Ep. 1156 - Princeton Professor Tries To Debunk Biology, Fails Hilariously
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there have been multiple attempts by major media outlets this week to debunk the sex binary. We'll dissect and thoroughly debunk one article written by a Princeton professor who claims that he can prove that there are more than two sexes. Also, Ron DeSantis signs a bill imposing the death penalty on child predators. Yet another thing for the groomers to get angry about. And Dwayne Wade is jeered at and mocked by a crowd of people who apparently disapprove of his decision to trans his kid. The footage is very encouraging and heartwarming. And people are randomly outraged about something I said about video games five years ago. I'll address the outrage.
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
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:
Genucel - 70% off the Most Popular Package + FREE SHIPPING + Free Spa Essentials at https://bit.ly/428Hmtq
Innovation Refunds - Learn more about Innovation Refunds at https://bit.ly/3LEwYnO.
- - -
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 Walsh Show, there have been multiple attempts by major media outlets this week to debunk the sex binary.
We'll dissect and thoroughly debunk ourselves.
One article written by a Princeton professor who claims that he can prove that there are more than two sexes.
We'll see how he does today.
Also, Ron DeSantis signs a bill imposing the death penalty on child predators.
Yet another thing for the groomers to get angry about.
And Dwayne Wade is jeered at and mocked by a crowd of people who apparently disapprove of his decision to trans his kid.
The footage is very encouraging and heartwarming.
We'll play that today.
And people are randomly outraged about something I said about video games five years ago.
I'll address the outrage, all of that, and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
I think there are often a number of safe assumptions you can make about a thing or a person just based on a cursory glance, but there is a slightly altered version of this saying that still holds true.
In fact, holds even more true today, arguably.
So perhaps we should say that you shouldn't judge a book by its title or by the category it has been put in.
You cannot, for example, trust that somebody knows anything about science just because they call themselves a scientist.
And you cannot trust that a publication is a reliable source of scientific information just because it has the word science in the title of the publication.
Case in point, The Scientific American.
This is the outlet which bills itself as the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology.
And it is these days, though, most interested in finding sciency-sounding justifications for left-wing ideas.
And the left-wing idea, as we know, that is most in need of a sciency-sounding justification, or really any justification at all, is gender ideology.
In fact, the Scientific American has made an appearance in the Daily Cancellation before, at least once, Due to past failed attempts to scientifically defend the most scientifically indefensible theory ever devised by human beings, which is what gender ideology is.
Now they're back at it with an article written by a Princeton professor named Augustin Fuentes.
So this sounds pretty... I mean, it's a Princeton professor.
His name is Augustin.
Sounds pretty official.
Here's the headline.
Here's why human sex is not binary.
And this, we should note, is in fact the second article published by a major publication this week seeking to debunk the sex binary.
Actually, it's the second article in the same day.
On Monday, we had this one, the Scientific American.
The other one was in the Washington Post, which also was attempting to debunk the sex binary.
But the Scientific American is supposed to be scientific, so we'll focus on that one.
And it sounds like an incredible claim, certainly.
Yet this is again the Scientific American, the science magazine that's been in publication since 1845.
Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla have contributed to this publication in the past.
And this is a professor at Princeton, one of the most prestigious schools in the world.
Surely this will be a compelling science-based article.
And certainly not one that can be debunked by some podcaster who dropped out of community college.
Surely.
So let's read on and find out.
Starting at the top of the article says there are those politicians, pundits, and even a few scientists who maintain that whether our bodies make ova or sperm are all we need to know about sex.
Okay, well never mind.
We don't even need to keep reading.
I mean, we will, because this segment should be longer than two and a half minutes, but we already see the game that he's playing.
The headline promises proof that human sex is not binary.
This is a big promise.
It's actually a promise to upend everything the human race ever thought it knew about its own biology.
If he actually manages to debunk the sex binary, this article in Scientific American would be the most important piece of scientific writing ever composed.
These are the expectations that we have, or that you might have if you're the hopelessly naive sort, as we head into the article itself.
But then in the first sentence, Professor Fuentes sets himself up for a very different and much smaller task.
You know, it's a much smaller house of cards that he wants to knock down.
He announces his intention to respond to the claim That whether our bodies make ova or sperm are all we need to know about sex.
Except that nobody ever said that ova and sperm are all we need to know about sex.
They are crucial, fundamental facts.
But there are, of course, other facts.
Just as I might say that gravity is the reason we aren't currently floating into space.
You know, the reason why we're able to walk around on the ground and not float in space is because of gravity.
This is one of the fundamental facts about gravity.
It's not, however, the only fact about gravity.
There are other things we might say about it as well.
Fuentes claims that he's going to disprove the sex binary, but while pretending to disprove it, we can already see that what he's really going to do is say other things about it.
Okay, so he's not actually, it looks like, gonna be disproving it.
He's just adding on other details.
But even if those other details are true, that wouldn't disprove the basic fact that there are only male and female gametes.
Which means that there are only two sexes, which means that sex is binary.
We see the game he's playing in the very first sentence then.
He's not even going to attempt to debunk the sex binary.
Instead, he's going to set his sights much, much lower and simply try his best to complicate the sex binary.
But if he succeeds in doing that, which, spoiler, he doesn't, he will not have succeeded in doing the thing he promised in the headline to do.
Indeed, he won't even attempt to do that thing.
Reading on it says, quote, Men are men, women are women.
are defined by their production of these gamete cells, making them a distinct biological binary pair,
and that our legal rights and social possibilities should flow from this divide.
Men are men, women are women. Simple.
But this is bad science.
The production of gametes does not sufficiently describe sex, biology, and animals, nor is it the definition of woman or man.
The animal kingdom does not limit itself to only biological binary regarding how a species makes gametes.
Scientifically speaking, animals with the capacity to produce ova are generally called female and sperm producers generally male.
While most animal species fall into the two types of gametes produced by two versions of the reproductive tract model, many don't.
Some worms produce both.
Some fish start producing one kind and then switch to the other.
And some switch back and forth throughout their lives.
There are even lizards that have done away with one type altogether.
Fascinating, Professor.
You know, there are also wasps that will lay their eggs inside caterpillars and then the eggs hatch and the little wasp babies eat the caterpillars alive from the inside.
Pretty gross.
That doesn't mean that human childbirth could ever work that way.
You know, there are many strange phenomena that occur among other species and lifeforms.
We aren't talking about other species and lifeforms.
We're talking about human beings.
Okay, some worms, you say, produce both gametes.
Very interesting.
Nice to know.
But we're not worms.
