Ep. 1193 - Congressional Hearing Puts The Incoherence Of Trans Ideology On Full Display
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, both sides of the trans debate had a chance to present their views during a congressional hearing on child mutilation this week. And once again, like every other time when the two views are allowed to be presented out in the open, the trans ideologues humiliated themselves. Also, the fake controversy over Florida's curriculum about slavery continues, with Republicans now jumping on the race-baiting dogpile. And a staggering number of Americans say they are not proud of their country. Does this make them unpatriotic? Not necessarily, I'll explain. In our Daily Cancellation, there has been yet another high profile attempt to answer the great question of our time, what is a woman? And this one might be the most hilarious attempt yet.
Ep.1193
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month. Use promo code Walsh at checkout! https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
Genucel - Extra 10% Off Summer Skincare Essentials Bundle Featuring the Dark Spot Corrector + FREE SHIPPING for new customers! https://bit.ly/428Hmtq
CarZing - Get pre-qualified and find the best deals near you: https://carzing.com/Walsh
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE!
http://www/.ZipRecruiter.com/WALSH
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, both sides of the trans debate had a chance to present their views during a congressional hearing on child mutilation this week, and once again, like every other time when the two views are allowed to be presented out in the open, the trans ideologues humiliated themselves.
Also, the fake controversy over Florida's curriculum about slavery continues, with Republicans now jumping on the race-baiting dogpile, and a staggering number of Americans say that they are not proud of their country.
Does this make them unpatriotic?
Not necessarily, I'll explain.
In our daily cancellation, there has been yet another high-profile attempt to answer the great question of our time, what is a woman?
This one might be the most hilarious attempt yet.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
You could turn on your TV and flip on a cable news channel.
And for the most part, nothing you'd find would be particularly interesting, but at least they'd make an attempt at presenting a Diversity of thoughts.
CNN had Crossfire, and for a short period of time, they had Parker Spitzer.
Fox News had Hannity & Combs, and for its part, MSNBC aired a program called The Cycle, which had at least one token Republican at all times.
The point of all these shows was to present two neatly packaged opposing points of view, side by side, for mass consumption, and that was the business model.
But somewhere along the line, all those networks cancelled all of those shows, and every show that resembled them in any way.
They were replaced By productions that didn't even bother with the pretense of actual debate.
And then, coincidentally enough, a short time after that, you weren't allowed to have an open debate either.
The largest social media companies on the planet, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, began the practice of content moderation, quote unquote.
If you had heterodox opinions about mass shootings, or Big Pharma, or national elections, or gender, or anything else, then you'd simply vanish, as surely as those cable news shows did.
As always, these major changes occurred without any kind of real discussion or referendum or analysis of what effects it would have on civic life or on our democracy that you hear so much about.
Even so, it's worth asking, what happens when the largest power centers in the country decide, seemingly on a whim, that debate is intolerable?
What effect does this kind of thing have on day-to-day life in America?
It's hard to say, honestly, but as of now, at least one of the consequences is obvious, if unexpected.
And that is that hearings on Capitol Hill have become a lot more interesting.
They're not just for C-SPAN addicts anymore.
It turns out that Congress, for all its many, many, many faults, still permits, on occasion, every once in a while, two sides of an issue to talk in public at length.
And there's no better way to find out the truth about something than that.
The more people are allowed to advance an argument followed by a rebuttal, the more that that argument's strength or its weaknesses become clear to everybody watching.
That's the whole point.
That explains why trans activists and the politicians who support them are apoplectic about yesterday's hearing at the House Judiciary Committee.
At the hearing, Both sides of the so-called trans debate had the opportunity to discuss the issue.
They had the chance to call the best witnesses they could find in the entire country.
In defense of their position.
And yesterday, everyone on the side of transgenderism and on the side of child mutilation, as expected, was totally and completely humiliated.
So, we'll start at the beginning of the hearing.
The whole thing was a disaster for the pro-trans side.
We'll start with Mary Gay Scanlon, who's the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
And she came out with an opening statement in which she talked about the importance of parental rights above all.
You don't often hear Democrats talking about parental rights.
They only talk about it in very limited circumstances, as we'll see.
But she argued that parents should be able to do whatever they want to their children, including sterilizing them.
Because parents always know best, she says.
Watch.
Holding a hearing to substitute far-right ideologies for parental judgment exposes the rank hypocrisy of the party claiming to value individual freedom and small government.
And so here we are before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and limited government.
Now, Mary went on like that for a few minutes, and her point is that it's wrong for the government to deny parents the right to castrate their children or cut off their breasts.
After all, she says, no one cares more about children than their parents.
Therefore, whatever parents say goes.
Now, this is not much of an argument, obviously.
Rational people understand intuitively that parents don't have absolute control over the lives of their children.
Parents can't consent to their kid's execution, for example.
Parents can't have their kid's limbs chopped off because they're being disobedient or whatever.
So, why can parents consent to a child's castration?
Parents have rights.
It's also possible for parents to be abusive and neglectful.
In those cases, we usually recognize that not only should we not respect the parent's right to treat the child that way, but that, in fact, the parent should lose all of their rights because they have treated the child that way.
That's because the only real, absolute right of a parent is to see to their child's well-being.
As a parent, that is the one absolute moral right you have, is to see to your child's well-being.
This is both a parent's sacred right and sacred responsibility.
It would be oppression for the government to prevent a parent from fulfilling that right and responsibility.
But a parent who, by their own actions, rejects this right and responsibility, and works to destroy their own child rather than preserve and advance his well-being, should be met with the harshest punishment.
That's the way that this is all supposed to work, and it's not a difficult concept for most people to understand.
Back to the hearing, at least one representative, California Congressman Tom McClintock, was listening closely to Scanlon's argument.
So a little later on, he called her out on it.
McClintock pressed Scanlon to support the logical conclusion of what she was saying.
Specifically, McClintock wanted to know whether Scanlon opposed laws in leftist states like Oregon and California which allow minors to be mutilated and castrated without any parental supervision whatsoever.
After all, Scanlon cares so much about parental rights, doesn't she?
She thinks parents know best.
So, why wouldn't she sponsor legislation to ban the practice of child castration if there isn't any parental involvement?
Now, obviously it should be banned across the board, but the question to Mary Scanlon is, because you believe so much in parental rights, can we at least start by agreeing, can we get to point A here and agree that If there's no parental consent, it shouldn't happen at all.
