The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 328 - Hey Guys, Stop Oppressing Women

00:00:00.000 All right, so this is pretty exciting news. We just got a new right. We have a new right,

00:00:04.780 a new human right. So take out your notepad or your scorecard, however you keep track of this,

00:00:09.600 and write this down, because this is a pretty cool one. I have to say, this new right that

00:00:14.040 has just, I guess, been beamed down from the clouds and been somehow injected into our souls.

00:00:20.040 I don't know how it works exactly metaphysically, but this new right is the right to live

00:00:24.800 near your job. That's a human right now. To live near your job is a human right. Pretty great,

00:00:31.420 I know. Beto was recently, Beto O'Rourke was recently at a campaign stop, and he explained

00:00:37.300 how we all have this right, or will have it, I guess, in Beto's administration, which will never

00:00:43.300 exist. So let's check this out. Watch this. Here's a tough thing to talk about, though we must.

00:00:49.480 First, rich people are going to have to allow or be forced to allow lower income people to live near 0.99

00:00:57.160 them. Okay, so, all right, wait, wait one second. Rich people have to allow or be forced to allow

00:01:04.640 lower income people to live near them. What does that mean? First of all, are they disallowing it

00:01:11.960 now? Is that how it works? Or a rich neighborhood, they put a sign up saying no poor people allowed here?

00:01:16.800 I mean, it seems to me the thing that prevents a lower income person from living in, for instance,

00:01:23.220 Beverly Hills, is that the houses are very expensive. But if a poor person came up with

00:01:27.880 $35 million and wanted to buy a house there, which if they did, they wouldn't be poor anymore. But if

00:01:32.360 they did come up with that money, they could buy the house. It's really that simple. So it's not that

00:01:37.840 rich people are getting up, are preventing, prohibiting poor people from living there. It's just that

00:01:43.460 the houses are expensive because everybody's rich. And so that's the way that works. So what are we

00:01:50.080 going to do to solve this problem? We're going to convert mansions into like low income apartment 0.99

00:01:55.040 complexes? And how are we going to do that? Are we going to force people to move out, force a rich

00:01:59.100 person to sell his house so it can be converted into a, I mean, how does that work? Well, maybe

00:02:04.420 Beto will explain it. Let's keep watching.

00:02:06.320 Which is what we fail to do in this country right now. We force lower income working Americans to 1.00

00:02:13.020 drive one, two, three hours in either direction to get to their jobs. Very often minimum wage jobs. So

00:02:20.340 they're working two or three of them right now. All right. Well, we got to stop there for just one

00:02:25.240 more second because who, who, who is driving three hours to a minimum wage job? Okay. Tell, tell me who's

00:02:36.020 doing that. Who's driving three, six hour round trip for a minimum wage job. So that would be like,

00:02:43.040 I guess if, if, if somebody lived in Pittsburgh and they drove to Toledo, Ohio for a minimum wage,

00:02:49.540 it's like if you, if you lived in Pittsburgh and you drove to an Arby's to work at an Arby's in Toledo,

00:02:54.900 that's what that would be. But that would make a lot of sense considering on the way from Pittsburgh

00:03:00.280 to Toledo, you're going to pass a lot of Arby's. Trust me, I've made that drive before a lot of Arby's

00:03:05.920 and many other fast food, minimum wage jobs. There's, there's thousands of them, literally

00:03:11.960 thousands of them in Pittsburgh and then all along the way to Toledo. So it just wouldn't make any

00:03:16.680 sense to do that. So unless you live in the wilderness and you're commuting to your job

00:03:23.140 on a, via, via covered wagon, I don't see how this could even be possible, but this is what you get on

00:03:30.740 the left. A lot of times you get, you get laws and policies proposed based on these sorts of

00:03:35.280 utterly absurd scenarios, which they're only undercutting their own case. Now, if you want

00:03:40.000 to make the case that there are people who go to lower paying jobs and have to drive an inordinate

00:03:46.640 amount to get there. Yeah. I mean, that's true. There are people who drive, there are people,

00:03:51.960 there are probably some people out there who commute, uh, three hours to a job that probably,

00:03:56.500 I'm sure there are examples of that, but that's not a minimum wage job. Um, there are people who

00:04:01.900 commute an hour to a job that pays them not quite enough to really justify it. So that sort of stuff

00:04:07.460 happens. But the problem is number one, when you exaggerate like that, you completely destroy your

00:04:12.940 point. And number two, this isn't really, if you're going to transition from pointing out this

00:04:19.240 problem to proposing some sort of compelled policy or law by the government. See, that's where the

00:04:26.400 problem comes into play because there isn't any law really that can fix that problem. But, um, uh,

00:04:34.440 Beto's going to propose it anyway. So let's go back to the clip.

00:04:37.540 What if, as we propose to do, we invested in housing that was closer to...

00:04:41.580 All right, we got to stop there again because what, what, what was that hand gesture exactly?

00:04:47.100 Play that clip again.

00:04:48.740 What if, as we propose to do, we invested in housing that was closer to where...

00:04:53.600 So he's, it's a, it's, so what if, as we propose to do, he's like, it's like a thing. And what is

00:05:01.140 this, a dance move? Is he getting ready to do the Macarena or is he sending hand signals, like secret

00:05:06.940 hand signals to somebody in the audience? I don't, his, listen, I, I, I'm doing it right now. I,

00:05:12.580 I speak, I'm, my hands are very active when I speak, but I feel like my hand gestures

00:05:17.320 sort of make sense, but his are just disconnected from what he's saying. And it doesn't make any

00:05:23.140 sense. Anyway, um, let's, uh, okay, let's go back to, let's go, let's finish this, this clip from

00:05:28.320 Beto. Go ahead.

00:05:28.820 Do we invested in housing that was closer to where you work very often mixed income housing,

00:05:34.700 meaning the very wealthiest are living next to those who are not the very wealthiest in this

00:05:39.100 country to make sure that they can both afford to go to the same public schools, that we really

00:05:44.600 have that as a place where in this divided country right now, you can come together without regard to

00:05:49.340 your income or your race or your ethnicity or any other difference that should not matter right now.

