Democrats want to wave the magic wand and "cancel" student loans. But if we have a magic wand to wave, why are we doing it for the sake of upper class people? Why not cancel car loans, or credit card loans, or mortgages, for the working class? Also, an "abortion storyteller," whatever that is, gives advice on how to talk to kids about abortion. It's as horrifying as you expect.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
We're hunkering down for some snow this weekend around these parts, and I'm really looking forward to it.
I'm looking forward to the familiar parenting ritual, which every parent is familiar with.
Where, you know, you spend 75 minutes getting the kids bundled up in their 19 different layers, and you get the boots on and everything else, and invariably you're always missing like one glove and one hat, and then you go looking for it, and someone has to wear mismatched gloves, and they start crying about that because they want gloves that match, but then they're upset because the hat is too cold or too itchy or whatever, and then you get them all bundled up, all padded, you know, like they're a glass vase that you're about to ship FedEx across the country.
And then, of course, one of them has to pee as soon as you get them bundled.
So you get them unbundled, and they pee, and then you get them re-bundled, and then, uh, and then you go outside.
As soon as you get outside One of them takes the gloves off and starts crying because
their hands are cold and then another one falls face first Face planting in the snow and starts crying because of that
and you're laughing because it's kind of funny And then you sled for maybe 92 seconds before everybody
wants to go inside Because they're bored and they're cold and then now you're
yelling at them like no you're gonna have fun We are having fun get down here and make a snow angel. This
is fun. This is family time have fun damn it, but and now everyone's crying including yourself
and so you go back inside and You take off all the clothes and then you do it again two
hours later But at least your wife gets the picture of the 45 seconds, the 45 second period where everybody was momentarily happy.
Your wife gets the picture of that and puts it on Facebook.
With a caption like, Snow day with the fam.
And then the good thing is that every other parent can see the picture and can get angry at their own kids for ruining the snow day and wondering why their kids can't be more like your kids who, according to photographic evidence, are apparently angels.
So, it's a lot of fun though, honestly.
I am looking forward to it.
So, I want to start with this.
Just because it annoys me.
And that's how I decide what I talk about on the show, if you haven't noticed.
There's a story on NPR.com right now with the headline, Canceling student debt is easier than it sounds.
Wow.
Easier than it sounds.
Great.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has pledged to cancel up to $50,000 of debt for 95% of student loan borrowers if she is elected president.
Reading from the article now.
Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed an even more generous plan if he's elected.
Generous is one way, but it's very easy.
I don't know if I would use the word generous when someone comes up with a plan that doesn't involve their own money.
It's very easy to be generous with other people's money.
That's very generous.
It's like if Jim comes up to me and asks if he can steal money from Bob, and I say, yeah, sure, go ahead.
Is that me being generous?
Or is that me just not giving a crap about Bob?
Both are, the article says, both are bold, controversial pitches that would have a hard time making it through a divided Congress.
But on Tuesday, Warren announced that she would use a little-known shortcut and wouldn't need Congress.
As president, she says she would cancel the debts of tens of millions of student borrowers all on her own.
It turns out she's probably right.
Warren wrote in the statement, our country's experiment with debt-financed education went terribly wrong.
Instead of getting ahead, millions of student loan borrowers are barely treading water.
I mean, I don't know if we can say it went horribly wrong when the problem is that people took out loans and are now expected to repay them.
I don't know if that's necessarily things going wrong.
I agree we have a problem.
And there's an issue here, but I don't know if you can say it went wrong.
This is very similar.
Democrats do this a lot with things, so it's very similar to when somebody talks about accidentally getting pregnant.
Something went wrong and I ended up pregnant!
No, nothing went wrong.
It actually went exactly right.
Actually, the sexual act that you participated in, it did exactly what it's sort of supposed to do.
So when you take out a loan and you sign on the dotted line, And then, and then the person who gave you the loan comes back and says, we want that money now.
You can't say, what?
Something's gone wrong here.
Something's gone terribly wrong.
Uh, back to the article about 43 million student borrowers owe the government $1.5 trillion.
And until now the department has only suffered student loan, uh, offered student loan forgiveness or cancellation to borrowers who meet certain criteria.
Um, But the plan, anyway, I'll summarize the rest of it.
I'm not going to read the whole thing.
Warren says that there might be some sort of loophole that she can use where she could just, on her own, stroke of the pen as a president, get rid of a lot of that debt.
But at the very end, we get a question offered by Adam Looney of the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center.
It says that Warren's plan would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
With the bottom 20% of borrowers by income reaping just 4% of the savings.
