Last week a story went viral about a girl getting expelled from a Christian school solely for having a rainbow cake on her birthday. Lots of people took that version at face value. Turns out, unsurprisingly, there's a lot more to the story. When will people stop being so easily fooled by fake news? Also, the Women's March has faded into irrelevance while the March For Life continues going strong after four decades. We'll look at the difference between those two movements.
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
All right, great to be back and start another week.
Not really, but sort of.
I hope you all had a great, a wonderful weekend.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the Women's March happened this weekend, and the hilarious thing is that nobody seems to have noticed, and no one seems to care, which is unfortunate, really, when you think about it, because I don't mean to make light of it, but you think of all those cats that were left alone for the day, and I'd hate to think that they were left alone for no reason at all.
Attendance for the Women's March has been, of course, plummeting every year since the first year in 2016.
And there was a big deal made of the huge turnout in 2016.
Well, 2017 it was lower, 2018 even lower.
2019, last year, there were, I think the estimates I saw was about 700,000 people showed up.
But that is including all of the 650 local protests that happened across the country.
Add all of that together, 650 plus the big one in DC, you get to around 700,000.
Pretty paltry turnout when you consider the number of protests that were being held.
Now, it's interesting, I think, to compare this to the March for Life.
The Women's March couldn't, which the March for Life, which, by the way, happens this coming Friday, the Women's March couldn't sustain itself for even three years.
The March for Life, on the other hand, has been going strong for 40 years and consistently pulls, you know, half a million people at just one march, just into DC, okay?
Not at 600 different locations.
The difference, I think, you know, why is it that the March for Life can sustain for 40 years or more while the Women's March essentially lasted one year and has just been dying a slow death ever since?
I think there's a few differences.
First of all, the March for Life has a clearly defined purpose and goal, whereas the Women's March, well, nobody could ever really figure out what exactly these people wanted or what they're so upset about.
We know they don't like Trump, okay, we get that, but is there anything else?
Is there any actual injustice that they're trying to fight against?
And then the other thing is that the March for Life is full of young, vibrant, energetic, Positive people.
And if you go to the March for Life, that's the first thing, if you've never been, it's the first thing that jumps out at people when they go is, number one, everybody's so young here.
Number two, everyone's so happy.
They're determined.
There is a certain righteous anger at the injustice of abortion, but there's also an optimism and positivity there, as opposed to the Women's March, which is full of, well, this.
The patriarchy.
Donald Trump.
Mike Pence.
White supremacy.
Racism.
Misogyny.
Homophobia.
Transphobia.
Capitalism.
That's, you know, an angry, bitter, 50-year-old woman in neon hair shouting obscenities into the void is really the perfect encapsulation of modern feminism.
In the year 2020.
That's what feminism is right there.
What you just saw, that's it.
That's all feminism's got.
And it's also the perfect encapsulation of why nobody wants anything to do with these people and why no normal person would want to show up at a march with them.
And that, I think, brings us to the biggest difference between the March for Life and not just the Women's March, but most other political rallies that you see.
The big difference is that The people at the March for Life are there to defend the rights of other people.
Nobody is there for a selfish reason.
Nobody is there demanding something for themselves.
There's not anything wrong, in principle, with rallying or marching to defend your own rights.
Nothing wrong with that.
I think it always seems profound to me and pretty beautiful that at the March for Life, that's not what people are doing.
They're not defending their own rights.
They're defending the rights of other people.
Everyone is there to speak for and on the behalf of humans who cannot speak for themselves.
It is then a fundamentally selfless event and it's precisely, I think, what motivates and attracts people to it.
Ironically or maybe counterintuitively the fact that you're not going for yourself is exactly why people want to go
Okay much else to discuss today, but first a word from zip recruiter, you know
it's so important if you're a business obviously to hire the right people, but
These days probably like it's always been but especially I think these days it can be really difficult and every
employer knows this Whether you're a big company or small company or anything
in between, you know, how difficult it can be to find the right people and
And that's where ZipRecruiter comes in.
ZipRecruiter sends your job to over a hundred of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there.
With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and invite them to apply for your job.
