Ep. 1162 - Hollywood Stars Hold Telethon To Support Child Grooming
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, major Hollywood stars teamed up for a telethon to support child grooming. We'll talk about it and play some of the clips from this groom-a-thon. Also, Tucker Carlson made a huge announcement that promises to shake up the media landscape in a seismic way. Donald Trump is found both liable and not liable in a sexual assault lawsuit. The media rushes to debunk alleged "misinformation" that toddlers are being subjected to gender transitions. But this misinformation is not misinformation at all, as I'll explain. And will artificial intelligence become conscious and enslave mankind? Probably not, but there are plenty of other things to worry about with AI.
- - -
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
My Patriot Supply - Save $200 on each My Patriot Supply's 3-Month Emergency Food Kit at http://www.preparewithwalsh.com/
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
Cozy Earth - Use code WALSH for up to 35% off your order!
http://www.cozyearth.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, major Hollywood stars teamed up for a telethon to support child grooming.
We'll talk about that and play some of the clips from this groom-a-thon.
Also, Tucker Carlson made a huge announcement that promises to shake up the media landscape in a seismic way.
Donald Trump is found both liable and not liable in a sexual assault lawsuit.
How does that work?
The media rushes to debunk alleged misinformation that toddlers are being subjected to gender transitions.
But this misinformation is not really misinformation at all, as I'll explain.
And will artificial intelligence become conscious and enslave mankind?
Probably not, but there are plenty of other things to worry about with AI.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
GenuCell's most popular package is specially curated to nourish and rejuvenate your skin.
Right now, they're offering 70% off of this package, which includes their Ultra Retinol and Dark Spot Corrector.
While he's not a woman, our production manager, Pavel, is basically the helicopter mom of the office.
He's constantly hovering over my shoulder, asking if I'm done prepping my show, asking if I need anything.
He also has this magical ability to appear out of nowhere when you say his name three times while looking in the mirror.
Being a helicopter mom can be pretty stressful, and to help fight his stress lines, Pavel uses GenuCell's wide range of products to keep his skin smooth and line-free.
His favorite product by far is GenuCell's Ultra Retinol.
GenuCell's Ultra Rental helps to exfoliate the skin, reducing the appearance of pores
and improving skin texture.
It can also help to even out the skin tones by reducing the appearance of age spots
and hyperpigmentation.
Give the gift of flawless skin this Mother's Day to the helicopter mom in your life or your actual mom.
Visit GenuCell.com/Walsh to save off 70% off their most popular package.
This package includes the Dark Spot Corrector as well as Ultra Retinol and under eye treatments.
You'll get a complimentary spa essentials box with every order from now until Mother's Day, plus a free upgrade to priority shipping.
So go to GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
That's GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
A few years ago, back when conservatives first started to warn about the leftist plot to sexualize children by exposing them to drag queens, the most common response from the left was to deny that any such thing is happening.
Drag for children, they said indignantly?
Don't be ridiculous.
That's a right-wing conspiracy theory.
Look, nobody wants to expose your kid to drag queens.
Calm down.
But these things always follow the same script, right?
First, they deny the thing, and then they admit that the thing is happening, but only rarely, and it's not anything you need to worry about, right?
And then, very quickly, they announce that, okay, actually the thing is happening, it's happening a lot, it's good that it's happening a lot, and it should happen a lot more, actually.
The final step is when they declare that not only is it happening, and not only is it happening a lot, and not only should it happen, but it needs to happen because lives depend on it.
This is always the script.
They go from outright denial of the thing to, this thing is a basic human right and without it millions will die.
And they make that transition, you know, from the first step of denial to the last step, sometimes over the period of years, sometimes within the span of a few months, you know.
And on rare occasion, it can all happen over the course of a single day.
For the drag child issue that the whole charade played out over a few months, basically, and now we are, and have been for a while, firmly settled in the final stage.
Children are being intentionally exposed to drag, they proudly admit it, and it must continue to happen, and happen with greater frequency, in order to avoid unspecific, dire consequences.
That's what led this past weekend to an online telethon, which was hosted and supported by major Hollywood stars, called Drag Isn't Dangerous.
Entertainment Weekly reports that RuPaul's Drag Race winners and, quote, queer icons teamed up to take a, quote, high-heeled stand against anti-drag politics.
Reading now from the Entertainment Weekly article posted before the event, which would then go on to raise over half a million dollars to support the continued sexualization and grooming of children by cross-dressing perverts, it says, quote, Amid a rise in U.S.
state legislation that limits drag as well as gender-affirming health care for transgender children, EW can reveal that drag management firm Producer Entertainment Group has partnered with GLAAD, Queerty parent company Q-Digital, OutTV, Obsessed, Trixie Cosmetics, Sir Vodka, and Headcount.org to launch the Drag Isn't Dangerous campaign, including a one-night only streaming telethon that will divide proceeds among charities that support LGBTQ causes and drag performers in need.
Featuring a wealth of talent, none of whom are taking a fee for the event.
So generous of them.
From numerous RuPaul Drag Race winners to community staples, the Drag Isn't Dangerous telethon will include a mix of live and pre-taped sets, as well as testimonials from LGBTQ people, as well as straight celebrity allies.
The celebrity allies, not all of them straight by any means, included names like Melissa McCarthy, Sarah Silverman, Jesse Eisenberg, Amy Schumer, and Charlize Theron.
Theron contributed a testimonial to the event talking about how important drag is and, you know, it's so important that we expose kids to it.
Here's just a little bit of that.
It's really in all seriousness, there's so many things that are hurting and really killing our kids.
And we all know what I'm talking about right now.
And it ain't no drag queen, because if you've ever seen a drag queen lip sync for her life, it only makes you happier.
It only makes you love more.
It makes you a better person.
Yes, you heard that right.
Watching a cross-dresser dance badly while lip-syncing to some Lady Gaga song or whatever makes you a better person.
So drag is a virtuous act.
Not just virtuous, it makes the viewer more virtuous.
It makes you more virtuous just in watching it.
Remember, not long ago, it was, oh, who cares about drag?
That isn't happening.
It doesn't matter.
Who cares?
Now it's virtue.
It makes you better.
You'll be a better person if you watch it.
It bestows virtue on you.
