Ep. 814 - Sane People Are The Most Marginalized Community In America
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the backlash against Dave Chappelle grows, as the media insists that any and all jokes about, or criticisms of, LGBT people are out of bounds and automatically bigoted. They say that LGBT people are marginalized and that’s why you can’t make these jokes. But if you aren’t allowed to joke about a group of people, isn’t that an indication that they are the exact opposite of marginalized? Also, the high school student who shot a teacher and two classmates on Wednesday was released on bail on Thursday. What’s going on there? And the New York Times claims that 900,000 children have been hospitalized with COVID, which isn’t even close to true. And a new study confirms that women are attracted to men who can provide for them financially. What does it say about our society that we needed a study to confirm that obvious fact? We’ll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Subscribe to Morning Wire, Daily Wire’s new morning news podcast, and get the facts first on the news you need to know: https://utm.io/udyIF
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the backlash against Dave Chappelle grows as the media insists that any and all jokes about or criticisms of LGBT people are out of bounds and automatically bigoted.
They say that LGBT people are marginalized and that's why you can't make these jokes, but if you aren't allowed to joke about a group of people, isn't that an indication that they are the exact opposite of marginalized?
Also, The high school student who shot a teacher and two classmates on Wednesday was released on bail on Thursday, less than 24 hours later.
What's going on there?
And the New York Times claims that 900,000 children have been hospitalized with COVID, which is not even close to true.
And also a new study confirms that women are attracted to men who can provide for them financially.
What does it say about our society that we needed a study to confirm that obvious fact?
We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
And it's good that this conversation is happening.
It's great with what's the law down in Texas.
But the problem is for a lot of us, we just don't know exactly what to say, how to engage with these arguments.
And that's why if you're struggling on what to say or how to say it when abortion is a topic of conversation, you need to check out a recent new book, What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion.
It's already been a number one Amazon new release and a number two Amazon bestseller, and it's on second printing already, so it tells you how popular this book has been, and for good reason, because it's a very easy book to use.
It tells you what to say, what not to say, and it's proven arguments that have worked with everyone.
I mean, 40 Days for Life, they have even been able to connect with and convert Abortion workers, people at Planned Parenthood, 221 abortion workers have seen the light, thanks in large part to a lot of these same arguments here.
So go to the experts, go to the people that know exactly what to say.
It's called What to Say When, the complete new guide to discussing abortion, how to change minds and convert hearts in a brave new world.
Go to Amazon or get it directly from 40 Days for Life at 40daysforlife.com.
To begin with, I must request, well not request, but instruct, demand that you sign up for my newsletter if you haven't already.
Go to mattwalshreport.com.
It's free, so you are without excuse.
Don't make me ask again.
I am warning you.
Now, on to the topic at hand.
The fallout continues from Dave Chappelle's Netflix comedy special where he dared to crack one or two jokes at the expense of the LGBT Alphabet Squad.
Most recently, the showrunner for Netflix's anti-white series called Dear White People says that he, who identifies now as a she, will be boycotting the network.
By the way, this showrunner, who now goes by Jacqueline Moore, is white.
So this is a white man who identifies as a woman and makes an anti-white show about black people boycotting a black man for telling jokes about trans people.
It is a tangled web of intersectionality there.
Here's what Variety reports.
They say, quote, Jacqueline Moore has always considered Dave Chappelle one of her comic heroes.
Quote, his shadow is huge, says Moore, who was a writer and showrunner on Netflix's Dear White People.
He's a brilliant, goofy comedian.
He's brilliant as a political comedian.
He's been brilliant for so, so long.
But I also don't think because you've been brilliant means that you're always brilliant.
After the Chappelle special, I can't do this anymore.
I won't work for Netflix again as long as they keep promoting and profiting from dangerous transphobic content
She also tweeted She in quotes here. I'm reading from variety. That's what
the word they're using I love so many of the people I've worked with at Netflix
Brilliant people and executives who have been collaborative and fought for important art.
But I've been thrown against walls because I'm not a real woman.
I've had beer bottles thrown at me.
So, Netflix, I'm done.
We should note that Moore, apparently, according to Variety, transitioned into a woman during the pandemic.
So, you know, in the last several months.
And already he's incensed at the suggestion that he's not a real woman.
There have been many other reactions along these lines.
GLAAD, for example, released a statement saying, "...Dave Chappelle's brand has been synonymous with ridiculing trans people and other marginalized communities.
Negative reviews and viewers loudly condemning his latest special is a message to the industry that audiences don't support platforming anti-LGBTQ diatribes."
We agree.
And an LGBT group called the National Black Justice Coalition
weighed in saying, "With 2021 on track to be the deadliest year on record
for transgender people in the US, the majority of whom are black transgender people,
Netflix should know better.
Perpetuating transphobia perpetuates violence.
Netflix should immediately pull the closer from its platform and directly apologize
to the transgender community."
Of course, the claim that there's some kind of epidemic of anti-trans murders,
much less that these murders are propelled by comedy specials is pure fiction.
The vast majority of trans murders are drug or prostitution related, or they're due to domestic violence.
But the LGBT lobby, you know, reflexively lies about everything.
So, this is to be expected.
The media has likewise been breathless in its condemnations.
Here's the headline from NPR.
It says, For Dave Chappelle, punchlines are dares.
But his new special, The Closer, goes too far.
And from The Hill, Chappelle called out for hostile transphobia and homophobia in Netflix special.
And The Guardian says, Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais, and comedy's ironic bigotry problem.
And The Daily Beast, Dave Chappelle's pointless transphobia and homophobia.
And so on.
Now, before we continue, it probably makes sense to actually listen to the segments of the special that have provoked all of this ire.
