Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, James Bond is the latest fictional character to get a woke rewrite by so-called "sensitivity readers." This is quickly becoming a nationwide epidemic, and it really does matter. I'll explain. Plus, MSNBC defends Biden from the ageist bigots who say that maybe it's not a good idea to have an elderly dementia patient as president. And participants of an inclusivity workshop at the University of Michigan struggle to answer the "what is a woman" question.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Take advantage of your LAST CHANCE to get 40% off DailyWire+ annual memberships and gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Today is you LAST CHANCE to shop the Jeremy’s Razors Presidents’ Day sale and get 30% off any razor: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Lightstream - Get a special interest rate discount: https://www.lightstream.com/walsh
Relief Band - Get 20% OFF + FREE shipping when you use promo code 'WALSH' at https://www.reliefband.com/.
- - -
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, James Bond is the latest fictional character to get a woke rewrite by so-called sensitivity readers.
This is quickly becoming a nationwide epidemic, and it really does matter.
I'll explain.
Plus, MSNBC defends Biden from the ageist bigots who say that, you know, maybe it's not a good idea to have an elderly dementia patient as president.
And participants of an inclusivity workshop at the University of Michigan struggle to answer the question, what is a woman?
It's a trick question, they say.
All of that and more on The Matt Wall Show.
If it's time to start making big changes in your life, there is no better place to start than to take control of your credit card debt.
You need to check out Lightstream for that.
A credit card consolidation from Lightstream can help you pay off your credit cards and lock in a low fixed interest rate.
Rates start at 7.99% APR with auto pay and excellent credit, plus the rate is fixed so it will never increase over the life of the loan.
You can get a loan from $5,000 to $100,000 without any fees.
You can even get your money as soon as the day you apply.
Lightstream believes that people with good credit deserve a better loan and a better loan experience, and that's exactly what they deliver.
Just for my listeners, apply now to get a special interest rate discount and save even more.
The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com slash Walsh.
L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M dot com slash Walsh.
Subject to credit approval rates range from 7.99% APR to 23.99% APR and include 0.5% auto pay discount.
Lowest rate requires excellent credit.
Terms and conditions apply and offers are subject to change without notice.
Visit Lightstream.com slash Walsh for more information.
Last week we heard about an especially loathsome group of people, members of a profession that shouldn't exist, like abortionists and prostitutes, perhaps ranked right in between those two on the evil scale.
This is a group called Sensitivity Readers, and the group first made it onto my radar and the radar of lots of other people after it was announced that One of my fellow beloved children's authors, Roald Dahl, was enduring from the grave the humiliation of having his work posthumously rewritten to remove and change, quote, insensitive language.
The people that Dahl's publisher had put in charge of this task were called sensitivity readers, whose only job is to read and be sensitive.
Not sensitive to the author's legacy or intentions, not sensitive to what sort of language is most descriptive or interesting, not sensitive to the integrity of the work that they're butchering, not sensitive to any of that, but sensitive especially and only to the rules of wokeism.
As it happens, after backlash against this PC hatchet job of a great and prolific writer, the publisher announced later last week that the unchanged and unmolested texts would now still be available to purchase.
So they will offer the sensitive version and then also the insensitive original version.
Now both will be on sale and you can choose.
It's supposed to make everything better, but it only manages to make the whole situation even more grotesque and gratuitous in a lot of ways, because suddenly we're treating the works of recently deceased modern authors as though they're ancient manuscripts in a foreign language.
Multiple versions, multiple interpretations, multiple translations are all offered.
You know, the Bible has the KJV and the NIV and dozens of other English translations.
Well, Roald Dahl will soon have The original, the woke, the uber woke, the woker than woke, and then another version where every single book is just a picture of a trans guy beating a Republican over the head with a pride flag.
But the scourge of the sensitivity reader stretches far beyond Roald Dahl.
His case is but the tip of a purple-haired iceberg.
And next in line is Ian Fleming.
He's the creator, of course, of James Bond.
Next in line to suffer the literary equivalent of corpse desecration, The New York Post reports this.
Ian Fleming's James Bond books have been rewritten with modern audiences in mind, with so-called sensitivity experts removing a number of racial references ahead of 007's 70th anniversary this spring.
All of Fleming's thrillers, from Casino Royale to Octopussy, will be re-released this spring after Ian Fleming Publications, the company that owns the literary rights to Fleming's work, commissioned a review by Sensitivity Readers.
Now we should step to the side here for a moment to quibble just briefly with the way that the Post has phrased this, because these books are not being rewritten with modern audiences in mind.
I'm a member of the modern audience and I have no interest in reading anything that's been force-fed through a corporate DEI seminar filter.
In fact, as the backlash against this kind of blasphemy shows, many members of the modern audience do not want this.
No, these books are being rewritten with a very narrow audience in mind.
This is specifically being done to appease The sorts of people who would show up at a pride parade or attend a drag brunch or, you know, the sorts of people who would see a rope hanging from a tree for a tire swing at the park and then go to Twitter and claim that it was a noose.
Like, those people specifically is who's being targeted here.
The particular neuroses of those sorts of people are being catered to.
So don't put this on the modern audience at large, put it on them.
Be clear.
Back to the Post, it says, "The new version of the classic novels will include a disclaimer that reads,
quote, 'The book was written at a time when terms and attitudes that might be considered offensive
by modern readers were commonplace. A number of updates have been made to this edition while
keeping as close as possible to the original text and period in which it was set.'"
Well, no, it's not as close as possible.
I mean, this is like if I made a delicious batch of pancakes for breakfast and then you took my pancakes and tossed them in the garbage and served up some frozen Eggos that you didn't even bother to toast and then said, well, these are as close as possible to your pancakes.
No, they aren't.
The closest thing to my pancakes are my actual pancakes that you threw in the trash.
You can't claim that you're trying your best to preserve the spirit of my pancakes when you had them and you chose to discard them.