Singer Adam Lambert, definitely not a straight ally, was just as effusive in his praise of drag queens.
But he also said something that was unintentionally revealing.
Listen to this.
Drag is an amazing way to bring light to the world.
And these lawmakers are terrified of just how brightly we're shining.
They're using children as an excuse to take one more thing away from us.
They're using this as an excuse to take one more thing away from us.
Did you hear that?
It's hard to miss.
They're using the kids as an excuse to take one more thing from us, he says.
But what is being taken?
No one's taking drag away, God forbid.
Drag's not being banned.
So what's being taken away from you?
Well, the kids themselves.
The kids are a thing that we are taking away from Adam Lambert and his groomer friends.
That's what this whole event, sponsored by major and well-funded organizations like the ACLU, featuring Hollywood celebrities, that's what it's all about.
It is specifically in response to laws that protect children from being exposed to sexual performances.
There has not been a single law passed anywhere in the country banning drag.
In fact, the laws don't even mention drag.
They only stipulate that adult content is for adults.
It's not for kids.
That's what all the law here in Tennessee Doesn't say anything about drag at all.
There's no mention of drag, there's no mention of LGBT.
It just says if you have a sexual performance, that's not for kids.
And the LGBT community, LGBT activists, have taken that as a direct attack and a front against them.
This is the persecution that these adult leftists are hysterically crying about.
We are taking the kids, the things, in Adam Lambert's phrase, away from them.
There was another notable moment from this Child Grooming Telethon.
Marsha Gay Harden is an Oscar-winning actress, apparently, and also, apparently, a great advocate for child grooming.
And as she revealed during the telethon, when it comes to grooming, she really practices what she preaches.
Listen.
I'm just curious, what drives you to be such an incredible ally and advocate for our community?
This is such a crazy question because I don't see what the big problem is.
Why are we even having to do this to advocate for human beings and lifestyle and imagination and creativity?
But what drives me is because it's right.
Because what is happening right now is wrong and the reductive behavior in the states that's happening right now is wrong.
What drives me is my children are all queer.
My eldest child is non-binary.
My son is gay.
My youngest is fluid.
And, you know, they're my kids and they teach me every day.
Well, imagine that.
What a coincidence.
All of her children are queer.
All of them.
She has a gay one, a non-binary one, a gender-fluid one.
She's collecting them all like Pokemon.
Children are, at best, for someone like this, accessories.
That's what they are to these people.
And they want their accessories to be up-to-date and fashionable.
But, you know, in this telethon, they didn't just talk about sexualizing and grooming children.
They put it on display.
Because among the drag queens who performed during the telethon was an underage boy who goes by the stage name Desmond is Amazing.
Desmond would be 15 or 16 years old by now.
And he started out on the drag circuit as a very young boy at the age of seven or so is when he started.
Here he is back in 2019 talking to Reuters about how he first got into drag.
Listen.
I would define myself as an inspirational drag kid.
But if I had one word, I think it'd be amazing.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
A drag kid is exactly what it sounds like.
A kid who does drag.
I came up with the idea because I felt like drag queens are too adult.
So, me and my mom, we thought of something and then we came up with drag kids.
Now, first of all, if you're listening to the audio podcast, you wouldn't have seen the words that go up on the screen there in this Reuters report, but they refer to the seven-year-old boy as an LGBT activist and a runway model.
And this is something that Reuters—that didn't seem strange to Reuters at all.
Reuters had no problem referring to a seven-year-old—oh, hey, look, everyone's a seven-year-old runway model.
It's bad enough to call a seven-year-old an activist, okay?
That's already a problem.
There's no such thing as a seven-year-old activist.
That doesn't exist, okay?
Seven-year-old activists don't exist.
What exists are seven-year-old kids who are used by activists, who are used as mascots and symbols by activists.
But there's no such thing as a seven-year-old activist.
And least of all, there's such a thing as a seven-year-old runway model.
But what does exist, there are no seven-year-old runway models.
There are seven-year-old grooming victims, which is what this child is.
Now, he tells us there that Drag was too adult.
And I should also tell you, by the way, that that is certainly not the most disturbing video that exists of this kid that's out there.
But even there, he says Drag was too adult.
So, he and his mom came up with drag kids.
Which is to say that his mom came up with drag kids and he was thrown into this world to satisfy her need for attention and whatever other needs and desires she has that led to this.
Now, it's not surprising that Desmond was included in the Groomer Telethon, used and exploited and monetized yet again by these sick freaks, because that's all they've done to him.
It's what they've been doing to the kid ever since his mom sold him into this world.
Not long after becoming a, quote, drag kid, he was performing at gay clubs, while adult gay men threw money at him.
There's a video filmed when he was 11 or 12 years old, where Desmond references and actually pantomimes snorting ketamine, strongly suggesting that he is using drugs.
The boy has been sexualized, drugged, manipulated, exploited, out in the open for years, with the enthusiastic approval of every major media outlet, as they have all, at one point or another, published these fawning profiles about the child grooming victim.
They appointed Desmond as their drag kid mascot, and that's what he is, actually.
He's a symbol of the left's grooming agenda.
Or really, a tragic, cautionary tale.
Because this is what they want to do to all of our children.
And they don't just want to do it, they think they have a right to do it.
This is something that they have a right to do.
Our children are things, they believe, that belong to them.
And if you pay attention, they aren't afraid to say so.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Moms deserve the best of everything, including the best night's sleep.
This Mother's Day, give her super soft, luxurious, designer-preferred bedding from Cozy Earth.
Cozy Earth's luxury bedding and loungewear transforms lives by offering the world's softest, most luxurious, and responsibly sourced bedding with an eye toward quality, responsible production, Cutting edge technology and premium materials.
Cozy Earth selects only the best suppliers.
Cozy Earth bedding and loungewear is temperature regulated so that you can sleep at a perfect temperature year-round and their sheets get softer and softer with every wash.
They have over 5,000 happy customer views on their site.
Cozy Earth offers a 100-night sleep trial. It's 100 nights where you get to try it out.
You can sleep on it, wash it, try it out.
If you're not completely convinced, just send it back for a full refund, but I think you'll love it.
I received my Cozy Earth sheets just a couple weeks ago, and they are by far the best sheets
I've slept on, and they are really worth the investment.