There are primarily two that seem to have caused all this trouble.
The first we played a few days ago.
We'll play it again just to remind you.
Here is Chappelle pointing out that when it comes to deciding what to be offended by, we seem to have our priorities a bit out of whack in our culture.
Let's listen.
A lot of the LBGTQ community doesn't know the baby's history. He's a wild guy.
He once shot an a**hole and killed him in Walmart.
Oh, this is true.
Google it.
The baby shot and killed a n***a in Walmart in North Carolina.
Nothing bad happened to his career.
[laughter]
[applause]
Do you see where I'm going with this?
[laughter]
[applause]
In our country, you can shoot and kill a n***a, but you better not hurt a gay person's feelings.
I guess I should have clarified a bit of setup there was probably necessary.
He's talking about a rapper named DaBaby.
He's not referring to an actual baby who shot and killed someone at Walmart.
Though I think I have seen babies walking around with handguns at Walmart, but this is a rapper.
His name is DaBaby.
And in fairness, DaBaby, who of course I'm a big fan of all of his work, he says that he shot the guy in self-defense.
In the Walmart.
The guy was trying to rob him in the middle of a Walmart and he shot him.
Yeah, I don't know.
I don't know if he did or didn't.
But I do know that DaBaby brags in his music about murdering people all the time.
I mean, he, like most rappers, glorifies murder, drug dealing, violent crime, and so on.
So even if he hadn't actually killed the guy himself, still it would seem far more offensive to promote actual murder than to make insulting comments about gays.
So the point from Chappelle stands, no matter the particulars of that case there at Walmart.
But I think it's Chappelle's comments about gender and trans people that have gotten most of the attention and have caused most of the backlash of people calling for him to be canceled.
And here they are here.
We canceled J.K.
Rowling.
My God, J.K.
Rowling wrote all the Harry Potter books by herself.
She sold so many books the Bible worries about her.
And they canceled it because she said in an interview, and this is not exactly what she said, but affectionately, she said, gender was a fact.
And then the trans community got mad as **** they started calling her a TERF.
I didn't even know what the **** that was.
But I know that trans people make up words to win arguments.
So I looked it up.
TERF is an acronym.
Stands for Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
This is a real thing.
This is a group of women that hate transgender.
They don't hate transgender women, but they look at trans women the way we blacks might look at blackface.
It offends them.
Like, ugh, this bitch is doing an impression of me.
Look at it like this.
Caitlyn Jenner, whom I've met, wonderful person, Caitlyn Jenner, was voted woman of the year. Her first year as a woman. Ain't
that something? Beat every b**** in Detroit, she's better than all of them. Gender is
a fact. This is a fact. Every human being in this room, every human being on earth, had
to pass through the legs of a woman to be on earth. That is a fact.
Now, a couple of points...
In fact, you notice one thing there that kind of stands out.
Even in the context of making the points that he makes here, he's still respecting the pronouns, right?
He still calls Caitlyn Jenner a her and a she.
And that's what you find, that it's so rare, even the people who are willing, and it takes guts to do it, I give them credit for it.
I'm not trying to take anything away from our split hairs here, but It's not really splitting hairs.
Even the people who are willing to stand up and point out some of the truth and make some of these criticisms, most of them are not willing to go all the way.
Very few people, very few, are willing to go all the way on this and totally reject left-wing gender ideology completely.
There are very few people willing to do that.
A couple other points.
First, you know, Chappelle has made jokes about all different groups and demographics.
He jokes about white people all the time.
He's a comedian.
That's what comedians are supposed to do.
Most of the people offended by the two clips I just played would not be offended and have not been offended by any of his jokes about literally any other group of people.
None of them.
Should the Alphabet Squad really be exempt from all mockery?
Should they be the one single group that nobody ever makes fun of?
The answer, according to his critics, is yes.
That is their answer.
You can make fun of anybody, just not them.
And the reason they give for that is that they say that attacking LGBT people, or not even attacking but making jokes about them, is punching down.
It's punching down.
But the actual reason is exactly the opposite of that.
You know, there's that old saying, I don't remember who coined it originally, but that you can tell who has the power in any society based on who you're not allowed to criticize.
And that's a rule that will rarely steer you wrong, and it certainly does not here.
The reason you can criticize everybody except LGBT people is that they hold the cultural power.
You get canceled for making jokes about the Alphabet Squad simply because the Alphabet Squad has the power to cancel people.
They're the ones who can do it.
They could choose to tolerate such mockery or not, and they certainly choose not to.
Because you're not going to find much in the way of self-deprecating humility among LGBT leftists, or among any form of leftist.
When it comes to leftism, narcissism is part of the game.
And a narcissist is not going to be happy with you making any jokes about them at all.
Corporate America, the media, academia, the government, school system, Hollywood, all bow in service, bow in submission to the LGBT lobby.
All are largely run by the LGBT lobby.
We're told that LGBT people are marginalized.
But if you want to know what marginalized actually means and what it looks like, then look at LGBT.
And imagine the precise opposite of that.
They have way outsized influence and power relative to their numbers.
That's not what marginalized means.
You know what marginalized is?
You know who the marginalized people are?
The people who listen to that last segment from Chappelle and agree with it.
They're the marginalized ones.
The people who know that biological sex is a fact.
The people who know that only women give birth.
And who would prefer to live in a society that recognizes that fact.
And a society that cherishes women and femininity.
Because it is unique and special.
And not anyone can partake in it just because they identify with it in their heads.
Those are the people who are marginalized.
And how do you know they're marginalized?
Because they're in the majority, but their influence is way undersized relative to their numbers.
That's what it means to be marginalized.
It means you're pushed to the peripheral.
It means that you're ignored.
