Ep. 1276 - States Are Now Passing Laws Against ‘Fatphobia’
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, there is a movement growing to ban "fat phobia" nationwide. But how do these insane laws work in practice? We'll discuss. Also, when it rains it pours for the president of Harvard. Now she finds herself embroiled in a plagiarism scandal. And a woke Hollywood actress tries to explain to Bill Maher why it's "not funny" to joke about trans people. Finally, Will Ferrell declares that it's time for women to run the world. But would that actually make anything better?
Ep.1276
- - -
DailyWire+:
Shop the NEW Jeremy’s Women’s Collection here: https://bit.ly/3RCphRM
Watch the official Lady Ballers movie trailer now: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898 to check out Birch Gold’s Holiday Deals! Get FREE Silver today! https://birchgold.com/Walsh
40 Days for Life - Help defend free speech today! https://bit.ly/3LfFsAf
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
ZipRecruiter - Rated #1 Hiring Site. Try ZipRecruiter for FREE! http://www.ZipRecruiter.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, there's a movement growing to ban fatphobia nationwide, but how do these insane laws actually work in practice?
We'll discuss.
Also, when it rains, it pours for the president of Harvard.
Now she finds herself embroiled in a plagiarism scandal, and a woke Hollywood actress tries to explain to Bill Maher why it's, quote, not funny to joke about trans people.
Finally, Will Ferrell declares that it's time for women to run the world, but would that actually make anything better?
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
This Christmas season, don't let the government be the Grinch of your savings.
Right now, you can diversify your savings with physical, precious metals while stockpiling free silver in your home safe.
Don't miss out on Birchgold Group's most popular special of the year.
Now through December 22nd, for every $5,000 you spend with Birchgold, they'll send you a one-ounce Silver Eagle coin.
For free.
Text WALSH to 989898 to claim your eligibility now.
You can purchase gold and silver and have it shipped directly to your home or have Birch Gold's precious metal specialists help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold for no money out of pocket.
And they'll send you free silver for every $5,000 you purchase.
So keep it for yourself.
Give something with real value as a stocking stuffer this year.
Whatever you want to do, just text the keyword WALSH to 98.98.98 to claim your eligibility with an A+ rating
with the Better Business Bureau.
Thousands of happy customers. Now is the best time to buy gold from Birch Gold. Text Walsh to 98.98.98
and claim your eligibility for free silver on qualifying purchases before December 22nd.
That's Walsh to 98.98.98. I'm going to begin the show today with a topic that's not quite as heavy
as some of the topics we've covered recently, but still one that is heavy in a different sense of
Without a lot of fanfare, a movement has been underway in this country for some time to outlaw the idea of being fatphobic, which of course literally means fear of fat people.
Now, of course, like most of the other new phobias that have been discovered in the past 15 minutes or so, fatphobia is a misnomer.
It doesn't exist.
I mean, no one's really afraid of fat people, just like no one's afraid of People who call themselves transgender.
People are afraid of being fat, however, which makes sense.
A fear of obesity is really just a fear of heart disease and early death, which are both things that a normal person is afraid of, or at least interested in avoiding.
But this is still not a fear of other people who are fat.
Now it's true that many Americans have, let's say, an aesthetic aversion to morbid obesity, but that's also understandable.
For lots of deeply ingrained biological reasons, humans have come to value traits like physical fitness.
We also tend to prefer that women look like women and men look like men, because that's how the species propagates itself.
This is human nature.
The only way to outlaw it is to outlaw humanity.
And increasingly it looks like that is indeed the goal.
Earlier this year in New York City, fat activists successfully campaigned to enact a law that makes it illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their weight.
And what this means in practice is that every employer that fires a fat person in the city of New York can now look forward to an investigation from the city's Commission on Human Rights because it might be a human rights violation to fire someone who happens to be fat.
Watch.
Another fight for equality across the board.
New York City taking steps to ban discrimination based on someone's weight or height.
Iowa News reporter Darla Miles has the story.
I prefer fat.
I think that using that, you know, it Embracing the word fat.
That's what Victoria Abraham does on her social media accounts, using the handle FatFabFeminist.
The 22-year-old has the attention of more than 120,000 followers.
In most places in the United States, you can get fired for being fat and have no protection at all, which is crazy because this is a very fat country.
The passage of the bill Thursday means New York now joins four other cities with weight discrimination laws on the books, and Michigan and Washington State.
Are there gaps in this bill?
For sure.
But I think this is a perfect first step.
So there are still gaps in the bill, remarks the fat activist.
And if there's one thing that fat activists want to ensure, it's that there are no gaps anywhere.
They want to fill that space.
They want to fill every space.
And they're going to expand their ranks until they've accomplished that objective.
They certainly don't want anyone to lose weight.
They don't want to reduce the number of people who die due to obesity in this country, which is one in six by some estimates.
That would make too much sense.
The last thing they want is to encourage Americans to become less obese.
Instead, as you just heard, they want to reorder all of society so that we can accommodate the morbidly obese.
And to that end, the New York legislation bans discrimination on height and weight in the areas of housing, the workplace, and public accommodation.
Now, the only real exception is for jobs where, in the eyes of New York City politicians, it is, quote, essential for people to be physically fit.
Now, what does that mean exactly?
And how often have people actually been fired for being obese in New York?
Well, those are good starter questions when you're talking about passing a sweeping new law like this, which has ramifications for every business in the city, and yet no one has any answer to either of them.
What little data we do have doesn't seem very credible.
For example, there's one study on fat phobia that was cited by the Washington Post recently, and using data from 1979, The paper concludes that, quote, a woman's hourly pay can drop by almost two percent for every one unit increase in BMI.
You know, it's a standard story.
We've all heard it.
A woman gets called into the boss's office and told that she's getting a pay cut because she's too fat.
Happens all the time, right?
Except for the fact that it never happens at all.
And if it did, by the way, if your pay dropped by that amount for every one unit increase in BMI, well, lots of people in this country would be getting paid like negative $50,000 a year at this point.
They would be getting charged money to go to work if that's actually how it worked.
