Ep. 1066 - Demonic, Soulless Ghouls Use Mass Shooting To Promote Child Abuse
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a mass shooting at gay club in Colorado means that we should stop opposing the mutilation and sexualization of children. This is the Leftist claim anyway. How does it make any sense at all? It doesn’t, but we’ll talk about it. Also, the president of FIFA attempts to defend his woke credential even though he decided to hold the World Cup in Qatar. Trump is invited back to Twitter, but will he accept the invitation? Biden turns 80 years old. And a four star college football recruit has his scholarship withdrawn because he sang along to a rap song. How does that make any sense? Well it doesn’t, either.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to access the entire DailyWire+ content catalog including my documentary “What Is A Woman?”: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
Shop the brand new Jeremy’s Razors product line at https://www.jeremysrazors.com/
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Echelon Fitness - Text MATT to 818181 to get a free bike or rowing machine with a 24-month membership.
Epic Will - Use Promo Code 'WALSH' for 10% off your Will: https://www.epicwill.com/
HumanN - Get up to 35% OFF Tart Cherry Gummies + FREE shipping: http://mytartcherry.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a mass shooting at a gay club in Colorado means that we should stop opposing the mutilation and sexualization of children.
This is the leftist claim, anyway.
How does it make any sense at all?
It doesn't, but we'll talk about it.
Also, the president of FIFA attempts to defend his woke credentials, even though he decided to hold the World Cup in Qatar.
Trump is invited back to Twitter, but will he accept the invitation?
Biden turns 80 years old in the White House, and a four-star college football recruit has his scholarship withdrawn because he sang along to a rap song.
How does that make any sense at all?
Well, it doesn't either.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
As it turns out, having world-class instructors plus a community of hundreds of thousands of people who are working towards the same goal really does help.
The guys at Echelon Fitness have it all worked out.
Echelon Fitness is the affordable way to get workout equipment, a workout community, and an instructor's motivation right in the comfort and privacy of your own home.
own home. Echelon Fitness's connected app provides thousands of live and on-demand
classes with great music to keep you moving. You can work out anytime, day or
night. Their full range of affordable workout equipment includes stationary
bikes, smart rowers, sleek fitness screens, and an auto folding treadmill. These are
all connected to the Echelon Fitness app for the full experience. Around-the-clock
classes including full-body workout programs will keep you coming back.
One membership covers a family of five.
So for a limited time, my audience can get a free bike or rowing machine with a 24-month membership.
To get your free bike or rower, text MAT to 818181.
That's MAT to 818181.
To claim your free bike or rowing machine, text MAT to 818181.
Message and data rates may apply.
See terms for details.
The left loves mass shootings.
This is an inescapable conclusion.
I mean, not every person on the left side of the political spectrum feels that way, certainly, but institutionally, the media, the pundit class, government officials, activists, the leftists who are setting and enacting the agenda, they all love mass shootings.
I mean, that's why they don't hesitate to exploit them.
And exploitation starts immediately.
There's no period of mourning, no space given for grief.
There certainly isn't a moment taken to let the dust settle and figure out what actually happened.
That's because it doesn't matter what actually happened.
All that matters is what they can say about what happened.
What they can, you know, do with it.
How they can use it.
Of course, such a cynical, even bloodthirsty attitude is no surprise coming from the same people who support, cheer on, facilitate, fund the mass slaughter of unborn children.
These are not people who value human life or feel at all squeamish about standing atop the bodies of the dead to advance their political and personal ambitions.
And so we cannot be shocked at all by what we've seen in response to the mass shooting at a gay club called Club Q in Colorado Springs over the weekend.
In total, five people were killed, 25 more were wounded, several critically so, when a shooter now identified as 22-year-old Anderson Lee Aldrich opened fire.
Now at this point, there's still no information about Aldrich's motive.
We haven't been given any specific details about why he did what he did.
But whatever he says to investigators, he was taken alive.
We already know the fundamental reason for the attack.
Aldrich is a violent, unstable sociopath.
That's the reason.
I mean, how was he able to carry out this assault?
Well, we know that too.
He was able to do it because the court system, the DA and the FBI allowed it.
According to reports in many outlets, including Fox News, Aldrich was arrested just last year for making bomb threats and refusing to surrender to police when they came.
His mother had called police back in June of 2021, reporting that her son had made a bomb threat and was threatening to, had made a bomb or said that he had made a homemade bomb and was threatening to detonate it.
When police arrived, they found Aldrich hiding in a house nearby where he refused to surrender.
When they finally managed to detain him, he was charged with Two counts of felony menacing and three counts of first-degree kidnapping.
And then guess what happened?
The DA decided not to pursue charges.
Why?
Well, it's hard to say.
In fact, we can't say because the case has been sealed.
All the records are sealed.
All we know is that this is yet another case of a violent, mentally ill criminal, the fact that he threatened to blow up his own mother with a homemade bomb is, I think, enough confirmation that he's crazy, who was known to law enforcement, known to the courts, and yet, for whatever reason, was not sitting in a cage like he ought to have been.
This is the same pattern that appears and then reappears and appears again with nearly every violent criminal that makes it into the national headlines.
And with a huge portion of the violent criminals that don't make it into the national headlines.
Untold thousands of lives could be saved if the people charged with enforcing our laws simply enforced them.
There's no new law that we need in Colorado Springs that would have prevented the massacre.
We already have laws against bomb threats, kidnapping.
We simply needed it to be enforced with the punishment that is already prescribed for it, and that would have been enough.
Yet it wasn't done.
This could be the conversation.
It's an important conversation.
And it's not a wholly political conversation.
The DA in Colorado Springs, as far as I know, is a Republican.
Now yeah, it's often woke Democrat DAs who don't enforce their own laws, but it's not only them.
And this is not a problem that concerns only district attorneys.
We have a crisis across the board at every level of the most basic laws not being enforced consistently or not being enforced at all.
It's a problem that we should address and we need to and we could, but the people guiding the public conversation have no interest in having that conversation.
That's not the conversation they want to have.
Because that conversation does not allow them to demonize their most hated ideological opponents.
In fact, on the left, if they had the conversation about not enforcing laws, rather than demonizing people on the right, they'd be agreeing with us.
They'd be saying, oh, you know what, you were right about this all along.
And they don't want to do that.
And so instead, the left has decided to blame conservatives for causing this last mass shooting through our alleged anti-LGBT rhetoric.