As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employees who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the first day.
I think that the success rate there is so enormous that I just have to reiterate that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the first day.
And right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh.
That's ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh.
W-A-L-S-H.
Ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Now, okay, so I really want to begin today with I guess it's too late to begin.
I've already started.
But I want to talk about a story that went viral last week, but that's already been abandoned by the media, certainly, and by most people.
We've moved on to other things, and this is the game that the media loves to play.
They send a story massively viral, get everybody talking about it, or talking about, rather, one version of it, and plant that version into people's heads, and then move on.
Move on quickly and especially move on quickly once the real facts start coming out.
Then you're, then you're, it's, it's not, no, you're, you're dropping that to the side and, and, uh, and saying, oh, look over here.
There's something else to talk about.
Here's another point to another shiny object for people to focus on so that the impression of the story you gave them stays in their heads, uh, at the back of their mind while they move on to something else.
And usually I think people in my position let the media get away with this game following their lead about what to talk about because we don't want to be seen as discussing yesterday's news or being irrelevant.
Fortunately though, I don't especially care about being relevant.
Irrelevancy doesn't bother me that much.
So I want to go back to ancient history of five days ago and discuss this.
You may remember seeing this story online about a girl who was supposedly expelled from a Christian school simply for having a rainbow cake on her birthday.
That was the narrative.
Narrative is very simple.
Evil Christian school expels innocent student for something as silly as a rainbow cake.
Evil Christian school is so paranoid and so homophobic that even something as innocuous as a rainbow decoration on a cake Sends them into a tizzy.
That was the story.
Now to refresh your memory, here are some of the headlines from the mass media about this story.
NBC.
Christian school expels teen after rainbow sweater and cake were deemed lifestyle violations.
Huffington Post.
Kentucky teen expelled from school for rainbow shirt and cake, mom says.
The Today Show.
Christian school expels teen after she poses with rainbow birthday cake.
Washington Post, Christian school expels teen after she posed with rainbow birthday cake, mother says.
CBS, Christian school expels teen for rainbow sweater and birthday cake that violate, quote, Christian values.
So you get the idea.
Some of these headlines at least put on the little addendum of mother says or according to mother.
Some of them don't even put that on there.
They just report it as fact.
CBS just reports as fact.
This kid was expelled for this reason.
Now, let me actually take one of these articles, the CBS one, and I'll read to you how they frame the story in the article.
It says, a teenager from Kentucky celebrated her 15th birthday last month by blowing out the candles on a rainbow cake while wearing a rainbow sweater.
After her mother posted a photo from her birthday party on Facebook, the teen was expelled from her Christian high school.
Kayla Kenny was a freshman at Whitefield Academy, a private Christian school in Louisville, until she was expelled last week.
Her mother said the school called her daughter's sweater and cake lifestyle violations.
Kennedy's mom, Kimberly Alford, told the Louisville Courier-Journal that she received an email from Whitefield Academy's head of school, Bruce Jacobson, expelling her daughter.
He wrote that the picture she posted on Facebook demonstrates a posture of morality and cultural acceptance contrary to that of Whitefield Academy's beliefs.
While the rainbow flag is a symbol of LGBTQ rights, Alfred said that when she ordered the cake, the design was described as having assorted colors and was not meant to have a deeper meaning.
Wow.
Pretty horrible, right?
I mean, it seems horrible.
If you're, frankly, stupid enough to still take these kinds of stories at face value.
Which, unfortunately, lots of people are, it seems.
But there is no excuse to be that stupid anymore.
There is no excuse to be so gullible as to hear some kind of outrageous accounting of an event from the media and assume that it must be exactly as the media portrays it.
And that's, in fact, what I said last week when somebody emailed the show and asked me what I think about this story and what's my take on it.
I said, well, based on the version the media is giving us, Sounds like this girl suffered a horrible injustice.
But, I'm not going to simply believe that version.
Yes, that version says that the school did a horrible thing.
But that version, I'm not going to believe.
Because there's almost certainly another side to this story.
And sure enough, there is another side to it.
And we'll talk about that other side in just a minute.
