Ep. 1353 - Insider Investigation Reveals The Absurd Details Behind Eventbrite's Decision To Ban Me From Its Platform
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a congressional investigation has revealed insider details about Big Tech's censorship of conservatives. A major focus of the investigation was Eventbrite's targeting of events related to me and my film, What Is A Woman. We'll discuss. Also, Ilhan Omar's daughter says she was rendered homeless and hungry after being arrested during a pro-Hamas protest on campus. Even worse, she was attacked with "chemical weapons," she claims. And Time Magazine publishes an article about parents who regret having kids. It's all a part of the ongoing attack on the family and marriage.
Ep.1353
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the latest episode of Judged by Matt Walsh premiering TONIGHT at 8 PM ET only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 35% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Get 50% off your first month when you make the switch! https://www.puretalk.com/Walsh
Helix - Get 20% off your order + 2 dream pillows. https://helixsleep.com/Walsh
BJU Press - Learn how BJU Press can help you prepare your kids for a future full of possibilities at http://www.HomeSchoolHelp.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 Walsh Show, a congressional investigation has revealed insider details about big tech censorship of conservatives, and a major focus of the investigation was Eventbrite's targeting of events related to me and my film, What Is Woman, we'll discuss.
Also, Ilhan Omar's daughter says she was rendered homeless and hungry after being arrested during a pro-Hamas protest on campus.
Even worse, she was attacked with chemical weapons, she claims.
And Time Magazine publishes an article about parents who regret having kids.
It's all a part of the ongoing attack on the family and marriage.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh show.
Matt Walsh.
You can get unlimited talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $20 a month.
PureTalk gives you the same quality of service as your current cell phone provider, but for half the cost.
The average family saves almost $1,000 a year, all with no contracts and no activation fees.
You can switch to Pure Talk and keep the phone and phone number you currently use, or you
can take advantage of their great deals on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Making the switch is incredibly easy.
Their US customer service team can help you join Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes.
Choose to spend your hard earned money with a wireless company that shares your values,
supports our military and veterans, creates American jobs, and refuses to advertise on
fake news networks.
Stop spending ridiculous amounts on your phone plan.
Go to puretalk.com/walsh.
Right now my listeners can get an additional 50% off their first month.
That's puretalk.com/walsh.
Well, after my film, What Is A Woman became one of the most watched documentaries of all
time, there were a couple of different responses that leftists could have had to the film.
And the easiest response would have been to simply answer the question in the title.
Trans activists, the media, and politicians had the opportunity to provide a coherent, non-circular definition for the word woman, and then if they had done that, they would have won the argument.
That's all they had to do.
But, of course, trans ideology can't provide a coherent definition of the word woman, so they refused to do so.
When I interviewed them in the film, and then they haven't been able to do it in nearly two years since the documentary came out.
Instead, as I've discussed, of course, many times, the left lied about the film.
They accused me of transphobia for allowing trans activists to explain, or rather fail to explain, but they were given the opportunity to explain, what they believe.
But they didn't stop there.
On top of all the lies, one of the most powerful technology platforms in the country embarked on an effort to prevent me from speaking about the film.
This platform called Eventbrite also tried to shut down screenings of the documentary.
They claim that any event or screening of the film, any time that we discuss it, we have violated their hateful events policy.
Now, if you're not familiar with Eventbrite, it controls roughly 50% of the event management and registration market, so it's a very big company.
They're hard to avoid if you want to plan an event.
Even if you want to avoid them, it's difficult to do.
There's not a lot of alternatives.
And on at least seven occasions, they canceled events involving what is a woman, often costing event organizers like YAF thousands of dollars.
Now, at the time, it seemed like, you know, just another example of a left-wing company silencing political dissent.
Stop me if you've heard that one before.
But the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation decided to look deeper into what's going on.
Under the leadership of ranking member Ted Cruz, the committee launched a congressional investigation into several instances in which online service providers canceled services for conservative organizations and speakers.
The committee probed Eventbrite, and many other companies like it, to understand what was going on internally at these companies when they made these decisions to censor conservatives.
And today, we can bring you the results of that investigation, which has been going on for many months, exclusively.
So here's the top line finding, which outlines the left's strategy for attacking the freedom of speech and association in this country.
Quoting from the report, quote, this investigation revealed that online service providers are following a new playbook for silencing conservatives that leftist organizations, including the notoriously biased Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League, concocted.
Removing infrastructure services that conservative organizations need to operate by weaponizing their terms of service.
Now, in other words, what Eventbrite did to What Is Woman is part of a much larger effort to de-platform anyone who disagrees with the left, particularly on the issue of transgenderism, or really on any other issue.
This is their answer to me, as well as to Libs of TikTok, Riley Gaines, non-profits like the Independent Women's Forum.
They can't debate us, so they have to shut us down and prevent us from speaking.
The committee's investigation exposes this effort in great detail for the total fraud that it is.
Now publicly, companies like Eventbrite will claim that, well, they're just combating hate and they're combating disinformation when they shut down events featuring my film, for example.
But in reality, the committee found nobody at Eventbrite even watched What Is A Woman before they decided to ban all events themed around the film.
Quoting from the report, quote, Eventbrite admitted to the committee that no one involved in the decision watched What Is A Woman before canceling the events.
Eventbrite could not even identify a single timestamp in the trailer that it deemed to violate the Eventbrite community guidelines.
According to Eventbrite, the overall tone and message of the all-encompassing trailer, in combination with Matt Walsh's related public statements, helped determine the removals, not any individual timestamp.
So, to restate, because this really is pretty incredible, A big tech platform banned events involving my film, saying that these events violated their hateful events policy, without even watching the film.
They can't tell you specifically anything in the film that violates the policy, yet the film as a whole violates the policy.
Try to make sense of that.
According to the committee, Eventbrite has a trust and safety team that consists of at least 12 full-time employees that review every single case where something is being banned.
Eventbrite describes these employees as experts.
Experts in what?
I mean, what are their qualifications?
That's never explained.
But we do know they certainly aren't experts in the film because none of these experts saw the film that they wanted to ban.
Instead they looked at non-specific parts of the trailer and then my public statements that we'll talk about in a second.
So let's go through this one by one.
Starting with the trailer, which again is what they used to ban every event that has anything to do with my film.
So here are the first 45 seconds or so of the trailer for What Is Woman, which is probably more than Eventbrite's experts even watched, but here it is, watch.
