Today on the Matt Walsh Show, things are falling apart for the race grifter now known as "Ibram X Kendi." He's just the latest anti-racist con artist to be exposed in recent years. Is the anti-racist scam falling apart? We'll discuss. Also, John Fetterman cries over being bullied for his disability. Inmates claim cruel and unusual punishment when they are forced to work in the fields rather than sitting in a cell all day. And a Daily Show clip goes viral where Trevor Noah tries every so cautiously to push back against a babbling trans activist.
Ep.1228
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Want to work at The Daily Wire? For more information, click here and select “Careers”: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Watch Episodes 1-5 of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
American Financing - To get started, call (866) 721-3300 or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net/.
- - -
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
Let Rough Greens boost your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the 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, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic doctor Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag so your dog can try it.
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.
A decade ago, a man in his 30s by the name of Henry Rogers was one of 32,000 faculty members working in the State University System of New York.
Henry was an assistant professor making a modest salary as he taught history classes to undergraduates.
He wasn't exactly lighting the academic world on fire, but he was doing pretty well, all things considered.
Henry had graduated from high school with a GPA below 3.0, SAT scores hovering around 1,000.
And with numbers like that, many students decide to pass on college entirely for good reason.
But here was Henry Rogers teaching college students.
He wasn't simply going to college.
He was educating the next generation.
So he was something of an unexpected success story.
Now, nevertheless, despite the many blessings that were bestowed on him by Affirmative Action, Henry Rogers dreamed bigger.
You know, he didn't want to be stuck at SUNY forever.
He knew that if he wanted to make a lot of money and advance in academia, he needed a rebrand.
You could only go so far with a white-sounding name like Henry Rogers in the American university system these days, especially in a state like New York.
So in 2013, Henry Rogers changed his name overnight.
He became Ibram Zolani Kendi, or Ibram X. Kendi for short.
And from that point forward, anyone looking at the CV of this assistant professor at a middling state school wouldn't immediately think of someone boring and generic and pasty.
Instead, they think of black revolutionaries like Malcolm X.
Now, looking back, Henry Rogers' name change may go down as the single most effective rebrand in the history of this country.
I mean, his timing couldn't have been better.
At the moment Henry Rogers transitioned into Ibram X. Kendi, corporate media in the U.S., it just so happened, was looking for something to cover besides wealth inequality and Occupy Wall Street.
They decided, apparently in concert, to craft a narrative that innocent young black people were being hunted down by deranged white supremacists.
To advance that narrative, the media lied about the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and eventually George Floyd and so on.
During this period, they needed talking heads with names like Ibram X. Kendi to tell Americans that their real problem wasn't Citibank or JPMorgan, it was white people.
One thing led to another, and before you knew it, Henry Rogers was on the move.
He was hired by American University in Washington, D.C.
in 2017, which at the time was struggling with the news that bananas had been spotted hanging from trees on campus.
This was presumed to be a racist incident, because why else would there be bananas?
It must be racist.
And Henry Rogers was going to fix things.
He was going to fix everything.
Specifically, Rogers promised to develop a racial reporting guidebook and to conduct a symposium on racial reporting.
Now, none of that ever materialized, and this is a theme with Henry Rogers that promises things and they don't actually happen.
But even so, Rogers received tens of thousands of dollars in grant money from places like the Ford Foundation and elsewhere to make it happen.
But Rogers was not completely idle during this period.
After two years at American University, Henry produced a now infamous book called How to Be an Anti-Racist, which offered a novel theory.
Henry argued that the solution to racism is more racism.
Quote, the only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination.
The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
Now, if your IQ is higher than Henry Rogers, and unless you're a house cat, it almost certainly is, that might seem counterintuitive.
In fact, it might seem like the single dumbest idea ever committed to paper.
But in 2019, this theory, this explicit endorsement of racism, of discrimination, lit the academic world on fire.
They were thrilled by it.
That same year, Henry Rogers was invited to speak at the Aspen Ideas Festival,
where he had the opportunity to expound on his ingenious thesis
before an audience of adoring, mostly white sycophants.
And yet, despite the friendly audience, things didn't go well.
And not to oversell, but this may be the single most amusing clip to come out of the entire DEI anti-racism craze.
And in case you missed it at the time, you're in for a treat.
Here is Henry Rogers, aka Ibram X. Kendi, explaining his definition of racism, or lack thereof.
Listen.
I'm wondering, I just finished reading Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility.
And I think she did, like, an excellent job of defining racism as, like, a system of oppression as opposed to, like, a personal choice.
It's like, it's there, you benefit from it, or you don't, that's its purpose.
You talked about the importance of defining racism, but I, but I, unless I missed it, which is possible, I didn't, I didn't hear your personal definition.
Is there, is there one that you would offer us?
Like, how do you define racism?
Sure, so racism, I would define it as a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated
by racist ideas.
[laughter]
Sure, a collection of racist policies that lead to racial inequity that are substantiated by racist ideas.
And anti-racism is pretty simple using the same terms.
Anti-racism is a collection of anti-racist policies leading to racial—anybody want to take a guess?
equity that are substantiated by anti-racist ideas.
Thank you.
It's the most comprehensive talk I've seen on racism in my whole life.
I really appreciate you.
That's because of Jamal.
Thank you for this.
This is the best, that was the most insightful thing I've ever heard.
That was the greatest wisdom that has ever been passed down in the history of mankind.
Now this is an amazing clip for many reasons.
For one thing, even in the moment, with everyone in the room on Henry Rogers' side, there's still nervous laughter when he tries to articulate the definition of the central concept animating his entire life's work.
Even by the standards of woke academics, this was bad.
And they all knew it.
Racism is when you're racist.
Well, you know, racism is when racist things happen.
Okay, thanks, Henry.
That was very illuminating.
Everyone just smiles and nods awkwardly because that's what academia is now.
It's a grift.
There's no integrity.
There's no dialogue.
There are no ideas at the Aspen Ideas Festival.
There's just whatever that was.
Now, this moment was not the end of Henry Rogers' academic career.
Of course, it should have been.
He's in the business of anti-racism and can't tell you what it is.
There's a lot of that sort of thing going around on the left, if you haven't noticed.
Criticizing Henry Rogers, though, or denying him promotions, is white supremacy.
So the promotions kept coming.
