Ep. 425 - Bad Parenting And 'Transgender' Children
Former NBA star Dwyane Wade wants us to admire his good parenting because he's allowing his son to become his daughter. But this is precisely the opposite of good parenting, to put it mildly. Also, are Dems really on the verge of nominating an 80 year old communist? And should we teach our kids to fight fire with fire against bullies, or "be the bigger person"?
Check out The Cold War: What We Saw, a new podcast written and presented by Bill Whittle at https://www.dailywire.com/coldwar. In Part 1 we peel back the layers of mystery cloaking the Terror state run by the Kremlin, and watch as America takes its first small steps onto the stage of world leadership.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Welcome to the show, friends, neighbors, associates.
So they're really gonna do this.
Maybe, it seems like.
They're really gonna nominate Bernie Sanders, the 78-year-old communist.
He won the New Hampshire primary yesterday, of course.
There's still time for someone else to take it, but who's gonna step up?
Warren is dead in the water.
Biden is dead in the water, and he's just as old and crazy anyway.
Klobuchar had a nice third-place finish, but third place ain't gonna do it.
Buttigieg, maybe?
Now, I have no dog in this fight, and I can't stand either of them.
But from where I'm sitting, it shouldn't be much of a debate between Buttigieg and Sanders.
If I'm a Democrat, the latter is a decrepit old communist, and the former is at least young and somewhat talented as a politician.
Now, I've been saying this with the age thing for a while now.
I think this is really enough itself.
Put everything aside for a moment.
Put everything else aside for a moment.
Put even his communism aside for a moment, if you can.
Bernie Sanders is currently 78.
He'll be 79 come Inauguration Day.
83 at the end of his first term.
If he had two terms, he'd be 87.
87 at the end of his two terms.
The average life expectancy is 78 for men in this country.
And most of those men who die at 78, or thereabouts, don't have the most high-stress, high-pressure job in the country.
Least of all, did they take on that job at the very end of their life.
Which is what Bernie Sanders, at nearly 80 years old, will have.
By the way, your chance of developing dementia at 80 is about 20%.
Close to 20%.
Now, a lot of people thought that Ronald Reagan was too old.
And you hear this sometimes as a justification for electing really old people.
And we're told, well, they said that about Reagan, and look how that turned out.
He was 77 when he left office.
Sanders will be 79 on his first day in office.
Reagan was also diagnosed with Alzheimer's a few years after he left office.
He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's when he was the age that Sanders will be at the point of the midterm elections in 2022.
Like I said, everything else aside, this alone is enough reason to vote for someone else.
Someone besides him.
It is lunacy to put a man that old into a position as the most powerful person in the world with the most high-stakes job in the world, arguably.
There's no justifying it.
There's no possible way to justify it because you couldn't argue that this 80-year-old man with a bad heart, who's already had heart problems, is really the most fit for the job out of all the available options on both sides of the aisle.
You couldn't possibly make that argument in a reasonable way.
And don't give me the ageism crap, okay?
Is it ageism for me to say that I don't think 19-year-olds should be president?
Now, 19-year-olds are not allowed to be president.
Is that ageist?
No, because we realize that 19-year-olds, God love them, no fault of their own, but they don't, they're not fit for the presidency.
They're just, they're not old enough yet.
And so we say you gotta be 35 to run for president.
Because of the realities of being, like, 19 or 20.
Well, there are realities about 80-year-olds, too, and one of them is that you aren't physically or mentally suited for one of the most stressful, high-stakes jobs in the world.
How would you feel about an 80-year-old heart surgeon operating on you, or an 80-year-old airline captain sitting in the cockpit?
And don't tell me that, well, I'd be fine with it if he could do the job.
No, you would not be fine with it.
You would not be fine with it if you're about to take off or if you're boarding the plane and you get a peek in the cockpit and you see someone that looks like Bernie Sanders there.
You would not be fine with that.
Is that because you're ageist?
No, it's because we are mortal humans, sadly, and with that mortality comes certain Really unfortunate and not very fun conditions, and one of those conditions is that your mental and physical capacities break down with age.
It happens to everybody.
It's not ageist to point it out.
It just is.
I'm sorry, and I don't like it either.
It's inevitable.
It happens to everybody who lives long enough to experience it.
And so if you tell me that, well, my grandfather's 85 and he could do the job, he's smart as a tack, or he's sharp as a tack, I should say.
See, I'm losing my mind too.
Well, no offense to your grandfather, but no, at 85, I don't care who he is.
He's not fit to be president.
It's nothing against him.
It's just, you're 85.
You could literally die any minute.
Why do we want to admit this?
Why do people...
We spend so much time in this country denying stuff that everybody knows is true.
