Ep. 1293 - Corrupt Trump Prosecutor Plays The Most Absurd Race Card We’ve Ever Seen
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Fani Willis, the DA in Fulton County, Georgia, is allegedly in a sexual relationship with the man she hired to prosecute Trump. This would seem like a major scandal. But she says that if you have a problem with it, that's only because you're racist. Also, Donald Trump finally goes after Vivek Ramaswamy as the Iowa caucuses get underway. Nikki Haley gets a chance to answer the "can a man become a woman question," and to no one's surprise, she flubs it. Plus, a woman secretly records herself getting fired. The video has gone viral and most people are on the woman's side. I have a different take. I'll explain.
Ep.1293
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get your Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, kids entertainment and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month! Enter promo code: WALSH
https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
Helix - Get 25% off + 2 free pillows with promo code HelixPartner25 at https://helixsleep.com/Walsh
Policygenius - Get your free life insurance quote & see how much you could save: http://policygenius.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, Fannie Willis, the DA in Fulton County, Georgia, is allegedly in a sexual relationship with the man that she hired to prosecute Trump.
This would seem like a major scandal, but she says that if you have a problem with it, that's only because you're racist.
Also, Donald Trump finally goes after Vivek Ramaswamy as the Iowa caucuses get underway.
Nikki Haley gets a chance to answer the can a man become a woman question.
And to no one's surprise, she flubs it.
Plus, a woman secretly records herself getting fired.
The video has gone very viral.
Most people are on the woman's side, but I have a different take.
I'll explain all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
If there's one thing that matters most to me in this life, it's those I love.
And thanks to my friends at Pure Talk, they are beating today's inflation and making it easier to connect with those important people in your life.
If you're like me, there's not a day that goes by that I don't call or text someone I care about.
Well, I never call anybody ever, but I do text sometimes.
It'll take three and a half weeks before I respond to it, but I do respond.
Anyway, don't think about me.
Think about Pure Talk.
Pure Talk gives you phenomenal coverage on America's most dependable 5G network.
It's the same coverage you know and love, but for half the price of the other guys.
With unlimited plans starting at just $20 a month, the average family saves almost $1,000 a year.
As a veteran-owned company, last year alone they raised $10 million towards veterans debt.
What's more, Pure Talk's customer service team is located right here in the U.S.
and can help you make the switch in as little as 10 minutes.
So I challenge you to stand with a company that champions your values today.
Just go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to make the switch.
And right now my viewers will save an additional 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh today.
Welcome to the show from the home office today.
We got four inches of snow here in Nashville.
So once again, that's brought upon the apocalypse as it usually does.
We won't be able to use these roads for probably three and a half months due to the light dusting we just experienced.
But, in any event, let's get into it.
So, three years ago, as BLM rioters torched businesses throughout her state, a little-known woman by the name of Fannie Willis was campaigning to become the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia.
Now, she was running against the incumbent, D.A.
Paul Howard, who hadn't faced a serious challenger in more than two decades.
Now, in normal times, this would have been a long-shot campaign, but Willis knew that the moral panic after George Floyd's overdose death Made district attorneys unpopular all over the country.
She was facing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take out Howard, so she went for it.
Willis's campaign strategy was pretty simple.
She accused Paul Howard of corruption and painted herself as an alternative.
Watch.
Funny Willis spent 17 years employed as a prosecutor by Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard.
Now she faces Howard in Tuesday's runoff, and she's not at all shy about clobbering her former boss when asked about the contest.
I think it's a choice actually between integrity and corruption, good and bad.
I think it's a classic fight and I think that citizens will have to make a choice.
We have a district attorney now that works for his own self-interest, seems to care about the things that benefit him and not the community.
I think it's a choice, actually, between integrity and corruption, good and bad, says Fannie Willis.
That's an argument that resonated in Fulton County, probably because Paul Howard was indeed corrupt.
So, later that year, Willis overwhelmingly defeated Howard and became Fulton County's district attorney.
The problem for residents of Fulton County, Georgia is that Willis's entire campaign turned out to be, as is so often the case in political campaigns, a textbook example of the psychological phenomenon known as projection.
Fannie Willis, we're now learning, is in fact in order of magnitude more corrupt than Paul Howard.
She's not simply accused of skimming a small amount of money from taxpayers or failing to disclose some conflicts of interest.
To be clear, Fannie Willis is accused of both of those things, as I'll explain in a moment.
But unlike Paul Howard, Fannie Willis is also now accused of something far more serious.
She's accused of using taxpayer money to hire her lover.
who's a suburban lawyer with zero experience prosecuting RICO cases, to prosecute the former President of the United States on the single most untested, strained application of RICO law that's ever been conceived.
In other words, Fannie Willis is so interested in this guy that she's willing to engage in a little election interference for him, allegedly.
And she's charging her constituents to do it.
These accusations against Wills came in a court filing from Mike Roman, one of the Trump staffers who made the mistake of trying to seat an alternate slate of electors back in 2020.
Not that, you know, the law and history matter anymore, but it is worth pointing out that attempting to seat an alternate slate of electors is something that's always been legal in this country.
It was legal back in 1960 when John F. Kennedy's campaign did it for good reason.
Creating an alternate slate of electors makes sense when a campaign suspects election fraud because they want to give Congress the opportunity to use their electors if the fraud is ultimately discovered.
Nothing about the process is scandalous, nothing about it is new, and it's all completely illogical.
But the idea of alternate electors is apparently illegal now because the orange man is bad and so forth, so Fulton County is prosecuting Roman.
And in response, Roman proceeded to blow Fannie Willis' love affair wide open.
Watch.
Explosive allegations tonight from one of former President Donald Trump's co-defendants right here in Georgia.
He has some pretty bold claims about Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis.
Atlanta News First anchor Torrey Cooper has been digging through that court filing.
So Torrey, what are they actually claiming here?
Well tonight, former Trump campaign staffer Michael Roman and his attorney Ashley Merchant are claiming District Attorney Fonny Willis had an inappropriate and romantic relationship with the top prosecutor in the case, Nathan Wade.
In this new court filing obtained by Atlanta News First, Michael Roman and his attorneys are accusing the Fulton County D.A.
Fonny Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade of having an inappropriate and romantic relationship and that the two benefited from it.
The suit claims Willis and Wade took lavish vacations together and that he used part of his salary from the D.A.' 's office to travel with Willis.
Roman's attorney claims they discovered that the two went on trips together, quote, outside of court filings.
The suit goes on to claim their relationship began before Wade was appointed to the case.
