All Episodes
May 19, 2020 - The Matt Walsh Show
48:21
Ep. 490 - NYT Claims "Believe All Women" Is A Right Wing Conspiracy

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, an article in the New York Times now claims that feminists never said “Believe All Women.” That was a devious right-wing trick, apparently. Also Five Headlines, including the extraordinary, not to mention counter-productive and stupid, measures some businesses and people are putting into place ostensibly to offer protection from the coronavirus. And in our Daily Cancellation, the time has finally come to cancel the UN. I’ll explain why. 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, an article in the New York Times now claims that feminists never said believe all women.
Don't believe your lying ears.
They didn't say that.
They never said it.
They haven't spent the last five years saying that.
That was all a devious right-wing trick, a conspiracy.
That's what the New York Times is claiming, and other people on the left are echoing that claim, so we'll talk about that.
Also, five headlines, including the extraordinary, not to mention counterproductive and Stupid measures that some businesses and people are putting into place ostensibly to offer protection from the coronavirus.
And in our daily cancellation, the time has finally come, finally, to cancel the UN.
And it's long, long past due.
I'll explain why I'm canceling them.
All of that coming up.
But first, starting with this, you know, I actually had a whole different plan for this show today.
But then sort of at the last minute, I happened to see this piece in the New York Times.
And now I have to call an audible because this thing pissed me off so much that I have to rant and rave about it right at the top here.
I don't have a choice.
I have to.
So, to set the stage here.
You know, our friends on the left have been trying very hard over the past several weeks to reconcile their treatment of Tara Reade, who is the Joe Biden sexual assault accuser, with their previous claims that we should believe women or believe all women.
Only, it's very hard to reconcile because the Believe Women champions have discovered One woman they won't believe, and it just so happens that she's the woman accusing the Democratic candidate for president.
What a coincidence, you know?
So it very much appears that these people are a bunch of vile, gutless, shameless hypocrites.
That's how it seems.
You know, it really comes across that way.
How can you go from shouting, believe women, for years and years and years, to suddenly, don't believe that hussy, she's lying through her teeth.
That's a pretty tough transition to make.
And a noticeable one.
A conspicuous one.
It's going to make people think that you're full of crap.
So how do you get around it?
It's a tough spot that people on the left are in.
Now, one way of getting around it is to just not be a hypocrite and not have a double standard and apply the same standard to Tara Reade and Joe Biden that you applied to everybody else.
That's one thing you could do.
That's the honest approach.
But if you're not going to be honest, then what are you going to do?
Well, feminists on the left have figured out What their strategy is going to be.
They're going to do what they always do, which is lie and try to rewrite history.
So much so that now they are actually claiming that Believe All Women was invented by the right wing.
They're trying to, right now as we speak, they're trying to rewrite the history books while we watch them do it.
They're like right in front of us, pulling the history books out and ripping out pages while claiming they're not doing that.
Hoping we'll forget everything they've said and done for the past several years.
Which brings us to this New York Times piece written by Susan Faludi, titled, Believe All Women is a Right-Wing Trap.
How Feminists Got Stuck Answering for a Canard.
Amazing.
How did they get stuck answering for the things that they've said?
I don't know.
We'll find out.
Here's what the article says in part.
It says, Joe Biden has been accused of sexual assault and conservatives are having a field day, exultant.
That they've caught feminists in a new hypocrisy trap.
A woman with no corroboration beyond contemporaneous accounts charges a powerful man with a decades-old crime?
Hmm.
Doesn't that sound mighty close to Christine Blasey Ford's complaint against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh?
Yes.
Yet this time, many liberals who've championed the Me Too movement seem skeptical.
Gotcha.
Yes, gotcha.
That's right.
I mean, we weren't...
We weren't looking for the gotcha, but you have presented it to us, and yes, this is a gotcha moment that you have created for yourself.
But not so fast, because here comes the reversal move from Susan.
She says, In fact, Believe All Women does have an asterisk.
It's never been feminist boilerplate.
What we are witnessing is another instance of the right decrying what it imagines the American women's movement to be.
Spend some mind-numbing hours tracking the origins of Believe All Women on social media sites and news databases, as I did, and you'll discover how language, like a virus, can mutate overnight.
All of a sudden, yesterday's quotes suffer the insertion of some foreign DNA that makes them easy to weaponize.
In this case, the foreign intrusion is a single word.
All.
