Ep. 966 - Trans Activists Want To Kill Me For Making A Documentary
Today on the Matt Walsh show, trans-activists want to kill me for making What Is A Woman. They’ve told me this themselves. What does that say about gender ideology? Also, Texas legislators move to ban child drag shows. That’s a law that shouldn’t be needed, but it is. And AOC officially endorsed the term Latinx. In our Daily Cancellation, a college professor cancels pirates. Including fictional pirates. Apparently they weren’t woke enough. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh show.
Watch my new Daily Wire original documentary “What Is A Woman?” at whatisawoman.com.
I am a beloved LGBTQ+ and children’s author. Reserve your copy of Johnny The Walrus here: https://utm.io/uevUc.
Join Matt and the Daily Wire crew for Backstage Live At The Ryman on June 29th. Get your tickets now: https://utm.io/uezFr
—
Today’s Sponsors:
Charity Mobile sends 5% of your monthly plan price to the Pro-Life charity of your choice. Mention offer code WALSH when you call 1-877-474-3662 or chat online at charitymobile.com.
Download the FREE Upside app with promo code 'WALSH' and earn 25¢ or more CASH BACK on your first tank.
Tired of paying high interest rates on your credit card debt? Check out LightStream. Receive a special interest rate discount at www.LightStream.com/WALSH.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Join the fight for life today by switching to Charity Mobile.
Well, my new film, What Is A Woman, is now the most successful piece of content The Daily Wire has ever produced.
Record numbers of people have watched it.
The film has been trending online for days.
It's easily one of the most talked about and debated films of the year.
It's been an enormous smash success and already made, I think, an immediate and seismic impact on the culture.
None of this would have been possible without you guys in the audience supporting the film and supporting our mission more broadly by subscribing to The Daily Wire.
You know, we're trying to build something so that we can continue making films like What Is A Woman and other sorts of films and pieces of content that will impact the culture in different but still important ways.
So if you haven't subscribed yet, I'd ask you to consider going to whatisawoman.com and getting signed up.
We may not have the whole, you know, extensive content library of like Netflix, not yet anyway, but we're on a mission and we're making art that matters.
We're kind of the, um, the way I look at it is kind of the scrappy underdogs, the unwelcome Intruders in the subscription streaming world right now, but there's a lot of fun to be had in that role That's the good news and it enables us to make things that literally nobody else anywhere else could or would ever make Like what is one?
Now, one of the reasons why nobody would make what is a woman is because the subject matter is, of course, radioactive.
I mean, gender ideology is the ultimate third rail.
It's supercharged, considered untouchable by most people.
There are increasing numbers of people, I think, who will kind of dance around the edges of the issue, talk about sports teams and bathrooms and that sort of thing.
But very few people will go after the heart of this thing.
It's one thing to suggest that males don't belong in women's bathrooms.
It's another thing to call into question the actual underlying premise of gender ideology and transgenderism.
I think as it turns out, even if you're trying to stay around the edges, it doesn't really work because you can't make an argument against males in women's bathrooms without questioning the underlying premise.
If you're trying to keep the underlying premise intact and say nothing about that, then you've already surrendered the entire issue.
So, that's what we try to do in this film, is go after the underlying premise, and because we succeeded so dramatically in exposing the hollowness at the core of this ideology, and because we knew we had succeeded, we also knew that there would be blowback, you know, to releasing this.
Though of course, there was never any thought given to not releasing it.
This is a bomb, in effect, metaphorically, and it's a bomb that we knew we had to detonate, come what may.
And as for what is coming my way now, there are the expected things that we've talked about, you know, coordinated campaigns to de-platform me, lies and smears and defamation being spread about me, even to the point of leftists Photoshopping tweets to try to embarrass and libel me.
Every day I see a new tweet that I never tweeted that's making the rounds online.
This was the extent of the backlash until the last day or two when the death threats started rolling in.
We have our security team tracking those and the police have been notified.
Might have a little bit more specific on those threats soon, but for now I'll just leave it at that.
Also, I should note that I'm an avid fan of the Second Amendment and more than willing to make full use of my constitutional rights should any of these keyboard warriors decide to try to, you know, try their luck in the real world.
But the death threats are sometimes not as revealing as the death wishes.
And there are a great many of those on Twitter right now directed at me.
Most people are, most people anyway, are hesitant to make explicit physical threats.
And the people who have not been hesitant to make those physical threats are going to learn why they ought to have been.
But a lot of people are, you know, much more confident and feel a lot better about, especially trans activists, who are some of the most vicious and cowardly people on the planet.
They're not as shy about telling you what they hope happens to you, because they feel like that gives them a little bit of cover.
So just a few examples.
I mentioned the death threats that we've been getting on Twitter yesterday.
I mentioned it.
And here's how leftists and trans activists responded.
I'm going to read a few here, just a few examples.
One says, seeing fascist bigots scared for their life is so satisfying.
Another, hopefully the cops are as effective at protecting you and your family as they were at protecting the children and teachers in Uvalde.
Another says, you deserve all of it.
Another says, you deserve worse.
Another says, haha, good, I look forward to hearing how the cops stood around and watched.
Another says, hopefully some of those threats have some weight behind them.
Another says, rotten hell, I hope somebody carries them out.
Another one says, LMFAO, hope someone pulls through when you're actively discrediting and threatening the lives of thousands of trans people all over.
You deserve to get your shit rocked.
Another one says, fingers crossed they're credible.
And you get the idea.
Hundreds more where that came from.
I mean, hundreds.
They're also posting this stuff in their own circles online.
For example, one account posted a fake obituary for me, which said, Breaking!