And so even what I'm saying right now, even people who hate Bernie Sanders, I will get angry emails from some of those people saying, how dare you?
This is ageist.
How could you say this about old people?
You know everything I'm saying is 100% true.
You know what it- because you've met old people.
You know what that's like.
You understand that we're mortal, right?
Everybody knows this.
Why are we pretending we don't?
But...
In any case, why am I going on about this?
If the Dems want to put this guy up for the general election, that's on them.
I mean, Donald Trump will be, what, 73 or 74 come the next inauguration?
If the Democrats want to put somebody up that makes Donald Trump look young by comparison at 74 years old, then that's, hey,
that's on them.
I'm not going to try to stop them.
All right, more to talk about.
I'm going to get away from politics and talk about other things.
But first, a word from LifeLock.
You know, one of the most important things we can do is protect our identity
because identity theft is, it happens every two seconds.
There's a victim of identity theft, which means a criminal could be spending your money, could be applying for loans in your name, could be damaging the credit that you've worked hard to build.
They could tear all that down.
It could be very difficult to get it back.
And that's why it just doesn't make any sense to not protect.
You think about all the things you protect in your life.
You lock your doors, right?
Well, how about protecting your identity and checking bank statements and monitoring your credit?
If you think that's enough, Well, it's really not because you could still miss certain threats to your identity.
You know, maybe your bank will give you a call if there's a suspicious withdrawal or something like that.
Well, that's one thing, but there are so many other avenues that identity thieves can exploit.
Good thing there's LifeLock identity theft protection.
LifeLock uses proprietary technology to detect and alert you to a wide range of of a potential identity threats like your social security number for sale on the dark web, for example.
And if you do have an issue involving identity theft, one of LifeLock's identity restoration specialists will work with you to fix it.
Of course, no one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses.
But with LifeLock, you get identity theft protection to help protect your devices against cyber threats for up to 25% off your first year.
It's 25% off.
You get all this protection.
Just go to LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.
Okay, former NBA star Dwayne Wade went on the Ellen DeGeneres show this morning, or should say yesterday morning, Tuesday, to promote an upcoming ESPN documentary about his life, which is called D. Wade Life Unexpected, if you're interested in checking it out.
A cynical person, which I have been accused of being that at times, a cynical person might expect that Dwayne Wade was using his son's sexual confusion as a marketing ploy for the film.
Now, I can't speak to his motivations, but whatever they were, he opened the interview on Ellen talking about his 12-year-old son, formerly Zion, now Ziya, who recently decided to become a girl.
Watch this.
We are proud, when I say proud, we are proud parents of a child in the LGBTQ plus community.
And we're proud allies as well.
And we take our roles and our responsibility as parents very seriously.
So when our child comes home with A question.
When a child comes home with an issue, when a child comes home with anything, it's our job as parents to listen to that, to give them the best information that we can, the best feedback that we can.
And that doesn't change because sexuality is now involved in it.
So when Ziya, a 12-year-old, came home, first Ziyan, everybody, I don't know if everyone knows, originally named Ziyan, Ziyan born as a boy, came home and said, hey, so I want to talk to you guys.
Um, you know, I think going forward, I'm ready to live my truth and I want to be referenced as she and her.
Uh, I would love for you guys to call me Zia.
Now that is, that's very instructive.
Wade's description of this process and his response to it is instructive and not instructive in the way that Ellen claims, uh, when she introduced him, Introduce Wade as an exemplar of unconditional parental love.
This is what loving unconditionally means.
No, that's... That is not what I mean by instructive.
Instructive in that it reveals the confusion and ineptitude of parents who allow radical left-wing gender theory to invade their homes.
Dwayne Wade is married to Gabrielle Union, who's a Hollywood actress.
And so, I don't know.
It will never not be weird to see a normal grown man spouting this left-wing gender theory nonsense the way that Dwayne Wade was there.
He doesn't even look comfortable doing it.
It doesn't look like he really believes it.
Is that because his wife, the Hollywood celebrity, has imposed this?
Who knows?
I don't know.
But Wade first explains correctly that, you know, as you heard, when a child comes home with an issue, as he says, it's, quote, our job as parents to give them the best information that we can, the best feedback that we can.
Okay, great.
Now, I agree with that, yes.
But then he tells us that his adolescent son came home, sat them down, says, I need to talk to you guys, announces that he's changing his gender and his name, and by Wade's telling, he accepted this self-identification without question.
What happened to providing information?
He just said provide information.
So what information did you provide to this child?
What feedback did you give?
This would seem like a very good time for a mature adult to give a child information about biology, information about sex, information about the nature of human identity.
