Ep. 1207 - The Case That Proves Why Hate Crime Statistics Are Bogus
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, recently a group of black teens assaulted an Asian family on a New York subway. The crime exactly fit the DOJ's standard for "hate crime" and yet it will not be prosecuted as one. In fact, even the victims justified their own victimization, saying that their assailants lack "privilege." We'll sort through this case today. Also, Target took a major sales hit thanks to the backlash against their pride merchandise. A Hollywood actor sues Home Depot for racial discrimination. Plus, CNN publishes a guide to "neo-pronouns." It's even dumber than you think.
Ep.1207
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ membership: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs
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:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://bit.ly/3LjDxuA, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
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, recently a group of black teens assaulted an Asian family on a New York subway.
The crime exactly fits the DOJ standard for hate crime, and yet it will not be prosecuted as one.
In fact, even the victims justified their own victimization, saying that their assailants lack, quote, privilege.
So we'll sort through this case today.
Also, Target took a major sales hit thanks to the backlash against their Pride merchandise.
A Hollywood actor sues Home Depot for racial discrimination.
Plus, CNN publishes a guide to neo-pronouns, which is even dumber than you think.
All of that and more today on Matt Walsh.
[MUSIC]
As central banks in countries like China, India, and Australia begin transitioning to a digital currency,
the Federal Reserve has been contemplating the same for the U.S.
With a digital currency, the government could track every single purchase you make.
Officials could even prohibit you from purchasing certain products or easily freeze or seize part or all of your money.
These are some of the reasons concerned Americans reached out to Birch Gold.
They want to have a physical asset like gold that's independent of the U.S.
dollar.
You could protect your IRA or 401k by diversifying with gold from Birch Gold today.
Historically, gold has been a safe haven in times of high uncertainty, which it is right now, unfortunately.
Learn if gold is right for you, too.
Text WALSH to 989898 and they'll send you a free info kit on gold with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews.
I trust Birch Gold to help you diversify into gold.
If a central bank digital currency becomes a reality, it'll be nice to have some gold to depend on.
Again, text WALSH to 989898.
Police departments nationwide regularly receive a document from the DOJ entitled Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines and Training Manual.
And the point of the manual is to educate officers on how to identify hate crimes and how to report them to the feds for the all-important hate crime statistics that you often see in the media.
They were especially everywhere during the Trump presidency, and you still see these hate crime figures cited today, in fact.
These are the statistics that supposedly prove that white supremacy is the greatest threat this country has ever faced.
Now, given all of the reliance on these numbers, it's strange that no one ever talks about the DOJ manual.
You'd think there'd be some curiosity about how these numbers are determined.
So, I decided to read the document for myself.
And one of the most extensive sections of this manual, as it turns out, is the exercises section.
And these are the hypothetical scenarios that the DOJ provides to police departments to help them see, you know, how hate crimes actually look, to help them illustrate hate crime law.
And one of the exercises is about two gang members who assault a random Hindu person with a baseball bat.
The exercise states that, quote, When taken into custody, the two juveniles reported they committed the assault because they want the Hindu people to go back where they came from.
As you probably guessed, the DOJ's manual instructs officers to categorize this incident as a hate crime because of the offenders' derogatory comments about the Hindu community.
Seems straightforward enough.
If you beat somebody up while yelling, go back where you came from, then you're committing a hate crime.
And if hate crime means anything, then that would have to qualify.
What's interesting is that a real-life version of this exercise just played out earlier this month in New York City.
51-year-old Asian-American Sue Young was traveling on a subway train in Greenwich Village, supposedly one of the nice areas of the city, with her husband and her 11-year-old twin girls.
That's when three black teenage girls started screaming and cursing at Sue Young.
And she tried to play it off, tried to laugh it off.
Her husband suggested the girls might be uneducated, a rather plausible theory, I would say.
And then the teenagers told Sue Young to go back where she came from.
Within seconds, one of the teenagers, a 16-year-old girl, began attacking Young.
And then, for good measure, that teenager beat a random bystander who was recording the incident.
Now, given all of those facts, you think it's safe to call this incident a hate crime, since it pretty much mirrors exactly the scenario in the DOJ's own hate crime manual.
Go back where you came from is an admission that the attack relates to the victim's national origin, race, or religion.
Pretty straightforward to any reasonable person.
But apparently it's not straightforward to New York police, because they've decided not to charge the teenagers in this case with a hate crime.
They found them, arrested them, and they know that this teen girl told her victim to go back to her country.
But there won't be any hate crime charges.
That's not because the evidence is unclear.
I mean, there's no disputing any of the facts.
It's all been established.
It's all on video.
Watch.
New information on that disturbing video showing teens berating and then attacking a family on an F train in Greenwich Village.
You saw this video.
A 16-year-old girl has been arrested and charged with two counts of assault.
The teen was one in a group of three girls who screamed at a family of four, telling them to go back to where they came from.
The situation quickly became violent, with one of the teens even assaulting the woman who captured the incident on her cell phone.
Go back where you came from, followed by a beating.
Under the DOJ's guidelines, that's a hate crime.
I mean, it's literally one of the exact scenarios they specify as a hate crime.
But it won't be recorded as one.
Now, if you're the kind of person who trusts government statistics on crime, or on any topic at all, then this development is mind-blowing.
I mean, very surprising, right?
It's the kind of thing that might make you ask some unapproved questions.
For example, you might wonder, is it really true, as multiple outlets have reported, that the anti-Asian hate crime epidemic is caused by all those MAGA Republicans that secretly live in New York and San Francisco?
Are MAGA Republicans not only controlling the weather and melting the ice caps, but also patrolling the streets looking for Asians to randomly assault?
Can we trust that data?
And if that's happening, then why is that never caught on video?
I mean, why is literally every video that we see of an Asian person being assaulted in an apparent hate crime, why is it in every case a black person doing the assault?
Like, why have we never actually seen the white person doing this?
Well it might be because the real numbers are quite different from what you hear in the media.
Here are the real numbers.
As the City Journal recently reported, quote, while black perpetrators account for 27.5% of violent attacks against Asians, Asians commit less than 0.1% of violent attacks against blacks, indicating little role for proximity.
Most violent attacks against individuals of a particular racial group are committed by other members of that group, except for Asians, where a plurality is committed by blacks.
In fact, blacks are responsible for 305% more violent crime against Asians than neighborhood demographics would predict, while whites and Hispanics commit significantly fewer attacks against Asians than would be expected.
So, what this suggests is that hate crime statistics are meaningless.
I mean, totally bogus.
They misrepresent and vastly under-report the amount of anti-Asian racial violence committed by black people, especially young black people.
What happened in Sue Young's case is not as unusual as it might appear.