Can you at least agree with that much?
The exchange is worth watching in its entirety.
Watch.
And it seems to me there are two issues here.
The first is the effort in states like California.
To bypass parents' judgment and subject their children to transgender procedures against the parents' judgment, or even to hide this from the parents.
That's going on in California right now.
So I want to be sure I understood the subcommittee's ranking member correctly.
It sounded like she, too, opposes government replacing parents' judgment over the decision on transgender procedures for their children.
Am I correct on that?
Am I correct on that?
I yield to the gentlelady to answer.
I'm sorry, I was... It sounded like you oppose government replacing parents' judgment over the decision of transgender procedures on their children.
Am I correct on that?
What I said was that parents have the ultimate right to make the decisions concerning appropriate medical care for their children.
I think we're in agreement.
We can take that off the table.
Both parties oppose the government, any government, Making decisions over whether a child will be subjected to transgender procedures contrary to the wishes of the parents.
Do I understand that correctly?
I believe that's generally the legal standard.
Okay, that's great.
The dispute is over what is appropriate, apparently.
Both parties support a law that forbids performing these transgender procedures on a minor without the full and informed consent of the parents.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we should advance such a bill right away.
I think that would address the fears that I hear from a lot of parents.
That their desire to protect their child is at risk from various state governments like California who are trying to usurp that decision.
We have complete agreement on that.
I think you're mischaracterizing the complete agreement.
Well, I thought we had just arrived at that agreement until it comes down to actually doing it, and then you seem to have a change of heart.
But Mr. Chairman, let's put that to the test.
I see I'm out of time, but I think the sooner we move that, the better.
Very keen observation.
You're mischaracterizing the agreement, she says.
This is always the way it goes.
Remember, the left, they're relativists, so nothing they say in one moment necessarily has any purchase the next moment.
It's all situational.
But, of course, they don't present it that way.
They present it as if they are advancing, you know, universal principles.
And so when it comes to a parent who wants to have their child castrated, and if the government steps in, like in Tennessee, and says, you can't do it, you can't do that to your child, then the left will say, well, what about parental rights?
The parents have the right to make this decision.
And if you respond and say, well, parents have the right to make that decision, can we at least agree that this should not happen to a kid without parental consent?
I mean, it shouldn't happen at all, but let's start with it.
Well, no, we can't agree on that.
It's just like they do with every issue.
It's like on abortion.
The left says, well, a woman who's raped or the life of the mother is threatened.
I mean, there should be, you need to have an abortion in that case.
Okay, well what about if that's not the case?
Can we agree then?
So if we're talking about these hard cases, that's all you want to talk about?
So it sounds like we agree that in all these other cases where there's no rape and the life of the mother is not threatened, can we at least agree there that there shouldn't be?
Well, no, no, we can't agree.
Well, okay, then why are you bringing that up?
So this is an amazing moment.
The National Review's Caroline Downey observed that during this cross-examination, Scanlon's aide passed her a note to help her answer McClintock's question.
But it didn't help because her answer ultimately makes no sense.
It's effectively this.
Parents know best, and any medical decision involving children should involve the parents.
At the same time, kids should be able to castrate themselves without consulting their parents.
That's the position.
The whole hearing went on like this.
The incoherence and the insanity of transgenderism was on full display.
It's an ideology that survives no scrutiny whatsoever.
The moment you put this ideology side by side with sanity, trans ideology collapses.
And that's what kept happening over and over again as the hours went on.
So take a look at this testimony from 19-year-old Chloe Cole, for example.
So-called doctors gave Chloe puberty blockers and testosterone when she was 13 years old.
That's enough to sterilize her and cause her early-onset osteoporosis, just to begin with.
But that wasn't enough for these doctors, so when she was 15, they cut her breasts off.
Any rational person recognizes that this barbarism is barbarism, that it's barbaric, it's savage.
Here's Chloe explaining what happened to her.
Watch.
I came out as transgender And a letter I sent on the dining room table.
My parents were immediately concerned.
They felt like they needed to get outside help from medical professionals.
But this proved to be a mistake.
It immediately set our entire family down a path of ideologically motivated deceit and coercion.
The gender specialist I was taken to see told my parents that I needed to be put on puberty-blocking drugs right away.
They asked my parents a simple question.
Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living transgender son?
The choice was enough for my parents to let their guard down, and in retrospect, I can't blame them.
This was the moment that we all became victims of so-called gender-affirming care.
I was fast-tracked onto puberty blockers and then testosterone.
The resulting menopausal-like hot flashes made focusing on school impossible.
I still get joint pains and weird pops in my back, but they were far worse when I was on the blockers.
A month later, when I was 13, I had my first testosterone injection.
It's caused permanent changes to my body.
My voice will forever be deeper, my jawline sharper, my nose longer, my bone structure permanently masculinized, my Adam's apple more prominent, my fertility unknown.
I look in the mirror sometimes, and I feel like a monster.
I had a double mastectomy at 15.
Now watching that, it's clear that despite the horrors that have been inflicted on her, Chloe Cole is rational, she's calmer than the vast majority of people would be under those circumstances, certainly calmer than I would be, and she's making a point that every human being on this planet would have agreed with just a decade ago or five years ago, which is that sexualizing and butchering children is one of the greatest crimes imaginable.
Now, Chloe Cole was not the only witness to expose the derangement of the transgender movement.
There was also testimony from a former UPenn swimmer, Paula Scanlon.
And Scanlon, as you know, if you watched my interview with her, both in What Is A Woman, the film What Is A Woman, and the follow-up interview we did, Scanlon was forced by UPenn to share a locker room with Will Thomas, the mediocre male swimmer who now pretends to be a woman named Leah Thomas.
And that's also, that's a held testimony of something worth watching.
So this mentally disturbed male, Like Chloe Cole, Paula Scanlon is composed in her testimony.
in the locker room and watch women undress.
And if any UPenn swimmers complained about the obvious absurdity of this, as Paula explained,
then the school would call them insane.
They are the ones who had psychological problems that needed to be worked out.
Like Chloe Cole, Paula Scanlon is composed in her testimony.
She's testifying about her firsthand experience.
And what she's saying is, you know, objectively horrifying.
So how did Democrats respond?
What witnesses did Democrats present to rebut Paula Scanlon and Chloe Cole's testimony?
