Ep. 1325 - The City Of Pittsburgh Takes 'The Purge' As An Instruction Manual
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the city of Pittsburgh has decided the Purge was an instruction manual. They are cutting back on policing to such a drastic extent that they're essentially inviting criminals to do whatever they want. We'll talk about it. Also, there's controversy over whether a teenage girl who beat a classmate nearly to death on camera should be charged as an adult. I'll explain why she absolutely should be. Plus, every single left wing hack at the site DeadSpin has just been fired. A glorious day for humanity. And a trans activist writes a lengthy cover story for a prominent media publication arguing that children of any age should be eligible for sex change operations.
Ep.1325
- - -
DailyWire+:
Leftist Tears Tumbler is BACK! Subscribe to get your FREE one today: https://bit.ly/4capKTB
Unlock your Bentkey 14-day free trial here: https://bit.ly/3GSz8go
Shop my merch collection 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.
Hillsdale College - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/walsh
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.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, the city of Pittsburgh has decided that the Purge was an instruction manual.
They're cutting back on policing to such a drastic extent that they're essentially inviting criminals to do whatever they want.
We'll talk about all that today.
Also, there's controversy over whether a teenage girl who beat a classmate nearly to death on camera should be charged as an adult.
I'll explain why she absolutely should.
Plus, every single left-wing hack at the site Deadspin has just been fired.
A glorious day for humanity.
A trans activist writes a lengthy cover story for a prominent media publication arguing that children of any age should be eligible for sex change operations.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
Financial experts thought we were in the clear.
While experts anticipated rate cuts, inflation in the United States is still a significant economic concern.
Think about it.
The U.S.
is in a hole by $34 trillion, and yet we keep printing money, which pushes the prices you pay every day even higher.
So you can bury your head in the sand or do something about it.
Diversify a portion of your savings into gold with Birch Gold Group.
Gold is your hedge against inflation, and Birch Gold makes it easy to own.
They'll help you convert your existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold, and you won't pay a penny out of pocket.
Make gold part of your saving strategy and buy it from Birch Gold.
They've been the exclusive gold partner of The Daily Wire for over seven years now, helping thousands of our listeners, and they can help you too.
Text WALSH to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold.
Then talk to a precious metal specialist about protecting your savings from inflation with gold.
Text WALSH to 989898 now.
Yesterday I went into some detail about the unfolding crisis in Haiti.
The Prime Minister is stranded in Puerto Rico.
The streets are now ruled by a warlord named Barbecue.
Police officers are nowhere to be found, even at the country's national prison complex, where the doors are currently wide open.
And all this is relevant mainly because, for years, leftists have pretended Haiti is salvageable.
They didn't do that to simply contradict Donald Trump, although that's a big part of it.
Their primary motivation is to transform this country into Haiti.
Unchecked, one-way migration is one way to do that.
Another way is to adopt Haiti's approach to policing, which is to say, to stop policing entirely.
Beginning last year, criminals in Haiti understood that they could commit crimes with impunity.
No one would even attempt to arrest them.
As the Human Rights Watch put it in a recent report, quote, there have been no prosecutions or convictions of those responsible for killings, kidnappings, and sexual violence or their supporters since the start of 2023.
That's what a total stand-down of law and order looks like.
It was telegraphed and, as expected, anarchy followed.
So, you have to wonder, especially in the aftermath of BLM and defund the police, how long until something like that happens here?
How long until criminals in America understand that they can commit serious crimes and no police officers will even bother to show up?
Well, if you followed the news out of Pittsburgh this week, you know that this moment has arrived.
It is already here.
The city has announced that police officers will simply stop responding to the vast majority of crimes, including burglary and harassment, as long as there's no, quote, in-progress emergency.
Additionally, between 3 a.m.
and 7 a.m., As few as 20 police officers will be on duty to cover the entire city of 300,000 people.
This is as close to a real-life implementation of the Purge as we have yet seen.
Watch.
Rick, what was the big takeaway today?
Yeah, Susan.
Residents of the city will see a major change in the way police respond.
They will no longer respond to calls that aren't considered in-progress emergency.
That means calls like criminal mischief, theft, harassment, and most burglary alarms Will all be handled by an enhanced telephone reporting unit.
That means residents will file a police report over the phone.
Officers will not respond unless it's an emergency.
Also, between the hours of 3 a.m.
and 7 a.m., there will be no officers at any of the six stations throughout the city.
Call boxes that link directly to 911 have been installed for people to use in case of an emergency.
And during the overnight shift, there will be as few as 20 officers to cover the entire city.
The chief said today the data supports that.
Yes, it's enough to cover the entire city in those hours when we have 8% of the time people are calling.
I'm confident in the decisions that we make that it impacts this Bureau and the city in a much better way than we have in the past.
Now the Chief also acknowledging today that some of these changes are due to staffing shortages.
He's down to 740 officers, well below the 850 they would like to have.
Well, don't worry, the Enhanced Telephone Response Unit is on the case.
And what this means is that if somebody breaks into your house in Pittsburgh and you call 911, they're not going to come.
Even if your alarm is going off and your alarm company is notifying the authorities, they don't care.
The police chief in Pittsburgh has clarified that for burglaries under this new policy, they need some sort of, quote, second verification in order to ensure that the burglar is on the premises at the moment.
And they need to get that before police will even consider driving out to your house.
In other words, you know, it's like logging into your bank account.
They need two-factor authentication so that, you know, they can really be sure in the bank account case they want to make sure that it's you.
Well, with a burglary, they want two-factor authentication to make sure there's really a burglary going on at the moment when you call.
So your alarm counts as one factor.
And additional factors, according to the police chief, could include video footage of the burglar in your house.
Or it could be a photo of broken glass with the burglar standing around next to it.
Perhaps you can, you know, get the burglar to pose for a picture holding that day's newspaper.
Maybe you can take a quick selfie video with the burglar where he, you know, looks at the camera and says, hey folks, just here burglarizing the home real quick.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
But outside of situations like that, the Pittsburgh police will just tell you to leave a report with their Answering machine or I'm sorry their enhanced telephone response unit of course if the burglar is smart and breaks into your home between the hours of 3 a.m.
And 7 a.m Then it probably doesn't matter even if you have the selfie video because there will only be 20 cops in the entire city who can get to you So the people ransacking your home they could take their time This has all been announced publicly by the city of Pittsburgh.
You have to wonder why anybody in the city would even bother paying their taxes at this point, especially since the government in Pittsburgh created this problem in the first place.
After the George Floyd riots of 2020, the mayor implemented a two-year freeze on all police hiring.
