Ep. 1127 - Daily Wire Employee Quits Because Of My ‘Divisive’ Rhetoric
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a reporter for the Daily Wire quits the company and publicly accuses some of our "personalities" of being too divisive and mean when it comes to the gender issue. Also, Chuck Schumer calls for Fox News to stop Tucker Carlson from releasing more January 6th footage. Apparently it is a threat to our democracy if we are given more information about what happened on January 6th. El Salvador's harsh treatment of violent cartel members comes under scrutiny from squeamish Americans. The Homeland Security Secretary refuses to admit that there's a crisis on our border. And a Washington Post journalist complains that monitoring JK Rowling for evidence of transphobia is exhausting work.
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
Express VPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/walsh
Genucel Skincare - Use code "WALSH" at checkout for additional savings on your entire purchase! https://genucel.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a reporter for the Daily Wire quits the company and publicly accuses some of our personalities, me and Michael Knowles, of being too divisive and mean when it comes to the gender issue.
Also, Chuck Schumer calls for Fox News to stop Tucker Carlson from releasing more January 6th footage.
Apparently it's a threat to our democracy if we're given more information about what happened on January 6th.
El Salvador's harsh treatment of violent cartel members comes under scrutiny from squeamish Americans.
The Homeland Security Secretary refuses to admit that there's a crisis on our border.
It's just a challenge, she says.
And a Washington Post journalist complains that monitoring J.K.
Rowling for evidence of transphobia is exhausting work.
She is exhausted.
All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Yeah, I'm on the road right now as you can see.
I'm in a hotel room and one thing about being on the road is that it can be very difficult to maintain a healthy diet and healthy habits while you're on the road, while you're on the go, if you're living a busy life.
That's why I'm a huge fan of Balance of Nature.
Balance of Nature fruits and veggies are the best way to make sure that you're getting
essential nutritional ingredients every single day.
Their products are 100% whole food.
Balance of Nature uses a cold vacuum process that preserves the natural phytonutrients
in whole fruits and vegetables, and then encapsulates them for easy consumption.
Balance of Nature sent a bunch of their products down to the office for our team to try,
and everyone loves them.
They are delicious as well as being very healthy as well.
Go to balanceofnature.com and use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.
That's balanceofnature.com.
Promo code WALSH for 35% off your first preferred order today.
Yesterday I learned that one of my colleagues, The Daily Wire, had decided to leave the company.
And this is not exactly breaking news.
People come and go all the time, as is the case of any large and growing company.
What made this unique is that I learned about her resignation from a blog post, which was then picked up by outlets like Mediaite and The Daily Dot, and amplified, of course, by employees at Media Matters.
Where she in part blames me for her decision to quit the company.
Christina Buttons was her name.
She's a reporter hired just a few months ago to cover issues related to gender ideology and especially the abuse of children that happens in the name of gender ideology.
I appreciated the work that she did when she worked for the Daily Wire and never had any issues with her as far as I was aware anyway.
And then she tweeted this on Tuesday morning.
I'm leaving the Daily Wire.
I worked hard getting the facts right and using precise language because of the heated nature of the gender debate with so much at stake while their pundits dump gasoline all over it for entertainment and clicks.
Accompanying the tweet is a link to a blog post with a picture of herself along with me and Michael Knowles off to the side there.
In the post she explains that our inflammatory and divisive rhetoric has driven her away.
She writes in part, quote, When the documentary What is a Woman was released in 2022, I thought it was a brilliant commentary on the state of our culture.
Matt Walsh didn't insult his interviewees, but instead let them embarrass themselves with deeply incoherent attempts to answer a question any first grader should be able to answer.
Even my liberal parents loved the movie, so when the Daily Wire approached me with the opportunity to write exclusively on transgender issues with an emphasis on pediatric gender medicine, I accepted.
But recent videos and posts have weakened my confidence in their commitment to this message.
On Valentine's Day, Matt Walsh did a segment on his show about transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney that has now been viewed by millions.
Quote, you are weird, artificial, you are manufactured, lifeless, you are unearthly and eerie, you are like some kind of human deepfake, Walsh said.
Everyone who looks at you will see something pitiable and bizarre.
Walsh has defended these statements as a good strategy because he says they rally the conservative base.
He adds that the goal is not to convince the other side, but to defeat, humiliate and demoralize his opponents.
This triggered a race to the bottom with other social media personas one-upping each other to see who can take more extreme stances.
She goes on to explain that there are people who she calls transsexuals who are not ideologues, she claims, and who she says, you know, they know that they're not actually the opposite sex, even if that's how they identify.
And she worries that my quote-unquote hardline stance Maybe not only alienating them, but also fueling a, quote, sudden deluge of animus towards transsexuals.
She continues, quote, I can only assume that the enthusiasm generated by Walsh's hardline position encouraged another colleague of mine, Michael Knowles, to make a controversial statement at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC.
As a journalist, I have to believe that there are reachable centrists, including moderate liberals, who are uncomfortable with gender ideology but have been insulated from serious coverage of this medical scandal.
Winning over hearts and minds is difficult enough without inflammatory statements such as, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life.
There's a critical distinction between speaking truth and being tactless, between sticking to the facts and sticking it to the libs.
I'm keenly aware of the distinction between factual reporting and opinion.
As a journalist and reporter, I dedicated my days and nights to meticulously surveying data, scouring the primary literature, and choosing the best words to ...accurately convey the truth, but such painstaking attention to details rendered meaningless when the company's flagship entertainers and personalities speak impulsively and deploy divisive rhetoric for entertainment and clicks.
This is not a game.
We cannot afford to make these issues overtly partisan.
The bodies, minds, and lives of children are being permanently damaged, and everyone, not just reporters and journalists, has a duty to approach this issue with the seriousness it demands.
Now I admit that outside of her articles on Daily Wire, I didn't follow Christina's work very closely, and so I didn't know that in recent weeks she had also been on Twitter accusing those who are too far to the right, as far as she's concerned on trans issues, of transphobia.
Using that term exactly, calling people transphobes.
Now, if I had known that this was a sort of person who unironically accuses people of transphobia, I would not have been too surprised by what happened yesterday.
And even without knowing that, I'm still not very surprised, because as we've seen over the last several weeks, there has been what we might call a kind of great sorting among the critics of gender ideology.
Those who are not willing to go as far as is needed and to say everything that needs to be said, Have been weeding themselves out, and this is just the latest in that line, in that procession.