In my online searches, I encountered some feminists who seemed genuinely to subscribe to the phrase, but overwhelmingly, the Twitterati deploying the phrase were conservatives, wielding it as a whip.
Why?
Because the right knows what Me Too activists do well to keep in mind.
Peril lies in purity.
If the pluralism of the women's movement can be reduced to rigid boilerplate in the public mind, then the future of Me Too will have more to lose from a single untruthful woman whom it's sworn to defend than from boatloads of predatory men.
This is why Believe All Women is not an amplification of Believe Women, but its negation.
And so on and so forth.
So where does this leave feminists?
Feminism has indeed believed many things about all women, that all women are deserving of equal treatment under the law, equal pay in the workplace, reproductive health, freedom from domestic violence.
And feminists have long held that all women should be believed when the all refers to all categories of women.
I.e. equal regardless of race, religion, or economic status.
This is what Anita Hill meant when she said in a CNN town hall in 2017,
until we can believe all women, every woman's voice has value, none of us really will be seen as equal.
And good luck finding any feminist who thinks we should believe everything all women say, even what they say about
sexual assault.
Okay.
So there you basically have it.
The claim, you know, and you have to sift, it's a lot longer than what I just spent, too long reading,
but you have to sift through a lot of diversion tactics and obfuscation and everything to get to what she's trying to
claim.
The claim being made here, incredibly, and it's a claim that has been repeated and amplified by many other left-wing feminists and others on the left, is that they never said, believe all women.
They said, believe women.
And you see, those are two completely different things.
So we'll talk more about this in just a second, but first, I want to check in with rockauto.com.
You know, when you go into an auto parts store, the problem is, on top of all the other issues you have now, going into stores in general these days, they're not guaranteed to have what you want. Even if you call, I've had experience where
I call ahead and they say they have the part, you come in, they don't have it, there was a miscommunication.
rockauto.com is so much easier than walking into a store and having to answer all the
questions and finding out what they have, the very limited assortment of things that they have. rockauto.com
always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what
the market will bear, much like airlines do.
Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?
That's the question.
There's no reason.
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.
Best of all, prices, I want to emphasize, at RockAuto.com are reliably low.
And, uh, you know, I'm telling you this all the time.
If you don't believe me, just call my bluff.
Go check it out.
rockauto.com.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car truck.
Write Walsh in there.
How did you hear about us box?
So that they know that we sent you.
Okay.
So.
It's not believe all women, it's believe women.
That's the basic thing.
Jill Filipovich is a prominent feminist writer.
She shared this article on Twitter, approvingly of course, and summarized the point this way.
She says, This from Susan Faludi is so important.
Feminists never said believe all women.
The right inserted the all.
Feminists said believe women.
That is, start with the assumption that women are telling the truth instead of reflexively doubting them.
Okay, let's just be very clear about a couple of things here.
Number one, there is no difference at all between believe women and believe all women.
If you said believe women, then you said believe all women.
It's the same thing.
The all is implied.
When you say believe women, you are saying believe all women.
If people on the right were inclined to use the phrase, believe all women, it was only to emphasize, to highlight the danger and absurdity and stupidity of the slogan that feminists came up with.
Believe women is believe all women.
No difference, not at all.
You know, it'd be like if I said, if I said, I love dogs, which I don't, but let's just say I did that.
And then you came by with your German Shepherd and said, hey, check out Rex.
And I said, ew, I hate that thing.
Get it away from me.
Now, you would be quite reasonable to respond by saying, hey, you just said you love dogs.
And it would be no use for me to say, yeah, but I never said I love all dogs.
Because loving dogs means loving all things that are dogs.
That's what it means.
If there are dogs you don't love, then you don't love dogs.
You love certain dogs, and not others.
So, if what you meant was, I love certain dogs, then you should have said that, rather than saying, I love dogs.
Now, the statement, I love dogs, is true, even if you actually hate certain dogs.
It's true, technically, that you do love dogs.
But the all is implied in the statement, I love dogs.
So if you actually have a deep-seated hatred for certain dogs, then for the sake of clarity and proper communication, you would need to say something like, I love certain dogs, or I love some dogs, or I love most dogs, or even, I love all dogs but one.
Any of those would work.
And be much clearer and much truer.
But you need some kind of qualifier.
If you just say it as a blanket statement, then you've made a blanket statement.
What feminists are now claiming is that the all was not implied in Believe Women.
Actually, some was implied.
