Ep. 1205 - The Trans Ideology Cult Is Collapsing Under The Weight Of Its Own Absurdity
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the fight against trans ideology is even achieving victories in California now, where two school districts have adopted policies requiring schools to inform parents if their children are identifying as the opposite sex. Trans activists are furious about these policies because they want to cut parents out of the loop completely, as all cults do. Also, Donald Trump is indicted for the ten thousandth time. The question is how should Republicans respond to this political persecution? The porn industry sues to stop an age verification law from going into effect in Texas. But ask yourself why the porn industry so desperately opposes any attempt to prevent children from being exposed to this content. And in our Daily Cancellation, a pop star comes out of the closet for at least the third time, making him just the latest celebrity to emerge from multiple closets.
Ep.1205
- - -
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
Get Your Jeremy’s Hand Soap here: https://bit.ly/3q2CCIg
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Genucel - Exclusive Discount Just For My Listeners!
https://genucel.com/Walsh
Renewal by Andersen - Get your FREE Consultation - Text WALSH to 200-300
Ruff Greens - Get a free Jumpstart Trial Bag at http://www.RuffGreens.com/MATT, or call 844-RUFF-700.
- - -
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, the fight against trans ideology is even achieving victories in California now, where two school districts have adopted policies requiring schools to inform parents if their children are identifying as the opposite sex.
Trans activists are furious about these policies because they want to cut parents out of the loop completely, as all cults tend to do.
Also, Donald Trump is indicted for the 10,000th time, I think.
The question is, how should Republicans respond to this political persecution?
The porn industry sues to stop an age verification law from going into effect in Texas, but ask yourself, Why the porn industry so desperately opposes any attempt to prevent children from being exposed to this content.
And in our daily cancellation, a pop star comes out of the closet for at least the third time, making him just the latest celebrity to emerge from multiple closets.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
If you've put off replacing windows in your home because it's too expensive, I have great news.
You can now get a free in-home window consultation and free price quote from Renewal by Anderson.
Renewal by Anderson's signature service is committed to giving you the best customer experience possible.
Through the perfect combination of the best people in the industry, a superior process, and an exclusive product, right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home or virtual consultation on top-quality affordable windows or patio doors for $0 down, $0 payments, and $0 interest for a year.
Text WALSH to 200-300 for your free consultation to save $375 off every window and $750 off every door.
These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting WALSH to 200-300.
That's WALSH to 200-300.
Texting, privacy, policy, and terms and conditions posted at textplan.us.
Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages.
Message data rates apply.
Reply stop to opt out.
Go to windowappointmentnow.com for full offer details.
There comes a time in the life cycle of every cult when things become so insane that, one way or another, the whole operation starts to fall apart.
It wasn't too long ago, for example, that a cult called CUT, C-U-T, convinced tens of thousands of people to hide in fallout shelters in Montana.
The point was to save themselves from nuclear apocalypse.
The apocalypse never came.
Spoiler.
So eventually the cultists left the bunker and gave up the whole idea.
That was in the 90s, if you can believe it.
A few decades before that, the same thing happened with the Seekers in Michigan.
Back in the 50s, the Seekers thought that they'd get swept up by aliens and UFOs and taken to some faraway planet.
Now admittedly, That's not the most unreasonable belief.
I mean, that's a cult I might have actually joined.
But eventually, when they picked specific dates for the aliens' arrival and the aliens never came, even the die-hard seekers gave up and disbanded.
Some dreams die hard.
Until recently, a notable exception to this general rule, the rule that most cults quickly collapse under the weight of their own absurdity, has been trans ideology.
Transgenderism is a far deadlier and more destructive cult than CUT or the Seekers or anything like that.
It also makes a lot less sense.
The idea that anyone, even children, can snap their fingers and become the opposite sex is, objectively, crazier than fretting over nuclear war, and much crazier than anticipating the impending arrival of aliens.
And yet, for the most part, or for most of the past decade or so, transgenderism somehow only grew more influential and corrupted more institutions the more unhinged it became.
How could that be?
Well, whatever explains the remarkable longevity of the cult of transgenderism, and we've talked extensively about how it came about and why, there's finally some good news to report.
At long last, the spectacular slow-motion implosion of trans ideology is underway.
It's only a matter of time, though it may be a while yet, before it goes the way of all those other cults.
We've seen the signs of this for the past year, past two years.
Think about the nearly two dozen states that passed laws outlawing the sterilization of children.
Consider the success of What is a Woman, which became one of the most watched documentaries of all time.
And of course, recall the catastrophic market failures of Bud Light and Target, when they embraced the most demented aspects of trans ideology.
But now there's yet another sign that the fall of transgenderism is finally upon us, and it may be the clearest sign yet.
Because it comes from, of all places, the state of California, where transgenderism is basically the state religion.
This week, the Murrieta Valley School District in Southern California voted to require parental notification when students give any indication that they want to change their gender.
So, for instance, if a student tells his homeroom teacher that he wants to be referred to as a girl all of a sudden, then the homeroom teacher would be obligated to inform that student's parents.
Murrieta became the second school district in California to approve such a measure in just the last month after the Chino Valley School District did the same.
And this is a policy that trans activists and state Democrats, most notably the State Attorney General, desperately want to prevent.
They understand that they need to indoctrinate children into the cult of transgenderism as soon as possible in order for the cult to survive, and they understand that this indoctrination process is a lot more difficult if parents are given the chance to interfere with it.
And that's why the corporate media has been united against this.
The Advocate, for example, ran this headline, quote, And yet, in California, arguably the most left-wing state in the country, despite all this pressure, the trans activists failed.
this. And yet in California, arguably the most left-wing state in the country,
Again.
despite all this pressure, the trans activists failed.
Again, how did that happen? Well, to answer that question and to understand the
significance of this moment, it's important to start by presenting the trans
activist side of Because you really need to see how much they're flailing here.
So here's how one school board member began her argument in opposition to this measure this week.