At least I'm not, Professor.
I'll let you speak for yourself on that subject, I suppose.
But I'd prefer if we got back to the actual subject, which is human sex.
Human biological sex is what we're supposed to be talking about.
So, continuing.
Quote, while sperm and ova matter, they're not the entirety of biology, and they don't tell us all we need to know about sex, especially human sex.
Well, there it is again.
Sperm and ova are not the entirety of biology.
Well, of course they aren't, you simpleton.
Nobody ever said that literally the only thing that exists in biology are sperm and ova.
Nobody ever claimed that we should open a biology textbook and find only the words sperm and ova, the end.
These are, again, fundamental facts about human sex.
They're not the only facts.
We've established that.
We never really needed to establish it because nobody ever questioned it.
But still, we've established it twice now.
Can we get to the part where you prove the existence of a third sex?
Because if human sex is not binary, that would mean that there is a third sex, right?
If it's not binary, it means two.
So if it's not binary, then either there's only one, that would be not binary, or there's more than two.
And you're saying there's more than two, so there should be a third sex, and maybe a fourth sex, maybe a fifth, and so on.
So, if you have proof of the non-binary nature of sex, you must have proof of the third sex.
And if, again, if you have that proof, well, then Nobel Prize is coming your way, because that's the most significant scientific discovery ever.
Where is this discovery?
Let's keep looking.
Quote, the bottom line is that while animal gametes can be described as binary, of two distinct kinds, the physiological systems, behaviors, and individuals that produce them are not.
This reality of sex biology is well summarized by a group of biologists who recently wrote, quote, reliance on strict binary categories of sex fails to accurately capture the diverse and nuanced nature of sex.
We know that humans exhibit a range of biological and behavioral patterns related to sex biology that overlap and diverge.
Producing ova, or sperm, does not tell us everything, or even most things, biologically or socially, about an individual's childcare capacity, homemaking tendencies, sexual attractions, interest in literature, engineering, and math capabilities, or tendency towards gossip, violence, compassion, sense of identity, or love of, or love of, incompetence for sports.
Gametes and gamete production physiology by themselves are only a part of the entirety of human lives.
For humans, sex is dynamic, biological, cultural, and enmeshed in feedback cycles with our environments, ecologies, and multiple physiological and social processes.
Given what we know about biology across animals and in humans, efforts to represent human sex as binary, based solely on what gametes one produces, are not about biology, but are about trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society.
Yes, Professor.
Human beings are, you know, they all have different personalities and hopes and dreams, right?
But biologically speaking, the human species only has two sexes.
So, a human being can have all the dreams and hopes and wishes that he wants, but there's only one of two options for a sex and we don't get to choose it.
It's given to us.
So, when are we going to get to the part where you actually present an argument against the biological binary?
Where is the proof of the third sex?
I guess we have to keep reading.
Oh wait, we can't.
Because that's the end of the article.
That's it.
All of that build-up just to bring us to some completely irrelevant diatribe about the diverse nature of human personality.
Fuentes promised us a groundbreaking work of scientific literature which would totally reshape our understanding of human biology, but instead we got a hallmark greeting card about how each individual human is unique and beautiful like a snowflake.
I mean, just stop to consider what kind of bushly garbage we just endured.
And this is, and this is, this isn't, it's not just this article.
This is every attempt by the left to prove their point when it comes to gender ideology and biological sex.
It always comes down to this.
It's always this same thing.
They set their mark.
They say, we're going to prove this.
And then they don't even attempt to prove that.
Instead, they go off in this direction here.
It's always obfuscation.
It's always a sleight of hand.
They can never engage directly with the argument they're pretending they're engaging with.
In this case, in the context of allegedly trying to disprove the sex binary, this Princeton professor mentioned that some people love sports and some people don't.
What?
What in the world does that have to do with anything?
He claimed that human sex is not binary, but instead he actually argued that human lives are not binary, which of course they aren't.
There are many different ways to live, many different things a person can do, many different ways a person can be, many different hobbies he can take up, many different things that you can do every day when you wake up in the morning.
There are many things you can say about a person, but that doesn't change the fact that a person can only belong to one of two sex categories, male or female.
If you're suggesting that The existence of personality somehow undermines the reality of biological sex.
You might as well claim that it also undermines the reality of the human species.
I mean, does the fact that some humans love sports and some don't love sports prove that we're not all the same species?
Try to understand this, professor.
See if you can wrap your mind around it.
Variations within a category do not invalidate the category.
Every dog is different.
Every dog has his day, they tell us.
That doesn't mean that dogs don't exist.
In fact, they need to exist in order for us to make a statement like, every dog is different.
Males need to exist as a category in order for us to say anything about a male, a human male, such as, human males are all different, they have different expressions.
Squares come in all different sizes and colors.
That doesn't mean that squares are indistinguishable from circles.
College professors have varying levels of intelligence.
A few of them are smart.
Many of them have the IQ of a dead turtle.
That doesn't mean that college professors don't exist.
Unfortunately, what this professor doesn't see, or is pretending not to see anyway, is that his argument, if we can call it an argument, only reinforces the very thing he's trying to dismantle.
If he's proven anything, he's proven that the sex binary is not restrictive or limiting in the way that the left claims that it is.
There are many ways for males and females to act in the world and to participate in society and to express themselves.
We don't need to radically alter our understanding of human biology to account for that.
We don't need this modern concept of gender identity.
You're a male or a female.
Those facts are fundamental.
But you can still dress however you want.
You can act however you want.
There are some ways of dressing and acting that are ill-advised.
But that's a different conversation.
The point is that we don't need new labels and concepts to accommodate the kinds of variations that we find between individuals.
Nobody ever denied those variations to begin with.
People think and act and feel differently.
And biologically speaking, all of that thinking and acting and feeling happens within the parameters of the sex binary.
This is not a difficult concept.
It's easy enough that I can understand it.
It's even easy enough for a Princeton professor to understand it.
I believe that they can.
I have faith in them.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Biden's plans to help struggling business owners in the wake of COVID
lockdowns were to prioritize black, Latino, Native American and
Well, it goes without saying that if the roles were reversed, if Biden had said that his plans were to prioritize white, male-owned businesses, there would have been outrage, to say the least.
So if you own a business, you can't rely on the government to bail you out.
That's the moral of the story.
You need to take matters into your own hands, and innovation refunds can help you do just that.
If your business has five or more employees, And it managed to survive COVID.
Well, you could be eligible to receive a payroll tax rebate of up to $26,000 per employee through the Employee Retention Credit.