Maybe getting a little sidetracked with this analogy, but you get my point.
A little more from the post.
It says, In some cases, racial descriptors and mentions of the n-word have been completely scrubbed from the text.
In the novel, Dr. No, criminals escaping from Bond are now going to be referred to as gangsters, and the race of a doctor and immigration officer now goes unmentioned.
The ethnicity of a barman in Thunderball is also omitted, as is the race of a butler in Quantum of Solace.
And many other similar additions and omissions have been made as well.
But this is not just happening to Ian Fleming and Roald Dahl.
As mentioned, there is a burgeoning industry of sensitivity readers in publishing now.
They are cancerous tumors spreading as rapidly as DEI consultants did a few years before them.
Their only job is to deface the work of writers, both dead and alive.
And if I were to conduct a psychological profile of these creeps, I can say with near certainty that they are almost all people who couldn't hack it as authors themselves, like they wanted to be authors and they couldn't do it because they're not good writers.
And so now they spend their time bastardizing the work of authors who are doing what they could never do.
They say that those who can't do teach, while we might also say that those who can't write become now sensitivity readers.
Recently, the website Reason called attention to this parasitic infestation in the publishing industry.
In their report, after telling the anecdotal story of a very much still alive writer who had his manuscript disemboweled and dismembered by a team of sensitivity readers hired by his publisher, in fact, what we're told is that he had written a story and it featured prominently black characters and the publishers had assumed that he was a black author himself.
And then it turns out that although he's a racial minority, they found out, well, he's not actually black.
And that changed everything.
The story that they liked, they realized this story is now problematic
because you're not the right racial category to write it.
And that's when they brought in the sensitivity readers to change everything,
to get in line with their sensitivities.
So we're told that story, and then we're told this.
Known as sensitivity readers or sometimes authenticity readers,
these consultants are a growing part of publishing.
Hired to correct pre-publication or, as we know, sometimes post-publication, missteps of authors who don't share the same traits or lived experience, to use a favorite buzzword, as their characters.
As sensitivity readers, possible areas of expertise are as varied as human existence itself.
One representative consultancy boasts a list of experts in the usual racial, ethnic, and religious categories, but also in such areas as agoraphobia, Midwestern, physical disability arms and legs, specifically that kind of disability, and gamer geek.
Another one lists individual readers with intersectional qualifications.
Depending on the content of your novel, you might hire a white lesbian with generalized anxiety disorder or a bisexual, gender-fluid, light-skinned, brown Mexican with a self-diagnosis of autism.
Every medical condition, every trauma, every form of oppression, sensitivity readers will cover it all.
Now, as always, the thing that jumps out at you about these woke speech police It's not their sensitivity.
I mean, they actually aren't sensitive at all.
You'd have to be a soulless psychopath to impose your own ideological fixations onto someone else's work, whether living or dead.
But rather what jumps out at you then is their arrogance, their unbridled ego.
I mean, just think about this.
These people will tell an author what would be most authentic for the fictional characters that he created But there's of course only one person on earth who can speak with final authority about the characters an author creates, and that is the author.
If I write a story about an agoraphobic black lesbian, and I might just do that now just to spite these people, literally whatever I have that black lesbian say or do is authentic and correct because she's my character.
It doesn't make any sense for you to say, well no, that character doesn't say that or do that.
What are you talking about?
This comes from my mind.
These are my characters.
So she's going to do whatever I tell her to do.
She might not ring true to your experiences, but I didn't write about your experiences.
Not everything in the world is about you.
I wrote about the experiences of this phantom person I made up.
Whatever I say happened to her, whatever I say she did or said, that's it.
That's the final and absolute word.
You can't come along after the fact and change it on the basis that I should have written something different.
First of all, who are you to say what I should have written?
Second, even if it makes sense to say, well, you should have written something different, I didn't, though.
I didn't happen to write whatever you think I should have written.
I happened to write what I wrote.
Roald Dahl, Ian Fleming, you can say, well, they should have.
Ian Fleming should have phrased it differently in this book.
He didn't, though.
So that's what he actually wrote, is what you have there.
You might not like it, it might upset you, it makes your tummy hurt, but that's what he wrote.
Changing it later, especially after the author is dead, is a lie.
It's another attempt to bend the world, even now the fictional world, to the egocentric whims of this insufferable minority of cry-bully vultures.
Now, not to rehash the debates of last week, But I need to also mention that this is yet another reason why I choose a harsh and unapologetic approach when I'm dealing with the woke mob and all of its various tentacles.
This is another one of the reasons why I approach things personally the way that I do.
These are people who have come to believe, largely because they've been told, That they have the right to have their own particular sensitivities and perceptions and desires and hang-ups and fetishes constantly affirmed by everyone and everything, everywhere, all the time.
Even now this right extends to books written by authors who are dead.
Even that is caught up in this dragnet of narcissism.
Everything and everyone must affirm.
And nothing must ever challenge.
Nothing must ever contradict.
They must never run into any immovable objects.
They must never encounter any wall that doesn't topple over the moment they lightly push against it.
This is what they're told.
The woke mob.
It's how they live.
It's what they demand of the world.
And I believe the only solution, the only antidote, the only way out of this, is to tell them no.
And to say it loud, and to say it often, and to say it without apology.
These people need to be contradicted.
They need to be rebuked.
They need even to be mocked.
To have their feelings dismissed.
To have their sensitivities utterly disrespected and disregarded.
They need this.
They need it.
It is a need.
It's like the rest of us need water and air and they need that too, but they also need this.
It's their only hope of ever becoming good, productive human beings.
Their only hope.
And it is society's only hope of ever escaping the grasp of these whiny, unbearable, micromanaging jerks.
In fact, we should upset them just for the sake of it.
Trolling these tyrants is a virtue.
It is a virtuous act because it is an act of rebellion against disorder, rebellion against moral confusion and intellectual rot.
It is, in other words, a good and virtuous thing.
