Ep. 1227 - Howard Stern Enjoys Immunity While Russell Brand's Career Is Destroyed
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the UK government is now pushing Big Tech companies to demonetize Russell Brand even though he hasn't been convicted, or even charged, with anything. But there's a stark contrast between Russell Brand's treatment and other famous celebrities who have even more troubled histories. Also, the media now admits that the Bud Light boycott was one of the most effective boycotts in all of US history. Plus, a new survey reveals that many Americans can't even name one branch of government. And yet somehow they're still allowed to vote. And a famous left wing comedian has made a career out of his elaborate stories of victimhood. It turns out that it was mostly made up.
Ep.1227
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch Episodes 1-5 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
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:
ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://bit.ly/3VeHvZM
Headrest Safe - Save $100 today with code WALSH at http://www.theheadrestsafe.com
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the UK government is now pushing big tech companies to demonetize Russell Brand even though he hasn't been convicted or even charged with anything.
But there's a stark contrast between Russell Brand's treatment and other famous celebrities who have even more troubling histories.
Also, the media now admits that the Bud Light boycott was one of the most effective boycotts in all of US history.
Plus, a new survey reveals that many Americans can't even name one branch of government and yet somehow they're still allowed to vote.
And a famous left-wing comedian has made a career out of his elaborate stories of victimhood.
Turns out that it was mostly made up.
What a shocker.
All of that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
Think about how much you use your phone.
The scary part is that your phone carrier collects data on whatever it is you're doing.
They say that it's so that they can better understand your interests, but really, all they want is to sell your activity to advertisers.
Stuff like the sites you visited and what you've been up to online, the more they can get on you, the larger their paycheck becomes, which is why I use ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN is an app that prevents your phone carrier from being able to see the sites you visit and sell it to third parties, and all it takes is one tap of a button All of your network data gets encrypted and rerouted through ExpressVPN's secure servers for ultimate privacy.
Easy, effective, no reason not to do it.
Not only does it shield your web browsing, ExpressVPN protects all of your network data so you can stay private even when you're using your favorite apps.
Whether you're an iPhone, Android, or even a tablet user, ExpressVPN works on all of your devices.
The best part is one subscription can be used on up to five devices at the same time.
When your phone carrier tracks you, that's a gross invasion of privacy.
You can either keep letting them cash in on you, or you can visit expressvpn.com slash walsh, that's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash walsh to get ExpressVPN.com slash Walsh.
If you decided to one day go on YouTube looking for old Howard Stern clips, you'd have a lot of edgy, politically incorrect content to choose from.
Stern's many segments with an intellectually disabled dwarf comedian named Beetlejuice, for example, are not very hard to find.
There's also a bunch of compilations of people fighting on Stern's set in the style of Jerry Springer, usually over money or adultery or whatever.
There's enough degeneracy there to last you weeks if for some reason you were inclined to go and seek it and watch it.
But there's some recurring Howard Stern content that's not so easy to find, because by and large, it's been scrubbed from most major video-sharing sites.
The segments I'm talking about involve Stern speaking about his sexual attraction to children, specifically Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen.
Again and again, for several years, Stern described the Olsen twins as sexually attractive.
Quote, they're so amazingly hot, Stern says in one of the segments, referring to the underage girls.
And in several cases Stern brings up the girls unprompted, leading to awkward moments with his co-hosts.
Because it's not possible to truly eliminate any content from the internet, you can still find this footage if you know where to look.
A small handful of anonymous accounts have defied corporate censors and uploaded some of Stern's many disturbing comments about children that he finds sexually attractive.
So here's just one example where Stern laments that the girls, in his estimation, aren't as attractive now as they were when they were 13 years old.
Listen.
To speak of them individually is, when they turn 18, who you want to bang first.
Yeah, it was weird.
I was reading this magazine.
Yeah, Mary-Kate or Ashley.
Exactly.
Well, actually, Beth was reading a magazine.
She goes, hey, did you see this?
And I forget what magazine it is, but it's the Olsen twins hugging each other in a photo shoot.
And they go, this is Howard Stern's fantasy.
You're kidding.
What magazine did this?
I don't know.
I don't know.
It was some magazine.
You know what, though?
I don't really want to have sex with them anymore.
Me neither.
What happened?
I don't know.
They get kind of dwarf-y looking.
Which one of them looks like a monkey?
Yeah, exactly.
It's like something went wrong.
They stopped growing or something.
They're not as hot as you thought they were going to be.
No way.
Yeah, it really looked for a while, like when they were 13 or 14, they were going to be supermodels.
But then they got stuck right there.
Yeah, they kind of like didn't grow or something.
It's weird.
And I was counting down on their 18th birthday so we could have sex with them, but... Not everybody lives up to that.
Like, what's-her-face did?
Alyssa Milano.
She lived up to that.
Yeah.
She got hot.
Someone told me she's really hairy, though.
Who, Alyssa?
Like, she's got a belly hair.
Really?
Yeah.
Who told you that?
I don't know.
She's a guinea.
Yeah, how dare you?
But they always get that hobbit-looking thing going, you know?
Right.
Like they live in Middle Earth.
Yeah, their money makes them look...
Okay, so you see there, not only did he always talk about wanting to have sex with underage girls, but as he says there, it was in a magazine, presumably some sort of tabloid magazine.
It was like a running joke in the entire media.
Everyone in the media knew, oh, you know, that old man Howard Stern wants to have sex with these underage girls.
Isn't that so funny?
Everybody knew it and just accepted it as some charming quirk of Howard Stern's.
And there are many more clips like that that we could play.
Some are even more disturbing than the one you just heard.
This is a grown man, in his 40s at the time, repeatedly sexualizing children who are barely teenagers.
Now, many people have had their lives destroyed, have been reduced to groveling apologies for saying things that are not even a tenth as bad.
As what Stern says there.
And that wasn't even a tenth as bad as other things that Stern would frequently say.
These clips were, though, nauseating and creepy when he made them, and they're nauseating and creepy now.
There was never a point in American history where it was acceptable to sexualize children like this, but for years, Howard Stern continued doing just that, right out in the open.
Nobody stopped him.
He didn't seem ashamed of it at all.
He tracked the Olsen twins from puberty to adulthood, commenting on their sex appeal as he perceived it.
At every turn.
But somewhere along the line, Howard Stern and his team decided that he had to stop talking about the Olsen twins.
And more than that, someone decided that all of Stern's past comments about the Olsen twins needed to be purged from the internet.
All the other degenerate segments, or most of them, could stay online, but the stuff where he lusts after young children, well, that had to go.
And it was different from all the other smut.
It was too damning.
And so they went in and they tried to get rid of it.