All you gotta do is go to getrefunds.com.
Innovation Refunds has already helped clients claim over $3 billion in payroll tax refunds through the ERC, and they may be able to help your business too.
This is not a loan.
There's no payback.
It's a refund of your taxes.
There's no upfront charge either.
They don't get paid until your business gets paid and gets its refund.
So don't let this opportunity pass you by.
See if your business qualifies for ERC assistance in just eight minutes.
Go to GetRefunds.com, click on Qualify Me, and answer a few questions.
This payroll tax refund is only available for a limited amount of time.
Don't miss out.
Go to GetRefunds.com.
GetRefunds.com.
All right, a bunch of ground to cover.
We'll start with this from Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida.
Maybe you've heard of him.
He sent out this statement yesterday.
He says, today I sign legislation that will make child rapists eligible for the death penalty with the minimum sentence of life in prison without parole, impose additional penalties on fentanyl and drug-related crimes targeted at children, and protect Floridians from disastrous bail reform policies.
This was a bill that was obviously passed by the state legislature and then signed yesterday by Governor DeSantis.
Here he is in a press conference explaining this legislation a little bit.
The other thing we're doing is making clear that in Florida, we stand for the protection of children.
[ Cheers and applause ]
And, unfortunately, in our society, you have very heinous sex crimes
that are committed against children under the age of 12 years old.
And these are really the worst of the worst.
And what happens is, the perpetrators of these crimes are oftentimes serial offenders.
And if someone does, one, if they rape a child, and these are very young children, sometimes like 6, 7, 8 years old, if they do that once, chances are they will do it again, unless they're stopped, unless they're incapacitated.
And so, we really believe that part of a just society is to have appropriate punishment.
And so if you commit a crime that is really, really heinous, you should have the ultimate punishment.
And so what this bill does is it challenges the U.S.
Supreme Court for recently deciding, probably six or seven years ago, they decided by five to four After over 200 years of our of our constitution being in place, that somehow you could never have capital punishment for crimes like rape, even though some of these are some of the worst of the worst, even though you can have serial offenders who have violated multiple children under the age of 12.
And so we think that that decision was wrong.
We think that in the worst of the worst cases, The only appropriate punishment is the ultimate punishment.
And so this bill sets up a procedure.
So obviously, there's Governor DeSantis.
Obviously, to begin with, on the merits of this legislation, it's clearly the right thing.
The idea that we can only impose capital punishment on someone who kills another person, it's completely arbitrary.
Nowhere is that written in the heavens.
Certainly the opposite.
I mean, if we want to talk about biblical precedent, then that's not biblical precedent.
But it doesn't make sense on any level.
You know, the idea that, well, as long as a person's not killed, we can't impose the ultimate punishment.
As if murder is absolutely the worst thing a person can ever do and nothing else could ever be as bad.
Well, that clearly is not the case.
Child rape is at least as bad as murder.
And in plenty of cases, it's going to be worse than murder.
I mean, there are plenty of...
I would prefer not to live next to a violent criminal of any kind, but if I had to choose between living next to a child rapist or a murderer who killed someone in a road rage incident or something like that, I guess I'd take the murderer if I had to choose.
And in fact, if we have this weird rule that we've imposed on ourselves, that we can only execute one, either murderers or child rapists, like if we had to choose between those two categories of people to execute, then I would say, well, if we could only do one, then I'd probably murder the, I'd probably execute, rather, execute, legally, the child rapist.
But, in fact, we don't have to choose.
You know, that's the wonderful thing.
We don't have to make choices.
We can execute all of them.
We should be able to anyway.
Execute all of the worst people, all of the worst criminals.
Just execute them all.
And this is the right first step.
There's a lot more that needs to be done.
I mean, this is actual criminal justice reform.
Okay, so all the Republicans that have lined up behind criminal justice reform, and many of them have, many of them have lined up behind criminal justice reform, and they're talking about the kind of reform where we are letting the criminals out of jail.
And we're trying to make sure that fewer people go to jail in the first place.
Fewer criminals go to jail.
Now, if fewer people are going to jail because fewer people are committing crimes, because there's been some sort of spiritual and moral rebirth in society, and so then the jails empty out because no one's committing crimes anymore, then I would say, great, fantastic.
But that's not happening.
So instead, we have the criminal justice reform where there's still a lot of crimes being committed.
In fact, more crimes than ever are being committed, but we're putting fewer people in prison, which means that you've got a lot of leftover criminals who are just Still wandering around out in the free world.
That's the kind of criminal justice reform we so often hear about.
But this is the type of criminal justice reform that we should have.
It's the type of reform where we are reforming the system by putting more criminals in prison for longer and instituting harsher penalties on criminals.
And child rapists should be at the top of the list.
Because as DeSantis correctly notes, the other thing about someone who commits a crime like that is that they can simply never be trusted in society ever again.
Again, there are forms of murder.
You know, murder obviously legally comes in degrees, and it's not all the same sort of situation.
But there are forms of murder where it is conceivable that a person who commits that kind of murder could be potentially reformed.
They should still go to jail for a long time, but potentially they could be reformed, and maybe they could be trusted back in society again.
But with a child rapist, they can never be trusted in society.
Once a person has gotten to that point where they're committing that crime, Where they're willing to do, where they, number one, want to do something like that, and then act on that, they can never be trusted in society ever again.
And then we have to ask what, so okay, so you've got people who have committed the worst kind of crime, by their own actions and their own choices, they can never be trusted in society ever again.
So what is our responsibility as a society to those people?
Do we have any responsibility to them?
Is it our responsibility to keep them alive and fed in prison for decades?
Is it our responsibility to not only keep them in prison, keep them fed, but to protect them?
Because the other thing about the worst of the worst, the people that commit the most heinous sorts of crimes, like child rape, well, They are so evil and so monstrous that even the other criminals in prison don't want to be around them.
Which means that we don't put them in the general population, so then they are in protective custody.
So we're spending more money, society is spending more money just to keep these absolute lowest of the low dirtbags alive.
I would say that along with everything else, it is an unjust and undue burden on society.
As a taxpayer, I should not be required to keep child rapists alive just because we're too squeamish to execute them as we should.
And if we're really starting to understand as a society, and if we're really starting to reform the system, then we're going to start talking about not only are we executing these people, but we're doing it quickly.
We're not giving them 30 years to appeal.
Okay?
The conviction is passed down, you're convicted, you're guilty, you've been found guilty, and then the execution is carried out the next day?
Carried out at dawn following the conviction.
So you're convicted.
We take you to a holding cell somewhere.