00:05:54.380 What if we invested as we propose to do in high speed rail and in transit in all of our cities to

00:06:00.300 make sure that if you do not have a car or do not want to use a car, you will not need to have one

00:06:05.260 or you will not be penalized for not having one right now. So, so having cities that are smarter,

00:06:11.380 that are denser, um, that have people living closer to where they work and where their families are

00:06:17.280 to reduce our impact on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, but also just to improve

00:06:22.980 the quality of life, um, you know, in, in these built environments, that's an extraordinary opportunity

00:06:27.980 in our plan to climate change. We make those investments.

00:06:31.560 So that's Beto O'Rourke's point of view. That's what he's trying to say.

00:06:38.120 But what if, as we propose to do, we don't elect him in the first place and, and he can go back to

00:06:46.560 attending furry conventions. It's like he's way, I think he's waving in. That's what he's doing.

00:06:51.720 He's waving in an airplane. He's a, he's where he's working on the tarmac at an airport.

00:06:55.840 All right. Um, that's what I expect. Every time I see a Beto, uh, rally, I expect a, I expect a,

00:07:01.180 a commercial airliner to just land on top of the audience because that's what it looks like.

00:07:05.340 He's trying to, all right. Uh, anyway, so, so on Twitter, when he shared that clip, he introduced

00:07:09.860 it, he introduced it, um, with the caption saying living close to work shouldn't be a luxury for the

00:07:14.920 rich. It's a right for everyone. And, and that's really what I want to discuss. So I guess I didn't

00:07:19.700 need to play the clip at all because I really was just the caption that I wanted to talk about,

00:07:22.560 but the clip was funny. So that's why I played. Um, so Beto says it's a right to live, to live,

00:07:27.700 uh, near, near your job. And it's, it's not a, it's not a luxury. It's a right. And, and this yet

00:07:33.180 again is more evidence that the word right has essentially no meaning anymore in our country.

00:07:39.040 It doesn't mean anything. So we may as well not talk about it, not use the word. It just doesn't

00:07:43.620 mean anything. The word right traditionally has meant, has referred to, uh, something intrinsic

00:07:49.380 to our nature as human beings, something that very, very crucially here, something that does

00:07:56.780 not need to be provided to us, but which we already have by the nature of the fact that we

00:08:04.680 are human beings and which the government simply is, is not supposed to take away or infringe

00:08:09.260 upon or interfere with. That's how, you know, it's a right. So if, if, if we're talking about

00:08:14.360 something that needs to be given to you by somebody else, then that's not a right, at least

00:08:23.760 not by the classical conception of this idea of human rights. It certainly is not, that's

00:08:29.620 not the kind of rights that our founding fathers were talking about. So you, but it, it, you

00:08:34.900 could have, so there could be things that are even necessities yet are not exactly rights.

00:08:40.660 And there could certainly be a lot of things out there that are, that are very nice to

00:08:46.440 have. It would make you very comfortable and, and that we would all like to have, but yet

00:08:51.260 are still not rights. So rights really have very little to do. They have nothing to do

00:08:56.960 with luxury. They have very little to do even with necessity. It's that's not, it's just about

00:09:02.400 our nature as human beings. Um, but we've moved way beyond that now. And now a right is just

00:09:08.360 anything that you might happen to want is a right. Anything that might make your life

00:09:14.100 a little bit easier is a right. And so now we've extended that to living closer to your

00:09:19.020 job is a right, which I mean, and the problem is when you start, when you start going down

00:09:24.380 this road where you're calling things rights that are not actually rights and are in fact

00:09:28.060 luxuries, because that is the definition of a luxury, something that makes your life, something

00:09:32.220 that you don't need, but that would make your life easier. That is by definition, a luxury,

00:09:36.860 right? Uh, but once we get on this road of making luxuries into rights, now we have,

00:09:41.900 because we've erased that line, which made a lot of sense, things that are intrinsic to our human

00:09:45.920 nature, we're saying, well, that's not what a right is anymore. It's now this, it's sort of this vague,

00:09:50.240 ambiguous thing. And then where do you stop and how do you even define? So living close to your job?

00:09:55.280 Well, okay. How close? 30 minutes, 15 minutes. I live across the hall from my job because I work at home.

00:10:02.200 Is that, is that sort of infringing on my, because I still have to, I still have to walk across a 0.72

00:10:06.520 hallway. I have to walk, I have to get up out of my bed and I have to walk, I have to move my feet

00:10:13.020 literally probably 15 to 20 times. There are 15 to 20 movements of each foot to get me into my, uh,

00:10:21.380 my job area, which is, which you're looking at right now. Is that infringing on my rights?

00:10:26.860 Cause I still have to move to get there. I do. I do. Should there be someone, should the

00:10:31.780 government have someone come into my house, pick me up, like do like a fireman carry and bring me

00:10:37.800 into my, uh, into my, into my office and then provide me free waffles and, uh, and pancakes and

00:10:45.620 sausage, bacon and coffee. I mean, so, so how does this work? Um, but if we're going to say that,

00:10:52.780 no, my, my rights aren't being infringed upon because I'm close enough to my job, 15 feet away

00:10:57.260 from it, but what, okay. So what if you're 45 minutes away? Is that still, are, is that,

00:11:03.600 is that infringing on your rights? Where, where is the right cutoff? Is it anything within, you have

00:11:08.840 a right to be within 30 minutes of your job or you have a right to be within 15 minutes and who decided

00:11:12.920 this and why, where is this coming from? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, which is why,

00:11:21.440 as I said, the, the, the whole idea, and this is very unfortunate considering our country was founded

00:11:27.680 on this conception of rights. Um, and it's obviously very important to, to, to the, the whole idea of

00:11:36.720 America, but unfortunately the word just doesn't mean anything anymore. So I think we need to,

00:11:41.800 as much as possible, find other ways of, of, of talking about this, of, you know, if we are,

00:11:49.200 if we are advocating for something, I think we have to find other ways of advocating for it without

00:11:54.060 falling back on this idea of being a right. It is possible to make the argument that, um, you could

00:12:01.320 even say, uh, you know, it, it, it would be, it would be best for society. If everybody had X, Y, Z,

00:12:08.920 um, you could, you could say something like that. You could even make an argument for coming up with

00:12:16.440 a law that would provide everyone with X, Y, Z, even if it's not exactly a right. Now I'm not saying