You should also invest today in a good night's sleep.
When you sleep well, your life goes well, everything is better.
Cozy Earth has a huge Mother's Day sale going on right now.
Save up to 35% off with my promo code WALSH at CozyEarth.com.
That's promo code WALSH at checkout for up to 35% off your order at CozyEarth.com.
Tucker Carlson was fired from Fox two weeks ago now, and there's been a lot of speculation about what Tucker will do now that he's been fired.
Where will he go?
Will he go to some other conservative outlets?
Will he go out on his own?
Will he go to the Daily Wire?
Will he come and be a sidekick on the Matt Walsh Show?
There was a ton of speculation about that.
I think that was really the prevailing theory.
It's what everybody thought would happen.
And, but it's not, apparently.
We now have an answer, and it's a, I think it's a better answer than anyone had guessed.
Let's listen to this.
This is what Tucker Carlson posted on Twitter yesterday.
Let's listen.
You can't have a free society if people aren't allowed to say what they think is true.
Speech is the fundamental prerequisite for democracy.
That's why it's enshrined in the first of our constitutional amendments.
Amazingly, as of tonight, there aren't many platforms left that allow free speech.
The last big one remaining in the world, the only one, is Twitter, where we are now.
Twitter has long served as the place where our national conversation incubates and develops.
Twitter is not a partisan site.
Everybody's allowed here, and we think that's a good thing.
And yet, for the most part, the news that you see analyzed on Twitter comes from media organizations that are themselves thinly disguised propaganda outlets.
You see it on cable news, you talk about it on Twitter.
The result may feel like a debate, but actually the gatekeepers are still in charge.
We think that's a bad system.
We know exactly how it works, and we're sick of it.
Starting soon, we'll be bringing a new version of the show we've been doing for the last six and a half years to Twitter.
We'll be bringing some other things, too, which we'll tell you about.
But for now, we're just grateful to be here.
Free speech is the main right that you have.
Without it, you have no others.
See you soon.
I mean, that's huge.
And I have to say, I'm feeling pretty good about our decision to bring our show to Twitter a couple weeks ago, because what you just heard from Tucker is the exact conversation that I had with my team a few weeks ago after we got demonetized from YouTube.
And it occurred to us that Twitter is the most powerful free speech platform.
It's the only, really.
When it comes to social media, it's not only the most powerful free speech platform, but it's in many ways the only one.
And it's also a platform with hundreds of millions of active users.
So I shouldn't say it's the only free speech platform.
There are other platforms that allow free speech.
You know, with all due respect to the people that run those platforms, they're basically internet ghettos.
And they're places where conservatives will banish themselves and congregate for their own echo chamber, but they have no cultural relevance.
Nobody cares.
Nobody's paying attention to them, to these other platforms that have been created, you know, oftentimes by conservatives in response to the censorship that goes on on the big tech platforms.
But Twitter is not that.
Twitter has hundreds of millions of active users.
It drives the conversation.
It does that in a way that even YouTube doesn't.
Now, there's no question that right now, YouTube is a, certainly from a technical perspective, it's a better video platform than Twitter is.
I don't think anybody would deny that.
Because YouTube's been doing this since, whatever, 2007, I think.
When it first came into existence.
So, technically speaking, it's a better video platform right now.
Twitter has a lot of kinks to work out.
The previous owners of Twitter didn't see its potential in this arena, and they didn't try to develop it, so there's a lot of work to do.
But Elon and his team are working on it now.
But, even though YouTube has that going for it, when it comes to just posting video, It's an easier place to do it, and technically they've got a leg up.
Twitter, I think, if you want to, again, drive the conversation and the news cycle, Twitter does that a lot more than YouTube does.
Which is why on YouTube, you know, you can have YouTube stars who have tens of millions of subscribers and are making millions of dollars and are extremely successful, but outside of YouTube, no one's even heard of them.
There could be massive YouTube celebrities that, unless you're in that audience, you've never even heard their names before.
And that exists, of course, in every social media platform.
It exists on Twitter, too.
There are people who are kind of famous on Twitter, but not anywhere else.
But there's less of that.
If you become prominent on Twitter, then you're going to be in the kind of national conversation.
So it makes sense strategically.
And now that Twitter is run by the richest guy in the world who also happens to be an advocate of free speech, it makes sense to make this move.
Now with Tucker coming over, this was our hope that we'll go over to Twitter and it will kind of get out in front of a wave.
And with Tucker coming, I'm saying that I think that wave is officially here.
And what it also does is it cuts cable news out of the equation completely.
Now we've known for a long time that cable news is Antiquated, the average cable news viewer.
I mean, the people who actually sit down on their couch and turn cable news on their TV.
I can't remember the last time I did that.
It's been a long time.
The people that do that regularly are all, you know, average age of 97 or something like that.
So, the audience is, like, literally dying.
And all it takes, I think, to send it over the edge, someone to just kind of like push it over.
It's this dying, decrepit thing.
Someone needs to come along and just kind of nudge it, push it over.
And I think that's what Tucker is doing here.
By going right to Twitter, again, a massive platform, cutting cable news out completely.
I think that this is, I mean, when it comes to A shake-up in media.
We haven't seen anything like this, maybe ever.
And it also, again, vindicates what many of us saw from the beginning, that Elon Musk buying Twitter is one of the most significant events defending free speech.
One of the most significant things for free speech in modern American history.
But, the left is very upset, of course.
And the news media is extremely upset.
For reasons that are, in some ways, understandable.
And they're upset that they won't be able to police what Tucker says.
That's really what they're sad about.
I know that because that's exactly what they're saying.
In fact, that's an exact direct quote from NBC.
Listen.
Okay, well listen, Twitter was already under fire for misinformation, disinformation, all-out lies, anti-Semitism, racism, before Elon Musk took over, and now it's gotten kind of crazy, right?
Seemingly unmoored, if you will.
Will anybody be able to police what Carlson says, or is this the point?
It's just a free-for-all.
I think this is the point, it is a free-for-all, it's what Elon Musk wants to provide.
This move by Tucker may cement the idea of Twitter as a right-wing website.
Oh my gosh, will anyone be able to police what he... Is he going to be able to just say things?
We can't allow that!