They claim Willis also failed to get county approval to appoint Wade as special prosecutor in the case.
Roman's attorneys are now asking the court to disqualify both of them from prosecuting the Rico case and to drop all of Roman's charges.
Roman's attorneys wouldn't comment any further tonight, and Fannie Willis' office told us they will be responding to Roman's suit through proper court filings.
Now, the news people seem kind of surprised by this accusation, but they really shouldn't be.
If they were keeping track, they'd remember that this is not the first time that Fannie Willis has gotten into trouble over a serious conflict of interest.
A year ago, a judge in Georgia barred Willis from investigating one of Trump's alleged fraudulent electors, a state senator named Burt Jones.
Why did she get barred from that?
Well, because Fannie Willis hosted a fundraiser for a Democrat running against Jones for his seat.
This is something that no serious prosecutor or anybody with an IQ above room temperature would have ever done.
To reiterate, Fannie Willis literally raised money For someone who was running against the defendant she was trying to throw in prison.
I played this clip last year, but it's worth revisiting because of how remarkable it is.
Here's the judge, who, by the way, judge is not exactly the picture of masculinity, but he's doing his best to dress down Fannie Willis in the most deferential way possible.
But even this judge, who's clearly on her side and doesn't want to have to deal with this, even he still has something to say about how egregious this is.
Watch.
Using the title of your office I don't know that it's an actual conflict, but I use that phrase, what were you thinking, where the prosecutor thought I could prosecute the codefendant of someone I defended.
It's a what are you thinking moment.
The optics are horrific.
If you are trying to have the public believe that this is a non-partisan, driven by the facts, and I'm not here to critique decisions, the decision was made, but if we are trying to maintain confidence that this investigation is pursuing facts in a non-partisan sense, no matter who the district attorney is, we follow the evidence where it goes and ignore the fact that I hosted a fundraiser for the political opponent of someone I've just named a target.
That strikes me as problematic.
So, like I said, the judge doesn't exactly lay the hammer down.
He could have been a lot more forthright, shall we say.
But in his own wishy-washy way, even he is shocked by her behavior.
And this is the moment that Willis should have been disqualified from prosecuting any of these Trump criminal cases.
Frankly, she should have been investigated by the state bar and maybe suspended from practicing law.
It was that bad.
But she wasn't.
She got this milquetoast effeminate scolding, and she was allowed to continue making a complete mockery of the judicial system, and that's exactly what she's done.
To be clear, yes, Mike Roman's accusations against Fannie Willis are unproven as of now, but they were made public last week, and Willis remained silent at the time.
This is the kind of thing that you'd think a prosecutor would immediately deny.
I mean, if it's not true, Then there's no reason to not come out and say, that's not true, that's totally made up, you're insane.
But she didn't say that.
Instead, Willis waited until Sunday to address Roman's accusations, and she chose to deliver her remarks addressing this claim of a major scandal.
She chose to address it not in front of the press, who could have asked her some follow-up questions, not that the press necessarily would have even done that, but instead she chose to address it in front of a sympathetic audience at a black church in Atlanta.
At no point in her speech, which lasted more than 30 minutes, and we'll look at a few clips of it, at no point did Willis deny the accusations against her, which is You know, effectively the same as admitting that they're true.
Instead, she launched into maybe the single most brazen attempt to play the race card in the history of this country.
I mean, this is one of the worst.
I know that's saying something.
This is somehow even worse than Claudine Gay saying you're racist if you care about plagiarism.
It's even more preposterous than Marion Barry, the former D.C.
mayor, implying that you hate black people if you're upset that he's on camera buying crack in hotel rooms.
Somehow, it's even more Obnoxious and egregious than any of that.
Just watch and marvel at this.
But dear God, are you listening?
Why does Commissioner Thorne and so many others question my decision in a special counsel?
Lord, your flaw of hard-headed and imperfect child, I'm a little confused.
I appointed three special counsel, as is my right to do.
Paid them all the same hourly rate.
They only attacked one.
I hired one white woman, a good personal friend and great lawyer.
A superstar, I tell you.
I hired one white man, brilliant, my friend, and a great lawyer.
And I hired one black man, another superstar, a great friend, and a great lawyer.
Oh Lord, they gonna be mad when I call them out on this nonsense.
First thing they say, oh she gonna play the race card now.
But no God, isn't it them who's playing the race card when they only question one?
This is the kind of race card gambit that you very rarely see.
This is like trying to shoot the moon.
Here you have the person who's playing the race card trying to imply that you're playing the race card by noticing that she's playing the race card.
So she's playing, to mix our card game analogy, she's playing kind of the reverse racism UNO card.
It's astonishing to watch, mainly because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The sheer incoherence is incredible to behold.
Her argument appears to be that she hired three special prosecutors and two of them are white.
And everybody's upset about the black guy, so clearly everybody is racist.
But she's just not going to mention the accusation that she's having sex with the black guy.
That's the thing that makes the black guy notable over the white guys.
She's not having sex with the white guys, she's having sex with the black guy.
And she's the one who chose the black guy to have sex with.
If anyone's guilty of discrimination, she's the one who chose to have the affair with that guy, not the other guys.
And that's the issue here.
But all of that is completely immaterial, according to Fannie Willis.
She's also not going to talk about how this job has made this special prosecutor hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money.
Money that he has reportedly used to take Fannie Willis on vacations to the Caribbean and Napa Valley.
It's hard to believe, but somehow, Willis has managed to, with this scandal and her response to it, she's managed to discredit a prosecution that nobody ever took seriously to begin with.
She has managed to divide by zero.
She has removed credibility from something that had none to begin with.
I mean, nobody ever seriously believed that the brilliant legal scholars working in the government in Fulton County, Georgia were going to be able to prosecute a RICO case against the presidential frontrunner for the crime of challenging election results.
Everyone knew it would be a disaster, but even given those low expectations, Willis has managed to impressively tank her case even further.
And by the end of this, you know, the prosecutors might be the ones going to jail, or they should be.
But Willis appears to be too stupid to realize that, at least as of now.
So she just kept on talking.
Listen.
You cannot expect black women to be perfect and save the world.
The Lord is completing us.
We are not perfect.
We need your prayers.
We need to be allowed to stumble.
We need grace.
With that kind of support, we will move mountains and do Jesus's will.
Stumbling all the way.
Now, put aside the implication that it's the will of God to have Donald Trump arrested.
She says, quote, you cannot expect black women to be perfect and save the world.
But of course, nobody expects or is asking for either of those things.