What evidence did the supposed party of science offer up in response to justify all of this?
One of Democrats star witnesses yesterday was a woman named Miriam Reynolds.
Reynolds testified that It's possible for anyone to change their gender, even young children.
It doesn't matter how old they are.
But Reynolds didn't base this conclusion on any scientific data or any kind of coherent argument whatsoever.
Instead, Reynolds testified that she knew her own 11-year-old daughter was really a boy, contrary to what all the doctors said, because he didn't like the color pink.
That's in quotes.
He didn't like the color pink.
Of course, it's really a she.
And also, she was friends with boys, and she liked to play football.
And this all meant that she's really a boy.
Watch.
I prayed that it was a phase, but already knew that it wasn't.
The signs had been there all along.
We just didn't understand them.
We thought he was a tomboy.
He refused to wear anything pink or girly and was the only girl on the boys' football team for many years.
His best friends were always boys.
There were a lot of signs looking back.
A lot of signs.
What a profound contrast between the not only emotionally compelling, but also incredibly logical and reasonable testimonies of the mutilation opponents versus the half-baked, ridiculous logic of this mother.
The same people who tell you that gender stereotypes are evil are now telling you that 11-year-olds should be castrated because they don't like the color pink.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic and disgusting.
If there weren't actual children being destroyed in the process, you'd be able to laugh at how ridiculous this is, but you can't.
Now keep in mind that the proponents of the gender affirmation ragged specifically brought Miriam Reynolds to Congress for the express purpose of representing their point of view.
This isn't someone who just randomly walked into Congress off the street.
Staffers picked this person.
They vetted her.
This is the best they can do.
We should mutilate kids if they don't like a certain color.
That's the strongest argument they can possibly muster, what you just heard right there.
That is as good as the argument possibly gets.
And the argument can get a lot worse as well.
Now, Inane doesn't even begin to describe this.
The contrast between, say, Chloe Cole and Miriam Reynolds, like the contrast between Tom McClintock and Mary Scanlon, couldn't be more pronounced.
One side is interested in reason and compassion, the other side represents and presents the most juvenile, self-contradictory arguments imaginable.
And as the hearing went on, this continued.
I want you to watch Congressman Wesley Hunt's argument against child mutilation, and then after this, we'll show you the Democrats' position on this, but watch.
Thank you, Brave Ladies, for being here today.
I greatly appreciate it, and I admire your bravery in these times.
Many of my colleagues on the left like to discuss gender-affirming care and claim that puberty blockers and hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery are the only ways to treat gender dysphoria.
Once a child expresses a feeling of gender dysphoria, instead of questioning the root cause of that feeling, that child will more likely than not be on a fast track to gender reassignment surgery, or otherwise known as genital mutilation.
But I want you to imagine something.
What would happen if we affirmed every thought that our children have?
I'd like to show you a food pyramid.
Now, I know what you're thinking.
This is not the FDA's approved food pyramid, although many of you probably wish it was.
This is the food pyramid according to my four-year-old and my two-year-old daughters.
By the way, in the Hunt House, we don't do Ben and Jerry's.
It's Blue Bell only.
If my children had their way, They would have ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and for every single meal in between.
Oh, the wisdom of children.
But in a sane country, we know that children aren't mature enough to make adult decisions that will impact the rest of their lives.
That's why we have parents.
Children cry for ice cream, but as parents, we have the wisdom to know that ice cream is not in their best interest, particularly their long-term interest.
I want to thank my parents, Willie and Diane Hunt.
They had three children.
All three of us went to West Point.
All three of us served our country.
All three of us earned multiple master's degrees from Ivy League schools.
Do you know why?
Because my parents did not give in to the thoughts of an adolescent Wesley Hunt.
So this is where we're at.
We need congressmen during congressional hearings to explain that you wouldn't want to give your kids ice cream for every meal.
And they do need to explain that.
I mean, this is a basic idea that needs to be explained to the Democrats in that room.
That just because your child wants something doesn't mean that it's good.
You're supposed to have a better understanding of the world and what's healthy and good for them than they do.
So what you just saw there was really basic and elementary, but it's also reasonable, well-presented, rational.
Everyone who has kids understands what Wesley Hunt is saying.
Kids think crazy things all the time.
It's the job of parents to correct kids when they, you know, every day you're correcting them.
They think things that aren't true.
They want to do things that aren't good for them.
That's part of being a kid.
Now contrast what Hunt just said with the remarks yesterday from Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen.
This verges on parody, if we're being totally honest about it.
Steve Cohen, while arguing in defense of transgenders, concedes to Paul Scanlon, the UPenn swimmer, that UPenn made a big mistake in its handling of the whole Leah Thomas situation.
Cohen admits that UPenn should have set up a, quote, barrier to separate male swimmers like Will Thomas from female swimmers like Scanlon.
Just like the ranking member, he clearly doesn't understand the implications of what he's saying, but watch this.
Transgender people have been around for a long time, and they have rights, and they need to be respected.
I read Ms.
Scanlon's testimony, I wasn't here to hear it, and I think Penn didn't deal with your situation like they could have and should have in putting up some type of different barriers in the women's area of the locker room, but that's another issue.
But things should be dealt with in a different way.
This is an easy way for people to try to get points.
Pick on a minority group that is the most minority and least understood in our country.
The most minority, whatever that means.
So according to pro-trans Democrat Steve Cohen, we need, quote, barriers in the locker room to separate men from women.
Maybe this barrier could involve walls and a door and signage that reads, I don't know, men's restroom and women's restroom.
And maybe we could keep the people with penises confined to the men's section.
What a revolutionary idea.
Steve Cohen, like so many Democrats, says that he supports transgenderism and trans ideology without understanding the insane demands of the movement.
He just reads the cue cards.
He repeats the talking points without understanding them.
With that, in that sense, Cohen has a lot in common with Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York.
Jerry Nadler also made a familiar argument in which he goes on and on about how, well, we need to allow kids to be castrated because if not, they'll kill themselves.
So on the one hand, you have an impassioned, compelling argument from conservatives that children can't consent to the mutilation of their genitals.
On the other hand, you have one of the most senior Democrats in the House saying that you need to do that, do whatever kids say, or else they'll kill themselves.
And he's saying that if you don't affirm their delusions, then you're bullying them.
Now, normally when people threaten to kill themselves, we recognize that they need immediate intervention.
