Ep. 877 - My Dr. Phil Appearance Caused Trauma And Nightmares
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, I appeared on Dr. Phil to argue about gender and pronouns with a couple of non-binary diversity consultants and a woke college professor. We’ll talk about the experience today and watch a few of the clips together. Also, my opponents on the stage are now complaining that I have caused them to plunge into depression and they’re having nightmares because of me. What did I do to cause such trauma? We’ll try to figure that out. And Joe Biden held just his second press conference in a year and it was a total disaster. The media gets caught in yet another fake news scandal. And a major car company goes woke, though as always it’s not clear what they hope to accomplish.
I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb
You petitioned, and we heard you. Made for Sweet Babies everywhere: get the official Sweet Baby Gang t-shirt here: https://utm.io/udIX3
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, I appeared on Dr. Phil to argue about gender and pronouns with a couple of non-binary diversity consultants and a woke college professor.
We'll talk about the experience today and watch a few of the clips together.
Also, two of my opponents on the stage are now complaining that I have caused them to plunge into depression and they're having nightmares because of me.
What did I do to cause such trauma?
We'll try to figure that out.
And Joe Biden held just his second press conference in a year.
It was a total disaster, as you might expect.
The media gets caught in yet another fake news scandal and a major car company goes woke.
Though, as always, it's not really clear what they hope to accomplish by that.
We'll discuss all of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
I'm really excited to have good ranchers on board The Matt Walsh Show this year
and teaming up with the Daily Wire.
These are great guys at Good Ranchers, and fortunately for you, Good Ranchers is the exclusive meat company of The Daily Wire.
They help you get American meat delivered.
They've got 100% American steakhouse quality meat, and it's all for an affordable price.
Over 85% of the grass-fed beef in stores and online is imported from overseas, which undermines American farms and ranches.
and often causes them to shut down as well.
If you shop Good Ranchers today, you're supporting American-Made, and you're putting the small farm back on top.
Plus, you can use my code WALSH for $30 off.
That's the biggest first purchase discount code Good Ranchers has ever given out,
which means there's never been a better time to buy.
Support American Farms and Ranches, and get delicious T-bones, gourmet burgers, ribeyes,
and more mouth-watering cuts in the process.
Visit GoodRanchers.com slash Walsh or use code Walsh at checkout to get $30 off any one of their many boxes.
Everything they sell is truly top-notch and you really have to try it.
So visit GoodRanchers.com slash Walsh today to save $30 on your new favorite steak.
Start the year with Good Ranchers American Meat Delivered.
For those who were able to watch it, my appearance on Dr. Phil aired yesterday afternoon.
It was my first time appearing on television outside of Fox News, and also my first time meeting with a psychologist.
Some would say that I should make more of a regular habit of it, talking to a psychologist, I mean, not appearing on TV.
But unfortunately, Not everybody was able to watch the discussion, I'm told.
In some markets, it was sidelined by President Biden's press conference.
I think we can all agree that of all the terrible things Biden has done during his disastrous tenure, preempting my Dr. Phil episode is by far the worst.
Now, there's always a certain risk inherent in walking into an environment like this.
Especially with the cameras rolling.
Of course, I knew that I would be outnumbered on stage in front of a hostile studio audience.
And if I had been invited to speak about a more complicated or difficult issue, one that requires you to actually be smart, then that would have given me pause.
But the topic of the episode was gender and pronouns, which means that it's not complicated or difficult at all.
My position, the correct position, is extremely simple, sensible, obvious, and clear.
The only mistake that somebody on my side of the issue can make, and very often people do make this mistake, in a debate of this kind, is to make the subject seem more complicated than it is.
Getting lost in the rhetorical weeds and losing sight of the main point.
That's where the other side lives.
They're out there in the weeds where things are muddy and muddled.
They like it out there.
They want to obscure the main point, mystifying what is actually quite simple.
As long as you refuse to be baited into that trap, and you stay on message, on the firm ground of truth and science and common sense, you can have this conversation anywhere, with anybody, on any platform, in front of any audience, and you will walk away the winner every time.
And if you're a naturally argumentative bastard like myself, you'll even have fun doing it.
Now that gives you an idea of my basic strategy.
So now we'll watch some clips of a few of the most important exchanges during the episode and we'll see how it played out.
We'll begin with the opening salvo, which came several minutes into the episode, as the first segment featured just the two non-binary diversity consultants spewing inane garbage unopposed.
And I was backstage for that portion, just pacing back and forth, listening in horror.
Muttering incredulously to myself and when it was my turn I began by clarifying that everybody that that you know everything that was said in the previous segment was total nonsense and Then we dived in to the pronoun question.
Let's watch there should be no construct of gender just sex you're either male or female right and someone feeling in a mental emotional way that they don't Identify with the sex that they have.
been biologically created as and assigned at birth based on their genitalia, if they don't feel that way, that there's no construct that describes that, experiences that.
Well, that's got nothing to do with the reality.
So you can feel however you want.
I mean, I could sit here and say that I feel like a tomato plant, but that doesn't mean that I actually am those things.