The whole premise is absurd, and yet, as the Daily Mail reports this week, these laws against fatphobia are becoming increasingly common.
Even Colorado, which is the thinnest state in the entire country, the one that is presumably the least fatphobic, is now about to pass a law outlawing discrimination on the basis of weight.
And that would be the first time a law like this has been passed statewide in decades.
Michigan apparently passed a law banning discrimination based on weight around 50 years ago, followed by Washington state.
But now, it's becoming trendy, and so Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey are all looking to do the same, along with a bunch of other cities as well, are looking to pass their own ordinances.
But Colorado is unique because it's a state that, even accepting these fat activist standards, would seem to need these protections the least.
Their obesity rate is just 25%, which is, sadly, quite low by U.S.
standards.
But they're about to get some new regulations for the benefit of the morbidly obese.
According to the Hill, quote, "The law aims to prevent landlords from denying rentals based on weight limits and
to implement workplace accommodations for overweight Americans."
Now, you're supposed to accept that explanation of the law on face value,
but it does raise a couple of obvious questions for First of all, how big do you have to be to exceed the weight limit for an apartment building?
And second, what kind of accommodations are workplaces supposed to make for the obese?
Well, it's hard to get a straight answer to either of these questions, but if you look around on social media, you will find some more specific proposals.
You might have seen this TikTok video that was everywhere a few weeks ago.
We played it on the show.
It features Jalyn Chaney, who's a self-described travel and lifestyle creator based in Vancouver.
And here she is to give you some idea of what these fat activists want and what kind of accommodations they're looking for.
Let's watch that again.
I'm on a mission to revolutionize the travel industry and make it a more accessible, accepting, accommodating place for all.
The needs of plus-size travelers matter just as much as anybody else, and today I'm going to cover what we are looking for in accessible, size-inclusive hotel amenities.
Size-inclusive hotel amenities are crucial for ensuring that plus-size travelers feel welcomed, accommodated, and comfortable during their stay.
We deserve an environment that respects our needs and body diversity.
These are the exact steps that hotels can take to be more size-inclusive and accessible for travelers of all sizes.
In guest rooms, lobbies, and common areas to accommodate different body sizes and types.
Number two on the list, ensure beds with strong support and a higher weight capacity.
Along with providing reinforced chairs and wider backing facilities.
Number three, make elevators and hallways spacious to allow for easy movement of larger individuals and those utilizing mobility devices.
Number four, install grab bars in showers and near toilets.
Offer adjustable handheld shower heads and raised toilet seats for added accessibility.
Number five, train staff to be respectful, understanding, and accommodating to travelers of all sizes.
So Cheney is basically demanding that every hotel and restaurant in the United States be razed to the ground and rebuilt with new super wide hallways and wide bathrooms and elevators.
She also wants to make life worse for everyone else, including by removing chairs with armrests in rooms, common areas, etc.
Separately, she's also demanded that airlines provide extra free seats to obese people so that they have room to spread out.
She said, quote, Now, she doesn't care about the discomfort that she causes non-obese passengers on the plane.
Really, what she's saying is that she doesn't want those people on the plane at all.
She wants their seats for free.
And she's not alone.
The DEI website Feminuity assembled a list of similar demands on behalf of fat activists, and here are just a few of them.
them.
Quote, "Communal spaces like dining areas, conference rooms, and relaxation rooms should
have furniture like chairs, desks, sofas, and tables that are inclusive of fat people.
It's best to avoid stools, tiny benches, or chairs with rigid armrests."
Creating a fat-inclusive office also means rethinking every inch of the space.
Avoid tight corners.
Yes, rethink every inch of space.
Remodel your entire building for the sake of people who have eaten so much that they can no longer comfortably walk down the hallway or sit in a chair.
These are the demands, and they're actually being met.
In London a few years ago, the mayor banned ads featuring attractive women in swimsuits from appearing on public transit.
One of the ads asked, are you beach body ready?
And that's hate speech in London now, evidently.
Tens of thousands of people signed a petition to get the ads removed.
They even vandalized it with graffiti.
And ultimately they got what they wanted.
In this country, the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois-Chicago recently proposed that the word obesity should be banned entirely.
As The Independent reported, the university claims that weight discrimination remains, quote, one of the only forms of discrimination actively condoned by society.
Which is obviously not remotely true.
And the university knows it's not true because they had an affirmative action plan which discriminates against whites and Asians in all aspects of admissions and hiring.
I mean, that's one of the most blatant forms of discrimination imaginable, and also one of the worst, because it's based on something people can't control.
But they condone that.
They participated in that.
They practiced it.
That's the thing about alleged discrimination against the obese.
Now, most of these examples of discrimination are just made up and ridiculous, but even if there was some discrimination that was actually going on, you know, it wouldn't be in the same ballpark as discrimination based on something like race.
Because obesity, no matter what anybody says, is a choice.
It is the result of a deliberate lifestyle.
Obesity is a consequence of behavior.
If you are 400 pounds and feeling discriminated against, well, you put yourself in that position.
And the good news is that you can get yourself out of it.
A white man facing affirmative action discrimination can't do anything to be not white.
But an obese person can and should, and for his own health must, do something to make himself not obese.
You know, obese people have become the next big victim group in America, but they are, like so many of the new modern victim groups, victims of their own behavior.
And that's why this is such a growing and popular victim group.
Because, you know, anyone can eat their way into it.
Just lie on the couch and gorge yourself on Pringles, and very soon you, too, will be able to recast any criticism of you as bigotry.
You, too, will be handed a get-out-of-accountability-free card.
You, too, can claim that anyone who upsets you or disagrees with you or annoys you is some kind of ist or phobe.
And in this way, the fat acceptance movement is no different from any other faux victimhood movement in the country.
But it does stand apart to some extent as perhaps the most farcical example of modern society's kind of me-first ethos.
The whole idea behind the movement is that the world should rearrange itself for the sake of making room for the morbidly obese.
And they mean that literally.
We need to literally rearrange the furniture so that these people can fit inside the room.
So it's really on the nose to the point of absurdity.
