to choose who she has sex with.
Or to choose whether or not to have sex in the first place.
Also, I want you to note something else.
It's kind of subtle, so maybe you might have missed this.
She says that abortion allows her to choose when to have my children and with whom.
You notice that?
Notice the phrasing.
She says, you know, I can choose when to have my children and with whom.
So the phrasing there is interesting.
When to have my children.
My children.
So Williams has a daughter right now, a child, and she's also currently pregnant.
So she was extolling the virtues of child murder while she was pregnant, which is sick.
But the way she phrases it makes it sound like my children, the two that I have, were going to come earlier, but it wasn't the right time.
So instead I had them later.
I didn't want to have my children earlier, so I had the abortion, and then I had my children later.
So this makes it sound like you can have an abortion, and then postpone parenthood for a time, and then become a parent later.
As if the child that's been conceived, you can abort that child, and then have that same child later.
This is the delusion that abortion clinics sell to women.
But of course, it's not true.
It is a delusion.
When you conceive a child, you have a child.
If you kill that child, they aren't going to be reconceived and then born some other time in the undetermined future.
They're dead.
And you're still a parent.
You haven't put off parenthood.
So when you have an abortion, you're not putting off that child and you're not putting off parenthood.
That's still your child and you're still a parent.
It's just that now you're the parent of a dead child.
And that child will stay dead forever.
And when you do have a child in the future, that's not going to be the child that you aborted.
That child is dead.
So now the child that you do have is going to have a dead sister or a dead brother.
That's the reality of abortion.
It doesn't allow you to choose when to have kids.
By the time the abortion occurs, that's irrelevant.
The choice of when to have kids is something that needs to happen before conception.
If you put off conception, then you have put off having kids.
But when you have the abortion, you already have the kid.
It's just that now the child is dead.
And that's, you know, the blunt way of putting it.
But there's no other way to put it.
So Michelle Williams, you know, according to her, she says she had at least one abortion.
She alludes to there.
So she, Michelle Williams, has three children.
Two alive and one dead.
All right, there's more to discuss, but first a word from Rock Auto.
You know, chain stores have different price tiers for professional mechanics and do-it-yourselfers.
The great thing about Rock Auto is that their prices are the same for everybody, and they're also reliably low for everybody, so you don't have to worry about they're going to try to, you know, get more out of you because you're not a professional.
Rock Auto always offers the lowest prices possible to everybody, rather than changing their prices according to what the market will bear or according to what they think they can get you to pay.
RockAuto.com is a family business.
You know, it's what I like about it.
It's online, but it's also family run.
Serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything from engine control modules, brake parts, lamps, tail lamps, motor oil,
new carpet, whatever you need.
Whether it's for your classic or your daily driver, getting everything you need, just
takes a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique.
Very easy to navigate, and you can quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle, and you can choose the brand and specifications and prices you prefer.
You don't have to be a car expert to navigate this thing and find what you need.
Amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need, rockauto.com.
Go to rockauto.com right now, see all the parts available for your car or truck, rockauto.com, and remember to write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so that they know that we sent you.
All right, before we answer a few emails here, one other thing.
You know, the fastest growing genre in U.S.
fiction is the genre where a person makes up a fake story about something bad that happened to them.
And of course, a convention of this genre is that the person doing the bad thing, the villain in the story, is always a Trump supporter, right?
And although it's not always specified how exactly we know that the villain is a Trump supporter, we just know it.
Intuitively.
So, we've got our latest entry into this genre.
It's a genre that, for shorthand, we could call the genre Smollett.
So, our latest Smollett is from a woman named Wendy Trong, and she had a tale to tell, and she told it on Twitter yesterday.
This is what she said.
She said, my son and I were in Costco quietly discussing his deployment, And a woman walked up to us and said, what are you crying about?
You won't have, you won't have any more kids to bother you when he dies and you'll have his life insurance money.
My son had to pull my hands from her neck.
F these maggots.
Maggots as in M-A-G-A-T-S, you know, uh, a, uh, uh, the, the term for, uh, for the reference to Trump supporters.
Okay.
She claims that she was at Costco just talking to her son, minding her own business.
And then she starts, I guess, crying about the fact that he's going to deploy.
And this woman out of nowhere comes in and says, what are you crying about?
He's not going to bother you anymore when he's dead.
Uh, and then you'll get his life insurance money.
I, I listen, you know, lots of things haven't happened in this world.
But very few things haven't happened as emphatically as this didn't happen.
I mean, this didn't even come close to happening.
I doubt that she was even in a Costco.
This is not even in the vicinity of something that could even possibly have happened.
Now, you have to give her points for being bold, though, because she just is not concerned with believability at all.
She has no concern for that.
She's tossing that to the wind.
Also, it doesn't bother explaining how she knows that the woman is a Trump supporter.