As such, Looney asks, why are those who went to college more deserving of aid than those who didn't?
That's a good question.
And we'll get back to that question in a second.
But here's another question.
Why are we using the phrase student loan cancellation or student loan forgiveness?
See, that's not really what's being proposed.
We're not talking about cancellation.
We're talking about transfer.
The debt will be transferred from the people who took the loan out to people who did not.
That's what this is.
And that's the word we should be using.
Student loan transfer.
So the only problem, of course, for advocates of this idea is that student loan transfer sounds unjust and kind of crazy.
I mean, it sounds crazy when you put it that way, right?
To say that, okay, we're going to take the loan from people who took out the loan and force someone who didn't take out the loan to pay it?
That sounds crazy, and that's because it is.
Now, of course, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have both claimed that they can transfer the whole burden to the ultra-wealthy, and they'll make the so-called ultra-wealthy pay for it.
The issue with that, first of all, of course, is that I'm not dumb enough to believe that it's only going to be the so-called ultra-wealthy carrying the burden here, because it never works out that way.
It never has in the past.
That's the first problem.
Second is that the ultra-wealthy are not any more responsible for a stranger's student debt than I am.
I know maybe it's not popular to care that much about the ultra-wealthy, but, you know, the reason I don't want to have to pay back someone else's student loans is because I didn't take out the loan.
Why should I have to pay it?
It's not my loan.
And, you know, if I had a hundred million dollars in the bank, I would feel the same way.
Yes, I could, I could, quote, afford it more, but why should I have to do that?
Any more than I should have to... You know, it's... Why should I... I didn't take out the loan.
It would be my same argument.
See, my argument right now for why I, as a non-millionaire, should not have to pay back other people's student loans, my argument is not that I can't afford it.
My argument is, it's not my loan.
So I shouldn't have to.
And that argument doesn't change no matter how much money I have or don't have.
But now Warren is talking about erasing debt with the stroke of a pen all on her own.
Again though, if you think that's going to be free, I mean, if she can even legally do it, which I don't at all think she can, but if you think the federal government is just gonna eat that trillion-dollar loss and not raise taxes to compensate for it, then I don't know what to tell you.
I really don't know what to tell you.
That is several steps beyond merely gullible.
If you think the federal government is just gonna say, all right, never mind, you don't have to pay back a trillion dollars.
Well, yeah, yeah, no, no big deal.
No big deal, we don't need it.
When has the federal government ever said that?
You think the IRS has ever said that to somebody who owes them taxes?
You think the IRS is going to say, you know what, forget it.
Actually, never mind.
It's okay.
No, no, it's fine.
It really is fine.
That doesn't work that way.
It does not work that way with the government.
It has never worked that way with any government ever.
That's not how governments function.
So again, what we're talking about here, one way or another, is the transfer of debt.
Taking the debt away from the people who signed on the dotted line and agreed to it, and putting it on the shoulders of people who weren't in that meeting, didn't sign that document, and haven't reaped the benefits of it.
Now, here's another thing to consider about this student loan forgiveness stuff.
And going back to the question that was posed at the end of the NPR article, Because it's hard for me to see this every time I hear about student loan forgiveness.
It's hard for me to see it as anything other than welfare for the upper class.
That's what it appears to be.
Because it's not like college graduates are the only ones with debt that they're dealing with.
It's not like they're the only ones who have large monthly payments they have to make.
The only difference is that college graduates tend to come from higher social classes and they have higher future income earning potential.
If not higher income right now, which many of them do.
So here's my point.
If we're talking about waving a magic wand and erasing debt, if that's actually possible to do, which it isn't, but if it is, if it were, in this hypothetical situation, and we have that magic wand, or Elizabeth Warren has that magic wand, why not wave it in the direction of lower class or poorer people?
Wave it in the direction of blue-collar workers and middle and lower class people.
There's a trillion dollars or so worth of collective outstanding student debt.
1.5 trillion dollars.
Okay.
And we're told we can get rid of that.
Well, there's also a trillion or so dollars worth of outstanding car loan debt.
Not everybody has or needs a degree, but most people have and need a car.
Especially middle class and blue collar workers because they're less likely to live in the city where you can get away with not having a car.
They're going to be out in rural areas or in the suburbs where they're commuting to work and most of them are paying $300 or $400 a month.
For their car, to pay off their car loan.
And that's an enormous burden for most people.
All of the economic benefits of releasing people of their student loan payments.
And this is the argument we hear.
That, well, think about the economic boom of telling people they don't have to pay back their student loan debt.
