Ep. 882 - A Token Black Woman For The Supreme Court
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there is an opening on the Supreme Court and it’s been decided that a black woman must fill it. Which black woman? Well any will do, apparently. Once again we see the absurd racism of “racial equity” on full display. Also, there has been a huge surge in children experiencing speech delays because of masking. And Media Matters publishes a lengthy expose about a certain bigoted Dr. Phil clip that lots of people on Facebook have seen and shared. They’re very concerned about it. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal finally with the NFT phenomenon. Is it a good investment opportunity or is it the dumbest thing in the history of the world and a sign of our civilization’s decadence and decay?
I am now a self-acclaimed beloved children’s author. Reserve your copy of my new book here: https://utm.io/ud1Cb
The world’s best-selling LGBT author (me) now has his own merch line: https://utm.io/uedoZ
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, there's an opening on the Supreme Court, and it's been decided that a black woman must fill it.
Which black woman?
Well, any will do, apparently.
Once again, we see the absurd racism of racial equity on full display.
Also, there has been a huge surge in children experiencing speech delays because of masking, and Media Matters publishes a lengthy expose about a certain bigoted Dr. Phil clip that lots of people on Facebook have seen and shared, and they're very concerned about that.
Now, our daily cancellation will deal finally with the NFT phenomenon.
Is it a good investment opportunity or is it the dumbest thing in the history of the world and a sign of our civilization's decadence and decay?
We'll find out today on The Matt Wall Show.
There is a way around this.
There's an incredible app that everyone who buys gas needs to know about.
It's called Get Upside.
My listeners are making up to 25 cents for every gallon of gas, every time they fill up.
All you gotta do is download the free Get Upside app in the App Store or Google Play right now.
Use promo code WALSH and get a bonus $0.25 per gallon on your first fill-up.
That's up to $0.50 cash back that you're getting.
Don't pay full price of the pump anymore.
There's no reason to do that.
Get cash back using Get Upside.
Just download the app for free and use promo code WALSH to get up to $0.50 a gallon cash back on your first tank.
Some people who drive a lot are making as much as $200 to $300 a month in cash back, and there's no catch.
You know, the cash gets added right to your account.
It's as easy as that.
You can cash out anytime to your bank account, PayPal, or an e-gift card for Amazon and other brands.
Just download the free GetUpside app and use promo code WALSH to get up to 50 cents a gallon cash back on your first tank.
That's code WALSH.
You know that the Democrats are in for a pummeling in the next election when the elderly liberals on the Supreme Court start retiring ahead of time so that they can be replaced before the next Congress is elected.
Of course, in Justice Breyer's case, it appears that he was, well, helped in making his retirement announcement.
In fact, he didn't announce it at all.
It simply was announced by the media that he would be retiring.
As of last night, he hadn't said a word about it himself.
The powers that be seem to be dropping a hint, and not a very subtle one, either.
I think when you go to work and they're throwing a retirement party for you already and you say, well, I never said I was retiring.
Hey, congratulations on your retirement.
That's a hint that they want you gone.
Now, assuming that Breyer does as he's told and vacates his seat, that leaves us with the question of who will replace him.
Needless to say, we learned during the Amy Coney Barrett hearing that it is an attack on our democracy.
It's an assault on our very way of life, on our sacred institutions, on the norms, the blessed norms, to confirm a Supreme Court nominee during an election year.
You can't do that.
I'd even dare say that it would be an insurrection, a tragedy worse than 15 9-11s and 12 Pearl Harbors and three World War IIs.
And one World War I, that's the equation, if he is replaced before the election.
You just can't do it.
The Democrats were very clear about this.
Yet it seems that they plan to move forward with a nomination and confirmation anyway, despite the fact that doing so will spend the end of Western civilization, as they repeatedly explained when Amy Coney Barrett was nominated.
So who will get the nod?
Well, Joe Biden already announced over a year ago that whenever he has a spot to fill on the court, he will fill it with a black woman.
Which black woman?
Well, it doesn't seem to matter very much.
What even is a black woman?
You can't say.
None of them can.
But whatever that is, and whoever it is, he will find her.
Or him.
Or them.
It's quite disappointing, really, that he isn't going for a more progressive choice.
Perhaps, you know, he could nominate a gender-fluid, aboriginal, polygamist, Hawaiian, non-binary, lesbian, transracial, black, Korean Eskimo for the role.
We haven't had one of those on the court in well over 100 years.
But instead, Biden is going the safe route, in keeping with his promise.
A promise that his ringmasters have certainly not forgotten.
Yesterday, one prominent leftist after another came out to declare that it's time for a black woman on the Supreme Court.
The Ringo of the squad, Ayanna Pressley, was the first out of the gate, and she says it's time for a black woman.
It's a black woman's term.
A term, she says.
There's a waiting list organized by identity, and it clearly says that black women are next in line.
But not all black women.
Some black people don't count as black people, we've learned.
Clarence Thomas is black, but his blackness is erased by the fact that he has the wrong opinions.
We need a black woman, then, who has the right skin pigment, but also the right thoughts.
That's what Biden pledged, and yesterday, Jen Psaki renewed that pledge.
Listen.
So let's say hypothetically, a Supreme Court justice was to retire and announce it on his or her own terms.
Does President Biden plan to honor his pledge to nominate a black woman to the court?
Well, I've commented on this previously.
The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that.
This is what we call diverse and inclusive now, when entire races and sexes are excluded from the outset.
Is that even legal?
I mean, aren't there laws forbidding government officials or even private employers from excluding applicants based on race?
You might think so, but the law, just like common sense, moral decency, and all other considerations, must be placed to the side for the sake of racial equity.
Not to be confused with racial equality.
