Ep. 1080 - Leftists Answer 'What Is A Woman' Question By Rewriting The Dictionary
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, another major dictionary tries to meet the "what is a woman" challenge by redefining the word. It's an Orwellian movie, and even worse: the redefinition makes no sense. Also, a trans-identified male physically assaults two girls in the girl's bathroom. A member of a "human rights commission" resigns after going on an absolutely unhinged rant against Christmas trees. And four nurses are fired for airing their complaints against their patients in a TikTok video.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member for 30% off using code HOLIDAY at checkout: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
Get 30% off Jeremy’s Razors Gift Bundles: https://bit.ly/3dQINt0
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Black Rifle Coffee - Get 10% off coffee, coffee gear, apparel, or a Coffee Club subscription with code WALSH: https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/
David Horowitz Freedom Center - Check out Frontpage Magazine: https://www.frontpagemag.com/
RexMD - Get 90% off RexMD with my exclusive link -> https://rexmd.com/83weeks
- - -
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, another major dictionary tries to meet the what-is-a-woman challenge by redefining the word.
It's an Orwellian move, and even worse, the redefinition makes no sense at all, of course.
Also, a trans-identified male physically assaults two girls in the girls' bathroom, something we continually are told never happens.
A member of a human rights commission resigns after going on an absolutely unhinged rant against Christmas trees.
And four nurses are fired for airing their complaints against their patients in a TikTok video.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wahl show.
Shop the best brewing gear, thermoses, mugs, and apparel designed for folks who love country and coffee.
Black Rifle Coffee sources the most exotic roasts from around the globe.
All coffee is roasted here in the U.S.
by veteran-led teams of coffee experts.
You can stuff your Christmas stockings with the latest roasts from America's Coffee for 10% off with my code WALSH.
Better yet, Sign your Secret Santa up for a Coffee Club subscription.
Imagine the joy of a pre-scheduled coffee delivery, your favorite roasts, when you need them most.
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Black Rifle Coffee is veteran-founded and operated.
They take pride in serving coffee and culture to people who love America.
Every purchase you make with Black Rifle Coffee helps support veteran and first responder causes.
So go to BlackRifleCoffee.com Use promo code Walsh for 10% off coffee, coffee gear, apparel, or when you sign up for a new coffee club subscription.
That's BlackRifleCoffee.com with promo code Walsh for 10% off Black Rifle Coffee, supporting veterans and America's coffee.
Definitions are important.
If I were to summarize my work over the last couple of years in one sentence, that would perhaps be the best summary.
Words must have definitions, and we must know what those definitions are.
We cannot communicate.
We cannot express ourselves meaningfully.
We cannot convey any ideas or get across any message about anything if words don't have meaning, and if we don't all know and recognize the meaning.
Words cannot be subjectively defined.
It cannot be left up to each individual on their own to decide what any given word means.
Because the essence of language is that it is shared.
It is a way for people to convey meaning to each other.
But that's not possible if words and their definitions are not communally understood.
This of course has been the crux of the what is a woman argument.
The word woman must mean something or else it means nothing and if it means nothing then it cannot be meaningfully used in communication between people.
A man cannot coherently say I identify as a woman if the word woman doesn't mean anything because then he is identifying as nothing.
Yet the only definition of the word that anyone has ever been able to offer is one that would exclude the man claiming the title for himself.
So the man is in a bind.
Either the word woman means something, in which case he cannot be a woman, or it means nothing, in which case he still cannot be a woman.
This is the position that the left finds itself in when you ask, what is a woman?
And it's why the question, what is a woman, has proven to be, if I may say so, one of the most effective counter-arguments against the left ever.
Period.
In fact, it's been so effective and devastating that they are now literally rewriting the dictionary in response to it.
As the National Review reports today, the Cambridge Dictionary has added a new, quote, trans-inclusive definition of the word woman.
This was apparently done sometime last week.
The Cambridge Dictionary supplemented its original definition of woman, which is still adult female human being.
That's definition one.
And now they've added, in the last few days, this secondary definition, which is this.
An adult who lives and identifies as female, though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.
Now, this is very similar to the move pulled by Merriam-Webster's dictionary a few months ago, which left the word woman untouched, didn't change that definition.
So the definition for woman in Merriam-Webster's is still adult human female.
But then you ask, what's a female?
And well, they added a new definition of female, which now reads, having a gender identity that is the opposite of male.
And obviously in both cases, you know, Merriam-Webster, they also changed the definition of male, and then the Cambridge Dictionary has also changed the definition of man.
Of course, the problem with this attempted rebrand is that it's totally nonsensical.
In both cases, with Cambridge as well as Webster, the new definitions contradict common sense, science, and even the left's own narrative.
And it accomplishes the latter feat by conflating sex and gender, two categories that the left still pretends to insist are distinct.
So, to hear them tell it, according to them, woman is a gender while female is a sex.
Now, they've never been clear about what this distinction is actually supposed to mean, because it doesn't really mean anything, but whatever the distinction is meant to be, both dictionaries have erased it by treating woman as a sex and female as a gender identity.
But obviously it's going to contradict the orthodoxies of gender ideology.
You cannot make any statement about sex or gender that doesn't contradict some aspect of gender ideology, as the entire thing is a confused pretzel of competing, mutually exclusive claims and internal inconsistencies.
The greater problem is that these definitions fly in the face of basic logic, not to mention human biology.
So they say, a woman is an adult who lives and identifies as female, though they may have been said to have been a different sex at birth, according to the Cambridge Dictionary.
But how can someone live as a female if they are not female?