What is a woman?
Can you tell me that?
Well, you're at the Women's March, you must have some idea.
Please, if one person can tell me what a woman is.
You are not here for women!
We ask you to leave!
What is that?
I'm a husband.
I'm a father for I host a talk show.
I give speeches.
I write books.
I like to make sense of things.
A woman is not anything in particular.
There is not one particular thing.
It could be many things to many people.
Some women have penises, right?
Some men have vaginas.
I like scented candles.
I've watched Sex and the City.
Yeah.
How do I know if I'm a woman?
That's a great question.
You're not a scientist.
You're not a gender studies major.
No.
How do you know that you're a man?
I guess because I got a dick.
Okay, so you can watch the whole thing online if you want, if you haven't seen it yet.
Many people have, but that's basically what it is.
And that is the alleged hateful content that apparently Eventbrite finds disqualifying.
Nobody can use Eventbrite to show the film or even discuss it.
Again, it's not just screenings of the film, but discussions about the film are not allowed if you're using Eventbrite to organize your event.
And they're using that, the trailer, as their evidence.
Not exactly convincing.
So, maybe to cover their bases more thoroughly, Eventbrite told the committee that they banned my events for a few other reasons as well.
Specifically, they said that my public statements were hateful.
Now, what public statements exactly?
Well, Eventbrite provided three examples to the Congressional Committee.
All of them are from before the film was released.
So these are statements that actually have nothing to do with the film.
Because it's before the film existed, or at least before it was released.
The first example is my appearance on a Dr. Phil episode titled The Gender Pronoun Debate from January 19, 2022.
The whole episode runs for the better part of an hour.
And again, there's basically no chance that Eventbrite's experts watched the whole appearance.
But here's a representative part.
Watch.
That's a question I would like to throw out to other members of the panel.
Actually, because just like the four-year-old can't answer, what is a girl?
Well, this is one of the problems with this left-wing gender ideology, is that no one who espouses it can even tell you what these words mean.
It's like, what is a woman?
Can you tell me what a woman is?
No, I can't.
Because it's not for me to say.
Womanhood looks different for everybody.
What do you define a woman as?
An adult human female.
And what does a female mean?
How do you define a female?
Someone with female reproductive organs.
Okay.
Someone who's, you know, here's the thing.
When you're female, it goes right down to your bones, your DNA.
So that's why if someone dies, we could dig up their bones a hundred years from now.
We have no idea what they believed in their head, but we can tell what sex they were because it's in, it's down in, it's ingrained in every fiber of their being.
So, according to Eventbrite, the fact that I used the words mental illness, charade, and theatrical production during the episode to describe men who pretend to be women, and vice versa, is evidence that I'm a very hateful person, and so I shouldn't be allowed to host events.
Or, you shouldn't- you also shouldn't be allowed to host events that have anything to do with me.
Because these are not just events that I was hosting, but these are events that- in fact, I wasn't hosting any of these events.
Additionally, Eventbrite says that in May 2021, an episode of this show was hateful because I discussed gender surgeries being performed on children, including double mastectomies, and I said that they were morally akin to rape and child molestation.
And apparently that's hateful.
If you have a problem with child butchery, then Eventbrite won't allow you to have a platform.
And they're right, by the way.
It is hateful.
I do hate this kind of abuse against children.
So, in a sense, that's correct.
There was one other objection that Eventbrite made concerning the children's book that I wrote called Johnny the Walrus.
Now, of course, they didn't actually read this book any more than they watched the film.
Can't blame them, though.
The book is probably above their reading level, but it was featured at the beginning of my appearance on the Dr. Phil Show, which is probably how they heard about it.
Let's watch that.
My name is Matt Walsh, and I've written a book called Johnny the Walrus.
This book is about identity and imagination.
He identifies as a walrus, and his mom's a little silly.
She takes it seriously and thinks he really is a walrus.
So she went on her phone, and there were people telling her that this isn't pretend, he's really a walrus.
And his mother takes him to the doctor to have him surgically transitioned, and gets him walrus hormone pills, and then eventually tries to drop him off at a zoo to live with other walruses.
Not only topping the Amazon charts, my book has taken the world by storm.
So, the book, as you probably know, is about a little boy who pretends to be a walrus.
People encourage him to start changing his appearance and getting surgery to transform into a walrus, and the book takes the position that this is a bad idea.
It teaches that human children should recognize that they are human children and not walruses.
But to Eventbrite, this is a big problem.
They told the committee that this is hate speech, so it's bad, and I'm not allowed on their platform.
The funny thing is that, as the committee's investigation makes clear, Eventbrite doesn't really know what their hateful conduct policy even says.
Either that or they lied to the committee, or it could be a combination of the two.
Quoting from the report, on February 27th, days before the March 1st event, Eventbrite removed the events page from its website and notified the organizer that it had done so because the event violated the Eventbrite community guidelines.
Eventbrite told the committee that it sends a standard notification when removing an event for violating its hateful events policy.
As reflected in the figure below, however, in the version Eventbrite sent to the organizers of the Stanford event, Eventbrite directly stated that the problem with the Matt Walsh event was that it expressed views that violated the Eventbrite terms of service.
In other words, Eventbrite's standard hateful events policy Doesn't say anything about prohibiting certain views.
They wrote up a custom notification just for one of my events and then apparently forgot about it.
This kind of ad hoc reasoning is extremely common on the left and particularly among online service providers.
It's yet another symptom of an ideology without any real principles.
And they're also, the reason that they're ambiguous about this is because they want to allow themselves to apply the rules in a subjective, targeted, ideological way.
But as I alluded to earlier, of course, this isn't just affecting me.
The committee outlines numerous other instances of online platforms shutting down events for conservatives, including a November 2023 event featuring the swimmer Riley Gaines at UC Davis.
The school's College Republicans worked with Eventbrite to set up a registration page so that students could sign up and attend for free.
But in late November, Eventbrite canceled the whole thing.
They notified the organizers that events cannot espouse hatred or harass anyone based on a series of characteristics including sexual orientation, national origin, immigration status, gender identity, religion, ethnicity, or disability.
Now notably, Eventbrite doesn't prohibit hatred based on sex discrimination.
So it's okay to deride women and pretend they don't exist, for example.
Trans activists are free to do that all they want.
But Riley Gaines was shut down not because of anything on her event page, but because she previously made social media posts affirming that biology is real.