And of course, the much easier, more cost-effective, fairer, more sane approach is for the morbidly obese to make some simple lifestyle changes so that they can more easily include themselves in these spaces.
Like, if you walk into a space and you say, I can't be included in the space because I literally can't fit here, then there are things that you can do And changes you can enact immediately that will fix that problem.
The problem is that that puts the onus on the individual.
That requires willpower and sacrifice.
And that can never be allowed.
You know, in our age, everyone else must sacrifice so that the individual sacrifices nothing.
The self reigns supreme.
Everyone else must bow to the self.
Society must change for the sake of the self.
Civilization must reorder itself.
The world must stop on its axis and spin the opposite direction if that is what the self demands.
The self must be required to do nothing and the world has to do everything.
Now, the problem, of course, is that every individual is part of the world.
Which is how you end up with these self-serving laws that hurt the people they're supposedly trying to help.
When you try to have a society where each individual is a god whose wishes and proclivities and demands trump the good of humanity of society, you end up with a predictable mess.
You end up with decay and collapse and confusion.
And we've seen this confusion for a while now.
A decade ago, New York banned large sodas in order to make everybody skinnier.
And now they're mandating that everybody treat obesity as if it's natural and healthy.
But no matter what, the one thing politicians don't want to do, because it would diminish their power, is to let people make their own choices.
And yeah, that includes the freedom to eat and drink to extraordinary excess.
But also, more importantly, it includes the freedom to criticize those who do.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
But the grassroots pro-life efforts, which are now more important than ever, are booming.
Pro-lifers have not gone away.
In fact, they've increased in number.
One of the efforts that I support is 40 Days for Life because they're changing hearts and minds in blue pro-abortion states.
With 1 million volunteers in 1,600 cities, 40 Days for Life holds peaceful vigils outside abortion facilities.
40 Days for Life has opened a record number of locations since Roe was overturned, and they've grown in volunteers.
This success has come with new, unwanted attention from the DOJ.
40 Days just made national headlines because they're suing the DOJ on behalf of their volunteer
Mark Halk, who had his house raided by the FBI.
They're going on offense against our compromised FBI and DOJ.
And you can help them fight their ongoing legal battles and pursue to free speech for
their volunteers, including Mark Halk, by giving a tax-deductible gift of any amount
at 40daysforlife.com.
That's 40daysforlife.com.
Well, it's been a tough time for the people running Ivy League schools recently.
You have to feel sort of sorry for them, and by feel sorry for them, I mean laugh hysterically in their face.
So let's start with the most recent controversy from the Daily Wire.
It says, Embattled Harvard University President Claudine Gay responded Monday to mounting allegations of plagiarism, saying that she stands by her work.
Journalist Chris Ruffo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, published a report on Sunday outlining what he indicated to be three instances of gay plagiarizing per Harvard standards in the dissertation, Taking Charge, Black Electoral Success and the Redefinition of American Policies.
Notably, Gay is already facing mounting pressure to be removed since her shocking testimony during a congressional hearing on antisemitism in colleges and universities.
Gay told the Boston Globe, quote, I stand by the integrity of my scholarship.
Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure that my scholarship adheres to the highest academic standards.
In addition to other questionable instances, Gay is accused of lifting nearly verbatim work from Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliam in their paper called Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment.
Ruffo cited Harvard's own policy on paraphrasing and plagiarism to underscore his point.
And there are, you know, you can look at his report, which I would recommend doing for all the specific examples.
But it's, I mean, it's clear cut.
Like, she didn't, she, you can find Verbatim, she takes something that was written here, and then she puts it in her work, and she doesn't put quotes around it, which is, that's plagiarism.
You know, I didn't go to college, I'm not a scholar, but even I know that that's plagiarism.
And there's a lot more to this story, and as is often the case with these kinds of things, there are more and more revelations and stories coming out about Claudine Gay, so this plagiarism Revelation from Ruffeau appears to be the tip of the iceberg and usually, you know, plagiarism is one of those things that if it turns out that somebody did it one time, you can be pretty certain that there are gonna be many other examples of it.
It's just one of those things, you know, you probably don't dabble in it for the first time in your PhD dissertation or whatever.
That's probably not the first time or the last time.
So, You know, it appears to be a pretty open and shut case.
Of course, predictably, so far Harvard is standing by Claudine Gay.
Everybody is kind of circling the wagon.
And that's what you expect.
Because they absolutely cannot admit that Harvard's first black president, and a woman, a woman at that, first black president, also a female president, is actually a plagiarist.
They can't admit it.
I mean, they will never admit that.
Because then, they'll be tacitly admitting that this black woman got the job because she's a black woman.
She was not fit for the job.
She got it because of her identity.
She is a diversity hire who made her way to the top.
And when I say made her way to the top, I really mean she was carried, she was escorted to the top because her identity is convenient.
And it's what they want.
And you know what?
There are a lot of conservatives who are upset that Harvard is circling the wagons around their university president.
I'm fine with it.
In fact, I'm glad that—honest to God, I am glad.
I'm glad that Harvard—Harvard's board just put out a statement unanimously, standing by Claudine Gay.
We don't care if she's a plagiarist.
She's our plagiarist.
That's not exactly what they said.
I'm paraphrasing.
And that's fine.
It's good, actually.
And I'll tell you why it's good, because it gives the system nowhere to hide.
It shows you exactly where these universities stand.
I mean, if Harvard's board had come out and issued some kind of perfunctory condemnation of the plagiarism, or even kicked her to the curb and whatever, then I think what would happen is that very clueless people might be fooled into thinking that the universities are cleaning up their act.
But they're not, and they never will.
So, hopefully now even the most clueless people can see what's actually happening, and that is that the system is lost.
The universities are lost, the Ivy League universities, the whole university system is lost.
It's just done, it's over.
And if there's any solution now, it is just burning the whole system to the ground and starting over.
There is no reform.
This is not something where they can fire a couple of people and then everything will be fine.
I mean, even if they were to fire Claudine Gay, which, I mean, she deserves to be fired, so that would be good because then she individually gets the disgrace and shame that she so richly deserves.
