Ep. 1129 - Ungrateful Brat Colin Kaepernick Throws His White Adoptive Parents Under The Bus
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, professional victim Colin Kaepernick has a new book to promote, which means it's time to complain about oppression again. Except this time it's not just his country he throws under the bus. It's his parents, too. Also, Glen Youngkin is confronted by a "transman" during a CNN townhall. Ayana Pressley struggles to explain why abortion is a valid medical treatment. The journalists who published the twitter files testify in front of congress. And in our daily cancellation, I am forced to cancel a whole swarm of TikToKers all at once.
- - -
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:
PureTalk - Get 50% OFF your first month with promo code WALSH: https://www.puretalk.com/landing/WALSH
Epic Will - Save 10% off your complete will package: https://www.epicwill.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, professional victim Colin Kaepernick has a new book to promote, which means it's time to complain about oppression again.
Except this time, it's not just his country he throws under the bus, it's his parents, too.
Also, Glenn Youngkin is confronted by a quote-unquote trans man during a CNN town hall.
Ayanna Pressley struggles to explain why abortion is a valid medical treatment.
The journalists who publish the Twitter files testify in front of Congress.
And in our daily cancellation, I am forced to cancel a whole swarm of TikTokers all at once.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Who do you trust to handle any and all of your financial obligations if you can?
According to a recent poll, 62% of Americans who think about their own death a lot of the time still do not have a will.
That's kind of like being afraid of drowning but refusing to wear a life jacket.
Creating a will is one of the most important things you can do to ensure that your belongings and your loved ones are taken care of after you pass away.
My partners at Epic Will can help you get set up with a will today for just $119 in as little as five minutes.
Epic Will can help you create your last will and testament, your living will, even health care power of attorney.
Go to epicwill.com to get my discount code and an extra 10% off on your Complete Will package.
With Epic Will's easy-to-use template, all you have to do is fill in the blanks.
They couldn't make it easier for you.
Go to epicwill.com to save 10% on Epic Will's Complete Will package.
That's epicwill.com today.
I would say that Colin Kaepernick is the Meghan Markle of the sports world, but that wouldn't be quite accurate.
Sure, like Markle, he's a wealthy, privileged brat, just as white as he is black, but nonetheless obsessed with his entirely imagined racial victimhood.
So that's similar, but there are some crucial caveats.
First, for one thing, Kaepernick can't really be the Markle of the sports world because he isn't an athlete, unless you count the oppression Olympics as an actual sport, which perhaps it is or one day will be.
And for another, to his credit, he didn't have to marry into his victimhood.
Unlike Markle, Colin Kaepernick isn't riding anyone's coattails.
He achieved his status as faux martyr and insufferable, obnoxious prick all on his own.
Actually, the more I think about it, we might say that Kaepernick is sort of Meghan and Harry combined.
If you mix the two royal whiners together and you combine their powers, you end up with Kaepernick.
He's like the self-victimizing Megazord.
Markle's fake racial grievances, but he also has Harry's disloyalty and his penchant for throwing his own family under the bus and driving over them and then backing up and driving over them again and then again and again and again.
He is such a perfect amalgamation of the two, such a manifestation of the worst aspects of both of them, that you almost wonder whether by some strange time warp he might actually be their child.
Is Kaepernick the adult son of Harry and Meghan who has come back in time to experience and exploit this era of woke victimhood?
That's a possibility we need to discuss.
There's a conspiracy theory I can get on board with, maybe.
Or at least it's just a screenplay someone should write, at the very least.
But assuming that Kaepernick is not a victimhood-chasing time traveler, then the real story is that he was conceived by a white woman and a black man, and he was then abandoned by his black father, put up for adoption as an infant, and taken in by a white couple.
His white adoptive parents raised him, gave him a blessed and comfortable life, supported him, loved him.
And now, after all of that, They find themselves somehow the objects of their adopted son's animosity.
That is, whenever he has something to promote, at least.
And this week he's promoting a new book, which means they're going right under the bus yet again.
Here's the New York Post report, says controversial football star Colin Kaepernick accused his white adoptive parents of perpetuating racism in a new interview.
The former NFL star told CBS Chicago that he struggled growing up in a problematic household, a through-line he details in his upcoming graphic novel, Change the Game.
The graphic novel tells the story of Kaepernick's journey from high school into his storied athletic career that, well, Here's a clip of the interview.
It's maybe a little bit overstating it that heavily centers around his lack of choice in his future his parents
Particularly tried to steer him in a direction. They thought was best which led to several fights between them
and their adopted son Can you imagine that parents trying to steer their child in
the direction? They think is best what parent would ever do that?
Here's a clip of the interview check it out Who's spreading a message of empowerment in his new graphic
novel change the game written with author?
and University of Chicago professor Eve L. Ewing.
I love how you depict yourself in this book, not as some big-shot hero,
but as a shy, insecure high schooler like we all were.
I mean, I'm speaking for you, but...
Yeah, no, absolutely, absolutely.
Growing up, I was a... I think still am a pretty introverted person.
I hope it's true to form and that's just kind of how I navigate the world.
It's his true high school coming-of-age story.
His journey embracing his blackness despite resistance from many including his white adoptive parents.
I know my parents loved me but there were still very problematic things that I went through.
I think it was important to show that, no, this can happen in your own home, and how we move forward collectively while addressing the racism that is being perpetuated.
He took cues from his icon, basketball star Allen Iverson, who he said wore his blackness like a suit of armor.
And teenage Kaepernick wanted cornrows to match.
He's getting what roles, his mom asked?
Oh, your hair's not professional.
Oh, you look like a little thug.
Your mom said that to you.
Yeah.
And those become spaces where it's like, okay, how do I navigate this situation now?
But it also has informed why I have my hair long today.
The grown-up version of Eve wanted to go back in time and give young Colin a lot of hugs.
And I was really moved and saddened by the level of kind of self-awareness that he had to develop at a very young age without a lot of guidance.
Now, I certainly am not making any excuses for this guy.
He's a scumbag of the lowest kind.
There's no getting around that.
But you can also tell that the man has been severely brainwashed.
And as time goes on with each successive interview, he sounds more and more like a 55-year-old white woman holding a corporate diversity seminar.
I mean, just listen to the words and the phrases that he uses.
Problematic.
Perpetuating racism.
Move forward collectively.
And then my favorite, navigate these spaces.
