The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 418 - Feminists Celebrate Empowering Strip Tease

00:00:00.000 Welcome to the show, friends and neighbors and countrymen. I hope you enjoyed the Super Bowl

00:00:04.620 last night. It's always very traumatizing to watch the Super Bowl. Maybe you can relate,

00:00:10.140 but after your team gets eliminated from the playoffs and the Super Bowl's on and everybody's

00:00:14.600 happy and all the fans of those two teams are very happy. I imagine it's like going to a wedding

00:00:22.280 right after your wife left you. That's what it felt like to me, only probably worse in many ways,

00:00:28.280 I imagine. The good thing, though, is that fortunately, we did have the good sense to

00:00:35.200 send our kids to bed before the halftime show last night because it's the Super Bowl on network

00:00:42.580 television, starts at 7 p.m. on a Sunday. Why should anyone think that would be a family event?

00:00:49.860 That's crazy, right? Why would you ever imagine that you could sit down with your family, with

00:00:54.900 your kids, and watch a football game? No, that's unreasonable, right? It's unreasonable to expect

00:01:00.520 that you should be able to watch the game with your kids. That's what I'm told. That's what I've

00:01:05.240 been told, anyway, over the past last night and this morning. This is what I'm assured. No, no,

00:01:10.980 no. The idea that I should be able to watch the game with my kids, that's totally unreasonable. I

00:01:15.540 shouldn't expect that. So the halftime show, which seemed to arrive to us via Time Portal from 2003,

00:01:23.740 featured J-Lo and Shakira singing their hits from, or lip-syncing, anyway, their hits from 17 years

00:01:30.680 ago. I was kind of waiting for maybe Smash Mouth to come on stage, or Matchbox 20, or the Goo Goo Dolls.

00:01:38.820 I would have preferred any of those three, actually, even Smash Mouth. Maybe Ja Rule or DMX.

00:01:44.880 But the fact that it was dated was not really the point. And by the way, I am going to tune in. I'm

00:01:51.640 looking forward to watching TRL today to see what Carson Daly thought of it. But that's not really

00:01:57.240 the point. And the fact that no actual football fan listens to Jennifer Lopez or Shakira is not

00:02:03.020 the point either, because this is something that... Now, I've been suggesting for years that

00:02:06.820 maybe the NFL might want to think about possibly having a halftime show featuring acts, performers

00:02:12.620 that football fans are actually interested in. Just an idea, throwing it out there. But that's not the

00:02:19.760 point either. The point is that J-Lo, in particular, decided that this nationally televised broadcast

00:02:24.380 on network TV was a good forum to do things like shove her crotch directly in the camera, 1.00

00:02:29.260 then dance around on a stripper pole. Of course, she was barely clothed. There was plenty of 0.99

00:02:35.560 twerking and so on. It was the kind of performance that would make a lot of sense in a strip club,

00:02:41.280 or even at a Jennifer Lopez concert, for whoever would want to go to something like that, 0.54

00:02:46.900 because it's something that you would pay to attend. And you go into it knowing that she's

00:02:52.000 a 50-year-old woman desperate for attention and lacking the artistic skill to get that attention 0.96

00:02:56.120 by making actually good music. That's one thing I thought about during the show, by the way,

00:03:04.100 that this woman is 50. And there were plenty of people bringing that up. Oh, she's 50. 0.94

00:03:12.680 Bringing it up in a positive light. Like, they were impressed. Oh, she's 50, and she's still doing

00:03:19.320 this. But I was thinking more, she's 50, and she's still doing this? She's been in the music

00:03:26.540 industry, what, for like 25 years? Hasn't grown at all as an artist. That's one thing you can't

00:03:32.160 accuse Jennifer Lopez of, apparently. Do not accuse her of growing as an artist, because she has not at

00:03:36.620 all. Not even a little bit. I remember back in the late 90s, early 2000s, she would always get

00:03:42.760 attention and publicity. She would get herself in the headlines by doing things like showing up to

00:03:49.060 the VMAs without any clothes on. That sort of thing. And that was back, again, the late 90s,

00:03:55.360 early 2000s. And here she is, 20 years later, doing the same stuff, as she's old enough to be an AARP

00:04:03.920 member. She's old enough to be a grandmother, doing the same stuff. So she's like Madonna in

00:04:09.360 that way. Only Madonna is 93, and still gyrating on stage while screaming, look at me, everybody,

00:04:15.600 please look at me. And then there's the six creepy dudes in the audience that are looking.

00:04:22.320 Now, I have a couple of points I wanted to make about all this. But before we do that,

00:04:30.160 a quick word from Ashford University. You know, everyone has that dream job, that job that maybe

00:04:36.700 seems out of reach, but that you know you're meant to do. You know it's your vocation, your calling.

00:04:42.500 Some of us are lucky enough to already be in that job. Some of us are still striving for it. Well,

00:04:47.520 if you're striving, it's very important that you be prepared. And what a lot of people discover is that

00:04:51.220 they need at least a bachelor's degree to make that dream a reality. But the way the traditional

00:04:56.920 university system is set up, it's just not feasible or affordable. We talk about this all the time on

00:05:01.060 the show. It's not something that a lot of people are able to do affordably, especially if you're

00:05:07.140 working a job. If you're an adult, you have maybe a family, you have kids, you've already got a job.