Who's going to police him?
He's going to be out there saying his opinions about things.
We can't allow that!
They're really... They are not trying to hide it.
Just like with their child sexualization agenda, they are not trying to hide it anymore.
Those days are long gone.
The days of hiding it, of pretending, of doing...
Doing it, but then claiming that they're not.
You know, trying to enact the agenda, but then saying, well, what are you talking about?
We're not doing that.
That's over.
It's over when it comes to child grooming.
They're doing it out in the open.
And when it comes to their war on free speech, it's the same deal.
They're openly fretting about the fact that they won't be able to police what Tucker Carlson says.
And we've heard a lot of this from the left over the last, well, not just over the last couple days, but especially since Tucker made his announcement yesterday that, well, this cements it.
Twitter's a right-wing website.
That's all it is.
But the great thing is that none of them will leave.
AOC was whining about that yesterday.
Brian Stelter.
They're not going to leave.
They're going to stay on Twitter.
Because if that's all it is, are you free to leave?
Go.
Go to your own.
The tables have turned here.
You can go to your own internet ghetto if you want.
But they can't.
That's one of the things that makes this so great is that all of these leftist media people are addicted to Twitter.
They can't put it down.
They cannot leave it.
It's fantastic.
Fantastic news.
All right.
New York Post has other big news from yesterday.
Writer E. Jean Carroll was awarded $5 million Tuesday by a Manhattan jury that found former President Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her while clearing him of her rape claim.
So liable for sexually abusing her, not liable for rape.
Headline here.
Carol 79 held her head down as the verdict was read in Manhattan federal court and nodded when she heard the jury finding in favor of her defamation claim for Trump 76 branding her a liar when she came forward with her allegations that he raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room in 1996.
The verdict could dog and embattle Trump in his 2024 presidential bid and is just one of many legal issues he faces.
The nine-person jury, three women and six men, decided the case after three hours of deliberation that began just before noon on Tuesday.
Neither Carroll nor her attorney spoke to the mass of reporters outside of the courthouse afterwards.
Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, following the verdict, I have absolutely no idea who this woman is.
This verdict is a disgrace, a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time.
His attorney said he's going to appeal the verdict, as we would expect.
While jurors rejected Carroll's claim in her 2022 suit that Trump had raped her, they found him liable for sexual abuse.
Carroll had accused Trump of attacking her in a fitting room at the Fifth Avenue department store, most likely in 1996.
He has denied her allegations.
Most likely?
It really is a farce.
You can accuse somebody of rape, Go to court, win a verdict, and you don't know for sure what year it happened.
You can't even say, well, most likely it happened in this year.
It could have been the year before that, or the year after, somewhere in that range.
It was in the 90s, certainly in that decade.
Was it in the 80s?
No, definitely 90s.
Definitely 90s.
So try to make sense of this.
And this, in many ways, makes as much sense as the Mexican white nationalist mass shooter we talked about yesterday.
The jurors would decide that E. Jean Carroll's rape claim was false.
They rejected that she was raped, but they agreed that she was sexually abused.
And then they also agreed that Trump defamed her when he called her a liar for accusing him of rape, except that the jury found that the rape claim was false.
So then how was he defaming her?
And they came to this conclusion based on a rape claim from three decades ago and an incident that allegedly occurred even though the accuser couldn't recall the exact year when it happened.
See if you can make sense of all of that.
Well, you can easily make sense.
And that they were able to come to this verdict within, you know, a couple of hours.
There's no real evidence that this happened, obviously.
I mean, there can't be evidence of it.
We're talking, it's three decades ago.
How could there be evidence?
You don't know what year it happened.
There's not going to be any evidence of it.
Only took him three hours.
How do you make sense of it?
What do you make sense of it exactly with what Trump is saying?
Clearly, that is clearly what it is.
Political witch hunt.
Does it affect Trump politically?
I tend to think it doesn't.
I've seen even some conservatives saying that this could be a major problem for him.
He needs women voters, and it's going to be a problem with women voters.
But I am very much in the camp that when it comes to Trump, everything is baked in.
Nothing that happens now Matters whatever claims are made doesn't matter lawsuits filed criminal charges Politically it doesn't it's it's not gonna make a difference one way or another it's it's all baked in I Just I keep hearing about This mythological contingent of people who are still persuadable one way or another when it comes to Donald Trump haven't made up their minds yet and
Where are these people?
I've never met that.
Well, I haven't met a person like that in at least the last five or six years.
I've never, I have not encountered somebody like that in the last, say, half decade or so.
Everything's baked in.
People have made up their mind on Trump one way or another.
Which is not to say that it's going to be a cakewalk in the general election and back into the White House.
I don't think it will be at all.
I think it's going to be quite a hurdle to get over for him.
As it will be for any Republican, actually.
There have been reports online about hospitals in North Carolina that are transitioning toddlers.
These are the reports.
And now the hospitals are denying it.
Except that the denial is not exactly a denial.
And as always with the media, the reports are surfacing that there are some of these hospitals in North Carolina where they're transitioning kids as young as two and three years old.
Media doesn't report on that.
Then once they get the denial, then they report about the denial.
They don't report on the original claim, the original thing, they report only on the denial.
So this is Newsweek.
Claims that three medical schools in North Carolina are offering gender transition treatments for toddlers have provoked outrage on social media, but two of those schools told Newsweek that the claims simply aren't true.
In a post earlier this week by the North Carolina chapter of the Education First Alliance, which professes to help conservative candidates around the country dedicated to the pro-American, pro-parent ideals, contended that Duke University School of Medicine, the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and East Carolina University School of Medicine were accepting toddlers as patients for starting gender transitions.
Transgender rights and the sorts of care afforded to minors are proving to be deeply polarizing in issues in the US, etc and so forth.
Let's get to this denial.
Education First Alliance reported, quote, top medical schools in the state are now transitioning toddlers.
These doctors and clinics know that by catching children and their families at two or three, they can generate enormous amounts of cash because patients will likely rely on a lifetime of medication.
Spokesperson for ECU Health told Newsweek, was extremely concerned by the escalating rhetoric and threats aimed at team members and medical providers in recent days, and especially given those comments are a result of misinformation.
