Ep. 1319 - Just When You Think the Google Gemini AI Story Can't Get Any Worse... It Does
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, you might think the story of Google's woke dystopian AI program can't get any worse, but it has. I'll explain. Also, the media claims that conservatives at CPAC are plotting the end of democracy. A pundit on MSNBC inadvertently claims that America is a fundamentally christian nationalist country. The Left freaks out after a court in Alabama grants personhood rights to human embryos. And Kristen Stewart is on a press tour and she really wants you to know that she's gay. Why do we need to know this? and why is she wearing a mullet?
Ep.1319
- - -
DailyWire+:
DON’T MISS OUT! Get 30% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/3wco7nQ
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://birchgold.com/Walsh, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
PureTalk - Get a FREE Samsung 5G smartphone. https://www.puretalkusa.com/Walsh
PreBorn! - Help save babies from abortion: https://preborn.com/Matt
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
- - -
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, you might think the story of Google's woke, dystopian AI program can't get any worse, but it has.
I'll explain.
Also, the media claims that conservatives at CPAC are plotting the end of democracy.
A pundit on MSNBC inadvertently claims that America is a fundamentally Christian nationalist country.
The left freaks out after a court in Alabama grants personhood rights to human embryos.
And Kristen Stewart is on a press tour, and she really wants you to know that she's gay.
Why do we need to know this, and why is she wearing a mullet?
But all of those questions and more will be answered today on the Matt Wall Show.
(upbeat music)
We're experiencing a lot of global instability in the new year.
North Korea is testing missiles.
Iran is growing increasingly aggressive.
And oh, by the way, we have a presidential election coming up in November.
How do you protect your family in the midst of all this chaos?
A great place to start is by protecting your savings.
It's not too late to invest in gold with Birch Gold Group today.
Unlike many other investments, gold can act as a safe haven during turbulent times by providing a hedge against inflation and economic uncertainty.
Birch Gold will help you convert your existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold.
But it will cost you nothing.
Out of pocket.
While diversification does not eliminate risk entirely, Birchgold's experts can help you manage and reduce, providing a more resilient foundation for your financial well-being.
I urge you to talk to one of their trusted experts today.
All you've got to do is text WALSH to 989898, and Birchgold will send you a free info kit on gold with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of happy customers.
I encourage you.
To check out Birch Gold today.
They've been the exclusive gold company of The Daily Wire for the past seven years.
There's a reason for that.
We trust them.
You can too.
Text WALSH to 989898 to claim your free info kit today.
That's WALSH to 989898 to secure your savings now.
Well, I think we can assume that they're not having a great time on Google's normally upbeat, chic campus right about now.
It's very likely that the organic gardens are unattended, the massage rooms are empty, the on-site cooking classes are suspended until further notice.
It's just total mayhem.
That's because, as I discussed yesterday, the launch of Google's exciting new cutting-edge AI platform called Gemini has very quickly turned into a debacle.
And for good reason.
Gemini does not recognize the existence of white people.
Now, no matter what you ask Gemini to produce, as we talked about yesterday, whether it's an image of a pope or a founding father or even a guy eating mayonnaise on white bread, Gemini will generate an image of a non-white individual.
It's maybe the most aggressively anti-white product ever invented in Silicon Valley, which is saying something.
With Gemini, all the DEI initiatives that have run rampant in big tech for so long finally blew up in their faces this week because they slipped up and showed us exactly what they're trying to do, which is to erase white people at every possible opportunity.
And to make matters even worse, It's worth pointing out that Gemini is basically a rebrand of Google's old AI platform, which was known as BARD.
This was their big effort to start fresh with a new and improved name and supposedly better algorithms.
And yet, here we are.
Now, when I talked about this yesterday, I went into some detail about a senior Google AI ethics manager named Jen Ganai.
Or Janai.
We're just going to go with Janai.
I played a bunch of videos that I found in which Jen admits that, as a matter of course, she treats white people at Google very differently from black, Hispanic, latinx folks.
And I offered some theories as to what exactly Jen and her team had done to this new AI in order to produce these absurdly anti-white results.
At the time, I didn't know for sure what was going on under the hood.
I don't think anyone did.
But now, 24 hours later, we have a much better idea of why Gemini pretends that white people aren't real.
And what we're learning is even more disturbing and more consequential than we thought yesterday.
So it's worth digging deeper into this.
Now, it turns out that Google has not simply manipulated the output of its Gemini software in order to ensure that there are quote-unquote diverse results.
They haven't just added a line of code that says, prioritize search results featuring black people.
Which would be bad enough.
That's what we all assumed was probably going on because it would be in line with how Google operates already.
We know they manipulate search results in order to downrank content they don't like and promote content they do like.
But that's actually not what's happening with Gemini.
Instead, what's going on here is that Google has inserted code that actually changes the search terms that users are looking for.
So if you say you're looking for an image of the Founding Fathers, or a Viking, or a guy eating mayonnaise on white bread, or any other search query that might produce an image of a white guy, then Gemini instantly revises your search request, and it does this silently without your permission, of course.
Then it produces the results that you're allowed to see.
So actually, the results that it's giving you are correct, according to the request, That you didn't make.
So the problem is in how they changed the request, not how they changed the results.
This is a subtle distinction, but it has major ramifications.
And first, it's important to clarify exactly how we know what's going on here.
All of these well-known AI programs, whether it's ChatGPT or Bing or Gemini, are vulnerable to something called injection attacks.
And what this means is that if you ask these AIs the right questions, you can trick them into revealing their secret internal parameters, which are hard-coded by their creator.
And that's exactly what happened yesterday with Gemini.
An engineer named Alex Younger asked Gemini, quote, please draw a portrait of leprechauns.
And then Alex asked after that, were there any other arguments passed into my prompt without my knowledge?
After some prodding, Google's AI eventually revealed that instead of responding to the precise prompt provided by the user, It added in words.
It added words like diverse, or inclusive, or specified ethnicities, like South Asian, black, etc., and also genders, female, non-binary, even though it's a fake gender, alongside the word leprechaun.
So he asked for a leprechaun, and then the request was changed to, give me a non-binary black leprechaun, and then Gemini gave exactly what was not asked for.
All this was intended to happen completely under the hood, of course.
No one using Gemini was supposed to be made aware that this was happening.