00:05:13.200 Well, going to some four-year institution, going into physical classrooms, taking on the whole

00:05:19.340 workload, you might not be able to do that logistically. That's where Ashford University

00:05:24.520 comes in. Ashford University's online bachelor's and master's degree programs allow you to learn at your

00:05:29.680 own pace. You can study whatever you're the most comfortable learning, whenever you're the most

00:05:34.160 comfortable learning. One course at a time means that Ashford University's six-week-long courses allow

00:05:38.580 you to take just one course at a time. So again, that's that manageable workload. Being enrolled in

00:05:45.440 one class at Ashford means that you're still considered a full-time student. And here's a good

00:05:49.980 thing. No standardized tests are required. So the SAT, the GRE, the GMAT, other standardized test

00:05:56.460 scores are not required for enrolling at Ashford University. I can tell you for me personally,

00:06:00.400 sitting in a classroom doesn't work. It never has. That's why the flexibility of being able to

00:06:06.560 study wherever you want, being able to take one class at a time, it's all about having a manageable

00:06:11.860 workload again because you've got plenty of other things going on in your life. So get on the road to

00:06:17.740 earning your degree and making your dream job a reality and enroll now by going to ashford.edu

00:06:23.080 slash Walsh. Again, that's ashford.edu slash Walsh. Ashford.edu slash Walsh. I'll spell that out for

00:06:32.140 you. A-S-H-F-O-R-D dot E-D-U slash Walsh and start getting your degree today. All right, back to the

00:06:40.600 halftime show. Here's my point about this. Here's my radical position. I think football games should

00:06:51.020 be family events. They should be appropriate for everybody. That's what the Super Bowl should be.

00:06:56.680 I should be able to watch it with my kids. Now, because I'm not naive, I know that I can't,

00:07:03.080 so that's why I did send them to bed. But it's not like I'm upset that I can't watch HBO's nighttime

00:07:12.360 lineup with my kids. Okay, I'm not turning on premium channels at 10 o'clock at night and saying

00:07:18.200 that that stuff should be appropriate for my kids. I know that it's not going to be, and that's a,

00:07:23.840 if there's inappropriate stuff for kids, that's a good place to put it. HBO at 10 o'clock. All right,

00:07:28.060 we all get it, right? But a football game, the Super Bowl, airing on network television at 7 o'clock

00:07:33.220 should be appropriate. Of course, the problem is we live in an aggressively stupid culture, 1.00

00:07:39.820 a stupid, self-absorbed, sex-obsessed culture, where even the incredibly reasonable point that 1.00

00:07:46.720 I'm making right here, the very mild request for a Super Bowl halftime show that doesn't feature 1.00

00:07:55.460 stripper polls. Even this is viewed as Puritan extremism.

00:08:02.740 Someone told me last night, and when I was saying this on Twitter, someone said,

00:08:07.680 well, so you want to move to a Muslim country where women have to be covered 24-7? Yes, 1.00

00:08:13.320 because that's the other option, right? Those are the only two options. Either we've got stripper

00:08:18.200 polls on network TV at 7 o'clock at night during a family event, either that, or women have to be 1.00

00:08:25.000 covered head to toe 24-7 upon penalty of death. There's no room in between. It's one or the other,

00:08:30.980 right? And so those of us who made this point last night were greeted with a flood of responses

00:08:40.100 from people who felt personally attacked that we were advocating for a minimal level of decency

00:08:44.960 and respect for children. How about that? Let's just put it that way. This is not about my own

00:08:51.360 feelings or anything like that, or my tastes or preferences. How about just respect for children?

00:08:59.080 A little bit. That's all I'm asking of society. It's a little respect. They are people. They exist.

00:09:08.340 They're in society too. And we're constantly worried about how images, ideas, words, thoughts,

00:09:14.280 et cetera, will hurt various groups of people. This is a constant topic of conversation in our culture

00:09:19.920 today. In fact, even in regards to this game, there was, there was much discussion about the

00:09:24.220 chief's logo and how the, the chief's team name and mascot and how that might be hurtful to native

00:09:30.640 American adults who are watching. So if that's a concern, if we're concerned that say a 40 year old

00:09:36.580 native American man may somehow be traumatized because of the Kansas city chiefs, if that's a concern that

00:09:42.920 we have to take into account and talk about, then what about kids who actually are impressionable

00:09:49.700 and do have, and are fragile in a way, understandably, they have an excuse to be their kids.

00:09:58.900 Did nobody involved in the halftime show, whether JLo herself or people at NFL, people at the network,

00:10:05.560 I think it was on Fox, did nobody stop for a second and go, Hey, gee, kids are going to watch this.

00:10:15.480 Did anyone do that? No, they didn't do that because they don't care. Nobody cares about kids.

00:10:20.040 Nobody's concerned about protecting them. Uh, we protect the feelings of overly sensitive adults,

00:10:24.920 but kids, you know, who cares nowadays? It's not just, it's not just that we aren't concerned

00:10:33.760 about the content children might see. It's that the very idea that we should be concerned maybe

00:10:42.280 is insane to people. People see that as insane. The, the very, the very notion, the suggestion

00:10:50.500 that possibly some of this stuff might not be appropriate for kids. And so maybe we should tone

00:10:56.200 it down a little bit. It's, it's, it's, it's not even, Oh, I disagree. It's, Oh my goodness. You're,

00:11:01.920 you're a lunatic for even saying that. People recoil at the mere suggestion that maybe just 1.00

00:11:08.440 maybe events like the Superbowl should be appropriate for families.