They're not thinking right.
But in this case, Jerry Nadler says when children are suicidal, we need to do whatever they say.
We should affirm whatever delusion they've been told to believe.
If a child is in despair, he says, we should affirm exactly the delusion that has caused the despair.
You'll never find a clearer explanation for why trans activists demand censorship.
Than yesterday's hearing at the House Judiciary Committee.
At every turn, when sane people offered carefully considered, rational, common-sense arguments, Democrats flailed.
They contradicted themselves.
They resorted to one of the most desperate and despicable arguments imaginable.
Stop questioning us or else kids will kill themselves!
That's the best argument that a 17-term congressman with the most experienced political staffers in all of Congress could come up with.
It's ludicrous.
It's incoherent.
It's grotesque and stupid.
It wilts immediately on contact with testimony of young people, people with no political experience, who have seen enough of this barbarism, have experienced it firsthand.
As pathetic as it is, the essence of trans ideology has been exposed yet again for everyone to see.
This happens any time there is any kind of open debate between the two sides on this issue.
And that's exactly why the left is desperate to stop those debates from happening.
Now let's get to our Five Headlines.
So we're now on the fifth or sixth day, whatever it is, of fake media-driven controversy over Florida's history curriculum on the subject of slavery, which the media and Democrats claim promotes and defends slavery itself.
That's what the curriculum does, according to them.
This is all totally made up and ridiculous, of course, and I explained why in detail a few days ago.
You can go and watch that segment if you want.
Just to summarize in a sentence or two, the curriculum teaches in great depth about slavery.
Slavery is mentioned like 150 or 200 times in the curriculum itself.
One of those mentions, one, just one, one sentence in the curriculum notes that slaves, after being freed, sometimes utilize skills that they learned while enslaved.
The point of including that note in the curriculum is because, for one thing, it's true.
And we want to teach kids things that are true.
And for another, obviously, it was meant to be a tribute, a credit, to the slaves themselves.
Obviously, that's the intention.
So, just to illustrate the point, I want to read you a quick passage from the Wikipedia entry for a prominent tailor and clothing designer named Martin Greenfield.
Okay?
And he was never an African slave, but you'll understand why I'm reading in a second.
During his time in Auschwitz, Greenfield learned the power behind clothing.
After being beaten for accidentally ripping a Nazi shirt, he stole it, repaired it, and wore it underneath his uniform all throughout his time in the camp.
Wearing the shirt made him realize that clothes possess power.
This became an inspiration to Martin, helped him survive the Holocaust.
This experience was a contributing factor to how he became one of the most successful and famous men's tailors of America.
Now, would anyone read that anecdote and imagine that it's somehow a defense of the Holocaust?
Okay, would anyone imagine that the argument being presented here is that it's good that he was in a concentration camp?
No, obviously it's supposed to be a credit to Greenfield that his success can be traced back to a moment of such great trial and tribulation.
If somebody wrote a biography of this guy and mentioned this fact, Not only mentioned it, but probably made it like a central part of his life story.
Nobody in the world would interpret that as some sort of attempt to minimize the Holocaust.
And yet, when it comes to telling the exact same kind of story about some slaves, suddenly it's racist?
As if everyone can't immediately understand the point.
The whole reason this was mentioned in the curriculum was that it was supposed to be a way of paying tribute to slaves who were able to convert tragedy into triumph.
Usually, we respect that kind of thing.
That's obviously the point.
If you don't understand that, then you're either incredibly stupid or pretending to be stupid, or else you've been duped by the leftist media, which makes you pretty dumb as well.
So, no matter what, it's like you're stupid or you're pretending to be stupid.
Those are really the only options.
Speaking of stupid, here's Spike Lee reacting to this whole controversy.
Watch.
He's now saying that there's no agenda here.
I don't think he's educated about the enslavement of my ancestors.
I just want to read the text again of what Florida is now requiring for middle school students.
It says, instructions should include, quote, how slaves develop skills, which in some instances could be applied for their own personal benefit.
How can it be for your personal benefit when you're treated as an enslaved person?
It's not like, oh, I'm a blacksmith.
OK, I'm going to put a shingle out there, and I'm going to be a blacksmith.
One of the arguments being made by supporters of Governor DeSantis is that schools were teaching kids to hate America by teaching the history of slavery in this country, the history— You learn to love America by learning the truth.
The good and different and bad.
That's what America is.
This is the level.
I mean, this is it.
Everything you just watched there, that's the level of discourse on the left.
That's what you get from cable news now.
That's it right there.
I mean, everything you heard.
It's just a combination of straw men, red herrings, total nonsense.
I mean, I don't even know where to start.
Spike Lee doesn't even know what a blacksmith does to begin with, first of all.
Okay, blacksmiths, they don't do roofing.
So I don't think he quite understands that.
And no one is saying that the slaves benefited from these skills while they were enslaved.
That's not the point, Spike!
And then everything Anderson Cooper said at the end is a total lie.
The critics of this, you know, the people defending the curriculum say that if we teach about slavery, kids will hate America.
No one's saying that!
No one is saying don't teach about slavery.
No one has ever said that.
It's part of American history.
I'm a big fan of teaching American history.
Teach the whole thing.
It shouldn't be the sole focus.
And if you're going to teach about slavery, teach the whole story of it.
Okay, if kids graduate high school after K through 12, 13 years of formal education, and they think that slavery was unique to America or Western civilization, which many kids do, that's a failure of the education system.
You haven't taught them the whole story.
It's like a basic fact of human civilization they don't know.
So, yeah, absolutely teach about slavery.
Teach everything about it.
Teach the whole damn thing.
And then teach the rest of American history, too.
So no one is saying that.
But you notice something, Spike Lee never had a problem with this kind of instruction, with these facts about slavery being taught, until now.
None of these people did.
As the Daily Wire reports, quote, the College Board included a similar goal in its course framework for AP African American Studies for 2023 through 2024.
The curriculum identifies as essential knowledge this, quote, in addition to agricultural work, enslaved people learned specialized trades and worked as painters, carpenters, tailors, musicians, and healers in the North and South.
Once free, African Americans used these skills to provide for themselves and others.
The College Board's AP college prep classes are available in thousands of schools across the U.S.
How is that any different from what you hear in the curriculum in Florida?
It is not different.
It's the exact same point.
It's being taught in AP classes in thousands of schools, and not just this year, by the way, but for a long time.