The Attorney General of Colorado, Phil Weiser, who should be answering questions about why the laws against kidnapping aren't being enforced in his state, apparently, instead was on CNN this morning casting the blame as far from himself as he possibly could.
Listen.
Thank you so much, Attorney General, for joining us.
The major question this morning has been about motive here.
Is the suspect speaking to investigators yet, and what have you learned about a potential motive, if anything?
So the investigation's ongoing, and I think it's fair to say, based on the facts, it's very hard to conceive a situation where the motive wasn't generated by hate.
This was a well-known nightclub that individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the LGBTQ community knew was a safe place.
It was a place where people could be their authentic selves, and someone came and It's very hard to conceive of a situation where this incident doesn't enforce my preferred political narrative.
That's what he's saying.
particularly towards individuals who are LGBTQ.
And this is obviously something that is painful.
It was on Transgender Remembrance Day when it happened.
So this is a call to all of us to look at that hate and ask, what do we do about it?
It's very hard to conceive of a situation where this incident doesn't enforce
my preferred political narrative.
That's what he's saying.
He says there's a lot of hate towards LGBT people.
But what is he talking about?
I mean, what hate?
We'll try to figure that out in a moment, but first, here's Don Lemon inviting Weiser to continue with this line of propaganda, and he does.
Everyone we've spoken to there, members of the LGBTQ community, they have said that they believe that there's, you know, where else could this point to?
Again, we don't know the motive here.
But can you talk to us about, and you said that it was a safe haven, right, for members of the LGBTQ community.
The importance of Our elected officials, our leaders on social media, the importance of words and using members of the LGBTQ plus community as sort of political pawns in politics.
Can you speak to that, please?
Absolutely.
We are living at a time of rising hate and rising demonization.
And all of us in leadership positions have to recognize that our words matter.
We can and we must have a more inclusive we the people.
That's a phrase that Justice Ginsburg used.
The legitimate or legitimization, I should say, of hating towards LGBTQ plus individuals has to stop.
Don Lemon worries that LGBT people are being used as pawns, and so he proceeds to use them as pawns.
I guess, you know, answering his own question.
The Attorney General, meanwhile, says that we're living in a time of rising hate and demonization, and he's right.
A good example of this demonization is the fact that the Attorney General of Colorado is blaming social conservatives for a mass shooting carried out by a known violent criminal in his state.
But this is the line that every prominent person on the left has taken, and lots of people that are not as prominent as well.
Joe Biden blamed hate against LGBT people.
Of course, GLAAD issued a statement blaming not just hateful rhetoric, but also legislation.
Their statement says, quote, you can draw a straight line from the false and vile rhetoric about LGBTQ people spread by extremists and amplified across social media to the nearly 300 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced this year to the dozens of attacks on our community like this one.
That this mass shooting took place on the eve of Transgender Day of Remembrance, when we honor the memory of the trans people killed the prior year, deepens the trauma and tragedy for all in the LGBTQ community.
The media must stop spreading misinformation and elevate the truth that LGBT people exist, belong, and want to live in peace and safety.
So this became immediately the standard talking point, and the left named specific villains also.
People who are most responsible for the shooting.
People like, well, Me, for instance.
I am currently trending on Twitter because there are so many tweets, like this one from a guy named Joshua Hill.
He says, quote, This club had a drag show every Saturday.
It's impossible to escape the horrifying conclusion that the escalating rhetoric against drag queens promoted by people like Shia Raitchik, who lives at TikTok, Matt Walsh, and others created the environment where someone would do this.
And then from Brianna Wu, she says, this spike of hate crimes is very clearly on Libs of TikTok, Matt Walsh, and the anti-trans mainstream media that has smeared LGBT people as sexual deviants.
And from trans activist Alejandra Caraballo, he tweeted, quote, these people like Libs of TikTok, Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson, Christopher Ruffo, have spent all year stoking and inciting violence against LGBTQ people.
When the violence happens, they deny it, minimize it, and double down on the hate.
They are sick, twisted sociopaths.
Another activist posted, This is where the hateful rhetoric that's allowed to spread on this platform eventually leads.
Shia Raitchik, Matt Walsh, etc.
will continue spewing bile trying to escalate words into physical violence.
We keep us safe.
Etc.
and so forth.
Many more where those came from.
The message is clear.
I must be silenced along with Shia Raitchik and Christopher Ruffo and other conservatives because our rhetoric is causing shootings to happen.
But what is our rhetoric exactly?
Have any of us ever called for violence?
No, of course not.
I mean, if we had, then they'd have the clips of those and those would be circulating, but they don't because we never said that.
Are we running around attacking gay people as a group simply for existing?
No, we're not doing that.
Again, if we had done that, then the clips would be out there.
You can be sure of it.
We are in the left's crosshairs for two very specific reasons.
Two reasons.
We oppose the medical transition of minors, and we don't think that children should be involved in drag shows.
That's it.
That's the hateful rhetoric they're talking about.
All of the alleged anti-LGBT laws that GLAAD mentioned are exclusively focused on those two issues.
No children at drag shows.
No children getting gender transitions.
And then we can add in a third one, too, is that we should not be destroying female sports by allowing males to play in it.
So all the laws, when it comes to LGBT people, are about that.
Which is another way of saying that the laws don't focus on LGBT people at all.
They don't put any restrictions on LGBT people.
Unless the left is saying that exposing kids to drag shows is like an elemental, inextricable part of gay culture.
Is that what they are?
That's apparently what they are saying.
That's what they are claiming.
I mean, what other conclusion could I draw if I say, kids shouldn't be at drag shows, and then you respond by saying, this is an attack on LGBT people!
I didn't even say anything about LGBT people.
I don't care who's there.
I don't care who's involved.
I don't care if they're gay, straight, whatever.
Kids don't belong at burlesque shows.
So all of this, you know, this is focused on protecting children from castration, mutilation, and sexualization.
That's our dastardly agenda, which the left claims is somehow spawning violence.
In other words, they are using a mass shooting as a way to blackmail us into accepting the abuse of children.
People die, and as soon as the bodies hit the ground, these demons think, yes, we can use this as ammo against conservatives who don't think children should be exposed to drag shows.
Just imagine that.
People are dead, and that's the first thing these demented freaks think.
The first thing they think.
Seeing the bodies hit the ground, the first thing they think is, oh, this is great.
Yeah, now we can silence people who are saying kids shouldn't be at drag shows.
Why do they do this?
I mean, why do they play this game?