Now they've got all this extra money that they can go and spend on something else.
Which is already a problem, by the way, we won't get into.
But, you know, there's a fundamental problem with this consumer-driven economy.
Where it's not like we're saying, oh, you know, we could free them of the debt and then they could save the money for the future.
No, no, we don't want them to do that.
We want them to go and spend it.
So it's, you know, they're going to end up just as broke as they were before.
We need you to go out and just buy more stuff.
Rather than wasting your money to pay back your student loan debt, waste it on something else.
Waste it on consumer electronics.
Or something like that.
You know, go on a shopping spree.
But if that's the argument for so-called forgiving student loan debt, then I could make the exact same argument for forgiving car loan debt.
And again, a car is a practical item that people actually need.
Unlike a liberal arts degree, which in so many cases ultimately is useless.
There are a lot of people who are sitting around Essentially, with their college degree basically stashed in the garage, not using it.
There aren't a lot of people who have their car stashed away and aren't using it.
Unless they live in the city.
But most people, they have a car and they use it every day.
They need it.
Point being, why favor wealthier people who bought a worthless thing over poorer people who bought a necessary thing?
What kind of system is that?
Is that justice?
Is that fairness?
We're gonna say, we need to forgive their debt because they're wealthier and they didn't need the thing they bought.
What?
How does that make any sense?
How about credit card debt?
Again, around a trillion dollars outstanding credit card debt in this country.
Again, massive economic benefits from freeing people of that burden.
Again, that is a debt shared by middle and lower class people.
Again, it's a, you know, credit card is, I'm not going to call it a necessary item, technically speaking, but it's certainly useful for a lot of people.
And it proves more useful than a college degree, which in so many cases is not useful at all.
This would be, you know, not welfare for the upper class.
This would be more of an egalitarian welfare.
For people all across the social spectrum.
Now, you might say, well, where does this end?
Cancel car debt.
Cancel credit card debt.
Cancel student loan debt.
Cancel mortgage debt.
We didn't even talk about that yet.
You could say, where does it end?
And where does this money come from?
And how does this work?
And how can you just absolve everyone of all of their financial commitments?
And what about the institutions that issued these loans?
I know it's not popular to stick up for them these days, and it's much more fun to demonize them, and maybe they deserve to be demonized in so many cases, but the fact is, how is it fair or just to just come in after the fact, after these loans have been agreed to, and the forms have been filled out, and to just make it, and to nullify all of these agreements that were made?
Yes, exactly.
See, that objection that anyone would have to canceling car loan payments and credit card payments and mortgages, I agree.
Where does it end?
That's a very good question.
You see, if you're arguing for forgiving student loan debt, you can either admit that the middle and lower classes deserve some relief too, and then say, sure, let's forgive all of that debt also, But then you run into the problem of the sheer insanity of this picture.
It becomes so large and so vast, and we're just forgiving all the debt, and that's a problem.
Or you can say, which appears to be what most people are saying, if not directly, this is the answer, the answer appears to be, well, no, this should be an isolated, one-time, special thing, And we're going to do it for college graduates.
But then you have to explain why college graduates in the upper class should be the beneficiaries of the isolated one-time special thing.
Why not the lower class?
If we are going to do it as a one-time thing for one group of people, why not make it for the car payment?
Or the credit card?
Or mortgage?
Now, there, the outstanding collective debt is, I think, more like 8 trillion rather than 1.
But, hey, if you can for- I mean, a trillion dollars is already an astronomical amount that nobody can even wrap their heads around.
So, if you can wave a wand and forgive a trillion dollars, you can- why can't you forgive 8 trillion?
If you can forgive a trillion, you can literally forgive any amount.
You could forgive a quadrillion.
Who cares?
At that point.
Keep in mind, again, that college graduates will statistically make more money.
Not only that, but they're also moving into blue-collar territory and increasingly taking jobs from blue-collar people, despite the fact that the jobs that they're taking don't actually necessitate a college degree.
So they're taking more money, they're taking jobs, They're reaping the benefits of an education that these working-class people either weren't able to attain or chose not to for the sake of being financially wise and prudent, and yet they, the college graduates, get the handout?
That doesn't make any sense.
See, this is the problem that compassion from the government is always a double-edged sword.
There's always a loser.
There are always many losers in the end.
In fact, it always ends up that you create more losers than you had before.
And so by canceling student loan debt, you've created a lot of losers in that situation.
All the working class people.
And then not to mention all of the college graduates who already paid off their debt and made the financial sacrifices.