I mean, to live as something is to be that thing.
You cannot be something and yet not live as it, just as you cannot live as something if you are not that thing.
Unless, unless by live as, we really mean living in the manner of, or living as an imitation of.
And if that's what's meant here, and it is what's meant because that's all that could possibly be meant by it, then the Cambridge Dictionary is actually telling us that a woman is either an adult human female or not an adult human female.
It is claiming that a person who imitates something is definitionally identical to a person who is that thing.
But if that's true, I mean, if to imitate it is to be it, then there's no need to add this second definition in the first place.
If trans women are simply women, then they're already included under the original definition, and there's no need to expand it.
But if a new definition needs to be added in order to include so-called trans women, that proves in and of itself that so-called trans women are in a different definitional category.
So, think of it this way.
A woman, by her nature, Has a uterus.
This is part of what is meant when we talk about an adult human female.
A man who identifies as a woman is attempting to live as someone who has a uterus, a female, even though he doesn't have one.
So Cambridge Dictionary is now telling us, therefore, that there is no difference between having a uterus and not having one.
There is no difference between a thing and the negation of that thing.
There is no difference between one and zero.
There is no difference between something and its opposite.
They're not just erasing women, they are erasing the concept of differences.
Even things that are different are still somehow not different.
We have descended into pure nonsense.
We literally cannot make sense of this because there is no sense to make.
But we can arrive at one conclusion.
Which is that we are winning the argument.
Dictionaries frantically changing their definitions, that is an admission that definitions matter and that they must be objective and shared.
And the fact that the new definitions are totally incoherent and ridiculous and cannot be understood even on their own terms is an inadvertent admission that everything we've said about gender ideology is correct.
The left cannot ignore the what-is-a-woman question.
They know they want to, but they know they can't.
And yet, they cannot meet the challenge it poses to them without wildly contradicting not only biology and logic, but even themselves in the process.
We win.
The game is over.
The dictionaries can say whatever they want.
They cannot rescue the left here, though.
After all, dictionary definitions are descriptive.
They're not proscriptive.
Cambridge Dictionary doesn't decide what a word means.
It's not up to them to decide.
If the dictionary is functioning properly, it merely records what the word means.
So they could rewrite the definition of elephant to say, an elephant is a small round fruit that grows on a tree.
But this editorial decision would not actually cause elephants to suddenly start growing on trees.
Elephants would still exist, just as they did before.
They are things that occur in nature.
They are a physical reality.
They have certain objective properties, whether we choose to recognize that or not.
Likewise, women exist in nature as a distinct biological category, with certain natural abilities and functions, and possessing certain common traits.
The category exists, so we could abolish every word that describes the category.
Or we could simply refuse to use the words that describe the category, and yet the category itself would remain.
The truth remains.
Because the truth does not require our permission or our acknowledgement.
You can close your eyes.
You know, it's like little kids, they close their eyes or they cover their eyes and they think that everything around them has disappeared.
They think that they've disappeared because they're refusing to look.
Well, no, you can close your eyes, but the thing is still there.
It just is.
And that's it.
Only one side of the gender ideology debate is interested in recognizing this truth.
Only one side can speak coherently and intelligibly about that truth.
And so, we win the argument.
Now, the other side will continue arguing, no doubt.
They'll continue saying things.
But it's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
We've already won.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Inside Every Progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
And the team at Front Page Magazine has been unmasking these totalitarians since the earliest days of the internet.
Founded by David Horowitz, a former red diaper baby and new leftist who ultimately became an enemy of the left and a best-selling author, Front Page Magazine has spent over two decades combating the radical left's efforts to destroy America.
Their two new podcasts, The Right Take with Mark Tapsin and The Jason Hill Show, offer riveting interviews and insightful coverage of politics, culture, and current events.
The Right Take with Mark Tapson offers a fascinating in-depth cultural commentary as well as interviews with well-known conservative thinkers like Heather MacDonald, Michael Walsh, and many others.
The Jason Hill Show offers thoughtful deep dives about the ideologies of the radical left and interviews with renowned public intellectuals like Peter Wood and Bruce Gilley.
It takes a village to combat the radical left's efforts to destroy America.
That's why as a fan of my show, you should also check out these guys over at Front Page Magazine by visiting FrontPageMag.com.
While you're there, support their cause by making a tax-deductible donation.
Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out, and no one understands that better than the team at
FrontPage Magazine.
Check out FrontPageMag.com today.
We begin here with the website Redux, which does a lot of actually important journalism.
And here's another example of that.
Says two female students have been left with injuries after reportedly being
assaulted by a trans-identified male student in the women's restroom at a high school in Edmond, Oklahoma. Redux has
obtained a police report related to a violent assault that took place in a
women's washroom at Edmond Memorial High School. The report dated October 26th
reveals that a trans-identified male student was handed a juvenile summons
after two female students were left with injuries following a fight he had
reportedly initiated with them in the women's washroom. On October 26th
at approximately 8 a.m. police responded to reports of a fight that had
broken out at Memorial High School in the small community of Edmond, Oklahoma.
Upon arriving, the officer found a female student with injuries to her face and head at the nurse's station.
The attending officer noted the female victim had several red areas on her face and that both of her eyes were beginning to swell.
The officer conducted an interview with the victim, whose full name was redacted due to age.
The female student advised the officer that a trans-identified student, indicated by the letter A, had approached her in the women's bathroom while she was speaking to her friends.
She explained that A had tried to talk to her and she had ignored him, at which point A began to get angry and asked if she wanted to fight while approaching her with bald fists.