Now, that's not an overstatement.
The mayor at the time Bill Paduto just shut down the police academies.
As CBS News reported in 2022, quote, the sound of bagpipes graduating a new police class hasn't been heard in years.
And to justify this decision, Paduto appeared on NBC News, where for some reason he answered questions from a bunch of college students.
And listen to what he said.
The Vice President of the Pittsburgh Fraternal Order of Police voiced concerns in a letter over politicians' lack of support for the police.
How do you plan to get the police unit specifically on board for further reforms?
I was on the receiving end of one of those letters, and basically, you know, where the emotional level is right now, We're all, and I don't mean that as elected officials, just all of us as a nation, are in a fight-or-flight mode.
And when you're in that type of mode, long-term rational thought is not always at the forefront.
To be a part of that discussion requires being a partner in recognizing that that change is inevitable.
That we are at a point now in this country where it is going to occur.
And would you like to be a part of that discussion of how it occurs?
Or would you rather protest it and try and stop?
The train's already left the station.
There is no going back at this point.
And it's only a question of what that reform will end up looking like for cities all across this country.
So it's an amazing clip to watch in retrospect.
The mayor tells this random college student that emotions are very high post-George Floyd.
He recognizes that everybody is not exactly thinking rationally, but instead of suggesting that maybe it's a bad idea to shut down police academies, he basically issues a threat.
He says that police reform, by which he means gutting the police department, these are going to happen one way or another.
And the only thing the police union can do is get on board to minimize the damage on the road to creating this utopia in Pittsburgh.
And four years later, we see exactly what that utopia looks like.
If you listen to officials in Pittsburgh, they'll offer another excuse for the breakdown of law and order in their city.
They'll say that they simply can't afford police officers, and that's really what is behind all this.
They'll tell you that tax revenues are down because post-COVID, a lot of downtown office spaces are vacant.
And the value of the buildings have plummeted and and you know
That's true to an extent the city has been taking in less revenue because of block down policies
Which were implemented by the city of Pittsburgh pretty much every other major city as well, but as an explanation
For why there are no police in Pittsburgh it doesn't make any sense
You could take one look at Pittsburgh's budget and come to the conclusion that there's a lot of waste that could be trimmed in order to put more officers on the street.
For example, let's take a look at Pittsburgh's fiscal year 2022 operating budget.
And I'm no financial expert, but I can take a look at this.
It doesn't take me long to pinpoint areas that could be cut so you could have more cops.
So there's more than $700,000 budgeted for salaries for something called the Office of Equity.
In all, the office's budget exceeds a million dollars a year.
Among other things, that taxpayer money is used to pay an executive director for the Gender Equity Commission, who makes $76,000 a year.
It includes a chief equity officer, making $120,000 a year.
It also includes unspecified money for immigration engagement, so that when people arrive in Pittsburgh from, say, Haiti, they know where to file for welfare benefits.
And by the way, it's not just the Office of Equity at Pittsburgh that employs equity officers.
The Office of the City Clerk also has an Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Policy Analyst who makes something like $662,000 a year.
There's also millions of dollars for the Office of City Planning, including hundreds of thousands of dollars devoted to saving the climate.
And that includes tens of thousands of dollars for so-called Climate Resilience Analysts like this woman.
Watch.
Hello, my name is Sarah Yeager.
I'm the Resilience Analyst with the City of Pittsburgh in the Office of Sustainability and Resilience within the Department of City Planning.
The City of Pittsburgh recently compiled a greenhouse gas inventory that takes a look at all emissions throughout the 55 square miles of the City of Pittsburgh.
Through that profile, we found that about 82% of our emissions come from buildings and the use of energy within buildings.
17-18% is through transportation emissions, and then 1-2% comes from our waste.
The data collected through this emissions profile was compiled to give us a snapshot look at what is happening within the city, but then it's also used to develop goals and actions as we look towards mitigating climate change.
Now that video is from a few years ago, and not to spoil anything at all, but the city of Pittsburgh's Climate Action Plan has not done anything to address alleged climate change in any way.
In fact, the climate is still changing.
Climates change all the time.
And there's not a single thing that Pittsburgh could do about it.
And we know that because even if you removed the entire city of Pittsburgh from the planet, which, as a Baltimore Ravens fan, I wouldn't object to, nothing about the climate would change.
Even using the most unhinged eco nutcase model, you can find there is no conceivable way that the city of Pittsburgh can address climate change.
The city of Pittsburgh cannot do anything to change the weather.
But they hired useless employees like this person anyway to categorize all of Pittsburgh's various greenhouse gas emissions.
Apparently that was more important than hiring police officers in a city that's down to fewer than two dozen cops in the middle of the night.
And this is just scratching the surface.
Pittsburgh also has an LGBTQIA-plus commission, which was budgeted tens of thousands of dollars a year.
That commission has apparently done nothing in three years.
According to the outlet public source quote Pittsburgh's LGBTQIA+ commission created in 2020 by former mayor Bill
Peduto Started with the promise of action on behalf of the queer
community of Pittsburgh Three years later, external displays of action have been on the sparse side, even at the admission of some of its members.
While some fruitful conversations have been held to advocate for the LGBTQ plus community within the city, and the commission has made strides in developing its internal structure, the commission's 20 meetings thus far have lacked public engagement and it hasn't conducted a single study.
So this is a commission that literally does nothing.
It just sits there and does nothing and gets paid.
This is a commission that was established around the time that the police academies were closed.
And it's all completely dysfunctional.
They've wasted all that time and money.
It goes without saying that the city could shut all of these equity initiatives down without causing any harm to any resident of the city of Pittsburgh.
And if they had done that, they could have saved millions of dollars over the past three years.
And, you know, when you're down to 20 police officers, millions of dollars is a lot of money.
It could double the size of your police force, if not triple it.
But instead of cutting all this garbage, the leaders of Pittsburgh chose to cut policing and to fund equity instead.
Now, one of the many ironies here is that equity entails an obsessive concern with safety.
Leftists are always telling us that certain groups are unsafe.
Telling us about how we need to make them feel safer, you know, at every opportunity.
But they talk about safety all the time, but they always mean safety in some kind of esoteric, ambiguous sense.
Because actual, practical, physical safety isn't valued at all by these people.
At least not the safety of the average family affected by this kind of insanity.
This has gone on for years, and major cities have become much more dangerous as a result.
It's so bad that Taco Bell just had to close all of their indoor dining facilities in Oakland, which is a pretty stark level of civilizational decline, when you can't even keep a Taco Bell open.