Maybe she screamed, this is MAGA country, afterwards.
She doesn't explain.
But this is the claim that she makes.
In this story, this woman, this Trump supporter, this fictional Trump supporter, this is the least believable villain since, like, I don't know, the guy from Power Rangers, Lord Zedd.
This is, it would be more believable to me if she said that the villain from Power Rangers showed up and dropkicked her.
I would be more likely to believe that than this.
But you notice something about these fake stories.
And this is how you always know that they're fake.
These fake stories that leftists make up to smear Trump supporters.
You notice that these people, these leftists, just have taken no time And exerted no energy in trying to actually understand the other side.
They don't see the other side of the political divide.
They don't see them as people.
They're caricatures.
They're cartoons.
Because this fictional Trump supporter that she made up in her fake story, that is just not how people operate.
At all.
There's nothing believable about that.
That is not a human being.
That's a cartoon.
And the fact that, this is what's significant about it, it's that to Wendy Truong, you know, she thinks that's believable.
Because that's how she sees Trump supporters.
She sees them as the kind of people who would go up to you at Costco and tell you that it's okay if your son dies because you'll get his life insurance money.
Meanwhile, the son is standing right there.
That's how she sees Trump supporters.
Which tells you that either she has never come out of her bubble to actually interact with Trump supporters, or when she does, she's not paying attention at all.
to who they actually are and how they operate.
Because if she did, she would see that these are normal people
who she disagrees with, but they're normal people.
They're not cartoon villains, as it turns out.
Alright, um...
So that's maybe a lesson.
If...
If you don't want to take the time to understand the other side
just as a matter of being a, you know, just for the sake of yourself being a decent person,
just for the sake of empathy, then maybe at least take that time so that
you can make up more believable stories when you try to smear them in the future.
Thank you.
Think of it as research.
It's research for the part that you're trying to play.
In the future, you want to play the part of the victim of an evil Trump supporter.
Well, then you really got to take the time, do the research, figure out what makes these people tick.
All right, you know, 2020 is going to be a bottomless pit of savagery as we watch Democrats attempt to rip apart the fabric of our political system in order to get rid of Trump.
The best way to stay informed and stay on top of all of it, God help us, is to become a Daily Wire member and get comprehensive news and opinion from us on demand, and today Is the last day, the very last day, to get 20% off all memberships.
That's 20% off all memberships when using promo code DW2020.
Members get our articles ad-free, access to all of our live broadcasts and show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro show every day, select bonus content, access to the mailbag, everything you could want.
What else do we have to give you people?
Plus our new all-access tier gets you live online Q&A discussions with me, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Michael Knowles, plus our site's other contributors and writers and special guests.
So if you have a question, you can get an answer.
Again, that's promo code DW2020 for 20% off all memberships today only.
Trust me, you don't want to miss this.
All right, let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This one is from Danette.
Says, warm greetings to you from sunny Chicago.
First off, I love your show and I actively watch all of the daily wires content via the new app.
And even though I've been a subscriber for a month now, uh, this, this, I didn't do this on purpose.
This actually works pretty nicely from the, from what I was just talking about in the promo there.
So here we have someone who uses the new app.
who uses the new app.
Even though I've been a subscriber for a month now and have yet to receive the legendary Tumblr,
wink, wink, nudge, nudge, I'm not bitter about it.
Well, I'll make sure you get that, Danette.
I'll look into that.
Attached is a picture of my family's favorite dinner.
What you have the privilege of gazing upon is a bacon-wrapped pork tenderloin
on a bed of various vegetables salted with Tony's Creole seasoning,
or as I like to call it, pig in a pig blanket.
It is broiled and served with my homemade smoked cheddar gravy.
We are primarily a keto household, so don't worry, this decadence will not kill us.
I hope that my bacon is a keto or keto, by the way.
Which one is it?
I'm going with keto.
I hope that my bacon cooking method meets your approval, as you are particular about your bacon.
Okay, so, Danette has given us a picture of her bacon, her bacon dish.
Let's take a look at this picture that you sent, Danette.
Here it is.
Now, I'm going to leave that up on the screen for a minute, because we really need to get into this.
Danette, you want me to review your bacon.
I will do it, but you can't get offended.
Now, remember, you asked for this.
Now, the management training course that I took for my assistant manager job at Domino's when I was 19 told me that you should always couch criticism with positive feedback as well.
So on a positive note, I like the idea behind your dish.
I like your energy.
I like your hustle.
I like your commitment to pork.
I like the cheddar gravy idea.
All that is good.
Very commendable.
Unfortunately, the execution is a disaster on the level of the Hindenburg.
Now this is supposed to be the finished product, correct?
What we're looking at here?
So you've already cooked it?
If you've already cooked this, then why is there raw bacon draped over the pork?
Is the pork tenderloin raw too?
Is that just a live pig hanging out under there?