How do we navigate these spaces?
No human being naturally speaks that way, okay?
A former athlete especially does not speak that way.
You're not going to hear a football player in the locker room saying to his teammates, listen fellas, there's a lot of problematic behavior going on in here.
We really need to figure out how to navigate these spaces so we can move forward collectively.
Respecting each other's lived experiences so that we can unpack our oppression and curate an understanding of our intersectional realities and together come up with solution-oriented perspectives liberated from our post-colonial trauma.
It's just not how human beings speak, okay?
Rather, it's how a DEI diversity, you know, robot is programmed.
And that's what Colin Kaepernick has become, basically.
So what is his complaint against his parents?
Yes, they took him in.
Yes, they raised and loved him.
Yes, they gave him a wonderful and privileged life.
Yes, they supported him and they set him up for success.
Yes, they did everything for him.
But they criticized his hairstyle.
So all of that is irrelevant.
I mean, that is a resentment he holds with him today.
He still determines how he styles his hair today based on what his parents told him not to do when he was a teenager.
Now he has a point though, I will admit.
I mean it really is unprecedented for parents to complain about their children's hairstyles.
It's not like literally every parent on earth has this kind of conversation with their teenage children.
It's not like every parent, I mean literally every parent, white or black or whatever color, has to at some point give their child a lecture about the importance of maintaining a professional haircut and appearance.
Actually, come to think of it, it's not entirely unprecedented.
So I guess Colin Kaepernick went through this, and then the only other person in the history of the world was me.
Because I can remember when I first started developing facial hair, so I would have been about three or four at the time, and I wanted to grow a goatee.
But my dad, he took one look at what I was trying to do there, and he told me that it looks ridiculous and unacceptable.
His words exactly.
And forced me to shave.
When is CBS going to interview me so I can tell my story?
Where is my book deal to unpack my trauma?
But then again, I wouldn't take that book deal, even if it was offered, because I'd rather be broke and homeless than earn money by publicly stabbing my own family in the back.
Of all the ways to earn money, that is among the most disgraceful.
It's worse than prostitution.
Perhaps it's a type of prostitution, actually.
Colin Kaepernick is a whore in his own way, prostituting himself by selling his integrity, selling out his own family in exchange for victim points.
Now, it's well established, of course, that Kaepernick's victimhood narrative is totally fanciful.
He grew up comfortably, became a professional athlete, he decided to transition to social justice warrior after his playing career had taken a nosedive based on his poor performance, after he got benched for, you know, for Blaine Gabbert, which is pretty much the worst humiliation a football player can possibly experience.
And then that happens, and he becomes a social justice warrior, and through his social justice charade, finds wealth and fame far beyond anything the NFL could ever provide for him.
He has not been disadvantaged by his quote-unquote blackness, but rather he has profited immensely from it.
Here's an indisputable fact, okay?
This cannot be disputed.
If everything about Kaepernick was the same, Except that he was fully white rather than just half white.
If his deadbeat biological father was white instead of black, let's say, then Kaepernick would today, at the age of 35 or 36, however old he is, he would today be an obscure, washed out, backup quarterback with a net worth and profile barely a fraction of what it currently is.
He wouldn't have any endorsements, he wouldn't have any book deals, he wouldn't have any Netflix series.
At the very best, he'd appear on ESPN occasionally to debate the other talking heads about whether Joe Burrow has a higher ceiling than Patrick Mahomes or whatever.
More likely, he'd have drifted off into complete obscurity by now, and maybe he'd own a strip mall or a car dealership or something.
His blackness has opened up very lucrative doors that wouldn't exist without it.
That's indisputable.
The fully white version of Colin Kaepernick is in a much worse spot today than the half-white version.
So, we don't need to analyze his victimhood claims.
They're utterly bogus.
They're laughable on their face.
Instead, what we should focus on when it comes to Kaepernick is his absolute lack of gratitude.
And in this way, he is a microcosm or one symptom of a culture-wide epidemic, and that epidemic is ingratitude.
You cannot have a functioning society without a rich atmosphere of gratitude.
Gratitude felt and demonstrated by the younger generations towards those who came before and gave them everything that they have.
And this gratitude should be especially extended to and begin with your family and your direct benefactors.
But it should go beyond that to your nation and your nation's forebears.
Now, this doesn't mean that you have to pretend that your family was perfect or your country is perfect.
Gratitude doesn't require perfection.
It shouldn't require it.
What it means is that you recognize what was built for you, what was provided to you, what sacrifices were made for you and for your sake, and that this recognition breeds respect and loyalty and humility and a palpable sense of thankfulness.
Where would Kaepernick be if not for his adoptive parents?
Where would he be if he'd been born in another country?
I mean, you take either his adoptive parents or his country out of the equation, is there any chance he'd have a better life right now?
That's inconceivable.
There's a very good chance he'd be living in the gutter, or dead in it, without the very people and the very nation he can't stop complaining about.
Does he ever acknowledge that?
Ever?
Does he ever say it out loud?
Do any of these self-victimizing drama queens ever acknowledge that?
Of course they don't.
Gratitude destroys the grift.
And it's much more profitable to be a rotten, disloyal little punk than it is to be grateful and humble.
Much more profitable to be a spoiled child who's never satisfied, no matter how much he is given, no matter what anyone does for him.
And that is Kaepernick in a nutshell.
But he is right about one thing.
This country does have some serious problems.
Big problems.
And one of the biggest problems is that it produces people like him.
him.
Sounds like a math problem, but it's actually not that difficult.
Of course, you'd buy the more affordable one.
It's the same coffee for less.
What if I told you that you could get the same wireless service for less?
Pure Talk.
PureTalk saves the average family over $900 a year when they switch from Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
If the average family of three to four saves over $900 a year, think about how much a family of eight could save while still enjoying ultra-fast 5G service.
PureTalk is so sure you're going to love your service, they're backing it up with a 100% money-back guarantee.
So stop paying a fortune to Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
Cut your bill in half with PureTalk.
Their U.S.-based customer service team makes the switch really easy.
Switch over to Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes while keeping your phone and your phone number.
Your first month is guaranteed risk-free.
Speaking of families of eight, that's my family, and we use Pure Talk.
And the one thing I love about it is not only is it more affordable, but also it's just a great service.
You have all the same coverage.
I don't have any problems with the phone dropping out.
There is no downside to this.
Go to puretalk.com.