00:11:14.520 It's it, but it's not a radical suggestion. Look, there have always been people who pushed

00:11:20.940 the boundaries. There have always been, there's always been a push, especially on TV towards

00:11:24.260 overly sexual entertainment and so forth. But there also used to be a strong push back from

00:11:29.300 the other direction saying, Hey, let's keep these things in check a little bit. There are

00:11:33.460 families watching this stuff. So let's keep that in mind. And now there's almost no pushback. And

00:11:38.300 what little there is, the few who do push back are screamed at with an insane fury and, and deranged

00:11:45.400 anger. You're sexist. You're racist. There are actually people saying that there are actually 0.99

00:11:52.000 people. I know this doesn't surprise you. I'm saying it as if you'll be surprised, but that,

00:11:56.000 yes, there are, there are people saying that it's, it's not only sexist, but racist. If you're

00:12:01.200 criticizing the halftime show, you're a racist. It's argued that it's racist to object to strip 0.68

00:12:06.900 teases at halftime because the women are from Latin America. And so, uh, it's, it's racist to, 1.00

00:12:15.020 to be, to criticize that. This is the argument and sexist too, because you see, uh, women 0.98

00:12:25.420 flashing their crotches on camera are being empowered. This is very empowering.

00:12:33.440 Here's a thought. If you think this stuff is empowering, go online and check out who's defending

00:12:39.660 it. Because I've gone back and forth with these people many times over many different subjects.

00:12:47.220 And, um, you see who, who are the people valiantly defending a woman's right to dance on a,

00:12:54.340 a stripper pole in front of children? Well, you've got much brained feminists. Of course you have 1.00

00:12:59.220 stupid feminists. Um, but, but who else you've got them and creepy old men. So this is once again, 1.00

00:13:09.940 a coalition of stupid feminists and creepy old men defending this kind of thing. And anytime we're 1.00

00:13:16.180 talking about any kind of degeneracy, um, uh, of this type, the coalition is always creepy old men 0.97

00:13:23.740 and feminists. Why do you think those creepy old men, and this is a question to the mush brain 0.99

00:13:28.660 feminists? Why, why do you think the creepy old men are, are defending your right here? 1.00

00:13:36.160 Defending your rights to, you know, strip in front of kids. What do you think it is? Do you think

00:13:41.380 they're worried about self-expression and free speech? You think that's what it is? Do I need

00:13:46.440 to spell it out? It's just like the men, the men who, uh, who are, are your allies. They're your allies

00:13:54.240 because, uh, they are very outspoken about their, uh, belief in your right to get an abortion.

00:14:03.840 Very pro-choice men. Why do you, why do you think they're so pro-choice?

00:14:10.800 Do I need to, do I need to get into detail about it? Can you, can you not put the pieces together?

00:14:16.000 Well, if I need to, I'll explain. It's because, because, because they want to use you as a sexual 0.92

00:14:22.780 object and they don't want to have to worry about a kid resulting from it. And so that's why they're 0.74

00:14:29.280 perfectly happy to use you, discard you, and then have you discard the baby. Because these are bad men.

00:14:37.960 These are bad, lazy, worthless men who are only concerned about themselves. That's the only thing 1.00

00:14:45.860 they care about. And they see you as an object to be used. You are to them nothing more than a

00:14:52.500 masturbatory aid, essentially. You're like a sex toy to them. So much so that, again, in order to be 1.00

00:15:01.220 able to use you and fulfill their sexual desires, they're okay with you killing their own child. 1.00

00:15:06.640 They don't care. As long as they get what they want. 1.00

00:15:12.840 Which is a few minutes of fun, few minutes of fun, throw you out, throw the kid out. They don't care.

00:15:17.760 So these are bad men. And they're on your side because they're against you, not because they're

00:15:24.420 for you. And they're also perfectly happy to see women embarrassing, humiliating, disgracing 1.00

00:15:31.340 themselves on national TV because they enjoy seeing it. It's something they enjoy.

00:15:36.640 Um, because again, these are losers and, um, and you know, they're, it's not like they 0.98

00:15:42.760 have meaningful relationships with women. Um, so, you know, they're, they, they rely on 0.98

00:15:48.640 things like raunchy halftime shows.

00:15:50.440 So, you know, that's, that should concern you if you're a feminist, that these are the people 1.00

00:16:01.900 on your side. Just to, I mean, just something to think about. All right. Now I should mention

00:16:11.400 there was one good performance last night. Uh, Demi Lovato, I thought absolutely nailed the

00:16:17.380 national anthem, uh, which is not easy to sing. And I mean, not that I know, I, you know,

00:16:23.940 I, I, I hold a note about as well as spaghetti strainer holds water, I guess. But, uh, I,

00:16:29.600 it does, from what I can tell, it seems like it's a, it's a really difficult song to sing,

00:16:33.000 which is why it's taken down so many people who have attempted it publicly. Uh, but I thought

00:16:37.100 she did a beautiful job singing the song and what, what made her, I'll tell you what made

00:16:41.900 her rendition. This is a, this is a good learning opportunity for any other singer who might

00:16:48.260 attempt in the future. Uh, and, and, and pretty much any national anthem performance that we

00:16:54.280 remember as being great, like Whitney Houston. Okay. That's probably the gold standard. What

00:16:59.140 made it great is, well, yeah, they're very good singers, but they're, they're just singing

00:17:03.660 the song. They're not worried about showing off their vocal range, even though they have

00:17:07.920 beautiful vocal range. And that's going to come out naturally in the song, but that's

00:17:11.820 not the point. They're not show, but they're not trying to mix it up and make, do any, do

00:17:15.820 anything different with it. It's just a true, it's a, it's an old traditional song, obviously.