The execution will be carried out at dawn by hanging.
We don't need to do anything complicated with all the lethal injections and everything.
You know, things go wrong with the lethal injection.
There are all these debates about the cocktails of drugs that are used and everything.
We don't need any of that.
Take them up, take them out to the gallows, you bring them up on the platform, you tie a rope around their neck, pull the lever, boom, it's done.
And so within 24 hours of them being convicted, they're gone.
We bury them in an unmarked grave, and we forget they ever existed.
That is justice.
And not only is it justice for that person, they're getting what they are due.
Justice, again, means giving a person what they're due.
That is the definition of justice.
And that is what you are due.
If you're a child rapist, and so not only are we giving them justice, but also if there's any hope of dissuading the next potential scumbag criminal, that's the way that you do it.
As far as DeSantis is concerned, you know, this is also called, this is what governing looks like.
He's actually governing.
Um, and it's why, listen, you know, we're getting into the primary season, I know that some people are, of course there are a lot of big Trump supporters, there are supporters of the, well there are really no supporters of the other candidates, so it's really Trump or DeSantis, um, and if you're a Trump supporter that's fine, but let's not Okay, for the sake of supporting Trump, let's not pretend that DeSantis is anything less than a very effective conservative governor.
He simply is.
He's doing these kinds of things.
It's got nothing to do with him personally, his personality.
I don't care about that.
Who cares?
I don't need him to have a great personality.
It's got nothing to do with even what he says or tweets.
Again, I don't care about that.
Anyone can say the right things.
Anyone can send out a tweet.
I think DeSantis does well at press conferences, mixing it up with the media, and I like those moments.
I don't care about those moments that much.
Okay?
I don't care about that.
What are you doing?
Show me what you've done.
Okay, you get into office, the ball is here, you've got to advance the ball down the field.
And so, when you've been in office for a while, I want to see, is the ball still sitting where it was when you got into office?
Is it farther back in the other direction, even?
Have we regressed?
Or have you moved it forward?
And he is moving it forward.
Something like this is moving the ball forward.
It's undeniable.
And so we should at least appreciate that.
All right.
Some more good news.
This is from St.
Louis Today.
It says, sales of Bud Light have been plunging since the company enlisted the help of transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in a marketing campaign a month ago.
In the week that ended on April 22nd, The brand's in-store sales plummeted more than 26 percent, according to figures reported by Bump Williams Consulting, a Connecticut-based firm that specializes in the alcoholic beverage industry.
And the decline is only accelerating.
The week before, sales dropped by 21 percent.
The week before that, it was 11 percent.
Bud Light is still the best-selling beer in America by far, said Bump Williams, the founder, president, CEO of the agency that bears his name.
In 2022, Anheuser-Busch InBev sold more than $4.8 billion worth of its in stores, he said, far outpacing Modela and Michelob Ultra.
But, they're way above the pack, and so to knock them all the way down takes more time than a month.
But even so, this all began on April 1st, it's now May 2nd, so it's been almost exactly a month.
And in their most recent week of sales, they saw a 26% decline, which was a decline on top of the decline before that and the decline before that.
So this is, there's, as I've been saying now for a couple of weeks, there's no denying, no getting around the fact, this has been an absolutely devastating boycott for Bud Light.
Easily the most effective conservative boycott in modern American history.
I don't know what, I'm not sure what second place would even be.
And it's one of the few examples of conservatives saying, no, we're going to draw a line here, you're going to pay a price for this, saying that to corporate America, and then we see how that price has been exacted on them.
And the other great thing, and encouraging thing for me anyway, encouraging in a certain way, is that this has been a totally grassroots effort.
We don't have the advantages that the left has.
They can astroturf everything all day long because they have all the institutions that have all the money and all the power.
And so on our side, if we're going to get anything done, it has to be on a grassroots level, like actual real people doing it.
And that's what happened here.
In fact, the Republican establishment and many of the most prominent Republicans in the country came out against The Anheuser-Busch-Bud Light boycott.
Because Anheuser-Busch is a big donor to them, and they say, oh, no, no, no, let's back off the donors, folks.
No, no, no, no, wait a second.
Bud Light, you know, they donate a lot to Republicans because they have a heavily conservative customer base, and they even have conservatives and Republicans who, you know, run the company and work for the company.
So that makes them really susceptible to us, which is why we never want to Take advantage of that.
Instead, Republican establishments said, let's focus on boycotting all those companies that we can't, where we can't even make a dent.
Okay, look, let's focus on things that are totally fruitless and futile.
That's what they want.
Oh yeah, they love conservative boycott campaigns, but they just don't, the Republican establishment, they don't want any kind of boycott campaign or really any action taken by conservatives that will actually have an impact of any kind.
That's what they don't want.
Well, that's what happened here, and it's not over.
So we should recognize this continuing victory.
I think it's really important to recognize the victories and to acknowledge them, not because we want to give ourselves a pat on the back and feel great about ourselves, but because it gives us a path forward.
So, oh, we're having a victory here.
This works.
We should do more of this.
We've got plenty of conservatives who They're addicted to losing.
They don't want to admit that anything is a win.
Part of that is jealousy.
You know, plenty of conservatives, especially conservatives in media and so on, if there's a win and they're not involved in it, or if they were even arguing against the tactic that ended up working, they're going to say that it's not a win because they're jealous.
But then you have plenty of others, I think, who are just, you know, it's the kind of doomer mentality.
It's, we're always losing, nothing's ever a win, nothing matters.
And there's a certain comfort that people take in wallowing in their sorrows in that way.
And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you declare that nothing is ever a win, we can never win anything, well then we won't.
But if it will at least take the time to say, oh wow, this is working.
This has been a win.
26% sale.
I mean, overall, so we're talking about like a 50% drop in sales for Bud Light in the span of a month.
It's massive.
So we say that, we acknowledge that, and then that also gives us a clue of what we should be doing going forward.
More good news.
Oh, we're really on a roll today.
This is very encouraging.
Former NBA star Dwayne Wade was booed and had transphobic comments hurled at him as he left the Knicks game against the Miami Heat with wife Gabrielle Union, according to the Daily Mail.
The 41-year-old, who played for the Heat for 16 years, was at Madison Square Garden on Sunday to watch his former team rout the hosts.
However, the retired three-time NBA champion winner, who is the father of 15-year-old transgender model Zaya, Faced homophobic jeers as he left the game.
Let's listen to a clip of that.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
I'm really encouraged by that.
I don't know, there's a lot of context that we're missing.
The media has been circulating this clip and saying how terrible it is, and it's what we heard in the Daily Mail article.