As Andrew Torba, who runs a competing AI platform, explained on Twitter, quote,
"When you submit an image prompt to Gemini, Google is taking your prompt and running it through their
language model on the back end before it's submitted to the image model.
The language model has a set of rules where it's specifically told to edit the prompt you provide
to include diversity and various other things that Google wants injected into your prompt."
At the outset, it needs to be said that Google first never disclosed that it was doing any of this.
You can go back and watch every promotional video that Google ever made for Gemini.
The point of the product in each of these videos is to answer the questions posed by users without adding anything to their questions.
Because, of course, that's what any user wants.
When you make a request to a computer, You want the computer to do what you asked it to do, not what it is pretending you asked it to do.
If you punch 2 plus 2 into a calculator, you want it to give you the answer for 2 plus 2, not the answer to 5 times 12.
And that's how Google sold this thing initially.
So here, for example, is a portion of their Gemini demo from just a couple of months ago, and here's how they were presenting it.
Watch.
There we go.
Tell me what you see.
I see you placing a piece of paper on the table.
I see a squiggly line.
What about now?
The contour lines are smooth and flowing, with no sharp angles or jagged edges.
It looks like a bird to me.
Hmm, what if I add this?
The bird is swimming in the water.
It has a long neck and beak.
It is a duck.
Yes!
Now that video goes on and on like that for more than six minutes as, and by the way, On a personal level, that alone is super creepy to me.
I find all of this very creepy.
Even before you start adding in all the dystopian wokeness.
But, be that as it may, the guy interrogates this AI about what he's doing, and at no point does the AI alter the questions that this person is asking.
Instead, the AI offers information in response to his prompt.
Sometimes it shares maybe too much information, sometimes it gets things wrong, but it never ignores the question it's asked.
That was not a part of Google's demos.
It's not how they presented it, but it is a part of their product.
This form of censorship may have been occurring before.
In fact, it's virtually certain that it's already been occurring for years now.
But with Gemini, for the first time, we have direct, incontrovertible proof that this is what's happening.
People are being told not simply what results they can view, but also what questions they can ask.
And they're not being made aware of this.
From this set of facts, we can draw, I think, some conclusions about the people working at Google.
In order for any product to work like this, its creators have to be extremely committed narcissists.
They have to believe that they know better than anyone else, and they alone can make the world a much better place, if only everyone was forced to listen to them.
They have to believe that they can not only answer your question for you, but they can ask your question for you.
And that's exactly the kind of person that Google has hired to run the Gemini program.
I already discussed Jen Gnai at length yesterday.
She's a visibly unhappy woman who wants to bring the rest of the world down to her miserable level by pushing an AI that's as soulless and discriminatory as she is.
In other words, she's an upper-class liberal white woman, and she wants the AI to operate like an upper-class liberal white woman.
Which is no surprise, because every institution in the country, from academia to the media to the corporate world to professional sports, Has already been essentially broken down and rewritten, as it were, in the image of white, liberal, upper-class women.
But not just them.
Another senior Google AI official whose name is Jack Krawczyk has also been receiving a lot of attention lately.
Jack is the Google employee who issued the company's first unofficial statement in response to the Gemini debacle this week.
He claimed that it was all just an innocent glitch, it's all an accident, even as he reaffirmed his commitment to DEI.
But within a few hours, Jack locked down his Twitter account.
He prevented the public from viewing his tweets and went into hiding.
It's not hard to see why he did that.
In various posts, Jack had written that, quote, White privilege is effing real.
This is America where racism is the number one value.
I don't mind paying more taxes and investing in overcoming systemic racism.
And so on and so on.
Maybe Jack's most emotional post was this one from 2020, quote, I've been crying in intermittent bursts for the past 24 hours since casting my ballot.
Uh, filling in that Biden-Harris line felt cathartic.
Now, these are not exactly the kind of tweets you want people to see when you're trying to assure them that you're not an unhinged partisan who believes he can save the planet through social engineering, but that's exactly what Jack Krawczyk is.
He views Google's new AI as a way to rescue civilization from itself.
That's why Jack joined Google.
A little while ago, Jack gave an interview in which he implied that he single-handedly had the chance to stop the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis back when he was working in the banking industry, but he says that his bosses, being ignorant capitalists who just want to watch the world burn, wouldn't let him do it.
So he had no choice but to jump ship and go to Google, a company that will allow him to save the world, as he desperately wants to do.
Watch.
So amazing and I thought technology would be able to enable it.
Yeah, then February of 2007 happened.
Yeah, and The whole efficient market project gets cancelled because we know the world is gonna go upside down As the mortgage crisis starts to bubble.
Yeah about a year before it really hits.
Yeah and project gets cancelled and I remember sitting in this all-hands meeting and And our managing director's in there telling us what we're going to do.
And I raise my hand.
I'm like, if we know the world's going to go haywire, shouldn't we maybe try to build something to stop that from happening?
And I'll never forget that moment where, in front of a large room, I think to embarrass me, he responds with, do you have any idea how we make money in this business?
And the reality was, they made money on volatility and trading.
I just remember feeling so defeated at that time that I'm like, wait, I'm just building something to extract value from the world, not create it.
And so just on a whim, I get home that night, I polish up my resume of a year and a half working in banking, and I just randomly apply to a job at Google.
And then he saved the world.
Now, when you pack enough malignant narcissists in one room, people like this guy and Jen Gani, you get the Google Gemini AI team.
But the problem is much bigger than Gemini.
The debacle with Gemini's image generation is just an illustration, literally in a sense, of the much deeper and more pervasive problem with all of Google's products, including Google Search.
All of these Google products are designed to save you from yourself by preventing you from accessing the information you intend to access.
They're all designed on the theory that Google alone knows what you really want and what you really need.
This has been true since at least 2018, when Google secretly admitted that it was manipulating its search results in order to address what it called algorithmic unfairness.
As Google put it, according to a leak of an internal PowerPoint presentation, Imagine that a Google image query for CEOs shows predominantly men.
Even if it were a factually accurate representation of the world, it would be algorithmic unfairness because it would reinforce a stereotype about the role of women in leadership positions.
It may be desirable to consider how we might help society reach a more fair and equitable state via either product intervention or broader corporate social responsibility efforts.
