Today on the Matt Walsh Show, tax-funded NPR publishes a lengthy investigation into the complex racial implications of emojis. Also, trans activists were planning a big protest at my event at Texas A&M last night. So what happened? I’ll tell you about it. And polls show that viewers are fleeing the NFL because of its political pandering. Plus, a pastor attracts the ire of the mob for promoting modesty. And Adele gets in trouble herself for saying that she loves being a woman, which of course is transphobic. In our Daily Cancellation, one of my opponents on that Dr. Phil episode appeared on his podcast yesterday to offer her reflections on the experience. Apparently, she doesn’t like me very much, if you can believe it.
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
Turn on reminders and tune in for this one-time premiere event of SHUT IN on Thursday, February 10th at 9 PM EST: https://utm.io/uegCX
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, tax-funded NPR publishes a lengthy investigation into the racial implications of the emojis that you use when you text people.
It sounds crazy already, but wait until you hear some of this.
It's pretty great.
Also, trans activists were planning a big protest at my event at Texas A&M last night.
So what happened?
I'll tell you about it.
Plus, polls show that viewers are fleeing the NFL because of its political pandering.
Big surprise there.
Plus, a pastor attracts the ire of the mob for promoting modesty.
And we know pastors aren't supposed to do that.
And Adele gets in trouble herself for saying that she loves being a woman, which we know now is transphobic.
And in our Daily Cancellation, one of my opponents on that Dr. Phil episode appeared on his podcast yesterday to offer her reflections on the experience, and it turns out that she doesn't like me very much.
We'll talk about that as well and so much more on The Matt Walsh Show.
In Reagan's own words, inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hitman.
Right now, your retirement accounts are under attack thanks to the inflationary policies of this administration.
Uh, which means that your future is at stake.
It means that we're all vulnerable and you got to do something about it.
And here's something you can do.
You can call Birch Gold.
If you have not yet called Birch Gold, the only people I trust to help you diversify your 401ks and IRAs into gold, then you're missing the boat.
And, uh, actually you're, you know, you're basically treading water.
You're out in the water by yourself in the ocean without a life vest.
Birch Gold has your life vest.
Let them help you convert an IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
With thousands of satisfied customers and an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, you can trust Birch Gold to protect your savings.
Text WALSH to 989898 to get a free info kit on gold.
Reagan knew the biggest threat to our wealth.
Protect yours now.
Text WALSH to 989898 to get your free info kit now.
So, you know, NPR, like most of our corporate media institutions, has been for years deteriorating irrevocably into far-left lunacy.
The only difference between NPR and most other media institutions is that NPR is funded by tax money, of course.
You are paying to facilitate this dissent, whether you like it or not.
And so it's worth taking a look to see just how bad things have gotten.
And what I'm about to share with you is a reflection of both our media's total intellectual bankruptcy and also of the left's rapidly increasing derangement.
All of that is present in this one story.
And also I share it with you because, well, it's just really funny.
A viral article posted on NPR.org yesterday has this headline.
Which skin color emoji should you use?
The answer can be more complex than you think.
Now you should know, by the way, that this dissertation on emojis of color has three authors.
Three people were needed to write this thing.
And their names are Asma Khalid, Alejandra Marquez-Johnsay, and Patrick Jaron Watton-Annan.
So they took all the people with the hardest names to pronounce and they said, we need you on the emoji story.
And they all contributed to this article about the complexities of emoji skin tones.
This is a subject that I confess I have not thought about at all, really, mostly because I'm not insane, also because I don't use emojis, because I am a literate adult.
Human and I prefer to communicate using actual words, which is I wish that most other adults would join me in that.
Because through the rampant use of emojis, we have as a society essentially reverted back to caveman days, scribbling pictures on the virtual cave wall to convey our emotions.
Rather than, you know, using written language to communicate that we're happy or sad, instead we dumbly draw a smiley face or a frowny face.
I happy!
Smiley face!
Which is what you're really saying when you send a smiley face.
So all of this controversy over emoji color could be avoided if everyone simply behaved and communicated as adults and used actual words rather than little pictures and cartoons.
In any case, let's go to the article.
It's everything that you're hoping it will be.
And so much more.
So, it begins.
Heath Rossella identifies as three-quarters white and one-quarter Filipino.
Well, hold on a second.
He identifies as that or he is that?
Because if he is that, then we don't need to know that he identifies as that.
This is like if you asked me where I live and I said, oh, I identify as living in Nashville.
That's going to leave you with more questions than answers about my actual physical residence.
Because if I live there, I don't need to say that I identify as living there.
Of course, that's the point, though, of this identifies as qualifier.
And it's why you're seeing it applied to it started with gender and now they apply it to so many other things because it makes everything obscure and confusing and weirdly subjective.
Anyway, it says when texting, he chooses a yellow emoji instead of a skin tone option because he feels it doesn't represent any specific ethnicity or color.
He doesn't want people to view his text in a particular way.
He wants to go with what he sees as the neutral option and focus on the message.
Quote, I present as very pale, very light skinned.
And if I use the white emoji, I feel like I'm betraying the part of myself that's Filipino.
But if I use a darker color emoji, which maybe more closely matches what I see when I look at my whole family, it's not what the world sees, and people tend to judge that.
I should remind you, by the way, because you might lose sight of this, none of this is meant to be a joke.
This man who worries that he is betraying himself and his ancestors by using a certain color emoji, it's not a joke.
This is something he's really worried about, and you should respect his struggle and his anxiety.
This is a major tax-funded, once-respected news organization, and an article authored by three journalists, which begins with some random guy's anxiety related to the color of the thumbs-up emojis that he uses when texting people.
Now, he says that he goes with the yellow option because it's race-neutral, apparently having no concern for the fact that it appropriates from the, you know, jaundiced community.