But very soon, Pittsburgh will reach an even deeper level of decay.
Residents aren't going to be worried about climate change or LGBTQ justice.
Instead, they'll be worried about their safety, in the literal sense.
That's because three years after the Pittsburgh's mayor promised reforms, change has finally arrived.
And especially between the hours of 3 a.m.
and 7 a.m., everybody living in Pittsburgh will know exactly what that change looks like.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
And what was the point of it all?
You might even be thinking, I don't have the time to learn something new.
Well, if that's the case, you're not alone, and it's not too late.
Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses.
Learn about the works of C.S.
Lewis, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's online courses.
If you're not sure where to start, check out American Citizenship and Its Decline with Victor Davis Hanson in this eight-lecture course.
Victor explores the history of citizenship in the West and the threats it faces today.
Threats like the erosion of the middle class, the disappearance of our borders, the growth of an unaccountable deep state, and the rise of globalist organizations.
The course is self-paced, so you can start whenever and wherever you want.
Start your free course of American citizenship and its decline with Victor Davis Hanson today.
Go to hillsdale.edu slash walsh to enroll.
There's no cost.
It's easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu slash walsh to enroll.
hillsdale.edu slash walsh.
OK, here's a case you've probably heard about by now.
I haven't talked about it yet, mainly because it's the kind of thing that makes me so angry that I can't really talk about it without saying things that will get me in trouble.
So I'll try to control myself here.
But this is a New York Post report.
A Missouri teenager was left in critical condition after her head repeatedly was bashed into the concrete.
During a massive off-campus high school brawl that was caught on camera, the fight involving the teenage girl whose identity has not been released broke out around 2 30 p.m.
Friday at an intersection just north of Hazelwood High School.
Devastating footage of the melee posted online shows two teenage girls starting to hit each other on a residential road when one punches the other to the ground and punches her.
The victim can be seen trying to push or attack her away as the girl continues to pummel her while repeatedly calling her a b****.
Quote-unquote.
The attacker then straddles her victim and repeatedly smashes her head into the concrete road as onlookers can be heard yelling, damn.
Soon the victim can be seen lying motionless on the ground while others continue to fight around her.
When the camera eventually turns back around, the victim, seen wearing a white hoodie and blue jeans, appears to twitch.
By the time police officers arrived, officers found the girl suffering from a severe head injury.
The victim was taken to a local hospital where she is listed in critical condition.
Another identified 15-year-old girl was later taken into custody on assault charges.
I'm not going to play the video.
You can easily find it if you want to.
I'll just say a few things about this.
And first of all, again, what we're seeing in these videos, and, you know, in this one, one girl on top of the other one pounding her head into the pavement, this is not What any of us, or at least what most of us, grew up with.
Okay?
These are not schoolyard fights.
And the media reports that they're fights, and even in the report that I just read.
We hear brawl, fight, melee.
But that's not right, because this is not a fight.
Okay?
Kids have always fought in school.
And that's the problem with calling these things a fight, is that when you hear that, you think, okay, yeah, kids have been fighting for as long as human beings have existed.
But that's not this.
A fight is one thing.
You're always going to have fights.
It's not good, but you're always going to have fights.
But this is different.
Getting on top of somebody when they're already lying on the ground and they've been beaten, right?
And bashing their head repeatedly into the pavement.
That's not a fight.
That's attempted murder, is what that is.
That's you trying to kill someone.
If somebody's on the ground, and we see these videos so often.
Someone's on the ground, and you got the group of thugs all around them, kicking their head, pounding their head into the pavement.
That is an attempt to kill them.
You're trying to kill them.
You want to inflict maximum harm, up to and including death.
And as I've explained in the past when we've talked about this, you know, not to idolize the past, but that's not how it worked, right?
We were kids growing up and there were fights in school.
Now, sure, sometimes it would get kind of brutal.
There were, you know, many of us have examples we can think of, of particularly gruesome episodes, but for the most part, The goal was not really to inflict maximum harm on the other person.
The goal was performance, really.
It was like trying to show off to everybody else that you're tough and you beat this person.
That's all you're trying to do.
But there's not any great desire to make this person feel as much pain as you can possibly make them feel.
Certainly not any desire to kill them.
But that's what we're seeing now.
And there really is no difference in the mentality of the girl who committed this assault and the mentality of a school shooter.
Right?
It's the same kind of mentality.
It's a total lack of humanity.
It's a desire to inflict as much harm as possible just for the sake of it.
And yet school shooters get a lot of press, a lot of attention.
Although they are still thankfully rare, not as rare as they should be, but it's still A thankfully rare phenomenon to have a school shooting.
But this kind of thing that we see in this video, this is common.
I mean, this is constant.
This is every day now.
These totally soulless kids who enjoy hurting other people and want to hurt them as much as they possibly can.
And yes, they may not be using a gun.
I mean, sometimes they are.
But that may not be the weapon of choice.
But it's the same kind of thing.
It's the same kind of phenomenon.
And it's constant.
And we don't recognize this as the same kind of problem, even though it's more pervasive and presents a greater threat because of its greater pervasiveness.
And I think we don't recognize that for two reasons.
One is that it doesn't help the gun control agenda, because oftentimes there aren't guns being used.
And the other is that in these kinds of videos, you know, the often unspoken thing that we're not supposed to talk about, especially in the media, although it's true, is that in these kinds of videos, the assailants are almost always, though not always, black.
And not always, but almost always.
You know, if there's a video of somebody lying on the ground and a kid is stomping on that person's head or pounding their head into the pavement, Before you even watch the video, you can guess the assailant is probably a black kid, and you'll be right almost always.
And we all know that.
I mean, it's just a fact.
It's a reality.
We all know it.
You cannot deny it.
You can deny it, but you can't deny it with any credibility.
And it does matter because it's the main reason why we aren't having the conversation about this issue that we should be having.
Because it's not useful.
Again, to the gun control gents, it's not useful to the left.
And then when you factor in the racial element, it's not only not useful, but it brings up all kinds of uncomfortable things for them that they don't want to talk about.
So then we can't discuss.
Why is this happening?
Why is this so common?
What can we do about it?
Why are these kids treating each other that way?
Why are there other kids?
What about everybody else sitting around filming it?
You know, you're watching a girl potentially die right in front of you, and you're just filming it.
You want to have a national conversation about something?
It should be about that.
The second point about all this is that, you know, speaking of what can be done about it, the girl, the attacker, needs to face severe consequences, and there's a debate now about, well, should she be charged as an adult?
Of course she should be.
And this should be kind of simple, right?
