Ep. 1230 - Courts Across The Country Are Letting Murderers Off The Hook In The Name Of Racial Equity
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a white teenager was stomped to death by a group of black men. This week jurors decided to convict the assailants only of assault. This is just the latest case where juries across the country, egged along by prosecutors, are letting violent murderers off the hook if they have the right skin color. Also, the media laments the "humanitarian crisis" down on the border. But who is to blame for it and what should be done about it? And John Fetterman introduces a bill that would grant student loan deferment for rape and harassment victims. It's a good thing that the system can never be abused. In our Daily Cancellation, a new dating show on HBO Max features fully nude contestants. Has pop culture finally reached rock bottom? Of course not.
Ep.1230
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://bit.ly/3LjDxuA, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a white teenager was stomped to death by a group of black men.
This week, jurors decided to convict the assailants only of assault.
And this is just the latest case where juries across the country, egged along by prosecutors, are letting violent murderers off the hook if they have the right skin color.
Also, the media laments the humanitarian crisis down on the border, but who's to blame for it and what should be done about it?
And John Fetterman introduces a bill that would grant student loan deferment to rape and harassment victims.
It's a good thing that a system like that could just never be abused at all.
And our daily cancellation, a new dating show on HBO Max features fully nude contestants.
Has pop culture finally reached rock bottom?
Of course not.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Vladimir Putin called the U.S.
dollar's drop in dominance objective and irreversible, as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa formally agreed to use local currencies in trade instead of the U.S.
dollar.
As demand for the dollar weakens, the buying power of the dollar weakens, and that is why birch gold is busier than ever.
Investors and savers are looking to harness the power of physical gold held in a tax-sheltered IRA.
And you can, too.
You can protect your IRA or 401k by diversifying with gold from Birch Gold.
As the U.S.
dollar continues to receive pressure from foreign countries, digital currency, and central banks, arm yourself with information on how to protect your savings.
Learn if gold is right for you, too.
Text WALSH to 989898.
And they'll send you a free info kit on gold with an A+ rating with the Better Business
Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews.
I trust Birch Gold to help you diversify into gold.
If a central bank digital currency ever becomes a reality, it'll be nice to have some gold
to depend on.
Again, text WALSH to 989898.
The idea of jury nullification has been around since this country had juries.
The idea is pretty simple.
Juries can vote to acquit defendants even when the government proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you serve on a jury and you listen to all the evidence, you can still vote not guilty and you can walk right out of the courthouse and tell everyone that the guy did it, but you didn't care.
Maybe you didn't like the law.
Maybe you didn't like the prosecutor.
Maybe you were just having a bad day.
Whatever it is, it's your right to vote to acquit.
The defendant will walk, and the judge and the government can't do anything about it.
In the history of this country, jury nullification has been especially prominent in periods of open race hatred.
During the 19th century, juries often refused to convict people who were accused of helping escape slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act.
And later, in the civil rights area, But on balance, this is a feature, not a bug, of our judicial system.
That's the conventional wisdom anyway.
acts of violence against blacks. So there are clearly good uses of jury nullification
and there are bad uses of it as you would expect. But on balance this is a
feature not a bug of our judicial system. That's the conventional wisdom anyway.
What's not conventional wisdom because no one's talking about it even on the
right is that jury nullification is making a major comeback right now.
And this is not the jury nullification that Supreme Court justices like John Jay endorsed back in the day.
I'm talking about a return of the civil rights era of jury nullification, where juries, egged on by prosecutors in some cases, refuse to punish racist criminals who are obviously guilty.
Only this time, the criminals are not white, they're black.
This is widespread at the moment in this country.
It is impossible to deny.
We have fully imported South African-style juries where race and caste matters more than the facts of the case.
I'm gonna start with one of the most egregious recent examples of the jury nullification that I'm talking about.
This is a case involving the brutal killing of a 17-year-old white high school student in Akron, Ohio, named Ethan Liming.
Now, last summer, Ethan Liming and his friends decided to do some stupid TikTok challenge where they take a toy gel gun and fire it at random people.
And here's the police chief in Akron explaining what the gun looks like and what it does.
Watch.
Yeah, so the description of this Toy, and it's targeted for ages 14 and up, is that you take these little beads, you soak them in water, this is my understanding of it, you soak it in water, and then you load this, what they describe as a toy gun, and it shoots these water beads
Okay, now it's important to see what those guns look like.
Because that is obviously a toy water gun.
it explodes and then the person is doused with water.
Okay, it's important to see what those guns look like because that is obviously a toy water gun.
It's very clearly not a real gun. And so Ethan Liming and his friends armed with this toy water
gun drove around and then they came across several young black men ages 19 to 21 who
who were playing basketball in a parking lot near LeBron James' I Promise School.
And Liming's friends made the very dumb decision to shoot the water pellets at these black men with the toy gun.
Now, evidence at trial, which includes surveillance footage, shows that the black men initially ran away, thinking that they were under attack.
But then, probably when they realized what was actually happening, that their lives were not in jeopardy, they turned back.
And they charged at the car that Liming was in.
There was testimony that Liming fired some water pellets at the men who were now running at him.
The key point here is that this was not a split-second thing where the black men attacked in self-defense thinking the gun was real.
They pursued Liming to get back at him for his prank.
What happened next is that Ethan Lyman died a horrible death.
When police arrived, they found blood coming from Lyman's mouth, ears, and nose.
He hadn't simply been punched in the face and given a black eye, although that's true as well.
He had been stomped.
He had a broken collarbone.
He had multiple blunt force injuries all over his body.
The coroner noted that there was a shoe print on his chest.
Now, think about the amount of force that's required to leave a shoe print on someone's chest.
Think about the savagery involved in that.
At trial, the defense argued that Ethan Lyman's killers were in fear for their life because of the toy gun.
They weren't mad that they'd been pranked.
Instead, they were deathly afraid of the water gun, so they went to town.
Is that plausible?
Well, initially, prosecutors didn't think so.
That's why they brought murder charges against the men responsible for this killing, which seems obviously appropriate given the facts of the case.
And given that those facts simply don't support a self-defense claim.
Again, they pursued him, they assaulted him, and they stomped on him while he was on the ground.
It was three against one.
And after killing him, they stole his car.