They're turning against their own allies, doing it in public, thereby intentionally giving ammunition to the very people they were supposed to be fighting against.
There's a reason why Media Matters picks this up.
I mean, just as a general rule, by the way, if you are supposed to be opposing the left or opposing them on any of these issues, and you do or say anything that Media Matters finds useful, then that's a pretty good indication that you screwed up.
But they do this to their own side because they were never fully on our side to begin with.
And that's, I think, the crucial point here.
I'm not going to waste a lot of time on the personal side of this, except to say that I worked in the same building as this person, right across the hall from her.
If I'm not traveling, I'm in the office essentially from dawn to dusk, and sometimes longer.
So she would have ample opportunity to walk across the room and talk to me about her concerns.
Could have had a private conversation as colleagues and alleged allies in the fight against gender ideology.
Could have done that.
But instead, she chose to say nothing to me at all and take her grievances to the public.
In doing so, she not only questioned my approach and my strategy, but also my integrity and sincerity.
Same for Michael Knowles.
Questioning it on his end, too.
Accusing us of being mainly interested in clicks and entertainment.
And insinuating that we're not taking the issue seriously enough.
This is ironic, given that she made these accusations in a blog post where she used both my name and my picture, and Michael Knowles' name and picture, to get clicks.
And at the end of her resignation, she even solicits personal donations.
So it's like, Matt Walsh is only in it for the money.
By the way, if you agree with my complaints about Matt Walsh, please consider giving me money.
It's a bold sales pitch, I will admit.
We'll see if it pays off.
But the personal insults are not my primary concern.
I realize I'm a bit old-fashioned.
I was raised to always speak directly to people if I have an issue with them.
I was also taught that I shouldn't needlessly burn bridges with people who have helped me and may be able to help me in the future.
I mean, I can remember being 17 years old and working at the local pizza place, and I was getting ready to quit.
And my dad told me, even then, make sure you don't burn the bridge.
Don't want to burn the bridge with the pizza place.
You never know when you're going to need them again.
But these days, many people feel that whenever they quit a job, they have to nail their 95 theses to the door, publicly outlining every single thing they didn't like about the place.
They do that in the form now of, it's not so much a thesis on the door, but it's in the form of a TikTok video or, you know, a substack or something like that.
I would say that this is not only improper and an unfair way to treat people who've helped you professionally, but also just a very bad career move that you are destined to regret in the future.
But that's just me, I suppose.
Much more important point is that Again, this is someone who's just the latest in a line of people who are supposedly on our side in this fight and yet have turned against those of us who they feel are too extreme or too harsh or whatever.
As far as that goes, I think there are a couple of crucial takeaways here.
I've already explained in strenuous detail.
Why I believe it's not only morally justified, but also a good strategy to be blunt and more aggressive.
I don't need to belabor the point any more than I already have.
Except to say that if you think that it's possible to win a cultural battle and bring about a massive social change, while also being exclusively polite and mild-tempered and focused on compromise, then you have never studied history.
Any history, I have to assume.
Because that's not how this works.
Or has ever worked.
Anywhere.
Every social movement needs its frontline combatants.
Its street fighters.
Its people who are willing to get their hands dirty.
So if you think that I'm a confrontational jerk, maybe you're right.
But the confrontational jerk community, okay, serves an important purpose.
You need us, whether you like it or not.
No cultural battle can be won, or has ever been won, anywhere in the world without us.
Now, not everyone needs to adopt our approach, or should adopt it.
You see, this doesn't go the other way.
I'm not out here saying, well, nobody should ever be polite.
Nobody should be nicer.
No one should be more gentle.
I don't say that.
As I've said many times, I believe in and I embrace a diversity of tactics.
So the problem isn't that these gentler and more squeamish people aren't adopting our approach.
It's that they think everyone should adopt their approach.
And they're wrong about that.
And that is also why, if you notice, On the left, they don't have this conversation.
Have you noticed that?
They never have this conversation.
So on the right, we're constantly stuck.
Every day, it's another version of the same debate.
Are we being too mean?
Are we being too mean to them?
Is this too mean?
Have you noticed that on the left, they have never once had that debate amongst themselves.
They never talk about that.
They're not worried about that.
Now, they might have a debate when there's some people on the left, like Bill Maher or whoever, who might say, I think we're being too crazy.
I think that some of the things we're advocating for are insane, and we need to pull back from that because we're alienating people.
A few people on the left will make that point.
But if they can all agree that they're right about something, then they will never, ever even consider the possibility that they're being too mean.
Why?
Well, because they're smarter than a lot of the people that are supposedly on our side.
They just are.
They realize that it's effective.
It is effective to be blunt and direct and that you need that approach.
It is an effective strategy.
And also, it's morally justified if you're in the right.
They think they're in the right.
They're not.
But they think they are.
And they tell themselves they are.
And so they tell themselves that they have righteous anger and they're expressing it.
We actually are in the right.
So our anger is righteous and should be expressed.
But there's another problem too, which I think runs much deeper.
And this is becoming clearer and clearer by the day to me.
The fracturing in the movement right now is not driven primarily by a disagreement over tactics.
Rather, it's driven by a fundamental disagreement over the issue itself.
There are many critics of gender ideology who, it turns out, are not actually critics of gender ideology.
Not fully, anyway.
They want the kids to be left alone.
They want to protect the integrity of female sports.
Maybe they're concerned about privacy in the bathrooms.
But when you dig down deeper, you discover that they aren't willing to attack the concept of transgenderism itself.
They recoil at some of its consequences.
They protest against some of its implications, but they're not willing to wage an assault against the very roots of this evil.
That's why they were so appalled by what Michael Knowles said.
It's not that he used the term eradicate.
That's not the issue, actually.
It's that he identified the concept of transgenderism as the underlying problem.
He pointed to the roots rather than the branches.
And that's what they don't like.
This is the dividing line.
This is the fault line that runs through the movement and separates one side from the other.
There are those who want to prune the branches, which means you're going to always be pruning them because the branches aren't going anywhere.
And then there are those of us who want to uproot the entire tree.
And yes, uprooting the tree is more dramatic.
It's more startling.
It's messier.
It may even be upsetting to some of those precious centrists in the middle.
It might be a little upsetting to them.
They might look at that and say, you're taking the whole tree out.
That seems extreme to me.