Okay, these are things that a child doesn't understand, so it'd be good if an adult could tell them.
It'd be a very good time for a mature adult, if only one existed in young Zaya's life, to deliver a little helpful feedback.
And if not information, and if not feedback, then even a few probative questions Would probably be enough to clear things up.
Perhaps a question like, you say you're a girl, son.
What does that mean?
Can you tell me what you think a girl is and how you've come to the conclusion that you are one?
That's a really reasonable question to ask somebody.
Anybody who makes this kind of announcement, especially your child.
Say I'm a girl, okay?
What do you mean by that?
That's all you're asking.
What do you mean by that?
How about just that question?
Could anyone object to that question?
Could anyone possibly object to that follow-up?
What do you mean by that?
Tell me what you mean.
Give me a few more sentences here, just to fill in the gaps.
I want to understand what you mean by that.
Very supportive answer, right?
Very parental, very loving.
I'm not saying you attack the child.
I'm not saying you disown him or kick him out of the house or ground him.
I'm not saying that.
It just begins with, let me understand what exactly you're saying and what you're thinking, and then we'll try to work through this.
This is the kind of question a competent parent would ask about any significant decision or change that a child wants to make in their life.
If a child merely wanted to, let's say a child was playing soccer and decided that he wanted to quit soccer and wanted to play lacrosse instead.
Okay.
Although I think there may be different seasons, but either way.
If your son came to you and said that, you would probably follow up with some questions.
You probably wouldn't immediately say, okay, let's do it.
You would want to know why did he make this change?
What led up to that decision?
Is this really that he wants to play lacrosse?
Or is he, you know, does he really actually still want to play soccer but there are some challenges on the soccer team?
Maybe he got into a fight with somebody there or whatever.
He's not getting enough play time and so he's trying to back out and quit and go somewhere else.
And so maybe as a parent you're going to, depending, you're going to listen and then you're going to provide some direction.
Now with something like soccer or lacrosse, either one is fine.
It's not like there's one that's objectively better.
Well, lacrosse probably is objectively better because soccer isn't a real sport.
But still, generally speaking, either one's okay.
Even so, you're going to want to know, as a parent, what's going on.
The point is to help him sort through his own feelings to ensure that he isn't going to do something he ultimately regrets because kids have no sense of the future.
They can't see beyond the nose on their face.
They aren't thinking about that.
They don't even know what they want most of the time.
They don't know what they want.
So you ask a child a simple question like, what do you want in any given situation?
Much of the time they won't be able to answer.
They don't know exactly what they want.
It is mind-boggling that every parent would engage in this line of questioning about a change of sports teams, but some parents won't ask any question about a change of gender.
Okay?
That's where we are.
That there are parents who would take more seriously changing sports teams than they would changing genders.
In fact, it's worse than that, because Wade, who just a minute prior had claimed that a parent's job is to give the best information, which he was right about, switched courses and said that after his son became a girl, it was his, Wade's, job to go and get information.
He went from the leader in the household, giving information, to the sort of subservient follower taking cues from his 12-year-old.
So Wade says that he looked at his son-turned-daughter And says, you're a leader.
It's our opportunity to allow you to be a voice.
Except that 12-year-olds are not leaders.
I have news for you, Dwayne Wade.
Your 12-year-old is not a leader.
No 12-year-old is.
Do you know why?
Because they're 12.
Okay?
12-year-olds don't have the capacity to be a leader of anything.
Except maybe in a very limited capacity, like on a sports team.
They could be the captain of the team.
They don't have the capacity to be leaders of a cultural or social movement.
It's not their place to be the voice of the LGBT community or any other community.
Least of all, is it a father's job to be a mouthpiece for his child's supposed voice of leadership in society?
This is all completely backwards and disordered and wrong.
And underneath all of the madness is a boy who just needs his mom and dad to lend some clarity amid confusion.
He's just confused.
And instead, his ridiculous, ineffectual parents are more focused on following cultural trends and being fashionable than helping their child become a well-adjusted human being.
But don't worry, because, you know, Wade and his wife, Gabrielle Union, they knew where to get information, right?
About how to parent their, quote, transgender child.
His wife reached out to everybody on the cast of Pose.
Now, Pose, I looked this up because I'd never heard of the show.
It is a queer musical dance series.
That's a quote from an article.
So not to fear, Ziya, mom and dad are consulting with a queer musical dance series to find out how to parent you.
And then, you know, of course you've got Ellen sitting there nodding like this is all great.
Wow, this makes a lot of sense.
The train seals in the audience clapping.
It would be funny if it were not so psychotic and sickening and if it weren't actual children,
if there weren't actual children being destroyed by this unfettered, raving, left-wing lunacy.