Good and virtuous to say to these people, especially the sensitivity readers, kiss my ass.
And also, you're cancelled.
I know that's not the right segment for that, but it just felt right to say it.
So I'm throwing that in.
Now let's get to our five hit.
You know, I've been doing a lot of traveling, I'm back on the road yet again.
And one of the problems, I generally do okay on planes, but if I'm in a car, Uber or something
like that, I tend to struggle with car sickness.
This is my own disability, my own marginalized group that I'm a part of.
And that's why I rely so much on ReliefBand.
ReliefBand is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband, clinically proven to quickly and effectively prevent or relieve nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraines, hangovers, morning sickness, chemotherapy, and so much more.
Whether you need everyday nausea relief or an occasional cure, you've got to check out ReliefBand.
Like the name says, ReliefBand is just a band you wear on your wrist to give you relief from nausea.
It's as simple as that.
You can even change the intensity depending on how you're feeling.
ReliefBand has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and over 100,000 satisfied customers.
It can't all be wrong.
If you want the band that actually works to relieve your nausea, check out ReliefBand.
I've worked out an exclusive offer just for our listeners.
If you go to reliefband.com and use promo code WALSH, you'll get 20% off plus free shipping and a no questions asked, 30 day money back guarantee.
So go to r-e-l-i-e-f-b-a-n-d.com and use promo code WALSH for 20% off plus free shipping.
You know, I got to say, and you guys know that I don't like to complain except for the 600 times a day that I do complain.
But I'm not complaining.
I don't like to complain except for when I am.
Regardless, I was on a plane last night and there was someone behind me who brought their cat on board and it was one of these very small puddle jumper type planes.
So we were all crammed together and I had to listen to this cat meowing and whining for the entire flight.
And here's the thing, this is all I want to say about it.
People always complain about babies crying.
You know, babies crying on planes especially.
Babies cry anywhere and people complain about it.
I will never complain about that.
Like anyone else, I've been on planes before where there's a baby crying the whole time.
And I mean, do I like the sound of it?
Do I want to hear it?
No.
But I'm not going to complain about it after the fact because it's a baby, it's a human being.
You know, they have a right to travel like anyone else and parents have a right to travel.
And so babies are part of human society and so they're going to be included in things and they should be.
And so listening to crying babies out in public, that is unexpected and justified and worthwhile cost of being a member of a human society.
Okay?
And it's also a good sign, like when you hear babies crying.
It means that there are babies being born and there are new young families and this is all a beautiful thing.
But listening to your pets, okay, that is a different matter entirely.
So I am different.
I approach this differently from a lot of people, which is to say I approach it correctly.
Because the baby on the plane, everyone gets annoyed by that, but I am tolerant of it.
Cat meowing on the plane, though.
I think I was the only one.
Everyone else was like, oh, we could listen to the cat.
No, I don't want to hear that.
I got to listen to that.
Because you wanted to bring your pet on the plane?
You couldn't just leave your pet at... I don't know the situation.
But there just isn't a conceivable good reason to bring a cat on a plane.
It just, it doesn't exist.
Pets are not human, okay?
They're not equal to us.
My desire to not be inconvenienced, not have to listen to your pet, is more important than your pet.
Okay?
Because I'm a human.
I'm more important.
Here's where I'm at.
Being inconvenienced, or even annoyed, frustrated, because children and little babies are acting like children and little babies act, That, again, I'm fine with it.
But I shouldn't ever, I should never have to be even slightly inconvenienced or annoyed by your pet.
Ever.
Like, not even slightly.
If you are putting other human beings in a position where they are even slightly annoyed by your pet, you've already crossed a boundary.
Not saying you can't have pets, but it should never ever be my problem.
I don't want to see dog crap on the sidewalk.
I don't want to hear anyone's dog barking.
I just don't want to deal with it.
Nothing.
Which means, don't bring your pets into situations that were made for people.
And planes are made for people.
Okay?
Good.
Let's see.
This is from Yath.
Over the weekend, leading event management platform Eventbrite once again demonstrated its intolerance for conservative events by taking down the ticketing page for Young America's Foundation Wednesday evening lecture featuring Matt Walsh at Stanford University.
Hundreds of registered attendees were surprised to receive emails from the company informing them that their tickets had been cancelled.
When a Stanford student organizer asked an Eventbrite customer service representative why the tickets were cancelled, she responded, it does actually violate our terms of service.
It does not mean you cannot host the event.
However, you can no longer ticket for it via Eventbrite.
This is far from the first time that Eventbrite has discriminated against events featuring Matt Walsh in his groundbreaking documentary, What Is a Woman?
In November, they did exactly the same thing to a ticketing page for Walsh's YAFT tour stop at the University of California, Berkeley.
They've also taken down pages advertising independent screenings of his documentary by conservative campus groups and a community parent association.
I mean, the headline here is that I have been effectively banned from Eventbrite.
Actually, scratch that.
I am banned.
I would assume that if I tried to throw my own event and put it on Eventbrite, that they wouldn't allow me to do it.
But it's like anything that mentions me or is associated with me is also banned.
Because as it mentions in the article, The Stanford thing, yeah, I'm going to Stanford and I'm going to speak.
And so you're not allowed to, because I guess because I'm a scary and hateful figure, they would say, then you're not allowed to advertise it.
But there have also been many cases of people just trying to do a screening for the film, What Is A Woman, where I'm not even attending.
It's just something they're doing on their own.
And Eventbrite takes down those as well.
So they've effectively banned me and anything to do with me from their platform, but they won't admit it.
They won't just come out and say it.
So instead they take this piecemeal approach and they look for any mention of my name and then they ban that.
This is one of the biggest issues with big tech censorship and deplatforming is, aside from the simple fact that it's happening, also the fact that there's no transparency.
That they're not honest about what they're doing.
And you want to talk about laws and regulations that should be put in place at a minimum.
Like, this is really entry-level stuff.