One of the posts cited by Eventbrite is an October 10th, 2023 post from Gaines in which she says, quote, women are not menstruators, bleeders, chest feeders, cervix havers, uterus owners, egg producers, or people with birthing capacity.
Women are just women, adult human females.
Now according to Eventbrite, which makes up its standards as it goes, that is hateful conduct.
To say that women are women is hateful conduct.
Along those lines, the committee investigated the communications platform Slack for cancelling the workspace of Libs of TikTok.
Slack informed the committee that, quote, what makes Libs of TikTok problematic is that Libs of TikTok has a specific audience and they are taking this information and posting it to that specific audience so that everyone in that audience sees it at the same time.
Now I've read that explanation about five times, it still doesn't, honestly I can't make sense of it, I don't know what that means.
But, so lives at TikTok posts things that people see it the same, so she's posting on the internet is what you're saying?
That's what makes it hateful?
But as best I can tell, they're admitting that nothing Lives at TikTok has said was objectionable or hateful, and really it couldn't be because she's mostly reposting content from leftists.
Most of what she's doing is just saying, oh, Listen to what this person said publicly.
So instead of making any factual argument, Slack apparently complains that a lot of people are seeing the factual information provided by Libs of TikTok, and I guess those people are becoming hateful as a result of what Libs of TikTok is telling them.
So this alleged audience reaction makes Libs of TikTok's conduct a violation of Slack's policies against inciting hatred.
Now she didn't direct anyone to engage in any hateful conduct.
She didn't openly incite anyone to do anything.
She simply posted the truth about what's happening.
And that's not allowed anymore.
Now this is a standard that obviously if the left were to employ against itself would result in the immediate deplatforming of the Washington Post, pretty much every trans activist who's ever used social media, the entirety of CNN and MSNBC, like all the corporate media and so forth.
But it's not a real standard and it's not meant to be administered fairly.
Instead, as the committee notes, this standard was essentially invented by the ADL, the SPLC, and other well-funded left-wing activist groups.
Quote, although Slack did not specifically point to them with regard to its Libsit TikTok investigation, notably, the left-wing SPLC has described Libsit TikTok as an extremist account, and ADL labeled Libsit TikTok slash Shia Raichik as an extremist in its glossary of extremism.
The same designation applies to me, by the way, quoting again from the report.
Eventbrite did not say that it relied on ADL in deciding to cancel the What Is Woman events, but notably ADL, which Eventbrite's trust and safety team generally relies on as a source, has labeled Matt Walsh as an extremist commentator.
So this is the strategy that has been unearthed by this congressional committee, motivated in part by guidance from left-wing activist groups.
Large online tech platforms are doing everything they can to make sure conservatives can't communicate or stay in business.
And there are several other examples.
For instance, the report says that the Independent Women's Forum, or IWF, was kicked off the fundraising platform Bonterra for defending women's rights, which I guess they're not allowed to do.
Bonterra categorized IWF as some sort of anti-LGBT outfit, whatever that means, all because they believe that biology is real.
Therefore, they're not allowed to raise money, I guess.
In its report, the committee suggests that this situation could be resolved by legislation, or at least addressed in some way by legislation.
And it can be, and it should be.
But the ideal and really final resolution, as the committee suggests in its conclusion, is for new online service providers to flood the market and offer an alternative.
I mean, that's the only response to this insanity that's sustainable.
And it's a very workable solution.
Because of this committee's investigation, we know that the company censoring conservatives are actually staffed with complete bumbling morons who have no idea what they're doing.
I mean, that means that they're powerful, yes, but they're also vulnerable.
And now it's time to replace them before they silence us.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Amidst the chaos of my daily life, I find solace in my Helix mattress.
It's not just a mattress, it's a sanctuary that prepares me for the challenges of the next day.
Helix harnesses years of mattress expertise to offer a truly elevated sleep experience.
The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be.
Helix has you covered.
Their unique Sleep Quiz customizes your mattress based on your body type and sleep preferences.
No more generic mattresses made for someone else.
I took the Helix quiz and I was matched with a firm but breathable mattress.
I love the mattress.
I'm confident you'll love yours too.
Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
Helix's financing options and flexible payment plans ensure a great night's sleep is never far away.
Helix is offering my listeners 20% off on all mattress orders and two free pillows.
Go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
That's helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
This is their best offer yet, and it won't last long.
With Helix, better sleep starts now.
Post-millennial reports.
Students at Columbia University will have to switch to hybrid learning until the end of the term due to the massive Gaza camp protest against Israel raging on at the main campus.
Students were told that hybrid learning will be in place, save for classes where it's not possible due to equipment required, until the last day of classes on April 29th.
The move comes after President Monish Shafiq canceled all in-person classes on Monday to de-escalate the rancor and give us all a chance to consider next steps.
Many have been calling for her resignation.
According to a statement from Provost Angela Alinto and Chief Operating Officer Cass Holloway, all courses at the Morningside main campus, save for those in arts practice-based programs, will be made hybrid so long as classroom technology permits.
In recent days, protests on campus have escalated with hundreds of students and faculty refusing to back down despite numerous calls to do so from university leadership and law enforcement.
In a statement released on Monday, Shafiq noted that, quote, there have been too many examples of intimidating and harassing behavior on our campus, adding, quote, we cannot have one group dictate terms and attempt to disrupt important milestones like graduation to advance their point of view.
Okay, so That's just the latest on these quote-unquote protests that have been happening at supposedly elite universities across the country for days now.
And I'll probably go into more detail about this protest movement from the left tomorrow.
I'll just give a quick overview of some points right now.
And to start with, protest movements on the left are never organic or grassroots.
Never.
Never ever.
They're always very well-funded.
Very well organized, facilitated by institutional wealth and power.
And that's what we're talking about.
I made this point on Twitter earlier and somebody, you know, of course, people always like to be pedantic on Twitter.
So someone said, well, you know, every protest is organized.
Well, yeah, obviously.
Obviously, there's some element of organization that goes into any protest.
You have to at least communicate in some way to tell people, hey, we're protesting here.
The difference, though, is on the left, they have powerful institutions behind them that are funding all of this.
And on the right, you don't really have that.
So if there's a protest movement on the right, it's almost always actually a grassroots, in that sense, organic effort.
And not only is there no real institutional power behind the protests on the right, but as we've seen, we just talked about in the opening monologue, the institutional powers are trying to shut down conservative events and conservative demonstrations of any kind.