Racial equality promises that all people will be treated the same regardless of skin color.
Racial equity promises that all people will be treated according to their skin color.
If the two concepts seem to be opposites, then, well, you're catching on.
The consequence of this approach is that whichever black woman is chosen, we won't be able to say that she achieved anything.
It won't be an accomplishment.
Nothing to congratulate her for.
We will not be able to say that she was selected for the job because of her merits or qualifications.
She'll be an affirmative action hire, a kind of a trophy in a display case.
The token black woman.
It's degrading and dehumanizing, even if the eventual nominee isn't self-aware enough to feel degraded and dehumanized by the whole thing.
You know, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.
And we say he broke it because he broke it.
He smashed it.
He forced his way through a system that was stacked against him because he was such a phenomenally talented and determined and courageous man and athlete.
He's remembered by history and honored because of that.
But if Major League Baseball had just said, hey, we need a black guy so, you know, so that people don't think we're racist anymore.
And then they just pulled the first black guy off the street that they happened to stumble across.
Hey, you, you've got dark skin.
Come over here and make us seem less racist.
If it had worked that way, then the story of Jackie Robinson would be remembered in quite a different light.
And for the worse.
Of course, in this case, in modern times, the system is not at all stacked against black women or black people in general.
If you're a racial minority, all of the most powerful institutions in the country trip over themselves to celebrate and empower you.
Laws are written which discriminate not against you, but for you.
And that's why it's important to stipulate that although this racial equity nonsense degrades and dehumanizes the alleged victim groups that it purports to help, and that is an important facet of this, the real victims of this kind of system are the groups that are specially excluded.
So it's never entirely safe to criticize racial equity, but the safest way to do it, and the thing that a lot of conservatives focus on, is to point out how it demeans racial minorities while claiming to elevate them.
You know, to say, hey, you're trying to help racial minorities.
It's actually hurting them.
Because it is dehumanizing, degrading, all that kind of thing.
And yeah, we could point that out.
That's the safer route.
The less safe route.
But also the most important point is that racial equity is explicitly anti-white.
It is racist against white people.
And anti-white racism is evil.
It's not the first time that the Biden administration has announced white males need not apply.
They did the same for COVID relief funds.
This is their MO, as it's the MO of the left generally.
We're watching in real time as explicit, overt racism and discrimination against an entire class of people is being normalized.
And it's become so normal that even those of us who recognize it for the wickedness that it is still probably don't feel the appropriate amount of outrage when the federal government announces out loud, you know, we don't want white men for this role.
White men can go to hell.
There is systemic racism in America today.
And it's against white men.
Yes, they are the victims of it.
And we need to keep pointing that out.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Hey, by the way, if you have not been to our Daily Wire shop recently,
to the swag shack, as I call it, then you have to go there, dailywire.com/shop, and just go skim over everything else
and go right to the Matt Walsh store.
And I just checked it myself for the first time in a while, and there's a bunch of stuff I didn't even know was on here.
Like, for example, you can get a Matt Walsh, you can get a t-shirt which lists my preferred adjectives, as I explained with Dr. Phil, handsome and brilliant.
And if those are also your preferred adjectives, then you can get a shirt which announces that and lets everybody know, so they can refer to you in a way that validates your lived experience.
But we also have these.
These are hot off the presses.
We've got these patches here.
They're kind of like It looks sort of like merit badges that they used to give in the Boy Scouts, but the Boy Scouts are effectively dead.
So instead of the Boy Scouts now, we have the Sweet Baby Gang.
And, you know, we got Save a Boy.
I don't know if you could see these in the camera, but the No Panda merit badge, Return or Die.
You get this one when you return your shopping cart.
And so we've got Sweet Baby Gang, of course.
You get the patches.
Each of these patches cost $77.
I don't know if that's the exact price, but there's a little bit of a premium.
But it's worth it, I think.
All right, let's start with this.
One of the consequences of masking children, as some of us have been pointing out for years, is that you create Speech delays.
I mean, along with the psychological effects and everything else, there's speech delays that are a consequence.
Because children, especially those who already have speech delays, need to see words being formed in order to know how to say them.
And so when a child goes to speech therapy, this is a very important part of it.
The speech therapist is enunciating the words, and the child is watching the mouth of the speech therapist.
And that's how they learn how to form those words themselves.
But you put masks on everybody, and that becomes a real problem.
Because one of the primary tools that children use To learn how to speak, which is the visual tool, it's not all audible, has been taken away from them.
And so there's a local news report, WPBF, ABC affiliate, and they looked into this and here's what they found.
Jacqueline Teek says during this pandemic, her speech therapy clinic has seen an enormous shift in the ages of their patients.
Before the pandemic, only 5% of patients were babies and toddlers.
Today, it has soared to 20%.
Many parents calling it COVID delayed.
We've seen a 364% increase in patient referrals of babies and toddlers from pediatricians and parents.
And they are children that are having a difficult time speaking.
Speech delayed.
Babies start learning how to speak by reading lips as young as eight months.
So what happens when lips and faces are covered up by masks?
Well, therapists say for some kids, they can work around the mask and still learn to speak perfectly fine.
But for others, it can cause speech delays.
There's no research out there yet to say that this could be causing speech and language delays, but most definitely it's, I'm sure, a factor.
It's very important kids do see your face to learn, so they're watching your mouth.
That's orange.
Can you say orange?
Orange.
That was a good try.
Brianna Gay is raising five children, but it's her youngest who needs therapy.
It definitely makes a difference when the world you're growing up in, you can't interact with people in their face.
That's super important to babies.
We're seeing a lot of things that look just like autism.
They're not making any word attempts and not communicating at all with their family.