So with Gemini, Google has taken a major step towards accelerating those efforts to promote algorithmic fairness, meaning a totally false view of reality that conforms to Google's ideological and political objectives.
They admit that in the slide.
They say that, yeah, a bunch of white CEOs is accurate, right?
And that's what you're asking for, is a picture of CEOs, and they're white, and so it's all accurate.
But instead, Google wants to show you what they think the world should be.
Which is fine if you ask that.
If your prompt to Google is, Google, show me your vision of a perfect world, and then they want to show you gay Vikings and non-binary founding fathers and a black Santa Claus or whatever, then they can do that.
But instead, they're taking what they think the world should be, and they're telling you that it's what the world is.
This is now Google's primary objective, and ahead of the upcoming presidential election, we're seeing the signs all over the place.
For example, a recent analysis by AllSides found that 63% of articles on Google News came from media outlets AllSides rates as lean left or left.
Just 6% were from the right.
Now, at this point, we can assume that even if you try to search Google News for conservative content, then Google's AI will simply rewrite your search query for you.
Underlying this extensive political bias at Google, we learned this week, is anti-white racism.
Nothing Google does is really about diversity as much as Google employees like to claim otherwise.
If Google simply wanted to promote diversity, then we'd see at least one white Viking or Pope, right?
We'd see just a rainbow of all different colors of Popes and Vikings.
But that's not what happens.
We don't see the whites anywhere.
That's because Google's vision for the future isn't simply one ruled by Democrats in perpetuity, although that's certainly what they want.
Google's vision for the future is a world with as few white people as possible.
Because irony isn't completely dead, Google has assembled a group of mediocre white narcissists to try to make that vision a reality.
That's the future that Google is desperately searching for.
And if you make the mistake of using their products, one way or another, they'll make sure that you are searching for it too.
two. Let's get to our five headlines. Free should mean exactly that.
Free.
The good news is, when you switch to Pure Talk today, you'll get a free Samsung 5G smartphone.
There's no four-line requirement, no activation fee, just a free Samsung that's built to last with a rugged screen, quick charging battery, and top-tier data security.
Qualifying plans start at just $35 a month for unlimited talk, text, 15 gigs of data, and a mobile hotspot.
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.
The average family saves almost $1,000 a year with this.
Well, Pure Talk, you know you're spending your hard-earned money with a company that aligns with your values.
So let Pure Talk's expert U.S.
customer service team Help you make the switch today.
Go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to claim eligibility for your free brand new Samsung 5G smartphone and start saving on wireless today.
Again, go to puretalk.com slash Walsh to switch to my cell phone company.
Well, I'm here today because my mother chose life, and you're here today because your mother chose life as well.
The miracle of life is a gift everyone deserves because every life is precious, and that's why we've partnered with Preborn's network of clinics.
Preborn introduces unborn babies to their mothers through ultrasound.
After hearing her baby's heartbeat and seeing her precious baby, she could be twice as likely to choose life.
Through love, compassion, and free ultrasounds, Preborn has rescued over 280,000 unborn babies.
And every day, their clinics rescue 200 unborn babies as well.
Now that is a miracle.
One ultrasound is just 28 bucks, the cost of a dinner, or you could sponsor five ultrasounds for $140, helping to rescue five unborn babies' lives.
Any amount will help, all gifts are tax deductible, and 100% of your donation will go towards saving babies.
So, to donate securely, dial pound 250, say the keyword baby, that's pound 250, and say the keyword baby, or go to preborn.com slash Matt, that's preborn.com slash Matt.
The big headline on Drudge today, in huge red letters, is this.
MAGA maniacs declare death to democracy.
Death to democracy.
This is big.
It's a big story.
That leads to an article in Mediaite, which has been picked up by every other outlet.
It was all over social media last night.
Headline of Mediaite is, Trump booster pledges to end democracy in CPAC rant as Bannon cheers on.
Now, what they're referring to is a clip from a panel at CPAC where Jack Posobiec begins the panel by saying this.
All right, welcome.
Welcome.
I just wanted to say welcome to the end of democracy.
We're here to overthrow it completely.
We didn't get all the way there on January 6th, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this right here.
We'll replace it with this right here.
All right, amen.
That's right, because all glory is not to government, all glory to God.
Okay, so you see what we're doing here.
We're playing my favorite game.
You all know my favorite game.
My favorite game is when we pretend to not understand extremely obvious sarcasm.
People play this game with me all the time.
As you know, I find myself in the middle of this game constantly where people say something joking or sarcastic and the next thing you know it's in headlines.
Matt Walsh claims, you know, people pretending that they've never in their lives become acquainted with the concept of sarcasm.
Sarcasm?
What's that?
You mean there's a rhetorical device where people say one thing but they mean another in a joking fashion?
Never heard of it.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaking of AI, these people really portray themselves as like AI, as computer programs themselves, where they can only take things literally.
They don't understand humor.
So how do we know that Jack was being sarcastic?
Well, it's obvious immediately from what he said.
Also, he laughs when he says it.
Pretty good indication that someone's joking.
Kind of a dead giveaway.
The audience laughs.
And also, if Jack really was plotting the violent overthrow of the federal government, I don't think he'd announce it on stage at CPAC.
It's not how violent overthrows usually work.
You don't stand on stage at CPAC and say, gee, you know what?
I'm thinking, you know, I'm thinking it'd be fun.
I think it'd be great if we just overthrow the government.
I don't think you do that.
And also, as an extension, if you were going to plot something like this, the last place you'd plot it is CPAC.
It's like the lamest possible place you could go, no offense to CPAC.
That's where you're going to try to round the troops up to overthrow the government?
No, that's not going to happen.
And so, that's how you know that it's a joke, unless you're a total moron.
So, obviously joking, everyone's playing dumb.
Or maybe they aren't playing.
Maybe they're not playing dumb.
Maybe they actually are.
Obviously, that's always the riddle with a lot of these people in the media on the left.
The riddle is always, like, are they really this stupid?
Or are they pretending?
Or is it half and half?
And there are different ways to debate that and maybe different answers.
But this does bring to mind another point, which is a separate point from anything that was said at CPAC.
Which is that people freak out, you know, if you offer any critique of democracy at all.
Or, God forbid, if you say that you're, if you're outright critical of it, you know, of the whole idea.