00:12:23.280 I would agree. I'm not saying that, you know, that we, we could, but at least then we're having the

00:12:28.600 argument on a, on a, on a basis that makes sense. So if you want to, for example, make the argument

00:12:38.220 that everybody should have access to high speed internet, which is a thing also now, um, fine,

00:12:44.680 then make that argument, but don't say it's a right. No, we don't all have a right to it's not a God

00:12:49.560 given right. If it was a God given right, then God would have just created the internet from the

00:12:55.520 beginning of human civilization. I mean, if, if, if access to the internet is a God given right,

00:13:00.920 which if you're saying it's a human right, you're saying it's a God given right. Those are,

00:13:03.500 that's the exact same thing means the same thing. Um, God given right equals human right,

00:13:08.120 human right equals God given right. So if that's a God given right, then I guess what God infringed

00:13:12.280 on everybody's rights up until the invention of the internet, because he put them into a world that

00:13:16.740 didn't have it doesn't make any sense. The internet is not intrinsic to our human nature, but

00:13:21.000 you could still argue that living in modern society, everybody should have high speed internet

00:13:27.440 so they can participate in society or whatever. I'm not saying I agree with that argument. I don't,

00:13:31.360 but you could argue it. And then you could say from there, therefore the government should provide

00:13:34.920 it. Fine. Make that argument. You don't have to say it's a right. Not everything has to be a right.

00:13:40.400 And just because it's not a right doesn't mean it's not important. Doesn't mean that,

00:13:44.180 you know, there's no point in talking about it. It just means it's not a right is all that's it.

00:13:48.920 So we just, we need to find more specific language to talk about these things, more specific and

00:13:57.740 appropriate language. All right. Okay. Hey guys, by the way, I don't know if you realize this,

00:14:05.020 but when you use the phrase, Hey guys, like I just did, you are oppressing women. So get out,

00:14:12.420 get out your other scorecard. You had your, your rights scorecard, keeping track of all the rights

00:14:16.360 that you have. Now get out your oppression scorecard because this is yet another thing

00:14:20.860 that oppresses women. There's a video making the rounds online explaining how the phrase, 0.98

00:14:27.120 Hey guys, or really just the word guys in general, the way it's used now is oppressive to women. So

00:14:32.720 let's, let's take a look at this. Watch this. Hey guys, welcome back to now this

00:14:37.260 guys is a simple term. It could mean boys, or if you're modern hip, it means people.

00:14:44.340 At first glance guys seems inviting, friendly, maybe warm, even comedic at times, but it like

00:14:52.120 many male default terms should not be normalized as an all encompassing phrase, innocent as it may

00:14:59.620 seem. Okay. Stop, stop, stop there for a second. Um, do leftists know what the word normalized means?

00:15:06.740 Do they know what any word means? Normalized. They use it all the time. They're always talking

00:15:11.840 about things being normalized, but, uh, like an ego Montoya in the princess bride, I'm starting to

00:15:17.520 suspect that they don't, that it doesn't mean what they think it means because they use it so often

00:15:21.180 to normalize. Something is to make something seem well, normal. That's what normalized means,

00:15:28.000 but you can't normalize the phrase. Hey guys, because it's already normal. There's no normalizing

00:15:34.320 something that's already normal. That's like accusing somebody of, of, of, I don't know,

00:15:37.780 normalizing napkins because they use the napkin, uh, to wipe their hands off after eating a rack

00:15:42.780 ribs. It's no, you can't normalize that. It's already, it's a totally normal thing to do. So

00:15:46.560 you can't normalize what's already normal. Normalization is like what the left does with

00:15:51.560 chill with, with, with, with child drag Queens or, or drag queen story hour. That is a perfect example

00:15:58.180 of actual normalization. That is actually also problematic as leftists like to say, because there

00:16:04.320 you have something that is very much not normal, that is bizarre and weird and unhealthy and

00:16:10.780 disturbing that the left is trying to make normal. And part of making it normal is to take this weird,

00:16:16.840 disturbing, uh, crazy thing and to, and to try to get people in society to a point where they're so

00:16:24.360 desensitized to it that they don't see it as weird, normal, and crazy anymore, even though it is,

00:16:29.180 that's what normalization is. Can't the phrase, Hey guys, is just a totally normal thing. There's

00:16:35.300 nothing weird about it. And, uh, and so you can't normalize it. All right. Another question though,

00:16:40.400 that I had before we get deeper into this video, um, is, is, uh, who is this person?

00:16:48.840 You know, you see these videos all the time of, and it's always, it's always the same thing. It's

00:16:53.200 always someone in their, in their twenties. Um, uh, you know, very, very well sort of put together

00:16:59.880 person in their twenties, standing there with an all white background, very sort of cheerfully,

00:17:06.780 um, instructing us, telling us what we can and can't do from now on. You see these videos all the

00:17:14.100 time online, but they, they never give any explanation about who they are or why we should

00:17:19.820 listen to them is the thing is if you're going to make instructions and tell people what they can

00:17:25.180 and can't do, I think you have to begin by saying, okay, here's why, uh, my instructions matter. Here's,

00:17:32.580 here's who I am. So for example, if you're, uh, if you're telling people that, um, if you're trying to

00:17:42.500 give instructions on, on what's, on what is healthy to eat and what isn't healthy, that would really help

00:17:48.560 to begin by saying, okay, I'm Bob Smith. I'm a, I'm a, I'm a nutritionist. I'm a dietitian.

00:17:56.620 Um, uh, you know, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a cardiovascular surgeon, you know, give us who you are, what your

00:18:03.980 station is in life. And then, and then maybe, and then maybe you'll, you will have established that

00:18:09.980 you are an authority. But, um, with these videos, it's always just some random person who's just

00:18:16.740 telling us and we're supposed to do what just, well, Hey, that random person in the video said

00:18:22.660 we can't do this anymore, guys. So don't do it. All right, let's go back to the, to the video.