Do we really need to do this?
Yeah, it might make them a little upset.
But it's the only way to win.
If you're not doing that, you're not even actually trying to win.
All you are doing is attempting, weakly, to mitigate some of the damage.
But you are not doing anything to address the thing that is actually causing the damage.
We can either eradicate the cancer, or we can continue treating its symptoms until the cancer wins.
And if you're not willing to go after the cancer itself, then we aren't even on the same side.
So it's time for everyone to actually decide here.
The time of choosing.
Whose side are you actually on?
Because there is no middle here.
You have to choose.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You know, having your private life exposed for others to see was once something only celebrities had to worry about, but in an era where everyone is online and everyone becomes a public figure, What's changed?
Think about everything that you've browsed, everything you've searched for, watched, tweeted.
Now imagine all of that data being crawled through, collected, aggregated by third parties into a permanent public record, which is your record.
That's why to keep my data private, when I go online, I turn to ExpressVPN.
When I use ExpressVPN, my online presence is anonymized, making it difficult for anyone to track my online activity, and it couldn't be easier to set up as well.
All you got to do is just tap one button on your phone or computer, and you're protected.
It's that easy.
ExpressVPN works on all your devices, your phone, your tablet, your computer, wherever you are in the world, whatever you're doing, ExpressVPN can and will protect you.
If you believe that your data is your business, secure yourself with the number one rated VPN on the market.
Visit expressvpn.com slash Walsh and get three extra months for free.
That's expressvpn.com slash Walsh today.
Expressvpn.com slash Walsh to learn more.
Tucker Carlson, of course, began airing unreleased footage from January 6th this week, and it's been very upsetting for Democrats and for the media.
They want us all to talk about and focus on January 6th, but only on certain very carefully curated details of that day.
Remember, these are the media and Democrats, they are reality curators.
Now, they do a fair amount of outright lying about things.
But most of the misdirection is about curating.
Reality.
Like taking certain bits of what is real and curating it in a certain way to present a picture that's either not the full picture or is completely wrong and misleading.
What they don't want is, because they're curators, what they don't want is just a full stream of information being released to the public.
They don't want that.
They don't want information that they can't control being released to the public.
And that's what they're very afraid about, especially when it comes to this.
And that's why Chuck Schumer took to the floor of the Senate yesterday to very explicitly call for Carlson to be censored and for the footage to be suppressed.
And he wasn't hinting at it or anything.
He was directly calling for it from the floor of the Senate.
Let's listen.
So many others who were here in the Capitol and millions and millions of Americans are just furious.
With Tucker Carlson and Kevin McCarthy today.
And he's going to come back tonight with another segment.
Fox News should tell him not to.
Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, tell Carlson not to run a second segment of lies.
You know it's a lie.
You've admitted it's a lie.
And Speaker McCarthy is every bit as culpable as Mr. Carlson.
Speaker McCarthy's decision to share security footage with Fox looked like a mistake from the very beginning, but after last night, it looks like a disaster.
Speaker McCarthy has played a treacherous game by catering to the hard right.
He's enabled the big lie and has further eroded away at our precious democracy.
Last night, millions of Americans tuned in to one of the most shameful hours we have
ever seen on cable television.
With contempt for the facts, disregard of the risks, and knowing full well he was lying,
to his audience, Fox News host Tucker Carlson ran a lengthy segment last night arguing the
January 6th Capitol attack was not a violent insurrection.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
By diving deep into the waters of conspiracy and cherry-picking from thousands of hours of security footage, Mr. Carlson told the bold-faced lie that the Capitol attack, which we all saw with our own eyes, was somehow not an attack at all.
He tried to argue it was nothing more than a peaceful sightseeing tour.
Can you imagine?
I urge Fox News to order Carlson to cease propagating the big lie on his network.
I can't imagine that, personally.
Alright, turn him off, that's fine.
I know, I can't imagine.
I can't imagine anyone in the media claiming that a riot was mostly peaceful.
I can't imagine that.
This is the first time.
This is totally unprecedented.
Well, I'll tell you what is unprecedented, or very nearly unprecedented.
I can't think of another example where you have a sitting United States Senator on the floor of the Senate directly calling for a member of the media to be censored and suppressed.
Calling on his employer to stop him from doing a news segment.
Has it ever happened before?
If it has happened, it's a rare occurrence.
And it is, ironically, a much bigger, much greater attack on our democracy than anything that Chuck Schumer is complaining about.
What's an attack on our democracy?
A news figure, news personality, an opinion host, Giving his opinion about an event and also releasing footage that we can all see, like, is that the attack on our democracy?
Or is it a United States senator directly using his power as a senator and his platform to call for that person to be censored and suppressed?
It's also if you're, if you are concerned about how, you know, what the audience will think when they see the January 6 footage.
And if you're a Democrat and you're worried that they'll see it and they'll be sympathetic to the rioters and all the rest, well, the best way to make sure that they're sympathetic and the best way to confirm all of their suspicions is to do exactly what Chuck Schumer's doing.
I mean, if I didn't know any better, I would think these people are trying to provoke another.
As much as they pretend to fret about, there's going to be another January 6th, What we know is that they would love nothing more than for there to be another one.
That would send them into almost an orgasmic delight if there was another one.
I mean, just look at how much mileage they got out of the first.
So this is what's unprecedented.
Trying to suppress footage I also think it's funny when he complains about cherry-pick.
It's cherry-picked!
Well, yeah, it's a one-hour news program.
You can only fit so much footage into it.
So, yes, cherry-picking, as in picking the parts that are the most relevant and interesting and that are the most revealing and the most newsworthy and releasing those.
I mean, Tucker Carlson cannot air 40,000 hours of uncut footage during his one-hour news program.
But speaking of cherry-picked, what about, this is the unreleased footage, remember?
This is the unreleased footage from January 6th.
There has been a little bit of footage that's been released.
But what about the people that released it?
Is that not cherry-picked?
What about all the many January 6th committees and hearings and the footage that they released during those charades?
Was that not also cherry-picked?
Well, of course it was.
It was cherry-picked to support a certain narrative, and now Tucker Carlson's coming along, and he's picking different footage to shed a different kind of light on the event, and that's what they're obviously worried about, is how it interferes with the narrative.
How can they be lies anyway?
So are you accusing him of doctoring the footage?
Maybe that's where they'll go next, I wouldn't be surprised.