But first, a word from Rock Otto.
You know, I've recently been having a lot of problems with both of our cars, as it turns out, because usually that's our experience, is that when one car goes down, the other follows.
It's just a rule of the universe.
And one of the problems is, you know, when you're having trouble with your car, and you go to an auto parts store, and you're looking for the part that you need, they're going to give you the runaround.
And a lot of times, they're going to end up just going online and ordering for you the part that you need, because they never have it in stock.
That's why you need RockAuto.com.
If you need to work on your car and you need a part, don't waste your time and go to an auto parts store.
Go to RockAuto.com.
RockAuto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to RockAuto.com to shop for Auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They've got everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, new carpet, everything you need.
Whether it's a classic or a daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks.
The rockauto.com catalog is super easy to navigate.
Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and filter by brands.
Well, you filter by brand, you can filter by specification, by price.
Whatever you need.
It's very easy to navigate that way.
Best of all, the prices at RockAuto.com are always reliably low and they're the same no matter who you are.
If you're a professional, if you're a do-it-yourselfer, it doesn't matter.
Amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need.
RockAuto.com.
Go to RockAuto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so that they know that we sent you.
Now, the other side of the rainbow cake story, which by the way, you know, why have cakes become the most controversial pastry in America?
I remember a time when cakes were just cakes.
You know, you just have a cake.
But now, every six months, there's an outrage centered around a cake, which I think is very upsetting.
I want to go back to a time when a cake is just a nice, delicious dessert that you eat.
But in any case, Rod Dreher, in The American Conservative, has a fascinating piece posted on the website right now, titled Rainbow Cake Girl, the true story.
You could go read the piece.
And he gives the other side.
He talked to some of the people at the school.
He also looked at the social media postings of the girl in question and read the public statements from the school on this matter.
And he presents a different picture.
Now, I'm not going to go through and reiterate all of it.
You can go read the piece yourself.
Suffice it to say, first of all, that she was not expelled simply for a cake.
The cake thing was the last straw in a long line of infractions, including some that her mom even admits to, like vaping in school, for example.
But there were many other issues, according to the school and other parents at the school.
So to report that she was expelled for the cake is inaccurate.
It's a lie.
If somebody commits a series of infractions, and the sum total of which gets them expelled, and then you come along and say that the last infraction in the series is the thing that got them expelled on its own, then that's just not true.
That's dishonest.
Second point, according to Dreher's piece, the cake was not just a random cake.
Allegedly, one of the main bones of contention that the school had with this girl is that she, at the school and on social media, had constantly been promoting the LGBT lifestyle.
This is a Christian school that believes in the biblical teaching on homosexuality.
And everyone who goes to the school agrees in writing, you know, by signing on, to the rules of the school agrees to affirm that biblical teaching, or at least to not publicly contradict it.
Now, if you disagree with the school's view on homosexuality, that's fine.
You don't have to agree.
You're free to go to any other school.
Just don't go to that school.
It's really simple.
This is what every time we get one of these controversies with someone's expelled from school because of some LGBT thing.
Just don't go to that school.
There are so many other schools.
And this is a private school also that you have to pay for.
You could go to public school if you want or find a different private school.
Trust me, there are a lot of Christian schools out there who don't care at all about their Christian identity and they'll throw open the doors for you.
Or you can homeschool.
I mean, there are so many options.
If you choose to go to this particular school, you are signing on to those rules.
So, allegedly, this family agreed, signed on the dotted line, then proceeded to disregard the agreement they made, as this girl allegedly went around promoting LGBT stuff at school and online.
And then after all this back and forth with the school, and the school's repeated warnings, She posts a picture with the rainbow cake and the rainbow sweater, and we're supposed to believe that the rainbow aesthetic in this case was totally arbitrary and random and not at all meant, you know, to symbolize anything.
Come on.
Now, of course, if the media had reported this story, honestly, Which, uh, and just said that a student was expelled from a Christian school for promoting the LGBT lifestyle, which actually would not even be fully honest because there's more to the story even than that, but that's at least more honest.
If they had done that, that still would be considered a controversial and bigoted move by a lot of people.