And with that evidence mostly expunged from the internet, Stern has embraced pretty much every agenda item of the Fortune 500.
He's now officially a woke hall monitor by his own admission.
In fact, this week Stern proudly identified as woke.
Listen.
If woke means I can't get behind Trump, which is what I think it means, or that I support people who want to be transgender, or I'm for the vaccine, dude, call me woke as you f***ing want.
Now, as part of this new woke persona, Stern attacked Lauren Boebert for her inappropriate behavior in that theater a few days ago.
This is the guy who spent the first three decades of his career being a creepy, degenerate sex fiend.
And now he's playing the prude.
Now he's pretending to be scandalized by the sort of behavior that he would openly have on his show all the time.
He's become a pathetic old washed-up schoolmarm, but he's now shielded by his new woke identity.
He's immune from accusations of hypocrisy, just like he's immune from accusations of being a dirty old man attracted to children.
It's a revealing transformation, if only because it shows how little daylight there is between woke hall monitors and depraved, pedophilic scumbags.
Depraved, pedophilic scumbags and woke hall monitors, they're not two destinations on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Like, he went from one to the other.
At no point did he kind of make a pit stop and try out being a decent, normal person.
He never tried that out.
That's because it's not a long journey to get from one to the other.
They're in the same neighborhood, and there's a lot of overlap.
And they know it.
Howard Stern knows it.
Which is why he's sensitive about all those clips of him salivating over 13-year-old girls.
There are other old clips that are inconvenient for Stern, too, of course.
Clips that are especially relevant after what just happened to Alex Jones.
Jones, as you recall, was just ordered to pay something like a billion dollars.
A billion dollars to the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook mass shooting.
And it bankrupted him.
Now, of course, Jones was wrong in what he said about Sandy Hook.
He admits that.
But as far as we know, Howard Stern has never apologized for his decision to mock the victims of the Columbine school shooting.
In fact, Stern did not just mock these victims.
He said that their killers should have raped them first before executing them.
He actually said this on his show.
Listen.
How's it going?
Alright.
This is Howard?
Yeah.
Oh man, I live like a mile and a half from the school, man.
I have a couple friends that were there, and I talked to them yesterday.
What'd they say?
They said that it was just a bunch of chaos, shooting, and... Boy, a bunch of good-looking girls go to that school.
That guy was right.
The guy who called in, he was a little too excited, but... There was, like, really good-looking girls running out of there with their hands over their heads.
Yeah, I think the bomb teams are still working.
Did those kids try to have sex with any of the good-looking girls?
They didn't even do that.
At least if you're gonna go kill yourself and kill all the kids, like, why wouldn't you have some sex?
Yeah, I would think that I would want some sex, but...
So that's pretty much the most vile thing a human being could possibly say.
sex I guess they were getting a rush from what they were doing they seem like
these guys were really against the good-looking girls because the good
looking girls were paid - don't I think the good-looking girls will be begging
them to live and they go you don't have to beg because you're gonna be dead in a
minute so that's pretty much the most vile thing a human being could possibly
say yes that's like the worst now I personally give people a lot of leeway
for jokes quote-unquote made years ago in a different time when people weren't
as sensitive and edgy humor wasn't as edgy back then it was It was a different world, a different culture.
But this is way beyond the bounds of what would have been considered remotely acceptable even in the 90s.
This is, again, perhaps the worst thing I've ever heard anyone say ever.
It's the kind of thing that, how could that even come to your mind?
How are you even thinking about that?
He's not only joking about a school shooting right after it happened, this was a day later.
You have to understand something about Columbine when it happened.
I mean this was, of course any school shooting is a terrible tragedy, very sad, but at the time, You know, this was, for Columbine, for those who lived through it, it was like similar to 9-11 before 9-11 happened.
The effect it had on the country, just the kind of shell shock that most people were experiencing the next day and for weeks after.
And here he is a day later telling quote-unquote jokes about how the kids who were just killed should have been raped.
Lusting after the survivors of the school shooting and saying the shooter should have raped their victims.
Keep in mind, he said all this when he was a grown man in his mid-40s.
But Howard Stern has never been banned from any social media platform for those comments.
He wasn't ordered to pay a billion dollars.
How do you think the victim, the families, the parents of those children must have felt hearing that?
Did he ever have to pay them a billion dollars in restitution?
He didn't pay them a dime.
That's because, fortunately for Stern, he mocked the Columbine victims prior to this new era of wokeness where free speech is illegal as long as it's sufficiently, you know, offensive.
And now, just to cover his bases, Stern has completed his transition into the cult of wokeness soon enough to protect himself against cancellation.
Now they're not going to come after him because he's on their team.
Which is part of the strategy for Howard Stern.
Of course, this was not a coincidence that he decided to make this transition into being fully woke, pro-trans, pro-vaccine, everything.
Complaining about Donald Trump, I guess, every show.
I don't listen to his show at all, but that's what it seems like.
Now, meanwhile, Russell Brand is being demonetized based on accusations alone.
Unlike Howard Stern, Russell Brand never publicly expressed his sexual attraction to 13-year-old girls.
He never said that school shooting victims should have been raped.
But he has expressed skepticism of Big Pharma and the war in Ukraine.
And for that reason, this week a culture committee in the UK Parliament sent Rumble a letter requesting that they demonetize Russell Brand, quoting from the letter, quote, I'm writing concerning the serious allegations regarding Russell Brand.
We would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr. Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.
In the most passive-aggressive fashion imaginable, the UK Parliament also sent a similar letter to TikTok, quote, We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr. Brand is able to monetize his TikTok posts, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him, and what the platform is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behavior.
Now, let's take stock of what we're seeing here.
This is the government of the UK effectively telling multiple social media platforms to demonetize one of the most influential commentators on the planet solely on the basis of unproven allegations.
This is the government moving to have financial penalties imposed on someone without any criminal conviction at all.
Not just no criminal conviction, no criminal charge has even been levied at this point.
There's no plausible deniability here.
They're being pretty much as explicit as they can possibly be about it.
Before the Twitter files came out, this would have been dismissed as a wild conspiracy theory.
You weren't allowed to think that governments were colluding with big tech to censor unapproved voices, but now the government is just coming out and admitting that's exactly what they're doing.
This isn't just happening in the UK, the Biden administration does it too.
Well, unlike its competitor YouTube, Rumble emphatically rejected the request from the UK government to their credit.
But YouTube is the far bigger platform, and their decision to instantaneously demonetize Russell Brand sets a very worrying precedent.
And also a totally incoherent and inconsistent one.
As Elijah Schaefer has pointed out, Cardi B is currently fully monetized on YouTube, and that in spite of the fact that she, if you want to talk about what things people have done in their past, she openly admits to drugging and robbing men in her past.