So your self-perception, you can have whatever self-perception you want, But you can't expect me to take part in that self-perception or to take part in this kind of charade, this theatrical production.
You don't get your own pronouns, just like you don't get your own prepositions or your own adjectives.
It's like if I were to tell you, my adjectives are handsome and brilliant.
And no matter, whenever you're talking about me, you have to describe me as handsome and brilliant because that's how I identify.
Makes no sense.
You don't get your own pronouns.
That's grammar.
That's language.
So you think it's a delusion.
Someone is self-delusional.
Yeah, I think it's delusion.
It could be mental illness.
It's a lot of different things.
With children, there's also just a basic confusion that all kids have.
That's why when you hear a parent say, oh, my four-year-old son came to me and said that I'm a girl now, and so I'm going to raise him as a girl.
No, you're a four-year-old.
I have four kids.
When a four-year-old boy comes to you and says, oh, I'm a girl, here's a good follow-up question.
What is a girl?
Ask him what he means by that.
What do you mean by girl?
And when you ask him that, here's what he'll tell you.
He will tell you what he really means is that he wants to do some of the things that girls do, like play with the dollhouse, or he likes the color pink.
That's fine.
Play with the dollhouse.
But you're still a boy.
I hope you'll respect my preferred adjectives.
Of course, the only problem with my adjective comparison is that unlike pronouns, adjectives are, in fact, subjective.
But my point was that the adjectives I use to describe myself are products of my self-perception.
I cannot demand that others perceive me the way that I perceive myself.
My self-perception is not a joint project shared by me and the rest of human society.
For adjectives, it's up to each individual to decide which ones they want to use to describe me.
And in my case, a great many people use adjectives to describe me that I find quite disagreeable.
I might feel insulted by some of those adjectives.
I might lock myself in the bathroom and weep uncontrollably for hours because of them.
I do that every day.
But I cannot say that I'm being erased or delegitimized because other people refuse to see me the way that I see myself.
And in fact, if their competing perception causes some sort of existential crisis for me, it only proves that I'm not so sure of my own self-perception, and therefore, I'm in no position to criticize anybody else's perception of me.
As for pronouns, there is no subjectivity at all.
It's not up to any individual, including myself, to decide which ones ought to be used.
That question is settled by biological reality.
The point of the pronoun is to describe that reality.
Just as the point of a verb, like running, unless it's used metaphorically, is to convey reality.
If I say that somebody is running when they're really sitting, I've conveyed an untruth.
Whether because I'm confused, or a liar, or both.
And if I call a man a she, I have also expressed an untruth, whether because I'm confused, or a liar, or both.
Or perhaps because I'm afraid of getting yelled at if I tell the truth.
So we should add coward alongside the options of confused and liar.
In any case, the pronoun question led directly to the question, the ultimate, I mean THE question, the ultimate and fundamental question as far as I'm concerned, which my opponents were not very eager to answer.
That's a question I would like to throw out to other members of the panel.
Actually, because just like the four-year-old can't answer, what is a girl?
Well, this is one of the problems with this left-wing gender ideology, is that no one who espouses it can even tell you what these words mean.
Like, what is a woman?
Can you tell me what a woman is?
No, I can't.
Because it's not for me to say.
Womanhood looks different for everybody.
What do you define a woman as?
An adult human female.
And what does a female mean?
Well, that's someone with female reproductive organs.
Okay.
Someone who's, you know, here's the thing.
When you're female, it goes right down to your bones, your DNA.
So that's why if someone dies, we could dig up their bones a hundred years from now.
We have no idea what they believed in their head, but we can tell what sex they were because it's in, it's down in, it's ingrained in every fiber of their being.
Interesting.
So I'm trying to understand.
Your definition is that a woman is someone who is female, you said, right?
Correct, as a biological female.
So what happens if we have maybe someone who is female, identifies as a woman, right?
You know, cisgender woman, right?
As you just explained.
Maybe doesn't have the ability to reproduce.
Maybe doesn't have those organs that you're talking about that are reproductive organs.
I have answered the question.
You stood up here and said trans women are women.
Yes.
Tell me what you mean.
What is a woman?
Womanhood is something that, just as Ethan explained, I cannot define because I am not myself.
But you used the word.
So what did you mean when you said trans women are women if you don't know what it means?
So here's the thing.
So I do not define what a woman is because I do not identify as a woman.
Womanhood is something that is an umbrella term.
It includes people who... That describes what?
People who identify as a woman.
Identify as what?
As a woman.
What is that?
What's to each their own.
Each woman, each man, each person is going to have a different relation with their own gender identity and define it differently.
And so trans women are women too.
Hold on, hold on.
You won't even tell me what the word means, though.
So that's the problem.
You want to reduce women, you want to reduce men down to maybe just their genetics, our genitals, our chromosomes, right?
That's what you're saying.
What you want to do is appropriate women.
You want to appropriate womanhood and turn it into basically a costume that can be worn.
Now, the episode continued for another 45 minutes after that, but that was really the end of the conversation.
I could have gotten up and walked off the stage right there, which would have been funny.
The other side was there to argue that trans women are women and that anyone can be a woman if that's how they feel about themselves, and yet they could not explain what they meant when they used that term.