So the media could have still ginned up outrage and contempt towards this school, which is really what they were trying to do, what this was all about.
Could have done that by being mostly honest.
In other words, the real story in a lot of people's minds these days isn't much better than the fake story that the media originally gave us.
Which, you know, fine.
Be that as it may.
The truth matters.
And the right of a private school to have a certain identity matters.
And the responsibility of students and parents to abide by the rules they agree to upon entering the school matters.
You don't have to agree with the school's moral position on homosexuality, but you should be able to see that students and families don't have the right to enter into a private school and then openly flout, blatantly disregard the rules and policies they expressly promised they would follow.
And that's what's happening here.
Now, One other thing I want to say about this.
Personally, I'm always uncomfortable talking about stories like this.
You know, I don't want to be publicly discussing a 15-year-old girl's sexuality or her views on sexuality or anything like that.
Or her problems at school.
Or the fact that she was expelled.
I think all that is her business.
It's between her and the parent and the school.
And I'm not in the business of publicly shaming children who make mistakes.
But this is the situation that the media and the parents create.
Okay?
It's the parents who decided to bring this issue to the media and to air their grievances against their school to the national media.
Um, to publicize their daughter's situation.
And it's the media who blasted this story all over the place, and then, you know, the rest of us, who would rather not talk about it, are left with a decision.
Are we going to ignore it, and let a false narrative metastasize, and even at the expense of the school and its administrators, who are being unjustly smeared?
Are we gonna do that?
Or are we gonna speak up for truth and for fairness?
If the latter, which is what I favor, then we're forced to discuss aspects of a kid's private life, which again is entirely on the parents and the media for creating this situation.
Because really, you know, we're so used to this these days, this kind of thing, that I think we don't even give it a second thought anymore.
But, you know, there's no reason Taking all the LGBT stuff out of it, I mean, whatever.
A girl gets expelled from her school.
There's no reason why that is national news.
No reason.
No reason why NBC and CBS need to be covering it.
No reason why thousands, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people online need to be chiming in.
It's not national news.
It has no national relevance.
This is something that happened in Louisville, Kentucky.
And if you don't go to that school and you're not in that community, it has no relevance to you, doesn't affect you, you have no insight into the situation because it is a controversy between individuals in a particular place.
So you don't know anything about the situation, you can't know anything about it, you couldn't possibly have anything worthwhile to add, And so, that's why this shouldn't be national news, and that's why in the past, prior to the internet, we would never hear about something like this.
If you were in the community, you'd probably catch wind of it, but certainly if you went to the school, you would know about it.
But then that's okay, because you're close to it.
You're close to it, so it does affect you in some way.
It's certainly something that you're around, and you might actually have some insight into it, because you know the people concerned, and you know, all that kind of stuff.
But if this happened in Louisville, Kentucky, and you were living in Jersey City, you'd just never hear about it.
And you would go about living your life.
But now, these personal issues, these small, localized, personal issues become national news, and everyone butts in, and nothing good can come of it.
And that's why it frustrates me and makes me angry, especially to see parents encouraging this.
Even if you think that your kid is in the right, even if you think your kid's a perfect little angel, why would you want, why would you want millions of people to know about this?
See, if it were me and my kid were expelled from school, I'm certainly not, I'm not gonna put it online.
I'm certainly not going to publicize it myself, and if the media comes to me for some reason and asks me about it, I'm going to have no comment.
I'm going to say, leave us alone.
This doesn't concern you, CBS.
All right, let's read some emails.
By the way, while I pull up these emails, I wanted to mention I watched The Force Awakens with my kids on Saturday.
First time I've seen it.
I think it's maybe a known fact about me at this point that I'm not a big Star Wars fan, but my sons are major into Star Wars now.
I don't know how it happened.
I tried to shield them from the fate of becoming a Star Wars fan, but it...
Against my wishes, they become obsessed with Star Wars.
It's like something, it's like almost something evolutionary, something clicked in their minds, and all of a sudden they're running around the house with lightsabers.
And, which, side note to the side note, on Friday, my son says to me, he says, Daddy, I wanna be a Jedi when I grow up.