That's what they're telling us now, is that they really meant Believe Some Women, and we were supposed to understand that that was the implication.
But that's nonsense, of course.
In fact, if they only ever meant that we should believe some women, then the slogan was totally unnecessary.
The whole movement was unnecessary.
Yes, of course we should believe some women.
Nobody ever claimed otherwise.
There's been nobody anywhere saying that we should believe no women.
That was never a position anyone took.
Nobody ever said that we can't believe women ever about anything.
Um, what some of us did say is that women should be believed under certain circumstances.
If there's good evidence, if there's a good reason, if she's credible, if the accusation is credible, so on and so forth.
Um, that was, see, that was the approach that a lot of us were taking.
Believe women was a slogan invented in contrast to that approach.
It was literally invented as a response to, a retort to, the believe some women philosophy.
Now they're trying to pretend that it was actually meant to support the philosophy that these feminists have spent years railing against.
Again, amazing.
Just totally shameless.
Oh, and by the way, for the record, these people actually did say all.
So it wasn't just that the all was implied.
They actually said it themselves.
So I, you know, I have evidence.
I mean, any of us can go online and Google and you can go back and you can look at the rallies.
You can see the signs they were holding.
You could, you know, you could see the tweets and the things that they said, you know, on cable news and everything.
But here's just one example.
Take a look at this.
That was, this is during the Kavanaugh hearings.
We believe all, all, all survivors.
We believe all survivors.
And before you try to say, oh, it says survivors, not women.
Yes, well, the point is, what are you believing about the survivors?
You're believing that they are survivors, right?
To say we believe all survivors is to say we believe everyone who claims to be a survivor of sexual assault.
Everyone, all, all of them.
That is a huge sign that they are holding at the Kavanaugh hearings and that many people are gathered around approvingly endorsing that message.
All.
Now it's yes.
There's no way to actually live by that.
That is an impossible standard that you couldn't actually believe and live by.
True!
Then just say that.
I mean, come out and just say that, oh, you know, yes, I mean, we did say this and that was our point, but clearly it's crazy.
And we, and you know, we didn't really mean it.
We shouldn't have said it.
Okay.
There needed to be a lot more nuance in this conversation and we were wrong.
You could just say that.
Number two, Jill Filopovich.
You know, tried to make believe women seem more reasonable by explaining that what she really meant is that, you know, we should start with the assumption that women are telling the truth.
Which, by the way, is exactly what Biden said, almost verbatim, during Kavanaugh.
He said that we should start with the assumption that the essence of what a woman is saying is true when she makes an accusation.
Yes, well, that is certainly what believe women or believe all women would entail.
But do you not see that spelling it out like that actually makes it sound even worse?
That's not a clarification that makes it sound better or more reasonable.
Okay?
No.
You can't start with the assumption that what she's saying is true.
Of course you can't.
Our entire philosophy and system of justice is built on the idea that you start with the assumption, presumption of innocence of the accused.
Yes, now you aren't required to do that outside of the context of a courtroom, but it's also, again, not just the system of justice, it's our philosophy, our idea of justice, is that the most just thing to do, the most just way to approach it, is to start with a presumption of innocence when an accusation is made.
That's your starting point.
And what that means is, because here's the difference, right?
If you're starting with the assumption of innocence of the accused, then what that means is, if the person making the accusation, whatever the accusation is, what we're saying to that person is, show me the goods, okay?
Come with some evidence.
Give me reason to believe, because I'm not just going to believe it on your word.
We can't do that.
Now, if we're starting with the assumption that the accusation is true, which is what even Jill Filopovich right now is saying, that's supposedly her philosophy.
Well, if you're starting with the assumption that the accusation is true, then what you're saying to the accused is, you better give me reasons to believe you're innocent.
You better come with evidence that you're innocent.
Putting the accused in the impossible position of having to prove their innocence.
Or the nearly impossible position.
If not impossible, because you're trying to prove a negative.
You're trying to prove that you did not do something.
Which is almost impossible to do.
Especially when it was years ago.
So...
You see what they're doing here?
This is the definition of gaslighting.
They're saying, no, we didn't say believe all women, we said believe women.
And then, no, we didn't mean that you should literally just believe everything a woman says, we meant that you should start with the assumption that everything she says is true.
These are all just a series of distinctions without differences.
These are all words that mean the same thing.
It's like if I said, no, I didn't say it was a square, I said it was a geometric object with four equal straight sides and four right angles.