Meanwhile, other people feel obliged to find a skin tone which matches and represents them, NPR says.
Continuing, in 2015, five skin tone options became available for hand gesture emojis in addition to the default Simpsons-like yellow.
Choosing one can be a simple texting shortcut for some, but for others it opens a complex conversation about race and identity.
Quote, I use the brown one that matches me, said Sarai Cole, an opera singer in Germany.
I have some friends who use the brown ones too, but they're not brown themselves.
This confuses me.
Where do they even find these people?
Where are you finding the opera singer in Germany to talk about emojis?
But it is very confusing, she says.
I'm also confused when someone uses a perfectly round cartoon smiley face when they themselves do not have a perfectly round cartoon face.
Yesterday, someone texted me a smiley face and I said, wait, what is this?
Who is this supposed to be?
This looks nothing like you.
What happened to your face?
What's going on?
Dear God!
This is a totally normal and healthy response to this situation.
Let's keep reading.
Cole is originally from California and identifies as black and American.
Hold on.
Cole is originally from California and identifies as black and an American descendant of slavery.
So that's another thing you can identify as, I suppose.
No.
You can identify as being a descendant of slavery.
Win a lot of victim points for yourself that way.
She said that while she was not offended when a non-brown friend used a dark emoji, she would like to understand why.
Quote, I think it would be nice if it's their default, but if they're just using it with me or other brown people, I would want to look into that deeper and know why they're doing that, she said.
Okay, so according to Cole, if you don't identify as black or brown, You can use a darker emoji, but only if it's your default.
So, whenever you want to text an emoji to your black friend, make sure to include a screenshot of a previous emoji that you texted to a non-black friend so that they can run a comparison and see that you're using the same emoji for everybody.
Because remember, they might want to look deeper into it.
And this, again, is totally normal.
Who has not received an emoji from somebody and felt the desire to embark on a thorough investigation into the emoji, their motivations for sending the emoji, their history of emoji usage?
We've all been there, surely.
Continuing, a 2018 study published by the University of Edinburgh looked at the use of different skin tone emojis.
What it referred to as modified emojis on Twitter to find out if the modifiers contributed to self-representation.
Alexander Robinson, an emoji researcher at Google and PhD candidate involved in the study, said the emoji modifiers were used widely, but it was people with darker skin who used them in higher proportions and more often.
Instead, some white people may stick with the yellow emoji because they don't want to assert their privilege by adding a light-skinned emoji to a text or to take advantage of something that was created to represent diversity.
Perhaps, like Heath Rossella, they simply don't want to think about how their message can be interpreted.
But Zahra Rahman, a researcher and writer in Berlin, argues that the skin tone emojis make white people confront their race, as people of color often have to do.
For example, she shared Sarai Cole's confusion when someone who is white uses a brown emoji.
So she asked some friends about it.
Okay.
You know what?
I take back everything I ever said about college.
See, I had thought I had thought that people were wasting years of their lives and hundreds of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, rather, of their parents' money, most likely, for pointless degrees in utterly useless fields.
But now that I know PhD candidates are becoming emoji researchers, I've changed my mind.
Because we, think about this for a second here, guys.
If we don't have universities, who is going to prepare the next generation of emoji researchers?
If we don't have PhDs, there's not going to be anyone around to research emojis.
And the next time someone says, we've got a bunch of emojis here, we need to have them researched, who's going to do it?
I can't do it.
I don't have a college education.
Wrapping up the article, it says, Rahman said there was a default in society to associate whiteness with being raceless, and the emojis gave white people an option to make their race explicit.
Quote, I completely hear some people are just exhausted from having to do that.
Many people of color have to do that every day and are confronted with race every day, Rahman said.
But for many white people, they've been able to ignore it, whether that's subconsciously or consciously their whole lives.
Raman admits there's no specific answer to all the questions about emoji use, but said it was an opportunity to think about how people want to represent their identities.
I think it's more one of those places where we just have to think about who we are and how we want to represent our identities, she said.
And maybe it does change depending on the season, depending on the context.
So, if you didn't believe that white people have advantages in society, Hopefully you've been disabused of that notion.
Because if you're white and you think you have no advantage, think about your emoji privilege.
Have you ever even thought about that?
You probably haven't.
Because you're not a slobbering lunatic.
So I think we see two things in this article.
Well, three things.
The first is that NPR should be defunded, and after it's defunded, should be launched directly into the sun.
Keep in mind, by the way, that, again, we fund NPR, we fund PBS, and this state of affairs has continued even while Republicans are in charge of the government.
They have decided they're going to keep on sending money, as well as to the baby killers of Planned Parenthood, by the way.
So that's the first thing.
The second is that Powerful forces in our society.
And yes, NPR counts as a powerful force.
Unfortunately.
Major media institution funded by the government.
And forces in our society are very invested in making sure that you experience this kind of insane, incoherent, totally needless racial anxiety.
They want you to know that every moment, or they want you to think anyway, that every moment Everything you do, everything you say, everything you think, every interaction in your life, no matter how seemingly innocuous, is completely fraught with racial implications.
They are trying to create racial tension where it doesn't exist.
That's the kind of sinister underpinning of even something as stupid and admittedly hilarious as this NPR article about emojis.
They are going to people who actually, in their everyday life, in reality, experience almost no racial tension at all.
There's no problem.
They're just living their lives.
And whether they're black, white, whatever race they are, it doesn't really come up.
It doesn't create any problems for them.
And so you have to go looking for the problems.
And looking quite desperately.
The picking up every single rock, looking under every rock, looking in every crevice and corner to find something.
And then they find it with emojis.
And finally, this brings us back in a very neat and symmetrical way, I think, to our first show of the week where I talked about my recent experience in a third world country where we were last week.