It's on tape, she admits it.
Watch.
Cardi B is responding to a whole lot of backlash she is getting for an admission that she made on an Instagram Live video three years ago.
Now, someone brought it back up.
The internet likes to do that sort of thing.
And Cardi was talking about her days when she was working as a stripper, and she admitted that she would take guys back to hotel rooms, drug them, and rob them.
Here's what she said.
I want to go straight.
I want to go, yeah, you wanna?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's go to this hotel.
And I drop them, that's what I used to do.
I mean, you can't understand what the hell she's saying.
But just to translate for you, yes, she openly admits and brags about the fact that when she was a stripper, she
would cozy up to guys.
And she would get them back to the apartment, and then she would drug them, and then she would rob them.
Violent felonies that she's bragging about.
Her history.
You know, we call this a double standard, but double standard isn't really the right term for this.
It's really one standard.
And the standard is if you're useful to the left, if you're on their team, you can essentially do whatever you want.
You can say whatever you want, you can do whatever you want.
That is the standard consistently applied.
And nobody can really deny that anymore.
This is not an arbitrary application of shifting sets of standards.
This, again, is one standard.
Leftists are immune.
That's the rule.
That's the standard.
Now, with that in mind, we might ask, what's the appropriate response?
Because pointing out hypocrisy is not going to do anything.
It's not accomplishing much.
We've learned that much over the past few years.
What's needed is some courage.
We need more of what Rumble is doing.
Rumble knows that Russell Brand might actually be guilty of what he's accused of doing.
After all, he was an admitted sex-addicted degenerate back when these crimes supposedly occurred.
It certainly is not outside the realm of possibility that he did treat the women the way that he's accused of treating them.
But the leadership of Rumble understands that it makes no sense to un-person Russell Brand based on mere allegations when we know for a fact that Brand's critics are entirely motivated by politics.
They want to mete out punishments only to the enemies of the regime while its allies and lackeys are given exemptions.
Kowtowing to these people is not a smart or sustainable strategy.
We just can't do it.
In fact, all we can really do now is just ignore everything that the system says and assume for all intents and purposes that everyone they demonize is innocent.
If we're being honest, that's not always going to be true.
Sometimes we'll be wrong, and we'll end up defending people who are guilty.
Sometimes the system will say... Every once in a while, the system will say something true.
Every once in a while, maybe the system villainizes someone who actually is a villain.
But the problem is that they lie so often about so many things, and they're so blatantly driven by ideology and by narrative, and are so wildly dishonest, and their motives are so evil, That we have to ignore them completely at this point.
By defending and promoting the most odious scumbags among us, by embracing ghouls like Howard Stern and Cardi B, they've really left us no choice.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
When it comes to carrying your valuables or self-defense items in your vehicle,
most people feel that they have to choose between safety and convenience.
Someone breaking into your car, typically is going to check the glove box, under the seats, under the center console.
Now, we can outsmart them with the Headrest Safe, which gives you convenience and peace of mind.
The Headrest Safe is exactly what it sounds like.
You can replace your standard headrest in your car with their easy-to-access safe.
To access the safe, you just pull the side part off, and then you can either use your fingerprint, use a key, or manually type in the code.
To open the safe.
There's no way that anyone could know your headrest safe is even there.
And even if they did, there's no way that they could get it open without using one of the three methods to unlock it.
The headrest safe has a universal design that allows it to fit all vehicles.
The best part is these come in a variety of colors to match the interior of your car.
I have their black leather Vulcan headrest for my vehicle.
I love it.
Depending on the day, I'll put my self-defense items, cash, or medication in the safe.
Keeps me, gives me peace of mind knowing that it will stay out of the hands of our kids, valets, or intruders.
So, what are you waiting for?
Save $100 today at TheHeadRestSafe.com with promo code WALSH at checkout.
That's the headrestsafe.com promo code Walsh.
There's an article in the Guardian that I want to point out and begin with, and all
we really need is the headline.
The Guardian, "Panic and rash decision-making.
Ex-Bud Light staff on one of the biggest boycotts in US history."
The article goes on to elaborate, says, "When Anheuser-Busch InBev, the multinational beer
company promoted Alyssa Heinerscheid to vice president of marketing for Bud Light in July
2022, she became the first female VP in the beer's 40-year history."
It's just all white men, she says one former employee of the company leadership.
That's why we were excited to at least have Alyssa in that role.
In a March 2023 interview with the lifestyle podcast Make Yourself at Home, Heiderscheid spoke of her remit.
And we've played that clip before.
Alyssa Heiderscheid, that's the clip of the woke female Bud Light executive talking about how they want to change the branding of Bud Light so it's not just associated with white men and frat boys anymore.
Want to make it more diverse.
This was before the Dylan Mulvaney promotion happened.
Instead of ensuring a prosperous future for Bud Light, Heinerscheidt's tenure was marked
by a sharp decline in sales and one of the biggest boycotts of a brand in US history
after a minor social media partnership with Dylan Mulvaney was attacked
by right-wing anti-trans groups.
Over the past month, The Guardian has spoken with insiders at Bud Light
and the agency the company contracted about what exactly happened
and why the brand refused to back Mulvaney during the backlash.
Former employees who wish to remain anonymous spoke of leadership incompetence
and said that executives were operating from a place of fear
and were now vetting public comments under the brand's Instagram post
to remove any hint of negativity.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Anheuser-Busch did not respond to multiple requests for comments for this story.
It goes on from there, you know, we get the whole Blanc story, we get the inside story from these various ex-Bud Light employees who are very upset that the company, from their perspective, caved to pressure from us right-wing bigots.
And it was just chaos, and it was a disaster behind the scenes, and Bud Light bungled everything, every step of the way, they say.
Which, of course, they did.
I mean, that part of it is true.
But as I said, the most important aspect here can be seen just in the headline.
One of the biggest boycotts in U.S.
history.
Which, first of all, there's a lot of lessons here that can be learned.
A lot of lessons that Bud Light learned the hard way.
You know, don't promote transgenderism is one of them.
Another one is, as we hear, they were so excited.
We got the first female VP.
This is very exciting.
Diversity, we're embracing diversity.
I'm pretty much admitting that they hired her purely for that, purely to sort of check off the demographic box.
And her whole job is to promote the brand, is to market the brand.
And then almost as soon as she, the first female in this position, almost as soon as she gets into that position, the company tanks, is destroyed.
She is there to oversee and to engineer the worst drop in sales in the history of the company.
So that's what you get for your diversity initiatives.
But it's also interesting just to see the media finally acknowledging.
Calling it one of the biggest boycotts in US history, the media is finally acknowledging that.