So even if we were to accept the outlandish idea that they ran after this guy still thinking that he was a crazed shooter with a real gun that just so happened to look like a plastic toy gun, well, by the time they were stomping him to death on the ground, it would have been exceedingly clear to everybody involved that he was not a threat.
Also keep in mind that at least one of the three assailants had been hit in the face with the water pellet and, you know, that couldn't have felt very good, but it does mean that they obviously knew that it was a toy gun.
Their lives were not in danger.
They stomped him to death and they stole his car because they were angry.
And stomping someone to death and killing them because you're mad, that's not a legitimate excuse, at least it's not supposed to be in a civilized society.
So this was murder, obviously.
But the murder charges didn't last long.
Watch.
Police originally charged Deshawn Stafford, his brother Tyler, and their cousin, Donovan Jones, with murder.
But in July, a grand jury indicted them on lesser charges.
Leining blames the Summit County Prosecutor's Office for that decision.
He doesn't believe all of the facts were presented.
Akron police said back in June, race was not a factor in the killing.
There is nothing that we have in our possession right now, any information at all, indicating that race played a role in this homicide.
Nothing.
You get the idea.
There are a couple things about this.
First of all, if the prosecutors had wanted the grand jury to indict a murder charges, they could have done that.
That's not really in dispute, especially after the Trump prosecutions, where the grand jury wanted to indict everyone who's ever talked to Trump.
And they did.
So everyone knows how grand juries work in this country.
You know, the saying about a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich, because prosecutors can get anybody indicted by a grand jury.
There's no defense counsel present.
Prosecutors can basically say whatever they want to the grand jury, and they can indict anyone for any crime.
So why didn't prosecutors want murder charges here?
Why did they effectively downgrade to a much less serious offense, which is involuntary manslaughter?
Lyman's father spoke to local media about the prosecutor's decision, and he says that at least one prosecutor said that his son got what he deserved in the form of hood justice.
Watch.
Between the detectives and the prosecutors.
Described that prosecutors meeting as being very contentious.
Some of the prosecutors wanting felonious assault charges and murder charges.
Others basically wanting no charges at all.
With one of the prosecutors saying that Ethan received hood justice.
Which was a new term to me.
I was unfamiliar with that terminology, hood justice.
And I guess implying that Ethan got what he deserved.
Hood justice.
That's from a prosecutor.
Now, you can believe what Lyman's father says, or you can choose not to believe it.
Whatever the case, it's objectively true that involuntary manslaughter is an absurdly lenient charge when you pummel someone on the ground after he fired a water gun at you.
Involuntary manslaughter makes sense when you're speeding and you hit somebody in a crosswalk, you know, but when you're standing over somebody with a child's toy, causing blood to come out of every orifice of his body, You're probably committing a voluntary act called murder.
At the very least, you'd think that it'd be up to a jury to decide whether it's murder or not.
But prosecutors in Akron didn't see it that way, so the murder charge was off the table.
And just by doing that, just by removing the prospect of murder from the case, prosecutors sent a very clear signal to jurors.
And the signal is that this was all an accident, at worst.
Nobody really intended anyone to die.
And just to reiterate that point, the prosecutors offered jurors another option, which is that they could also convict the thugs of assault.
Which is interesting, so you could convict them of assaulting someone until they die, but then not convict them of the actual murder or manslaughter.
Well, it doesn't make any sense, but lo and behold, that's exactly what happened.
This week, Ethan Liming's killers got off with a conviction for assault.
That's it.
They were acquitted of involuntary manslaughter.
It's as if they just got into a nasty bar fight or something.
They stomped somebody to death, and all they're getting is an assault charge.
Conviction, rather.
So they'll almost certainly be out of jail within two years, if not sooner.
This is jury nullification encouraged by prosecutors.
There's no other term that you can use to describe this, and it's not just happening in Akron.
Consider that just a few weeks ago, a jury found that a member of a black nationalist militia named Othell Wallace had committed manslaughter instead of murder after he shot a police officer to death on camera.
Wallace shot this officer named Jason Rayner in the head.
This was an unprovoked murder.
Rayner was responding to a call of suspicious activity in an apartment complex And Wallace killed him.
Again, there's no doubt about that.
The murder was caught on body cam.
Although Wallace is not simply a member of a black nationalist, black supremacist group, after executing Jason Rayner, Wallace boasted on Instagram about putting pigs in their place.
He fled to Georgia, where his black nationalist group called NFAC, for Not F-ing Around Coalition, helped him hide.
Wallace also cut his dreadlocks to hide his appearance.
And all of this came out in Trial Watch.
Yeah, but he also said something about me getting banned.
I'm not sure if it is, but... No, sir.
No, sir.
I'm not sure if it is, but no, sir, no, sir.
Okay, well, you were first law enforcement as a case, don't you?
No, sir. In fact, after you killed Officer Rader or shot him, you went on
Instagram and you posted that I'm not going to let these pigs do anything to
me. Correct. I said, I said, Yes, I did refer to as pigs.
But when I see your word pigs, I'm not specifically always talking about police
officers.
What was she talking about?
I'm talking about people who don't see me as human.
Okay, so when you shot Officer Raynor, you referred to him as a pig, and all the other people as pigs, the officers, correct?
No, not just when I said it again.
I'm referring to people who don't see me as human.
Sure.
Oh, yeah, well, so he shot the police officer and killed him and then talked about pigs, but he wasn't talking about police officers.
I mean, you can't imagine, can you imagine that going the other way?
Somebody kills a, murders a black man and then later posts on social media using the n-word and then he's asked about it and said, well, no, it's unrelated.
I didn't say n-word.
I mean, that guy could have been referring to anybody.
It wasn't really race-based necessarily.
Like, there's no way that argument would be brought in court, but after that testimony that you just saw, after shooting a police officer in the face and killing him, Otha Wallace was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, which carries a possible death sentence.
Manslaughter.
The local sheriff said that he was, quote, that he never, quote, he never, he had never been more disgusted by a verdict in his entire career, and you can see why.
Again, this is not simply jury nullification.
This is race-based jury nullification that prosecutors are encouraging.
In some cases, they're not even leaving it to the juries.
They're offering murderers really attractive plea deals to short-circuit the whole trial process altogether.
Remember the 41-year-old guy in North Dakota named Shannon Brandt?
He confessed to killing Kahler Ellingson, who was a teenager.