And what you hear here, this is one of the most bizarre fantasies on the left, which is that black women are somehow especially persecuted, while also being especially gifted and courageous and heroic.
But the reality, of course, is that black women are not persecuted at all.
In fact, they're among the least persecuted and oppressed people in the world, in the history of the world.
In fact, they're given preferential treatment in virtually every aspect of American life, in the media, corporate hiring, college admissions.
The intersectional math, the victim hierarchy, works wildly in their favor.
Willis got a million positive profiles in the media simply for being a black woman who's prosecuting Donald Trump.
And everybody knows this, which is why people like Willis constantly have to remind us that they're victims.
So the whole speech went on like this.
A few minutes later, after some more self-pity, Fannie Willis reiterated that God wants her to prosecute the presidential frontrunner.
She kind of sneaks that in every now and then, and then she goes back to self-pity.
Listen.
I'm here to tell you something, and it may make some of y'all a little uncomfortable.
God's using ordinary people to do extraordinary things.
[APPLAUSE]
I come real regular.
In fact, when I meet people, that's what they say.
Real regular.
You don't have no errors about yourself.
And I say, well, how come?
I come from regular folk.
I ain't got no pedigree.
I'm not a member of any of those elite organizations.
And one more thing.
I'm as flawed as they come.
But there is something special about me.
It's my willingness to love people.
I love people of every political party.
Different viewpoints.
Different races.
Different sexualities.
And one thing you will come to learn about me is I make sure everyone else is good.
and sometimes I'm not.
(audience applauding)
Fannie Willis is a great person, says Fannie Willis.
She's also really humble, and she's grounded.
Oh, and she's carrying on God's plan to take out the political enemies of the Democratic Party.
Any questions?
Well, no, of course there's no questions.
She deliberately addressed this in a venue where there are no questions allowed.
In fact, she went to a venue where people literally shout amen.
That's where she decided to go to talk about this major scandal.
Now, it's worth pausing for a moment.
Just to emphasize that Willis is not an exception on the left.
You know, she's not the only prominent leftist to make a mockery of Christianity like this.
Remember, it was the governor of New York who went to a church and told Christian worshipers that, quote, God wants you to be vaccinated.
And now we have Fannie Willis telling us that God wants to incarcerate the GOP presidential frontrunner.
And the enemies of the faith always do this.
They can't help themselves.
They desperately want to use Christian beliefs to advance their cause, even as they hate Christians.
And every time it comes off as hammy and laughable and incredibly cynical and transparent.
They think that if they bastardize Christianity through politics, they can use the faith to control Christians.
Fannie Willis knows she has no defense for what she's done.
But instead of taking ownership for it, which is what Christians would tell you to do.
Yes, as Christians, we believe no human being is perfect.
We believe in mercy.
We believe in forgiveness.
But we also know that there's no forgiveness without repentance.
And we're not hearing any repentance from her, far from it.
And by the way, even if we do forgive someone as a Christian for doing something, let's say engaging in a political scandal, even if you forgive them, which would require repentance, which required admission of guilt, repentance, that doesn't mean that you forget about it and then say, oh yeah, they're still qualified to be a DA prosecuting a former president.
Of course not.
So she's trying to invoke Christianity while understanding nothing about it.
I mean, it's doubtful she's ever opened a Bible in her entire life.
Right?
She doesn't know.
She probably couldn't, like, list the gospel.
She probably thinks that Pontius Pilate was, like, an airline captain.
Okay?
And for what it's worth, along with trying to invoke the Bible, she also invoked history that she doesn't understand as well.
Towards the end of her speech, she, for good measure, compared herself to Martin Luther King Jr.
Watch.
He was an extremely special, brilliant, godly man.
But he was just a man.
And his journey was full of mistakes, pitfalls, pain, and ugliness.
Despite all of that, he overcame those things, and he changed the entire world.
See, I know we are at a time in history Some of y'all may have forgotten, when Dr. King was alive, he was attacked for his stance on the Vietnam War.
Some of y'all might have forgotten that scandal the FBI tried to do on personal indiscretions they had.
Some of y'all forgot that.
But now that same FBI will take a day off to celebrate Dr. King.
Because my words said he will make it in your footstool.
Yes, MLK made mistakes, just like Fannie Willis.
Of course, MLK's quote-unquote mistakes included being a communist, an adulterer, and allegedly watching and laughing as a woman was raped.
That's the mistakes that she's referring to.
Maybe Fannie Willis is trying to tell us something here.
Maybe there are more shoes to drop.
I don't know.
Maybe the FBI is going to come after her, too.
Somehow that seems unlikely given that in this comparison it's Fannie Willis doing exactly what the FBI wants her to do by trying to take out Donald Trump.
But it's not worth thinking too deeply about anything Fannie Willis said because there's really no meaning in any of it.
It's all just misdirection.
So we're left with the substance of the accusations against Fannie Willis, which she effectively admitted are true in her remarks on Sunday.
You know, when someone accuses you of something and you don't deny it, and instead you say, hey, nobody's perfect, well, like, that's as close you can come to admitting it without admitting it.
And what this means is that the Fulton County prosecution of Donald Trump isn't just politically motivated, it's not just completely meritless on the law.
We knew that already.
What's new is that this prosecution, which again is the prosecution of the leading candidate for the President of the United States, is also motivated by a corrupt prosecutor's desire to shower her boyfriend with vacations to the Caribbean and Napa Valley, and also shower herself with those things by extension.
And that's what these people mean when they say that they're defending democracy.
This is what they mean when they accuse you of racism, when they invoke MLK in the Bible.
They don't understand or believe anything they're saying.
And that's been obvious to anyone who's been paying attention for years.
And now, thanks to yesterday's performance by Fannie Willis, it's hopefully obvious to everyone.
Now, let's get to our five headlines.
You know, I've been talking about my Helix mattress for years.
Helix is the gift that keeps on giving.
Every night when I go to bed, I'm reminded of how great they are.
Helix is now introducing their newest, most high-end collection, Helix Elite.
Helix Elite harnesses years of extensive mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience.
This collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be.
Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress because why do you want to buy a mattress that was made for somebody else you don't?
So you got to go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz.
and find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type.
Your mattress will come right to your door for free.
Plus Helix has a 10 year warranty and you get to try it out for a hundred nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
Their financing options and flexible payment plans make it so that a great night's sleep is never far away.
Helix is offering 25% of all mattress orders and two free pillows for my listeners.
Go to helixsleep.com/walsh and use code helixpartner25.