So it's...
But it will never stop being...
.
Shocking.
We can't get to a point where we're used to this sort of thing.
Isn't it interesting, by the way?
Isn't it?
What a coincidence that it seems like the parents who have bought into left-wing gender theory, they're the ones who so often seem to be the ones giving birth to daughters trapped in boy bodies.
Isn't that fascinating?
What a strange scientific phenomenon.
You've got all these women, especially in Hollywood, who have already bought into this craziness, and then they happen to be the ones who give birth to the... It just so happens that all of their daughters are trapped in boy bodies, so what do you know?
It's just a coincidence.
I mean, it couldn't possibly be, right, that they are brainwashed themselves, the parents, into this cult of left-wing gender theory, and so then they're brainwashing their children?
Couldn't possibly be that, could it?
I mean, it couldn't possibly be that Zaya's parents have been foisting this on him.
That he's grown up in an environment of confusion and hasn't gotten the direction and leadership that he needs.
I mean, it couldn't possibly be that he's growing up in a household where he's told that gender, you know, gender is fluid, you can be whatever you want, nothing means anything.
The fact that you're a boy, biologically, means nothing whatsoever.
He's told that from birth.
And what do you know, at 12, he's saying he's a girl.
Couldn't be that.
No, no, no.
The best possible explanation for this is that, mystically, supernaturally, in some way nobody can explain, girls are really being born in boy bodies.
That's the best explanation.
Obviously, right?
Alright, checking in with our friends over at Tommy John's.
You know, when it comes to comfort, Down below, there's underwear and there's Tommy John's, the revolutionary clothing brand that's redefined comfort for Americans everywhere, including myself.
To put it simply, Tommy John's doesn't give an F. And when we say doesn't give an F, that means that they give three Fs.
They don't just give one F, they give three.
Fabric, fit, and function, which are the three things that you want when it comes to clothing in general, but especially the clothing you wear under your clothing.
Tommy John obsesses over every little detail in stitch by using proprietary fabrics that perform like nothing you've ever worn before.
As a result, Tommy John's men's and women's underwear sport a no-wedgie guarantee, comfortable, stay-put waistbands, a range of fabrics that are luxuriously soft, feather-light, moisture-wicking, breathable, and designed to move with you, not against you.
You don't want your underwear to be struggling against you and fighting a battle against you every second of the day.
So, give three F's about your underwear and upgrade with Tommy John's today.
Hurry to TommyJohn.com slash Walsh for 20% off your first order.
That's TommyJohn.com slash Walsh for 20% off.
TommyJohn.com slash Walsh.
The feel-good story of the week, maybe you heard Jussie Smollett Has been, or Juicy Smollett, as Dave Chappelle has named him, has been indicted on six counts related to making up a hate crime against himself.
So it's nice to see that Smollett's attacker has finally been brought to justice.
And I figured I'd be the one millionth person to make that joke.
Maybe there's a prize or something for being number one million.
But this is great and it will be interesting to me to see how Smollett decides to play this.
Now I'm guessing, I don't know, I'm guessing that he'll probably be offered a deal to avoid jail, maybe some community service, but avoid jail if he admits what he did publicly.
And that really would be punishment enough, in many ways.
Considering the utter public humiliation it would entail, humiliation that he's already suffered, of course, because almost everyone thinks he's a joke, but now he actually has to face that humiliation, honestly, and it would probably rule out him ever making a comeback in Hollywood again after he admits it.
Or, will he maintain his innocence, even to the point of doing a few months in jail, or a few weeks, probably, so that You know, he can still claim that he's innocent, he does his time, and that's it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him take that deal, take the jail.
If it were me, at this point, I don't know, I think I might take the jail cell.
Because you're committed way too much to the lie.
Especially when you consider, I went back today, or yesterday, after this news broke, and I watched that clip of that interview he did, shortly after making up the hate crime, where he started, where he broke down in tears, describing the incident.
Now, that looked fake as hell then.
I mean, you could tell he was acting.
Overacting.
Because he's not a great actor, as it turns out.
But the fact that he did that, and he was lying... Well, if he comes out now and admits that it was a lie, it'll be essentially the same as announcing, I'm a sociopath.
And I'm thinking he'd probably rather just go to jail than do that.
Alright.
Let me ask you guys about this, and I'm going to go to email in a second, but I wanted to mention this.
I want to get your opinion, actually.
My son got home from school.
Speaking of parenting, okay?
My son got home from school.
This isn't going to a transgender direction, just so you know.
We do a homeschool co-op, so two days a week he goes into basically a normal sort of school environment.
And so, well, I got home yesterday after the kids, and I go upstairs to my room, and I find my son there sitting in a corner coloring by himself.