And why did he do that?
Well, Brandt was drunk, and he assumed that when Ellingson was on the phone with his mom, that he was really communicating with some sort of MAGA Republican militia.
So Brandt ran Ellingson over with his Ford Explorer, killed him, and then he fled the
scene.
And that's murder, but Shannon Brandt wasn't charged with murder.
Instead, he was hit with manslaughter charges instead.
Prosecutors offered him those charges as part of a plea deal, which of course he accepted.
And there are many more examples like this.
There's the case of James McGee, who used a metal pipe to bludgeon a 62-year-old cab driver named Arif Mohammed Kassim to death back in 2019.
He literally beat his brains out.
San Francisco's DA at the time let McGee plead to involuntary manslaughter in the name of equity after beating someone to death with a lead pipe.
The same thing happened to the killer of Seth Smith, a Berkeley student who was shot in the back of the head at point-blank range by a lifelong criminal named Tony Walker.
And the moment the homicide detectives reached out to Walker, he explained that he was frustrated that they cared about Smith's death to begin with.
He said, quote, a white kid gets killed and the damn whole world stops.
F that white mother effort.
That's what he said to the cops.
How did prosecutors respond?
Well, they offered Tony Walker a plea of manslaughter.
That's despite the fact that a probation officer determined that, quote, the defendant has demonstrated that he is a danger to the community and needs to be separated for the community's protection.
The defendant has established an entrenched pattern of criminal conduct that probation, prison, and parole have been unable to eradicate.
Nevertheless, Tony Walker was not brought up on hate crime charges or thrown in prison for life, as he would be if he were white.
This was not a repeat of the Ahmaud Arbery case with the races reversed.
Instead, prosecutors let Tony Walker take a manslaughter plea.
And for good measure, lawmakers in Berkeley later prevented police from running most parolee searches, like the one that led cops to apprehend Walker in the first place.
And we could go on and on listing examples, but there's one more, a very recent one, that we need to fit in here.
A man named Calvin Ushry.
He brutally assaulted, pistol whipped, and robbed a jewelry store owner.
The whole thing was caught on camera, plain as day.
But guess what happened at trial?
Watch.
New at 11 tonight, a jury could not reach a verdict in a brutal attack and robbery of a Wilmington jewelry store owner.
Calvin Ashery was on trial for various charges, including robbery and assault.
After two days of deliberations, a mistrial was declared.
This surveillance video was shown during the trial coming up right here.
Prosecutors argued Ushery violently attacked the owner of Solid Gold Jewelers back in September of last year.
The owner was so badly beaten he underwent months of rehabilitation.
Prosecutors plan to retry the case.
The jury couldn't reach a verdict.
Ushry is on video walking into a jewelry store, grabbing the store owner, pistol whipping him, stomping on his head, and beating him with a hammer before walking off with $100,000 worth of stolen merchandise.
He was charged with assault and robbery because, you know, you can see him on camera assaulting and robbing someone, but the jury was deadlocked.
They couldn't figure out.
They looked at that video and said, I don't know what's happening there.
Who knows?
It's impossible to tell.
Now, we all know why it was deadlocked.
There were members of that jury who didn't want to convict a black man, no matter how obviously guilty he was.
That's what happened, and we all know it.
And this is what's been happening in courtrooms all over the country, without any fanfare whatsoever.
The left has targeted conservatives, whether they're politicians or pro-lifers or random people posting memes that offend Hillary Clinton.
Everybody knows that.
But at the same time, all over the country, the primary voting blocs of the Democratic Party are committing the most heinous crimes imaginable, including murder, only for prosecutors and juries to let them off the hook.
They're doing it deliberately.
And in the process, they have established a true two-tiered justice system, a hierarchy, where the severity of a crime is judged based on the demographics of those involved, and the lives of victims are ranked based on their race and their politics.
Sadly for the family of Ethan Lyman, he falls at the bottom of that totem pole, which means that there will be no justice for him.
Because we are no longer a country that believes in justice.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Now he actually enjoys his squeaky toys and playing fetch with his frisbee.
Our pup's days are filled with laughter, exercise, and endless fun.
Naturopathic doctor Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Little did I know, before I got Rough Greens, dog food is dead food.
Everybody knows that nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Well, you can 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, Boost 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.
The New York Post has this shocking headline that's supposed to pull at your heartstrings.
Migrant children pictured howling in pain as they crawl through razor wire to reach the US.
The article says, gut-wrenching images taken by The Post show migrant toddlers crawling through razor wire to reach Eagle Pass, Texas, howling in pain as spikes from the wire stick into their flesh.
The photos capture the sheer desperation of the humanitarian crisis playing out on the border, with families and even a double amputee crawling through the sharp coils of wire to get a shot at claiming asylum in the U.S.
Migrants, barely out of diapers, are being dumped at the border by heartless cartels, which are using them as decoys to tie up border agents so cartel members can shift drugs and gangsters over more remote areas of the border.
And in the pictures that are circulating online, you see these very young children who are obviously in pain.
They're crawling through the barbed wire.
And then you see what appear to be their mothers with them, taking them through the barbed wire.
Around 11,000 migrants crossed in the U.S.
across the Mexico border from Sunday to Monday, making it the single highest day in recent memory, according to Fox News.
Texas towns, including Eagle Pass and El Paso, have been flooded with thousands of people seeking refuge over the last week, pushing authorities to a breaking point.
And now we're being told about this never-ending humanitarian crisis.
So we're going back to this well again, you know, the familiar propaganda.
Look at these sad pictures.
Doesn't this prove that we shouldn't have borders or laws?
Oh, you think that we should have borders and laws?
You think that we should, you know, be a country?
But have you seen these really sad pictures?
Look at the sad pictures.
Doesn't that convince you to never mind?
Shouldn't we see the sad pictures and say, well, never mind.
Just wave away the whole border.
Never mind about the whole border thing.
That every other country in the world has and has always had.
And has always protected using violent force if necessary.
I mean, clearly by these pictures they prove that we should be the only country, well, us and Western European countries as well, you know, the West, the modern West, should be the only place in the history of the world where there are no borders at all.
That's the conclusion you're supposed to reach when you see the sad pictures.
But it doesn't actually prove that at all.
If anything, it proves the opposite.