But, so, who are they going to put in her place?
You think they're going to find somebody better to put in her place?
You think they'd go out and find some, like, highly qualified white male to take her place?
It would never happen.
In fact, they'd find some other diversity hire to replace this one.
So, the more obvious... I'm at the point now where, with the university system, the more obvious they make it to everyone, the better it is.
Because that's really our only hope.
Because when people look at this system and they say, it's just, it's hopeless.
I'm not going to send my kids into this.
I'm not going to give this system my money.
Meanwhile, there is this antisemitism scandal, which is also encompassing the Ivy League.
The New York Post with the latest on that.
Former University of Pennsylvania President Liz McGill's resignation has been met with celebration and calls for the heads of Harvard and MIT to also step down over their failures to condemn antisemitism on campus.
Many saw McGill's resignation on Saturday as the beginning of woke university presidents facing consequences for failing to condemn students and their calls for the genocide of Jews.
Though others believed it was a win for the censorship of pro-Palestinian voices.
One down, two to go.
New York Representative Elise Stefanik posted on X following McGill's announcement.
This, by the way, is basically exactly what I'm talking about.
One university president steps down and everyone celebrates.
Yeah, you see, we won that one.
One down, two to go.
Okay, who is that?
That's Liz McGill.
Who's taking her place?
Somebody better?
Really?
You think so?
It's finally a backlash against the woke.
Really?
You think they're going to put a non-woke university president in her place?
Of course not.
But still, there is this full-court press against the Ivy League system and really against the university system as a whole right now, all because of the anti-Semitism.
And it's not just Republicans that are going after the system right now.
Lots of Democrats have joined in.
The corporate media is on board, at least to some extent.
So, for example, Fareed Zaharia, a guy on CNN, Anchor on CNN, he had a long monologue over the weekend calling out the university system for being too political and ideological.
And I want to just watch a little bit of this monologue.
Let's watch.
When one thinks of America's greatest strengths, the kind of assets the world looks at with admiration and envy, America's elite universities would long have been at the top of that list.
But the American public has been losing faith in these universities for good reason.
Three university presidents came under fire this week for their vague and indecisive answers when asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their institution's codes of conduct.
But to understand their performance, we have to understand the broad shift that has taken place at elite universities, which have gone from being centers of excellence to institutions pushing political agendas.
People sense the transformation.
As Paul Tuff has pointed out, the share of young adults who said a college degree was very important
fell from 74% in 2013 to just 41% in 2019. In 2018, 61% of those polls said higher education
was headed in the wrong direction and only 38% felt it was on the right track.
In 2016, 70% of America's high school graduates were headed for college.
Now that number is 62%.
This souring on higher education makes America an outlier among all advanced nations.
American universities have been neglecting a core focus on excellence in order to pursue a variety of agendas, many of them clustered around diversity and inclusion.
It started with the best of intentions.
Colleges wanted to make sure young people of all backgrounds had access to higher education and felt comfortable on campus.
But those good intentions have morphed into a dogmatic ideology and turned these universities into places where the pervasive goals are political and social engineering, not academic merit.
Okay, so, yeah, you think?
Which is kind of my reaction when I see stuff like this, and the reason I'm playing that Well, it's notable in one sort of.
It seems on the surface notable because this is on CNN, and they're saying all this.
Universities are too political.
I mean, like five years ago, it's unthinkable that anybody on CNN would say this, especially not in a six-minute monologue.
And that goes on for another four or five minutes where he elaborates on this.
And also, he's getting a lot of props from conservatives.
The way that I saw this monologue is on Twitter, a bunch of conservatives sharing it and saying, yeah, this is great stuff on CNN.
I can't believe it.
But I don't give it a lot of credit.
Now, everything he says here is correct.
But, well, not everything.
He's wrong about one big thing, which is he says that, well, all this stuff is well-intentioned.
Well-intentioned, it's well-intentioned, but it's just gone, it's gone too far.
That's why you find people on the left, even when they sort of start to, it seems, wake up to the problems of what we're calling wokeness, which is really just leftism itself, they're not really waking up to it.
Because they only see it as, well, it's well-intentioned, it's basically pointed in the right direction, but it kind of goes too far.
Which is not accurate.
The problem with what we call wokeness is in the premise of it.
It's a fundamental problem.
And it is also not well-intentioned at all.
You know, the university is becoming these ideological left-wing brainwashing zones.
That was not the unintentional result of well-meaning changes that were made in the system.
That is the intention.
That's what they were trying to do, and are still trying to do, and have done.
But mainly, I just have trouble with this sudden willingness to criticize universities.
I'm not going to get into it in any detail right now because I'll probably want to do a longer, discuss it in greater length tomorrow.
But for now, I'll just say that the universities have been ideologically captured for decades.
They've been a disaster for decades.
They have viciously, blatantly discriminated against and heaped hatred on white people, and white men in particular, for decades.
And yet, none of that provoked the ire of CNN, or Congress, or any of these people.
They weren't having congressional hearings on it.
Like, none of these people noticed the problem until the subject was anti-Semitism.
So now we're having this This awakening moment, and congressional hearings, and this whole national discussion, because of anti-Semitism running rampant on college campuses.
If you're focused on that problem, if you're talking about that problem, and you are also talking about what is the far more prevalent and ubiquitous epidemic of anti-white hatred on college campuses, If you were talking about that and now you're also talking about this, fine.
But for most of the people, especially in places like CNN, that are discovering this willingness to criticize the university system based on their anti-Semitism, they said nothing about that other stuff.
They don't care about that.
And as I said, Was there ever a congressional hearing on anti-white bigotry in the university system?
Can you even imagine there being a congressional hearing on that?
These Republicans in these hearings that get all this credit for calling you out, calling you to the carpet, like, okay, fine, but that doesn't take any guts.
I'd like to see Elise Stefanik Calling university presidents to the carpet and saying, what about this anti-white brainwashing you guys have been doing for the last 30 years?
Will you condemn that right now?
Hey, you guys have actually brainwashed millions of people into believing that the white race is inherently bigoted and racist.