And I said, oh, you know, me too.
I might not be a big Star Wars fan, but I'd love to be a Jedi.
And he said, but you're already grown up, and you're not a Jedi.
And I said, yeah.
Yeah, that's true.
Daddy, you failed.
Yes, I did.
In so many ways, son.
In so many ways.
Kids always know how to lift your spirits like that.
But anyway, so I watched the movie, and I'm at the age of 33 now, and I'm just now getting acquainted with Star Wars universe, so I have only two questions I want to throw out there.
And maybe you can email your answers to me, because I really am curious.
First of all, and this was bugging me the whole time I'm watching the movie, are people drawn to the dark side because they want to wear the cool helmets and masks?
I've noticed a real deficiency with the good guys when it comes to cool helmets and masks.
Why is it that only the bad guys wear them?
It seems like anyone could wear the, and they wear them when they don't need to.
You've got like stormtroopers walking around the ship On friendly territory, and apparently the ship's oxygenated, so they could take the helmet off, but they're in the break room, having some coffee, and they've got the helmet still on.
And I get it, because it looks cool.
It's a cool look.
And my thing is, the good guys, they could probably... I mean, Kylo Ren, right?
The whole reason he went to the dark side is honestly just that he wanted to wear a cool helmet, and he wanted to look like Darth Vader.
That's the whole reason, the only reason he became a bad guy is because he wants to wear the cool costume.
So you could, I think the good guys could really stop that from happening and kind of stop the bleeding, as it were, losing all these Jedis to the dark side.
If someone just ran to Party City and grabbed some costumes, and then they could say to somebody like Kylo Ren, no, no, no, look, we got costumes too, you know?
You want your own costume?
You want to design something?
That's fine.
We've got people that can make costumes.
And then my second question, and this bugs me the most, and this honestly might be one of the main reasons I never got into Star Wars.
What I don't understand is this.
You're in a galaxy with extraordinarily advanced technology.
We're talking so advanced that just your average commuter ships can go the speed of light.
The Millennium Falcon is in a junkyard, and it can go the speed of light.
Or go faster than speed.
Not only that, but Han Solo crashes the ship in The Force Awakens.
Crashes it while going the speed of light.
And no one even gets a bruise.
So these are ships that can not only go that fast, but are made of some kind of material that is literally indestructible.
That's the kind of technology you have.
On top of that, you got robots that can pass the Turing test.
They're conscious.
C-3PO appears to be conscious, right?
He has thoughts and feelings.
Okay.
Really advanced technology.
And yet, you're using swords.
I mean, a lightsaber is a glorified sword.
It's a laser sword.
All of this technology, and you're using a sword to fight people.
You're telling me you couldn't come up with a weapon that would make that sword irrelevant?
And if a guy comes at you with a laser sword, you could just shoot him, right?
And that'd be the end of it.
Now, I know you're gonna say, oh, well, they could block what you see in the movie.
They block the lasers with their sword.
Yeah, that's because the laser guns, the lasers that come out of the lasers in the laser guns are super slow.
You see how slow those lasers are?
They go at the speed of a nerf bullet.
At most, they go the speed of a fastball.
Of maybe a minor league fastball.
And that's why they're so easy to block, and everyone gets on the Stormtroopers case when they say, and I've heard this before about how the joke is that Stormtroopers can't hit anybody, and they got the worst aim in the galaxy.
But the reason is that the lasers are going so slow, so they're easy to dodge.
So why not make a gun with a laser that goes the speed of an actual laser?
And in lieu of that, just get a regular gun, like a sawed-off shotgun.
And you could kill every Jedi in the galaxy, no problem.
So, that's my thing.
I just, I don't get it.
It would be like if I made a story about a future world with super advanced technology where, you know, everybody in their home has a 4D 50 feet TV screen that's about the, you know, is about the width of a postage stamp and all, you know, holograms and virtual reality, yet we're still using VHS tapes.
It just doesn't make any sense.
And it bothers me.
All right, let's go to emails.
This is from Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
Matt Walshow at gmail.com.