And he's a really social, upbeat kid most of the time, so I knew that something was up.
And I was talking to him, and it took him a while, but he finally admitted that a kid was teasing him in school today.
The kid was apparently rhyming my son's name in insulting ways, which for a six-year-old, you know, that amounts to shots fired.
Now, he told me that this kid was rhyming his first name and his last name.
And I was trying to get my son to tell me, well, what were the rhymes?
Because, okay, I know my son's first name, there are some rhymes there, but Walsh?
What did he come up with for Walsh?
I went to school, public school, for 13 years, you know, K through 12, and no one was ever able to come up with an insulting nickname attached to my last name.
Now, first name Matt, you know, of course you got Fat Matt.
Fortunately, I was pretty skinny, so that never really worked out.
I don't really have a rat face.
I am ugly, but I don't have a rat face, so they couldn't do Rat Matt, so I kind of escaped it.
And then Walsh.
Where do you go with Walsh?
What rhymes with it?
I had one kid in sixth grade who tried to get mouthwash going for Matt Walsh.
Just didn't catch on.
That's a stretch.
Didn't work.
So I don't know what this kid was doing, but he thought of something.
And so I asked my son what the other kid's name was.
And I'm not going to say it here because I don't really want to publicly shame a six-year-old, but it was a name ripe for rhyming.
Ripe for it.
So I gave my son some ideas for rhymes, for insulting rhymes, that he could throw back in that kid's face next time.
And we sat for a minute brainstorming.
And my son thought that my suggestions were hysterical, I have to say.
So they did impress a six-year-old.
And so, yes, I did, the upshot here is I did help my six-year-old son come up with insults to use against a fellow six-year-old at school.
That did happen, I admit.
Am I a horrible parent for that?
I may be a horrible parent in general, but does it have anything to do with that particular moment?
And here's my justification.
First of all, I think that name rhyming and self-defense is ethical.
And I also think, on a more serious note, if I'm gonna be really honest, and maybe I'm being more honest than I should be, I actually don't believe in the be the bigger person stuff.
That probably won't surprise you, actually, but I don't believe in it.
I think that's a whole line that we tell ourselves and our kids, and I think it's a lie.
We all know it's a lie.
All of us know it.
All of us know.
Here's why we know it's a lie.
We say, be the bigger person.
Right?
It seems like what most parents say.
It's what they say in schools.
Kids insulting you.
Be the bigger person.
Walk away.
Tell an adult.
Bigger person.
Well, all of us know.
We went to school.
And we still exist in society today, even as adults we encounter, bullying takes different forms as an adult, but you still sort of deal with it sometimes, someone who's coming at you in a certain way.
We know that 99% of the time, when you're being the quote, bigger person, responding to an insult by not fighting back, by not throwing an insult back in that direction, when you're being the bigger person, it's because you're scared.
And you're being timid.
It has nothing to do with being bigger.
It's actually the opposite.
You're being tiny.
You're being this small, tiny thing shrinking away from the confrontation.
Bigger person is a lie we tell ourselves.
And I believe we all know that.
I think if you looked in your own life, at the times when you were being insulted, Or, attacked in some way, and you didn't respond.
If you're being really honest with yourself, the reason you didn't... You might... Bigger person is what you tell yourself later, after the fact.
In the moment, you're just scared.
And you're being non-confrontational, and you don't want to get into it.
That's the reason.
So, um... I think it's important to teach our kids that when someone insults them, throw it back at them.
When they come at you, come back at them.
Stay on your ground.
Don't be afraid.
We make a mistake, I believe, when we tell our kids stuff like, never insult anyone when they insult you.
Never respond.
Okay?
Don't be small like that.
Don't do that.
Sticks and stones.
Actually, words do hurt, especially for kids.
And times when you're insulted and torn down, times when someone belittles you to your face and you don't respond, Those moments can haunt you for life, even if they happen when you're a kid.
And we all know that.
And yet we still say this bullcrap to kids about these things we know are not true.
Because we experienced it, and we still say it.
I don't know why we do.
Now, I'm not saying this thing that happened with my son is going to haunt him.
I know this is a small thing, right?
I know this is... I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it, but it's a small thing, but...
It's only big in the sense of, I wanna instill in him from an early age an attitude of, I'm not looking for trouble, I'm not being a bully, but I'm gonna stand up for myself.
If you punch me, I'm gonna punch back.
If you insult me, I'm gonna throw something back at you, that's it.
I'm not being malicious, I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but it's as fair as fair.
That's how you get respect, especially as a boy.
I think it's a very good chance, you know, some of my best friendships happened in a situation like that.
Some of my best friendships, especially as a kid, began with insults.