So, on the left, they have that kind of institutional power, so that's where all this stuff comes from.
And there's a reason why, when you look at photos from this encampment at Columbia, Uh, all of the tents are the same.
It's like identical tents set up in a line.
Now, I've never seen a campsite where everyone happens to have the exact same tent.
I've never seen a bunch of matching tents at a campsite.
That's what they have at Columbia because this is all organized from above.
Like, obviously, someone is going out and buying all the tents, providing all the tents so that they can have their illegal encampment.
And it's being organized, of course, by the same people who organized the BLM riots of 2020.
And it's the same cast of characters that are participating in this.
This is our version of BLM for 2024.
And we knew, you know, the interesting thing is that we knew that we were bound to have some kind of race riot, some kind of race-related protest this summer because it's an election year.
So, the spring or summer before an election is when there's some kind of race-related protest.
If you're aware of that pattern, then for the last couple of years, you've been expecting, you knew something was going to happen.
There would be something right around this time, and now you look and, well, what do you know?
It's happening.
It's just that it's taking the form of Free Palestine instead of BLM.
It's the exact same people.
It's the exact same forces at work.
Everything is the same.
They've just changed up the signs and the slogans.
Haven't changed them up that much.
I mean, the signs and slogans even are very similar.
But mostly the same.
Same tactics, same methods.
It's all the same.
Because this is, at bottom, as always, an anti-white, anti-West movement.
Now, they pretend to be angry about Israel or whatever, but this, for them, is really about colonialism, quote-unquote.
It's about the evils of Western civilization.
It's about white power and so on.
And, you know, this is not my interpretation of their movement.
If you were to go and ask them, if you go to Colombia and ask them about this, they'll tell you.
Ask them, like, what is this really about to you?
What are you actually upset about?
You're talking about Israel, but what's underlying all of this?
What do you think you're fighting against?
If you ask them that, they're not going to say, Israel, and just leave it at that.
They're going to tell you they're fighting against colonialism, they're fighting against white systemic power, that's what they're going to say.
And I said this from the very beginning, when all this first started.
And some people were a little bit confused about like, well, why would the left instinctively take the side of Hamas?
As people on the right love to point out, I mean, you go to Columbia, you see these protesters.
If you were to round them up and drop them off in the Middle East, the vast majority of them would not survive the day.
Okay, most of these people would be killed on the spot in many places in the Middle East.
So why would they, it doesn't make any sense, why would they side with people who hate them?
Well, it's actually pretty simple.
The calculation is very simple.
They side with the, whatever side is less white, that's the side that they prefer.
That's it, that's the only calculation.
And in any dispute, in any conflict between individuals or groups of people, On the left, all they do is they look at it, they say, okay, who is the lighter skin color here?
Okay, well, they're the bad guys, and then over there, they're darker, so they're the good guys.
It really is that simple.
It's the only calculation that matters to them.
But the good news is that this all has created some comedic relief, if unintentionally, along the way.
So I want you to listen to this from the Daily Beast.
It's an article recounting how Ilhan Omar's daughter That's been the headline anyway.
I've seen this headline all over social media that Ilhan Omar's daughter is homeless now and has nearly starved to death because she was arrested for her illegal activity during one of these protests.
Reading now from the Daily Beast, it says, when Aisra Hirsi joined several of her Barnard College and Columbia University peers in the pro-Palestinian campus protest known as the Gaza Encampment, She had no idea she would end up suspended and barred from her on-campus dorm and dining hall within a matter of days.
An interview with Teen Vogue's Lex McMenamin, the Bernard Jr., who's the daughter of Ilhan Omar, recounted the violence with which the college reacted to student activism, detailing the arrest and subsequent sanctions she faced.
Hersey and two of her Bernard College classmates were the first of over 100 students to be suspended following the protest.
Early Thursday morning, just over 24 hours into the encampment, Hersey and the 100-plus other protesters were crammed into a corrections bus and sent downtown to One Police Plaza, a process that took up the entire day.
She says she was zip-tied and handcuffed, in other words, and she was shipped off to be arrested.
And that took about 13 hours until she got out.
Which is outrageous, by the way, because she should have been detained for much longer than that.
But when she returned to campus, she found only more barriers.
Hersey knew that when she was suspended, it meant she no longer had access to her housing in the on-campus dorms.
That meant she had also lost access to all of her possessions.
She didn't know where she would find housing that night.
She said, quote, I was a little bit frantic, like, where am I going to sleep?
Where am I going to go?
And also, all of my sh** is thrown in a random lot.
It's pretty horrible.
To make matters worse, Hersey also lost access to the dining hall as a result of her suspension, where she had been getting the majority of her meals.
Now, it goes on later to say that actually they provided her... She lost access to the dining hall, but they were providing bags of food anyway.
But it took a little bit longer for her to get her pre-packaged bag of food, and so she nearly starved in the process.
So, Ilhan Omar's daughter's homeless, I guess, and starving.
And she had no idea this would happen.
She had no idea that by being involved in an illegal encampment, by doing something illegal, she would be arrested.
No idea.
And by the way, I'm sure that's true.
That she really didn't see it coming.
I believe her, that she didn't see it coming, because You know, these protests are organized by smart, rich people who know exactly what they're doing.
But the average grunt on the street, and that even includes the daughter of a congresswoman, like, these people are much dumber.
And they really do think that they have some kind of right to just set up an encampment wherever they want without any repercussions whatsoever.
But it's even worse than that, because not only is she homeless and starving to death, she also Well, I'll let you tell her.
Listen to this part of the interview.
This was pretty shocking.
I had no idea that it was this bad, but listen.
There is definitely some hypocrisy here, especially—you can kind of see it with the students that were—sprayed us with the chemical weapons and the fact that there is no public information as to what happened to them, but rather the university is actively discussing what is happening to the students here and making it a whole public spectacle rather than when we haven't done anything to physically harm students, whereas those that sprayed those chemical weapons physically harmed students.
Chemical weapons are being used against these protesters.
This is major news.
Why isn't this in every headline?
They're using chemical weapons against the protesters?
Now listen, I think that everybody involved in the encampment, they should all have their tents torn down and they should all be rounded up and arrested.
As always with these kinds of situations, it's just like we talk about with the protesters that stand in the middle of the highway and shut down traffic.
It's very easy to deal with.