To be clear, now there are many other reasons to conclude that these hate crime statistics aren't reliable.
The overwhelming majority of police departments report zero hate crimes every year, for example.
So you heard that right.
Zero hate crimes.
In 2019, fewer than 15% of the nearly 16,000 jurisdictions reported a single hate crime to the DOJ, even though they participate in the DOJ's reporting system.
But they didn't report any.
So this is a tiny sample size we're talking about here.
And these police departments, the few that are reporting hate crimes, they're not verifying as a legal matter that any hate crime occurred.
The hate crime statistics, they don't refer to hate crimes that have been proven.
They don't refer to convictions.
They refer to reports of hate crimes, as the DOJ manual says.
So all it takes is a cop to code a case as hateful, and boom, you have a hate crime.
No jury or judge is required.
These are the gaping holes in the hate crime reporting system that you never hear about, so you have to ask, Why do we have this hate crime system if it's not producing anything remotely resembling accurate results?
And for that matter, even if we could measure this accurately, why does anyone bother recording hate crimes?
I mean, why not record crimes that are motivated by, say, greed or lust?
Why does the hate crime designation persist?
As I've often argued, the most dangerous people in society are those motivated not by hate, but by indifference to human life, by callous disregard.
So why don't we have a separate federal category for indifferent crimes?
Why give hate crimes this special place of honor?
Especially when they aren't being recorded in any kind of honest or consistent way.
Well, Sue Young and her husband offer us some clues on that front.
They've come out and given interviews absolving their attacker of personal responsibility.
It's pretty amazing.
Watch.
I did, Sandra.
Frightening it was.
Her husband as well.
They've moved on, left our city, continuing their vacation, but hoping to soon return.
Still shaken by all they've been through, but offering a message this afternoon of understanding and forgiveness.
I keep running through.
Oh, I should have done this.
I should have done this.
I, you know, X, Y, Z. It happens so fast.
Battered and bruised from her New York subway encounter, Sue Young and her husband still shocked by how quickly taunts on the F train spun wildly out of control.
You just go into survival mode and you just want to protect, you know, yourself.
You could have attacked them.
You did not.
You defended yourself.
I could have gotten up and attacked them.
I didn't.
That's them on the left riding the train with their 11-year-old twin girls Thursday night.
They say the three teens sitting across from them started laughing and pointing, and when they didn't back down, quickly became more aggressive than violent.
The woman who filmed the confrontation says one of the girls also assaulted her three times.
Started over, took me by the hair, threw me on the ground and started punching me.
The teens on video telling the family to go back where they came from.
Top officials at the MTA and the state weighing in today.
I haven't seen the video but I'll tell you this, there's no place for hate on our system.
It's being investigated.
This woman had No reason to be attacked whatsoever.
There is no tolerance for this in the state of New York.
But from the victims themselves, who've been talking to investigators, there's compassion.
We don't know what battles other people have in their lives, but I can imagine.
They're probably not as privileged, and that has probably a lot to do with their outlook on the world and the anger they may have.
So was this a hate crime?
Ask the victims.
They'll tell you, absolutely not.
Doesn't reach the high bar that needs to be set for that, they say.
Was it a crime?
Absolutely.
And they're talking to investigators here at the 6th Precinct who are still looking to talk to those three teenage girls.
We don't know what battles other people have in their lives, but I can imagine they're probably not as privileged, Sue Young's husband says.
He's apparently justifying why he allowed his wife to be accosted right in front of him.
They didn't do anything about it.
He adds, quote, that probably has a lot to do with their outlook on the world, the anger they may have.
Oh, those poor kids.
So therefore, the couple agrees what happened to them was not a hate crime.
They're happy they took their beating instead of fighting back.
Now what that couple is saying out loud without realizing it is the real reason hate crimes persist as a category.
The point of hate crimes isn't really to measure hate.
The point is to measure victimhood, where the victims happen to be the primary voting blocs of the Democratic Party.
If you have privilege, meaning if you're Asian or white, then hate crimes can't happen to you.
If you're attacked because of your ethnicity, and you're in one of those two groups, then you should rationalize it.
You should justify the actions of your attackers.
One of the many problems with this reasoning, other than the fact that lack of privilege cannot conceivably justify beating up a woman in front of her kids, is that plenty of poor people don't commit violent crimes.
I mean, we can measure this.
The assumption that Sue Young and her husband have, that their attacker must have had a really hard life, is not an explanation, much less an excuse, for what happened.
The Twitter account Monitoring Bias has looked into the numbers on this.
And the account found that, quote, "In NYC, where the percentage of Asians who live in
poverty is close to that of blacks, the black arrest rate for murder was 13 times higher
than for Asians in 2020."
So in other words, black people aren't simply committing acts of violence because many of
It's not that simple.
The black violent crime rate is still disproportionately high even when you control for income level and economic class and that sort of thing.
So the point is that these punks on the subway, they're not really angry or going through any great personal struggle.
And if they are, who cares?
It's like you lose the right to be pitied when you start victimizing other people.
That's not even what's happening here.
I mean, they're bored and spoiled.
And they've been empowered to act however they want, with the knowledge that their behavior will always be excused, no matter how heinous it is.
They have no fear of punishment.
In that way, they're like the rich Antifa kids who spit on cops, or the lawyers who threw firebombs at a police cruiser during a BLM riot.
They're like the thugs who you see going into Nordstrom or the Apple Store, walking out with all the merchandise.
They know they're not going to suffer immediate, severe, and long-lasting punishment, and they might not suffer any punishment at all.
They know their victims are weak, and often lack the will to defend themselves.
So, they take advantage of it.
That's the reality.
And some people won't acknowledge it, this reality, even when it hits them in the face, many times over, on the subway, in front of their kids.
They've been fed so many lies, including from the DOJ's hate crimes reporting system, that they're incapable of diagnosing the problem, much less trying to solve it.
And what will happen is that their weakness will perpetuate violence on all sides.
Because people can only take so many random subway beatings and stabbings before they start defending themselves.
You know, you heard there in the clip the Youngs were proud of themselves for not, quote, attacking the black teens who were harassing them.
But people are growing weary of that kind of passivity.
Of this submissiveness in the face of lawless, violent thugs.
The dam can't hold forever.
And there will be a lot more Daniel Penney's coming soon.
And when that happens, the DOJ will call it hateful.
They'll call it a sign of rampant white supremacy.
What they'll never admit, what they know is true, is that it will be their fault.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Before giving our dog Rough Greens, he was so sad and lazy.
He wasn't getting the nutrients he needed.
Now he's happier and healthier.
My team keeps joking that we need to sign him up for one of those speed course dog shows.
You know, I stand around joking about my dog.
I talk about my dog all the time.