American political commentator and podcaster Matt Walsh has passed away in his Tennessee home.
Further details have yet to be determined.
And I responded to that post with a link to whatiswoman.com, and they immediately deleted it.
Another account posted, RT if you think Matt Walsh should never enjoy another moment of peace as long as he lives.
That tweet had 3,000 likes.
And I responded to that one with a link to the website as well, and he also deleted it.
There are again hundreds if not thousands of tweets like this.
A great many of them are, apparently without a hint of sarcasm or irony, accusing me of committing genocide.
That's their words.
Committing genocide against trans people.
And of course I deserve to die.
They say I've committed genocide with a documentary.
My documentary is apparently, it's like that movie The Ring, you know, remember that in the early 2000s where if you watched it, a monster would come out of the screen and kill you in some unspecified but really disturbing way?
That's what they seem to think anyway.
But they could find out for sure if they went to whatisawoman.com and became a subscriber today.
Now, I want to make just a few points about this.
And the first is that there are some who will sort of dismiss this by saying that, well, this is how people are on the internet.
Happens on both sides, they'll say.
And that's not totally true.
I mean, even if it was, it wouldn't make it okay, obviously, but that's not totally true.
Yes, I mean, anyone on any side of any issue may receive a death threat or two if they get a lot of negative attention for something they said.
And yes, there are anonymous trolls posting heinous stuff on both sides.
But, anyone who's ever poked the gender ideology beehive knows that trans activists are uniquely vicious and feel especially entitled to say and do whatever they want.
As someone who has a lot of experience poking various beehives, including literal beehives, as we talked about yesterday, I can say for sure that no group is quite like the trans activists in this regard.
I mean, even take BLM.
We know what BLM is willing to do.
Well, I've said a lot of things and done a lot of things to upset BLM, and I've gotten the blowback for it, but it's never quite like this.
So, why is it like this with the left-wing trans activists?
Well, it's partly because they're amoral narcissists, partly because they've been emboldened by social media platforms and by every other institution to act out in whatever way they want without consequence, and it's partly because, as previously mentioned, They've told themselves this delusional story, and been told this delusional story, that anyone who criticizes their worldview is a clear and present danger to their very physical existence.
One trans activist summarized this delusion quite well in response to my tweet about the death threats I'd received.
And it said, here's the thing.
We trans people are not prepared to be removed from society.
The fact that you were prepared for death threats means that this is an operation, a planned move to kill us.
You are inciting violence.
We are backed into a corner with a knife to our throat.
You see, with my documentary, I have backed them into a corner with a knife to their throat.
And this gives them the moral right to kill my whole family.
They really believe that.
At least, they want to believe it, and they've worked very hard to fool themselves into taking this kind of delusional, hysterical nonsense seriously.
This is the consequence, by the way, the intended consequence of the words are violence nonsense.
Because it empowers people like this.
It gives them the excuse to be even more vile and vicious than they were already inclined to be.
It's also the consequence of our societal obsession with affirmation.
You know, these activists have come to believe that they have a God-given human right to be affirmed.
That is, to have everyone in the world agree with them and reinforce their self-perception.
And they are so convinced of this notion that when they encounter a non-affirming opinion or thought or film, they take it as a threat to their lives.
They don't know how to not be affirmed, right?
Like, most of us... I encounter stuff all the time that doesn't exactly affirm me and my beliefs.
So, that's part of life.
I don't break down into tears over it.
I don't take it as, it's gonna kill me.
Like, there are no words you can say to me that the words themselves will kill me.
But over here, this is the attitude.
They don't know how to operate in a world that is anything less than 100% affirming all the time, everywhere, with no exceptions.
Hollywood makes hundreds of movies and shows every year that suck up to them.
One film is released on a platform they aren't even subscribed to, which takes the opposite approach, and they feel it gives them moral license to murder the person responsible for it.
When I say the left wants you dead, I mean I say it from experience, and it is actually true.
And that brings me to my final point, and I want to be very clear about this to the people who are posting these things and making these threads.
First of all, you don't scare me.
Your ideology is a threat to society, to children, to women, to all people, to reality itself.
I'm never going to stop pointing that out or fighting against you and against everything you believe.
This reaction only cements me even more in my convictions.
It radicalizes me even more than I already was.
And I didn't think that I could be any more radical about it.
And it makes me even more convinced than ever that this film is necessary and important.
And I'm so happy we made it.
Couldn't be happier.
And I'll tell you this.
The more you keep this up, the more offensive my next film is going to be.
You're doing this to yourselves.
Actions have consequences.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, with the price of gas these days, it may seem like there's no upside at the pump, but there is.
The upside is Upside.
It's the new app that you have to get.
My listeners are earning cash back for every gallon of gas every time they fill up.
Don't pay full price at the pump anymore.
Get cash back using Upside.
All you gotta do is download the app for free.
Use promo code WALSH for 25 cents per gallon or more on your first tank.
And it's not just for gas.
You can earn cash back at grocery stores, restaurants.
You can earn it with takeout also.
You can cash out anytime to your bank account or an e-gift card for select retailers and brands.
Very simple, very easy.
You get money back.
There's no...
No downside.
All upside.
Just download the free Upside app and use promo code WALSH to get 25 cents per gallon or more cash back on your first tank.
Just use my promo code WALSH right now.
Again, that's the Upside app.
Go get it.
Use code WALSH.
All right, let's talk about some good news.
How about that for a change?
So here's some good news.
This is from Daily Wire.
It says, a Texas state legislator announced on Monday that he'll be introducing legislation to ban children from being subjected to drag shows after images from a bar inside Texas went viral over the weekend and sparked national outrage.