Okay, well, so we're just interfering with our children's ability to speak.
How important is that?
Who needs to be able to speak?
It's a fundamental human capacity that we've interfered with, disabled, because of the masking.
That's another one of the trade-offs that was made when they pushed the masking stuff and they acted like there was no trade-off at all.
Ah, better safe than sorry, it's not hurting anything.
And she says there have been no studies yet that have confirmed this.
And she's right, and that has been the excuse all along.
Not that she was not making excuses, but she did.
The people who, the pro-maskers, this has been their excuse in their line all along.
If you brought up the issue of speech delays, psychological harm, all of this, they say, well, where is your study?
Show me the study that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these These consequences will follow from masking.
Well, there are no studies, you idiot, because we've never done anything like this before in human history.
There's no precedent for it.
There's never been an occasion to study it.
There's never been a way to study it.
Up until this point, we had not had access to a generation of children Who went through their formative years with their faces covered and everybody else's faces covered.
That never existed before, so how can we study it?
So without the studies, the all-important studies that everybody demands, no matter what claim you make, there's always, oh, where's the study for that?
You know, it is possible to just use your common damn sense every once in a while.
You don't need a study.
You don't need something written on a piece of paper, research, peer-reviewed, to confirm what common sense should tell you.
Because the only way to get a study about something like this is to go ahead and do it, and then afterwards go back and see how much it harmed the kids.
That's the only way to study it.
But by the time you're studying it, it's too late.
The harm is done.
The other option is to use your common sense, and to realize that we're human beings, not like robots.
And as human beings, Our ability to see each other face-to-face is really important.
It's a basic aspect of human existence.
If you've ever been around a child?
You ever been around a baby?
I think, of course, a lot of the people, the powers that be, they're not around children at all.
A lot of them are a bunch of childless, bitter tyrants.
So they might not even know this, but if you've ever been around a baby, you'll notice how, what, um, it's actually quite, quite incredible how, um, and I, I often think about this when you see a baby, the way that they kind of, they lock in on your face.
They know, they don't know much about the world, but, um, they know to look into your eyes.
That's this kind of instinctive thing.
Even very young babies make eye contact.
And you can see them, if you're talking to a baby, interacting with a baby, you can see them studying your face in this very inquisitive way.
And when they're studying my face, part of what they're thinking is, who is this hairy, gross beast?
Get him away from me.
But they're also studying to see, oh, they're moving the mouth.
What does that mean?
This is what kids do.
Here's a father on the same subject here, a father in Loudoun County, my hometown, speaking out about this at a school board meeting.
Apparently, the school board meeting is now in Loudoun County.
They are allowing people in the room again.
Of course, when I went and spoke at Loudoun County, they wouldn't let anybody in the room.
You had to line up outside in single file line, and then they let you come in for 60 seconds, and then they kicked you out the door again.
So, they are allowing people in the room again, very magnanimous of them.
And here's a father talking about this issue with speech delays.
My beautiful six-year-old kindergarten daughter asked to come with me today to see the people who are forcing her against her will and mine to wear a mask.
Mr. Ziegler, right there, I have a question for you.
Do you know her name?
Mr. Marshall, were you there when she was born?
Mr. Hoyler, were you there when she got on the school bus for her first day of kindergarten?
Mr. Morse, Do you know that she has trouble pronouncing her S-P syllables?
Mr. Sorokin, did you know wearing a mask is contributing to my daughter's LCPS's speech services?
Of course you don't know any of this, yet you feel that you have the right to mandate a medical decision for my child, and you feel so strongly about this that you are willing to break an executive order to do it.
And not only that, but you are bullies.
You are actually sending students to the office, sending them home, and or segregating them for mask non-compliance.
Shame on you.
You do not have the right to make medical decisions for my child.
This is my child, not yours!
I want... Thank you.
I want my child to learn to communicate.
She needs the option to not wear a mask during these incredibly important first years of her education.
Start listening to parents.
Follow EO2 exactly like you followed all of Northam's EOs!
Domestic terrorism at its worst there.
So it sounds like they still only give you 60 seconds.
You have 60 seconds.
All that can be said in 60 seconds.
And that father crammed quite a bit into his credit.
All of his rhetorical questions at the beginning, of course, the answer is no.
Do they know his child?
Do they care about his child?
No, none of them do.
And you send your kid to public school, then the people determining What's going to happen to your kid?
They're all people who don't know your kid, don't care about them.
That's the reality when you send them to public school.
Jordan Peterson said something important about this.
He said that children who can't speak can't object.
I think that's quite profound.
A lot of profound things Jordan Peterson says, and that's one of them.
Perhaps it's not a coincidence.
You know, the schools are such big fans of masking.
And it interferes with the child's ability to communicate, both physically in the moment because they're literally muffled and you can't understand what anybody's saying.
That's another thing, taking speech delays aside.
It can be hard enough with young children, especially if they're not your child.
When it's your own child, you kind of understand their language.
And so my two-year-old will talk to me in her own version of full sentences.
And I think anybody on the outside would have no clue what she's saying, but I know exactly, my wife knows exactly, because we understand her language because we know her.
But if it's not your own child, trying to understand a three- or four-year-old, Even if their speech is up to par for their age group, it can already be difficult.
Because they're still learning how to express themselves.
Now put a mask on them?
It's impossible to understand them.
Perhaps that's not a coincidence.
The school system would prefer it that way.
The kids can't speak, can't express themselves, cannot object, can't register any protest, The schools have been trying to muffle kids in various different ways for a long time.
Muffle and neuter them in all kinds of different ways.
Including through the use of drugs, psychotropic drugs, ADHD medication, and so on.
It's just another way to do that.
This is ideal.
This is the ideal scenario for the government education system.
