Save 10% off your complete will package: https://www.epicwill.com/walsh
Matt Walsh watches and reacts to some of his haters on TikTok.
- - -
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
- - -
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
In the interest of efficiency, we'll be responding rapid-fire style to TikTok 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.
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.
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 gonna 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.
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.
I believe in working hard for what you have.
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.
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.
today.
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'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 yada yada yada.
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.
I'm sorry you had that experience in your marriage.
I am.
Never should have happened.
But you're making the 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 micro labels.
See, he wants to have it both ways, where he hates the oversaturation of language with micro labels, 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 a 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 microlabeling.
Five minutes later.
Start sniffing mumbo jumbo.
And now he's taking issue with microlabeling, despite earlier
complaining that macrolabeling 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'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 also that it's so damned limiting.