We talked about this yesterday, obviously, to lead the show, the drag show for children at a bar in Texas.
State Representative Brian Slayton says, the events of this past weekend were horrifying and show a disturbing trend in which perverted adults are obsessed with sexualizing young children.
As a father of two young children, I would never take my children to a drag show, and I know Speaker Dade Phelan and the rest of my Republican colleagues wouldn't either.
Slayton's remarks come after a gay bar in Dallas generated national outrage with the drag show we talked about.
Slayton continued by noting that it was not enough for Texas Republicans to protect their own children and it was their responsibility to put an end to the sexualization that was happening across Texas.
Quote, I promised my voters that I would stand up for their values and fight to protect Texas kids.
I was re-elected on that promise and I intend to keep it by authoring legislation to defend kids from being subjected to drag shows and other inappropriate events.
I think this is great for a couple of reasons, and we'll talk about that, but I will also note that, as mentioned yesterday, there already is legislation on the books in Texas that makes this illegal.
It's actually, there's lots of legislation that makes this illegal everywhere, because this is sexual exploitation of children.
And at least according to the letter of the law, even if the law isn't enforced, sexual exploitation of children is illegal everywhere.
Still goes on because the law is not enforced, but it is illegal.
And then in Texas in particular, they passed a law last year that specifically states that quote-unquote sexually oriented businesses And a gay bar with a big neon sign that says it's not going to lick itself certainly qualifies as a sexually oriented business.
Sexually oriented businesses in Texas, according to a law passed last year, cannot accept patrons under the age of 21, not even 18 year olds.
And so that's enough right there to enforce the law.
You could revoke their license, arrest people.
But they're not going to do that, and so, you know, maybe you come up with legislation that's much more explicit and targeted and says, no, no, no, okay, just so you know, you're not allowed to bring children to a drag show.
We shouldn't need to be that specific about it, because it should be obvious, but if that's what's necessary, then it's a good thing that this law is going to be written.
And there's another reason, too.
I think it's good to make laws like this.
And I think Republicans all across the country, in every state, should follow suit and make specific laws that say you can't bring your kid to a drag show.
And the reason you want to do that, even though, again, it's already illegal according to the letter of the law in any state.
But you pass the law anyway.
Because, number one, it should hopefully provide some extra protection for these children.
The law enforcers can't find a way around it if you're that explicit about it.
Because now they can always say, well, is this really a sexually oriented business?
You weren't specific.
OK, now we're going to be specific.
You have to enforce this law.
But the other advantage to passing a law like this is that it's a good strategic move.
Because it puts Democrats in the position of openly defending child drag shows, which is what they're going to do.
In fact, they've already started doing this.
There are accounts on social media from relatively prominent people on the left already You know, offering explicit defenses of children at drag shows, or at least pretending to be kind of, well, you know, I don't understand the criticism.
Maybe someone can explain the criticism to me.
It's not apparent to me why this is a problem.
Trying to strike a, you know, quote-unquote moderate position.
When there is no moderate position on child drag shows, there's just like the right position and the wrong position.
And if you're not holding the right position, then it's the wrong position.
So already you're starting to see, but if you now have Republican legislators who are passing laws like this, that's going to be a situation for the left and for the Democrats where either they can agree and they can say, okay, you know what?
This actually is too far and I agree we need to make that illegal, but they're not going to do that.
They're not going to do it because they don't want to agree with Republicans.
They especially don't want to agree with Republicans on anything that approaches LGBT issues.
They can't do that.
And they're not going to agree with Republicans because they all actually do favor child drag shows.
They see child drag shows as very useful tools for sexualizing and indoctrinating kids.
So you start passing laws like this and you are going to see, it's going to start with leftists in general, activists, and then eventually it's going to make its way up to mainstream Democrats Out offering full-throated defenses of child drag shows.
And that's good.
We want them... We already know they favor it.
We want them to say it.
Okay?
You want to back them into a corner, rhetorically, where they're gonna come out and say it.
So that everyone else can see that this is what these people want.
It'll be just like the so-called, you know, quote-unquote, don't say gay bill, which never actually existed.
The anti-groomer bill is what it was.
It'll be just like the anti-groomer bill in Florida all over again.
Which is a, that was massive backlash.
That was a massive backfire, rather, for the Democrats.
You know, when they were lying at the bill, about the bill at first, they were getting a little bit of traction, but then once Conservatives kind of got everything together and got the messaging together, and people in the public started to understand what the bill actually accomplished.
Then they looked at Democrats and said, what, you people actually think that we should talk to five-year-olds about gender fluidity, really?
Massive, massive backfire for them, and that even affected, you know, Disney and other corporations.
So I think we're going to see something very similar happen here.
All right.
This is from the Daily Wire.
It says, on Friday, Washington Post reporter David Weigel retweeted a mildly sexist joke.
The joke was, every girl is bi, you just have to figure out if it's polar or sexual.
Well, that's kind of funny.
Although, to be honest, I think it's a little bit of a false choice, because you could be both, right?
There's plenty of women who are both.
On Monday, he was suspended without pay.
The joke, which Weigel retweeted from YouTuber Cam Harless, was noticed by fellow Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez, and she tweeted on her Twitter account, fantastic to work at a news outlet where retweets like this are allowed.
According to Slack messages obtained by CNN, Sonmez continued her crusade by tagging Weigel in an internal Slack channel and writing, I'm sorry, but what is this?
She added that the retweet sent a confusing message about what the post's values are.
Later on Friday, Weigel wrote, I just removed a tweet of an offensive joke.