Same thing.
It's just a different way of saying the exact same thing.
So this is gaslighting.
Number three, and of course, you know, the big problem here is that whether it's believe all women or believe women or assume that what women say is true, whichever dumb slogan you go with, which all mean the same thing, The problem is that the left did none of those things with respect to Tara Reade.
Okay, Jill, you're saying, you know, we just have to assume that what the woman is saying is true.
That's all.
Okay, well, are you assuming that what Tara Reade said is true?
Did you start with that assumption?
No.
They most certainly did not assume that what Tara Reade is saying is true.
They most certainly did not believe her.
In fact, from day one.
Well, actually, from day one.
From day one to about day 40, they just ignored her.
And then finally, when they were forced to acknowledge her existence, they set to work immediately to discredit and destroy her.
And you know what?
Maybe they're right about her.
Maybe she is a lying scumbag.
It's quite possible.
It might even be probable.
Some of the stuff that's come out about Tara Reid is relatively damning.
So it's possible that she's making this up.
It wouldn't shock me any.
I've said all along that my immediate reaction is to doubt anyone who comes with an accusation years later and during a political campaign or a Senate confirmation hearing.
You know, anyone who comes along decades later Um, when the accused person is, you know, in the news for whatever reason, a prominent figure, and now they decide to come out and say, oh, by the way, that person raped me 30 years ago.
Anytime someone does that, anytime, my immediate reaction is to doubt, is to be skeptical.
It's not to say that it's definitely not true.
I'm not going to rule it out.
It's just, I'm going to have a lot of skepticism.
That's my reaction.
And I'm allowed to have that attitude because I never said believe all women or believe women.
I've said all along that we should believe a woman if there is good reason to, and if not, then we shouldn't.
I think the circumstances of this accusation, like the circumstances of Ford's accusation, are already good enough reason to be skeptical.
If a man abuses you and you want to accuse him publicly, maybe do it sometime within 30 years.
You know, like, at a certain point.
I don't think that's too much to expect.
And if you're gonna do it, don't wait until a presidential campaign or a Supreme Court nomination to come out and say, by the way.
I don't think it's too much to expect.
Yeah, I mean, if you're abused or assaulted or something by a man, You have every right to come out and you should come out and say it.
It's just, don't wait 30 years.
You know?
But again, I can take this approach consistently because I've always said this.
It's the left, people like Jill and the writer of this Times piece and the rest of them, who have said many, many, many, many, many times that waiting years to accuse someone is not an indication that a story is false.
That's what they've said.
And that other examples of a woman being untrustworthy or manipulative don't mean that she's lying about this particular thing.
And they've said many, many, many times that inconsistencies in a story don't mean the story isn't true.
Holes in the story don't mean the story isn't true.
An inability to remember details.
They've said many times, especially about Christine Ford, none of that stuff matters.
It's not relevant.
That's what they've said.
Only now they abandon it, wholesale, and pretend like they never said any of it.
Because they are, again, lying, shameless, vile hypocrites.
And, you know, the fourth thing, you know, just, you find again feminists so desperate to be victims that now they're basically claiming to be victims of themselves.
You know, what was the subhead of this article?
It said, how feminists got stuck answering for a canard.
Yeah, they got stuck answering for a canard they came up with.
That's what happens with canards.
If you come up with a canard, you gotta answer for it.
In other words, you're answering for your own words.
The standards that you set.
And so feminists set these standards, and now we're turning around and saying, what about your standards?
And they're saying, how dare you?
Stop it, I'm victimized.
They become fainting damsels in distress the moment anyone asks them to be consistent.
It's pathetic.
Alright, let's move on.
I said I had to rant and rave, so there was my rant and rave.
Let's go to news headlines.
Number one.
As we emerge back into society and out of hibernation, some companies and some people are going to rather ridiculous lengths, I think, in an attempt to protect themselves from the virus.
And I'm all about, you know, I don't hold it against anybody for taking precautions and being careful.
That's great.
There has to be a limit.
So I mentioned this on Friday.
Here's a cafe that, this is in Germany actually, a cafe that requires diners to wear pool noodles on their head for social distancing.
So you take a look at the picture.
That's what, I mean, you've got, you've got grown adults sitting at a cafe with pool noodles hanging off their head.
And the idea is it's, you know, that's going to give you the social distancing because if your pool noodle comes within It touches another person, then you know that you're too close.
Or how about you're an adult, okay?
