Ep. 1380 - White Player Diversifies The WNBA. Champions Of Diversity Are Somehow Not Happy.
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the biggest star -- and only star -- in the WNBA is a white woman. This should be considered a win for diversity, yet Caitlin Clark has provoked a lot of rage and resentment from the supposed champions of diversity. Also, a bar owner in Idaho offers free beer to straight people as part of Heterosexual Awesomeness month, as he has dubbed it. Scientists are close to inventing a birth control gel that men can rub on their bodies to make themselves impotent. And, a psychologist takes to TikTok to brag about her refusal to return her shopping carts. You know I have no choice but to cancel her. We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1380
- - -
DailyWire+:
Father’s Day Deal: Get 15% off your Jeremy’s Razor: https://bit.ly/49kXXgI
Watch the latest episode of Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Get 25% 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! http://www.PureTalk.com/WALSH
Responsible Man - Father's Day Sale! Get 30% off at http://www.ResponsibleMan.com
- - -
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 biggest star and only star in the WNBA is a white woman.
This should be considered a win for diversity, yet Caitlin Clarke has provoked a lot of rage and resentment from the supposed champions of diversity.
Also, a bar owner in Idaho offers free beer to straight people as part of heterosexual awesomeness month, as he has dubbed it.
Scientists are close to inventing a birth control gel that men can rub on their bodies to make themselves impotent.
And a psychologist takes to TikTok to brag about her refusal to return shopping carts You know, I have no choice but to talk about that and cancel her.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
of living is up almost 20% from 2021 and families everywhere are feeling the burden.
If you're looking at your bills, wondering how in the world you can save on monthly expenses, start with your phone bill.
I'm happy to announce that Pure Talk is now providing international roaming to over 50 countries.
Once again, Pure Talk is investing in their customers with their own money, without charging you an extra penny.
As you plan your summer travel, make sure your wireless provider has you covered at home and abroad.
Pure Talk already puts you on America's most dependable 5G network, but now they're offering coverage in over 50 countries as well.
Enjoy the freedom of unlimited talk, text, and ample 5G data for just $20 a month with Pure Talk.
This is a deal that's hard to beat, costing you less than half of what you pay with other networks.
Not only is their U.S.
customer service team ready to assist you with a seamless switch, but they also have fantastic savings on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Ready to make a smart switch?
Join my cell phone company, Pure Talk, and start saving today.
Visit puretalk.com to explore their offers.
When you make the switch, you'll enjoy an additional 50% off your first month.
Don't miss out on the opportunity to save on wireless at home and abroad.
Visit puretalk.com slash Walsh.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh today.
So here's a little baseball trivia for you on a spring Tuesday.
Kirby Higbee was a starting pitcher in the majors in the 1940s.
He was also an opponent of integration, which is why when Jackie Robinson, the first black ball player in the modern era, was about to join the Brooklyn Dodgers, Higbee demanded a trade, and he got one.
He ended up on the Pirates.
But Higby couldn't avoid Robinson for very long.
On July 15, 1948, Higby pitched a game against Robinson and the Dodgers, and maybe coincidentally, but probably not, Higby hit one batter that game, Jackie Robinson, and it turned out to be a costly move in the context of the game.
Robinson went on to advance to third base, then stole home plate and helped the Dodgers beat the Pirates 7-6.
Now, for Jackie Robinson, these kinds of cheap shots were common.
He was often harassed on and off the field because of his skin color.
That was the price of integrating sports in the 1940s, as the history books have taught us, and it's conventional wisdom at this point.
What's not conventional wisdom, even though it should be, is that racial resentment can still be found in professional sports.
It's just That it goes in the opposite direction.
And nowhere is that more evident than the league that, until recently, nobody ever talked about, much less watched, the WNBA.
By now you've probably seen the footage of Kaitlin Clark, the former Iowa Hawkeyes player and now rookie on a team that we all just learned existed, called the Indiana Fever.
In the footage, Clark, who is widely regarded as one of the greatest female athletes of all time, is assaulted on the court during a game on Saturday.
She was hip-checked to the ground during the third quarter by Chicago Sky Guard Kennedy Carter.
And there was no reason whatsoever for Carter to shove Clark's hip and knock her over.
The ball hadn't even been inbounded yet, so it was totally egregious and unnecessary.
Here it is.
Watch.
But it was a rough night for Kaitlin Clark and the Indiana Fever.
Last night she only scored three points and a blowout loss to the New York Liberty.
But it was a game on Saturday between the Fever and the Chicago Sky that had a lot of people talking.
Fans were so hyped for Kaitlin, Angel Reese, and Camila Cardoza to all be back on the same court.
However, the moment that made headlines is right here.
The hard foul involving Clark and Kennedy Carter.
This morning, this physical moment involving the WNBA's most high-profile rookie raising questions.
Chicago's Kennedy Carter shoulder-checking the fever's Kaitlyn Clark, knocking her to the ground.
The call, initially deemed a common foul by officials.
So the game had a lot of people talking, says the Good Morning America anchorwoman.
There's no love lost between these two teams, says the reporter.
They're giving fans a show.
Now, that's a very sing-songy way to describe an unprovoked shove to the floor.
It's especially odd considering the fact that after she knocked Clark over, Kennedy Carter appeared to mouth a five-letter epithet that begins with the letter B. And later, as David Hookstead noted at OutKick, Carter then went on social media to like the following tweets, quote, Kennedy, get her one more time for me.
That was a crazy-ass flop.
Let them know, Hollywood.
And put Caitlyn Lill-ass in the basket.
Those were allegedly, that was all English, some variation of English.
Now, of course, liking tweets doesn't necessarily mean that Kennedy Carter endorses them, but it certainly appears that she does endorse those sentiments based on all the information we have, including the fact that Carter eventually told reporters she has no regrets about what happened, even though any reasonable person would have a lot of regrets about what happened if it had been an accident.
Watch.
I think at the end of the day I'm a competitor.