And you may remember that in the beginning it was different.
That's not how it was.
They made fun of the boycott.
The left did, the media did.
They made fun of it as pathetic, toothless.
There was a lot of skepticism for a long time that the boycott was actually, you know, there was skepticism that it would accomplish anything.
Skepticism from people on the left and the right, saying that this isn't going to go anywhere.
But now even the hostile left-wing press admits that the boycott was historic, truly historic.
I mean, there are very few examples of a major brand suffering these kinds of losses due to an organized boycott.
And I actually can't think of any other example, period.
I mean, we always talked about the Bud Light boycott being so significant because it was one of the few examples of a conservative boycott being successful.
But it's actually one of the few examples of any boycott against a major brand being actually successful.
The left generally has boycotted much more often, and they have the reputation of being more effective at it.
And they are, you know, up until the Bud Light thing.
They typically have the more effective boycotts.
Not saying much, right?
The bar is pretty low to be more effective.
But boycotting, whether you're on the left or the right, doesn't matter, boycotting a major, iconic, American brand.
It's not even really American anymore because it's not owned by an American company, but traditionally, historically American brand.
Boycotting something like that is a tall order.
And to actually make an impact is very, very difficult.
It rarely happens.
To go as far as we were able to go with the Bud Light boycott and just destroy the company completely is an entirely different matter.
So I guess my point here is partly, partly it's I told you so.
And you know, I love to say I told you so.
And by you, I don't mean you, the audience.
I mean them, you know, the left, the media, even the skeptics on the right who said the Bud Light boycott was a distraction, etc.
And listen, people are allowed to be wrong about things.
I've been wrong about things in the past.
It may shock you to learn.
So you're allowed to be wrong.
But the people on the right, the conservatives who were Kind of making fun of the Bud Light Boycott early on.
This isn't going to do anything, this is stupid, this is a distraction, you're not accomplishing anything.
Those people, okay, and there are some prominent ones, trying to discourage it.
Saying this is not, we shouldn't even be doing this.
Those people on the right who said that.
Now, I know a few of them have come along afterwards and said, you know what, I got this one wrong.
You guys were right, the Bud Light Boycott was great.
Well, the ones who haven't acknowledged that, then I think you should keep that in mind, because that is a major blow to their credibility.
But this is, we want to talk about impacts on the culture.
It's one of the most impactful things that the conservative movement has done in modern history.
And if you're a conservative and you weren't on our team and helping with that, then that's unfortunate.
If you were trying to dissuade us from doing it, that's even more unfortunate.
And if you still haven't admitted that, hey, I got that wrong, you guys were right, next time I've learned my lesson, next time I'll be on board.
I've learned that actually the culture really does matter, obviously.
And being able to exercise power over a major American brand, that's a big thing that matters.
I've learned that.
So if someone acknowledges that, then that's one thing.
But I think some of them haven't.
Well, what I said at the time is that this was, and it is, it's an incredibly significant moment in history.
Actually, it will be in the history books.
Again, a major iconic national brand brought to its knees, destroyed, not just by a boycott, but by a boycott from the side of the culture war that supposedly has no power, and no purchase, and no sway.
A side that, crucially, It itself believed that it had no power.
It certainly didn't have this kind of power.
And so what makes it so incredibly significant, it's really two things.
One, as I said all along, Bud Light, this is the head on the spike at the outskirts of town.
It's a warning to other brands.
This is what could happen to you.
And if you are already in a vowed left-wing brand, You know, and this is what you do and people expect it, and your customers are mostly left-wingers already, you can get away with it probably.
You know, if you're Ben and Jerry's or whatever, you can get away with it.
But if you're a mainstream brand, and especially if you're a brand that relies on, you know, average Americans, conservatives, you need our business, then you better be very careful.
You better tread very lightly.
You know, you might think, what you've learned in the past is that, yeah, you can virtue signal a little bit.
You can throw a bone to the left and try to win some social credit points.
And it's not going to hurt you on this side because we'll be forgiving of that.
Well, those days are over.
We're not going to be forgiving of it.
So that was the first thing that made it significant.
And we immediately saw the cascading kind of domino effect.
Of course, this happened right before Pride Month.
And then we get into Pride Month.
And then Target happens.
And Target gets, it's kind of a, not full Bud Light, but like a mini Bud Light treatment.
And a lot of other brands did become, it was not, you know, I think many people were expecting Pride Month in 2023 to be just a total historic explosion of rainbows everywhere.
And it wasn't quite to the extent that many people were expecting.
And the left noticed that too.
There are a lot of articles written about how brands had a much more muted response this time around to Pride Month.
Why?
Because they're afraid, because they saw what happened to Bud Light.
So that's the first thing that made it incredibly significant.
The other thing is, because it's the message that's sent to corporate America, it's also the message that it sends to us, to the right, that we actually have this kind of power.
We know we have the numbers.
We have numbers.
We know that there's millions of us.
That means something.
We can use that to our advantage, but we have to use it.
We have to organize and actually use it.
So, all great stuff.
Moving on to this, which is not so great.
Study Fine says, The U.S.
Constitution was a collaborative effort undertaken by many of America's Founding Fathers.
James Madison played an especially crucial role in drafting the Supreme Law of the U.S.
and, as such, is often referred to as the Father of the Constitution.
One can't help but wonder what President Madison would think about the results of a new survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
In short, the poll suggests a troubling number of Americans are incredibly uninformed when it comes to their own constitutional rights.
Imagine that.
Even worse, the 2023 Annenberg Constitution Day Civic Survey, an annual poll released every Constitution Day, which is September 17th, also found that a significant number of Americans can't even name the three branches of government.
More specifically, while two-thirds of Americans, 66%, can name the three branches, 10% can only list two, another 7% can only name one, and an astounding 17% cannot name a single branch of the U.S.
government.
These are people who have never heard of, like, the legislative branch of government.
You can tell them about the legislative branch, and they're going to think you're talking about an actual type of tree.
Meanwhile, when respondents were asked to name all the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, most Americans, 77%, could only name one, the freedom of speech.
This latest version of the survey was put together during an especially turbulent year in America filled with high-profile events that brought the inner workings of the U.S.
government into the news cycle on a daily basis, blah, blah, etc., etc.
We don't care about that.
Besides freedom of speech, 77% being the most widely remembered right guaranteed by the First Amendment, another 40% of Americans were able to name freedom of religion, 33% could name the right to assembly, And 28% remembered freedom of the press, and a meager 9% recalled the right to petition the government.
In total, just 5% of U.S.
adults could correctly cite all five First Amendment rights, and 30% named three of the four.
Just under half named one or two First Amendment rights, and 20% could not name a single right.