Enter promo code WALSH to save 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com.
Promo code WALSH.
Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
Restrictions apply.
See site for details.
All right, Glenn Youngkin did a CNN town hall last night where he was pressed on education issues and various things came up.
CRT came up.
Then, of course, the gender issue also came up.
I want to play one piece of that exchange for you.
Here it is.
Governor Youngkin, your transgender model policies require that students play on the sports teams and use the restrooms that correspond with their sex assigned at birth.
Look at me.
I am a transgender man.
Do you really think that the girls in my high school would feel comfortable sharing a restroom with me?
So, first of all, Nico, thank you for, again, asking the question and being here tonight and engaging in this important discussion.
I believe first, when parents are engaged with their children, then you can make good decisions together.
And I met your dad, and I'm glad that you're both here together.
That's really, really important.
I also think that there are lots of students involved in this decision, and what's most important is that we try very hard to accommodate students.
That's why I have said many, many times, we just need extra bathrooms in schools.
We need gender-neutral bathrooms, and so people can use a bathroom that they, in fact, are comfortable with.
I think sports are very clear, and I don't think it's controversial.
I don't think that biological boys should be playing sports with biological girls.
There's been decades of efforts in order to gain opportunities for women in sports, and it's just not fair.
And I think that's pretty, that's non-controversial and something that I think is pretty well understood.
Again, I think these are very difficult discussions, and I am very, very glad to see you and your dad here together.
OK, so I didn't like this answer from Youngkin at all, really.
And I understand he's a politician, and so there are some realities to that.
And so you can't, it's not always smart to answer questions exactly how I would answer them if I was in that position.
But even with that consideration, still not a good answer.
First of all, We really got to stop calling this a difficult conversation.
It's actually not.
Okay?
It is not a difficult conversation.
When you call it difficult, you are conceding already ground to the other side because you're acting like there are complexities, right, and nuances that make the answers hard to determine when it comes to these kinds of questions.
But there aren't.
Girls are girls, boys are boys.
The girl that was talking to Glenn Youngkin is a girl.
And so we have a girl's room for you.
And there's a boy's room for the boys.
Not a hard thing to figure out.
Are you a girl?
Are you a female?
Are you a girl?
Yes?
Well then, here's the room for you.
It's not hard.
It's actually very, very easy.
And so when we say, well, it's very difficult.
We're, you know, this is really something that we have to talk about and we have to debate.
The moment you say that, even if you land on the right answer, the moment that you've pretended that it's actually a difficult conversation, you've surrendered.
You've given them more ground than you ever should have.
And not to keep beating this dead horse, but this is yet again why being direct to the point, sometimes of even harshness, Is a better approach than trying to be so gentle by pretending that this is so really difficult, we need to talk about it, we need to accommodate.
Because once you start saying that, once you have conceded that there's anything complicated about this, then you've either lost the conversation or you are on your way to losing it.
It's not complicated.
She's a girl, she belongs in a girl's room.
But, okay, in her particular case, going into the girls' room is uncomfortable, and maybe it makes the other girls uncomfortable because she is presenting herself as a male.
And she still doesn't look like a male.
She doesn't.
But she doesn't look exactly like a female either.
And so that creates discomfort.
And it creates discomfort in the girls' room, and it creates discomfort for the other girls, perhaps.
The actual, and this is something we hear, this is the response from trans activists and trans people very often, when this conversation about bathrooms comes up, and you get this answer all the time.
And this is supposed to be a sort of a bulletproof argument, where a trans person will come along and say, well look at me, I look like the opposite sex, are you saying that I should go in this bathroom?
Well, the actual answer to that, and this is the part that I can understand as a politician, you don't want to put it exactly like this, but you need to find a way to say it.
Because the actual answer is that you have chosen to present yourself this way.
Okay?
You have chosen to present yourself this way.
And so, this is a problem that has been, that you have created for yourself, Now in the case of a child, I'm not going to put the onus on the child, so it's a problem created by the people that brainwashed her.
Because as I am always insisting, children cannot actually consent to this.
But it is a problem.
If it's an adult, then it's a problem you've created for yourself.
If it's a child, it's tragically a problem that's been created by the people that have brainwashed you into this.
But one way or another, you know, it's...
It is a problem on the gender ideology end of it.
So maybe that's the way we put it.
It's a problem that gender ideology has created.
Okay, it's not a problem that's created by the basic and sensible segregation of male and female bathrooms.
That's not the source of the problem, you see?
The fact that you are presenting yourself this way, which makes it uncomfortable in the bathroom that you belong in, That's not a problem created by the sex segregation of bathrooms.
It's a problem created by gender ideology and by the way that you are presenting yourself.
Whether you have chosen it or been brainwashed into it.
That's the source of the problem.
And so what is the solution to that problem?
Well, the solution is reality.
The solution is to stop presenting yourself that way.
The solution is for a child to counsel them and help them to embrace reality.
So that they're more comfortable in the bathroom where they belong.
And other people are comfortable with them being in there.
That's the solution.
The solution is not, go into the opposite sex bathroom.
The solution is not, let's create a third bathroom just for you to accommodate this.
No, we don't want to accommodate delusion.
We don't accommodate confusion.
We don't accommodate brainwashing.
What we want to do is counteract all of that.
That's the solution.
And Republican politicians need to find a way to say that without surrendering all kinds of ground that we cannot afford to surrender.
Article from the Postmillennial says Twitter files journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger appeared before the newly formed Weaponization of Government Committee on Thursday, and during congressional questioning, Democrats on the committee demanded that Taibbi reveal his sources for the Twitter files.
He refused.
During questioning, delegate to the U.S.
House from the Virgin Islands and ranking committee member Stacey Plaskett questioned Taibbi about who gave him access to the documents they would later use as the basis for his reporting on the inner workings of Twitter, which became How many emails did Mr. Musk give you access to?
said that a source contacted him and asked him to be interested in seeing
those documents and she wanted to know who the source was.
Let's watch that exchange. How many emails did Mr. Musk give you access to?
I mean, we we went through thousands of emails. Did he give you access to all
of the emails for the time period? We never had a single.
I never had a single request denied.
And not only that, but the amount of files that we were given were so voluminous that there was no way that anybody could have gone through them beforehand.
And we never found an instance where there was any evidence that anything had been taken out.
Okay, so you would believe that you have probably millions.
Of emails and documents, right?
That's correct, would you say?