00:18:29.200 While we may understand the word means no real harm with a deeper look, you'll understand that

00:18:34.660 we've been ignoring the cognitive impact on women as well as gender non-conforming folks 1.00

00:18:40.340 by only explicitly addressing the male identifying individuals present. The meaning of guys has

00:18:47.000 changed over time. According to the Washington Post, etymologists believe it began in the 17th

00:18:52.260 century with a guy named Guy Fox, a participant in the failed 1605 gunpowder plot. He only barely

00:18:59.580 escaped a brutal execution by jumping off a scaffold and breaking his neck. For the next few centuries,

00:19:05.760 those who likened him in fashion, appearance, or intellect were referred to as guys. Eventually,

00:19:12.560 according to the Boston Globe, the term broadened to describe creepy people, then to a generic term

00:19:17.860 for men, and now some would say a gender neutral phrase. For decades, we have set a standard of only

00:19:25.340 addressing the men in the room. Of course, we claim it's colloquial, but with our elevated knowledge

00:19:31.180 and inclusive perspective, it just seems lazy, inconsiderate, and a small part of what reinforces

00:19:38.340 the gender hierarchy today. How is one to feel empowered to speak or assert themselves when upon

00:19:45.180 greeting, they're misgendered or even ignored in language? Can we be surprised that for decades, women 1.00

00:19:51.460 often felt uncomfortable asserting their voice when we didn't even take the time to properly

00:19:57.460 acknowledge them? Okay. All right. I can't take it anymore. I mean, bro, just chill. Okay. Take it

00:20:05.180 easy, dude. Back off, chief. I did notice one part, though. As she was giving us that etymology of the 0.65

00:20:14.340 word guys, very interesting. I don't know if it's true or not. Probably isn't. But she said that it used

00:20:22.240 to mean creepy people, according to her, and then it came to refer to men. So isn't the word guys

00:20:29.700 then offensive to men? Shouldn't we be the ones offended by it? You're telling us that it used to

00:20:34.580 mean creepy, and then that became synonymous with men in general? Put that aside, though. I want you to

00:20:43.100 take note of something else. Before she starts giving all these reasons why the term, hey, guys,

00:20:48.980 is terribly offensive. She said something important. I want you to listen to this part

00:20:52.960 again. Listen to this. While we may understand the word means no real harm. Alright, did you hear

00:20:58.040 that? Play it again. While we may understand the word means no real harm. Again. While we may

00:21:03.740 understand the word means no real harm. Again. While we may understand the word means no real harm.

00:21:09.980 Okay, while we understand the word means no real harm.

00:21:16.420 I just want to make sure we all got that.

00:21:18.740 So you understand that the word means no real harm.

00:21:22.660 Well, then why are we talking about it in that case?

00:21:26.420 What's the point of the conversation?

00:21:28.660 If you understand that someone doesn't mean any harm in what they're saying,

00:21:33.840 you have no right to be offended by it.

00:21:36.060 But if you know that someone does not intend offense in what they're saying,

00:21:41.860 if you know it and you're acknowledging that you know they don't mean it offensively,

00:21:46.920 then if you take offense anyway, it's because you want to be offended. 0.98

00:21:51.920 And you want to be offended because you are a petty, emotionally manipulative narcissist 0.98

00:21:56.440 trying to make everything about yourself. 0.97

00:21:58.620 It's because you're the kind of person who injects yourself into a normal conversation

00:22:02.800 between normal people who are being perfectly polite to one another

00:22:05.920 and you just have to control things because you're a control freak.

00:22:09.920 Okay, that's what that means.

00:22:12.360 And your feelings in that case mean nothing.

00:22:16.100 Just mean absolutely, we should not care.

00:22:19.500 Your feelings mean nothing to anyone and they shouldn't mean anything to anyone.

00:22:25.820 Mainly because they're not even really your feelings.

00:22:29.020 You admit that, yeah, well, I know you didn't mean anything by it.

00:22:32.340 You're just trying to emotionally blackmail and bully us because you want to control us.

00:22:36.800 That's all that is.

00:22:38.460 I've hammered this point a million times because you hear this all the time now in society

00:22:42.440 where people acknowledge, like, yeah, yeah, like, I know you didn't mean anything by that,

00:22:46.420 but I'm offended anyway.

00:22:48.240 How is that even possible?

00:22:49.680 How is it even possible to make yourself offended by something

00:22:54.040 when you know that it wasn't even meant offensively?

00:22:59.200 The only time it can be reasonable to take offense at someone's words

00:23:03.120 is if you reasonably suspect that they meant to offend you.

00:23:09.420 And even then, taking offense is a really sort of a pretty pointless exercise to take offense.

00:23:15.700 But at least that it's a natural response.

00:23:18.860 So if somebody goes up to you and says, 1.00

00:23:21.280 hey, you're fat, you're ugly, you're disgusting. 1.00

00:23:23.320 Well, clearly, they mean that there's no non-offensive meaning there. 1.00

00:23:28.760 That is an insult.

00:23:29.620 They're trying to insult you.

00:23:30.920 So if you are therefore insulted, that is a reasonable reaction.

00:23:35.600 It may not be a very fruitful reaction.

00:23:38.240 It probably is better just to ignore it.

00:23:40.000 But it is a reasonable response.

00:23:42.560 Someone insults you, and so you feel insulted.

00:23:44.600 Okay, fine.

00:23:46.580 And in that scenario, the person who insulted you owes you an apology.

00:23:52.280 As civilized human beings, if you insult somebody,

00:23:55.920 once you calm down and realize that that was rude, you should apologize.

00:24:03.280 But if you didn't mean anything, and also, okay, so this is the way human communication works, right?

00:24:08.880 Where I say something, and in saying whatever I'm saying, I mean to convey a message, okay?

00:24:19.280 Only I can really decide what the message is.

00:24:23.580 I get to decide the intent behind what I'm saying and the message it's meant to convey.

00:24:30.340 Only myself, as the speaker, can determine the intent, because I'm the one saying it.

00:24:38.660 You cannot retroactively infuse an intent into what I said that wasn't actually present when I originally said it.

00:24:49.320 It's a very basic concept.

00:24:50.680 So, you get to decide.

00:24:54.360 Which means, now, sometimes in human communication, somebody can say something, and it's sort of ambiguous.

00:25:01.420 It could go one way or another.

00:25:02.620 It could be read offensively.

00:25:04.760 It could be read inoffensively.

00:25:05.980 So, then, in that case, you, as the listener, as the hearer, as the receiver of the words,

00:25:13.560 if you're not sure if it was meant offensively, rather than just assuming that offense was intended,

00:25:19.760 the reasonable thing to do is to say, what did you mean by that?