If you kill someone, or you try to kill someone, or you almost kill someone, you automatically graduate to adult in the eyes of the court.
I mean, that's the way it ought to be.
It's not the way it often works, and it probably won't work that way in this case, but it should.
Uh, if you commit an adult crime, you get an adult punishment.
So, sure, I mean, we should take into account that somebody as a kid, as a juvenile, if they're arrested for, like, vandalism or something, and that's not to say that vandalism is not a, uh, you know, cannot be a serious crime in its own right, but, um, you know, if you have a kid arrested for vandalism, graffiti, you know, knocking over somebody's mailbox or whatever, uh, then, then, yeah, I think it makes sense to take into account that they're a kid.
Like, if I go at the age of 37 and I throw eggs at somebody's house on Halloween, the penalty for me should be pretty serious because I'm 37 years old.
Now, if I did it at the age of 17, which I may or may not have done at 17, the penalty should be far less serious because that's the kind of thing that kids will do because they're young and stupid and they're not thinking about the consequences.
And it's not especially malicious, at least it's not intended to be.
So there's no reason to turn it into a serious life-altering thing after the fact.
But serious violent crimes are a different matter, and those need to be dealt with in a different way.
And the fact is this, the girl who was slamming the other girl's head into the pavement, that girl, let's just be honest about it, she's not going to become a contributing member of society.
Let's say she doesn't go to jail.
Check back in 20 years.
What's she up to?
Is she a brain surgeon now?
What is she doing?
Is she a married mother of four and a happy marriage with the same guy?
Stay-at-home mom?
Almost certainly not.
And we all know that.
She has put herself on a path And that path leads to more crime and more violence.
And it just does.
And again, everybody knows it.
So, should we put her back out on the street so that she can walk that path freely and claim however many victims along the way until she does something so heinous that even our modern court system with its kid gloves has no choice but to put her away for good?
Like, is that what we should do?
Or should we head it off at the pass and just throw her in prison for a long time?
And say, you're 15 or 16 years old, however old she is, you're already trying to beat someone to death with your bare hands.
It's just, that's, sorry, you're out.
That's a one strike, you're out and you're done.
And we're not going to see you for a long time.
We cannot have you in society.
We just cannot have you.
You're the kind of person that it's not fair to ask anyone to be around you.
And yeah, it's very sad.
It's sad.
It is very sad.
It's sad, first of all, because of what happened to the victim.
But it's also sad thinking about a 15 or 16-year-old girl that her whole life she's given up, you know, she's squandered at such a young age.
It's a very sad thing.
We just have to ask ourselves, do we want to heap more sad things on top of the one sad... It's like, the fact that she is that kind of person and that we have no choice but to put her in a cage for many, many years and she's not going to see the light of day, that's sad.
Incredibly sad.
But if you don't...
Then you still have this person living this sad life, and they're going to create a lot of other very sad situations along the way.
And just accrue tragedy, and more victims, and more victims, until again, you just have no choice but to put her somewhere.
I don't think, I just don't think that's a choice.
And again, it's not fair to everybody else.
Like, that girl, I don't want to be around her.
I don't want my kids around her.
I don't ever want to be near her.
I don't want to be around that kind of person.
I shouldn't be required to be around them.
Not fit for society.
Not fit.
So, you're gone.
That's the way it has to be.
And if we all feel very icky about putting kids in prison, which it is an icky thing, then the real conversation we need to be having is like, how are we creating so many kids That need to go to prison?
That's the question.
Alright, let's get to some good news.
We could all use some good news.
This from Fox News, the liberal sports blog that smeared a nine-year-old Kansas City Chiefs fan last year has cut its entire staff after being sold by its parent company.
Fox News Digital has confirmed Deadspin went viral in November for an article accusing a child who wore a red and black face paint with a Native American headdress of wearing blackface.
And finding a way to hate black people and Native Americans at the same time.
The nine-year-old boy is of Native American heritage.
His parents have filed a defamation lawsuit against Deadspin.
And now the entirety of Deadspin's workforce, including the writer who smeared the young football fan, have been forced out, according to a memo sent by Deadspin's former parent company, GeoMedia CEO Jim Spanfeller.
He sent an email, said, I have some news to share regarding one of our sites in the GeoMedia portfolio.
Recently, we were approached by the European firm Lineup Publishing expressing interest in purchasing Deadspin to add to their growing media holdings.
After careful consideration, the Geo Media Board of Directors has decided to accept their offer.
And then he goes on to explain that everyone's getting fired.
And so Deadspin is essentially dead.
I feel like Deadspin has died.
I feel like we've seen this headline like five different times in the last three months.
It keeps on dying.
And every time it brings me more joy than the last.
All of its employees have now been fired, which is fantastic news.
You know, generally you don't you don't celebrate people losing their jobs, especially in this economy.
In this case, I couldn't be happier about it. These are really terrible people.
This public, Deadspin is just awful, awful publication filled with awful people.
And if you, if there were one or two good people working there, well,
this has done you a favor. Because you don't need to be associated with that disgusting rag.
You can go somewhere else and salvage your reputation. But all the rest of them deserved
to be fired. This is an awful site staffed by horrible soulless vultures who enjoyed
slandering and defaming innocent people to include, as we saw, random nine-year-olds.
and and And now they're all unemployed.
And of course, most deserving of all is Karan J. Phillips, the writer who was responsible for that article attacking the kid.
And even though that's, you know, after this news broke, everybody immediately, you know, brought up this The defamation of the nine-year-old because it was so egregious and also it's just the most recent egregious thing that Deadspin has done, but it certainly it's just a long line.
This is all they ever did.
Was that sort of thing.
And this particular writer has a long history of writing the most absurd race-baiting diatribes you can imagine.
And there are dozens of examples.
Just pulling one at random that I saw somebody reference.
A couple of years ago, this guy, Phillips, wrote an article claiming that the NFL, the NFL rules against taunting are racist because taunting is part of black culture or something.
And this is the level of intellect this guy has.
Although, in that case, I will say that You know, he had company with that take.
This is actually, if you go back, I think it was 2021 when this rule went into place about taunting.
You know, you're not allowed to taunt.
And there were a bunch of articles published.
In fact, I saw one, I think it was in USA Today, of a writer who said that the rules against taunting was another example of our culture policing black bodies, is the way it was phrased.
Because they're not allowed to taunt, you know, because a certain element of sportsmanship is being enforced.
But, of course, somehow it's racist.
And you can tell that this guy, Phillips, is a half-wit anyway, before even reading anything he wrote, just based on the fact that, as our producer Greg pointed out yesterday, in his bio he lists himself as a two-time Pulitzer Prize nominee.