We're constantly told by the media and by political leaders that it's complex, it's difficult, there's so many different factors to weigh.
Actually, it's very easy, and the only factor you need to weigh is, how do we get rid of these people as quickly as possible so that everything can get back to normal for all the people who are not involved in this?
And getting rid of them is incredibly easy.
Just show up with As many buses as you need, as many cops as you need, and throw them in handcuffs and drag them away.
That's it.
Real simple.
But what if there's 500 people there?
Are you going to arrest them all?
Yes!
Arrest 500 people.
Arrest 1,000 people if you need to.
Absolutely!
If that's how many people are breaking the law, arrest them all.
No problem.
I've said before, if we need to build, you know, I don't like I'm not a big fan of taxes.
I don't like when tax money is spent most of the time because I think it's often wasted.
I would happily pay taxes for that, though.
If you tell me we need to build more prisons to house all of these miscreants, then I'm all for it.
I'll start a GoFundMe right now to raise money myself to build more prisons for all these people.
But anyway, As much as I believe that we should come down hard on these people, I'll be the first to say chemical weapons should not be used.
The good news, of course, is that there were no chemical weapons.
She's just making that up.
I don't even know what she's referring to.
Maybe she's talking about pepper spray or something, but chemical weapons, I think, overstates it by a pretty wide margin.
Okay, Alec Baldwin was confronted at a coffee shop by one of these types of people, one of these pro-Hamas protesters.
And this is actually, and I'll explain why in a moment, but this is an amazing video.
It's actually shocking.
But let's watch it first.
Alec, can you please stay free Palestine one time?
Why did you kill that lady?
You killed that lady and got no jail time?
No jail time, Alec.
No jail time, Alec.
You're putting innocent people in jail, Alec Baldwin.
Free Palestine, Alec, just one time, and I'll leave you alone.
I'll leave you alone, I swear.
Just say free Palestine one time.
One time.
One time.
Call the police.
One time, Alex.
You know he's a criminal.
You know he's a criminal.
Come on, Alex.
Just say free Palestine one time.
One time.
Just one time.
Please.
And I'll leave you alone.
Free Palestine.
Israel.
Zionism.
Please say it.
One time.
So it's amazing, and I'll tell you what's amazing about it is it's an incredible achievement, because do you realize what kind of obnoxious, dumb, blathering, idiot scumbag you have to be to make Alec Baldwin seem sympathetic?
To create a video where I watch it and I feel sorry for Alec Baldwin?
That's an emotion... I don't know what to do with that emotion.
I don't know how to handle it.
I've never... It's a strange emotion I've never felt before.
I've never felt sympathy for Alec Baldwin.
I've never watched an Alec... Because when I watch an Alec Baldwin video, the emotion I'm accustomed to experiencing is...
Irritation, revulsion, indifference, you know, all these different... That's kind of the spectrum.
That's where I'm living when it comes to Alec Baldwin-related content.
But sympathy?
I don't... What?
I don't know what to do with that.
I didn't think it was possible.
I didn't think it was possible for anyone to do or say anything that would make me side with Alec Baldwin.
But here we are.
Here we are.
Because here's the thing.
In any interaction with Alec Baldwin, You, if you're having an interaction with Alec Baldwin, you automatically get the benefit of the doubt, because you are not Alec Baldwin, and he is.
In order to squander that advantage, so you're way ahead before the interaction even begins, and to squander that, and to make the public side with Baldwin, You have to, I mean, you've got to go out of your way to be as unpleasant as humanly possible.
And that's what this person accomplished quickly, too.
By the way, this was not like 10 minutes and it kind of wears you down.
That's less than a minute.
That's like 50 seconds.
And she was able to make us all sympathize with Alec Baldwin.
And of course, Alec Baldwin was completely justified in his response.
If you're listening to the audio podcast, at the end he appears to smack the phone out of her hand.
Or he, whatever, I don't know if he smacks or not, but he forcibly makes her stop filming.
I think it's great.
I wish that more people would react that way when they have cameras shoved in their face.
Whether it's Alec Baldwin or not, it doesn't matter.
The idea that you have the right, putting aside for a second everything that she said to him.
The idea that you have the right to just walk around and film anyone you want, whether they consent to it or not, that's something we just have to get this under control.
It's gotten way out of hand.
I think we all understand that.
Now, of course, when you're a public figure, you have to deal with more of this kind of thing.
It comes with the territory more.
But even a public figure can't be expected to tolerate being harassed and accosted in public, like he's just trying to get a coffee.
And so you have to put up with that?
Any a-hole that walks in the door and wants to harass you and put you on camera, you just have to deal with it?
No.
And worse than that is that people do this all the time to strangers who are not public figures.
Every day on Twitter you see a post from somebody who filmed or photographed some other random person to shame them.
In fact, we'll play another example of that in just a second, the next headline.
But every day it's another video like this.
Someone's being filmed or photographed because they did something supposedly rude or at least they did something that the person who's filming or taking the picture didn't like.
And now they're The image, the video is all over social media.
It's been viewed millions of times.
Everybody is a public figure now, all the time.
It's essentially how it's worked out.
And it's completely out of control.
And then on top of that, there's this demand that Baldwin repeat a phrase.
She wanted him to say, free Palestine.
I think it was.
Even if he doesn't believe it, just say it.
And if you're a normal person, you watch that and you think, like, what?
What value is there in making him say it?
Let's say you succeed and he says the phrase.
Well, he's only saying it because you have hectored him and harassed him into saying it.
He's only saying it to make you shut up.
He's not saying it because he believes it.
You haven't changed his mind about anything.
You're just making him repeat a phrase that you have assigned to him.
What do you get out of that?
What does that accomplish?
What's the point?
Well, you think that as a normal person, but this is what the left does.
This is what leftist activists in particular do.
This is one of their primary weapons that they use in their arsenal.
They demand that you say the words that they assign to you, whether you mean it or not.
They take this approach, as you've probably noticed, on every issue, in every situation.
You know, it's no different than the pronoun stuff.
They want you to say the pronoun.
Doesn't matter if you believe it.
Doesn't matter even if you're just saying it because you're afraid.
Like, they just want you to say it.
And in fact, it goes a step further than that because I think in many cases they prefer if you don't believe it.
Okay, this is a feature, not a bug for them.
They prefer that you don't believe it, because that's the power play.
This is all about power.
It's all a power game.