Now that it's another day, I've had an off day, now I can answer your questions and I can let you know how I really feel about things.
But I'm a competitor and I'm going to compete no matter who you are and no matter who's in front of me.
So, that's just what it was.
Heat of the moment play.
We're getting at it.
We're going back and forth.
It's basketball, it's all hoops.
After we finish the game, it's all love.
Do you have any regrets on how it happened and everything that's happened since then?
I don't have any regrets with anything.
I'm going to compete and play 100% hard no matter who it is, like I said, or who we're playing.
No, I don't have any regrets.
Now it's impossible not to conclude that Kennedy Carter harbors a lot of disdain for Caitlin Clark, and there are a couple possible explanations why.
One explanation, the one that has nothing to do with racism and which a lot of media outlets are running with, is that Carter is simply jealous that a rookie like Clark has managed to do the impossible, which is to make the WNBA a topic of discussion.
There's no doubt that Clark has indeed accomplished that.
In just five games, the Indiana Fever, with Kaitlin Clark on the team, have already exceeded their total attendance from all 20 home games last season combined.
The same is not remotely true for the Chicago Sky or for any other team in the league.
That appears to bother the players on the Chicago Sky quite a bit.
They seem to be in intense denial about it.
Here's one of Kennedy Carter's teammates, Angel Reese.
Reese also happens to have something of a history with Carter, dating back to their college years.
We'll get into that in a second.
But here's Reese's assessment of why Clark is so popular.
Watch.
It all started from the National Championship game, and I've been dealing with this for two years now.
And understanding, like, yeah, negative things have probably been said about me, but honestly, I'll take that, because look where women's basketball is.
People are talking about women's basketball, but you never would think that we'd be talking about women's basketball.
People are pulling up to games, we got celebrities coming to games, sold-out arenas, like, just because of one single game.
And just looking at that, like, I'll take that role.
I'll take the bad guy role.
And I'll continue to take that on and be that for my teammates.
And if I want to be that, and I know I'll go down in history, I'll look back in 20 years and be like, yeah, the reason why we're watching women's basketball is not just because of one person.
It's because of me, too.
And I want y'all to realize that.
The reason why we're watching women's basketball is not just because of one person.
It's because of me, too.
I want y'all to realize that, she says.
Now, that's obviously not true.
In fact, it's extremely easy to prove that it's false.
As somebody pointed out online, when the Chicago Sky hosted the Los Angeles Sparks, which is another team that exists, apparently the total attendance was around 8,000.
But when the Indiana Fever and Kaitlyn Clark hosted the same team, the Los Angeles Sparks, the attendance was over 16,000.
This is what they call a controlled experiment in the business.
Fans are lining up to see Kaitlyn Clark.
Even when they move her team to larger arenas, they still sell out.
And even during away games, kids are lining up for photographs with her.
her. Watch.
When you watch all this, it's obvious that there's some jealousy at play.
A league full of terrible basketball players with no moral character will naturally become deeply uncomfortable when a good player finally arrives.
But it doesn't take a lot of digging to realize that something else is going on here.
Something that's elevating that jealousy into on-court violence.
The truth is that Clark has been the subject of intense scrutiny because of her race, even before she was drafted.
And that's now spilling out into the open, both on the court and off the court.
So take Angel Reese, for example.
During last year's NCAA championship game, Reese made a taunting hand gesture right in Caitlyn Clark's face.
It was a callback to when Clark had made a similar gesture earlier in the tournament, but Reese claimed that she received more criticism, not because of how she had performed the gesture or the context of it, but because she's black.
Quote, I'm too ghetto, she said.
I don't fit in a box that y'all want me to be in.
I'm too hood.
So this was for me, this was for the girls that look like me that's going to speak up on what they believe in.
It's really hard to read some of these quotes.
This is the racial dimension that has underlied criticism of Caitlyn Clark for a long time and continues to do so.
There are almost too many examples to count, but I'll start with what former WNBA player Cheryl Swoops said about Clark just a few months ago on a podcast.
While she was wearing a shirt that read, female, fearless, and black, she appeared on the podcast as Outkick reported on the podcast, she said, quote, Swoops tried to undermine Clark's legacy with a series of inaccuracies and lies.
She claimed that we must take Clark's record-breaking career with a grain of salt because she played five years of collegiate basketball, is not a true senior, shoots 40 times a game, and is 25 years old playing against teenagers.
None of that is true, but she doubled down on her inaccuracies throughout the week.
She responded to critics with demeaning memes of white women.
She called those questioning her them and ignorant.
And here's what one of those memes looked like, you can see the image.
And eventually, amid the backlash, Swoops appeared again on the podcast and remarked, quote, for people to come at me and say that I made those comments about Clark because I'm a racist, first of all, black people can't be racist, but that's the farthest thing from my mind.
Now, we've talked about this non-argument on the show before, the idea that black people can't be racist.
Makes no sense, but a handful of sociology professors in the UK have apparently convinced a lot of people otherwise because they came up with this idea and now it's suddenly true because they said it.
And that's what Supes believes anyway, and she's essentially saying that if you so much as commit a microaggression against her, say that you praise her hairstyle, God forbid, or ask her where she was born, then you deserve to lose your job.
But if somebody, say, knocks a white woman over while calling her the B-word, that's definitely not racist.
That's equity.
Now this is the kind of anti-white racism that Katelyn Clark is now very familiar with.
Just last week, for instance, the Tennessean ran a piece arguing, quote, Katelyn Clark's whiteness makes her more marketable.
That's not racist.
It's true.
And the thrust of the article is that whiteness has enduring marketability.
And the media is racist because of their, quote, prior refusal to push the WNBA with the same fervor it's had this year.
There's also a complaint that Katelyn Clark has a deal with Nike, while it's relatively rare for a black WNBA player to have a quote, signature shoe with a major brand.
In other words, Katelyn Clark is only getting all this attention because she's white.