But to begin with, they should at least be required to be honest about what they're doing.
So if someone is banned, they have to say so.
If someone is shadow banned, they have to say so.
If someone's blacklisted, whatever, you have to come out and say that.
Because that's the kind of transparency that, in most other situations, companies are required to provide for their customers.
But here with these big tech companies, they can do all this and not even admit to it.
Meanwhile on campus, the leftist students and faculty are, of course, very upset that I'm coming there on Wednesday to Stanford.
They've been ripping my flyers down.
Apparently they've been burning some of them.
There were some that were ripped down and burned, along with other acts of protest.
There's been conversations on message boards and all the rest of it with student groups, and they've been trying to organize and everything.
There was one I saw, I think Yaf posted.
And it was a conversation on some forum about how they were going to deal with my presence there.
And one of the ideas that they were tossing around, I don't know if this is what they settled on, but it's always fun to see the brainstorming session in action.
Because they'll do the brainstorming on the internet, thinking that I'll never see it, but of course I'll end up seeing it.
And in this brainstorming session, the idea they had was that they would come to the event and then laugh.
You know, throughout the event, they would laugh.
And that's going to be very upsetting to me.
Which, all that tells me is, I guess, just throw more jokes into my speech.
And they'll be laughing at it.
I have a built-in laugh track now.
I mean, what I could do... If that's your approach, then what you're really telling me is that I need to come up with a speech where I am just ruthlessly mocking marginalized people for the entire time so that you will be in a position now where you're laughing at it.
That's the chess move now on my part.
You have given me no choice now.
You've put me in this position.
As a defense strategy, as a defense strategy, I now have to come up with the most offensive, college address ever written and and and delivered
I'm not promising that right now, but I am saying that it That that is that is where you're pushing me
Then it's your fault. And if it does happen, I want you to know it hurts me more than hurts you
Okay, I don't have to do this Here's an article from some leftists on campus in their
student newspaper It says the right wants to erase trans people.
In the last several days, Trump and DeSantis have both made incendiary claims about gender-affirming care for minors.
Trump himself promised that, if elected, he would ban transition for all minors nationwide, he would end federal support for transgender health care, and end promoting transition at any age.
Criminalized doctors who provide or have provided gender-affirming care to minor children.
Unfortunately, one of the primary propagandists of this looming erasure is coming here to Stanford to speak.
Matt Walsh, director of the transphobic movie, What is a Woman?, and self-described theocratic fascist and transphobe of the year.
Hang on, fact check.
I'm not a self-described transphobe of the year.
I was given that title, okay?
I won that title.
It was awarded to me.
I didn't make that up.
So, I want a correction in the Stanford paper.
Matt Walsh is perhaps the most egregious far-right agitator.
In the past, among many other things, Walsh has called for execution of doctors providing transgender health care, attempted to trick trans women and girls into interviews for his movie, blamed drag events for inciting the Club Q shooting, referred to youth gender-affirming care as akin to molestation and rape, and cruelly attacked trans women for living their lives.
Matt Walsh wants nothing more than to paint all supporters of gender ideology as predators of children.
Well, yeah, pretty much.
Yeah, I mean, anyone who promotes gender ideology is preying on children, is a predator of children.
Absolutely.
Because it is an inherently predatorial ideology, and it always has been from the very beginning.
I mean, it's an ideology that was invented by a child-abusing pedophile, John Money.
So, it has remained in that spirit ever since then.
Then it goes on and on and on, and then at the end it says, whatever it takes, Matt Walsh must not be platformed here.
So, whatever must happen.
It says, I must not speak on campus.
This is not a question of freedom of speech, but one of the lives of our queer and trans students.
This is always, of course, the justification of, while they are very clearly trying to tamp down on, suppress, censor free speech, They say, well, it doesn't count as suppressing free speech because this kind of speech is going to get people killed.
And so as long as it's speech that you can accuse, as long as you can accuse the speech of being dangerous, then it's okay to censor it.
Which obviously just means that you can censor all speech because you can claim that all speech is dangerous if you want it to be.
All right, moving on to this, MSNBC has some choice words for those who would dare suggest that Biden might be too old for re-election.
Here it is.
There's this incredible disconnect between the gratitude that most Democrats have for Biden, his career, the last few years, and how many don't want him to run.
I mean, this is over 50, even 60 in some polls percent.
It's unbelievable.
And the other part of this, the other part of this is that, you know, it's the age question, which I know is uncomfortable to talk about.
But, you know, it's a huge issue for most Democrats.
I don't know if it should be.
I think age is what it is, and we keep telling people what it is when we shouldn't be.
I mean, there are some people who are at their best in their 80s.
Nancy Pelosi.
My mom was using a chainsaw and doing her best work in her 80s.
Nancy Pelosi, without chainsaw, was doing a pretty damn good job in her 80s as well.
Different type.
With all due respect to your, you know, to your mother, No, she was not doing, she might have been using a chainsaw in her 80s.
It doesn't sound, not something that I would be comfortable with if it was my mom, but no, your mom was not doing her best work in her 80s.
Nobody does.
Like, I mean, maybe it depends on what we mean by best work, but I'm trying to think of a kind of work that someone would be best at in their 80s.
And nothing is coming to mind, I'm drawing a blank, because almost any work you can think of, whether it's professional work, or you know, artistic work, or political work, or any kind of work, physical work, mental work, whatever work comes to mind, you are not going, now you might still be able to perform some of that work in your 80s, but you're not going to be at your best with it in your 80s, obviously not.
This is just absurd, and this is what you hear.
We all know that's not true.
So the people that are trying to claim that there shouldn't be any age cap on the presidency, that it's ageism to say that, hey, maybe when you get to your 80s, you're too old to be president.
People that make that claim is like, as always, divorced from reality, and they're saying things that we all know aren't true.
Based on this anecdotal, oh, my grandmother, she was a real firecracker when she was, you know, she lived to 93, and she was a real firecracker.