I don't know, I think the number's less too high.
Okay, 100,000?
That's probably close.
Probably close to 100,000 that both of you are saying.
Yet, in the Twitter files, Mr. Taibbi, you've produced only 338 of those 100,000 emails.
Is that correct?
That's correct, yes.
100,000 emails, is that correct?
That's correct, yes.
And then who gave you access to these emails?
People like Twitter.
Who was the individual that gave you permission to access the emails?
Well, the attribution from my story is sources at Twitter, and that's what I'm going to refer to.
Okay.
Did Mr. Musk contact you, Mr. Tayibi?
Again, the attribution from my story is sources at Twitter.
Mr. Schellenberger, did Mr. Musk contact you?
Actually, no.
I was brought in by my friend Barry Weiss, and so this story, there's been a lot of misinformation.
So Mr. Weiss brought you in.
Mr. Taibbi, Ms.
Weiss, thank you.
Mr. Taibbi, have you had conversations with Elon Musk?
I have.
Okay.
Mr. Taibbi, did Mr. Musk place any conditions on the use of the E?
Would the gentlelady yield for a second?
Uh, as long as my time is not used for it.
Are you trying to get journalists to expose their sources?
No, I'm not trying to get, no, I'm not.
I am asking, no, well, if you will let me finish, are you, and you had conversations with him, not, you said you weren't going to agree to who your sources were.
I'm not asking you, your source, I'm asking you if you had conversations with the owner of Twitter.
And did Mr. Musk place any conditions on your use of the emails or documents?
No, in fact, I was told explicitly that we were given license to look at present-day Twitter as well as past Twitter.
Oh, okay.
Mr. Taibbi, who was your source of these documents?
Are you asking him to reveal sources?
No, I'm not saying that!
That's obviously exactly what she was doing. And it is outrageous and actually quite chilling
to watch that exchange when you understand what she's trying to do.
to.
She wants to know, she wants to know sources.
She's trying to get at a congressional hearing, she's pressuring a journalist to reveal his sources.
And other points in the questioning, Democrats were, there was one of the Democrats there in the committee referred to him as a so-called journalist, but questioning whether he's really a journalist at all.
Which, of course he is.
Matt Taibbi, he used to work for Rolling Stone, he is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
He's a liberal journalist.
And I think that he would not take any issue with that categorization.
At the very least, he's not a right-wing journalist at all.
I remember when he used to write for Rolling Stone, if you could go back, you know, seven or eight years and, like, tell someone that Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine in the future will be accused of being a right-wing propagandist, they would laugh at you because it is absolutely absurd.
But here's where the confusion lies, that he is a He's definitely not right-wing.
He would seem to me to be much more on the left.
But he is an actual journalist.
And because he's an actual journalist, that's why the left accuses him of being right-wing.
Because an actual journalist is supposed to be skeptical, is supposed to ask questions.
You're supposed to want to chase stories and reveal things, especially about powerful institutions.
Twitter is one of them.
A real journalist, if a source at one of these major big tech companies says, hey, we have evidence of things that were going on behind the scenes and bias and political partisanship and all these, you know, unfair, the terms of service not being Not being a forced failure.
Things being done to influence elections.
We have evidence of this.
We want to give you access to it.
Any real journalist would say, yeah, of course I want to see that.
I exist for this.
My profession exists for moments like this.
And that's what confuses them.
Because on the left, although there are a lot of liberal quote-unquote journalists, They don't engage in actual journalism, so when they see it happen, they assume, well, this is a secret agent for conservatives.
And the other thing that we know about Democrats is that they become very afraid when information is revealed.
They don't like information coming out to the public.
That's why we've got, just in the last week, two examples of this.
Trying to shut down Tucker Carlson from releasing unseen footage from January 6th.
More information.
They don't want that.
And they also don't want more information about what happened behind the scenes at Twitter to be released.
Staying in Congress, unfortunately, Ayanna Pressley on the floor of Congress once again passionately defending the murder of children.
Let's, haven't heard anyone make a good argument for this yet, but let's see how she does.
I rise today on behalf of the people across our nation seeking access to abortion care.
While there are many forces and people at work who seek to spread lies and misinformation, let me set the record straight.
Abortion care is routine medical care.
Abortion care is safe.
Abortion care is a fundamental human right.
Abortion care is health care.
And one in four women in this country seek it.
Women that you know, love, work, and worship with.
Right now, a pending court case in Texas aims to restrict access to medication abortion across the entire nation.
Over 40% of abortion care in this nation is medication abortion.
A simple and safe protocol where patients are prescribed two medications to end a pregnancy.
A single man, a far-right Trump-appointed judge in Texas, stands to make a decision that could strike down the FDA's approval of one of these drugs and restrict access to care to millions.
A frightening precedent.
Imagine for a moment if a judge was poised to strike down access to another safe and effective drug routinely used as part of medical care, like Tylenol or Advil.
We would call it out for exactly what it is.
Inappropriate overreach.
You know the difference between Advil or one of these other medicines is that that medicines are designed and they are prescribed and administered to treat ailments.
That's what a medicine does.
That's what medicine is.
That's what it's supposed to be.
That's what a doctor is supposed to do.
To treat ailments, illnesses, diseases, injuries.
That's what medicine exists for that.
And really not for anything else.
That's all it's supposed to do.
It's a lot though.
Illness, ailment, disease, injury.
Medicine, the medical industry and medicine itself, the actual medicines that are prescribed, that all exist to treat those things, treat ailments.
Abortion is not medicine because it doesn't do that.
And there's no way around this.
Even if you still support abortion and you think it's a good idea to kill babies, you're obviously horrifically wrong about that.
But you should at least admit that this is not medicine.
Just because it happens in a hospital or in a clinic that looks a little bit, that has a medical look to it, and this is a very sanitized kind of look, and you're waiting in the waiting room, and maybe there's somebody in a white coat that performs the quote procedure, that doesn't make it medicine, because there's no ailment, there's no illness being treated.
Pregnancy is not an illness.
A baby is not a disease.
We might treat the baby like a cancerous tumor, but the baby is not a cancerous tumor.
The baby is a baby.
Again, there's no way around this.
It is not medicine.
Pregnancy is not an ailment.
It is not something to treat and get rid of like a disease.
Now, we should treat, we provide treatment to pregnant women to facilitate their pregnancy and to deal with problems that come up during the pregnancy.