So that joke was made about my dog when I'm always talking about my dog.
Anyway, 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, dog food is dead food.
Everybody knows that nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Let Rough Greens boost your dogs.
Food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega 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, so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for 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 you and your dog can try it.
A free Jumpstart Trial Bag can be at your door in just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's R-U-F-F, greens.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
For the Daily Wire, Target's sales have declined after backlash to its Pride Month collection.
Earlier this year, the company announced on Wednesday, Target's quarterly sales sank for the first time in six years, falling 5.4% in the second quarter, which ended July 29th, compared to the same period last year, according to the company's second quarter earnings report.
Online sales fell nearly twice as much, 10.5%, Target said.
The company also said the number of transactions and the average dollar amount of a transaction fell this past quarter, Target's total revenue of $24.8 billion was 4.9% lower than last year.
The Minneapolis-based retail behemoth said that because of recent sales trends, it has lowered its overall sales and profit expectations for the whole year.
Of course, as you know, back in May, Target faced backlash over its Pride collection, which included a kid's swimsuit with a tag reading, thoughtfully fit on multiple body types and gender expressions.
And we know about the satanic stuff and the pronoun stuff and all the rest of it.
Target spokeswoman Kayla Castaneda said, quote, in late May, given these volatile circumstances, we're making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior.
So that was back in May.
But on Wednesday, the Target Chief Growth Officer, Christina Hennington, said that the sales were impacted by the, quote, strong reaction to this year's Pride assortment.
And she says, the reaction is a signal for us to pause, adapt, and learn.
So this is, should be, needless to say, a major victory.
And, you know, having Target I mean, there's the sales hit they took, but also a statement like that from a company like Target.
Only they're saying it because of backlash from our side.
I mean, that rarely happens.
So in almost every case, if you've got a company like Target, and they issue a statement saying, it's time for us as a company to adapt and learn and educate ourselves.
In almost every case, even if you have no context, you don't know what they're talking about, and you hear a company put out a statement like that, you just assume that, oh, well, the left must be mad at them for something.
If they're promising to adapt and learn and educate.
But in this case, no, they're saying it's because of us.
It's because we said we don't want this disgusting stuff right in front of our kids.
And now Target is saying, well, we need to learn.
It's a learning moment for us.
That represents them bending the knee to us for change.
And you could always point out, well, they still have the Pride stuff, they didn't even get rid of it at the time, they moved it to the back of the store.
Do I think that come Pride month next year that they're going to have no Pride merchandise at all?
That there's going to be no rainbows?
No, of course they're still going to have some of that stuff.
But they're going to tamp it down, considerably.
And they're going to do it because we demanded it.
That is a victory.
Now, Target is not Bud Light, in that they're not going to be totally destroyed by this.
Bud Light is in shambles.
The brand is in ruins.
Permanently.
Probably not the case for Target.
But they've lost millions and millions of dollars.
And that matters.
It really matters.
And I think the damage for them will also be long-term, if not permanent.
I mean, I can tell you that I'm never going back to Target.
My family's not going back there, and I know plenty of people who say the same.
And the problem for Target is that, like with so many of these companies and products, you use the product, or you go to this particular store, or this brand, or whatever, and you do it reflexively, because it's just part of your routine.
So for a lot of people, And this was always the big hurdle when all this first happened with Target.
And I remember I was talking about the boycott, of course, pushing for the boycott.
And I said at the time, the big hurdle we have to get over here is that, like, this is just a part of people's lives, part of their routine.
Oh, you go to Target three times a week.
And to get people to develop different habits, to get consumers to develop different habits in response to your boycott campaign is very, very difficult.
But we succeeded.
And a lot of people have developed it.
And so you spend a couple, you know, you think, well, I go to Target three times a week.
It's right down the road from me.
It's going to be a big hassle if I cut Target out.
Well, then you do it and you realize that, OK, yeah, I don't really need to go to Target.
There's like a million other places I could go.
I don't need to go to Target.
And you spent a couple of months not going to Target.
And then it's like, why would I start going now?
I obviously am surviving just fine.
And it hasn't even been a great inconvenience, it turns out.
So that's a big problem for Target now, is that it's not just a boycott anymore, it's that consumers have, you know, a sizable chunk of consumers have developed different consumer habits to get around Target.
And why would they stop now?
And all of this really matters, and it matters because no matter what anyone tells you, When it comes down to it, the old cliche still applies, you know, money talks.
And they are, these businesses, they want to make money.
They need to make money.
Okay, this is not any big revelation.
The woke virtue signaling, the pride stuff, why do they do that?
Well, they do it for ideological reasons.
They do it because the people running these companies, you know, they really do hate their conservative customers and they hate conservatives in general.
And so there's some real Feeling behind it on their part and some real contempt and
yeah, that's part of it. They do it for their ESG scores They do it for different reasons, but ultimately
It always boils down to money It does you know and it's it's it's marketing. That's what
it is All these other things are contributing factors
But for so many years the company has really leaned into pride and rainbows and gay whatever and all that and
And they really did that because they figured this is great marketing and we make money off of it.
All the other stuff, those are just, that's all peripheral.
So, what these companies are now discovering is that it's not that simple.
It's not that simple.
I mean, at a minimum, it's not that simple.
This is not going to be a simple thing where you just throw the rainbows all over the place, and it's a good marketing opportunity for you and all that, and it's not going to be that way.
Like, there's a real cost when you decide to go that direction as a brand, and there's a real risk involved.
That's the message that these companies and these brands have now absorbed.
And they're looking at Target, and they're looking at Bud Light, and they're realizing that, OK, if we do this, there's a risk.
Like, we stand to lose millions of dollars.
Does that mean they're all going to stop doing it?
No.
But they understand that there is a risk, and that is a significant victory.
For the right in the culture war.
I mean, it actually is hard to overstate what a victory it actually is.
And there's no reason to relent.
No reason to let up.
We absolutely should not.
Let's go to this.
Daily Wire.
As this report, Republican Representative Max Miller faced backlash this week from across the spectrum on the political right after criticizing a woman's social media post in which she professed her reliance on her Christian faith.
The woman, Republican activist Lizzie Marbach, wrote on X, otherwise known as Twitter, there's no hope for any of us outside of having faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Miller responded, "This is one of the most bigoted tweets I've ever seen. Delete it, Lizzie.
Religious freedom in the United States applies to every religion. You have gone too far."
Now, Miller was widely criticized over the tweet from virtually every corner of the
Republican Party and across the conservative political spectrum.
Daily Wire podcast host Matt Walsh said, Do your constituents know you consider basic Christian teaching to be bigoted?
They do now.
I guess good luck in the next election.