20% of Americans, according to this, could not name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, so they didn't even know free speech.
The association between free speech and the First Amendment was unknown to 20% of Americans, which sounds kind of amazing.
If you are a vaguely informed person, then that sounds amazing.
There are people, like 20%, millions, adults that you could walk up to and say, you know, First Amendment rights, and they won't even know what you're referring to.
They don't know what that is.
Interestingly, over one in five Americans responded to that question by listing the right to bear arms, which is a right granted under the Second Amendment, not the First.
And so it goes, you know, we see these kinds of studies and surveys all the time and it's easy to overlook it and to say, well, yeah, we already know that.
Well, we already know that.
Of course, it's not a surprise.
And I guess we do already know it, but I fear that because we're so accustomed to this and we see the surveys and, you know, Americans don't know anything about The history of their own country, they don't know anything about how their government works or is supposed to work, they don't know anything about anything.
And we see all the surveys, we see the dumb guy on the street interviews that are all over YouTube and the late night shows and everything.
And we're so accustomed to it that although we realize this is the case, we don't really understand how significant it is and what a problem it is.
Because we've grown so accustomed to it, we don't stop to think about it.
We don't stop to think about the fact that this is a, this is a civilizational crisis that we're, that we are dealing with.
When you've got a country filled with millions of adults who don't know anything, who are totally oblivious, and yet those same adults have the power to direct the future of our country.
And when it comes to voting, they have the same power that you do.
Their vote counts equal to yours.
I mean, the first takeaway always with this kind of thing, the first takeaway is always, or it should be, that the education system in America is completely broken.
And it's actually amazing to me that anytime this comes up, very often the education system gets let off the hook.
And when we talk about problems in the education system, and yeah, conversations about the problems in the education system come up a lot, but somehow we often miss the biggest problem, which is that the education system is just simply failing to educate people.
It's not doing the job.
It's not working.
Okay, when you can have millions of people who can go through really 13 years of formal grade school education from K through 12, And they're going into a building that is called a school, where they're supposed to be educated.
That's what they're there for.
And they're there for six hours a day.
Okay?
And they go there.
And they come out.
And then many of them go to another four years of additional education.
Okay?
And now we're talking about 16 or 17 years.
Think about that.
16 or 17 years of formal education.
And yet many of these people are coming out on the other end of that, knowing basically nothing about the world, about their country, about themselves.
If anything, coming out more confused about everything than they were going in.
And it's incredible that we can all be witnessing this happening, and we all know that it's happening, and we're not having any kind of serious conversation about the utter failure of the education system, and the fact that It needs to be torn down and rebuilt fundamentally from the ground up.
There's no saving it, okay?
This is like a home that you look at.
There are some homes you look at and you could say, well, this is a rehab job.
You could do a little remodeling, remodel the kitchen, maybe put an addition on.
And there are other houses that you look at and you say, that's a teardown.
You cannot salvage it.
Its very foundations are rotted away.
There's nothing you can do.
You gotta tear it down completely, and that's where we are with the education system.
And there's just, there's no getting around that at this point.
So that's one conversation that we should be having.
And the other conversation that we should be having, but we're not, is that hopping up on my old, on this hobby horse for me, that these people should not be allowed to vote.
I mean, you hear people say that in a half-joking way.
Oh, I can't believe these people can vote.
But really, they shouldn't be able to.
Actually, they should not be able to vote.
That should be something that becomes a serious topic of conversation.
Like the kind of thing that comes up in presidential debates.
An issue that political parties have to deal with in their platforms.
We should really be talking about this.
There are a lot of people who are voting in this country who should not have that right.
They don't deserve it.
And as I've tried to explain many times, the right to vote, it is not a God-given right guaranteed to everybody regardless of anything.
It's not.
It's not fundamental to your human nature that you automatically are entitled to have a say over the political system in your country.
It's not.
There are some basic guidelines that should be in place.
You should have to earn that right.
Not everybody should have it.
And it is so incredibly obvious that if you are an absolute oblivious moron who knows nothing about your own country or the government that runs it, then you shouldn't have any say over it.
It's not just that you shouldn't be able to vote.
It's that you can't vote, really.
Your vote is not really a vote.
It's just random.
You're throwing a dart at a board.
You're rolling dice.
It's not anything.
Voting is going in, and you understand the issues, and you're making an informed choice.
It might be the wrong choice, but you're making an informed choice about what you want, what you want the future of the country to look like, and you understand the issues.
And that's what a vote is.
But walking in there randomly and saying, well, I don't know.
That's not voting.
And yet, this is how we determine the future of the country.
And we all stand back like we're impotent to stop it.
We've all decided that, well, yeah, we just have to let absolute, total, brain-dead morons determine the future of the country.
What can we do about it?
We can't do anything about it.
Yep, we're just gonna let them drive us right off a cliff.
That's our decision.
There are things that can be done about it.
If we have the will to do it.
Let's see, what else do we got here?
This is an interesting story I've seen for a few days.
I've had it on deck.
Comedian Hasan Minhaj is the latest celebrity to fabricate his experiences with racism in the U.S.
This is from Outkick, by the way.
A profile in The New Yorker by Claire Malone says, in Minaj's approach to comedy, he leans heavily on his own experience as an Asian American and Muslim American, telling harrowing stories of law enforcement entrapment and personal threats.
For many of his fans, he's become an avatar for the power of representation in entertainment.
But after many weeks of trying, I have been unable to confirm some of the stories that he had told on stage.
When the author confronted him, Minaj admitted the stories he tells on stage are often exaggerated or made up.
However, Minaj suggests that there's no harm in his lying about racism because he's a comedian.
He said, quote, every story in my style is built around a seed of truth.
My comedy Arnold Palmer is 70% emotional truth, this happened, and then 30% hyperbole, exaggeration, fiction.
Specifically, Minaj references a story he fabricated in which an undercover FBI agent investigated his mosque.
He tells the New York, the punchline is worth the fictionalized premise.
And there are many other examples of this that, and you can read, I read actually, I don't often read, I read articles by this publication.
I read The New Yorker.
I read the whole article and it's interesting to go through.
It's not just like Hasan Minhaj, this comedian.
It's not just one or two stories that he's made up in his act.
It's like his entire act.
His whole thing.
Many, many, many stories.
Including, and they go into details about this, stories that he's told on stage involving real people in his life that he's known.
And he's made up these terrible things that they've done and said that are not true.
Now, there's some people that have tried to defend this, as Hassan, not many, but there are some who have tried to defend it, as Hassan Minaj has done himself, by saying, well, this is, we're comedians, you know, we make up stories.
Now, there's a context where making up a story as a comedian can be acceptable.