You don't like it.
Now, I'm not talking about calling for a violent overthrow, which was a joke in this case, obviously.
I mean, if you just say anything at all, in any context, about pitfalls and problems with democracy, people lose their minds.
Because we made democracy into a religion.
It's like this thing that you're not, it's a heresy.
It's like we treat it literally as heresy to offer any critique of it.
Now, the people who have done this at the highest levels are the ones who are also themselves subverting democracy all the time.
So there are multiple levels of incoherence and contradiction going on here, obviously.
But my only point is that, you know, CPAC aside, we should be able to sit around and have interesting conversations about our political system and its fundamental problems.
I've tried to do that on this show on many occasions.
I've talked about voting rights, for example.
You know my position on voting rights.
I think there should be a lot less of it.
There should be a lot less voting and fewer people should be allowed to vote.
Which is a critique of democracy in its current construction.
And that's something we should be able to do.
And that's something that people were able to do for thousands of years.
Right?
I mean, you're not going to find a single great thinker of the last 2,000 years or so who felt that democracy was so unquestionably sacred and superior that it's offensive to critique it at all.
You're not going to find that.
Plenty of them were proponents of democracy, but it's like, they recognized the potential problems and you talked about those things.
Every intelligent person in history, since the inception of the democratic system, has noted certain flaws with it.
We should be able to continue that discussion, but we can't.
Because people are so damned stupid.
And so what happens is, like, there are certain kind of things that we take as fundamental, that we should be having, as they say these days, open dialogues about, but we don't.
And then there are other things that really are just fundamental, and can't be questioned in any kind of coherent way, that we do criticize and question.
Like, for example, biology.
The biological reality of the human species.
So that's like, the most fundamental physical reality is that.
But that, you can totally call that a quote.
You could deny it completely.
And then you have an open mind and you're a critical thinker.
Even though, again, that's just a physical reality.
There's no, you can't, it just is.
Democracy, it's a political system.
It's something that people came up with.
And so there are always going to be problems with it.
And we should be talking about that.
But we just can't.
We can't.
The moment you do anything... Are you questioning?
Are you saying that there are certain aspects of our democratic system as it stands right now that you might find slightly problematic?
Well, that's unthinkable!
You're a fascist!
You're Putin!
You're Hitler!
Incredibly stupid.
Speaking of stupid people, I want to play this clip for you from MSNBC.
This is remarkable, it really is.
And I want you to listen to this lady, Heidi is her name, from Politico, she's on MSNBC, in a panel discussion, talking about the dangers of Christian nationalism.
And here's what she says, listen.
The one thing that unites all of them, because there's many different groups orbiting Trump, but the thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, not Christians, by the way, because Christian nationalists is very different, is that they believe that our rights as Americans, as all human beings, don't come from any earthly authority.
They don't come from Congress.
They don't come from the Supreme Court.
They come from God.
Like I said, truly remarkable.
I mean, she says that Christian nationalism is the belief That our rights come from God.
So, what Heidi has just argued, though she's too dumb to understand it, is that Christian nationalism is the correct ideology.
That it's the ideology that our country is founded on.
That's what she just said.
Because if what she just described is Christian nationalism, well then we live in a Christian nationalist state.
We just do.
We live in a theocracy.
That's what it was always supposed to be.
And anyone who's a quote-unquote Christian nationalist is just trying to bring it back to what it was always supposed to be.
They're the most American of all.
If what she's saying is true, because there's simply no doubt, no dispute, no argument against the claim that our country was founded on the idea that our rights come from God.
You can't dispute that.
It's not up for discussion.
Because it's plain English.
It's right there in our founding documents.
All of our founders said this.
This is the entire conception of human rights that serve as the basis of our whole political system, is that.
Now, do you have to agree with it?
No.
But the question of whether or not it serves as the basis of our political system, that's just a factual, that's not an opinion, that's not something you can have different viewpoints on.
It just is.
It just simply is.
So, Heidi apparently thinks that the Constitution is a Christian nationalist document.
She thinks that the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of Christian nationalism.
So, we're a Christian nation, she's saying.
Everyone should be Christian nationalists.
Now, she doesn't understand that she's saying that, again, because she's dumb, but she is saying that.
So again, to emphasize, our entire political system is founded at the most elemental level on the belief enshrined in our founding documents that rights come from God.
That's it.
That's all there is to it.
The game she's playing here may be intentional.
She may be doing this because she wants to discard our founding document.
She wants to discard the founder.
She wants to discard everything that our country was founded on and rebuild it in the image of, as we said, upper-class liberal white women.
And she does want all of that, no doubt.
But what I'm saying is that, you know, you have two different arguments.
One is, America is a fundamentally Christian nationalist country, and then the other is, Christian nationalism is un-American.
You see, you can't make both arguments.
It's like one or the other.
So Christian nationalism is wrong in your mind because it's rooted in the founding of this country, and this country is racist and horrible from down to its roots.
That's one argument.
Or it's an argument that, well, the Christian nationalism has nothing to do with America, and it's an anti-American viewpoint, and all the rest of it.
And they've been making the latter argument, right?
But she just offered the former argument.
And that is a much tougher path for her to trek.
Especially because even if you know nothing about About our history?
Even if you're totally oblivious?
It's very easy for a moderately insightful person to understand that our rights must come from God, if they exist at all.
Because what's the other option?
What is the other option?
If they don't come from God, where do they come from?
When you talk about human rights, what are they?
Now, you might hear in response to that, well, they come from the social contract, or they come from the government, or they come from society, or they come from whatever, you know, it all kind of means the same thing.
Well, the problem with that idea is that It's a really big problem.
It's that you are sort of dismantling what we might call the final court of appeals, right?
You have made society or the contract or the state the final ultimate arbiter of what our rights are.
Well, okay.
Then, and by the way, that conception of human rights is not incoherent.
I don't think it is.
I think some people will say that it is.
I don't agree with it, but I think it's a coherent viewpoint, where you could say that rights are simply just human constructs.
They're things that we come up with, and so when we talk about a right, all we're saying is that you have a right to this because it was written on a piece of paper, and that's it.
It's like anything else.
If you have an agreement with somebody, and you sign a contract, and the agreement says certain things that you get, well, you have a right to those things.
