Ep. 328 - Hey Guys, Stop Oppressing Women
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
173.54994
Summary
Beto O'Rourke has a new human right, and it's a good one at that. It's the right to live near your job, which is a human right. Beto has also proposed a plan that would force rich people to allow or be forced to allow lower income people to live in their neighborhoods.
Transcript
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
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
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
00:02:06.320
Which is what we fail to do in this country right now. We force lower income working Americans to
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?
00:04:48.740
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
00:05:28.820
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
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,
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
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
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
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.
00:21:18.740
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?
00:21:28.660
If you understand that someone doesn't mean any harm in what they're saying,
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.
00:21:51.920
And you want to be offended because you are a petty, emotionally manipulative narcissist
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.
00:22:19.500
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.
00:22:38.460
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,
00:22:49.680
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.
00:23:21.280
hey, you're fat, you're ugly, you're disgusting.
00:23:23.320
Well, clearly, they mean that there's no non-offensive meaning there.
00:23:30.920
So if you are therefore insulted, that is a reasonable reaction.
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?
00:24:23.580
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.
00:24:54.360
Which means, now, sometimes in human communication, somebody can say something, and it's sort of ambiguous.
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?
00:25:26.540
And if they say, oh, no, no, no, I didn't mean that in an offensive way.
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,
00:25:54.980
Passive-aggressiveness, to me, is one of the most unappealing and repulsive characteristics in a person.
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.
00:26:16.160
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.
00:26:46.180
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.
00:27:06.300
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.
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.
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.
00:27:36.500
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?
00:28:00.680
Now, I would love it if he had said, no, I don't really think of, yeah, you know what?
00:28:10.140
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.
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.
00:29:01.120
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.
00:29:24.640
Now, if you want to switch the race up and have a black guy playing James Bond, who cares? Fine.
00:29:31.040
In fact, I think Idris Elba, and this is the, Idris Elba would be a great James Bond, I think.
00:29:46.520
When it comes to demographics, here's what matters.
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.
00:30:05.040
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.
00:30:24.920
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.
00:30:38.040
Although Lara Croft is already, I guess, sort of the female version of Indiana Jones, I guess.
00:30:51.620
If you make him into a woman, it's a different character.
00:30:54.860
And if you want to have a female spy, then here's my thing.
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.
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.
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.
00:32:18.320
Don't try to borrow from the charm and the wit and the brand recognition of these male characters.
00:32:29.920
For all this talk about appropriating, this is appropriation.
00:32:37.780
To make a Jane Bond would be appropriating James Bond, by definition.
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.
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.
00:33:34.180
I guess it's a good thing you didn't do the whole outfit because you nailed it.
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.
00:33:55.660
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.
00:34:34.960
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.
00:35:05.020
And you say that men don't—well, Meg, I hope you're not a Christian.
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?
00:35:26.540
Every single movie you see, Jesus has the flip-flops on.
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.
00:36:00.340
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,
00:36:37.220
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.
00:38:46.160
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.
00:39:43.840
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.
00:40:44.920
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.
00:41:14.380
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.
00:41:51.840
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.
00:42:08.560
What have we accomplished for society by doing that?
00:42:15.180
What exactly is the downside, really, to letting these people just grow the plant, make their money?
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.
00:43:01.580
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.
00:43:13.440
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.
00:43:31.920
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.
00:43:53.600
My wife is getting ready to give birth any week now.
00:44:05.280
As far as book, I always love giving book recommendations.
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.
00:44:18.980
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.
00:44:30.180
So those books, first of all, High Percentage Fishing, which is a statistical approach to improving catch rates.
00:44:40.960
This is a little bit niche, so you might not be interested in that.
00:44:46.240
Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything.
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.
00:45:09.280
But he goes through from the beginning of the universe all the way to present day, covering all these different scientific topics.
00:45:21.800
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.
00:45:45.580
Wallace is someone that you either love or hate, I think, as a writer.
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.
00:46:09.880
Someone emailed and recommended that I read Julian Jayne's The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
00:46:19.480
I, this is a weird book because I don't agree with almost any of it.
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.
00:46:43.540
What Julian Jaynes is arguing, what he essentially argues is that consciousness arose in the human population very recently.
00:47:03.340
So before about 1,000 B.C., human beings were not conscious.
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.
00:47:34.680
The other part of their brain talking to them audibly.
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.
00:49:09.900
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.
00:49:22.560
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.
00:49:43.960
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.
00:50:01.740
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.