The people flooding across the southern border, fleeing from the failed state where they live, are very good evidence that enforcing law and maintaining a border is extremely important.
Because we don't want to end up like that.
And also, of course, when you have a porous border and the so-called migrants, otherwise known as illegal aliens, know that they can just cross through and if they make it through that they'll be here and they won't be sent home.
Well, the more that you have that, the more you incentivize people to come.
Which is why, as I've always said, and as many people on the right have said, the right thing to do is to have a border that is strictly enforced.
You know, where you have armed men on the border, violently enforce the border if necessary, like so many other countries do, and they get no grief for it at all.
That's not only the right thing to do because you're protecting the sovereignty of the country, it is also the most compassionate thing for these so-called migrants.
Because it lets them know, don't even attempt it.
It's not worth it.
Don't even try.
Now to me it's no different than this.
It's like, you know, you can show me very sad pictures of homeless people in the streets.
And I might look at those pictures and I might say, well that's a very sad thing.
That's not going to convince me that I myself shouldn't live in a home and shouldn't lock my doors and maintain the security and integrity of my home.
Again, it convinces me the opposite.
Because I don't want to end up like that.
I don't want my children to end up like that.
So, I have a home with walls and a roof, and I lock the door, and all of that.
And also, if one of those homeless guys just tries to walk into my home uninvited, even if I, from a distance, intellectually, I can understand his desperation, and you could say, well, if you were homeless, what would you do?
I don't know what I would do if I was homeless.
I can sympathize with the plight, but if that homeless guy says, I'm tired of being homeless and I don't want to be on the street anymore, and he says, I'm just going to walk into my, and he just decides to walk into my house, well, he's not going to be allowed to do that.
And if he tries to, he's going to be met with violent force.
I feel sorry for the homeless guy, but I also have a home that I have to maintain.
And a family I have to protect, and that has to be my first priority.
So it's very simple.
Same goes for the border and our country as a whole.
This is our collective home, and we have to protect it for the same reason.
Also, but the real point is, when you look at pictures like this, and the headline is, oh, these migrant children are crawling through barbed wire, isn't it a terrible thing?
It is a terrible thing, by the way.
The pictures are fake.
The pictures are real.
This is not a deep fake.
This is not AI-generated.
These are actual human children that are crawling through barbed wire.
It's a terrible, terrible thing.
I hate to see anybody in pain.
I especially hate to see children in pain.
But who's the real villain there?
Obviously, it's the parents dragging their kids through barbed wire.
That's the headline, right?
Their headline was migrant children pictured howling in pain as they
crawl through razor wire to reach the US.
The real headline, here's an alternate headline, is, Abusive Insane Mothers Drag Their Children Through Razor Wire And Should Be Arrested For It.
Like, that's the actual headline.
So anytime we hear about these terrible stories, Of the things that children go through and things that happen to children in the process of being dragged across the border or through the desert to eventually try to sneak across the border.
Anytime we hear these stories, and it is very sad, but it's always the fault lies on the adults who are putting the children in this situation.
This is why you don't take your child and cross a desert and try to sneak through a border.
And take them through razor wire.
That's why you don't do that.
And the fault is entirely on you.
And that should, obviously, be our message.
And in those particular pictures, you can see, again, you can see what appear to be the mothers, like, dragging their kids through barbed wire.
How is that an acceptable thing?
And how is the real villain in a picture like that not incredibly obvious to everybody?
All right, AP has this report, reparations advocates urge San Francisco supervisors Tuesday to adopt recommendations aimed at shrinking the racial wealth gap and otherwise improving the lives of black residents as atonement for decades of discriminatory city policies, including the granting of a lump sum $5 million payment to every eligible adult.
San Francisco's Board of Supervisors was expected to vote Tuesday to accept the final reparations plan issued by the city's African-American Reparations Advisory Committee.
The city has set aside $4 million to open an office of reparations, but it has not acted on major recommendations.
Yet, supervisors have expressed enthusiasm for reparations, but stopped short of backing individual proposals.
The office of Mayor London Breed, who is black, She said in a statement Tuesday that she will continue to lift up marginalized communities, but she believes that reparations are best handled at the federal level, but this is the plan by the reparations committee.
So the mayor's black.
Presumably many, if not all, of the people on these reparations task force are also black.
If these policies are put through, I assume they each get a $5 million lump sum payment as well?
That's a nice deal.
If you're on some government panel, and you can directly, like out in the open, I mean, people in government positions profit off their positions in unethical ways all the time, but out in the open, you could just award yourself five million dollars from the taxpayers.
So that's what's going on here.
We have some clips from this meeting.
I think there are a bunch of clips, but I think we only need to play one.
Here's a white woman Vomiting her white guilt all over the place actually not all over the place because she's wearing a mask.
So She vomits it directly into her mask, which is quite disgusting Let's watch that The father side of the family immigrated from Europe and I'm here to say that I 100% supports reparations for black San Franciscans it is Unquestionable But it doesn't stop there with whatever White people, a majority, decide to give black San Franciscans.
It's not enough.
And also, white supremacy has f***ed us up.
White people.
Like, seriously.
So, part of the reparation should also be, like, really, like, Questioning yourselves, questioning your thoughts, killing the police in your mind, not voting to give SFPD even more money to police black people, to kill black people, to keep them homeless, to put them in jails, to profit off of them even more.
We need to kill that.
We need to stop that.
So next time you vote to give SFPD more money instead of investing in the black community,
you have failed.
That's what she said.
I didn't mishear that.
Kill the police in your mind is her plan.
She's there wearing the mask.
It is, as always, if you're a normal person living in a somewhat normal community and you see video clips like that, you always think it's amazing that these people actually exist.
This is not just a meme.
This is a conservative meme of a left-winger come to life.
It's like someone drew that, and then it came to life, and you end up with that person.
We've talked about reparations plenty of times in the past.
It's an incoherent concept for a whole bunch of reasons,
starting with the fact that just because somebody is a certain race
living in this country today, that doesn't mean that their
ancestors were actually affected by whatever persecution was inflicted
on their demographic group in the past. Their family might not have
even been here at the time. But mainly the point is that you cannot
create a system where people are cashing in on historical wrongs.
And once you create a system like that, there's really no, there's no limiting principle.
And I think most people understand this, that once they start actually, so far it's just been a bunch of meetings about reparations.
No one's actually done it yet.