This is from Jonathan, says, Future Supreme Overlord Walsh, I was listening to your podcast today about forgiving student loan debt and how it is conceptually no different than forgiving any other kind of debt, but why does having debt Make someone more deserving.
I don't see how a person taking on debt for things he, she can't immediately afford and paying it off later makes him slash her more deserving than a guy who made decisions to save money up front and only bought things he could already afford so he wouldn't have to take on debt in the first place.
Why wouldn't the logic for forgiving student loan debt make literally everything free from the government?
Your future subject, Jonathan.
Well, yeah, Jonathan, that's exactly The point, there's no reason to favor, to give a special privilege or benefit or entitlement to people who haven't paid off their student loan debt.
And that's what we were talking about on Friday.
First of all, a lot of people have debt in this country.
Most people do.
Most adults do.
Whether it's car loan debt or credit card mortgage, I mean, most people have all those things.
And so if you're going to start forgiving debt, why not forgive that?
Or, yeah, I mean, why not go the other way?
If you've got a trillion bucks to throw around, why not reward people who already paid off their debts?
So that's just one of the problems with the student loan forgiveness idea.
This is from Laura, says, Hello, Matt, Supreme Leader of the World.
I come to you to have my husband's bacon judged.
He says that today it is perfect.
But you, as the all-knowing, will be able to tell me if it is or not.
I have attached a picture for you.
Okay, Laura.
Perfect bacon, you say?
Well, pride cometh before the fall.
But let's see here.
Let's take a look at it.
Let's put the picture up on the screen.
This is the supposedly perfect bacon.
There it is.
Okay.
So I think I get it now.
Your husband meant that this is the perfect example of terrible bacon.
I think that's what he meant to say.
I'm going to assume that's what he meant to say.
Because that would make sense in that context.
Yeah, okay.
So the coloring is okay.
The actual cook on the bacon is okay.
I'm not liking the color at the top left corner there.
You see that bacon?
That piece is much darker than the rest.
So the incongruity, the lack of symmetry there is very troubling to me.
Then at the very bottom, you've got that horizontal piece that looks sickly and looks like it has yellow fever or something.
So that's a problem.
But all of that, you know, would only knock this bacon down to about a C+.
So if I'm just going based on the cook and the color, I'm going to say C+.
Not bad, also not great.
The thing that drops it the rest of the way, to an F, and becomes grounds for deportation, is the most obvious thing of all, is the mangled, twisted, contorted shape of the bacon itself.
So, what was your husband doing?
Was he torturing the bacon to get it to talk?
I mean, it's already dead.
Someone let him know.
It doesn't have anything to tell him.
What did the bacon do to him that made him feel like he had to draw and quarter it?
When someone puts bacon down in front of me, I expect to see strips of bacon.
Strips of bacon.
Not mangled clumps of bacon.
A perfectly shaped strip, neatly sitting there, politely waiting for me to eat it.
Okay?
I want to see bacon that is proud.
I don't want to see bacon that's begging me to put it out of its misery.
That's my problem.
Now, I assume that when you saw this bacon by your husband, your immediate response was to contact a divorce attorney.
And I don't blame you for that.
And I'm not saying that it would be wrong to divorce your husband for making bacon like this.
I mean, certainly legally, ethically, biblically, you would be well within your rights.
But, look, you've got to think about the kids, Laura, if you have kids.
If you don't, then get out of there as fast as you can.
If you do, you don't want to leave them with a man who prepares breakfast this way.
And so, I'm sorry that you're going through this in your marriage.
And the other thing is, I don't blame your husband.
I blame whoever taught him how to make bacon.
That monstrous person.
And now I fear that he's going to pass that down to his own children.
And it's like a curse that will never end.
Let's put a stop to it.
Alright?
Glad we could have this talk.
This is from Trinity, says, Hi Matt, random topic.
Have you ever taken the MBTI personality test?
What is your opinion on this type of test?
Yes, Trinity, the Myers-Briggs personality test.
I did take it and I failed.
I got an F- on the personality test.
Actually, I haven't taken it at all.
I have no interest in taking it.