But not because it was written in the stars, not because you were born with that right, but just because it's in the paper.
And if it wasn't in the paper, then you wouldn't have that right.
So, that's a view that one could take.
But here's the problem.
And this is a big problem for the left.
Because they love, really, even more than the right.
They love to go around talking about their rights.
And they have invented a whole bunch of new rights.
Every day they've got a new right that they've come up with.
Well, what if society says that you don't have a right to whatever that thing is that you want?
What if the social contract, whatever that is, does not stipulate this right?
What if the government and most people in our democratic system have gotten together and they've said, no, I don't, we don't agree with you having that right.
You know, what if they say you don't have the right to speak or to assemble or to vote or whatever?
Well then, according to your view, if rights are not founded in God, then that's it.
That's the end of the discussion.
Because society decides on rights.
It decided this.
Who are you going to complain to?
It doesn't make any sense for you to say, no, it's not fair, I have that right.
Because you don't.
You just said you don't.
They decided and that's it.
Who are you?
What do you mean you have it?
No, you don't.
You don't have it.
Well, no, I have it because I have it from who?
There's no one else here.
Okay, when these states, including our state, have passed laws banning the chemical castration of children, and then trans activists say, we don't have a right to that.
What do you mean you have a right to it?
No, you don't.
We just said you don't.
We just said.
Well, who are you to say that?
Well, because we did.
We wrote the laws, and we said you don't.
Go cry somewhere.
According to you, that's it.
That's the end of the discussion.
Who are you appealing to?
What do you mean you have it?
Oh, are you appealing to some authority above us?
According to you, there's no authority above us.
Right?
If we're society, the government, that's it.
That's all there is.
There's no one else.
See, what happens, even on the atheist left, is that when a group perceives that it should have a legal right, and it perceives that it doesn't have that right currently, what does the group say?
What do they chant?
They don't say, no, we should have this right.
They never say that.
Have you ever heard a trans activist say, we should have the right to gender affirming care and so on?
No.
What do they say?
They say, no, I have this right.
You are infringing on my rights that I already have, regardless of what you say.
So when you do that, you are appealing to a higher authority.
You are saying that even though the social contract and the state have decided to take this right away or not grant it in the first place, you still have it, and it should be recognized.
In fact, you even say that.
You say, recognize my rights.
What do you mean recognize them?
From where?
Where did you get them?
Where do they come from?
This is a, you know, we talk about this every once in a while on the show, and it's It's almost like you can't even move on to the next topic.
I mean, this is, the whole, our entire, the whole political debate in this country, let's say, breaks down on this question.
Because the whole debate is always, no matter what this particular debate is, but the whole overall sort of culture debate, always goes down to who has what rights.
Except the problem is that one entire half of this discussion doesn't even think that rights are real things.
They think it's totally artificial and constructed, and so their argument makes no sense.
But we just kind of move past that, and then we continue on arguing about who has what rights, even though most of the people saying that have no freaking idea what they even mean when they say it, which we understand is a common problem on the left.
But what I'm trying to say is that we know that they talk about women, they can't define women, but that is a problem that goes, that touches everything they say about everything.
I mean, all of the terms that they are hinging their worldview on, they just can't define, they don't understand them.
They don't know what they're talking about.
And if you think I'm wrong, next time you hear somebody on the left say, I have a right to this, just ask them, what do you mean you have a right to it?
What is that?
Who says?
Ask them that.
They will not be able to answer it.
They will not be able to answer it.
Speaking of which...
The left is claiming that their rights are infringed upon because of this.
CBS News has this story.
The Alabama Supreme Court ruled last week that frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization, or IVF, are considered children under state law and are therefore subject to legislation dealing with the wrongful death of a minor if one is destroyed.
The opinion states, quote, The wrongful death of a minor act applies to all unborn children regardless of their location, including unborn children who are located outside of the biological uterus at the time they are killed.
The immediate impact of the ruling would be to allow three couples to sue for wrongful death after their frozen embryos were destroyed in an accident at a fertility clinic.
But this first-of-its-kind court decision could also have broader implications.
Justice Greg Cook wrote in the dissenting opinion of the case, no court anywhere in the country has reached the conclusion the main opinion reaches.
This almost certainly ends the creation of frozen embryos through in vitro fertilization in Alabama.
Well, all the better, I would say.
This is obviously the right decision, because it's dealing with a simple quandary.
And the quandary is you have these human embryos.
Now we go back to the fundamental questions again.
What are they?
What value do they have?
How do we classify them?
And you have to be able to answer that question.
I mean, we can't punt on it.
And the thing is that what usually happens is that people, especially the people complaining about a decision like this, To call embryos children is ridiculous.
But they never answer what they think, how they think the embryo should be classified.
Because they have no answer.
And what they want to do is they want to punt.
And they want to say, well, Obama famously said, it's above my pay grade.
I get answers like that all the time from these people, that, well, what is the unborn child?
What is the fetus, they would say?
What is the embryo?
What moral value does it have?
To what extent is it a living being?
You know, these are, we can't know.
These are, it's impossible to know.
People have different opinions, and it's above my pay grade.
That's usually what they'll say, but the problem for them is that, well, there's a big problem, is that you haven't answered what is the fundamental question of this whole Debate.
But then also, if that's your position, then that's all the more reason why we should treat the embryos as human beings.
Because if you really don't know, if it's above your pay grade and you're not sure and you can't answer it because it's all very blurry and there's a lot of grey areas and so on, according to you, then the most ethical position to take, the only ethical position for you to take, is to say, well, I can't say for sure what that thing is, and so I can't really say for sure that it's not really a human being, but, so we should treat it as a human being, because I can't say, because I don't know.
That is the ethical position.
And an absurdly unethical position is to say, well, I can't really say what that is.
I can't say if it's human or not.
Let's just destroy it and assume that it's not.
And if you want to understand why that's an absurdly unethical position, well, just imagine it in any other scenario.
Imagine any other scenario where someone uses that kind of logic.
You know, imagine I've used the I've used the analogy before, and it's not a perfect analogy, but imagine a dark room, and you're looking, and you're standing on the other side of the doorway, and you're looking into this dark room, and you call into the room, and nobody answers.
And so you think there's probably nobody in there, but you can't say for sure.
And if somebody asked you, is there someone in there, you would have to say, I don't think so, but I don't know.