No one ever had an issue with it.
No one ever brought it up until now.
But, you know, it's one thing to have the left jumping on this bandwagon.
The problem is when the right joins in the race-baiting dogpile, which the right has shown an increasing willingness to do.
First, Representative Byron Donalds, who's a Republican representative, tweeted his general
support for the curriculum, but said, "The attempt to feature the personal benefits of
slavery is wrong and needs to be adjusted."
And then Tim Scott jumped in yesterday with this, listen.
As a country founded upon freedom, the greatest deprivation of freedom for slavery, there's
There's no silver lining in freedom, in slavery.
The truth is that anything you can learn, any benefits that people suggest you had during slavery, you would have had as a free person.
What slavery was, was really about separating families, about mutilating humans, and even raping their wives.
It was just devastating, so I would hope that every person in our country and certainly running for president, would
appreciate that.
And listen, people have bad days, sometimes they regret what they say, and we should ask
them again to clarify their positions.
Okay, you are being manipulated, Tim, by the left into explaining why slavery is bad
as if anyone doesn't understand that.
And also accusing your own side of what, being pro-slavery, you're thinking that there are
good things.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
This is all from the left.
And you, Tim Scott, I just read you the standards for AP college courses.
Why didn't you ever say anything about that?
You never cared about that.
It was never a problem.
It wasn't a problem until the left and the media told you and Kamala Harris told you that it's a problem and now it's a problem for you.
You know, one thing I've heard from some people on the right who have said, you know, it is a little like, I don't know, I don't like that language in there.
You pathetic morons.
Why is it a focus?
You know, we don't need to focus.
It was not the focus, you idiots.
It was not the focus.
It's one thing mentioned out of 190 things.
The left made it a focus and you are stupid and going along with it.
Because you haven't learned how these people operate.
And to start with, anytime you hear the left saying anything about anything related to race, never believe it on face value.
Assume that they are lying, because they always are.
If you are saying something about a race-related issue, or a gender-related issue, or any issue related to any so-called protected class, if you're saying something and it's exactly the same thing as what Kamala Harris is saying, you need to stop and think very hard about that.
Because the chances that she's right and being honest are infinitesimal.
Now, I know that I'm saying all this and, you know, Tim Scott was being manipulated.
I myself am being somewhat naive because he's running for president and he probably knows exactly what he's doing.
But he's attacking from the left.
And if there is one commandment, if there is one rule that we should all follow, okay, it's not, you know, never attack your own side, never criticize your own side.
No, that's not the rule.
Of course you criticize your own side.
I'm criticizing Tim Scott right now.
Not that he's really on my side.
But you never attack from the left.
Ever.
Ever.
You never go after your own side from the left.
Go after them, you criticize them, never from the left.
That is the unforgivable sin.
If there is one sin among conservatives, it is attacking your own side from the left.
You do that and you are... You should be dead to us at that point.
The moment you do that, it's over.
You adopt the left's talking points to go after your own side.
Screw you.
You're done.
We don't need you.
Go join them if you want to play this game.
If you want to play the game of pretending that there are conservatives who need you to explain to them that slavery is bad, if you want to play that game, then just go away.
Go play it with the left.
Go become a Democrat.
That's what you are.
I have no patience for this.
It's absolutely disgraceful and I hate it.
All right, Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican, showed up at a prayer breakfast hosted by Tim Scott, theme here, and began with this anecdote.
Watch.
I want to thank you for pulling this together.
Another year, another Standing Room Only event, and when I woke up this morning at 7, I was getting picked up at 7.45, Patrick, my fiancé, tried to pull me by my waist over this morning in bed, and I was like, no baby, we don't got time for that this morning.
I got to get to the prayer breakfast, and I got to be on time, and a little TMI, but He can wait.
I'll see him later tonight.
But I was here early today for you, Tim.
And I think everybody was here early for you today.
A little TMI.
A little, you think?
Now, obviously it's awkward and not appropriate to talk about that at prayer breakfast, but the real point here is that you see how these establishment Republican types, of which Nancy Mace definitely is one, are so disconnected from the Christian base that they try to pander to Christians, but they don't know how to pander because they don't understand us.
They don't really understand us.
Nancy Mace is twice divorced, okay, and now going on her third husband, so she's now cohabitating with what will eventually be her third spouse.
If that's your story, then it's not a good idea to show up to a Christian prayer breakfast and say, hey guys, funny story folks, get this, I was about to have sex with a man I'm not married to after I divorced my first two husbands, but then I realized that I need to come here instead.
Isn't that funny?
It's not exactly a way to warm up the crowd.
But she doesn't realize that because she doesn't really know anything about her own voter base or their values or what they believe in or what they want.
And that's what's really going on.
It's like going to a meeting for animal rights activists and starting your speech by mentioning that you were at a great steakhouse last night.
I mean, in that context, it'd be funny.
It's like the kind of thing I would do.
But it clearly shows that either you're intentionally trying to troll your audience or you have no idea where you are or what these people are all about.
All right, we've got to move on quickly here.
I did want to mention this, Axios has a story about a poll, it's a Gallup poll that's getting a lot of attention.
It says pride in national identity is at a steep decline, they say.
It's lowest among those 18 to 34, illustrates the fracture between young Americans and older generations.
In the most recent Gallup poll, Americans 55 and older were nearly three times more likely to be extremely prideful of their nationality than younger generations.
Overall, 39% of U.S.
adults say that they are extremely proud to be American in the most recent poll.
Meanwhile, only 18% of those aged 18 to 34 said the same, that they were proud to be American or extremely proud, compared to 40% of those aged 35 to 54 and 50% of those 55 and over.
So overall, it's like a pathetic picture.
I mean, there doesn't appear to be a majority of people extremely proud to be American in any age group.
Now, in comparison, in 2013, 85% of those aged 18 to 29 say they were extremely or very proud to be an American.
So I'll tell you the problem here.
And yes, it's true that younger generations are not instilled with any kind of gratitude or patriotic love of country and so on, but I'm not going to focus on that.
We've talked about that before.
My problem with this poll is that we're using extremely proud to be American and patriotic interchangeably.
We are pretending that the way to find out if someone is patriotic is to ask if they're proud of America.
But I don't think that's true.
I consider myself to be a patriot, but I am not proud of America right now.
I'm not.