Trans women are women.
What's a woman?
Well, who knows?
The statement trans women are women means nothing in that case.
They don't know what they mean when they say it.
They don't understand their own position.
Game over.
You notice the obscurantist tactic at work here, because the bearded gentleman had declared in the previous segment, to raucous applause, that trans women are women.
And I asked him what he means, and he immediately hopped on the circular logic merry-go-round, rambling a bunch of hazy gibberish about how only women can define the word women.
That doesn't make any sense, because for one thing, he's not an elephant, but I'm sure he can tell me what an elephant is.
Also, even the statement that only women can define women requires you to know what a woman is.
Otherwise, how can you know who has the right to define it and who doesn't?
Well, the answer is that he knows who a woman is because they're the ones who say they're women.
And we know that they are right in their claims of being women because they're saying it.
And they say they're women because they are women.
And they are women because they say they're women.
Around and around we go.
Or they go, anyway.
They hope to pull you onto the merry-go-round with them, making you as dizzy and confused as they are.
Which is why it's important to have simple answers, simple definitions, simple responses.
And you stick to them.
Let them twirl around and tie themselves into knots.
You're standing on solid ground.
Stay there.
One more clip worth playing, after a very awkward commercial break where everybody sat in silence.
Awkward for them, anyway.
You know, I thought the whole situation was pretty hilarious.
We came back with a supposed gender expert and college professor who provoked applause from the trained seals in the audience when she hit me with the old, why do you care so much, routine.
There's biological sex, and then there is gender identity.
Part of me wants to ask why you care so much, because it's really not that big of a deal.
Can I answer that?
I'd love to answer that question.
I care about the truth, so basic truth matters.
I want to live in a society where people care about the truth and we're grounded in truth.
I care about children, and these insane ideas about gender are being foist on kids.
And that bothers me quite a bit.
I care about the women who are having their opportunities stolen from them.
I care quite a bit, yeah.
Now, another point I didn't have the chance to make there is that she wants me to care.
She says, why do you care?
Well, I could have said because you want me to.
The other two people on the stage, they want me to care also.
Their whole job is to go around insisting that everybody care about this issue.
These people march in literal parades with banners and floats screaming into bullhorns that we all should care.
It's just that they want me to care in only a very specific way and to draw very specific conclusions.
So when she says, why do you care so much?
What she really means is, why has your concern about this issue led you to conclusions that I disapprove of?
And so I gave her the answer.
It's important to always emphasize that our first concern is not fairness, it's not sports, it's not privacy, it's not even safety.
Those are all concerns and they're important, but our primary motivation is to defend truth for its own sake.
If there was a serious campaign to convince everyone that squares are circles, I'd be arguing almost as passionately against it.
I'd even go on Dr. Phil to talk about shapes It's not because I woke up one morning feeling very passionate about geometry.
I didn't choose the fight.
They're the ones who decided to wage an assault on this basic truth, and so I can choose to either surrender the ground to them or defend it.
I don't want to live in a world where people don't know the difference between squares and circles.
I also don't want to live in a world where people don't know the difference between men and women.
And it really is as simple as that.
And as I said, we should keep it simple.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
There's no better time than right now to start saving yourself some big money
each month and it really isn't difficult to make it happen.
Just refinance your mortgage, and do it now before rates get any higher.
I've been talking about this a lot lately, but only because it's important for you to know, and also I just really enjoy talking about it as well.
The rates we're seeing can make a significant impact on your budget, making now the time to call American Financing.
It could mean up to $1,000 in monthly savings, and it doesn't cost you anything to learn more.
That's right, they'll give you a free mortgage review so you can learn about custom loan options before moving forward.
There's no pressure, there's no upfront or hidden fees.
You can even skip up to two payments and you may close in as fast as 10 days.
But you gotta call 866-569-4711.
866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711. Or visit AmericanFinancing.net.
NMLS 182334. NMLSconsumeraccess.org.
All right. Thankfully, we are in studio today.
I got a text from Sean last night, our producer, saying the offices might be closed again because there was going to be some ice this morning, because it rained a little bit, and we would have some ice on the roads.
And we closed down last week for that same reason, because there was just some ice.
Fortunately, it didn't end up happening.
We are here.
But I was just thinking, man, why is everyone so petrified of ice?
Why would we even consider shutting down?
Just drive slower and everything will be fine.
Then I remember, and I have these moments sometimes here, where I remember that I'm working with a bunch of Californians.
And these L.A.
people, they come across a frozen puddle and they call the fire department.
They don't know what to do.
But then I also thought about the fact that they're from Los Angeles.
Back in the old studio, they were going to work every day in the middle of a crime-ridden They were walking dead wasteland.
They were navigating through, like, Mad Max every day.
They'd have knife-wielding meth addicts chasing them through the parking lot, but a little bit of ice scares them.
I don't quite understand.
But fortunately, we are here.
And now, I guess, it's kind of a sore subject, but Biden, as mentioned, did have his press conference yesterday, timing it exactly.
Is it a coincidence?
The only second press conference he gives in a year happens to air at the same time as my Dr. Phil appearance.
Coincidence?