The victim said the trans-identified student then hit her in the face, and she indicated in her statement that she was not strong enough to fight back due to the force of the blow.
The transgender student pulled the girl's hair and forced her to the ground, at which point he began to kick her in the face and punch her repeatedly.
The victim's friends, who had been in the washroom at the time, witnessed the incident and were pleading with A to stop his assault.
One of the other female students attempted to intervene and was punched twice on the left side of her face by the assailant.
One witness indicated that the girl had tried to step in because A is a man, quote-unquote, and she felt her friend's life was at risk.
The female student who intervened is listed as having injuries to her eye, face, and head with a possible concussion.
Now, a statement from the transgender student indicates that he had initiated a conversation with the victim because he was trying to pay her back for clothes he had stolen from her.
The student also contradicts the victim and witness statements and provides details that are inconsistent with the girl's injuries as recorded by police.
So, this happened back in October, first time we're hearing about it, because of course the media has absolutely no interest.
In these kinds of stories.
And there's almost no interest or motivation, certainly no interest or motivation in the corporate media to report on them.
Oftentimes there's very little interest on the part of the school to report these crimes.
In this case, the school did, did the right thing.
But as we saw in Loudoun County, oftentimes that's not the case.
There's much more of an interest in covering it up.
So the point is, we don't actually know.
We hear about these cases.
Now we hear from the left.
That this never happens, okay?
It's a fantasy.
You're not going to have trans-identified males who are going into women's locker rooms and bathrooms and physically assaulting, sexually assaulting, whatever it is, women.
They say it doesn't happen.
Well, we know it does happen because we hear about the cases.
But the cases that we hear about are, it's in spite of the best efforts to prevent us from hearing about it.
So we don't even know how common this actually is.
And it's obviously no surprise, well it's no surprise to hear about the fact that he stole clothes, and even he admits to that.
So this appears to be a little bit of a trend.
You know, think about the Sam Britton case.
But it's also no surprise when we hear about incidents like this, and we see acts of violence against women carried out by quote-unquote trans people in bathrooms and locker rooms and so on, because how could it be a surprise?
Their very presence in that space is an act of violence in and of itself.
Okay?
So, for a man to enter into a private female space where females are vulnerable and exposed, that is an act of sexual harassment in and of itself.
For a man to knowingly walk into a women's bathroom, that's sexual harassment, just to be there in the first place.
You are an abuser simply by walking into the room.
So we make a mistake, and conservatives have made this mistake for a while, when we have the bathroom debate and we center it around, you know, hypotheticals about what about men who might pretend, quote-unquote, to be trans just so that for nefarious purposes they can gain access to the bathroom or the locker room.
And yeah, that is a concern.
I mean, we know for sure that that happens.
I think that's probably even more common in prisons, where you have male prisoners who just, out of whole cloth, invent their, quote, trans identity as a way to access the women's prison.
So we know that that sort of thing happens.
But when we center our argument around that, it makes it sound like, well, we're not concerned about the sincere trans people.
You know, if there was some way to determine the insincere trans men from the sincere ones, then it would be no issue at all.
I don't care if they're sincere or not.
It's like either it's a man pretending to be confused about his gender or he's sincerely confused.
Either way doesn't make a difference.
It's not suddenly better if the man is actually confused and he's going into the women's restroom.
Because that's what we mean when we say sincerely or really trans.
Trans as a category is imaginary.
It's a human invention.
So there's no way to be really trans, but you can be really confused about your identity.
That does exist.
But either way, no matter what your intentions are or your motivations, being there in the first place is a problem.
It's an act of violence.
Your presence is an intrusion.
It is abusive.
So there is no question about whether men in the women's room are a threat.
Are they a threat?
Yes.
How do I know?
Because they're in the room.
Because they're there.
Just like if somebody walks into your house in the middle of the night.
You know, you don't need to wonder if they're a threat.
They're in your house.
It doesn't matter what they do once they're inside.
I mean, it matters.
They could make the situation even worse, depending on how they behave once they get there.
But my point is that by walking in the door, they are already perpetrating a violent and intrusive act.
Same for men who walk into the women's room of the locker room.
Just by walking in that door, that is an act of violence against the women that are in there.
There's a threat, there's intimidation.
This is all based around intimidation.
None of these women actually want the men in there.
None of them do.
Why would they?
Because is there even one actual woman in real life who actively wants males to come into the locker room with them?
There are plenty of women who won't speak out because they've been intimidated into silence.
And there are others who pretend that they want that.
These are a minority.
But, of course, you wouldn't want that.
So, it is an act of violence just being in the room.
And that's, of course, you say that and the left will scoff at it, to say the least.
But these are the same people that find acts of violence everywhere.
You know, they think that a tweet can be violent.
They think an opinion can be violent.
They think a joke can be an act of violence.
And of course, in all those cases, that's absurd.
But walking into the locker room or the bathroom, that is an actual physical act that you are.
It's not just an opinion.
You are physically doing something.
All right, here's some good news.
Accountability for a change.
Actually, two examples of accountability.
Quick update first on a story from yesterday.
It says an Upper Moreland school board member said she would not vote for the only white cis man, quote-unquote, on the board for the role of president because it sends the wrong message to the community.
We played that clip for you yesterday.
A Pennsylvania school board member who refused to vote for the only cis white male on the board to serve as president has decided to resign from her position at the start of 2023.
Upper Moreland School District Board Member Jennifer Solot made the comments during an open school board meeting on December 6th, just before a vote was held to appoint a new board president.