So, for example, The classic cliched thing, you know, you go to comedy club and the comedian gets up there and says, oh man, you ever been on an airplane these days?
They're flying in today.
And then they tell some story about something that happened on the airplane that annoys them when they were flying in that morning.
But of course, we all know that if that thing that they encountered on the airplane happened at all, it didn't happen that morning because this is in their act that they've written ahead of time.
And maybe whatever the thing happened on the airplane, maybe that exact thing never happened to them.
But the point is, it's just, it's like, it's a universal human experience.
This is when it's legitimate for comedians to make up a story.
It's also when everyone knows that the story is made.
So there's no deception going on.
Everyone kind of understands what's happening.
So when they kind of, they want to make an observation or make a joke about a universal human experience, like someone doing something annoying on an airplane.
But it's funnier to frame it in a way to sort of like put themselves in that situation and
they're observing it and making jokes about it.
So even if it's a situation where they haven't been in that exact situation, but it's like
the kind of situation we're all familiar with, we've all seen, we all know what they're talking
about.
And then from there, that's the setup to get into the joke.
And again, everybody knows, understands that about comedians and comedians do this.
But this Hasan Minhaj guy, that's not what he's doing.
These are not punchlines that he's setting up about airplanes and universal human experiences.
These are like very specific personal stories of him being victimized.
There's not even a punchline.
Nothing funny is happening here.
It's just one long complaint.
One long story of victimization.
And when you're making that up, well then that just makes you a liar.
That just makes you comedy's, you know, Jussie Smollett.
That's all that makes you.
That's called a hoax.
That's not a joke, that's a hoax.
And so that's all this guy has done, is just his whole act is hoaxes.
Which also shows you what comedy has become.
Like, I haven't seen very much of this guy's act.
I think a few times he had a show, it was on Showtime, I think, Patriot Act.
So he's been around.
You know, he's kind of like the Trevor Noah kind of figure, that he's not funny.
He's never said anything funny.
He's never made anybody laugh, ever.
But the media loves him, or they did love him anyway.
They can't love him as much now because he's been exposed as a liar.
But up until this, they did.
And so they keep finding things for him to do, and it never works, and it's always bad, and it always gets bad ratings.
So, you know, I've seen him around in that context.
And this is largely what comedy has become, where there's no joke.
You know, political humor is one thing.
Political humor is fine.
If you want to tell a joke from a left-wing perspective, that's fine too.
If that's your perspective, you're a left-wing person, you're telling a joke like that, then that's fine.
But there's no joke at all.
It's just complaining about the country and then putting yourself, making yourself the victim, and that's the humor now.
Quite hilarious.
Let's get to the Was Walsh Wrong.
A few comments here.
This one says, Matt has clearly led a charmed existence and had parents who cared about him.
My problem with him is he seems to lack compassion and understanding.
He assumes that everybody had the same family life as a child that he did.
You know, it's kind of sad if simply having parents who care about you counts as having a charmed existence.
If that now is some great privilege.
You were privileged.
Your parents cared about you.
That's a sad statement about society.
I don't deny that that's true, though.
That is a privilege now.
And I did have parents who cared about me.
But that should be a given for most people.
And it says something about society when that becomes a great privilege.
Your parents stayed married and they actually cared about you.
But this is also completely irrelevant because this is a thing that people... I'm not even sure what this was in reference to.
It was in reference to some point that I made.
But it doesn't matter because it's got nothing to do with any point that I can make.
So I make a point.
And you disagree with that point, I guess, and rather than making an argument to try to debunk my point, you say that I led a privileged life, which, true or not, is irrelevant.
Maybe I led the most privileged life in the world.
Does that automatically make me wrong about anything that I've said?
Does that call into question any perspective that I could possibly have on any issue?
I don't really see it.
The Political Palm says, why does a married dude with six kids comment so much on single women's sex lives?
That was obviously in reference to our discussion about body counts.
And yeah, it is a mystery, I have to say.
It's quite a mysterious thing.
We really have to scratch our heads and wonder about that.
Why would I, as a married man with six kids, why would I care about society?
Really?
Great question.
I don't know.
Very curious, isn't it?
Very curious.
Hey, look at you over there with your family.
What do you care about society for?
How does society affect you?
This is basically the argument that you get.
This is probably the most common argument on the internet these days.
How does society affect you anyway?
It's just society.
It's just the society that you're living in.
I don't know.
Yeah.
I guess I'm crazy.
You know what?
It's because I'm insane.
I'm an insane person.
That's why.
That's why I care about society.
I must be crazy.
I must be crazy.
Finally, Cis Siberian Orchestra says, "Matt Walsh is the modern-day equivalent of those old church ladies in the
1980s who thought that heavy metal music and Dungeons and Dragons
were causing the downfall of society."
These comments are also interesting to me because now I don't know about Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm not even sure what the criticism was of Dungeons & Dragons.
I barely even know what it is.
I've been aware of that thing my entire life, Dungeons & Dragons, and it's kind of associated with nerds.
I guess it's a board game, I assume?
Or is it a video game?
I honestly don't even know.
Yeah, it's a board game, right?
I don't know.
It's a role-playing game.
On a board game?
Or is it cards?
It's cards.
Okay.
Cards and dice, and it's role-playing.
How do you do a role-playing game with cards?
It doesn't matter.
Okay.
I don't know.
So I don't know what the criticism of that was, but generally, I always love it when I hear this from people that, oh, you're just like the church ladies from the 80s and 90s.
You're just like them.
Oh, you mean so I'm just like the people who write about everything?
Is that what you're saying?
I'm just like those people who have been entirely vindicated on every imaginable point.
Okay, you go back to this kind of a broad group with a broad brush strokes here, but the old church ladies, you go back to the things they were worried about and the things that they were saying about the state of the culture at the time and where things were headed, and what you find is that they were 100% correct.
You know, I was a kid back in the era of the 80s and 90s church ladies, old church ladies.
I will say that my grandmother, who's passed away years ago now, but she was really like one of your classic 90s church ladies.
And in that she went to church all the time, she was very religious, and she also had, she was very sort of strict, and she was very critical of modern culture.
And I remember that she would do things like, She would see things in Disney movies, and she'd be upset about it, and she would write, like, a letter, you know, the classic old church lady approach.
She would write a letter to Disney, complaining about whatever she saw in the film.
But I think back to that now, and I was like, well, at the time, you know, if my grandmother saw something in a Disney movie and thought that it was inappropriate or was wrong, well, it's almost as though she noticed things.
So now we look at Disney today, and we all agree, especially if you're on the right, Disney's super uber woke.
It's like the church ladies of the 80s and 90s, they noticed even that.
They saw that coming down the pike.
Everybody else is caught off guard by it.