Yeah, I'm sure she was, but she was not at her prime when she was 90, right?
In any sense of the term.
Like, she, your grandmother, whatever your grandmother is, if she lived to be elderly, God bless her, probably a wonderful woman, but she was experiencing mental and physical decline.
Like, significant mental and physical decline.
And I know that, I know that, because it happens to everyone, because we are humans and we are mortal, and we don't live to be 600 years old.
If we did, then yeah, once you're in your 80s, you might still, I mean, your life is just beginning.
But no, the average age, most people die in their mid-80s.
And if you're very, very fortunate, you'll make it into your 90s.
Almost nobody makes it past that.
So no matter what, you're at the end of your life.
You are at the end of your life at this point, and things are starting to shut down.
We can plug our ears and hum to ourselves to try to deny this reality, but it just is the reality.
It's not ageism to point it out.
It simply is.
When we know that mental and physical decline is happening at an increasing rate once you get into your 80s, why would we want a president to be experiencing it?
There are lots of people who would run for president who are not that old.
Doesn't mean all those younger people are any good, but Joe Biden isn't either!
So we can't even say that, listen, yeah, he's old, but he's just, he's the absolute best.
Nobody was better.
And even him in his eighties is better than someone else in their fifties.
That's not even true.
Just like this mediocre, nothing of a person.
And for some reason we say, well, we need him.
We got to stick with him.
We got to stick with him until he dies.
There is no good argument for allowing people You know, in their 80s to be president.
A lot of people pass 75 to run for president.
Obviously, there should be an age limit on it.
Obviously, the only argument against it is just some nonsense platitude about ageism, which no one ever applies in the other direction.
You know, no one ever says that, well, if you don't let people run until they're 35, that's ageism.
There is a much better argument for allowing a 30 year old to be president than there is for allowing an 80 year old to be president.
I don't think we should do either.
But it is a much better argument on the other direction.
And also, on top of the decline, you are again at the end of your life.
And so you just, you don't have a personal stake in the future, nearly to the extent that other people do, because you're not going to be around.
Joe Biden, if he hopefully is voted out of office in this next election cycle, or God forbid he's reelected, either way, he's not going to be around for very long.
If he doesn't die in office, when he gets out of office, he'll be around probably for a couple of years and then he'll die.
Because that's what happens.
Because again, he's in his 80s.
So, isn't that also concerning?
To have someone who, they're on their way out.
They're not even going to be here.
They're not going to, whatever decisions they make, they're not even going to be here to experience the consequences of it.
Are we comfortable with that?
I know I'm not.
All right.
I wanted to, let's see, I want to mention this also.
This is a story.
I'm going to read some of the story, and you're going to think that I'm going a certain direction with it, but I'm not.
I will surprise you slightly.
Daily Mail.
Police have pictured a Texas man arrested after his crazed pitbulls mauled an elderly man to death and badly injured the victim's wife.
Christian Alexander Marino, 31, was charged with attack by dangerous dog causing death and injury to an elderly person, both felonies, according to a press release by the San Antonio Police Department.
He was pictured being perp-walked from his home after Friday's horrific mauling, which was captured on video.
The victim has been named as 81-year-old Ramon Nejeras.
The attack occurred along the 2800 block of Depla Street on the city's west side, where Nejeras and his wife, 74, were visiting friends when they got out of their car.
The couple were set upon by the two American Staffordshire Terriers who had escaped their yard.
So I guess this is a bully breed of dog.
It's a bully breed but not a pit bull, right?
I think.
Neither victim has been named with the surviving woman said to be receiving critical care.
Now, the San Antonio Fire Department, they arrived on the scene and there's video, so there's video of the actual attack of this elderly man being I mean, I hate to put it this way, but being eaten by these dogs.
I happen to see this video, very much not wanting to see it, but it's one of those things, scrolling on social media, and boom, it pops up, and there it is.
So there's video of the attack and then the video continues and we see the police, the fire department show up and they're kind of like fending off the dog.
They have their pickaxes and they're fending off the dogs.
This goes on for a while and the police show up and then some animal, you know, the people that deal with animals Animal care services came and they took the dogs and then brought them somewhere else and then they were, we were told, we were assured, humanely euthanized.
That's already a sad statement about society when nobody, including the cops, when no one shows up and just shoots these damn things.
And even when the animal care services come, oh we gotta make sure we humanely euthanize.
They just mauled an elderly man to death.
He's dead on the sidewalk in the middle of an American town.
Like this is some kind of third world country.
We are not a third world country and so we should not have... Animal maulings should not be a thing that you have to worry about in a modern American town.
But you do.
Because people bring these dogs into the neighborhood.
Nobody shoots the dogs.
Even though they make sure, like, well, we're going to take the dogs, and then they were euthanized.
Just shoot them.
Shoot them right there on the spot.
And no one comes out of the house with a gun and just shoots the animals.
But that's my point.
So you know how I feel about pit bulls and any of the bully breeds of dogs.
I think they should all be banned and they shouldn't be allowed in neighborhoods.
To me that's incredibly obvious.
So I'm not going to harp on that because you know how I feel about it.
What I was... The thing that I kind of focused on when I saw the video is that there's a video of it.
And I know that we're used to this by now.
It's barely even... We just take it for granted.
Anytime anything horrible happens we see it on video and so we all then also witness it.
But this mauling, I mean it goes on for a while, and this elderly man, it's, I cannot think of a worse way to die.
And he is mauled to death by these dogs.
I'm obviously not going to play the video.
And there's apparently someone in it, they look like they're in a car, and they're just filming it the entire, they sit there filming it.
For like minutes, while this man is killed.
Nobody.
You can hear some people shouting at the dogs.
No one attempts to intervene.
Nobody.
This is a neighborhood.
There are people all around.
They're in their houses.
No one does anything to help this man.
Instead, they film it.
Now, you can make an argument for filming, maybe.