00:17:19.660 And that's how they're singing it. And it's beautiful. So I thought that was great. But,

00:17:24.100 um, Jay-Z and Beyonce were at the game and they didn't seem very impressed by the performance. Watch.

00:17:37.920 Yes. Uh, they're sitting during the anthem and, and that's really, they've been criticized for

00:17:54.660 this, but I think it's understandable that they would sit during the anthem because why would you

00:17:59.780 expect them to stand up and show gratitude for the country? Think about what the country has done

00:18:05.880 to them. Think about the persecution and oppression that they've suffered. This, this country has been

00:18:10.420 very unfair to those people who have been multimillionaire celebrities almost their entire

00:18:15.500 lives from a very young age. Um, but it's very unfair. They've, they've been oppressed. I don't

00:18:22.280 know how they've been oppressed. I can't possibly imagine. And whatever form of oppression they've

00:18:26.900 suffered, I would love, I would love me some of that oppression. Give me a slice of that oppression.

00:18:31.380 Give me the oppression that, that ends with you, you know, having $500 million in the bank.

00:18:35.240 I I'll take it. It's kind of like the oppression that Colin Kaepernick has, has gone through in his

00:18:40.160 life. It has ended with him being a multimillionaire, um, absurdly wealthy individual. So, you know,

00:18:46.900 but Hey, um, it's, it's those of us who are not multimillionaires, maybe we just can't understand

00:18:51.740 that kind of persecution. And so we should just respect the fact that they are protesting in this way.

00:18:59.240 So good for them. Real, real heroes, very valiant individuals. All right. Um, I want to get into

00:19:04.380 emails, but before we do, by the way, um, also wanted to mention tomorrow, you know, make sure to

00:19:09.220 watch, uh, state of the union address, of course. So make sure to watch backstage and their coverage

00:19:13.400 of the state of the union on daily wire. You're not going to want to miss that, uh, tomorrow,

00:19:18.160 Tuesday. Okay. Let's go to emails. This is from Kelly says, hi, Matt. Wanted to get your opinion

00:19:22.520 regarding our current state of social communication. I was listening to a show you

00:19:26.380 did a while back, episode 103, why it's impossible to have fruitful debates in our culture. One of

00:19:31.860 the things you talk about is people having opinions that can either be a, or be a nothing in between.

00:19:37.100 I really enjoyed this particular show you did and feel that the points you make in that episode are

00:19:41.240 really important considering that things have only become worse since you did the show. So I wonder

00:19:46.340 what you think of our current state of society. And if you think there's any hope to get to a point

00:19:50.180 where people actually accept one another as equals, even if they have differences of opinion.

00:19:55.880 I appreciate everything you do. Well, Kelly, I, I don't think our ability to have a fruitful

00:20:00.240 discussion is necessarily predicated on accepting one another as equals. To be honest, I'm not even

00:20:05.160 sure what that means. I know it's something people, we say all the time about equality. You know, we all

00:20:10.900 have to accept each other as equals, but I don't, I don't know what it means. When you, when you dig down

00:20:16.460 into it and ask yourself what it means to you, I think you'll find that even in your own mind,

00:20:22.100 it's a very fuzzy concept. I think it's a fuzzy concept in all of our minds. Now, I think we

00:20:27.020 should all be legally equal in that the law should protect all of us equally. Although it doesn't,

00:20:32.320 unborn children are not protected under the law as one example, but it should be. That's a legal

00:20:38.920 concept. I just, I don't think it has a lot of bearing though on our personal interactions with each

00:20:44.200 other on a day-to-day basis. And aside from equality as a legal concept, I'm not sure what

00:20:54.160 it means. Because the fact is you and I are not equal. We're different in many ways. That doesn't

00:21:00.480 mean that one of us is better or worse. It just means that we're very different. And so to say that

00:21:04.620 we're equal, aside from in the, in the legal way, I'm just not sure what it means or why we would even

00:21:11.160 say it. And, and it might say that we're equal and doesn't mean one is better or worse, but we

00:21:17.500 could be better or worse. I'm sure you're probably the better camp. It's not, it's not, you know,

00:21:20.820 I'm not a very high bar to get over, but some people are better than others. There, there are,

00:21:26.340 there are certainly people in this world who are morally, you know, in terms of, of, of intellect and

00:21:33.940 morality and, and, and, and all of these things are better than other people. And that's a fact.

00:21:40.660 So, but we use this, we use this term. Uh, and I just, I think it's something we need to think about.

00:21:45.600 What do we actually mean? Rights, human rights would be another example of this word that we use all the

00:21:52.780 time. And I don't think that any of us know exactly what we mean when we say it, except in a strictly

00:21:59.940 legal context, but we use it in a way that is far beyond just legal. Now, if I were to ask you,

00:22:08.520 I know none of this is your point whatsoever, so I'm going off on a tangent, but that this is what

00:22:12.120 I do. So you have to expect it. I'll get back to your point in a second. I just want to make this

00:22:14.620 point. If you were to ask the average person, what, um, what are rights? What is a right?

00:22:23.940 What are they going to tell you? I think probably the average person would, would stutter and have no

00:22:28.800 answer at all. They'd be flummoxed by, even though they talk about rights all the time.