And people there, as I said, you know, they As comes as no surprise, they live in shacks made of spare sheet metal.
They drink water tainted by sewage.
They watch their children starve and die from preventable diseases.
I mean, they live quite horrifying lives of profound suffering.
And this is not just a small minority of people living this way in the world.
This, in fact, is how most people live in the world.
And it's how most people in history have lived.
So we here in the West, in our comfort and luxury, we are in a small and privileged minority, no matter what your race is.
And we live now in obscene, unprecedented comfort and luxury, and now decadence.
And rather than be grateful for that, and appreciate it, and say to our own ancestors and the people who built this country, well, geez, thanks for this, You know, thanks for establishing this civilization, this country, where, you know, I can live in a home with air conditioning, and I can do things like turn on my faucet and drink the water, which that alone, you want to talk about privilege, that alone compared to how most people live is an enormous privilege.
Rather than be grateful for it and say thank you, we go looking for problems.
And some of us live lives so devoid of actual problems that we have to become as desperate as this, making a problem out of emojis.
And that perhaps tells you everything you need to know about Western culture, and especially about NPR.
Now, let's get to our five headlines.
And here's one.
GetUpside.
My listeners are earning cash back for every gallon of gas every time they fill up.
All you have to do is download the GetUpside app in the App Store or Google Play right now.
And it's very simple.
You're using promo code WALSH for 25 cents per gallon or more on your first fill up.
Cash back.
Don't pay full price of the pump anymore.
Get cash back using GetUpside.
All you gotta do is download the free app.
Use promo code WALSH for 25 cents per gallon or more on your first tank.
And I've talked to people who drive a lot and they're making as much as $200, $300 a year in cash back.
And if you're thinking there must be some kind of catch, there's got to be red tape to this thing.
What's the fine print?
There's no catch.
The cash is added right back to your account.
You can cash out anytime to your bank account, PayPal.
You can get an e-gift card to Amazon.
And it's as simple as that, as easy as that.
It's free money.
Why not take it?
Just download the free GetUpside app and use promo code WALSH to get 25 cents per gallon or more cash back on your first tank.
That's code WALSH.
Well, to begin with, you heard about my Texas A&M event last night, a speech that was supposed to be infiltrated by the left, and we had their whole written-out plan that I shared with you.
It was a pretty interesting plan.
It was a good plan.
They had it all.
They had it all written out.
They were going to sneak in.
They had the speakers.
They were going to smuggle in somehow.
They were coming in their heterosexual, cisgender uniforms.
They were going to make their way into the crowd and disrupt it.
And so I was quite prepared for that.
And then, you know, we get to the event.
And it's a great event.
It's a big, big crowd.
You know, I think we had over 500 people, which is great.
It's not all that long ago that I would do events and there'd be like 20 people in the crowd.
So this is a little bit of a change there.
The thing is, people will ask me, oh, do you get nervous speaking in front of large crowds?
No, the problem is small crowds.
You want to know what nerves are like.
Awkwardness when delivering a speech, be in a large room with like 20 people and a lot of empty seats.
That's the problem.
Fill all the seats and there's no problem at all.
I can speak in front of 10,000 people, no problem.
I'd rather speak in front of 10,000 than 10,000 actually.
So that was all great and it gave the speech I was waiting at any moment for the leftists, the trans activists to Initiate their plan and of course they never did nothing happened at all Much to my disappointment And then we finally get to the Q&A when as always, you know, we're it's if you if you Want to argue with me if you disagree with my point of view if you want to debate me if you want to try to embarrass me you know it all all of the horrible and bigoted things that I've just said if you want to point by point rebut and refute and debunk it you can do that and
And we actually, at every YAF event, people who disagree are invited to the front of the line.
So we're going to make sure that you get your chance to say something.
And not only do they not stand up and disrupt the event, none of them Got, took the microphone to argue with me.
Except for one guy, which was sort of an interesting exchange, someone who identified as trans, and he did, and you can watch it if you go to Yaf's YouTube channel, you can see the video, the whole speech, and you can also see the Q&A, and you can see this interaction, which was interesting and a little bit confusing.
Because this guy comes up and he is, I mean, I'll say he is not wearing the heterosexual uniform.
Exactly.
But he gets up there and he identifies as trans, but he says he actually agrees with everything that I said, which I was kind of surprised to hear.
And then we kind of started going back and forth and it became clear through the conversation that he actually doesn't agree with me at all.
I think what he was trying to say is that Is that he doesn't agree with me, but he actually, after listening to me, doesn't think that I'm a horrific monster.
I think that's what he was trying to get to.
But I had this back and forth with him a little bit and, you know, I asked him, well, do you think that there are, because he was accusing me of oversimplifying matters and making things too simple, making the issue of sex and gender too simple.
And my point is that, no, I'm not simplifying it.
It is, in fact, just a simple subject.
There are two sexes, male and female.
It's binary.
That's it.
So, that's a simple fact.
There are a lot of specifics we can get into when we want to get into the specifics of the human body and how the body works and, you know, that's complicated in a certain way.
But the fact of males and females, that is simple.
And so I asked him if he thinks that there are just males and females in the world, or are there other categories?
And he said, no, there's not just males and females.
It's non-binary.
There are other categories.
And I said, OK, what other categories are there besides males and females?
And he wasn't able to provide one.
So we went back and forth, and the conversation didn't really go anywhere.
Because what you find out, and I respect this guy at least for getting up and getting behind the microphone, because nobody else was willing to do it on his side.
But what you find out when you talk to people, Who are proponents of gender ideology.
It's that they really just have no idea what they think.
They have no clue.
They're totally confused.
They don't even really understand what their position is supposed to be.
And yet they're never challenged.