And yeah, if they can actually persuade you and convince you, and then you start saying the same stuff that they say because you've been convinced, Well, it's great because now they have a comrade on their side, but there's no power in that, really.
Persuasion is not about power in that sense.
It's not about forcing yourself on someone.
Now, persuasion might require powerful rhetoric in the sense of being compelling, right?
But it's not force.
It's not power in that kind of forceful sense.
And they would prefer, they would prefer they get more of a kick out of imposing themselves.
So, yeah, they love it if you don't believe it.
They want you to not believe it, but say it anyway.
They're happy if you're not convinced, as long as you do what they say.
That's the game.
As I said, before we get to the next segment, another example of this, and here's someone who is not a public figure, But this is a video that's gone viral.
This is a trans-identified male harassing a manager at Dollar General.
And he just posted this to his TikTok, the trans guy did.
Harassing him for, quote-unquote, misgendering him.
Watch.
This is Quentin at the Dollar General in Pflugerville.
What did you say, Quentin?
You called me a she-her?
I don't know what.
And you said to get the f*** out because your system said- I don't know what you said, man.
Go on, go on.
Oh no, what'd you call me?
Please, Quentin.
Please, feel free to tell me what you called me.
We can play this game all day.
Oh, what game?
Where you're being transphobic and offensive because your system's not working and I asked if we could use another register and you said get the f*** out of here?
Alright, so... My card did not say insufficient funds.
What did it say, ma'am?
Did my card say insufficient funds or did it say that your system's not working?
No, I'm serious, because this isn't cool.
Is it okay if I check out?
Anyway, this is not... It did not say insufficient funds, sir.
What did it f***ing say?
It said no checking account.
What does that mean?
It did not say insufficient funds.
We're going back to your transphobia.
What did you say to me, sir?
You've given me a hard time here before at this place.
What did you say to me?
Keep filming, because it's going to be on here.
You cussed at me.
You said f*** you.
You're going to lose your job, sir.
Have a good one.
I guarantee that.
And this is what trans activists do, of course.
We just talked about the left getting a kick out of wielding their power and forcing you to comply, whether you believe it or not.
That's what trans activists do.
The difference between them and sort of leftists in general, or sort of the difference between this person, who I believe is a man, we don't see him, but I think it's a man who wants to be a woman.
It could be a woman trying to be a man.
That's not exactly clear.
But I think it's a man who wants to be a woman, so let's call him him.
Anyway, the difference between this guy and the woman in the video right before this one is that for this guy, it rises to the level of a fetish.
Like, he actually gets a sexual thrill out of forcing people to participate in this charade.
And he becomes, and so for a lot of these trans people, When you don't participate, it's like, and the way that they react to it, how angry they get, it's sexual frustration.
They feel sexually frustrated when you don't give them the sort of fetishistic thrill that they want by taking part in this perverse roleplay game that they want to play.
That's what that's all about.
And it's why he feels no Compunction feels no remorse about trying to get this guy fired.
I mean, this is a manager at Dollar General, right?
This is a middle-class guy, goes into work every day at Dollar General.
It can't be an easy job, you know.
You're dealing with not always the most pleasant customers, just like in any other service job, that's the case.
He's just going, he's trying to do his job, and he just doesn't want to deal with this.
And not only are you harassing him and trying to cause problems for him, you want to take his job, his livelihood away from him.
He could have a family, he could have kids he's supporting.
Well, this guy doesn't care.
Because to this guy, the worst offense that you can ever commit is by refusing to take a part in their fetish roleplay game.
But, um, the encouraging thing is that if you, you know, that video has been posted several different places, and it's maybe not a representative sample when you consider the kinds of accounts like Libsyticktock, for example, that are reposting that video.
But even so, I mean, go anywhere where this video has been posted, and the comments are like 99% on the side of the Dollar General Manager.
Of course.
Because the trans guy is so clearly being an obnoxious bully.
And I think people are fed up with it.
I think people are fed up with the whole routine.
They're just sick to death of it.
But for trans activists, because you might say, well, people are obviously tired of this.
You guys have pushed too far.
We're already seeing the pendulum swing back in a major way.
It's going to keep swinging, and you're not going to like how far it swings.
So you might want to say to the trans activists, well, why don't you just back off?
Okay?
If you want to go cross-dress in Dollar General, no one's going to stop you.
No one's going to stop you from walking in Dollar General cross-dressing.
No one could stop you.
You know?
So just go do that, and buy your stuff, and leave.
Why impose yourself on people in this way?
If you want to live out this fantasy on your own time, I think it's unhealthy.
I think it's wrong.
I think you shouldn't.
I think you absolutely should be prevented from doing so in a women's locker room or on a sports team or whatever.
But, you know, for much of your private life, if you wanted to play out this fantasy, no one's going to stop you.
No one will even know that you're doing it.
And nobody is knocking on your door, okay?
No one's coming and knocking on your door and saying, hey, is there any cross-dressing happening in here?
Just checking.
No one's doing that.
No one's proposing that that be done.
So why not just go back to that and leave people alone?
Well, the answer is that they can't.
Trans activists, by definition, have rejected reality completely, and there is no moderating this.
You can't.
They've taken the most extreme, just their very existence, or what they claim to be, you know, living this way.
They have taken the most extreme possible position for a person to take, which is the rejection of biological reality.
There is no way to moderate that.
And so, as long as trans activists are trans activists, they're not going to be able to pull back, and the pendulum is going to keep swinging against them, which is the good news here, I think.
You know, I want my kids to be prepared for the future and for them to have the skills and knowledge to seize the opportunities before them.
Education is a key component of that preparation, which is why my family homeschools and why many other families are choosing to homeschool as well.
If you're currently homeschooling or thinking about homeschooling your kids, I encourage you to check out BJU Press.
BJU Press is dedicated to providing families with educational resources and tools that train students to analyze and think critically about real-world problems.
But that's not all.
Their textbooks and resources are rooted in a biblical foundation, bringing all subjects under the ultimate authority of God's Word.
BJU Press not only provides a robust curriculum that is both biblical and academically sound, but also fosters a sense of community as well.
BJU Press offers a complete line of K-12 textbooks and teacher-supported materials, many of which are available electronically.
Visit homeschoolhelp.com to learn how BJU Press can help you prepare your kids for a future full of possibilities.