00:22:32.780 You could, next time you hear somebody saying, oh, I have a right to this or that. Stop them and say,

00:22:37.040 what is that? What is a right? They'll probably be stumped. Now, if, if this person you're talking

00:22:43.540 to is a believer, is a Christian or, or, uh, you know, is Jewish, um, they'll, they'll probably give 0.57

00:22:50.600 you, they'll probably quote the Declaration of Independence and they'll say, oh, rights are endowed by the

00:22:55.380 creator. Well, even if that's true, it doesn't actually tell you what rights are. It's like,

00:23:02.120 if I said, what are lions? And you said lions are far live in sub-Saharan Africa. Okay. It tells me

00:23:09.460 where they are, but it doesn't tell me what they are. It tells me almost nothing about lions. You

00:23:13.640 haven't narrowed it down very much. So saying they're endowed by the creator. Okay. Well, what is

00:23:18.500 endowed? What do you mean? And even the idea that rights are endowed by the creator. I know that now

00:23:25.400 I'm getting into real heresy in, in, in my, in America, but I'm not even sure if that's true.

00:23:32.940 Exactly. It kind of depends on what God concept we're going with here when we say it. So it's going

00:23:40.720 to depend a lot on what your religion is. Now, Thomas Jefferson was a deist. So for, for a deist to

00:23:46.300 talk about a God that endows rights, I have no idea what that means because the deist concept of

00:23:50.980 God is he got the universe rolling and is now just sitting back somewhere in the cosmos, not caring

00:23:56.540 what happens with humans. So the idea that he gave us rights, well, maybe, but who knows what that

00:24:00.520 even means. Um, now if we're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, well, did, did that God give us,

00:24:07.160 uh, you know, did, did, did, did the biblical God to talk about rights in that context,

00:24:15.820 does that make sense? I don't know. Um, there really isn't any mention of human rights in the

00:24:20.880 Bible. That's not something that the biblical writers seem to be concerned about. God doesn't

00:24:26.860 mention it. It does, doesn't bring it, doesn't come up in the new Testament. Now we are told about

00:24:31.500 respecting people and especially in the, particularly Christ in the new Testament, we're, we're told quite

00:24:36.060 a bit about treating people with dignity, but that's not hinged on any concept of universal human

00:24:42.040 rights. That, that concept doesn't come up. You would think if that existed, it would have been

00:24:48.820 mentioned. Um, and if you get out of a religious context completely, then, then again, I have no

00:24:57.600 idea what you mean by rights aside from strictly in a legal way. We say God endowed us with a right

00:25:03.860 to free speech. What do you mean by that? Because free speech. Now that sounds like you can say

00:25:12.780 whatever you want. That's what free speech is. Except in the Bible, there's a, there are a whole

00:25:18.360 bunch of things that we're told we're not supposed to say. And then even then, and then the government

00:25:24.760 will give us a bunch of other things we're not supposed to say that aren't necessarily mentioned

00:25:28.480 in the Bible. Like you're not allowed to call in bomb threats. Don't, you know, you can't say

00:25:32.680 fire in a crowded theater, slander, libel. Well, that is in the Bible, but, um, so free speech. So

00:25:39.600 it's, it's, it's, it's free speech endowed by the creator, but there are still a bunch of things

00:25:45.000 you're not supposed to say. Okay. So it's not free. You have a right to bear arms. Well, I believe

00:25:51.280 that, but not absolutely. Obviously there, we would all agree. I don't care who you are. You would

00:25:56.940 all agree there are certain arms you shouldn't be allowed to bear, like nuclear arms, for

00:26:00.500 example. Even if that's the only example of something that you think we shouldn't have

00:26:04.140 a right to have, assuming that you would agree, then you don't believe in totally, you don't

00:26:07.840 think that's an absolute right. If it's not an absolute right, then how is it a right at

00:26:11.340 all? What does it mean to call it a right? You go right down the list. There's really no

00:26:16.720 right you can name that you actually believe in. Absolutely. There are obviously going to be

00:26:21.200 exceptions. There are going to be limitations. And so how is it a right? This is so

00:26:26.920 far from anything you asked me about, but now it's something I think about a lot. I think

00:26:31.320 the problem is when we talk about rights and we talk about equality, we're reaching for

00:26:41.340 something. There's obviously something there that we are trying to describe. It's a way of

00:26:46.240 talking about something. But what are we talking about? And what I would suggest, and I'm not

00:26:53.080 saying, no, I think we are talking about something real. So I'm not saying these are totally worthless

00:26:57.960 mythological concepts. I am saying that they missed the point a little bit, and they're kind

00:27:04.360 of confusing and vague, and nobody knows what these words mean, which is why we haven't stopped

00:27:09.040 arguing about them, which is why if you get 100 people in a room, you ask them, what are our

00:27:12.860 God-given human rights? You're going to get 100 different answers. Nobody knows. I think it's,

00:27:19.460 we're trying to talk about something, I think we need better language. We need more precise

00:27:23.180 language. I'm not sure exactly what that language would be, so I don't have all the answers. I do

00:27:27.620 know that one thing, and I've mentioned this before, I think that oftentimes when we talk

00:27:32.800 about rights, it would get closer to the heart of the matter and would be more clarifying if

00:27:38.540 instead of talking about rights, we talked about responsibilities. So even something like the

00:27:45.000 abortion issue, we talked about a right to life. Well, do we have an absolute right to life? No,

00:27:50.880 of course we don't, because if you believe in capital punishment, you don't think we have an

00:27:55.440 absolute right to life. If you believe it's in self-defense, that means not an absolute right

00:28:00.720 to life. If you believe that war could be just in some cases, killing enemy combatants, not an

00:28:04.640 absolute right to life. And certainly on a cosmic scale, we don't have a right to life. God can take

00:28:08.780 our lives anytime he wants. Now, you might say those are obvious exceptions, but they are exceptions,

00:28:14.520 which means that the right to life is not absolute, which means that maybe it's not the

