Ep. 883 - The Biden Administration Announces Plan To Abolish All Death And Suffering
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Biden Administration has announced its plan to get rid of all traffic accidents and traffic deaths. Reduce it to zero. After failing to shut down COVID, now they will attempt to prevent anyone from ever dying of anything ever again. Also, Joe Biden officially begins his search for a new Supreme Court Justice. He promises it will be a thorough search and he will consider a diverse selection of potential nominees, as long as they are black, female, and liberal. The greatest female Jeopardy contestant of all time, who is actually male, finally loses. A writer wins praise from the Left for publicly announcing that she doesn’t like being a mother. And in our Daily Cancellation, a PhD student attempts to school me on the topic of sex and gender. We’ll see how she did.
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, the Biden administration has announced its plan to get rid of all traffic accidents and traffic deaths.
Reduce it to zero.
Now, after failing to shut down COVID, they will now attempt to prevent anyone from ever dying of anything ever again.
Also, Joe Biden officially begins his search for a new Supreme Court justice.
He promises it will be a thorough search.
He'll consider a diverse selection of potential nominees, as long as they are black, female, and liberal.
The greatest female Jeopardy contestant of all time, who's actually male, finally loses, and a writer wins praise from the left for publicly announcing that she doesn't like being a mother.
And finally, in our daily cancellation, a PhD student attempts to school me on the topic of sex and gender.
We'll see how she did today.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
So there are two basic facts about government.
One is that whenever it fails at something, its solution for its own failure is always to do exactly what it was already doing, except to do it more and more expensively.
The second is that most bureaucrats are useless, and the most useless ones are often the ones who do the most and do it loudest.
Because they feel the great compulsion to justify their own existence, which means they'll always look for things to do, even if those things don't need to be done, or if doing them would cause more problems than it solves.
There are other important realities of government in modern times, but those are the two facts, I think, which must be kept always in mind.
And both of them are prominently on display in this story.
Pete Buttigieg, a profoundly useless man in the useless position of Transportation Secretary, is on a mission to convince the public that his job is significant.
So after returning from his three-month paternity vacation, he first set out to cure racism by destroying any racist roads or bridges that he could find.
It was never exactly clear how he would identify the racist infrastructure, but he huddled with a team of diversity specialists and they figured it out.
Somehow their plan did not involve repainting all of the streets white instead of black.
So that still, you know, now every time you drive down the street, you're literally trampling upon blackness.
Which is deeply traumatizing to black Americans and confusing to children, by the way.
In fact, a few weeks ago, my daughter asked me, we were in the car, and she said, Daddy, why are all the roads black?
And I looked at her and I said, because everyone is racist, sweetie.
I hoped I would never have to have that conversation, but I did.
At any rate, Buttigieg did something or other about the racist roads, I don't know what.
And now he's moved on to his next project, which is even more ambitious.
He has now declared that he will reduce traffic deaths to zero.
Now, the government promised to shut down COVID and ensured that nobody would ever die from a virus again.
And having failed at that in spectacular fashion, they will now embark on a project to ensure that nobody dies of anything else ever again.
We can be sure that they'll succeed in that arena about as much as they succeeded with COVID.
Here's Buttigieg announcing the plan.
Listen.
Another thing that it's going to take in order to change the trajectory of roadway safety in this country is a single, ambitious, shared goal.
And today we commit that our goal is this.
Zero.
Our goal is zero deaths.
A country where one day nobody has to say goodbye to a loved one because of a traffic crash.
I understand the scale of the challenge and the ambition represented by that goal.
And I understand that we may not get there during my tenure as secretary.
But the decision to commit to that goal in a serious way at a national level changes the way cities and towns design roads.
It changes the ways companies build cars.
It changes the way people drive them.
Oh yeah, it certainly would change all those things.
Yes, zero traffic accidents.
Zero deaths.
Now, some have argued that there's nothing wrong with this goal.
This is just the ideal, they say.
Yes, of course, we won't ever actually abolish traffic accidents completely, but we should at least try, they say.
A quarterback will never have a 100% completion percentage across a whole season, but he still tries to complete every throw.
Why can't we do the same thing with this?
Well, I'll tell you why.
Those in charge of public policy have to engage in risk assessment and risk management.
We also have to do this on an individual personal level.
But risk management means that you're managing the risk, which means the risk is there.
The risk is there, you're simply taking steps to negate it within reason.
Every human activity carries risk.
The risk is inherent.
Flying is very safe generally, but there are still many risks.
Why are there risks?
Well, because you're 35,000 feet in the sky.
The risk is always that you're going to come down from the sky in a non-ideal manner, let's say.
You can manage that risk, but to erase the risk, to make it so that there is no risk, to go from risk management to risk abolition, is to effectively abolish the activity itself.
The only way to make sure that nobody ever dies in a plane crash is to make sure that nobody ever flies on a plane.
If you're allowing people to fly on the plane, you're allowing some amount of risk.
You are saying, by allowing people to get on planes, you are saying, it's okay that some people are going to die doing this.
Because if it's not okay at all, then nobody should be allowed to do it.
Your risk tolerance cannot be zero.
The only way to not take any risk when doing something is to not do it.
So let's think about what zero risk or near zero risk driving would look like.
First of all, highways are gone.
They're gone.
No more highways.
As long as people are driving 60 miles an hour, there are going to be fatal car crashes.
A national speed limit of 25 miles an hour would have to be established, and that's just the starting point.
Also, the driving age would have to be raised to at least 25, which is the age when the prefrontal cortex is fully developed and, you know, you're starting to think a little bit more rationally, and thus you're a better driver.