Tonight at 8, 7 central, episodes 4 of my new series, Judged by Matt Walsh, premieres on Daily Wire Plus, where real litigants bring real petty cases to really test my patience.
If you're not a Daily Wire Plus member yet, join now and use code JUDGED at checkout for 35% off your membership at dailywireplus.com.
And remember, if you don't enjoy the show, well, it's because there's something wrong with you.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
There's a certain cadence you've probably noticed.
About once every month and a half or so, some media outlet publishes an article about the joys of being childless.
Usually it's an article written by some childless woman who's living, she claims, a life of unending joy and relaxation and luxury, all made possible by her decision to be childless.
Sometimes this content takes the form of interviews with various different childless people who all agree that their barren, impotent lifestyle has been a source of great happiness.
This is usually the way that the child-free propaganda is packaged.
But on occasion, things take a more negative, kind of dour turn.
Once every few months, we get an article highlighting instead those people who did have kids and regret it.
Every once in a while, the media takes a break from the look-how-happy-child-free-people-are genre to present something from the look-how-unhappy-parents-are genre.
And it looks like it's that time of year again, as Time magazine has just published an article written by a writer named R.O.
Kwan called The Parents Who Regret Having Children.
Now, Kwan is a childless woman herself, but she is generously giving voice to parents who wish that they could live just like she does.
The article begins this way, quote, "No one regrets having a child, or so it's said.
I've heard this logic often, usually after I'm asked if I have children.
Then, when I say I don't, if I plan to. I tend to evade the question, as I find that the truth,
I have no plans to be a parent, is likely to invite swift dissent."
I'll be told I'll change my mind, that I'm wrong, that while I regret not having a child, people don't regret the adverse.
Close family acquaintances and total strangers have said this for years.
I let it slide, knowing that, at the very least, the last part is a fiction.
Now, I have to pause here already.
That's the very first paragraph of the article, and it's wrong.
Whoever said that no one regrets having children?
Look, we all know, people regret anything.
Any choice a person can make in life, there's someone out there who regrets it.
It doesn't matter what it is.
There are plenty of people who regret winning the lottery, okay?
So we all know that these kinds of parents exist in the world.
I've never heard anyone deny their existence.
So we're kicking off this nearly 3,000 word article with a straw man.
So not the most auspicious of beginnings, but let's keep reading.
Quote, it is unsurprisingly a challenge to get solid data on the number of parents who regret having children.
In 1975, the popular advice columnist Ann Landers asked her readers if, given the chance to do it all over again, they'd have children.
70% said they wouldn't.
This result, though, came from a group of self-selecting respondents.
But in 2013, a Gallup poll asked Americans 45 and older how many kids they'd have if they could go back in time.
than contented people, as Landers observed in a follow-up column.
But in 2013, a Gallup poll asked Americans 45 and older how many kids they'd have if they could go back in time.
7% of the respondents with children said zero.
And in 2023, a study estimated that up to 5% to up to 14% of parents in so-called developed countries,
including the United States, regret their decision to have children.
These studies align with what I found in my personal life.
While most parents don't regret having kids, some do.
Perhaps in part because I've written publicly about choosing not to have children, I've had people, especially mothers, confide in me about parental regret, and frequently enough, I've lost count.
So this woman apparently has people going up to her all the time, claiming that nobody regrets having children, Well, she has a whole other set of people approaching her constantly to tell her about their own parental regrets.
And maybe that's true.
Maybe that's true.
I can't say what conversations this woman has had.
I do find it odd because, you know, I will say that I have never once heard anyone claim that no parent in the world regrets having kids.
And I've also never once had any parent tell me that they personally regret having their own kids.
Which doesn't mean those parents don't exist.
It's just, in my experience, it's not the kind of thing that people go around advertising.
But Miss Kwan hears both of those things all the time.
Maybe she's just a friendlier, more inviting person who people are more comfortable confiding in.
That is certainly entirely possible.
Still, I find the framing here somewhat dubious.
That's the point.
Next, she tells us about the shame and guilt that these regretful parents feel, which stops them from sharing their stories publicly.
And the very clear implication here is that these parents should be able to speak more openly about their regret, but our society is tragically unwelcoming to those conversations.
She writes, quote, Some of these parents talk about feeling utterly alone, like villains past all imagining.
Several have noted that, afraid of being judged, they decline to be candid with their own therapist.
I've thought about the isolating effect of the silence and what it can cost to live in hiding.
One problem is that our culture wants just one kind of story about parenting, and it's a story of pure joy, says Yael Goldstein-Love, a writer and psychotherapist in California whose clinical practice focuses on people who are adapting to parenthood.
But Goldstein-Love says people often experience grief in the transition to being a parent, grief for the life they might have inhabited otherwise.
But I also wonder who's being served well by a monolithic idea that no one regrets being a parent.
Not these parents.
Not, as some of the people I've spoken with have pointed out, any kid who picked up on parental regret and thinks it can't happen except to them.
If more people had the support to make reproductive choices based on their own desires and life situations, and if the monolith were spalled in favor of plural narratives that better reflect the complexities of human experience, what then?
Well, we'll talk about the what then in a moment, but first let's look briefly at the specific examples that Kwan provides of parents who regret their children and also the kind of rationalization that these parents offer.
Quote, I don't think that everyone is made for children, says Helen, a high school teacher in her 40s, and telling people that their purpose is to reproduce is destructive, she adds.
And if she could inhabit the person she was before she became a parent, quote, I would have stopped that pregnancy before it happened.
That's the part Helen's never said to her daughters, who, after all, didn't ask to be born.
She's hell-bent on raising them well, not taking out any regrets on the girls.
Quote, I love them, I just don't love the choice I made.
Each parent I talk to points out this dividing line.
It's possible to have strong, lasting regrets about a life choice while ferociously loving and caring for the fruit of that decision.
Well, she goes on next to tell us about a guy named Paul, a very similar story.
A father who confesses to resenting parenthood because of how challenging and time-consuming it is.
We're told that he's stressed out and fatigued and regretful about ever having become a parent in the first place.
And what he lacks most of all, he says, is anyone in his life that he can talk to about his feelings of parental regret.
He needs more spaces where he can talk about how much he regrets having kids.
That's what he insists.
Although, he also says that he loves his kids.
They are, quote, the loves of his life, according to Kwan.
Now, we've probably heard enough of this article to get the basic idea, especially considering that, as I said at the top, we've seen a thousand versions of this exact article.