I mean, look at this bacon.
Look at this bacon.
There is precisely one piece of bacon that is properly cooked on this entire dish.
And you can spot it yourself.
It's right there.
You see the horizontal strips of bacon at the bottom of the screen.
The one in the middle right there, that is the only properly cooked piece of bacon.
And how do you know that it's properly cooked?
Well, you notice the coloring.
You notice the charred edges.
You notice the texture.
It's got all of the hallmarks of a properly well-cooked piece of bacon.
So, well done!
You did one nicely cooked piece of bacon.
The problem is, there's like 20 pieces of bacon on that thing, and I would never say that it's a problem to have 20 pieces of bacon.
It's only a problem when you don't cook the other 19!
Now, Really, having that one well-cooked piece of bacon only makes the rest of it worse because then you get the, you know, now we can compare it.
So compare that to the vertical slice all the way to the far left of the of the screen.
Or no, the far right.
Depending on which way you're looking at this.
Now, notice it's sickly, pale, white appearance.
It looks like it has the stomach flu.
Pale, sweaty, soggy, just lying there limp.
And you serve that to your family?
Are you trying to kill them?
My God, Danette, this is... If my wife served that to me, we'd be in marriage counseling.
That's how bad it is.
Now, the bacon does get progressively better as you go down the tenderloin, but even the best cooked piece of bacon is not cooked very well at all.
So let me ask you this, Danette.
When you make meatballs, do you just...
You know, take the ground beef and grab a chunk of raw ground beef and throw it on the table?
Throw it in your husband's face?
Here's your meatball!
Is that what you do?
Because that's the equivalent of what you've done here.
I can't look at this anymore.
I am shocked and appalled.
I have to assume that this is some sort of practical joke.
But thank you for being a subscriber and thank you for listening as well.
Appreciate your support.
Let's go to Victor.
Says, Hi Matt, I agree with everything you say about gender.
Men are men and women are women.
But I've always struggled with your insistence that we shouldn't use people's preferred pronouns.
You say that calling a man a she or vice versa is bad grammar and violates the rules of language.
But grammar is a social convention and changes with the time anyway.
I think your argument is weak.
I think your argument is weak here.
Yes, the left is trying to change the rules of language, but the rules of language always change.
So what's the big deal?
Well, I think you have my argument wrong, Victor.
My problem with calling a man a she is not that it violates the rules of grammar.
It's not that it's ungrammatical.
It's that it's incomprehensible.
And also it's false.
So, you know, if I say that we should call elephants elephants and not horses, I'm not making a point about grammar.
It's not bad grammar to call an elephant a horse.
You wouldn't call that bad grammar.
That's just a lie.
Or a mistake.
Or a mark of confusion.
And if we were to codify this new rule or policy where elephants can be called elephants or horses, and horses can be horses or elephants, then we have made language unintelligible.
Not just ungrammatical, we've made it unintelligible.
Nobody has any idea what anyone is talking about.
Now, it's true, it's true that we don't have to call elephants elephants.
We could call them anything we want.
And every language has its own word for elephant, right?
So, that's not the point.
The actual word that we use for elephant, the word elephant itself, is basically arbitrary.
We could use any word.
We think about it, a word is a symbol.
Every word is a symbol, because it stands for something.
And when you're communicating, You are, to somebody else, you are putting into their head a whole string of symbols where each thing that you say stands for something in the real world.
Or something in your mind that you're trying to convey.
And so that's what it is.
You could use any symbol to stand for elephant.
We use the word elephant.
Fine.
But the point is, you need to have a different symbol for elephant than you do for horse.
It doesn't matter what it is.
Whatever the word is, whatever the sound is, whatever the symbol is, it doesn't matter.
It could be literally any word.
It just has to be a distinct word.
It has to not be the same word that you use for horse.
Or else, again, language fails to do the thing that language is supposed to do, which is convey meaning.
That's the point.
When I'm speaking to you, I am trying to communicate meaning.
And I want you to understand what I'm saying.
Now, this point you make about grammar being an arbitrary convention, and so it doesn't make any sense to insist on maintaining a convention and resisting the change of a convention, that, to me, I understand what you're saying, and I actually agree with what you're saying.
I just think that you're applying it to the wrong thing.
So that, to me, applies to, like, the whole thing about not ending a sentence with a preposition, for instance.
Grammar Nazis who correct you when you say, he knows what I'm talking about, rather than he knows about what I'm talking.
Or, there's the person I wanted to talk to, rather than there's the person to whom I wanted to talk.
Or, she's the girl I went to prom with, rather than she's the girl with whom I went to prom.
Or, that's someone I look up to, rather than that's someone up to whom I look.
Etc.
Here's an example of an entirely arbitrary grammatical convention and something that is subject to change and that has no real objective reason to exist.
In truth, it doesn't matter if you end a sentence with a preposition.