Pro-Trump political commentator Jack Posobiec posted, Real talk, you're a sitting GOP congressman, yet have zero tweets about Fannie Willis and the corrupt prosecution of the GOP frontrunner, but instead decided to take the time today to launch an attack on a pro-life staffer professing her faith, and you wonder where our Republicans lose.
A lot of reactions like that.
And then Miller later apologized for the tweet after facing pushback and writing, quote, I posted something earlier that conveyed a message I did not intend.
I will not try to hide my mistake or run from it.
I sincerely apologize to Lizzie and to everyone who read my post.
OK.
So Miller apologized, but quite which was quite predictable.
But even so, this is this is remarkable to me because it might honestly be the greatest unforced error In the history of modern American politics, I can't really think, it might not be the most consequential one because this is just some representative from Ohio, but I can't think of a more egregious example.
You're a Republican congressman from Ohio and you go out of your way to post this response to someone professing the Christian faith, calling them a bigot.
Now keep in mind, this was not like in the heat of the moment.
This wasn't them in an argument.
The original tweet he was responding to wasn't even directed at Miller in any way.
He just saw it and decided it was a good opportunity to let everyone know that the Christian faith is bigoted.
You know, when you're on Twitter, especially if you're a public figure, a politician, and you decide to do the quote tweet, there's like thought behind that.
You're thinking, well, I want to, because you're not even just responding.
You're saying, I want to respond to this in a way that everyone can see.
I've got a response to this tweet that's so great, I want everyone to see it.
And Miller thought that to himself.
He said, you know what's great?
I want to call all Christians bigots, and I want everyone to see me doing it.
They're going to love it.
And then all the Christian Republicans said, no, we don't love it, actually.
That's horrible.
What are you doing?
And then he immediately back, oh, oh, you don't want it.
Oh, okay.
You don't want me to slander the entire Christian faith as bigoted.
Well, I apologize then.
It's just, what is the thought process?
And that's part of the problem is that Miller, yeah, he apologized, but given that this was not something shouted in an argument in a moment of anger or whatever, given that this was posted, this was an unsolicited, unprovoked post on Twitter, It does reveal what he actually thinks, which is that a basic statement of Christian faith is bigoted.
So you can apologize for it, but you said it for a reason.
This is apparently what you think.
Because, by the way, what Lizzie Marbach posted is just basic Christianity.
It's what any Christian thinks.
If you don't think it, you're not a Christian.
Because that's the faith.
And there's no reason to be offended by it.
I never understand that either.
People get offended when someone professes their religion and says, I believe my religion is true and yours is wrong.
Well, of course you think that.
If a Mormon announces that the only true faith is Mormonism and it's the only way to get to heaven, that doesn't offend me.
I don't agree with it because I'm not Mormon.
But I know that you feel that way.
That's why you're a Mormon.
If you didn't feel that way, you wouldn't be Mormon.
So it doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make any sense to say, well, what's the alternative?
The alternative is to say, hey, I'm this religion, and I believe this, but if you believe something else, that's also valid and true, and everyone is right.
Now, I know that there are some Christians who want to be, like, pluralistic and ecumenical and universalist or whatever, who will say stuff like that, but it makes no sense.
It's not just heresy, it's illogical.
The Christian faith makes certain claims about the world, and those claims are either right or wrong.
If they're right, then every other religion is wrong.
No?
And that means if you're a Hindu, you're wrong.
If you're Jewish, you're wrong.
You might not be wrong about everything you think, but you're wrong fundamentally about the most important thing, if the Christian faith is true.
That's the logical conclusion.
So that's what every Christian believes.
Because it logically follows.
And it makes no sense to be offended by it.
And in fact, to be offended by an authentic expression of Christian faith is then itself bigoted.
You're saying that the Christian faith is somehow objectionable and should not be expressed publicly.
So you are revealing bigotry against Christians, and that's what this representative did.
Which is bad, of course, for a lot of reasons, but it's also just politically insane for a Republican in Ohio.
Okay, let's do this one.
Ben Shapiro has been trending this week, and I have too, actually.
So we're always sort of competing to see who can have the most people yelling at them on Twitter at any given moment.
And for a while, I feel like I was ahead, and then Ben had a great run with the Barbie stuff and all that, and then I was trying to claw my way back, and it's been back and forth.
But now Ben is trending partly because of this video that we'll play for you.
And this is a video from about 10 years ago.
And it shows, we're told by all the leftists on Twitter, that Ben is a hypocrite and a grifter!
Grifter!
Because apparently in 2014, Ben said that he thinks presidents should be indicted for crimes they commit.
And yet, he does not agree with the Democrats indicting Trump every three and a half days.
So what's up with that, huh?
Let's watch the old video.
I'm not sure we can indict Washington, but I think that certainly— I'm sure something was done.
Washington was relatively clean.
But if you look at, you know, George W. Bush or if you looked at Bill Clinton or if you looked at Ronald Reagan, sure.
I mean, the answer would be that you could.
And people should be wary.
I mean, this is sort of the case that I'm making, is that we've become so comfortable with the executive branch of the government abusing its citizens and violating our rights and violating what they're structured to do under the law that we've just become used to it.
And if we start treating them as criminals, maybe they'll think twice before they act so criminally in the future.
What a grifter.
No, he's not a grifter.
He's a grifter because he denies aliens.
That's the grift.
That's the great grift that everyone at The Daily Wire, except for me, participates in.
But not for that, because three things, and I think this is important, because there's a few important points to make here.
First of all, and these are stunning revelations, okay?
So, the first point is this.
Not all situations are the same as every other situation, you see.
So you could have a situation that is one thing, and then you have another situation that's not the same thing as that situation.
And so people will respond to this one situation a certain way, and then another situation a different way.
It doesn't make any sense to say, well, why aren't you responding to those situations exactly the same?
Well, because they're not the same?
Because they're different?
So, the situation where Democrats are targeting their political rival with phony charges to stop him from getting re-elected is a situation that did not exist in 2014.
So, Ben has a different view about this specific situation that he didn't have back before this situation existed.
I'm saying the word situation so much it's starting to lose all meaning in my head, as I said.
But you get the point.
Second, related, circumstances also change.
So, Ben in 2014 was talking about having A very strict kind of approach to politicians and presidents treating them like criminals if they cross the line.
But then, of course, Obama was never prosecuted for his corruption.
Neither was Hillary.
Neither was Biden.
So, obviously, what was being advocated in that video 10 years ago was not adopted.
Like, that strategy was not adopted.
So he's not therefore going to be in favor of Trump's indictment because this is clearly not the kind of scenario that Ben was talking about.
In fact, I've said something similar recently.