Well, because they know that they can't defend their positions otherwise.
They want the kids at the drag shows.
They want them in the sex change clinics.
But they dare not defend either stance out loud.
They can't.
So instead they resort to the worst kind of emotional manipulation, which is the only tool that these scumbags have in their toolbox, is emotional manipulation.
That's all they've got.
In this case, gleefully exploiting the deaths of the very people they pretend to care about, but they don't care about them.
They don't care about anyone or anything except their demented ideological agenda.
There is no tactic they won't resort to, no depth to which they will not plunge in pursuit of that agenda, and to silence those who oppose it.
And I must tell them, once again, it's not going to work.
Not in my case, it won't.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You understand that your children look to you to define their values and their perspectives of the world.
That's why it's extremely important that you have a will in place.
A will also determines how your financial assets are dispersed, as well as your personal property.
It lays out your healthcare power of attorney to ensure that your end-of-life decisions are carried out.
If you're just starting out and you don't have thousands of dollars to spend on an attorney, But you want to make sure your savings, your belongings, and your family are all protected.
You have to create a will at epicwill.com today.
Epic Will's early estate plan started just $119 and you can save 10% when you use promo code Walsh.
All you got to do if you want to take advantage of this is go to epicwill.com use promo code Walsh to save 10% on Epic Will's complete will package.
You don't want to wait till it's too late to make sure that your family is taken care of and I have to say one other thing here also.
And I have to note this.
I just am not persuaded by the hateful rhetoric hand-wringing.
Especially as it comes from the same people who make death threats against me every day.
Okay?
I mean, I have in the past trended on Twitter because there were so many people doxing me and threatening to kill me and my family.
It happens in such volume and so often that it results in me trending because of it.
And yet, I'm supposed to take you seriously when you pretend to care about irresponsible rhetoric right after you just threatened to kill me and my family?
So if you're wondering, if you're someone on the left and you happen to be watching this and you're wondering, well, why isn't he taking this more seriously?
That's why.
My children can't even walk down to check the mailbox alone because of the security threats.
So that's what I'm dealing with, okay?
Now, I don't want you to think that that means that we're huddling and cowering in fear.
We're not.
We're ready, and if anyone ever came looking to make good on any of these threats, it would be the biggest mistake they ever make, and the last mistake they make in their pitiful, worthless lives.
But, I just, I am not, if you're looking for someone to take you seriously on the hateful rhetoric stuff, I'm not the guy.
You're talking to the wrong guy.
I can't stomach the nonsense.
Let's tone down the rhetoric.
When, you know, someone threatening to blow up my house is just another day at the office.
And why?
Again, I have to keep emphasizing, why?
What do they hate me so much for?
What did I do to them?
Well, I'm trying to stop them from exposing themselves to children, and I'm trying to stop them from castrating children.
That's it.
They are so devoted to doing both of those things that they want you dead.
And they want everyone you love dead if you try to stop them.
Sure, tone down the rhetoric.
Okay.
You know, the World Cup kicked off this weekend, I think.
The World Cup is, that's the soccer thing.
And I don't follow it because I'm more of a sports fan, personally.
But, and I don't have anything against soccer.
I think soccer is a fine hobby, you know, for children.
That is, if you want your children to become communists.
It's a great hobby for communist children, I suppose is what I'm saying.
I don't mean any offense by that.
It's not even the communism of soccer that I have the biggest problem with.
It's mainly that soccer makes baseball seem thrilling by comparison, which is very hard to do.
But anyway, the World Cup did kick off, and we talked about last week there's controversy over the fact that the World Cup is in Qatar, and Qatar is not exactly known as the gay rights capital of the world.
It's not that, precisely.
Homosexuality is effectively illegal there, or literally illegal.
And this is in conflict with FIFA.
That's the World Cup's governing organization.
It's in conflict with all of the LGBT virtue signaling that they usually do.
So they want to have their woke cake and eat it too.
On one hand, they want to advertise themselves as uber woke on LGBT stuff.
But on the other hand, they want to take money from Qatar.
This has led to criticism.
And the US team addressed the criticism by covering themselves in rainbow flags head to toe.
They're going to try to glitter and rainbow themselves out of this jam.
Although it is kind of redundant.
You know, all the gay paraphernalia with soccer.
Because we see that and everyone's like, you're a soccer team.
We know, we get it.
But the president of FIFA, his name is Gianni Infantino, took it a step further.
He gave a press conference defending his decision to send the World Cup to Qatar.
And it was... It was something, I have to say.
So let's... He starts by telling us how he feels, what he's feeling.
And it's... Well, just listen.
I have very strong feelings.
I can tell you that.
Today I feel Qatari.
Today I feel Arab.
Today I feel African.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Today I feel gay.
Today I feel disabled.
Today I feel a migrant worker.
That is, that is, that's the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.
That is literally something out of The Office.
I mean, that is, that's almost verbatim a speech that Michael Scott gave on Diversity Day at The Office, I think.
And he's so proud of himself, too.
He thinks he's saying something profound.
He has this look on his face.
It's like, it's the Kamala Harris look, right?
It's, you know, where he's sputtering nonsense, but thinks that he's nailing it.
And perhaps the greatest lines ever delivered in the history of public speaking, today I feel gay, today I feel disabled.
And you note, though, a short pause before he said gay, like he was having second thoughts about going this direction, but he already committed to it, so he just went with it.
And then he felt pretty good about it.
And then also notice another thing, too, that he said, I feel a migrant worker.
He didn't say, I feel like a migrant worker.
He didn't say that.
He said, I feel a migrant worker.
So this is maybe a confession as well.
In any case, that's not really the part that I want to focus on.
That's just a little bit of comedic relief.
He then goes on into this rant to justify FIFA's business with Qatar, and this is what he says.
We are told many, many lessons from Some Europeans from the Western world.
I'm European.
Actually, I am European.
Not just I feel European.
I think for what we Europeans have been doing in the last 3,000 years around the world, we should be apologizing for the next 3,000 years before starting to give moral lessons.
Hmm.
Europeans should apologize for the last 3,000 years.
That's how far back he's indicting Europeans.
Europeans and Americans, too, by extension, if we're going back 3,000 years, right?
What he's really saying is that the Western world should apologize for the past 3,000 years.
So we're going back to Aristotle and before that, well before that, and apologizing for what?
Apologizing for democracy?
For the concept of human rights?
For modern science?
For modern medicine?
For space travel?
For electricity?