But the pregnancy itself is not an ailment.
It might be inconvenient.
But an inconvenience is not a sickness.
This is a common source of confusion in our culture today.
It goes beyond, actually, the abortion industry.
Or anything that's inconvenience, anything that interferes with our lifestyle, becomes automatically a sickness.
But that's not what a sickness actually is.
So, Ayanna Pressley, that's why it's not a medicine.
And as far as she says it's a human right.
Abortion's a human right.
Of course, not surprised to hear her say that.
This is their position.
But I've yet to hear them explain that.
What do you mean it's a human right?
How do you know it's a human right?
Where does this human right come from?
Where does it originate?
Where do rights come from in general?
The founders of our country believe that human rights are rooted in the supernatural, in God.
They come from the Creator.
We have our human, our natural rights by virtue of the fact that we are human beings.
We are endowed with them by the Creator.
Is that what you believe?
So then, are you then claiming that we have a natural, God-given right to kill our children?
So God creates the baby, but then also gives us the moral right to kill those babies that he creates?
Is that the argument you want to make?
And if the right doesn't come from God, then what are you talking about?
What do you mean?
Where does it come from?
How do you know it exists?
The only other option is that the right comes from the government.
That's where all rights come from, and it's just something the government comes up with basically arbitrarily.
The rights are rooted in the whims of the government.
The problem then is that if the government says, OK, we're taking that right away, then it doesn't make any sense.
You have nothing to appeal to beyond the government.
You have nothing beyond or above the government to appeal to.
It doesn't make any sense to say, well, no, that's a right.
You can't take it away.
Well, the government decides what a right is.
So if the government says it's not a right anymore, then it's not.
Well, you should then be arguing, all you can argue is that this should be a right.
Here's why I think this should be a right.
But you can't say that it is, because according to you, a right is determined entirely by whatever the government says.
Now, they never have this, speaking of difficult conversations, here's one that they don't have.
On the left, they are constantly talking about rights, human rights.
They never explain where they're getting any of this from or what they think or who they think the right is rooted in.
What or who is the source of that right?
This is not some...
Well, it might be somewhat complicated, but it's not a purely philosophical exercise.
It's not a purely academic question about where our rights come from.
It is a fundamental, critical question that needs to be answered.
No surprise.
Of course they can't define a term like human rights.
Um, which is abstract.
Of course, they can't define that.
They can't even define what, you know, what a woman is.
No big surprise there.
All right, before we get to the comment section, one other very important conversation to have here.
Um, New York Post, a newly resurfaced video of a door dash driver who refused to give a man his food after he only tipped her $8 for a delivery in 2021 has gone viral.
The video, which has been viewed nearly one million times on YouTube, shows ring camera footage of the woman yelling at the man for the seemingly measly tip when she went on a 12 and a half mile trip for the food.
I think we have that DoorDash ring camera footage.
Let's watch.
You can leave it, thank you.
You can leave it.
No, I can speak to you actually.
I'm sorry?
I need to speak to you.
I don't think you realize where they're coming from.
So I need to speak to you.
Where what's coming from?
Where the food you ordered is coming from.
I don't think you realize the distance that it comes from.
Because then you would never actually have given what you gave.
So I think you can come and see face to face.
Because I drove 40 minutes.
I drove 40 minutes and it was extremely far and I got it too early.
So I don't think you realize where you work from.
She takes the food and drives away.
She doesn't give him the food.
Because he only gave an $8 tip?
That's what blows my mind about this.
I mean, people are bold.
People are bold and certain in the worst kinds of ways.
There are times when it's...
When it's good to be bold and even good to be confrontational and stand up and speak out.
But these days people aren't very bold in those sorts of situations.
It's like someone's being assaulted on the subway.
And that's when we get into the bystander effect and everyone sits around, maybe they're recorded, they don't do anything.
But if you don't get a tip for yourself that you think is good enough, now people are willing to speak out about that.
I can't even imagine this.
I mean, I did.
I delivered pizzas for a while when I was younger, and I got bad tips plenty of times.
The idea that I would knock on the door and say, excuse me, this tip's not good enough.
I need more.
I need you to give me more money.
Never would have even occurred to me.
Only because I would have been embarrassed to do that.
I would have felt like a panhandler doing that.
But people aren't embarrassed about panhandling these days, that's the other problem.
I mean, you see people that, I think we talked about this in the Daily Cancellation once, many moons ago, but people, they put their cash app or Venmo or whatever on their windshield of their car, so just asking anyone who happens to drive by for money, that kind of thing.
So I guess it's no surprise to see this, but $8, an $8 tip is really good, especially for Uber Eats or DoorDash.
And this is a problem now.
I know if you're an Uber Eats driver or a DoorDash driver, it's not like all the money that's spent is going directly to you, obviously.
And so I don't know how much they actually make from Uber.
I don't know how much of the service fee goes to them versus the tip.
But yeah, they need the tip in order to make this profitable for them.
But at the same time, it's a real problem.
Because of the additional service fees and everything.
If you order a $40 meal for two or something on Uber Eats, it's up to $65 before you even add the tip in.
So, it's a problem.
And it is bringing me more and more steadily to the conclusion that we just need to be done with tipping completely.
It's gotten way out of hand.
Everyone asks for a tip now, but at the same time, so tipping is expanding.
It's becoming much more ubiquitous than it's ever been before.
Everyone's asking for it, but at the same time, everything's becoming more expensive alongside it.
Something's got to give.
I think we just got to get rid of tipping, be done with it.
You know, many other countries and cultures, they don't do the tipping thing.
I think we just need to, we need to get with the times on this one.
I don't see any other solution.
Let's get to the comment section.
I don't know if that calls my manhood in question or not, but that's what I experience.
I have a real bad problem with motion sickness.
Looked for many different solutions for it.
And the one solution I found that always works is ReliefBand.
ReliefBand is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea risk band, clinically proven to quickly and effectively prevent or relieve nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraines, hangovers, morning sickness, chemotherapy.
Whether you need everyday nausea relief or an occasional cure, you've got to check out ReliefBand.
As the name says, ReliefBand is just legitimately a band you wear on your wrist to give you relief from nausea.
You can even change the intensity depending on how you're feeling.
Has an A-plus rating with Better Business Bureau.
Over 100,000 satisfied customers as well.
If you want the band that actually works to relieve your nausea, check out Relief Band.