Somebody insults you, you insult back, and now there's a respect.
So that's my thought.
And this policy that every school has of, it doesn't matter who started it, that is such BS.
It's one of my primary gripes about schools, honestly, where they say it doesn't matter, get into a fight, doesn't matter who started it.
Of course it matters who started it!
We say that he started it is not a good excuse.
Of course it's a good excuse!
It's a very good excuse!
If some kid is minding his own business, and another kid comes up and starts something, and the first kid responds, why in the hell should the first kid get in trouble?
How is that not a good excuse?
The only other option is to run away.
And be a tattletale.
Is that courageous?
Is that really more mature?
It's not going to get you any respect.
It's just going to make it worse.
Another thing people have said to me, I was talking about this online, and there were some people saying, well, no, the right thing to do with bullies when they insult you is to play along with it.
And even throw some additional insults at yourself, and that'll disarm them.
They'll disarm the bully.
They won't know what to do.
No.
Please don't tell your kids nonsense like that.
Don't tell them that.
It's not- that actually does not work.
Have you ever seen that work?
In real life, not in the movies?
I'm talking about real bullies.
I'm not talking about bullies, like in a Christmas story, where you've got a, you know, the tall, lanky, freckled kid and his- and his, uh, His little henchman hanging out by the fence, stealing lunch money.
Hey, you dweebs, get over here!
That kind of bully?
No, that's not real life.
That's movies from the 80s.
I'm talking about in real life.
Have you ever seen a real-life situation where a kid's being bullied and he gets out of it by insulting himself?
Or being submissive?
Being submissive in a good-humored kind of way?
No, it doesn't work.
It just makes it so much worse.
A bully would love that for you to play along with.
It'd be hilarious.
I actually did.
I remember distinctly when I was a kid.
I saw another kid try that strategy.
I witnessed it.
And it was a disaster.
It did not work out well.
It became very awkward for the kid.
Worse than it was to begin with.
And he walked away with his tail between his legs.
There's nothing wrong with telling our kids to, you know, defend themselves and demand some respect.
You have to demand respect in life or you're not going to get it.
And that goes for kids too.
It can be very damaging for a kid at a young age.
We could say they're very young now, it doesn't matter.
But especially when they're young, if they get into the habit of being submissive and shrinking away from confrontation, It's difficult to ever break that habit.
That'll set in, and they might be like that for the rest of their lives.
Now, one other thing.
We talk about being the bigger person.
Let me tell you what being a bigger person is like.
This would be a bigger person scenario.
Let's say there's somebody who is an MMA fighter.
Strong and bigger, can fight.
Could beat the crap out of pretty much anyone, especially people who don't know how to fight.
And let's say some little punk comes up to him at a bar or something and smacks him in the face.
And the guy, the MMA fighter, decides not- knows he could beat the hell out of this guy, decides not to.
That would be the bigger person.
Because that's coming from a place of strength.
You know you could do it.
You're definitely not afraid of this guy.
But you're being merciful, and what you're saying to the other guy is, you know, you're not even worth my time.
You're such a little punk.
I could rip you to shreds, I'm not going to.
Because I am merciful, I'm not going to.
That is being the bigger person.
But as I said, 99% of the time, when someone is insulted, punched, or whatever, and the person who got insulted or got punched doesn't respond, 99% of the time, they're not being big, they're being scared.
And so when you tell your kid, be the bigger person, don't respond, no matter what you think you're saying, what you're really telling them is, be scared, be a wimp, run away.
That's what you're actually teaching them.
And you know it, and we all know it.
Because you've experienced it, we all have.
Let's move on to do some emails.
First of all, before we get there, it's been a crazy year so far and the election race hasn't even started yet really.
It hasn't started in earnest, especially the general election.
It's hard to think that that's the case, but it is.
The best way to stay informed And to stay on top of everything is to become a Daily Wire member with 20% off your membership.
This promotion will be going away soon, so join now before it's too late.
That is 20% off all Daily Wire memberships when using promo code DW2020.
Members get our articles ad-free, access to all of our live broadcasts, the full three hours of Ben Shapiro, everyday selected bonus content, access to the mailbag, Ben Shapiro's election, Insight op-eds, Plus our all-new all-access tier, which includes the Q&A discussions with me and Ben Shapiro and Clavin Knowles, some of the other writers.
I mentioned yesterday I'm going to be doing a Q&A on Friday.
I'll be doing a Valentine's Day Q&A.
I'm not sure why they came to me to be the guy doing the Valentine's Day Q&A, but they did, so I'll be doing that.
And you can do all that if you're a member.
And again, if you want 20% off your membership, you have to act now before it goes away.