So you can cast your stones at me if you want, if you must, but I'm not proud of America.
I'm not proud to be an American at this moment, yet I still consider myself a patriot.
I'll explain why.
I mean, look at it like this.
If I were to look around at my family and I were to see that, you know, I don't know, my dad is a drug addict and my mom's an alcoholic and I have a brother in jail for embezzlement or something.
None of this is true of my family, by the way, just to be clear.
But if it was, if my family was just a mess with everybody's lives and total disrepair and everything was terrible, Would I be proud of my family?
Would I be proud to declare myself a member of it?
No, I wouldn't.
Because there's not much to be proud of.
I'd be embarrassed, actually.
I'd be pretty ashamed.
I'd be heartbroken to see the state that my family is in.
But I would still love my family, is the point.
In fact, my love for my family would make me even more ashamed and heartbroken and embarrassed because I would want my family and my family members to be better people for their own sake.
I would want my family to be in better shape.
I love my family and want what's best for it, which means not blindly ignoring all of these problems and just declaring myself proud of everyone in the family, no matter if they act like a bunch of scumbags or not.
That's not love of family.
Loving your family means that you want to be proud of your family.
It doesn't mean that you always are.
It means that you want to be.
Same thing for your country.
To be a patriot is to love your country.
To love your country is to want your country to be great, which means, first of all, it must be good.
You want your country to flourish in every way imaginable.
It doesn't mean pretending that all of those things are true when they aren't.
So when I look around at America and I see decaying cities and rampant crime and absurd levels of corruption in government and in all of our institutions and kids being butchered and mutilated and on and on and on, I'm not proud.
How could I be proud of that?
I'm embarrassed.
I'm not proud of America right now.
There's not much to be proud of.
I want to be proud of the country.
And that's why if someone said, why don't you just leave?
No, because this is my country.
This is my home.
I want it to be better than it is.
I want to fight for it to be better.
But I'm not going to pretend that there's no problems to solve, that there aren't really deep and important problems to solve.
I'm not going to pretend that.
And if you just declare that you're proud of something or someone no matter what, then your pride doesn't mean anything.
It's like people say, well, I'm always proud of my kids no matter what.
Really?
No matter what?
No matter what they do, you're proud of them?
Well, then it doesn't mean anything to say that you're proud of them.
So you're proud of your son, whether he comes home with an A on his report card or, you know, he comes home with an F, like you're proud either way.
So your pride in the good grade apparently means absolutely nothing.
Just a default position that you've adopted.
And that's not really pride.
So, yeah, in this case, now, I think a lot of those people that say they're not proud of America, they probably would have very different reasons, you know, for that.
They probably explain their feelings in a very different way.
But I don't think that they're necessarily wrong for how they see it.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Harrison says, Matt, I know you've talked about this plenty of times, but
seriously, how do we explain big tech and the media and all these powerful organizations all seemingly at once
deciding to try to erase anyone who says the truth about gender?
YouTube was fine with discussions about this for years and then suddenly changed its mind.
Well, there's all the familiar reasons that we talk about all the time.
These institutions are ideologically captured by the left and on and on.
So all those reasons still apply here.
But there's another point, too.
That I think is not, and we've probably talked about it before, but it's not discussed enough and not understood enough, which is that these institutions are run by people who at this point, many of them have children who identify as trans or non-binary or whatever.
That explains it.
I'm not naming specific cases.
There are specific cases that I know of, of course, but it's just a general statement.
This trans and non-binary stuff has caught hold, especially in super liberal areas, super liberal urban areas, wealthy areas.
That's where it's especially prevalent, and that's also where all these people that run these institutions live.
And so that's some of what's going on, especially the sudden.
Some of these places, like some of these institutions, organizations that seem like out of nowhere, just say, you know what?
You can't talk about this anymore.
And I'm willing to bet that in so many of those cases, it's because some of the decision makers in those institutions had a kid who recently came home and said, hey, guess what?
Mom and dad, I'm, not that there's going to be both mom and dad in the home most of the time, but I'm trans now.
That's a lot of it.
You know, you can never, there's the political motivations, there's the economic motivations and all that, but there's all, we can never overlook just personal.
It's very personal for a lot of these people.
And so for a lot of these very powerful people, they have kids now who identify as trans and they themselves are facilitating that and going along with it and probably getting the kids on drugs and doing all of it.
And so now it's personal for them.
And so if they hear you criticizing, if they hear me saying all the things that I say on this, they take it as a personal attack on them and their kid.
And more than that, you know, when you stand up and say, well, kids shouldn't be, parents shouldn't be doing this to their kids.
Well, they hear that and they say, well, so you're saying that I'm a child abuser?
Well, I can't, I can't, I can't listen to that.
I cannot listen to that.
I can't even consider the possibility that I may have physically ruined my own child forever And so I'm just going to shut off all conversation about this completely because I can't listen to it.
That is a lot of what's going on.
I can guarantee you that.
Martin says, when I'm bombarded with sensational news stories across the media, the first question I ask myself is, what are they distracting us from right now?
And what are they in the process of covering up?
Well, Martin, I think I've addressed this distraction.
Just repeat.
I hate when people do this.
You're asserting something that I have addressed, okay?
I have made my argument against what you're asserting, and so you respond by just asserting it again without even trying to address the argument.
Carlos says, finally, someone besides me presenting the obvious and logical argument that by denying this phenomena, we're talking about UFOs now, is related to non-human intelligence, one is affirming that someone is hiding unbelievable technology, and that makes it the biggest and most interesting story ever, either way.
Thanks.
It's exactly right.
It doesn't make any sense to me.
You can take the position that all this UFO stuff has nothing to do with space aliens.
You can take that position.
I don't know how you could possibly know that, but you can take that position.
I mean, that's a valid position to take.
But the position that is not valid is that all of this is irrelevant and uninteresting.
Because either way, these things are happening, and someone's responsible for it.
One thing we can confirm now, we can just say for a fact, is that there is Highly advanced technology that is present in our skies, that's way beyond the capacity, any capacity that we have as far as we know.
That's definitely true because there's enough evidence of it to say it, to put it forward as a fact.
Yeah, does that prove the origin?
Prove that it's from some intergalactic or interstellar being?
No, it doesn't prove that.
It originates somewhere and so we probably want to know where it originates from and it still becomes, even if it's all earthbound, if there's a very earthbound explanation for all of this, it's still important and interesting.