Never mind the fact that there are other white players in WNBA who have not achieved anywhere near as much attention.
Never mind the fact that Katelyn Clark set several all-time records, becoming the first player in Division I history to have consecutive 1,000-point seasons, as well as the all-time scoring leader with nearly 4,000 career points.
We're supposed to pretend, according to the Tennessean, that none of that really matters.
All that fans of Nike really care about is that she's white.
Because of course, of course, Nike has never endorsed any black athletes.
That's never happened.
It's not as though the most iconic and profitable athlete endorsement of all time was Nike's endorsement of a black guy named Michael Jordan.
I mean, it's not as though LeBron James makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year on endorsements.
None of that has ever happened, obviously.
But as insane as all this may be, there's a lot of this kind of commentary going around, and a lot of it is pretty explicit.
For example, there was also the Los Angeles Aces player Aja Wilson saying that Clark is only popular because she's white, quoting from NBC Boston.
Though Clark hasn't said anything to fuel the black-white narrative surrounding her meteoric rise, talks about a double standard are being had.
Quote, I think it's a huge thing.
I think a lot of people may say it's not about black and white, but to me it is.
Las Vegas Aces star Aja Wilson said when asked about the race element in Clark's popularity, and before she recently signed two major endorsement deals.
They don't see it as marketable, so it doesn't matter how hard I work.
It doesn't matter what we all do as black women.
We're still going to be swept underneath the rug.
That's why it boils my blood when people say it's not about race, because it is.
Translation, put aside the fact that Asia Wilson herself also has a deal with Nike and a signature shoe, ignore the fact that Asia Wilson didn't perform nearly as well as Katelyn Clark did in college or come anywhere close to matching her career points record or any of her other records, and disregard how many people find it just more enjoyable to watch Katelyn Clark's style of play than Asia Wilson's, you can't consider any of that.
All you can consider is that Katelyn Clark is white.
Jamil Hill has said something similar, claiming that Clark's fame is problematic and related to her race and sexuality.
But true to form, no one said it dumber than the women of The View.
Watch.
I do think that there is a thing called pretty privilege.
There is a thing called white privilege.
There is a thing called tall privilege.
And we have to acknowledge that.
And so part of it is about race.
Because if you think about the Brittany Griners of the world, you know, why did she have to go to play in Russia?
Because they wouldn't pay her.
Because they wouldn't pay her.
I do think that she is more relatable to more people because she's white, because she's attractive.
And unfortunately, there still is that stigma against the LGBTQ plus community.
70% of the WNBA is black.
A third of the players are in the LGBTQ plus community.
And we have to do something about that stigma in this country.
I think that people have a problem with basketball playing women that are lesbians.
Yes, when will somebody pay attention to black basketball players?
When will that finally happen?
When will there be a black star in professional basketball?
When will the time finally come?
Now you just heard Sonny Hostin say that Caitlin Clark benefits from being white, straight, and also tall.
Tall privilege.
I guess the implication is that the short players deserve endorsement deals to make up for the fact that they're not as good at basketball.
Or maybe the idea is that Caitlin Clark is the first tall person to ever succeed in basketball.
Which is true if you don't count literally every other basketball player ever, except for maybe Muggsy Bogues.
But against all odds, there was actually something interesting in what Sunny Hostin said, although not in the way she intended.
She made the point that WNBA is overwhelmingly black, and that's true.
Well over 60% of the players are black.
Now, even aside from the more overt anti-white racism that Katelyn Clark has been subjected to, that fact raises perhaps a bigger and more noticeable point here, which is that Katelyn Clark isn't being celebrated as a pioneer or a champion of diversity.
The WNBA, like the NBA, has very few white players, even fewer who are stars.
Anyone who champions diversity should celebrate Clark explicitly because she is white.
Yet even those in the media who are friendly to Clark will certainly not applaud her for helping to diversify the WNBA.
You're not going to hear that.
Sunny Hostin certainly isn't celebrating Clark bringing diversity to the league.
Instead, she's doing segments justifying the fact that she got knocked over on the court, accusing her of having tall privilege, and so on.
If anything highlights how fraudulent the so-called diversity or DEI movements really are, it's this.
It's the relentless effort to demean Kaitlyn Clark, the single most diverse star in the WNBA's history, at every possible turn.
Even when she's attacked on the court, they're still ridiculing her.
And of course, the whole episode also exposes once again the lie behind the feminist push for the WNBA.
They don't actually want more people to see women's sports.
All that time they lamented the non-existent attendance numbers and ticket sales.
They didn't really mean it, apparently.
They'd rather push more racial grievances.
That's their only goal.
And it's a goal that's all-consuming, obsessive, and fundamentally at its core, anti-white.
It destroys everything it touches.
And now at last, it might be what finally kills the WNBA for good.
Good.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
(upbeat music)
Responsible Man, the newest company from Daily Wire Venture is dedicated to bringing you the best high quality
men's health products without the woke pile Today, our modern diets are often deficient in key vitamins and minerals, leaving us feeling weakened and diminished.
That's why we created the Emerson Multivitamin.
It's physician-formulated, made with 333 premium ingredients, and designed for men.
The Emerson Multivitamin has health benefits, including helping to fill nutrient gaps, maintaining energy production, sharpening brain cognition, and supporting the health of your heart and muscles.
Your new Daily Multivitamin comes in a sleek, matte black aluminum tin filled with smooth, easy-to-take green capsules and is mint-essenced for a refreshing vitamin experience.
With Father's Day around the corner, there's no better time to invest in your health.
And to the women listening, this is the perfect way to support the man in your life.
Show him you care by helping him be the best version of himself.
The Responsible Man Father's Day Sale is going on right now.
Save 30% off the Emerson Multivitamin.
During the sale, visit ResponsibleMan.com.
Facts don't care about your feelings, and neither does your health.
Go right now to ResponsibleMan.com and take advantage of their 30% off sale.
That's ResponsibleMan.com.