That's promo code DW2020 for 20% off.
Trust me, you don't want to miss this.
Couple of emails, mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Marcus.
Matt, it says, Matt, you wrote that it would be a tragic farce if America elects a communist 30 years after winning the Cold War.
Well, America won World War II and then elected a Nazi in 2016.
Isn't that a tragic farce too?
You know, Marcus, I did write that this morning.
Your email, I have no idea if you're joking or not.
That's where we are right now in our society.
I have no clue if that's a joke.
I would hope that it is.
And given that you're emailing me, I would think that it is.
Because if you're in the Trump is a literal Nazi camp, I doubt you'd be listening to my show.
Not that this is a show of constant Trump boosterism by any stretch of the imagination, but still.
So I don't know.
But then again, a lot of people really do feel it.
Assuming for a moment, That you mean that seriously.
Let me engage with it.
And if you don't, then plenty of other people do.
When I say that it will be a tragic farce some 30 years after the Cold War to elect a communist, if that's if we elect Bernie Sanders, that's because it would be.
It's the kind of thing that historians... I mean, think about that.
You've got this decades-long struggle with communism.
America wins.
A few decades later, elects a communist to run their country.
That's the kind of thing historians for centuries to come will be looking at and researching and trying to understand.
Books will be written about it.
Entire libraries on that subject.
I don't think we even understand how significant of a title shift that would be.
In the history of human civilization, really.
And when I call Sanders a communist, it's because he is.
I don't mean it in a general pejorative kind of way.
I mean, he really is a communist.
He might not use that word to describe himself.
He does use socialist.
He may not say communist, but that's his ideology.
And he's been very open about it, even recently, but especially in the past, talking about how Most major industries should be controlled by the government.
Okay, communism.
It's what it is.
Now, when you call Trump a Nazi, this is a theme I always talk about, right?
Words have meaning.
The word Nazi means something.
And so you just sound stupid.
Everyone sounds stupid when they call Trump a Nazi.
Nazi is not a stand-in for bad guy.
Nazis were bad guys.
But what made them Nazis was not simply that they were bad guys.
It's that they had a particular ideology and a certain agenda.
And so Nazis, actual Nazis, would be people that were members of the National Socialist Party in Nazi Germany.
Or, if you want to say, people today who are openly sympathetic to their ideology and their agenda and who are supporting it and trying to enact it.
Whatever you want to say about Trump, you can say Trump is the worst president in history.
You can say he's the worst person in history.
You can say that he's worse than Hitler.
That still doesn't make him a Nazi.
It's simply an incorrect label.
He's also not a dictator, as much as you might not like him.
Not a dictator.
Because those words mean something.
And he's not that.
So maybe expand your vocabulary and find another word to use to express your view that Trump is a horrible guy.
You could just say, horrible guy.
We all know what you mean.
But when you say Nazi, you automatically lose the argument because you're factually wrong.
We'll go to Nathan.
It says, from Nathan, I'm a big fan and watch your show every day.
Halfway through your show yesterday, you talked about how many people, including Christians, have an impulse to say that we're living in the end times and that the apocalypse is upon us.
I agree, of course, that climate change activists are pretty crazy and out of line with their claims about doomsday.
However, as Christians, isn't it healthy for us to do what Christians said, as Jesus said, in that we should be watching and waiting, expecting his return?
I'll admit many Christians go overboard with this, but nonetheless, shouldn't we as Christians be looking for signs of the times, especially in regards to Bible prophecy?
I would love to hear your perspective on this and eschatology in general.
Keep up the good work.
I think Jesus told us to be morally vigilant in the sense of not allowing ourselves to fall into sin and complacency.
But the point there, the point that Jesus made, is that the Son of Man will come like a thief in the night.
You're not going to expect it.
You're not going to know it.
You won't see it coming.
It will just happen.
And that's how death will also happen for all of us, whether or not we're around to see the end of the world.
Either way, our end will come unexpected.
As far as looking for signs of the end of the world, I think that's exactly what we're not supposed to be doing.
No man will know the day or hour.
An adulterous generation looks for a sign.
I mean, Christians have been looking for signs of the end times and believing they found those signs for 2,000 years.
From the very first, Paul addresses it in his letters that were written in the year 40, between 40 and 60.
So right away, people were looking for the end and thought that they were at the end, and there have been confident predictions of the apocalypse ever since.
Christian history is littered with them and they've all failed to pan out in spite of the fact that previous generations have had many better reasons to think they were living in the end times.
Think of the generation that lived through two world wars.
In the span of just a few decades.
Or the various epidemics that have wiped out millions across the globe.
Or think of earlier times when more localized destruction and mayhem may as well have been global because nobody knew what was going on outside of their own sphere.