There's a bunch of kids sitting there with masks on.
So that's how they see your kid.
This faceless automaton with ears, but no mouth.
Can hear what you're saying, cannot say anything back.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in Virginia, here's a Virginia Democrat taking Glenn Youngkin to task for praying for him.
He's quite offended by that.
There is a lot going on right now.
When I was here about a month ago with freshmen, unexpectedly, the governor, the governor-elect at the time, he came in this chamber with the freshmen who were being trained and taught and talked about how we do things on the floor.
And the first things that I recall him saying was that he had a strong prayer life and that he was praying for everybody.
And so far what I've seen from his day one activities is not someone who is a man of faith, not a Christian, but someone who wants to divide the commonwealth.
Someone that wants to cause division in this commonwealth.
I know the truth hurts.
I don't want to make you cry like saying critical race theory because I know it hurts your feelings.
So that's something to keep in mind when you hear people talk about unity and how we're going to establish and form some sense of unity in our country.
Can we reach across the aisle?
Why can't we all just be friends again?
Well, keep in mind that view, where as far as that guy is concerned as a Democrat, he doesn't even want you praying for him.
Your prayers are worthless.
I'm sure he claims to be a Christian too, but your prayers are worthless to him.
If he disagrees with you, that's how much he hates you.
That he doesn't even want you to pray for him.
Is it possible to have any kind of unity with people like that?
I don't see it.
When their hatred for you goes down that deep, where can you go from there?
What kind of common ground can you establish?
There's no respect.
In order to have unity, I think there are a couple of prerequisites.
One is that, as I always say, you have to unite around something.
There has to be some kind of uniting principle.
It can't just be unity for the sake of unity.
So there has to be something that you share with the people that you're uniting with.
And then the other thing that you need is some kind of respect.
That's one of the things that you have to share, is respect for one another.
That's not respect.
And it's not just one way.
I'm not pretending to be the hurt party here.
I would say, well, I don't respect him either.
So the feeling is mutual.
I guess that's what we share.
We have a mutual disregard and disrespect for each other.
Maybe that's how we can establish our unity.
All right.
Let's just check in quickly with Joe Biden.
We have this clip.
See if you can make heads or tails of what he's saying.
This is always fun.
It's kind of a fun riddle.
That's one good thing that Joe Biden provides us with.
It's kind of a fun game to try to figure out what the hell he's even trying to say.
So listen to this.
But I might point out, when I went to Dearborn, driving that was up there.
I don't know, man.
I think the press thought I was crazy.
I enjoyed it so much, going up and your new EV factory and that Hummer.
All right.
Good point, Grandpa.
Thank you.
Go back to bed now.
All right, so, media matters.
Our friends, once again, they're on the case.
They're on my case, they're on The Daily Wire's case.
Here's the headline, and this is a long, we can't even read the whole thing, but written by Ari Drennan, research contributions from Carly Evans.
So they got a team of researchers together for this thing.
And the headline is, on Facebook, a Dr. Phil episode about non-binary identity becomes a bonanza for right-wing hate.
And then it continues.
I feel like we need some sad piano music in the background for this.
Right-wing figures, particularly from The Daily Wire, weaponized a January 19th Dr. Phil episode to spread anti-trans hatred and drive Facebook engagement on their posts.
The episode posited non-binary identities as up for debate and featured non-binary people and allies alongside anti-trans parents in the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh.
Media Matters examined our data set of news and politics pages on Facebook and found that among these, right-leaning pages were nearly alone in reacting to the episode.
Let's stop there for a second.
Of course, right?
Why is that, Media Matters?
Why do you think?
It was a Dr. Phil episode.
It's about a subject that obviously interests a lot of people.
People on the left especially, very interested in the topic of gender.
And yet with this episode, as according to you because you've looked into this, only or almost only right-wing pages even acknowledge that it happened.
Why is that?
Right-wing pages were nearly alone in reacting to the episode, driving more than 3.3 million views to one selectively edited video in which Walsh mocked the non-binary panelists, repeatedly asked them to define womanhood.
That counts as mockery now, I guess.
Just asking a simple question.
Asking a question which is really, what do you mean, is mockery.
When somebody says something to you and you don't understand what they mean, so you say, what do you mean by that?
Stop mocking me!
No, I mean, maybe I would mock you.
I mean, I wouldn't put it past me to mock you, but first I have to even understand what the hell you're talking about in order to mock it.
We haven't gotten past square one here.
And then Walsh accused them of trying to appropriate womanhood and turn it into basically a costume that can be worn.
I did say that.
And then they get into the nitty-gritty here.
I mean, they've really looked into this.
They've got bar graphs and everything here with all of the interactions with this video.
They're very upset that anybody saw this or interacted with the video.
It says, from January 17th through the 24th, right-leaning Facebook pages related to news and politics posted about the Dr. Phil episode far more often and earned vastly more total interactions than either non-aligned or left-leaning pages.
And then it gives the actual full interaction numbers, and it's all pretty good.
So, this is great traffic.
I'm pretty proud of that.
I actually didn't even know that the video did this well on Facebook, so this is all good news for me.
Both Shapiro and Walsh shared a video titled, Leftist Traumatized After Meeting Me, in which Walsh mocked the non-binary guests of the episode for sharing that they had experienced nightmares and depression as a result of their appearance on the show.
And then it continues from there.
And this thing just goes on.
It goes into their methodology.
Using CrowdTangle, Media Matters compiled a list of 1,773 Facebook pages that frequently posted about U.S.
politics from January 1st to August 25th.
And blah, okay.
Now, what's the point of all this?
Why are they doing all this?
Well, it's not so subtle at all, of course.