You're not a child, and so just don't come within six feet of another person.
You should be able to handle that.
You don't need a pool noodle on your head.
And then here's a bar in Maryland that has a... Here's the image of it.
There's a bar in Maryland, has customers in these big inner tube things.
On wheels.
And this is supposed to enforce social distancing.
Now that looks like a bar, I don't know, it doesn't say what bar it is, but it looks like a bar in Ocean City, Maryland.
And I've been to Ocean City many times.
I guarantee, this is what I can tell you, okay, based on my experience in that environment.
I guarantee you all of those things there will be destroyed in a week from drunk people playing bumper cars in them.
Guaranteed.
I give that one week before all of those things are destroyed.
I think about 75% will be destroyed from bumper cars, then you're going to have about 25% that go missing because drunk people steal them and then jump into the ocean with them.
That's what's going to happen.
I'm trying to imagine myself at 22 in Ocean City, Friday night, go to a bar, and they give you one of those.
I would have loved it.
But not for the reasons that the bar intends.
In fact, I still would love it.
Right now, today, as a grown man with four kids, if you gave me one of those, I would be running around doing bumper cars.
That's what I would do.
And then here's this.
This is just the saddest thing I've maybe ever seen.
Take a look at this report from CNN.
Excitement builds.
But her great-grandchildren never saw Nana quite like this.
Put your arms through the slots!
Alright!
Oh my goodness!
After two months!
Of no hugs, 85-year-old Rose Gagnon finally got to wrap her arms around her kitties.
I wanted to cry because I couldn't believe that this was happening.
And the kids, too.
We wanted to hug Nana.
So Rose's adult granddaughter, Carly Marinaro of Rockford, Illinois, got to work.
I just thought, how could I do this?
Not putting bags over my kids or her.
For under 50 bucks, she built Hug Time using PVC piping, plastic, and tape.
This is a group hug.
Oh, yes.
Yes, because having a bunch of people press their faces up against plastic, having a bunch of people in succession press their face up against plastic, that's a lot more sanitary and healthy, right?
I can tell you this, if I made a contraption like that so that my parents could hug their grandkids, they would look at me like I'm a lunatic and then they would walk right around it and hug their grandkids like normal human beings.
So, not only are these measures pointless and counterproductive and less safe and less healthy, but they also are, you know what, they're undignified.
Have some dignity.
It's never okay to lose your dignity.
No virus can excuse you of your dignity.
A grown man does not wear a pool noodle on his head.
I think I could say that.
Or walk around in a big inner tube like a toddler in a Fisher-Price walker.
And I can't imagine that any grandparent wants to wrap themselves in saran wrap before hugging their grandchildren.
It's actually not worth it.
If you told me that the only way for me to avoid coronavirus is to, you know, is to wrap myself in saran wrap, like that thing, or walk around in the toddler walker thing, I would say, you know, I'd rather have coronavirus, honestly.
I don't want coronavirus, but if this is the only way to avoid it, I'll just take the virus.
Thank you.
Because I want to have my dignity.
And, you know, that's also important to me as a human being.
Number two, this got a lot of attention yesterday.
Watch this.
What's your reaction to the president saying that he's now taking hydroxychloroquine?
Are you concerned?
First, let me say how happy I am about your new baby.
How lovely.
Wyatt, how perfectly named.
We all know why that is.
Congratulations.
And as you now are a father, you see how important it is to keep the world safe for the children.
As far as the President is concerned, He's our president, and I would rather he not be taking something that has not been approved by the scientists, especially in his age group and in his, shall we say, weight group, what is morbidly obese, they say.
So, I think it's not a good idea.
I'm sorry, unpopular opinion here.
Probably unpopular, at least on the right.
I find that hilarious.
I just do.
The morbid obesity comment, the delivery, great stuff from Pelosi.
And I don't say that often.
In fact, that's probably the first time and last time that I have ever said or will ever say that.
But some folks on the right have been upset about this.
They, you know, getting offended on Trump's behalf and everything.
But, you know, you can't do that, guys.
You just can't.
Trump, Trump insults everyone.
Always, all the time.
He's the king of insults.
He just insults everybody.
It's practically the reason he was elected.
So, he can take it.
If you dish it, you're gonna have to take it.
You can't sit there and cackle every time Trump insults someone and then go, why I never!
Whenever someone dishes it back to him.
You just, you can't do that.
You really can't.