Jay Redrum says, yeah, the whole it's a distraction theory just irritates the hell out of me.
You're literally the only person I've heard give this story the commentary and fascination that it deserves.
How does no one care about this?
I'm not the only, but I'm among the only, at least when it comes to, you know, people with any kind of public profile.
And I'm with you.
But this is the last thing I'll say on this distraction theory.
Oh, this was all a distraction.
And this is an important point, because no matter how you feel about aliens, it's important to know how this actually works.
Because the powers that be, they do use distraction mechanisms.
They will, in fact, engage in the whole, hey, look over there!
Look at that shiny thing!
Look at that squirrel!
In order to divert our attention away from more important things.
That does happen, certainly.
But they don't make up aliens, okay?
You know how they distract us?
It's happening right now.
It's happening this week.
They distract us with something like, Ron DeSantis supports slavery and has a curriculum that supports slavery.
That's how they distract us.
And it's a lot more effective.
Because people will actually talk about that, and the media will pay attention to it.
And people on either side will argue about it.
In fact, it's a really good distraction technique for them, because You know, someone like myself with a platform, I'm, I'm, I'm forced to, I know part of what they're doing.
I know that this is dishonest.
I know what they're doing.
I know it's all a game.
Um, I know, I know it is also a distraction, but I'm forced to address it because if I don't, then their narrative is allowed to stand unchallenged and it's allowed to just be cemented into the public conscious.
And I can't allow that to happen.
So that's the kind of distraction that they use with stories like that.
Not a story like Aliens that most people don't care about.
And even if you do care about it, it's like people aren't having a serious conversation about it.
There's no real debate happening, much to my chagrin.
So, you gotta understand how distractions work, and this is it, okay?
Ron DeSantis supports slavery.
That is a distraction.
That's what they do.
Finally, Vicker says, I guess this is in response to my stirring tribute to the Democrat representative who went on a hunger and thirst strike that went that last a staggering nine hours.
Vicker says, if Matt is giving a public figure over-the-top praise, there's a 75% chance it's sarcasm.
Yeah, I wouldn't say 75%.
Give me some credit.
It's more like 99.9% of times, but yeah, you're basically right.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
There have been many attempts over the past year or so to answer the question, the great question, the question of all questions, what is a woman?
And as you know, if you listen to the show, many of those attempts have landed themselves right here in the Daily Cancellation.
Today, we have another worthy addition to this series.
The prominent British news magazine called The New Statesman has published a pair of essays attempting to answer what it calls the most vexed question of our time.
Now, to its credit, it is offering both perspectives.
Richard Dawkins was enlisted to give the biological, that is, the correct view on the subject, while feminist writer Jacqueline Rose has been granted the honor of representing the incredibly wrong point of view.
Now, as you probably recall, one of the most common themes we find in these leftist attempts to answer the what-is-a-woman question is that they do not actually attempt to answer it at all, because they can't, and they know they can't.
And when I say they can't answer it, I mean not that they are unable to answer it, or that they don't understand what the answer is, but that their ideology will not permit them to answer.
They are literally not allowed to answer the question.
It's against the rules.
So, in lieu of providing an answer, or even trying to, they will instead say lots of other things which may or may not be true, and may or may not be tangentially related to the question at hand, but which do not amount to an actual answer.
In other words, they will answer the question by doing everything except answer the question.
They'll give you a 10,000 word essay leading up to an answer, seemingly leading up to the point where there will be an answer, and then they will end the essay before they reach the conclusion.
Now, I don't mean to spoil the ending, but that is exactly what Jacqueline Rose does here.
This essay is a journey with no ending, no destination.
It spins itself in circles, ties itself in knots, all for nothing.
She hopes to dazzle us with her eloquence and prays we don't notice that she isn't saying anything.
Will she succeed?
Obviously not, but let's read anyway.
The first thing to note here is the title.
Of Rose's essay, quote, the gender binary is false.
We should question a mindset that viciously excludes whole groups of people.
So we're beginning with a startling declaration.
The binary is false.
If the binary is false, then that must mean either that there are more than two categories beyond male and female or that there's only one or none.
Right, so if the binary is false, either there's more than two, there's less, or there's fewer than two.
Those are the only options.
Given that this is the title of her piece, surely she must somewhere in this lengthy dissertation actually provide some kind of evidence to support one of those alternatives.
She can't make a statement like that right in the title and then not even attempt to defend or support it, can she?
Well, we'll have to keep going to find out.
Rose begins, quote, What is a woman?
The formulation has the merit of suggesting that to be a woman, far from being obvious, is a question, and one susceptible to more than a single reply.
This is encouraging at a time when the fight over the definition of what is a woman has taken such virulence.
Being a woman is at risk of becoming a protected category, as the binary man-woman hardens into place.
This is happening even though it has always been a central goal of feminism to repudiate the very idea of womanhood as a form of coercive control that means the end of freedom.
Okay, a couple things here, right off the bat.
First, not only can she not answer the question, but we discover immediately that she doesn't even understand why it's being asked.
The point of what is a woman isn't to suggest that there are multiple valid answers.
But to demonstrate that there is only one valid answer, only one group has any kind of answer to that question, and that's the group that affirms biological reality.
Everybody else has no answer, Jacqueline Rose included, as we'll see.
Second, notice here, and this is a theme throughout, Rose, a prominent feminist, absolutely agrees with the argument that I made earlier this week that feminism sets the stage for gender ideology.
The two are inextricably linked.
Rose even says that the goal of feminism is to repudiate the very idea of womanhood.
And on that point, at least, we can definitely agree.
Ironically, this appeal to the category of woman as a pre-given, unquestionable, is being made in the name of women's safety, another core objective for feminism over the centuries.
Except that now it seems any question about what a woman is, or might be, must be dropped the moment the threat of sexual violence rears its head, which suggests that it is the category of woman as much as the safety of women that needs protection.
In the most prevalent version of this argument, trans women, who were once men, must be excluded from women-only spaces, which they threaten by dint of being deep down still a man, regardless of the lengths to which they have gone to leave that identity behind.
They are frauds whom women should fear.
But the case only holds if we're confident that we know what a man or woman is in the first place.
Well, I am confident, Jacqueline.
I'm confident that a woman is an adult human female.
If you want to shake that confidence, you need to explain why I'm wrong in this belief.
And so far, you haven't.