00:25:23.620 To give the person a chance to clarify.

00:25:26.540 And if they say, oh, no, no, no, I didn't mean that in an offensive way.

00:25:29.780 Here's how I meant it.

00:25:30.680 Then, all you can do as an adult is just say, okay, understood.

00:25:38.640 Now, if I say something that is clearly meant to be offensive, and then I claim later that I didn't mean it that way,

00:25:48.700 well, then that's on me.

00:25:50.580 And that's called being passive-aggressive.

00:25:52.300 Passive-aggressiveness exists.

00:25:53.580 There are passive-aggressive people out there.

00:25:54.980 Passive-aggressiveness, to me, is one of the most unappealing and repulsive characteristics in a person.

00:25:59.860 I absolutely hate it.

00:26:00.640 But there are passive-aggressive people.

00:26:01.720 And this is what they do.

00:26:02.520 They say things that they know are going to be taken a certain way, and they want it to be taken that way.

00:26:07.600 But they also say it in a certain way that it always allows them an out to claim that they didn't really mean it that way.

00:26:13.280 And that's just passive-aggressiveness.

00:26:14.540 So if that's the case, then that's different.

00:26:16.160 But as long as I'm not being passive-aggressive, then you just have to leave it to me to decide what I meant and to tell you what I meant.

00:26:23.100 And again, if it's clear, or if I tell you, no, I didn't mean that in an offensive way, here's how I meant it,

00:26:30.160 the only thing you can do is just accept that and move on with your life.

00:26:38.020 One other thing before we get to emails.

00:26:46.180 Pierce Brosnan, obviously a Hollywood actor, and he's one of the men that's played James Bond.

00:26:55.520 He was asked by a Hollywood reporter whether there should be a female James Bond.

00:27:01.220 And this is what he said.

00:27:02.920 He said, yes, yes, exclamation point.

00:27:06.300 I think we've watched the guys do it for the last 40 years.

00:27:09.080 Get out of the way, guys, and put a woman up there. 1.00

00:27:11.300 I think it would be exhilarating.

00:27:12.800 It would be exciting.

00:27:14.420 And this is getting a lot of attention, and the feminists are saying, oh, look, one of the James Bond guys. 1.00

00:27:20.820 This is, no, I didn't watch the interview, so I can't see his body language.

00:27:25.700 But this, to me, reads like a hostage with a gun to his head, saying, oh, yes, I would love for there to be.

00:27:33.340 Yeah, it's about time, guys.

00:27:34.620 Get out of there.

00:27:36.500 The point is, and this is what makes all this so pointless, that Pierce Brosnan is giving the only answer he's allowed to give.

00:27:48.520 So when a media person comes to him and says, what do you think?

00:27:51.540 As a Hollywood actor himself, a guy that played James Bond, and he's asked, should there be a female James Bond?

00:27:57.900 The only answer he's allowed to give.

00:27:59.800 Because he knows.

00:28:00.680 Now, I would love it if he had said, no, I don't really think of, yeah, you know what?

00:28:03.860 This is a guy character.

00:28:05.200 Women can find their own character. 1.00

00:28:06.500 I would love it if he responded that way.

00:28:08.360 But he's not going to do that.

00:28:10.140 Because he doesn't, he just, it's not worth the trouble for him.

00:28:13.760 And can you imagine if he was asked that question and he had said something like, no, this is a guy.

00:28:18.680 If a former James Bond had come out and said, no, no women are allowed to do this, he would be, just the mob would descend upon him. 1.00

00:28:30.440 And he knows that.

00:28:31.340 So he has to say, oh, yeah, it's great.

00:28:33.980 And speaking of being sort of disingenuous and passive aggressive, this is another thing that you get from the left and from the media, where they ask questions to people knowing that there's only one answer they can give.

00:28:49.200 And then when they give it, they report it as if it was a freely offered opinion, when it wasn't.

00:28:58.800 There was a metaphorical gun to their head.

00:29:01.120 Now, the reality is with this James Bond thing, in general, I don't care that much because it's a fictional character.

00:29:10.100 But to the extent that I do care, which is very little, no, I absolutely don't think that a woman should play James Bond. 1.00

00:29:19.880 That obviously is silly and stupid. 0.99

00:29:24.640 Now, if you want to switch the race up and have a black guy playing James Bond, who cares? Fine. 1.00

00:29:31.040 In fact, I think Idris Elba, and this is the, Idris Elba would be a great James Bond, I think.

00:29:35.040 But it's got nothing to do with his race.

00:29:40.100 Nothing at all to do with his race.

00:29:41.280 I think he would make a great James Bond.

00:29:44.000 So the race doesn't matter.

00:29:45.420 Here's what matters with James Bond.

00:29:46.520 When it comes to demographics, here's what matters.

00:29:50.260 James Bond is British.

00:29:52.220 Got to be British. 1.00

00:29:54.600 It wouldn't make any sense to have a James Bond from Kentucky.

00:29:57.500 If you want to have a spy from Kentucky, that's a different character.

00:30:01.260 And go ahead and do that.

00:30:02.260 But James Bond is British, and he's a man.

00:30:05.040 His maleness, his masculinity, for better and worse, with all of James Bond's positive and negative characteristics as a character.

00:30:19.260 It is all very much tied to the fact that he is a man.

00:30:23.360 It is part of the character.

00:30:24.920 In a similar way that Lara Croft, Tomb Raider, not nearly as iconic of a character, but it wouldn't make any sense to have a Larry Croft.

00:30:37.260 Okay?

00:30:38.040 Although Lara Croft is already, I guess, sort of the female version of Indiana Jones, I guess.

00:30:41.820 So maybe that's not the best example.

00:30:43.900 But whatever.

00:30:45.120 The point is, this is a man.

00:30:47.040 His masculinity is central to the character.

00:30:51.620 If you make him into a woman, it's a different character. 0.65

00:30:54.860 And if you want to have a female spy, then here's my thing. 1.00

00:30:59.920 Feminist.

00:31:00.820 Go out there and make a female spy character. 1.00

00:31:03.220 There are already some in existence.

00:31:04.580 Go make another one if you want.

00:31:06.580 But stand on your own two feet.