Probably, but maybe not.
So we'll go through a couple of his answers here.
He's asked about why he called most of the country Jim Crow racist, and is he a very angry man who hates Most of the citizens of this country?
Is that why?
His answer doesn't do much to allay that suspicion.
Let's listen.
You campaigned and you ran on a return to civility, and I know that you dispute the characterization that you called folks who would oppose those voting bills as being Bull Connor or George Wallace, but you said that they would be sort of in the same camp.
No, I didn't say that.
Look what I said.
Go back and read what I said and tell me If you think I called anyone who voted on the side of the position taken by Bull Connor, that they were Bull Connor.
That is an interesting reading of English.
I assume you got into journalism because you like to write.
Did you expect that that would work with Senators Manchin or Sinema?
No, here's the thing.
There's certain things that are so consequential, you have to speak from your heart as well as your head.
I was speaking out forcefully on what I think to be at stake.
That's what it is.
And by the way, no one, no one forgets who was on the side of King or Bull Connor.
The history books will note it.
When I was making the case, don't think this is a freebie.
You don't get to vote this way and then somehow it goes away.
This will stick with you the rest of your career and long after you're gone.
What a disaster.
Our enemies watch this and they are licking their chops.
You see this man who has clearly lost his mind is a dementia patient.
The people on the right that complain that we don't get more press conferences, I hope we don't have another one for the rest of his presidency.
I wish that he would never address the public ever again.
Address us in written word.
Send a memo, send an email that we'll all get.
Because having him up, I don't see how it does anybody any good to have him losing his mind visibly on camera.
Doesn't do us any good.
Unless the people who are in a position to do it will actually take steps to get rid of this guy.
Because he's not mentally competent.
But that's not going to happen.
So I hope there's not another press conference.
Two a year is too much.
And he said, what even is his justification?
He says, I guess it's just his rationale here is that, no, no, no, I said that you were on the side of Bull Connor and George Wallace.
I didn't say that you were those people.
That actually is his rationale.
Come on, I didn't accuse everyone of being Bull Connor, I just said they were.
But we know that.
We know you weren't saying they literally are that person.
But you were equating them with that person.
If they won't support a voting rights bill to protect the rights that everybody already has.
And speaking of voting, he was also asked about, well, if we don't get this voting rights bill in place, and then we get to the midterm elections.
You know, can you sit here and just assure everybody, assure the American people that the elections are still legitimate?
Especially because we've been told repeatedly over the last year, year and a half, that the worst thing you could ever do is question the legitimacy of our elections.
That is an attack on our very democracy, our system of government.
It's an attack on our society.
Let's see how Joe Biden fields that question.
Speaking of voting rights legislation, if this isn't passed, do you still believe the upcoming election will be fairly conducted and its results will be legitimate?
Well, it all depends on whether or not we're able to make the case to the American people that some of this is being set up to try to alter the outcome of the election.
Okay, so in other words, if I don't get my way, then yes, the elections are illegitimate.
And it's just a coincidence.
So you understand, all of this is a coincidence.
The fact that they are almost certainly going to be annihilated in the midterms, the Democrats are walking into a bloodbath, and there's no escaping it now, and they know it.
And the fact that that's about to happen, and now is when they're launching this full-on campaign, screaming about an attack on voting rights, and people are being prevented from voting.
All a coincidence, right?
No, this is, well I'll tell you what it's not.
This is not, as I've explained many times, this is not a double standard.
It sounds like a double standard, when you hear him, the President of the United States, standing in front of the American people and openly, and in advance, questioning the legitimacy and therefore the results of an upcoming election.
When you hear him doing that, after he and the rest of the Democrats spent the last year condemning Trump for doing something similar, you might say that's a double standard.
It's not a double standard.
There is one standard here.
And the one standard, again, is it's okay when they do it.
Whatever, maybe we'll put it this way.
Whatever they are doing is okay.
Because it's them.
And whatever their opponents are doing is bad.
Because they're the opponents.
That's the standard.
There's a certain coherence to it.
There's no moral coherence, but it's at least understandable.
And that's all it is.
One standard.
They can do it, but not you.
And that's the case when it comes to questioning elections.
That's the case when it comes to attending a maskless party.
They can do it, but not you.
All right.
Remember yesterday how Don Lemon said that we should not do our own research like idiots?
Only an idiot would try to do their own research and look things up and read.
No, just listen to them.
We should just trust them.
Well, okay, then I guess if we should trust them, then we should probably trust this report from NPR and repeat it on every major news show, corporate media news show on the left, especially in MSNBC.
Here's the report from MSNBC.
And we have to trust it because if you're doing your own research, remember, then you're an idiot and you're lost.
You're a lost case.
Listen to them.
They would never lie to us.
Tragically, anti-mask insanity has now reached the highest court in the land.
That's based on brand new reporting today from NPR, which reveals new fissures opening up among the justices during one of the most consequential years for the court in recent history.
The reporting zeroes in on a jarring sight earlier this month when the justices took the bench at the height of the Omicron surge, all of them wearing masks except for Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Justice Sotomayor, who instead participated remotely from chambers, the NPR report explains, quote, Sotomayor has diabetes, a condition that puts her at high risk for serious illness or even death from COVID-19, and she did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked.
Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form, asked the other justices to mask up.
They all did, except Gorsuch.
So, Neil Gorsuch refused to mask up, even though he was instructed to, and then Sotomayor wouldn't come and wouldn't be there in person because of it.
Now, I heard this report, and my first thought was, you know, if that's true, good for Neil Gorsuch.
I didn't have a problem with it.
I mean, do you not trust the vaccine?
Sotomayor is vaccinated.
I assume triple vaccinated, if not quadruple vaccinated at this point.
And so all the people giving Gorsuch a hard time based on this report sounds to me like they're questioning the efficacy of the vaccine.
They all need to be banned from Twitter.
No?
Because if you trust the vaccine, then what's the problem?
She's protected.
Unless you don't think that the protection is good enough.
Joy Reid on MSNBC, she was especially upset about this and she came out pretty hard and she's just defending Sotomayor from the nasty Neil Gorsuch.
Listen to this.
Not Gorsuch.
He could not be bothered to extend a life-saving courtesy to his co-worker.
And it is as serious as life and death because diabetes is a huge risk factor.
A report last summer found that 40% of people who died from COVID-19 had diabetes.
There's a chance that those numbers might look different with vaccination and Omicron, but the CDC still lists diabetes as a condition where people are more likely to get severely ill.
So for having zero, zero problem risking the life of your colleague because you just don't feel like putting a mask on, you, Neil Gorsuch, are both a rotten co-worker, dangerous to be near in a pandemic, and tonight's absolute worst.
You're the absolute worst, Neil Gorsuch.
Well, one little problem here, just one, just a slight kind of, a slight problem, technical detail, is that all of that is nonsense.
None of that is true.
Now the update from CNBC, it says Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch on Wednesday denied that their relationship had been frayed over a disagreement about wearing masks as a COVID-19 safety measure.
The rare joint statement from the two sitting justices came one day after an NPR report said that Gorsuch refused to wear the mask.
And here's what their statement says.
Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us.
It is false.
While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends.
And then we have another denial.
This is from the New York Post.
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts issued a statement Wednesday denying a National Public Radio report about this.
And he said, quote, I did not request Justice Gorsuch or any justice to wear a mask on the bench.
So, you can believe the corporate media, or you can believe the actual people involved, all of whom have come out.
And this is pretty rare for Supreme Court justices to respond to media reports and all that kind of stuff.
So this is one where they're coming out and saying, totally untrue.
So this brings us back to yesterday, to Don Lemon's point about how you shouldn't be doing your own research.
Well, if you're interested in knowing what's happening in the world, what else are you supposed to do?
Again, admitting all of the hazards that are inherent when you try to just wander into the wilds of the internet to try to learn anything.
There are plenty of hazards there, and many different ways you could be led astray, and certainly many different distractions that can take you off task.
It's not ideal, right?
There are people, there are institutions in this country that are tasked with delivering the truth and letting us know what's happening and we cannot trust them.
It's as simple as that.
All right, so Audi is taking a courageous stand for diversity.
They put this out.
First, let's look at the tweet from Audi.
Do we have the photo?
It says, Progress in the workplace.
Diversity and inclusion play a key role in any team dynamic.
Therefore, Audi has introduced gender-sensitive language.
In doing so, we open the door to more diversity of perspective, the ability to change and to learn.
Now, speaking of researching on the internet, I spent as much time as I could stomach, so that was about 45 seconds, trying to figure out what this even means.
Audi has introduced gender-sensitive language?
In what context?
What do you mean you've introduced it?
Hey everybody, I'd like to introduce you to some gender-sensitive language.
Here it is.
Good for you.
Did they just post a list of gender-sensitive words, hoping for a round of applause?
Not hard to get a round of applause, like I learned on Dr. Phil.
So this is what they posted.
And then they followed it up with a commercial?
I don't know what we call this.
But let's play this.
I guess I'll have to narrate a little bit because it's mostly words.
But here is Audi's woke commercial advertising their sensitivity.
Here it is.
We recently introduced gender-sensitive language.
Okay.
Still not clear what this means.
Causing strong and sometimes rejecting reactions.
And then we get a... Now that they're putting up just random Twitter accounts who are saying, this is bad, we don't like political correctness.
They say, we respect all opinions, but our position towards diversity and inclusion is clear.
And then there's a rainbow flag.
And an Audi car with a rainbow.
At Audi, diversity stands for pluralism.
And then just random people.
We believe in different ways of thinking.
Look at all those people, they're all thinking.
We're convinced that open and unprejudiced cooperation makes us stronger.
What does any of this have to do with cars?
And there we go.
In our view, gender inclusive language is what?
Is a positive attitude toward diversity and equity.
What?
All right.
And we're not the only ones.
Now we're getting tweets from people cheering them on.
Look at all these random accounts that said we're good.
Well, nice job, Audi.
All right.
Turn this off.
I don't need this.
What was that?
Gender inclusive language is a positive attitude towards diversity and inclusion.
That's just a series of leftist buzz phrases and terms thrown out.
It's like Scrabble.