Henry went on to spend a year as a fellow at Harvard University after that, and then he received yet another prestigious offer.
Just weeks after George Floyd's overdose, Rogers was hired to lead Boston University's Center for Anti-Racist Research.
Within weeks, massive donations were flowing in.
Jack Dorsey, the weird bearded founder of Twitter at the time, donated $10 million to Rogers' new center.
Lots of money coming from lots of people.
Random companies like Vertex Pharmaceuticals contributed millions of dollars as well.
In total, the center raised well over $40 million to combat racism.
And it's going to be combated by a guy who can't even tell you what it is.
So where was all this money going?
According to Boston University, it was going to fund some really path-breaking, original research in the field of anti-racism.
In December of 2020, for example, BU published an article on its website promising that Kendi would be bringing anti-racist investigators together with data scientists to tackle racial inequities and to, quote, establish Boston University as the nation's leading academic institution for data-driven anti-racist research.
Well, what came of this unprecedented collaboration between Rogers' anti-racist experts and BU's data scientists?
Were racial inequities tackled?
Not quite.
The Washington Free Beacon looked into this and they found that Kennedy's anti-racist center established something called the Racial Data Lab, which is now completely defunct.
Quote, as of September, the Racial Data Lab only compiled information on COVID-19 infections and deaths.
The COVID-19 tracker stopped collecting information in March 2021.
The center has since removed the names of anyone who worked on that project from its website.
So they compiled information from a bunch of other sources about COVID deaths.
And then they stopped after about a year.
That's it.
Now, we did reach out to Boston University to see if there was something we were missing, but they didn't reply.
So, it's clear that the sum total of BU's big anti-racism data initiative, the one they touted with articles and a lot of marketing materials, was this.
This was it.
This little COVID tracker.
That's all they did.
Now, to be fair, in its three years of existence, Rogers' Anti-Racist Center also managed to take other steps towards anti-racism.
For example, scholars at the center managed to produce not one, but two, two published papers in three years.
Two whole papers for $40 million.
It's not bad.
That's $20 million apiece.
One of these papers looked at Google Street View images and concluded, based on that, that neighborhoods with mostly black residents have more dilapidated buildings than neighborhoods with mostly white residents.
I mean, this is groundbreaking, shocking stuff.
No one knew that until they spent millions of dollars studying that.
And then someone, it's a lightbulb moment, one of the researchers said, hey, get over here, look at this.
According to what I'm discovering, inner city communities have a lot of buildings that are in bad shape.
Dear God.
Now for his part, Kendi had some bright ideas that he occasionally shared with media outlets in this country.
For example, he told Political Quote, To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the US Constitution.
The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials.
It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-Racism, DOA.
Comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees, the DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state, and federal public policies to ensure that they won't yield racial inequity.
So imagine spending millions of dollars investing in a research center written by someone who sincerely believes something like that is a good idea.
I mean, it's so unbelievably degrading, so stupid, that it defies analysis, really.
What would you tell your shareholders?
What would you tell yourself when you look at yourself in the mirror?
Is there literally anyone on the planet who thinks a Department of Anti-Racism, literally the acronym is DOA, Dead on Arrival, would be a good idea?
Well, maybe if you were one of Rogers' investors, you'd hold out hope that sooner or later the scholars in this prestigious anti-racism center are eventually going to buckle down and get to work and produce something that's actually useful.
But if you thought that, you would be wrong.
And that's now very clear.
This week we learned that Kennedy's Anti-Racist Center has just fired more than half of its staff.
They've apparently managed to burn through much of the $40 million they've raised.
And to be clear, this is an operation that does not involve particle colliders or expensive equipment.
Okay, this is a bunch of anti-racist experts sitting around telling white people that they're terrible.
And whatever else you want to say about work like that, you would think at least it would be cheap.
But they managed to blow through $40 million in three years doing that.
And now at long last, Boston University says that it's opened an inquiry into where all this money went exactly.
If we're being honest, federal prosecutors should also be doing an inquiry about that same subject, but of course we know that they won't because Henry Rogers is doing their bidding.
Now at this point, it would be easy to gloat You know, gloating over the aftermath of the complete and total implosion of this whole project.
And we should gloat a little bit because it's hilarious and everyone who got screwed out of their money deserved it.
There's the fact that one of Rogers' former staffers called these layoffs an example of employment violence and systemic racism, which is pretty funny.
Many observers have made the point that the woke inevitably eat their own, and that's true for the most part.
You get a bunch of professional whiners into one room, get a bunch of professional victims into one room, give them 40 million bucks, and pretty soon they're going to be out of money and still complaining.
In case that's not obvious, Henry Rogers just proved that point.
So what's going on here?
Why did his anti-racist center really collapse?
Was it just mismanagement?
Is this an isolated incident confined to Boston University?
That's possible, but if you look at broader trends, it seems like something else is afoot here.
It seems like all over the country, major institutions are ditching the DEI scammers.
It's not just happening in Boston.
According to one recent analysis, job postings for DEI positions fell by roughly 20% last year.
The average tenure of senior DEI executives at Fortune 500 companies hired since 2018 has been less than two years.
That's according to a consulting firm that specializes in this area.
BLM, meanwhile, is in the red as of last fiscal year.
They're bleeding cash, they're burning through cash, and a lot of it they wasted on mansions in California, apparently.
So, seeing all of this, it's tempting to say that the whole anti-racism scam is collapsing.
But as welcoming a development as that would be, I think we have to resist the temptation to come to that conclusion.
I don't think that's exactly what's happening here.
As we've all learned over the past 10 years, the race hustle is far too useful and far too profitable to the people in power.
And multiple generations of Americans have been too thoroughly indoctrinated into this.
Millions of black Americans really do believe that they are perpetual victims, while millions of whites really do see themselves as guilty of imaginary racial sins.
Just because Henry Rogers and a lot of his imitators have been exposed doesn't mean that the underlying ideology has been defeated.
These charlatans are low-hanging fruit.
They're grunts that are easily replaceable.
And, you know, eventually they're all going to self-immolate.
Because they're a bunch of cheap con artists, and that's what cheap con artists do.
But still you have to think about how quickly these grifters took control of every major cultural and political institution.
We went from don't judge people based on the color of their skin to discrimination is anti-racist in a very short period of time.
Feels like it happened overnight.