I've worked out an exclusive offer just for my listeners, but you've got to go to reliefband.com.
Use promo code WALSH and you'll get 20% off plus free shipping.
Go to r-e-l-i-e-f-b-a-n-d.com.
Use promo code WALSH for 20% off plus free shipping.
Orange Banana says, Hey Matt, my city decided to paint a hideous rainbow at a crosswalk and it cost nearly $30,000 to do so.
Meanwhile, one block away is an entire park and cluster of houses completely infested with drug and gang violence, which a local PD refuses to address.
All of our major roadways are home to cauldron-sized potholes and inches-wide fissures.
But the city would rather spend millions on stupid, useless symbols and public art installations
to signal a culture-mindedness, while the citizens and people who actually need help
are entirely neglected.
This stuff bothers not for its direct symbolism, but the indirect symbolism that regular people
don't matter to the regime.
Well, why not both?
You raise a good point, but it's both.
It's the direct symbolism, which is the political statement.
This is a political statement that governments, local governments, state governments, the federal government, is endorsing and promoting a political statement.
It really is, it's not much different than if they, you know, if there was a flag, a Democrat Party flag with like the donkey.
Democrats have donkeys, right?
Elephants, yeah.
It would be like that.
It's like a state, local, federal government flying a Democrat Party flag right next to the American flag.
It's a political statement.
That's what the pride flag is.
And so the direct symbolism is a problem, but also, as you point out, the indirect symbolism, which is only barely indirect, that they only care about this.
They care about signaling to their preferred groups.
They care about supporting or at least pretending to support their preferred groups, but not anybody else.
Masked Music Man says, I want to hear what's really sad, Matt.
Hunter was once a Christian conservative YouTuber.
Yeah, so the guy we cancelled yesterday in the Daily Cancellation responding to his arguments about child castration, I'd never heard of him before, and then I saw this in the comments, apparently he used to be a Christian conservative YouTuber with a larger following than he has now, and then he, so from what I was told, he's like this total implosion, and now he's this leftist whack job.
I find that Especially on the gender stuff.
I find that very interesting.
It's one thing to have someone who had unformed opinions to begin with get sucked into the gender cult and led into it and they're not really thinking much about it.
So that's one thing.
But to have someone who knew better, like you understood that gender ideology is ridiculous.
You understood all of this.
And then you were what?
Convinced?
What did anyone say to convince you?
So at one point you understood that men have penises, women have vaginas, that men can't have babies, but now you think otherwise?
What argument was presented to you that made you go, oh, you know what?
I think I'm totally wrong about this.
This thing that I knew for sure and that the entire world knows for sure and has always known.
Yeah, I think I'm wrong.
I think you're right.
What could have possibly been, what argument could have possibly been made that would cause that conversion to happen?
I'd really love to know.
It's fun to see you all be pro-vandalism all of a sudden.
I remember a time when Matt would have preferred to see vandals have their hands cut off or something.
Well, the vandals in the case of the Pride murals on the road, they didn't use their hands, first of all.
They used tires.
So that wouldn't be appropriate anyway.
And also, look, not all vandalism is made equal.
That's just the reality.
Not all vandalism.
I thought I'm encouraging vandalism.
I'm not encouraging it.
I couldn't do that.
I couldn't do that on this show.
So I'm not encouraging it.
But it's not all made equal.
I'm sorry.
It's just not.
Someone driving over a political statement, a political symbol that's been put on the roadway by the local government, put in the roadway, someone driving over it and leaving tire marks, even if they left the tire marks on purpose, that is not the same as, say, a vandal who is part of the BLM mob and burns down a store.
Or even just like your petty vandals who are destroying their community, local businesses and buildings and places where people live.
You know, and making it ugly and dirty and disgusting.
You know, there's that kind of vandalism, which I think should be treated much more harshly than it is.
And then there's this, where you have citizens who are rightly upset by political statements being made and endorsed by their government.
And the government, it's not that the vandals are making the city uglier, it's the mural that's doing that.
The other thing about vandalism is that usually you're making your own community uglier and dirtier and more disgusting, but the person who puts the pride flag mural up, the trans pride flag, which is totally hideous, and puts that so it's 30 feet long in the middle of the road, they are actually the vandals.
It's not the person who drives over the flag that's vandalizing.
It's the person who puts the flag in the road that's vandalizing.
So, that's how I would parse that.
But finally, let's see.
It says, Matt, looting is a Robin Hood situation.
It's the hoods doing the robbing.
We are really coming on strong with the vaguely racist dad jokes in the comment section recently.
And I'm okay with it.
I'm okay with it.
You know, we live in a culture of such permissiveness that there is no such thing as excessive anymore.
The seven deadly sins are no longer sins, right?
Anything goes.
Well, if you want the best life for yourself, it might not be the best idea to get into every last temptation.
It might sound controversial in today's age of indulgence, but it's actually not.
In fact, it's the smartest thing you can do.
Jordan Peterson touches on this in his new five-part series called Vision and Destiny on DailyWire+.
Here's a clip.
Check it out.
You have to learn to regulate temptation, right?
Alcohol use, drug use, sexual misbehavior, defined by the engagement in sexual activities that cause your life to deteriorate.
If you need a definition of what constitutes sexual pathology, that's it.
And so you might want to have a strategy.
Say, do you like to drink?
It's like, okay.
How much?
You know, do you really need to drink 40 beer in three days or two days?
Maybe that's a bit much, especially if it's an iterated process, because it's going to take you downhill.
It's like, well, you want to have a drink now and then.
Well, how much and when?
Optimally, not as a constraint set against yourself, but if you were going to use it properly.
What would proper look like?
And then maybe you'll be able to regulate your behavior because you're not tyrannizing yourself into abstinence.
You're saying, well, if I want to have a well-balanced life, it might include a bit of the disinhibition that I get from alcohol and the social sociability that comes along with that.
And, you know, the community that's part of the local pub, let's say, it's like, fair enough, man.
Why don't you do that like a conscious visionary instead of a dimwit drunk?
The fourth episode of vision and destiny is out today new episodes are releasing every week
But it's all exclusive for daily wire plus members You can join now daily wire comm slash subscribe to watch
vision and destiny and I'd really recommend that you do that now
Let's get to our daily cancellation Today for our daily cancellation in the interest of
efficiency We'll be responding rapid-fire style to tick-tock videos
attacking me just over the past two weeks or so So we're going to go through a number of rebuttals here.