I apologize and didn't mean to cause any harm.
And then the Washington Post, and then of course, here's the inevitable thing.
Everything about this is inevitable.
I mean, we start with the, with the, I wouldn't even call it mildly sexist.
Like, it's just a joke.
That's all it is.
Okay.
So we start with the joke, and then the woman gets offended by it.
Apology comes.
Every step along the way, totally inevitable.
And then we get to this.
The Washington Post suspended Weigel for one month without pay in the wake of the incident.
So he deleted the tweet.
He apologized for it.
Doesn't matter.
He's still going to get suspended.
And even that's probably enough.
I mean, they're pushing for him to get fired.
They don't want him ever to come back.
Because he dared to retweet a joke.
By the way, Sonmez has now said that she's long considered Dave a friend.
So, this is a longtime friend of hers, and she threw him under the bus immediately and publicly because of a joke that he didn't even tweet, he just retweeted it.
And then other media people, like someone named Goldie Taylor, has been agreeing.
I don't know if she works at the Washington Post because she has me blocked, but she also said that he's a friend, but then she also blasted him publicly over it.
So, a couple of takeaways here, I think.
The first one is that, I have to say once again, as always, There's no point in apologizing in situations like this.
It's not going to help you, okay?
You're not actually sorry.
Now, there's no point even saying this to Dave Weigel, because he's a leftist, works for the Washington Post, so there's no hope there anyway.
But I will just say that there's no point apologizing.
It's not going to have any effect.
The people who are demanding the apology They're only demanding it as a symbolic gesture of submission to them.
That's all it is.
And when you say, sorry for any harm it caused, it caused zero harm.
Okay?
Find me the woman who was actually harmed because David Weigel retweeted a joke on Twitter.
Like, find me that person.
I want to find the woman who is actually traumatized, can't even leave her house, crumpled into a ball, you know, sobbing uncontrollably, and then you go up to her and you say, well, what's wrong?
What happened?
David Weigel retweeted a joke!
Like, find me that.
It doesn't exist.
Nobody's harmed by it.
Nobody cares.
And so all you're doing is choosing to participate in this charade.
You're just playing your role.
It's like, it's like that all, it's just, it's a pageant.
It's like, this is like professional wrestling at this point.
And I think what you should say is, no, I'm not gonna.
It was a joke.
You all should apologize to me for not being able to take a joke.
Like, what's wrong with you people?
I mean, it's, it's, you know, Women are always, we're always hearing from feminists that, you know, women are just as funny as men.
You know, I can remember way back in the dark old days when Christopher Hitchens wrote that article, I think it was for Vanity Fair, I believe, where he made the argument that women aren't as funny as men, and it was this huge outrage.
It's like a terrible thing, you can't say that.
Well, okay, so if everyone's equally as funny, then you gotta be able to take a joke.
Okay, you gotta, especially a joke like that.
It's pretty clever.
It's not the funniest joke of all time, but it's pretty clever, and you've got to be able to take jokes like that.
If you can't take a joke, then you can't claim to have a sense of humor, and so you can't be funny.
That should be the response, but it wasn't, so we got the apology.
And then the other takeaway here is just there's no honor or loyalty among these people whatsoever.
Just think about that for a second.
We're used to this kind of canceling campaign that happens when somebody says something and nobody really cares, but everyone pretends to care, and then you've got a bunch of strangers who are trying to cancel this person.
And so we're used to seeing that, but in this case, you work with this guy, and he's been a friend of yours for years, and you don't like something that he tweeted, so the first thing you do is go publicly and call for him to be penalized at his work?
If someone's a friend, like, you never criticize friends publicly.
That's not to say you never criticize friends, but you pull them aside, you talk to them privately.
The moment you bring this into the public, especially if that's the first thing you do, that's not how friendship works.
So there's no honor, there's no loyalty at all.
But also, Weigel himself is not a victim.
Because he apologized, and these are the circles that he runs in.
I mean, if these are the people that you choose to be friends with, then this is what's going to happen to you.
As soon as you slip up a little bit, if you step out of line a little bit according to the line as they see it, like they have a line for you that you're supposed to walk in order to maintain this so-called friendship, and the moment that you waver a little bit off the line, then you're dead to them.
They will just try to destroy your life.
That's it.
These are the people you choose to associate with, and you really, you have it coming.
Not to victim blame, but I guess I am victim blaming here.
All right, so Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I got a couple good clips from her.
She, you understand good in a certain way.
You know, good as in at least funny.
So she says that, here she is talking about democracy, and we once again get a rather depressing, morbid view of democracy, which is especially interesting given the context.
But first, let's listen to it.
This is a lot more than just voting harder.
And it also cuts to the basic structure of our democracy, if you can call it that.
Because when you have a presidency that's not determined by a popular vote, when you have a Senate where tens of millions of people More can vote for one candidate, one party, rather one party, and still be in the minority, where even in the House of Representatives that's supposed to represent our population, that gets gerrymandered to all hell once every 10 years in order to ensure an outsized minority
rule and voice in both the house the senate and the presidency it is becoming increasingly difficult for people to defend the stance that we live in a democracy in a true one and what the real truth of the matter is is That's enough.
Shut up.
So you heard that.
It's just interesting given the context that she's speaking.
Well, democracy is dead.
It's not a real democracy.
We don't live in a democracy.
And yet she was elected and her party controls Congress and the White House.
So her party controls the entire government.
And she's saying that this is all a sham.
There's no democracy.
I mean, first of all, what does that say about About how you got into power.
So does that mean we shouldn't listen to you?