There's no reason why that should be wrong.
We just say that it is.
But it doesn't have to be.
And so, when you say, you know, if you say something like, that's the person I went to prom with, You're not conveying an untruth, unless provided you actually did go to prom with that person.
And you aren't saying anything unintelligible.
Everybody knows what you mean.
And that's why grammar Nazis are so annoying, is because when you say, that's the person I went to prom with, and the grammar Nazi says, no, it's with whom you went to prom.
Okay, you know what I mean.
You understand what I'm saying, don't you?
What's the point of the correction?
This is a successful human communication.
I told you that's the person I went to prom with.
You understand what that means.
There's no reason to correct me.
In fact, often the attempt to avoid the dangling preposition makes the sentence less comprehensible instead of more.
Like, that's the person up to whom I look.
Technically grammatically correct, but also it's clunky and weird and it takes you a second to even understand what I'm talking about.
It makes more sense and it's better to just say, that's the person I look up to.
The whole point of grammatical convention is to help language be comprehensible.
If a convention cuts against that goal, it's probably time to change it.
You know, that's for me as a writer, I don't, honestly, I'm not overly worried about all
the technical rules of grammar.
I'm worried about just getting my point across.
That's all I want to do.
I want you to understand what I'm saying.
And so, yeah, I'll end a sentence in preposition.
For me, and I think this is what most people do, this is what most people do.
It's kind of a feeling.
We all have this with language.
We have a feel for it.
And so you look at a sentence, and you might not be able to break it down grammatically and identify all the parts of speech and everything, but you look at a sentence and you sort of know if it feels right or not.
Does it look like the right kind of sentence or not?
And there could be times when a technically grammatically correct sentence feels wrong.
I mean, I do this sometimes when I'm writing.
Where I put a sentence down on the paper, well not on the paper, but on the screen, and I look at it, and it's grammatically correct, but it just feels wrong.
It looks weird, it's clunky, it throws off the rhythm, and so I'll correct it to a grammatically incorrect version of it, just because it looks better.
And I think it does a better job of getting my point across.
You know, the preposition thing, that's, I think that goes back to the 18th century.
It was really just a guy in the 18th century came up with this rule that you can't end a sentence in a preposition.
He just came up with it.
And ever since then, everyone says, okay, well, I guess we won't do that anymore.
But to insist that 21st century English speakers adhere to 18th century grammatical convention is silly and pointless.
Why not insist on 16th century grammatical convention?
Why not insist that we use words like thine and thou and saith?
Obviously, if somebody spoke that way today, we would look at them like they're crazy.
Or like they're joking around.
Even though it's grammatically correct.
Technically, a word like saith or thine is probably technically better grammar than what we say today instead.
But who cares?
Here's the other thing about changes in grammatical convention.
An authentic change happens on its own, organically.
So it's not like somebody decided in 1983 that now we're going to start saying went to prom with rather than with whom I went to prom.
It just shifted.
The language evolved as languages always do, and everywhere do, and will always do in the future.
Languages always change, always evolve, and that fact is never going to change.
With this pronoun stuff, on the other hand, it's very different.
Okay?
So when you've got language naturally evolving, I think that's basically fine.
As long as meaning is maintained.
Now what you see online these days of people replacing written language altogether with emojis and stuff.
Where now we're at the point where people can't even verbally or with writing communicate their emotions without putting a smiley face down.
Now we're back to using hieroglyphics.
I'm not a fan of that because that's a devolution.
That's a degrading of language.
Where language becomes less precise, it's less able to, you know, it's not as rich anymore.
You're not able to communicate your emotions and your thoughts as well.
So that I think is a problem.
But all of that is different from the pronoun stuff, and I'll tell you why.
Because with the pronoun stuff, we have a small group, a small politically motivated group, trying to impose a change.
They're not observing a change.
They're not defending a change that's already happened.
They're insisting on the change.
Okay?
And they're not doing like what I'm doing with the preposition thing.
With prepositions, I'm saying, this change has already happened, the convention has already shifted, it's fine, there's really no problem with it, so who cares?
With the pronouns, that's totally different.
You've got this small politically motivated group who are saying this must change.
It hasn't changed.
People still say he, she, all that.
The small politically motivated group is saying, no, no, we must change this.
And not because they want to make language more intelligible.
Rather, they want to make it less intelligible.
Their stated goal is to prevent the hearer from fully comprehending what the speaker is saying.
So that when a pronoun is used, they don't want the hearer to really know whether it's referring to a biological male or female.
They're trying to obscure rather than elucidate or illuminate.
And so that's the difference.
I bet you didn't think we were going to end with a 20-minute spiel on grammar, but here we are.
That just happened, folks.
We can't go back now.
And I think we'll leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Hope you get some good sleep tonight.
I know that I will not.
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 2020.
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.