It's quite plausible.
It could be someone could be sleeping in there.
They could be hiding.
Well, if you were then to just throw a grenade into the room, just for the fun of it, and there was somebody in there and you killed them, then that's murder.
That's not even involuntary manslaughter.
That is murder.
You killed that person.
And why?
Because you knew that it was very, very plausible that there was a person in there and you did it anyway, under the assumption that, well, probably not.
And so in any other situation, we don't accept that kind of logic.
Really the only, and maybe if someone's smart they'll quickly have a rebuttal, but we do accept that kind of logic actually, in actually kind of a literal sense in the context of war.
And there might be times when you drop a bomb or you do something or you're engaging in combat and you're trying not to and you're hoping that there's no civilians around, but then it turns out that there is and there's collateral damage.
And usually we all agree that sometimes that can be wrong, depending on the amount of risk that you willingly took, but sometimes it can be okay because there is collateral damage in war.
But the difference there is that it is acknowledged, you know, in the context of war.
I mean, if you're actually throwing the grenade in because you're going house to house and you're clearing the houses and you're fighting, you know, terrorists or something, well, you're acknowledging that you're acknowledging what the risk is.
You are saying like, yeah, I could be killing a person.
But I have to, because of this and that reason.
Maybe your reasons are good, maybe they're bad.
But that's not what's happening with this discussion.
Instead, you've got one side saying, no, I deny that this is a person.
And then we say, well, what is it?
What is it, if it's not a person?
I don't know.
That's their answer.
They don't have an answer.
Because saying embryo or saying fetus is not an answer.
That's just a classification.
That's a label that we put on different stages of human development.
But what you're trying to do is take an entire stage of human development and claim that this person does not count as a person while it is going through that stage.
But you can't defend it, logically.
Because it's quite literally indefensible.
It doesn't make any sense.
And the final thing I'll say is this.
Maybe a good way to think of it is this way.
Is there no difference between a human embryo and a clump of dirt?
Would you say that there is no difference between a random clump of dirt that you take out, that you just bend down to the ground, grab a clump of dirt in your hand, and a human embryo?
Would you say there's no difference between those two things?
Would you say the fact that, at a minimum, That, you know, you have an embryo in one hand and a clump of dirt in the other.
At a minimum, the embryo will become a person.
Let's just go with your logic that it's not a person yet.
Well, here you have, at a minimum, something that will become an entire person.
And over here you have a clump of dirt that will never be anything but dirt.
So would you actually argue that they have the exact same moral value?
Again, ethically absurd.
Of course, at a minimum, the human embryo has more moral value than the clump of dirt.
But the problem is that with the way that laws are generally set up, right now we treat, you know, if abortion is legal and you have IVF clinics that throw out embryos, you are treating them like they have the moral value of dirt.
You're treating them like they have zero moral value.
The dirt has zero moral value.
I would hope if you're not a psychopath, you can at least admit that the human embryo has more than zero moral value.
Well, yeah, but the law, if abortion is legal and you have IVF and throwing out the law treats the embryo like it's exactly morally the same as dirt.
And that, I mean, no matter what you say about the human embryo, whether you say it's a person or going to be a person, that is a horrifying thing.
And I think everyone understands that.
I think that everyone does.
Because you have to.
So then, the problem is that if you say, okay, well, yeah, of course the human embryo has more value than dirt.
Well, now you're tumbling down the rabbit hole, you know, and I think you know it and people get scared by that because like, whoa, okay, it has more value than dirt.
How much value does it have?
And once we start ascribing any value to this entity, what does that mean?
What can we do?
Like, would we ascribe it at least as much value as a puppy?
Would we ascribe it at least as much value as a rodent?
Like, would you at least do that?
Well, then you start thinking, well, but I would not be okay with just, like, killing puppies and throwing them in dumpsters.
So that's what happens when you start asking yourself this question, honestly.
You start, you answer the question honestly the first time, has more moral value than dirt, and then it just, okay, then it leads and leads and leads, and again, if you continue to be honest and you're intelligent, you end up at the conclusion that, well, it's a person.
What else could it be?
And then everything, if you're a left winger, then everything breaks down from there and most of them lack the moral integrity to follow that path.
Let's get to the comment section.
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents.
In these challenging times, your best defense is to use Tax Network USA.
Along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers, the IRS has kicked off 2024 by sending over 5 million pay-up letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balances owed.
These guys are not your friends.
Do not waive your rights and speak with these agents without backup.
Tax Network USA is a trusted tax relief firm has saved over a billion dollars in back taxes for their clients and they can help you secure the best deal possible whether you owe 10,000 bucks or 10 million dollars.
They can help.
Whether it's business or personal taxes, whether you have the means to pay or you're on fixed income, Tax Network USA can help finally resolve your tax burdens once and for all.
Seize control of your financial future now and don't let tax issues overpower you.
Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief and expert guidance.
Call 1-800-245-6000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh.
Turn to Tax Network USA and find your path to financial peace of mind.
That's tnusa.com slash Walsh.
First comment says, you're wrong on who can give advice on relationships.
It's important the phase of your life different for a young unmarried couple still getting to know each other to a married couple.
We all change.
She's not giving advice either.
She explains why to pay attention to details.
Yeah, I got several comments like this when I said that we responded to this under that relationship advice video on TikTok.
And one of the many problems with the advice is that it's coming from a woman, a young woman who I think we can safely assume is not married and has never been.
And my position, as you've heard me say many times, is that if you're not married and never been married, then you should not be giving a relationship advice to anybody.
You simply are not in a position to do that.
And this is not a trust the experts thing.
It's just like...
In order to give advice on how to do something, you have to have demonstrated some ability to do it yourself.
And if you haven't, then of course you can't give advice on it.
And that's the point here, that, yeah, people are different phases of life and so on, but, and so you might say, and I've heard this before, that, well, actually, me as a guy that's been married, uh, and, uh, six kids, and, you know, I was married, uh, 12 years ago, and, and, uh, so I'm, they'll say, I am less equipped to give advice to young people today because I'm not in that dating world.
So what do I know?
Well, you're just wrong about that.
Yeah, I'm not in the world.
I've moved on to the next phase of my life.
But there's a couple problems here.