You just threw them out on the board.
Throw them into a blender, blend it together, pour out the smoothie of meaningless lingo.
That doesn't even mean anything!
Gender-sensitive language is a positive attitude towards diversity and inclusion?
I saw someone on Twitter say that they really appreciate it when their luxury vehicles lecture them, and I think that that kind of sums it up.
Isn't this what we all desire?
We want to be lectured by Audi.
And we also, I think I can speak for everybody when I say this, that we look to car manufacturers to point us the way forward and to tell us what sort of people we should be.
I think we look to them for moral guidance.
Do we not?
Fantastic.
Let's get now to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
All right, I'm going to start.
Of course, we have our fancy video comments now, and you can submit your own video comment by going to dailywire.com slash sweetbabycomments.
I think that's the correct one.
I want to jump ahead to, let's play clip 11.
Listen to this comment.
Hi Matt, my name is Salam and I'm a Syrian citizen who was granted asylum in the United States.
Going back to your point about why the lady should take on her husband's last name, you summed up your argument in one word, tradition.
I would say it's more than just tradition, I mean it's the same way in my country too.
The reason why The man's last name should be the family's last name is that we need to connect the man to his kids and vice versa.
We know we always know them who the mother is but we don't always know who the father is especially in the case of children born out of wedlock.
Our connection to our mothers is physical, while our connection to our father is spiritual.
Therefore, we need to connect the father to their kids, and SBG for life.
Yeah, I think that's a good point.
First of all, stop arguing with me.
Second, really good point, and I think that's right.
I also think, and this is not mutually exclusive, Right, because I said that this is one of the reasons why the woman takes the man's name is because of tradition, and what you're providing is one of the reasons why that tradition is there in the first place.
So, that's one layer deeper.
I don't think these are mutually exclusive things.
But I did want to emphasize the tradition because I think it matters, and I don't want to give the impression that there's something embarrassing or flimsy about arguing in favor of something based on the fact that it's a tradition.
People are hesitant to do that these days because we have this idea that, ah, it's just a tradition, who cares about that?
Like, traditions are inherently dispensable.
I know that's not your position, but that is a position that lots of people hold.
And so I think there's a value in saying, no, this is good.
In large part because it's tradition.
Tradition is the democracy of the dead, as Chesterton said.
It connects us to our ancestors, just as the name connects the father to his children.
It connects us to our past and therefore connects us to ourselves in a certain way.
You're listening to the wisdom of the billions who lived before you.
And there's nothing wrong with asking, oh, well, this is a tradition.
This is what our ancestors did.
This is where their wisdom led them.
This was their lived experience, to use my own buzz word there.
It's nothing wrong with asking, well, why?
Why was that a tradition?
What was the reason for it?
And then that's where we get to some of the answers just given there in the comment.
But going to another Chesterton point, That, you know, if you come across a fence as you're walking along and you see a fence there and you don't know why the fence is put there, it would be a very stupid thing to just tear it down because you don't know why it's there.
It's possible you could come across a fence that should not be there, and then there's a reason to tear it down.
But if you don't know why it's there, the last thing you should do is tear it down.
There might be a dog on the other side of that fence who's going to eat your face.
And same thing with traditions.
If you don't understand why the tradition is put in place, then you shouldn't be trying to destroy it, because you don't even know why it's there.
And that's where you should fall back on the fact you don't understand it, but billions before you thought that this was a worthy and worthwhile thing.
So you have your ignorance versus the wisdom of the ages.
Which should you side with, is the question.
All right.
Let's take a look at clip 12.
Okay, showing this.
This is a good demonstration.
Doing the right thing.
They're putting the shopping cart.
Into the cart corral.
Look at that.
You know what that is?
Well done.
Well done, my sweet children.
I can see snow on the ground.
Snow and ice.
That was very traumatic, that clip, for all the people in the control room to see that from Los Angeles.
Snow and ice on the ground.
She was traveling across that snow and ice, across the vast expanse of the parking lot, with determination in her heart to put that cart away.
And that is true courage.
I applaud it.
Let's look at one more.
This is, let's play clip 13.
Hello, I'm Grace and my pronouns are sweet baby and sweet baby self.
I've been a follower since the alpaca grooming days, so a very long time.
And the first article that I came across of yours was, kids go to college or you'll die alone in misery.
So whenever you go on about the college topic, it's always a fun blast of nostalgia.
So I have a quick question.
Many times when I bring up to family or friends that I'm a fan of yours, they claim that you are quote-unquote rude.
I would never say such a thing, of course, but some people do make this heinous claim and they say that that is not fitting for a Christian.
And I'm curious what you would say to these people.
So, SBG for life!
You say SPG for life, but are those people still your friends?
Is that still family?
Do you still see your family that says that about me?
Because if so, I'm questioning your SPG credentials.
To answer the question, I have heard that a time or two, that I'm a bad Christian because of my attitude and my demeanor.
I'll say a few things about that.
First of all, this idea that Christians are all called to be mild and polite and meek Is totally incoherent from a scriptural standpoint.
I mean, the Bible is chock full of people who are extremely aggressive and blunt and angry and even rude sometimes.