Now, I know the claim from people on the right is that this is a double standard because Pelosi is body shaming the president, and I thought we're supposed to celebrate obese people and say fat is beautiful.
So shouldn't she be saying that Donald Trump is a big, fat, glorious, beautiful man?
Shouldn't that be what she's saying?
That's the claim from the right, right?
And I get that.
It is a double standard.
Yeah, I totally agree.
Fine.
But there's also, when it comes to Trump, Clearly, let's be honest with each other, there are a number of rather glaring double standards when it comes to how we approach Trump.
And one of them is this, that the guy just says whatever he wants to anybody.
And if he ever gets it back, if anyone ever insults him back, then he, along with people on the right, will, you know, they'll claim they're not offended, but they are definitely acting offended.
How dare you say that about our president!
Don't say that about my president!
They go into that whole routine.
Just stop.
Just, just, just, everyone just stop.
This is what political discourse has become in America.
It's two groups of people with glaring double standards accusing each other of having glaring double standards.
And... I just get tired of it.
Okay.
Number three.
I'll give you just the headline here.
This is from CBS News.
It says, some grocery workers scared to death to return to work.
And I tell you about that headline because we're going to see a lot of headlines like this.
We already have.
We're going to see more.
The media in its last ditch effort to keep everything closed down.
And here's my response to that.
As I've been saying, you know, all along that if a grocery worker is scared to death to return, I don't think there is any reason to be scared to death.
In fact, this is one of the rather conspicuous elements of the whole situation, that we've got these quote-unquote essential workers, like at grocery stores and Walmart and Target and everything, that have been working this whole time.
Not just working, but have been dealing with hordes and crowds of people every day, all day, and only recently started wearing masks, most of them.
And yet, there has not been a, you know, we have not seen grocery store workers and quote-unquote essential workers dropping like flies left and right.
It hasn't been a bloodbath of essential workers dying from the virus from being exposed to it, thank God.
But based on the way this was portrayed, that's what you would have expected and it hasn't happened.
Which I think tells us something.
And it also tells us that if you're, you know, if you work at a grocery store, there's probably nothing to be worried about.
That's what recent history would tell us.
But regardless, you know, if you're scared to go to work, then don't go.
I do not believe that we should force anyone.
I am not in favor of, and I don't think anyone else is, I haven't heard anyone suggest that we should send guys into homes, like send cops into people's homes to drag them out and drag them into work.
I'm not in favor of that.
It's a free country.
You want to stay home, you can.
The only thing I would add, though, in my opinion, if you are a physically capable person who is not in one of these particularly vulnerable groups, and you choose not to go to work because you're scared, that's fine.
You have every right.
But I don't think we should continue to support you.
I don't think you should get unemployment.
If you want to choose to stay home, we're not going to pay you to hang out on your couch and watch Netflix.
And I think that's pretty reasonable.
Number four, let's do something positive here.
The governor of New Jersey, this isn't the positive part, we'll get to that, but the governor of New Jersey is a lunatic.
And he's, in fact, he said yesterday that he wants to keep the state locked up.
He said that the state will not return to normal until there's a vaccine.
That's what he said yesterday.
So, fortunately, many of his residents, many residents of the state are ignoring him.
As well they should, and they're continuing with their lives, which is good.
A gym in the state opened up yesterday in violation of the governor's dictates.
Cops showed up.
You think you know where this is going to go, but then it takes a sudden right turn.
Watch.
We are and were only here for everybody's safety today.
We plan for the worst, hope for the best, and it seems like that's what we have out here today.
Normally, you are all in violation of the executive order.
On that note, have a good day.
Everybody be safe.
Beautiful.
See, that makes me proud to be an American.
And that's a good cop right there.
That's a man doing his duty, I think.
And we've seen this from some cops, even from the very beginning, which I'm very impressed with.
But it also puts into relief the police officers who have been enforcing these draconian laws and arresting people for not social distancing or whatever, not wearing their mask right.
And the excuse for them is, they're just following orders.
Well, the excuse doesn't hold because you see these other very good police officers who are saying, I'm not going to enforce this.
That is an order I'm not going to follow.
I'm not gonna round a bunch of people up and haul them off to jail for going to the gym.
Just not gonna do it.
So... Great job from that police officer.
Five.
Finally, speaking of embarrassing coronavirus things, I forgot to mention this one.
This is another one right here.
A new invention that allows you to wear a mask while eating.