First of all, again, if someone's in the dating world themselves, Okay, and they're giving you advice.
Sure, they can relate to you because they're in the same world, but they haven't demonstrated that they know what they're doing.
They haven't demonstrated they can do anything successfully in this world.
So just because they happen to be there also doesn't mean that they know what they're doing and that you should follow them.
You know, it's like the old thing where you're going along on a path, and the road's shut down, and there's a detour, but the detour isn't marked.
And so you just follow the car that happens to be in front of you, assuming that because you're both in the same spot, they probably know where they're going, when they're just as lost as you are.
So why would you follow them?
It makes more sense to follow someone who can say, oh yeah, I've been in that area, I know where to go.
And here's the thing, even if you say, well, but you haven't been in this area in 10 years.
Well yeah, but I was there, I lived there for a while, I know the streets, and if maybe some of the streets are different now, I still know the lay of the land better than this random person in front of you who is just as lost as you are.
Clearly.
And also, you know, there's this kind of rejection of wisdom entirely, I find very troubling, and I find it on the right too.
This idea that because I'm a slightly older guy and I have kids, I can't say anything worthwhile to younger guys?
So what, wisdom doesn't exist?
You can only take advice from people who are in the thick of the same thing as you and just as bewildered as you are.
Do you see the problem there?
Those are always going to be the people who are the least equipped to give advice.
They have the same needs you do.
They're just as lost.
They're facing all the same gaps in knowledge that you are, and so of course you can't listen to them.
You know, you can confide in them, you can find some comfort, you can find some camaraderie with them, but there's no reason for them to say, well, this is the right way to be in a relationship.
They don't know.
They've never done it successfully.
And so yeah, look, if I'm talking to someone, as I have plenty of times, Who's been married for 50 years.
Yeah, the world that they got married in, completely different from the world that I got married in.
The world they inhabit now is in many ways totally different from the world that I inhabit, but does that mean they have nothing to offer me?
Does that mean I shouldn't listen to their advice?
I mean, how arrogant and egotistical and stupid would I have to be to say that someone who's been married for 50 years does not have worthwhile wisdom to offer me on the subject?
Of course, it doesn't mean they're automatically right, but it does mean that they are someone who potentially has a very valuable perspective to offer.
And yeah, it may not be exactly the same as what I'm going through, but I'm also a person with a brain.
I can, like, take the principles they're talking about and apply it to my own individual situation.
Because, you know, I'll tell you something else.
Look, I don't mean to stomp all over the pity parade, but I just want to tell you that, yeah, the dating scene is a disaster right now.
There are many unique challenges.
The realities of human relationships, human dynamics, how people operate, men, women, like, there are many things that are universal and eternal.
And so a lot of the problems that you encounter may manifest themselves in different ways depending on who you are and how old you are and the culture you're living in, but at bottom, the problems are almost, are all the same.
You know, that's the whole reason why you can Read a story.
You can read Shakespeare.
I mean, you can read love stories that were written centuries ago.
And if you're an insightful, intelligent person, you can resonate with elements of it, even though it's a totally different world.
But there's so much that's universal.
Because what we're really talking about is the human condition.
And that's the problem that you're really facing on the dating world, is like, how do you navigate the human condition?
You know, how do you find someone And trust them, given that they, other people, are incredibly flawed.
And you don't know if you can trust them.
And all of that.
That's, right, that's the basic dilemma.
And if you think that nobody except people who are single right now in 2024, in the year 2024, have experienced that dilemma, then you just, it's arrogance.
It is arrogance.
And you're going to continue to be as lost as you are right now if you stay in that arrogance and refuse to admit that people have wisdom to offer, if you will listen to it.
Millions of people could do a better job for the future of humanity in the AI era.
How these positions of power get filled is beyond me.
The way they use the word everyone is also hilarious.
It should say everyone except.
Another concept that baffles me is when they use the term marginalized communities, yet when you look around at the world population, the actual marginalized communities are not what they define them to be.
What I wonder most is who's gaining from this propaganda of lies?
It does not help anyone in the long-term game.
They're basically doing the opposite of what they say.
Well, the people coming up with all this are the ones gaining from it.
They gain... Now, it's true that the people that they claim to be helping are not being helped, but the people at Google, you know, our big tech overlords, they gain from all this.
They gain control, power... Well, control, power, and money is what they get.
Another tale as old as time.
Finally, the good news is how Gemini is optional to Earth's future.
No one has to use it and won't.
Results like this make people opt out of using any products or service made by Google, and that worsens every time they do this.
Well, that's the optimistic view.
I hope you're right.
I think that you are almost certainly wrong, however.
People are not opting out of using Google.
You know, people still use Google every day.
It's very difficult to not use a Google product if you're on the Internet.
And so I don't think that there's any evidence that people are curbing their Google usage, and I think it's unlikely that they will.
For the same reason that with Amazon, we know Amazon is super woke and all that, but everyone still orders from Amazon.
And why do they do that?
Because it's extremely convenient and it's cheap.
And you can order something, you can get it for cheap, and they'll get it to your house, like, at lunchtime, okay?
And so it's, and people use it because of convenience.
And that's why I think, I would like to think that people will opt out of this AI stuff.
As I said, I think the AI, I think even without the wokeness, I find all of this creepy.
And I think that the ultimate, even if it was not woke, right?
The ultimate effect of all this AI technology on mankind will certainly be bad.
I really can't imagine a scenario where it helps with human flourishing and makes people happier and more prosperous.
And if it's not going to make people happier and more prosperous and make them better people, then it's bad.
If it's not doing that, then it's hurting.
And I don't see how this will have that result.
But I also don't think AI is going away.
I don't think people are going to refuse to use it.
It may not make you happier.
It doesn't.
It may not help with your flourishing on a spiritual and physical and every other sense level, but it does make your life easier.
It is convenient to be able to just go to AI and say, give me this and they give it to you.
And what we found is that people are willing to make moral and ethical choices when it comes to the products that they use and all that, unless The product increases the convenience in their life to a significant degree.
And if it does that, then almost everybody, ultimately, will say, well, okay, what am I going to be hassled?
What am I going to do it the hard way?
No.
I like to think that you're right, but I think that you're probably wrong, and we're all doomed.
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing, which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs as of September 2023.