00:28:19.880 best phrase to use. Maybe it's a little confusing. So maybe a better way of putting this would be

00:28:26.240 that parents have a responsibility to their children. Maybe that's firmer ground to stand

00:28:38.120 on, actually, than right to life. Parents have a responsibility to their children. That's your

00:28:44.280 child. You have a responsibility to the child. And you do not have the authority to kill innocent

00:28:52.580 human life, especially your child. So, you know, responsibility is a word I think we could use more

00:28:59.720 often. Dignity. Now, dignity can be also a little bit abstract and difficult to describe, but I think

00:29:09.140 that's part of what we're reaching for when we talk about rights and equality. We're reaching for

00:29:13.140 the fact that, you know, as people, life has meaning and value. And so, you know, you can't just go

00:29:18.840 killing people and treating people like dirt. So we use these words, rights and equality. It's not exactly

00:29:23.880 right, but we do have dignity. So we have human dignity. We have responsibilities. Okay, now I

00:29:29.300 think we're on firmer ground. We're talking about something real that most people can understand.

00:29:35.360 Okay. Completely irrelevant to anything you were saying. What were you talking about? You were

00:29:40.300 talking about how we have meaningful discussions. Okay, what's necessary to have a meaningful discussion?

00:29:47.680 I think to have a meaningful discussion, putting equality to the side, I don't think that's necessary

00:29:51.340 at all. I don't think you have to think of someone as your equal to have a meaningful dialogue with

00:29:55.800 them. I think meaningful dialogue means, first of all, both everyone involved in the dialogue has

00:30:02.400 to be interested in having an actual dialogue, which means that they're not saying their part and

00:30:08.340 then waiting for a turn to talk again while they tune out whatever you're saying, which is how I think

00:30:12.440 most people have conversations, whether it's small talk or meaningful, deep political discussions,

00:30:18.660 whatever it is. I think most people, when they're talking to people, they're really just talking

00:30:24.120 and the listening part is them waiting their turn to talk again. So you can't do that. And number two,

00:30:32.100 I think everyone involved in the discussion has to be willing to believe that the other people in the

00:30:39.660 discussion are operating in good faith, that they, that those people talking believe what they're

00:30:45.960 saying and, and they have reasons to believe it, which isn't to say that all views are equally valid

00:30:52.420 or whatever, because they're not, of course, but just that everyone has a point of view that is real and

00:31:00.780 that they arrived at honestly. Now, the problem is that we know plenty of people participate in bad faith

00:31:06.860 discussions and say things that they don't really mean. And if, if that's the case and you're talking to

00:31:13.420 someone who's, who's operating in bad faith, then there's no reason to talk to them at all.

00:31:16.760 But if you're going to attempt to have a dialogue with someone on any issue, you have to be willing

00:31:21.680 to believe, even if it's maybe not true, you just have to be willing to accept and, and, and pretend

00:31:27.280 that this person is, means what they're saying. Um, and if you have those two things, if you're,

00:31:34.160 you know, you're both operating in good faith and you see good faith in the other person

00:31:37.080 and you believe that they have a real perspective that they've arrived at for some reason, even if

00:31:42.200 it's in your opinion, not a great reason, if you've got that and you're interested in hearing them out,

00:31:46.760 then I think you can have, I think you can have a discussion. You can have a debate. It can go

00:31:50.540 somewhere. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why a lot of the discussions between atheists and

00:31:56.280 theists don't go anywhere. Well, one reason is they're just so far apart on, on such a fundamental

00:32:02.340 issue. So it's going to be hard to have a discussion no matter how you're going about it. But the other

00:32:07.260 problem is that in my experience, from what I've noticed, both sides tend oftentimes to assume that

00:32:17.160 the other side doesn't really fully believe what they're saying. I hear this from atheists who 0.99

00:32:24.540 questioned whether we theists really believe what we say. They just, they can't wrap their heads

00:32:29.220 around it. How could you possibly believe this? I was watching some discussion on, maybe it was

00:32:33.920 YouTube or debate or something, but I don't remember where it was, but there were atheists

00:32:38.840 were all basically in agreement that Catholics who talk about the real presence in the Eucharist,

00:32:44.320 that is that Jesus is really there in the Eucharist in a mystical but real way. The agreement among

00:32:48.940 atheists was they don't really believe that. There's no way they believe that. To them, it's crazy.

00:32:54.420 That makes no sense. So they say, you don't really believe it. Then on the other end,

00:32:59.000 you've got theists who very often will say about atheists, you know that I'm right. You're just 1.00

00:33:04.400 not admitting it. You know deep down and all of this. So you don't really believe what you're

00:33:08.980 saying either. Well, if that's how you're going to go into the discussion, it's not going to go

00:33:13.480 anywhere. There's no hope. Why even talk? Whatever you're saying is going to be tuned out by the other

00:33:18.620 person. It will go nowhere. It's absolutely pointless. If you're going to even bother to talk to

00:33:25.060 somebody about an issue like this, you have to at least assume that they really believe what they're

00:33:29.620 saying, even if you don't understand it. And the fact that both sides assume the other doesn't

00:33:36.540 believe what they're saying should be indications to both sides that the other side does believe what

00:33:41.800 they're saying. They believe it so much that they can't even believe that anyone could believe

00:33:45.220 anything else, which if anything else, which if nothing else tells you that they really believe

00:33:50.340 what they're saying, at least they believe it, you know, they're, they're, they're very,

00:33:56.340 they're firm in their beliefs at the very minimum. Okay.