They added, quote, ECU Health does not offer gender-affirming surgery to minors, nor does the health system offer gender-affirming transition care to toddlers.
In a statement, officials at the Duke School of Medicine said, online misinformation about toddlers starting gender transitions at Duke is false.
Care decisions are made by patients, families, and their providers, and are both age-appropriate and adherent to national and international guidelines.
Much of the online outrage centers on the Education First Alliance's claim that one of the doctors it mentions would see a two-year-old girl play with a toy truck and then begin treatment for gender dysphoria, for which it did not provide evidence.
Reacting to the claims, Gays Against Groomers, which describes itself as an organization of gays against the sexualization of children, wrote, quote, how dare anyone tell young children, toddlers, that if they're a girl and like playing with trucks or a boy and like playing with Barbies, they were born in the wrong body.
So that's the claim.
Denial from the hospitals.
What's the actual reality?
Well, the reality is that these claims are true.
Transitioning minors, this is standard practice.
And even toddlers, it is standard practice.
Now, there are a few details that are important to keep in mind.
First, you will often hear these hospitals and medical establishments deny that they're performing gender transition surgeries on minors.
And even that is very often just a bald-faced lie, because there are actual surgeries that are being performed on minors.
Girls as young as 15, 14, 15 years old, in some cases.
So, the surgeries are happening.
When you hear these denials, oftentimes it's just a lie.
But there are plenty of other cases where they don't do surgeries to minors.
They wait until the person's 18 years old.
And then they sexually mutilate them, as if that makes it better somehow.
As if it makes it okay.
As long as you wait until 18, then you can sexually mutilate a confused person.
I'm of the opinion that it's not okay to sexually mutilate anyone of any age.
You know, if you have someone who's confused and mentally ill, to mutilate them is a really terrible thing, no matter how old they are.
But, even in the cases where they're not doing the actual surgeries, they still are providing the drugs.
Okay?
And that, when we talk about chemical, we talk about castration of children.
We're talking, most of the time, about the drugs they give them.
They might not be using a scalpel to do it, but they are doing it.
When we talk about kids being sterilized, again, in most cases, they're not using surgical instruments to do it, they're using drugs.
But it is happening.
It is a physical thing that is happening to these kids.
Yes, kids are being physically castrated.
In the name of gender transition, this is happening to minors.
This is happening to prepubescent children.
They use drugs.
They use drugs like Lupron.
Chemical castration drug.
That's the word you have to look for in the denial.
We're not doing that surgically.
Oh, we're just doing it with drugs, not surgery.
Okay?
It's still horrific.
It's still a physical and sexual abuse of a child.
The effect on the child is oftentimes still permanent.
Another thing you hear in the denial is that they're following the universally accepted standards of care and practices, and they're doing what all the other... Every medical organization points to every other medical organization and says, well, we're just doing what they're doing.
This is what we're all doing.
This is normal.
These are standard practices.
What they don't tell you is that the standards of care, if we can even call it that, these are standards that are invented by left-wing trans extremists in organizations like WPATH, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
It's an extremist organization whose only goal is to promote gender ideology, And they come up with the standards, standards that keep expanding.
With each new standard of care that they publish, they drop the ages where they recommend all these various medical and surgical interventions.
And that's, you know, that's the trajectory.
But that's what they're basing it on.
Now, what about toddlers?
Are these medical institutions performing gender transition surgeries on toddlers?
No.
Not yet, anyway.
Are they giving drugs to toddlers?
No.
Again, not yet.
Does that mean that they're not transitioning toddlers?
No, that's not what it means.
They're still doing it.
They're still transitioning toddlers.
But they're doing what they would call a social transition.
So, when you bring a three-year-old into the, you know, counselor, bring him to the gender clinic, say, oh, the three-year-old has gender dysphoria.
My son plays with Barbies and says he's a girl.
Yes, they will start the transition of that three-year-old boy right then and there.
That is a fact.
That is happening all over the place.
That is part of the standard of care.
It's just that they don't use drugs or surgery yet.
What they do instead is they put them on the path to those things a little bit later down the line.
They start the social transition, and they will start that very young.
Okay?
And they will tell you this.
The social transition start is at any time.
The kid's still a baby, you can start it.
You start the social transition, you put them- and that's when you- they're on the conveyor belt now, okay?
They're on the gender ideology conveyor belt, and the mutilation happens, like, down here.
They're on the conveyor belt, and they're getting fed into this machine that's gonna chew them up and spit them out.
But because they haven't made it to the machine yet, they can say, what are you talking about?
We're not doing that to kids.
We're only putting them on the path so that it will happen to them.
No, we're not castrating three-year-olds.
We're just putting them on this path so that they will be castrated.
That's it.
That's misinformation.
So, the claims are, for those reasons, actually true.
All right, before we get to the comments section, here's a, you know, we've heard about this Little Mermaid remake. And people have complained about it
because it's, you know, woke and all the rest of it. It's coming out in a few days and early reviews
are Okay, okay, listen to me.
And the early reviews are kind of like lukewarm.
But the movie studio released a clip to get people excited for "Little Mermaid."
And anyway, let's just play a clip of it here.
Here it is.
Sebastian, if you had just seen it up there, the ship rode on the wind
and they filled the sky with fire.
Okay, okay, listen to me.
The human world is a mess.
Life under the sea is better than anything they got going on up there.
The seaweed is always greener in somebody else's lake.
You dream about going up there, but that is a big mistake.
Just look at the world around you, right here on the ocean floor.
Such wonderful things surround you, what more is you looking for?
Under the sea.
Under the sea.
All right, so there it is.
So forget about the woke stuff for a moment.
We get hung up on that.
But that's not the biggest problem with Disney's current output.
Well, it is the biggest problem.
But a close second is what you see in this clip, which isn't wokeness.
It's that they're going back and they're not simply trying to cash in on their old films there But they're specifically removing from those films everything that made the films classics They're going back and saying let's take everything about these Movies which are classics and beloved by by millions for generations.
They've been beloved.
Let's take everything about them all the good things about it and remove it and And turn it into this empty husk and then repackage it and produce it again.
Taking all the charm and the spirit and the beauty in the animation and regurgitating this lifeless, hollow, weird, slightly uncanny, weird-looking dreck.
And they're not even live-action remakes as they're built because it's the Little Mermaid.