Okay, like the Protestant Reformation took a lot longer to get going, if only because people were communicating by horse or ship-borne letters or whatever.
The woke social credit equity bio-surveillance state, that reformation, took hold much faster.
And they can elevate con artists like Henry Rogers so quickly that we don't know what's happening until they've got $40 million in control of major institutions.
They can scam the most sophisticated investors on the planet.
Allegedly, from tech executives to big pharma.
Henry Rogers and his team, they haven't done much in their tenure as highly paid anti-racist activists, but they have demonstrated one thing, albeit inadvertently.
And that's the fact that there isn't any substance to so-called anti-racist ideology.
It's just mega-corporations looking to get big payouts to the first guy they find with an exotic name.
If it's not fraud, it's something very close to it.
If the right can finally admit that, instead of playing along with these charlatans and funding the universities that promote this garbage, then things can change very quickly.
But if we can't take those steps, then nothing will change at all.
If we continue to tolerate this, then no matter what happens to Henry Rogers, we can look forward to many more Ibram X. Kendi's down the line.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Everything is more expensive, and most of you are paying these bills with a credit card.
Consumer debt rose over $1 trillion in the last year.
This is the biggest increase in 20 years.
If you're a homeowner, there is a way out.
You need to call my friends at American Financing.
They'll put together a plan to pay off that high-interest credit card debt and create meaningful savings for you every month.
They're saving people up to $1,000 a month and closing in as fast as 10 days.
Don't wait.
Get yourself into a better position.
Call their salary-based mortgage consultant today and see how much you can save.
25 years of experience and 7,000 glowing Google reviews speak volumes about their ability to save homeowners money.
It costs nothing to get started, and if you start today, you could delay two mortgage payments, giving you greater savings up front.
Call American Financing today at 866-721-3300, that's 866-721-3300, or visit AmericanFinancing.net, that's AmericanFinancing.net.
Okay, some people might feel that I've been a little hard on John Fetterman recently, and if you're of that opinion, then you really aren't going to like what I have to say about this first headline, which is from Mediaite, John Fetterman tears up an emotional speech about bullying he's faced due to disability.
Article says Senator John Fetterman became emotional during a committee hearing on Thursday while addressing attacks from those who mock him for his auditory disability caused by a stroke.
Shortly before winning the Democratic nomination last year, Fetterman suffered a stroke, which we know.
Republicans in recent weeks have gone after the Pennsylvania lawmaker for choosing to wear casual clothes in the halls of Congress instead of a student tie.
Some media pundits have even questioned if Fetterman has the cognitive ability to dress himself in a suit.
On Thursday, the Senator spoke at a U.S.
Senate Special Committee on Aging with other guests with disabilities.
Fetterman became emotional after presenting a transcription app that allows him to fully participate in the meeting and communicate with his family members.
Let's watch that clip, here it is.
Thank you for coming.
And for me, it's been a very personal issue with me.
And I'm going to show this, and then I'm going to describe this to others.
This is my iPhone, and this is a transcription service that allows me to fully participate in this meeting and conversations with my children and interacting with my staff.
I had a stroke about 18 months ago, you know, and I have lost my ability to fully process language.
And I like to think I was an empathetic person, truly.
But until that happened, I've raised to a whole different kind of level as well.
And it's profound to know, though, that I never really considered that without this kind of technology, I couldn't watch television.
And I can't imagine if I didn't have this kind of a bridge to allow me to communicate with other people effectively.
And because I live in a political environment, I was ridiculed and made fun of because I wasn't able to process things sometimes or say things.
I'm so sorry that I'm sure many of you had to go through this kind of thing.
I was lucky that I was I was lucky enough to go through my life, the vast majority of that, without this kind of disability that I have.
Okay, you might think that I'm cruel.
Doesn't matter to me if you think that.
But first of all, I firmly believe that any United States Senator who cries about bullying should be immediately removed from office and deported.
Deported to where?
I don't know.
Jupiter, ideally.
Or some other inhospitable planet.
Anywhere but here.
Because this is just a disgrace.
Okay?
Men should not be crying in public.
They especially should not be crying about bullying.
And especially if the man is supposed to be a statesman.
A leader.
Okay?
It's disgraceful.
And I'm sick to death of these weak, weepy men parading their feelings around.
Can we bring back stoicism for God's sake?
Masculine strength and dignity.
Stop crying.
We need more bullying, if anything, to shame all these wimps who are out there crying about things.
Now, this is especially the case for Fetterman, not only because he's supposed to be a statesman, but also because he's the one who decided to run for office.
To run for an office he's not fit for.
To take office.
To not step down.
When did this stroke happen?
It happened early in the primaries, I believe.
It certainly was well before he was elected.
Plenty of opportunity to just end your campaign.
And everyone would understand.
It not only would be understandable, it would be the right thing to do.
He made the decision to keep going.
Now, a lot of people blame, put a lot of blame on his wife for clearly pushing him a lot.
And his wife is clearly an awful person, so she deserves much of the blame.
But that's also a decision that he made, decided to do.
Now, if he was just, and he says there, you may remember also, we were told even before he was elected that, well, He can't speak, but that's not a problem, because that doesn't mean that he can't understand what's being said to him.
He just can't convey his own thoughts.
Well, you would think that being in the legislative branch of government, not being able to convey your thoughts is a pretty big hindrance.
But it turns out that, no, it's not just that he can't convey his thoughts, it's that he can't understand what's being said to him, and he admits it right there.
He has trouble processing language.
You're in the legislative branch of government.
You're supposed to be debating laws, and you can't process language.
You can't do the job in that case.
Now, if he was just some guy, some random guy, you know, working at a hardware store or something, and he had trouble processing language, I would feel sorry for him.
I certainly wouldn't criticize him for it.
I'd have sympathy.
I'd be empathetic, obviously.
But you're a senator.
You're supposed to be helping to lead the country.
And you admit that you can't process language.
So what are you doing there?
Why are you in the office?
Step down.
Go away.
No one is forcing you to be there.
Maybe your wife is bullying you into it too, but you could stand up to your wife and say, I'm not doing this.
You power-hungry wench, I'm not doing this.
You know, go marry someone else if that's what you're so worried about.
So, you're choosing to be there.
You shouldn't be.
Step down.
No one has a gun to your head forcing you to be there.