And you see there's a hole there in the mask that opens up.
So you can eat while wearing a mask.
So isn't this kind of like making a bicycle helmet that has a big, a big huge hole in the back of the head area in case you have to scratch your head?
Kind of defeats the purpose of it.
Just another, you know, when you see, when you see that kind of thing, if you're wearing a mask with a hole in it, then it really is just sort of about virtue signaling, isn't it?
Because the mask is not doing a damn thing.
Now, I'm not one of those people that says that everyone out wearing a mask is virtue signaling.
They may be wearing a mask because they have to if they want to go to the store.
They may be wearing a mask because they're in, you know, one of these vulnerable groups.
You don't know.
You don't know what their situation is.
But this kind of thing, yeah, it's just, what's the point?
All right, let's move on.
We got emails in a second that I want to have time for.
So we'll do this quickly for our daily cancellation.
We're going to be canceling the United Nations.
Many very good reasons to cancel the UN.
This is the one I'm choosing because it's the one that popped up yesterday.
Here's the tweet from the UN.
It says, What you say matters.
Help create a more equal world by using gender-neutral language if you're unsure about someone's gender or are referring to a group.
And then we get the guide here with the UN instructing us on how we are to speak from now on.
It says, if you don't know someone's gender, or when talking about a group, use gender-neutral language.
And then it gives us the old, barbaric, primitive way of saying it, and then the new enlightened way.
So, mankind is crossed out.
Instead, we say humankind.
Instead of chairman, we say chair.
Instead of congressman, we say legislator.
Instead of businessman, we say representative.
Instead of policeman, we say police officer.
Instead of landlord, we say owner.
Instead of boyfriend or girlfriend, we say partner.
Instead of salesman, we say salesperson.
Instead of manpower, we say workforce.
Instead of maiden name, we say family name.
Instead of fireman, we say firefighter.
Instead of husband or wife, we say spouse.
Okay.
I've got a different idea for the UN.
Here's my, so that's one idea.
Okay.
My idea is, Why don't we just continue saying whatever we want to say and using normal words, and why don't we just not care at all about the fragile feelings of anybody stupid enough to be offended by it?
Because that's the thing.
The kind of person who would actually feel in any way upset, even if you don't say it, if there's any part of your brain that hears the word mankind and feels a little bit upset by that, then your feelings are irrelevant.
Don't care.
I really don't care.
You're totally traumatized by it.
You collapse into the fetal position on the floor.
Doesn't matter.
I have no sympathy at all.
I'll just step right over you and I'll laugh at you.
I will laugh at you and step over you and keep walking.
While saying exactly what I want to say.
I think that is the right approach.
And that's my suggestion for the UN.
Also, by the way, you idiots, human has the word man in it.
Now we can't say mankind because it has man.
How about hu-mankind?
So you put the hu in front of it and then it's okay.
And what about person?
It has sun in it.
Per-sun.
That's kind of masculine, isn't it?
In fact, get this.
This is going to blow your mind, UN.
The word woman has man in it.
Wo-man.
In fact, look at this graphic from the UN that we had up on the screen here.
At the bottom it says UN Women.
Okay, I guess that's like the organization.
UN Women.
Men!
Women!
You've got it in your own name!
Well, you better, that's pretty bad.
You better come up with a different name for women.
You gotta rename them.
And what's the problem with boyfriend or girlfriend?
You're speaking specifically about somebody.
Partner.
This is one.
Now, you can say whatever you want.
Doesn't offend me.
But I always cringe a little bit when people say partner.
Refer to their spouse or their partner.
Makes it sound like a business transaction.
I mean, it makes it sound like, you know, it's like someone you work in a law firm with or something.
Not someone you're romantically involved with.
But use whatever words you want, because that's your affair, not mine.
Okay.
So, the UN is cancelled for that reason, and for so many others.
Let's go, finally, to emails.
And you can always email the show by having access to the mailbag, if you're a Daily Wire member.
That's one of the great perks.
Probably the greatest perk that you get, is you get to send me an email.
Okay?
And we will go to... Let's see.
Robbie says, Matt, I'm not going to bother debating the trans issue with you because I doubt there's anything anyone can say to change your mind at this point.
Instead, my question is, why do you care so much?
Why can't you let people live their lives?
Isn't that what you've been preaching with the shutdown?
I genuinely agree with you on a lot, but I don't get your obsession with this issue.
It doesn't hurt me if someone If someone wants to say they're a woman or whatever, is it true?