This is them sending a message to Facebook like, hey, you're supposed to censor this.
You're not supposed to allow this content out there.
It's a scandal, according to Media Matters, that people on Facebook were allowed to see this video.
And that tells you everything that you need to know.
I mean, through all of the reaction to that Dr. Phil episode, you notice what the left has not done.
They have not tried to explain why I'm wrong.
I mean, none of them have.
There has not been that I have seen one single article written or YouTube video posted or even tweaked that says, oh, you're wrong about what you said, Matt, and here's why.
Not even attempting to.
Because they know they can't explain why I'm wrong.
And they also know, here's the real reason why the left is not, even as Media Matters says, they're not engaging with this video.
They just want it to go away.
The real reason is that they know if they try to engage with it, the first thing they're gonna have to do is define what a woman is.
If they engage me in any kind of debate about this, if they try to address it at all, That's the first question they're going to have to answer.
Is what is a woman?
And they cannot answer it.
And they know they can't.
Tells you everything you need to know.
They're not even trying to claim that they won the argument.
They don't want to have the argument.
They don't want you to see it.
That's the response to this.
That's how you know you're really on the right path.
When you say something that's, uh, they're not even going to kind of try to shout you down.
They just, they don't want anyone to hear that you said it.
All right.
This is an interesting, and I've seen a number of headlines about this, this one in the wall street journal by Ellen Gamerman is the author.
And the headline is Bradley Cooper, Benedict Cumberbatch and the golden age of nude men.
If you want to hear more about this subject, I'll read a little bit for you.
It says, male... and there's a point that I'm going to make, and we'll get to it in a second.
There's a point, you know, so to speak.
Male full-frontal nudity, once the stuff of arthouse films, is going mainstream.
Bradley Cooper, Benedict Cumberbatch are trouser-free in Oscar contenders, and Sebastian Stan bears it all in a coming Hulu miniseries.
The sight of naked male stars can shock in ways that female nudity no longer does, making for the kind of edginess that The Full Frontal Man reflects several forces overtaking Hollywood right now.
a big trend now, there's a lot of different movies where the men are showing off their
penises.
And then it says, "The full frontal man reflects several forces overtaking Hollywood right
now.
He represents a cosmic rebalancing of the scales as the entertainment industry attempts
to address sexism.
He's an argument that streaming platforms largely free from ratings rules can play to
male and female audiences with new abandon, and he's a path to free publicity with the
potential to light up social media as happened with Mr.
Cooper's comments about his nude bathtub scene in the film Nightmare Alley went viral.
Okay, so this is what's interesting, or at least informative.
You know, the article talks about how this balances the scales of sexism and addresses the legacy of sexism.
That's much of what the article focuses on.
By having men get naked also.
So, you know, at the beginning of the Me Too movement, we heard a lot of complaints about, in fact, often quite valid complaints about how women are objectified by Hollywood.
And how their bodies are treated with, you know, like tools, treated without any respect.
Totally valid complaints.
So then, how is Hollywood addressing this complaint about the objectification of women?
Have they decided to stop objectifying women?
No, instead, the way to balance it out is just to objectify men also.
And a lot of the critics and media and so forth, they're happy with that.
That's a solution they're happy with.
Which only proves that they never had a problem with objectification per se.
That was never really their issue.
Their problem is just that it wasn't happening to both parties.
So they don't really have a problem with one group being mistreated.
It's just that if they're mistreated, they want everyone to be mistreated in the same way.
They want everyone to be mistreated equally.
Nothing wrong with degrading people and dehumanizing them.
Just do it to everybody.
It's no surprise that this is the solution, because in order to really launch any sort of critique of the objectification of the female body, or of the male body, In order to actually criticize that, you have to start talking about things like dignity.
You know, the dignity of the human person, the value of the human person.
And that's a conversation that they don't want to have on the left and they really can't have.
They don't have the language for that.
They don't have the philosophical kind of foundation for that.
So this is the solution.
You don't like it when women have to take their clothes off and say, well I've just had the men take their clothes off too.
Problem solved.
Alright, let's get now to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow a beard.
Hey, we're the Sweet Baby Gang.
If you want to leave a video comment, submit a video comment,
you can go to dailywire.com/sweetbabycomments.
And let's check out our first one.
Hola, Dulce Papa Walsh.
I, like many other SPG fans, am very grateful for the 55 minutes of inspired wisdom and counsel we received from our pre-ordering cult leader.
And we understand after the show you're probably busy pushing shopping carts, sledding, or planning the next panda assassination.
But when are we going to get a Matt Walsh bonus hour?
SPG for life.
A Matt Walsh bonus hour?
So like doing the show, I don't even know what you mean by that.
Doing the show again?
You know what that is?
That's more work for me.
Why do you think I do this for a living?
Because I don't want to have to work hard.
Now you're trying to put more on my plate.
Tempted to ban you from the show for that.
Alright, let's watch the next one.
Matt, good evening.
Watching tonight's, or today's show, I watch it at night.
I literally did a spit take.
I was drinking a sip of beer, watching your show, and Peter Dinklage says, and I quote, Have I not done enough from my soapbox?
Perhaps I'm not loud enough.
Now, this might be just me, but my first thought was, well, maybe two soapboxes stacked on... That's number one.
And number two, I don't think it's the volume of your voice.
I don't think it's that people perhaps maybe can't hear you.
Maybe they can't see you over the podium.
That's GB.
How dare you?
How did that video make it through?
I'm offended by it.
It's not something to joke about.
Peter Dinklage is a great thespian, great actor.
And jokes like that, they really sell them short, I think.
How dare you, sir?
Let's go to some of the written comments.
This is from Energy JTW says, My co-worker, a 55-year-old shaved head welder with a large truck, went on a date yesterday and told me about it.