Honestly, I don't understand this obsession people have with taking tests to find out their personality.
Don't you know your personality?
Isn't that the one thing you know most of all in the world?
I mean, you are a better authority on your personality than anyone else could be.
So, is it possible that a multiple choice test could provide better information about your personality than direct access to your mind could?
But this isn't really about information, I realize.
I don't think people take these personality tests for information about themselves.
I don't think anyone takes it because they really want to learn something about themselves.
I think they take it for confirmation.
They want to have a certain personality trait, or a certain personality, generally speaking, and so they take the test to find out if they do.
Or to find out that they do.
Because, I'm sorry, I don't believe... I've seen the questions they ask on these personality tests.
I don't believe anyone takes them honestly.
I think you kind of know what personality you're shooting for, and so you're going to give the answers that will get you that personality.
So it's more, if anything, it's a test to find out what kind of person you wish you were.
Maybe there's some value to that, I don't know.
But it definitely doesn't tell you who you are, it tells you what you wish you were.
And that's why most of the time when someone takes a personality test, if I know the person, And they tell me what their result was.
As an objective observer, I'm always thinking, really?
That's your personality?
Are you sure?
Because as someone who has no stake in the matter, and I'm not rooting for them to have any particular personality trait, I can really see it as wishful thinking.
Because it's always like, yeah, you know, I took the test and it told me that I'm an assertive leader, but also thoughtful, but also sociable.
And intelligent?
And mysterious?
Okay, so you're James Bond.
Basically, the personality test told you that you're James Bond.
What a coincidence!
It turns out you're the coolest person ever.
You're the most interesting, and deep, and thoughtful, and, you know, yeah, what a huge, wow, good for you!
My other issue with personality tests is, and maybe a more relevant problem, Is that I just reject the whole premise of them.
I don't think that a personality can fit neatly into one of a few standard types.
Because the Myers-Briggs test, that's the one that has all the like the INTJ or whatever, right?
So there are, they've got a stable of several personality forms.
And I guess the assertion is that everybody fits into one of those labels.
And I just don't.
Agree with that.
I think that notion of personality is absurd.
People are complicated.
People change.
Personalities change.
Personalities also are not this static thing that stays with you your whole life.
Gender is not fluid, despite popular notions, but personality is.
You know, personalities can change quite a bit.
And so, I just don't agree with it.
Finally, from Joey, says, your argument about not forgiving student loan because what about the people who already paid it back?
Is stupid.
So should they not cure cancer because people already died from it?
Speaking of stupid, Joey, first of all, the fundamental unfairness to people who've already paid back their loans is just one objection that I have to the student loan, quote, forgiveness.
There are many other objections that I went into great detail about.
But as far as that one objection goes, Your analogy is very bad, and let me explain why.
First of all, cancer is not a thing that you contractually agree to and enter into.
It's something that happens to you.
You are a victim of it.
A student loan, on the other hand, is something that you agree to and enter into.
You are not a victim of it.
It is not something that just happens to you.
You don't wake up one day, and you've got a student loan debt.
You don't go to the doctor and the doctor says, oh, I'm sorry to tell you, I know this isn't what you want to hear, but you owe $50,000 to the University of Maryland.
It doesn't work that way.
I mean, you know it because you went in and not only did you agree to the student loan, but you eagerly agreed to it.
I mean, you really sought it out and wanted it, and so you got it.
Second thing is, we don't even have the theoretical ability to bring somebody back from the dead, right?
So the idea that it's unfair to cure cancer now because it'd be unfair to cancer victims that have already died is, of course, ridiculous.
But for giving student loans and refunding student loans that have already been paid back, both of those require the same thing, which is money.
It's not like we've discovered some new cure for student loans.
It's just, we always knew what the cure is.
It's money.
You just, you need money.
And if we have trillions of dollars to throw around somehow, then we have the theoretical ability to do both.
And if we're only forgiving the loans and not refunding, that's a choice that's being made.
And then we have, that choice has to be justified.
If you've got all this money, And you're doing something with loans with it.
I mean, you could refund the loans.
It is a theoretically possible thing to do.