And anytime you see that, if you see somebody listing in their bio as a writer that they are a Pulitzer Prize nominee, then you know you're dealing with a pretentious, mediocre douchebag, because being a Pulitzer Prize nominee, it means literally nothing.
Anybody can be a nominee.
Like, all you have to do, this is really it.
There's a certain website you can go to.
You go to the link.
You pay 75 bucks.
And you submit your name for consideration, and that's how you become a nominee.
So it means that you basically raised your hand and said, I'd like to be considered.
And then if you do that, you're a nominee.
Which also means that even without paying the 75, I can at least call myself a potential Pulitzer Prize nominee.
You know, I'm not a nominee, but I could be if I paid the money.
And if they offered a discount, like half off, $75 is a little steep for this.
If they offered a discount, you know, if I could get it for $40, I would.
So I'm a potential Pulitzer Prize nominee.
I'm going to put that in my bio.
And of course, I say all this, but really the joke's on me, because I could, you know, I could totally see the Pulitzer actually being awarded to Coran Phillips.
So I make a joke out of the fact that he's calling himself a Pulitzer Prize nominee, but it's not like the Pulitzer Prize means anything anyway.
So, you know, I could see him winning the award for writing an article claiming that gravity is racist or whatever.
So it could happen.
But still, it means nothing.
And even so, whether he wins the Pulitzer or not, this dude's gonna have trouble finding another job.
Because, yeah, I mean, yeah, he checks the diversity box and all that.
Yes, he's pretty good at engagement bait.
But at the same time, he got his employer sued.
And it doesn't matter how committed your employers are to pretending that they care about diversity.
If you're the kind of employee that's going to get me sued as an employer, that is reason enough to pause and reconsider.
Okay, we've talked about Granny Madonna and the world tour that she's on right now.
And on the one hand, as we've covered, it's pathetic to see this 65-year-old woman trying to gyrate and twerk around on stage like she's 25 years old.
She's 40 years older than she acts, which means that even if she was 25 years younger than she is, she would still be 15 years too old to carry on the way that she does.
So it's all rather pathetic, but it has led to some unintentionally Entertaining moments.
I think that, so sort of ironically, this tour, this Madonna tour is maybe the most entertaining one that she's ever done because of these moments.
And this week we saw the most entertaining Madonna moment yet.
It's a moment that this time has nothing to do really with her pretending that she's in her 20s.
In this case, Madonna stood on stage and noticed that somebody was sitting down in the audience Uh, and sitting down is apparently not allowed at a Madonna concert, I don't know, so she gets very offended that the audience member is sitting down.
And she calls the person out from the stage, and the problem, it turns out, is that the person was in a wheelchair.
Um, so it's a classic, like, Michael Scott moment.
And she recovered from it about as awkwardly as you can imagine, so let's watch.
What are you doing sitting down over there?
What are you doing sitting down?
Oh, okay.
Politically incorrect.
Sorry about that.
I'm glad you're here.
There's so much disdain in her voice.
She cannot hide the disdain she has for this disabled person.
Oh, you're one of those.
I'm so glad you're here.
Just to be clear, telling a disabled person in a wheelchair to stand is not politically incorrect.
It's just incorrect.
It's an incorrect thing to say.
And what I'm wondering is, how did Madonna not realize that a wheelchair was a possibility?
Has she really never had a person in a wheelchair show up at one of her events before?
At one of her concerts?
How is that even possible?
And also, even if the person wasn't disabled, you're 65 years old.
And you're really judging somebody else for needing to sit down?
I find that a little bit hypocritical.
Especially because, by the way, sitting down is the right thing.
I mean, you know, in this case they had no choice but to sit down, but my only point is that everybody should be sitting.
And I feel very strongly about this.
This is a general rule that I believe in deeply.
That if you're at an event, and I've never been to a Madonna concert, but You know, in general, I've been to many events where there are chairs, and everybody has a chair that they paid for, but they're not sitting.
And I just believe strongly that if you pay for a chair, if it's some kind of event, now if it's an event where there's no chairs, then fine.
But if there's a chair and everyone's sitting, or you're supposed to be sitting, and you paid for a seat, then everybody should be sitting.
So, this really comes up when I go to football games, and I'm trying to sit in the seat, that I paid for to enjoy the game and I quite enjoy sitting.
Sitting is one of my favorite things to do. Like who doesn't like to sit down? And so I
pay the money for the chair, and then you get to the football game and everybody in
front of you is standing for the entire game, which forces you to stand. And I find that
to be, you know, well, I always felt put upon by it.
I felt victimized by it in so many ways.
But now I'm realizing that it's also ableist.
So, you know, in a way I'm a victim of ableism, which I never thought was possible.
But anyway, great moment from Madonna.
Let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
Are you struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns this year?
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 to these agents on your own without backup.
Tax Network USA, a trusted tax relief firm, has saved over a billion dollars in back taxes for their clients.
So they can help you secure the best deal possible.
Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help.
Whether it's businesses or personal taxes, whether you have the means to pay or you're on a fixed income, Tax Network can help you resolve your tax burden 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.
Just a couple of comments here pertaining to the opening monologue yesterday and everything happening in Haiti, which as we discussed again is just a failed state and has totally collapsed and is right now being basically run by a warlord who goes by the nickname Barbecue.
And not everyone appreciated my comments about Haiti, turns out, so a couple of those.
I watched this, and this seriously needs to be fact-checked.
This is not the reason behind the name BBQ.
It was because the guy's mom used to sell BBQ chicken.
You can research this.
I can't believe Elon Musk would share something like this, spreading lies and hate on his own network.
Haiti deserves better.
So that's the one guy, because Elon was kind enough to retweet the show yesterday, the monologue about Elon Musk, or about BBQ, the warlord.
So I guess what I'm being accused of the lies and hate that this person said about are being directed at a violent warlord who is executing random people in the street.
And so you're worried that I'm spreading hate towards the violent warlord, which is interesting.
If you need to believe that barbecue got That this warlord who... It is a fact that he... Now, there are reports and claims about cannibalism going on in the street.
You know, that's what some people are reporting.
I don't know if it's true or not.
But what cannot be denied, what is certainly true, is that people are being killed and burned in the street.
And there are plenty of mainstream news reports talking about the stench of burning flesh that is made, on top of everything else, made these communities unlivable.
And so that is where the nickname comes from, this guy's propensity for setting people on fire.
But if you need to believe that it's because it's not because of that, you know, he already had that.
So maybe what you're saying is that he already happened to have the nickname barbecue because his mom made barbecue chicken.
Which that doesn't even make any sense.
Like, why would that become a nickname for you?
Because your mom made barbecue chicken and everyone's calling you barbecue?
That'd make a lot of sense.
But if you need to believe that.
And then I guess, because he had that nickname already, and then he went on to become a warlord, and then he said to himself, well, I'm already a warlord, and I got this nickname, Barbecue.
So what's my character?
What's my motivation?
What should I be doing, given the fact that I'm a warlord and I have that nickname?
Oh, I could set people on fire.
Maybe you think that was the genesis of everything.
But either way, I think the main point is that this is a violent warlord who sets people on fire.
He's basically running Haiti now.
I have to disagree with you on some of your comments.
Absolutely some immigrants come to take advantage of our goodwill.
The majority come to work their asses off to pick our fruit, construct our buildings, bake our pizzas, cut our grass, etc, etc.
Please remember that.
First of all, it doesn't matter to me.
The personal motivation of illegal immigrants who come here, I've always said, doesn't matter.
It's not important.
You know, it's not relevant to the issue.
And I'm perfectly willing to believe that many of them come here because they want to take care of themselves, they want to take care of their family.
Now, there are plenty of other people who come across with much more sinister motivations, drug traffickers, so on and so forth, human traffickers, criminals of all different types.
But am I denying that there are plenty of illegals who sneak across the border because they want to get a job, they want to find opportunity, they want to provide for the family?
Of course, of course that happens.
And I've also said many times that if I lived in Haiti myself, I would want to leave.
And I'd want to come to America.
Because if I'm looking around in the hemisphere, like places nearby, where can I go?
Yeah, obviously the United States of America is going to be the best place to go.
And if I could just sneak across, and I could sneak my family across, and then even if I make it in, I could take advantage of welfare and everything else, would I do that?
Probably.
Because in this situation, I'm Haitian.
I'm not American.
I don't care about America's laws.
And I don't really care that much about the prosperity and well-being of America.
It's not my country.
I'm looking out for myself.
I'm looking out for my family.
So I understand all that, but it doesn't matter.
It doesn't make a difference.
Yeah, the illegal immigrants have different motivations and different priorities, but the point is that none of them care.
None of them are coming here because they're saying to themselves, I really want to make America a better place.
I want to help America become prosperous.
That's what I want to do.
None of them.
0% of them are coming for that reason.
Because that's not their priority.
But it has to be somebody's priority.
It has to be our priority.
They can prioritize whatever they want.
It doesn't matter.
We have to prioritize, and our leaders have to prioritize, American sovereignty.
Yeah, the illegals don't care about that.
Of course they don't.
We need to care about it.
We need to care about our sovereignty.
We need to care about the well-being of America and Americans.
And what that means is we stop illegals from coming here and if they come we round them up and we ship them off.
Nothing personal.
I don't need to see it as a personal thing.
These are all terrible people and that's not necessarily the case.
It's not anything personal against them.
It's just we need to take care of our country.
And that means we cannot have hordes of third world immigrants just coming in whenever they want.
And then as much, by the way, as much as you say they all come here and work hard, many of them in fact come here and then hop right on the welfare rolls.
That is a fact.
It's one of the primary motivations that brings them here.
And we cannot have that.
We can't have it.
And if we allow that to happen and we allow it to happen too much, eventually we become one of the countries, we become a country that is indistinguishable from the countries that these people are all trying to escape.
And that doesn't help anybody.
And most importantly, it doesn't help Americans.
And the reason why I say that that's most important is because I am an American.
And so my priority is my own people, and it should be yours as well.
Finally, you're very ignorant about how the USA and France have destroyed Haiti and stolen its riches.
Haiti was once the richest island in the Caribbean.
You should start from there.
You're very ignorant about what happened to the former president and why Haiti is now the way it is.
Look, Haiti has been essentially a disaster zone for like 200 years.
And, you know, you could come up with whatever excuse you want.
And you could talk about the just parade of atrocities that has been visited upon Haiti.
Okay.
But you can keep using that as an excuse.
And then just use it as an excuse in perpetuity.
And then Haiti will remain forever the disaster zone that it has been for two centuries.
Or, you know, Haitians themselves can seek, take control of their own country and build their own country back.
Because just like I said about America, like no one is going to prioritize.
If Americans will not prioritize America and care about America first and foremost, then nobody will.
And then America falls apart.
And the same goes for any other country.
You need to prioritize your own country and take care of your own country.
And if you won't do that, then nobody else will.
Even with the United States giving out foreign aid to everybody all over and spending billions and billions and billions on foreign aid, you know, even that's not going to be enough.
You need to take charge of your own country and stop falling back on excuses.
And if you're not going to do that, every country needs to be able to stand on its own two feet.
And if it won't or can't, then it's just not going to be a country anymore.
And you can call it unfair, but it is the way it is.
It's the way the world works, and it's the way it always has worked, and it's the way it always will work.
And there's no getting around it.
The iconic Leftist Tears Tumblr is back.
Everybody wants one, but there's only one way to get it.
By becoming a Daily Wire Plus annual member.
Not only does your annual membership give you unparalleled access to ad-free, uncensored shows from your favorite Daily Wire hosts, on-demand hit movies, series, and groundbreaking documentaries, but now that membership also includes our Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Soccer moms have their Stanleys, but what about you?
Well, you're raising the bar with the iconic Leftist Tears Tumblr.
New Daily Wire Plus Insider annual members get a free Tumblr or Put your money where your values are and join us on the front line in the fight to reshape culture with an all-access membership and get two Leftist Tears tumblers for free.
Join now and get your free Leftist Tears tumbler at dailywireplus.com.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
I realize that so many of you live more difficult lives than mine, and I don't expect you to shower me with admiration.
But on rare occasion, I do make a sacrifice so great and embrace a suffering so vast and severe that I do think I deserve a little bit of praise for it.
And that is the case today, after I, for the sake of doing this segment, I just read an epically long New York Magazine article by a trans activist arguing for child sex change operations.
And this thing, this article, is over 7,000 words long, which is like two chapters in a moderately sized book.
I read the entire thing so that I could tell you about it, even though you may not want to hear about it.
But you're going to hear about it now because I didn't read the damn thing for nothing.
So this article, which is the new cover story for the latest edition of New York Magazine, is titled, The Right to Change Sex.
It's written by a person named Andrea Long Chu.
And just for your reference, this is what Andrea Long Chu looks like.
You can see the photo.
For those listening to the audio podcast, you don't need to go look up the picture.
It's exactly what you think when you imagine a trans activist who argues that children of any age should be allowed to get sex change surgeries.
And yes, That is his argument.
He is arguing, though without presenting any actual arguments, as we'll see, for the sterilization, mutilation, castration, and surgical butchery of children with no age limit.
Now, as you can tell in the photo, and as you may have guessed already, Chu himself is a male who identifies as female and has apparently gone through various physical procedures in an effort to attain what, for him, is an inherently unattainable identity.
Now he has basically dedicated his life to retroactively justifying what he has done to himself by defending it as a wonderful choice for anyone of any age, no matter how young.
But before we get to the article, I just want to set the stage a little bit more here, and I want you to know two other things about our friend Andrea Long Chiu, born Andrew Long Chiu.
You should know that Chiu is a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer who has written extensively, and as far as I can tell exclusively, about transgenderism and related topics.
And yet, can not offer an even halfway coherent explanation of his own trans identity or his own discovery of his alleged femaleness.
To show you what I mean, I'm going to read to you a brief excerpt from an interview that Shu gave back in 2018 with something called the New York City Trans Oral History Project.
During the lengthy conversation, Chu tried to explain how he first came to realize his own supposed womanhood, and here's what he said.
I'm gonna read it exactly, okay?
Here's what he said.
I was, let's see, gender wise I think, I mean, like I don't know.
I don't have like a sort of Jan Morris sort of like whatever.
I knew since I was like three kind of thing.
It would be nice, like I wish I did, but I don't.
If I look back now and reinterpret, which like who knows how true that is, but if I look back now, I have a sort of sense of, I mean, being smart, I don't know, being smart as a teenage boy in like a sort of rural-ish North Carolina at this little Christian school was like, I don't know, being a nerdy boy is a kind of alternative gender identity, at least when you've got a limited vocabulary with which to think about.
And so I think that was like a way of sort of sideways disidentification with masculinity.
But I also just, I mean, I loved being around girls.
Oh, okay.
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
Truly, this is a man who makes Joe Biden look downright coherent by comparison, and that is a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and PhD student who cares about nothing but transgenderism and his own transness, and yet cannot speak about it with anything approaching coherence.
Now, the next thing to know, and this is important to understand as we get into Chu's thoughts about children and transgenderism, ...is that Chu thinks of the transgender identity as something explicitly sexual.
The website Redux has a report on Chu several months ago, and it includes this revelation, quote, In 2019, Chu's first book, Females, was published by Verso Press.
The thesis of the 94-page screed was that anyone can become female and that being penetrated during sex defines womanhood.
Quote, getting effed makes you female because effed is what a female is, Chu writes in the short book, describing himself as once being a sad, pretentious boy, furious about rape, hopelessly addicted to pornography.
Chu claims that it was his obsession with pornography that led him to begin identifying as transgender.
Quote, Almost every night for at least a year before I transitioned, I would wait until my girlfriend had fallen asleep and I'd slip out of my bed for the bathroom with my phone.
I was going on Tumblr to look at something called sissy porn.
I've discovered it by accident one night, scrolling lazily down a pornographic rabbit hole.
He continues, "Pornography is what it feels like when you think you have an object, but really the object has you.
It is therefore a quintessential expression of femaleness.
Sissy porn did make me trans. At the center of sissy porn lies the a-hole, a kind of universal vagina through which
femaleness can always be accessed."
Okay, now the fact that porn is a major driving factor behind the trans phenomenon is one of those things that
certain trans activists will say out loud, while the rest of them shriek like banshees in a band that none of us ever
say that out loud.
Of course, these are not two separate groups.
Often the ones who say it out loud will also do the shrieking if they hear you say the same thing out loud.
But it is true.
It is true that pornography is a major driving factor behind the trans phenomenon, and it's perhaps the only true thing that this man has ever said in his entire life.
So with all that established, we can now turn to the article, and it begins with a long dissertation about the gender studies philosopher Judith Butler, who has been writing and speaking for decades and yet has never said a single thing in interesting, intelligent, or worthwhile, which isn't to say that she's had no impact.
Okay, Judith Butler has indeed had an impact, but culturally speaking, it's similar to the impact that a tumor has on your kidney.
We're not going to bother with Chu's lengthy reflection on Butler's work, except to point out that Butler apparently goes by they pronouns now, which Chu of course made sure to respect, and which led, as it always does, to incredibly convoluted sentences like this.
Writing of Butler, he says, quote, But they continue to treat gender as the more promising terrain for political struggle.
One suspects that, even after all these years, Butler is still afraid of sex.
They are not alone.
Many trans advocates worry that if they can see the significance of biological sex as opponents of trans rights demands they do, this will thwart their political aims.
Well, there are three different theys referred to in those few sentences.
So you have trans activists, their opponents, and then Judith Butler as an individual.
And so it's impossible to tell which they corresponds with which group or individual, except by sort of going back through it and reverse engineering the paragraph.
It is totally unintelligible and ridiculous, but unintelligible and ridiculous is, of course, the whole M.O.
of trans activists, as Chu will go on to demonstrate, and has already demonstrated.
A little while later, he correctly identifies a few of the problems that critics have with the concept of gender identity, especially as it pertains to children.
He writes, quote, The public increasingly believes that what the kids call gender is really just trouble.
Depression, anxiety, autism, family dysfunction, peer pressure, or social media.
Any of which, not to mention the universal awkwardness of puberty itself, are better explanations for why a child might question their identity.
Yes.
Bingo.
You got it right.
That's exactly right.
But Chu never refutes this idea.
I mean, he doesn't agree with it.
He puts it forward as a false claim.
He doesn't even pretend, though, to explain why it's false, which is an interesting strategy, because usually trans activists will make an absurd straw man out of their critics, and Chu certainly does plenty of that in this piece.
But in this particular passage, he's actually given a fair summation of one of the points that his critics make, except that he gives the fair summation and then promptly moves on, never attempting to offer anything resembling a refutation of it.
Eventually he gets around to what appears to be his point, quote,
"To confront the reality of biological sex is not by definition to swear fealty to that reality.
No one knows this better than a child who wishes to have their biological sex changed.
We must be able to defend this desire clearly, directly, and crucially without depending on the idea of gender."
So he says that we should not swear fealty to reality, which is certainly the trans activist mantra.
Trans activists oppose reality in principle.
That has always been obvious.
It's just that they rarely state the point so frankly.
And then he says that some children wish to have their biological sex changed, and he declares that this desire should be defended.
But the problem, of course, is that biological sex cannot be changed.
It cannot be changed any more than our species can be changed, or the fact that we are three-dimensional beings can be changed.
It is a fundamental fact of our reality.
But this is another point that Hsu never engages with.
So he wrote 7,000 words ostensibly defending the idea that children should be able to change their sex, but he does not spend even one single sentence, even five words of the 7,000, dealing with the fact that sex cannot be changed.
That is the number one primary argument against everything that he says about changing sex.
Even in particular, his claim that we should allow children to get sex changes.
Even there, there are many arguments we have against that.
But the first argument we have against it is that you can't.
And he never spends a second, 7,000 words debunking our side, never spends a second on that.
Which is pretty amazing.
Continuing.
He writes, "Many Americans, though they may not realize it, already enjoy a limited version of the freedom to alter
their sexual biology.
What is new is the idea that this freedom can be asserted as a universal right by a group of politically disenfranchised
as the young.
This is why the anti-trans movement is so desperate. It is afraid of what sex might become.
We will never be able to defend the rights of transgender kids until we understand them purely on their own terms.
As full members of society who would like to change their sex, it does not matter where this desire comes from."
He has not explained how our biological sex can be altered.
He doesn't appear to understand what biology is or what sex is.
But he is sure that many people have changed or altered their biological sex, sometimes without knowing it.
Now, he never offers any clear explanation of this idea, a pattern that you're maybe starting to pick up on.
But as best I can tell, this Pulitzer Prize winning PhD student seems to think that women who take hormones for fertility treatments are changing their sex.
Chu recognizes no distinction between the treatment of a medical condition and the application of synthetic hormones for the purpose of bringing about cosmetic changes in a person to make them appear like the opposite sex.
The glaringly obvious difference between these two applications is apparently still too subtle or nuanced for Mr. Pulitzer to pick up on.
And that is far from the dumbest or craziest thing in this article.
Quote, sex is real, so is global warming.
To believe in their reality is an indispensable precondition for making normative claims about them, as we know from climate activism.
But the belief that we have a moral duty to accept reality just because it is real is, I think, a fine definition of nihilism.
What trans kids are saying is this, the right to change sex that has been enjoyed for decades by their parents, friends, teachers, coaches, doctors, and representatives, especially if those people are white and affluent, this right belongs to them too.
I am speaking here of a universal birthright, the freedom of sex.
The freedom consists of two principal rights, the right to change one's biological sex without appealing to gender, and the right to assume a gender that is not determined by one's sexual biology.
What does this freedom look like in practice?
Let anyone change their sex.
Let anyone change their gender.
Let anyone change their sex again.
If we are to recognize the right of trans kids, we will also have to accept that.
Like us, they have a right to the hazards of their own free will.
Okay, there's a lot of crazy packed into just a little bit of space there.
First, Chu says that we should not accept reality just because it's real.
The fact that something is real Is no reason to accept that it's real, is what he's saying.
So we shouldn't accept that a circle is a circle just because it's a circle.
We shouldn't refrain from declaring that it's snowing outside just because it's 90 degrees and sunny.
We shouldn't let the fact that something is get in the way of us claiming and believing that it isn't.
This sort of pathologically confused thinking is, it is indeed irrefutable.
It is an irrefutable claim.
It's not irrefutable because it's intelligent.
Rather, the opposite.
It's irrefutable in the way that all gibberish is irrefutable.
Okay, if somebody says that 2 plus 2 equals 5... Okay, well, we can explain why they're wrong.
We can show them why they're wrong.
But if somebody says that 2 plus 2 equals blue...
There's no way.
That is so wrong that we can't even explain.
There's no starting point here.
There's no ground on which we can sort of meet here and have this conversation.
It is gibberish and nonsense, and that's all that can be said about it.
Which is what we get from these trans activists.
And from there we're told that everybody has the freedom to choose their own sex, but as already established, there's no attempt to deal with the unfortunate problem that changing your sex is a physical impossibility.
He declares a right to do something that cannot be done, and then he ascribes that right to children, where he proceeds to dismiss the permanent physical damage inflicted on their bodies as, quote, the hazards of free will.
And this is where we see, if it was not already incredibly obvious, that Chu is not only intellectually diluted and unable to explain any of his fundamental claims or engage with any of the claims of his opponents, he is also a moral monster.
He advocates for the sexual butchery of children, very young children, children of any age, because in his world, children can consent to anything, apparently, no matter how young they are.
And this is a fact with extremely disturbing implications that goes far beyond the trans agenda.
And it's also a fact that should prompt you to keep your own children as far away from this guy as you possibly can.
We'll read just one more passage from this lunatic diatribe.
It says, quote, If children are too young to consent to puberty blockers, then they are definitely too young to consent to puberty, which is a drastic biological upheaval in its own right.
Yet we let this happen every day, and not without casualties.
I'm not speaking of suicide.
I'm speaking of the many opponents of trans rights who observe with horror that they, too, might have transitioned, given the chance.
So intensely did they hate being teenage girls.
I do not know if they regret their biology today.
I do suspect they regret that they never got to choose it.
Well, except that nobody gets to choose it.
Nobody.
Andrea Chu did not choose a new biology when he got his surgery.
He has the same biology, the same body, just a damaged version of it.
And as for consenting to puberty, that's like asking whether a short man consented to be short, or whether a person with two arms consented to not having wings.
Of course, the answer is that consent is irrelevant to biology.
Your biology is what it is.
You did not consent to being human, or to being born on Earth, or to being born in this time period instead of the 1600s or the Stone Age.
You cannot consent to any of that, not just because reality is what it is, but for the even more basic fact that in order for you to consent to anything, there must first be a you to do the consenting.
You must pre-exist any consent that you give to anything.
You cannot consent Before there is a you to give your consent.
Which means that the one thing that must exist outside of your sphere of consent is you yourself.
The basic inherent reality of you.
Now, a lot of other things exist outside of your sphere of consent, too.
The reality of the Milky Way galaxy, for instance, and about 900 trillion other things or so.
But certainly, you cannot consent to the basic stuff that makes you, you.
Because that has to come first.
The trans activist declares the right of self-creation.
But he is not a self-created deity, no matter how much he wants to be.
He cannot create or recreate himself.
He can only modify himself.
Those modifications can be dramatic, they can be far-reaching, they can be bizarre, they can be quite upsetting to look at.
But they are just that, modifications.
The basic fact of himself remains and will never change.
And any attempt to change it will only ever result in harm and great suffering, especially when it's inflicted on a child.
Who cannot understand any of what we're talking about here.
Then again, Andrea Chu can't understand it either.
The only difference is that the child has an excuse.