She immediately asked about his opinion of Trump and cursed him, ruining the date when he said he's a nut but had good policy.
She said, Lord, where can I find a good older liberal man?
His response, focus on the men in a Prius with a man bun, then paid the bill and left early.
Uh, my only problem with that is that he paid the bill because she's, she's, uh, apparently is a feminist liberal woman.
And so she should want to, she, she don't need no man and she should want to pay the bill herself really.
And pay your half of it as well to show how empowered she is.
So I would have left without paying the bill at all, even my portion of it.
For her own sake.
To respect her as a good liberal feminist woman.
But other than that, it's the right move, of course.
And this is also why people say that on a first date, don't talk about things like politics and religion.
They also say that, just in general, this is not polite conversation to talk to people about.
And you have to really know someone well, I guess, before you discuss those things.
I very much disagree with that, because first of all, I mean, the worst thing that can happen on a date, on a first date, is that there's nothing to talk about, right?
And you're sitting there staring at the other person, there's nothing to say.
That's the most awkward thing.
And the problem is that if you rule out politics, religion, those sorts of topics, what else is there to talk about?
You've taken the best fodder for conversation, you've taken it out of the equation.
Off the table, so to speak, and now what are you going to do?
Now you're just going to sit there staring at each other.
I don't know what else to talk about other than these kinds of things.
And the other advantage is, I think, it should be one of the first things you bring up are these kinds of issues, because it's going to tell you about this person's values.
It's going to tell you whether you could stand to be in a room with the other person for an extended period of time, which is good information to have, I think.
Let's see.
Tina says, Matt's dating advice has seriously saved my love life.
I finally found a masculine conservative man who believes in a marriage and family as much as I do.
I'd be single for the rest of my life if it weren't for the love gurus at the Daily Wire.
Love gurus, I like that.
That's another... I'll add that to my preferred adjectives, I suppose.
Maximilian MK Gill says, a good rule of thumb is not to apologize to anyone unless you have made a mistake.
Right, but even then, you're apologizing to that person specifically and not in front of an audience.
So I'm accused sometimes of being anti-apology in general, where I'm sitting here saying never apologize to anyone.
Of course you apologize to people if you wrong them in some way, but you apologize to the wronged party personally, not in front of the entire world.
Sue says, Ben Shapiro's dating advice, go to church and you'll find someone with your own values.
And several comments along those lines as we've talked about dating and marriage over the last few days.
And that is good advice.
I mean, that's if you want to find someone in real life who shares your values, a good place to start is church.
One of the problems though is, and this depends a lot on where you live and what kind of church you go to, but sadly, a lot of the churches these days, especially post-COVID, When all the churches shut down and then they opened up again and said, you know, because they shut down for a year or whatever or several months, depending on where you live.
And they said, oh, you don't really need us that much.
So we're going to shut down.
And then they opened up again and said, nevermind, you do need us.
And a lot of people in the interim said, well, if you think we don't need you, we're not coming back.
And so there are even fewer people at church now, sadly.
And so that is going to, you know, fewer fish in that particular sea.
And then also at many churches, The age range of the average congregant is quite a bit older than the average single person.
That's a big problem for single people and for the church.
Let's see, one more.
BioKiddo says, dating is awesome right now.
All the sex you want and something better and younger is just around the corner.
But people are getting married and they divorce.
It's almost like marriage is unnatural.
Perhaps instead of pushing people to something that is a negative experience for everybody involved, we should just get rid of marriage.
Who are you trying to fool?
Who are you trying to convince?
I think you're trying to convince yourself.
This is awesome.
I never form any meaningful bond with any human being.
I just move on to the next one.
There's always something, a thing.
Notice how you say, not someone younger even, but something.
Treating people like things, never forming any real bonds, never having any real commitment, never having the lasting companionship of a woman who I really love and respect.
It's wonderful, I love it.
No, you don't.
Stop pretending.
You don't.
Because no human can.
Because I assume you are a human being, Right?
Typing this to me.
There are basic human needs that we all have.
It's like if you were starving to death in the desert and you tried to convince me that, oh, this is great.
Who needs food?
Well, you do.
You need it.
And food is a basic human need.
Water, shelter, companionship, love.
These are actual human needs.
And you cannot have a real fulfilling human life without them.
You cannot have joy without them.
You just can't.
It doesn't exist.
It's like a mathematical impossibility.
So that's how I know that you are crying over your keyboard as you type that.
You are the literal manifestation of that meme with the person with the happy mask and they're crying behind it.
That's you.
And also this whole thing about marriage is unnatural, that's why people get divorced.
Just because you suck at it, right?
Just because you're too weak to do it?
Just because you're too much of a weak nothing of a man to remain loyal to a woman?
And to care for a family?
You know, just because you're not a real man, don't put that on the rest of us.
There have been throughout human history, like literally billions of marriages that have worked.
And just because you can't do it doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
But thanks for watching the show.
The latest episode of Adam Carolla's comedy series Truth Yeller is streaming right now.
Adam is joined by Silicon Valley actor and comedian T.J.
Miller, who wears a very short clip-on tie and takes no prisoners.
Check it out.
Ladies and gentlemen, comedian, actor, and friend, T.J.
[Cheering]
Oh my gosh, hello!
Sorry, I was just jogging.
I was trying to find my dog.
But I double fisted it because, you know, it evens out as you jog the weight.
This guy looked at me and he goes, it's true, it is true.
I'm joking, but you're serious.
This guy really does do it.
Hi, thank you for having me.
Thanks for coming out.
Oh, I'm excited.
This is just a prop though.
Do you want this?
Oh, you won't take it, huh?
Why, COVID?