This is their best offer yet and it won't last long.
That's helixsleep.com/walsh and use code helixpartner25 with Helix.
Better sleep starts now.
The Iowa caucuses get underway today.
In the lead up to the big day, there was this.
This is a report from Mediaite.
Donald Trump turned his sights on his biggest supporter among the GOP primary challengers on Saturday, taking aim at Vivek Ramaswamy.
Telling supporters the Republican businessman is not MAGA, in a post on Truth Social, and his surrogates are unleashing hell too.
Trump is on his way to Iowa for the caucus vote, which take place in record cold temperatures.
Trump said overnight that the weather might benefit his campaign in the state,
and apparently he also thinks shaving off any support for Ramaswamy would as well,
because he finally took a hard shot at the one primary challenger
who is by far the least likely to fire back.
Vivek, a lot of editorializing in this article, but forget about that.
Vivek started his campaign as a great supporter.
This is, I'm quoting now Trump.
Vivek started his campaign as a great supporter.
The best president in generations, et cetera.
Unfortunately, now all he does is disguise his support in the form of deceitful campaign tricks.
Very sly, but a vote for Vivek is a vote for the other side.
"Don't get duped by this," said Trump.
"Vote for Trump, don't waste your vote.
"Vivek is not MAGA.
"The Biden indictments against his political opponent "will never be allowed in this country.
"They are already beginning to fall MAGA!"
Exclamation point, exclamation point.
So, And then a lot of Trump surrogates joined in.
So that was the attack launched on Vivek.
Now, as you might expect, there's been a lot of discussion about this, a lot of consternation, a lot of controversy.
And as for Trump going after Vivek, I don't really care about that.
It's politics.
I like Vivek.
I agree with much of what he says and much of what he plans to do, as I've been clear about this whole time.
But when I hear him getting attacked by a political opponent, does that offend me?
No, this is politics.
This is what you do in politics.
You try to beat the other guy, you go after him.
Now, Vivek has chosen a campaign strategy where he just never criticizes Trump ever under any circumstance.
And that's his strategy.
He's obviously doing it because he thinks it'll be successful.
We'll see if it plays out.
I mean, I tend to be Extremely skeptical of a strategy like that.
That doesn't mean that you have to obsessively attack Trump.
It doesn't mean that you have to attack him on the left's terms, using the left's language, which obviously you shouldn't do.
But if you're running against the guy, you've got to criticize him.
You have to criticize him directly.
You have to explain, if you want to beat him, you have to explain why he shouldn't be the guy who wins and you should be.
Again, it's politics, and if anyone's offended by that on either side, it's silly.
Now, and if you thought that Trump would permanently remain on friendly terms with his political opponent, well then, I don't know what to say to you.
I mean, naive is a word that is not strong enough to describe you in that case.
But here's what I will say, though.
You know, I noticed on social media, as many people noticed, That lots of previous fans of Vivek suddenly, in that moment, as soon as Trump gave his marching orders, turned on him.
Like, lots of people who thought that Vivek was great suddenly decided that he's awful.
And if you're one of those people, that says a lot more about you than it does about either of those guys.
You know, if you're prepared to actually change your opinion about someone or something in a split second, switching on a dime because a politician told you to, then that's truly pathetic.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that all Trump supporters made this switch.
In fact, from what I can tell, just a casual look on social media from what I can see, Would show that most Trump supporters have been saying, hey, I still like Vivek.
I'm voting for Trump, but I still like Vivek.
I've seen a lot of that.
And that is a perfectly reasonable way of responding.
But I have seen some who, I mean, literally in the span of like an hour, went from loving the guy to hating him.
And there has also been that.
That is a surrendering of your critical thinking capacity.
You know, that is like outsourcing it to someone else, which is never a good idea, no matter who that other person is.
So that doesn't mean that your opinion of Vivek can't change, right?
Your opinion of any politician should actually change depending on circumstance, depends on like what they're doing and saying.
So you should be prepared to change your opinion of any politician.
But a sudden switch from he's great to he's horrible, he's not one of us, he's a traitor, like just like that.
Is really impossible to defend.
All right.
Speaking of impossible to defend Nikki Haley spoke at a virtual event in Iowa.
She's not actually in Iowa as far as I know but she called into some kind of virtual town hall type of thing.
And.
You know, she's going to lose anyway in Iowa, so it doesn't matter.
You know, lose Iowa and the primary.
I mean, she's going to lose both.
But in any case, there was one noteworthy moment.
Someone asked Haley a question that she should have been prepared to answer.
And she should have been prepared to answer because Trump was famously asked the same question, infamously asked the same question, by Megyn Kelly.
Not all that long ago.
Also, it's a version of one of the most famous questions of this century.
Especially if you're on the right, which Nikki Haley supposedly is.
So it's a question that you should at least have an answer for.
For those reasons and also because, most importantly, because it's a really easy question to answer.
It's like the easiest question in the world to answer.
And the question is, can a man become a woman?
Which of course is an offshoot of what is a woman.
And let's hear how Haley handled that.
Our last question, John.
John, you're live from Dubuque.
Hi, Ambassador.
Hi, John.
A lot of the stuff that Trump does, you know, and says really bothers me
and I'm concerned about it.
You know, one thing I saw him do was he said that, uh, you know, he had trouble answering
the question. Could a man become a woman? And I'm just wondering what what your response to
that question is now. Can a man become a woman? There's been a lot that's been talked about when
it comes to all of these roles and all of these issues. I strongly believe that we should not
allow any gender change surgeries to anyone before the age of 18.
Period.
Kids now can't get a tattoo until they're 18.
We shouldn't have them permanently change their body until they're 18.
And that includes puberty blockers.
That includes any sort of hormones that would do that.
After the age of 18, we want to make sure people can live any way they want to live.
I don't think government needs to be in control of anybody's life.
You go live the way you want to live.
You should be free to live the way you want to live.
And government and everybody else should stay out of your way.
But prior to 18, it is an important time, especially when you're going through your teenage years.
It can be confusing.
I don't think we should ever in any way have any sort of permanent changes.
But after 18, I'm not going to say anything.
I think that You know, you always have to believe in freedom and allowing people to live the life the way they want to live.
And if that's how they choose, then, you know, I don't think government should have any say in that.
Now, I'll say the same thing on this that I said when Trump dropped the ball on this question.
You know, when somebody asks, can a man become a woman?
It's okay to give a long answer and elaborate.
But the first word in your answer should be no.
Now, if the first word is hell, because the second word is no, well, that's fine too.