All the people who could have gone to college but chose not to because they didn't want to pay for it.
And they did what they thought was the financially smart thing.
All of the people who went to a less expensive college than they could have and got a less, um, you know, a less valuable degree than they could have gotten because they didn't want to have that debt on their shoulders.
Only to later find out that, oh, they might as well have done it because they didn't have to pay it back anyway.
You've made losers out of all of them.
All for the sake of making this one group of people into winners.
That doesn't seem just to me.
And the objection about, well, what about the people who paid off their loans already?
You know, this is often waved off by the people who advocate for student loan forgiveness.
I don't know how you can wave it off.
That's a serious problem here.
Because there are a lot of people in this country who made a lot of financial sacrifices in order to pay back their student loans.
And there's a lot of things that they could have done and wanted to do but didn't do, such as buy a nicer house, buy a second car, so on and so forth.
They could have done those things, they didn't do them because they were being financially responsible and paying back their debts.
And now you're going to swoop in after the fact and say, oh, you know, you wasted, that was all a big waste.
You have wasted your life.
You know, you have wasted years and years of your life, largely structured around making decisions and sacrifices so that you could pay back all your debts.
You didn't have to do that.
You're a sucker.
You're a total sucker.
Loser.
If you can't see the problem with that, then again, I don't know what to tell you.
It's like you're too obtuse to have a conversation with.
That is a huge problem.
And it seems to me that if we're going to say you don't have to pay back the debt, then on that same basis and with the same logic, we need to be giving refunds to all the people who did pay back their debts.
I don't know how you can get around that.
If you have student debt that you signed on for and now you are entitled to it being forgiven, Then, yeah, I think everyone who paid it back is entitled to a refund.
For the same reason.
So you run into all those problems.
And these are the same kinds of problems that you would run into if you decided to forgive all the car payment debt.
You know, there's a lot of problems there.
And one of them being, among the many problems, one of them being, you know, what about There are people who go out and buy expensive cars that they can't afford because they just want to look cool and they want to have the latest and greatest thing, even though they can't afford it.
And they drive that thing around.
And then there are other people who make smart decisions and make sacrifices and buy cars that are not as nice and end up needing maybe a little bit more upkeep.
But in the end, it's something that they can afford.
And now you're going to come in and issue a blanket forgiveness to all these people?
Well, how is that fair?
Because the people who made bad decisions benefit.
You're vindicating their bad decisions.
I don't know if you've ever gone shopping for a pickup truck, but my wife and I have recently been talking about getting a pickup truck.
It's always the first time you, you know, you go online and start looking up how much a pickup truck actually costs.
There's always a little bit of a sticker shock because you think, well, when you think what is the most, what's the, what's the quintessential blue collar vehicle?
You immediately think pickup truck.
And so you're thinking, Oh, well, pickup trucks are affordable.
Well, you go and you look, new pickup trucks are easily 50, $60,000.
And you think to yourself, who's buying this?
This is, this is, you know, these are, this is not, these aren't vehicles that are targeted for millionaires.
These are vehicles targeted for blue collar people.
And of course, I think a lot of people just say, okay, well, I got to get something used.
I'm going to go and I'm going to buy a pickup truck.
That's a 2004 model with 150,000 miles on it.
And you know, if you take care of it, you could probably get it 300,000 miles.
And so it's still worth the investment.
Yet there are people who make stupid decisions, and they go out, and even though they're not making nearly enough money to afford it, they go out and buy a $60,000 pickup truck.
Should the government come in and just say, oh, what?
You know what?
Forget it.
You don't have to pay it back.
You can keep the truck, too.
And while all these other people that bought cars that are not as nice, now they're thinking, whoa, do I get a nice car, too?
I could have got the nice car if I knew you were going to do this.
See, it's the same exact problem with, same sort of problem with college loans.
So, that's why I'm, you know, I am not really advocating that we forgive auto loans, or credit card loans, or mortgages, or student loans.
I'm just saying if you're making that argument, if you're getting into that world, and you're, if we're in that realm now, Then I think there's a better argument to be made for forgiving the loans of people who are in the lower social classes.
But my solution, for anyone who says, oh, well, what's your solution to this?
My solution is very simple.
I say, we don't forgive anybody's loans.
And it's not like that's easy for me to say, I have loans I'm paying back too.
So I'm in the same boat everybody else is in.
Okay?
But I say, don't forgive my loans.
I'm paying off my wife's student loans.
I've got car loans.
I've got a mortgage.
I've got credit card debt.
I've got all that, like most people do.