00:31:08.380 Okay, don't try to leech off of a, don't attach yourself like a barnacle to a pre-existing character to try to borrow the mystique and the, you know, charm of this already existing character and the brand and everything so that you can then parlay it into your feminist thing. 1.00

00:31:29.540 Go out there and stand on your own two feet and make your own character completely separate.

00:31:34.840 Your own interesting separate female character. 0.99

00:31:38.380 Go do that. 0.52

00:31:41.160 You don't have to.

00:31:42.340 That was the whole thing with the Ghostbusters, you know.

00:31:45.220 And the outrage and the backlash against Ghostbusters was completely exaggerated.

00:31:50.860 For the most part, people didn't watch it because it wasn't very good.

00:31:54.740 But the point is, don't, these Ghostbuster characters, they are, those characters exist.

00:32:03.380 If you want to make something similar, or you've got a ragtag group of women out there fighting ghosts and goblins, then go ahead and do that. 1.00

00:32:17.180 But don't attach yourself.

00:32:18.320 Don't try to borrow from the charm and the wit and the brand recognition of these male characters.

00:32:25.000 Go out and do your own thing.

00:32:26.460 Stop appropriating.

00:32:29.920 For all this talk about appropriating, this is appropriation.

00:32:33.820 This is a very definition of appropriation.

00:32:37.780 To make a Jane Bond would be appropriating James Bond, by definition.

00:32:42.740 All right, we'll go to emails.

00:32:48.200 MattWalshow at gmail.com.

00:32:50.100 MattWalshow at gmail.com.

00:32:52.120 This is from Meg.

00:32:53.140 Says, Matt, I've respected you so much for years, and I've greatly enjoyed listening to your podcast every day.

00:32:57.900 I was also on your side with the socks and sandals issue, as using precious time and energy, using hands to push regular shoes on, is such a tragic waste.

00:33:05.200 However, I just now saw that the sandals you wore were not sandals, they were flip-flops.

00:33:11.280 Every self-respecting human knows that flip-flops are for the fair sex only. 0.98

00:33:15.580 Flip-flops on a man are metrosexual at best and downright fruity at worst.

00:33:19.920 I'm so relieved that you didn't have a full-body shop because flip-flops on a man usually are paired with mid-thigh pastel shorts, a collared polo tank tops, and a coral pink baseball cap.

00:33:31.880 Well, I've got news for you, Meg.

00:33:34.180 I guess it's a good thing you didn't do the whole outfit because you nailed it.

00:33:38.300 Well, aside from the pink baseball cap.

00:33:40.520 I do have some self-respect.

00:33:43.280 I would never wear a pink baseball cap.

00:33:45.000 The socks were the only redeeming part of the outfit because, God forbid, you may have had toenail polish on under those.

00:33:51.260 And so what if I did, you bigot?

00:33:53.960 What if I did have toenail polish on?

00:33:55.660 If I did this show one day with lipstick on, you would have to just watch it and make no comment at all.

00:34:04.980 If you laughed or smirked or said, that's weird, you are a bigot.

00:34:07.840 The truth is hard to hear but must be said.

00:34:34.960 First of all, my big hairy man feet are beautiful, okay?

00:34:41.160 And I'm not going to hide my light under a bushel or my feet in shoes just to make you feel comfortable in your bigotry and your prejudice.

00:34:53.260 And you say that—I got so many emails trying to draw this distinction between sandals and flip-flops.

00:35:00.460 A flip-flop is just a form of sandal.

00:35:02.700 It is a species of sandal.

00:35:05.020 And you say that men don't—well, Meg, I hope you're not a Christian. 1.00

00:35:09.180 Because what kind of footwear do you think Jesus wore?

00:35:12.240 You think Jesus was walking around in work boots?

00:35:15.920 You think he had Nikes on?

00:35:17.320 No, he had flip-flops.

00:35:21.200 Yes, flip-flops.

00:35:24.040 And have you seen the movies?

00:35:25.540 Go watch the movie.

00:35:26.540 Every single movie you see, Jesus has the flip-flops on.

00:35:31.940 Would you say all this to Jesus Christ?

00:35:36.840 I don't think you would.

00:35:39.420 So I think I can just rest my case right there, as a matter of fact.

00:35:41.860 I mean, go watch any biblical—Moses has flip-flops on.

00:35:50.480 So what else do I need to say?

00:35:56.360 I am not going to be intimidated.

00:36:00.340 And I hope that—I think that men have been shamed for too long.

00:36:06.340 I think that every man deep inside yearns to wear flip-flops and socks.

00:36:15.560 And the only reason he doesn't is because he has been bullied and beaten down by our society.

00:36:21.500 And so I hope this becomes a movement where men can be loud and proud and say,

00:36:26.060 this is how I dress.

00:36:27.500 This is who I am.

00:36:28.880 And I'm not afraid anymore.

00:36:30.180 This is from—well, I didn't get the name.

00:36:37.220 Okay, Matt, I completely agree with you on paying college athletes when there is a market for their labor.

00:36:41.740 It absolutely is a free market position that you've taken, in that matter.

00:36:45.440 I wanted to point out that there are other academic programs that are competitive that do pay the students chosen for those roles.

00:36:51.660 PhD programs oftentimes pay students a stipend because the university will profit off of the research the student will be carrying out.

00:36:57.440 These programs are highly competitive with a limited number of spots for qualified students.

00:37:01.060 It sounds very similar to the limited number of highly competitive openings on a football team.

00:37:05.000 The main difference is that PhD applicants often have other opportunities in their discipline that would pay them as well.

00:37:10.320 Regardless of that point, I see no other reason—see no reason why college athletes shouldn't be compensated for their labor and the risk they take out on the field.

00:37:16.860 I do understand that people might not want to see 20-year-olds making millions on a college football team,

00:37:20.440 flaunting their money and getting into trouble.

00:37:22.080 That kind of money could definitely have negative impacts on the lives of a young person.

00:37:25.000 Perhaps the middle ground would be that they receive the payment in a lump sum after graduation in addition to the free tuition they've received.

00:37:31.440 Yeah, I think that would be a good middle ground.

00:37:33.460 I think there are a lot of different ways of doing it.

00:37:34.960 And I also keep in mind that many people that have emailed me on this subject have said something like,

00:37:39.780 well, these guys are going to go pro and they're going to get their millions then, so they don't need to get their millions.