But the first thing you should be able to do is definitively, and with no equivocation, declare that a man is not a woman and can never become one.
It's not a hard question.
It's not a trick question.
It's not a difficult or confusing question.
And your ability to answer the question does matter a lot.
If you cannot speak honestly about an issue as simple and clear as this, if you are so cowed and intimidated that you will pretend not to understand basic biological realities, if you are this beholden to the radical LGBT lobby, that means you can't be trusted as a leader.
I mean, like, take two people, right?
Just, like, two generic people.
You know nothing about either of them.
They're both running for political office.
And one is asked if a man can become a woman, and immediately answers no.
The other is asked the same question, then goes off on some lengthy tangent, and doesn't answer the question at all.
And now you have to decide which you will trust to be a clear, honest leader who acts with clarity and purpose regardless of the political lens, and you only have that to go on.
Who are you going to choose based on that performance?
Certainly not Nikki Haley.
You know, and it's no surprise that Nikki Haley fails this test.
And she fails it even though, you know, even while trying to present herself as this, like, no-nonsense girl power, you know, she's gonna go in there and break up the good old boys club and she's gonna tell it like it is and all that kind of stuff.
That's how she presents herself.
And yet she gets this basic question that, by the way, As a woman, she should be particularly ready to answer.
Not because only women can know the answer, but because she should be especially eager to defend the dignity of womanhood, which, as we know, the trans agenda is constantly waging an assault on.
So, she's nothing but a fraud.
No big surprise there, I suppose.
Moving on to this, Fox News says the Federal Aviation Administration is actively recruiting workers who suffer severe intellectual disabilities, psychiatric problems, and other mental and physical conditions under a diversity and inclusion hiring initiative spelled out on the agency's website.
The FAA's website states, Targeted disabilities are those disabilities that the federal government, as a matter of policy, has identified for special emphasis in recruitment and hiring.
They include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability, and dwarfism.
The initiative is part of the FAA's Diversity and Inclusion Hiring Plan, which says diversity is integral to achieving FAA's mission of ensuring safe and efficient travel across our nation and beyond.
The FAA's website shows the agency's guidelines on diversity hiring were last updated on March 23rd, 2022.
So, this is part of their diversity efforts is to get in people with disabilities.
Now, in fairness, just so that we don't engage in any clickbait hyperbole here, this doesn't mean that United Airlines or Southwest is going to go and hire a blind, mentally disabled dwarf to be a commercial pilot.
Now, I wouldn't Wouldn't be surprised if we get to that point, but that's not what this means, at least not yet.
There are a lot of other jobs in the airline industry generally, a lot of other jobs in the FAA.
And people who defend this policy or any DEI policy will argue that, you know, they still have the same hiring standards in place that they always have.
So if they hire somebody with a physical disability or a psychiatric problem, that person is still going to have to pass all the same tests and demonstrate his fitness in the same way as anybody else, which means that if they get the job, then they're qualified.
And that's the claim, right?
That's the DEI defense.
And in theory, That could be true in some cases.
Like, if there's a job filing paperwork or whatever at the FAA office, there's no reason why somebody who's hearing impaired couldn't be perfectly qualified to do that job.
So, in theory, someone who happens to fulfill a DEI quota doesn't need to be unqualified.
In theory.
But if that's all that was happening, right?
If they were just letting anybody apply and then hiring the best of that crop, then you wouldn't need DEI because that was already the case.
Okay?
But I'm pretty sure that prior to this DEI standard being put up on the website or updated in 2022, prior to that, You know, you could be a hearing impaired person and get a job filing paperwork at the FAA or whatever.
I mean, that was already the case.
So when you add in DEI, you're adding in something extra.
And what are you adding in?
Well, the moment you say, we need to get more of this sort of person into these positions.
You're looking at a particular demographic, whether it's disabled, whether it's black people, whether it's women, and you're looking at demographics and saying, we need more of them specifically.
You're not saying, we need more qualified people.
You're saying, we need more of those people.
And even if you're saying, we need the most qualified of those people into this position, even if that's what you're saying, which even that is not actually, like, that would be better.
That would still be terrible.
That would be better than what they're actually doing.
But the moment you do that, then you are going to end up lowering standards.
Because with the current standards, before DEI, whatever the standards were, you had however many people you had in whatever demographic.
And if you want more of that demographic, the standards are going to get lowered.
Because with the standards up here, you had X number of people in your favorite demographic, So if you want to get even more, then that means the standards are going down here.
And it's insane.
It's insane on many levels.
It's especially insane because to begin with, if you're looking at the airline industry and you say, well, we have a minority of women or we have a minority of black people or we have a minority of disabled people, that's not a problem.
Like, why is that a problem?
If the ranks are full of people who are qualified, and few of the qualified people happen to be female or black or whatever, who cares?
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't make a difference.
It's not a problem that needs to be solved.
As long as you're bringing in the most qualified people, whatever the demographic makeup happens to be at the end of that, doesn't matter.
It's not a problem.
And so if No one is black that ends up in that camp, not a problem.
Everyone is black, also not a problem, as long as race is not taken into account at all and you're just hiring the best people.
But again, that's not how it goes.
And here's the CEO of United making it clear how it really works.
How is diversity and diversity targets working into the Aviate Academy?
We have committed that 50% of the classes will be women or people of color.
Today, only 19% of our pilots at United Airlines are women or people of color.
And by the way, from all the data I've seen, that's the highest of any airline in the country.
White males don't just dominate in the cockpits, also in the C-suite at United Airlines.
Well, look, at United, I'm proud of the diversity that we actually have in our C-suite.
I think if you look around corporate America, Correct me if I'm saying though, so this is just based off your website, the people you list as executives, but out of 11 people, three are women.
I believe one is a person of color.
That's correct.
But, you know, in corporate America, I think, you know... That's a low bar.
How do you raise your own bar?
Well, a lot of this is, you know, focusing on it.
We have programs to... One of the things we do is for every job when we do an interview, we require women and people of color to be involved in the interview process, bringing people in early in their careers as well and giving them those opportunities.
Yeah, you know, you got to get those white males out of there, right?
You know, the white males, you know, the people that have made air travel into the safest form of travel that's ever existed.
The form of travel where you're 35,000 feet in the air and going 400 miles an hour, and that's the safest.
And the people who predominantly achieved that were white males.
And so, how do we thank them?
Let's get them at it.
And when I say that the people who predominantly achieved that are white males, I'm not making that up.
The proponents of DEI are the first to say that.
They're the ones who are going to look at it and say, well, historically, it's been a white male-dominated field.