If you don't want people to notice that you've lost your mind, step down.
You are inflicting your disability on the nation.
And that's why you deserve criticism.
Same thing goes for Joe Biden.
Normally, I would not mock anyone who is senile.
I obviously wouldn't criticize him for it.
I have an immense amount of sympathy for elderly people who go senile.
It's a terrible thing.
It could happen to any of us.
In fact, it basically almost certainly will happen to all of us unless we die before it happens.
So you wouldn't normally...
Make any comments about it, make any critical thoughts about it.
But when you're the president, and you're choosing to remain in office and actually run for re-election, despite being senile, well now again, you are inflicting that senility on the country.
And we have a right to be upset about that.
It's like this, imagine this, imagine that you find out that your pilot of your United flight has a severe visual impairment.
Now, hopefully, normally, you wouldn't criticize someone for being a nerdy, ugly four-eyes with glasses like me.
Normally, you wouldn't do that.
Someone who's visually impaired, you wouldn't say anything about it, you wouldn't make fun of them, hopefully.
But if that person is flying the plane that you're on, suddenly his disability is a problem,
and he deserves to be criticized.
Not for being visually impaired, but for knowing that he's visually impaired and flying the plane anyway.
Okay, that's the problem.
And if, as the plane plunges into the side of a mountain, people are very upset and they say unkind things about that pilot and his visual problems.
If they do start yelling at him and mocking him, even.
You dump four eyes, look what you've done.
That sort of thing.
Normally, I would say, don't talk to people with glasses that way.
That's mean.
But in that case, it's understandable.
Just as it's understandable that the citizens of this country are saying some unkind things about the brain-dead collection of senile, incoherent vegetables that are flying our whole country into a mountainside.
And they're doing it because they are arrogant, narcissistic, power-hungry ghouls who just refuse to let go of their power.
There's nothing to be sympathetic about here.
These are the least sympathetic characters I've ever seen.
They deserve all of the harsh treatment they're getting, and more.
The fact that we're being led by people like this, who do not have the mental capacity to do the job, and they know they don't have it, that should be making us much angrier than it is.
Federman should hear jeering everywhere he goes, until he steps down, and lets someone who at least has a chance of being competent take that job.
Let's see.
I have to play this for you, unfortunately.
The View invited singer... I don't have to play it, but I'm going to.
The View invited singers Natasha Bedingfield and... M-I-L-C-K?
Is that milk?
Pronounce milk?
Anyway.
So there's two women to come perform an anti-gun song called Your Child, My Child.
And I know you're thinking, Musical performance at The View, it must already be terrible.
It's an anti-gun song, it must be even worse.
And I'm here to tell you that it's a lot worse than you even expect.
Let's listen to some of this.
I know that things will change when enough of us will say Enough, enough, enough
Oh yeah, hey Enough, enough, enough
Oh yeah, hey When enough of us show up
When enough of us cry out Enough.
Enough.
They have a point.
Enough.
That's enough of that.
But that is their point.
I don't know if you picked up on it, but enough.
They're saying enough.
Enough.
Just enough, alright?
The only thing we're missing from that song is more dramatic hand-waving and head-bobbing.
I think there was not enough of that.
We need more of that, a little bit more.
But what I love about this is that, first of all, it's yet more evidence that the left doesn't know how to get their point across through art anymore.
And this is actually a great development for the culture, if not for our eardrums.
Because everything now, it's a great development because, you know, it's The more effective they are at getting their ideas across, the worse it is.
So the trade-off is that we have a lot of really bad, terrible art, but the only plus side is that they're not nearly as effective.
At conveying their ideas and getting people to accept them.
Because everything now is too on the nose, too melodramatic, too overly political.
Overtly political, I should say.
And they used to be much more subtle, you know?
They used to embed their messaging into art that on the surface seemed to have nothing to do with politics.
And that was always the most effective approach, but they don't do that anymore.
And I think there are a lot of reasons for that.
They're far too ideological at this point.
There's a real skill problem as well.
They don't have the same level of talent anymore.
And the second thing I like about this, this is a really great summation.
It's a great representation of the gun control movement.
Because this is actually all they have to say.
Enough!
Enough!
Someone do something!
And they say that, you know, in the song, they say that when enough of us cry out, then the gun violence will stop.
And I know you might think that, well, it's just a song.
They don't mean that literally.
But that is literally the anti-gun point of view.
They think that if we can reach a point where people get sick of gun violence and we pass some kind of magical law and it stops.
But that, of course, is not the case.
Gun violence committed by bad violent people with ill intent will always be a problem.
You can't make it go away.
You can't make it disappear, especially not with laws.
And the reason we know that is because the world has always been a very violent place
and it was a very violent place, probably in many ways more violent, before guns even
existed.
So this is human nature, unfortunately.
It's the way of the world.
Now does that mean that we can't do anything about it?
Does it mean we should accept it and surrender ourselves to it?
Absolutely not.
What it means is that we must emphasize two things in society, and one is justice, punishing the bad guys, punishing harshly and swiftly, and two is self-defense, which requires guns, whether you like it or not.
Speaking of punishing bad guys, I thought this was interesting.
This is from the AP.
Men incarcerated at Louisiana State Penitentiary filed a class action lawsuit on Saturday,
contending that they have been forced to work in the prison's fields for little or no pay,
even when temperatures soar past 100 degrees.
They described the conditions as cruel, degrading, and often dangerous.
The men, most of whom are black, work on the farm of the 18,000 acre maximum security prison
known as Angola, the site of a former slave plantation, hoeing, weeding, and picking crops by hand,
often surrounded by armed guards, the suit said.
If they refuse to work or fail to meet quotas, they can be sent to solitary confinement or otherwise punished, according to disciplinary guidelines.
The suit said, quote, this labor serves no legitimate, penological, or institutional purpose.
It's purely punitive, designed to break incarcerated men and ensure their submission.
It names his defendants, Angola's warden, Timothy Hooper, and officials with Louisiana's Department of Corrections and its money-making arm, Prison Enterprises.
Ken Pastorek, a spokesman for the State Department of Public and Safety and Corrections, said the department hadn't officially been served with the suit.
The plaintiffs include four men who formerly or are currently working in the fields.