You're a part of this sham system, aren't you?
In fact, you've managed to rise to the top of this system that's a total sham.
What does that say about you?
And it's just, it's really interesting the way that they cut themselves off at the kneecaps, because wouldn't they want to claim that, you know, the fact that they're in power, they have the White House, they have Congress, like, wouldn't they want to claim that this is a reflection of the will of the people and it gives them a mandate, you know, to do what they want to do and to legislate?
And they do want to claim that, but at the same time they say, ah, the whole system doesn't mean anything, it's all a sham.
It's hard to claim both of those things.
Now she also, in a different video, she's promoting, and this is, I could be wrong, but I think it's one of the first times she's actually openly come out and addressed this issue of latinx, you know, gender inclusive language and this, especially the gender inclusive, the gender inclusivity that's trying, that's being imposed on the Spanish language, mostly by white liberal colonialists.
And how does she feel about it?
Well, let's find out.
Also in the spirit of pride, I wanted to have a note on gender inclusivity in Spanish language.
People sometimes like to make a lot of drama over the term Latinx, but even before Latinx, people were trying to do this, like, use an at to have the A and the O together.
Gender is fluid.
Language is fluid.
And I think people right now are using the E term as gender neutral in order to be as inclusive as possible.
Oh, that's so great.
I actually hadn't watched the video yet.
I just knew what she said.
The audio is so much better because she tries to give this kind of Spanish accent to Latinx, which is not a word at all.
And it's not even a word that can be said, really, in the Spanish language.
It doesn't make any sense in the Spanish language.
It's total nonsense, especially in a language That I mean, I don't know why I have to, I don't know why am I in a position of having to teach AOC about Spanish language, but apparently I am.
And so I have to explain to her that it's a gendered language.
Like everything is gendered in the Spanish language.
So, first of all, it doesn't even make any sense to try to do this if you're not going to turn every other word Gender-neutral also and then at that point you've just Destroyed the language you've created.
It's this is not language changing or evolving This is just a whole new language that you've created to supplant the other one because the other one was You you disliked for political and ideological reasons But also as I have to keep reminding People whenever we hear this claim that Latinx or anything or whatever else the pronoun stuff like all of this is just language is fluid and And it evolves over time Well, that's actually true Okay, now language in a sense is fluid and does evolve over time unlike gender Which which is binary and does not change.
It's not fluid does not evolve over time But that's not what's happening here Okay, because an evolution, a change over time, fluidity of language, all that, that would just be, you know, if Latinx was being introduced that way, then it would just kind of come up on its own, and it would start among Spanish-speaking people, and they would start using this word, and then it would just kind of make its way in, and that's the way that language actually does evolve.
Okay, but in this case, it's from the outside.
People, many of whom don't even speak Spanish, came up with this term that they prefer for political reasons and are trying to impose it from the top down onto the Spanish language.
That is not language being fluid.
That is not language evolving.
That is manipulation.
That's appropriation.
That's colonization of the Spanish language by white LGBT liberals.
Here's a kind of a good rule of thumb.
If there's a change of language, and you can pinpoint the exact moment where it started, like you know who came up with it, then that's a pretty good indication that this is not a natural evolution that just kind of happens on its own over time.
This is someone thought of this, and they would prefer if language worked this way instead, and then in this case worked through institutions to impose that on the Spanish language.
Again, a totally different sort of thing.
All right, what else we got here?
This is from Daily Wire.
It says, New York Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul signed a 10-bill package of gun laws on Monday that included raising the age to legally purchase a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21 following several recent mass shootings nationwide.
Hochul signed the package to immediately strengthen the state's gun laws and close critical loopholes, quote-unquote, as lawmakers seek to decrease shootings.
And there are other things that happened in the bill, too.
The main thing I just want to point out here As we're raising the age from 18 to 21, and in this article we don't get much of an explanation because I don't think there really is one, like very specifically, as to why are we raising it to 21?
I mean, what happens at 21 that isn't happening at 18 that makes it so that you can own these kinds of weapons when at 18 you can't?
But I'd really like to hear from someone on the left a very specific explanation of that.
You want to raise the age, whatever the weapon is, whatever type of gun we're talking about, and whatever age you want to raise it to.
The fact that you want to raise the age for any kind of gun ownership is very interesting, and I'd love to hear you very specifically explain why.
Because I'm guessing that your answer is going to have a lot to do with the development of the brain, with the decision-making abilities of younger people.
That's probably what this is about, right?
That's what you would say?
Something along those lines?
Well, if that's the case, then that raises a lot of interesting questions about how you can justify allowing five-year-olds to choose their gender.
If an 18-year-old Is, does not have the capacity to own certain kinds of firearms, because we can't trust them with it, according to you.
And their brain's not developed enough, and they don't have the right kind of discernment, they're not mature enough, they're not, you know, they don't have enough critical thinking, long-term planning, all those kinds of things.
They're too impulsive, or whatever else you would say about them.
Well then, are they able to make lifelong, you know, body-altering decisions for themselves?
So, 18, you can't own the firearm, you're too young.
Oh, but at 5, you can certainly make a decision to change it.
At 12, you can make a decision to sterilize yourself forever.
At 12.
But by the time you're 18, you're still not old enough to be responsible with a gun.
All right, one other thing I want to play for you.
This is an HR representative recorded this TikTok video as, I guess, a warning, apparently, to right-wingers who post about their views publicly.
And she just kind of is warning us.
And let's just watch it.
Watch.
I'm a recruiter.
It's a small, small, small industry.
Smaller than you think.
Same with HR.
So if you're looking for a job or maybe trying to keep a job, maybe.