I've said that the only way I could possibly support some of these charges against Trump is if we lived in a country that was so hostile towards politicians, so skeptical of them, so ruthless towards them, that we looked for any reason to indict any of them For even the most minor crimes.
Like, if we lived in a country where there are hundreds of politicians in prison right now because we're just looking for any reason to throw them behind bars, if we were in the kind of country that is constantly throwing ex-presidents in jail, if we lived in my fantasy land where politicians are treated like whores with contempt and scorn, then at least the treatment of Trump would fall right into that and it would be consistent.
That would make all the charges correct, but at least it's like, okay, well they're going after Trump because that's what we do with all politicians.
He's a politician, and this is what you get.
Because we hate you all.
But that is a fantasy land.
That is not even close to the country we actually live in.
In fact, every politician, at least every Democrat, is let off the hook for everything they do, while Trump specifically is indicted every time he, you know, double dips a tortilla chip in a bowl of salsa.
Which is a bad example, because I actually would support people getting indicted for that.
I'd be fine with that.
But you know the point.
Anything he does, they get indicted.
And also for things he didn't do, he gets indicted as well.
So we are not holding our politicians to a high standard.
We are holding Democrats to no standard.
While Trump is persecuted for political reasons, and obviously that's not okay.
And the third point is that in general people are allowed to change their minds.
I know this is like a mind-blowing thing to people these days.
We can go back, you know, because we live in the modern age, which means that you can always go back.
And there's a paper trail, especially for someone who's been in the public eye, but even if they haven't, there's a paper trail, there's a digital paper trail of, like, every opinion you've ever had for the last 10, 15, 20 years.
And so you can go back and you can sift through, it was like, what did they say 10 years ago?
So, Ben, actually, I don't think what he's saying here is inconsistent at all.
There hasn't really been any change.
But the implication is that there was, and even if there was, like, so what?
This is stupid game we play, where someone says something, and then you pull up something they said 10 years ago, and say, well, this you?
This you?
Yeah?
I changed my mind?
It's been 10 years?
Like, do you not?
Have you held the exact same views on every topic without change your whole life?
Like, if you have, then I guess you're in a position where you can throw stones at people who change their mind.
But actually, that just makes you an abs—that makes you—you're not even conscious.
You're like a—you're an inanimate object.
And you don't even—you're barely sentient if you're not changing your views on things and adapting and, you know, and changing the way you think about things.
That's a natural part.
Of the process of growing and being a conscious human being.
So if you haven't changed any of your views at all, then that just makes me suspect that you're like a robot.
So the whole thing is completely absurd.
And it's a game that's played totally inconsistently.
And it's all very stupid.
Okay.
Let's see, we've got one other thing here from the LA Times.
Interesting case.
Well, not really interesting at all, but we're going to talk about it.
Fast and Furious star Tyrese Gibson is taking Home Depot to court, accusing the home improvement chain of discrimination and racial profiling.
So, in a lawsuit, here's the case.
He was discriminated against and racially profiled at a Home Depot.
And the moment you hear that, you might think, like, at a Home Depot?
Discrimination at a Home Depot.
That usually, I mean any Home Depot I've been to, pretty diverse.
So just not exactly what you would expect to encounter that kind of thing.
And it gets even more surprising when you realize that the other two people who are discriminated against allegedly, one of them's name is Eric Mora, and the other one is Manuel Hernandez.
So we're supposed to believe That Hispanic people are being discriminated against at Home Depot, which is also a little bit surprising.
So the core of the lawsuit is a February 11th incident in which Home Depot clerks allegedly purposely interfered with and refused to process a transaction by Gibson, Mora, and Hernandez based on their skin color and the craftsman's national origin.
Okay, so that's what they're saying.
Gibson went in with these two Mexican guys, and he tried to buy some stuff.
And apparently, based on what I'm reading so far, he was told by the store clerk, he was told by the cashier, oh, we can't process this.
Why can't you process it?
Because you're black.
Because you're black and they're Mexican.
Get the hell out.
We don't serve your kind here at Home Depot.
That happens at Home Depot all the time.
Very common.
Very common occurrence.
So is that what happened here?
We'll keep reading.
According to legal documents, Gibson and his two associates were purchasing items for a home improvement project, but the checkout process took longer due to a glitch in the system.
While an unidentified employee was re-scanning the items, fans began to notice Gibson, who stepped out of the store to avoid creating disturbance.
The lawsuit says that Gibson informed the employee that Mora and Hernandez would complete the purchase with his credit card.
The cashier acknowledged Gibson and said he understood.
The lawsuit says Gibson asked the cashier if the cashier needed anything further from him to complete the transaction.
The cashier said no and that Gibson could leave.
After Gibson left, the cashier refused to complete the transaction with Moore and Hernandez, despite Gibson again authorizing the transaction via FaceTime video calls, the document says.
Gibson returned to the store and completed the transaction only after heated discussions with the cashier.
The actor also asked to speak to the store's manager, who allegedly refused to speak with Gibson in person.
The lawsuit says quote, this is a clear and deplorable instance of discriminatory mistreatment and consumer racial profiling.
The treatment of Gibson, Mora and Hernandez by the Home Depot was humiliating and demeaning.
So that's it.
That's what happened.
He was trying to buy something.
He wanted to step out of the store and still have the thing processed.
And the cashier originally, according to him, the cashier originally said, yeah, you can do that.
But then he left and the cashier said, actually, I can't process it unless he's here.
And so it was kind of inconvenient.
And that's it.
That's all that happened.
And from that, they're extrapolating that Home Depot is discriminating against blacks and Mexican.
Which, by the way, if Home Depot were to refuse to provide service to Hispanic people, they would go out of business in 45 minutes.
It's like saying that Cinnabon is discriminating against obese people.
That's most of your clientele.
So that doesn't make a lot of sense.
But here's what we see here.
This is a good example of the racism framework that I'm always talking about, where if you have the left's racism framework, and you're black, or you're in an approved victim group, then every mild inconvenience will be understood based on it.
So it's more of a lens, I suppose, than a framework.
Framework makes it sound more intellectual than it really is.
It's just a lens.
And this is the lens through which they view the world.
And the lens says that you're black, so you're a victim.
Everyone automatically is racist against you because you're black.
And so therefore, anything that happens to you that you don't like is because of racism.
Nobody needs to say anything that indicates it or anything like that.
It's just, it happened to you, you don't like it, you're black, therefore it is racist.
And that is as far as it goes.
That is as complex as the equation gets.
If you're looking through the racism lens.
Which also makes it, the more that you keep these glasses on, the more that you look at the world through this lens, it's like the more detached from reality you become.
Where you lose any grip on just like human nature and understanding how the world works.
Because those of us who are not wearing those lenses, We hear a story like this, and we think, yeah, that's how it goes at these places.