You one of those guys, huh?
Won't drink a stranger's beer because of COVID.
[MUSIC]
So head to dailywire.com/subscribe and use code Miller for 25% off your membership.
Look out for the new episode with TJ Miller right now.
Also, The Daily Wire is making it easier to listen to all of our content on the go with the launch of our new function, which is called listen appropriately.
Which means you'll now be able to listen to all of your favorite Daily Wire content on the website and the DW app.
Listen is here to make soaking up our content as convenient as possible with a limited ad audio experience.
Whether it's catching Morning Wire with a morning cup of coffee, taking in the latest hot takes from your favorite host, or exploring our growing radio theater, you'll get all of the content that you love.
And if you get interrupted, no worries, you can pick up right where you left off
with continue listening.
And that's not all, we've made sure that it's available to members and non-members.
So get ready to listen because we've got a lot to say.
And finally, and most importantly, as the beloved author of the best-selling children's
LGBTQ+ book, "Johnny the Walrus", I am now a very important voice
in the transgender conversation.
That's why I was invited to Dr. Phil to discuss these most important issues
with experts who could not even tell me what a woman was, If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend you check it out.
And even more importantly, if you haven't picked up a copy of my best-selling LGBT children's book, you should do so immediately.
It sold out in the first 48 hours when it was released.
But don't worry, more copies are on the way.
Reserve your copy of Johnny the Walrus now on Amazon.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Good news!
Paris Hilton is back on the scene.
She re-emerges, in fact, at the same time as Lena Dunham, two people who are much closer in IQ than they are in physical appearance.
With these two grabbing headlines again, all we need is Amy Schumer to come out of hiding, and the three most annoying women of the last 25 years will be sharing the spotlight at the same time.
The fourth horse of the apocalypse will finally be upon us, and we can get on with Armageddon already.
But Hilton is not focused on her past.
She is very much a woman of the present and of the future.
So she appeared on The Tonight Show this week to promote whatever the hell she's promoting, and also to have a conversation that our ancestors would have found utterly impenetrable and mystifying.
Even most people alive on Earth today will probably have that reaction.
Listen to Hilton and Fallon discuss NFTs.
I jumped in.
I know.
I heard.
I'm so happy I taught you what they were.
You did.
You taught me what's up, and then I bought an ape.
I got an ape, too, because I saw you on the show with Beeple, and you said you got on MoonPay, so I went and I copied you and did the same thing.
You did?
Mm-hmm.
This is your ape.
That's mine.
Yeah.
It's really cool.
Look at the hat, the shades.
And how did you pick?
Because you can pick your ape.
Yes.
I was going through a lot of them, and I was like, I want something that, like, kind of reminds me of me.
But this one, it does.
I think we made, like, another version of it where he takes the hat off and blonde hair comes out.
Yeah, because you can do whatever you want.
Animated version.
We're part of the same community.
We're both apes.
I love it.
This is my ape.
Yours is so cool.
I love the red heart sunglasses.
I love the captain hat.
It reminded me of me a little bit, because I wear striped shirts.
I've worn these heart sunglasses, because my daughters, just as a joke, they have them.
And as a joke, I put them on.
So I've done this.
And I love Yacht Rock and being breezy.
So I'm like, yeah.
And I like the blue.
Dude, look at this.
They look like they could be friends.
They're buddies.
Now I can't quite explain it, but something about that 77 second clip sends me spiraling into despair.
And Paris Hilton has always had that effect on me, honestly, but this is something even worse.
As you can see in the clip, they're showing off their NFTs, which are digital images of cartoon monkeys and hats.
And they both spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on them.
Not even for the card that Fallon is showing off, but for the digital representation of those cards.
The audience, of course, is perplexed and doesn't know how to react.
Should we applaud the two millionaires who paid for a monkey picture that cost more than my house?
Should we laugh?
Let's do both.
That seems safest.
Let's laugh and applaud the obscene decadence and emptiness of our culture.
For those who are still perhaps confused about NFTs, all you have to know is that they are as stupid as they seem.
They are what you thought they were.
To paraphrase Dennis Green.
May he rest in peace.
Your confusion probably stems from your assumption that there must be more to this fad.
There must be something you're missing.
There's no way that it's as idiotic as it appears to be.
I mean, it looks like people are spending thousands of dollars buying digital pet rocks that have absolutely no inherent worth, use, or purpose, and whose monetary value is based entirely on a sort of collective mania.
That can't really be it, you think.
But no, you were right the first time.
It is that.
These are like Beanie Babies or PEZ dispensers, but worse because adults are collecting them, and also, the things don't even exist.
The PEZ dispenser at least dispenses PEZ.
What does the monkey picture do?
You can sit and stare at it and reflect on the meaninglessness of your life, but that's about the only function they serve.
NFTs are artificial.
Their value is artificial.
Now, some NFT apologists will say that the same is true of physical art.
I mean, what's the difference between owning a digital representation of a cartoon monkey in a hat and owning, say, the Mona Lisa?
Well, first of all, you're a moron.
Second, the Mona Lisa is a physical painting, a physical object, created by the hand of an all-time master, and it exists in the physical world where there is just the one.
It has 500 years of history.
It took years to make.
It's not a digital phantasm, which is not only ugly and dumb-looking, but which can be obtained by millions of people all at once.
All you need to do is take a screenshot of the monkey, and you own it as much as Paris Hilton does.
I took a screenshot of that.
And now I have it, too.
It's mine now.
I'm the NFT owner now, Paris Hilton.
Now, you may not have the original code or whatever.
That's what the NFT—oh, it's the original code, and that's what makes—who cares?
It's exactly the same thing.
There's no inherent difference between your screenshot and her original.