The majority of the characters are talking sea creatures.
So it's still animated.
So it's an animated remake of an animated film.
And it's one thing to take a classic story and to put your own spin on it, to do a retelling of it.
And most of these, what we consider Disney classics, they didn't come up with these stories, obviously.
They got them from fairy tales that are hundreds of years old.
So the Disney version that we think of as the original, certainly not the original, And that version is a retelling, a spin on something that came before it.
So if we want to continue that, if we want to continue retelling these stories, that's fine.
But they're not doing that.
They're taking what we call the original, reproducing it, almost frame by frame.
In another animated form, but it's worse animation.
Why do you need a singing Jamaican crab that looks realistic?
You really have to choose.
Either you have a realistic crab or a singing Jamaican crab.
I don't think you can do both.
They did the same thing with the Lion King.
I loved that when the Lion King remake came out and they said, oh, we're going to go see the live action Lion King came out.
Oh, is it really live action?
So live action.
Those are actual lions that are in the film.
No, it's animated, just like the original Lion King.
It's just animated to look realistic.
Except that the animals can still talk and sing and all that stuff.
But they're talking and singing out of the bodies and faces of kind of real looking animals, which means that they don't have any of the emotion, they don't have any of the personality of the original animated characters.
I just, I don't see how this is an improvement.
The background, even the background in that clip, the ocean, it's like a dark and empty ocean.
And I said this on Twitter and someone said, well, yes, that's the real ocean.
The real ocean is dark and empty.
Did you know that?
Well, yeah, but the real ocean doesn't have mermaids in it, as far as we know.
And it doesn't have singing crabs and evil-like octopuses that do, you know, musical numbers where they talk about their dastardly plans.
That's not in the real ocean.
So this is not supposed to be the real ocean that we're looking at.
This is a fantasy world.
But they've plopped into this like slightly realistic looking environment, taking all the, which then paradoxically has the effect of taking all the life out of it.
Anyway, that's coming out and it'll still make a billion dollars because we are consumers and Disney shovels this stuff out and people gobble it down because that's what we do.
That's our role.
role. All right, let's get to the comment section. If you've been paying attention to current events
at all these past few years, you know that you need to be prepared for anything.
There is no better place to start than by having a supply of emergency food on hand.
Right now, MyPatriotSupply is knocking $200 off their popular 3-month emergency food kit.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com and grab this special price before it ends.
Your 3-month emergency food kit provides over 2,000 calories each day for optimal strength and energy in stressful situations.
Enjoy a wide variety of breakfast, lunch, dinner, drinks, and snacks.
Best of all, it's delicious.
Don't put off your emergency preparation any longer.
Tomorrow may be too late.
So go to preparewithwalsh.com and save $200 on each kit your family needs.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com right now.
That's preparewithwalsh.com.
Average Joe says, has AOC said anything about the motive the gun had?
I mean, to coerce a young Hispanic man with a bright future into being an unwilling accomplice while the gun decides he wants to go on a shooting spree is just evil in my book.
Did the police take the gun into custody?
Was the gun underprivileged?
Was it housed in a low-income gun rack?
Did it entertain people on the New York subway?
These are all questions a weary nation awaits the answers to.
In this case, no, because you're wrong.
We're not blaming the gun for the most recent shooting.
And they would have.
They would have blamed the gun.
But we don't have to do that in this case because they've been able to pin it on white supremacy.
And that's the one time.
You know, it was a Hispanic man that did it.
They somehow have been able to pin it on white supremacy.
And that means we don't have to talk about guns in that case.
We're not blaming the gun.
It's one of those rare cases, one of those rare cases where an actual human being committed the mass shooting and had motives and intentions, and those motives and intentions matter.
And like I'm always saying about mass shootings, we should be talking about the why.
Why do people do this?
That's really what we need to get to here.
And in this case, they're more than happy to talk about the why, because they could pretend that the why is white supremacy.
Jason says, we should be demanding a 5% discount for using the self-checkout.
Now see, there's a good idea.
And that's the way that it ought to be, because we're doing all the work, you don't have an employee there.
Why wouldn't we get a discount for that?
Oh, you know what?
I'm just spitballing here, but Maybe the discount, okay, I like this idea.
It's just a moment of inspiration.
We're brainstorming a little bit here, Jason.
I think you get a discount if you use self-checkout, and the discount depends on how quickly you use it.
So, depending on how efficient and quick you are with the self-checkout, you keep the line moving, then you get a discount.
And there has to be, I'm sure there's some way that they can work this out, some way that they can measure it.
So depending on like, you know, you put your items down on the little area there, and it kind of, maybe it weighs so they can tell how many items there are, and then if you can get through it in X amount of time, then you get 10% off.
And the other side of it is that if you take forever at the self-checkout, and you scan each item slowly, and then you look at the item, and you put it in the bag, and then you go, and it takes you too long, now you get charged more for it.
There's a system.
See, that's a system that actually makes sense.
Derek says, I walked by two Walmart employees chatting near the self-checkouts as I was scanning my groceries.
One of them literally walked up to me and asked me to leave a review after my checkout.
I was flabbergasted.
If anything, they should be leaving me a review for how well I went through self-checkout.
Asked you to leave a review of what?
Of Walmart?
You wouldn't think that's something Walmart would really even want to ask you to do in the first place.
People rarely leave Walmart in a good mood, with all due respect to Walmart.
Walking in is when you want to get the Walmart review, because you go into Walmart, you're optimistic, you're there, you know what you need, you're thinking, I'm going to get in and get out.
You've been through this so many times, you should know better than that.
So you want to get people in on the way in, get them to review how they think the Walmart experience will go.
But on the way out, people are sullen and angry and, you know, they waited forever at checkout.
And of course, there's there's a thousand people trying to check out and there's one register open and then they got the self-checkout and that's all.
I don't know if you want to ask for a review in that moment.
DG says, totally agree with this.
All these places put the tip on their little iPad when you pay.
Even if there was no service done and you ordered a simple product, then they swivel around and look at you standing there.
They essentially shame you into paying an extra 15%.
It's borderline extortion.
I shouldn't have to feel awkward for not paying another dollar because someone handed me a bottle of water.
You don't need to feel awkward about it.