Okay, so you're the one saying that.
Okay, well, also, historically, what has this field achieved?
Those white males who were dominating the field, were they doing poorly?
Was there an issue?
Was there a problem?
Were they screwing up?
No!
The people who not only invented human flight to begin with, were white males.
And then the people who, even according to the DEI proponents, who made it unbelievably safe, were also predominantly white males.
So yeah, we gotta get them out.
Gotta get those numbers down.
This is what we're doing.
We're saying, OK, here's an industry that's doing fantastically well, has achieved feats unknown to mankind.
What's the demographic predominantly responsible for that?
Let's single them out and then try to get rid of them.
And that's what they're doing now.
It is suicide.
Well, I was going to say it's suicidal, but it's not really because the CEO of United probably isn't even flying.
Like, he's probably flying private.
You know, he's not back in coach on a United flight.
So, it's not suicidal for him.
I bet you he wants to make sure the people flying his planes that he's on are the most qualified.
So, no, it's not suicidal, really.
It's homicidal, actually, is what it is.
All right, finally, A few days ago, we talked about Lil Nas X and the blasphemous, sacrilegious promo campaign for his upcoming new single called J Christ.
And I pointed out how the images of him on a cross and images of him taking shots of communion wine, et cetera, are indeed sacrilegious and disgusting.
But on top of that, the whole thing is stale and played out.
Pop stars have been trying to get attention by blaspheming Christianity for decades.
Um, there's nothing rebellious or interesting about it.
And, um, and now the song is out and I just want to play a quick clip because the song is, this is all supposed to promote.
I think it kind of proves a point, but here's the song.
Listen.
Yeah, bust down chain, that was 30 bits.
Bust down wrist, that's my bust down 30 inch.
Walk up in the club, pop me like it was double mint.
Looking for a ting, we only settle when it's settlements.
Let 'em slide, yeah.
That shit wasn't quiet, yeah.
Now I'm on the ride, yeah.
I'm finna take it higher, OK.
Let 'em slide, yeah.
That shit wasn't quiet, yeah.
Tell 'em come outside, baby.
We ain't trying to hide.
I'm out, I'm out, I'm ready.
You know when I'm back, it's all for take.
You know that I'm ready for everything.
You know I play, it's all for case.
Is he onto something?
Only I know.
Is he about to hit a with the high?
I know.
OK, so that's about enough of that.
And look, again, sacrilegious, gross, the guy's a degenerate creep, all of that is true.
But the music itself, the music, is so incredibly bland and empty and vacuous that you can't even really be offended by it.
Even though it is objectively offensive, you can't be offended because it's so It's just nothing.
And you listen to the lyrics.
Bust down chain, that was 30 bands.
Bust down wrist, match my bust down 30 inch.
Walk up in the club, poppin' like it was double mint.
Lookin' for a 10, we only settle when it's settlements.
Now I'm on Mariah, I'm finna take it higher.
Okay.
It's not anything.
These are not even thoughts.
It doesn't mean anything.
And the words don't have any relation to the images on screen.
This guy's too stupid and too dead inside to actually write a song with a sacrilegious message.
He can communicate the sacrilegious stuff through the images in the music video.
That's easy enough to do.
And I'm sure if he could, he would love to write a song that is also sacrilegious, but he can't even do that because he's too stupid.
He has the IQ of a grasshopper and he can't figure that out.
So, you know what I always want to ask these people?
Here's my question.
Like, when you were writing this song, and I know that Lil Nas X is such a moron that he couldn't even write this song himself, I'm sure it has 47 writers, but pretending that he wrote it all by himself, I would ask, when you were writing it, what were you feeling?
What emotion were you trying to convey?
The most basic, most entry-level thing that a piece of art should be able to do is convey at least the emotion of the artist.
Great art can do a whole lot more than just conveying an emotion, but at the very least, I should be able to listen to your song, or read your poem, or look at your painting, or whatever, and I should be able to tell that when you composed this piece of art, you were feeling sad, or happy, or forlorn, or anxious, or you were having feelings of awe, feelings of longing, feelings of love, feelings of hatred, maybe all of these things together.
Art at a minimum should convey human emotion.
It should at least be able to do that.
But this crap, I mean this stuff that passes for music, it doesn't even do that.
There's no emotion in it.
There's no feeling, there's no thought.
So often, I guess my point is that very often we'll look at this kind of music and we will point out, I will point out.
That it's incoherent, there's no message, there's no... There's nothing.
There's no kind of story being told.
It's just a bunch of words.
And that's true.
But even below that, it's worse than that.
Because on top of being intellectually incoherent, it's also emotionally incoherent.
It would be possible.
In fact, This is something that even kind of crappy pop music used to be able to do.
You go back to like the 90s when I was growing up and some of the bands and pop stars at the time Yeah, if you went back and looked at the lyrics, they're kind of like incoherent.
Or not kind of, in some cases very incoherent.
But there's at least like a feeling that comes out of it.
And so you feel a certain way and you can tell that the artist is trying to convey, trying to elicit that emotion.
We don't even have that anymore.
Now there's nothing in this stuff at all.
There's nothing there.
Emotionally, intellectually, there's no message.
There's no feeling.
There's no heart of any kind in any of it.
It's just totally empty, bland, vacuous.
Which means it's not music, actually.
It really isn't.
Only on a very technical level, it's music.
Maybe in the same way that you could probably find Not probably.
I mean, there are plenty of AIs out there and chatbots and so on that could write a poem, right?
And it's really easy to find one that could do that.
Because on a technical level, you know, you've got stanzas, you've got the structure of a poem, and so, yeah, an AI can compose one.
But it's not really poetry.
Because it's not human.
There's no poet there.
On a technical level, you can, but you can't have real poetry without a poet.
And an AI is not a poet.
And I think it's the same thing here.
So when we say this is not real music, and then you always have musicians like, well, no, you don't know anything about music.
Technically, you've got this and that, and you've got the melody.
Yeah, I know all the components are there.
But the component that's missing is any kind of humanity.
The component that's really missing is heart.
And if you don't have that in art, then it's not really art.
It's sounds and words strung together to resemble something approaching art, but it's not actually that.
Start the new year off knowing that you found the right life insurance to protect your family with PolicyGenius.
PolicyGenius makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from top companies and find your lowest price.
Their license agents work for you, not the insurance companies.
That means you can trust their guidance because they don't have an incentive to recommend one insurer over another.
There are no added fees and your personal information is kept private.