For the fact that human life expectancy is over the age of 35?
Is that what we're apologizing for?
Because you could thank the Western world for all that, and much more.
Basically, almost everything that makes your life enjoyable and tolerable, you can thank the Western world for.
So if we're apologizing for 3,000 years, then we're apologizing for all that.
Now, with that said, I would actually agree that modern Westerners don't have much room to be lecturing other cultures about anything.
So that's the nuance here.
If that's what he was saying, it's not what he was saying, but if he was saying modern Westerners don't, then that part I would have to agree because we murder our babies here.
We, as discussed, we castrate our children.
We sterilize them.
We are utterly consumed right now, tragically, sadly, terribly, by moral madness.
That's the modern West, which means that we're in no position to lecture anyone morally on anything.
I agree with that, but that's not what he's talking about.
He's bringing the indictment back millennia, which means that he's saying we should apologize for just our existence, for all the good stuff.
All the good stuff from the West, the stuff that we are now abandoning, really.
Because the West, if the West should apologize for anything today, the West should apologize for not being Western enough.
That is, I mean, for abandoning All that made the West great, especially when it comes to moral insights, the moral formation, what was once the wisdom of the West.
We've abandoned that, and we are collapsing because of it, and so if we're going to apologize for anything, yeah, apologize for that.
But he suggests we apologize for that very foundation, for the foundations of the West, if he wants to go back 3,000 years.
Or else maybe he's talking about, you know, slavery and conquest.
Because that happened in the West historically.
And that's true, it did.
But of course it happened everywhere else in the world too, and for longer.
So when it comes to issues like slavery, racism, that sort of thing, can you name a region of the world that has a better record with that stuff than the West does?
The West is in no position to lecture about that.
Well, who's in a better position?
What part of the world, when it comes to, if he's speaking specifically about conquest, slavery, racism, what region of the world has had a better track record outside of the Western world?
And it doesn't exist.
It doesn't even come close to existing.
All right, big social media news over the weekend.
Trump was reinstated to Twitter.
His account was brought back.
The announcement was made by Elon Musk after he conducted a poll asking people whether Trump should be brought back.
And there was, I don't know, there's tens of millions of people voting in this thing.
The yeas beat the nays.
And his account was restored, just like that.
Now, we don't have to review the left-wing media freakout.
They obviously freaked out and were very upset about it.
And this was a day after a huge portion of the remaining staff at Twitter was cut.
And it wasn't that Elon fired him.
I mean, he did.
What he gave him, severance.
It was layoffs, I suppose.
But he sent out an email to all remaining staff members and said, look, we got to turn
this ship around and it's going to mean long shifts and working hard for the foreseeable
Do you want to work hard?
Do you want to put in the work or not?
And if you don't, we'll give you three months severance and you can go.
And if you do, let's get down to business.
And a whole bunch of people at Twitter said, we don't want to, we work at Twitter.
You think we came here because we want to work?
You think we came to this place with the foosball table and the meditation room and the wine on tap?
You don't go work at a place that has wine on tap because you like to work, or you want to work, or you're willing to work.
For a lot of people, Twitter is the whole reason they're there, so they don't have to do anything, and then Elon Musk comes along and has the audacity to suggest that if you're pulling in a paycheck, you should have to actually do something in return for it.
And so a bunch of them left.
There was a mass exodus.
And then we were told there was a lot of leftist media people that were, as always, very melodramatic about it.
They were convinced that this would be the end of Twitter.
Twitter wouldn't be able to keep the lights on.
And apparently on Friday night, and I wasn't on Twitter on Friday night, but I try not to spend Friday nights on Twitter.
That's how you know you had a bad Friday night.
That's how you know things are going wrong in your life, when you're spending a Friday night on Twitter.
But on Friday night, there were all these leftist, especially leftist media people, melodramatically posting their goodbyes to Twitter and everything else, because they thought that they would wake up tomorrow, there'd be no Twitter, because everything would be gone.
But then Saturday morning came, and Twitter was still around, for better or worse.
And then Trump came back.
And they're obviously very upset about that.
Proving, among other things, the fact that, and I know this is not a revelation, but the left-wing media really does live in a Twitter bubble.
And it's one of the things that's destroying them.
If you want to know why the ratings are crashing for, you know, CNN and a lot of these legacy cable news outlets and everything, a big part of the reason is that they're in this Twitter bubble.
They don't know, yeah, there's the left-wing bias, but the media's always had that.
The problem now is that they just have no idea what people care about, or what news people actually care to hear or need to hear, because they're in this bubble.
And that was just perfectly demonstrated by how they've been carrying on over the last few days.
Like, if you walked up to any random person on the street, anywhere, and you asked them if they're aware of any of this drama involving Twitter, they'll almost certainly say no.
They're going to look at you confused.
In fact, Twitter could disappear, and the average person on the street wouldn't even know about it.
And if they found out, they'd say something like, oh good, and they would just carry on with their lives.
Because most people aren't on Twitter.
They don't care about it.
They don't know what's happening there.
And that's all there is to it.
I mean, it's okay to use Twitter.
Obviously, I do.
But if you're in the news media, you have to keep the bubble phenomenon in mind, or you'll become hopelessly out of touch, as they have.
Now, for his part, Trump, so Trump's account is back, but then the next question is whether Trump will actually come back and post on Twitter, and he was speaking at the Republican-Jewish coalition on Saturday and was asked about this, and here's his answer.
Mr. President, I wanted to pivot a little bit to current events as in happening in real time.
I don't know if you've been following Twitter is blowing up today.
Elon Musk posted a poll that had over 13 million respondents so far asking whether or not you should be reinstated on Twitter.
My question to you is, what do you think about Elon Musk buying Twitter?
And if you are reinstated, will we see you back on Twitter again?
Well, I like that he bought it.
I've always liked him.
I got along with him very well during my days as president, and I got to know him pretty well.
But I do like him.
I've always really... You know, he's a character.
And I tend to like characters, but he's smart.
He did put up a poll, and I hear it's very overwhelming, very strong.
But I have something called Trump... If you look, it's Trump-owned, but it's really fantastic.
Truth?
Social.
And truth social is through the roof.
It's doing phenomenally well.
The press hates to talk about it, but it's doing phenomenally well.
I think engagement is much better than it is with Twitter.
And it's taking care of voices that really want to be taken care of and really smart voices, brilliant voices, voices that in many cases are both sides.
But I can tell you there's a lot of voice for Israel, a lot of power for Israel.