It's been doctored!
But right now, they're not even claiming that.
I mean, this is actual footage.
See it for yourself.
The footage that we played yesterday of Jacob Chansley, the so-called QAnon shaman, being escorted through the building.
Where's the lie there?
What part of that is a lie?
Was he not escorted through the building?
Are our eyes deceiving us?
Is this some sort of special effects?
Did Tucker Carlson deploy deceptive editing to make it seem that way?
Well, okay, then release whatever other context is needed to make it clear that it wasn't what it seems.
Like, release that.
Let us see that.
If the Capitol Police officers were not escorting this guy through the building as if he was taking a sightseeing tour, if that's not what they were doing, then what were they doing?
And if it was cherry-picked, then show us the rest.
Have you noticed that, too, that they say it's cherry-picked, it's not the full story?
Okay, well then, whatever footage Carlson released, if there's more footage that would create a context that would totally change, you know, our opinion and perception of what Carlson shows, then release that footage.
But you notice they're not... What they're doing instead is just trying to suppress the footage rather than releasing more footage.
To give us more context.
And I think that tells you everything you need to know.
The White House was asked about this as well, and here's what Karen Jean Parr said about it.
Last night, Tucker Carlson cherry-picked video surveillance from the January 6th insurrection, severely downplaying the events of that day.
He said the mob was orderly and meek, and that they were tourists instead of insurrectionists.
What's your response to Carlson and to Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who granted him access to that video?
Anybody who watched that video would strongly disagree.
Anybody who watched that video in a With their own eyes, in a real way, and saw what happened on that day, would disagree with what was just stated.
The President has been very clear, January 6th was the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War, and we should be focused on making sure that never happens again.
And so we are certainly, we agree, I know Minority Leader and Senator Schumer have already said this and would hope that keeping the Capitol and Congress safe and secure remains Congressional leaders number one goal and that should be our focus.
And that should be what should be considered here.
And again, it was one of the darkest days of our democracy.
And all you have to do is watch those videos and see how horrific it was, see how sad it was, see an attack on the Capitol, which should not be happening in 2020.
And we got to get down to the bottom of what happened.
Again, it was an attack on our democracy.
And I'll just leave it there.
She makes no attempt to even seem sincere in anything that she says.
You know, very clearly reading, sometimes literally reading from a script.
Oh, this was an attack on our democracy?
The worst attack since the Civil War.
Was it really?
Because, you know, the Civil War, a total of 600,000 people were killed.
It totally changed the course of the nation.
I mean, nothing was the same after the Civil War.
600,000 Americans dead.
You know, about 300,000 on both sides.
So it's an actual war, actual physical war being fought in the United States.
And this was an event, January 6th rather, was an event that happened over the course of a couple hours in D.C.
The only person who was directly killed that day was one of the rioters.
And then it was over and that's it.
Oh yeah, exactly the same.
Of course.
Alright, I'm a little late to this story, but here's the Financial Times.
It says, on the remote plains of the Las Chiques volcano, the strongman leader of El Salvador has built a mega prison that is supposed to become the world's biggest by population and the most overcrowded by design.
The president proudly opened the new house for 40,000 prisoners last month, where gang members will be sent.
To live for decades to pay for their alleged crimes, the vast penal experiment, if it reaches full capacity, will be unrivaled in the scale of its incarceration facility that could accommodate two-thirds of Germany's total prison population in one place.
But if the president sees through his plans, the prison will also have another unique and chilling feature.
It will set records for deliberately designed overcrowding.
According to Financial Times analysis of the complex using satellite imagery, if it reaches the 40,000 capacity advertised by the government, each inmate will have just 0.6 square meters within shared cells, according to FT calculations.
That is a fraction of what is expected for humane incarceration and less than half the minimum required under EU law to transport mid-sized cattle by road.
There's been a lot of footage of this prison that's been circulating online.
And you can see it's a very, you know, hundreds and hundreds of inmates that are being escorted through the prison.
They're being made to kneel on the ground.
They're being treated, well, they're being treated like prisoners, if you can imagine.
And I understand it's very shocking for those of us in the modern United States to see prisoners being treated like prisoners.
My God, they're treating these prisoners like some sort of prisoners!
So it's shocking for us when we see footage like this.
Here's a report from CNN with some of the footage.
A warning.
Some of the images you are about to see you might find disturbing.
What you're looking at is a glossy, professionally shot, promotional video of El Salvador's new giant prison.
It shows thousands of alleged gangsters being taken to a jail so big it can host 40,000 people.
And that the government says is the largest in the Americas.
El Salvador is a country with a huge prison population because of the presence of two of the largest criminal organizations in the world, MS-13 and Barrio 18.
Last year, the country's president, Nayib Bukele, launched a new national emergency law to fight the gangs that led to tens of thousands of arrests.
All right, so you see the footage.
Shocking.
Shocking footage.
Terribly shocking.
And it is terrible.
You know, I would... This is overboard.
I mean, I would never treat violent gang members this way.
Just kidding, of course.
I mean, this is... You know what this is?
This is actually justice.
It's what justice looks like.
And again, I know it might be surprising to those of us in the United States in a comfortable, modern, western civilization that also happens to be decaying and falling apart, in part because of our rampant crime that's destroying all of our cities.
But still, it might be surprising to us to see that prisons are not supposed to be comfortable.
They are supposed to be the kinds of places that you really don't want to go to.
It's supposed to be a punishment.
You're supposed to suffer when you're in prison.
That's what punishment is meant to do.
It is meant to cause suffering.
Not just suffering for its own sake, but for a purpose.
And the purpose ultimately is justice.
But there is no such thing as justice if you are not causing suffering to evildoers.
That doesn't exist.
And the reaction, though, to this El Salvador prison story is it's interesting because you got lots of people who constantly complain about, you know, nonviolent offenders being locked in prison in this country.
And yet they're still complaining about this, even though these guys are cartel members.
They belong to Central American drug gangs.
OK, these are as violent and dangerous as it gets.
These are not non-violent offenders.
These are the guys who will kidnap you and cut your head off and leave your headless body in the middle of the street and throw your head into a bag with all the other severed heads.
That's these guys.
That's what they do.
These are the guys who will murder your children.
Okay?
These are the guys that will kill your entire family without even thinking about it.
And you're concerned that they are being treated too harshly?
Now this actually makes sense when you understand something, that the people who complain about this sort of thing, most of them are not bleeding heart liberals.