And now she's actually going to resign because there was enough of a backlash against this that... Now, she should be fired rather than being given the opportunity to resign, but I'll take that.
It's the best we could do.
And it's a good sign, at least, that there's some accountability here.
There's a reason why she felt perfectly free to say this.
She didn't think there'd be a problem.
Because she lives in an environment where, well, of course I can express my bigoted views against heterosexual white men.
Because this is what, you know, this is the environment she lives in.
She never thought, this is the atmosphere.
So she thought she'd be perfectly, I'm sure this is not the first time that she's expressed such views publicly, I would assume.
She thought she could get away with it here, but she couldn't.
Is that a sign that things are finally changing?
That people are finally willing to speak up and say, you know what?
No, actually, it's not okay.
It's not suddenly okay to be bigoted against a group of people based on their gender or their race, as long as it's white males.
Also, there's this.
A member of a Boston suburbs Human Rights Commission resigned after posting in a profanity-laden post to Facebook last week that mocked God and cursed her fellow citizens amid controversy regarding a local library's Christmas trees.
So the town of Dedham, Massachusetts, about 30 miles southwest of Boston, drew national attention after Lisa Desmond, the manager of the local Endicott Branch Library, wrote on Facebook earlier this month that its annual Christmas tree display had apparently been cancelled to prevent offending people.
Desmond wrote, I've never posted a negative post on Facebook.
That is until now.
I found out today that my beautiful library will not have its Christmas tree this year.
When I asked, I was told that people were made uncomfortable last year looking at it.
I'm sorry, what?
In my 28 years at the library, I have never heard a negative comment.
Yeah, because it was probably just one person.
I mean, how can you?
I don't care what your religion is or if you don't have a religion.
It doesn't even seem physically possible to conjure feelings of anger or revulsion when you're looking at a Christmas tree.
It's just, it's a naturally joyous, like, doesn't it make anyone smile to see a Christmas tree?
It could even make me smile.
So how could you manage to actually be upset, stewing in anger, looking at a Christmas tree, of all things?
Well, most people can, but it was probably one person.
So for 28 years, they had a Christmas tree.
No problems.
No one ever expressed one single ounce of anger about it.
One person comes along after almost three decades and says, you know, I really don't like that.
Okay.
Well, yes, sir.
We'll take it right down.
Desmond noted that the town historically has celebrated and included everyone in our community, and she happily participated in a recent Juneteenth celebration at the library last summer.
Diane Loud, who was appointed to the Human Rights Commission in Massachusetts by the town's Commission on Disability, reportedly called Desmond a selfish effing bee in a subsequent Facebook post that accused her of endangering lives by raising the issue.
She wrote, for a tree, for a mother-effing tree, you've put people's lives in a lot of danger.
A lot of danger.
So a Christmas tree puts people's lives in danger.
Not exactly sure, maybe if the tree falls over on you, or if it...
If it's a real tree and you're not watering it enough, then it could become a fire hazard.
I mean, that's real.
So, is that what she means?
I don't think so.
Addressing others she speculated might also have been responsible for bringing the controversy to wider attention, Loud continued in part, I hope you know the fact that you, who claim to believe in Christ and Christmas or whatever happy horse s, you're trying to hide behind, are the least gracious, most hateful, most disgusting trash in the world.
Is this what you think your magic Sky Daddy wants?
Where in the Bible was this again?
In closing, I would like to add an F you, you pieces of trash.
I hate each and every one of you, and I do wish great suffering on you.
You're terrible, terrible people.
You did it all because you didn't get your way.
You're despicable.
This is about a Christmas tree.
I always thought the story of the Grinch who stole Christmas was a little hard to get invested in because it's just not very realistic.
How could anyone hate Christmas that much?
But here we go.
This is the person that the story was based on, I guess.
And it says, Loud participated earlier this year in an LGBT pride event hosted by the town of Dedham and its HRC Human Rights Commission, where she was joined by her grown child, Max, who discovered his transgender identity at the age of 13.
All right, big surprise there.
So, Diane Loud, with a very appropriate last name, I must say, sounds like just a deeply miserable person, a horrendously unpleasant human being all around.
No wonder she has a trans kid.
She's exactly the kind of adult, exactly the kind of especially over-domineering, left-wing, mentally unstable mother who ends up having a trans child just by coincidence.
No, it's not a coincidence because she imposes that identity on her child.
No surprise there.
But I really want to focus on the fact that she's an anti-Christian atheist with the Human Rights Commission.
Or she was with the Human Rights Commission.
This is a problem that goes far beyond just this one individual.
It's a bigger issue.
And I'm sure this never occurred to her because she doesn't seem like the sort of person who makes a habit of, you know, thinking, much less thinking self-critically.
But you cannot be involved in protecting or preserving human rights as an anti-Christian atheist.
It doesn't really make any sense.
It doesn't.
Now, as I said, this is a problem that goes far beyond Mrs. Loud.
I'm going to say Miss Loud, because I'm going to assume she's not married.
It goes far beyond that.
It's like, if you're an atheist, you're a secular leftist, and you go around talking about human rights all the time, you've got a real issue here.
Because what do you think, like, what is a woman?
Well, what is a human right?
What do you think a human right even is?
Where do you think it comes from?
What are you talking about?
Now, the people who came up with the concept, the concept as we understand it today, and if you want to trace back the lineage of this thought process that led to the formulation of modern human rights as we understand it, you can decide how far back you want to go.
But the people who came up with the concept as we understand it today, who formulated sort of the modern understanding of human rights, these were Christians.