In truth social.
So truth social has been very, very powerful, very, very strong.
And I'll be staying there.
But I hear we're getting a big vote to also go back on Twitter.
I don't see it because I don't see any reason for it.
They have a lot of problems at Twitter.
You see what's going on.
It may make it.
It may not make it.
But the problems are incredible.
The engagements are I don't think it's true that Truth Social has more engagement than Twitter, but pretty sure that's not the case.
So this is an interesting question.
Truth Social has taken the place for a lot of people and I don't see them going back
onto Twitter.
I don't think it's true that Truth Social has more engagement than Twitter, but pretty
sure that's not the case.
So this is an interesting question.
Actually, it's two questions.
Will Trump come back to Twitter?
Maybe three questions.
I keep adding.
Will Trump come back to Twitter?
Should he come back to Twitter, and does it matter at all?
I just talked about the Twitter bubble, and here I am talking about, well, will he or won't he?
You know, that's what people on Twitter are talking about.
It's the big question.
Does it actually matter?
Like, for the average Trump voter, potential Trump voter, are they, you know, are they benefited one way or another by Trump being on Twitter?
And I guess for all those questions, for the question of whether he'll come back, I don't know.
I tend to think he probably will.
I mean, he has more followers on Twitter than there are total users of Truth Social, probably by a rather large margin, I would think.
And so he's got access, even though Twitter, again, still is in a bubble.
It's a much bigger bubble.
If Twitter's a bubble, it's a pretty big one, whereas Truth Social is a much smaller bubble.
And especially if you're running for president again, it makes sense to get into the bigger bubble.
I don't know if he will, but if he does, then that would be the reasoning.
Then the question is, should he actually do that?
Would it benefit him to be on Twitter?
And I'm in the minority here, I realize.
I think I'm in the minority among people on the right.
And when I say, I don't think he should.
I think it's better if he's not.
I think in general, and I feel this way, it's not just about Trump, about politicians in
general.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
I don't know if politicians or candidates are helped by giving us direct access to their stream of consciousness.
I'm not sure that that helps, ultimately.
And you know, you could say, well, Trump is different.
He's a different kind of politician.
And he certainly is.
So if any politician could be helped by that, then he would be the one.
But even then, I think that this is probably a general rule.
And yeah, 2016, he won in 2016.
You could say that that was proofs in the pudding there.
But I don't think he won in 2016 because he was tweeting, right?
I mean, he won by mobilizing blue-collar voters in some of these crucial states, and I don't think that it's because he was on Twitter.
I think it's just his overall kind of presence.
Now, the benefit of Twitter is that he's able to get his own thoughts out there without going through the media.
Like, he doesn't have to issue a statement through the media.
He can just put it out there for people to see.
That is a benefit, but he actually can accomplish that on Truth Social.
He already uses that as kind of a forum for issuing statements and then the media picks those up and they end up on Twitter anyway.
So that's the interesting thing.
The funny thing is that he's effectively on Twitter whether he wants to be or not.
Because by posting on Truth Social, whatever he posts there ends up all over Twitter anyway.
But I guess it's really a question of is it better for him to go back on Twitter and go back to what it was years ago when he was just tweeting all the time?
And is that going to help in the campaign?
And I tend to think not.
I think it's better as a politician to be more selective in the ideas and thoughts that you decide to put out into the world.
All right.
CNN has this, President Joe Biden turns 80 years old on Sunday, turned 80 years old on Sunday, becoming the first octogenarian to ever serve in the highest office of the United States.
The unique milestone of Biden's birthday comes as the president faces speculation about whether he will mount a reelection run and dredges up questions about whether he's too old to serve another term.
And then this CNN article goes actually into detail about all these questions and the questions about Biden's mental acuity and so on.
Because we're past the midterms now, and I think we're going to see more and more of this.
We're going to see more and more of the media criticizing Biden, raising these kinds of issues.
That of course you weren't allowed to talk about.
It was a conspiracy theory to talk about them during the campaign, but now you can talk about them because they obviously don't want Biden to run for re-election.
They want to get some other Democrat in there.
Who's got a better shot than Biden?
Biden is a terrible candidate and has been arguably the worst president in history, but who else do you have?
There's no one on the bench ready to come in, ready to jump in and play.
But still, they want, they figure, I think they figure anyone is better than Biden at this point.
They might be right about that.
So we're actually going to see a lot more of this.
We're going to see the media uncharacteristically criticizing a Democrat administration, seeming to sort of hold them accountable.
But it's only, they wouldn't be doing that if they didn't think that they could benefit from it politically.
It's because they see a political benefit of chasing this guy out, sending a message to him now, don't run again, so they can get somebody else in there.
It's the only reason.
And of course, as far as someone turning 80 in office, that is just an absurdity.
As I've been saying for years, if we were a serious country, there would be laws on the books, there's a minimum age requirement to be president, so it only stands to reason there should be a maximum age as well.
I think 75 makes a lot of sense.
35 to 75, you have 40 years to do it.
40 years to run.
I mean, if you turn 75 while you're in office, that's one thing.
But you have 40 years to decide to run and win.
And if you don't, then you still had.
You had a good four decades.
All right, I want to mention this before we get to the comment section.
It's no secret that we live in a country filled with emotionally fragile people.
And that's why we have innovated a wide array of emotional crutches and emotional supports You can turn into a therapist, or a counselor, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a bottle of prescription pills, an emotional support animal, a therapeutic professional cuddler is a thing now too.
And then there's also this.
The New York Post reports on one of the latest examples.
It says, Can't bear to be alone this holiday season?
A human-size emotional support bear might be the perfect gift for you.
The Loving Bear Puffy is the shape and size of a male human body but has the head of a teddy bear.
Just look at that thing.
There it is.
Puffy is a very personal product invented by an ordinary woman who is afraid of being alone, the company said.
The 5 foot 7 inch oversized plush bear weighing just 7 pounds is $160 and replaces the need for the physical presence of a person in various moments and situations of everyday life, especially during long lonely nights.
So this lonely woman, apparently she couldn't make do with cats and so she invented this And it's put on sale for $160.
This is indeed a wonderful gift for the serial killer in your life.
If you want to help the creepy bastard in your life become even creepier, then this is a good gift for them.
I mean, I don't know.
I mentioned those professional cuddling services.
People hire actual humans to cuddle them.
And that seems even worse than this.
So maybe this could be a good way to wean somebody off of that.