But if you're going to go for zero deaths, then really you want to raise it to probably 30.
Maybe 35?
So I would just be coming off my learner's permit right now.
Next, all forms of distraction in the vehicle must be outlawed.
No more drive-throughs.
Close them all.
Eating while driving is distracting.
No more driving with other people in the car, especially kids.
Can't have them in the car with you.
We'd have to outlaw cell phones entirely because that's the only way to ensure that nobody has them in their car.
Also, we're going to need licenses to be renewed and the driver's test to be retaken at least once a year, probably every six months, for the rest of your life.
That's just the starting point.
More such measures would need to be put in place, but anything less than these measures would mean that thousands of people are still going to die behind the wheel.
And even with these measures, or any other you can dream up, still there are going to be fatalities.
The only way to really get rid of them is to get rid of driving.
Along with all other forms of transportation faster than walking.
But even walking could potentially kill you.
You know, you could fall down the steps.
We've got to get rid of all the steps, too.
Later in his speech, Buttigieg said, quote, we will work with every level of government and industry to deliver results because every driver, passenger and pedestrian should be certain that they're going to arrive at their destination safely every time.
Really?
Certain?
We now have the right to be certain of our safety, even while engaging in inherently risky activities?
You might as well say that every person eating food should be certain that they won't choke.
What does it even mean to say that?
Unless you want to eat through a feeding tube for the rest of your life, you can never be certain that you won't choke.
In fact, contrary to Buttigieg, we should not be certain of our safety in the car or in any area of life.
Because the only way to achieve that certitude is either to delude ourselves or to stop living.
Now, you know, this stuff about zero car accident fatality, it may seem like the silly ramblings of a bureaucrat with the mental acuity of a carrot, and it is in one sense, but that's not all it is.
Now, if I'd heard something like this three years ago, I may have laughed it off and just said, ah, it's ridiculous.
But things have changed in recent times, and many Americans have shown a profound willingness to go to extraordinary lengths to embrace previously unimaginable forms of tyranny in order to feel protected from even the smallest risk of harm or death.
Millions of parents have been willing even to ruin their children's lives, cause significant emotional and psychological damage on purpose, knowingly, all in the pursuit of this same futile goal.
And, you know, the government has noticed this.
That's another thing we can know about government.
When the people tolerate any form of tyranny, they take note.
And they say, oh, you're okay with that, are you?
Well, here's some more.
And so now we're going to see one plan after another to address one crisis after another.
You notice how he described it as a crisis.
Car accidents are a crisis!
Well, they're not a crisis.
There have always been car accidents, as long as there have been highways.
And even before that.
It's not a crisis, it's just life.
And death, which is a part of life.
But there's going to be one crisis after another, to protect us from the risk of one form of death after another.
And though none of these plans will be successful, obviously, or will even have the chance of being successful, they will come at the cost of liberty and dignity.
A price that many people in this country have shown themselves tragically willing to pay.
pay.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You know, the thing about kids is, as everyone knows, of course, they hate going to bed.
And it's always a struggle, especially in my I don't know how it is for most parents, but in my house, bedtime is just to keep them in the room at night when you put them down, and they're always looking for reasons to come out.
And so that's the challenge, and it's especially the case with my daughter.
I mean, you have like two forms with kids.
There's two versions of this.
There are the kids who you put them to bed, and they're bouncing off the walls for 30 minutes, and then they just fall asleep.
That's the boys.
And then there's my daughter, who's kind of quiet, but she'll stay up for like three hours, and she'll keep trying to find reasons to come out.
And she gets kind of creative with it sometimes.
So yesterday, last night, it was like 10.30 at night, and she comes barreling out of her room, and she's like, Mommy, Daddy, I gotta tell you something.
And I thought it was like an emergency or something.
I don't know what it was.
I gotta tell you something.
I said, okay, what is it?
Did you know that snails have 15,000 teeth?
And also dolphins have more teeth than sharks.
No, I didn't know that.
Thank you for the update.
I'll make sure to keep that in mind.
Now, please go to bed.
And then later I went and Googled it, and it's actually true.
Snails have 15,000 teeth.
Learn something new every day from your kids at 1030 at night.
All right, so Joe Biden officially announced the Supreme Court vacancy yesterday, and after it was announced unofficially, With Justice Breyer's, apparently not his consent originally, at least the announcement was not with his consent, so they kind of gave him the nudge and said, hey, we're announcing your retirement.
Congratulations, you're retiring.
I guess you're learning about it too at the same time everybody else is.
So Joe Biden officially announced it yesterday.
He addressed the nation and once again reiterated his pledge to forbid any white man from taking the position.
Our process is going to be rigorous.
I will select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyer's legacy of excellence and decency.
While I've been studying candidates' backgrounds and writings, I've made no decision except one.
The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience, and integrity.
And that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme It's long overdue in my view.
It's going to be a thorough process and he's going to look at all the candidates as long as they're the same race and they're all female and of course they're all on the far left.
So a thorough and rigorous process that will involve, you know, about like four potential nominees.
That's what PASS is for.
It's not only a rigorous process, it's also a diverse process.
You know, there was this concept of diversity.
And for a while, I used to say that kind of the Democrat notion of diversity, when they say diverse diversity, what they really have in mind are a bunch of people who look different and have different skin pigments, different shades of skin, a bunch of people all in a room saying the same thing, speaking in unison with the same exact beliefs.
I used to think that that's their idea of diversity.
Where everybody looks different, at least skin deep, but they all think exactly the same way.