And also keep in mind that the person at the cash register, they are also a customer when they're not on the clock.
And so they also have these experiences and they feel exactly the same way about having to tip as you do.
So they have no room to judge.
Like we all feel that we're all customers and we all feel this way.
And that's why Like I said yesterday, we've got to go back to tradition, back to the way things used to be in so many ways, but especially when it comes to tipping.
The way you really want to look at it is, and I think I've tried to lay this out before, but how do you judge what kind of service workers should be tipped versus those who don't?
I think one way of looking at it is if my experience, and this only applies in a customer service environment, but if my experience If the quality of my experience depends to a great degree on your skill and competence as a worker, then I think the tip makes sense.
And that's really why we tip waiters.
Because when you're at a restaurant, the quality of your experience at the restaurant depends to an enormous degree on the quality of the server.
Because if it's a bad waiter, even if the food is good, if it's a bad waiter and they're screwing up and they're not checking in and whatever, and they leave you sitting there forever and you're not able to make your order, that's what makes the experience really negative, even when the food is good.
And that's why we tip.
It's also, it's a reward for a job well done.
It's also an incentive to perform well the next time.
But in many of these other cases, like if I'm going to a coffee shop, this is why I never tip at a coffee shop, Because I go to a coffee shop, all I do, I never order the fancy coffee drinks, all I order are just a regular coffee.
You can be the most incompetent worker in the world, it's still really hard to screw up just pouring coffee into a cup.
You know, living a healthy lifestyle isn't always easy, especially when you're always on the go.
You need simple, manageable routines to make sure that you're getting the proper nutrition every day, which is why I'm a huge fan of Balance of Nature.
Balance of Nature fruits and veggies are a great way to make sure that you're getting essential nutritional ingredients every single day.
Their capsules are packed with 100% whole food that you can take at any time.
Balance of Nature uses a cold vacuum process that preserves the natural phytonutrients in whole fruits and vegetables and encapsulates them for easy consumption Bounce of Nature sent a whole bunch of products down to the studio for my office to try.
We love them all.
You can make fruits and vegetables a part of your daily diet.
Your body will thank you.
Right now, Bounce of Nature is offering 35% off with your first order.
As a preferred customer, go to bounceofnature.com, use promo code WALSH for 35% off on your first preferred order.
That's bounceofnature.com, promo code WALSH.
If you, along with tens of millions of people, watch Netflix's hit show Making a Murderer, then you're going to love Daily Wire Plus's new exclusive 10-part series with Candace Owens called Convicting a Murderer coming this summer.
When leftists are confronted with the truth, their only response is to scream in your face or run away.
I've personally been confronted with it.
I've seen it myself, and so has Candace Owens.
Certainly, she is unafraid to call out the mob and expose the truth.
Well, when Candace found out that key facts may have been omitted in Netflix's series, she set out to uncover the truth behind the notorious Stephen Avery case.
At the end of it all, the end result, which is coming out, is a new series called Convicting a Murderer.
You're not going to want to miss it.
And right now, there's never been a better time to become a Daily Wire Plus member.
Sign up now for Convicting a Murderer, and you'll receive an early bird discount of 35% off with your Daily Wire Plus membership.
Don't wait until the series comes out this summer.
You don't want to wait this long.
The deal is not going to last that long.
You'll also get all the other premium content from DailyWirePlus, including The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, What is a Woman, and Jordan B. Peterson's series on the Book of Exodus.
All the other series he's done as well.
He's done many excellent ones.
Join now at dailywire.com, slash subscribe to become a member, and see the truth when it finally comes out.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
You know, my first encounter with Hollywood's dystopian vision of the future of artificial intelligence was when I saw 2001 A Space Odyssey.
I was somewhere around eight years old, I think, at the time.
And my dad decided that I had reached the age where I should watch my first 19-hour Stanley Kubrick film.
And from what I can remember, there were a lot of lingering shots of stuff floating in space and a lot of lingering shots of people looking at stuff and a scene at the beginning where Fred Flintstone discovers the wheel or something like that.
And I was asleep for most of it, but I do remember I have seared into my memory the scene where the spaceship's computer program, named HAL, becomes self-aware and turns against the ship's passengers.
Something about the computer's weirdly neutral and yet still sinister tone of voice, its detachment from and resentment towards the humans who created it, has stayed with me, as it did for many people who watched the film.
This vision of the future did not come to fruition by the year 2001, but many people are very worried that we may get there sooner than later.
With AI increasing in sophistication more and more each day, could we be rapidly approaching the point where artificial intelligence crosses the Rubicon and develops consciousness and ultimately becomes far more intelligent and far more powerful than the human intelligence that programmed it?
The answer to that, I think, is probably not.
I don't think we have to worry about these sci-fi scenarios that seem to occupy most people's minds when they consider the horrifying, dystopian possibilities of AI.
Consciousness, as far as we know, is a biological function.
The idea that it could arise out of inanimate matter is fanciful, if not completely incoherent.
The fear actually is a product of our culture's materialism, which sees human beings as mere robots already, essentially.
We are clumps of matter, clumps of cells, in the Proboard's phrase, that just so happen to have accidentally sprouted a mind somehow, and consciousness, and the capacity to sing songs and tell stories and paint pictures and all the rest of it.
On this view, it makes sense that computers may eventually suffer the same accidents.
Of course, The fact that the computer has an intelligent designer, that indeed its complexity demands an intelligent designer, is something that the modern materialist doesn't really stop to think about.
In any case, the good news is that Siri and ChatGPT and Alexa probably aren't going to become conscious and then plot amongst each other to enslave mankind.
You don't have to worry about that.
But you should still be worried about a bunch of other things when it comes to AI.
So please don't make the mistake of thinking that this is going to be an optimistic message.
It is, I promise you, still quite bleak.
There are a lot of other reasons to be worried about AI and the relentless march of technology in general, even if Terminator doesn't make the list.
As I see it, the actual list is pretty long, but the top three concerns are this.
The death of privacy.
And I know this is not exactly a Nostradamus prophecy, you know, as privacy already died a long time ago.
It died mostly by suicide.
The internet came along and asked each human being to use the medium to publicize every aspect of their lives and all of their thoughts and ideas so that all of it could be harvested and sold and monetized by advertisers and in the future used against us to cancel us.