Along with voice of the experienced an organization made up of current and formerly incarcerated people around 150 of
whom are still at Angola the site said the work is
Especially dangerous to those with disabilities or health conditions in the summer months with temperatures reaching
up to 102 degrees in June with heat indexes of up to 145
Some of the plaintiffs have not been given the accommodations and services. They're entitled to under the
Americans with Disability Act These men are forced to work notwithstanding their
increased risk of illness or injury. Okay, so The inmates are forced to work for little or no pay.
It's hot.
It's uncomfortable.
It's difficult.
Even if they claim that they're disabled or something and say, I got a bad back, they still have to do it.
They're being treated like slaves, they say.
And to that, I say that all of that is absolutely great.
That is awesome.
Music to my ears.
That's the most heartwarming story I've read in some time.
I'm absolutely thrilled by it.
Every part of it.
This is what every prison should be.
And it's actually, it is not even, to disagree with that is not even a serious position.
I don't even think it's something that we should engage with.
If you read that, you think, well that's, then we shouldn't do that.
That's, they were treating them badly.
They shouldn't have to work.
Like, that is not even a serious position.
For most of human civilization, if you had suggested that, you would have been laughed out of the room as a lunatic.
Like, what?
Why shouldn't prisoners be forced to work?
Why in the world shouldn't they be?
They have committed serious crimes that have made them unfit to be free people in society.
Why shouldn't we force them to be productive?
Why shouldn't we punish them?
This is what every prison should be.
Like I said, put them to work, make them uncomfortable, force them to be productive.
Every prison should be this way.
If they complain that it's too hot, then force them to wear winter jackets as punishment.
Okay?
Give them something to cry about.
That's what I would do if I was a warden.
That's the way it should be.
Now, why should you force them to work?
Well, for one, when they're working, they're contributing to society.
They're being forced to actually contribute.
You know, many of these people, they're in prison because they don't want to contribute to society.
And we should be saying to them in prison, well, that's not an option.
You need to be a contributing member of society one way or another.
And you can do it out, as a free person, if you're obeying the law and you're not being a scumbag, and you can work and you can make money for yourself, and you can pretty much do whatever you want, you know, within the bounds of the law.
You can contribute that way, or you can go to jail, and you'll essentially become slave labor.
You know, that's the other option.
Like, it's up to you.
And that's the beautiful thing, is that we all have that option.
If you want to be a scumbag criminal, you can do that.
It's your choice.
But now, this is what you've decided.
But you're not going to get off the hook.
You're not going to get off the hook either way.
You're going to have to contribute, one way or another.
That's the deal.
So, forcing them to contribute is a great thing.
It's also justice.
It's punishment.
And it says that in the article, in the suit, rather.
The suit says, oh, this is only for punishment.
Well yeah, that's the idea.
You're being punished.
It's not supposed to be fun.
You don't end up in Angola because of a parking ticket.
You end up there because you are a scumbag.
And this is the punishment.
And it's not supposed to be enjoyable.
So when you whine and say, I don't like this, this is hard.
Yep.
Yep.
And you know the other thing, too, is this is the only path to rehabilitation.
So there's always this argument about should prison be primarily punitive or should it rehabilitate?
The answer is that, in fact, the first focus of prison should be punitive.
That should be the primary point of prison is to punish.
Okay, prison justice, in other words.
To punish someone for their wrongdoing.
That is, in fact, the main point.
Other points too.
Another big purpose of prison is segregation.
Segregate dangerous people from society.
Rehabilitation is farther down the line.
But, yeah, if you are going to be, not everyone who goes to prison is going to be there for life.
I think many more people should be there for life.
I think we should be giving out a lot more life sentences than we do.
I think we should be giving out a lot more death sentences than we do.
But, you know, inevitably, even in my ideal scenario, if I was handing out the punishments, there would still be a few people who are not there forever.
And for those people, you do want them to be rehabilitated.
But how is someone rehabilitated?
You're rehabilitated through work, through being forced to do things you don't want to do, constructive things that you don't want to do, but that you should want to do.
Like you should want to work, you should want to contribute.
And this is how, you know, it's only through real punishment and real justice that there's any hope of someone being rehabilitated.
Because the first step in rehabilitation, maybe not the first step, but a key step along the line, is repentance.
You have to repent of what you've done, you have to be sorry for it.
But you're probably not going to repent of what you've done and be sorry for it unless you are forced to confront, you know, the full reality of what you've done.
So if you went out, you know, and you, whatever, went on a crime spree and you carjacked someone and you did all these awful things, eventually maybe you'll be left backed out and decided we want you to be rehabilitated.
But you have to be forced to confront how terrible that thing was that you did.
And this kind of forced labor thing, I mean, one thing that it does is it communicates to the prisoner that, yes, what you did was so bad that you deserve this, that this is the treatment you deserve.
Only hope of rehabilitation is when they connect those dots and they say, you know what, I deserve this.
Rather than complaining about it, I actually deserve this.
If the prisoner doesn't say that, I deserve all the treatment I'm getting.
If he doesn't say that, then he's not rehabilitated.
He should never be let out of prison.
That's the only way.
And also, by the way, you could really make the argument that Forcing them to work is less cruel than having them sit around all day.
I mean, at least you're doing something.
At least you're not horrifically bored just sitting there all day.
So it's not good for society to have the prisoners sitting there all day doing nothing.
It's also not good for them.
What does that achieve?
Yeah, boredom is the devil's playground, as they say.
And I think that's probably especially true in prisons, of all places.
Alright, we've got a bunch of other things.
We don't have time for most of it.
I wanted to play this clip.
So Lizzo...
The singer Lizzo, up until a few months ago, was considered the champion of positivity and optimism and hope and love and rainbows.
Recently, her reputation has taken a major hit with various former employees and backup dancers accusing her of being abusive in various different ways behind the scenes.
What we see is that once those floodgates are open, there's no stopping it.
And then, you know, once we start hearing that some famous person is there, oh, they're actually a jerk behind the scenes.
Can you believe it?
I never would have guessed.
As soon as that happens, then everyone who's worked with that person is lining up and looking to get their piece of the pie and say, oh, you know, I was victimized too.
So this is the latest, this is the latest, yet another lawsuit against Lizzo related to this.
And here's the report on that from NBC.
Star Lizzo facing a brand new lawsuit from one of her former workers.
Yeah, that's right.