You can make an argument for filming horrific events when a person is committing a crime.
And then you could argue, well, I wanted to film it so that we could capture this person after the fact and we have the evidence.
Okay.
But even in that case, your first priority and your first responsibility as a human being is to help someone if you can.
Not to think about, well, you know, after this person is murdered, then we'll have video of it at least.
But at least, yeah, the video comes in handy there.
In this case, what do you need the video for at all?
Why does this video need to exist?
I mean, I'm not being glib about it, but it's, you know, there's not going to be any question about what happened to this man.
We don't need to check the video to see that he was mauled to death by dogs.
It's incredibly obvious to everyone.
So you don't need that.
What do you need the video for?
Why does this have to be on video?
And then why does it have to be on social media?
I just can't imagine.
You see an elderly man being mulled to death and your reaction is to get it on video?
For what?
Now we could talk about the laws against pitbulls, of which I think there should be.
But we need to start passing laws and enforcing laws that are already in the books to hold people accountable when they are bystanders and make no attempt You know, a bystander's just sitting there filming while someone is being beaten, murdered.
Like, we need to start holding people accountable for that.
This is not, it's just, it's not, it's subhuman behavior is what we're all becoming.
I think we're so desensitized to everything because we see all this stuff on social media and it's like when you encounter it in real life, you immediately pull your phone out and then start experiencing this real thing through your phone as if you're kind of removed from it, but you're not, you're right there, you're a person, that's a person, they need your help, help them.
I know we can only go so far in blaming people for not acting heroically.
There's a reason why we call it heroism, is that it's above and beyond what you would normally expect, and so if we start expecting everyone to be heroes, then it's not heroism anymore if it's expected.
And so I understand.
So there's a certain line there, you know, nobody knows what they would do in a certain situation.
Like, are you going to put yourself in harm's way to help a stranger?
Hopefully you would, but that does require heroism.
Maybe you start, you know, and then you start thinking about your own family and your kids.
You want to make it back to them.
And I understand you think about all those things, but, um, So maybe we don't expect bystanders to be superheroes, but we do have to expect them to be human beings.
And I just find it hard to believe nobody could do anything to try to help.
Like just throw, I don't know, get some bricks, get rocks, like throw stuff at the dogs, do something.
No one has a baseball bat?
No one has anything?
No one has a gun?
Maybe not, but I mean, this is Texas.
No one has a gun?
Really?
No one has a crowbar?
No one has anything?
All right, finally, here's something else from YAF.
They tweeted, during University of Michigan Inclusive Leadership Workshop, Dr. Rushing struggles with responding to Matt Walsh's what is a woman question.
So this is some sort of workshop at a university, University of Michigan, and they're trying to deal with this question, and I always enjoy these videos when we find them, so here it is.
If you're looking at the comment that they shared was, I was just sharing in my group how one of my co-workers challenged my identity using the trick question of, what is a woman?
And they unfortunately did not have a chance to debrief with their group.
So I don't know if anyone has a way to respond to shut that down in the moment.
How can we be the bystander in that moment?
How can we interrupt the harm in action?
Sorry, I'm, yeah.
Just this idea, so like, asking someone like, well, what is a woman?
Which is just, gender is already a social construct.
So to even ask that question just shows that this person doesn't understand the idea of like, what gender is.
So many things that we consider as truth, it's just how, that's just what the systems tell us, right?
Now that I've had a chance to calm down a little bit.
My first instinct would be if you have the energy, and again, sometimes the best thing to do is just be like, I'm not engaging with you, and just walk away.
Rose, I am so sorry you had to deal with that.
Okay, I'm not gonna go off right now.
It never gets old.
It never gets old for me, anyway.
It really never gets old.
It's a trick question, right?
What is a woman?
Well, what do you do with this trick question?
I cannot think of a question that is less of a trick question than what is a woman.
Or really, anytime.
Anytime you use a word and someone says, what does that word mean?
There's no trick.
It is, we want to know what you mean by the words that you're using.
What are you trying to communicate?
You might not be able to answer it.
It doesn't make it a trick question.
But you notice, even when they're talking amongst themselves, they still struggle with this question because they can't answer it for all the reasons that we've covered extensively.
But you see how, you see why they're so afraid to face someone who is not in their club with a question like this.
Because amongst themselves, at least, well, they're all on the same side, they're all in the same tribe, and no one is, they all have the same agenda.
No one's actually interested in the truth.
They all understand that the idea is to avoid objective reality, objective truth.
And they'll also take, you know, if, when they're talking about each other, they'll give each other the out.
And so there are just like talking points or little slogans they'll throw out.
Something like, someone brings up, what is a woman?
They talk around it for a bit.
Well, you know, it's a trick question.
Gender is a social construct.
And they throw out that slogan, and then the other people will say that are in the tribe, oh yeah, sure, okay.
But if they're talking to someone who's not in the tribe, we're not gonna give you that out.
It's not going to be that easy.
You can't just throw out a slogan and have us say, oh, well, all right.
Because then you throw out the slogan, and we're going to want to know what you mean by that slogan.
Oh, gender is a social construct, so it's an invalid question?
Because what?
Because the word woman doesn't mean anything, you're saying?
It's a constructed thing that doesn't mean anything?
Well, so then why is anyone identifying as it?
And why should I respect it at all?
And it still doesn't answer the question of, like, what that person means when they say it.
So keep trying, folks.
You're not there yet.
You'll get there.
Well, you'll never get there, but keep trying, because it's funny.
Let's get to the comment section.
This is your, I'm pretty sure we said that yesterday, but this is really your last chance to take advantage of up to 40% off select Daily Wire merchandise, but far more importantly, items from my swag shack.
That's right.
This is your last chance to get the Johnny DeWaldros book and plushie bundle at its lowest price ever.
We've been telling you it's your last chance for literally weeks as I've been reading these ads, and this time, it really is your last chance.