They're leftist, but the bleeding heart liberal stereotype is almost entirely a fantasy.
They don't have bleeding hearts, okay?
They don't.
I mean, if we showed them this same footage, but we told them that all the prisoners were convicted of being, what if we told them that all the prisoners are convicted transphobes?
Well, then they'd probably complain the treatment's not harsh enough.
Then they would say, oh, it's only .6 square meters.
You're giving them that much?
They're transphobes.
So, they don't have an overabundance of compassion and sympathy.
No, the issue is this.
First, they're beholden to identity politics, obviously, which means that cartel gangbangers from Central America, well, they're victims because they belong to a victim class, as do most prisoners in the United States.
That's part of it.
The other part is that they don't believe in free will.
And that plays a big role, and very rarely does it come up explicitly when we're talking about criminal justice issues and so-called criminal justice reform.
But that actually is what lies underneath a lot of this, is that the people that are advocating for quote-unquote criminal justice reform, whether in this country or in El Salvador or anywhere else, they don't believe in free will.
Which means they don't want prisoners to be harshly punished because they don't think that prisoners are and criminals are responsible for anything they do.
That's the point for them.
They look at these guys, and yeah, they're violent gang members, cartel members, they'll cut your head off, they'll cut your children's heads off, but it's not their fault.
They don't make that choice.
They are already prisoners of circumstance, and it's circumstance and environment and all of that that determines what they do.
They have no agency over their own actions.
Nobody does, according to the left.
So they reject the concept of free will, which means that really any form of punishment is cruel and unusual.
Because you're punishing people for something that they didn't actually do.
They didn't choose to do it.
And that's nonsense, obviously.
Not only does free will exist, but it's one of the most self-evident realities in the universe.
But that is what they think.
Of course, this is not consistently applied.
As I said, if they saw that video and we told them that these were convicted transphobes, they'd be okay with it.
So, even though they don't believe in free will and they believe that we're victims of circumstance and that everything we do, we're programmed to do it and so forth, they don't apply that equally.
And so, if they accuse you of being a bigot or a transphobe or a homophobe, then they want you to suffer the consequences for that.
So, you are guilty of that.
You're responsible for that.
However, if you're a gang member in El Salvador and you cut somebody's head off, you're not responsible for that.
So, this is, it's not consistent, it's not coherent, obviously, but, and one thing that we know about the left is that whatever their principles are, they never apply them consistently, ever.
I mean, their number one principle is, don't apply principles consistently.
But that is what is, that's the underlying issue thing, issue here, I think.
All right.
One other thing before we get to the comment section.
Well, maybe two.
So Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was on CNN as well, where he was asked whether the border crisis is, in fact, a crisis.
And here's what he says.
Many of your opponents call it a border crisis.
Do you consider it a crisis in the Biden administration?
Christian, the issues that we have are extraordinarily diverse.
You know, I spoke about extreme weather events.
I spoke about cybersecurity.
You and I have now exchanged about the threat of adverse nation states that seek to infringe on our and other countries' sovereignty.
You know, 20 years ago, when our department was created, it was the foreign terrorist.
We now have the challenge of a domestic violent extremist.
When we speak about the border, we have to put it in context.
That this is not a challenge, and it is indeed a challenge, not a challenge exclusive to
the United States.
You know, Chile just deployed its military to its border.
Colombia has 2.5 million Venezuelans within its borders.
Costa Rica's population is increasingly Nicaraguan.
We are seeing a movement of people throughout the hemisphere and, quite frankly, throughout the world that is historic.
It's not a crisis, it's a challenge.
It's a challenge, you see.
So, it's always interesting To see where the Democrats become suddenly, you know, they become suddenly very cautious in the way that they describe things, and they don't want to engage in hyperbole, and so they're very careful.
We don't call it a crisis, it's a challenge.
So they do that on this particular issue.
So on this issue, it is a challenge, not a crisis.
But when you have, I don't know, the examples are endless.
When you have parents showing up at school board meetings, you know, angry that there's pornography in the library, that we can describe as a crisis.
It's a domestic terrorism crisis.
And the crisis is not the pornography, but that the parents are upset about it.
However, when you've got millions of people pouring into this country, are borders being erased?
Not a crisis, just a challenge, sure.
All right, so one other quick thing.
I did a segment several days ago, I think it was a Daily Cancellation, where I talked about asexuals.
And in particular, I was responding to a profile of an asexual in the New York Times, The Washington Post, or one of these outlets, they're all the same.
And they told us about an asexual person, and they even introduced us to the asexual stuffed animals.
And they gave us the names of the stuffed animals too.
And that's the kind of thing, tailor-made for the Daily Cancellation.
I mean, when a mainstream outlet puts something like that out there, I can only assume that they have made it for the Daily Cancellation.
It's just, how could I not include it in the Daily Cancellation segment?
But that segment apparently, I guess, has gone viral on TikTok, and it's led to a whole bunch of rebuttal and reaction videos from the asexual community, very upset about what I said about asexuals.
And also the plushie enthusiast community said as well.
So here's one of those videos.
So I heard that all you have to do to piss off Matt Walsh is to be asexual and have plushies.
So I'm asexual.
Let's meet my plushies.
This is Lotus.
She her.
This is Beetlejuice.
He him.
This is Lake.
He, him.
This is Kaden.
She/They.
Pomp.
He, him.
Meadow.
So, they/them. Priscilla.
She, her.
I'm doing this right?
Okay, good.
Well, so you see, I mean, clearly everything I said about, you know, asexuals maybe having some issues, obviously I'm wrong.
I've been proven totally wrong.
Listen, the point I made there that I will reiterate is that, you know, If you are defining yourself, your perceived inability to develop romantic attractions to other people.
That's not an identity to be embraced.
That's the absence of something.
That is your inability to experience something that's central to the human condition.
The ability to experience love and romantic attraction.
It's part of what makes us human beings.
And so if you perceive yourself to be unable to do that, it's not your identity now.
This emptiness, this absence is not an identity.
It's bad enough when people claim an identity.
Find their identity entirely in their sexual attractions.
That's bad enough.
Because our identity should not be completely tied up in our sexual proclivities and attractions.
That shouldn't be our whole identity, our whole personality.
But to make your whole identity and your whole personality, the lack of that is even worse.
And it's also not something that you need to just accept.