Everyone else, we look around at the state of the culture today, well not we, but many people look around at the state of the culture today and act shocked by it.
As if the culture just fell out of the sky one day three years ago.
But it didn't.
The culture today comes from the culture of yesterday, and you trace it back and back and back.
So I think the church ladies, when they saw, for example, when it comes to the music, the old church ladies, they didn't like the music of the 80s and 90s.
Why didn't they like the music?
Well, they noticed that the music Even back then, popular music largely was a celebration of vice and stupidity.
Music was largely just people bragging about being dumb, hedonistic scumbags.
That's what music was, even in the 80s and 90s.
And I think the old church lady said, well, that's not good.
That's actually not a good thing.
I don't think it's good for that.
It's not a positive development.
And they also realized that for most of human history, music was not that.
Music was actually a celebration of beauty.
Music was supposed to be—any art was supposed to be about what's beautiful and true and good.
Like, music is supposed to be a celebration of goodness.
And then something happened and it's not that anymore.
Every single song you hear, it's just an absolute hedonistic scumbag bragging about that fact.
And I think the church ladies saw that and said, well, that's bad.
And they said, you know, if we accept this, then it's only going to get worse.
And now we look around today and we see, you know, WAP or whatever.
And again, the really oblivious people act like a song like WAP fell out of the sky out of nowhere.
It didn't.
You could go back to popular songs in the 80s and 90s and find a direct, there's a direct line, there's a direct lineage where one, that led to that.
So all that to say, I thank you for that flattering comparison.
Things continue to heat up with the new Daily Wire Plus series, Convicting a Murderer.
Apparently, Stephen Avery is directing his fans from behind bars to flood Rotten Tomatoes and give Convicting a Murderer a bad review, which is just weird.
He and his Facebook group, Stephen Avery is Innocent, are even referring to Convicting a Murderer as garbage, as if the opinion of a convicted murderer is one that has any value whatsoever to anyone.
Nevertheless, it seems we have made Stephen Avery and his fans very angry, which means the series is doing its job, and we're about to double down with Episode 5.
Take a look.
Coming up on Convicting a Murderer.
Well, you think that the Sheriff's Department is framing you because of the lawsuit, right?
That's what I think.
Okay.
James Lank, Andy Colburn.
They were involved in the old case, and here they are again in this new case.
Steven Avery is released from prison after being wrongfully convicted.
Avery's attorneys say those hardships are worth $36 million.
Why were Manitowoc officers involved when there was a $36 million pending lawsuit against them?
Link and Colburn were villains, the main ones accused of planting evidence.
Were you asked to perform a thorough search of this piece of furniture?
Yes.
Suddenly, I hear Lieutenant Link say, there's a key on the floor.
I knew the significance of that, and I said, you guys just f***** up my case.
[MUSIC]
New episodes are released every Thursday exclusively on DLR Plus.
Head over there now to start the series if you haven't yet.
And if you're not a member, go to dailywireplus.com slash subscribe to join today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today's cancellation is going to be something of a sequel to yesterday's.
On Wednesday, as you know, we talked about the issue of high body counts.
Specifically, we discussed why men care about a woman's body count, how many men she slept with, and why it's valid for us to care about it, and why, in fact, we should care about it.
We're not going to rehash that topic.
You can go back to yesterday's show and listen, or find the clip on YouTube.
That segment got a pretty big reaction, and as they say, sparked a conversation.
Many people, both men and women, agreed with the points that I raised.
Some disagreed.
And then there was, as expected, a loud minority of people who didn't disagree necessarily with the substance of my remarks, but who nonetheless had a problem with the focus of my remarks.
I spent most of the segment talking about why women shouldn't have high body counts.
But why didn't I say more about why men shouldn't have high body counts?
So let me read a few of these comments and messages, and I think this is a representative sample.
Matt, you dropped the ball on the body count rant.
Everything you said about women's body counts is true, but it's just as bad for men who have high body counts.
It's just as much of a red flag.
You can't let men off the hook.
Another says, Matt, Matt says nothing about men having a high body count.
It's just as bad for men to have a high body count and all the negative things you said about women having a high body count apply to men.
This one-sided conversation is stupid.
Another says, "Number one, the association between STDs and sexual experience is valid for both men and women.
Number two, the argument about habit of following carnal desire holds both for men and women.
Number three, as for moral and values, only women's morals and values are called into question.
Number four, desired self-control, dignified and classy are attributes that pertain only to women."
Ah, new exciting logic for them, for redneck university.
Another says, "I concur with every point made with one caveat."
This conversation shouldn't be about women's body counts.
It should be about a partner of either gender.
Another says, it needs to be acknowledged that a high body count is just as disgusting in men as it is in women.
Men who are virtuous and chase should also be the one sought after, too.
Another says, of course, the misogynist who wishes that he was still in the 1940s focuses his whole body count diatribe on women.
Also, both men and women should care about body count, not just men caring about a woman's account.
It's kind of gross on both parties.
Do you like being used?
And finally, Matt, I get tired of constant hyper-focus on criticizing women.
That's why women become defensive.
Society holds women to a higher standard while painting men as the victims.
Okay, so let me make a few points about this.
First, anyone who listened to the monologue knows that I did in fact stipulate at the end that obviously it's bad for men to be promiscuous also.
Most of the same reasons apply.
A promiscuous man has likely been exposed to and possibly contracted any number of disgusting diseases.
A promiscuous man lacks self-control, lacks virtue, lacks self-respect, lacks dignity, and so on.
And I did state this in the monologue, but of course the caveat that I offered there was ignored by the people who were determined to come away with the impression that I was being somehow unfair and sexist towards women.
And I think for those people, the moment I entered into this conversation, they had already determined that.
They had already determined that no matter what I say, it has to be sexist.
Second, did I spend equal time explaining why high body counts are bad for men?
Well, no, I didn't.
And why?
Well, because that's just not what the conversation was about.
The point was specifically to explain why men care about high body counts.
And that's been the debate in society, and it's what I was weighing in on.
Not everything has to be equal all the time, okay?
Just because we spend a certain amount of time talking about one group of people, that doesn't mean that we need to give equal time to the other group.
Neither should we generalize every conversation so that everything is about everybody and no group is ever specifically singled out.
The demand for this kind of thing is it's immature, and it's silly, and it's childish.
It's the sort of thing I deal with as a parent.
You know, it's like when my kids are Upset because a sibling got a slightly bigger piece of pie for dessert.
I'm not going to sit there with a ruler and measure it all out exactly, precisely, equally.
Sometimes you get the bigger slice.
Sometimes you get the smaller slice.
That's life.
Not everything is equal.
And when you insist on that kind of equality, it's not because you care deeply about fairness and justice.