And that no non-white people can be racist.
You have made millions of white college students who then graduated and became adults, you have made them resentful and feeling guilty for their own racial identity.
Will you denounce that?
Will you pledge to change that?
What changes are you making?
No, they're not having a hearing on that.
They didn't notice the problem until the subject was anti-Semitism, which tells me that they still don't notice the problem or understand it.
And all this stuff about anti-Semitism on college campuses, you've got politicians scoring some points based on it.
Nothing is really going to happen.
Yeah, a couple people will get fired, and they'll be replaced with people who are worse.
And nothing will change.
Because they're not actually interested in changing anything.
They don't want to get to the heart of it.
Which also means, by the way, that the anti-Semitism piece of it also isn't actually going to change either.
Because, you know, that part of it is closer to the surface when it comes to the issues on college campuses.
And if you're just up here at the surface and you're not getting down to the core, right?
Like, there's the surface here and down here is like the core of the problem.
And if you're not digging down to the core of the problem, Then whatever changes you make up here are going to be temporary at best.
Superficial, cosmetic.
And that's the problem as far as I see it.
All right.
What else do we want to mention here?
So I thought this story, and we've seen a lot of this recently, and of course we've talked about the rise of AI.
I mean, everyone's been talking about that.
Here's one of the latest innovations in AI.
This is from Time.
It says, apps and websites that use artificial intelligence to undress women in photos are soaring in popularity, according to researchers.
In September alone, 24 million people visited undressing websites, according to the social network analysis company, Graphica.
Many of these undressing or nudify services are popular social networks for marketing, according to Grafica.
For instance, since the beginning of this year, the number of links advertising undressing apps increased more than 2,400% on social media, including on X and Reddit.
The services use AI to recreate an image so that the person is nude.
Many of the services only work on women.
These apps are part of a worrying trend of non-consensual pornography.
Being developed and distributed because of advances in artificial intelligence.
So, that's the technology.
They can take a photo of a real person and then run it through the AI thing and then create pornography of that person.
It goes without saying that we already know, we can guarantee that this technology has And I know that you make it illegal, that's not going to solve the problem outright.
And when you see this kind of thing, and I've said this before, I know about with a lot of these AI innovations.
Like this should obviously be illegal.
I mean, clearly.
And I know that you make it illegal.
That's not going to solve the problem outright.
And it's difficult to enforce, or can be difficult to enforce and all that.
But it should still be illegal.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Clearly.
Like, technology that specifically is invented to create non-consensual pornography of real people should obviously just not be legal.
And we gotta figure out how to enforce it, you figure out how that works, but there should just be wide agreement.
If we're having any discussion about it, it should be a discussion of how do you enforce it, what can we do to root this stuff out and find these companies that are producing this kind of technology, companies that are marketing it, what can we do to shut them down legally?
That should be the conversation.
But there shouldn't be any discussion about whether or not it should be legal.
Obviously, it should not be legal.
And yet, there isn't any conversation about whether or not it should be legal because most people, like, we just accept this.
This is what the perverts are doing now, and we've decided that perverts have just the absolute right to do whatever they want on the Internet.
That's basically what we've decided, and we've decided that the Internet will be, and even every social media platform, everywhere you go on the Internet will be infested with the most degenerate kinds of filth imaginable, and there's nothing that can be done about it, or nothing that should be done about it, because it's all, it's our human right And all the people that are peddling this filth have a human right to peddle it.
This is the notion that's been widely accepted by almost everyone, it seems.
We have made ourselves impotent in the face of this sort of thing.
And we don't have to be.
That's my point.
Like, there are a lot of things that are happening That we accept, we don't have to accept them.
And I know for a lot of conservatives, and I've been running up against this and fighting against it for years, but for a lot of conservatives they just kind of instinctively believe that we should never be advocating for laws against anything.
They have this small government.
You know, motto and mantra that they cling to, and so they believe that advocating for any law at all is some sort of betrayal of their alleged small government principles.
You gotta get out of that mentality.
You have to get out of it.
Or otherwise, the smut peddlers and the degenerate freaks are just gonna simply take over everything.
You can argue they already have.
But it's only going to get worse.
And this, to me, is just nuts.
It's nuts that we even allow this.
And it's also nuts that I'm already anticipating that, based on what I'm saying right now, there's going to be a bunch of people, I'm going to get a whole bunch of comments and messages that, you know, Matt, I agree with you on most things, but we can't make that illegal.
That's a slippery slope now.
Come on.
A slippery slope into what?
Like sanity?
Decency?
A culture where you can actually live and thrive and have a happy and well-adjusted life in?
Is that what we might slip and slide our way into?
Oh no, imagine that.
Okay, Bill Maher had a woman named Bella Thorne on his podcast, and I guess Bella Thorne is an actress?
I don't know, but yeah, she's an actress.
And this exchange on the podcast is going viral.
It's interesting, though not really for the reason that most people are saying, but let's watch it.
There's a lot of trends, you know, I always see that in the paper about somebody who has switched their sex, which I'm all, if that's what makes you, is that what blows your dress up?
All the way, yes.
Bad.
Be who you are.
Yes, claps.
Claps.
Makes me happy.
I mean, I think there's some money to be made in some sort of exchange with everyone switching where like, you know, if you need a penis, take a penis.
If you have a penis, give a penis.
You know, like if people are becoming like men to women, they're going to cut off their penis.
And then there are women transitioning who are going to need a penis.
I feel like if there was some exchange, maybe Bitcoin could be involved, and you could, you know... No?
I just don't like joking about... Oh, Bella.
I know that you like to, but I don't think it's funny.
Oh, for f***'s sake.
What a shame.
I'm sorry.
You don't have to be sorry, but I'm not sorry either.
I don't think it's funny.
And that is where your anxiety comes from.
There is nothing wrong with joking.
Nothing wrong about that.
Not everybody is that sensitive.
Not everybody needs to be that sensitive.
Even the people who are doing that.
I don't think we'd need to be offended by that.
Everybody is so easily offended.