What I'm saying is, no, don't forgive that.
These are financial commitments that we made.
I can pay them back.
I'm an adult.
I can do it.
I will do it.
Don't forgive mine.
Don't forgive anybody's.
The solution is going forward.
If we're going to stop the bleeding, going forward, people have to make better decisions.
That's the solution.
When it comes to car loans, if you're being killed by your car loan, well, maybe you shouldn't have bought the $45,000 brand new car.
Maybe you shouldn't have done that.
Maybe you should have gone for the $17,000 used model.
And when it comes to student loans, As I've been saying for years, there are a lot of people who are going to college, who are in college right now, who are about to go to college, or who already went, who do not need to go.
They don't need it.
And so, that's the solution.
It's very simple.
Only people who actually need to go to college should go.
There are some jobs where it is definitely, actually necessary to have that additional education.
There are a lot of other jobs where it isn't necessary at all, and then there are jobs in between where it's only artificially necessary.
Where the market has created an artificial need for a college degree, like all these blue-collar jobs, where college graduates are coming in and taking those jobs.
You don't really need a college education for that, and the education these people have is irrelevant to the job.
But employers are saying, well, you know, everybody has a degree, so we might as well require it.
It's lazy and stupid on the part of employers, but this is what they're doing.
And it makes it easier for them because they don't want to have to actually, you know, put any thought into who they hire.
And so they come up with these, you know, with this checklist for who they're going to allow in the door and who they're going to take seriously.
And they, you know, they throw the college degree on there because they figure, yeah, you know, most everyone has one anyway.
And if you don't have one, I don't care about you.
Are they ruling out a lot of very qualified, very skilled people who would be a great benefit to their company?
Yes, they are.
But this is what they do.
I think the solution is to get away from that.
And if you saw a massive decrease in the number of people who go to college, Then this artificial need that's been created for a college degree in the marketplace will start to dissipate.
But this is a long-term solution.
It's not a magic wand.
It's not a switch that we're flipping magically.
And it requires people to be responsible and make sacrifices.
And so, of course, this is a solution nobody wants to talk about.
Or even, if you're going to go to college, There's no reason why you need to, right out of high school, jump into the four-year institution.
You could take a couple years, you could save up some money, and then you can go to a community college and transfer the credits over to a four-year institution after two years.
And cut your costs in half, if not more than that.
For almost everyone who goes to college, there's no real reason not to do that.
And the only reason why most kids don't want to do that is because they want to go to the four-year institution where their friends are going, and they want to party that whole time.
And now we're supposed to pay for that?
Because you wanted to go party?
I mean, you could have paid a lot less, but you wanted to pay more so that you could party?
And your parents went along with that because what?
I don't know.
They didn't want the embarrassment of their kid in a community college?
They wanted to brag to their friends about their kid being, you know, in the four-year institution right out of high school?
And now the rest of us have to pay for that nonsense?
No.
I mean, that's the dirty little secret here that isn't much of a secret.
Why is it?
As I said, there is just no real reason why kids need to come out of high school and go right into a four-year institution.
There's no good reason for that.
The only reason why most kids want that and why most families want that, well, for the kids, is because they want to party.
And for the parents, it's because of the social factor.
They'd be embarrassed if their kids didn't go right to college.
That's the reality.
And I think we need to talk about that when we're painting all these people as victims.
We need to remember why they made some of these choices.
Alright.
Moving on.
Briefly, this is kind of related to what we talked about yesterday with the child-free Reddit thread.
Yesterday, there was also a conversation on social media about how to talk to kids about abortion.
And a woman named Renee Bracey Sherman offered up this nugget on Twitter.
She says, I've talked to my five-year-old niece about my work.
And abortion in an age-appropriate way.
She understands that kids are a handful, and sometimes people don't want to be pregnant.
She gets it because it's quite simple.
A little background, by the way, on Ms.
Sherman.
She is a reproductive justice advocate.
Big scare quotes around reproductive justice, by the way.
And here's the bio she offers on her website, and I promise you I'm not making this up.
Renee Bracey Sherman is the Beyonce of abortion storytelling.
She's a Chicago-born, Midwest-raised activist-writer and reproductive justice activist committed to the visibility and representation of people who have had abortions in the media and pop culture.
She is among the most vital voices in the United States, elevating the conversation about abortion experiences and using creative and innovative strategies to shift the conversation, centering people of color and other marginalized identities.
Her work is so influential that the right-wing website Twitchy recognizes her as the queen of all abortions.
So she's proud of that.
She's proud of being the queen of all abortions.