In the interest of time, I had to choose only four from the options my producers sent to me, and there were a lot more though.
And I say this will be rapid fire, but take that with a grain of salt.
I'm not Ben Shapiro, so rapid fire is relative.
Anyway, let's go through these.
I wouldn't really call this an apology.
And make no mistake, Dylan Mulvaney is our enemy.
He is an open, visible, active, and passionate advocate for the abuse of children, the war on fundamental truth, and the destruction of human society as we know it.
No, Dylan Mulvaney does not advocate for child abuse, and gender-affirming care isn't child abuse anyway.
Because it's been found that not providing trans healthcare to youth is actually closer to a form of child abuse.
Trans kids who are rejected from their family were nearly 60% more likely to commit suicide, 73% more likely to end up in prison, and 68% more likely to suffer from substance abuse.
One study found that 73% of trans youth experience psychological abuse and 39% physical abuse.
So we can clearly prove that trans people are not committing child abuse.
But for the other two claims, I don't know what to do about that.
They're so over the top and dramatic.
War on truth.
The downfall of society.
How can you prove or disprove that?
And this is where I think Matt Walsh's resentment has a little bit more to do with envy.
I mean, I resent Matt Walsh because I think he's a fascist, but I do also envy him.
I envy his status, his platform, the fact that people might take him more seriously than they'll take me.
But what, if anything, does Matt Walsh envy about queer people?
Does he envy Dylan because she grew to such popularity so fast?
Is he envious of the fact that she got invited to things like fashion shows, different events, that she's met the president?
Now we've already dealt extensively with the claim that gender transition decreases suicide rates, and we talked about it for 15 minutes yesterday, so you can go and refer to that video.
To the charge that I am envious because Dylan Mulvaney gets to go to fashion shows, I don't know what to say except that attending a fashion show would be my actual hell.
I mean, almost as bad as going to a WNBA game, and I'm already going to be forced to do that.
So a man can only take so much.
As for meeting the president, yes, I admit that I would be very eager for a chance to sit across from the president with the cameras rolling, but for very different reasons.
So, overall, no, I'm not envious of Dylan Mulvaney.
I mean, in order to elicit envy, he would need to have something that I want or embody some sort of trait that I find admirable.
Instead, he has none of the things I want out of life and embodies everything that I want to be the opposite of.
So what we've learned here, as you even admitted to your credit I suppose, is that you are driven by envy, and so you assume that everyone else is too, and this is what we call projection.
Now the next video is from the same guy, so let's continue.
Matt Walsh is a fascist who is promoting violence against trans people.
His language is inflammatory and factually incorrect.
The idea that being trans is the result of some kind of social contagion has been disproven so many times.
The theory of rapid-onset gender dysphoria comes from a survey of 256 parents of trans children and not from the trans children themselves.
The article has been removed and criticized for bad methodology.
After being peer-reviewed, it was found that rapid-onset gender dysphoria isn't even a formal medical diagnosis.
It was found that between 2017 and 2019, the rates of teenagers identifying as trans didn't even increase.
Well, where to begin?
You say that the survey about rapid-onset gender dysphoria was invalid because they interviewed parents rather than the children themselves.
Well, yes.
If a child is sucked into a social contagion, he's not going to report that he's been sucked into a social contagion.
Are you actually trying to prove that children aren't being indoctrinated by arguing that the indoctrinated children say they haven't been indoctrinated?
Is that what you're going with?
Yes, I mean, if you go to your local Scientology Center and you ask anyone there whether they've been brainwashed, they're all going to say no.
I guess that proves that there's no brainwashing happening there either.
I mean, they didn't say they were brainwashed, so I guess they weren't.
Now, if you don't like the term rapid-onset gender dysphoria, you can call it whatever you want.
If you prefer something less clinical-sounding, then just call it, uh, wow, look at all of these kids calling themselves trans all of a sudden syndrome.
The point is that according to data compiled by the Williams Institute, for example, nearly one in five people who identify as trans are between the ages of 13 and 17.
Only half a percent of all adults in this country identify as trans, while the number for kids between the ages of 13 and 17 is 1.4%.
That's nearly three times higher.
And the numbers are even more striking when you break them down by generation.
There was a Gallup poll that found that there are twice as many trans identifiers in Gen Z as there are among millennials.
And there are many more among millennials than among baby boomers.
For baby boomers, it's 0.2% identify as trans.
For Gen Z, it's nearly 2%.
0.2% versus 2%.
That is a 10x increase.
You think this happened by accident?
Or perhaps you would say that there have always been this many trans people in the world, but they weren't free to live their truth or whatever.
Well, the trouble with that theory is that there's absolutely not even one single shred of evidence to support the dramatic claim that there have always been millions upon millions of closeted trans people through history.
So here's how this breaks down.
All of the available data, all of it, tells us that there are many, many, many, many, many more trans-identifying people in the youngest generation than in any other generation in human history.
Now, you can either believe what the data tells you, what all of it tells you, all of it, or you can invent a story, entirely unsupported, completely built on your imagination, about millions and millions and millions of theoretical trans people in older generations who don't show up in the data.
This is what you're reduced to.
Because you don't want to accept what your eyes tell you, and tell all of us, that trans identification has skyrocketed in recent years.
You're left then theorizing about invisible trans people and other generations, even though you have no evidence that they even exist.
Alright, let's move on.
I had an unfortunate experience today when I logged onto Facebook and I saw this post by Matt Walsh.
I'll be honest with you, I thought it was satire.
I thought Matt Walsh was either making a joke or that he had been hacked.
But upon further investigation, this was serious.
So let's read it together.
All a man wants is to come home from a long day at work to a grateful wife and children who are glad to see him and dinner cooking on the stove.
This is literally all it takes to make a man happy.
We are simple.
Give us this and you will have given us nearly everything we need.
The only truth in this entire post is where he says we are simple.
You're right.
You guys are simple-minded little f***s.
It gets better when he moves to the comment section because people obviously give him a bunch of s***.
If your husband is unhappy, consider whether you have ever given him this one thing he wants.
There's a good chance the answer's no.
Oh, the outrage.
Obviously, every situation's different.
Maybe there's a situation where both spouses have to work, especially in this economy.
Maybe the man works different shifts.
Basically, yeah, I know I'm a f***ing idiot.