00:37:44.940 Now, first of all, the vast majority of people who play in college, even at the D1 level, are not going to go pro.

00:37:52.460 There are many star college athletes in football, and I'm talking specifically about football here because that's what I know better than the other sports.

00:38:03.700 There are many examples of these star players who don't even get drafted or do get drafted and flunk out.

00:38:11.580 Look at Tim Tebow, and he's done well for himself in other areas, so he's not hurting for cash by any means.

00:38:17.500 But Tim Tebow, one of the greatest college football athletes of all time, and he couldn't really hack it in the NFL.

00:38:26.180 So the fact is, most of these guys are not going to end up on football teams.

00:38:32.360 And even the ones who do, most of them are going to be gone in three or four years.

00:38:36.220 The average career of an NFL player is like three years.

00:38:40.000 And most of them don't survive past that because they wash out, they can't compete anymore, they get injured.

00:38:45.260 A lot of different reasons.

00:38:46.160 So the fact is, these guys are sacrificing their body, they're putting their lives, maybe not lives, well, in a way their lives, they're putting their health at risk at a very minimum.

00:38:56.540 And most of them will never financially profit off of it, or if they do, only in a very limited and temporary way, which is yet another reason to pay them.

00:39:06.900 Okay, from Amanda says, greetings, Supreme Overlord of the Universe, your show is always the highlight of my day.

00:39:12.920 A while ago, you mentioned that you weren't 100% sure about your stance on recreational marijuana use.

00:39:17.880 It's a topic that has personal meaning for me, as my husband is a frequent user to self-medicate his multiple issues from ADHD to PTSD.

00:39:25.960 For some reason, weed makes me less nervous than hardcore pharmaceuticals, plus I like him a lot better when he smokes.

00:39:30.920 Interestingly, he's rarely high, but more just mellowed out and happier when he's using.

00:39:35.980 Anyway, your opinions are always amusing and usually correct, even if you're going to rip him or me apart over it.

00:39:42.260 I'd be honored to hear it.

00:39:43.840 No, I'm not going to rip either one of you apart.

00:39:46.020 I think, look, certainly if anyone who believes that it's okay to give pharmaceutical drugs for emotional and psychological reasons, such as PTSD or ADHD or whatever,

00:40:01.260 anyone who's in favor of that, for them to recoil at the idea of marijuana being used in a similar way is absurd.

00:40:10.400 Because those, as you pointed, those pharmaceutical drugs are more serious, more dangerous, more addictive, abused more often, way more likely to kill you than marijuana is.

00:40:26.160 So certainly, but what you're talking about here is not really recreational use.

00:40:32.220 You're talking here about something that is, well, you said self-medicate.

00:40:35.400 So this is something like essentially medicinal marijuana.

00:40:39.600 And I've said that I have no problem with medicinal marijuana at all.

00:40:43.520 How could you?

00:40:44.920 I've never heard, and I really mean this, I have never heard an even coherent argument against medicinal marijuana use.

00:40:54.600 Unless it's an argument that is also an argument against pretty much every other drug that you find if you go to Rite Aid or CVS.

00:41:03.820 And I guess there are some extreme positions that say, well, you shouldn't take any medicine at all of any kind.

00:41:11.180 That's not my position.

00:41:12.180 I think that's crazy, too.

00:41:13.100 But at least that's consistent.

00:41:14.380 But to say, to peruse all of these drugs at your average drugstore and say, oh, that's fine, sure.

00:41:24.900 But if you smoke marijuana, no, that's a problem.

00:41:26.940 And wag your fingers, that doesn't make any sense.

00:41:28.920 Recreational use, I certainly think, I am in favor of decriminalizing it because I think it's simply a waste of law enforcement resources to be hunting this stuff down.

00:41:43.020 And I can remember living in Kentucky and in eastern Kentucky.

00:41:48.240 It's a very poor area.

00:41:49.600 Very poor.

00:41:50.200 One of the poorest in the country.

00:41:51.840 But it's also an area where a lot of people grow marijuana plants.

00:41:54.940 And every year they would do these massive raids where they would confiscate.

00:41:58.160 I remember one year they confiscated millions of dollars worth of marijuana in these impoverished areas.

00:42:06.600 And it's just why?

00:42:08.560 What have we accomplished for society by doing that?

00:42:11.960 What exactly is the problem?

00:42:15.180 What exactly is the downside, really, to letting these people just grow the plant, make their money?

00:42:21.820 Who cares?

00:42:22.240 And when it comes to recreational use, it's not something that I want to do, but I do find it difficult.

00:42:33.460 Well, I think people who advocate for or use marijuana will often draw the comparison between marijuana and alcohol.

00:42:44.060 And they'll say, well, if you're okay with recreational alcohol use, how could you possibly have a problem with marijuana use?

00:42:50.200 Considering alcohol kills more people, it has more of an intoxicating effect, it's more tied to violence, et cetera, and so forth.

00:42:56.540 And I think that's a powerful argument.

00:42:58.680 And so I feel like I can't.

00:43:01.580 Considering I do enjoy alcohol, I'm a fan of bourbon, I like to sit down, I have a glass of bourbon, I like to drink beer, you know, all that within moderation, not to the point of intoxication.

00:43:12.560 But I do enjoy that.

00:43:13.440 So I feel like I can't figure out a coherent, non-hypocritical argument that would allow me to continue drinking when I want to drink, yet would disallow someone from smoking marijuana.

00:43:29.220 So that's my position.

00:43:31.640 All right.

00:43:31.920 But this is from Roxy, says, Dear Matt, first of all, how is your ankle, how is your wife's pregnancy going, and how are your bees?

00:43:41.420 Also, can you please give me some book recommendations?

00:43:44.500 What are your top five favorite nonfiction books and your top five favorite fiction books?

00:43:49.740 I love your show and listen to your podcast every day.

00:43:52.360 The bees are doing very well.

00:43:53.600 My wife is getting ready to give birth any week now. 1.00

00:43:58.340 My ankle is recovering okay.

00:44:01.920 As I so bravely overcame that dramatic injury.

00:44:05.280 As far as book, I always love giving book recommendations.

00:44:08.120 I will.