But eventually, California will be the first place, and there'll be some kind of reparations plan that will actually be put into place and enacted.
I don't think it's going to be $5 million a piece, because they can't do that.
It's not possible.
You're just fully bankrupting the city at that point.
I know you might say, well, obviously San Francisco is run by people who couldn't care less about the future and prosperity of that city.
But I think it probably will not be 5 million, but it'll be something.
And that is going to happen.
And then you're going to start seeing it in other towns and other states.
And then that's just the first go-round.
That's the racial reparations.
But then they're going to circle back around and they're going to start talking about reparations for LGBT people.
And they're going to talk about reparations for women who suffered, they will claim, centuries of oppression under patriarchal systems and so on and so forth.
Eventually every victim group will want its bite of the apple.
Which will be kind of funny, because then it's just going to mean that all these... It's like you give the reparations to all the black people, and then you come back around and say, well, the LGBT people need reparations.
And they're like the top victims right now, so they probably need more.
So now the black people have to give some of those reparations to LGBT, and then the women come in and say, what about us?
And so they're all just kind of like trading the reparations money around.
Or alternatively, all this money is only coming from white men.
They're the only ones who have to pay it.
So that's eventually where it goes.
coming from white men, they're the only ones who have to pay.
So that's eventually where it goes, and it becomes this obviously, I mean, on top of
being clearly unethical and wrong and immoral, that you're stealing from people today to
address alleged wrongs that were committed by other people who aren't even alive anymore.
The whole thing is ridiculous.
It's also an unworkable system.
But here's another point that I don't emphasize as often, and I don't hear emphasized as often, which is that if you have self-respect, if you have any basic honor and self-respect, you shouldn't want this.
Like, I wouldn't want this.
If I was black, I would not want this.
And I know it's easy to say, especially if there really is $5 million on the table, for free.
It's easy to say, well, I wouldn't want that.
But I actually wouldn't.
I wouldn't want it.
Because the insinuation, the premise, as always, is that black people need $5 million apiece in order to have a fair shot.
They need that kind of boost because they can't do it on their own.
And there's no way they can figure out how to do it on their own.
That's, that is what is being, it's not being implied, it's just being outright stated.
It's incredibly insulting.
And it's, and I wouldn't want it.
Because of course the reality is that you, you can, you can sit around all day trying to cash in your victim points and complaining nonstop about all the things that happened in the past that didn't even happen to you.
It's like even if, even if some of these things did happen to you, I mean, there are no former slaves still living in America.
The last one died decades and decades and decades ago.
I don't know how long ago.
But there are certainly none left.
But even if there was some 200-year-old person who was still living, who actually themselves was a slave way back when, Like, if they were still spending every single day of their life complaining about it, you would say even to them, like, it's time to move on.
Even though this happened to you specifically, it was so long ago, that it's time to move on, really, with your life, with whatever moment, I mean, you've had such a long life, you're 200 years old, and you've wasted the whole time complaining about this thing that happened.
So, we would say that even to someone who actually experienced it all that long ago.
But then, the reality is that no such person is still living.
So you've got people who didn't even suffer this form of persecution, and yet spend every day obsessing over it.
This is no way to live.
You can live that way, or you can just go out and improve your own life on your own.
It is actually possible to do.
That's one strategy.
All right, here's... I need to make a little time for this because we have already spent several segments on the show recently criticizing John Fetterman, and now we have another opportunity to do it.
I've just decided, I've just decided that every time, for as long as this A broken man is still in the Senate, walking around in his wrinkled, his basketball shorts and his hoodie and all that.
For as long as he's there, I just think we just need to, we can't let him off the hook.
So, especially in this case, because John Fetterman, along with some other Democrats, introduced what I think is certainly in the running for one of the worst pieces of legislation In recent memory.
That actually equivocates more than it needs to.
It might really be at the top.
It might be number one on the list.
So here's the bill.
This is from Business Insider.
And the headline is, Student Loan Payments Could Get Easier For Survivors Of Sexual Assault If A Bill Introduced By Senator John Fenneman And 10 Other Democrats Passes.
Bill.
Survivors of sexual assault, harassment and stalking may one day have the ability to defer their student loan payments for up to three years if their ability to come to school was affected as a result.
Representative Madeline Dean, Senator John Fetterman, Representative Ayanna Pressley and eight other Democrats introduced H.R.
5588 on Wednesday, days before student loan payments are set to resume on October 1st.
In his endorsement of the Student Loan Deferment for Sex-Based Harassment Survivors Act, Federman brought up his time away from the Senate earlier this year when he received treatment for his clinical depression.
Federman said in a press release getting help allowed me to be the father and husband
I wanted to be and the senator that's Pennsylvania deserves I strongly encourage anyone who's struggling or in crisis
to get help and extending the opportunity to our students is
Absolutely the right thing to do this bill make it possible for students to focus on their mental health without the
burden of student loan Payments the bill would also change the definition of
sexual violence to include sex-based harassment and allow more survivors
to access the program Okay, I mean the article goes on but there are already so
many problems that we've lost count I mean, to begin with, we have John Fetterman lumping himself in to the category with the survivors of sexual assault.
He is very directly lumping himself in with rape survivors because he was depressed and he went to the hospital for it.
And he's saying, quite explicitly, that he can relate to them.
And he said, well, I got help and you should get help too.
Anyone who's struggling with a crisis, whether it's someone like you who was raped and is a survivor, or someone like me who was very sad, it's the same, he says.
And on top of that, you have this, well, the whole idea is insane, and it's like if you're trying to Do everything you possibly can to increase the number of false accusations and false rape claims.
If that's the goal here, then I can't think of a better way to do it.
And obviously on the left, that in fact is their goal.
So now they're creating a direct, explicit financial incentive.
If you want to defer your student loan payments for three, by the way, and we know what deferring means.
As I always say, three years, but then once three years come up, then we'll start talking about we should defer it some more.
So, it might be deferment for three years, but everyone understands that really it's indefinitely.
And if you're trying to do everything you can to increase the number, to inflate the number of false rape claims, then this is how you do it.
Direct financial incentive.
Say, well, you don't have to pay back student loans for at least three years if you're a survivor of sexual assault.
Do you have to?
What's the system to prove that you were a survivor?
Well, we can pretty much guarantee that there's no system for that.