You know, they kind of exist in this bubble And it's very easy to puncture the bubble, but no one ever does it.
And so all you have to do is ask very simple questions and you sort of see their whole worldview shake and tumble and crumble.
All right.
This is from...
Yahoo says the nation's relentless culture wars appear to have taken the toll, even on the NFL, with a large number of Republicans saying they have soured on the league and expressed disapproval of its efforts to improve the treatment of black players.
There's no bias in the way this is being presented, right?
Professional football remains extremely popular.
The poll just found just more than half of American adults say they regard themselves as fans, and an additional 15% say they're not fans but plan to watch the Super Bowl, which will be played on Sunday.
But the league's popularity has eroded somewhat in recent years, the poll found.
About one-third of those surveyed nationwide said they are less of a fan now than they were five years ago, compared with about one in eight who said they're bigger fans now.
The poll can't conclusively say why that decline has occurred, but two questions about the NFL's handling of issues involving race provide some strong hints.
People who say they are less of a fan now than they were five years ago are more than twice as likely as everyone else to say the NFL is doing, quote, too much to show respect for its black players.
They're also significantly less likely to approve of the league's ruining rule, which for the last two decades has required NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching positions and certain other high-level jobs.
So this is talking about media bias.
We had NPR and now here's Yahoo or whoever sent this poll around.
I think it was Los Angeles Times.
Yeah, Los Angeles Times.
The way the question is framed is, is the league doing too much to respect black players?
And so apparently a lot of Republicans are answering yes on the poll, if you believe the poll results at all, only because they know what's really being asked.
So the Rooney rule, for example, that's what that question refers to, something like that.
An affirmative action policy in the NFL.
Affirmative action in the NFL in a league that is predominantly black already.
Where the vast majority of the high-paid, millionaire, famous athletes are black.
60% of the NFL is comprised of black athletes, even though black people are 13% of the population.
So, massive over-representation in the NFL.
Which is fine.
I mean, it's fine with me, because I don't think that your job should be determined by your skin color.
Why all those black players who make it on those teams and into those positions, why are they there?
Well, because they're really, really good athletes.
And that's how they win those positions.
But the problem with the Rooney Rule, something like that, is it that too much is being done to respect black people?
Is that the issue?
Now, that is what the question is referring to.
That's what it's actually getting at.
That's of course an extremely biased way of misleading and absurdly dishonest way of presenting it.
The issue isn't that too much is being done to respect black people.
The issue is that a rule like that is totally unnecessary for one thing.
It doesn't actually respect black people at all.
Because it treats them as though they need this extra, you know, if you were to analyze people just on the merits, they wouldn't get the job.
So it's actually quite disrespectful to the people that it's supposedly trying to respect.
And of course, it also disrespects white people who are being specifically excluded by rules like this.
So even with the poll being biased in the way it presents the information, the truth is that, yeah, people are Really tired of having ideology shoved in their face everywhere they go, and especially in sports.
This is why it becomes such an issue in sports, is because this is one place where for years, for decades, you know, people went to escape all that.
It's supposed to be escapism.
And when you start putting politics and ideology even there, it becomes even more frustrating for people.
Because the whole point is to get away from that.
That's kind of the beauty of sports, I think, or that should be the beauty of it.
It's like you go to a stadium, you know, like I've gone to the Ravens Stadium in Baltimore, and everybody there is kind of, they're there for the same reason, and most of the people are your fans of the same team.
And there's, I talk about all the time the problem of there being no unity in this culture because there's nothing to unite around.
Well, when you're in the stadium for three hours, everyone is uniting around the fact that they're a fan of this team.
It's silly.
It's kind of frivolous.
It's not the kind of unity that you can build a country around.
Once you leave the stadium, it kind of goes away and doesn't matter anymore.
But at least for those three hours, it's sort of an escape from everything else.
And you're in the stadium and everyone's focused on this kind of very simple thing.
Simple yet entertaining thing.
And you can bring your kids there and it can be a bonding thing with your fathers and sons and everything else.
That's what people like sports for.
And the fact that it's being taken away from them makes them even more frustrated.
You know, it's even getting to me at this point.
I mean, I'm a huge...
Football fan, as I've said before.
And I've confessed in the past that I've dumped the NBA.
Most Hollywood movies I don't watch anymore.
I have no problem leaving most of this stuff behind because I don't want to be preached to.
But the NFL was one of the final things I was kind of holding on to because I've always been such a big football fan.
And I was trying to block out all of the indoctrination, all the propaganda, because I just want to watch the game.
And this year, even me, in this season, I kind of started to lose interest because it's just too much.
All right, this is from the Daily Wire.
It says, a Christian pastor from Utah trended nationally on social media for hours on Tuesday over a tweet he posted concerning female modesty.
Though Pastor Brian Save received much support from men and women alike, he became a target for outraged feminists, some of whom sent Save racy photos of their breasts and other body parts.
Trying to dunk on this man by sending naked pictures of themselves.
All right.
Dear Lady started the tweet that set off Twitter.
There is no reason whatsoever for you to post pictures of yourself in low-cut shirts, bikinis, bra and underwear, or anything similar, ever.
Not to show your weight loss journey, not to show your newborn baby, not to document your birth story.
The post is signed off, your brothers.
People didn't like that, to say the least.
A mocking Dear Brian hashtag trended for hours after the post was published and numerous male and female feminists scolded the pastor for having what they characterized as an unwanted opinion about female modesty.
The tweet has been quote tweeted nearly 20,000 times.
Here's a taste of the outrage reported by The Blaze.
MSNBC contributor Katie Feng says, I'm a proud member of the congregation of the Holy Church of mind your own damn business.
You should try it sometime.
My body, my choice.
Well, why don't you mind your business about his opinion?
So what you wear is none of his business.