By the way, Renee, that was an insult.
That's not a compliment.
But the Beyonce of abortion storytelling.
Imagine dreaming up that description for yourself and then proudly typing it and posting it on your website.
And I'm not even sure what it means because Beyonce is not exactly revered for her storytelling abilities.
When you think about Beyonce, you don't think to yourself, wow, great storyteller.
No, you think this is someone revered because she can dance and lip sync.
And she's attractive.
That's, that's pretty much it.
But in any event, Renee thinks she's really good at talking about abortion, and it's apparently literally what she does for a living, and this is what she comes up with.
She comes up with telling a five-year-old that abortion is okay because kids are a handful.
This is her genius.
The abortion storytelling genius.
This is what she goes with.
And it goes to show, ironically, her attempt to explain it to a child, her attempt to sanitize it for a child, only proves exactly why abortion is so grotesque and evil.
Because it really can't be sanitized.
This is one of those things, there really is no way to explain it to a child that doesn't sound horrible.
This is the best that this person could do, who does it for a living, talks about abortion for a living, this is the best she could do.
And it's okay to kill kids because they're a handful.
Think about that.
Think about how traumatic that is to a child.
Think about how the child who hears that is going to interpret it.
What she's being told, literally, is that if a kid is a handful, you can kill him.
So it's not hard to think of how a five-year-old is going to very logically and justifiably connect those dots.
And think, well, wait, what about when I'm a handful?
Does that mean you can kill me?
But there's a certain honesty to it as well, which I was surprised by.
Because Renee here is basically admitting that the real reason people get abortions most of the time is that kids are a hassle and an inconvenience, and it's easier to kill them than care for them.
That's what she's admitting.
And we know that's the case.
But when you say it like that, and you just put it out there in the open, suddenly it doesn't look so sanitary anymore.
All right, let's go to emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Bobby.
Says, Matt, I was hoping you could rule on something.
The other day I was walking down the aisle of the grocery store when a woman I was passing by dropped her purse and the contents of said purse spilled all over the place.
Now, I was right there, so they literally spilled right at my feet.
But I had a moment of social panic, because on one hand, I wanted to help her pick it up, but on the other hand, you never know what a woman has in her purse, and I thought she might not want me to pick it up, because it might be personal slash embarrassing.
I mean, what if I bend down to help her, and the first thing I grab is a tampon, for example?
So, what I ended up doing was pretending I didn't notice, and I just walked right by.
Felt like a total jerk about it, but do you understand my reasoning, or will I be executed for this infraction under your malevolent rule?
Well, Bobby, I'm going to exonerate you of all wrongdoing, proving yet again that I am just and merciful.
Here's my approach in life in general, and by the way, I appreciate the fact that you are someone who way overanalyzes little Sort of meaningless interactions like that.
Because I'm exactly the same way.
And you're able to, in a split second, you're able to run through this entire complicated web of logic and then make a decision.
Whereas I think most people who aren't like us, probably most people just, you know, either they bend down and pick it up or they don't, but probably don't think much about it.
That's how normal people are.
But you're not normal.
Neither am I. And that's okay.
Here's my approach in general in life, especially social situations.
Always err on the side of leaving people alone.
If you have to err on one side or the other, err on the side of leaving people alone.
So if it's a toss-up, and you think it might be awkward for her to help, or it might be awkward for her if you help, then don't.
Just like if you think it might be awkward or intrusive to strike up small talk with somebody in an elevator, if it kind of looks like they wouldn't be interested in it or they want you to leave them alone, then leave them alone.
If you're going to hold the door open for somebody and you notice that there may be too many paces away and so if you hold the door open it'll be that awkward thing where they have to jog to catch up and they really would have preferred if you just walked through and not put them in this situation, if it looks like it might be that, then just keep going.
Don't hold the door.
Because the minor and momentary annoyance they might feel about being ignored by you is lesser than the annoyance bordering on panic they'll feel when they are imposed upon socially in an unwanted way.
So that's my ruling on that.
Now keep in mind, You're getting this advice from an antisocial recluse who would be perfectly happy living in the wilderness and never coming in contact with any other people aside from his family for the rest of his life.
So, you know, that's the perspective I'm coming from here.
But on the other hand, you also know, of course, that I have never been wrong about anything ever in my life.
So you also have to weigh that with deciding.
Whether to trust me or not.
This is from Lucas, says, bruh, your young person slang is deadass lit, fam.
Me and my young person friends were all like, this dude gets us.
Then we skateboarded to the arcade in our JNCO jeans.