That's part of the problem with making an identity, put it on the flag, you know, you have your own acronym in the LGBT thing.
You have your own letter in the acronym.
When you do that, you've embraced and accepted this thing that you don't need to.
Because there's obviously some other issues that are going on that you need to address.
And if you address that, then you may discover that actually, although you perceive yourself to be unable to develop romantic attractions and to have that kind of bond with another human being, you perceive that yourself to be unable to do that.
You actually are able to do it, but you have to go and get the help that you need to be able to experience that aspect of being a human.
So I think it's a rather encouraging and uplifting message from me.
At least it's as uplifting and encouraging as it gets.
It's the best you're going to get from me.
Let's get now to the comment section.
[Music]
Well, people are raving about GenuCell skincare.
Jessica from Huntsville, Alabama says, My skin looks so soft and clear.
I've seen a reduced number of fine lines and dark spots.
I have found a new lifetime product.
Absolutely love it.
GenuCell Skin Care uses a one-of-a-kind proprietary flower base developed by the founder and pharmacist, along with rare botanical extracts and powerful antioxidants for skin care results that work.
And this is all guaranteed.
GenuCell Skincare is uniquely formulated to visibly target all visible signs of aging, fine lines, wrinkles, dark spots, sagging jawline, even those puffy under-eye bags.
Their products work for both men and women, plus they're safe for all skin types.
You'll see results in 12 hours, guaranteed, or your money back.
You know, as I've told you, my talent manager, Tessa, uses GenuCell under-eye treatment to help get rid of the bags under her eyes, and we're constantly always talking about that.
So try GenuCell's most popular package for 70% off at GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
Join millions of happy customers who have already fallen in love with the results.
Plus, for a limited time, get GenuCell's probiotic extract moisturizer free with every most popular package.
Go to GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
All right, so this is our last day in Florida.
We've been in Florida.
We've been in Palm Beach, Florida the last couple of days.
I was speaking at the PragerU banquet, their gala in Palm Beach at the Breakers Resort, which is where we currently are.
And I've never been here before.
It's absurdly nice and beautiful.
I guess this building was built in the late 19th century.
They don't make buildings like this anymore.
It's just a beautiful resort.
It's right on the ocean.
It's great.
Oftentimes when I'm traveling, I'll take a couple pictures or something.
I'll send it to my wife just so she knows where I am and she's interested in where I am.
I decided not to do that in this case because I didn't want to rub it in too much.
She's home with six kids right now.
I was thinking about this yesterday because I'm sitting in my room in the morning doing a little bit of show prep.
And I got the windows open, overlooking the ocean.
I can hear the waves crashing.
It's beautiful.
I'm eating the gourmet room service breakfast, charged to the Daily Wire.
Thank you very much for that.
And then my wife calls me, and I can hear the babies crying in the background.
And she tells me that our three-year-old came down with a stomach bug overnight.
She was up with the three-year-old throwing up.
I hear all that commotion.
I'm contrasting that with being in my nice suite with the ocean and everything.
And then she asks me, she said, well, so that's what's happening.
What's going on with you?
And I just look around.
I say, well, it's not good here either.
I don't want to go into details, but it's bad.
Don't ask me to explain it, but it just is.
Budgie Birdie says, I was laughing so hard at Matt's experience of shopping with his wife.
My husband is the same way.
We were out one afternoon and I wanted to stop by Kohl's and my husband dropped me off and said he was going home and to call me when I was done.
That's a smart move.
That's a veteran move by your husband.
And I still make the rookie mistake often of saying, I'll wait in the car.
And then you're waiting in the car for three and a half hours.
So this is a smart man.
He's been around the block a few times.
So he says, I'll just go home.
Call me.
Call me sometime this evening whenever you're done and I'll come pick you up.
I haven't watched it yet.
Sarah says, "The moment I tuned into the Chris Rock comedy special, I was dying to hear what
Matt's commentary would be.
Hopefully it's covered, and if so, buckle up."
I haven't watched it yet.
I know that there's been a lot of reaction to it, and I guess it's been similar reaction
to Dave Chappelle, where this was supposed to be a comedy special where he's going after
the woke crowd and everything.
And I know there are a lot of conservative people on the right that are applauding it.
I haven't listened to it, I haven't watched it myself yet, but I will.
Hopefully, I've said this before, I appreciate some of what Dave Chappelle says, obviously, but I've actually found his last couple comedy specials that got all this publicity And I watched them, and I agree with some of this, but I don't find it that funny.
It seems like he's preaching, and I agree with some of what he's preaching, but it's not as funny as his older stuff.
And so, that's something I've noticed with some of these anti-woke comedians.
There aren't many of them, so beggars can't be choosers, but they're saying things that are right, but they've lost some of the wit.
And really, you want to have both.
So, I don't know if that's the case.
What I'm hoping is that it's anti-woke and all of that, but it's actually really funny.
And I don't know yet, but I'll watch and find out.
Justin says, I'm so proud to have Matt as one of us.
The fishkeeping community is richer for having him.
Well, I appreciate that, Justin.
We are a marginalized community ourselves.
I'm not sure in what way we're marginalized, but I'll figure that out.
I just know that we are.
And Sherry says, self-check registers have created or allowed a huge theft problem.
Seems to happen a lot, and we've seen employees witness it and do nothing.
Yeah, self-check probably doesn't help, and the employees witness it and do nothing because they're told that they're not allowed to do anything.
I can remember this even back when I worked in retail, and this is one thing they told us, that if you see anybody stealing, you are not, if you try to stop them, you will be fired.
We'll fire you for trying to stop them.
And so that's why I don't, I don't, when I, when I see all these videos of people going in and robbing a place and throwing items into a, you know, black trash bag and walking out with it.
And you see the employees just standing there doing nothing.
And sometimes the reaction online will be, why aren't they doing anything?
I don't blame them for not doing anything.
They're told not to do anything.
And if so, if they step up to try to defend their employer's bottom line, they'll get fired for it.
So of course they're not going to do anything.
I don't blame them for that.
I blame the person who's doing the stealing.
And to a certain extent, I guess you have to blame these corporations and these stores for having those policies in the first place.
They might want to adjust those policies.
So that's part of it.
Self-check probably doesn't help.
Also the masking.