Just maybe think about what you're putting on social media.
Again, Freedom Fighters, I know you're not really big with stats and, you know, facts aren't your thing, you know, but what I can tell you, what is a fact, And recruiters, like the majority of Canada, don't agree with you.
Do you know what that means?
Do you have any guesses?
Any guesses what that means?
What that means is that if you need a job, you might not get one.
If you want to keep a job, you might not get to do that.
And you know what else HR is good at?
Documentation.
You know what that means?
You want to be an a**hole?
We document it.
We give you a couple tries.
Then what do we do?
We terminate you.
With cause.
If we're so lucky.
If not, we give you the minimum allowed by law.
Either way, best of luck to you.
Recruiters are watching.
HR is watching.
Everywhere.
And we hate you.
We hate you so much.
and you think we can't do anything but we can we have the power always remember that
Doesn't matter if there's a f***ing man at the top of your HR department.
It's run by women.
And it's run by angry women just like me.
I can't watch anymore of this.
I'm so, so glad I got that on my chest.
This is like if Nurse Ratched was your bitter, drunk aunt.
It's just the worst combination of... I mean, do you... I guess she doesn't realize, but you...
You're viscerally repulsive and unappealing in every way to everyone.
And I guess she doesn't realize that about me, because one of the prerequisites to be somebody like that is you have to have no self-awareness whatsoever.
First of all, a telltale sign of self-awareness, or lack thereof, is when you're talking to the phone and you have the screen that close to your face.
And you just know that that's what she does to people in real life, too.
Can you imagine that?
She's up that close in your face talking to you?
And you have to smell the stale white wine on her breath?
You know, you see that and you think, well, that's, okay, that's a bitter, lonely cat lady.
You know, childless, husbandless, and there's a chance of that, but there's also a very, you know, it's like a lot of these people are married.
Can you imagine being married to that?
I would just, I'd have to move to Siberia.
I don't think there's any, there's no way to endure it.
But what you have to realize is that corporate HR departments, actually it's good that she decided to post this, corporate HR departments are full of people like this.
Maybe not quite that extreme or that, you know, kind of openly, blatantly repulsive, but full of people like this.
In the sense of being totally drunk on the little bit of power that they have.
Okay, they have a little bit, and you find this in bureaucracies, all over bureaucracies.
And big corporations are all bureaucracies too.
And in effect, people that work at these HR departments, these major companies, are in effect bureaucrats, really, glorified.
And this is what you find, just a bunch of people who are given this little sliver of power.
It's like not that much, but it's a little bit.
And they have little ways, and sometimes not so little ways, that they can make your life difficult, and they just love doing it.
Whatever they can do, whatever small amount of power you give to them, they become... Like, she's an actual supervillain.
She's... This is what... It's the kind of video you would see a supervillain in a comic book movie record.
Like, the only thing I was missing was, and I was expecting it, honestly, was the maniacal Laughter.
Which usually, that's the kind of thing you see in movies all the time, where the villain comes up with this evil plan and then laughs about it.
And it's like, you never see people do that in real life, even the most evil people.
But I was expecting it there.
The kind of joker cackle at the end.
She's become a supervillain because of a little power that she got from the HR department.
But here's the great thing, here's the happy ending to that, is that she begins the video by saying, be very careful what you put on social media.
Well, she probably should have taken her own advice because apparently now her employer has been made aware of this video and is looking into it, and they're going to have to make some decisions about whether they want to keep her around.
That's at least a happy ending to that.
Have you ever looked at your credit card statement and been shocked by the interest rate?
Did you know that you could actually roll all of your credit card debt into one month of payment at a lower fixed interest rate?
Lower your interest rate and save with a credit card consolidation loan from Lightstream.
Rates start at 5.73% APR with auto pay and excellent credit.
Plus, the rate is fixed, so it will never go up over the life of the loan, so you get some stability there as well.
We could all use more of that, I think, financially especially right now.
You can get a loan from $5,000 to $100,000 and there are absolutely no fees.
You can even get your money as soon as the day you apply.
Lightstream believes that people with good credit deserve a better loan experience and that's exactly what they deliver, putting their money where their mouth is.
So just for my listeners, apply now to get a special interest rate discount and you can save even more.
The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com slash Walsh.
I'll spell that for you.
L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M dot com slash Walsh.
Subject to credit approval, rates range from 5.73% APR to 19.99% APR and include 0.5% auto pay discount.
Lowest rate requires excellent credit.
Terms and conditions apply and offers are subject to change.
Without notice, visit lightstream.com slash Walsh for more information.
Let's get now to the comment section.
Do you know their name?
They're the sweet baby gang.
Let's see.
Dawn says, Matt, I hate to break it to you, but I think the Sweet Baby Gang, your detractors, and probably even your wife, all assume that you're going to die a slightly goofy death, if not bees, then something else.
My money's on tripping while running up the stairs in the dark to get away from the scary spiders that your wife shut you in with.
Or maybe some elaborate scenario where you're trying to avoid changing a diaper, but through a series of events, you end up causing your own death.
That would be the most fitting end for me.
Something like that.
And I think, I can't disagree with you.
I can't even ban you from the show for that, because I think you're probably right.
And at least if that happens, then I'll be true.
I guess in a way, I was worried about not dying a noble death and how that might affect the Sweet Baby Gang.
The situation it would put you guys in, but I think you're right in a way that it would be the truest.
I'd be the truest to my role as the leader of the Sweet Baby Gang if I were to die in such a way.
Another comment says, the massacre you described in Nigeria was almost certainly organized religious terrorism.