It's very much grounded in a Christian worldview of natural law, of human beings created by God, endowed by certain rights, which we have thanks to our inherent dignity.
And all of this is rooted in the fact that we are created by this transcendent being, but there is something beyond the physical.
That we are not merely subject to and products of Darwinian evolution.
There's something beyond that.
That's human rights.
As it's always been understood.
But if you don't believe any of that, and if you think, as Diane Laud does, that all that is a bunch of happy horse s, then how do you hang on to the human rights?
What do you think that's grounded in?
A human right must either come from, if it means anything at all, It either comes from God, or it comes from man, it comes from the government.
So either this is, a human right is something that's ingrained, that we just, that we possess.
Whether it's recognized by the government or not, it's just we still possess it by our very nature.
So it's either that, or it's simply words that we write on a piece of paper.
You know, governments decide what your rights are.
You have the right to do this because the government said you do.
And if they say you don't, then you don't anymore.
But nobody wants to understand human rights that way.
They certainly don't on the left.
Now, when the Supreme Court made the decision about Roe v. Wade, we were told by the left, including many of them secular atheists, they said, well, it doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says.
Women have the right to abortion.
What do you mean right?
Says who?
What are you appealing to, exactly, when you talk about this mystical right that exists?
You're not appealing to God.
What are you appealing to?
If you can only appeal to man, if you can only appeal to the government, then it's up to them what the rights are, and it doesn't make any sense.
If the government says, you have a right to this, it doesn't make any sense to say, no, that's not true.
What do you mean it's not true?
According to you, a right by definition is simply whatever the government says.
This is a real problem that I don't think anyone on the left has even attempted, or very few people on the left have even attempted to confront or deal with or wrestle with.
And it just makes everything they say about human rights totally meaningless.
All right.
In response to Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter, the media seems to have two talking points, basically.
One is that Elon will restore free speech, which is bad and dangerous.
And the other is that Elon will actually restrict free speech, which is bad and dangerous.
And they seem to rotate kind of between these two talking points at will, sometimes within the same sentence.
So here's Joy Reid last night taking the latter track.
Let's listen.
To those people, the apartheid child tweeted, the woke mind virus is either defeated or nothing else matters.
That came a day after he used his platforms not only to mock the LGBTQ community, but also to go after America's most visible public health official, tweeting, Not funny.
Dangerous, though.
And the latest example of Musk playing his role in the right's attempt to redefine free speech, which to them, simply put, is whatever conservatives want said.
And nothing more.
They've gone to great lengths in those efforts.
And when it comes to social media platforms, as the Atlantic's Adam Serwer writes, to use them for their own political purposes, including propaganda, disinformation, harassment, and message discipline, conservatives had to invent a new constitutional right, a conservative right to post.
And the Atlantic's Adam Serwer joins me now.
Adam, your piece was excellent.
I want you to explain for those who have not read it, and they all should, what the conservative right to post means.
It basically means that you would have a right to free speech as long as you are saying what conservatives want you to say.
They just have no, it doesn't, they are not worried about saying things that even pretend to reflect reality.
And obviously, of course, this is what Conservatives were saying about Twitter and about big tech for years and years and years and we were told by people like Joy Reid that this is all fanciful and it's ridiculous and so on and so forth and these are private companies and stop your whining.
And then the script flips and within seconds they They're, you know, they start contradicting what they've been saying for the last several years.
But in reality, see, the conservative complain that people on the right were being specifically targeted on ideological grounds and shut down and censored.
That was real.
It was actually happening.
And we know that it was actually happening.
We now have the documentation.
It was obvious to anyone that it was happening because we could all see it.
But now we have the behind-the-scenes and the documentation and the email chains and we've seen all that.
So now it's only been further confirmed that this was happening.
What Joy Reid is talking about, as usual, is made-up BS.
This is not happening.
Like, there aren't any leftists that are being kicked off the platform simply for expressing left-wing ideas.
It's not happening.
It's simply not happening.
And not only that, there's no one calling for that to happen.
Nobody even wants that to happen.
So while big tech has been censoring the right for years, they've also been doing it at the behest of the left, who's been very open about the fact that they want that to happen.
Like, these ideas are dangerous, you shouldn't be allowed to express them.
It doesn't exist on the right.
It simply doesn't.
There's seriously no one saying that the left should be shut down or censored on the internet for expressing their ideas.
No one's saying that.
In fact, it's exactly the opposite.
I want them on these platforms expressing their ideas.
I want that.
I actively want it.
But I'm not the only one.
We just want it on a level playing field.
We don't want the deck to be, we don't want the game to be rigged against us to begin with.
But as long as it's not rigged and we're on a level playing field and things are fair to begin with, then yeah, we want you out on the playing field with us.
We want you there.
Do you know why?
Because we believe we can beat you.
That's why we want you there.
It's like, you don't have to believe that we have, that we, that it's our, you know, that we have some sincere passion for free speech.
I mean, we do, but I'm saying you don't even have to believe that.
Because on top of believing in free speech, there's also the, I don't know if you'd like to say, more selfish motivation that we want to beat you and embarrass you.
And I'll make no secret about the fact that that's what primarily motivates me.
That's the primary reason why I believe in free speech.
But even more than that, why do I want the left on Twitter posting?
So that we can expose them.
Because they cannot win these arguments.
They cannot win any of these arguments if it's a level playing field.
And they will inevitably humiliate themselves.
And that's what I want to see happen.
So yes, I want Joyread on the platform.
Please, keep posting.
Please do that.
It's just that they're terrified now.