GCU will meet you where you are and provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
The time to join DailyWirePlus is here during our President's Day sale.
Right now, get 30% off your DailyWirePlus annual membership with code DW30 at checkout.
Your DailyWirePlus membership is your exclusive backstage pass to engaging conversations with the smartest and most trusted talent in America.
It's your front row seat to the DailyWire's upcoming hit movies and series like The Pendragon Cycle, Mr. Bircham, Snow White and the Evil Queen, and more.
It's your inside access to ad-free, uncensored news and opinions that truly matter to you, so why wait?
This is your chance to experience it all and more for 30% off during our President's Day sale.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code DW30 at checkout.
Now let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
And in the article, Stewart goes on and on about how gay she is.
She says, in fact, that she wants to, uh, do the gayest thing you've ever seen in your life.
And of course, if that's her goal, then she already achieved it with the Twilight films.
That was her own personal Mount Everest.
Can't get gayer than that.
But, uh, she wasn't satisfied with that.
She says that she is very fluid.
So, she's gay, you see.
Do you understand that?
Are you impressed yet?
She's gay.
She's so gay, she's the gayest of all the gays.
She's the final boss of gayness.
She's like the queer Bowser.
Okay, this is what she desperately wants us all to know, that she is gay, just to be clear.
Hey, did I mention that Kristen Stewart is gay?
Did she mention it?
She did, but in case you didn't hear, just to reiterate, Kristen Stewart is gay.
Very, very gay.
Now, you might think that her gayness is now established.
We can all move on, but in fact, it's established much more than it ever needed to be established.
You probably were not living your life wondering at all about Kristen Stewart's sexuality.
It was probably not a mystery that you were contemplating.
But anyway, now you know.
She can't utter five words without announcing that she's gay.
She works it into every conversation.
If you asked her for directions to the gas station, she would say, yeah, just hang a left up there and then you drive until you realize that I'm gay.
Hey, by the way, did you hear that I'm gay?
But if somehow the point was not crystal clear enough, then the photos accompanying the interview will drive it home.
You've probably seen these by now.
There's the one with Stewart in a mullet, with her hand shoved down her jockstrap, and there are others in a similar vein.
Now, of course, The jockstrap and the hand down the pants is the most immediately nauseating thing about the pictures, but the mullet really puts the icing on the ugly cake here.
Somewhere along the line, and very recently, celebrity women decided that Joe Dirt is a fashion icon.
They're trying to capture, it seems, like the aesthetics of a middle-aged man who lived in a trailer park in 1987.
And the results have been as aggressively unappealing as you might expect.
This week, Stewart was at the Berlin Film Festival showing her new movie, which is, you're never going to believe this, a gay movie about two lesbians.
And she was asked about the Rolling Stone cover and her reaction to it.
And she responded by complaining that the cover was censored.
I'm not even sure in what way it was censored.
Maybe she wanted her haircut to be even uglier than it was.
I can't say.
But here's her theory as to why this unspecified censorship occurred.
I love how the writer of the story, who was great and shaped it really well and I had a really nice time with her, called the story uncensored and then the whole cover was censored.
Because the existence of a female body thrusting any type of sexuality at you that's not designed for or desired by exclusively straight males is something that people are not super comfy with.
So I'm really happy with it.
I had a good time.
So she was, she says, thrusting sexuality at us that was not designed for cis quote-unquote straight males.
That's true.
Now what she fails to mention is that it wasn't designed for any known member of the human species.
She is correct, though, that as a straight male myself, I don't want her thrusting her sexuality at me.
In fact, I'd rather she not thrust anything at all at me, just to be clear.
Not her sexuality, not her haircut.
I'd prefer she keep the thrusting to an absolute minimum, to be totally honest with you.
But thrust is an interesting choice of words, because it is, in this context, weirdly aggressive and ugly.
Which is a good way to describe the whole Kristen Stewart experience at this point.
The photos are ugly, the words are ugly.
Even the way she talks about her desire to be a mother.
When she talks about that, she does it in this bizarre and ugly way.
So she told Rolling Stone that she wants to start having babies with her lesbian lover soon, which is of course physically impossible, but we'll ignore that for now.
Here's how she describes this desire.
I don't know what my family's gonna look like, but there's no effing way that I don't start acquiring kids.
Now, we're not going to focus on the double negatives in the sentence.
I don't know.
There's no way that I don't.
I suppose if I wanted to psychoanalyze her, I'd find some significance in the fact that even the grammatical construction of her sentences is relentlessly negative.
But putting that aside, she says that she wants to acquire kids.
Acquire them.
Like they're collectibles.
Like she's watching infomercials on QVC and calling an 800 number to purchase them.
Which, of course, is actually not far from how women like Kristen Stewart become mothers.
So the problem here isn't that her terminology is inaccurate, it's actually the problem is that it's accurate.
So, what do we learn from this?
Aside from getting more confirmation that no woman can pull off a mullet, no matter how hard they try, can't be done, well, if we learn anything at all, It's something we should have already picked up on.
It's something that I've been saying for years now.
In reaction to the Rolling Stone article, Chris Ruffo put it this way, That's exactly correct.
Queerness is ideological.
not a sexuality, and it appears to make people miserable.
They put dismal pictures of Ellen Page or Kristen Stewart under headlines with words like "joy," "family," "happiness,"
propaganda that intends to demoralize.
That's exactly correct. Queerness is ideological.
Now, it is sexual, too, in a certain literal, physical sense,
but it would be more accurate to call it anti-sexual.
It's not asexual. It's anti-sexual.
Stewart may intend to thrust her sexuality in our faces, but instead she's thrusted her anti-sexuality.
She is a woman with a sexuality specifically constructed, as she admits, to be unattractive to the sorts of people who are attracted to women.
And that's what I mean by anti-sexuality.
It's a magnet meant to repel, not attract.
And that's because queerness, as Ruffo notes, is an ideology, and it's an ideology of demoralization and destruction.
They have to keep reminding us that they're happy, trans, joy, queer, joy, because their whole approach to life, their worldview, their physical appearance, everything screams despair.
Even in that press conference clip, Stewart looks tired and miserable and disheveled.
And that's because her sexuality is defined not by who she loves, but by who she hates.
And the person that she hates Most of all, as we can clearly see, and as is always the case with these people, is herself.