Transphobic jeers.
I'm not even sure that all of the shouting had anything to do with the fact that he's a child abuser, but to the extent that it was related to that, I think it's a great thing.
Because Dwayne Wade is a despicable, disgusting, monstrous child abuser who has imposed this trans, you know, this is another Munchausen by proxy, trans Chausen by proxy case.
And he has imposed this identity on his son.
You know, at an age when the son could not possibly have chosen it.
We know where this came from.
We know where it came from.
And we also know where it came from because he's, you know, he's not helping his child.
He's not making any sincere attempt to help his child navigate gender dysphoria.
No, he's putting this out in public.
So the moment that Zaya, I'm not even sure what the child's real name is, maybe it was Zaya originally, I'm not sure, but the moment that Zaya allegedly said to Dwayne Wade, oh, I think I'm a girl, it's like that moment, practically, Dwayne Wade is in front of cameras.
It's as if the moment he was told that, he ran outside of his door and went to the nearest news camera and said, oh, guess what?
Because he's so excited about it.
He's so excited to parade his son around that he's abusing, to parade his son around like some sort of trophy and it's disgusting.
And this is a necessary part of fighting back against this madness, is to shame these people.
Dwayne Wade, everywhere he goes, should be jeered and mocked and shouted at.
Everywhere he goes, that should happen.
Because that's how a healthy society treats child abusers.
When you are imposing this horrific identity crisis onto your child, which will lead to, if it hasn't already, I'm not sure where the poor child is in the medical transition process, but leads inevitably to castration, sterilization, and all the rest of it, This is some of the worst abuse that a parent can inflict on their child.
And again, a healthy society, a well-ordered society, is one that has no tolerance for that.
And what should happen is that Dwayne Wade should be in prison.
But because he's not in prison, he should at least be rejected and scorned by society.
And I think it's a wonderful thing to see.
Honestly, I'm not the emotional type.
But when I first saw that video of crowds of people jeering at this disgusting, child-abusing monster, it's like tears of joy welled up in my eyes.
It was really a wonderful thing to behold.
And I hope that there's a lot more of it in the future.
It could not happen to a more deserving scumbag than Dwayne Wade.
Oh, and also we should note that everything I'm saying, well, maybe not in these exact words, but the general sentiment is shared by that child's mother, which is not Gabriel Union, but his actual mother is not on board with this and has said so.
All right.
The media is calling it a war between Tucker Carlson and Fox News, but it's rather one-sided because all the blows, all the shots are being taken by one side, which is Fox News.
The most recent thing, this was trending yesterday, is a video.
Of Tucker Carlson on set, but not, you know, this is off camera, or he thought off camera, talking to somebody who he was trying to apparently book for some sort of interview.
And this video was leaked to Media Matters.
Media Matters then posted it.
And they're making a big deal about this because I guess it's supposed to make Tucker Carlson look bad.
I don't know.
We'll watch a little bit of this.
I don't want to be a slave to Fox Nation, which I don't think that many people watch anyway.
We're gonna, uh, because I, you know, I'm like a representative of the American media now.
Speaking to an exile in Romania and welcoming him back into the brotherhood of journalists.
Yeah, it would help us out if you wore a sweater though because we asked him not to wear a suit, like he was panicking about it, so you don't have to.
Tucker's going to be looking casual, that's just how our show looks.
Is that okay? I mean this is airing on the night time show and I want it to look official.
I don't want it to be like bro talk.
And I, and I... You know what I mean?
Yeah, but the majority of it, like if we go like 45 minutes, it's gonna be for Fox Nation.
But nobody's gonna watch it on Fox Nation.
Nobody watches Fox Nation because the site sucks.
So I'd really like to just dump the whole thing on YouTube.
But anyway, that's just my view.
Well, if you're watching this and you're waiting for the scandalous part, I hate to disappoint you, but it never comes.
That's it.
Just Tucker Carlson saying that the Fox Nation streaming service sucks and nobody watches it, and he goes on to talk about how the website's a disaster and all the rest of it, which is all true.
It's also, you know, an employee complaining about stuff involving his employer that, you We'll not surprise you to learn that he's not the only employee to ever do that in the history of employment.
And everything that he's saying is true.
So what, it's him being honest with someone who he's trying to book for an interview?
And also think about the fact that there's, you know, like there isn't any of us in this business.
There's going to be Hundreds and hundreds of hours of footage like that, you know, where we're not on camera yet, but the cameras are rolling and we're just sitting here and we're speaking sometimes too openly.
Like, for any one of us, there's tons of footage like that.
And so they've been crawling through the footage of Tucker, and that's the best they could find?
They're trying to find something scandalous or whatever, embarrassing or offensive that he said when he was off camera.
Or rather, off air but on camera.
And that's what they come up with.
I'm almost disappointed in Tucker.
They've got to find better than that.
I'm sure there's been some examples of him saying some actually vaguely offensive things, I would hope.
But that's the best they can come up with.
But the real point is, where did this video come from?
How did Media Matters get this video?
They don't tell us, but I think we can, the only safe assumption is that Fox News leaked the video to Media Matters.
Tucker Carlson wouldn't have leaked it.
He wouldn't have access to that footage anyway.
He doesn't keep all the footage himself.
So this is something that Fox News would have, and we can assume that Fox News leaked it.
Now, the fact that the footage completely fails to make Tucker look bad is irrelevant.
Really, the point is that Fox News, apparently, is leaking footage to Media Matters.
Like, the lowest of the low.
When it comes to the left and the media and that kind of intersection, you don't get any lower than media matters.
And that's who they're giving footage to.
I should tell you something about Fox News.
If you're still a Fox News viewer, you should just ask yourself.
Do I trust these people?
the kinds of people that would kick their star host off the air and then try to embarrass him
by giving footage to Media Matters. All right, before we get to the comment section, this is
a viral video that is maybe the most important, maybe the most important subject we can cover
today. It's a viral video about someone's experience at Disney World.
And they posted this to TikTok, talking about how much they spend at Disney World.
And I've never been to Disney World.
I never planned on going to Disney World.
I've always been aware that it's expensive.
But this surprised me, even.
Let's watch this.
So here's how much we spent at Disney Day 2 of 5.
A mediocre breakfast at Hollywood & Vine cost us $223.
Then we headed over to Toy Story Land and even with Lightning Lane, we still only got to ride one ride.
Ice cream was $25 and popcorn was $16.
Then over at Galaxy's Edge, three lightsabers cost us a whopping $800.