You kids, you wake up offended.
You should get off Twitter, get off social media, and maybe you wouldn't have this anxiety.
Because I don't know if you're really offended or you're just worried that you're going to look offended.
No, I'm 100% offended.
Like, when I think about, you know, someone's trauma and the videos that I have seen that are so, like, so bad.
And what people have to worry about walking on the street just being themselves, like, That's anxiety.
That's why I don't like to, like, joke about it because, you know, someone hears it and on a public platform is so bad because you're, like, kind of low-key spreading, like, this, like, oh, ha-ha-ha-ha.
First of all, I think Bill Maher's idea is kind of innovative and interesting.
I think he's onto something, you know?
I mean, it's not a business I could find myself being involved in for matters of principle, but, you know, Yeah, he's kind of, take a penny, leave a penny.
Take a penis, leave a penis.
This exchange of body parts.
Maybe eventually that's where we'll end up.
But, I just want to quote Bella Thorne's reasoning for why we shouldn't joke about trans people.
Okay?
Because I transcribed it.
Just to quote what she just said there.
She said, I'm 100% offended.
Like, when I think about, you know, someone's trauma, the videos that I've seen that are so, like, so effing bad, and when people have to worry about walking on the street just being themselves, like, that's effing anxiety.
That's why I don't like to, like, joke about it, because, you know, someone hears it, and on a public platform, it's so bad, because you're, like, kind of low-key spreading, like, this, like, oh, ha-ha, and it's, like, it's not funny.
Okay, that's not English.
I don't know what that is.
I mean, it's not Spanish, either.
It's not French.
It's not German, as far as I know.
It's not a language.
Do you understand that?
That is not human language.
It's not.
Okay, we won't get into the actual topic they were discussing, because only one of them was discussing a topic.
The other was rambling incoherently.
Now of course she's wrong about the idea that we shouldn't joke about gender ideology.
Obviously we should joke about it.
But I'm not going to dignify her by responding to the point that we can only assume she was trying to make.
Instead, I want you to think about the fact that this is, I guess, a prominent, relatively prominent, relatively successful actress, and she can't speak.
She cannot speak.
She's not the only one.
We have millions of people in this country who cannot speak.
They cannot express their thoughts through spoken language.
It's a problem.
I'm telling you, it is a problem.
This is not just old guys shouting at the clouds thing.
It might be that too, but it's also true.
We've got now generations of Americans who can barely convey a thought through words.
Now, I know you might say, oh, she's an actress, of course she's stupid.
But, yeah, go back and watch interviews with actresses from, like, the 50s, okay?
Go back and watch an interview with Audrey Hepburn or something.
She could speak.
She could articulate.
She could communicate.
Even athletes and football players back then could communicate.
Everybody could.
Now we have this.
I don't even know what this is.
Actually, I do know.
You know what this is?
You just heard that?
What Bella Thorne sounds like?
Honestly, she sounds like someone talking in their sleep.
That's what it sounds like.
Have you ever heard someone, we all have, you hear someone talking in their sleep?
And it's always kind of a little bit bizarre and mumbled and jumbled and it's disjointed.
And you can only sort of vaguely understand what they're saying and you're not in their dreams.
You're kind of guessing at what the context might be and what it is that they're dreaming about.
And that's how people speak now.
That's Bella Thorne.
She could have been sleeping that entire—for all I know, she was actually asleep that whole interview.
She could have been in a coma for that interview, and you wouldn't—there'd be no difference.
Bill Maher could be sitting there interviewing her while she is sleeping, and it would sound the same and be just as intelligible or unintelligible as the case may be.
And if it was just her, I would say, it doesn't matter.
It's just Bella Thorne.
Oh, you know, oh, Bella Thorne.
Up to her old tricks again.
You know Bella Thorne.
You know how she acts.
Whoever she is.
But it's not just her.
Again, it's millions of people.
They all are walking around asleep.
Unable to project their voices and communicate their thoughts and ideas and their desires and wants and fears.
They can't communicate it.
And it's not like they can communicate it through written word either.
Okay, if we were just evolving to become, or devolving to become a non-verbal species, but that could still communicate through writing, I could live with that.
In fact, I might even prefer that.
That wouldn't be so bad.
But they can't write either.
You know, they communicate through written words.
They use pictures to communicate.
So I'm telling you, we are going back in time.
We are losing our capacity for human communication.
And I shudder to think what the world will look like and sound like even a hundred years from now.
Can you imagine?
100 more years of progressing or regressing in that direction?
What in the world?
I mean, we are going to be walking around 100 years from now grunting.
We'll still have podcasts.
There'll still be podcasts, and it will just be two people grunting at each other.
All right.
Let's get to it.
What is Walsh wrong?
You know, I have two dogs now, and the magic power of Rough Greens is in my home.
If Santa needs some real power on his sleigh this Christmas, he can borrow my two dogs, have them as long as he wants, who are stronger than ever since starting their diets.
They're supplementing their diets with Rough Greens.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Before I started feeding my dog Rough Greens, I had no idea that dog food is dead food.
It contains very little nutritional value.
Think about it.
Nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Let Rough Greens bring 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.
Just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, boosts energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag so your dog can try it.
Get a free Jumpstart Trial Bag delivered straight to your door just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com slash Matt or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's ruffgreens.com slash Matt or call 844-RUF-700 today.
David says, hi Matt, for the second time you are in fact wrong about absolute rights.
For example, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of inhumane and degrading treatment, the prohibition of slavery, the right to no punishment without law.
Sincerely, David.
I like when people sign their tweets like that.
I'm not even being ironic.
I was just complaining about people who can't communicate.
I enjoy the boomer communication.
Well, boomers can go either way when it comes to how they communicate online.
They can sometimes be even less articulate somehow.
Or they can go this way, where you're signing your tweets with sincerely, which I really do appreciate, unironically.
Anyway, okay, so I said that all rights are conditional and can be lost.
And you're saying that there are some rights that are absolute and that you can't lose them.