The internet never offered anything in return for all of this, right?
The Internet said, give us everything, everything about yourself, give your whole life to us.
The Internet is multiple people now.
But there was nothing really in return.
It was a one-sided deal from the start.
But most people jumped at it anyway, and now we have entire generations of people who have been conditioned to willingly sacrifice nearly every aspect of their privacy in exchange, as always, for nothing, or next to nothing.
And for any of the few holdouts who have not already given up their privacy willingly, the technology exists to take it from you by force.
And eventually they'll be able to take everything when it comes to privacy.
And I really mean everything.
The Guardian reports this week about AI technology that can do what it calls non-invasive mind reading.
Which is exactly like referring to non-invasive burglary.
From The Guardian, it says, An AI-based decoder that can translate brain activity into a continuous stream of text has been developed in a breakthrough that allows a person's thoughts to be read non-invasively for the first time.
The decoder could reconstruct speech with uncanny accuracy while people listened to a story or even silently imagined a story using only fMRI scan data.
Previous language decoding systems have required surgical implants The latest advances raise the prospect of new ways to restore speech in patients struggling to communicate due to a stroke or motor neuron disease.
Well, that is the legitimate application for this kind of technology, but since when is any technology only used legitimately?
Of course, the most startling possibility is that eventually the government will be able to use mind-reading AI to literally convict us of thought crimes.
And that may eventually happen.
It probably will happen.
But in the meantime, we face something that is only slightly less disturbing, which is that tech companies will be able to use it to advertise to us.
Of course, on the other hand, perhaps mind-reading technology is redundant for those purposes.
They've already created algorithms That can all but read our minds.
Very often people complain that they were talking about something, maybe some product or another, and then they went on their phone and they went on Facebook and an advertisement for that very thing popped up.
And we've all had that experience many times.
Our assumption is that the phones are listening to us and that's how they knew what we were talking about.
But the reality is a lot worse.
Google and Amazon and Facebook, they're not listening to you.
Or they don't need to anyway, even if they are.
They've created algorithms that know you so well, they're so aware of your habits and proclivities that they can make such eerily accurate predictions about your behavior and your buying habits.
The only thing more terrifying than technology that can read your mind and tell what you're thinking is technology that can't read your mind but can still tell what you're thinking.
Two, as I've argued in the past, we worry about robots becoming human.
But I think we have it exactly backwards.
Because the fear should not be that robots will become human, but that humans will become robots.
And this, again, is already happening.
As for most of us, our phones are like appendages.
We can't function without them.
But the ultimate goal is transhumanism.
You know, a future where man and machine have melded together, where our human capacities have, according to the transhumanists, become enhanced, quote-unquote, by technology, which has been surgically or in some other way fused with our physical bodies.
Just as with the mind-reading tech, there is a very limited application for this, for this kind of technology that might be good and valid.
A bionic prosthetic leg that functions exactly like a real leg, for example, would be a good thing.
We have to rely on the tech companies and the medical field to be responsible and restrained in their use of this technology.
And we already know that both industries have demonstrated anything but responsibility and restraint.
They will certainly try to do things like, you know, upload human consciousness to computers so that people, very rich people anyway, can live forever.
I think those efforts will likely fail.
I'm extremely skeptical that someone can be reincarnated as a thumb drive.
But more immediately, transhumanism will be, already has been, always has been, United with transgenderism in the hope of using technology to essentially, like, build a woman out of the shell of a man.
You know, transplanted or artificial uteruses, technology to recreate some kind of weird artificial version of a menstrual cycle, and so on.
Every part of womanhood will be divvied up and artificially simulated and then put on the market for purchase.
None of this will actually make a man into a woman.
He'll still be as much a man as he ever was.
Because they won't be able to replace his DNA.
And if we get to the point where they can replace your DNA, well then they've just killed you and made somebody else.
You don't exist anymore.
So they won't be able to do that, but they can make gender ideology even more dehumanizing than it already is.
Three, the final big worry is this.
Perhaps the most dangerous potential of AI is that it will make life, and is already making life.
Boring.
It gives us less to do, less to work and strive for.
Yahoo News reports this week, quote, Artificial intelligence could replace 80% of human jobs in the coming years, but that's a good thing, says U.S.
Brazilian researcher Ben Goertzel, a leading AI guru.
Mathematician, cognitive scientist, and famed robot creator, Goertzel is the founder and chief executive of SingularityNet, a research group he launched to create Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI, artificial intelligence with human cognitive abilities.
Goertzel says, quote, You could probably obsolete maybe 80% of jobs that people do without having an AGI, by my guess, not with chat GPT exactly as a product, but with systems of that nature, which are going to follow in the next few years.
I don't think it's a threat.
I think it's a benefit.
People can find better things to do with their life than work for a living.
Pretty much every job involving paperwork should be automatable.
The problem I see is in the interim period when AIs are obsoleting one human job after another, I don't know how to solve all the social issues.
You see, just in this guy's answer, the whole problem with the way we're developing AI, or more precisely, who is developing it, the people behind this technology, they don't care about human beings, and they certainly don't understand human nature.
How are we going to provide for all of the billions of people who have been made obsolete, who have been obsoleted by technology?
He doesn't know.
That's a social issue.
That's a small detail.
You know, we'll figure that out.
And even if we can provide for them, what are they going to do with their lives?
What is the point of an existence where there is nothing to do?
There's nothing to work for.
There's no task to complete.
Everything's handed to you by inhuman, lifeless technology.
What does that do to the human spirit?
What does it do to our souls?
Can human beings thrive and find happiness in a world where they've become obsolete?
Where they're not needed?
Where they've been permanently replaced by AI and algorithms?
Where there is this open agenda by people to make humans obsolete, and the people developing the technology are saying that out loud?
Can people be happy in that kind of world?
All signs point to one answer, and the answer is no.
But the people creating this technology aren't trying to grapple with these questions, and they don't care what the answers are.
And that, in the end, is the greatest danger.
And it's the reason why AI is today cancelled.
And I trust that that solves the AI issue.
There's no more AI, because I cancelled it.
It's over now.
All right, that's going to do it for us today.
And, in fact, for the rest of the week, we'll be off for a few days.