It's because you're being selfish and small-minded.
Third, the idea that society is harsher and more critical towards women is simply wrong.
In fact, it's delusional and laughable.
And yet, it's a narrative that you hear from people on the left and the right.
You know, it's not that society criticizes women more, it's that in the last few years, society, some segments of it anyway, Have started criticizing women at all.
You see, for a long time, nearly all of the lecturing, all of the holding accountable, all of the criticism was directed towards men.
And that has started to shift ever so slightly in recent times.
And the people who preferred the old way are reacting as though women have been entirely villainized.
They haven't.
Even with a slight uptick in criticism, still the group most often demonized, most often blamed, most often cast as the villains are men, specifically white straight men.
They're still the subject of most of the scolding, most of the finger-pointing, most of the scapegoating.
It's just that recently we've started to hear, on occasion, people speak up and say, well here's what women are doing wrong, and here's what they need to do better too.
See, men have been hearing this message forever, from everywhere.
Women are not used to hearing it, certainly not so directly and bluntly.
For a long time, you would never hear anyone stand up and say, women need to do this better.
You especially would never hear any man say that.
Even though, again, on the other side of it, for years, women were lecturing men that way all the time.
So, now a little bit of that's going in the reverse, and we're acting as though it only ever goes in the reverse, which is not the case.
Now, fourth, one of the reasons why it's necessary to specifically state that women shouldn't be promiscuous is that, on the other end, there are powerful cultural voices claiming that female promiscuity is an objectively good thing.
The institutions in our country are heavily invested in the narrative that it's empowering for women to become sexually liberated and sleep with whoever they want, whenever they want.
And this message doesn't really go the other way.
There isn't nearly as much of a push to encourage men to be promiscuous, and you certainly don't hear anyone ever claiming that it's empowering for a man to have sex with lots of women.
Like, when's the last time you ever heard that?
When's the last time you ever heard someone say that a man who's had sex with a lot of women is empowered?
It doesn't happen.
In fact, I'm not sure if I've ever heard anyone say that it's liberating for men to have sex with lots of women.
That kind of encouragement only goes one way, which makes it especially important to counteract and speak out against it.
This is the way it goes in modern society.
Certain types of sins committed by certain groups of people are specially promoted and encouraged, and it then becomes necessary for those of us on Team Sanity to specially denounce those sins because they are being specially celebrated.
Fifth and finally, Is it bad for men to sleep with lots of women?
As established already, the answer is yes.
Obviously.
Is it just as bad?
Yes, in the sense that licentiousness is morally disordered, is sinful, and no matter who's engaging in it, that remains the same.
But is it just as much of a red flag?
In other words, is it just as troubling of a sign when a man has a history of sleeping around as it is when a woman has a similar history?
The answer there is no.
It isn't.
It's still bad for men.
Men should not behave that way.
Yet it isn't exactly the same.
And this is the part of the conversation that, of course, will be misconstrued by the legions of morons who are determined to misconstrue it, but it's worth saying anyway.
A high body count for a woman is indeed more of a red flag than it is for a man.
It's a red flag for both, but the flag is a bit bigger, a bit brighter, flies a bit higher with women.
And there are many reasons for this.
And I think most of this is, like, intuitive.
I think people just understand this.
But I'll mention one.
It's that men are less emotional by nature.
We form fewer attachments.
And we form them more slowly.
So that makes it easier for a man to compartmentalize.
It's easier for him to take a more practical, utilitarian view of something, even his relationships.
Men are also more visual in their attraction.
We're attracted to looks more than women are.
Now, obviously, it'll help a man attract a woman if he's a good-looking guy, but even if he has average looks, even if he's, like, ugly, he can make himself more physically attractive to women by being confident, by being personable, by being funny, by being successful.
Now, an ugly woman will have a harder time overcoming that deficit with personality alone because a man's initial attraction is based much more on visual cues.
I mean, it's based almost entirely, at least initially, on visual cues.
All this means that a man's wiring makes it easier for him to have casual sexual relationships.
That doesn't make the behavior good.
It doesn't make it any less sinful.
It doesn't make it, quote, natural.
It just means that it's an easier habit of behavior for a man to fall into.
Women, on the other hand, are wired to be more emotional, to be more affectionate, to be more easily attached, less driven by raw physical visual attraction.
And this makes it a sign of greater, more severe moral disorder when a woman has a high body count.
In other words, she shouldn't even really be tempted to act that way.
A life of casual sex should be more immediately and innately unappealing to her as a woman.
This isn't even a temptation that she should really have.
And so if she's living such a life, it speaks potentially to a deeper and more serious problem.
Now, there are plenty of examples like this that go the other way.
Like, for example, it's not good when women are overly sensitive, when they're quick to take offense, when they have poor control over their emotions.
It's not good for women.
Women shouldn't be that way, you know.
But it's worse when men are that way.
Bad for both, worse for men.
Because it's a behavior that is even farther from the masculine ideal than it is from the feminine.
It should be easier for a man to not behave that way because that's not how he's wired, or at least it's not how he should be wired.
That's why when a woman is too sensitive and she cries too much and she takes things too personally, men find it annoying.
You know, it's annoying.
But when a man is too sensitive and he cries too much and he takes things too personally, women find it repulsive.
It's not just annoying, it's disgusting.
It's like nauseating for a woman to see that from a man.
That sort of thing can be, like, just imagine, you know, you'll see sometimes a woman will, like, break down in tears because she's just very frustrated.
Very frustrating day, and she starts to cry.
On the other hand, like, imagine a man breaking down in tears.
You ask him, what's wrong?
I don't know, I'm just so frustrated.
It's such a frustrating day.
I'm just overwhelmed that he's crying.
Now, whatever we hear from society about, a man should be more emotional.
I guarantee it.
Almost every woman sees that, and they're not attracted to that man at all.
That's gross.
Like, get it together.
That sort of thing could be a deal-breaker from a woman's perspective.
From a man's perspective, when a woman acts that way, you know, it's not really a deal-breaker.
The behavior is bad for both groups, but for one, it's more disgusting.
It's more of a red flag.
It's not just a flaw for a man to be weak and teary and overly sensitive.
It is specifically a feminine flaw.
Feminine flaws in men are always going to be worse than feminine flaws in women.
On the other hand, it is a flaw for a woman to be crude and vulgar and to run around hooking up with random people and taking pride in her sexual conquests.
But even worse, it is a masculine flaw.
And masculine flaws will be more repulsive in women than they are in men.
That's the nuance here.
Easy to misinterpret.
Easy to take out of context and accuse me of saying things I'm not saying.
It is what it is.
And those who deny this innately obvious point are therefore today cancelled.