Well, his opinion about what you're wearing is none of your business by that logic.
If you're committed to this minding your own business thing, what do you care what this guy's tweeting?
Why do you have to respond to it?
Just his opinion.
He's not doing anything to you.
He's not harming you.
He's not preventing you from walking around dressing however you want.
If you want to dress like a hussy, he's not physically preventing you from doing so.
You mind your own business.
This is always my question to people.
Anytime you get this rejoinder of, oh, why do you care so much?
Why do you care that I care?
I'll turn it right back around on you.
If it's silly for me to care, how much sillier is it for you that you care that I care?
Because now we have two degrees here.
John Pavlovitz, who's an anti-Trump author and also claims to be a Christian pastor,
says pastors like you are why the church is known for misogyny and the subjugation of
women more than empathy and equity.
You should try the sacred ministry of minding your own damn business.
Liberal author Tara Dublin says, "Dear Brian, your invisible sky daddy doesn't care how
you like to do it, and neither does anyone else.
You repressed weirdo."
No one is going to share anything with you, perv.
Please get therapy on how to treat women as the human beings we are.
And then it goes on from there, lots of other responses.
Now, and many of the responses, we talk about the incoherence of the left, they're accusing him of being a perv, and he needs to mind his own business, and yet they're also sending him their naked photos.
Mind your own business, you perv!
Here's my naked photo.
Now, I'm not really interested in the non-Christian response to this.
You know, the kind of secular response, mocking virtue, and that kind of thing.
That doesn't interest me.
I know that sort of the godless heathens are going to react this way to any promotion of Christian virtue.
And that's a separate subject, and that is kind of boring, and I don't really care about that.
For me, the bigger issue, when I was looking at the reaction to this guy's tweet about monasty, it's the other Christians, the other professed Christians, like John Pavlovitz, and there were a lot of others, many of them claiming to be pastors or whatever else, a lot of people, you know, announcing, well, I'm a Christian, and I find this abhorrent.
A Christian pastor talking about modesty?
This is only scandalous to us these days in the church as it stands right now.
Because many people go to churches where their pastors never challenge them at all.
Their pastors never exhort them to holiness at all.
Because that's really what he's talking about.
This is not holier than thou.
This is not saying I'm better than you.
Because that's another thing to keep in mind.
Every time someone promotes a virtue or says, hey, here's something that we should be doing, it's not in and of itself self-righteous or holier than thou.
Unless they say, oh, I'm the perfect example that you all should be following.
Hey, everybody, you're not acting like me, and you should be.
Follow me as an example.
Now, if somebody says that, then yeah, it's holier-than-thou and self-righteous.
But if they simply say, here is the appropriate course of action that we should be following.
Here's the appropriate behavior.
Here's what virtue is, and this is what we should be doing.
There's nothing self-righteous about that.
And that's what pastors are supposed to do.
So in a way, I kind of understand if you're scandalized by this as a Christian and you go to one of these churches where, or you allegedly attend one, at least in theory you attend a church like this, maybe you're a member of one and you go once every three years or something, but whenever you do show up and the pastor gets up there and he never says anything about sin.
He never challenges you for your own behavior.
He never condemns evil of any kind.
He never exhorts anyone to holiness.
And so you've never encountered this at all.
And then you hear a pastor doing this and you're shocked.
But I'm here to tell you that this is what pastors are supposed to do.
This is literally their job.
There was a time when every pastor in the church would do this.
Anytime you go to church on Sunday, you would hear messages like this.
You go back 50 years ago, and even if there was disagreement on the subject, nobody would be shocked that a Christian pastor is promoting modesty.
Modesty, chastity, these are core virtues.
Should be nothing shocking about it.
And especially to have Christian women mocking men who are trying to live with chastity and virtue.
Because that's part of the message here, right?
And again, if you're not a Christian, I understand you can laugh and smirk at this all you want, but I'm not talking to you.
So this is a mind-your-own-damn-business sort of conversation now.
So you can butt out.
If you're not in the church, but if you are a Christian, then you should know that one of our obligations as Christians is to guard each other's hearts.
It's one of our obligations.
It's something we should be always trying to do.
That's what it means to love each other, to love people.
It's loving is willing the good of the other.
Loving someone is wanting them to be holy.
You know, it's wanting to help them towards holiness.
And that's one of the big reasons why we're supposed to exercise modesty.
And not just in dress either.
Okay?
You know, for example, if you have a lot of money, and you go out of your way to show off your money, and you're driving around in a really gaudy car, and you're just whatever, you're constantly showing off how much money you have.
Well, that is immodest.
It's also sinful, and for the same reason, largely.
In this case, you're not guarding your brother or your sister's heart.
What you're doing is you're causing people to feel envy, and you're doing it intentionally.
You want them to be envious of you.
You are trying to get them to tumble into sin, which is a bad thing as a Christian, and that's this pastor's point.
is that just like you should not be trying to make your fellow Christians envious, you also shouldn't be trying to foster feelings of lust or anything like that.
But I think part of the problem here also is that many women Men and women in our culture today have no understanding of each other because we've been told that men and women are exactly the same.
And so women who've bought into this, this is what they think, that men are exactly the same as them.
And so they don't understand men, they don't understand male sexuality, they don't understand how sort of visual men are, because they just assume that, well, men are just like me.
And they hear a message like this and they find it absurd.
And finally, one other point here.
Imagine a bunch of men sending nude and semi-nude photos to a woman on Twitter in order to get back at her for some opinion that she expressed.
Imagine that happening.
I mean, what's the story there if that happens?
The story is that this person is being horribly sexually harassed and everything else.
And so here's even more of the incoherence, because while we're told that men and women are exactly the same, and for the most part people have bought into that delusional idea, still, you know, if I were to suggest that this pastor is being sexually harassed by women who are sending nude photos to him, you know, people would laugh at that idea.