If they're addicted to the professional cuddling services, or maybe it's the other way around.
What's worse, to hire a professional cuddler or to buy a six foot tall humanoid teddy bear to cuddle with?
Which would make you more ashamed if you were the parent of an adult child engaging in this activity?
It's impossible to say.
What I will say on a slightly more serious note is that there is A loneliness epidemic in this country.
People are very lonely.
They're alone.
They're desperate for some kind of human contact, even if they have to pay for it, or settle for a giant teddy bear instead.
We have tried to make people in this culture into these kind of autonomous entities, telling them that they don't need marriage, they don't need families, they don't need anyone.
As long as you have the cold, bureaucratic embrace of the state, then you'll be fine.
But it turns out that doesn't work.
It doesn't satiate the longing of the human heart.
And that's what leads to this.
Then again, I have no room to talk.
I am the guy with the life-size stuffed walrus.
Though that isn't for cuddling.
That's strictly for decor.
Unless I have a really bad day.
In which case, all bets are off.
Let's get to the comment section.
From the makers of Super Beats Heart Chews, tart cherry gummies are an easy way to support your metabolic health and reduce inflammation from exercise.
Made with a clinically studied tart cherry extract that is up to 40 times more concentrated than many other tart cherry extracts, just two tart cherry gummies are the antioxidant equivalent of 16 ounces of tart cherry juice or 100 cherries.
Formulated by a team of scientists led by Nobel Prize winning doctors, Tart Cherry has been clinically studied to support metabolic health.
I had Tart Cherry gummies for the first time the other day after finishing up a workout and I could really tell the difference.
I could tell you that they're also delicious.
So right now you can get up to 35% off Tart Cherry gummies plus free shipping at mytartcherry.com slash Walsh.
This is their best offer available anywhere.
That's mytartcherry.com slash Walsh for up to 35% off Tart Cherry gummies.
That's mytartsherry.com slash Walsh.
These statements and products have not been evaluated by the FDA.
These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or condition.
CC says, the siren in the background as Matt talks about San Francisco's issues is too good.
Yeah, I noticed that.
Yes, on the show on Thursday, we were in San Francisco before the Berkeley event, and I was complaining about San Francisco because it's just a horrid Filthy, dirty place.
As I was complaining about it, you could hear all these cop cars in the background.
We couldn't have scripted it any better.
623 says, completely agreed with Matt's driving style.
Use any all lanes available, zipper merge, don't take anything personally, and be courteous on the road.
Using the full available lanes is much more efficient for congestion than people merging three miles before a merge.
Yes, thank you.
That's exactly right.
And I think that's one of the most important tips in driving.
Aside from use the space available to you, of course, that too, but don't take things personally.
People taking things too personally on the road.
That's how you end up with, you know, road rage incidents and people getting shot dead and all the rest of it.
Let's see, Noah says, Matt, I think it's important when discussing the culture war issues, I would find it very helpful if you would please make the distinction between whether your position is that something should be made into law, or whether you are trying to persuade your fellow citizens on what they should do.
This is something that stuck out to me with you and Joe Rogan discussing gay marriage, and you were both kind of missing each other because of that, I think, SPG for life.
Yeah, I do think it's important distinction to make.
I did make that distinction.
It's just that for some reason, You could try to make these distinctions.
This is a problem we have as conservatives.
And maybe we don't make the distinctions clearly enough sometimes, but I have found that even when you make them, it's like the other side just doesn't hear it.
And so...
We were talking about two things.
One was the issue of marriage, where I do think the law has a place.
I'm not one of these get-government-out-of-marriage people.
And then it got into also the procreative nature of marriage.
What about heterosexual couples that get married and then choose not to have kids?
I said, well, they should.
If you get married and you're able to have kids, then you should.
I do think that you're called to do that.
That's part of what marriage is about.
And you're declining to participate in one of the most crucial aspects of marriage.
And that sent us down this road of, well, there can't be laws forcing people to have kids.
Well, of course it can.
When I say should, I'm not saying that there should be a law forcing it.
I'm just saying that I think that that's what people ought to do.
So, I think a distinction was made, but it's not always heard, I guess.
Jack says, Hi Matt, I know how you feel about Trump vs. DeSantis, but if Trump wins the primary, would you still support him in the general?
Support Trump in the general?
Yeah, of course I would.
As opposed to what, Biden?
Some other Democrat?
Obviously, I would support him in the general.
There's nothing to think about there.
My whole objection is that I think DeSantis is the more effective Republican candidate.
This is probably my primary objection.
I think he's the more effective Republican candidate in the general.
But if he's not the Republican candidate in the general, then he's not.
And so that's it.
And then if Trump's the guy, then I would support him.
Obviously, I would.
I do also think that DeSantis would make a better president in the year 2024.
But that point is somewhat irrelevant.
You know, this isn't about who would make a better president, because they aren't facing each other in a general election.
If they face each other, it's going to be in a primary.
So the real question is, who would be a better candidate?
Who has a better chance of winning?
Right now, the only thing that matters is winning.
Who has the best chance to win?
Who is able to beat the Democrats?
That's all that matters.
For right now, our political philosophy, as we head into 2024, should be winning.
That's it.
Who can win?
And come primary season, we should all make our decision, whatever it is, based entirely on who has the best chance of winning the general period.
Right now, I think that's DeSantis.
I don't see that Trump has a better path in 2024 than DeSantis does.
If you see it, then let me know what it is, because right now, I don't see it.
And as I've said, one of the biggest problems that Trump is going to face is that for him, so much is already baked in.
Like, how many persuadable voters are there when it comes to Donald Trump?
Who is out there right now who doesn't already have an opinion about Donald Trump?
He's the most famous guy in the world.
Like, everyone has an opinion about him.
And so, who can you win over who isn't already won over?
With DeSantis, The ceiling is not set because most people, and we know the left, people that are on the far left hate his guts, a lot of people on the right who like him, but then there's a lot of people that are not on the far right or far left who don't really know much about him, and so are potentially persuadable.
That's, to me, one of the biggest issues here.
Already so many of you have visited the brand new DW Plus store and picked up my new Sweet Baby album t-shirt.
It's the perfect gift to yourself and everyone you know because there's just something in the way they put my bearded infant self on a t-shirt that no one can resist, you weirdos.
But there are so many other items that you can pick up this holiday season.
We have bundles where you can pick up my best-selling LGBTQ Plus children's book, Johnny the Walrus, and the cuddly companion Walrus plushie that you need as well.
Or pick up the Matt Walsh Superfan Bundle, a collection of some of the best items we have that have launched this year.
It's the perfect gift for any and all Sweet Babies this holiday season.
So head over to my collection over at dailywire.com slash shop and get the Sweet Baby Album T-shirt or any of the other amazing holiday offerings at the new and improved Daily Wire Plus Shop.
Free shipping on orders over $75 and a free leftist tears tumbler with all orders over $100.
Get your Daily Wire gifts today because some items are already close to selling out.
Again, go to dailywire.com slash shop.
and get yours before they are gone.
Also, Jeremy's Razors may have started as the best joke we ever told, but now it's more
real than ever.
If you don't know the backstory, last year Harry's dropped their ads from our network
condemning our views.
It's inexcusable because someone around here dared to say that boys are boys and girls
are girls, rather.
But rather than boycott Harry's back, Deliwar, co-CEO and God King Jeremy Boring, started
his own rival razor company.
And in his quest to earn your business from those woke companies that hate you, the God King has turned a single yet glorious razor into a triumphant new line of men's products.
Products like a nourishing shampoo and conditioner, charcoal body wash, luxurious beard kit, and a new Precision 5 razor with flip-back trimmer.
Yes, they're all very real and they're very spectacular.
In fact, Jeremy's Razors couldn't get any more real, because unlike those other woke razor companies, Jeremy's is the only company built on truth.
Like the truth that masculinity is not toxic and that men cannot be women.
So, if you're ready to get a great shave or exfoliating wash from a company that refuses to pay to play pretend or to bow down to the woke mob, go to Jeremy'sRazors.com today.
And remember, stop giving your money to woke companies that hate you.
Give it to Jeremy instead.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, it's a short week, so we don't have time to mess around.
We're going to have to jump right in on a Monday with one of the most richly deserving cancellations we've ever done on this show.
This is not a regular cancellation, but another of our patented reverse cancellations, where the cancelers who are attempting to cancel someone else, instead that they find that they themselves are canceled by me.
Though they may not notice because, as of yet, my daily cancellations carry no enforcement mechanism, which is the fatal flaw.
That's something that will surely change once I'm finally installed as theocratic fascist dictator of the country.
But for now, it begins with the highly lauded four-star high school quarterback Marcus Stokes.
Who had recently been extended a scholarship offer from the University of Florida.
Stokes was set to head down to Florida this summer to begin his college football career, but then things went sideways.
According to the media reports, video surfaced of Stokes using a racial slur.
That's the way it's being phrased in a lot of the headlines.
He's using or saying a racial slur.
It took about 48 hours for the University of Florida to respond the way that spineless, soulless bureaucracies always respond to these kinds of situations, and they threw the kid under the bus and withdrew the scholarship offer almost immediately.
And it's likely that this will have a cascading effect, and all the other schools that had shown interest in Stokes will also back away.
His life could be profoundly altered because of this moment, and not for the better.
But what about that terrible video with the terrible, awful racial slur?
Well, it turns out that Stokes was not caught on tape screaming the N-word at a black person or engaging in any other sort of racist rant.
That's not what happened.
He was, in fact, simply singing along to a rap song.
That's all.
Stokes tried to explain this in a statement that he issued after the decision in Florida was made public.
He posted quote I was in my car listening to rap music Rapping along to the words and posted a video of it on
social media I deeply apologize for the words and that's in the song
that I chose to say it was hurtful and offensive to many people and
I regret that I fully accept the consequences of my actions And I respect the University of Florida's decision to
withdraw my scholarship offer to play football My intention was never to hurt anybody and I recognize that even when going along with a song, my words still carry a lot of weight.
I will strive to be better and to become the best version of myself both on and off the field.
I know that learning from my mistakes is a first important step.
Now, You know what I say about apologizing to the cancel mob?
Never do it.
Especially when you've done nothing wrong.
But I'm not going to blame Stokes here.
He's just a high school kid suddenly at the center of a totally fake and engineered public outrage.
In fact, speaking of being fake and engineered, it's not a coincidence that Florida had, in the last few weeks, managed to pull another high-value recruit who had previously committed to the University of Miami.
So they had flipped that recruit and the recruit had committed to them.
So it seems likely to me that Florida created this controversy themselves so they'd have an excuse to dump Stokes and get rid of the scholarship they offered him in favor of the other recruit who they like more.
And if that means that destroying his college career in the process is the way to go, then what do they care?
One thing that's always been clear about NCAA football programs is that the people running them don't give a damn about the kids playing for them.
That's for sure.
The point is that, again, the controversy and outrage was, as always, 100% fake and contrived.
Stokes apologized to those he had hurt and offended, but that is a group that consists of precisely zero people.
Not one person on earth was hurt because a high school kid sang along to a rap song.
And if such a fragile, emotionally unstable person does exist somewhere on this godforsaken planet, their feelings don't matter.
In fact, it is a positive good that such a person should have their feelings hurt.
If they had their feelings hurt, I'm glad they did.
Anyone actually offended by a video of a kid named Marcus Stokes singing a rap song deserves to experience whatever emotional trauma they're currently going through.
I'm glad it hurts.
I hope it hurts more.
That's what I wish Stokes had said.
But I certainly don't blame him for not saying that.
The kid just wants to play football.
He didn't sign up to take on the faux outrage mob.
At least he didn't think that he signed up for that.
Now, to state the obvious here.
Marcus Stokes is not the first college football recruit to ever say the n-word.
Okay?
That's some breaking news.
Not the first college football recruit to say the n-word.
In fact, it is certain that Florida's locker room is currently full of players who say the n-word all the time.
They say it in the locker room, they say it on the field, they say it on the sidelines, they say it on camera, they say it in social media videos.
Yet Marcus Stokes said it once while singing along to a song, and he was cast out as a racist because of it.
How can this contradiction be justified?
Well, it can't be justified, of course.
The only difference between Stokes and all the hundreds of thousands of college football players who, hundreds or thousands of college football players who use the word freely, dozens of times a day, is that Stokes has lighter skin pigmentation.
Right?
It's the skin pigment.
That's the only difference.
The rule, as it has been established, is that if your skin is a darker shade of brown, You can say the word whenever you want, to whoever you want, in whatever context you want.
If your skin is a lighter shade of brown, you cannot say it in any context whatsoever, no matter the circumstances, because when it passes from your pale lips, the word itself suddenly magically changes in meaning and becomes an unutterable curse, an unspeakable slur, the worst sort of vulgarity ever known to man.