Okay?
When you're ignored and pushed to the peripheral, you're being marginalized.
Could anyone with a straight face... Well, they can.
Apparently.
But it's kind of mind-boggling that they can, with a straight face, that anyone with a straight face can claim that LGBT people are marginalized, pushed to the peripheral, ignored?
Really?
I mean, they get their own month!
And I think we're in the middle of another month right now, because right now, I believe, is LGBT History Month.
I could be wrong.
So, you know, every month, in some ways, is a celebration.
Again, the opposite of marginalized.
Marginalized are the people who agree with Dave Chappelle there.
They're being marginalized.
And that's exactly why, even though what Chappelle is saying, especially at the very end, that everybody who's on earth today, or has ever been born, had to pass through a woman in order to be born.
Like I said yesterday, if someone had told you back in 2000, like 20 years ago, You know, if you could have looked into the future, if you were flipping through the channels and stumbled on a channel that was broadcasting from 20 years in the future, and you saw that segment and someone told you that that would be considered controversial 20 years from now, you would be filled with, you wouldn't believe it.
And if you did, you'd be filled with dread and terror.
So you're saying society completely loses its mind?
Well, yeah.
In the future.
But the reason why it becomes kind of a big deal is because the vast majority of people recognize that this is true.
That biological sex is a fact.
He uses the word gender there.
Really, what he means is biological sex.
Gender as it relates to people is an invention.
Biological sex is a fact.
Only women give birth.
This is something that everyone recognizes.
Most people, the vast majority.
And the reason why, you know, they celebrate someone like Dave Chappelle is because a lot of people, even though they recognize these basic truths, they've been pushed to the margins, and now they feel like they need permission.
They need someone who's in the mainstream, some prominent person, to say what they all recognize to be true.
And it's sad that people are waiting for permission to speak basic truths.
But that's where we are, and that's what it means to be marginalized.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Maybe you've had this experience before of you got a call or text or an email
from someone posing as an IRS agent or a police officer at the power company,
demanding payment by gift card.
Well, if you have, you're probably being targeted for a gift card scam.
These fraudsters trick victims into sending online gift cards or reading the numbers from a gift card over the phone.
I mean, it should be a pretty good, if someone in the IRS is saying, send me a gift card, or a cop is calling you up, Should be a pretty good indication that it's a scam, but sometimes the scams are not always obvious.
And that's why it's so important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives every day.
Every day we put our information at risk on the internet.
In an instant, a cybercriminal could harm what's yours.
Your finances, your credit, everything.
That's why it's a good thing there's LifeLock.
LifeLock helps detect a wide range of identity threats, and if they detect your information has potentially been compromised, they're going to send you an alert and help you get everything back to normal.
Look, nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but you can keep what's yours with LifeLock by Norton.
Join now and save 25% off your first year at LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
So this is pretty funny.
It's funny until it's used as a basis for further censorship, which it will be, but apparently Twitter has rolled out a new warning.
So they've got, you know, they've got the misinformation warnings, which really the way the misinformation warnings are applied, it's oftentimes like inconvenient information they call misinformation.
So if you're talking about COVID and you're not in line with the COVID cult, they're going to put a misinformation warning.
They got, they got different kinds of warnings.
That they'll put on your content, potentially.
Here's a new one that they just unveiled, and I found out about it because they put it on one of mine.
Now they have, on Twitter, and I'm pretty sure this is not meant to be a joke, they have intensity warnings.
So if you're tweeting, if you put out an intense tweet, then they'll put a warning on it, a heads up, letting everybody know that this is a little bit intense.
So yesterday I tweeted about Like we discussed on the show yesterday, vaccinating kids.
And I said, I'm not going to vaccinate my kids.
And I have very good scientifically based reasons for that.
Because COVID is not, and we'll get more into this in a minute, but COVID is not a serious threat to them.
That's why I'm not getting vaccinated.
And someone responded to me and said, well, there's plenty of good reasons to vax your kids, even though they aren't at risk.
And I responded and said, okay, please give me one good reason.
Pretty fair response.
That person, by the way, never gave a good reason.
Instead, they put their account on private.
Give me one good reason.
I'm really curious.
If you're admitting that kids are not at risk from COVID, they're effectively at no risk.
The risk is so small that it's effectively nil.
But if you admit that and then you still say there's a good reason to get the vaccine, well, what is it?
Tell me what the reason is.
I'd love to hear it.
Well, this person didn't respond, but on that tweet responding to that guy, Twitter put up a warning.
It says, heads up, conversations like this can be intense.
Is anyone going to see a warning like that and say, Oh, I don't want any of the intense stuff.
I'm going to keep scrolling here.
It is true.
I do have some intense tweets.
There's no denying that.
All right.
So this is from the post millennial says, This is the student who allegedly injured four people in a school shooting at his Arlington, Texas high school.
He's been released, and he was released on Thursday afternoon after posting $75,000 in bail.
Okay, so this guy, not a kid, he's 18 years old, this man, shot multiple people in a school on Wednesday.
And on Thursday, 24 hours later, he's walking out of there on only $75,000 bail.
Simpkins will be confined to his home pending his trial under the conditions of the bail agreement.
He'll also be closely monitored by GPS and will have to undergo regular testing for alcohol and other drugs.
He faces three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
And two teachers were hurt in the incident.
One was shot.
He was shot in the back and has a collapsed lung, broken ribs.
And then there were two other people who were injured from gunfire.
Now, so he's getting out on bail after, I mean, this is a school shooting.
I think if you shoot, people get shot in the school, that counts as a school shooting.
And he's walking out of there on $75,000 bail a day later.
Now the family though, they're insisting that, well, this is different from your typical school
It's not the same kind of thing.
This is from Fox.
It says, the family of an 18-year-old student suspected of opening fire and injuring four people at a Texas high school on Wednesday claims that he was being bullied and brought the handgun to protect himself.
And the details of the of the fight what they say is that Arlington police said cell phone video shows a fight breaking out before Simpkins fired the gun.
The claim is that the video shows Simpkins was being attacked and there is a video that I've seen floating around online of The claim is that this is the fight that happened.
It's not really a fight.
There's one guy being brutally assaulted while someone else just wails on him.
What you see in the video, anyway, is not really a fight.
It's also not clear who's doing the wailing on who based on that video, so I'm not sure about that.
But what police are saying is that this altercation, this fight, this assault happened, and then the teacher stepped in to break it up.
And it seemed like everything was calmed down, and that's when, allegedly, Simpkins went into his backpack, pulled the gun out, and started firing.
And if that's what happened, then, number one, that's not self-defense.
You know, something happens in the moment you're being assaulted and you shoot somebody, then that's self-defense.
But it's over, and that person is being restrained, and the fight's over, and then you pull it out and shoot?
That's, that's revenge.
That's not, that's not self-defense.
And a school shooting, because someone was bullied and they're looking for revenge, uh, that's not all that unique.
That's very often what you find with these school shootings.
Fortunately, nobody was killed in this case.
It looks like, uh, you know, everyone who was injured is going to recover from their injuries.
And from what it sounds like, he didn't just start randomly executing his classmates, thank God, but he brought the gun to school, and then he fired it, apparently after the fight was over, seemingly to get revenge, because he was angry.
Not all that different from what leads up to many different school shootings.
And yet he's walking out of there on $75,000 bail a day later.
And we have to mention here that the school shooter in this case is a black guy.
And the reason why we have to mention that is because it is repeatedly insisted that from BLM and the left generally and the media That white suspects get preferential treatment.
How often have we heard, I'm sure you've heard this a million times, especially if you spend any time on social media, anytime there's a shooting or especially a police shooting, what you always hear is about Dylan Roof, you know, the church shooter, was arrested and then got Burger King.
And they claim he's, of course, a white man shooting black people, and so they claim, oh, this is what they do for white shooters.
He killed all these people, and they brought him to Burger King.
Well, no, they didn't bring him.
They didn't, like, bring him to the — they didn't — on the way, you know, to jail, they didn't stop at Burger King and sit down with him.
No, they brought him to the interrogation room and they brought him like a hamburger or something.
They just went down the street to get the cheapest hamburger they could find and they gave it to him because they have to.
You have to feed suspects after you arrest them.
You can't withhold food.
If you do that, it could interfere with the whole case.
It's going to interfere with your ability to convict this person and get the sentence that he deserves.
If his defense attorney can claim that this is cruel, unusual punishment, you're refusing to feed him and all that kind of stuff.
So they're legally required.
They do this for everyone.
You may be shocked to learn that in every prison in America, they provide food to everybody.
Convicted murderers and serial killers, they give them food.
They have to do that.
And then Dylan Roof, as he deserves, was convicted and sentenced to death.
So I'm just, I'm trying to imagine if this was exact same circumstances, but this was a white school shooter let out on bail 24 hours after being arrested on $75,000 bail.
What would we be hearing right now from the media?
I think we all know we'd be hearing.
And it is kind of interesting because we have this case along with, in the exact same week as we discussed yesterday, a gang shooting in Chicago where gang members are shooting at each other in the middle of the day.
Someone is killed and the DA decides to press no charges at all.
They all just walk out scot-free.
And yet there's some sort of pro-white systemic bias in the court system?
Well, this is certainly not what you would expect to see, is it?
Based on the theory of pro-white systemic bias in the court system.
All right, Biden, President Biden gave a speech about the importance of vaccine mandates yesterday, and at one point he launched into a story, and I don't know, I just couldn't tell what he was trying to get across here, so maybe you can tell me.
People like you.
Every single one.
Someone who knows what my dad taught me, and a lot of people who know me well, including the governor's sister who I worked closely with for eight years.
My dad used to have an expression.
He used to say, everyone's entitled to be treated with dignity.
And, Joey, a job's a hell of a lot more than about a paycheck.
It's about your dignity.
It's about your place in the community.
It's about being able to look your kid in the eye and say, Everything's going to be okay.
That's the God's truth.
Ever since he lost, things went south in Scranton, Pennsylvania, when I was a kid, and coal shut down.
My dad was not a coal miner.
I had a great-grandfather who was a coal miner engineer, but, you know, he was a salesperson.
Everything, we moved down to Wilmington, Delaware, a little town called Claymont, a little steel town.
There's no steel anymore, but right on the border of Pennsylvania.
And it was always about the dignity of work.
Uh, what?
And what you've been doing here about this pandemic is about protecting the dignity,
the dignity of your fellow Americans.
You know, you stayed in an operations mode lining up protective equipment for the rest
of the country.
What I'm not exactly sure what he was trying to say there as he as he took us along this
windy, windy path of whatever that story was supposed to be.
I did pick up on the part about the dignity of work and, you know, everybody should have a job and there's dignity in that.
And he tells that story, if we can call it a story, that mishmash of sentences all jumbled together.
He tells that while selling this idea of vaccine mandates at On the job.
So everyone, you know, has a right to a job and there's the dignity of work.
Meanwhile, if you don't inject the substance into your body, whether you need it or not, maybe you have natural immunity, but even if you, whether you need it or not, if you don't, if you don't inject the substance into your body, we're going to take that job away from you.
That's a policy, a mandate you come up with because you respect the dignity of work.
Where's the dignity in that?
Forcing a drug into people's bodies as a condition of employment.
That's dignity?
It's not just dignity, he says, it's also economic stimulus.
But here's what Wall Street's saying.
Goldman Sachs, quote, vaccinations will have a positive impact on employment.
It means less spread of COVID-19, which will help people return to work.
Moody's on Wall Street.
Vaccination means fewer infections, hospitalizations, and death.
In turn, it means a stronger economy.
One economist called vaccine requirements, and I quote, the single most powerful, he didn't say single, the most powerful economic stimulus ever enacted, end of quote.
Third point I'd like to make.
The report shows that vaccination requirements have broad public support.
Well, that economist, if he exists, is a moron.
So firing people from their jobs is economic stimulus.
It's also the way that we protect the dignity of work.
That's actually the dignity of work and human dignity generally.
That's one of my primary arguments against the vaccine mandate as a condition of employment.
Yeah, there's a matter of basic freedom and liberty here.
But to me, even more importantly, it's dignity.
You're not treating human beings with dignity when you tell someone, we're going to take away your ability to feed your family unless you comply with us and put this substance into your body.
Again, whether you need it or not.
Speaking of people who don't need it, this is from the Blaze and about the New York Times.
Doing a little bit of fear-mongering and then having to issue one of their standard traditional retractions.
It says, The New York Times issued a lengthy correction after numerous mistakes in an article about coronavirus vaccinations for children, including the egregious exaggeration of coronavirus hospitalizations among U.S.
children.
The article by Epivora Mendevilli documented how the U.S.
is forging ahead on full vaccination for children while other countries are experimenting with just one shot after weighing the risks.
But in documenting the extent of the coronavirus pandemic among children in the U.S., Mandeville missed the mark by a wide margin.
The Times issued a correction noting several issues with the article.
This is their correction, part of it anyway.
It says, the article misstated the number of COVID hospitalizations in U.S.
children.
It is more than 63,000 from August 2020 to October 2021, not 900,000 since the beginning of the pandemic.
And then they also were wrong about vaccination policies in Sweden and Denmark.
They were wrong.
I mean, they got five or six details wrong in this article.
Which means you shouldn't be issuing a correction.
This should just be a full retraction.
Because the basis for this article is wrong.
Everything is wrong.
You should be retracting it.
But instead, they just issue the correction.
You're never going to convince me that this isn't intentional.
I mean, there's no way you could be... Where did 900,000... 900,000 hospitalizations of children from COVID, and the real number is 63,000?
It's not even as though they added an additional zero by accident, like a typo.
Where did you get that number?
One second on Google will tell you the truth there.
And I'm supposed to believe that's an accident?
It's not.
They get the falsehood out there, it implants in people's minds, and then they know the correction is never as widely seen as the original claim.
They know that.
So there's lots of people now who have that 900,000 figure in their head, when the real number is a fraction of that.
And this article is all supposed to be, you know, it does, it admits that in most other countries around the world, You know, they are not nearly as eager to start putting kids on full vaccination schedules.
They're also not masking kids to nearly the same extent that we are.
We are one of the only countries in the world that has decided to act as though children are just as susceptible to the virus as everybody else.
Most other countries are not doing that.
We are among the only ones to do it.
Even countries that, broadly speaking, their lockdowns and their COVID policies have been stricter than ours, still most of them recognize that children just are not susceptible.
You could put it this way.
There is no pandemic for kids.
For kids, as far as our kids are concerned, there is no pandemic.
That's how small the risk is to them.
In fact, if you look at it, you look at all the deaths, all the deaths among children over the last year, year or two years, what you'll find is that less than 1%, less than 1% of all child deaths during that period are attributed to COVID.
Less than 1%.
Less than 0.0006%, 0.0006% of the child population as a whole in this country has died of COVID over the last two years.
That's not a pandemic.
That's not an epidemic.
That's just not.
A great many risks are more fatal to kids than COVID is.
And we've just decided to ignore that fact.
What I've been told, and someone just told me this on Twitter a couple hours ago, when trying to justify the fact that we're coming up with policies pretending that kids are as acceptable as everybody else.
We've heard this many times, but once again, I was told that one child is too many, and what if my child, yeah, it's only .0006%, but what if my child was in that .006%?
But what if my child was in that 0.006%?
How would I feel about it then?
Well, yeah, if one of my children had been one of the very, very, very few to die of COVID,
then yeah, I'd probably be singing a very different tune.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Just like if I had a child who, God forbid, drowned in a pool, I'd probably say we should ban all pools.
If I had a child who choked to death on a chicken nugget, I'd be saying, let's ban all chicken nuggets.
You know, I would certainly wish that I could go back in time and erase, you know, if it were up to me, pass these sweeping laws, you know, to keep my child alive.
Of course I'd want to do that.
You know, personally, as a parent, there's probably no tyranny that I wouldn't visit upon you and the world in order to save my children's lives.
There's probably nothing that I wouldn't do to save my own children's lives.
And I admit that.
But when it comes to making public policy, you cannot make public policy while assuming the mentality of a desperately grieving parent.
Because emotionally, for me to feel this way about my own kids is entirely justifiable and understandable.
But it is not a basis for public policy, obviously.
Yeah, if I, if I, whoever, anyone listening right now, if I knew that locking you specifically in your home for the rest of your life is what I needed to do, for some reason, to keep one of my kids alive, I would do it.
I would take away all your liberty to keep my kid alive.
I recognize that emotionally.
But does that mean that we should make policy that way?
No.
All right, here's Terry McAuliffe in my former home state of Virginia.
Now, Terry McAuliffe has said that critical race theory is not being taught in schools.
So all this stuff in the school board meetings and everything, this is all, it's actually racist, he says.
This campaign against critical race theory is racist in and of itself because critical race theory isn't being taught at all.
This is all a dog whistle.
But then he's asked in this interview with local media if he can even tell us what critical race theory is, and he can't.
Listen.
So how do you define it?
Anita, it is not taught here in Virginia.
But how do you define it?
Doesn't matter.
It's not taught here in Virginia, so I'm not going to spend my time... Your thoughts on what it is.
I'm not even spending my time because the school board and everyone else has come out and said it's not taught.
It's racist.
It's a dog whistle.
But if we don't have a definition, how can we say it's racist?
I just want a definition from you.
It's not taught here in Virginia.
We can ask about any topic.
Here's what I've said all along, and it really bothers me.
You know, it really bothers me.
This whole idea of stirring parents up to create divisions.
Our children are going through such challenges today because of COVID, and we're talking about something here today, wasting precious viewers' time.
He has, of course, and you can always, this is always a fun thing to do when you're dealing with Democrats or any leftist.
Just the first thing you should do, whatever term they're using, get them to define it.
What exactly are you talking about?
And they'll always treat it as some sort of trick question that you, you, you simply, they're using words and you want to know what they mean by those words.
And they're going to do, well, what do you mean?
Listen, what is this?
A gotcha?
There's a game of gotcha?
No, this is a game of, I want to understand what the hell you're saying.
That's what the game is.
So he has no idea what critical race theory is, and yet he's, he doesn't know what it is, yet he's quite certain that it's not in the school system.
When, of course it is.
When kids are taught from a young age in school, as they are now, that America is systemically racist, you know, that it was, that it was, that it's racist at its very core, that all white people are, have privilege by nature of their race.
That all white people are inherently racist.
That no black person or non-white person can be racist because race is based on power and privilege.
Power plus prejudice equals racism.
When kids are taught that, all of that, that is critical race theory.
It's a distillation, a boiled down version of critical race theory.
So, glad I could help you out, McAuliffe.
Oh, one more thing here before we get to reading the comments.
This is from CNN.
Sad news.
Apparently sad news, supposedly.
Says, the ivory-billed woodpecker, along with 22 other species of birds, fish, mussels, and other wildlife, is set to be declared extinct and removed from the endangered species list, according to U.S.
wildlife officials.
It says, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service said, for the species proposed for delisting today, the protections of the Endangered Species Act came too late, with most either extinct, functionally extinct, or in steep decline at the time of listing.
Also slated for delisting are the Bachmann's warbler, two species of freshwater fishes, eight species of southeastern freshwater mussels, and 11 species from Hawaii and Pacific Island.
Sorry, I'm scrolling through this thing eagerly.
Trying to see if they list pandas on this and they don't.
No, the pandas are still lingering along.
Well, yeah, I don't know what we're going to do without the, uh, the Bachmann's warbler.
That's a great, isn't that?
That's a great tragedy.
The Bachmann's warbler isn't going to be joining us on earth anymore.
I'm sorry.
I, who cares?
Who cares?
Why does it, who cares that these species are going extinct?
What do we need them for?
This one version of a woodpecker isn't going to be around anymore.
Oh, okay.
Well, there's other woodpeckers around that can fill their place, I'm sure.
They can pick up the woodpecker baton.
They can't really pick it up, but metaphorically speaking.
And if we're told that climate change is going to kill us all, then why are we trying to keep other species around that are emitting, you know, with their carbon emissions?
It adds up.
So should we be celebrating this, kind of thinning the herd a little bit?
I don't know, but for climate change and environmentalists, they want to thin the herd among people, not among the Bachmann's warbler or the ivory-headed woodpecker.
That's what they want to do.
So when they hear, for these, this is how twisted these people, I know when I say, I don't care if these species are going extinct, people hear that and they're horrified by it.
It sounds like I'm some sort of sociopath.
And maybe I am.
But consider the fact that for a lot of other people, when they hear about human populations declining, they're happy about that.
They're more upset about the decline of the Bachmann's Warbler than they are about people declining in population numbers.
So if you could do that, if you could say, as so many people do, about their own species, what do we need so many of us for?
You can say that about your own species, I can't say it about a species of mussel or some kind of clam or whatever, you know, horned owl in the forest?
I'm sorry, I just don't care.
It's fine.
They can go extinct.
Here, listen.
Millions of animal species went extinct Before human civilization ever existed.
Okay, we've had human civilization for, I don't know, 10,000 years, let's say.
Millions, billions of animal species went extinct before that ever happened.
Before we were even building, you know, before pyramids had even been built.
Millions of animal species went extinct.
Was that some kind of great tragedy?
Now it's like, species extinction is part of the cycle of life.
And now, every single species that goes extinct, it's our fault?
If we weren't around, many of these species would still be going extinct.
And it's now that we're here, it's a tragedy, and we have to hold all of these, do our best to hold all of these different warblers and woodpeckers into existence.
Hold them in the palm of our hand.
Oh no, we can't lose any of them.
Why?
All right, I'm getting probably more passionate about this than I need to.
I just, I have a thing, you know, I don't like pandas and I don't like the Bachmann's Warbler either.
Good riddance.
Let's get now to reading the comments.
Who's rocking polka dot and flannel shirts without shame?
♪ Do you know their name ♪ ♪ They're the Sweet Baby Gang ♪
Crystal says, "Matt, isn't the fact that the dog "was wary towards an unfamiliar man a good thing
"since you wanted it as protection for your family?"
That was your only reasoning for wanting a dog at all, right?
Yeah, I'm glad that he's protective, but my issue is I'm not going to tolerate disrespect in my own home.
Okay?
And the dog doesn't get off the hook.
Hold everyone to the same standard.