It was not the lone nutcase model the USA specializes in.
Good try, Matt.
I don't know what you think I was trying.
I was just reporting what happened.
And I think you're certainly right.
It was probably terrorism.
And this is the point that I made last week when we heard from the left that, oh, the mass shootings, it only happened in the United States.
No, in fact, mass shootings and mass violence of various different kinds, they happen all across the world and all throughout history.
They might manifest themselves in different ways.
So if you have a violent, nihilistic sort of person in Nigeria,
then it's very likely they're going to join an organized terrorist organization.
If they live in Mexico, they're probably going to join a cartel.
If they live in the United States, depending on where they live in the United States,
they might just kind of fester in their mom's basement before they explode one day.
Or if they live in the city, they might join a street gang.
Like, all this stuff manifests itself in different ways, but it's the same sort of thing.
That's my point.
Let's see, Hoosier says, LOL to all those email replies from the critics.
Sweet bigot gang.
I think we got to get that on a shirt.
It might be one step too far for the Daily Wire, but I'll see.
Sweet Piggot Gang.
Let's see.
Another one says, the What is a Woman sequels are going to be better than the Star Wars sequels, hands down.
Well, that's yes, but that's then again, you know, as long as they get above a D minus, then they'll be better than that.
So that's probably not saying much.
Marcia says, how do you respond to the feminists who say that you ignored them or didn't include them in your film?
The British gender-critical feminists seem really upset about that.
Yeah, I can't remember if we talked about that on the show yet, but this is a thing online.
There's a whole sort of group of feminists, especially in the UK, who've been...
Refer to themselves as gender-critical, but they are derisively called, you know, the TERFs, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
That's what the trans activists call them.
But anyway, there's apparently been quite a lot of discussion in that community, especially in the UK, about this film and about whether or not they should champion it, given that I'm a, you know, that I'm a scary right-winger and all that.
I'm a man, you know.
And then there's also been this accusation that we didn't include, that we excluded them from the film.
Of course, the truth of the matter there is that, as I've said before, we made this film, we cast a very wide net, we wanted to talk to all the people we possibly could, but not everybody wanted to talk to us.
And we did reach out to some feminists, and we found that they, the ones we reached out to anyway, didn't want to talk to us.
But, as I keep repeating, my mantra on this thing, when it comes to gender ideology, is that I'm willing to join forces with anybody.
To bring this down.
Like, for this specific battle, if you stand against gender ideology and the madness of gender ideology, and you stand for biological reality on this subject, then yes, we could be allies in this particular fight.
That's my position.
Daniel says, Matt, I agree with the criticism made by Jason Whitlock and the commenter you responded to yesterday.
Erasing God from the film is a fatal flaw.
It's good, but hard to recommend as you did not ground your message in scripture.
Well, yeah, I read Jason's column he wrote about the film, and I texted back and forth with him a little bit about it.
I'll be on a show, I think, in a couple days, so we'll talk probably more about this.
I just don't agree with the critique at all.
Let me respond first of all to what you just said.
Jason didn't say that I erased God, but that's what you're saying, and that's absurd.
You cannot erase God if you're speaking truth.
Any pursuit or defense of truth is not going to erase God, as you say, quite the opposite.
The question is whether the film should have had an explicitly sort of theological message.
Should we have gone through the entire journey and then I go back to home and I talk to my wife, spoiler alert, and when I'm talking to her, should she have answered the question by pulling out the Bible and quoting Genesis or something like that?
That's the question.
And I emphatically believe that we handled that the right way by not making this an explicitly theological film.
That would have minimized the cultural impact in a major way by giving the left an escape hatch and making it seem as though criticism of gender ideology is faith-based and religious in nature.
That's what they want to believe.
That's what they want to claim.
It's not true.
Because, in fact, gender ideology is faith-based and religious.
As I said yesterday, if somebody says to you, 2 plus 2 equals 5, Your response, I'm pretty sure, is going to be, no, it equals four.
You're not going to say, no, God says it equals four.
He does say that, but you don't need to say that when you're responding to the question.
You just need to reassert the reality.
If you did say, oh, God says it's four, it would sound as though your mathematical claims are somehow doctrinal or religious when they are not.
So, that was the approach.
Really, the idea is to reach as wide an audience as we can with this.
And to keep the message as basic and simple as we possibly can.
That's what we're trying to achieve with the film.
Other people can make other films that deal with it in other ways.
That's one of the things, like anytime you make a piece of content, you always get this, it's a very weird criticism you get from people, where they'll criticize you for making that content and not something else.
Why did you make that instead of this?
It's a little bit like, I don't know, walking into a pizza shop and then saying, why are you guys making pizza and not serving ice cream instead?
Because we're making pizza.
This is what we're doing.
If you want ice cream, go to an ice cream shop or start your own.
You can't do everything.
So, this was our approach to this film.
This is the film we wanted to make.
But there are many other ways to approach this issue.
I would eagerly suggest that anyone who wants to make any kind of film or anything dealing with this issue in other ways should certainly do that.
Well, in the fray and the utter mess and the mass hysteria over the release of my documentary, What is a Woman, you may have missed the What is a Woman collection over at dailywire.com slash shop.
The collection is complete with a pre-order for my upcoming book, What is a Woman?
Also, t-shirt stickers and yet another limited edition patch in my highly coveted Sought-after patch program.
The definition of a woman patch highlights the circular logic of the left going around and around until the failed explanation loses all meaning and much like the age-old symbol of the serpent eating its own tail disappears from reality completely.
That's a lot to accomplish with one patch.