You go in, and you're told one thing by one customer service guy, and then it doesn't work, and then you want to talk to a manager, and the manager's like, this is how it goes.
Or if you go to one of these places, And there's like a slight wrinkle.
There's a slight complication.
You want to do something that's like a little bit outside of the norm.
And in this case, he wants to process the transaction while he walks outside.
It's just like a slight wrinkle.
And that breaks down the whole system.
And mostly because you're dealing with a, you know, a cashier who's like a 17 year old kid who has no idea what's going on and doesn't care.
And no one is really invested in what they're doing.
Nobody actually cares about you as a customer, but that's the case for all of us.
This is the boat we're all in.
And if you don't have the racism lenses on, then you just understand that, okay, yeah, that's life.
That's how it works at these places.
We all experience that.
Of course, if you see it that way, then you can't make your, what is he going for, a million dollars.
You know, Tyrese Gibson, he's a star of Fast and Furious, which is a franchise that somehow has made $75 trillion at the box office.
He needs another million from Home Depot to assuage his deep emotional suffering, of course.
Let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
The second annual Daily Wire Fantasy Football draft party is coming up soon.
And this year we're gonna give you the opportunity to enter to be the tenth
member in our league.
If you win, you'll participate with us during the live draft and go head-to-head with your favorite Daily Wire hosts throughout the fantasy football season.
To enter, go to Crane & Company's YouTube page and subscribe to their channel.
Then, like the Daily Wire fantasy football sweepstakes video, comment your fantasy football team name, and fill out the Google form on the pinned comment.
Don't miss your chance to play fantasy football in your favorite host league and compete for the ultimate bragging rights and the coveted golden tumbler.
The sweepstakes are open now, but they close on August 19th at 1159 p.m.
Eastern Time.
Brian says, I think as a man you just have to deal with a degree of loneliness and I feel like you have to learn how to cope or accept that and turn it into an advantage.
Yeah, and I think that's the case for humans in general, not just men.
But it is an important point, and you're right that that's part of the story that isn't discussed.
Loneliness is a problem.
There's too much of it.
There's too much despair.
Suicide is an epidemic.
Also, yes, a certain amount of loneliness comes with being a human being, and you have to know how to cope with that.
So part of the problem, I think, is an inability to cope with loneliness.
It's not just that people are lonely, but also that people don't know how to deal with being lonely.
I say the same thing about, for example, what we're told is the bullying epidemic in schools, that kids are being bullied all the time.
And that's certainly one where I don't think there's any evidence that it's worse than any other point in history.
There have always been bullies.
And so with that, is it an issue of kids being bullied too much and that there's too much bullying and it's epidemic?
Or, I mean, yeah, bullying is bad and it shouldn't happen, but also, There's something going on where we are not raising our kids to know how to deal with being bullied, to know how to cope with it.
So I think it's a similar thing here because there's a certain rather profound isolation that I think is just inherent to the human condition.
Like the fact that you are an individual living in the world with your own mind And that no other individual shares your mind or your conscious experience of the world.
That very fact is by definition isolating.
So we are all in that sense, in the sense of being distinct individuals, we're sort of isolated to some extent just by the nature of being human.
And so there's this kind of like baseline loneliness that's called being human.
And you have to know how to deal with that.
And I think a lot of people don't.
Yeah, me and my brother-in-law, in fact, do exactly that.
We go fishing together in different kayaks in different parts of the lake.
and didn't talk. After answering my questions just the same as Matt did with his wife,
I looked at him in disbelief and said, "Men are so different from women."
Yeah, me and my brother-in-law, in fact, do exactly that.
We go fishing together in different kayaks in different parts of the lake. And also, by the way,
it's not like men never talk to each other, okay? That's...
That's not the point.
Of course we do.
But we also talk about different things, and we relate in different ways.
So another recent example, this time my brother, brother-in-law, I talked to him recently, a few days ago.
Hadn't talked to him in a little while.
And afterwards, it was the same thing, where my wife was asking me, oh, what's going on with him?
Like asking me all these questions, like what's going on in his life?
I was like, you know, I don't know exactly.
We didn't really talk about that.
Well, what are you going to talk about?
What did you talk about?
Well, the truth is that one of the things we talked about was whether Captain Bly or Ernest Shackleton had the more impressive sea voyage after being stranded.
So, that's what we spent time talking about.
We didn't really get into, what's going on at work?
How's your family?
We didn't spend any time on that.
It's, to me, it's like unimaginable that my wife would spend any time talking with anyone in her life about Captain Bly or Ernest Shackleton.
And it certainly would not be the first thing she brings up after talking to a family member that she hasn't talked to in a little bit.
But we are, we're different, is the point.
Goldie says, from my personal experience, the best advice to lonely, depressed men is to buy themselves a nice big pickup truck.
The bigger, the better.
Other men, toys such as motorcycles, boats, et cetera, are highly recommended.
The secret to happy life is to play, play, and play again.
I have to disagree fundamentally with so much of that, and I would definitely say no.
Do not try to assuage your loneliness by buying expensive things.
That's not the key.
That's not going to help.
And also, you're adding bills and you're adding financial hardship and strain, and that's ultimately not going to make you feel any better.
So, no.
But, hobbies.
I don't know about buying, just like buying things to buy them.
And I also think that that's also a more feminine way.
Like, that's what women are going to be more inclined to do to deal with stress or whatever in their lives.
They want to go out and buy stuff.
I don't think men typically operate that way, but taking up a hobby is a different deal.
And I think that's also something.
It's not the primary thing, but when we're talking about the overall issue of male loneliness and feeling directionless, not having a purpose, part of the story is also that, yes, men don't have the same fellowship, we don't have the same opportunities for fellowship and for all that, and to kind of go somewhere and be around other men.
And also, I think men don't have hobbies like they used to.
I think there are a lot of men that you meet that just have no hobbies at all.
You ask them, what are your interests?
What do you like to do?
And it's like nothing.
They just don't like to do anything.
They watch TV, they're on their phone, and that's kind of it.
Everything is screen-based.
This is men and women, increasingly.
But it's a bigger problem for men because you can't live that way.
You need to do something.
You need to have something that you like to do.
And it doesn't matter what it is.
I think all men have this.
But you have to activate it.
But we all have this propensity for getting really invested.
And it could be just a random hobby that we'd suddenly care about for reasons that we can't possibly explain.
But you gotta have something.
I think it's really important to have something.
And let's see.
One more.
This is from Jay Gould.
Says, male competition is not what's ever made me lonely or anxious.
Dealing with modern women and society does, though.
I feel emotionally abused by trying to engage with modern women and that I can't be myself for fear of attack, which is exhausting.