Just make the claim.
And then on top of that, as if that's not bad enough, and really to emphasize the point that they intend this to be just kind of like a catch-all, another way for people to avoid their financial obligations, they expand the definition of sexual violence to include sex-based harassment.
And even that, even sex-based harassment, is itself an expansion of sexual harassment.
Because when you hear the word sexual harassment, it implies that the harassment is somehow sexual.
This is like some kind of creep who's harassing someone in a sexual way.
But sex-based harassment doesn't even have to be sexual harassment.
It has to be that a woman feels like she was harassed because she's a woman.
There doesn't have to be anything sexual about it.
Maybe someone interrupted her in class, and she felt like she was being interrupted because she's a woman.
No way to prove that, of course, but that's how she feels.
That's sex-based harassment.
And now we're taking a case like that, and we are including that, and that becomes sexual violence.
And now that woman who was interrupted in a meeting or a class, And she feels like it was because she's a woman.
She is now a survivor.
This is not someone who experienced an annoyance that we have all experienced.
It's just part of being a human being in society.
No, no, no.
This is a survivor now.
She gets to live the rest of her life.
I survived.
I survived that moment.
I'm a survivor.
And there should be a financial reward for that.
And now this is just the same as rape, and all of that is the same as John Fetterman going to the hospital because he was depressed.
So, as I said, one of the worst pieces of legislation we've seen in a long time.
John Fetterman's brain is broken, so that's his excuse for getting behind this.
What about the other Democrats?
I guess that's the question.
Let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
So we began the show yesterday with a discussion about marriage and the criticisms of the institution that come now from both the left and the right, and they attack it for different reasons, but often their conclusion is basically the same, which is that modern society should effectively abandon marriage.
And as you might expect, a lot of people offered responses to that segment, many of them critical.
I didn't go through every comment and message, obviously.
I would say that from my initial skim through, the majority are against.
Me, not, well, and marriage, apparently.
Which is basically what I expected, because defending the marital institution is not a popular thing these days, which to me only further proves that it needs defending.
Especially when you consider that it wouldn't have been all that long ago, it would have been a few decades ago, or probably not even that long, if I were to do a segment saying all the same things, most people would be scratching their heads like, why do you think that needs, well of course, why do you need to say any of that?
So I'm going to read several of these comments, and then I'll offer a few general thoughts in response.
Paul Holcomb says, I really like Walsh, however, he must look at the numbers.
I am not going to split hairs over whether 50% of marriages fail.
No matter, the number is high.
Add that to the 25% of marriages that are loveless or sexless.
If my wife desires a divorce today, she will get a lawyer, government subsidized, and will take everything including the kids.
Yes, marriage is a bad deal right now.
Sorry, Matt.
Q Braun says, Matt simply doesn't understand what's going on.
He's shilling for traditional values where there are none in today's society while still married.
He doesn't understand how moderate... Okay, so you are complaining that I'm, quote, shilling for traditional values and then saying that there are none in today's society.
Isn't that all the more reason to shill for them?
And shilling usually, that's a negative thing.
Shilling is, that's like a scam that you're pushing.
That's usually when you say shill, that's the connotation.
So do you believe that traditional values are good or bad?
You're complaining that there's not enough of them in modern society.
So would it not be, shouldn't I be shilling them?
Shouldn't I be pushing the values that we both agree are lacking in today's society?
He doesn't understand how modern women take all the control and ability of men by dragging them through the family courts and sending many to barely get by and a good number ready to self-terminate.
The only way Matt can truly understand this is to one day find himself falling out of control, losing your money and savings that for most is just enough to get by, and fantasize about ending it all when all most divorced men want.
Matt is a loving wife and they're kids.
I think if Matt was forced away from his home and kids, he might be slightly more empathetic towards his fellow men who are getting shafted in society in the family courts.
I know I said I'm going to read them all and then have some general thoughts, but just one point on this, because this comes up in a lot of the comments where, well, Matt, you've never been divorced, so you're not credible on this subject.
This is the way that this conversation is set up, right?
That we talk about marriage and it's just, we hear nothing but doom and gloom and the absolute worst about it.
And people throwing out crazy numbers like 75% are failures, people are miserable.
And if anyone comes along and says, you know, that is not my experience.
Let me tell you my experience.
My experience was more positive.
Can I tell you about it?
Again, I'm hearing all these things about marriage, but that's not my experience.
I'd like to tell you about my... And the moment you do that, you're saying, well, you don't understand.
So you only have a credible perspective on marriage if it fails.
So if my marriage failed, then you would be fine, right?
Q Braun, you would be fine with me talking all about my experience of a failed marriage.
And it would give me credibility, you're saying.
But because my marriage is not a failure, suddenly it's not a credible perspective.
So only after it fails, then I can start talking about my own personal experience.
Do you see what you're trying to set up here?
For whatever reason, you would like the picture of marriage, you want a very negative picture of marriage painted.
And so what you're saying is that only people who've had negative experiences can have a credible perspective on the subject.
Which is just ridiculous.
And there's no lack of empathy here.
I don't know how many times I have to say it.
You know, and as a man we should be, you know, you should be less emotional and more able to understand and, you know, just take the words that someone's saying and understand them.
So I don't know how many times I have to say it, but yes, obviously men who are screwed by the system, many are, it's a terrible thing, it's an awful thing.
I'm very empathetic about that, but I don't think that the correct response is to abandon Human civilization's most fundamental institution.
I think that that will create more suffering.
That is not an empathetic view, because it creates more suffering.
I want less suffering.
That's my position.
You could disagree with it.
It's hard to say that it's a position that lacks empathy, though.
One of the primary reasons I take this position is because I believe this position will lead to less suffering.
So that is my objective, also.
Let's see, Brianna says, you may have been married for 10 or 15 years, but how do you know what your marriage will be like after 25 or 40 years?
How many boomers over 50 have been divorced after being married for 25 plus years?
EB Sport News says, blaming red pillars is akin to accusing them of all the ills that is associated in modern day marriage.
All they do is present the current state of marriage and divorce laws and give suggesting in some instances on how to navigate in this world.
Grant says, Matt, it's easy for you to say all this.
You were married years ago when things were different and you're rich.
It's not so easy for young men today.
That's what you don't understand.
Okay.
So a few points here.
First of all, just taking that last comment, I hear this a lot.