So go to dailywire.com slash shop and check it out.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, after Amber Heard really crept to bed, so to speak, in trial and was found liable for defamation against Johnny Depp, there's been a popular outcrying to put Depp back into any forthcoming Pirates of the Caribbean films.
Now, I think a better plan would be to put nobody in the forthcoming Pirates of the Caribbean films and just stop making them entirely.
They got one mildly amusing film out of a theme park ride.
The sequels proved, I think, that there wasn't much juice left to squeeze out of it.
Not everything needs to be a five-decade-long franchise.
That's just my opinion.
The fans disagree, which has led to a campaign to get Depp back involved in the franchise, and that has precipitated an effort in the reverse from the last stragglers still left trying to salvage the credibility of the Me Too movement to ensure that Depp never stars in any film ever again.
In fact, One Stanford professor has taken it a step further.
She's decided that the best way to keep Johnny Depp out of the Pirates of the Caribbean is to cancel Pirates of the Caribbean.
And the best way to do that is to cancel pirates.
So she tweeted, Captain Jack and Pirates of the Caribbean whitewashed and erased slaves and slavery from the 18th century Caribbean, where its practice was probably the most cruel in the world.
Pirates were often far from the freedom fighters the film portrayed, but were slaveholders themselves.
In case you need another reason to hate Johnny Derp, the Pirates franchise is deeply racially problematic.
In sum, even the fictional character Derp's fans love and think is a real depiction of Derp himself is almost certainly a racist sociopath.
Now, the first problem here is that a Stanford professor is using the grade school insult Johnny Derp.
And this is especially embarrassing and ineffective when the other side has a much, much better grade school insult in Amber Turd.
That's actually one of the greatest name rhyming insults of all time.
It might be the best that anyone's ever come up with.
I mean, given, you know, the backstory behind it.
And it goes to show why you should never leave a turd in your bed if your name rhymes with turd.
Or even if it doesn't, actually.
It's a good way to live.
But more to the point, Professor Michelle Dober is trying to enlighten us by revealing that pirates were actually unsavory characters in real life.
Well, this is stunning.
I mean, next she'll tell me that there was never really a pirate in real life with a hook for a hand who was stalked by a crocodile with a clock in its belly as he tried to hunt down and murder a flying boy in a green suit with a fairy sidekick.
I mean, I'd always thought that Pirates of the Caribbean was a documentary and Peter Pan was at least based on a true story.
Thank God we have college professors around to correct the record.
I don't even want to ask, okay, whether there was ever really a prince who turned into a scary buffalo-type creature and lived in a castle with his talking candlestick and a collection of sentient kitchen utensils.
I couldn't bear to know the truth.
Ignorance is bliss.
Just leave the rest of the fairy tales alone, please.
Now, aside from these stunning revelations, I think that there are a couple of other things happening here.
One is that we see how these people simply do not want anyone to experience any joy at all.
They are determined to find a reason why anything that you enjoy, however mild and superficial the diversion may be, they want to tell you why it is, as they say, deeply problematic.
And the real problem for them is that you have not requested their permission ahead of time before recklessly deciding to enjoy something.
This is an oversight that they cannot allow to pass unchecked.
Notice how the professor makes sure to mention the fans of the film and of Depp's character.
She's very unsubtly drawing guilty, you know, sort of guilt by association here.
The character of Jack Sparrow is a racist sociopath, she says, and you like the character, so what does that say about you?
Never mind the fact, by the way, that Disney already thought of the PC problems that may arise from the relationship between piracy and slavery, and they actually included a scene in one of the films where they mention that Jack Sparrow once freed 100 slaves from a ship.
Like, that's a storyline in one of the films.
So the Professor is trying to outwoke Disney, but Disney is one step ahead, as always.
Another point is that, you know, she thinks it's a revelation to us.
That pirates were often cruel and violent people.
She thinks we'll be shocked to learn that pirates were racist.
And she only assumes it would be a surprise because, most likely, she just learned this herself.
I'm guessing she was mad about, you know, the Amber Heard verdict.
And so she googled the true history of Jack Sparrow.
And then she found out that Jack Sparrow's true history goes back to a theme park ride.
So then she just googled bad stuff about pirates generally and was scandalized by what she discovered.
She's only scandalized, though, and believes we will be also, because as a leftist, she has no understanding of world history.
This is why leftists are constantly coming up with new historical figures to cancel, even fictional ones, on the basis that they were racist or violent or whatever else.
What they don't understand is that for most of history, almost everybody was racist by our standards today.
And the entire history of humanity is soaked in blood and plagued by violence and defined by war and conquest from the dawn of civilization until now.
As normal people, we know this.
It's not news to us.
We understand historical figures within that context, and we judge them accordingly.
And we also know that the pirate of fiction bears very little resemblance to the pirate of history.
We know that.
It doesn't bother us.
We're okay with that.
We can compartmentalize these things.
Nobody is watching Pirates of the Caribbean and feeling influenced to, you know, go somewhere and become a pirate today.
Especially because that would require you to move to Somalia, probably, so that's already enough of a disincentive.
We have no trouble with any of this.
She does, because she is a utopian leftist with no understanding of history, no insight into human nature, and nothing to offer the world but new and innovative ways to be offended by utterly inconsequential things.
And that is why, today, Professor Michelle Dober is cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't forget to subscribe.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, Our associate producer is McKenna Waters.
The show is edited by Robbie Dantzler.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, and hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Heart.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2022.
A senior Obama White House staffer calls us, us whom everyone loves so, a threat to democracy.
The Carolina Panthers add a dude to the cheerleading squad, gross, and bees become fish in California.