So the Postmillennial reports, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who previously led the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease prior to his retirement, were testified before the House Select Subcommittee on Coronavirus Pandemic on Monday, telling Congress that he does not believe any vaccine is 100% effective and that COVID vaccine had limited protections.
Now, we already heard yesterday about Fauci's testimony, congressional testimony, that was back in January.
There was a closed-door testimony that was not televised.
And now he's testifying again and making more admissions.
Here's the clip of this exchange.
Watch.
The vaccine saved millions of lives, and I want to thank you for your support and engagement on that.
However, despite statements to the contrary, it did not stop transmission of the virus.
Did the COVID vaccine stop transmission of the virus?
That is a complicated issue because in the beginning, the first iteration of the vaccines did have an effect,
not 100%, not a high effect.
They did prevent infection and subsequently, obviously, transmission.
However, it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident
as the months went by is that the durability of protection against infection and hence transmission
was relatively limited, whereas the duration of protection against severe disease, hospitalization,
and deaths was more prolonged.
We did not know that in the beginning.
In the beginning it was felt that in fact it did prevent infection and thus transmission, but that was proven as time went by to not be a durable effect.
Yeah, definitely had positive effect for many people, especially those that were vulnerable.
But we knew from the trials that people that got vaccinated still were subject to getting COVID.
So was the COVID vaccine 100% effective?
I don't believe any vaccine is 100% effective.
So first of all, the line of questioning from that guy is completely bizarre.
His first question, and I quote, the COVID vaccine did not stop transmission of the virus.
Did the COVID vaccine stop transmission of the virus?
And then after Fauci spends 90 seconds admitting that the vaccine was far from 100% effective, this guy's follow-up is to ask him if the vaccine was 100% effective.
So I don't quite understand the question.
I mean, this guy, he'd be the worst lawyer in the world.
You know, you could have the suspect confess on the stand, I'm guilty.
Yes, but are you guilty?
Yeah, I'm guilty.
Yes, but are you?
Are you actually guilty?
It's a bizarrely redundant questions aside, Fauci admits that the vaccines did not stop transmission of
the virus, which is something we've known all along.
And it of course means, as we've also known all along, that the vaccine mandates were pointless,
because if the vaccine did not stop the spread, then there was never any reason to force people to take it.
Of course, even if it did stop the spread, it still would have been wrong and a gross violation of basic human rights to force people to take it.
But without even that element of stopping transmission, there was just no argument at all for the mandates.
Or at least I should say there was no argument that they were willing to say out loud, because as we know, the mandates were not actually pointless.
They just had a different point from the one that anybody would admit.
And the point was to seize that power and control over our lives.
And in many ways, in the minds of the tyrants who imposed this kind of stuff, you know, the pointlessness of the vaccine actually gives the mandates even more of a point.
You know, the fact that people were being forced to do something that was in effect arbitrary, You know, that is what makes it an even greater demonstration of power.
This is like an old Soviet thing.
It's what, if you read Gulag Archipelago, you'll read all about this, like laws and mandates and policies that were totally arbitrary and without any real logical basis, but that's because the laws were really designed to break the will of the people and to cow them into submission and to condition them to follow orders.
That was the point.
You know, it's a little bit like the scene in Cool Hand Luke where the warden makes Luke dig a hole and then fill it back in again and then dig it again.
Now, there was no point to the hole.
It's not like he was digging it for a reason, but the fact that the hole served no purpose was the purpose.
Luke was being forced to do something completely pointless and random as a way of breaking his will and emasculating him.
You know, it's a show of force and power.
I mean, making someone dig a hole for, like, a purpose, for a reason, well, there's power in that.
But making them dig it for no reason, just because you said so, there's even more power.
And that's what we're learning.
Although, again, we're not really learning it.
This was obvious all along to anybody who was paying attention, which not enough people were.
So this is what is evident from these admissions that Fauci's making now, whether it's, oh, the vaccine did not, of course, didn't stop the spread.
There was no reason for the social distancing rules they came up with.
They just appeared, the rules did.
There was no reason to tell kids that they had to wear masks at school, like all this stuff we've heard in the last couple of days.
What you really learn from that is that the reason that was all done Was just as a sort of raw display of power.
Conditioning us to obey the commands of our quote-unquote superiors just because they say so.
It's like, you know, you might give that answer to your kid sometimes.
And sometimes with your kids, that can be an appropriate answer.
Sometimes it's not, you know, sometimes, oftentimes, parents can overuse, even with their own kids, the answer of, you know, they say, well, why do I, because I said so.
You know, you might say, there are plenty of times when parents might, with their own kids, might say that, well, because I said so.
And they shouldn't, they should actually give a reason.
Because maybe your kid is asking because they actually are curious about, you know, you say don't run in the road, and your kid says, well, why shouldn't I run in the road?
You don't respond by saying, because I said so.
Oh, you want them to know?
Well, don't run in the road because you might get hit by a car.
That's the reason.
I mean, yes, I'm saying so.
I want you to obey me, but there's a reason I'm saying it.
It's not just arbitrary.
But this is, that was really the argument, and it's not really an argument.
That was the response from the government and our so-called public health experts and so on during COVID.
They said, do this, do that, six feet apart, wear the mask, get the shot.
And when you questioned it, the answer was, well, why should we do that?
Because we said so.
Because we said so.
That was the answer.
Okay, a business owner in Idaho has invented a new and, I think, quite wonderful holiday.
Let's take a look.
Hey, my name is Mark Fitzpatrick, owner of Old State Saloon in Eagle, Idaho.
Our saloon has become the heterosexual headquarters.
We launched Heterosexual Awesome this month for June.
Monday is Heterosexual Male Monday, and if you're a heterosexual male and you come in here, you get a beer for free.
There's no strings attached.
We'll call it beers for breeders.
Wednesdays, if you're a heterosexual couple, you get 15% off your entire bill.
And on Thursdays, all day is her hetero happy hour.