But we'll see if you get around to it, even though we know you don't.
Though, we aren't off to a great start here because it's clear from this paragraph that you, Jacqueline, don't even understand the position you're supposed to be defending.
Much less the one you're arguing against.
You say that trans women who were once men must be excluded from women-only spaces, which they threatened by being a deep down still man, regardless of the lengths to which they have gone to leave that identity behind.
But that is not what your own side asserts, Jacqueline.
Rather, your side says that trans women were always women.
There is no male identity to leave behind.
This is why, again, according to your own side, there aren't any lengths that anyone must go to in order to be accepted as a member of the opposite sex.
That's supposed to be your position.
Now, it doesn't bother me if you want to go this other route.
They're both equally wrong, but you should know that, according to most of your fellow gender ideologues, your repudiation of transphobia is itself transphobic.
So, I guess I'll let you deal with that on your own, but moving on, quote, as New York Magazine critic Andrea Long Chu has written in her book, Females, 2019, the biological category female, as it is understood today, was developed in the 19th century as a way of referring to black slaves.
A female black slave was someone who was refused the status of social and legal personhood.
To that extent, Chu observes, a female has always been less than a person.
To assume that female is a neutral biological category is therefore historically naive and racially blind.
It not only drastically limits the options but trails ugly histories behind it.
Well, I don't know what to say about this other than the fact that it's utter nonsense.
The category of female was developed in the 1800s to describe slaves?
What?
I mean, let's leave aside the fact that if a female has always been less than a person because it was applied to female slaves, then the word male has also always signified someone who's less than a person because that was applied to male slaves.
Slaves of both sexes, and slaves across the world in all cultures, were de-personed.
This was not a situation unique to female slaves.
Regardless, I shouldn't have to explain this, Jacqueline.
But the word female long predates the 19th century slave trade.
As best as I can tell, the etymology of the word can be traced back to at least the 12th century, about 700 years before the date of origin that you're suggesting.
But that's just the word female.
The concept, the actual biological reality that the word female is signifying, has been around since the dawn of human civilization and obviously long, long before that.
The entire English language can be traced back to, you know, only about 1,400 years ago.
That doesn't mean that every object, idea, or concept the English language has a word for also began only 1,400 years ago.
You know, so I can trace the origins of words like, uh, rock, and cloud, and elephant, and I'll find that those English words are quite a bit younger than the things themselves.
Okay, Mount Everest was named in 1856.
The mountain itself existed for about 60 million years before that.
Now, I'm not trying to get hung up on semantics here.
You brought this up.
And besides, there's an important point.
Because your side is constantly trying to confuse the word with the concept.
The signifier with that which is being signified.
All you ever do is play elaborate word games, but you forget that a word is a symbol for some kind of reality outside of itself.
You want to talk about the symbol, but never the thing that is being symbolized.
Here's what we know.
There are two types of gametes.
Two reproductive cells.
People have one or the other.
People fall into one category or the other.
There is a group of people who, by their nature, have the capacity, in principle, to become pregnant.
And people who, by their nature, in principle, have the capacity to impregnate the people in the other category.
Okay?
Call these categories whatever you want.
Every language has its own word.
It doesn't matter.
The fact is that the categories exist.
They are real things in the world.
When people came up with words for them, they were describing a real thing.
We're not imagining them.
Of course, Jacqueline has the expected rejoinder to this controversial claim that males and females exist.
And she writes, "Where does that leave the women who, for reasons of illness, have their uterus
surgically removed, or the trans man who retains his at the same time as presenting to all other
intensive purposes as a man? Who can decide these quandaries on behalf of anybody else?"
Let me ask you this, Jacqueline. When Isaac Newton formulated the theory of gravity,
was he deciding that gravity exists on behalf of the rest of us?
Was he imposing gravity on our lives in some way?
By noticing it?
Was he forcing us into restrictive gravitational boxes?
Was he taking away the rights of those who would prefer if gravity did not exist?
No, he was simply noticing, explaining, categorizing, and giving name to a physical reality in the world.
A person's individual preferences have nothing to do with it.
The reality is what it is.
Male and females are realities, and they remain realities even when an individual female gets a surgery to remove a part of her body.
The woman who gets a hysterectomy doesn't lose her female identity any more than, like, a camel loses its camel identity if you chop off its hump.
Now, if I were to ask you to describe a camel, you're probably going to say something about the hump.
Because it's a defining camel feature.
It's one of the things we all think of when we think of camels.
But you also understand that a camel, which by injury or deformity has lost its hump, is still a camel.
You understand these kinds of concepts and distinctions for literally all other life forms on Earth.
A bird without wings is still a bird.
A shark without teeth is still a shark.
And you get all of that, don't you?
Why do you struggle to understand this concept when it comes to humans, who are also life forms on Earth?
But we still haven't gotten to an answer to the question.
Neither have we been given any sort of defense of or description of the other categories that Jaclyn claims exist outside of male and female.
Let's skip to the conclusion to see if she gets around to it.
Quote, "But to claim that sexual differentiation is reality surely ignores that reality for feminism is something to be
negotiated, struggled over, and fought against.
To claim the right to dictate on this matter is oppressive and omnipotent and uncomfortably like the patriarchal order
that feminism seeks to dismantle."
What is a woman?
Speak for yourself.
Who on earth can presume an answer to the question on behalf of anyone else?
In the end, it is a matter of generosity and freedom.
The end.
That's it.
Lots of words that all amount to a giant shrug emoji.
Meh, I don't know.
Who can answer the question on behalf of anybody else?
Well, I can answer it, Jacqueline, but I don't answer it on behalf of anyone.
I just answer it.
Okay?
I don't answer questions like, what is 2 plus 2 equal?
Or, do fish swim in the water?
Or, is the sun bigger than Mars?
On behalf of someone, I just answer it.
I tell you the reality, no matter what anyone prefers the reality to be.
But as you openly admit, you consider reality something to, quote, fight against.
Apparently not understanding that this makes your opinion about literally everything irrelevant.
If you openly reject reality, if you consider the whole category of reality to be something that we should deny in principle, then there isn't anything to talk about.
Okay?
I'm not going to sit in the passenger seat of your car if you're driving with your eyes closed.
You refuse to see the road in front of you.
How can you possibly navigate it?
You refuse to recognize the reality of the world.
How can you possibly have anything worthwhile to say about it?