They're terrified and they're running away because the game isn't rigged.
Because it is a level playing field.
And they know they can't win on those grounds.
All right.
One other thing I wanted to get to briefly.
So Candace Owens attracted the attention of our PR reps at Media Matters yesterday.
They published this headline and shared the clip on Twitter from her show yesterday.
The Daily Wire's Candace Owens.
Quoting her, I actually think that society would be safer if we discriminated more.
And they actually published multiple clips of Candace scandalously suggesting that discrimination can be justified, or even good.
And these were posted by Media Matters yesterday.
And I thought, we've already talked about what is woman, what are human rights, and so we'll continue on this theme of definitions.
What is discrimination?
Because what Candace has said here is obviously correct.
So this is, yet again, Media Matters getting upset about something, and anyone listens to it, any normal person listens to it and says, well yeah, that makes sense, of course, what are you talking about?
It's obviously true.
Here's what discrimination means.
To discriminate Until they change the definition of this, too, in Merriam-Webster.
But even if they do, it still means what it means.
To discriminate means to recognize distinctions.
That's what it means to discriminate.
That's all.
That's discrimination.
It is to recognize distinctions.
And so if you recognize a distinction between one thing and another, you are discriminating.
And that's why, in the old days, you might describe someone, you might say, he's a very discriminating person, but it would be a compliment, because what you're saying is that this person is, that they have the powers of discernment, and they're very able to recognize distinctions.
That's all discrimination is.
If you can look at one thing, and then another thing, and say, those two things are different, you have discriminated.
And that means that we all discriminate every single second of the day.
I mean, every moment of the day that you are engaged in thought, you are discriminating.
You are recognizing distinctions.
I don't think it's possible to be a sentient being without that ability.
Because the only other option is to look and think that all things are exactly the same.
That we're just living in this hazy mess of nothingness and there's no distinction from one thing to the next.
That's all discrimination is.
Now, you could discriminate wrongly.
You could discriminate unjustifiably.
You could discriminate unfairly.
All those things are possible.
But discrimination in and of itself is not unfair just because you're doing it.
And this is also true of people.
So like, there's the obvious things where if you're drawing a distinction, if you recognize that vanilla ice cream is different than chocolate ice cream, you are discriminating between the two types of ice cream.
And nobody would have, I don't think anyone would have any moral problem with that, although maybe some people would find a way to.
That's the easy thing.
But what about discrimination among people?
If you're distinguishing one person from another, is that wrong?
Well, obviously not.
I mean, in any kind of context, you're drawing distinctions between people.
I know we say that it's illegal to engage in discrimination while hiring.
Well, it's obviously not literally true.
You wouldn't be able to hire anyone if you couldn't discriminate.
Like, you have a job posting, you have a certain position you want to fill, and you're looking for the person who will best fill it.
And so you're discriminating against the people who will not be good in that job, in favor of the people who you think will be.
It's discrimination.
So, media matters, yet again.
Another swing and a miss.
What else is new?
Alright, let's get to the comment section.
Do you know their name?
They're the Sweet Baby Gang.
You know, men don't like going to the doctor.
It's time-consuming, expensive, and in some cases, embarrassing.
RexMD is a trusted leader in men's telehealth.
They make it easy and inexpensive to get generic and branded Viagra or Cialis online.
No waiting rooms, no embarrassing trips to the doctor, no insurance and no co-pays.
With just a few clicks of a button, you can talk to a medical professional,
create a personalized plan and get the products discreetly shipped
straight to your door within two days.
Did you know Viagra costs around $90 a pill?
RexMD offers a generic brand that's just as effective for as low as $2 a pill.
RexMD has already helped over 300,000 guys gain confidence quickly and conveniently, and they're here to help you.
So take advantage of their best deal yet at rexmd.com/walsh.
Save up to 90% off by paying only $2 per dosage.
Starter packs of generic Viagra or Cialis are now available to get started.
That's rexmd.com/walsh for up to 90% off.
Go to rexmd.com for more details and safety information.
Amika says, "I think a lot of people who participate "in the preferred pronouns thing
"actually confuse pronouns and personality."
Just because we all have different personalities doesn't mean we get to modify the language whenever we see fit.
Well, you're exactly right.
That is 100% what they're trying to describe.
So really, they're trying to come up with pronouns to describe personalities, which just doesn't make any sense, and that's not what pronouns are meant to do.
Um, Max says, watch Britney Griner get a book deal and a Netflix documentary as soon as she lands on the US.
Oh, are you kidding me?
She, look, she's gonna put Kaepernick, Colin Kaepernick, to shame.
If you think Kaepernick cashed in on his faux victim status, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Just wait until Britney Griner gets done.
This is gonna be...
I mean, my prediction is within a year she's going to be worth over $100 million on endorsement deals and Netflix and book deals and everything else, cashing in on the victim status 100%.
JustKeating says, you really did have a big year, Matt.
In a fairer world, you would have at least been a finalist or even an honorable mention for Time's Person of the Year.
I could not agree more.
Thank you.
Dan says, I'm a big fan of Jordan Peterson, but I'd like to know what Matt thinks about Peterson's war on anonymous Twitter accounts.
Yeah, so this has been something that has gotten some people upset at Jordan Peterson on Twitter, and I don't think it's a new thing.
I'm pretty sure that Peterson has always made this argument against anonymous accounts, and I don't want to speak for him.
I'm not sure if he actually thinks that.
Anonymous accounts should be banned from social media and that you should only be able to have an account if you have your actual name and face attached to it.