Even the people who say that men and women are exactly the same and should be treated the same, they'll laugh at it, because that's ridiculous.
Men can't be sexually harassed.
Oh, really?
Because if we reverse the roles here, everybody would agree that it's sexual harassment.
All right.
Are men and women the same or not?
You know, is the question.
Let's go from page six.
It says, Adele is being accused of transphobia for declaring at a woke gender neutral award show that she loves being a woman.
The Rolling in the Deep singer made the remark at Tuesday's Brit Awards that she collected the prize for Artist of the Year, a newly created category merging the old Best Male and Best Female Artist Awards.
So they made sure to make the awards gender neutral now.
There's no Best Male and Best Female.
And why?
Because males and females don't exist.
And then she wins the award and she gets up there and she commits the grave sin of talking about the fact that she is a woman.
And we have that clip.
Listen to this.
The name of this award has changed, but I really love being a woman and being a female artist.
I do.
I do.
I'm really proud of us.
I really, really am.
Thank you so much.
That is transphobia, because as a woman now, you're not allowed to acknowledge that you are a woman.
And you're especially not permitted to be grateful for the fact that you're a woman.
You're not allowed to have any positive feelings about the fact that you're a woman.
And so she's being, she is, she is actually, this is a thing, that she is being condemned for transphobia because of what you just heard there.
And as far as I know, Adele has not, as far as I know, she hasn't responded to this controversy yet.
Other people have spoken up on her behalf, but she has not said anything.
And if this madness is ever going to end, then we need people like Adele to speak up.
She doesn't want to say anything in response to it, but she certainly knows how ridiculous this is.
And if the word misogyny means anything, then how could it not apply to this?
How is that not?
You're not allowed to talk about the fact that you're a woman?
You are not allowed to say, I'm grateful to be a woman?
We need people like Adele, just like J.K.
Rowling has, to speak up about this, because she knows that it's ridiculous.
And it's not going to stop until people like her.
You know, it's one thing for people like me, people on the right, people who are expected to have these views.
It's one thing for us to go out ranting and raving about it, which we have to do.
But we need people who are in the mainstream, like J.K.
Rowling.
She can't be the only one.
Because all of them know how crazy it is.
And if there's going to be a change, then it's going to happen with them.
All right, finally, we haven't played a woke TikTok video in a little while, so here's a good one.
Watch this.
So this is just one example of thin privilege.
And an example of how hard it is for women of size to find anything to wear.
You see all these racks upon racks of straight-size clothing.
Tons of options.
And then, for plus-size women, you have about six racks.
And even then, you have limited sizing.
We need to do better.
So there we go.
Thin privilege.
And also, I love the phrase, women of size, which makes about as much sense as people of color.
You know, people of color, people of size.
Well, here's the problem, is that everybody has a size.
Like, if you exist, then you have some sort of size, and we're all people of size.
And we all also have a color.
I'm actually, I am not, if you look at me, I may appear to be pale, but I do have a color.
I'm not some sort of translucent ghost sitting here, despite appearances at times.
So thin privilege, which is part of the story here, people looking desperately for problems in their lives, looking desperately to be victimized.
And this is not quite as absurd as resorting to emojis to find your source of victimization, but it's almost there.
If you're plus size, there are options for you.
That's kind of the funny thing.
If she goes over and she shows, oh, look at there.
There are no options for plus-size women.
What do you mean?
There's a whole section there.
There's plenty of options.
But if you want more options, then another way of looking at it is to, well, you could lose some weight.
It could be an incentive to lose weight, which would be a good thing because it's going to be healthier for you and you'll live longer.
Just a suggestion.
Let's get now to the comment section.
It's an act of humility and justice to say what you've done that you think is wrong.
It could be unwise timing wise, but I respect it on a moral level.
Yeah, well, a couple of things.
First of all, in a perfect world, in a sort of ideal society, all things being equal, you know, there wouldn't be a problem with someone offering an apology, a public apology.
At worst, it would be sort of useless, but there wouldn't be any real problem with it.
But we don't live in that society.
And so, as I've tried to explain many times, you know, The biggest problem with the public apology is that you are, it's the food, right?
It's the fuel that sustains the outrage mob and you are feeding it.
This is what they want.
This is what they need.
Not because they're interested in reconciliation, not because they want to forgive you, not because they're worried about your moral betterment, but because to them the apology is submission, it's surrender.
It's kind of their pound of flesh.
And it is what sustains them, and fuels them, and ensures that they're going to go off to the next person, and the next person, and the next person after that.
When you stop apologizing, you deprive them of oxygen.
You deprive them of the fuel that they need.
So that's one point.
The other point is, yeah, if you think you did something that was wrong, or if you have something in your past that comes to light, and you're embarrassed about it, well, you can acknowledge That it was wrong without apologizing.
So I'm not arguing that if the cancel mob comes after you for something, that you have to stand by and defend everything you've ever done.
You know, if they go digging for something deep in your past and they find something and say, hey, look at this thing that you did or said or whatever, you don't have to just despite them say, oh, yeah, I'll defend that.
I was right to do that.
That's not the point.
So, you can acknowledge that something was stupid or wrong or whatever, if it was.
Because the other thing you don't want them to do, you don't want them to goad you into defending something that, you know, you don't want to defend.
Or that's indefensible.
But you can do that without apologizing.
Because who are you apologizing to is always the question.
So when they dig up this thing on Joe Rogan, right, they've combed through thousands of hours of podcasts over the course of 13 or 14 years, and they find examples of him using bad language.
And they say, are you going to stand by this?
His response could be, well, do you stand by everything you've ever said in your life?
No, I don't stand by it any more than you stand by everything you've ever said.