A good life insurance plan can give you peace of mind that if something happens to you, your family will be able to cover Mortgage payments, college costs, or other expenses.
Life insurance through your workplace may not offer enough protection for your family's needs and it won't follow you if you leave your job.
Since life insurance typically gets more expensive as we age, now's the time to buy health.
PolicyGenius makes the process so much easier.
With PolicyGenius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage.
Some options offer a same-day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams.
Save time and money.
It's the signature razor from Jeremy's Razors, the Precision 5.
Get one handle plus one blade cartridge kit for only $14.99.
or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com/walsh.
It's the signature razor from Jeremy's Razors, the Precision 5. Get one handle plus one blade cartridge kit for only $14.99.
It's crafted with a luxurious tungsten handle, five welded steel blades, and a precision trimmer for a
close smooth shave around hairlines and hard-to-reach places.
That's Precision 5 starts at $14.99 and with a price so low, it has never been easier to stop giving your money to woke
corporations that hate you. Join over 200,000 customers who have ditched their woke razors and switched to Jeremy's.
There's never been a better time. Go to jeremysrazors.com today. Now, let's get to our daily cancellation.
[Music]
Another Daily Cancellation, another viral video that everyone has an opinion about, and most of the opinions are wrong, as usual.
And this time, it's a young lady named Brittany Peach, who recently recorded, secretly recorded, and posted a video of herself getting fired from her sales job with a tech company called Cloudflare.
Apparently Brittany, like literally every other employee who's ever been fired from any position ever, disagrees with her termination and feels that she deserves to keep her job.
Her employer feels otherwise, and as it usually goes in this sort of situation, her employer's opinion on the matter prevails.
After all, when your boss fires you, the decision has already been made.
They aren't asking you if you're okay with it or how you feel about it.
They're not taking a poll on the subject.
They're not bringing you in and sitting you down and saying, you know, if you're okay with it, we're going to fire you.
It doesn't go that way.
They are informing you that you are fired, and that's it.
There's almost certainly nothing you can say when you're getting that unfortunate talk.
There's almost certainly nothing you can say to change their mind.
The decision has already been made.
And so the only thing you can do is decide how you'll handle it.
Whether you'll handle it, first of all, with some dignity and class and not start groveling And also, if you will respond in a way that will increase or decrease your chances of getting another job.
When you're getting fired, this is a big moment in your career.
It might be the end of this current job, but it's a pivotal moment in your career
because whether or not you get a better job in the future will hinge in large part on how you respond in this moment,
both in the moment and in the moments that come after.
Well, unfortunately, Brittany has chosen to respond in a way that's going to hinder her chances
of getting another job because she has decided to respond by secretly recording the meeting
and posting it to TikTok for sympathy and clout, which will absolutely ensure
that every potential employer in the future will be very wary about hiring her,
and most will immediately toss her resume in the garbage five seconds after they Google her name,
which they will all do.
But even though Britney has decided to implode her career on camera for all to see, she's still being cheered by the vast majority of the peanut gallery.
They're very impressed with the video and her performance in it.
So before we go any further, we should probably watch some of this video.
First, here she is getting the bad news.
Listen.
We finished our evaluations of 2023 performance.
This is where you have not met Cloudflare expectations for performance.
We've decided to part ways with you.
Yeah, I'm going to stop right there.
Um, so I started August 25th.
I've been on a three month ramp and then it was three weeks of December and then a week of Christmas.
And then here we are.
Um, I have had the highest activity amongst my team.
Um, since I've started, I have had three contracts out.
I've done a really great job managing my deals up until the very end that decided not to close last minute.
So I don't think that that makes a lot of sense for me and my Cloudflare journey here so far.
Also, every single one-on-one I've had with my manager, every conversation I've had with him, he has been giving me nothing but, I am doing a great job, I have had great activity, I have really great meetings, picking up the products very quickly and
Things have been going really really well. I make really great relationships with my clients
So I disagree that my performance hasn't been I haven't met performance expectations
when I Certainly have just because I haven't closed anything
officially Now we're gonna revisit some of that in just a moment
But before we do what we're gonna fast-forward a few seconds until we get to her employers explanation such as
it is for her termination
So here's how they explain it.
Listen.
Let me carve out the two threads, the latter of why I'm on this conversation.
I'll put that one in the second half and Rosie might be better to explain the process of who is giving this information in the prior piece, which is your feedback and notes about your performance.
So we add a little color context to that.
So just for clarification, you are not being singled out in this.
Your peers are also being collectively assessed on performance.
This is a collective collaboration for Cloudflare.
So I just want to clarify that piece.
I won't be able to add any kind of specifics on numbers or- - Wait, yeah, no.
Can you explain for me why Britney Peach is getting let go?
I won't be able to go into specifics for numbers.
Wait, why though?
I just started.
I've been working extremely hard.
Just because I haven't closed anything that has nothing to do with my performance on a three month ramp with just one month with two major holidays in the middle.
I don't think that has anything to do with why I should be let go.
If that makes sense.
So I really need an answer and an explanation as to why Britney Peach is getting let go, not why Cloudflare decided to hire too many people and are now actually realizing that they can't afford this many people and they're letting that go.
If that's the real answer, I would rather just you tell me that instead of making up some bullsh** and telling me that right before I lose my job from someone that I've never met before.
Okay, now, as mentioned, this video has been viewed millions of times, and most of the comments have been incredibly supportive of Britney.
It's also been picked up by several media outlets, who also paint Britney as the hero of the story.
And for the most part, the Peanut Gallery has agreed that Britney comported herself very well during this interaction.
They say that she was reasonable and well-spoken.
They're outraged that Britney got fired, even though her performance has been great, according to her.
They say that she was treated coldly and impersonally, like she was nothing but a faceless cog in the corporate machine.
And that's the popular consensus.
But, again, as is often the case, the popular consensus misses the mark.
Mostly misses it, anyway.
So let's go over a few points.
One, yes, it is dehumanizing and demoralizing and depressing, a lot of other D-words, to get fired over Zoom by some corporate boss you've never even met.
And one who uses phrases like, collective calibration.
I mean, I gotta admit, to hear that at all, but to hear that in the process of getting fired, but we're doing a collective calibration.
That's like soul draining, like you can feel your soul being drained out of your body when you hear stuff like that.
And so if you watch this video and you say to yourself, Man, I never want to work for a company like Cloudflare.
Well, that makes two of us.
Right?
I'm totally with you.
But here's the thing.
Brittany did work for a company like Cloudflare.