And new exclusive reporting from NBC's Diana Dasrath and Tim Stello.
A fashion designer claims her team was mocked and bullied backstage on tour.
She goes on to allege that Lizzo allowed behavior like harassment and racial discrimination to happen.
NBC News correspondent Stephen Romo joins us now.
So, Stephen, can you walk us through some of these new allegations and has there been any response from Lizzo or anyone else named in the lawsuit?
Well this lawsuit does have some similarities to the lawsuit filed by her former dancers for Lizzo.
We told you about those last month.
There are some differences here though.
Asha Daniels, a fashion designer who says she toured with Lizzo, filed that suit today.
She started working with the pop star about a year ago.
She designed clothes for her dancers.
Well in this lawsuit, There are some troubling allegations against Lizzo, but more specifically against her wardrobe manager, Amanda Nomura.
Daniels alleges Nomura forced dancers to change out in the open, did stereotypical impressions of black women, called performers dumb, mocked their weight, and the suit even alleges Nomura used a slur and threatened to kill anyone who put her job at risk.
Daniels goes on to claim she was forced to work seven days a week for 20 hours a day and was told to continue working even after Yeah, yeah.
So that's the claim.
Maybe it'll surprise you.
Maybe my take on this will surprise you slightly.
I'm actually going to defend Lizzo a little bit.
I mean, I have no doubt that she's a total fraud and a-hole and everything she says about, oh, positivity.
I have no doubt that all that is nonsense.
But this is what I'm saying.
You know, when you first get the claims from someone saying this person's abusive behind the scenes, it might be true, it might not be true, but then You know, the claims that come after, the people that come out of the woodwork after that are like almost always full of it.
This is the same with Me Too, the Me Too stuff.
It's like, you have the initial claims, might be true, might not be true.
Varying degrees of credibility with those.
It's always after that.
It's like a few weeks after that when you get the really wild stuff.
Because at that point, people figure, well, hey, I might as well go for it.
This person's reputation has already been dragged in the mud.
Might as well go in and go for it.
And so now we're being told this other person threatened to kill them if they don't keep working.
I'll kill you all.
You'll all die.
Come on.
That didn't happen.
And there's a white woman behind the scenes of the concert using racial slurs against the black dancers.
That didn't happen either.
That didn't happen.
Threatening to kill them, that didn't happen.
Unless it was in an obviously sarcastic, joking way.
7 days a week for 20 hours a day also didn't happen.
No way that happened.
Do I have any evidence that none of that happened?
No, I just know that it didn't.
You gotta have the finely tuned BS detectors and they can take you far in life.
And you can just hear that and go, nah, I don't think that happened.
That probably didn't happen.
So, significant only because this is the one and only time I will sort of defend Lizzo.
Even though it wasn't even her that was accused of it, but still.
All right, let's get now to the comment section.
I don't think you intended to, but you have made a lot of men feel slightly less crazy for daydreaming about armed intruders attacking them at the grocery store and plotting their unrealistic retaliations.
Yeah, you know, this should be the real TikTok trend.
Maybe I could start my own TikTok trend.
This is what you should be asking, you know, your husbands and boyfriends.
Yeah, how often do you think about the Roman Empire?
That's one thing.
But if you really want to be surprised, ask them how often do you think about being attacked
by a whole bunch of bad guys and how you'll respond in any given situation.
Like how often do you enter a new environment and start looking around at what kind of weapons
you would use if a whole bunch of bad guys attacked you.
And you will probably be shocked by how frequent those thoughts enter a man's head.
Now part of it is just daydreaming.
It's the kind of masculine desire for the heroic, you know.
But some of it's practical.
Like, this is how we're wired.
We just, we always, you know, situational awareness.
You gotta know where the exits are.
You gotta know where the potential weapons are.
You gotta know where the threats are coming from.
You know, just in case something ever happens.
David says, I work in an auto body repair shop and we have a dress code.
We take pride in looking presentable, even though we get dirty, because it encourages standards and decorums as business professionals.
Why are their standards for dress in my industry higher than the standards for those that are supposed to represent people like me on a national stage?
This makes no sense to me.
Lynn agrees and says, dress codes should definitely come back to schools.
It's a big, big, big problem.
Does anyone else besides me see this, especially if you're over 50?
Yeah, that's why I said I'm a big fan of dress codes in general, which may surprise you given how I dress every day on the show.
But then again, this is my show, so I can set the dress code.
But in other environments, I think it's good to have dress codes.
And a dress code also conveys, in certain environments, how seriously you take what's happening there.
It is a sign of respect.
It's why you should dress up at a wedding, like to show up at a wedding in jeans and a t-shirt or a hoodie and shorts, like I guess John Fetterman would, is a sign of major disrespect to the people who are getting married, to God.
It's a sign of major disrespect.
Because what you're communicating is that, well, I can't be bothered.
I can't be bothered.
It's not important enough to me to bother, like, taking out my suit and ironing the pants and putting on the nicer shoes and all that.
Can't be bothered to do it.
That's what you're conveying.
I'm also a fan of dress codes in environments where it can cut down on problems.
In school, you know, yeah, I think every school should obviously have a dress code.
And I don't just mean the bare minimum kind of dress code.
I mean, like, uniforms, even.
Every school should have uniforms.
There's really no downside to it.
There's major downside to not having uniforms in schools, and I'm not sure what the downside is to having them.
Except that the kids don't like them, but that's not really a downside.
Let's see.
And Pupa Chalupa, great name, says, Matt didn't say anything about the Trump stuff because he was busy filming Dancing with the Stars.
Duh.
That's right, and I do want to say on that note here, finally, and I'm glad that you brought that up, I do want to refute some rumors that have been circulating and maybe you've seen some media reports claiming, claiming that Matt Walsh, that being myself, Has dropped out of Dancing with the Stars in solidarity with the Hollywood writers because of the writer strike.
And so these reports have been circulating.
And I want to say unequivocally that that is totally false.
I don't care about the Hollywood writers at all.
I think that they, most of them should be unemployed and homeless anyway.
So I would never do any, my solemn pledge to you is that I would never do anything to help the Hollywood writers at all.
So, I don't care about that.
What I care about is the art of dance.
And I signed up for the show to dance, and I intend to dance.
Because I want to dance, I love to dance, and I need to dance.