You gave an example of or several examples of Rights that you think are absolute. I don't know if I
necessarily agree though Because I could envision scenarios where it may be
necessary to Infringe on all all of the rights you just mentioned
depending on how you define them so For example if you define slavery as just forced labor
which many people do Then no, I don't think you have the absolute right to be
free from forced labor Because I think prisoners I think prisoners should be used
for forced labor I think if you commit a crime and you go to jail, you should be, I think we should bring back forced labor in a big way.
And I don't just mean like walking down the highway and throwing garbage into a bag.
So if that's how you define slavery, then I would say, I'm not sure that I would define it that way.
But that is how some people define it.
Prohibition against torture.
I think again there could be a scenario where if you have a bad guy and he has some piece of information that will save hundreds of lives and you need to torture him to get it.
I think that could be okay.
Now obviously many people have been tortured under those pretenses and they were false pretenses.
So, in practice, it often doesn't work out that way, but I'm saying, in theory, I could see a scenario where that would be morally justified.
Think about, like, obviously this is a fiction, it's a Hollywood film, but Liam Neeson in Taken, you know, he's trying to find his daughter who's been kidnapped by sex traffickers, and he's going through, wherever he was, I think it was in France, and he's just, like, shooting and torturing people to get the information he needs to rescue his daughter before it's too late.
Totally fantastical scenario, but In, you know, I think in theory that can be justified.
Prohibition against punishment without due process.
Yeah, in almost all circumstances, but again, I mean, let's say society breaks down.
We're back in the Stone Age.
We don't have a system of law in place, but we need a way to punish dangerous people, segregate them from society, or get rid of them entirely for the sake of, you know, of keeping the order.
And then you need to be able to punish people without any kind of a court system in place.
Like, so these are, you know, I'm just talking about, we were talking about absolute rights, I'm talking about the extreme cases in theory, but I still think there's a point here about rights not being absolute.
It's an interesting question anyway.
Let's see, Steven says, Quoting me, most of the great things of history were done for the sake of legacy.
And he says, sometimes I swear Matt is this close to becoming an atheist.
He almost gets it.
Men like Michelangelo and Mozart weren't trying to glorify God, but themselves.
And what else does greatness need, really?
So you're just presuming to know the intentions of men who created beautiful art, you know, centuries ago.
But if you listen to their own testimony, in particular, Michelangelo, he was, in fact, trying to glorify God.
So, I guess this is what you do if you're an atheist.
You just take an example like that and say, yeah, Michelangelo, he may claim that he was creating all these beautiful, amazing, jaw-dropping, historically significant works of art to glorify God, but I know what he was really up to.
And another comment says, I don't think you understand what stereotype means and how they can be harmful.
Stereotyping is generalizing about a group of people.
When you generalize about someone because they're part of a group, that doesn't mean that that person fits the stereotype.
That's not what stereotyping... Stereotyping is not... does not have to mean that you're taking an individual and saying, oh, they must behave this way because they're part of this group.
In fact, that is not what a stereotype is.
Stereotypes are about groups.
Now, people may come to false conclusions based on stereotypes.
Stereotypes may be applied in ways that are unfair and sort of ridiculous.
That can happen.
But a stereotype is just, yeah, it is a generalization about groups.
But you can only speak about groups in general terms because it's a group.
And it's not going to be, whatever you say in general about a group isn't going to be specifically true about each individual down to the last man.
But you can look at groups of people, whether it's a demographic group or any other group, you can look at a group of people and you can observe tendencies, behavioral traits, all kinds of things.
And you can say, in general, this group of people tends to act this way.
Which is one of the things that makes this group distinct.
I mean, the very fact that you can talk about a group at all, that you can say, here's this group, and then that group.
Being able to do that in the first place means that you're able to stereotype, because you are making generalized observations that distinguish this group from another.
And my only point about stereotyping is that that's all that a stereotype is.
It is an observation that has been made about the tendencies of particular groups.
It's a morally neutral thing.
Whether the tendency that's being observed is negative or positive, it's been observed.
That's the tendency.
And you know, although people can come to false conclusions based on stereotypes, when
you ignore the stereotypes entirely and you pretend that they don't exist, that's going
to lead you to many more false conclusions, I would say.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
If you're a business owner and you need to grow your team, your perfect gift is simple.
You want a smart hiring solution, and look no further than ZipRecruiter.
Right now, ZipRecruiter is giving it to you for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Now, you might be asking how ZipRecruiter is a gift to those who are hiring.
Well, ZipRecruiter uses smart matching technology to identify the most qualified people for a wide range of roles.
ZipRecruiter lets top candidates know when they are a great match for your job to encourage them to apply.
And the bow on top?
Well, if you see a candidate who's a great match for your job, ZipRecruiter makes it easy to send them a personal invite so they're more likely to apply.
Get your hiring wrapped up quickly with ZipRecruiter.
Four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
So, just go to this exclusive web address right now to try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash W-A-L-S-H.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Also, if you've seen the number one streaming comedy in America, Lady Ballers, then you might have seen us mention the creation of a women's razor by Jeremy's.
In case you missed it, check it out.
My man, looking smooth.
Man, you guys weren't kidding.
These Jeremy's razors are amazing.
And did you know that Jeremy's now offers a razor specially designed for women?
And don't forget about Jeremy's shampoo.
And conditioner.
They keep our hair silky and smooth.
Well, that wasn't just a scene in the movie.
That was an actual commercial for a real thing.
Introducing the all-new Women's Razor and Personal Care line by Jeremy's because Jeremy's Razors is all about equal opportunity to shop in the woke-free economy.
And women deserve the same quality, woke-free blades as men.
Jeremy's will make another razor when God makes another gender, which he won't, so it's just gonna be the two razors for two genders.
Plus, we have a new line of personal care products for our better halves, including moisturizing, shave cream, lotion, body wash, and deodorant.
Ladies, go to jeremysrazors.com to get your Jeremy's razor and personal care products today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Well, there are many candidates for today's daily cancellation.
But ultimately, when faced with a surplus of potential cancelees,
I have to simply go with whichever one I find the most personally annoying.