Oh, you're married in a different day and age.
Different for you, right?
You're in a different financial position.
It was 12 years ago.
Okay?
It was not a century ago.
It was 12 years ago.
And it was the same culture.
There might be some unique challenges that have come up in the last several years, but it was basically the same culture.
The divorce rates, I think back then, were actually worse than they are now, and they certainly weren't much better.
They're probably basically the same.
So the divorce situation was basically the same.
I heard all the same stuff before I got married.
All this stuff.
Everything that's being said now.
Every single thing that's being said now.
I heard the same things before I got married.
So it's not new.
Okay?
The fact that the system is rigged against men, that was the case 12 years ago.
Living in a decayed, depraved, degenerate culture.
We lived in that culture 12 years ago, too.
Not that long ago.
This didn't all start yesterday.
And in terms of the financial situation, when I got married, I was broke.
I've talked about this before, I believe.
When I got married, I was not a person who was financially well off.
It might be the case that now we're quite financially comfortable, we're blessed to be comfortable.
That was not the case when we got married.
I maybe had 50 bucks to my name in my bank account, if that.
Most of the time I had zero dollars in my bank account, or negative.
I was living in the negative most of the time.
Um, and that was certainly the case when we got married.
We were, we were not in a good position financially.
We were, we were very broke.
You know, we were living in a, I don't know, 400, 300 square foot, one bedroom apartment that was just awful.
And the whole nine yards, we were, we were broke when I got married.
Um, and that's why I've often said that, uh, that not only do you not have to wait until you have a lot of money to get married, but, uh, but oftentimes it can be better To get married before then.
Because then you are creating a life together.
And you are gaining all of this financial security and wealth together.
You are succeeding together.
You're walking that path together.
And I think that there are many advantages to that.
Like, one of the big ones, first of all, is that you don't have to worry.
Like, I don't have to look at my wife and think, well, she only married me for the money.
Wait, she married a guy with 50 bucks for the money?
No.
But the other big thing, too, is that I know with my wife that because we walked this path together, there's no concept of like, oh, this is mine.
I make the money.
It's mine.
It belongs to me.
You don't have that kind of possessiveness.
Because I know that I couldn't have done anything that I've done without her.
I know that.
I know that we did this together in a very real sense.
So you don't need to wait for that.
I think there are major downsides to waiting until you're older and you have all the money that you want and everything, and then you wait until you get married.
And one of the problems, too, is that you may find that you never really get to a point where you feel like you're perfectly financially secure.
And then what?
You just never move on to the next phase of life?
But the fundamental point, and I read through a lot of these comments, and no one answered this.
And this was the point that I raised yesterday, and I always do.
We can.
I acknowledge that the system is broken.
I acknowledge that we live in an awful, decayed culture in many ways.
And in the next segment, I'll give you another example to prove how decayed it is.
And so that's all bad news.
I acknowledge that for men and women, there are some serious challenges in finding the right person to marry.
It's not impossible, there's just challenges.
And there are a lot of people walking around out there who are just broken people and have been living in this culture but not questioning it at all and floating with the tide of the culture.
And they are just not the kind of people you want to marry.
It would be a bad mistake to marry them.
So the values that you and I have are not shared by, certainly not shared by everyone, and they're probably, it's probably a minority of people at this point who share our values.
So the pool's a little bit smaller to find the person who shares your values.
All of that is acknowledged.
So let's say that we all agree on all of that, okay?
Now what?
What now?
Now that we've all agreed on that, and we agree the system needs to be reformed, we agree on everything.
Okay, now what?
What do we do next?
I'm not asking what do I do next, because I'm already married with a family, and I have a great life, and I enjoy my life.
Okay, so I'm not saying this for my sake.
I'm not saying to you, well, tell me what to do next.
I'm saying for all those young men out there.
What next?
What now?
Once we've established that and we all agree on that, what do you want them to do now with their life?
And if your answer is just to kind of live in this state of limbo, In this kind of stasis, hovering around and floating along and waiting for things to get better before they move to the next phase of their life.
That is not a solution.
That's not a viable solution.
And that is a recipe.
You are consigning these men to despair and hopelessness and failure.
So, when I get to the what now, once we've established everything, and then the question is what now, what do you do next?
A lot of the people that leave these comments, they have no answer to that, at all.
No answer.
I at least have an answer, which is that, well, the what now is, you take all these risks into account, you do what you can to protect yourself, and you move forward with your life.
You keep living your life.
You live the life that you have a right to live, that you're supposed to live, that you're called to live.
And for most of us, that includes getting married and starting families.
You do all that in spite of these challenges, because the other option is not viable.
And it's a recipe for not only individual despair and failure, but also, by the way, for the death of human civilization, which is kind of a big deal.
So the next set of comments that I would love to hear from people, what I would love to read is, what is yours?
If you don't like my what now, then what's yours?
What do you have these young men do?
How do you have them spend the next 40 years of their life, 50 years of their life?
When Dr. Jordan B. Peterson made the decision to join DailyWirePlus, it was a major win for those who champion free speech and intellectual debate.
With one year of unparalleled output, his contributions have set new standards and remain unmatched by any other platform.
DailyWirePlus has now a vast array of exclusive Jordan Peterson content, offering hundreds of hours of captivating content you won't find anywhere else.
Jordan has created thought-provoking works that reshape your perspective on life, which includes Vision and Destiny, Marriage, and Dragons, Monsters, and Men.
Additionally, you can immerse yourself in discussions that nurture your spiritual side, like Logos and Literacy and Jordan's groundbreaking series on the Book of Exodus.
And it's only the beginning.
I haven't even mentioned his Beyond Order lecture series or his extensive archives of lectures and podcasts.
This is the absolute compendium of all things Jordan.
Plus, there's even more new exclusive content on the horizon.
By becoming a Daily Wire Plus member, you'll embark on an unforgettable experience that will fuel your thirst for knowledge and inspire personal growth like never before.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
Today for The Daily Cancellation, we have a show that was made for this segment.
It is destined to be cancelled.
Cancelled here, and hopefully in a more literal sense as well, though on that latter point I don't have much hope.
I think it's more likely that this show will run for 45 seasons and garner millions of devoted fans, because that's the kind of culture we live in.
But the show, which has just been added to HBO Max, is called Naked Attraction, and it's exactly what it sounds like.