00:44:08.520 You asked for my favorite nonfiction and fiction books.

00:44:12.720 I'm not going to give you my favorite because that kind of changes by the week.

00:44:16.260 And it's also a lot of pressure to give you my favorites.

00:44:18.420 I won't give you it.

00:44:18.980 What I'll do is I'll tell you the five most recent books that I've read, which I have right here, prepared for this question.

00:44:26.640 And so I'll just tell you that.

00:44:28.940 And you can take those as recommendations.

00:44:30.180 So those books, first of all, High Percentage Fishing, which is a statistical approach to improving catch rates.

00:44:37.900 I'm working on this right now.

00:44:39.300 I don't know if you're that one.

00:44:40.960 This is a little bit niche, so you might not be interested in that.

00:44:43.260 But that is I haven't enjoyed this book.

00:44:45.080 I think I mentioned this one.

00:44:46.240 Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything.

00:44:49.620 This is one of my favorite nonfiction books.

00:44:52.960 I 1,000% recommend it.

00:44:55.360 If you're looking to read nonfiction, pick up this book.

00:44:58.900 He calls it A Short History of Nearly Everything, which it basically is.

00:45:01.820 He starts at the beginning of the universe.

00:45:04.700 And this book is only, what is it?

00:45:06.300 It's 400-some pages.

00:45:09.280 But he goes through from the beginning of the universe all the way to present day, covering all these different scientific topics.

00:45:15.440 It's very accessible.

00:45:17.680 He's a great writer.

00:45:19.360 And so definitely read that.

00:45:21.800 I'm working on this, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt.

00:45:23.940 I am on a thing now where I'm reading about ancient civilizations.

00:45:31.340 This one, it's a good book, but it's kind of a slog.

00:45:35.620 Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, David Foster Wallace.

00:45:38.760 I read this a few weeks ago.

00:45:40.940 And this is more fiction.

00:45:42.900 This is a collection of short stories.

00:45:45.580 Wallace is someone that you either love or hate, I think, as a writer.

00:45:48.500 I tend to love him.

00:45:49.240 I think he's a great writer.

00:45:50.340 Very insightful.

00:45:51.680 I don't agree with all of his insights.

00:45:53.940 But if you're looking for shorter fiction, I would read that.

00:45:58.140 And then I read this because someone recommended it to me.

00:46:00.800 We had been talking on this show about, a few weeks ago, we were talking about the nature of consciousness for some reason.

00:46:09.040 I think we were talking about that.

00:46:09.880 Someone emailed and recommended that I read Julian Jayne's The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

00:46:16.460 And so I did.

00:46:18.780 I did read it.

00:46:19.480 I, this is a weird book because I don't agree with almost any of it.

00:46:27.660 I disagree with 98% of this book.

00:46:30.320 But I kind of loved it because it was really fascinating.

00:46:35.200 And I read it almost more as a sort of science fiction than anything else.

00:46:39.580 But, and this is a well-known book.

00:46:41.140 I'd heard of it before.

00:46:42.160 First time I tried to read it.

00:46:43.540 What Julian Jaynes is arguing, what he essentially argues is that consciousness arose in the human population very recently.

00:47:01.140 He thinks it arose 3,000 years ago.

00:47:03.340 So before about 1,000 B.C., human beings were not conscious.

00:47:08.160 That's what he says.

00:47:08.780 And he says that before that point, what he calls the bicameral mind, everyone was basically a schizophrenic.

00:47:15.960 Where they had their unconscious mind that went through the day-to-day, it was kind of instinctive, and it got them through the operations of day-to-day living.

00:47:26.400 And then what we consider to be consciousness, reasoning, moral reasoning, all of that.

00:47:31.860 It was like another voice in their head.

00:47:34.680 The other part of their brain talking to them audibly.

00:47:37.860 Much like a schizophrenic today.

00:47:39.820 And what he theorizes is that all of, that those people, that back where schizophrenic, schizophrenia today is a mental illness.

00:47:46.440 Back then it was, it was everybody, everybody was that, so it wasn't a mental illness.

00:47:52.220 But they took those voices, which was really the voices in their head of their consciousness speaking to them, they took those voices to be the voices of the gods.

00:48:01.060 And so that's where he finds the origins of religion.

00:48:04.580 And so he thinks that all of us as religious people, we have our origins in schizophrenia.

00:48:09.080 So again, I don't agree with it, but it's, I found it interesting anyway.

00:48:14.840 Even though it's completely insulting to me as a religious person, I still found that to be a fascinating theory.

00:48:20.220 I have a lot of respect for people who, as I've said before, if you think wildly outside the box and approach a topic from a completely different direction,

00:48:32.500 even if you're way off base and totally wrong, I respect the attempt and I at least find it interesting.

00:48:39.080 And I, I am just so bored with the same old stuff all the time from everybody.

00:48:46.040 Most of our, of our conversations in this country about the issues, it's just, you have one side saying one thing, the other side says the other thing.

00:48:52.440 Nobody's attempting to say anything unique or interesting or creative.

00:48:55.380 I get so bored with it that when someone recommends to me some book that extrapolates on a crazy weird theory,

00:49:03.360 I'm going to read it because I'm starving for something different, even if I disagree with it.

00:49:08.620 Um, all right.

00:49:09.900 So we will, there's, those are my pseudo book recommendations.

00:49:14.380 Thank you for giving me the chance to babble about that for a few minutes.

00:49:18.140 Thanks everybody for, for watching and listening.

00:49:20.820 I'll talk to you tomorrow.

00:49:22.200 Godspeed.

00:49:22.560 If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.

00:49:28.100 And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.

00:49:32.500 We're available on Apple podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.

00:49:36.820 Also be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knowles show, and the Andrew Klavan show.

00:49:43.360 Thanks for listening.

00:49:43.960 The Matt Wall show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer, Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer, Jeremy Boring, senior producer, Jonathan Hay.

00:49:52.820 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Donovan Fowler.

00:49:59.380 Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.

00:50:01.740 The Matt Wall show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019.

00:50:04.680 If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle,

00:50:13.280 well, tune on in to the Ben Shapiro show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.

00:50:17.000 We'll see you there.

The Matt Walsh Show - September 10, 2019

Ep. 328 - Hey Guys, Stop Oppressing Women

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript