Ep. 1251 - Gen Z Is Finding Out That Being An Adult Is Hard
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Gen Z is leading the charge against the 9 to 5 corporate grind. That's all well and good, but what are the other options? There are a few and we'll talk about them. Also, Republicans elect a new speaker of the house. There is reason to be encouraged, and also reason to be discouraged, by the selection. Plus, the adderall shortage has some people turning to meth to get their fix. And the ACLU is suing Tennessee for trying to prevent prostitutes from spreading HIV.
Ep.1251
- - -
DailyWire+:
Binge ALL 10 episodes of Convicting a Murderer here: https://bit.ly/3RbWBPL
Become a DailyWire+ member to watch shows, documentaries, movies, and more : https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
40 Days for Life - Help defend free speech today! https://bit.ly/3LfFsAf
Tax Network USA - Take the first step toward resolving your tax debt!
http://www.TaxNetworkUSA.com/Walsh
- - -
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, Gen Z is leading the charge against the 9-to-5 corporate grind, and that's all well and good, but what are the other options?
There are a few, and we'll talk about them today.
Also, Republicans elect a new Speaker of the House.
There's reason to be encouraged, but also reason to be discouraged by this election.
Plus, the Adderall shortage has some people turning to meth to get their fix, and the ACLU is suing Tennessee for trying to prevent prostitutes from spreading HIV.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
As the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the left has lost their minds.
Leftism is their religion and abortion is their official sacrament.
Meanwhile, pro-life efforts, which are now more important than ever, are booming.
As one of the largest pro-life organizations in the world, no one is in a better position than 40 Days for Life to end abortion state by state.
They've opened a record number of locations since Roe was overturned, and they continue to grow in volunteers.
They now have 1 million volunteers in 1,500 cities.
40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities in an effort to change hearts and minds in the most blue pro-abortion states.
You can help 40 Days for Life fight ongoing legal battles to protect free speech for their volunteers by giving a tax-deductible gift of any amount at 40daysforlife.com.
That's 40daysforlife.com.
One of humanity's great traditions is for older people to complain about the work ethic of younger people.
We've seen this pattern repeat with every generation in modern history and we would probably see something similar if we could go back to a time before modern history.
It seems likely that if you talk to a I don't know, a 45-year-old in the year 1200 BC, they would tell you that kids those days are a bunch of lazy, ungrateful, whippersnappers.
In fact, we don't have to speculate about this.
We know that Aristotle, some 300 years before Christ, complained that young people of the day were high-minded and had not yet been humbled by life.
Meanwhile, the Roman poet Horace, in the first century BC, chastised young people as beardless and accused them of squandering their money.
Which tells us that the epidemic of beardless men goes all the way back to ancient Rome, which is kind of a shocking and troubling discovery.
The point is that there's nothing new under the sun, and complaints by old fogies like myself, directed at the youth, certainly are no exception to that rule.
However, just because a complaint is common, that doesn't make it necessarily invalid.
In fact, if anything, it would seem to suggest the opposite.
And these days, when it comes to concerns over a lack of work ethic among the current crop of young adults, all signs indicate that the concerns are well-founded.
I don't know if they were true in Rome or Greece 2,000 years ago, but I know that here, in the year 2023, we do seem to have a problem, and it is a serious problem.
Time reported in 2021 that young people are leaving their jobs in record numbers, and many of them are not getting new jobs at all.
This trend doesn't seem to have slowed down.
At the beginning of this year, CNBC reported that 70% of Gen Z and Millennials are planning to leave their jobs.
And of course, 70% is a large number, plenty of them will get new jobs or
try to.
But the number of young adults who have no job and are not in school has been trending
upwards.
As of 2022, over half of Gen Z adults are living at home with their parents.
The statistics are pretty familiar to most people, it goes on and on, we get the idea.
But the issue isn't simply Gen Z refusing to get jobs, it's how they behave once they
have the job.
A survey of 1,300 employers and managers revealed a significant consensus among these employers that this current group of young adults tend to be extremely difficult in the workplace.
The New York Post reports, quote, Some American business owners and managers hold a dismal view of Gen Z workers.
Shocking new research has revealed.
Resume builders surveyed 1,344 people in managerial positions across different industries in the U.S.
earlier this month, asking them about their experiences working with those born in 1997 or later.
Almost half, 49%, of respondents declared it difficult to work with Gen Z all or most of the time, Well, a staggering 79% said they find them to be the most difficult generation to have in the workplace.
Of that majority, 59% said that they have had to fire Gen Z employees, and 20% even claimed to have axed one of the young workers within a week of their start date.
Managers and owners commonly cited entitlement and a lack of effort, motivation, and productivity as reasons why they were given the boot.
Now, this brings to mind all of the Gen Z-led trends we've discussed on this show.
Quiet quitting and bare minimum Mondays and resenteeism, etc.
All just trendier and slightly more subtle ways of describing laziness.
And it's not always subtle, though.
The quiet quitting trend has recently been supplanted by loud quitting, which is exactly what it sounds like.
Here's a TikTok video promoting this fun new fad.
Hey, I'm going to need you to come back early from your break.
It's crazy out there.
Oh, no.
Sorry.
I'm actually applying to jobs right now.
I'm super busy.
Trying to make sure I never have to come back here again.
What?
Why?
Oh, because I'm miserable?
Mainly because of you.
You're the worst.
Excuse me?
If I had a dollar for every time you make me question my sanity, I think I'd be retired and be able to escape this perpetual state of misery.
You take advantage of us like a corrupt politician makes false promises.
Okay, that's enough.
Hello?
Oh my god, hi!
Yes!
Yes, I am available tomorrow for an interview.
Okay.
Yeah.
Really looking forward to it too.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Alright.
Okay.
Bye.
Oh my god, I'm glad you're still here.
Um, I won't be able to make it to work tomorrow.
Sorry.
Just a heads up.
Veronica, this is Oni— Oh, it's time for me to clock in.
Hopefully for the last time.
Am I right?
Okay, see you out there!
Okay, so that's what loud quitting looks like.
It's when you quit loudly.
Apparently.
Now just to be clear, the good guy in that scenario is supposed to be the gratingly obnoxious and disrespectful employee.
She's meant to be like the sympathetic character in this little skit.
Which perhaps tells you everything you need to know, I guess.
And of course, the quiet quitters and loud quitters and bare minimum Mondayers have excuses for their lackadaisical approach.
As Business Insider reported a few weeks ago, Gen Z employees say that their perceived laziness can be explained by the fact that they feel unfulfilled at work, That they are burned out, that they are unhappy with their wages, that they're looking for a better work-life balance, or some combination of these excuses.
But whether the excuses are valid or not, and we'll get to that in a moment, it seems that even many Gen Zers themselves will not deny their general lack of effort.
It's just that they think they have a good reason for it.
That brings us to this extremely viral video that, if you spend any time on social media, you've likely already seen it over the last day or two.
In the video, we hear a young woman giving her perspective on her first 9-to-5 job.
And she is, to put it mildly, not thrilled with it.
Watch.
I know I'm probably just being so dramatic and annoying, but this is my first job, like my first 9-to-5 job after college, and I am in person, and I'm commuting in the city, and it takes me forever to get there.
There's no way I'm gonna be able to afford living in the city right now, so that's off the table.
Duh!
If I was able to walk to work and it would be fine but I'm not so it literally takes me like I leave here like I get on the train at 7 30 and I don't get home till like 6 15 earliest and then like I don't have time to do anything I don't I want to shower eat my dinner and go to sleep I don't have time or energy to cook by dinner either like I don't have energy to work out like that's out the window like I'm so upset!
Oh my god!
Nothing to do with my job at all but just like the 9 to 5 schedule in general is crazy!
Being in the office 9 to 5 like if it was remote you get off at 5 and you're home and everything's fine but like I'm not home it takes me long to get home and like like people that drive to the office like it doesn't you don't get off at five and i know it could be worse i know i could be working longer but like i literally get off it's pitch black like i don't have energy how do you have friends like how do you have time to like meet like a guy i don't know like how do you have time for like dating like i don't have time for anything and i'm like so stressed out and i'm
Now, as always with these viral videos, the story isn't really the video itself, but the general reaction to it.
And from what I've seen, although there are some people telling her to stop whining and get to work, a large percentage of people, seemingly on the left and right, have taken her side and are scolding those who are criticizing her.
They say that she's entirely justified in being so upset about the 9-to-5 grind.
That the work hours, the lifestyle, the commute are indeed very difficult, if not completely soul-crushing.
And according to this side of the discussion, those being unsympathetic to this young lady are needlessly cruel and heartless.
Meanwhile, plenty of young people about her age have chimed in to echo her complaints, and they say they're done with the 9-to-5 routine.
It's time to abolish it for good.
Okay, well here's what I say, and a few points about this.
First of all, I personally would not want to work a 9 to 5 corporate job.
Even if it was a 9 to noon corporate job and my commute was 10 minutes and I was paid a million dollars, I would find it unbearable.
And nothing against the people who work those kinds of jobs.
If that's how you feed your family, more power to you.
If you find a way to be fulfilled in it, even better.
But for me personally, I think I'd rather be in a prison camp.
I understand anyone who sits in a cubicle all day and laments it.
I would lament it too.
But the thing is that the thing that's often missing from the Gen Z lamentations about the modern working world is any discussion about the alternatives.
It's not just Gen Z. It's like anytime anyone is complaining about the modern working world.
Okay, what are the alternatives?
And if someone is, especially for young people, who are saying, this is so difficult, I don't want to do it, it's very important to quickly transition that complaint into a, all right, well, you don't like that.
Here's what else you could do.
Now, as I so often preach, we all, well, most of us, have to work.
Life is work.
Work comes in many forms, but no matter what, if you are like the vast majority of humans who have ever lived on Earth, then you will have to pick some form of work.
Life requires work to sustain.
There's no way around this, outside of enslaving others and forcing them to do all the work for you.
So, if you're not going to be a slave owner, then you're left with working.
And if you don't want to jump on the nine-to-five racket, then there are some other options.
And here they are.
One.
If you're a woman, you could become a stay-at-home mom.
And it is certainly not a coincidence that so many of these TikTok videos of people complaining about hustle culture and the daily corporate grind feature women.
Not all of them.
But, like, most of the time, if we play a video like this on the show, you notice these are usually women.
And that's because You know, the gender angle cannot be ignored here, although it often is.
Women are not wired for this the way that men are.
That's the reality, whether we want to admit it or not.
What many women actually desire, even if they feel they aren't allowed to articulate that desire, what they actually desire is to be mothers and homemakers.
The drive to leave the home and ruthlessly compete to earn a living, that is an inherently masculine drive.
Lots of women simply don't have that in them.
And that is not a bad thing.
It's not like they're lacking something.
They're just different.
And so I wouldn't respond to a video like that by saying, no, go out and be a corporate girl boss.
It's what you're meant to do.
That's not my message.
Men and women are different.
Women are women.
They're not men.
So if this push against the 9 to 5 grind leads more women to embrace their calling as wives and mothers, that's a great thing.
But there is a caveat here, okay?
Being a stay-at-home mom is work.
It's not a job.
It's not a job, but it is work.
In fact, it requires a lot more work than the average 9-to-5 job.
That's partly because the work begins much earlier than 9, unless you are incredibly blessed and your kids sleep till 9.
But probably the work begins much earlier than 9, and it goes much later than 5.
As I said, life is work.
Leaving the 9-to-5 behind does not mean leaving work behind.
In many cases, it means more work, harder work, more exhausting work.
Work with much more on the line, a lot more pressure.
But the good news is that the work is more fulfilling and more important.
But it is work all the same.
Two, the second option.
You can get a job outside of the 9-to-5 structure.
The easiest version of this option would be a remote job.
The only problem is that many companies are trending away from remote work.
Also, if you choose to work from home and you do care about climbing the ladder in your industry, you'll likely be hindered by the lack of physical in-person interaction with your co-workers and bosses.
I mean, when it comes down to it, society tried this for a couple of years.
And what we discovered is that many jobs really cannot be performed at a high level when you're sitting at your home in your pajamas.
There are still some jobs like that.
If you get one of those jobs, then good for you.
But most people won't.
So the next part of that option is you could leave the corporate world behind entirely, and you could become an entrepreneur, or you could pursue a career in a creative industry, an industry where the 9-to-5 is not relevant.
That's what I decided to do.
I've never once regretted it in my life, but as I said, desks and cubicles and busywork have just never been my strong suit.
If I had a corporate job, maybe I would be crying about it on TikTok too, but again, there is the caveat.
That this path will almost always require far, far more work.
The 9-to-5 setup is irrelevant in my line of work, but that's because I work a whole lot more than 8 hours a day.
For me, it's more like 12 or 13 hours a day.
In fact, in my business, you're basically always on the clock.
I wouldn't trade it for a corporate job under any circumstance, which is probably a good thing because no corporation would touch me with a 10-foot pole at this point, but it is more work ultimately.
So if your fundamental complaint is you don't want to do the work, you don't want to work, or you want more free time, then the second option really isn't good either.
Three, finally, if you're done with capitalism and the modern working world entirely, as many Gen Zers claim to be, they say, we're done with all of this, it's all a societal human construct, nine to five, we don't need it.
Okay, well, there is a way around that too.
This is the third option.
It's really your only real option if you're completely done with all of this.
You can get away from it all.
You can drop out of modern society to the extent that it's possible to do such a thing.
You can move out to the wilderness somewhere.
And you could try to live a self-sustaining life.
Build your own home.
Grow your own food.
Hunt.
Fish, you know, all of that.
I mean, this is how nearly everybody lived before the invention of the nine-to-five, and the way to reject that modern system entirely is to go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle, which is still technically possible.
There are people who do it, maybe like five people, but there are people who do it.
But this, out of all the options, Will be, by far and away, the hardest and require the most amount of work.
That's because people prior to the Industrial Age worked essentially every minute of every day, sunup to sundown, with no breaks on weekends and no federal holidays.
I would greatly admire anyone who attempted to live this way today, but if you're doing it because you want more free time, well, you're going to be in for a very unfortunate surprise.
If you don't want any of these options, you don't want to be a stay-at-home mom, you don't want to work in an industry outside of the 9-to-5 system, you don't want to be a pioneer out in the woods, well, then the corporate slog is all you have left.
That, or winning the lottery.
But you're not going to win the lottery, so the corporate slog is it.
As you've probably noticed, that slog may be a slog, but it's also the easiest and least arduous path, and requires the least amount of work.
And gives you the most free time out of all the possibilities.
You know, you notice in that video, she talks about, uh, go to work at 7.30, I get home at 6.
7.30 to 6, well, that leaves you, you know, you could have four hours of free time, go to bed at 10 p.m., uh, sleep for eight hours, wake up in the morning, have an hour and a half before you have to leave for work.
That is a lot of free, that's 20 hours of free time a week, not counting the weekends.
That's a lot of free time.
A ton of it.
And if that's what you value most, well, the 9 to 5 is, of all possible options, the easiest one.
It's just that it won't make you as fulfilled, probably.
If you want more fulfillment, you have to do more work.
If you want less work, you'll get less fulfillment.
This is the way life is set up.
There is no way around it.
There just isn't.
Is it fair?
I don't know.
I guess not.
Is it worth complaining about?
Probably not.
Can you change it by complaining?
Definitely not.
Either way, this is life.
This is what it means to be a person.
You have to work one way or another.
So make your decision, choose your path, and get going.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
The October 15th tax deadline has just passed.
I know many of you might be dreading the stress of filing your taxes.
Filing your taxes can be a long, excruciating process, but if you fail to file, you'll start to pile penalties on your tax debt, and that's why you need to check out Tax Network USA.
The team at Tax Network USA has a track record of success.
They have reduced tax debt for numerous clients, totaling over $1 billion.
Whether you're looking at a $10,000 or a $1 million tax debt, They can help you with a settlement.
It doesn't matter if you haven't filed in one year, five years, even a whole decade.
Tax Network USA is equipped to secure the best settlement for you.
The expert attorneys and tax professionals at Tax Network USA can help resolve all tax cases no matter how they started.
Don't let tax debt control your life any longer.
Take the first step toward resolving your tax issues by visiting TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Walsh.
That's TaxNetworkUSA.com slash Walsh today.
Okay, I hesitate to talk about this story because it's changing so rapidly that by the time you listen to this, it may have changed again, but of course it's the biggest news of the day.
Daily Wire has a report, the man police named as a person of interest in the murder of nearly two dozen people in Maine on Wednesday night is a trained firearms expert in the U.S.
Army Reserves, according to a state police bulletin.
The bulletin was released after 22 people were reportedly killed and dozens more injured in shootings at a Bar and Grill restaurant and the Spare Time Recreation in Lewiston, Maine.
The Associated Press noted that the bulletin said that the person of interest identified as Robert Card was a trained firearms instructor believed to be in the Army Reserve.
According to law enforcement, Card recently reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up the National Guard base.
Card was also reported to have been committed to a mental health facility for two weeks during summer 2023 and subsequently released.
The fact that Card was committed to a mental health facility for a period of weeks indicates that it was an involuntary commitment, which means that he would have been banned from owning or possessing firearms.
Okay, so if this guy was committed to a mental institution, then he was already banned from, as I just said, from owning or purchasing firearms.
Which means that this obviously is not something that could have been avoided with more gun laws.
The existing laws are already supposed to prevent this.
And if they didn't prevent it, it's hard to see how more laws would have made a difference.
You know, and it's just like anything else.
It's like if somebody is driving drunk and they kill another person, you probably wouldn't suggest passing a second law making drunk driving illegal again as a means of addressing that issue.
Or maybe plenty of politicians would suggest that.
I'm sure they have.
I'm sure they've done it.
But it's not really a solution.
Especially when you remember that That this mass killer didn't just break the law against owning a firearm when you've been involuntarily committed for mental health issues, but he committed dozens of other crimes.
There's like dozens of laws that are supposed to prevent exactly what he did, and he did it anyway.
But you know, as always with these kinds of cases, we get hung up on the how, right?
How did he do this?
Most of the time, that's not too complicated.
He ignored the laws, the gun laws, he ignored all the laws against mass murder, and he just did it.
That's basically the how.
The why, I think, is more important.
And by why, I mean, why do people want to commit these heinous crimes?
Okay, because for most of us, Right?
There is no law that is preventing us from committing mass murder.
Okay?
I have never been prevented from committing a mass murder by the law.
What prevents me from doing it is that I have no desire to do something like that.
So the law is irrelevant.
And that's the case for almost all of us.
It's like, you don't, you never have to check the books, check the laws to see what laws apply to you.
You have no desire.
It's just, it's not in the realm of possibility for you.
Um, what stops you from doing it is that you have absolutely no desire to do something like that to begin with.
For the people who do, like once you get to the point where you have someone who desires to commit mass murder, no matter what the laws are, We're already in a very dangerous situation.
Society is in a danger.
That person's community, whether they know it or not, and they don't know it until the person lashes out.
But the people around that person are in grave danger the moment he gets it in his head that he wants to do this, no matter what the laws say.
Strict gun laws, if you have strict gun laws, no gun laws, doesn't matter.
The moment someone decides that they want to do that, We're in a... Society is in danger.
So what we should be asking ourselves is where does that desire come from?
What makes someone into this sort of monster?
What can be done to make it so that there are fewer people who have this deranged, psychotic, murderous, evil desire in the first place?
Yes, mental illness plays a part.
That's clear.
But there's also, and if he's hearing voices, I mean, as you know, I can often be skeptical when mental illness is used as a scapegoat when someone commits an evil act, because I think it lets them off the hook too often.
I think we too often let people off the hook when we act like they have no agency over their actions.
However, if he's being committed for hearing voices, well that's, I mean, very clear this person is crazy.
But there's also the evil in the human heart.
I mean, there are plenty of people who are mentally ill, even hear voices, and don't do something like this.
There's the evil in the human heart, the indifference to human life, the desire to inflict suffering just for the sake of it.
And there appears to be a lot of that in our culture.
We seem to breed it.
And, I mean, that's the conversation we need to have eventually.
That's how you actually solve them.
I mean, there's no way to solve it completely, because there's always going to be evil, and there's always going to be people out there who do terrible, awful, violent things.
But if we really want to make a dent in this problem, then that's the conversation we have to have.
All right, Daily Wire has this.
The GOP-led House elected Representative Mike Johnson as its 56th Speaker, ending a weeks-long stalemate in which three Republican nominees failed to win the gavel after Representative Kevin McCarthy got pushed out of the Speakership in the first House floor ballot.
On Wednesday, Johnson defeated Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the nominee for the Democrats.
The final tally was 220 to 209.
A simple majority was needed for the victory, and so Mike Johnson was elected.
I'll be the first to admit, I don't know anything about Mike Johnson.
When he was elected Speaker, it was the first I'd ever heard of him.
And I follow politics pretty closely, so I'm guessing that for most people it's the same.
And yet, as always, right, as soon as his name was announced, It was like everyone on both sides knew everything about him, magically.
Just by his name being announced, everyone was infused with this knowledge about Mike Johnson.
And so you had people on both left and right saying he's great, he's terrible.
Right away, without knowing, what are they basing this on?
Really nothing at all.
I haven't followed his tenure at all until now.
So, you know, I'm starting from scratch, like, figuring out who is this guy.
I don't know anything about him.
And I will say that as I'm kind of working through this, at first I was encouraged because, well, for one thing, the left seems to really hate him, which is a low bar to get over, I know, but, you know, so that's a good sign.
Um, also people like Bill Kristol, not that he's, he's certainly, he's indistinguishable from the left, right?
I'm repeating myself now, but he, uh, Bill Kristol was attacking him.
Bill Kristol posted Johnson's Ukraine report card, which is a thing that exists apparently.
And evidently, uh, Johnson got a, uh, received an F for his grossly insufficient, uh, support for Ukraine.
And that's great.
That's very good.
So that was encouraging.
Everybody should get an F on their Ukraine report card.
Also on the encouraging side, you have Johnson's open, unabashed Christian faith.
Watch.
I want to tell all my colleagues here what I told the Republicans in that room last night.
I don't believe there are any coincidences in a matter like this.
I believe that scripture, the Bible, is very clear.
That God is the one that raises up those in authority.
He raised up each of you.
All of us.
And I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment in this time.
This is my belief.
I believe that each one of us has a huge responsibility today to use the gifts that God has given us to serve the extraordinary people of this great country, and they deserve it.
Okay, so that's great, and that's the kind of thing that I think we want to hear.
Of course, he was getting attacked.
for that from the left, you know, predictably.
It's a theocracy, all the rest of it.
I guess the people also taking issue with the fact that he seemed to imply that he was,
that God had appointed him to a position of leadership, which that's his,
what he's referencing in scripture is accurate.
Everything he said is accurate.
This is just the Christian faith.
But we know many on the left despise the Christian faith, so they didn't like that.
Mike Johnson also appears to be strongly pro-life.
All that is good.
But, of course we have to get to the but.
That's all the good stuff.
On the not good part of it, and this is very not good, here is Mike Johnson on PBS back in June of 2020.
So, not all that long ago, okay, this is not 10 years ago or 20 years ago, this is just a few years ago.
And here's what Mike Johnson had to say, watch.
What did you feel when you watched the video of George Floyd being killed?
I was outraged.
I don't think anyone can view the video and objectively come to any other conclusion but that it was an act of murder.
And I felt that initially, as everyone did.
It's so disturbing.
And, you know, the underlying issues beneath that are something that the country is now struggling with.
And I think it's something we have to look at Um, very soberly and with a lot of empathy, and I'm glad to see that's happening around the country.
You know, what it's taught me is we now have four other children of our own, and my oldest son, Jack, ironically this year is 14.
And I've thought often through all these ordeals over the last couple of weeks about the difference in the experiences between my two 14-year-old sons, Michael being a black American and Jack being white, Caucasian.
They have different challenges. My son Jack has an easier path. He just does.
The interesting thing about both of these kids, Michael and Jack, is they're both
handsome, articulate, really talented kids gifted by God to do lots of things. But the reality is,
and no one can tell me otherwise, my son Michael had a harder time than my son Jack is going
to have simply because of the color of his skin. And that's a reality. It's an uncomfortable,
painful one to acknowledge. But people have to recognize that's a fact. What should we do about that? I
think that we need, we really do need, systematic change.
I think we need transformative solutions.
Okay.
Needless to say, everything you said there is wrong.
But there he is throwing Derek Chauvin under the bus, saying George Floyd was objectively, objectively he was murdered.
You couldn't possibly think anything else.
And then repeating BLM talking points.
Well, the whole thing is BLM talking.
I mean the whole thing is indistinguishable from what anyone in BLM would say
Or was saying at the time and you have him Affirming systemic racism and calling for systemic changes
is full-on left-wing BLM
Stuff and one thing you should know here is that what he said there that was not a one-off
Okay, he also posted about this on Twitter at length at the time
He he even says in this interview that he was just giving a talk about it from the pulpit on Sunday
So he's at church. He's on social media He goes to mainstream left-wing press to say he's all over
the place at the time with the BLM stuff So, does that tell us the whole story about Mike Johnson?
No.
Um, but the fact that he talks about God and says nice things about his faith, that also doesn't tell us the whole story.
Okay, so what I'm trying to do is, like, there's more here that we should talk about, and it does make me wonder, like, you know, Kevin McCarthy, I'm not a fan of, were his, but he had to be kicked out of office, right?
He had to be, or not kicked out of office, but he had to be unseated from his role as Did he commit any sins that were worse than that?
Maybe he did, but that's pretty bad.
And the thing is, the people that wanted to get rid of Kevin McCarthy, if Kevin McCarthy had said that, they would be using that as evidence that we need to get rid of him.
And then we replace him with a guy who said that.
So, if nothing else, it shows how pathetic the situation is in the Republican Party.
If this is the best guy we could get, somebody who, during the BLM hysteria, was out there promoting it, Then that really shows you the situation in the Republican Party.
And look, I'm not interested in the excuses, and I've heard a lot of excuses from people who are convinced that Mike Johnson's the guy for the job, even though, again, almost everyone's saying that.
Like, you don't know anything about him.
Nobody does.
Okay?
No one was talking about Mike Johnson prior to yesterday.
Okay?
There are those making excuses for him, and one thing I've heard a lot is, well, everybody, oh, what he said there, that was 2020.
Everyone was saying that in 2020.
Were they?
Everybody was saying that?
Everybody was going out repeating BLM talking points after George Floyd?
Everybody was?
No, they weren't.
Not everybody was.
And if you're telling me that, and that's not an excuse, and if you're telling me that, well, no, but only when there's intense public pressure would he ever go along with something like that.
Oh, well, okay, that makes it okay, then.
No, he's a great leader, unless there's incredible public pressure in the other direction, in which case, what are we supposed to expect?
No, it's in those moments when you most need leadership.
Most of the time, being a leader in a position, most of the time as a politician, you're not You're only a leader in a symbolic sense.
Nothing's really required of you.
You're just sitting on your ass not doing anything.
There are specific moments when we really need you to lead.
And 2020 had several of those kinds of moments.
And there are certain people who failed every single one of those tests.
And what I'm saying is if you failed all of those tests, then there's no evidence that you're a good leader.
Like, anyone can say, I mean, anyone can get up now and talk about BLM, for example, being a corrupt organization.
It's good to point out, we should point it out, anyone can do it now.
But if you wouldn't do it when it was unpopular, then what does that tell me about your leadership?
Or lack thereof?
And when it comes to Chauvin, yeah, I mean, the time to stick up for him, the time to say, hey, wait a second, guys, wait a second.
You know, there's more to this than meets the eye.
The time to say that was in June of 2020.
Saying it now, it's too late, unfortunately.
Again, we should still say it because it's the truth, but that was the time.
And so if you threw this innocent man under the bus at the time, because it's what everyone else was doing, that tells me something about your leadership.
And also, I hold, you know, we should, I know it's almost, it's a shocking thing to hear about Republicans, because there's such a low bar for them, but Republican politicians, in theory, again, these are supposed to be leaders, public servants, In theory, they hold important positions, so we should hold them to a higher standard.
You know?
Which means that if you're someone who, back in the summer of 2020, you fell into the BLM hysteria yourself, if you did, let's say, and maybe you think, well, so if I did that, I can't expect anything better.
No, you can, actually.
That's what leadership's supposed to be.
So you should hold them to a higher standard.
And I don't know, as I said, that's the kind of, it seems like as conservatives, the standards
that we hold our elected leaders to, it's totally arbitrary.
And so you take exactly what he said there, and if that comes out of the mouth of Mitch
McConnell or some establishment guy, we would all happily use that as evidence that this
person is a milquetoast coward.
And yet, if it comes out of the mouth of some politician that you like for whatever reason, then it's, well, that's totally understandable.
It's completely arbitrary.
Alright.
Daily Mail has this.
America's Adderall shortage is driving ADHD patients to use meth in its place, social workers have claimed.
The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration announced an official Adderall shortage in October 2022, but people are still struggling to get their hands on the medication over a year later.
People can become reliant on the drug, meaning that if they stop taking it suddenly, they cannot think or function properly.
This dependence can drive people with ADHD to the black market to get their dopamine hit.
Both meth and Adderall are amphetamines and central nervous stimulants which help redress the dopamine imbalance in people with ADHD.
That's all fake, but that's not true.
That's misinformation.
There's certainly no well-established link between chemical imbalance and ADHD.
We hear about the chemical imbalance with all kinds of these different mental disorders, and they're just stated as a fact.
Oh, there's an imbalance.
Okay, well, I have to ask again, if that's the case, then why don't they diagnose ADHD with a brain scan?
They don't, do they?
No, they diagnose ADHD, and then maybe they'll go back later and look at the brain, and then try to reverse-engineer it.
Oh, well, okay.
We've already established this person has ADHD, right?
Now we're looking at the brain, and let's find in the brain the things to prove the determination we already made, regardless of what's happened chemically in the brain.
Garrett Roisher, a licensed social worker in New York who counsels people who use drugs, told the Daily Beast that clients who have ADHD but have never tried meth before have started inquiring about safer meth use, inquiring about the effects, saying, I can't get my medication, I need to find something to help me function.
Okay, well, this is great, isn't it?
We've got a bunch of people looking for methamphetamine.
Thank you, Big Pharma.
Have we had enough of this yet?
Have we?
Are we done with it yet?
We've created a nation of drug addicts.
Big, well, we.
No, it's not we.
Big Pharma has created a nation of drug addicts.
And they've done it by convincing healthy people that they're sick.
And convincing parents that their healthy children are sick.
And then prescribing stuff that will actually make them sick to cure the fake illness.
And now we've got a bunch of meth addicts who think they need meth To cure them of being easily distracted.
I mean, think about that.
It's madness.
I can't focus.
Let me get some meth.
Here's what everyone needs to understand.
We are never going to be free from the clutches of Big Pharma as long as you take some weak sauce stance like, oh yeah, those disorders are over-diagnosed.
ADHD is over-diagnosed.
No, it's not over-diagnosed.
For the same reason that I would never say that sightings of the Tooth Fairy are over-reported, okay?
No, it's just made up, okay?
It's manufactured.
ADHD is a manufactured illness, just like so many other illnesses, especially psychiatric illnesses, that Big Pharma has invented and then monetized.
Oh no, ADHD isn't made up.
You don't understand.
My 7-year-old son is always really distracted all the time.
Oh really?
Your 7-year-old son?
Your 7-year-old boy is high energy?
Has trouble focusing?
You mean like every other 7-year-old who's ever lived?
And oh wait, your kid is distracted while living in a world surrounded by screens and noise and lights and sounds and images all the time.
So he's distracted while being totally surrounded by distractions.
Same for you.
You might say, no, me, I have ADHD.
And I know that I have ADHD because I'm so distracted all the time.
Of course, I could ask you, like, what's your control group?
Right?
You know how your brain functions?
How do you know that it's not supposed to function that way?
Well, I know my brain, I have difficult... My brain functions this way, I know that it's not supposed to function that way.
Based on what?
Have you ever been inside of anyone else's mind?
How do you know that this is not how minds just work?
Right?
I mean, that's a very basic question, but it's something to think about.
If you look around and you respond, especially to modern society, by being very distracted, unable to focus, And you declare that, well, it must mean that you have ADHD.
How do you know?
You don't know anyone else's mind.
You haven't lived inside anyone else's body or experienced their mental states or their inner life.
So you have no idea whether your way of responding to the outside world is normal or not.
You don't know.
And I got news for you.
The psychiatrists and counselors and therapists you go to, they don't know either.
Okay, they're not experts in the human condition.
They're not, these are not gods.
Okay, they're not living inside anyone else's mind either.
They have just come up with an arbitrary idea of how minds are supposed to work and how people are supposed to behave.
And that's the standard that they're holding you against.
And then they drug you, like they have their standard that they've made up, and then they give you drugs to bring you up to that level.
It's worth asking, like, how do you know?
So you go to a therapist and you say, here's how I am, here's how I function, and they say, well, you're not supposed to function that way.
How do you know that?
Who told you that?
And especially with something like this, right?
Now again, I mean, there are obvious cases, somebody's hearing voices, having hallucinations, like clearly that is not normal, it's not supposed to be that way.
But if it's something like, I have trouble focusing, I'm distracted, Well, yeah, everybody.
That's true of everybody.
Yeah, but for me, it's extra.
It's, like, more than normal.
So this is a totally normal—like, hearing voices and hallucinating, that's not normal in any degree at all.
If you do that at all, then it's not—there's a problem.
But being distracted, not being able to focus, that is totally normal.
Everybody in the world struggles with it.
But what we're being told is that it's normal, but there's a baseline, and if you go a little bit above the baseline, now it's a mental illness.
It's not just a variation of personality, right?
It's a mental illness.
You don't have to think about that very long to realize how ridiculous it is, and how arbitrary it is, and how just impossible to quantify it is.
So, we can continue.
With this strategy with creating a nation of meth addicts Or we can consider that maybe this is all made up Okay, like maybe big pharma and psychiatric industry.
They are making up Illnesses and why would they do it because they make billions of dollars off of it.
It's not this is not a far-fetched far-flung conspiracy theory maybe a conspiracy theory but You don't have to speculate about what the motivations would be.
We have people in these positions who, if there's some new mental illness that comes along, that means billions of dollars for them.
And so are they motivated to come up with these mental illnesses and diagnose them?
Hell yeah they are.
So what's our response to that?
Well, they would never do that.
Big Pharma would never do that!
Come on!
Not only would they do it, we know they do it.
Many people are victims of it.
Like, many people who are otherwise very skeptical of Big Pharma, you know, sort of, are theoretically skeptical of Big Pharma, have themselves fallen victim to this.
And they don't realize how it applies to them and their own kids.
Okay, let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
Anna says, costume making can be a fun hobby for adults.
This year my costume had a very intricate mask made out of wood.
As such, I learned how to woodwork.
It turned out quite well.
And isn't this from a guy who was selling a costume of himself for adults just last year?
Fair enough, but I have little control over that.
I never approved of it.
Matt doing his grumpy old man shtick again.
He can't handle the fact that some adults like to have fun.
Cassie says, hi Matt, how do you feel or why do you feel the need to attack people who wear costumes on Halloween?
It's a fun holiday and it isn't hurting anyone.
And then last one says, Matt, what about adults who wear costumes with their kids?
The family has a costume theme, etc.
Okay.
Well, see, that is allowed.
I will permit that.
I will allow you to do that.
I am a merciful and generous fascist, and so that is one thing that will be allowed.
You can wear a costume as an adult if you're doing it for or with your kid.
And that's my whole point.
Like, all of these comments, as usual, accusing me of hating fun, of being against adults having fun, no, all I'm saying Right, is that toys and games and TV shows and recreations of- toys, games, TV shows, and recreations of childhood.
For the most part, belong in childhood, and there's a reason for that.
But as adults, we can experience those things again, but we should experience them as adults.
You don't have to stop having fun as an adult, but you have fun in a different way, and in a way that I think is more fulfilling and deeper and more joyful.
So, for example, I mean, there are a million examples I could give of this, but Here's just one.
Over the summer, actually when we were on vacation, we had a night where my wife and I, we pulled up some of our old Nickelodeon favorites for the kids to watch.
And, you know, we played them for the kids, and we watched, I don't know, a few different Nickelodeon shows from back in the 90s.
We ended up watching three episodes of Legends of the Hidden Temple, and my kids liked that show.
We also watched Guts.
And my kids weren't into that one, which I have to say, after watching it now, doesn't hold up quite as well.
Kids in the 90s just were not very athletic, it turns out.
And anyway, I enjoyed watching that show with my kids.
It was nostalgic for me, and it was fun to kind of experience something from my childhood through their eyes.
And so it was a fun, like, family activity and all of that.
But here's the point.
I would never sit by myself And watch Legends of the Hidden Temple as a 37-year-old man, okay?
That's not what I would choose to do.
Kids and wife are in bed.
I have the house to myself at night.
I'm thinking of what I want to do to relax.
I'm not going to put on Legends of the Hidden Temple and just sit there and watch it by myself.
And if I did, that would be a very strange thing.
It would probably show that, like, there's something not exactly right going on here.
There's a sort of certain lack of maturity.
Because that's not the proper way to experience something like that as an adult.
It's just, like I said, there are a million examples of it.
I play hide-and-seek with my kids all the time.
And I enjoy it.
I like playing this game with my kids.
Okay, but it would be very strange if there was a bunch of adults in the house, right, and a bunch of adults over for a dinner party, and I said, hey, you know what we should do after this?
We should play hide and seek.
I got some super fun hiding spots, guys.
You're going to love this.
If I suggested that, you would think I was insane.
And why is that?
Because that's a game for kids, and it's not enough to say, well, you hate fun.
No, I'm an adult, and adults don't behave that way, unless you're doing it with a kid.
And it makes it fun because it's really about the child.
It's like the game is fun for the child, and because the child is having fun, you're having fun.
So that's my only point.
I don't know how else to explain it.
I think it should be pretty It's pretty clear-cut, I think.
And there are a lot of things that fall into it.
Not everything.
I mean, there might be some things that you enjoyed doing as a kid that's perfectly acceptable to do now.
You know, when I was a kid, I liked going for hikes, and now I still like going for hikes.
So, things like that are kind of—and I would go on a hike by myself, right?
But many of these things that you enjoy doing as kids are, they are again, the activities of childhood that we are meant actually to experience again from a different perspective.
The problem is, in my generation in particular, because we're the worst with this, is, is Holding on to those things, kind of like hogging them, you know, not wanting to pass them on to the next generation, and wanting to continue to experience them as children.
We want to experience them with the mentality of children.
And that's where it becomes an issue, in my opinion.
Well, it's time for the final episode of Convicting a Murderer.
And let me just say, if you are still not convinced that Stephen Avery is guilty, you will be now.
Candace finally brings an end to the nightmare making a murderer created.
They claim Stephen Avery was a victim of corrupt law enforcement.
This is what they always do, right?
They demonize the police.
But Candace is going to show you who the real villain is in this final episode.
Take a look.
Coming up on the finale of Convicting a Murderer... How were these filmmakers able to convince so many people that a man like Stephen Avery is innocent?
The only story they wanted to tell was one of police corruption.
They were committed to a story.
She's doing a good job.
She's doing a lot of investigation.
They were looking into things for him.
They were Stephen Avery's PR team.
They convinced millions of people that they were innocent.
Emails show that they were providing plenty of direction.
That the Avery's were to look like a close-knit family.
Manitowoc County officers were to look suspicious.
I think I will forever be obsessed with the media's ability To turn a villain into a hero or a hero into a villain.
If they could do it to me, they can do it to anybody else.
[MUSIC]
You can binge all ten episodes now, but only if you're a Daily Wire member.
So sign up today at dailywire.com slash subscribe to watch the entire series.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
The ACLU tried to get the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal to strike down a law that banned child genital mutilation.
Specifically, the ACLU argued that there's a constitutional right for parents to sterilize and castrate their own children.
And this backfired spectacularly for the ACLU, as we discussed on this show at the time.
And as today, mutilating children in the name of gender-affirming care remains illegal in Tennessee.
So they failed.
And these procedures have been halted.
Now, given that recent history, you might think that the ACLU would think twice before it filed yet another agenda-driven lawsuit against Tennessee.
You'd assume that, at the very least, they'd ensure that they had an airtight case to make sure that everything's fine before they ever step foot in another courthouse in the state.
That's what they would do if they were a serious civil liberties organization that took the law seriously.
But the ACLU isn't a serious civil liberties organization, and it hasn't been one for some time.
Now it resembles a cult.
And like so many other so-called liberal institutions that people used to take seriously, it is basically a left-wing cult.
And if there's one thing we know about cultists, it's that they don't have any shame whatsoever.
They're not deterred by failure or humiliation.
They just press on at all costs to promote their ideology, come what may.
So this week, predictably enough, the ACLU boldly announced that it's once again suing the state of Tennessee.
And this time, they're not seeking to castrate children.
Instead, they're fighting for the right of HIV-infected prostitutes to knowingly spread their infection to their clients.
Yes, really.
That's why they want a court to strike down Tennessee's statute on aggravated prostitution.
Now, I'll get to the ACLU's arguments for this in a moment, but just to be crystal clear about what the ACLU is objecting to here, I want to read the Tennessee statute on aggravated prostitution.
This is what they don't like.
This is what they're suing against.
Here it is.
A person commits aggravated prostitution when, knowing that such person is infected with HIV, the person engages in sexual activity as a business, or as an intimate, or as an inmate in a house of prostitution, or loiters in a public place for the purpose of being hired to engage in sexual activity.
Aggravated prostitution is a Class C felony.
Now, unless you're a prostitute who wants to knowingly infect other people with HIV, it's hard to see what conceivable problem you could have with a law like that.
Prostitution is already illegal in Tennessee for obvious reasons.
And all this law does is attach extra penalties if you engage in prostitution when you know that you have a deadly, highly transmissible disease that causes a progressive failure of the human immune system.
So that seems pretty reasonable, right?
But for more than a year, activists in Tennessee have been campaigning against this law.
In the interest of full disclosure, and because it's honestly pretty amusing, here are their arguments.
This is a professor from the University of Memphis named Robin Lennon Deering, and here's what she says.
Watch.
Can you tell me a little bit more about your research and the main takeaways?
Yes.
The biggest thing that people don't understand is that the HIV criminal laws do not require people to actually transmit HIV.
At least that's the way it is here in Tennessee.
In fact, they don't even have to have physical contact.
For example, we have two laws.
One of them is aggravated prostitution.
And with this particular felony law, all they have to do is get into an undercover police officer's car or agree to talk to someone who is an undercover police officer.
And they are arrested.
So number one, it doesn't mean that you've transmitted HIV.
And number two, the people that are arrested are usually financially insecure, perhaps homeless, living on the street.
They have no money to fight the charges.
Okay, so the first argument you just heard is that people can be arrested for aggravated prostitution even if they don't actually succeed in transmitting HIV.
This is a tremendous injustice, according to this professor at the University of Memphis.
Notice how she describes her hypothetical scenario.
You know, she says all you need to do is get into an undercover police officer's car, and if you happen to, quote, agree to talk to someone who's an undercover police officer, then the cops will book you for aggravated prostitution.
Now, in case you haven't guessed, she's leaving something out here, which is that the law requires that you knowingly have HIV when you get into that undercover car, and then knowingly offer sex to that undercover police officer.
So, yes, you don't actually have to successfully transmit HIV, but if you try to, then that's still a crime.
Which means that it's pretty much like any other felony.
Like, if you successfully commit a felony, then that's a crime.
If you try to, in most cases, but you fail, that's still a crime.
If you try to kill someone, even if you don't succeed in killing them, it is still a crime.
And I think for most people that's not hard to grasp.
And all of this, you know, these seem like important details, but the professor with two last names and pink glasses somehow forgot to mention them.
By the way, this professor, Robin Lennon Deering, bills herself as a social work educator who uses, quote, an anti-oppressive practice framework and intersectional perspective to increase awareness of social injustices.
So if you send your child to the University of Memphis, that's what you're paying for.
If you pay taxes in the state of Tennessee, that's what you're paying for, because it's a public institution.
Let's get back to this professor's other argument.
She also says that many people arrested under this prostitution law happen to be financially insecure.
They're often homeless and, quote, have no money to fight the charges.
Of course, this isn't an argument at all.
It makes absolutely no sense to legalize immoral and dangerous behavior because most people engaging in this immoral and dangerous behavior also happen to be poor.
I mean, if that's the standard, then we can't be too far from legalizing murder because the vast majority of people who commit murder aren't exactly rich.
It'd be one thing if, you know, it were just one lefty faculty member at the University of Memphis who talked like this, but this is now a common view on the left.
In fact, the reasoning gets even worse.
When it announced the lawsuit against Tennessee over this aggravated prostitution law, the ACLU made this argument, quote, Breaking.
We're suing Tennessee for their aggravated prostitution statute that targets people with HIV with harsh punishment and lifetime sex offender registration.
This law is unconstitutional and disproportionately affects black and transgender women.
Now I'll read the rest of their statement in a second, but let's pause for just a moment.
They're saying that the law targets people with HIV.
Just like that professor, they're ignoring the fact that the law only applies to prostitutes with HIV who know they have the virus.
Okay, so unless we're saying that everybody with HIV is a hooker, then it does not target people with HIV.
It targets prostitutes who have a deadly virus who are knowingly attempting to spread it.
But ACLU, they're not the only ones playing this game.
Here's a statement on this law from the executive director of Out Memphis, a woman named Molly Quinn.
Quote, this statute solely targets people because of their HIV status and keeps them in cycles of poverty while posing absolutely zero benefit to public health and safety.
Yeah, preventing the spread of HIV has zero benefit to public health.
This is how pretty much every institution on the left argues now.
They don't just lie, they also omit every relevant detail to push their agenda.
The other part about that statement from the ACLU is revealing in ways that the ACLU probably didn't intend.
They say the law disproportionately affects black and transgender women, meaning men.
Now, two things about that.
First of all, you know, it's fine for a law to disproportionately affect certain groups, as long as that's not the purpose of the law.
If you're passing a law with the intent of, you know, oppressing a certain racial group, well, that's not good.
You can't do that.
That's unconstitutional.
But if the law applies to everyone, then its disproportionate impact is irrelevant.
Again, laws against murder, you would argue, disproportionately affect black communities.
Because violent crime is more common in the black community.
It doesn't make the law unconstitutional.
In fact, here's the thing.
Laws against any crime will disproportionately impact those who want to do that crime.
That's the way laws work.
Laws against stealing disproportionately impact those who want to steal.
It's just, that's the way it goes.
But the really interesting thing about the ACLU statement is that they're claiming that, by and large, black men are the demographic group that's knowingly spreading HIV within their communities.
They're not saying the police are enforcing this law in some racist way.
They're not claiming that the cops are fabricating evidence or anything like that.
They're saying that black men are the ones who are doing this.
And they're supposed to be the anti-racist side, I suppose.
Now, here's what the ACLU says Tennessee should do instead of this.
Here's what they say.
Instead of criminalizing HIV, which disproportionately targets people who are already socially and financially marginalized, lawmakers should invest in evidence-based public health support for people with HIV.
Tennessee, we'll see you in court.
Again, there's the arrogance from an organization that just lost badly to Tennessee in court.
First, they tell voters in Tennessee that they can't ban child castration.
Now they're telling voters that they don't have a right to punish prostitutes for knowingly transmitting HIV in their state.
Instead, they're saying Tennessee should adopt evidence-based public health support.
Which is double-speak that means precisely nothing.
I mean, to the extent that you can divine any meaning from those words, it actually sounds a lot like what Tennessee is already doing.
Jailing people who knowingly spread HIV is evidence-based public health support.
It's maybe the most logical, most evidence-based method imaginable when it comes to dealing with this problem.
What the ACLU is really saying is something that You know, the left hates to admit outright, but it's also something they believe very strongly.
And this is what it all comes down to.
We've seen this kind of thing in states, not just in Tennessee, where they, whether it's prostitutes or anybody else, they're trying to decriminalize the knowing, intentional spread of HIV.
And in all those cases, what that is really rooted in is the left's belief that the highest good is to follow your sexual impulses all the time, everywhere, With no limitations.
You know, they value unbridled, irresponsible sex, whatever the consequences might be.
If you conceive a child in the process, then just kill the child, they say.
If you get HIV, no big deal.
If you spread HIV, no big deal.
Just keep on having sex and spreading HIV so that everyone else can join in the fun.
I mean, this is hedonism.
It's what the left values far more than the so-called minority communities that they claim to care so much about.
They would rather encourage prostitution and contribute to the spread of HIV in these communities than actually do something to help them.
And without any kind of higher guiding purpose or belief in any higher power, leftists are fixated entirely on raw, sensory pleasure.
They're as prideful and self-assured as everyone else who's settled on that purpose in life throughout all of human history.
They're not unique or special.
That's why, like the hedonists of the past, soon enough, they'll be defeated, dead, and forgotten.
And that is why the ACLU and its many left-wing supporters who desperately want black men with HIV to prostitute themselves and spread HIV are today cancelled.