And soon enough you'll see proof of that.
Soon enough you will see incontrovertible evidence that I am, in fact, On the show, and still on the show.
Despite the lackluster economy, The Daily Wire is thriving.
And not only that, we are hiring.
We're currently looking for a skilled broadcast engineer to join our fast-growing production team.
As a broadcast engineer, they provide audio and video technical support to ensure the success of all production.
The position is based in Nashville, Tennessee.
If you have experience in broadcast engineering, we want to hear from you.
If you're interested in joining our team, visit dailywire.com slash careers.
That's dailywire.com slash careers.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
His tenure lasted for seven years, over a thousand episodes.
And amazingly, he did not make one funny joke the entire time.
It's kind of shocking, because you would think that by sheer mathematical odds, he would inevitably stumble upon one or two funny moments during that entire run.
Like, a cat walking across a keyboard would eventually write a funny punchline by accident, and it probably wouldn't take seven years.
I mean, if you gave Hannah Gadsby a thousand episodes, she'd probably figure out how to get a few laughs here and there.
Well, maybe not Hannah Gadsby, but the cat would.
That's for sure.
So, uh, that didn't happen, but there were moments during the Trevor Noah years where The Daily Show nearly approached being somewhat funny.
Just almost.
Just never in the way that anyone involved in the show intended.
Funny in a sort of pathetic and embarrassing way.
And this week, one of those moments from the show has gone viral.
For whatever reason, a Daily Show clip from 2022 has been making the rounds online this week.
And in the clip, a quote-unquote trans woman, otherwise known as a male, named Veronica Ivy is brought on the show to explain why men should be able to compete against women in sports.
And Ivy himself is a world track cycling champion, quote-unquote, who won his accolades in the sport by competing against women.
That is, by cheating.
What makes the conversation between Ivy and Noah so interesting is that, first of all, everything Ivy says is utterly fallacious and tremendously stupid.
And on second thought, there's nothing very interesting or surprising about that, I suppose.
But the more fascinating thing is to observe Noah, who clearly recognizes how ridiculous Ivy's assertions are, and obviously disagrees with them, but is terrified to push back.
So let's go through this clip from the beginning.
Watch.
This issue, people like to say that it's a complicated issue, and I don't actually think it is.
I think it's very simple.
It all boils down to, do you actually think that trans women and intersex women are real women, and are really female, or not?
And if you do, it's very simple.
Just stop policing who counts as a real woman.
Well, I couldn't possibly agree more.
I absolutely agree with that part of it.
It's not complicated.
It's very simple.
And it does indeed, as he points out, boil down to the question of whether you believe that quote-unquote trans women are real women.
And if they are, then of course they should be able to compete against women.
I mean, it really is that simple.
If trans women are women, then yeah, they should be able to compete against women, because they're women.
If they aren't, then of course they shouldn't be able to.
And they shouldn't be able to because they aren't.
So, that really should be the end of the conversation.
Actually, like, yeah, if Veronica Ivey, if you're a woman, then you should be able to compete.
But, oh wait, you're not a woman, and so, the end of the conversation.
And Trevor Noah could have said that and shut Ivey down right away, but he doesn't.
Let's keep watching.
Because this has had history of racism built into it over the years.
It's not an accident that the intersex athletes who get singled out are women of colour from the Global South.
Because who gets singled out for scrutiny is based on white women's conceptions of femininity.
And that's being weaponised against trans people too.
So it's a fear of protecting the fragile, weak, cis white woman from the rest of us.
Yes, applaud.
Applaud that absolute nonsense.
Now, first of all, you notice how this man is, as always, too afraid to stand on his own feet and defend his own alleged identity.
And that's why he shoehorns intersex people and black people into the conversation, aligning himself with them as if these two demographics have anything to do with him.
Intersex people have genital deformities.
They are not in any way related to transgenderism.
And black is a race.
It also has nothing to do with being trans.
And these are all points that Noah could make if he had even the slightest hint of a spine, but he doesn't.
Instead, he ever so gingerly, sort of, pushes back.
Let's watch.
There are many elements to what you said, which I appreciate.
So let's try to break them down.
One thing that confuses me, personally, is it seems like we have discussions about who should participate in which category and how.
On the face of it, it seems simple, as you say.
If somebody identifies as a woman, if they're transgender, they can compete against women who are born biologically, and then if not, then not.
But then there are many who would argue who are not transphobes.
There are many who were born biologically women who will say, but you have an unnatural advantage over me.
And that makes the sport unfair.
How do you how do you respond to that?
Yeah, there's lots of ways you can respond to that.
So the first is the very language of you were Born and I'm not biological somehow, like, I don't think I'm a cyborg.
So, like, this idea that, like, oh, you're not a biological woman.
Well, I am a woman.
That's a fact.
I am female.
So all my identity records, my racing license, my medical records all say female.
Right?
And I'm pretty sure I'm made of biological stuff.
So I'm a biological female as well.
Well, gee, you know, I mean, not to be offensive, I don't want to hurt your feelings, I'm not a transphobe or nothing, it's just that, geez, I mean, maybe you might argue in some sense, possibly, potentially, in some way, perhaps, it might be, to some extent, just a little bit, arguably, maybe, some would say, as some have argued, that dudes aren't women.
Please don't hate me.
And to that quivering, jumbled mess of equivocations, the trans person responds with a parade of horrendously moronic, gaslighting bull****.
He claims to be not just a woman, but a female, proving yet again that the gender versus sex distinction, as I have been saying for years, which was invented by trans ideologues, has now been officially abandoned by those same ideologues.
Gender is sex.
Sex is gender.
They draw no distinction between those two.
And how does he prove that he's female?
Well, because various pieces of paper say that he is.
Now, of course, if the papers did not say that, and for the first portion of his life, into adulthood, they didn't, and if he was not allowed to change his birth certificate to female, if he was not permitted to retcon his own biological identity, he would still say that he's female.
So, if the birth certificate says female, it proves that he's female.
If the birth certificate doesn't say female, it just proves that the birth certificate is transphobic.
That's the way the game is played.
My favorite part is his explanation for why he counts as a biological female.
He says that he's made of biological stuff, which makes him a biological female.
So he says that he's female, and he was able to put it on a piece of paper.
And he's also a biological entity.
Ipso facto, therefore, he is a biological female.