Now, people don't mask nearly as much as they used to, thank God, but this is a connection that's not made often enough, but it is not a coincidence that this current trend of mass looting and mass shoplifting and this kind of brazen shoplifting that goes on that we see all the time in the viral videos, I don't think it's a coincidence that this started to happen pretty much at the exact moment when all the customers in all these stores were wearing masks.
Some of us warned about that.
I can remember sending a tweet out early on with the masking stuff saying that, you know, this is going to lead to shoplifting.
You've got a bunch of customers in there with their faces hidden.
You're creating opportunities for shoplifting.
I can remember saying that and being laughed at as if it was some sort of absurd, slippery slope, you know, extreme hypothetical.
It might have been a slippery slope, but there's nothing extreme about it.
It's just a matter of connecting the dots.
You know, when you tell customers to hide their faces and obscure their identity, you are creating more of an incentive and more of a temptation for stealing, more of an opportunity for stealing, and then that's what you end up with.
Not a big surprise.
Jordan Peterson has completed the second half of his extraordinary 16-part seminar on the book of Exodus.
He's joined by a group of esteemed scholars, theologians, and artists to discuss one of the most seminal books in the Bible.
Episode 9 is streaming now on DailyWire+.
You know, we live in a time where children, they don't respect or honor their parents, and that's a horrible thing for society.
It's also a broken commandment as well.
Here's a clip from Exodus where Jordan is discussing exactly this issue.
Check it out.
Okay, why should you, maybe you have a terrible father and you have a terrible mother, and you might say, well, why should you honour them and why should you honour the elderly?
And one answer is going to be something like, well, your destiny is to become elderly.
And so if you set up your society so that the elderly, the traditions aren't valued,
and then you're going to eventually end up in a situation where you're the tradition that's not valued.
So there's this hint of iterability there, right?
Is that, and so you might also think too, that that capacity that we have to honour
that which came before us, our father and our mother, is, what is it?
It's an honoring of the fundamental spirit of patriarchal and matriarchal love.
It's something like that.
And it's equivalent to the ethos that has to bind us together, not only right now, but across time.
It's something like that.
The fifth is honor your parents.
And your point is entirely accurate and important.
It's theoretically on the wrong tablet, because those are all between man and God, and then you have that.
So here's how I see it, and I don't think it's even original to me, but I haven't heard it elsewhere, but I'm sure it's been said.
The first four rest on the fifth, and the second four rest on the tenth.
If you honor your father and mother, it is the conduit to God.
If you don't have a father on earth, you won't have a father in heaven.
And the authority of the parent, Freud even, who was an atheist, made this point, how you see your father is how you will see God.
Your parents are the conduit, especially your father, to God.
And if you don't have that authority, you won't have divine authority.
Really interesting.
Great insights there.
And also, I was going to say one of the commandments, but this is true of all of them, that have been forgotten in modern society.
And talking about honoring your parents and honoring your elders, especially in a culture that worships youth, is incredibly important.
That's one of the many insights you get from from this.
Episode 9 is available now with new episodes streaming every week, but it's exclusive for Daily Wire Plus members.
Also, don't miss out on our full library of Jordan Peterson content, including Dragons, Monsters, and Men, Vision and Destiny, Marriage, Logos and Literacy, and the Beyond Order Tour.
I don't know how he manages to create all this content and that's all interesting and insightful, but he does it.
So join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe to watch Exodus today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
A new podcast called The Witch Trials of J.K.
Rowling examines the life and times of the Harry Potter author, focusing in particular on her efforts to defend the reality of biological sex and the insane backlash she's received because of that.
I haven't listened to the series myself, so I'll just read for you this very objective explainer by CNN as they are explaining what the series is.
Here's what CNN says.
And this is not labeled as an opinion article, by the way.
For years, J.K.
Rowling, one of the best-selling authors of all time, has made inflammatory comments about transgender people, particularly trans women, using dehumanizing language and baselessly accusing them of harming cisgender women.
Her words have disappointed legions of Harry Potter fans and even the stars who brought Rowling's book to life.
Now, a podcast called The Witch Trials of J.K.
Rowling indicates that she'll discuss the reaction to those anti-trans comments, in addition to discussing her journey as an author with host Megan Phelps-Roper, a high-profile former member of the anti-LGBTQ Westboro Baptist Church.
Even before its release, the podcast was met with criticism by LGBTQ advocates for seemingly siding with Rowling based on the title alone.
Well, alright then.
At least CNN clearly isn't taking sides.
Or maybe they are, but it's okay.
Because Rowling is a dangerous figure, prone to making outrageous comments such as the claim that, you know, biological sex exists and that women don't have penises.
The threat she poses is so severe that the news media must drop even the pretense of objectivity when reporting on her.
Though in fairness these days they also feel the need to drop the pretense of objectivity when reporting on literally anything else.
But what sort of threat does Rowling pose exactly?
They know that she's a horrible person.
They know that she's dangerous.
They know that she's a raging bigot.
But how do they know this?
Why do they think this?
And how is Rowling actually wrong about anything she's said on the subject of biological sex and transgenderism?
These are questions that the media doesn't spend very much time trying to grapple with.
I mean, why bother explaining why someone is bigoted when you can simply accuse them of bigotry and just leave it at that?
Why bother explaining how they're wrong when you can, again, simply accuse them of bigotry and leave it at that?
This has been their general strategy, of course.
when it comes to most people, but one intrepid reporter, Monica Hess of the Washington Post,
has decided to tread the perilous road that few journalists dare to go down.
So she has listened to the entire Witch Trials podcast, looking for specific evidence that
Rowling is a transphobe.
And she reports her findings in a piece titled, quote, "Listening to the Witch Trials of
Rowling is exhausting work.
A podcast promised clarity from Harry Potter author on how she feels about trans issues, but it falls to the audience to fact-check her.
Reading a bit from the article, it says, Listening to The Witch Trials of J.K.
Rowling is exhausting.
It's exhausting because it requires constant vigilance.
And it's exhausting because the phrase, constant vigilance, I've just realized, entered my own lexicon via Mad-Eye Moody, a beloved Harry Potter character.
Because Rowling is brilliant, is a brilliant and beloved storyteller who is astonishingly good at entering lexicons, manipulating language, and telling fantasy stories.
It's how she became famous.
It's why events surrounding Rowling these past few years have felt like a god-awful mess.
So, this is a grown adult woman who writes professionally, and yet has admitted that she learned an extremely common phrase from a Harry Potter book.