Thank you, Lucas, for that.
But, bruh, I deadass suspect that you aren't really a young person, fam.
Reason being, you didn't mention your No Fear t-shirt, or your Game Boy, or the Limp Bizkit CD in your Discman.
So you're way out of touch, bro.
From Matt, says, you don't strike me as an Eminem fan, but did you happen to hear any of the new songs on his surprise album?
People on social media are going nuts for it.
I did listen to a couple of them.
Really bad, honestly.
That's my honest opinion.
Horrible beats, corny lyrics, a flow that sounds like rock rap from 1998, speaking of Limp Bizkit.
And I just don't think the guy has the ability to be, speaking of being a storyteller, I don't think he has the ability to, uh, to tell stories through song like he used to.
And which is, which is, um, sort of interesting when you see these artists who just lose their touch almost overnight and then they don't have it anymore.
And I think that's what happened to him a long time ago.
Um, from Joel says, Matt, I'm glad you, uh, You came across the vile, disgusting Reddit post of the girl boasting about murdering her twins.
You also stated this is representative of the pro-abortion movement.
I agree 100%.
This is exactly why pro-lifers need to stop using the nonsensical women are victims too line.
Women who get abortions are not victims.
They are murderers.
They do in fact know exactly what they're doing and very often they're excited to do it.
They aren't victims.
They're orchestrating a conspiracy to commit murder against their children.
Women who get abortions deserve to be prosecuted as murderers.
Well, Joel, I don't think you're right about that.
I think in many cases you have desperate, often poor, often very young women who go into these abortion clinics and they're scared and they have no one to turn to.
Their family either doesn't care or is pressuring them often to get the abortion and the father, in many cases, is also Pressuring in that direction.
And so the clinics take advantage of them, and take advantage of their fear, and convince them that they have no choice.
You know, ironically, we're told this is the pro-choice movement, but the abortion industry survives on the message that you have no choice.
The last thing they want a woman to do is realize that it's a choice.
You see?
Which is why, on their way into the clinic, If there's a pro-life vigil outside and there's a sidewalk counselor trying to hand the woman literature, telling her about her other options, the abortion clinic is going to send out escorts, they call them, to sort of be the lead blocker on the way into the door to stop the woman from even seeing the literature.
Now, if this was really about choice, the abortion clinic would say, yeah, read the literature.
The abortion clinic would say, you know, before you do this, there's a pregnancy resource center right down the street.
Go talk to them also.
You know, explore that option.
Have you thought about adoption?
If it was about choice, the abortion clinics would be doing that, but they don't.
That's why, you know, Planned Parenthood, they do 300-plus thousand abortions every year, and they give out maybe a couple thousand adoption referrals.
Just so they can say they did it.
And that's how they operate.
So they're going to exploit the woman, try to convince her that she has no choice, and they're going to profit off of the decision while she has to live the rest of her life with regret.
I think that's how it very often works.
And in those cases, while the woman is obviously still responsible for her own decisions, she's not completely morally exonerated, she is nonetheless a victim.
And I put the lion's share of the blame on the snakes in the clinics, the vultures who are circling around these desperate poor women waiting to pounce.
Now, of course, you do sometimes have women, like the one in that Reddit post I shared yesterday, who are cavalier about it, and spiteful, and frankly repulsive in their indifference to their children.
But I think they're a minority.
A definite minority.
I mean, you said, what was your phrase exactly?
You said, very often they're excited to do it.
I can guarantee you that's not the case.
That is not very often the case.
That is maybe the case sometimes in a minority of situations, like the one that I shared yesterday.
My point yesterday is that the Reddit thread is a reflection of the attitude of the pro-abortion movement and the industry.
The abortion industry tries to instill and inculcate this attitude in the culture and in women.
And as you said yourself, I said it's representative of the movement.
I didn't say that this woman's attitude is representative of most women's attitudes when they go in to get abortions, because I don't think it is.
Most of the women who go in to get abortions are not in the pro-abortion movement.
They are the ones who the movement targets, and preys upon, and exploits, and profits off of, and yes, victimizes.
So that's why I put Most of the blame on the abortion clinics and the abortion industry.
And we talk about, when we get into discussion of, well, if abortion was illegal, you know, how are we going to enforce it?
Are you going to start putting people in jail?
Well, I would start by jailing the abortionists.
That's my opinion.
This is from... Let's see if we have time for one more.
This is from JR, says, hello Matthew.
How dare you call me Matthew?
Nobody calls me that.
Yesterday on your show, you mentioned the importance of listening to people with different worldviews.