The sale ends tonight, so don't wait to get your hands on the greatest LGBT children's book of all time, in addition to your very own Walrus proudly displaying his he-him-Walrux pronouns.
It's cuddly, it's controversial, and it's a deal that won't last.
Go to dailywire.com slash shop today before time runs out.
Fisher Gaming says, the fastest cancellation was of Alex Jones.
He was right about everything too, even the liars who are now suing him for his cat.
Yes, literally, they want his cat in addition to the trillion with a T dollars they want from him because he said a mean thing.
Really?
I'm out of the loop on that one.
They're trying to sue him to take his cat away from him?
I mean, if I was suing someone, the last thing I would want is their cat, that's for sure.
But yeah, well, I think Alex Jones, I mean, obviously an example of someone who's been cancelled on the platform, like from almost every platform.
The fastest?
I don't know, because this was a campaign that was ongoing against Alex Jones for many years, and then it kind of kicked into high gear seemingly all of a sudden, but it wasn't really all of a sudden.
This was an ongoing campaign.
The thing that separates the Scott Adams thing is that He was, I guess on the left they had long considered him to be, you know, far right or something because he had shared opinions that were deemed conservative, although I don't even think he really is conservative.
I don't think he would call himself that.
But even in spite of that he was kind of just doing his thing and then all at once he's, everything is taken, you know, within like 24 hours.
And this is also how the cancellations work now.
You can't really measure which one is the fastest.
This is just how it goes.
Once the snowball starts rolling down the hill, you've got an avalanche.
Ari says, Matt, I hope you read this comment.
I need to tell you, I actually jumped for joy when you announced the return of the flannels.
I hugged my family, started crying tears of happiness.
I'd already replaced every shirt in my wardrobe with plaid shirts.
I'll always be rocking polka dot or flannel shirts in your honor.
Thank you for saving my life.
You know, so many responses just like that.
People are, um, I think, I think, I think everyone feels it.
I think everyone feels, even people who don't watch the show.
They still feel that something has been set right.
There's a balance that's been restored to the universe.
And it's an almost indescribable, unquantifiable thing.
But we all, right?
We can all sense it.
Tie My Shoe says, now that Matt's crew relented, we should demand suit Friday.
The Legs of Rook says, now that Flannel Friday is gone, it could be replaced with formal Friday.
Well, at least you got the alliteration, where Matt wears the suit again.
Uh, no.
No, because we're not, we're done, we're done with that.
We're not playing, we're not playing games with the wardrobe anymore.
Or with your hearts, says the audience.
To quote, uh, is that Backstreet Boys or NSYNC?
Um, Friendly Neighborhood Snyder Man says, Matt needs to replace the bleep noise with a cuckoo clock sound effect.
I don't know about that, let's try that out.
I'll give our editor something to do.
Uh, okay.
You a- We'll see what that sounds like.
Steve says, yes, Governor DeSantis has great ideas and can well communicate them and he'll make a great Vice President under President Trump.
Look, let's... I don't know what's going to happen in 2024.
That's not going to happen.
And I know that there are some people that they like Trump and they like DeSantis and they're trying to figure out a way to make it all work.
And so this is the idea that I hear mentioned all the time that, well, DeSantis will be on Trump's ticket.
Never going to happen.
Just simply not going to happen.
Trump would never want that.
Because he's not going to want someone on the ticket who he would worry might overshadow him.
Trump doesn't want to feel like people are voting for the ticket, at least some people, because they want the guy at the bottom of the ticket rather than him.
So Trump would never want that.
And I don't think DeSantis would want it either.
It would be a really bad move on DeSantis' part.
For a lot of reasons.
And one is that just in general, you become vice president, you are hitching yourself to a wagon that you're not in control over, and that the rest of your political career is going to depend on that, even though you really don't have any power, you don't do anything as vice president.
It doesn't seem like the smartest political move.
And then also, politics is all about timing.
So I still don't know who's going to get the nomination.
It might be neither of those guys.
That's possible.
Maybe somebody else will come along that we're not thinking about.
But I don't know who it's going to be.
I do know, though, that politics is all about timing, and this is Ron DeSantis' time.
Doesn't mean he's going to win the primary or the general election, but if he is going to win it, this is the time when he's going to win it.
The time is now.
2028 is a million years away.
It might as well be a million years.
Right now, he's at front, he's at the lead, he's in the conversation, he's driving the conversation, all these things.
2028, by then he'll have been out of the governor's mansion for a couple of years and who knows what.
It will not be like it is now.
And you've got to take advantage of the timing when it comes.
Standing at six foot four inches, Abraham Lincoln was our tallest president.
Already towering over the men of his era, a young girl once asked Lincoln why he always wore such a tall stovetop hat that made him look even taller.
Honest Abe looked down at her, removed his hat, showing her the inside of the hat and said, 100% true historical fact.
It was an important moment in history.
The left wants you to forget, and probably why they keep devaluing all our currency with Lincoln's face on it.
But while the left cancels history, Jeremy's Razor celebrates that history.
That's why we're still offering 30% off any razor during our President's Day sale.
But act fast because the sale ends tonight.
You can get the glorious Smooth 6 razor for a close, comfortable shave that cuts hair below the surface, which is especially useful for prolonging that Lincoln-inspired mustache, mustacheless beard look, if that's what you're going with.
However you shave, just don't let the radical left turn our founding fathers into our founding non-birthing parents.
Go to jeremysrazors.com for your last chance to get a 30% off woke free shave kit.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today the media is running with a poll which is supposed to show that women are oppressed in the workplace, but instead it manages to prove something else.
CNBC reports, there's a major confidence gap between men and women in the workplace, though it might not be in the way that you'd expect.
A majority, 64% of women, think they can do their manager's job better than them, versus 47% of men who believe the same.
According to a monster survey of 6,847 workers conducted in February, That perspective doesn't necessarily reflect that women feel proficient in their jobs, but rather that they feel undervalued and overlooked for management roles.