Who am I to say?
But I'll let them live their lives, and I think you should do the same.
Okay.
Hi, Robbie.
So I have to tell you, and I don't mean any offense to this, but this is one of the dumbest and most pointless and boring responses a person can give to any issue.
It's common, too, so don't get me wrong.
You're not alone.
You have a lot of dumb, boring company in saying this, if that makes you feel better.
Why do I care so much?
Well, first of all, why do you care that I care so much?
What about that?
We could do this all day.
Why do I care so much?
Well, why do you care that I care?
Then you can ask, why I care that you care that I care?
And I can ask, why you care that I care that you care that I care?
And you can say, why do you care that I care that you care that I care?
And we can go back, et cetera, et cetera, unto infinity.
Or maybe we could just skip that whole rigmarole and leave it at the fact that I care about this issue for the same reason that I care about anything else.
Because I'm a human being with a brain And my brain forms ideas, okay?
And I share those ideas.
That's it.
That's the whole reason.
Do you need more?
It's just the most annoying response.
Someone is sharing their opinion about anything and you're like, what do you care about this?
Because I do.
I just, because, because I'm a person and I have an opinion, here it is.
Do you have a response to it?
Sure.
Now I could give you more reasons why I care.
See, I'm all about letting people live their lives.
The problem is that that's the exact opposite of what the LGBT camp does.
Especially the T in the LGBT camp.
They're the last ones that are interested in letting people live their lives.
I mean, let people live their lives?
Are you kidding me?
They are literally trying to control the language that we use.
Not just in their presence, but in general.
They're trying to force us to not only accept, but affirm and promote anti-scientific nonsense.
They want us all to deny science, to deny biology, to deny common sense.
And I say no, and your response is, why do I care?
Okay, how about this, Robbie?
I demand, okay?
I demand, right?
It doesn't matter why I demand it.
None of your business.
I demand that you affirm that 2 plus 2 equals 5.
And I want you to say that, not just to me, not just when you're around me, but anywhere.
For the rest of your life, I demand that you pretend that 2 plus 2 equals 5.
What?
You won't?
You won't do that, Robert?
Why do you care so much, you freak, you weirdo?
Why do you care?
I mean, it's just 2 plus 2 equals 5.
It's just arithmetic.
What do you care?
It doesn't affect you.
Now, you say that it doesn't hurt you if somebody wants to live as a woman.
Well, good for you.
That just tells me, though, that you aren't a teenage girl with a boy burgeoning into your locker room or onto your track team and stealing all of your medals and your achievements.
That kind of hurts them, I think.
Don't you think?
Being deprived of privacy?
Being deprived of the achievements that you've worked for?
I don't know.
That seems like that might hurt.
Now, you're right.
That particular part of it doesn't hurt me because I'm not a teenage girl either.
Although, according to the left, I could be, if I wanted to be.
But here's the thing.
So it doesn't affect me, but I actually care about people who aren't me.
Can you imagine that?
Only caring about the stuff that affects you personally?
Do you know what that's called?
It's called narcissism.
This is one of the problems I have with libertarianism, with the attitude of, it doesn't affect you, you shouldn't care.
That's just very thinly veiled narcissism, where you're claiming that only the things that directly affect you should you care about.
It also doesn't really affect me that people are starving in Ethiopia.
Does that mean I shouldn't care about it?
So basically, your charge against me is that I'm not a narcissist.
Guiltiest charge.
You got me.
Now, here's the thing.
If a guy wants to go around claiming that he's a woman, fine.
If he wants to claim that he's Cleopatra, fine.
He could say he's the Queen of England.
I don't care.
But, if he demands that I affirm it, now we have a problem.
If he tries to change the English language to support his delusion, now we have a problem.
If he tries to change school curriculum to indoctrinate kids into his fantasy, now we have a problem.
If he in any way tries to impose his falsehood on anyone, doesn't have to be me, but any other person, now we have a problem.
And I'm gonna have something to say about it.
And so should you.
Okay.
But I really appreciate the email and thank you for listening.
And we will leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for being a part of another show.
I'll talk to you tomorrow.
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.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
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.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by 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.
Democrats are attempting to lock down the country forever, but law officers from Bill Barr in the Attorney General's office down to the uniformed cops on the beat in New Jersey are standing up for the American rule of law, the American heart.
We'll talk about it on The Andrew Klavan Show.
Export Selection