It's an uncensored, full-frontal, nude dating show.
Reading from the Hollywood Reporter, it says, quote, One of the UK's most infamous dating shows was quietly added to the Mac streaming service last week, and it's already causing quite a stir.
The streamer has imported six seasons of Naked Attraction, a game show that promises to start where a good date often ends, naked.
In each episode, a single chooser critiques and eliminates six potential dates standing on a stage by scrutinizing their fully nude bodies, which are gradually revealed one part at a time.
Faces are revealed last.
When only two potential dates remain, the chooser strips out of their own clothes too, giving the remaining two contestants the opportunity to critique them.
The final couple then go out on a date with their clothes on.
The episodes on Max are uncensored, but I've added a warning at the beginning of each episode.
So revealing the face last is a nice touch in case you didn't already get the message based on the whole premise of the show.
But the point here is to totally objectify these people.
It's to remove their humanity entirely.
You're judging each individual body part before you even see their faces.
They are, until that point, nothing more than faceless collections of limbs and organs.
Of course, the participants are volunteering for this objectification, so they're not victims.
The victim here is society, the culture, which suffers yet another blow.
That's why, as we're told, some HBO Max customers are not very happy to find this garbage on their platform.
But plenty of others, unfortunately, yet predictably, are thrilled.
Quote, many are defending the show.
Quote, despite the nudity, it isn't supposed to be titillating or dramatic or anything.
The contestants are just normal people with normal flaws.
And the format promotes an open, healthy discussion of sex with the participants, wrote a viewer on Reddit.
That's because this is how you have a healthiness conversation about sex.
You have it naked on camera.
That's the best way to have a health... You know, every healthy conversation, that's how you have... That's the beginning point for any healthy conversation, is that it happens naked on camera.
Anyway, a lot of Americans might actually benefit from seeing this, opined another.
There's a surprising diversity of contestants, bodies, and tastes, talked about pretty matter-of-factly.
And another, it's nice to see because the media and XXS has conditioned us to see bodies in a certain unrelatable way, usually too perfect an airbrush.
And on ABC's The View on Monday, Sonny Hostin said, I'm embarrassed to admit my husband Emmanuel and I got so obsessed with the show we binged it yesterday.
And I learned things I've never heard of in my life.
It was one of the most fascinating things I've ever seen.
Yes, fascinating is one way to describe it.
Another word you could use is disgusting, depressing, dismal, dystopian.
Lots of D words.
And just so you understand how dismally dystopian this is, here's the censored version of the trailer for the show.
Watch.
In this dating show, we go back to basics.
Are you ready?
Bring it on.
And start where a good date often ends.
Naked!
Do you know where to look?
Have you ever been faced with sex?
No, but I feel like I should have done.
What do men and women really find physically attractive?
Wow.
This is fantastic.
And could picking a partner based solely on their natural beauty... Could be a grower.
Help us find the one.
I've never met anybody like this before and I don't know where to look.
Let's find out by dating in reverse.
Who are you going to pick for your date?
This is the hardest decision of my life.
Oh my God.
Naked Attraction.
So we see that the naked people are literally kept in boxes and the lid on the box opens slowly
so each body part is revealed and judged separately and those rejected then must suffer the humiliation of not only
being rejected but being rejected while naked in front of an audience of thousands.
It's the kind of thing you'd expect to exist in the universe of some kind of dystopian sci-fi film.
This is something that would have made sense in Idiocracy.
Except it would have been a little too dark for that movie.
And as it turns out, all too real.
So, what can we learn from this show?
Well, nothing at all, obviously.
But a couple of things we already knew can come into sharper focus.
And the first is that, of course, we live in a horrifically malformed and decayed culture.
In fact, it's decayed to such an extent that it can barely be called a culture at all.
You know, if you leave the apple on the counter for too long, it'll start to rot.
And if you let it rot for too long, eventually it'll not really be an apple anymore.
It'll be nothing more than a pile of putrid mush.
And that's the stage that we've reached with our culture.
We have reached putrid mush stage.
We are existing not in a culture, but in the remnants of what was once a culture.
A show like this could not exist in a country that had any sort of vibrant, real culture.
This can only grow out of a culture's decomposing remains.
That's not to say that Naked Attraction is somehow significantly worse than what has come before it.
Millions of reality dating shows, and they're all degenerate and stupid.
And in terms of the nudity, we live in a country where millions of people have been watching hardcore porn since they were young children.
Full frontal nudity in a reality show, it's almost quaint by comparison.
Which is why it's funny that one of those comments on Reddit that said, you know, Americans could really, yeah, this is something they need to see.
Yeah, you know, because Americans aren't seeing enough nudity.
That's the big problem in our society right now, is that Americans haven't seen enough nude people.
So this is not another stage in our slide down the slippery slope.
We are at the bottom of the slope, and this is just another thing getting tossed into the muck.
And this all sounds really bleak and discouraging, I realize, but, well, it's a bleak and discouraging thing.
I don't know what else to tell you.
The good news, though, and yes, I am straining to come up with the good news, but here's something.
That's that you can use These depraved, idiotic, dating reality shows, especially one like Naked Attraction, has a very accurate roadmap towards healthy and productive dating.
And I'm not suggesting that you actually watch any of these shows, and I'm certainly not suggesting that you model your dating life after anything on these shows.
They are a roadmap, but they're an inverted roadmap.
So you can look at what they do, and just do the exact opposite of that.
So consider the naked, faceless people in boxes being chosen based on a close inspection of their bare body parts, and you can choose your date in exactly the opposite kind of way.
You can take into account the full person.
And by that I don't mean their full naked body, I mean consider what sort of person this is, their value system, their character.
Is the person honest, forthright, intelligent?
Do we share the same fundamental belief system?
Are our basic priorities and principles aligned?
Of course, physical attraction is important, but it's only one ingredient in the recipe that makes for a successful relationship, which leads to a successful marriage.
That's the other crucial factor that I'm pretty certain doesn't come up in the naked people in boxes show, is that when you're dating, You should see it as a courtship process leading towards marriage, and you should be looking for someone who views dating the same way.
Again, do the opposite of what our decayed pseudo-culture suggests.
Which is easier said than done, perhaps, but also it's the only way.
And that's why HBO Max and their dystopian naked dating show is today cancelled.