So heterosexual awesomeness is basically an opportunity to celebrate God's design for man and woman and that sexual attraction between them.
Idaho's the reddest state in the country, as you know.
We've got so many people here who are like-minded and who want to do what's right.
They want to do what's moral.
I think that this country is ready to stand up and say, hey, enough is enough.
Let's stand for things that are right and true and godly.
Everybody is welcome to come here and help us celebrate heterosexual awesomeness month.
Heterosexual awesomeness month.
Notice it's not heterosexual pride month.
So that's a good little twist here because we don't want to celebrate pride.
Pride is one of the deadly sins.
However, awesomeness is not a deadly sin.
So we can celebrate awesomeness and I think it's a great idea.
Now, I understand the argument against this kind of thing.
There are plenty of bad arguments against it, like the left will say that it's homophobic and bigoted and whatever, which is stupid.
But From the right, you know, you could make an argument against it.
You could say that this sort of thing is stupid because it's too reactive, it's too defensive.
You know, you're letting the left set the terms.
You're taking whatever they do and then you're saying, oh yeah?
Well, we'll make our own version of that thing you came up with.
And, you know, you can't create culture that way.
You can't go on offense that way.
And that's the argument against.
And I get that argument.
It's a good argument.
And I think as a general rule, it's something that we need to keep in mind.
Because on the right, we are far too far, far too reactive.
And notice, I'm not saying reactionary.
I'm saying reactive.
We're always reacting to the left.
And most of our, you know, supposed sort of cultural innovations and creations and Much of what we do is really just us doing our own version of the thing that the left came up with.
And that's why it's always, oh, well, here's the conservative version of fill in the blank.
And that's a big problem.
There's no question about it.
But there are times when I think a direct response to something the left is doing is necessary and appropriate.
And I think that this is one of those times.
If the left says that we're going to have a month, you know, a month-long celebration of gay pride, then I think it's perfectly appropriate and makes a lot of sense to respond with a celebration of straight pride or straight awesomeness.
Even though it is reactive, it is, I think, a necessary and healthy reaction.
And it also puts the left in a position where Yeah, they'll make really stupid arguments against it, as we've said, but there's really no intelligent argument.
Like, there's nothing intelligent and intellectually consistent that they can say to explain why you shouldn't celebrate straight pride.
They can't explain it.
Because, of course, the response is, well, so you're celebrating gay pride?
Like, whatever your supposed reason is for celebrating gay pride, well, why would that not apply to straight people?
It's the same thing with White Pride or White History Month, you know, that sort of idea.
Whatever the left says, well, here's why we should have Black Pride, here's why we should have Black History Month.
Whatever argument you make, it's like, well, why would that not apply over here?
Are we not supposed to be proud of ourselves?
Are we not supposed to, like?
So they can't, it puts them in a position where it reveals the, you know, absurdity of what they're doing.
And, but also, Especially with heterosexuality, celebrating that, it makes sense on its own terms, because heterosexuality is awesome.
I mean, it's the thing that keeps civilization going.
If somebody asks, well, what's so awesome about heterosexuality?
Why should you be proud of it?
I don't know, because heterosexuals are single-handedly responsible for the continuation of the human species?
We're the only reason why the human species exists?
We're the only reason why you exist?
Without us, it would be a full mass extinction event?
Like, that's a reason?
That's a pretty good reason.
Now, over on your side of it, do you have a reason like that?
So what we're contributing is the fundamental continuation of the human species.
That's what we contribute.
What are you contributing?
What are you adding to the pile here?
I really like an answer to that, but they don't have one.
This is from the New York Post.
Men may soon be able to shoulder the responsibility of birth control.
A hormonal birth control gel, which is rubbed on each shoulder blade once daily, shows promising results in a new trial.
Dr. Diana Blythe, Chief of Contraceptive Development Program at the National Institute of Health, said in a news release, The development of a safe, highly effective, and reliably reversible contraceptive method for men is an unmet need.
Researchers' findings were announced Sunday at the Endocrine Society's meeting in Boston.
The Phase 2 trial included 222 men aged 18 to 50, all of whom used around a teaspoon of the hormone gel, and made up of the hormones testosterone and suggesterone on each shoulder blade daily.
In the trial, 86% of the men had sperm suppression after an average of 8 weeks, which was faster than researchers expected.
Okay, so you have to rub this gel on your body for 8 weeks.
Before it starts to have the effect that it's intended to have.
Now, needless to say, needless to say, this is very gay.
I mean, like, just any men out there, rubbing male birth control gel on yourself is pretty much the gayest thing you could possibly do.
Well, there is one gayer thing.
It's second.
There's the gayest thing you could do, which we don't need to go into details, but second to that is this.
I mean, it's very gay.
You're making yourself impotent.
You are emasculating yourself.
And there's no masculine way of doing that.
There's no masculine way of emasculating yourself.
There's no good way of doing it.
But of all the ways you could do it, Rubbing a gel on your body is like somehow, to me, it seems like the worst of all ways.
Do you get your girlfriend to put it on for you?
Hey, babe, can you come rub my hormonal birth control gel on my shoulders for me?
Also, can you open this jar of pickles?
My God.
Here's an idea.
Here's an idea.
Men, rather than taking birth control, How about just get married and have kids?
How about just have kids?
Okay?
Just have kids.
Stop with that nonsense.
What do you do with a birth control gel?
Just have kids.
It is your duty.
It is your responsibility as a man.
Okay?
It's your responsibility as a human being, as a man.
One of your most fundamental responsibilities is to have kids.
Is to have a family and have kids.
Now, there's, it's not just, it's not just like just have them and then move on with your life.
Okay, that's not, we're not animals.
So, you're supposed to have kids and then stick around to raise them and there's a lot of, so yeah, that's like your first responsibility and there's a bunch of other responsibilities that come with that, but that's what you're supposed to do.
And, one of the reasons why You know, the birth rate is plummeting and all that is happening, and people aren't getting married and all that.