Yes, she's treated like a cog in the corporate machine, but she chose to get a job as a cog in the corporate machine.
She was working remotely, apparently, for a tech company with thousands of employees.
Like, that's as impersonal as you can get.
That's the very definition of being a cog in the corporate machine.
Getting fired over Zoom by a company like that, it is dehumanizing, but working over Zoom for a company like that is also, one could argue, dehumanizing.
It's understandable if you would rather be dehumanized by a paycheck than by a pink slip, but it does make your complaints about the latter a little bit less credible.
Two.
People are giving her credit for how she handled herself on the call.
Well, personally, I found her to be smarmy and condescending, but that's beside the point.
The point is that she shouldn't get credit because she was performing for a camera that the other party didn't know was there.
Okay?
I don't know why people struggle with this.
Like, when someone records themselves doing something, It doesn't make sense to give them credit.
Oh, they really handled that well.
They're recording themselves!
They're doing it for you!
To impress you!
Okay?
Like, maybe that's how they would respond in a normal situation if the camera wasn't rolling, but we don't know that!
You know, it's not a whole lot different from these TikTok videos you see of somebody, like, giving money to a homeless man or something, doing something nice for a homeless guy.
You say, well, this is what humanity is all about.
No, it's not!
He's doing it for the camera!
Okay, he's only doing it for the camera.
It's not even about the charity at all.
Do you really not understand that?
So, In this case, she filmed it knowing that she would post it to TikTok afterwards.
That means that nothing she says on the call can be taken as honest or genuine.
Sure, the corporate drone managers firing her, they weren't being authentic or human, but neither was she.
Like, they were following the corporate script, and she was performing for a TikTok audience.
The whole thing was an orgy of inauthenticity.
And that decision on her part is one that, again, will haunt her for the rest of her professional life.
No employer wants to hire someone who might secretly record them and then use the video to smear them on social media.
Even if she was the greatest saleswoman in the world, it still would not be worth the trouble.
Okay?
But as a saleswoman who didn't make a sale in four months, it's definitely not even close to worth the trouble.
Which brings us to point three.
Three, the Peanut Gallery complains, just as Brittany herself complained, that she wasn't given a reason for her dismissal.
That's not entirely true.
They said it was performance-related.
She admits that she hasn't closed a sale since she got the job four months ago.
She says that that's okay because she manages her meetings well, even though she doesn't convert those meetings into sales.
But it's not much of a strain to speculate that her employer doesn't find that reasoning very compelling.
Like, they don't give a damn if you're good in meetings, or if you get along with your co-workers, or even if you work hard.
They care about results, and if you aren't getting results, you aren't doing your job.
And that's most likely why she was fired.
Is it harsh?
Is it tough?
Is it unkind?
Sure, probably, I guess.
But that's life, and life has not changed much in this regard, okay?
In pre-industrial times, the only result that mattered was whether you had a good harvest or whether you had a successful hunt.
And if you didn't, you died.
And that was that.
And now the result that matters at your sales job is whether you make sales.
If you don't, you die.
Metaphorically, in a professional sense, which is at least preferable to the literal sense, but the principle is the same.
Now, could the other people on the call have given her more specific information about why she was fired?
Yeah, maybe they could have.
But there's a reason why employers are vague in these situations.
It's because in many cases, if they tell the truth, if they're totally frank, they'll get sued.
Employers try to be as vague and general as possible to avoid liability.
So, hypothetically, and I don't know anything about this woman, I don't know if this is true, just hypothetically, if, yeah, she's lagging in sales, but maybe there's other people that are lagging in sales too, and they don't get fired, but they chose to fire her, because on top of lagging in sales, she's also just obnoxious and unpleasant, and nobody wants to work with her, Like, hypothetically, if that was the case.
Well, that's a valid reason for her to be the one to get fired.
But they can't say that.
You know, especially in these corporate... They're not going to say, well, you're just an obnoxious, unpleasant person.
Nobody wants to be around you.
So we're getting rid of you.
You're not worth the trouble.
Like, you're not worth the trouble.
They can't say that.
Because then they'll get sued.
And so what happens?
Yes, that would be the more human thing.
Also more helpful.
It's a lot more helpful to tell somebody that so they maybe can have some chance of self-improvement.
But, you know, the litigious society we live in means that just honesty goes out the window.
Humanity goes out the window.
And now guess what?
Now that they have to worry about having the conversation recorded and posted to TikTok, they're going to be even more vague and general.
So if you thought that that meeting was cold and impersonal, wait until you see how cold and impersonal they will get when the possibility of TikTok infamy is hanging over every meeting of this type.
So this hero has just guaranteed that the problem she's exposing will only get a million times worse because of her.
Four, finally, you know, it's hard getting fired.
Like, it's a hard thing to be fired.
I understand that.
I've been through it more than once.
Humiliation, anger, anxiety, sadness, resentment, like a lot of very difficult emotions are balled up into one messy jumble when you get fired.
It sucks.
In a word, it sucks to get fired.
But here's the part that might come as news to many of our Gen Z friends.
Just because you're going through something difficult, just because you're feeling bad about something, just because you're suffering a setback, that doesn't mean that you need to make a national scandal out of it.
That doesn't mean you need to broadcast it to the world and make yourself into history's most oppressed victim.
You're dealing with something that millions of people have been through.
Your version of it may be worse than some, but it's not nearly as bad as most.
For instance, if you're single and you have no kids and you get fired, your experience is automatically not that bad compared to the many millions of people who've been fired when they have kids that depend on them.
Right?
Now, that doesn't make your firing any less painful, but it does make it a whole lot less noteworthy, okay?
And it does mean that sometimes in life, you just have to take your lumps and move on.
You just do.
And we can't... Like, nobody wants to say that anymore.
Like, no one wants to say anymore, yeah, that sucks, that happened.
Okay?
Like, we're all moving on now with our lives, and you need to also.
It's just, that's it.
Yes, we have acknowledged, oh, but it's hard.
Yeah, okay, we all acknowledge that.
We get it.
But it's really hard.
Yeah, okay.
We all, we acknowledge it's a really hard thing.
But it happens.
And that's it.
Like, deal with it.
Do you want my pity?
Okay, well, you have my pity.
And take that and $1.50 and it'll get you a Kit Kat at a vending machine.
Probably not even that with inflation.
So, anyway, stop looking for pity.
Stop looking for victim points.
Get a grip.
Collect yourself.
Move on with your life.
It's your only choice.
So you might as well take it.
Or else, I must say, that you, just like our friend Brittany, are today cancelled.