They also no longer hold them for you until the end of the day, plus different airlines have different restrictions when flying home, so we opted to ship them to us for an additional cost.
Every ride had 120 minute wait signs, so we only got to ride one ride in this section of the park as well.
We tried the infamous blue and green milk and had lunch at Backlot and Funnel Cakes at Epic Eats.
PhotoPass was an extra $170 for cell phone quality pictures and finally we had dinner at Planet Hollywood.
Factoring in our nightly hotel rate of $997 brings our total to $3,758.
Oh my.
I'm sorry, I don't even know where to start.
Was that $800 on lightsabers?
Did I hear that right?
I'm actually not sure if I heard that right.
Was it $800 on lightsabers?
It was $800.
How many lightsabers was it?
Was it 50 lightsabers?
Three.
Three lightsabers.
$800 on three.
Were they real?
They better be real lightsabers.
Actual laser that can cut things in half and deflect other lasers that are being shot at you.
I can't really go into much more detail about how lightsabers work, but if they're real lightsabers, then I could see maybe spending that kind of money on it, but I suspect that they're not, and that the laser is actually made of plastic, and so you're spending $800 on that.
Like, even if you're a millionaire, I think spending that kind of money on a plastic toy is an exorbitant and gratuitous expense.
I can't understand this.
Some of us work for a living, and you don't get a lot of time off.
And it's precious, precious time when you have off, especially if you have a family and you want to spend time with your family.
And so let's say you have a week off and you decide that you want to spend That week down in the heat and in the in the humidity standing in lines among crowds of tourists.
These are all things that I like spend my life trying to avoid and you have a week off and you're gonna and you're gonna pay money for the privilege of standing in lines and being around huge crowds in the heat and the humidity and and spending was it $300?
$300 on At best, like, Applebee's tier food.
Like, this is Applebee's food at the best, and you're spending 300 bucks on it at dinner.
Everything about that seems horrific to me, but people choose to endure it.
And now, this is what makes, okay, If you're a parent and you have kids, and you decide that you want to go through all of this for the sake of your kids, I think it's misguided, I think it's a mistake, and I think you don't need to do this.
You can give your child a wonderful time, you can make memories with your child and spend a third of the money and have way more fun.
But at least it's the thought that counts.
And so if you decide, I want to go down to Disney World for the sake of my kids and spend $50,000 on cheap plastic toys and crappy food and waiting in line for three hours so that I can ride two rides for the whole week that we're there.
If you decide you want to do that for your child, you know, I mean, it's a sacrifice.
It's a sacrifice.
And I misguided, but I can respect that.
But there are adults who do this without kids for their For themselves?
I mean, imagine that for a second.
You're an adult.
You have some time off of work.
You don't have any kids.
You obviously have the fact that you're in Disney World means you have a lot of expendable income.
You could go anywhere in the world, right?
It's like, if you have no kids and you're an adult and you have expendable income, the whole world's your oyster.
You could go anywhere on vacation.
And you decide to go to Disney World?
You know what you could do?
My wife and I, we can't do this right now.
You could get on a plane and you could fly in the summertime to Alaska.
Where it's beautiful and it gets to 70 degrees, you know, at the height of the summer and it's sunny almost all day in the summer in Alaska and there's just wildlife and it's the most beautiful, one of the most beautiful places on earth that you can go to and you can bask in that natural beauty and have quiet and fresh air and everything.
And you say, no, I don't want that.
I want to go and sweat my ass off in huge crowds of people.
I don't understand.
It is the last thing I'll say.
And I think at least we can agree on this part.
Maybe up to now you don't agree, but at least we can say that adults who enjoy Disney World are mentally ill.
There's obviously some sort of mental illness going on here.
I don't know if it's in the DSM or not, but I think more research needs to be done on that.
Let's get to the comment section.
For example, you might remember Jacob the PA from my YouTube series where I was forced to play video games.
I played against Jacob in a game of Mario, or rather Mortal Kombat, and I completely annihilated him.
Well, I ran into Jacob in the hall the other day and I was taken aback by how sickly and tired he looked.
I'm obviously an incredibly caring person, so of course I asked if he was okay, thinking maybe he still hasn't recovered from the complete embarrassment of a middle-aged man beating him.
Well, turns out Jacob just hasn't been sleeping at all over the last few days because he's been binge-playing the new Star Wars game that came out.
Now, I was not only repulsed by his face, but also repulsed by him completely, by everything about him.
An utter disgrace.
And unfortunately, I can't cure all the things that ail him, but I can at least cure the disgusting, hideous appearance of his face with Genusil.
Nothing works like Genusil.
It's a family recipe that's been perfected over 20 years.
Genusil promises immediate effects.
You'll see results in 12 hours, guaranteed, or your money back.
Jacob did indeed see immediate results, and he couldn't be happier, at least so I hear, since he's no longer allowed to be in my presence.
But I hear that he's slightly less repulsive at this point.
If you don't want to look disgusting, try GenuCell's most popular package for 70% off at GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
All orders are upgraded to free shipping and every subscription order includes a complimentary spring spa box with free spa essentials.
Go to GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
Okay, well, here's one tweet I wanted to put in.
This is from my My dear wife, she posted this that the walrus skate continues.
And we had a fan that created this large wooden walrus that actually is a lot heavier than it looks.
And apparently there was a nice letter that went with it that the fan made this walrus for me.
And apparently they didn't realize, this is the great thing about it, is that this person didn't even realize that Johnny the walrus, the stuffed walrus, had met his demise.
And I don't know, maybe he started making this and sent it before that happened.
So in his mind, he was just adding more.
It's like, he thought that we already had the big walrus, and my wife was annoyed by that, and he was giving me another large walrus to bring into the home.
So that's how he saw it.
But actually, this now will serve as a replacement for the giant stuffed walrus.
Which we will.
I told my wife we're going to proudly hang it above our couch in the living room for all to see.
There it is there.
Yep.
As you can see.
Not quite as big as the stuff at Walrus, but here's what I love.
You know, this is one of the many great things about the Sweet Baby Gang, is that they're always so eager to help me in my quest to annoy my wife.
And I really appreciate that, you know.
It's a very fulfilling relationship for everybody involved.
All right, Chris Aldman says, I hope more political commentators post full episodes of their shows on here.
I'm all for it.
Makes this app so much better.
I have seen, talking about on here being Twitter, I have seen a few more people doing it.
I think, I think, I was hoping that we would start a trend because, as we said, when we made this decision to start posting the show on Twitter, it's not, it's not like a gimmick.
It's, Twitter is the most powerful free speech platform in the world.