Do I apologize to it?
Well, who am I apologizing to?
You show me who I'm supposed to apologize to, and I'll think about it.
But I'm not going to apologize to you, the mob.
You're not hurt by this.
Let's see.
Devin says, Matt, Rogan said directly to only apologize if you regret something.
It can be a political hit job and still have Rogan have regrets about what was shown.
Rogan is letting people know that he doesn't use the word regardless of context now.
So the apology is to anyone that agrees with his current view on the world to let them know where he now stands.
Well, once again, that's not OK.
You can even express regret about something without it being an apology.
So the apologies to anyone who agrees with his current view on the word?
Why do they need an apology?
I agree with his current view on the word, I suppose, but in the sense that I agree that people shouldn't use racial slurs, any racial slur, no matter who the targeted group is.
So if that's Joe Rogan's view on that word, then I agree with it.
I think most people do.
Does that mean that I'm owed an apology for him?
Because he used the word in the past?
No, it's ridiculous.
Zee Zavon says, Matt, since you asked, crack pipes, at least everywhere I know of anyway, are about a buck.
Literally a single dollar.
And then the chore, which is just chore boy kitchen scrubbers, lol, are another dollar.
What?
The chore?
So it's like two bucks total.
And almost no one is out there catching diseases or anything like that from used pipes.
There is literally no excuse or reason for any of this.
Okay, this is not the only person who did contact me with information about crack and crack pipes.
Maybe I should just be clear that I wasn't looking for this.
Some of the information, I have people emailing me with very specific information on the pricing of crack pipes.
Just to clarify, I was not asking for my own personal benefit.
But it is a question that I have when we hear that the Biden administration needs to fund crack pipes.
Even putting aside how fundamentally insane that is, it's like, what, can't, can people not afford to buy a crack pipe?
Even a crack head, they can't afford that?
How expensive can it be?
Apparently they're just a dollar.
So, you can run down to your local dollar store, go to Dollar Tree, and, you know, get a pack of five crack pipes for five bucks.
Finally, Scott says, how to escape an escape room.
Step one, promote your best-selling LGBT children's book, Johnny the Walrus, four times.
Step two, start eating frosted mini-wheats.
Step three, let Klavan do literally everything.
Yeah, we did do, you know, the shut-in is premiering tonight, and we had a shut-in-themed escape room that we did.
And you can find that video on Daily Wire's YouTube.
And you can see in that video that I do absolutely nothing at all.
Including, I make almost no effort to make the video itself entertaining.
But I did warn them about that ahead of time.
This is the second time I've been roped into doing an escape room.
And each time I tell them I'm terrible at them, I'm not going to do anything, I'm not going to be any help at all.
I won't even make this entertaining.
I'm just gonna, like, wander around.
And that's it.
And for some reason they keep roping me into this.
I don't get it.
But you can go watch the video.
Tonight is the night for The Daily Wire.
Why?
Because not only is it the world premiere of our first original film, Shut In, but we'll also be releasing two new teaser trailers for new movies coming this year.
We could be more excited to be making good on our promise of bringing you real entertainment, and we seriously hope that you tune in.
Shut In is a tale of redemption and an intense, suspenseful thriller that delivers riveting action without missing a beat.
Check out the trailer.
Laney?
Where have you been?
Jessica.
I can smell the weakness from here.
No!
Stop!
Let me out!
Please!
Don't you touch my kids!
Your daughter, she's very pretty.
I'm scared.
The film premieres tonight, February 10th at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central over at Daily Wire YouTube after this month's episode of Backstage.
Make sure you click the link in the description and turn on the notification bell so you don't miss it.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So today we cancel Dr. Susie D'Ambo, who you may remember as the mulleted communications professor who appeared on my episode of Dr. Phil.
She has been quite silent publicly ever since that episode aired, probably because she embarrassed herself to such an unfortunate degree.
In fact, she embarrassed herself even more than viewers of the show realized because her worst moments were left on the cutting room floor, which she should be grateful for.
Well, now she's back, this time on Dr. Phil's podcast, to reflect on that experience and also to explain why I'm such a horrible and wrong and evil person.
Now, you notice how she waits until I'm 3,000 miles away before she tries to make this case?
With me safely out of the room and out of the state, she can launch her missiles, which she does throughout the course of an hour-long interview.
We'll play just a few clips, starting with this piece from the beginning of the discussion.
Listen to this.
Why is this such a divisive issue?
Because I think it is a divisive issue.
Yeah, no, I think you're totally right.
And it's good to talk about this example in addition to what you said, because it's an example of how I approach communication and conflict in general.
Well, there's at least two reasons it's divisive.
First, you have people like Matt Walsh and his team capitalizing and exploiting the very real uncertainty that people can feel and face when there is a culture change like this.
For me, I think it makes total sense to have people be fearful around something like gender pronouns or
personal pronouns and to feel anxiety when they learn about that because it can question their
fundamental core beliefs.
So this is an example of how she approaches communication and conflict, she says.
She approaches communication and conflict by waiting three weeks to come up with any kind of counter-argument to someone, and then at that point presenting the counter-argument while the other person is out of the room.
That's her communication and conflict resolution strategy as someone who is an expert in the field.
She also, again as a communications expert, immediately attacks her opponent's perceived motivations rather than addressing the actual arguments.
And you're going to notice that throughout all the clips we play, is that that's all she does, is go after what she perceives to be my motivation while saying nothing about the arguments that I presented.
In this case, she says that I'm exploitative.
I'm exploiting the fear that people feel when they, quote, learn about personal pronouns because this new information is causing them to, quote, question their core beliefs.
Okay, well, first of all, nobody is learning about personal pronouns for the first time.
No one learned about pronouns from Dr. Phil.
No one is learning about pronouns from the, you know, the gender ideologues.