Making someone be something they aren't is exhausting and leads to mental anguish.
Okay, so a couple of things.
First, You're on to something when you say that women are a much greater source of stress and anxiety for men than is competition with other men.
As men, competition in the male sense doesn't scare us.
We like that.
We thrive on that.
One of the many things that that Washington Post article was wrong about, it was so dumb about it, is they said that men are depressed because they're in constant competition with each other.
That's what brings us anxiety.
We literally invent dumb things to compete over.
Okay, that's why sports exist.
That's why every sport was invented by men, and it exists simply so we have a reason to compete with each other and to win something, because we like to do that.
We need that, you know?
The interaction with pursuit of rejection by women, on the other hand, that can be a real source of despair, because it's requiring us to operate in a gear that's not nearly so effortless or comfortable.
I mean, look at it this way.
Competition in the masculine sense is something that I still pursue.
I'm a very competitive person.
But the competition for female attention and affection, that's something that, because I'm a married man, I left that behind over a decade ago, I don't remotely miss it.
I mean, I can look back on it being in high school and playing high school sports and, like, that level of competition.
I kind of miss that, being involved in that real specific kind of competition, organized sports.
You know, men can look back and miss those days, but I don't look back on being single and competing.
That, I don't miss at all.
I can leave that behind forever.
I have.
I am so happy to be done with it.
But leaving behind masculine competition in that sense, you never really... I mean, I'll be 87 years old and competing with some dude at the nursing home over who can, I don't know, eat their pudding cup the fastest.
I mean, it's always going to be something.
So, I mean, you're onto something there and you're correct about that.
With that said, just to be real with you, And to be blunt, saying that you've been emotionally abused by all modern women, I mean, this is the kind of self-pitying stuff that isn't going to help you.
Honestly, as a man, you shouldn't even be saying the phrase emotionally abused in relation to yourself.
Like, your grandfather, I don't know who your grandfather was, but I can almost guarantee he would have never in a million years accused anyone of emotionally abusing him, even if they really did.
He never would have said it.
Because your grandfather and his generation, and all generations of men before him, you know, right up until now, detested self-pity.
They hated it.
It was disgusting.
It was revolting to them.
And we need to reclaim some of that attitude, too.
So we can talk about the struggles that men face, and it's very important to talk about it.
I do talk about it all the time.
The danger, though, on one side of it is that you lapse into this full-on, really gross kind of self-pity.
I'm being emotionally abused, everyone hates me, no one likes me.
And part of being a man is like, okay, just cut that out.
First of all, get a grip.
Okay?
Compose yourself.
It's, you know, crying about it is not the way to handle it.
And once you've composed yourself, now we can have a real conversation about this.
Candace just wrapped the 10-part series, Convicting a Murderer, that you don't want to miss.
It's one of our most ambitious projects yet.
You might think you're familiar with the Stephen Avery case and everything that happened in Manitowoc County.
This is especially true if you watched Making a Murderer, but it turns out the filmmakers only told you part of the story, and coming soon, Candace Owens will unveil the shocking parts of Avery's story that were omitted in the Netflix series.
So excited to present the Convicting a Murderer trailer.
Check it out.
This is a collect call from an inmate at the Calumet County Jail.
The man served 18 years in prison until DNA evidence cleared his name.
The Two Rivers man was convicted of sexual assault in 1985 but exonerated with DNA evidence in 2003.
So this is the infamous Avery lot.
Now, two years later, he again finds himself tied to a police investigation.
Accused of murdering Teresa Hallbuck on the Avery property.
Stephen Avery's 16-year-old nephew admitted his involvement in the rape and murder of Teresa Hallbuck.
The car is discovered just around the bend.
It was just this worldwide phenomenon.
I think they framed this guy.
I think he intended to crush the vehicle, but ran out of time.
Avery thinks the $36 million lawsuit he filed is why he's being targeted in this investigation.
♪♪ 10-21 at 24 Main Street.
Do we have Steve Avery?
Netflix made millions of dollars from making "A Murderer."
But the filmmakers left out very important details.
Mountains of evidence that you have not yet seen.
The blood vial.
The most egregious manipulation from the movie.
Interrogations.
That's when he started beating me because I told him that he's sick.
Cell phones.
And I saw melted plastic parts of a cell phone.
Interviews.
Her arms were pinned behind her head.
They made Steven Avery look like a victim.
You don't believe your brother's guilty?
I don't know if I'm a suspect.
I got nothing to hide.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
I'm getting sick and tired of media deception.
Evidence piling up.
Why would they omit so many different things?
Why are you editing my testimony?
I am not going to make the same mistake that the filmmakers did.
Rearranging the testimony.
They delete a portion of it at the end.
How could they claim to care about the truth?
They all know that Stephen Avery committed this crime.
911, what is your emergency?
The evidence forces me to conclude that you are the most dangerous individual ever
to set foot in this courtroom.
you Well, to get the rest of the story, you have to watch Convicting a Murderer coming to you this September.
This 10-part series is exclusive to DailyWire+, so join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe to get 25% off your new annual membership so you can watch Convicting a Murderer when it premieres.
Trust me, don't want to miss this.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today we'll deal with something that is so cancelable that there's almost no point in canceling it.
It's the kind of cancellation that will require very little thought or effort, but sometimes you have to take a swing at the softballs that are lobbed right down the middle of the plate.
So that brings us to something posted on CNN.com this past week entitled, A Guide to Neo Pronouns from A to Zay.
This article written by a woman named Scottie Andrews, it's the kind of thing that eight or nine years ago could have only existed as parody.
In fact, eight or nine years ago, if I had written this exact article as a satire of leftism, almost everyone would agree that the satire is too outlandish and bizarre to really land.
It doesn't ring true.
It's a straw man, not a satire.
That's what people would have said.
Fast forward less than a decade and leftism has exceeded even the wildest fever dream of the satirist.
We now live in a world where something like this is written with all seriousness and sincerity and published on one of the most trafficked news sites in the country.
The article begins, quote, He's my boss.
Her dog is cute.
They have an exam today.
Pronouns are part of speech we use to refer to ourselves and others.
They're an essential component of language and, as of the last few years, among its most hotly contested too.
Okay, I have to stop already here.
To be clear, pronouns are not hotly contested.
There is no legitimate debate about pronouns.
What many of us contest, what we categorically deny, because it's insane, is the idea that a man can or should use pronouns that actually apply to women or vice versa.
So, the real issue is not the word, but the thing the word is supposed to represent.
In fact, it turns out that everyone still basically agrees that men are referred to as he and women as she.
This is not disputed by almost anyone.
That's why you rarely, if ever, hear anyone say, I'm a man, but I use she, her pronouns.
You never hear that.