And, and so, especially if you aren't welcome on the other big social media platforms with your content, it's a good place to go.
Bert says, guys, I think we're starting to see some gray in the beard of our sweet granddaddy Walsh.
You are.
I hope that you are.
As I've said, I have no, you know, I have no compunction about that.
I have no hesitation.
I think that gray in the beard is good.
It's distinguished.
I've been looking forward to going gray for years.
So this has been a great development.
Another comment says, Matt, I've always thought that the least absurd trans identity is still absurd is racial.
Like, some people are lighter than others.
Like, there truly is a spectrum of race, but there isn't with your sex.
Why can't that guy just be the lightest skinned black guy you know?
Well, I mean, of course.
Of all the made-up spectrums, right, and of all the made-up social constructs where we can choose our identity, race is definitely the least absurd one.
For all the reasons that you said and the reasons that I gave yesterday.
That race, race actually is fluid and you can actually be, like everybody is more than one.
We're all, if you go back and you go to Ancestry.com and you trace your lineage and all that, you're gonna find you're a mix of ethnicities and nationalities and you have ancestors from all over the place, right?
That's actually true.
Whereas with sex, there's only two and nobody is both.
You know, your mother is black, your father's white, and then creates you, and now you're biracial.
But your mother is a woman, and your father is a man, creates you.
That doesn't make you half woman and half man.
Let's see.
Reality Party says, Matt loves reminding you that he doesn't understand transgenderism in any way.
Well, this guy's handle is Reality Party, but apparently he hasn't invited himself to his own party, because that's... You're right.
I don't... I don't... I don't understand transgenderism in the sense that it's impossible to fully understand nonsense.
So, in that sense, I think you're correct.
And finally, Elon Ashamed says, Why is it that all the dudes raving about trans people also look like they could pass as trans?
Coincidence?
So, it's interesting that now we're talking about passing as trans.
I thought it was that if you're trans, you want to pass as the sex you're pretending to be, and now it's we want to pass as trans.
Well, no, I could definitely pass as trans.
For sure, I could.
Because trans women are dudes in dresses, and they look like dudes in dresses, because that's what they are.
So to pass as trans, all I would have to do is put on a dress and I could pass as trans.
I won't, but any man who looks like a man could pass as trans because that's what trans is.
All right.
If you're looking for something interesting to watch, check out our series What We Saw, hosted by storyteller Bill Whittle.
Season one is focused on Apollo 11, and now season two of What We Saw is in full swing.
This time, Bill paints a bleak picture of the growing existential threat to America due to Soviet Russia and Cuba.
Episode 8 picks up during 1961, during the aftermath of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba.
With the Berlin Wall completed, closing the Iron Curtain on Western Europe, the Soviets have installed medium-range nuclear weapons in Cuba.
One wrong move from President Kennedy might set off an act of war.
Bill makes you feel like you're there, witnessing history firsthand.
New episodes of The Cold War come out every week, but you have to be a member to see it, so go to dailywire.com slash coldwar to start watching.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, I speak publicly through several different mediums every day of my life, and you might think that those who wish to be outraged by my comments would find more than enough new fodder every day to keep them satiated, but somehow that is not the case.
The outrage mob demands even more reasons to be mad at me, and so they will not only sift through my daily comments, but they'll also dig through everything I've said over the past 10 years to find more ammunition, and this creates a situation where nearly every day I have factions of the outrage mob Screaming at me because of things I said that day, and then I have other factions screaming at me arbitrarily over something I said years ago.
So they'll come banging on my door, metaphorically, shouting, hey, remember this thing you said on September 14th, 2016?
And I'll say, no, I actually don't, that was a long time ago, I don't, what are you talking about?
And they'll say, well, here's what you said, and you said it, and we're mad about it, seven years later.
And I'll say, okay, well, have fun with that, I guess.
I don't know what to do for you.
And that'll go about my day.
That's usually the way it works.
But every once in a while, this randomly reignited outrage provides me with an opportunity to revisit or expand upon an important point.
And that's what happened yesterday when, for some reason, my Twitter mentions became filled with people upset over something that I tweeted on March 8th, 2018.
And here's the offending tweet.
This was me.
Video games are a sacred cow because our country is filled with adults who are obsessed with them.
That's why we all pretend, insanely, that there's nothing wrong with or disturbing about a child spending all day killing people in a virtual world.
Shocking stuff.
Apparently, in 2018, I made the provocative claim that children shouldn't spend all day playing violent video games.
Lots of people apparently disagree.
They, I guess, think that children should spend all day playing violent video games?
I mean, I can see a response where you say, well, no, no kids played spending all day playing violent video games.
But to respond like you disagree with the statement is another thing entirely, but that's what happened.
Now, part of the reason why people dig up old tweets is that it gives them, or they believe it gives them, A rhetorical advantage, because they can pluck one statement from the past, completely remove it from the broader context and conversation it was a part of, ignore everything else I may have said about that subject at the time to flesh out my views, and instead they can engage with this one statement as if it was made in a void.
You know, it's a clever way to make a straw man out of somebody's argument, even while quoting them directly.
It may be a correct quote, like I did say that, but it's only one part of a larger thought.
And the larger thought is lost, leaving only the one single piece that you have isolated.
For an example of how this works, here's what a guy named George Alexopoulos, who has a relatively large social media following apparently, here's what he tweeted at me yesterday in response to my tweet from five years ago.
He said, quote, Video games are a medium, not a genre, you bearded puritanical philistine.
If your child is only playing games where he's murdering people, get educated and buy him Minecraft, Rocket League, Mario Maker.
Better yet, play games together and bond.
Debate me, Matt.
He wants to debate me about this point from five years ago.
Now, I'm aware that non-violent video games exist.
However, in that one particular statement five years ago, I was specifically talking about violent video games, which also exist.
Yes, violent video games are a genre, and I was talking about that genre.
Okay?
So just because I'm talking about one thing in particular, it doesn't mean that I'm denying that other things also exist.
It's just that this is what I'm talking about right now, or what I was talking about five years ago.
There was much more strawmanning where that came from.
The Quartering tweeted, "The Right's weird obsession with disavowing video games, anime,
and social media is why they will never appeal to most of Gen Z. The base is literally dying
off and most of the voices in the community are actively refusing recruits." Well, with all due
respect to Jeremy from The Quartering, I think it's safe to say that I have recruited more people
into conservatism than he ever has or ever will.
I do sometimes, you know, I have to admit, get a little bit tired of hearing lectures on effectiveness from people who are far less effective.