00:34:00.400 I did have other emails I wanted to answer. Um, well, this one, I, I said I was done with the

00:34:10.340 spanking topic, but first of all, you know, that when I say I'm done with the topic, it means I'm

00:34:14.880 going to talk about it for the next three weeks. So that's one thing. But also, uh, there was, I got,

00:34:20.720 I got myriad emails about one particular thing I said when we were talking about the spanking topic

00:34:25.580 on Friday, uh, that apparently I, I, I wasn't clear on a certain point. So I wanted to read this email

00:34:31.180 and respond to it because I won't be able to rest until I clarify my point on this because I do want

00:34:35.820 to be understood. So this is from Mathias says, hi, Matt, I know you said you were done with the

00:34:39.940 spanking topic, but I had one last thought slash objection in an attempt to explain your position.

00:34:44.660 You said that spanking is a do as I say, not as I do thing, because you tell your kids not to hit 1.00

00:34:49.160 and then you'd be hitting. But then you said that timeouts aren't do as I say, not as I do,

00:34:53.220 even though your kids can't put each other in timeout. And you said that if

00:34:55.540 your daughter asks why, uh, she can't put her brothers in timeout, you would say that she

00:35:00.040 doesn't have the authority. So why could that, um, why, why couldn't that be the reason why they

00:35:06.020 don't hit? Also the way you talk about hitting, i.e. we don't hit, it makes it sound like you're

00:35:11.480 saying hitting is never okay. But what about self-defense, et cetera? I just think your position

00:35:15.980 is not well thought out. Okay. So yes, Mathias, I said last week, the crucial thing here is what a

00:35:21.400 kid can understand. So there's the issue of sort of objectively is spanking ethical and effective

00:35:30.000 in itself, which I think it isn't, but we almost don't need to talk about that because there's also

00:35:36.140 the issue of what the child can understand. So even if maybe you're right on the spanking topic

00:35:43.400 academically, maybe, maybe you beat me philosophically on the debate and you can demonstrate that really,

00:35:49.180 actually, it is ethical and there is a real distinction between spanking and hitting and so

00:35:53.440 on. Let's just say that you, that that's the case. It really doesn't matter if the kid can't

00:36:00.620 understand this abstract, nuanced, philosophical distinction that you've drawn. Um, and, and,

00:36:08.680 you know, I'm, I may not be the smartest bulb, especially when I'm mixing metaphors like that.

00:36:13.080 I may not be the smartest bulb in the, in the crayon box, but, uh, I think if, if I can't

00:36:19.640 understand it, it was probably an indication that a three-year-old can't

00:36:23.080 and punishing a kid in a way that they cannot possibly understand and that they lack the

00:36:29.340 cognition to understand is wrong. Let me give you a brief example of an, of an objectively ethical

00:36:35.380 punishment that would be wrong because of the child's inability to understand. And this is one

00:36:40.940 that I've done before. I'm guilty of back when my oldest son was maybe three years old. We were

00:36:44.860 out in public. He was misbehaving. This happened multiple times, actually misbehaving. Okay. Act

00:36:50.760 acting like a, like a three-year-old, you know, like they tend to act, but I couldn't really punish

00:36:54.620 him at the time because of the situation we were in. So when we got home four or five hours later,

00:37:01.200 I put him in timeout for the thing he had done earlier in the day, nothing wrong with timeouts. I don't

00:37:07.860 think anyone would argue that there's something unethical about timeouts. At least I'm not

00:37:10.820 going to argue that, but this was wrong. Me punishing my kid in this context with a timeout

00:37:16.860 was wrong. Why? Because at that age, if you're going to give a child a consequence, it has to be

00:37:23.660 immediate. With the way that they remember time and the way they perceive time, if you punish them

00:37:29.500 for something that happened hours ago, they aren't going to understand what you're doing. They can't

00:37:34.740 understand it. Now, if it's, if you're talking about a 12-year-old and you're punishing them for

00:37:39.780 something they did earlier in the day, or even yesterday, they can understand. A three-year-old

00:37:45.100 can't. So if you don't believe me, then, then go to a three-year-old, ask him what he did yesterday,

00:37:50.820 or even ask him what he did this morning. Most likely he'll tell you some vaguely, some, some,

00:37:57.140 some story vaguely related to something that happened a month ago, you know, or six months ago,

00:38:01.860 or last week. Because he has no idea what the word this morning means, or what the word yesterday

00:38:08.080 means, or four hours ago. He doesn't know what that means. So I punished my son, but I, but, but he

00:38:15.340 didn't understand. And I didn't understand at the time, uh, because I, you know, I was still learning

00:38:19.400 how kids operate. I didn't, I didn't realize this, but, um, he didn't understand why I was punishing him.

00:38:25.480 Yeah. He had done this thing, but he's, he's not connecting those dots. He can't.

00:38:30.420 Uh, so for him, you know, you put, you put a, a three-year-old in timeout for something they did

00:38:34.840 four hours ago in their mind, they're going to associate it with whatever they most recently did.

00:38:43.180 So if they're, if the most recent thing they did was, you know, they were sitting on the couch

00:38:49.540 and now you're putting them in timeout, they're going to think that you put them in timeout for

00:38:52.900 sitting on the couch. They're not going to connect the dots. Okay. Um, so it, that's,

00:39:00.500 that's wrong because they don't understand now to spanking. And this is also why, by the way,

00:39:06.040 this is why you really don't punish, you know, we don't punish infants at all. You don't punish

00:39:11.940 infants for anything, no matter what they're doing, because they couldn't possibly understand

00:39:16.060 the punishment. And so it's nothing would come of it. That would be abuse, but an infant in timeout,

00:39:21.440 you know, like I said, say timeouts are, are, are ethical, but on some cases, cases they,

00:39:25.240 they might not be put an, put an infant in timeout. Um, that's unethical, not a spanking.