According to Monster career expert Vicky Salimi, Salimi tells CNBC, quote, women feel they can do their manager's job, she says, but the frustration is, why aren't they given the opportunity to do it?
Why aren't you given the opportunity to do your manager's job?
Well, because your manager is doing it.
That might be the reason.
Do you think your manager should just be fired on the spot so they can try you out for the role?
And even if they do, even if they fire your manager and replace him with a woman, why should you specifically be the woman who takes his place?
Would you be satisfied if another woman was promoted and not you?
See, actually, it's a statistical certainty that many of the women who said they could do their manager's job better, many of them have managers who are women.
So, if a woman is promoted over a woman, that's an example of sexism against women?
How does this work exactly?
See, this is one of the many fundamental problems with the claims of sexism and oppression against women in the workplace.
The women who are inclined to make these kinds of complaints will still make them, even if their management team is already dominated by women, as it is in many companies.
Have you ever known a feminist to say, well, I didn't get this opportunity, but another woman did, and so I'm happy.
This is a win for the sisterhood.
They might claim to have that attitude, but none of us have ever encountered it in real life.
I certainly haven't.
So often, when a member of an allegedly marginalized group complains about discrimination, they're really complaining about how they personally have been treated or how they perceive themselves to have been treated.
It is a selfish complaint disguised as concern for the group.
But then you quickly discover that this person will take no comfort in finding out that other people in the group aren't having those experiences.
So when they say, don't treat us this way, what they really mean is, don't treat me this way.
And that might seem like an obvious thing to point out, but it's an important distinction.
It's a very different sort of complaint.
Whether it's true or not that they're being mistreated, and often it's not true, but whether it's true or not, still it's worth noting the nature of the complaint, which is usually personal and self-centered.
Bringing it back to women in the workplace, the fact is that women are being promoted, women are getting opportunities, and if anything, in big corporations at least, they're getting more opportunities than men.
These companies are actively looking to staff their management teams with anyone other than white males.
They have a vested interest in doing that.
But the women who still complain about a sexist conspiracy to rob them of opportunities, they aren't likely to take any solace in the fact that other women are, in fact, getting promoted.
That's because, again, the women who say, you're being unfair to women, the woman who says that is often really saying, you're being unfair to me.
She doesn't really care about women in general.
She cares about herself, which is fine.
Y'all gotta look out for number one.
But at least be honest about it.
This is perfectly evidenced by the career expert, Vicky, in the CNBC article saying that women aren't getting the chance to do their manager's jobs regardless of the fact that many of these women have managers who are women.
It turns out that, you know, the women making the complaint don't want a woman to be manager.
They want themselves, personally, to be manager.
Which, again, is different.
Back to the article.
Women are far less likely to say that they feel they get the same quantity and quality of opportunities as men in the workplace.
66% of men believe everyone at work gets the same access to opportunities versus just 23% of women, according to Monster.
The opportunities gap has a compounding effect among women at all levels in the workplace.
Women say that having a clear vision for the future of their career is a top priority for them, and a lack of potential advancement is the biggest red flag that would lead them to turn down a job offer.
So, the poll finds that a majority of women complain that the company they work for is unfair and biased, while also claiming that they can do jobs that they have not been judged qualified for.
If you were trying to come up with a poll to convince employers to hire men instead of women, I don't think you could have done a better job than this.
Though, somehow this poll is supposed to motivate employers in the opposite direction.
Like, you know, hey, women are likely to have an inflated sense of importance and also complain a lot.
Now hire more of them!
That seems to be the sales pitch.
And it's not my sales pitch, by the way.
I'm not saying that.
I'm telling you that's what the survey apparently says.
Now, to what extent it actually reflects the opinion of the majority of women, I don't know.
That's what the survey says.
The article ends this way.
Some 77% of men believe everyone is paid the same.
Presumably they mean paid the same for the same work.
Versus 24% of women.
Concerning, given that women say fair and equal wages is the number one most important benefit to them in the workplace.
The gender wage gap, which has persisted for decades, now sits at the average woman being paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to a man, according to the Census Bureau.
The gap widens for many women of color.
Now, of course, we couldn't conclude this without the trusty old wage gap myth.
If you're curious, the article supports the women get paid 82 cents for every dollar that a man earns claim by linking to a fact sheet on the census.gov website, which tells us that the median earnings of men are about $57,000 a year.
This is back in 2019.
While the median for women is around $47,000.
These are the numbers.
That you get if you take all of the men in every profession and throw them into one pot.
All of the women in every profession, throw them into another, and then compare the two.
But that comparison is totally meaningless as it obviously doesn't take into account things like hours worked, overtime, experience, skill, effort, qualifications, career choice, etc.
It doesn't even bother to compare men and women in the same industry, let alone the same positions within those industries.
Instead, it effectively compares male commercial airline pilots to female hairdressers, and male surgeons to female daycare workers, and so on.
It makes an even one-to-one comparison among all these groups.
It is, in fact, a perfect example of how you lie with statistics.
Because the figure they end up with, 82 cents on the dollar, is technically true if you don't control for any meaningful factors whatsoever.
But they never mention that detail when they cite the figure, which makes it effectively a lie.
So, what is the real takeaway here?
What can we learn from the fact that, according to the survey, a majority of women in the workforce feel that they're being oppressed and being treated unfairly because of their sex?
Well, we learned just that.
That it's a feeling.
This is what the oppression narrative is ultimately grounded in.
It's something that people feel.
Something that they are indeed encouraged to feel.
These are feelings instilled and fostered in them.
The poll says that a majority of women believe, they feel, that they aren't getting equal opportunities.
Very much in the same way that so many people believe, feel, you know, the wage gap.
What we aren't supposed to ever ask is whether these beliefs and feelings actually reflect reality.
That's because when we do investigate that question, we will find out very often and very quickly that they just simply don't.
And that's why not all women in the workforce, but at least the majority who took this poll, are today cancelled.