That's all over the Bible in both Testaments.
Not just the Old Testament, but I mean, especially the Old Testament.
Go to the New Testament, read the letters of Paul sometime.
You know, he was not putting up with nonsense from anybody.
Jesus is not depicted as the sort of Mr. Rogers figure that he's made out to be today.
He was quite shall we say, discourteous at times, abrupt when dealing
with the Pharisees and so on, especially with anyone who was engaging with him in a
dishonest or bad faith kind of way.
So that's the first thing.
Another point is that, you know, it takes all kinds, right?
So you need people, but you need people like me, right?
I mean, I'm going to rush in there like a bull in a china shop.
And you need people that are willing to do that, who will play that role.
You also need people who are more diplomatic and nicer and more polite.
I think you need all of that.
Think of it like in terms of an actual army.
Not everyone is going to do the same job.
Not everyone has the same role.
Not everybody is getting their boots muddy to the same extent.
But you need all of that in terms of personalities and approaches and attitudes and tones and all of that.
So this debate about what's the appropriate Attitude.
What's the appropriate tone?
What's the appropriate personality for a Christian to have?
To me, it's completely absurd.
And final point.
Although I just said that it takes all kinds, personality-wise, there are times in history when certain kinds are needed more than others.
And we're at a point right now where we are facing the total moral and intellectual collapse of civilization.
That's what we're up against.
And it's a very noisy process also.
There's lots of noise and distraction.
You need to shout above the noise to be heard, to begin with.
Gentle, meek whispering isn't going to cut it.
No one's going to hear you, or care.
There might be a time for that, but it's not really right now.
We're teetering on the edge.
There's an urgency that we should feel.
It's an emergency.
So it's a time for a more aggressive and direct approach.
And we certainly can't afford to be tone-policing at a moment like this.
I mean, this is what trips me up the most, is that civilization is collapsing.
The church in the West is collapsing as well, all around us.
And you still have some Christians who are, you know, pointing at other people and saying, I don't know, he's a little bit rude.
You know, don't be so rude.
That's what you're worried about?
That's it?
They just criminalized Christianity in Canada, in effect?
It's gonna happen here next, and you're concerned that I might be too rude?
I got it.
Alright, a couple of the written comments also.
This is from Rosemary, says it's not almost everyone in the country who knows this trans stuff is insane.
Everyone knows this, including its advocates.
They just don't care.
The false ideology comes above all else for them.
I think it is almost everyone.
I do think there are some people who, because of delusion or mental illness, like I said on Dr. Phil, really are confused.
And then there are kids who are indoctrinated into this, and the confusion is cultivated in a very intentional sort of way, and they don't know.
They don't know anything.
They're totally confused.
But I think, especially when we're dealing with adults, people who have been on this earth for more than, you know, 20 years, And who, at the very least, grew up in a world where everybody knew that men are men and women are women.
For all of them.
Yeah, I think they all know.
But the false ideology comes above all else, as you said.
Classof79 says, Matt, I agree that Phelps is a coward, but saying he has nothing to lose is simply not true.
His sponsors would drop him like a bad habit if he strongly opposed a trans swimmer.
He's self-interested like any of these elites who want to protect their bottom line.
Yeah, I guess I should have said it would cost him, in effect, nothing.
Right?
Yeah, he would lose some sponsorships and all that, but he's already filthy rich.
And he's not going to be... We don't have to worry... Phelps doesn't have to worry about ending up homeless on the street.
It's not going to happen to him.
And the other thing is, even if he were dropped by his sponsors, there would be a lot of other financial support coming his way.
There are plenty of other sponsors out there that would love to support him if he took a stand for sanity and then he was cancelled, right?
We give him a job here at the Daily Wire.
I don't know doing what exactly, but we would do that.
And finally, Porchside Politics says, Matt's sweet, calm, condescending attitude is the best.
Sweet, sweet, calm, and condescending.
All right, well there you go.
Like I said, it takes all kinds.
Tonight at 8 p.m.
Eastern, 7 p.m.
Central, Ben Shapiro kicks off his new book club with his first all-access discussion, and tonight's book selection is Orwell's famous 1984.
Quite timely and topical.
For his book club, each month Ben will recommend a notable classic to dive into.
Daily Wire members can get Ben's personal notes to follow along with the book at the thirdthursdaybookclub.com.
Again, it's thirdthursdaybookclub.com.
Then on the third Thursday of each month, Ben joins Daily Wire All Access members online for an in-depth lecture and discussion of each book, where you can ask him questions directly.
And right now, get 25% off all Daily Wire memberships with code 1984 over at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Members, join Ben tonight at 8 p.m.
Eastern, 7 p.m.
Central at dailywire.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Our cancellation brings us in a circle, much like the logic of my opponents on Dr. Phil.
One of those opponents, Addison Rose Vincent, who is the one with the beard, posted a story to Instagram shortly before the episode aired yesterday.
Addison is not pleased.
The post explains, quote, about a month ago, Ethan and I were invited to be guests on the Dr. Phil show to share our stories and discuss pronouns.
We were excited for the opportunity to educate in a safe space.