That's the rule.
Though the rule makes no sense on any logical or moral level whatsoever.
Which is why none of the defenders of this rule have ever been able to actually defend it.
So let me show you what I mean.
In the wake of the Marcus Stokes pseudo-scandal, there was another video that's getting passed around on social media.
This is a video from a few years ago where the author Ta-Nehisi Coates explains, tries to explain, why only black people can say the N-word.
And I'm told by the advocates of this rule that this is a thorough, thoughtful explanation and defense of the rule.
And indeed, it is probably as thorough and thoughtful an explanation and defense as anyone could possibly offer.
But that should tell you something once you hear how weak and self-contradictory it actually is.
Listen.
Words don't have meaning without context, okay?
My wife refers to me as honey.
That's accepted and okay between us.
If we were walking down the street together and a strange woman referred to me as honey, that wouldn't be acceptable.
The understanding is I have some sort of relationship with my wife.
Hopefully, I have no relationship with this strange woman.
When I was young and I used to go see my family in Philadelphia where my dad was from, they would all call him Billy.
His name is William Paul Coates.
No one in Baltimore called him Billy.
And had I referred to my father as Billy, that probably would have been a problem.
That's because the relationship between myself and my dad is not the same as the relationship between my dad and his mother and his sisters who he grew up with, right?
We understand that.
It's the same thing with words within the African-American community, or within any community.
My wife, with her girlfriend, who used the word bitch.
I do not join in.
I don't, you know what I'm saying?
Hey, I wanna... I don't do that.
I don't do that.
And perhaps more importantly, I don't have a desire to do it.
You understand?
A while ago, Dan Savage was going to have this show that he was going to call Hey Faggot.
I'm not going to yell faggot at Dan Savage.
That's not my relationship with the LGBT community.
And I understand that.
And I'm OK with that.
I don't have a desire to yell out the word faggot.
I just don't have that.
The question one must ask, if that's accepted, and normal for groups of people.
We understand that, you know, it's normal actually for groups to use words that are derogatory in an ironic fashion.
Why is there so much hand-wringing when black people do it?
Black people are basically, you know, however you feel about it, they're not outside of the normal rules and laws for humanity.
I had, you know, a good friend who used to have this Cabin in upstate New York, which he referred to as the white trash cabin.
He was white.
I would never refer to that cabin.
I would never tell him I'm coming to your white trash cabin.
I just wouldn't do that.
You know what I mean?
I think you understand why I wouldn't do it.
The question one must ask is why so many white people have difficulty extending things that are basic laws, you know, of how human beings interact to black people.
Okay, where to even begin here?
I guess we just begin at the beginning.
He says that context matters.
I agree with that.
Indeed, when judging someone's words, context is all that matters.
You cannot begin to understand what someone is saying, or why, or whether their words are objectionable or not, until you take into account the context.
I agree with that.
The problem is that Coates does not agree with it.
He gives the example of his wife using the pet name Honey for him.
He says that his wife can call him Honey, but if anyone else called him Honey, it might be an issue.
But he's already abandoned the statement that he made at the start.
Context matters.
Sure, if some other young woman called him Honey in a flirtatious way, that would be unacceptable.
But what if it was some sweet old woman at the grocery store called him Honey?
We could probably assume that his wife wouldn't respond by smacking her across the face.
Honey is a perfect example of a word that changes dramatically depending on who is saying it and why.
And why they're saying it.
That's the context.
Why are you saying it?
And what if his wife wrote him a love letter, a poem, and in the poem called him honey?
And then she published the poem in a book and put it on sale at Barnes & Noble?
And then what if someone else bought the book and read the poem out loud that she published?
Would it be inappropriate for them to read the word honey?
Should they call it the H-word?
It's so important to his wife that nobody else ever say the word honey in relation to him.
If that's so important, why would she publish it in a book, in a forum that is made to be read out loud?
You see the difference here?
In fact, yes, his wife calls him honey in a particular context.
If anyone else called him honey in that same context, it'd be a problem.
And yet, the whole rest of the world can run around calling, saying the word honey for any number of other reasons.
They can even say it to him!
And as long as it is not specifically being used to flirt with him, his wife's not going to have an issue with it.
So Coates inadvertently disproves his own point, especially when he mentions the F-slur for gay people.
Okay?
He says that he would never use that word in relation to gays.
He would never use the word faggot in relation to gays.
Fine.
Except that you notice, he says the word while talking about it.
Sure, he wouldn't call a gay person that word.
Fine.
But he will at least say the word, the actual whole word, out loud while talking about the word.
In fact, he uses all of the words.
He says them all out loud while claiming that he would never use them.
That's because every other word in the English language, every single one, without exception, except for the one exception, can be used by everyone of all races and ethnicities in certain contexts.
You take any word that can be considered a slur towards certain groups, and members outside that group can use it, at least when talking about the word, or when reading something that has the word, or when quoting someone.
The n-word is the only word in existence, the only one, That cannot be said in any context at all, even as a quote, even as lyrics in a song, if your skin pigment is too light.
So, Coates says that context matters, but his actual view is that when it comes to the N-word, context doesn't matter.
That's the argument he's actually making, is that there is no context at all when a white person can so much as utter the syllables.
So he says that he wants black people to enjoy the same right to their own words that all other groups enjoy.
That's not true.
He wants black people to enjoy a privilege that no other group on the planet has ever had.
That is the privilege to say certain words in whatever context they want, while not allowing people in other groups to say it in any context.
There is no other example of a word like that.
I dare you to prove me wrong.
Find one other word that you could have your life destroyed for saying in any context, even if you're just reading something, if you're quoting someone, if you're singing a song.
Now clearly, he can't actually justify or defend any of this.
Nobody can.
I mean, the idea that just like the syllables themselves, if you put them together audibly, and you don't have dark enough skin, it's automatically offensive no matter what.
That just doesn't make any sense.
It's like superstitious.
You're turning a word into a magical incantation, like some sort of curse that you found in an old dusty book in the attic.
It doesn't make any sense.
It is morally and logically incoherent.
He cannot be defended.
Which is why he doesn't defend it.
That's the theme on this show.
The people on the left, they cannot defend anything they think.
And that's why he is cancelled, along with the University of Florida, and everyone else who thinks that a young man should be punished for singing the lyrics to a mass-produced and distributed pop song.
They're all cancelled.
And that'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the members' block, hope to see you there.