I'm not sure if he believes that or not, but certainly he, you know, thinks that it would be better if there were no anonymous accounts on the internet.
Now, I don't agree with him.
I used to feel that way.
You know, there was a time when I would have agreed with him.
And I can understand why you would feel that way, especially if you're in the public light and you're Voicing your opinions all the time and your face is out there and you've got your face and your name attached to it and inevitably, you know, we all end up getting doxxed and even our addresses are out like everything is out there about us and we're putting our name and our face with it and and then
We, when you're doing that and you're constantly getting criticized by these anonymous trolls, it's hard not to respond by saying, oh you cowards, you don't even put your, it's real easy for you to do, hiding behind your anonymous status, coming after someone who's put, you know, it's like I've put everything on the line here and you're putting nothing on the line, hiding behind it while you fling insults.
And it's true that the anonymous accounts who do that, They're merely anonymous so that they can troll people who are not anonymous.
And that's all they're doing.
Yeah, they're just nothing but cowards.
But the reason I changed my mind about anonymous accounts in general is that, of course, that's not what even the majority of anonymous accounts are actually doing.
They're not, by and large, trolls who are trying to hide behind that anonymous status.
It's more that You know, they want to use these platforms because these are people who don't have jobs where it's your job to express your ideas.
They have other kinds of jobs, but they want to use the platforms and they still want to be able to participate in the kind of conversation.
But if they do that with their name and face attached to it, then they're just opening themselves up to having their lives destroyed, to being targeted, fired, all these kinds of things.
Things that won't happen to me, I'm not going to get fired just because I express my opinion on social media.
I get paid to do that.
But if you have a job that is not in the media, and you do that with your name and face attached to it, then you've opened yourself up to that.
So if you get rid of the anonymous accounts, what you've really done is you've just taken away the ability of a lot of these different people to participate in the conversation at all.
Which would be a very bad thing.
You know.
And this is the game the left plays, too, by the way.
It's like they, you know, if you say something they don't like, they want to know everything about you.
They want to find out everything they can about you.
Not because they are really interested or because they want to give you an award.
Because they want to find this stuff out about you so they can destroy you.
And we don't want to make that easier on them.
Alright, Dennis Robinson says, Yes, there was an uprising by my wife and I to see our grandchildren during the alleged pandemic, yet it was my afraid children of ours that kept the grandchildren from us.
We are still attempting to restore relationships.
Meanwhile, Mallory says, I was extremely disappointed in my mom and my mother-in-law.
Both dads didn't seem to worry so much, but the grandmothers were afraid to come around any of their grandkids, even through Christmas 2021.
Thankfully, they've stopped the nonsense, but I lost faith in family a little bit.
I've heard many stories like that, so many stories.
Families where, you know, I think in many cases the rifts that were opened up, the wounds, damage may be permanent in some cases.
When you've got family members, you know, there's a sickness going around and you have family members that will tell you, I'm okay not seeing you indefinitely just so I don't get sick.
That's a statement that people are not going to be able to forget.
And then Raptorman says, whoever was in charge of the wardrobe for this episode really needs to be reprimanded.
A tan suit for our sweet daddy is just plain evil.
Was it tan?
I feel betrayed in that case because this is the position I'm in as a colorblind American.
I didn't even know that it was tan.
But I've made my feelings about tansuits very clear, so I feel somehow violated that I was put in a tansuit without my consent or my knowledge.
But thank you for letting me know about it.
It's time to kick woke companies out of your man's bathroom.
Jeremy's Razors is a premium men's grooming company that, shockingly, doesn't hate men.
They've got a full range of men's staples, including a Precision 5 razor with a flip-back trimmer, tea tree and argon oil shampoo and conditioner, body soap, facial moisturizer, and lots more.
It's got his whole routine covered with hair, body, beard, and skincare products that are made right here in the USA.
It's a win-win.
You love that he's cleaning up without parabens or sulfates.
He's gonna love supporting a company that doesn't hate his guts.
Jeremy's Razors is 100% woke-free, and now you can get 30% off this gift bundle when you order by December 15th.
Switch your man over to Jeremy's Razors to kick woke out of his bathroom.
Go to dailywire.com slash Walsh today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, I regret to inform you, my friends, that the nurses are at it again.
We all remember the COVID days when nurses across the country were posting choreographed dance routines to TikTok, constantly complaining about being overworked and understaffed, even as they turned the hospital's hallways into a scene from High School Musical.
It was annoying, it was insufferable, and it exposed a troubling weakness in the nursing community, that is, their need for attention.
Which is, of course, a weakness shared by almost everyone in our culture.
Among nurses, it was put on display yet again with a slightly different style of video this week.
NBC News reports, four labor and delivery nurses at an Atlanta hospital came under fire over a TikTok video in which they shared the things that annoy them about expecting mothers and their families.
The nurses at Emory University Hospital Midtown were participating in a popular trend where users share their ics, or turn-offs, about a person.
The TikTok trend originally began as a way for someone to describe why they stopped dating another person.
I can already tell you one of my ics, which is people using the term icc to describe their pet peeves.
I know this might come as a shock to TikTok users, but we actually don't need a cutesy new slang term for everything.
Now, I realize that every generation is entitled to come up with its own slang, but this latest generation has grossly abused that privilege.
There should be laws governing this.
Like, if I was a theocratic fascist dictator, I would allow maybe three new slang terms to enter the lexicon every 25 years.
Each generation gets to pick three.
Not three in a week, but three total.
In any case, bringing it back to the nurses, not to jump ahead and spoil the ending, but according to NBC, it would seem that they have been fired.
It says, "Emery Healthcare said the video was disrespectful and unprofessional and does not represent our commitment to
patient family-centered care.
We've investigated the situation, taken appropriate action with the former employees
responsible for the video," the company said in an Instagram post.
So, former employees.
Hospital never specifically confirmed that they were terminated for the video,
but I think we can logically assume that they didn't all happen to retire suddenly at the same time.
So it appears, therefore, that this video was a bad idea.
Here it is.
My ick is when you come in for your induction talking about, can I take a shower and eat?
My ick is when you ask me how much the baby weighs and it's still in your hands.
Dad comes outside and asks for a paternity test right outside the room door.
Saying you don't want any pain medicine, no epidural.
But you are at an 8 out of 10 pain with just a Cervidil, and you're still closed.
Fingertip.
Well, we've already told you to push the call light, but every five minutes, your family member coming at the front desk asking for something else!
Another ick.
When you're going room to room between one baby mama and your other baby mama.
Oh no.
Ick.
It's the unlimited trips to the nurse's station for me.
Well, ladies, the good news is that you don't have to worry about any of those icks anymore.
The bad news is that you're going to discover a new ick, which is called unemployment.
I can understand why you were so frustrated.
I mean, it must be difficult when your patients are a bunch of domineering prima donnas constantly making outrageous and haughty demands for exorbitant luxuries like food and blankets.
Next thing I know, you're going to tell me that they even sometimes request anesthesia before surgery.
I mean, these are divas we're talking about.
Now, I admit.
There might be something to some of the complaints they lodged in that video.
It wasn't all unreasonable.
I would also be annoyed and kind of grossed out by a man who has two children being born by two different women in the same birthing unit, though that sounds more like the plot of a 90s comedy starting Eddie Murphy than an actual real-life event.
Be that as it may, some of the complaints seem valid.
And I'm sure there are plenty of nurses out there who could make many other complaints even more valid and defensible than the ics these ones outlined.
In fact, I know they could, because I have nurses in my family, and I've heard the stories.
But there are two points that these ill-fated TikTokers fail to understand, and these are lessons that all of us, no matter our careers, would do well to keep in mind.
First, you go into the same job every day, okay?
You have helped hundreds of patients, if that's your job.
So, you have been asked for blankets and food hundreds of times.
And every slightly annoying or silly or thoughtless thing a patient might say or do, you've encountered dozens and dozens of times.
So you feel the cumulative effect of all of those little annoyances.
But your patients don't.
So this is a job to you.
This is something that you punch in and punch out of every day.
But if you work in the labor and delivery unit, for many of your patients, it's a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
On average these days, it's not any more than a twice-in-a-lifetime experience.
Nobody is in there having a new baby every three days, unless it's my wife we're talking about.
This is always the tension between employee and customer, employee and client, employee and patient.
You're both involved in the same experience, but the experience is fundamentally different for both of you because of your roles.
For you, it's a job, but not for them.
So, part of your job, then, is to not bring your weariness and annoyance into the experience.
Yes, you've been asked for a million blankets, yet the patient asking you for a blanket right now isn't cognizant about that, or thinking about it, and shouldn't have to.
You should treat the patient like their needs are the most important thing to you, and then treat the next patient exactly the same, because that's what you're being paid to do.
And it's difficult, but that's what you're supposed to do, no matter what your job is.
You're running a cash register at McDonald's.
Each pay—each—not patient—each customer who comes in You know, the number one value meal, you've punched that in a thousand times, but you should act like this is the most important thing in the world to you, getting this person their Big Mac.
Yeah, you're faking it, but that's your job is to fake it.
Second, everybody complains.
There's no sense in complaining about the fact that people complain.
People complain about their jobs, about their families, about their personal struggles, their health problems, etc.
Everyone has complained about all of these things.
What people seem to not understand these days is that there is a proper time and place for these complaints, and there are improper times and places.
There are appropriate forums and inappropriate forums.
There are people in your life you can and should register these complaints with, and people you shouldn't.
And making a complaint publicly on video for the entire world to see is very rarely the correct time, place, forum, or audience.
Generally, you should be complaining to someone who A, can actively do something to solve whatever problem you're having, or B, is a trusted confidant who can listen and provide you with meaningful support.
So if your complaint is something that nobody can reasonably solve, and it's not serious enough to warrant a consultation with a trusted confidant, it's probably best if you just keep it to yourself.
Because stifling a complaint, telling it to no one ever, It is also an option, and one that should be selected far more often than it is.
When it comes to complaints about your job, just like complaints about your family, a great majority of them will fall into this last category.
Like, there are complaints that you should just never tell anyone, if you could believe it.
There should be a whole list of complaints that you have about people in your family, about your job, that you never tell anyone.
Because there is no one in your life who needs to hear all of that, or should have to.
Grin and bear it.
And the rest should be articulated to the appropriate party within your family or your job.
They should almost never be aired in public for the entire world to hear, because the public can't do anything with your gripe.
We can't solve your issue for you.
We don't know you.
We aren't your friends, so we also can't act as your trusted confidant.
All we can do is listen to your whines and think to ourselves, wow, I wish this person would stop whining.
That's all we can do with it.
And then we get back to our own lives and our own petty annoyances.
Whatever you were hoping to get out of the public airing of your grievances, you almost certainly will not get.
Unless, in these nurses' cases, they were hoping to get fired.
In which case, mission accomplished.
And not to add insult to injury, but I must also say that, along with being fired, they are today, needless to say, cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show as we move over to the Members Block.