Think of the 16th century when Europeans were landing in the New World and there was this clash of civilizations.
They probably felt that they were at the end of history, basically.
That the final piece of the puzzle was filled in.
You could hardly blame them for thinking that, but here we are, you know, 500 years later, the world's still going strong.
Maybe not strong, but it's going.
So at a certain point, shouldn't we catch on?
At a certain point, maybe after 2,000 years, we might say, okay, maybe we'll just stop with this and live our lives and, you know, it happens when it happens.
Besides, have you actually read the prophetic books of the Bible?
Revelation, Daniel, they're very abstract, heavily metaphorical, which means you could easily find references in them to modern times, but every generation in history has been able to do that.
Every generation has been able to find references to their modern times, to their contemporary times, in these books because the meaning is so much buried under this difficult-to-decipher imagery, and nobody knows exactly what it means.
There is a strand of Christianity that really holds Revelation as this central, crucial text, which I'm not saying it isn't a crucial text, but in the sense that they believe they can decipher it and that we should try to do that.
I don't look at Revelation that way, and I think clearly 2,000 years of history proves that it's not that.
I don't know exactly what it is or what it means.
Nobody does.
So, I think Revelation is interesting.
I think it's... The imagery is sometimes beautiful, sometimes terrifying, sometimes bewildering, sometimes confusing, but sometimes bizarre.
Right?
So it's interesting to read, but that's kind of as far as we can go with it.
Beyond that, if you're telling me you understand everything it says, then I'm going to have to think, you know, you're a charlatan.
Not you specifically.
No, you're not.
But people who say that are charlatans.
All right.
Let's see.
One last one from David says, let me preface this by saying that I think the left's gender ideology is extremely radical and that men and women are different.
I keep seeing you ask the left for a coherent definition of what it means for a boy to feel like a girl, and to define the word woman, etc.
But let me ask you, I agree with you that men and women are different, so can you please explain why it is not possible for a boy to feel like a girl the way I see it?
There are two options.
Either men and women are not different, in which case a boy feeling like a girl makes no sense, or men and women are different, in which case a boy may in fact feel like a girl, whatever that may mean.
Thanks, love the show.
Well, David, I think that since boys and girls are different, that is precisely why the statement, he feels like a girl, has no meaning.
What is a girl feeling?
What do you mean that someone feels like a girl?
Well, the only thing that that can mean, well, it can mean one of two things.
One, it can mean simply that he has certain traditionally feminine inclinations or proclivities or character traits.
But a boy who has feminine traits is just a boy with feminine traits.
It doesn't mean he actually is a girl.
And the left must agree with that, that it doesn't mean he's a girl, because they're the ones who say that our ideas of masculinity and femininity are artificial and socially constructed.
So you can't say that someone's traditionally feminine proclivities mean anything at all.
In fact, the word feminine, according to the people that espouse gender theory, the word feminine has no actual meaning itself.
It's totally decided by society.
So you can't really tie it to that.
And if we now say that men with feminine traits are women, Then we are saying that women must, by definition, be feminine.
We're not allowing women to be anything other than feminine.
Because we're saying that to be feminine is to be a woman, which means to be a woman is to be feminine.
But the left doesn't want to say that, so this whole line of argument is gone.
What's next?
Well, what else could a woman feeling mean?
It must then mean woman feelings are feelings that women have.
Very simple.
That must be the definition of a woman feeling, or feeling like a woman.
What does feeling like a woman mean?
It means that you're a woman feeling.
To feel like a woman is to be a woman who feels.
But by definition, men cannot have women feelings because they're not women.
The very fact that they're men having the feeling is proof enough that these are not women feelings.
And at any rate, the man would have no way of knowing it was a woman feeling because he hasn't been a woman in order to compare the feelings.
So how could he possibly know that that's how women feel?
He couldn't.
So it becomes circular.
How do we know that he's a woman?
Because he has woman feelings.
How do we know they're woman feelings?
Because he's a woman.
You see, it's circular.
And this isn't a valid way of thinking.
It's inherently illogical.
It's illegitimate.
And that's the issue with it.
Alright, but thanks for the email.
And I appreciate, you know, when conservative listeners email me, as they often do, trying to do the left a favor by making some kind of sense out of their gender theory.
And so I get so many of these emails from conservatives saying, you know, I think this is nonsense, but maybe what they mean is this.
It's like you're trying to do them a favor.
But I think we have to accept that no, this is really totally crazy and incoherent.
And there's no way to make sense of it.
It contradicts itself and you can't do it.
But I think it's a noble attempt anyway.
And thank you for that.
Have a great day everybody.
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.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