Like, at a certain point, these people need to maybe take a second, realize that maybe you could learn something.
Maybe you could learn something from people who are achieving more than you are in this fight?
Possibly?
It's also, at the very best, a gross oversimplification to accuse me of disavowing video games and social media.
You have me on the anime point, however.
As we all know, I do literally think that anime is demonic, and every single person who has ever watched it has become possessed by the devil.
Literally, that's what I think.
But for the rest of it, not so much.
These were the most coherent and intelligent rebuttals to my tweet from half a decade ago.
Most of the rest were like these.
Ah, conservatives returning to their cancel-culture roots.
Feels like the 1990s all over again.
Don't be left-wing, don't be right-wing.
Have both wings and fly.
Someone else said, how is playing video games any different than reading works of fiction, watching TV shows, or movies, or any other form of fictional entertainment?
I swear, miserable people just want others to be equally as miserable as they are.
Another one says, "You can tell Matt's parents didn't get him a Nintendo or a Sega for Christmas
when he was young. Such a sad childhood he must have had."
And someone else says, "The life of Matt Walsh is empty. You could end his life and not a soul
would mourn his passing." Well, if you want to prove my point that video games are a sacred
cow in this country and many adults are far too invested in them, then wishing death on me for
mildly criticizing some video games is definitely one way to do it.
Also, same with the claim that a childhood without video games must have been sad.
As it happens, I did have a Nintendo growing up, but most of my most cherished childhood memories have nothing to do with anything I played or watched on a screen.
You know, I remember things like going on hikes in the woods with my dad, playing kickball out in the backyard, running around outside all day in the summer, drinking out of a garden hose, coming back for dinner, which was always homemade and we always ate as a family around the dinner table.
Those are the kinds of things that I remember.
That's what I spent my childhood doing.
How sad.
What a sad childhood.
Yeah, all that stuff is great, but you didn't spend enough time playing Mario.
Really sad.
Now, we've heard from everyone who misses the point, but what is the point exactly?
Well, there are a few points that matter, I think.
But you won't be able to hear them if you insist absolutely that no statements, even vaguely critical of video games, can ever be uttered in your presence.
If video games are a religion for you, then there's not much I can say to get through to you.
But for everybody else, here's what it boils down to.
There is obviously nothing inherently wrong with video games as a medium.
It's just another form of screen-based entertainment.
And when it comes to our children, and to ourselves too as adults, but we're just going to focus on children for now, The two things we have to take into consideration with screen-based entertainment of all kinds are one, the messages embedded in the content, and two, the amount of time spent on the content.
As to the first point, I think all reasonable people understand that the screen is a very powerful messaging system.
There's a reason why the corporate world spends literally billions of dollars every year marketing through the screen.
They know that it's a very effective way to influence people, especially children.
There are plenty of studies that prove this point, if you're into that sort of thing, but you don't need a study.
You're living in the study.
You are the study.
We live in a culture shaped by and around the screen.
Go to any school and you'll find a building full of kids whose values, beliefs, priorities, tastes have been nearly completely determined by the content they spend their days ingesting through the screen.
Video games are not the only example of this, or even the most potent example, but they also obviously aren't an exception.
They're in that category.
There are all kinds of ideas and images that kids encounter in astronomically large quantities every day.
Graphic violence is one category.
It's not good for kids to spend an exorbitant amount of time consuming graphically violent content, even if the content is fictional and virtual and imaginary.
It doesn't mean that it has no influence, just because it's fictional.
Among other things, it can have the effect of desensitizing their minds and their souls to violence.
And the kind of casual cruelty and violence that we so often see among kids today is a pretty good evidence of this desensitization.
Like, it kind of boggles my mind that anyone could hear an argument like this, you know, kids are being desensitized to violence.
Then you hear people say, well, what do you mean?
Where's your evidence of that?
Where's my evidence of it?
Look around you.
What are you talking about?
You're living in the evidence.
Now, this doesn't mean that kids should never be exposed to any form of violence at all.
Violence is part of the world.
It's not always bad, either.
There's heroic violence.
There's violence in defense of the innocent, and so on.
It's good for kids to be given examples of that kind of violence, even if the examples are sometimes fictional, even if they're cartoonish.
You know, superheroes, for example, are, you know, an example of heroic violence.
But when the violence is gratuitous and amoral and overly graphic, when it is violence for the sake of violence, when it's violence where the entertainment comes from simply watching someone suffer, even if in a fictional context, that is when it becomes a problem, especially for kids.
There's a message in that kind of content, too, and it's a message that undermines human dignity and desensitizes the viewer, especially if the viewer is a child.
So I think we should be very careful about the kind of violence that kids are exposed to, whether it's through a film, a television, a show, a video on social media, or a video game.
Second point.
Putting the quality of the content aside, which you really can't do because the quality through all of these mediums is so often garbage, but setting that aside.
Volume is the other great concern.
Whether we're talking about social media, shows, movies, or games, kids are spending a huge portion of their formative childhood years staring at screens.
They aren't having real childhood experiences.
They aren't learning how to relate to each other and to the world.
They're becoming fat and depressed.
They can barely even, like, speak to each other.
They can't look you in the eye.
They don't stand up straight.
They're just staring at the phone all the time.
And all of this can be traced back To a life dedicated to these damned screens.
This is why we don't do video games or phones or computers in our home with our six kids.
It's not because we're afraid they're gonna, you know, spontaneously combust if they ever hold a phone in their hand or play Minecraft or whatever, but it's because the screen is a tyrant.
It demands obsessive attention, and it usually gets what it demands.
There's an undeniable addictive quality to all this stuff, and most of us know that from experience.
You know, it's possible to moderate your own usage, it's possible to moderate your child's usage of the device, it's possible to moderate the kind of content they're exposed to on these devices, but the vast majority of parents fail to impose that kind of moderation.
And that's why it seems more effective to us, in my home, And a sure bet to simply keep it all away for now.
After all, our kids will have a whole lifetime in front of them to waste away staring at screens if that's how they choose to spend their adulthood.
I hope they don't, but they can if, you know, when they're adults they can do what they want.
But they'll never be able to get this time back.
They can never have a second childhood.
As much as my generation might try to pull that off for ourselves, you know, trying to have a second childhood, you can't actually do that.
Our kids will have time for the screens.
More than enough time.
Way too much time.
For now, I want them to have a childhood.
And whether you let your kids play video games or not, I hope you don't allow the video game or the TV or the phone to become their childhood.
That's the issue.
And that's why, ultimately, it's the parents who allow the screens to dominate their children's lives who are, today, cancelled.