But according to Elizabeth Ward and these plans that are put forth, that's not part of the plan and they should have to explain that.
So if you want to compare this to an illness or a physical injury for some reason, the analogy would have to be something like There's a disease that causes people after a while to lose their limbs, and eventually someone discovers a cure, but the cure could also regrow limbs as well as stop you from losing them.
But then we decide to only give the cure to people who have not lost the limbs yet, rather than giving the cure also to the people who have lost it, because we figure that, well, they've already figured out how to live with, you know, fewer limbs, and so they don't need it.
I guess that would be the analogy.
But that is also a dumb analogy.
It's less dumb than yours, but it's still dumb.
Because at the end of the day, like I said, student loans are nothing like a disease at all.
It's just not the same thing.
And so that's the difference.
Explained it well enough.
You know, if you're a regular listener to the podcast, you've almost certainly heard me talk many times about my position on the pro-life issue, whether in my podcast, my speeches, or Q&As.
This is something I've spoken about many, many times.
Abortion is not a reproductive rights issue.
It's a parenting issue.
Reproduction has already occurred by the time the abortion happens.
So this has got nothing to do with reproduction at all, as a matter of fact.
But since the passing of Roe v. Wade, over 60 million pre-born children have been killed in the womb.
60 million children who've never had a chance to give the world their love and to fulfill their potential and bring that into the world as well.
And also countless young women have been harmed physically and emotionally and they've been deprived the gift of motherhood, a gift that they may not see as a gift when they walk into the clinic.
But then, of course, the clinic is there to feed upon and take advantage of that fear.
And last year, the left went even further off the cliff, passing the New York law allowing abortions up to birth, and the Illinois law allowing abortion up to birth, including partial birth abortion, which is the most barbaric procedure you could possibly imagine.
And this year, almost every Democratic candidate supports no restrictions on abortion, and Democrats in office have even moved to lift protections on babies who survive abortion procedures, allowing abortion doctors to kill them after birth.
We remember the infamous statements of Ralph Northam talking about, you know, making a decision after the baby's already been born.
And to make matters even worse than all that, pro-life advocates are actively being targeted by the pro-abortion left.
This past June I spoke at a rally in Philadelphia after Brian Sims, the representative there, was harassing pro-lifers, peaceful pro-lifers who were outside of abortion clinics.
The Daily Wire has also been targeted.
When my boss Ben Shapiro spoke at the March for Life last year, our advertisers were targeted by left-wing media watchdogs, and several of them pulled their ads from our program because he was speaking at the March for Life.
This wasn't the first time, nor will it likely be the last time, that we are attacked in an attempt to shut down pro-life voices.
We're also not the only targets, of course.
Live action.
is one of the biggest voices in the pro-life movement.
They continue to do some of the most important work in that space, from raising awareness
and education on the abortion issue, to undercover videos that expose Planned Parenthood and
other abortion clinics for the horrific human rights abuses that they are responsible for.
Live action has been targeted numerous times on social media.
They've been banned from advertising on Twitter for their calls to defund Planned Parenthood.
They've been banned from Pinterest altogether for, quote, spreading medical misinformation, which is not misinformation at all, by the way, but is, in fact, information.
These are facts that they are spreading.
They've also seen their advertising efforts and their online distribution restricted depending on the platform.
So this has happened across the board for them.
But this cause is too important to stay silent.
That is why our dailywire.com members are so important.
Your membership keeps our cameras on and our microphones turned on.
Your direct support helps us to say no to advertisers who cave to left-wing ideologies.
You keep us and our message from being canceled, even though, as you know, there are very many people
and organizations out there that would love to cancel us.
But you're the ones who keep that from happening.
And that is why, from now until January 31st, a portion of any DailyWire.com membership will be donated to live action with promo code LIVEACTION to support awareness and education around the world on this issue.
So please join dailywire.com, stand with us against censorship, and you can make your pro-life voice even louder in the process.
And I think we'll leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll 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.
President Trump's impeachment trial is about to begin.
But the most important story of the day isn't the Senate charade to acquit the president.
Our political rot runs all the way back to the motherland.