We already knew about that.
We aren't confused by pronouns or afraid of them.
We're all quite familiar with the concept.
It is you, Susie, who are confused.
See, you think that words are your little pets, which you can take personal ownership of.
And you think that the meaning of words is entirely subjective, that each person can make up their own meaning as they go along.
But what you don't understand as a communications professor is that if language is entirely subjective, if there's no set definition for these words, then communication is impossible.
Because literally the whole point of language has just been removed, causing communication to collapse and break down.
There has to be a shared understanding of what the words mean or there's no way to convey meaning to anybody if we all have our own meaning for the words that we're using.
So when you say that a man is a she, and I ask you, what do you mean by that?
How is that person a she?
And you have no answer for that question.
You have made communication impossible because you are using words apart from their objective meaning without any idea of what your new meaning even is.
You have not put anything forward that causes anyone to question their core beliefs.
At no point have you or anyone on your side or anyone who pushes gender ideology ever said anything That makes someone go, wow, that's a great point.
I never thought of it like that.
Sending them into some kind of existential crisis where they begin to reanalyze everything they thought they knew.
This has never happened.
Because nothing that you say means anything.
If you're causing people to question their core beliefs, it's not by presenting arguments, but it's by berating and cajoling and threatening and coercing them into giving up their core beliefs out of fear of social alienation and shame.
So then who exactly is exploiting fear in this case?
Let's listen to the next clip.
And it's really frustrating to me too, especially around the pronoun episode and the reaction that people had to that.
So you laying out how vast your audience is means you are the perfect platform to present multiple viewpoints, in my view, because you're reaching the most people.
Um, and the way we need to hear both of the are both many different sides of an issue so that people can make a decision for themselves.
And when we shut down, people are from hearing other kinds of perspectives.
It's just not productive to me and it's really boring, and it's usually motivated by the need for validation from one side.
That's not genuine, in my view, I mean I could go on and on about this, especially with regard to our episode but I don't agree.
I mean, I think that providing that platform is a good thing.
On your show, I wonder if maybe I didn't do my job well enough because they think that he won.
And I was like, hmm, I didn't think that.
Yeah, well, I mean, you said it there, not me.
If it makes you feel better, Susie, you did have an impossible job.
You did lose, you know, the argument, but your job was to defend and legitimize something that is fundamentally incoherent.
There's no way to do that.
There's no way to win that argument.
The only way that you win is if the other side surrenders ahead of time.
And that's what you've come to expect from these conversations, because it's what most people do.
It didn't happen in our case, and that's why you were so flustered.
She said in the earlier clip that when she's talking to her students, especially those from rural areas, and introducing the gender pronoun concept to them, that she's introducing something that they've never heard before.
You know?
But that's not true.
As we covered, everyone has heard of pronouns before.
And the more familiar you are with the concept, and with the rules of grammar generally, the more impervious you are to the nonsense that people like Susie and her ilk spew on the subject.
But speaking of people being introduced to things for the first time, it is Susie and the people on her side who have literally never been challenged on their views by anyone ever in their lives.
That's why they collapse so easily.
That's why they run away claiming that they've been traumatized.
People on my side, we've all, this is the advantage that we have, we've all heard and confronted gender ideology a million times.
We can't escape it.
So you can't surprise us.
We've heard all of it.
We hear all of this every day.
Everywhere we go.
How could we not?
It's everywhere.
There is no bubble available where you can go inside it and escape this nonsense.
But these people, they all live in bubbles where the opposing side does not exist.
That's actually available to them.
That's an option.
Most of the time.
And that's why they're so unprepared to deal with challenges.
The reason people thought that I won the argument is because, well, because I won it.
But I won it simply because I asked questions about the opposing side's position, which nobody on the opposing side could answer because they've never been asked those questions before.
Because for most of them on that stage, and most of them generally, it's probably like the first time they've ever even had a conversation with someone who disagrees with them.
Let's listen to one more clip here.
You did a good thing by, I didn't really know who Matt Walsh was that well before I went on the show, but I'm real glad that I did that and that you had him on because people need to hear what he is talking about.
Now my dilemma, and I've been thinking about this since the show, and I don't know that I'll have a concrete answer for you yet, but it's been on my mind, is how I think it's important to have him on and I wish he does.
They don't play fair.
He's not playing fair.
He's yelling.
And so I've been sorting through the dilemma of how to get people to actually listen to the words he's saying.
And with me, I don't care if you're conservative thinking or you don't like personal pronouns.
It's not the outcome.
It's how he got to that outcome because his argument made no sense.
And it was exploiting fear, and it was a lot of generalizations.
And that's why I feel like you needed to have him on.
Because I want people to hear that, and I don't know that that happened.
Ah, okay.
Well, she wants people to hear my arguments, she says.
Well, we can agree on that point, at least.
I want people to hear them, too.
Though she says that I didn't play fair because I was yelling.
Except I never yelled at any point during that episode.
And this is how you know you lost the argument, by the way?
If after the fact, you're complaining that your opponent wasn't being fair.
It's like I said at the beginning.
Once you start complaining about the refs, you know, after the game, it wasn't fair, they missed that call.
You know that your team lost.
Now, if I had run up and snatched all their microphones or something and said, you can't say anything, that might qualify as not playing fair.
That also would have been kind of funny, and I might as well have taken their microphones because they weren't saying anything anyway.
But far from snatching their microphones, I was actually inviting them to speak more by asking them questions about their position.
They could not answer those questions because their position is fundamentally incoherent.
Which is not my fault.
Don't take it out on me, Susie.
But for now, I do have to say to Susie Diembo that you are once again cancelled.
I'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show,
Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.
Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
Our Technical Director is Austin Stevens.
Production Manager, Pavel 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.