Now, I'm sure eventually the left will get around to that kind of nonsense, but that's not generally how it goes now.
Everyone generally still agrees that she, her applies to women and he, him applies to men.
Again, the pronouns aren't being contested.
So when a man says, I'm a woman, call me she, the second part of that sentence isn't really the problem, at least not the underlying problem.
It's the first part.
It's that he isn't really a woman.
If he was a woman, then I would certainly call him she.
He's correct that that is the pronoun that we should use for those who are women.
But he is not a woman.
So this may seem like semantics perhaps, but it's anything but.
This is the whole point.
The left likes to pretend that they're simply expanding our language, that they're loosening the rules of grammar and so on.
But that is not fundamentally the issue.
That's not, this isn't really about language.
It's about the reality that the language is meant to represent.
When they insist that we call a man a she, they are insisting that we agree with the claim that the man is a woman.
They are recruiting us, not into some looser conception of language, but into a false conception of reality.
The point is that, for the most part, the left still abides by what they pretend to decry as restrictive and outdated language rules.
They still adhere to those rules.
They still believe that men are called he and women are called she, but they also believe, or pretend to believe, that a man is a woman if he claims to be one.
But then, of course, we get to these so-called neo-pronouns, and this is where things really do dissolve into pure gibberish.
So let's keep reading.
And then there are neopronouns, gender-neutral or non-binary pronouns that are distinct from the common she, he, and they.
Neopronouns include terms like Z and M, and some of them even date back several centuries, when they were introduced by writers as a solution for referring to subjects without assuming gender.
Now they're also commonly used by non-binary and trans people.
All pronouns indicate identity and can be used to include or exclude people they describe.
Neopronouns included, said Dennis Barron, one of the foremost experts on neopronouns and their histories and an emeritus professor of English and Logistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Neopronouns should be used and respected like any other pronoun, he told CNN.
People like to have a say in how they're identified, Barron said.
Refusing to let people self-identify is a way of excluding them.
Well, that last part is nonsense, of course.
I mean, the whole thing is nonsense.
Every part is nonsense.
But that last part in particular is nonsense because nobody is interfering with anyone else's ability to self-identify.
You can perceive yourself however you want to perceive yourself.
There's no possible way for me to control your self-perception of yourself, even if I wanted to.
But there's a difference between, you know, in letting people decide who they identify as and letting people decide how they are identified.
Okay?
The latter has nothing to do with the former.
The former is your own thought process, it's your own perception.
So, you know, if you think to yourself, and if you're a man and you think to yourself, I'm a woman, that's your self-identity, that's like, that's your, I can't stop you from thinking that.
That thought process and perception is wildly wrong, but you're free to see yourself in a wildly wrong way.
Again, nobody can stop you.
The latter, however, how you are identified is someone else's perception.
It's someone else's thought process.
They identify you according to their perception of you.
And just as they can't control your perception of yourself, you can't control their perception of you.
Now, we haven't even really gotten into the meat of the neopronoun discussion because I keep running into incredibly stupid statements in need of correction, so let's just try to charge forward.
Neopronouns, meanwhile, are less commonly used than those three familiar pronouns.
They are often used by non-binary, trans, and gender non-conforming people because they offer more freedom of identity.
In his book, What's Your Pronoun?, Barron wrote that neopronouns, quote, expand the ways that people are able to indicate their gender identity to encompass anyone who is trans or non-binary, as well as those who choose an altogether different term to categorize and characterize their gender.
Other neopronouns are completely original to their user.
Some may choose to select a noun to describe themselves, like star or star self, in place of binary pronouns like she or herself.
These are called noun-self neopronouns.
No, these are called both.
And if you prefer a more technical term, that's it.
But I'm going to skip around from here a little bit, because there's only so much of this we can take.
Eventually, we're given a handy guide on how to use this gibberish, and here are some examples in the article.
I asked Zer to come to the movies.
Zee said yes.
The teacher graded Zer paper today, and Zay got an A. Fay told me that Fair best friend is in town this week.
I'm taking Em to the park today.
A wants to bring air camera to capture the garden for Emself.
I hope Leaf knows how proud we are that Leaf is getting to know Leafself better.
This reminds me of one of my kids' favorite Dr. Seuss books.
It's called There's a Wocket in My Pocket.
And this reminds me of that book in some way, because Dr. Seuss also enjoyed making up silly words off the top of his head.
The only difference is that he didn't expect us to take it seriously, but this is what the left has become.
When they talk about pronouns, it sounds like something Dr. Seuss might have come up with if he had green hair and a nose piercing and, you know, was high on crack.
But perhaps the most revealing part of this article comes from the one single example the author can find of an
actual human being using neo pronouns
and it says this quote Dua Saleh a musician and actor who's appeared on the netflix
hit series sex education uses the pronoun they and z xe Saleh told her their social media their social media
followers in 2020 after z started to use z pronouns that it's quote, "really affirming to find the pronouns
that are right for you."
I just like the neopronouns, Selah told Complex in 2022.
I feel like they fit me better.
Not all the time, but they're just fitting.
There's an element where I'm just like, oh, that sounds really nice.
Or it sounds nice coming out of my mouth or hearing other people say it.
Well, there it is.
You might have been wondering, how in the hell can someone identify as Xer?
What does it mean to identify as a Xer?
Like, how does one come to the conclusion that they are a Xer?
What is a Xer?
Is it similar to a Wocket in the Pocket?
Well, this is the answer.
Xer and Z and the other pronouns are, as you suspected, just a bunch of nonsensical drivel.
They don't mean anything.
They don't signify anything.
They aren't even making a false claim about reality as a man, you know, does when he says that he identifies as a she.
Because there's no claim being made.
Like when someone says, I'm a zur, that is a claim so nonsensical that you can't even say it's false.
Because to say it's false is to say that there's like some coherent statement that's being made that doesn't reflect reality.
But, Zerg, that's just not anything.
That is nothing at all.
It's not true or false.
It's nothing.
It's pure gibberish.
So, when someone identifies this way, it's because, as Duo Soleil says, they like the way it sounds.
It sounds nice to them.
Now, you might be thinking, isn't it pure insanity to assign gibberish to other people that they have to say simply because you think it sounds nice?
The answer is no, it's not insane.
It's narcissistic.
It is industrial-grade narcissism.
It is narcissism so pure, so potent, that it seems like insanity.
This is how utterly and entirely self-obsessed and high on their own fumes the left has become.
They've reached a level of self-absorption that is indistinguishable from psychosis.
That's what the neopronoun represents.
It's the moment when selfish crosses over into psychotic.
And the two can no longer be distinguished.
The distinction is now moot.
They might not be clinically insane, but they are so egotistical that they might as well be.