Well, you know, dogs are made of biological stuff, too.
So are spiders, and trees, and mushrooms, and mold, and jellyfish.
Are they all human females, too?
Now, Trevor Noah could point out how objectively, insanely idiotic all of this is, but unfortunately, he himself is basically a jellyfish, so instead he sits meekly and listens.
So this question of, do trans women have an advantage over cis women?
We don't know.
In fact, there's basically no published research on this question.
However, there's good reason to think that there isn't.
But I think it's irrelevant, because we allow all kinds of competitive advantages within women's sport.
So one example I'd love to talk about is the 2016 Rio Olympic Women's High Jump Final.
1st place was over 6'3", 10th place was 5'5".
So a 10.5 inch height difference between 1st and 10th at the Olympics in high jump.
And we call that fair.
So the range of body types within the female category is way, way bigger than anything that could be attributed to trans women.
So if there's an advantage, and I'm not saying that there is for trans women in women's sport, it's not an unfair advantage.
So we hear two arguments here, and they are the only two arguments that trans activists have in favor of allowing men to compete against women, and they're both fantastically stupid.
So first he claims that we don't know if trans women, quote-unquote, have an advantage over real women, and we don't know that because there aren't any studies about it.
But of course, this is a classic red herring.
There may not be very much research about quote-unquote trans women competing against women, only because this is a uniquely recent and modern form of madness, but there's a ton of research conclusively documenting the advantages that men have over women in sports.
And trans women are men.
We don't need special research to find out if men who believe they're women also share the same inherent biological advantages as other men.
We don't need this for the same reason that we don't need to find out if men who like the color red or men who prefer olive garden over apple bees also have an advantage.
We don't need it because these factors are completely irrelevant.
The inner thoughts and preferences and experiences of the men have no bearing on their innate biological advantages.
They have those advantages regardless of what's going on in their heads, obviously.
Second, he points out that some women, actual women, are taller and faster and stronger than other women.
And this means that we might as well open up the floodgates and bring in everybody, bring in the men.
But this is exactly like saying that some 4-year-olds are bigger and stronger than other 4-year-olds, so we might as well allow 17-year-olds to play on their t-ball teams.
Obviously, there's going to be variations within categories, but the categories still exist and are knowable and definable and important.
Sports are broken down along these kinds of categories.
It is fair that the best and most athletic four-year-olds have the most success on their t-ball teams, even though they don't keep score in t-ball, so no one really can succeed, but you get the point.
And it is fair that the best and most athletic female basketball players have the most success on their female basketball teams.
So the people who are the best within the category are going to be the most successful.
It is not fair if someone who does not belong to the category at all is allowed to compete and exploit the advantages that come from being not in that category.
So this is all very obvious.
Trevor Noah understands it.
He could say it, but instead he comes back with this.
It's interesting that you say that because I think if I were to push back or, you know, not even playing devil's advocates, there are a few things that could be argued.
Number one, you could argue that although the trans woman who competed in the Olympics didn't dominate, she did beat a field of women who might have qualified for that position, right?
Secondly, when you talk about the height differences, I agree with this completely, but there are many who would argue That we exist in a state where a lot of the surgeries are new, a lot of the technology, just the technology is new.
Transgenderism is not new.
We know it throughout time.
We've seen it throughout history.
But there are many who would say, how do we ensure that we are creating some sort of standard?
And the reason we talk about this is it's the reason they have to regulate performance-enhancing drugs.
For instance, what is fair?
What can you drink?
What can you not drink?
What can you consume?
What can you not consume?
Some would say, If you are born that way, that's how sport has determined who goes where.
And then some would say, no, regardless of who you are, you should be able to compete.
My question then comes in from a really, honestly, a different place.
I look at somebody like Oscar Pistorius from South Africa, right?
He was the double amputee.
And Oscar Pistorius actually went, well, I want to compete in the able-bodied race, right?
And people were like, well, do you have an advantage?
Do you not, et cetera, et cetera, because of the prosthetics.
Then could there not be an argument if there is no advantage in that, that then trans women should be able to compete, but in the men's races then, could they still be able to compete in the sport?
But they're women, and they're female.
So, like I said, this boils down to, are trans women really women?
Are they really female?
And no, they really aren't, is the answer to your question.
Once again, Noah's point is basically correct.
The stuff about transgenderism always existing is not correct, but the basic point is correct.
And yet, from the perspective of the average half-conscious audience member, the trans person is winning this exchange.
That's why if you watch the full clip, he gets all the applause from Noah's own audience.
This should hopefully help you to see why I approach this issue the way that I do.
The only thing that works, the only approach that's effective, The only response that these people deserve is absolute, blunt rejection of their entire premise.
The moment you pretend to take any of this seriously, the moment you show any respect for this point of view, for the vacuous, asinine nonsense that these people spew, it is the moment you lose.
Almost everyone in the country immediately recognizes that everything the trans person said in that conversation was astonishingly stupid and utterly without merit.
And yet we have allowed these ideas to take hold.
We've allowed this agenda to spread largely because people who know better are too afraid to simply call a spade a spade and a man a man.
And also too afraid to disagree fundamentally with the premise.
Okay, what you just saw there, the reason why that conversation went on and on and on, is because Trevor Noah was unwilling to say to this person, you are not a woman.
So Trevor Noah was trying to find a way to stay sort of on team sanity, where we reject the idea that men can compete against women, without refuting or disagreeing with the underlying premise of trans ideology, which is that trans women are women.
So he's trying to find a way to allow that premise to stand, because he can't imagine actually saying to this person, well, you're not a woman.
He can't say it.
He cannot say it.
He would never say it.
And if you won't say it, then nothing else you say about this will matter.
Because everything else, all of our other points of view, every other point that we would make about any of this stuff, whether it's sports or gender transition, surgeries, whatever.
And every point we make follows from the fundamental point that men are men and women are women.
And when a man says he's a woman, he still is not a woman.
You cannot abandon that fundamental point or try to ignore it while still trying to take issue further down the line.
It doesn't work.
People are starting to see that more and more now, which is why recently some of this has started to change, and we see the progress that we've been able to make just in that short time.
As for Trevor Noah, he's likely a hopeless case.
He'll never come out and plainly say what he knows is true, which is a shame.
Because if he's going to be unfunny, he might as well at least be honest.