So you see here, by the way, that they were not looking for a debate.
They were there to educate.
And that means that they speak, and the rest of us shut up and listen.
But that's not exactly how it worked out for them, and now they're traumatized.
Back to the post.
What ended up happening was much different than they discussed with us, and we left feeling attacked by another guest and played by the producers.
Well, the other guest sounds like a jerk.
I mean, I can't believe he would do that.
Addison continues, The episode airs today and we're very worried about how the whole thing will be edited.
If you want to watch, go for it, but it may be uncomfortable or triggering to do so.
Since the taping, Ethan and I have been experiencing a heightened level of anxiety to the point that we've had numerous nightmares and depression spirals over the last month.
This week has been the worst.
Please send us both good vibes today.
We could really use it.
We tried our best with no preparation for what the Dr. Phil show actually had planned behind our backs.
And we hope our visibility inspires viewers.
Well, Addison, it inspired me.
And I hope you can take some solace in that.
Now, for the record, these people were not tricked or fooled by the producers.
We all had exactly the same amount of information going in.
We knew it would be a panel with people on both sides of the issue.
That's all I knew.
That's all anybody knew.
And as for the editing, the editors did the trans propaganda side a number of favors.
I'm not going to claim that it was motivated by bias.
Dr. Phil's team was really fair to everybody, I thought.
But things get cut for time, inevitably, and so we all had big chunks taken out.
I know that I did.
And the more that they cut from the Addison side of it, and that team, the better for them.
Because they only sounded more and more deranged as the episode went on.
So as bad as they sounded, I can tell you right now, it was much worse in real time.
So what are Addison and Ethan, the poor dears, really upset about?
They knew they'd be facing off with people who disagree with them.
They also talk about these issues every single day for a living.
It's their job to go around promoting this stuff.
So why did I traumatize them?
How?
Why am I now haunting their dreams?
I mean, this is me we're talking about.
I'm a cuddly, nice and lovable guy.
The answer is that our culture has so effectively scared the sane people into silence that these propagandists have been running essentially unopposed this whole time.
They've never run into any pushback.
They've never encountered any friction.
Nobody has ever called them out on their nonsense.
Ever.
For a lot of them.
They've been so ensconced in their bubble, so comfortable in their protective cocoon, that it never even occurred to them that anybody would come on national television and actually challenge their position.
The possibility was literally unthinkable.
They knew there'd be some kind of token opposition, some patsies brought up there to represent some sanitized approximation of the other side, but they expected that conversation to be rigged in their favor.
Because it always is, everywhere, all the time.
Now, they still got a little bit of that.
Later in the episode, two parents were invited on to talk about their efforts to keep this pronoun crap out of their children's schools.
And both of these parents are doing important work, and they're brave for taking a stand, and I commend them.
But one of them began, I think with a mistake, by laying an offering at the feet of the trans agenda.
Watch this.
First of all, thank you for having me.
And I wanted to say it's so I honor you and your journey and where you are in life.
And I it has nothing to do with that.
It's we're here about our kids.
And so in school, I feel like this is a family issue.
It's a parent child issue.
And it's a real issue with some kids.
I think that the percentage is quite small.
for how many kids go through this real serious issue.
And including and imposing this on the entire school or the entire class is where I have a problem.
Okay, so that's exactly what Addison and Eaton expected.
That's what they want and demand and require.
They'll tolerate mild disagreement, if only for appearance's sake, but you better be giving those criticisms on your knees and apologizing in advance for everything you say.
I honor you, she said.
Well, Addison and Ethan, I do not honor you.
I think you're completely wrong about everything you say.
What's more, I think you're narcissists and bullies.
I think you don't give a damn about anybody or anything but yourselves.
I think you advocate for opening up bathrooms and sports teams because, from your perspective, the rape, trauma, and abuse that happens as a result is worth it.
As long as your ideology wins the day.
And your self-perceptions are reinforced.
Because that's all you care about.
I think you represent something that is not only anti-scientific and irrational, but evil.
And I think you have evil intentions.
I think you're bad people.
And I think that you are neither correct nor well-meaning.
And if one person in the whole world, in your whole life, saying this to you causes you to spiral into depression and be plagued by nightmares, maybe that should clue you in.
It sounds like your conscience is trying to tell you something.
You see, people scream at me every day, and they say the most horrible things about myself and my family.
I encounter more outright hostility in a day than you have in your whole life.
I guarantee you that.
I didn't have the audience clapping for me.
You do.
And yet, I've slept like a baby every night since that taping.
That's because I know I'm standing in the truth, not just factually, but morally.
You don't have the same self-assurance.
Well, then maybe you should look within yourself.
That's all you ever do anyway.
You're constantly staring back into yourself, shouting into the cavern of your own ego, listening to the echo.
Well, while you're in there, maybe try a bit of actual introspection.
It might serve you well.
In the meantime, and I'm sorry if this gives you even more nightmares, but sadly, you are cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Well, 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.
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 Wall 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 Vladovsky.
The show is edited by Robbie Dantzler.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
And our Production Coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, in his first press conference in months, Joe Biden celebrates his successes, questions election integrity, and gives the green light to Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine.