In fact, she seems to think that this phrase, that has probably appeared in 10,000 books, was invented by J.K.
Rowling.
Which is just her way of confessing that she's never read any books but the Harry Potter series.
And that does help to put the anti-Rowling panic into an important context. It's an
important thing to understand that many of Rowling's most hysterical critics have only ever read
the Harry Potter books along with, you know, maybe potentially the Twilight series. So they
consider it an unconscionable betrayal because they discovered that the author of the only books
they've ever read has beliefs that differ from their own.
So this, to them, this is like, it's like finding out that your father is living a secret life with another family across town.
They just couldn't process it.
They had very carefully constructed a bubble for themselves, only allowing themselves to be exposed to opinions and ideas that they already agree with, just to then find out that the woman who wrote their favorite books And the only books, as far as they're concerned, belongs outside the bubble.
She had infiltrated the bubble.
She was an intruder.
Perhaps that's why Monica Hess is so exhausted.
In fact, just listening to the podcast is exhausting, she says.
It's exhausting work.
But she's not just exhausted by podcasts.
She's also exhausted by reading tweets.
Later in the piece, she writes this, quote, "Rowling tweets are exhausting. They're exhausting
because they require constant vigilance, because they're not screaming out obvious bigotry a la
'I hate trans people.' Rather, they're whispering a curated plausible deniability,
the kind that purports to be just asking reasonable questions with simple answers."
Well, I don't doubt, I do doubt rather, that there are any roofers or construction workers
or guys who work on oil rigs, reading a Washington Post article
complaining about a JK Rowling.
Rowling podcast.
But if there are, I'd love to see how they react to this woman claiming that her job is exhausting because it involves reading tweets and listening to podcasts.
One can just imagine Monica Hess of the Washington Post covered in soot from working in the tweet mines all day, holding her lunch pail, punching out, driving home, collapsing on the couch in utter exhaustion, muscles aching, barely able to move after an exhausting day reading J.K.
Rowling tweets.
At least that's what she wants you to imagine.
You'll notice that the leftists, they're endlessly complaining about their own exhaustion.
And it's not because they're doing anything physically demanding, or doing anything at all in general, but rather because it's the emotional strain, as they would put it, the emotional labor of constantly encountering the traumatic reality that other people exist.
And they have their own opinions and beliefs about the world.
And those opinions and beliefs sometimes fall outside of the opinions and beliefs box that the left has set up for us.
This is what exhausts them so much.
They are exhausted to discover that they can't directly control what everyone in the world thinks and says.
But exhausting as this all may be, we still haven't gotten to the point.
Hess has set out to prove that J.K.
Rowling is bigoted and transphobic.
That's what she's looking for.
She's looking for evidence of that.
She knows it's there, she can feel it, but she wants to lay eyes on it.
Does she?
Well, it's complicated.
She writes, quote, Is J.K.
Rowling transphobic?
That's what I was listening to the podcast to begin with.
It promised that Rowling would speak with unprecedented candor and depth about the controversy surrounding her from book bans to debates on gender and sex.
Since 2020, Rowling's status as a celebrated liberal and literary icon has taken a nosedive because of tweets and references that supporters of trans rights view as transphobic, but that Rowling says are merely trying to protect women and girls.
You might have seen a recent column written by a British writer named E.J.
Rosetta.
Rosetta claimed to have been assigned a piece called 20 Transphobic J.K.
Rowling Quotes We're Done With, but said that after months of research, she hadn't been able to find a single one.
Rowling, according to Rosetta, was saying, There truly is the whole issue in a nutshell.
If your bar for bigotry requires Rowling to say out loud, I hate trans people, then that bar will never be cleared.
Even if Rowling feels that way, I doubt she'd ever say it that way.
Even conservative pundits know not to say it that way.
There is simply nothing to be strategically gained by uttering such an obviously prejudiced sentence.
So is J.K.
Rowling transphobic then?
Well, Monica goes on.
And on and on and on.
Back to the article, she says, "Is J.K. Rowling transphobic?
Journalism is a business for sticklers. Reporters are discouraged from calling anyone
transphobic or homophobic or racist."
But they are. That's...
They're discouraged from doing that.
That's literally all they do.
Anyway, because doing so requires knowing what's in their hearts, when the only thing
we can know with certainty is what comes out of their mouths.
So what I can say is that what comes out of her mouth or goes onto her Twitter account has a fuzzy aura
of harmful rhetoric.
Rowling might indeed believe that she has transgender friends, but take it as a whole,
her body of communication on the issue, such as the things she chooses to retweet
and the provocative language she uses while doing so, cumulatively, it sucks.
I do not know what is in Rowling's heart, but reading her Twitter feed, this is the overall effect.
Her Twitter feed does not ask its readers to think.
It asks them to fear.
It creates phobias of trans people.
It creates transphobias.
Okay, so translation.
All that J.K.
Rowling has ever done when it comes to this issue is simply assert the existence of biological reality.
Monica Hess cannot coherently explain why that is bigoted or transphobic to simply believe in reality.
Why is that bigoted?
She can't explain it.
But she's just sure that it is.
Even if Rowling's statements aren't hateful, they still have the fuzzy aura of harmful rhetoric.
There's the aura there.
You have to watch out for the fuzzy aura, she's saying.
And this all goes to show, of course, that Literally anyone who contradicts the leftist doctrine on any topic, especially this one, but not just this one, will be accused of hate and bigotry and branded as dangerous and as a violent threat to the lives of marginalized people, etc.
This will happen.
There is no way of disagreeing with these people.
There is no way of presenting your arguments that will not lead to this conclusion.
Even if you carefully avoid saying anything that could reasonably be construed as bigoted, it doesn't matter, because these people are not concerned about reasons, and they are not reasonable.
You can avoid blunt and harsh language, you can do all that, but even then, you will still give off the fuzzy aura of bigotry.
Which is all the more reason to never spend even one second worried about what labels these people put on you.
There is no sense in trying to couch your rhetoric or soft-pedal it, because we are all raging bigots the moment we walk outside of the box.
Remember, there's the box that they have set up for us.
They want everybody in it.
If you walk outside of it, that's it.
Our existence is an affront to people like Monica Hess.
And of course, it's also very exhausting.
But it's not exhausting for me to say that Monica Hess and the Washington Post are, for all these reasons today, cancelled.
That'll do it for the show today, and we'll talk to you tomorrow.