This, by the way, is a problem that NFT merchants have run into.
A few months ago, the guy who made that YouTube video 10 years ago called Annoying Orange, which features an orange talking and being annoying, tried to sell the original video, quote-unquote, as an NFT.
But then a bunch of people on the internet simply stole it, because anything can be stolen on the internet with ease, and the plan fell apart.
And so now he just instead released it again.
He re-released the YouTube video on YouTube again.
Now, you might say that physical money is also artificial in the sense that it's produced and its value is in many ways subjective.
You're on perhaps more solid ground with that comparison, but the problem is that NFTs take all of the worst aspects of artificial fiat currency and amplify them.
It seems to issue a challenge to physical cash saying, oh, you think you're inherently worthless and artificial?
Well, check this out.
NFTs are the worst kind of fiat currency.
Now, we call it fiat currency traditionally because the value of your $20 bill comes from the government's fiat, its declaration that the thing is worth exactly that amount.
Now, there are significant problems with that system, but it's not as bad as the monkey cartoon, which has value based on Paris Hilton's fiat.
Rich, stupid people have declared that it has value, and it will retain that value as long as the rich, stupid people remain interested, and as long as enough non-rich, stupid people continue to care.
Not exactly the basis for a stable monetary system.
Yet this all makes sense in a certain way.
Because we live in an artificial age.
Artificiality is our calling card.
It is the hallmark of our culture, and there is nothing more artificial than an NFT.
Well, for now, anyway.
As we've discussed on this show before, the next horizon is Horizon, which is what Facebook is calling the Metaverse.
And that is the virtual reality world where, according to Mark Zuckerberg's vision, you can abandon your flesh-and-blood existence entirely and immerse yourself in cyberspace.
This week, a commercial for Facebook's Metaverse went viral, though the ad is actually from a year or two ago.
What you should know is that the actual Metaverse as it currently exists looks worse than it does in this old advertisement.
So this is the Metaverse at its theoretical best.
And it's still a nightmare.
Watch.
Beyond our world, there's another world.
And it's right here, on my face.
Welcome.
This is Horizon.
Think of me as your guide slash self-appointed spokes avatar, here to show you around.
You know, Horizon is filled with possibilities.
He can play stuff, make stuff, fly stuff.
Whoa!
Really love the stash, Stuart.
What up, Stewart?
Wait, I want a mustache.
Horizon isn't about rules or limits or pants.
Or people telling you not to fly an airplane while drinking your fresh ground, fair trade, French press morning coffee through a curly straw.
Isn't that right, Debbie?
Mm-hmm.
So there it is.
I love, even in the ad, how the women who are in the metaverse, they're with their husbands at home and totally ignoring Their family.
So they can have this dumb thing on their face.
So if you want to block out your immediate physical environment and everybody in it so that you can inhabit the floating severed husk of a Nick Jr.
cartoon character and interact with other disembodied beings in a sterile and artificial environment constructed by big tech oligarchs and designed to give them direct access to your brain, then boy are you in luck.
I just never realized that our dystopia would look so much like Paw Patrol.
What's the point of the metaverse?
What are you supposed to do in it?
Well, Zuckerberg says that you can have virtual meetings.
So if you want to experience all of the worst aspects of Zoom, conference calls, and in-person meetings with none of the benefits of any of them, then this is your solution.
You can also shop in the metaverse.
We've looked at Walmart.
You know, Walmart is now constructing stores in virtual reality so that you can flee from the confines of your mortal frame and experience the unfettered joy of retail shopping.
There are so many things you can do in the metaverse.
The hope is that eventually you'll do everything in the metaverse.
It will be like the Matrix, but a lot less cool.
Now, you might think that this will never take off.
You know, it looks so bland and dismal and pointless.
There's just no way any significant number of people will ever choose to involve themselves in it.
And you might be right.
I hope you're right.
But consider that our ancestors, if you had asked them, would have declared with confidence that nobody in the future would ever choose to sit around on their butts for 13 hours a day staring at images on screens.
And yet here we all are.
If you had shown them a cell phone and told them that in the not-too-distant future people would spend the majority of their days simply staring at it, that they would even stare at it when they're around other people, that they would ignore their children and their spouses to stare at it, that they would ignore the flesh-and-blood humans in favor of the screen, that they would be so committed to staring at it that they would kill themselves because they can't stop staring at it when they drive their cars, that people would literally be walking into walls and off of cliffs because they can't take their eyes off the damn screen, if you had told them all that, They would not have believed you.
They would not have seen what could possibly be so appealing about the screen that it would compel us to forsake our physical existence for it.
Most of us, though we live this way, still can't explain what's so appealing about it.
I have a theory.
And it's why I believe the metaverse will very much become a thing, and soon it will become the thing, the only thing.
The reason is that the purpose of all of this artificiality in modern life, is to numb us to the realities of human existence.
Because out in the world, in life, there is joy and fear and pain and suffering and love and hate and death.
And that's too much for the modern man.
That last thing, death, you know, is especially too much for him, as his reaction to COVID clearly demonstrated.
So he buries his head in his screen.
It becomes like some kind of existential anesthesia.
This is why people flee into the metaverse, because it allows them a final escape from any semblance of authentic human existence.
So soon we'll all be fake, like Paris Hilton, with her $200,000 monkey picture.
Another cheerful thought to ponder.
And that is why NFTs and the metaverse and Paris Hilton are all today cancelled.
And that'll do it for us 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 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 Vodovsky, 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.
John Bickley here, Daily Wire editor-in-chief.
Wake up every morning with our show, Morning Wire.
On today's episode, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is set to retire, human rights organizations condemn harsh COVID policies, and the Supreme Court takes on affirmative action.