And for that, we turn to Will Ferrell, an actor who, as it happens, and I went back and checked, hasn't starred in a good comedy since 2008 with Step Brothers, but that's not why he's cancelled today.
He's cancelled for this, as The Blaze reports, quote, Actor Will Ferrell told a group of mostly women that it's time for them to take over the world When he gave opening remarks for the Women in Entertainment Gala hosted by the outlet The Hollywood Reporter, Farrell likely earned a spot at the gala because he co-owns a production company focused on female-led television and movie productions called Gloria Sanchez Productions, founded in 2014 as a division of his existing production company.
Farrell went on to plead with actress Kerry Washington to run for president, joking that the gala could start a GoFundMe page to raise money for her campaign.
The Anchorman actor noted that Washington would receive the Equity in Entertainment Award in recognition for her work, quote, amplifying the voices of underrepresented communities in the entertainment industry and beyond.
Now, it's hard for me to imagine an award that could possibly be more meaningless than the Equity in Entertainment Award.
This is an award that would win the award for most meaningless award.
Which somehow would be a more meaningful award than the Equity and Entertainment Award itself.
But also, just for the record, it is of course a total misnomer that black people are underrepresented in the entertainment industry.
In fact, according to the job site Zippia.com, 13% of professional actors are black, which is precisely in line with the overall black population in the United States.
So far from being underrepresented, they are exactly, specifically, correctly represented.
That's not really the point.
Yeah, there was a lot of groveling to quote-unquote people of color going on at the Women in Entertainment Gala, but most of the groveling was to women, as you might expect given the name of the gala.
And on that end, here's Will Ferrell.
Forget about the entertainment world.
Isn't it just time?
Isn't it just time for women to run the planet?
I mean... I'm not just trying to placate you, I swear.
But I don't know what else to do because we, men, we've been running the show since, what, 10,000 BC?
Something like that.
And we're not doing so good.
So, please, can you guys just take over?
Now, I understand this is mostly just the typical Hollywood girl power shtick.
I also realize that this is coming from Will Ferrell, who's not exactly known for his wisdom or insight.
Still, it's worth pointing out that everything he said there, which is the kind of thing you hear all the time these days, is absolute nonsense.
So let's start at the end.
He says that men have been running things since 10,000 BC and we, quote, haven't been doing so good.
Now, it's a bit of a confusing sentence, even leaving aside the poor grammar.
When he says we haven't been doing so good, does he mean that things have started to decline recently?
Or is he saying that we haven't been doing so good the whole time?
Now, if the former doesn't really make sense because men have never been less in charge than they have been in recent years, so if you think things have been going poorly recently, as women have increasingly taken charge, it's hard to see how even more women in charge will fix that, but we'll get back to that in a moment.
On the other hand, if you're saying that men have been screwing things up the entire time, since 10,000 BC, then I guess I need to know how well you think we should be doing at this point.
After all, What have men done since 10,000 BC?
Well, nothing really, I guess, except build civilization.
Almost every major advancement and achievement in the history of mankind since the dawn of human society itself has been made by a man.
Not all of them, but most of them.
I mean, most of them that you can name have been achieved by a man.
That's just a fact.
Things haven't been perfect, of course.
We're talking about the whole span of civilization's existence.
It's not going to be a smooth sailing the whole time, but mostly through male leadership, we went from mud huts to walking on the moon in a few thousand years.
Now, I have nothing to compare it to, neither does Will Ferrell, but I think that's pretty impressive.
That's not bad.
Is that not good enough for Will Ferrell?
Is it not fast enough?
Is there any reason at all to think that women, if they were solely in charge, would have done better?
Is there any reason to think that humanity's prospects in the future will be improved by getting more women into leadership positions?
Well, we don't really have to speculate about that.
You know, society is run through institutions, and those institutions have increasingly elevated women to leadership roles over the past several decades.
And on Will Ferrell's theory, And on the theory of any feminist or anyone else who's adopted this line, we should be able to look around and see that these institutions have measurably and significantly improved due to the rapid, dramatic rise in female leadership.
But do we see that?
Have the deliberate, specific efforts to increase the proportion of women in leadership roles actually helped any institution thrive?
Can you name a single institution that has been improved by these efforts to put more women into positions of leadership?
It's a question.
I posted this question on Twitter yesterday, and predictably, lots of people were very upset at me for asking an uncomfortable question.
Even more predictable, lots of people missed the point entirely and started naming individual women who were great leaders, like Queen Isabella and Catherine the Great, who both presided over governments comprised almost entirely of men, by the way.
But that's besides the point.
I'm not asking whether there have ever been any great individual female leaders in the history of mankind.
Of course there have been.
I'm certainly not asking whether there have ever been any impressive, wonderful, competent, intelligent women in the world.
Obviously there have been many of those.
I should know.
I married one of them.
But the question is whether any institution has been quantifiably improved by the effort to increase as a percentage the number of women in leadership roles.
Perhaps another way of asking this is this.
Has the deliberate feminization of any institution helped it succeed?
Can you look at anything now, after years of trying to get women more involved and into the leadership ranks, and say, wow, that institution is doing way better than it was before?
If you can give an example, then give it.
But I don't think you can.
I don't think anyone can.
I think instead we all recognize, even if we don't want to admit it, that every institution or field that you can name has become less effective and less productive and less competent and less impressive as women have been moved up the ranks and leadership has been diversified.
Now, this is certainly true of the military, academia, law enforcement, the sciences, medicine, even the film industry.
Now, it's true.
You know, and that's true, most of all, by the way, of the two most important institutions in society, which is the church and the family.
The church in this country has fallen apart as it's been feminized, and the institution of the family has done the same, as society has insisted that women should be at the head of it.
You know, you can't deny that the family is much more female-led today than it ever has been in the history of the world, and you also can't really deny that the family is weaker and more unstable than it's ever been in the history of the world.
Now, correlation does not prove causation, but there's a lot of correlation here across basically every institution in the modern world.
Enough to, we might say, seriously call into question the idea that the world can be fixed by putting women in charge of it.
And certainly enough to say that Will Ferrell is, today, cancelled.