So to be clear, she's arguing that teachers should not have to tell parents if their children suddenly start identifying as members of the opposite sex.
And watch how she opens up her argument.
Here it is.
Governing boards are bound by the state's rights of privacy and anti-discrimination laws that weigh in favor of protecting the students.
Quote, California law protects students from discrimination of any kind in the Educational Institutes of State, Ed Code 231.5.
Trustees take an oath to defend the U.S.
Constitution, and the state constitution.
Supporting an agenda item that violates multiple laws is a violation of our oath.
You would also be asking the staff to break multiple laws, putting the staff in legal jeopardy.
School board trustees do not have the authority to ask the staff to break the law.
School board trustees can be held personally liable and can't count on taxpayer funds to pay for all of your legal fees.
If you want to legalize discrimination in California, go lobby Sacramento as a private citizen.
Don't waste millions in taxpayer money.
And yes, this can run into millions with the lawsuits you guys are leading us into.
So this is the first best argument the school board member could come up with.
This is her case for why schools shouldn't tell parents that their boy now thinks he's a girl or vice versa.
Notice that the school board member doesn't say she's advocating for the best interests of the children.
She doesn't say it's the best thing for the parents either.
Instead, She issues a threat.
She makes an appeal to lawfare.
She says that California has created a maze of laws and regulations on this topic, and if the school board dares to take the side of the parents, then the school board will be sued by the state attorney general.
And no matter what, that will cost millions of dollars because lawyers are expensive.
And ultimately, parents will have to pay those costs in the form of taxes.
That's not an idle threat, by the way.
Already, California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, has opened an investigation into the Chino Valley School District for its parental notification policy, but Put that aside for a moment.
Think again about how callous and brazen this is.
She's not opening by saying that her policy makes sense or that it helps anyone, least of all the children she's supposed to care about.
She's just saying, obey or prepare to deal with bureaucratic hellfire.
Now, to be fair, a few minutes later, this same school board member, whose name is Nancy Young, eventually came up with some kind of argument, if we can call it that.
Here it is.
It's not like these kids are not telling their parents that they're LGBTQ.
They are.
If they don't, they have a very good reason.
I had another male student about five or six years ago who was openly gay.
His parents told him to kill himself.
And he had an older brother who did kill himself for exactly the same reason.
So, these laws are there for a reason, because most kids can talk to their parents and do talk to their parents.
There are those very few where it's not safe.
So let's break this down.
Nancy Young is saying that at one point she had an openly gay male student, and this student's parents allegedly told him to kill himself because he identified as a homosexual.
Now, put aside just how implausible and made-up that story sounds, let's take it at face value for a second, for the sake of argument.
Nancy Young concludes, based on that singular anecdote of an obviously deranged hypothetical parent, that no parent, in any circumstance, has the right to know what his or her child is doing at school.
I mean, you might as well point to a story of a suicidal mother driving herself and her children over a bridge and conclude that no parent should have the right to drive their children anywhere for fear that they're all secretly plotting murder-suicides.
And she also says that, well, if these children don't tell their parents, they have a good reason.
Yes, because we know one thing for sure is that when a teenager decides to conceal something from a parent, it's always for a good reason.
Children, when they're deciding what to tell their parents, they always exercise perfect judgment.
I mean, it's not like a kid has ever been known to keep something from a parent that they should be sharing with them for their own good.
That never happens.
No, if a child decides that this should be a secret, how could he possibly be wrong?
Now, as with all the logic by trans activists, this collapses the moment you pause to think about it for more than two seconds.
For one thing, it would justify hiding literally everything from parents.
If you follow Nancy Young's line of thinking, then schools shouldn't tell parents if their child was caught with, say, heroin or with a handgun or anything.
After all, some parents somewhere might overreact and say something really nasty.
Perhaps parents shouldn't be told if a child has bad grades.
You never know how the most unhinged parent might react to that information, after all.
But Nancy Young's reasoning, if you can call it that, is completely anecdotal.
It's based on one example she provides with no corroboration whatsoever.
Therefore, all we need to refute it is a single child who regrets her decision to supposedly, quote, transition.
Two can play at the anecdote game, and the anecdotes on the other side of this discussion are much more powerful, and not to mention, they're actually true.
And as it happens, one such person was present at this school board meeting in Murrieta.
Her name is Chloe Cole, who you've heard from before.
Of course, she became one of the most outspoken advocates against so-called gender-affirming care, quote-unquote, for minors.
And in Murrieta, Cole testified about her experiences, including getting a double mastectomy as a 15-year-old girl.
She also spoke about what happens when kids hide their alleged, quote, gender identity from their parents.
Watch.
By keeping this information from parents, you're facilitating a child to socially transitioning.
And socially transitioning is not benign.
I mean, inevitably, down the line, it leads to a medical transition, whether a student does that as an adult or with the permission of their children.
But socially transitioning is also harmful.
I mean, it takes away years of necessarily social development as your biological sex.
I mean, I went through pretty much my entire teenhood living socially as a boy, and I feel like in a lot of ways I still haven't caught up to my female peers.
So now you see why activists desperately want to silence Chloe Cole.
In fact, they wanted to silence her at that very school board meeting.
She's a walking refutation of arguments from politicians like Nancy Young.
So what else is there?
What other possible reason is there to hide information from parents about what their children are doing and saying at school?
You probably guessed by now that no other real arguments were presented or are ever presented.
But just in case you're curious, here's a sampling of what the trans activists served up.
Watch.
Whether it is the protection from a violent parent or protection from suicidal actions, every child must be assured that their school will guarantee their safety.
That is your job.
A job, she says, that weighs a student's safety against the parents' right to know if their child identifies as transgender.
How can we expect students to trust these parents to lovingly support them when they openly admit that they don't want homosexual students?
This policy is truly about homophobia.
Agree with us or you're homophobic.
Agree with us or you support violence against children.
Convinced yet?
Probably not.
Either way, there is an irony underlying all of this.
And it's important to highlight it because it exposes, once again, the incoherence of trans ideology.
As you saw, in California right now, trans activists are arguing that parents don't deserve to know anything about their kids' so-called gender identity in schools.
But at the same time, trans activists in the courts and in Congress are opposing bans on child mutilation on the grounds that parents, as opposed to the government, should be intimately involved in their kids' health care decisions.
So right now, for example, the ACLU is fighting to overturn Tennessee's ban on child sterilization.
Here's a quote from the legal complaint against Tennessee.
"That fundamental right of parents includes the right to seek and to follow medical advice
to protect the health and well-being of their minor children."
A district court judge accepted that argument and he found that "The court therefore agrees
with plaintiffs that under binding Sixth Circuit precedent, parents have a fundamental right
to direct the medical care So that's where that case stands right now.
naturally includes the right of parents to request certain medical treatments on behalf
of their children.
Now ultimately, by the way, the appellate court quickly reversed that decision, finding
that sterilizing children may not in fact amount to constitutionally protected medical
care.
So that's where that case stands right now.
But to recap, on the one hand, trans activists are saying parents have the right to transition
On the other hand, they're saying parents don't have the right to know if their kid is transitioning.
Okay, that's the position of trans activists.
Parents have the right to do this to their kids, but they don't have the right to know if it's being done.
That's the best reasoning they can come up with.
Now as another example, here's a Democratic representative at the House Judiciary Committee hearing a few weeks ago, again citing parental rights as an argument against bans on child mutilation.
Listen.
Access to gender-affirming care is essential to the mental health and well-being of trans youth.
This care is tailored to both the mental and physical health needs of patients, as well as their developmental stage in life.
And the parents and guardians of these children are involved in every phase of decision making.
There's nothing radical about that.
So when our Republican colleagues allege that gender-affirming care raises particular dangers or due process issues, That is fear-mongering at its worst.
Picking on already vulnerable kids in order to stir up chaos that they hope to ride to success at the ballot box, no matter how deceitful or dangerous those claims are.
As a mother of three, I certainly never found myself at my children's pediatric appointments wishing for medical advice from the House Judiciary Committee.
Okay, so a leaning Democrat says that parents are, quote, involved in every phase of decision-making involving child transgenderism.
Any suggestion to the contrary, she says, is fear-mongering.
As we showed you a few weeks ago, a Republican member of the committee later asked that same Democrat whether she would therefore support a law requiring parental involvement in any child gender transition, and she stammered and stuttered and refused to commit to that.
That's because the parental rights line is a total farce.
It's a shield they use whenever it's convenient, and then they drop it the moment they have no use for it.
They pretend to defend the fortress of parental rights, but at a moment later, they've turned around and trained their guns on the very thing they were claiming to defend just a second before.
And in this case, the hypocrisy and the self-contradiction, it's not just academic.
There are real-world consequences.
After all, trans activists are the first to point out that trans-identified kids are much more likely to be suicidal, which is true.
And yet, if a parent has a child who is in a group that makes him a high risk for suicide, trans activists believe that this fact should be concealed from the parent?
A child is a high risk for suicide and you think the parent shouldn't know that?
How many children have died because they were convinced to hide their gender confusion from their parents?
How many suicides do these trans activists have on their blood-drenched hands?
Many.
Too many to count.
And yet these callous, narcissistic sociopaths don't care.
They don't care.
Every time they talk about kids and they want to protect kids, It doesn't matter how many kids die and kill themselves.
These people don't care.
They only care about themselves.
Every trans activist, they are only interested in themselves and no one else.
Every kid on earth could die for all they care.
It is only about their own affirmation, their own self-affirmation, making themselves feel better.
That's what this is always about.
But this is what happens.
This is what is revealed.
Without fail, anytime you allow trans activists and pro-trans politicians to speak, and you consider what they're saying, The true horror of their ideology comes into view, along with its incoherence.
They contradict themselves, they reveal their own hypocrisy, they lie, they obfuscate.
And they do all that because they know, in the end, every cult suffers the same fate.
It collapses under the weight of its own absurdity, and then is forgotten and disgraced forever by history.
That is the future of trans ideology.
And it's coming sooner than trans activists like to think.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Well, they're not going away on their own.
GenuCell's Dark Spot Corrector is here to help with that, just in time for the summer, which is really almost over.
The Dark Spot Corrector with not one, but three cutting-edge ingredients goes to work fast on sunspots, dark spots, liver spots, and even old discoloration, both on your face and your hands.
You'll be amazed at how quickly you see results.
You can now enjoy summer sun, beach, and barbecues without embarrassing spots.
With GenuCell, you'll see the results or your money back, no questions asked.
So go to GenuCell.com slash Walsh right now.
Get your dark spot corrector with the new GenuCell Most Popular Package.
Say goodbye to those pesky spots tomorrow.
They're offering free shipping, free returns, and the best luxury skincare you've ever used, all at 70% off.
All orders will also include a mystery luxury gift while supplies last.
That's GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
We start with the news from the Daily Wire.
A Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury returned a 98-page indictment on Monday night in the criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
The 41-count indictment charges 19 individuals, including Trump himself, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Jenna Ellis, and about 15 other people, are all charged.
Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis Pursue charging individuals under Georgia's RICO Act, which allows prosecutors to string together crimes committed by different people toward one common goal, Axios reported, which makes it very difficult for defense attorneys to implement a coherent trial strategy.
The lengthy prison sentence that comes with being convicted of RICO violations are a major incentive for co-defendants to seek deals in return for new evidence, the report added.
And also we should add that Because I've seen some confusion about this among conservatives on social media, that in the state of Georgia, you know, it's not as simple as the governor just, because there are some people on social media saying, well, Governor Kemp needs to just pardon Trump.
Well, he can't.
He doesn't have the legal authority to do that.
So in Georgia, the governor does not have pardon authority.
He doesn't have any power here at all.
That's the way the law is written in that state.
And also, These are charges that a U.S., even a U.S.
president wouldn't be able to pardon Trump for, because they're state charges.
So, obviously the charges are ridiculous.
I mean, they have things like tweets that Trump posted listed in the indictment as evidence of a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election.
So, when he sent tweets out about what's going on in Georgia, that's part of a criminal conspiracy now to overturn the election.
That's how flimsy and weak all of this is.
Speaking of something being a farce, you know, we talked about in the opening, this is a farce.
It absolutely is.
But I go back to the same point that I hammer with each new indictment, which is where are the red state DAs investigating and prosecuting corrupt Democrats?
Where is that happening?
It's happening nowhere.
Why isn't it happening?
Okay, because that's how you respond to this.
We get our own DAs, and you find corrupt Democrats who are all over the country, and you prosecute them.
You throw them in jail.
Okay, as I'm always having to point out, this is not a slippery slope.
Okay, so this is not a situation where, well, They're prosecuting a former president.
They're indicting him every other week with something.
It's a slippery slope.
What will they do next?
It's not a slippery slope.
Because the Democrats, as always, they start with the most extreme iteration of the thing.
So when it comes to prosecuting your political enemies, going after a former president is the most extreme version of that.
And so they jumped all the way down the slope.
So they're at the bottom of it already, and now it's just a matter of going back and covering the bases that they skipped.
And the reason that they take that approach, where it's not this incremental thing, well, first we do this, and then we do that, and then we do that.
Because if you do it that way, then you have to make a new argument each step of the way, and say, well, we did that, so now we should do this.
No, they skip all that.
They go right for the most extreme.
So that we've already accepted everything else.
In other words, if we accept the fact that they're trying to put their primary political opponent and rival in jail, if we accept that, then we've already accepted them going after everybody else.
I mean, start throwing senators and congressmen in jail, Republican senators and congressmen in jail too.
Start going after activists even more.
Start going after conservative commentators, people like me.
That's already, that will be less extreme than what they're doing now.
So, if they get away with that, then all the rest of that is definitely happening.
It's already been accepted at that point.
So, the way forward is either Full unconditional surrender and begging for their mercy.
I don't like that.
I mean, and I would never take part in that.
Or a war of attrition.
Those are the two options.
And you could say, well, I don't like those options.
That doesn't make me feel good.
I don't want to be in a country like that.
I don't like that.
Well, you don't have to like it, but that's the reality.
So it's either the right, broadly speaking, just fully surrenders to the left because now they've gotten to the point where it's like, well, if you disagree with us, we're going to put you in jail.
And so we can respond to that by saying, OK, leave us.
OK, we'll do whatever you want, but don't.
It's gone too far.
Or we can say, all right, if that's how you want to play it.
You know, if that's what you want to do.
Then that's the way the game's going to be played.
And I don't know how this is going to shake out in the end, but you are not going to come out of this unscathed.
Okay?
Your own people are going to jail.
That's what's going to happen next.
Those are the two options.
And of those two options, the latter, the war of attrition, is clearly, clearly the right path.
It's really the only option.
So, start lining them up, frog-marching them into jail.
If you don't do that, if we don't do that, then it is a full unconditional surrender.
All right, this is from Vice.
It says, Pornhub, along with several other members and activists in the adult industry, are suing Texas to block the state's impending law that would require age verification to view adult content.
The complaint, which was filed on August 4th in U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, and the law will take effect on September 1st unless the court agrees to block it.
Governor Greg Abbott passed HB 1181 into law in June.
The plaintiffs, including Pornhub, the Adult Industry Advocacy Group, Free Speech Coalition, and several other site operators and industry members claim that the law violates both the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Communications Decency Act.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs write that the Act employs, quote, the least effective and yet also the most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas' stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors, and that minors can easily use VPNs and other sorts of things to bypass it.
On-device content filtering could be a better method of restricting access to porn for children, they write.
And that's the argument that they're making.
Now, it's true, first of all, that Kids, if they have phones, at a minimum, there should be content filtering on those phones, and there should be parental locks put on those phones.
Now, you know that it's not an issue for me and my family with my kids, because we don't give our kids phones to begin with, and we're not going to.
But if you do make the mistake of giving your kid a phone with internet access, then at the very least, you can put the parental locks in place.
It's true that that should be happening.
And it's also true that the age verification system is not perfect.
It isn't bulletproof, but the other option is to have no system.
Right?
Like, that's the other option.
And so what they're saying is, well, this is an imperfect system, and kids can bypass it, and so that's why we should go back to having no system.
Because if some kids are going to bypass it, it might as well not be there at all.
Which is a ridiculous argument.
I mean, the age verification system for all adult-oriented products and services is imperfect.
Okay?
Who among us didn't manage to get their hands on an 18-pack of crappy light beer when they were underage?
It's not that hard to do.
Does that mean there should be no system?
Is that an argument for just abolishing the drinking age?
No one's advocating for that.
I haven't heard anyone advocate for that.
Like, we all know that Any 16-year-old can get their hands on some beer if they want to.
Like, if they're really motivated, they can probably do it.
And yet, we would all agree that if a 16-year-old walked into a liquor store and announced that he was 16 years old — I'm 16, I'd like to buy this bottle of liquor — and the liquor store sold it to him knowingly, that that store should go out of business.
The guy who sold it should go to jail.
Like, everyone agrees with that.
It's not a perfect system, but of course you need something in place.
And so we all understand that, and we all agree with that, with every other adult-oriented business, including when we talk, when we get into the sex industry, quote-unquote.
Okay?
Strip clubs.
You know, if you gotta show an ID to get into a strip club.
Imperfect system.
Kids can get fake IDs.
Does that mean that we should just openly allow 13-year-olds to walk into strip clubs?
Now, maybe we're at a point where people would actually say, yeah, absolutely.
But I would hope most people would agree that, well, of course not.
So, most reasonable, well, all reasonable people agree that with any other product or service that is not appropriate for kids, There are age limits and there is some system in place to verify the ages.
And for every other product or service that falls under that umbrella, everyone agrees that there should be some system in place.
And then when it comes to internet porn, suddenly there's a conversation, there's a debate about whether there should be any system at all.
It's crazy.
It doesn't make any sense.
What is the argument against age verification?
We've already covered that the fact that it's imperfect is not an argument against it.
That's an argument for coming up with an even stricter policy, if anything.
If you can come up with an even better way to verify ages, then by all means, propose it.
What I'm saying is that the best, whatever the best available system is for verifying ages on these porn sites, that should be the system that's in place.
The best available.
We come up with a better system, then let's put that in place.
So what is the argument against it then?
Well, we all know what the argument is.
The argument is that for the porn, well, there's two arguments, okay?
There's the porn industry itself, places like Pornhub, their argument against age verification is that it is precisely that.
It's not that they're worried that it won't, they aren't worried that age verification will not be successful enough in stopping kids from using the site.
No, they're worried that it will be successful, and they know that it will be successful in some cases at least, so they're going to have fewer kids visiting their site, which means less money for them.
Put the age verification in, and they will get fewer clicks on their website, which means they are going to lose money.
Pornhub is fully aware of the fact that there are plenty of underage kids using their site, and they are monetizing that, and they're perfectly happy with it, because these are scumbag, dirtbag pornographers who have no moral standards whatsoever, okay?
These people have the morality of rats, okay?
Exposing children to this content and monetizing it, and so that's why they don't want it.
What's the argument from just normal people?
If you're not in the porn industry, and you say, I don't want this.
Really?
It's like, what, because you're worried that PornHub will make less money?
Is that really something that concerns you?
No.
The argument from normal people is that age verification inconveniences them In their pursuit of masturbation material.
That is the argument.
They won't say it quite like that, but if there's some sort of system put in place where you have to enter your age, you have to submit an ID, credit card, something like that, it's an inconvenience.
It adds a couple of seconds to the process of them pursuing their masturbation material, and they don't want to be inconvenienced.
That's the whole argument.
And is that supposed to be persuasive?
Like the rest of us are supposed to give a damn?
Well, I don't want to do that because then I have to go get my ID when I want to masturbate to pornography, they're saying.
Is that actually supposed to be persuasive?
Okay.
Is that your big problem?
Is that your big problem in life?
And so that really is.
They present other arguments, but it really boils down to, for Pornhub, they want to be able to expose kids to this and monetize it.
And for the user, they don't want to be inconvenienced in their pursuit of masturbatory material.
And that's it.
Those are the two arguments against age verification.
To call them bad arguments would be a rather massive understatement, let's just say.
From the New York Post, here's a story that, for some reason, is still happening.
New York Post, the foul-mouthed Texas native who was kicked off an American Airlines flight after a caught-on-camera meltdown issued a mea culpa on Sunday, saying her behavior was completely unacceptable.
The marketing executive was booted from a July 2nd flight from Dallas to Orlando after she accused another passenger of stealing her AirPods, and bizarrely stated that that mother effer is not real.
We're all familiar with that.
Anyway, she's put out this statement that she published on Twitter, and let's just watch.
Here it is.
Hi everyone, it's me, Tiffany Gomez, probably better known as the crazy plane lady.
Which is completely warranted.
As you know, I have been unwilling to speak on the viral video, but I do finally feel that it's time.
First and foremost, I- Okay, first of all, let's just pause it for a second.
I think the first problem with this video is that that's not her, okay?
That mother efferer right there is not real.
That's not her, right?
That's not the same person.
Let's put up the screenshot from the viral video.
Do we have that?
Okay, so there's the person in the video.
Now go back to the- That's not the same person!
Am I crazy or is that just not the same, I don't know who that is, I don't know if that's AI, I don't know what that is, but that to me does not look anything like her.
I don't usually get into the whole body double conspiracy theory thing, but well, with Joe Biden I kind of buy that also, given that the real Joe Biden is like probably half dead in a nursing home right now.
But here it just doesn't look like the same person.
So, if we can somehow put aside the fact that this is not even the same person, let's continue watching a little bit of this video.
I've been unwilling to speak on the viral video, but I do finally feel that it's time.
First and foremost, I want to take full accountability for my actions.
They were completely unacceptable.
Distressed or not, I should have been, I should have been in control of my emotions and that was not the case.
My use of profanity was completely unnecessary.
And I want to apologize to everyone on that plane, especially those that had children aboard.
Can't imagine going through that.
Go back to that screenshot again.
That's not the same person.
Right?
That's just not, those are two, to me those are two obviously different people.
So, I don't know what's going on with that, but again, I'm going to try to put that to the side.
So, for the sake of argument, pretending for a moment that the person who issued that apology is the same person that had the freakout on the plane.
Of course, like, the whole, I mean, the fact that this is still in the news, that they're chasing this woman down, that they're publishing her name and where she works and her picture of her house.
And now she's issuing the public apology, even though she is actually the victim here.
Okay, yeah, she had a freakout on a plane.
She shouldn't have done that.
She cussed in front of kids.
She shouldn't have done that.
But the penalty for that has been international shame and embarrassment, which is not a proportional penalty.
And I know we struggle with this these days, but not everything that happens needs to be, just because something happens in front of you, it doesn't mean that 8 billion other people need to be involved.
It doesn't make it relevant to the entire world.
So you can say all you want, that it was her fault.
Yes, but she had to freak out in front of 100 people on a plane.
Does that automatically mean that it should become a national story?
The penalty for having a freakout in public is that you embarrass yourself.
Okay, but being embarrassed in front of 100 people is probably enough.
You did something embarrassing in front of 100 people, 100 people now look at you like you're crazy, and that's a proportional punishment, and that's the punishment for what you did.
But instead, the entire country gets in on the mockery.
To me, this is not a proportional penalty, which is why she doesn't deserve an apology.
You know, like I'm always saying about public apologies, this is maybe one of the perfect examples of it.
Public apologies as a genre shouldn't exist.
There is almost no circumstance that I can think of where a person Where it's appropriate or necessary for a person to issue a public apology.
The only circumstance I can think of is when it's a, say, a politician, an elected representative, a representative of the public who is caught in some sort of corruption or scandal that actually affects the public.
And then therefore, yeah, you apologize to the public.
You have betrayed the people who voted for you.
You have done something that betrays the public trust.
You've misused public funds.
You know, something like that.
Well, that involves the public.
And so, yes, you should apologize to the public.
But in almost any other case outside of that, you don't need to apologize to the public because the public had nothing to do with this.
We were not affected by this.
So Tiffany Gomez, if that's really her, is issuing an apology.
She's apologizing to me, right?
I'm part of the public.
She's apologizing to you.
Well, it's okay, Tiffany.
You didn't do anything to me.
I wasn't affected by this.
In no way was I harmed by you embarrassing yourself on that plane.
I appreciate the apology.
In fact, I don't appreciate it.
Like, stop apologizing.
And that's the problem with the public apologies.
You're apologizing to people, so even if you've done something wrong, you're going and you are making a show of your contrition to people who are not affected by it.
You know, one misconception about my position on this sort of thing is people will say that, well, you know, that I don't believe in apologizing, that I think... No, that's not true.
Of course there are times when you should apologize.
You do something wrong, you should apologize.
You should apologize any time you do something wrong.
But you apologize to the people that you have wronged, and nobody else.
Nobody else needs to be involved.
Okay?
So, if you...
Shout at your neighbor and cuss out your neighbor, okay?
Then go knock on your neighbor's door and apologize to him.
But don't come, you know, don't walk to some random house five blocks away and say, hey, you know, I know you don't know who I am, but I cussed out my neighbor two days ago and I want to apologize to you.
Why are you apologizing to them?
They were not involved.
They were not affected by this.
They didn't even know about it until you brought it up.
And just because the public is made aware of something, because everything is public now, again, that doesn't mean the public is owed an apology.
So, I think that this woman, her...
She has long since suffered the appropriate penalty for freaking out on the plane.
Just go live your life.
Just be a person.
Go be a person and live your life.
That's all you have to do now.
now. All right, let's get to the comment section. As many of you know, we've been giving our dog
rough greens for a while now, and he loves it.
While our dog still might be a freeloader, at least he's not a lazy freeloader.
He's happier, healthier, and has more energy.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Little did I know before I got Rough Greens that dog food is dead food.
Everybody knows that nutrition is not brown, it's green.
Well, let Rough Greens boost your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, mega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food.
You just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for our dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag so your dog can try it.
That's a free Jumpstart Trial Bag that can be found at your door in just a few business days.
Go to freeroughgreens.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's freeroughgreens.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
David says, this man, Oliver Anthony, he's referring to, already admitted to his faults.
He used to be a drunk.
He used to enjoy cocaine, anything to numb him from the drab of everyday life.
It's been addressed in his songs.
He's admitted and repented.
No one can get a gotcha question because he recognized his own faults and speaks openly about them.
This man is a real man.
Start taking notes.
Well, exactly.
And when they start digging through his past, which I'm sure they've already started doing, yeah, it's, you know.
He's already said, well, I've done this.
I'm a changed man.
And we actually have to allow that, allow redemption, allow people to change as as people do.
And, you know, also, like in general.
The good thing is that nobody cares about this sort of thing anymore.
We've seen enough of the whole routine of digging through someone's closet for skeletons from the past, and we've seen this so many times, and we just don't care anymore.
When the media comes to us and says, oh, guess what this person said or did 15 years ago?
We say, well, no, that's all right.
We don't care.
Oh, he said and did some stuff years ago that might be embarrassing for him now?
Okay.
Yeah, who hasn't?
Good to know.
Now piss off, thanks.
So, when, again, I'm not aware of, I don't know Oliver Anthony, I'm not aware of anything embarrassing from his past, aside from things, as you point out, that he's already admitted to and talked about in his own testimony.
I'm just, I know how the media operates, and so I'm sure they are already looking for a reason to destroy this guy, and so I'm sort of anticipating that, although I hope it doesn't happen.
Another comment says, it's a good song, but I don't listen to music with profanities.
I know that Oliver is new to faith, and I pray he will be inspired to make songs in the future that truly honor God.
Matt, I know you say that the language isn't a problem, but would you let your kid speak that way, speak the way he does in the song?
Yeah, I've been arguing about this today.
Look, first of all, the S-word is not a profanity.
I don't mean to be pedantic here, but the S-word, and I hate that I even have to call it the S-word because it'll be bleeped out, which I don't even think the Daily Wire should bleep out.
It's a dumb thing to bleep out.
It just is.
But it's not a profanity because a profanity is profane.
And to be profane is to disrespect or sully something that is sacred.
That is a profanity.
Okay?
So when you say BS, you're not profaning cow manure.
The thing that the S word is referring to is not a sacred thing, so the word is not profane.
It may be crass, but there's nothing intrinsically immoral about the language, and that's how people express frustration oftentimes, you know, and it's real and it's raw.
And frankly, I don't think it would have sounded as powerful if, you know, instead of, I've been selling my soul, working all day, overtime hours for bullshit pay.
Instead of that, if it was, I've been selling my soul, working all day, overtime hours for inadequate pay.
Or whatever, that language would not be as powerful.
It wouldn't sound as good.
It wouldn't connect with people as much.
I think the language he chose, again, is real, and it sounds like how people actually talk, and that's part of what gives it its power.
Would I let my kids use that language?
Absolutely not.
That doesn't make it profane either.
There are lots of words that I don't let my kids say.
You know, like, shut up, idiot, stupid.
I mean, I don't let my kids say any of that stuff.
And that doesn't make it a profanity.
It's just I don't let my kids talk that way.
I mean, I wouldn't let my kids talk about selling their souls in a metaphorical way.
If my six-year-old came down from cleaning his room and said, I'm tired of selling my soul, Dad.
Working all day for this terrible allowance.
If he said that to me, he'd be in trouble like five times over.
But that doesn't mean that adults can't use that language.
And this is actually important because if you're saying that when an artist puts his lamentations and frustrations to words, that he must only use words that we would allow a six-year-old to say, then you really have put some very unnecessary and suffocating limitations on his artistic expression.
And you're also demanding that we take something raw and real and we sanitize it.
And I just don't agree with that.
So, look, if you take this hardline position on cuss words, on what you would call inaccurately profanities, It's not a big deal, I can respect that.
I mean, congratulations, you found one area where you are to the right of me.
Where you're more conservative than me, arguably.
So that's the only time you can sort of out-angle me on the way.
You can take a better angle and get to the right quicker than I can.
So congratulations on that.
And if that's your position, then it's not a big deal.
It's not worth really getting into a big argument about.
But I also just think that it's wrong.
I think that there's a time and a place for certain words that we wouldn't allow kids to say.
And when it comes to an adult singing about his sorrows, when it comes to art, sometimes that sort of stuff comes out.
And I think we have to allow for that.
And to me, it is a silly thing to complain about.
It just is.
All right.
Let's see.
Trent says, this whole Oliver Anthony thing seems astroturfed and fake, in my opinion.
The song was produced by a right-wing influencer named Jason Howerton.
Look it up.
KM says, Matt, I like Oliver Anthony's voice and he seems like a nice guy, but his lyrics, you have to admit, are simplistic and politically all over the place.
The stuff about taxes and welfare is pure establishment Republican stuff.
Okay, and please stop this too, because I've seen a lot of this.
Both of these kinds of comments.
First, Oliver Anthony was not astroturfed.
Jason Howerton offered to pay to produce his album in the future.
Like, he didn't produce the song that made him go viral.
He's saying, if you want to make an album in the future, I'll pay to produce it.
How did it go viral?
Somebody posted it on Twitter, and a few big accounts saw it, myself included, and we liked it, and so we reposted it, and a bunch of other people liked it, and so they reposted it, and that's how it started.
That's not fake.
That's not AstroTurf.
Not everything is a Dastardly Plot, for God's sake.
And if you see a guy singing a folk song in the woods on an obscure YouTube channel and you think, man, there must be a lot of money and a huge conspiracy behind this, then I don't know what to say.
You're dealing with a terminal brain rot in that case, and I really don't know what else to tell you.
And as for the lyrics, they aren't simplistic.
They're simple.
There's a difference.
They're simple lyrics that communicate raw emotion and real human suffering that others can relate to.
This is folk music, in other words, right?
That's what folk music does.
That's the art form.
So what do you want?
Do you want something that sounds like it was made by a guy who went to the Juilliard School or something?
That's not what this is.
This is good old-fashioned folk music, Americana, roots, country, whatever you want to call it, whatever genre you want to call it.
And Anthony's not a political pundit, okay?
I see this on the right, there's been some of this going on, of like dissecting.
The National Review had an article about it, and they were dissecting the politics of it.
Just stop, okay?
Relax.
So this is when people on the right just start acting like a bunch of dorks, honestly.
Well, let's look at the politics, and according to this, this is where he lies on the political spectrum.
He's offering lamentations that are familiar to normal people.
Some of it might qualify as populist.
Some of it might fall outside that label as it's traditionally understood.
Who cares?
Is that what we do with music now?
Is that what we do with art?
Try to figure out what ideological label to put on it, and then we wonder why there's not enough art on the right?
Because the moment anyone that is, you know, not on the left puts out a piece of art, we have to start tearing it to shreds?
Politically analyzing every last syllable?
Coming up with all these conspiracy theories.
Oh, where did this guy come from?
There's something going on here.
There's someone behind this.
Like, just shut up.
If this is how you respond to stuff, then don't complain when we don't have art and entertainment on the right.
Because you are the reason why you make it impossible.
You just can't accept anything.
You can't accept.
You just can't take anything and say, well, you know, that's a powerful moment.
This is good.
It's someone... You just, you can't.
You're incapable of it.
And there's some conservatives like that, it drives me crazy.
Okay.
So give it a rest.
And I will too for the time being.
When Dr. Jordan B. Peterson made the decision to join DailyWirePlus, it was a major win for those who champion free speech and intellectual debate.
With one year of unparalleled output, his contributions have set new standards and remain unmatched by any other platform.
DailyWirePlus now has a vast array of exclusive Jordan Peterson content, offering hundreds of hours of captivating content you're not going to find anywhere else.
Jordan has created thought-provoking works that reshape your perspective on life,
which include vision and destiny, marriage and dragons, monsters and men.
Additionally, you can immerse yourself in discussions that nurture your spiritual side,
like Logos and Literacy and Jordan's groundbreaking series on the Book of Exodus.
And that's only the beginning.
I haven't even mentioned his Beyond Order lecture series or his extensive archival lectures and podcasts.
This is the absolute compendium of all things Jordan, plus there's even more new exclusive content on the horizon.
By becoming a Daily Wire Plus member, you'll embark on an unforgettable experience
that will fuel your thirst for knowledge and inspire personal growth like never before.
Go to dailywire.com/subscribe to become a member today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
(upbeat music)
[Music]
Last week I put a pause on the Daily Cancellation because I wanted to use that segment to discuss Oliver Anthony and his great song, Rich Men North of Richmond.
And some in the audience were worried that I'd grown soft, because this is a part of the show that's supposed to be reserved for destroying people with facts and logic, but instead I used it to say nice things.
Which was troubling to some members of the audience.
Well, I'm afraid to say that if you have this concern, it will not be alleviated by today's segment.
Because once again, I must set aside this portion of the program to pay tribute to someone that I find personally inspiring and even heroic.
Jason Mraz, the guy who sang that song called I'm Yours and also some other songs too, I assume, has finally and bravely and with steely resolve and incredible courage come out of the closet.
Again, the homosexual news outlet Pink News reports that Mraz is done broadcasting as hetero and is now, quote, fully accepting his queerness.
Now, we're told that in a recent interview, Mraz blamed homophobia for causing him to present himself as heterosexual for so many years, but now he will be fully queer in public.
What makes this coming out announcement so historic and bold is that it's just the latest in a series of coming out announcements, each one more audacious than the last.
So we're told that Mraz first came out as bisexual in 2005, admitting to having a bisexually open mind.
And then 13 years later, in 2018, Mraz came out as bisexual a second time when he wrote the lyrics, I am by your side always, with bi spelled B-I.
And shortly after that, he added an addendum to this second coming out, bringing his coming out total to 2.5.
In a clarification, he announced that he's bi in the sense of being two-spirit.
He explained, quote, I've had experiences with men, even while I was dating the woman who became my wife.
It was like, wow, does that mean I'm gay?
And my wife laid it out for me.
She calls it two-spirit, which is what the Native Americans call someone who can love both man and woman.
I really like that.
Of course, not to get technical, but that's not actually what two-spirit is supposed to mean.
That was a term invented by gay activists in 1990, which is supposed to be the Native American version of trans.
So, Mraz came out of the closet and walked right into cultural appropriation by accident.
His closet is like the one from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
It leads to a fantastical alternate dimension, and you never know what's going to happen or where you'll end up.
But after accidentally culturally appropriating a term that actually isn't a part of Native American culture at all, Mraz issued another clarification, this time to the New York Post, announcing, quote, now for the third time, that he is bisexual.
And this led, finally, to the historic events of this past week, where, according to The Advocate, Mraz announced that he was finally coming into his own as a queer person, quote-unquote.
It takes enormous bravery to come out of the closet once.
How much more strength must be required to come out, like, three and a half times?
But, incredibly, Mraz is not the only celebrity who has managed to shock and inspire the world this year by coming out after having already come out.
Demi Lovato is, of course, the coming out record holder.
Her closets are like a Russian nesting doll.
She comes out of one closet, finds herself in a new and bigger closet, and she keeps emerging from closet after closet, and each time, we can only look on in awe.
This summer, Lovato came out as she-her, after having previously come out as they-them, after having previously come out as pansexual, after having previously come out as bisexual, and now Lovato has come out of so many closets that she finds herself back where she started, as a woman.
The process of coming out can now start again from the beginning, in a never-ending cycle.
Scientists speculate that the sun will burn out in five billion years, and Demi Lovato will still be there, coming out of closets.
Now, you may feel like you are already as inspired as you possibly can be, but you don't know the half of it.
In fact, the website out.com, which keeps track of this sort of thing, Tells us that so far this year, 25 celebrities have come out.
That is a staggering rate of three per month so far.
We are very nearly at the point where a celebrity comes out once a week, and there's no reason to think it'll stop there.
In the old days, you know, used to, towns used to mark each hour with the chime of a church bell.
And soon we'll be able to set our watches by a celebrity coming out.
And that will just be Demi Lovato.
That's to say nothing of these other heroes.
Now there's no time to go through them all, but I think special mention should go to someone named Diplo, who is apparently a DJ and a producer, who came out in March as not not gay.
That's a quote.
The British actor Alexander Lincoln was only slightly less ambiguous when he came out in January as not straight.
Now you can understand the strategy that these men have adopted.
They're really pacing themselves.
You know, make sure that your first coming out is vague so that you still have like five or six coming outs still to go.
And that's kind of what they're doing.
Then there's the actress Alison Brie who came out as bisexual in February.
Someone named Young Miami from something called City Girls also came out as bisexual.
And according to Out.com, opened up about her, quote, flirtationship with another female rapper.
Now indeed, You might already be thinking this, but this has been a big year for bisexuals, who had been suffering major losses over the previous several years as other, newer sexual identities came in and poached some of their star recruits.
But now the pendulum is swinging the other way, it seems, which I think is very exciting.
The former Bachelor contestant Josh Sater came out as bisexual as well, after having previously come out as pansexual.
Now, can anyone explain how these two sexualities are different?
Maybe not.
But let's not be distracted from how brave this all is.
Whatever the hell this all is.
The coming out spree extended even into the sports world, where a coach for the Jacksonville Jaguars came out as gay, and this was a landmark moment, needless to say.
But it also doesn't change the fact that the Dallas Cowboys are still the gayest team in the league by far.
Meanwhile, a soccer player named Jacob Janktoe announced that he is gay, an announcement that was inspiring, even if a little bit redundant.
I mean, he does play soccer, after all, so you don't really have to tell us.
And these were not the only people in sports to come out of the closet.
In fact, the LGBT bonanza extends into every sport, into every area of entertainment, athletes, actors, musicians, reality TV stars.
They have all formed a single file line, waiting their turn to tell us just how gay they are.
And each time, with each new announcement, we can only applaud uproariously and marvel at their audacity to do this thing that literally everyone in their industry is doing and most have done multiple times.
Now, there are some who will claim That this is all very conclusive evidence that the LGBT community is not remotely oppressed.
That, in fact, LGBT people are uniquely privileged, which is why every famous person is anxious to gain membership to their club.
There are some who would say that the real bold and courageous move would be for a celebrity to come out and announce that he is heterosexual, and in a monogamous marriage with his wife, that they have several children together, and that he plans to remain married to his same wife until death do they part.
That would be a truly unprecedented announcement in the modern entertainment industry, some would argue.
And those people might be right, factually.
And they might be right morally, and they might be right in literally every way, but there is no reason why that should get in the way of us doing something that doesn't make sense, which is to stand up and applaud these famous people who are doing the safe and popular thing, and also very often conveniently timing their coming out announcements for the moment when they have a new project to promote.
Like Wayne Brady, who came out as pansexual about a week after his new reality series on Hulu was announced.
So, maybe this is all self-serving.
Maybe it's often kind of fake.
Maybe it's all completely meaningless.
Maybe.
But it's also inspiring.
Somehow.
And that is why anyone who is not inspired every time a celebrity comes out of the closet, no matter how many times they come out, is today cancelled.