One of the reasons is that we've lost this idea of the fundamental duty and responsibility that we have to start families and have kids.
In fact, And the idea that you could have a responsibility to do that or to do anything is absurd to people.
I know there are people that will hear this and they'll think it's absurd, like it's ludicrous, it's funny even.
That you could have any responsibility to do anything in your life is an absurdity to a lot of people.
But if you consider it an absurdity, then that just says something about you.
In fact, it says that you are an absurd, silly, ridiculous, superficial person.
For most of human history, this was something that men recognized.
The only thing silly about it would be to say it out loud because it was so obvious.
Like, you wouldn't have to explain to a man that one of your fundamental responsibilities is to get married and have kids.
For most of human history, it was like, Of course.
Like, of course a man's supposed to do that.
Obviously.
But the more that we reject that responsibility, the more humiliating and embarrassing it becomes.
And it's hard to get more embarrassing than this.
Men on birth control.
With their birth control gels.
Good God.
All right.
I'll mention this quickly as well.
This is from Variety.
Elon Musk's X now officially allows not-safe-for-work content on the social network, formerly known as Twitter, with some restrictions.
In a recent update to its official usage policies, X says, you may share consensually produced and distributed adult nudity or sexual behavior provided it's properly labeled and not prominently displayed.
We believe that users should be able to create, distribute, and consume material related to sexual themes as long as it is consensually produced and distributed.
Sexual expression, whether visual or written, can be a legitimate form of artistic expression.
We believe in the autonomy of adults to engage with and create content that reflects their own beliefs, desires, and experiences, including those related to sexuality.
So there is some hope here.
Elon Musk seems to be very responsive to feedback.
Really to an extraordinary degree.
Because if I was the richest man on Earth, I think that I would probably not listen to anyone about anything ever.
That's sort of already what I do.
And I'm far from the richest man on Earth.
But he does.
So he's responsive to feedback.
So I'm hoping that if enough users of the platform speak out about this, he will change course.
Because this is a terrible idea.
It's the last thing we need.
There's already a ton of pornography on Twitter, way too much.
Any amount is too much, but this is not a small amount.
And that's a problem primarily because kids use the platform, and that's the main issue here.
But even if you could successfully shield minors from it, which you can't, if you allow it on the platform, kids will see it.
But even in theory, if you could, it would still be a problem because there are millions of adults who don't want to see this stuff.
As much as we hear about consent, As long as it's consensual.
Anyone that uses Twitter for any amount of time, we have all non-consensually been exposed to this kind of material.
Because it pops up on the news feed, people can leave it in comments, it's all over the place.
It's one of the main complaints that I see about Twitter these days is that the porn is just everywhere.
And most users of the platform actually don't want to see that.
Like, that's not why they're there.
So, you know, the consent thing only seems to go one way.
You know, when you create content like this and you put it out on a public platform, you are, just by doing that, guaranteed to expose people to it non-consensually.
Because you're putting it out on a platform where that's what's going to happen.
And of course, there are plenty of the purveyors of this pornographic content and bots and all that that very explicitly, very deliberately expose people to it non-consensually, posting it in comments and doing all these kinds of things.
So, it's a bad idea.
And not to mention, there's already pornography everywhere.
Like, we're surrounded by pornographic and semi-pornographic content all the time, everywhere.
Why does it need to be on Twitter?
Like, anyone who wants to find porn on the internet can find it easily and quickly and free, unfortunately.
I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.
There are countless platforms, as you know, that are designed just for pornography.
It's everywhere, easily accessible.
At the speed of light, you can have, like, all of the pornography, you know, and just marinate in that stuff until your twisted heart is content.
Which it never will be, because that's part of the way this stuff is designed.
So, it's like, can there be somewhere that porn isn't?
Can we get a break from it somewhere?
I mean, Twitter could much more easily set itself apart by not having porn than by having it.
And also, you know, porn is not expression.
These people that are posting this stuff, these are not artists trying to express themselves or share their creativity with the world.
We all know that.
We know that's a lie.
Now, there can be art, obviously, that involves the human body, even naked depictions of the human body.
Plenty of Renaissance art includes those sorts of depictions and that kind of imagery.
But that's not pornography, and porn is not art.
Porn is a purely cynical exploitation of the human body.
It is the opposite of art.
It is anti-art.
It is not beautiful.
It is not meant to be beautiful.
Nobody who watches porn is, like, admiring its beauty.
Okay, the experience of looking at a An artistic masterwork from a Renaissance painter, or the experience of looking at a beautiful landscape, mountains, the ocean at sunset.
That experience and the feelings that you get from that, that is not the experience of watching pornography.
It is a different kind of thing.
Because those other things, that is, you are beholding beauty.
And art, and in the case of the painting, it's art created by a human being.
In the case of the landscape, it's art created by the great artist of the cosmos, created by God.
But pornography is not that.
It is simply, it is nothing but the commodification and exploitation of the human body for the basest purpose possible.
So if you're allowing porn on the platform, it is not because you want to let people express themselves and all that kind of stuff.
That is not what you're doing.
It is, you are allowing exploitation of the human body, and that's what it is.
At least be honest about that.
And it is not going to improve the experience for anyone.
Even people Who look at porn.
Even most of them are not on Twitter looking.
That's not why they go to Twitter, because they can go anywhere else for that.
So you got a lot of people on Twitter that are not interested in porn.
They don't want to see it.
And then you have plenty of other people who are interested in porn, unfortunately, but they still aren't going to Twitter for that.
And so who is this for?
Like, it's purely for the pornographers and the spam bots.
Like, that's what this is for.
The only people that this serves are those people.
So, I think it's a massive mistake.
As a parent, let me tell you something that every dad wonders.
Is anything I'm saying really sticking?
Is it sinking in at all with my kids?
Well, this Father's Day, you can finally prove to dad that it is by getting his gift from Jeremy's Razors.
Finally, a company that shares his values.