Let's see, Lou says, is Walsh going to rent places throughout the US so he can attend local school board meetings?
Walsh would criticize some Hollywood celebrity if they crashed a local school board meeting where they don't live, but it's fine if he does it.
Local people are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
They don't need Walsh riding in as their spokesman.
But of course, Walsh knows that this is good publicity for himself and his bottom line.
Now Walsh is hawking some quack treatment for puffy eyes.
He's a real man of principle.
Listen, Lou, You can slander me all you want, but I will not have you saying these things about Genucel by Chamanix, which can solve under-eye puffiness in a matter of days.
How dare you, sir?
David says, Matt, what is your favorite Bible translation?
Did I already answer this one?
Déjà vu.
Well, anyway, favorite Bible translation.
I'm not especially loyal to one particular translation or another.
And if you don't know Hebrew or Greek, which are the languages that the Old and New Testament
respectively were written in, if you don't know those languages, like if you know those
languages and you can read the scriptures in their original languages,
then do that. I mean, that's the best thing you could do.
But if you don't, then unfortunately you are relegated to, and this is the case for any kind of translate, even if it's
not the Bible.
I mean, you could be reading Russian literature or something.
If you don't know the original languages, you're left with somewhat of a pale imitation of what there really is.
And there's always this kind of balance that translators have to strike between, do we literally translate the words or do we try to capture the overall meaning?
Because that's not always the same thing.
That's the way language works.
And so with any translation, again, Bible or any kind of book, there are going to be some translations that are more literal, some that are more focused on meaning, and then some that are just terrible.
And so I kind of, it depends on what book of the Bible I'm reading, you know, that might determine which translation I prefer.
The flowery language of the KJV, King James Version, It certainly does not really capture the act, especially for the Gospels and the New Testament.
I mean, the Gospels, the epistles, these were written in plain language for ordinary people.
They weren't written in the equivalent of Shakespearean eloquent prose, right?
So I don't really like that for the New Testament.
For Old Testament, I kind of think it works.
That's my answer, which isn't really an answer at all.
I'm equivocating.
And finally, Robert says, Matt, I believe duels were more of a daybreak kind of thing.
High noon seems like a sheriff slash outlaw deal.
At any rate, this culture is screwed.
Yeah, well, daybreak is way too early for a duel.
I need a little bit of time.
I need to have some coffee if I'm going to participate in a duel.
And the thing is, I think I've advocated before for legalizing dueling.
I think there's an argument that could be made for that.
But if you're going to do it, then you have to really do it.
And what they've done in Chicago is they've kind of just done it in effect.
They've, in effect, decriminalized dueling.
And if you're also going to have a duel, there have to be rules that you respect.
Right?
It's not going to be five-on-five, just spraying bullets all over the place.
You know, you're going a certain number of paces apart.
It's timed.
You figure out what the rules are.
And you settle your differences that way.
I think you could make an argument that a society that has legalized dueling is going to be a much more polite society.
It's going to be a society where you put your shopping carts back if you know that I could challenge you to a duel if you don't.
But what they've done in Chicago is stiff.
It's not really legalized dueling, it's just legalized utter total chaos where gangs can shoot each other willy-nilly in the street.
Hitting innocent bystanders in the process, potentially, and they're not going to be charged with any crime.
This coming Tuesday, October 12th, we're taking backstage to an entirely new level.
Instead of the usual Daily Wire studio, we'll be live streaming our conversation on stage at the famous Ryman Auditorium right here in Nashville.
Doing what we do best, making sense.
This will be an event and a live stream unlike any we've done before, and we're thrilled to be able to share it with all of you.
Plus, we'll be making some extremely exciting announcements, which you will not want to miss, so be sure to tune in.
Join myself, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Jeremy Boring, Michael Knowles, Andrew Clavin, and our live audience for a backstage like never before.
Tuesday's live stream will begin at 8.30 p.m.
Eastern, 7.30 p.m.
Central, so head to dailywire.com or Daily Wire YouTube to catch the show.
And also, this is a reminder to everyone listening that as The Daily Wire continues to grow, we're seeking talented candidates for open positions across several departments within the company.
Our current list of open positions on the team here at Daily Wire includes, but is not limited to Video Editor, Writer and Reporter, Publicity Manager, Sales Representative, Social Media Content Creator, Podcast Marketing Manager, Conversion Rate Optimization Specialist, and 2PM Podcast Host.
That's not a good sign.
If you think you've got what it takes to join one of the fastest growing conservative media companies in America, we want to hear from you.
For a full list of job openings and open positions and position details and to apply, please visit dailywire.com slash careers.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, we've been conditioned not to trust our own common sense anymore, which is why we so often need studies to confirm the obvious.
But most of us don't trust studies either, and for good reason in most cases, so that's not much help.
But here's one study that I think we can take to the bank, so to speak.
There's a pun there, which will make more sense as we proceed.
Reading now from an article on the Institute for Family Studies website, written by Rosemary L. Hopcroft, which sounds like a character in an Agatha Christie novel, and I don't mean that as an insult, she writes, quote, In 21st century America, over half of all married couples are dual-earner families, and men are no longer expected to be the sole source of financial support for their families.
It seems, therefore, that possession of means would no longer matter as much for men's marriage prospects, while at the same time it may matter more for women's marriage prospects.
Yet my new research, published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, shows that possession of means still matters when it comes to marriage and family formation for men, but not for women.
In other words, men are going to have an easier time getting married if they have money, but for women, it doesn't matter much one way or another.
Continuing, it says, for men, as income increases, the probability of marriage also increases, such that men in the highest income category are about 57 percentage points more likely to marry than men in the lowest income category.
The same is not true for women.
High-income men are more likely than low-income men to marry, while income is unrelated to marriage for women.
Given that marriage involves choice on both the man and the woman's part, these results suggest that women are more likely to choose to marry men with good financial prospects, while a woman's financial prospects are less important to men when choosing a marriage partner.
Now, every broke single guy listening to this right now is certainly well aware of this dynamic, all too familiar with it.
But again, these days we need this kind of research to tell us what we already know, though many of us have chosen to pretend we don't know it.
A little more from the article, it says, not only are high-income men more likely to marry, they're more likely to stay married too.
Figure 2, talking about the chart, shows the probability of divorce for those who have been married at least once, and reveals that for men, the probability of divorce declines as income rises, such that men in the highest income category are about 37 percentage points less likely to divorce than men in the lowest income category.
For women, the probability of divorce increases as income rises, perhaps mostly due to reverse causality and the fact that divorced women are more likely to have to support themselves financially.
For men, the results suggest that women are more likely to divorce low-income men than high-income men.
Now, the cynical interpretation of all this is that women are materialistic and superficial.
And some women are, just like some men are, but that doesn't explain these trends.
Generally speaking, as the study demonstrates and thousands of years of human experience confirms, women are looking for stability.
They're looking for a provider.
They value ambition.
They value work ethic in a man.
And that's anything but superficial, to value those things.
On the other hand, men, simply for the most part, don't care about a woman's career ambitions.
They don't want a lazy bump on a log either, but they value and are attracted to a different sort of energy and ambition in women.
I've said before that my wife is extremely talented, has many skills, more skills than I have, and is quite ambitious, but she doesn't have a professional career.
She parents ambitiously.
She mothers ambitiously.
She pours her energy into her family.
She has many creative talents and always finds different outlets for them.
Sometimes she'll find outlets that earn money, sometimes not.
But the money doesn't really matter to me.
I didn't marry her in hopes that she would provide an income for me.
No man gets married for that reason.
Even men who are married to working women, as plenty are, still didn't choose those women because of their income potential.
Women hopefully aren't choosing men solely on income, but the man's ability to provide for his family will be a major factor in her decision.
For men, it's just not.
Men are not thinking about that.
They're not thinking when they're with a woman and thinking about marriage.
They're not, well, she would do great at providing an income for the family.
If they think that you can, they may see that as a bonus, but they're not making decisions based on that.
And it also doesn't mean, by the way, that low-income single men are out of luck.
A woman is also assessing potential.
So even if you aren't making much money now, she might still consider you an excellent match if she sees that you work hard and have aspirations and a drive to achieve them.
Women are good at this, by the way.
They have a natural intuition about these sorts of things.
A good wife will often have a clearer idea of her husband's career potential than he does.
She can anticipate his future success even if his predictions about his own future are far more modest than hers.
What this all means, boiled down, is that men and women are different.
And they want different things.
Our cultural institutions have spent years and decades trying to collapse these two categories into one ambiguous, indistinguishable mess.
And yet, in spite of that, still, these fundamental differences remain.
Girls are told from a young age, I mean, it's hammered into their heads, that they shouldn't look to men to be providers.
And boys are told that they shouldn't see themselves in that role.
And yet, both groups gravitate this way anyway.
Attempts are made to evade these differences, get around them, and most of these attempts end in disaster.
Note how a woman's likelihood of divorce increases as her income increases, while the trend is exactly the opposite for men.
And that's because women are attracted to men who provide.
So if he pours himself into that role as provider, the woman's attraction will grow stronger and deeper.
Of course, some men can go too far.
They prioritize their careers over their families, and many divorces have happened as a result of that.
But as long as he's putting his family first and valuing his job, in large part because he values his family and takes his provider role seriously, then it should only strengthen his marriage.
Yet a woman who invests herself more and more into her career is not going to find that it has the same positive effect on her marriage, necessarily, because her husband doesn't fundamentally see her as a provider.
He may support her career, But he doesn't find her career ambition attractive in the same way that a woman does for a man.
And there are a lot of men who are going to listen to this right now and feel like they have to disagree with me and say, no, that's not true.
My wife is very ambitious in her career and a great businesswoman, and I just find it so sexy and attractive.
No, you don't.
Not really.
I mean, you're saying that because you think you have to, but you don't really.
Again, thousands and thousands of years of human behavior tell us the truth here.
And also, if the woman becomes more successful in her career than the man is, in his, it can lead to resentment, because the man will begin to feel that he has no essential role, that he's no longer necessary.
This is not me prescribing how things should be.
I'm just describing how they are and always have been.
We've been conditioned to recoil from the notion of gender roles.
The term almost always is used in a pejorative way now.
But at their root, gender roles were never rules.
It wasn't society saying what men and women should do or must do.
Gender roles were our way of categorizing what men and women already naturally tend to do.
And it's good to have a grasp on that.
Because without it, couples go into marriage not sure what to do or what their role should be.
Invariably, they end up stepping on each other's toes, competing with, rather than complimenting each other.
This is why it's good to have a healthy understanding of and respect for traditional gender roles, quote-unquote, even if you're going to do something different in your own family.
It's good to know what the original recipe is before you come up with your variation of it.
What happens these days is that both the man and the woman stand in the kitchen, dumping all kinds of competing ingredients into the bowl, mixing it together, and the end result is confused and weird and rarely successful.
And that's the result of trying to deny what we all inherently know to be true.
So who are we cancelling today?
We're not cancelling gender roles.
Because those can't be cancelled.
Not completely.
Instead, I guess this is another reverse cancellation.
We're cancelling the people who have tried to cancel the gender roles.
Because that's just never actually going to work.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, 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 Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Ali Hinkle, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