Well, I talked about that a few days ago.
You said on that end, you read a Sam Harris book.
I've recently realized that I'm living in a bubble of my own making and would like to break out of it and engage with different ideas like you talked about.
Do you have any other book recommendations written by people who are not Christian slash conservative?
I'm trying to put a reading list together.
Yeah, I do think it's important to read widely, not just from within your own worldview, but outside of it as well.
Now, what you're talking about, are you asking for books written by people who are directly confronting and trying to disprove Your worldview or just by people who are, you know, from a different worldview but aren't necessarily directly confronting you because that's two different things.
So, Sam Harris obviously is somebody who, you know, I talked about the book about free will that he wrote.
Very small book.
Now that obviously is, if you're a Christian conservative, assuming you're not a Calvinist, he's directly confronting you and presenting arguments against your view.
And I do think it's good and healthy and necessary For us to read that stuff and interact with it, engage with it, think about it, so that we can be critical thinkers and we can actually know what the opposing arguments are.
We can't rely on, and I think everybody does this, everyone's inclined to do this, much of the time, I can't speak.
We are inclined to, you know, we'll say that, oh yeah, we've listened to the opposing arguments.
But mostly, we listen to people in our own camp tell us what the opposing arguments are.
What we are less inclined to do is actually go over to another camp and find the smartest person and say to him or her, tell me what your argument is.
I want to hear from you, not from someone over there.
I think we need to start doing that.
And so I would recommend, yeah, Sam Harris.
He also wrote A book, I have it in my stack over here, well, it's over there.
The book I would most recommend actually, even over the free will book, is he wrote a book called The Moral Landscape.
And that's his attempt to rebut the moral argument for God, which I think is one of the strongest arguments.
It's also the argument that atheists tend to struggle with the most.
There have been some very brilliant People on that side who were very good at presenting arguments, but that's one that they, I don't think ever, Christopher Hitchens is a great example.
I've watched most of his debates, I've read a couple of his books.
He's obviously a brilliant guy, a pleasure to listen to, just because he's so, you know, witty and insightful, even if I disagree with a lot of what he says.
But this is one that seemed to trip him up, uncharacteristically.
His effort to rebut the moral argument for God was always embarrassingly, I think, weak.
So, Sam Harris tries to really give it a go and I think, obviously I disagree, but I think he makes a valiant effort.
So, I recommend reading that, The Moral Landscape.
Again, if you're looking for, I mean, you could read any Dawkins, Hitchens, you know, any of those.
A.C.
Grayling.
He wrote a book, I forget what it's called, but something like The Case Against God or something, something simple like that.
You can look up A.C.
Grayling.
But I think of all the atheist books that have been written in the last 20 years that are just sort of a general case against religion, and I've read many of those books, if not most of them, I think A.C.
Grayling's is probably the best because it's very concise and he goes through each argument and he gives his response to it.
And so I would recommend reading that as well.
Now, if you're looking for maybe books written by people who aren't Christian conservative, but also aren't necessarily arguing against you all the time, then, you know, someone like Steven Pinker I would recommend.
He wrote a book called The Language Instinct, which, as a Christian conservative, there's lots in that that you could easily agree with and be enlightened by.
But he's an atheist, I believe.
But, you know, he's not like a militant atheist trying to disprove you all the time, but he's An interesting thinker at any rate.
So that's somebody I would recommend, Stephen Pinker.
He's got other books too that I think are worth reading.
Who else?
Jonathan Haidt is another one, another interesting one.
Even somebody like Douglas Murray, I think.
He just wrote a book called The Madness of Crowds.
And certainly not a leftist, but also certainly not a conservative Christian either.
So he could be an interesting person to read.
You know, personally, I just... I am very bored with people who... I'm very bored with an echo chamber.
I'm very bored with people who just give you talking points.
And the same old, same old kind of thing.
So I'm, you know, as a reader anyway, and as a listener, um, I'm interested in people who think on their own and have their own thoughts and think outside the box as it were.
So that's, that's what I'm, that's what I'm looking for.
Um, I don't need them to have the same worldview as me.
In fact, a lot of times I prefer if they don't, because I kind of, I know what my worldview is.
I already know that.
I don't really need it repeated back to me.
I'd like to hear how other people think and how they sort through issues.
So I think it's good that you're doing the same, and so maybe those are some names that you could start with.
We will leave it there, though.
Everybody, enjoy your weekend.
Snow or no snow.
And I'll talk to you on Monday.
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 Robin Fenderson.
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.