And let's not forget, show him you know how to spot a good deal.
Right now, get 15% off at Jeremy'sRazors.com with code DAD15.
Need some ideas on what to get him?
How about the Alpha Bundle featuring Jeremy's radically redesigned second-gen razor?
It's one handle, four razor cartridges with precision trimmer, shave cream, and post-shave balm with green tea and menthol, plus a travel case.
It's time to gift dad something that truly shows that you've been paying attention all along.
You need to order today to make sure it arrives in time for Father's Day, because let's face it, if you're late, all this effort will be for nothing.
Head over to jeremysrazors.com now, and don't forget to use code DAD15 at checkout for 15% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Well, despite how it may appear, I actually do try to avoid repeating myself on this show.
I'm not very good at avoiding it, but I do try.
I have to fill an hour every day, so some repetition is inevitable.
But, you know, you try to do what you can.
And that's why when I first saw this story, I initially wanted to steer clear of it.
Because you've heard my take on this subject, as important as it may be, many times.
In fact, I have been one of the leading voices on this issue for 10 years.
And I'm proud of that fact.
But, you know, there's only so many ways to make the point.
Do I really need to cover it again?
That's what I thought initially.
But my aversion to being redundant can sometimes be overridden by other factors, primarily by my own annoyance.
So sometimes I will try to avoid going off on some subject for the one millionth time, but eventually be forced into the rant, into rant number one million and one, purely because I'm so annoyed.
I can't help it when I become that annoyed.
I can no longer stop what's coming.
The decision has been made for me, basically, and that's the situation we're in today with this story.
A psychologist named Dr. Leslie Dobson decided to post on TikTok this week declaring, proudly and defiantly, that she does not return her shopping carts.
And she decided to announce this to the world, for some reason, basically announcing to the world that she's a soulless psychopath, that she's anti-civilization, she has come out against human society itself, because that's what not returning a shopping cart means, Here's her first, there are more, here's her first video on the subject, watch.
I'm not returning my shopping cart and you can judge me all you want.
I'm not getting my groceries into my car, getting my children into the car, and then leaving them in the car to go return the cart.
So if you're going to give me a dirty look.
Oh, I will judge you.
I will, I will judge you.
The old, uh, I'm a mom excuse.
Of course, I've heard this many times.
It does not pass muster, not for a single second.
I have myself taken kids to the store on many occasions.
I've taken one kid to the store.
I've taken four kids to the store.
I haven't taken all six by myself at this point, but Dr. Leslie Dobson hasn't either.
In fact, she has, I read, only two kids, ages three and seven.
Two kids, that's it.
Like, two kids, that's basically like no kids.
You might as well have none.
I mean, come on, two kids?
And neither of them are babies.
But she claims that she can't return her cart.
Yet I have managed to always return my cart even with double the number of kids, including younger kids.
And it's not just me.
Every day, millions of moms and dads with kids of all different ages manage to go to the grocery shopping and return their cart without death or injury befalling themselves or their children.
Every day.
Millions of times over.
And that's because this is not a difficult operation.
Okay, nobody is asking you to return your shopping cart to the top of Mount Everest or somewhere deep in the Amazon rainforest.
We're not saying that you need to take your children on some kind of dangerous journey for hundreds of miles across deserts and through jungles and swamps in order to return your cart.
All we're saying is that you need to walk 20 feet to the cart corral and drop it off.
That's what we're saying.
That's it.
And that's what we have done many times with no issue.
How do we do it?
How do we manage to pull off this extraordinary feat?
Well, you can, yes, leave your children in the car while you walk 14 feet to the nearest cart drop-off location.
Or you could bring them with you.
Your kids are 3 and 7.
They can walk, I assume.
They have legs, I assume.
They've been walking with you all throughout the store.
They just walked with you across the parking lot to get to your car.
Is there some reason why they can't also walk to the cart corral?
You could even carry the three-year-old and have the seven-year-old walk.
There are many ways to make this work.
It's not complicated.
It's not hard.
It's the easiest and simplest thing in the world.
But Leslie Dobson is a certain kind of person.
A barbarian, yes.
An enemy of human civilization, yes.
Someone that we can't trust when the apocalypse happens, yes.
The kind of person who, five minutes after the asteroid hits, will probably have already killed and eaten her neighbors, yes.
She's all those things.
Even worse, She's the kind of person, a common sort of person these days, who declares that she can't do something that millions of people have already done and successfully do literally every day across the planet.
Millions and millions and millions of people have done a certain thing, and yet she says she can't.
Even people who are in more difficult situations than her, people who have more challenges and obstacles than she does, manage to do the thing that she allegedly cannot do.
It's easier for her to do it than it is for them, and yet they can do it and she can't.
You know, we encounter this mentality all the time in our culture.
For every basic thing a person should do in order to be a good, healthy, decent human being in society, there are always people who claim they can't do it.
Even though the rest of us are doing it, and there is not a single thing actually preventing them from doing it too.
But they're different, they say.
Their situation is special.
They are an exception.
Why are they an exception?
How are they special?
They can't say, because it's all nonsense.
We can do the thing, so can you.
Stop making excuses and just get it done.
But the good doctor was not satisfied to leave it at that.
Now that she has revealed herself to be a lazy narcissist, for her next trick, and predictably, she would make herself into a martyr.
Shortly after the video was published and went viral, a video that she chose to make, A subject that she chose to bring up.
She then started crying that people were being mean to her on the internet.
She did an interview with the LA Times to tell her sob story about mean comments related to shopping carts.
Quote, Dobson said the video didn't tell the whole story.
She explained in an interview with the Times that she doesn't believe women should be shamed as returning their shopping carts if they don't feel the parking lot is safe for them or their children.
Dobson, who has children ages 3 and 7, said she knew the video would be provocative, but she didn't expect the wave of anger and judgment from people online.
She's even received death threats, she said.
She hoped the initial post and a follow-up video the next day would get people talking about women prioritizing their own safety.