So let's go through and make a few points in response.
First, it must be said, and I hate to say it, I really do, But you don't love your kids if you regret having them.
You cannot regret a person's very existence and yet also love them at the same time.
You just can't.
Wishing that a person doesn't exist is the exact opposite of loving them.
Think about putting this into a sentence and you'll see how absurd it is.
I love you, son.
I just wish you were never born.
Like, not exactly the kind of sentiment you'd want to write in someone's birthday card.
Happy birthday, although I'd be happier if you never had a birthday.
Like, that's not love.
That's a lot of things.
We could say a lot of things about that.
We cannot call that love.
That is not to say that you can't love your kids while also being frustrated by them sometimes.
You can love someone while also experiencing a range of emotions and not all of them pleasant.
You can love someone and be angry at them.
You can love someone and be irritated at them.
You can love someone and wish they'd stop talking and asking questions for five seconds.
None of these emotions are at all contradictory to loving someone.
You shouldn't dwell in the negative emotions.
You shouldn't harp on them.
You shouldn't, like, delight in them and want to live in those emotions all the time, the way that some people do with their negative emotions.
And you shouldn't be venting those emotions all the time, but you can experience those emotions while still loving your child, obviously.
And that's because loving your child, or anyone else, what it really means is wishing for, and working for, and working towards, and helping them towards what is good in life.
Willing the good of the other is what love is.
It means subordinating your own desires, to some extent, for their sake.
Love is sacrifice.
But if you wish that someone never had come into existence in the first place so that you can focus more on your own desires, then you don't love them.
This is, again, the literal direct opposite of love.
And yes, you might have parents who regret having kids and therefore don't love them, but still take care of the kids, still do the bare minimum that they need to do to get by.
That's not love.
And you also don't get any credit for that.
Like, you owe that to your child.
The bare minimum you owe to your child.
Because you brought them into existence.
But it's still not love.
Now the irony here is that these sorts of articles pretend to call for a kind of, you know, radical honesty, insisting that people should be able to speak openly and frankly about even their most unspeakable and shameful thoughts and emotions.
And yet these articles themselves are not honest.
Because the honest truth is that these aren't parents who simply regret having children.
These are parents who don't love their children.
The title of the article should be, The Parents Who Don't Love Their Children.
That should be the article.
But you never see that article, do you?
You never see a lack of parental love being defended, at least not explicitly.
Instead, we're given these sob stories about parents who regret their children's very existence, always couched in the disclaimer that they certainly still love their kids and would do anything for them, etc.
So they're calling for honesty, but it's a rather dishonest kind of honesty.
An honesty that takes something disgraceful and dresses it up in what is supposed to be slightly less disgraceful packaging.
But why?
What's the point?
I mean, why not go all the way?
These parents don't love their children.
Why not come out and say it?
I think the answer is that it's easier to elicit sympathy if you tell someone about your regret.
A woman plagued by regret is a pitiable figure.
She's a victim of her circumstances.
That's how we're meant to see it anyway.
And maybe that kind of branding works for some people.
But on the other hand, a woman who doesn't love her children is seen, rightly, as the villain of her own story.
We immediately recognize that if parents lack love for their own children, it's because of a flaw in them, the parent.
The problem is them.
Not loving your child, or regretting that they were born, which is the same thing, is entirely a product of selfishness.
Selfishness is the enemy of love.
And that's the issue that all these parents are struggling with.
Their own selfishness.
It's that simple.
Now, I say it's simple, it doesn't mean it's easy.
It's not necessarily easy to become less selfish.
And the sad truth is that most people who are obsessively selfish will remain that way their entire lives.
If anything, and we've all seen this, it will get worse as they get older.
Um, it doesn't have to be that way.
And either way, this is the only solution.
Be less selfish, and you will love your kids more.
Or at all, in this case.
And then you'll discover more joy in parenthood, but also a different kind of sadness.
You know, there's a more sort of beautiful sadness that comes with parenting when you actually love your kids.
It's the sadness that comes with the knowledge that your kids are growing and changing every day, and that eventually they'll be old and jaded and cynical about the world, just like you are.
That's the kind of parenting regret that loving parents feel.
And feel quite intensely every day.
This is the solution for the wrong kind of parent regret.
You have to identify the problem within yourself and work on that.
The solution is certainly not to express these emotions out loud.
Now, if you want to express it to someone who's an actual trusted counselor or advisor, spiritual advisor, maybe a therapist, if you happen to have one of the five good ones in the whole country, then that's okay.
This desire to go around verbalizing it to anybody you want and building communities around this feeling, you know, going to like a Reddit forum where everyone talks about how they regret having kids.
That's an unhealthy desire.
Because not every feeling should be verbalized.
And if you feel something shameful and disgraceful and vile, which that's what it is if you wish your kids were not born, you should keep that to yourself.
The guilt and isolation that these feelings breed are good, because they're like the pain you experience when you put your hand on the hot stove.
It's a warning to you.
It's an incentive to fix what is broken in your soul.
It's your own soul crying out to you and saying, something's wrong here.
There's a problem.
Now, if you go around confessing these feelings openly, it's only because you want someone to convince you that the feelings are okay.
But you know they aren't, which is why you want to be convinced otherwise.
You wouldn't have this desire to be convinced if you were comfortable with those feelings.
So listen to your own moral instincts, not these anti-family propaganda pieces from media outlets like Time.
As for the media outlets, they will defend these kinds of articles by claiming that they want to give voice to all different kinds of perspectives.
As Kwan puts it, we should have, quote, plural narratives that better reflect the complexities of human experience.
Well, okay, but if that's the case, then why do we see a thousand articles about childless people who love being childless and parents who hate being parents?
But rarely do we see any articles about childless people who hate being childless.
Or, best of all, parents who love being parents.
That would be a great article, wouldn't it?
The parents who love their kids.
Let's hear some of those stories.
Maybe we could help these regretful parents by giving them positive, enriching, wholesome examples of happy families.
Maybe they could benefit from insights offered by parents who have managed to be happy in spite of the challenges that parenting presents.
There's a whole aspect of the complexity of human experience that we rarely see represented by the media in any form.
But I think it could do a lot of good.
And it could help a lot of people.
Which is, of course, exactly why we don't see it.
Because they don't want to help anyone.
And that's the whole point.
And that is why Time Magazine and all the other anti-child, anti-family propagandists are today cancelled.