Because there's rigorous intellectual conformity on the left.
But now that's not even true.
I think that's probably giving them too much credit.
Because now, a diverse group or diversity, that means a bunch of people in a room who all look the same and also think the same way.
Because as we talked about, diversity now is code for Not white.
And that's how they could get away with talking about an individual person and saying, whenever they select whichever black woman it's going to be, whichever liberal far-left black woman it's going to be, they're going to say, this is a diverse selection.
Well, how could a single person be diverse?
That only makes sense when you understand that by diverse, they mean non-white.
So every time you hear that, just sub in non-white, and all of a sudden, the sentence kind of makes sense.
Um, but there, there is this, this kind of awkward reality for people on the left when they want to make a big deal out of this.
Oh, we're going to get a, we're gonna get a black nominee, a black female nominee.
Well, we've already, we've already had female court, uh, justices on the court and there's currently a black justice on the court.
Does he not count?
Well, as the ladies of the view agreed yesterday, um, in fact, he does not count.
No.
Susan Collins, well, she should have the votes considering the uneven kind of court we have right now
It's so important that this is happening on in a time where we can get another liberal
And of course the representation more than anything you pointed out first black woman
There's only been two black men in it that those numbers are a little shocking and one doesn't really represent the
black community No, no, but don't my whole point is that but addition to
additional diversity I think is important that I just noticed as we talked about
this is whenever they talk about a potential justice We talked about the Ivy League
He doesn't represent the black community.
By the way, the woman talking right there, is she supposed to be, I think she's supposed to be the conservative on, am I wrong?
Is she supposed to be the conservative representative on The View?
But Clarence Thomas, she represents conservatism, I guess, that lady.
But Clarence Thomas does not, he's not representative of black people.
Like, what does that even mean to begin with?
Doesn't represent black, it's a, is that your job as a black man?
Is to constantly represent, are you not an individual?
Do you not have your own identity?
Everything you do has to represent, and represent in what way?
Is there some established consensus among all black people about what they all are supposed to think and feel?
And so your job as a black man is to never think or feel anything outside of that?
Just removing the individual identity from people.
That's another part of the diversity plan on the left.
All right, here's another diverse person.
From the New York Post, Amy Schneider's Jeopardy-winning streak has finally come to an end.
Last week, the 42-year-old made history when, and I'm reading, I'm just reading the language from this article.
Otherwise, I wouldn't be choosing this language myself.
Last week, the 42-year-old made history when she won her 39th game and became number two on the game show's consecutive winning list and the winningest woman of all time.
But her time at the top ended Wednesday when she lost to Roan Palsma, a librarian from Chicago.
And lots of jokes can be made here and have already been made, so I'm late to it, saying maybe the final category was what is a woman.
It wasn't.
The final category was countries of the world.
And and then now the Schneider trails only Ken Jennings, 74 wins on the long running game shows consecutive wins list.
But she, quote unquote, is now the number one champion woman contestant of all time.
And the second place A woman, I'm trying to find her on here, there was a quote, maybe I cut it off.
The second place woman, who's really the first woman, she, the actual she, congratulated the fake she for, you know, supplanting her as the top female Jeopardy contestant of all time.
Because that's what she has to do.
Do you think the woman who actually is the best female Jeopardy contestant of all time, do you think she's happy about this?
That her place has been taken from her by a man?
No, but she has to pretend that way.
So now she's the top, now she's number two and the man is number one for female contestants.
And I have to just complain about this again, because the New York Post, I guess, would consider itself to be a just kind of mainstream media outlet.
But I've read plenty of articles in supposedly conservative outlets about This story about Amy Schneider and in the vast majority of them, even these conservative outlets are using the preferred pronoun for Amy Schneider, for calling a man a woman.
And they do this, as I've complained about many times, they do this, many of these conservative outlets, even while pretending to oppose this.
They'll report on Leah Thomas over at University of Pennsylvania, crushing the female competition.
And report on it in a negative way, like this is a bad thing.
Female sports are being destroyed by this, everything else.
And yet they'll still use the preferred pronoun.
I've read plenty of commentary pieces by conservatives, saying this is terrible, women's sports are under attack.
Because of people like Leah Thomas, she is crushing the competition.
Well, do you see?
You've just destroyed your argument.
You've surrendered the point.
It's over now.
The moment you agree with the language you choose to use, the moment that you agree that this, in fact, is a woman, what are you arguing about?
Just immense cowardice, even among conservatives.
And I use that phrase, conservative, very, very loosely.
I think we need to put scare quotes around that like we do around she when talking about Amy Schneider or Leah Thomas.
Because this is not just compromising with the left.
This is not you.
Plenty of that has happened in recent years.
But this is you adopting far, far left radical ideas.
And not just far-left radical ideas, but far-left radical ideas about basic facts of existence.
You are adopting their premise in the most extreme ways about basic facts of reality.
The moment you do that, you're on their side.
I don't care what else you have to say.
I don't care what your other positions are.
I would go so far as to say, you could be strongly in favor of gun rights, you could be anti-immigration, you don't like high taxes, small government, all that kind of stuff.
You could even call yourself pro-life and go to the march for life.
But if you're going to start calling a man a woman, then you're on the left.
Because you have agreed with their version of reality.
And it's a version of reality where all of their other ideological points sprout from that.
This is the root here.
And everything else is a branch from that root.
Because leftism is all about relativism.
It's the worship of the self.
That's why this gender stuff is so important to them.
Because they want to establish That reality itself is subject to an individual's whims.
If I feel a certain way, I can change reality.
Reality will change itself according to my whims.
If you agree with that by calling a man a woman because that's what they want to be called, then you've given up the whole game.
You are in no coherent way a conservative at that point.
What are you conserving?
I think there are many things that need to be conserved in this culture, but to begin with, we have to conserve reality.
If we're not conserving that, then we lose everything.
So you can't say, okay, I'll give up reality, but I really care about gun rights.
Well, good for you.
Go to an Antifa meeting and tell them about that.
You're not on our side.
All right, this is a video that I played for you probably almost a year ago, and it's going viral again for whatever reason.
So I want to play it again because any excuse to play this I think is worthwhile.
This is trans-affirming Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy.
She's very prominent in her field.
This is her talking about performing these surgeries, these mutilation procedures on kids and explaining why it's actually perfectly fine to do and it's all good.
Listen.
Actually, people make life-altering decisions in adolescence.
All the time.
All the time.
And honestly, most of them are good.
It's just the bad ones that we talk about.
Oh my God, the cinnamon challenge!
Right?
I mean, why do we know about it?
Because it's a thing, and it's not common.
Like, most teenagers aren't eating cinnamon.
Right?
But some are, and they're on YouTube, and that's stupid.
But we don't put on YouTube the things that are really good decisions, right?
Oh my gosh, my kid took the SATs!
Not a very exciting after-school special.
Right?
So what we do know is that adolescents actually have the capacity to make a reason-logical decision.
And here's the other thing about chest surgery.
If you want breasts at a later point in your life, you can go and get them.
I've heard that clip many times.
It doesn't get any less horrifying.
Especially when you consider that this is not some fringe character here.
This is a prominent person in this field of mutilating kids.
And what does she say?
She says, hey, kids make responsible decisions all the time.
They take the SATs.
Which is pretty revealing that that's the example she gives for responsible decisions made by kids.
Because guess what?
That's not a decision that kids make.
Their parents make that for them.
I took the SATs.
Do you think I wanted to?
If it were up to me, I would not have taken them.
But my parents said, you gotta take the SATs.
So that is something that is forced on you as a kid.
And even the kids who want to take the SATs or quote-unquote want to do responsible things, it's only because they've been conditioned that way, conditioned in a good way by their parents.
That's part of parenting.
Is not only telling kids what to do, but getting them to a point through moral formation where they want to do the good things.
But, as a parent, you say, even if you don't want to do it, even if you're so immature that you still don't want to do this very good thing that's going to help you, I still am going to force you to do it because it's for your own good.
That's what we do with kids.
But Dr. Olsen-Kennedy says that, well, kids, they can make life-altering decisions.
And why?
Well, because you can always reverse it, she says.
Which is not true, by the way.
You know, when you chop off a part of your body, you don't get it back.
We don't grow it back.
We're not lizards regrowing a tail or whatever.
So what they can do, and there are a great many former quote-unquote trans kids who are now adults and are looking into procedures like this because they're experiencing regret, and we haven't even seen the half of it yet.
We haven't even seen a fraction of what's coming.
Because the adults now who are what we call de-transitioners, who are experiencing regret, and they transitioned as kids, They were still pretty early in the fad.
You know, if they transitioned, whatever, eight years ago, seven, eight years ago.
Right now, there is a whole, there is an avalanche that's coming.
Because the kids today are the ones who are growing up, you know, a five-year-old today is among the first group of five-year-olds to grow up in a culture where this stuff is fed to them at that young of an age.
And so there will be a lot more coming in the future, and what they're going to discover is that actually you cannot regrow, you can't reverse that.
You know, when you go in and you have your breasts chopped off, that was a part of your body that is now gone.
You're not getting it back.
What they can try to do is refashion using, you know, cosmetic procedures, some semblance of what you had before, but it's not going to be the real thing.
But she's totally dismissive, of course, of any concern that this might be bad for kids.
And if you are not totally opposed to what you just heard in that clip there, if you are not absolutely diametrically opposed to it, in every fiber of your being, then you're not on my side.
I don't know whose side you're on.
This is a you're with us or against us type of thing.
You know, when you use the preferred pronouns, that woman there, that's who you're helping.
You're helping her.
You're on her side.
You're doing what she wants you to do.
All right, let's look at this.
Writer Ariana Rebellini was the latest woman to try to earn sympathy and victim points by talking about how much she hates her kids.
Just wanted to show this to you.
This is also becoming a trend.
Ariana Rebellini says, I've been opening up about how I do not enjoy being a mom.
Thinking about why I feel so passionately about talking about it, and I think a large part is my belief that normalizing slash celebrating the decision to be child-free can lead to more communal childcare.
Now, what we're told, and people were criticizing her for this, and rightly so, and her justification was, hey, I'm just being honest, and I'm saying what so many other people think, and why can't I be honest?
Well, I'll tell you why you can't be quote-unquote honest about it.
First of all, this is not honesty.
This is not honesty at all.
Because this is you trying to fool yourself, trying to make yourself feel better, trying to delude yourself.
You have this bad thought which grows from a character flaw.
Now, look.
We all have moments as parents when the parenting job is not very enjoyable.
Like when it's 10.30 at night and your kid's out there talking about snails having 15,000 teeth and you just want them to go to bed so you can hang out with your spouse, right?
Those are moments when it's not super enjoyable in those moments.
But if you just hate parenting altogether, you hate the whole thing, that's a character flaw.
That's a you problem.
It's not your kid's fault.
And no, I have news for you.
It's not normal.
And it shouldn't be.
That's not how most parents feel.
Many parents struggle with aspects of parenting.
It can be difficult, but most parents derive a great amount of joy out of being a parent.
And if they could snap their fingers and reverse the clock and not be parents anymore, they wouldn't do it.
That's most parents.
So the reason why you feel this way is because you're so intensely selfish.
So this is coming from your selfishness.
And that's not a good thing.
That's a character flaw.
Why does she put it out there in the open?
And she's being honest.
Well, yeah, maybe she's being honest about how she feels, but she wants to fool herself.
And so she puts it out there so that other people who are also selfish can say, oh, I feel the same way.
And she can take solace in the fact that there are other selfish, miserable people out there, and they can form their own little community, their own support group.
This is one of the great problems with the Internet, by the way, is that people can take any dark, twisted thought, idea, desire that they have, and they can just go out into the Internet and find other people who share in that darkness with them.
And then convince themselves that it's not darkness at all.
It's perfectly normal because there are other people.
Whereas in the past, there's so much that, you know, in the past without the internet, you know, you probably, if you felt this way, you hated being a parent, you weren't going to go around in public and announce that to people directly face to face.
You just keep it to yourself like you should.
And you would feel alone in that feeling, and it'd be very isolating, but that's good.
And there would be a stigma attached to it, and that's also good, because it would maybe propel you to make the changes that you need so you don't feel that way anymore.
Because, by the way, oftentimes your feelings are your fault.
You know, you have indulged in your selfishness, and so that's why you feel this way about parenting.
That's on you.
And of course the other problem is that your kids are going to see that one day.
So maybe something all parents should keep in mind before you go out in public on the internet complaining bitterly about your kids and how you wish you weren't a parent.
Your kids maybe can't read right now, but one day they will and they're going to see, oh, mom hated me.
And you know, here's what's going to happen.
Your kids are going to see that.
And start to really realize it.
And in fact, even if you don't announce it on the internet, if you hate your kids and you hate parenting, your kids eventually will come to understand that about you.
And when they come to understand it, it's going to be right around the time when, you know, they're not as challenging to have around.
Because usually parents complain like this when their kids are younger and they're very needy and they have a lot of needs.
And you're selfish so you don't have to meet anybody else's needs.
Well, as kids get older and they become adults, now they don't have those same needs.
And now it can be a lot more fun to be a parent.
Then you start having grandkids in the mix, and that's really fun, I'm told.
But it's going to be right around that time when your kids are going to start to look back, and in this case, now they're going to see the old tweets, or whatever, they're going to start reflecting.
They're going to realize, oh, this was a miserable parent who never wanted me around.
And now they're knocking at my door and saying, let's have a relationship, let's bond?
Sorry, no.
That's out the window now.
You had the chance to bond with me and establish that relationship through my entire childhood.
You were too immersed in your own selfishness to do it.
And it's too late now.
So that's what's going to happen.
One other video I want to play before we get to reading the comments.
Here's a scene on an elevator.
I've encountered situations like this on elevators, but never quite to this extent.
Here's a man, apparently this guy tried to get on an elevator, or I think he was already on an elevator without a mask on, and then these two women get on the elevator next, and they have masks, and they're very upset that he's not wearing one, and so here's what happens.
Get out!
Get out Black Lives Matter, that is so on the nose.
When I first saw that, I thought, is this some kind of parody?
That is too on the nose for these two white women paranoid about COVID to start chanting.
While they're trying to kick a black man off the elevator because he's not wearing a mask, they start chanting Black Lives Matter.
Apparently, this is real, I guess, and it's quite believable.
Because like I said, I've encountered not quite to that extent, but elevators have become and have been since the start of all this, sources of this kind of tension, especially.
I mean, I told you, it was like a year ago where I had one of the only times I ever got yelled at by someone for not wearing a mask.
There's maybe been three occasions, and one of them, and I think it was the first one, is when I got on an elevator not wearing a mask at a hotel, and the guy was on the elevator with a mask, with his, I guess it was his wife, and started yelling at me, get off the elevator!
I was like, you know what, I'm not gonna get off.
You can get off.
And so he did, and he stormed away.
And there was a time early on when it kind of felt elevators were really uncomfortable for that reason.
Because I'm not going to wear the mask, I'm not going to play the game.
But now I'm getting into this enclosed environment with this other person and it's quiet and the elevators are already awkward.
But now we had the extra awkwardness.
But after a while you learn to enjoy it.
Because this is character building.
That's how I started to look at it.
Get onto an elevator without a mask.
Person on the elevator has a mask on.
I know how uncomfortable I'm making them.
I know it.
But I started to appreciate it because it's character building for them.
You know, it's in their discomfort.
Maybe they can start to realize how irrational they're being.
So in a way, I'm doing them a favor.
As the man in that video did.
So, well done.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
All right, let's go to the video comments and dailywire.com/sweetbabycomments is where you can find them.
Let's go to clip number one here.
Okay, what do you call a... Let me see that video again.
I don't know what happened.
What do you call a man who gets himself into this predicament?
Let's see.
Oh, okay.
Is that a man?
Do we know that's a man behind the wheel?
So the guy is wedged up on the median strip between the two.
I guess he was trying to make a left turn, and he cut it way too close, and now he's wedged on the median strip.
Now, I guess trying to make a point here that bad drivers come in both sexes, but I don't see any proof that that's a man.
And of course, how dare you assume his gender?
That's...
There's no coming back from that as a man.
That is a permanent revocation of your man card, and you'll never ever get it back.
You might as well transition at that point.
Usually I'm not in favor of that, but this is one occasion where you might as well.
And then go on Jeopardy, you know?
Alright, let's watch the next one.
All hail to the self-described handsome and brilliant theocratic fascist philanthropist, Trans Virginian best-selling LGBTQ children's author.
I personally identify as a vaccinated schizophrenic train.
My pronouns are Choo Choo.
Two things.
First, I know you canceled selfies, but hopefully you make an exception for these video comments, because if not, then we're all in trouble.
And then second, would you be opposed to the idea that cereal is actually just breakfast soup?
This is one of the greatest debates in modern society, and obviously your opinion is never wrong about anything ever.
SBG for life.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Okay, first of all, there's a couple things you got wrong here.
First of all, if you're going to respect my self-identification, you cannot say self-described and then give my preferred adjectives and pronouns.
No, no, no.
A man identifies as a woman.
You cannot refer to him as self-described woman.
That's deeply offensive and invalidating to me.
Second, is cereal just breakfast soup?
It's obviously not.
It shows how little you know about this subject and food categories.
Cereal is a stew.
It's a breakfast stew, not a soup.
And the difference between a stew and a soup is that with a soup, the broth is sort of the main ingredient.
It's the star of the show, right?
With a stew, it's not the broth.
It's the ingredients that are within the broth.
So really, the broth is just a forum for the ingredients that you put in it.
And when you're eating cereal, of course, the cereal is the point, not the milk, right?
Okay.
Let's watch one more.
Hey Matt, my name's Beau from New Jersey, and yes, Jersey is just as bad as you and the other hosts say it is.
I'm getting out of here soon.
But anyway, I'm a speech-language pathology major, and I just wanted to give some insight on what you were saying yesterday.
Not only will masks affect children and cause speech delays and speech language disorders,
children can't learn without facial stimuli.
They need those expressions.
They study your tongue, they study your lips like you said.
And I just have a study fresh in my mind, I forget who it's by, but there was three groups.
One of toddlers who had educators and were being taught directly,
one who just had audio and just had headphones, and one that had audio but also saw videos
of like toys and stuff to keep them engaged.
And obviously the educated group did the best.
They had that facial expression and not only those facial expressions, they build bonds with their caretakers.
If you can't see their face, if you can't see what's making those sounds, you're not going to be able to build the right bonds with your caregivers.
So anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there and I love you and I love the Sweet Baby Gang for life.
Yeah, great insight there, and a great point also at the end there about it interferes with the bond that you need, and that's not just a problem for speech therapists.
I imagine it's a special problem for speech therapists, but it's a problem for anyone who's in a position of trying to care for children, for teachers.
You know, teachers that want to, if you really want your students to pay attention to you, they have to have some kind of bond, some kind of connection with you.
They have to care about what you think and what you have to say, and so there has to be some form of connection between you and your students.
And the good teachers are the ones who are good at establishing that kind of connection.
Where even students, lazy students like I was, still they'll sit down, they actually want to listen to you, they want to hear what you have to say.
Because they respect you, and they feel some kind of connection with you.
But you put masks on, it's very hard to do.
It's hard to establish any connection between people When you're just a faceless phantom floating around, right?
Going to the written comments here, Joanna the artist says, I'm half deaf and it's been incredibly difficult to understand others as I found out that I naturally read lips.
This is a comment I've seen from many people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
And, you know, it's just a really infuriating irony because we hear all this talk about how we have to be inclusive and we don't want to be ableist and discriminate against people who are disabled.
Well, here is an example of people suffering from a disability who are actually being excluded from society now because they can't understand, they can't communicate.
So, I would never non-ironically call anything ableism.
But if you did, if you were tempted to use that term in a non-ironic way, this might be an area where you could actually use it.
And Dirty South Jr.
says, Matt really did try the shaming tactic of calling men who are smart enough not to enter into a contract their partner is rewarded for breaking, higher than 50% divorce rate initiated by the wife 80% of the time, not real men.
FYI, that holds as much weight these days as being called sexist or racist.
Well, no one can be right about every topic.
That's not exactly what I said.
If you don't want to get married, I'm not going to tell you you have to get married.
And it's, you know, we talked about, I think it was on Backstage recently, you know, is everyone called to be a parent?
And on one hand, you would say, well, obviously not.
There are people who can't be parents.
They're just, because of whatever physical reason, they're not able to conceive.
There are also people who enter into religious life, for example.
I obviously have great respect for that.
But I would still say that everyone is called to, you know, every man is called to fatherhood in some form.
And for most of us, it's the traditional kind of biological form, but there are other forms of it.
One of them is going into religious life.
You go and be a missionary.
You know, it's kind of a form of fatherhood.
of serving others in a kind of paternal way.
Another way of putting it is we're all called to service, right?
As men, we're called to a special kind of service.
Women are called to another kind of service.
Even if that doesn't come all the time in that traditional biological kind of way.
So, I would certainly say that that holds true for everyone.
And if you end up not getting married, okay.
There are also men who want to get married and sadly it never ends up happening and that's a terrible thing as well.
But nobody is called to live their entire lives for themselves.
Nobody's called to serve only themselves for their entire lives.
That's not what human existence is supposed to be.
And it's not going to be a fulfilling existence.
And you're not going to find any real joy in it.
But at any rate, what I was really referring to is the comment from the guy yesterday.
Who said that, well, marriage doesn't work.
It just doesn't work.
It's unnatural.
Making this statement for everybody because he can't do it.
And that's why I question your manhood.
Because that's weak.
That's cowardly.
If you can't do something, or don't want to, or whatever, or it appears to be too challenging to you, whatever your reasons are, And so you try to fool yourself by saying, well, no one can do it.
Obviously, no one can do it.
And the people who are doing it, they all hate it.
They just won't say it.
That's weakness.
To try to fool yourself that way.
At least confront the reality.
That's what a man does.
Because the reality is, lots of men get married and get married successfully.
I've been married for 10 years.
Wouldn't want it any other way.
My dad's been married for 40 years.
You know, we're not outliers either.
Millions and millions of men throughout history have gotten married and been married successfully.
So when you try to, you know, you can make whatever decision you want in your own life, but when you try to claim, oh, it doesn't work, it can't happen, it doesn't work, give me a break.
Make your own choice.
Don't try to put it on the rest of us.
That's weakness.
If you haven't seen it yet, the latest episode of Adam Corolla's Daily Wire-exclusive comedy series Truth Yeller is streaming now, and it might be just the best one yet.
Adam takes on Hunter Biden and is joined by comedian T.J.
Miller, who dropped some comedy gold and proves that he's the real deal.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code Miller for 25% off your membership and get ready for some serious laughs.
If there's anyone that the Biden administration and the mainstream media and Big Pharma don't want you to hear, it's the voice of Dr. Robert Malone.
Malone is an American immunologist and a pioneer of mRNA vaccines,
who was removed from Twitter and most social media platforms
for his public skepticism of the COVID-19 vaccine, and then went viral for his interview
on Joe Rogan's podcast.
In any sane society, his background would qualify him as an expert whose opinion should be heard,
but we're not living in a sane society, and so he is receiving the opposite treatment.
He's being censored.
That's why our very own Candace Owens sat down for a three and a half hour interview
with Dr. Malone and does not leave any stone unturned.
Together, they touch on some of the most alarming statistics, questions, and trends that the mainstream media and big tech don't want you to know or don't want to acknowledge.
This is an incredibly important interview and will be available exclusively at dailywire.com this Tuesday, February 1st.
If you don't already have a Daily Wire membership, join now to catch Tuesday's episode of Candice, premiering this Tuesday at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Ever since the infamous episode of Dr. Phil aired, I have been forced to endure the onslaught from an army of smug, liberal fart-sniffers who, though they appear to have no understanding of even the most basic facts of life, are nonetheless high on their own fumes and impressed with their own intellect, and they demand that the rest of us admire them as much as they admire themselves.
Now, these people are quite sure that I'm wrong and are anxious to tell me how wrong I am, and yet none of them have been able to actually explain why I'm wrong.
I've had many exchanges with these types over the past week, but today for The Daily Cancellation, we're going to focus on just one such interaction.
I think this back and forth manages to exemplify nearly everything that's wrong with much of what passes for debating in modern times.
It's as if this person had a checklist of all of the fallacious, evasive, and ad hominem tactics possible and made sure to check every single one of them off.
It's quite impressive in a certain kind of way.
So Steph Frosh is apparently some kind of social media influencer type.
And also, she says in her bio, America's gay sweetheart, as well as a PhD student.
And it's very obvious from her social media presence, as it will become apparent very quickly in her response to me, that she's very proud of both being gay and of being a PhD student.
Indeed, these two facts appear to be the sum total of her personality, and also the source of her superiority over everyone else on earth.
Now, surely Steph can school me easily.
She's a gay woman?
PhD student?
I'm a straight white male with one semester of community college under my belt.
How could I possibly win an argument about sex and gender with an authority figure such as herself?
Well, let's see.
Yesterday, in a reaction to one of the Dr. Phil clips, Steph tweeted, quote, The fact that Dr. Phil used his platform to exploit two non-binary guests that he invited on his show to discuss pronouns by inviting a transphobic, cretinous troll on stage to mock the suffering and oppression of trans people immediately after is disgusting.
And so is he.
Yes, Dr. Phil should be ashamed for exploiting these two, quote, non-binary people by inviting them on his show, giving them an entire segment to themselves to make their case unchallenged.
And yes, he did put the poor, fragile little baby deers on stage with a transphobic, cretinous troll like myself afterwards, but that was an opportunity to shut me down, to debunk my arguments, to humiliate me in front of the entire world.
They weren't able to take advantage of the opportunity, perhaps because their entire worldview is flimsy and brittle and can easily be broken apart like uncooked spaghetti, but they still had the opportunity.
So this was not exploitation, it was failure on their part.
But I didn't want to get into all that with Steph, so instead I invited her to a stop whining and simply define the word woman for me.
And she responded that a woman is quote, an identity derived from the arbitrary construct of gender, or a person who would never find you sexually appealing, your choice.
Now, there are a number of problems with this.
First of all, even if this statement was valid and coherent, which obviously it isn't, it still doesn't tell me anything about what a woman is.
I'm not asking where the identity comes from.
I'm asking what it is.
What does it mean to be that thing?
This is like if I asked you to define the word happy, and you said that it's an emotion derived from the brain.
Now, in that case, at least, the statement would be correct, but it still doesn't work as a definition of the word because it doesn't offer any clarifying information about the term in question.
There are many emotions derived from the brain.
What makes happiness distinct from sadness or anger?
Similarly for women, even if it is just an arbitrary construct, which it isn't, what makes it distinct from other arbitrary constructs?
And also, if it is an arbitrary construct, then isn't it true to say that the statement, trans women are women, is arbitrary?
And if it's arbitrary, how can you demand that I believe it, or accept it, or affirm it?
As for the second part of the tweet, we see again the overwhelming leftist compulsion to sexualize everything and everyone in every conversation.
No woman would ever find me sexually appealing, she says.
Of course, how could she even make that statement if she doesn't know what a woman is?
It's like saying that no flipperdoodle or thingaling would ever find me attractive.
The word woman is essentially nonsense, after all, according to her.
And at any rate, one thing that these lonely weirdos don't understand is that as a married man, you can't hurt my feelings by calling me unattractive or claiming that no woman would find me attractive.
The only woman whose sexual attraction I care about is the mother of my four children.
I've already got her.
I won the game.
Even if it were true that every other woman on earth finds me repulsive, that would only make me feel better about having found and married the one who doesn't.
This is like going up to a guy who won a hundred million dollars in the lottery and saying, oh yeah?
If you didn't win that money, you'd be broke.
Okay, well I guess it's good I won the lottery then.
Now, I explained some of this to Steph, simplifying as much as I could, because I know that PhD students often struggle with complex ideas.
And she responded by retreating even further into the intellectual fog.
She says, quote, Language as a whole is arbitrary.
That's contemporary sociology 101.
Though I will not be surprised if you're unfamiliar with the subject, considering classical theory fails to grasp the concept of change.
But who knows?
Maybe you're lacking knowledge in that field as well.
Now here we arrive at the inevitable point in the conversation of this sort, where the other party begins randomly listing college courses that she took.
She can't respond to any of the points being raised, so instead she hopes to dazzle us with her academic resume.
In a subsequent tweet, she claims that she was not listing her college credits to impress me, though.
Perhaps that's true.
This could just be the weirdest and most embarrassing form of Tourette's I've ever seen.
Also, it's worth noting that she didn't even list the right subjects.
Basic facts about language would be Linguistics 101, not Contemporary Sociology 101.
I've never even taken any university courses on any subject, and yet I appear to know them better than she does.
But what about this claim that language is arbitrary?
Well, linguistic expert over there might want to understand that arbitrary is not the right word here.
Because arbitrary is something done on a whim and not according to any kind of system.
Language is a system.
I think what she means to say is that language is a construct and a convention.
By the way, you know you aren't doing very well in a debate when the guy on the other side has to improve your argument for you just so that he can proceed to debunk it.
Not a good sign.
So, language is a construct, yeah.
Language is a symbol.
But the thing that a word symbolizes is not itself a symbol or a construct.
So, for example, the word gravity is a construct.
The word is.
We use that particular collection of syllables in the English language to denote the thing that we call gravity.
But we could use any collection of syllables.
There's no reason why it had to be that particular combination.
In other languages, they use different syllables.
And yet gravity itself, the thing itself, the actual physical phenomenon, is not a construct or a symbol, and it certainly isn't arbitrary.
The sleight-of-hand trick that Steph is trying to pull here, and it's the same sleight-of-hand trick that her side always attempts, is to conflate the word with the thing itself, arguing that because the word woman is a construct, therefore the thing that the word signifies is also a construct.
This is the game they play with pronouns.
They say, hey, language evolves.
There's nothing wrong with calling a he a she.
Except that they aren't just trying to change the language.
They're trying to change our perception of the physical reality that the language points to and conveys.
Again, I might be talking over the head of the PhD student.
So I gave her one last chance to define the word.
What does the word woman signify?
What does it convey?
I don't need any more half-baked dissertations on the nature of language.
I want to know about the thing itself.
What is it?
Now, this led to her final volley, her last attempt to evade the question while pretending to answer it.
She said, quote, The term has evolved.
Women used to be defined as property or second-class citizens.
Some people say that they're people who can carry kids, but what about women who are infertile?
Are they suddenly men?
What about the fact that people can be born with the external anatomy of a female, but have the internal anatomy of a male?
What if a woman was assigned female at birth, presents as masculine, and doesn't have children?
If that isn't a woman, doesn't that contradict your theory regarding transgender identities?
Well, there is no definition there, or even an attempt at one.
This poor girl is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for an education, and after all of that schooling, she still can't answer one question from a podcast host with a high school diploma.
No doubt she'll be crying for student loan forgiveness in a few years.
As for the point she raised, infertile women are females who suffer from medical conditions.
This does not invalidate the claim that women are females and also that females in principle have the capacity to reproduce.
It's also accurate to say human beings have two lungs.
The fact that some human beings have one lung doesn't mean that we have to radically rethink our understanding of human anatomy.
I also claim that humans have two arms.
If you lose one in a woodchipper accident, you haven't presented any challenge to my claim.
There is, in fact, a difference between saying, humans have two arms, and every human has two arms.
So, there's a difference between saying, women give birth to children, and every woman gives birth to children.
You see?
I'm making the former claim, not the latter.
And if you can't see the distinction, then, again, I weep for your years wasted in formal schooling.
What about the very rare cases of intersex birth defects?
Well, again, those are defects, deformities, medical abnormalities.
We're able to identify them and call them defects precisely because we know how the human body is supposed to work and what it's supposed to look like.
This is what's known as an exception that proves the rule.
As for Steph being a shallow and slow-witted thinker, I wish I could say that she's the exception among college graduates, but I don't think she is.
She's much closer to the norm.
I'm also afraid that I must say to her finally today, you're cancelled.
And that'll do it for us today and this week.
Next week's going to be a little bit different.
I'm taking a few days, a few shows off.
I'm going on a journey that I can't explain right now, but one day I'll be able to tell you about it in due time.
And when you do find out about it, when I can talk about it, it will make a lot of people very upset.
I can promise you that.
So until next time, Godspeed.
[MUSIC]
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.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