She said her goal was to impart that women should not feel forced into an unsafe situation for themselves or their children to return a shopping cart.
Now, first of all, Leslie, no, you did not get death threats.
Stop lying.
Give me a break.
Nobody threatened to kill you because you didn't return your shopping cart, okay?
Now, granted, granted, I have proposed that shopping cart ditchers should face the death penalty, but that's not a threat.
That's a proposal for a change in the law, and those penalties would be administered after a fair trial in front of a jury of your peers.
So, you know, that's a...
That's a hope that I have.
That's something I'm advocating for.
That's a policy change I'd like to see happen.
I'm lobbying for it in front of Congress, but there are no actual threats being made here.
Were people judgmental about it?
Sure, and rightfully so.
Dr. Dobson is so narcissistic that she apparently thinks she has the right to not only ditch her cart, but then brag about it on the internet without anyone criticizing her.
As for this bit about safety, she fleshed out that argument in a follow-up video.
Watch.
It's May 31st, and about 6 million people have freaked out over me not returning my shopping cart because my kids are in the car.
So, I want to give you some statistics.
Last year, 265 children were abducted in parking lots in America.
Half of those were sexually assaulted.
As a single mom returning your shopping cart, you are prime for a predator to watch and grab you.
In many states, it's actually illegal to turn your car on and walk away.
Many comments said that they would turn the car on, leave the air on for the kids, and go return the shopping cart.
Well, in Los Angeles, in one particular parking lot, that's at least a 12-minute walk.
You could go to jail.
There are reports from the Bureau of Justice saying 10% of crimes occur in parking lots.
If you get to a parking lot, you should look at the lighting, you should look at security guards, you should look at how the parking lot is laid out.
If it feels safe, go return your cart.
If it doesn't feel safe, trust your gut, trust your intuition, and keep you and your family safe.
It's not worth the judgment you'll get.
There are actual lawyers who specialize in parking lot crimes, and they sue the grocery stores.
And guess what?
I've been a part of those cases.
So if you want to be ignorant, go ahead.
But I also have videos on the mind of predators, pedophiles, and why child trafficking occurs and how victims are targeted.
Well, she really is an awful person.
The shopping cart theory is vindicated again.
Now, you would assume that she's a terrible human being just based on the fact that she doesn't return her cart.
But if you had any doubt about that, this follow-up video only confirms it.
Here she is cynically exploiting child abductions and sexual assaults just to justify the fact that she's a lazy bum.
Like, just return the cart!
Why are you debasing yourself?
Why are you doing this to yourself?
Just return the cart!
I mean, this is truly reprehensible behavior.
Let me make a few points here.
To begin with, what the hell kind of a parking lot would require a 12-minute walk to return the cart?
A healthy person should be able to walk a mile in 12 minutes.
So the Cart Corral is a mile away?
How does that work?
The grocery store is here and the carts are over in the next town?
Well, you take an Uber to get your cart?
Is that what you do?
Well, I have an idea.
If there's any store in America with that kind of insane setup, just don't go to that store.
Go to any of the thousands of stores that have Cart Corrals not 12 minutes away, but 12 feet away.
Now, she says that 265 children were abducted in parking lots in America last year.
I have no idea where she's getting that stat, but I do know that abductions by strangers are extremely, extremely, extremely rare.
The vast majority of kidnappings are by family members, often in custody disputes and that sort of thing.
If that 265 figure isn't made up, it's almost certainly mostly family abductions.
And if there are any stranger abductions in there, most of those are going to be older kids walking through parking lots alone.
Has there been a single recorded case ever of a child being abducted out of a car while the parent returned a cart?
Has it happened one time ever in history?
Now, I'm willing to believe that it has, because implausible and very rare things do happen, but can she provide one case?
She just said she's a- well, I was in a bunch of cases.
Yeah, were any of them this?
Did you ever do a case where a woman was returning a shopping cart, shut and locked the car door, and was gone for 15 seconds and came back and the kid was kidnapped?
Has that ever happened one time ever?
Just one scenario, like one example of the scenario that you are describing.
Has it ever occurred?
Ever?
I don't know.
What I do know is that she absolutely cannot provide a statistically significant number of examples, if any at all.
Because the chances that your child is kidnapped while you return a cart, the chance of that happening is infinitesimally small.
We're talking quantum levels of smallness.
It's a chance so small, so obscure, so vanishingly tiny, that if you're the sort of person worried about those kinds of odds, well, you certainly never should get in an elevator, or cross a bridge, or go in the ocean, or go near any body of water at all, or eat solid food, You also shouldn't be driving.
If returning your cart puts your kid at risk of kidnapping, the kind of risk that you're actually worried about, then driving him to the store in the first place is essentially an act of attempted murder.
Because the chances of your child dying in an accident on the way there are astronomically higher.
And all of this is irrelevant anyway.
Because your kids are three and seven.
You only have two of them.
You don't have to leave them in the car.
You could just walk them with you.
And if the parking lot isn't even safe enough for that, okay?
If you're shopping apparently in some third-world shantytown, if you're shopping in a Somalian marketplace where pirates sell their stolen cargo, then you shouldn't be bringing your kids in the first place.
If the parking lot is so dangerous that you can't even turn your back for a second without your child being kidnapped, then how did you even survive the shopping trip to begin with?
Why are you bringing your kids to a place like that?
What, are you insane?
If it's that dangerous, it's definitely worth driving even an hour away to a safer place.
But you're not shopping anywhere that dangerous, are you, Leslie?
You're shopping at a freaking Whole Foods in the suburbs.
There's a Sephora and a smoothie place right next door.
You're not on an expedition through the Temple of Doom, Leslie.
There's a yoga studio on the other end of the shopping center.
Okay, you're safe.
Your children are safe.
You're just lazy, entitled, and selfish.
At least have the integrity to admit it.
Although, even if you do admit it, you are still, today, with a vengeance, cancelled.