I don't know if I've told y'all this story about when I was being abused in my marriage and I, I'm not to like toot my own horn.
I was a pretty good wife.
Like I was the wife who stayed fairly fit after two C-sections.
I kept the house clean.
I did the laundry.
I made the dinner.
The kids were happy and well behaved and disciplined.
And I tried my hardest because this is how I was raised.
Okay.
This is, I was raised by a stay at home mom.
I was raised, With kind of the mindset of, like, this is your job is to, like, make him know that, like, he's appreciated and that his house is taken care of and yadda yadda yadda.
On top of all that, I did all the fun little things in the bedroom he wanted me to do.
I would send him dirty pictures at work and try to keep the spice alive.
I would buy new lingerie.
Everything that you can think of.
I was like, I'm gonna be a good wife.
Like, I am going to make this work.
And I got more and more desperate to try to be a better wife the worse it got because I was taught, like this Matt Walsh post, that if it failed, if the marriage failed, if we weren't happy, if he wasn't happy, it was on me.
It was because I wasn't grateful enough.
It was because dinner wasn't ready soon enough.
It was because I wasn't fun enough.
I wasn't spicy enough.
And he still abused me.
He still cheated.
Well, I'm sorry you had that experience in your marriage.
I am.
Never should have happened.
But you're making a mistake that many people make these days of assuming that a general principle is wrong because of your own personal experience.
So it's like if I said that you should lock your doors at night and use an alarm system to prevent break-ins, and you responded that my advice is bad because you did that and still had a break-in.
Okay, but does that mean that you shouldn't lock your doors and use an alarm system?
If a certain strategy isn't totally foolproof and perfect, does that automatically make it bad?
What I'm recommending is that women should be grateful and loving towards their husbands.
That's it.
That's all I'm saying.
Now, it's true that you could be grateful and loving to your husband and still end up in a terrible marriage because he's a terrible person.
That can happen.
Terrible people exist in the world and there are people who end up married to terrible people.
It does happen.
And it happens on both ends.
Because there are terrible women and terrible men.
But does that mean that wives shouldn't be grateful and loving?
I mean, are you recommending ingratitude and resentment?
Is that a better strategy?
Is that more likely to produce positive marital results?
You could be faithful to your spouse and still find that he is unfaithful, but does that mean that we should tell people to be unfaithful from the start on the assumption that the others will be too?
Of course not.
But maybe your point is that We shouldn't put it all on the wife.
We should tell the men to be grateful and loving, too.
Well, here's the good news.
I never suggest otherwise.
In fact, I frequently encourage men to love their wives and be faithful and good to them.
I say that all the time.
I just didn't happen to make that point in that particular statement that you read.
There are many points that I didn't make because I was only making the point that I did make.
I can't say everything every time I say anything.
And that limitation does not give you the right to invent a whole series of opinions and statements I never expressed.
Which is what you just did.
Alright, last one.
Let's watch.
You cannot be something and also the negation of that thing at the same time.
Matt Walsh is just going to be upset with people using microlabels.
See, he wants to have it both ways, where he hates the oversaturation of language with microlabels, yet when something is not 100% consistent and precise enough, he gets mad at that too.
You can't have it both ways.
Either we have to use umbrella terms, which are not going to be exactly precise, yet as long as we understand that if somebody says, Bisexual and asexual, they're probably referring to romantic attraction to both genders or perhaps a little sexual attraction to both genders.
If this is the position that Matt Walsh is taking, it is going to be logically inconsistent for him to later take issue with micro-labeling.
And now he's taking issue with micro-labeling, despite earlier complaining that macro-labeling is not specific enough.
Well, thank you for reminding me about my fart-sniffing mumbo-jumbo line.
I'm quite proud of that.
Now, my issue is not with the act of labeling.
There is some amount of labeling that's necessary and normal.
Human beings label things so that they can communicate coherently with each other about those things.
But coherence is the point here.
When the labels create incoherence, Then they defeat the purpose of the entire exercise.
If the label doesn't clarify, but rather creates more confusion, then it's not even a label.
It's more of an anti-label.
It's an attempt to make it harder for people to understand what something is, not easier.
My issue with the labeling that you people do is that you label obsessively and constantly, but your labels don't make sense, and they don't cohere.
They contradict themselves.
And you can't define any of them.
That's the problem.
Case in point, you mentioned someone who identifies as both bisexual and asexual.
That doesn't make sense.
I'm not being pedantic.
I'm not engaging in a game of gotcha here.
It just doesn't make sense.
It is a logical contradiction.
It is the definition of something that doesn't make sense.
Calling yourself a bisexual asexual is exactly like calling yourself a meat-eating vegan.
Now, you say that perhaps asexuals experience a little sexual attraction to both sexes, and that somehow justifies calling an asexual of that sort a bisexual asexual, but that's like saying that a meat-eating vegan is a vegan who eats only a little bit of meat.
Well, by definition, if you eat a little bit of meat, then you eat meat, which means you aren't a vegan.
You may be a less enthusiastic meat eater, or a reluctant meat eater, or an occasional meat eater, or maybe there's some other adjective you can affix there, but a vegan is someone who doesn't eat meat, period.
You eat meat, you aren't a vegan.
An asexual experiences no sexual attraction.
If you experience sexual attraction, you're not asexual.
See, this is the other problem with your compulsive and incoherent labeling.
You don't allow for variations within the labels.
You pretend that you do.
You pretend that you're all about variation.
You embrace all kinds of variety, you claim, but you don't.
Because the moment you notice a variation within a category, you create a whole new category for that variation.
So, rather than just allowing for the fact that sexual people, heterosexual, homosexual, people who experience sexual attraction, Rather than allowing for the fact that there are varying sexual appetites and there are people that have greater appetites than others, rather than just allowing for that, you carve out anyone with a lower appetite and you put them in the asexual box.
You've removed them from this box and put them in this one instead.
And you do this kind of thing everywhere, in every context.
The most obvious example, of course, is how you've eliminated masculine women from existence.
Tomboys, we used to call them.
You've erased that variation by labeling them trans men.
See, this is the worst part about the way that you label.
It's not just that it's incoherent.
It's bad enough.
It's also that it's so damned limiting.
And furthermore, You're cancelled.
All of these people, in fact, are today, unfortunately, I must say, cancelled.
That'll do it for this portion of the show.
As we move over to the Member's Block, you can become a member today by using code WALSH at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.