00:39:31.340 What matters here, or at least one of the things that really matters is how the child perceives it

00:39:36.640 and what the child is going to perceive, regardless of whatever academic argument or nuanced distinction

00:39:42.420 you draw as an adult, what they're going to perceive is daddy is hitting me. And then his child

00:39:49.280 brain is going to say, daddy says, don't hit, but daddy is hitting. That's what the child is going

00:39:54.480 to think. You bring up the issue of authority with putting my kids in timeout. My point there

00:40:00.660 is that when my daughter asked, when my daughter has tried to put her brothers in timeout and I say,

00:40:05.640 no, and she says, why? The answer I give is because you're not mommy, only mommy and daddy's put kids

00:40:11.460 in timeout. That was the reason I gave a reason she could understand. There's no point in giving a

00:40:17.940 reason for something if they can't understand the reason. So it has to be a very simple reason.

00:40:23.600 What about hitting? When my daughter hits her brother, what's the reason I give for why she 1.00

00:40:29.160 shouldn't hit? I don't say only mommy and daddy's hit. No, you can't hit because you're not the

00:40:34.820 mommy. Only mommy's daddy said you're not allowed to hit. Only we hit. I don't say that. No parent says

00:40:40.480 it. Even parents who spank, when you're telling your kids not to hit, what's, you don't give them the

00:40:45.420 reason that they don't have the authority to hit? Of course you don't say that. It'd be crazy. It'd

00:40:49.600 be a totally crazy thing to say to a kid because from a child's perspective, that's going to be so

00:40:55.240 confusing to be given that reason because now they're going to think, wait, it's okay. Hitting

00:40:59.360 is okay. But so hitting is okay as long as adults do it. And do you, do you see where that kind of

00:41:05.380 thinking is going to lead a kid? What, what, what you're opening them up to is no, you're not going to

00:41:11.020 say that. So what you say, when you say don't hit, the reason that every parent gives is we don't hit.

00:41:18.640 It's wrong to hit. Hitting hurts. We don't hurt people. You have to say that like that because

00:41:26.820 it's what the kid can understand. You're talking to a three or four year old. You're speaking in

00:41:30.540 very short little sentences. That's all they can understand. You bring up self-defense. Sure. But I'm

00:41:36.840 not getting into the ethics of self-defense or rules of military engagement with a toddler.

00:41:43.060 So I say we don't hit. Yeah. I mean, there are exceptions to that, obviously, but I'm not getting

00:41:47.140 into the exceptions. And at that age, all that matters is the very basic concept. I need them

00:41:52.160 to get that down. And then later on, we can get into the exceptions. It's just like I tell my kids,

00:41:57.460 don't steal. We don't steal. Stealing is bad. Now I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about what if

00:42:02.040 you're starving and your kids are starving and you're walking through a cornfield and it's somebody else's

00:42:05.740 cornfield. Can you eat the corn even though technically you're stealing the corn? The answer

00:42:08.760 is yes, you can. In fact, in that case, it would be ethical to eat the corn. It'd be unethical not

00:42:12.480 to give your kids some corn because as it turns out, do not steal is not an absolute, is not an

00:42:18.040 ethical absolute. There are cases where stealing is okay. So in wartime, you send a spy on a mission

00:42:27.700 to go steal the other military's battle plans or whatever. I mean, that's stealing too, but that's

00:42:35.720 ethical. But I don't get into that with kids. What I say to them is, we don't steal. Stealing is bad.

00:42:45.260 And it's important that I don't do anything that seems to contradict that unless the kids really

00:42:51.940 are starving in the cornfield. So for them, it's a very simple message. The anti-hitting message is

00:42:58.560 very simple for a child. It's an important message. It's a message I need them to get down. I need to lay

00:43:04.860 the basic framework of it. Later on down the road when they're older, I can start filling in some of

00:43:09.980 the particulars and we can get into some of that stuff, but we're not at that point yet. They're

00:43:13.380 not old enough for that. And so I just need them to understand so they can be civilized, gracious,

00:43:19.000 you know, people at this age. I just need them to understand. Don't hit.

00:43:23.920 And I don't want to do anything that might undermine that or might confuse them about it.

00:43:34.840 That's it. So that's the point. Okay. Let's see. One other email. This is from Katie says,

00:43:41.360 Matt, love the show. On Twitter, you were asking people about issues about, about issues about which

00:43:47.280 they change their minds. Issues they change their minds about. See that what happens when you try not

00:43:53.360 to, you try not to, you know, try to, sometimes you try to write that grammatically correct sentence

00:43:59.420 and it comes off confusing. Then you listed a bunch of issues you've flipped on over the years. Then you

00:44:04.720 said, quoting you, I've increasingly found that ideological labels are irrelevant to me. I've become

00:44:09.480 much more libertarian. I've become both more libertarian and less over time, more conservative and

00:44:14.380 less. These labels are useless and there's nothing more uninteresting than a person whose

00:44:18.080 views align completely with one camp. Quoting me, that's what I said. Yes. You often preach about

00:44:23.400 intellectual inconsistency, but here you are talking about the times you've flip-flopped like it's a

00:44:28.780 good thing. What's wrong with a person remaining firm in their convictions? Well, first of all, I

00:44:34.720 criticize flip-flopping when it's done or seems to have been done, usually by a politician in a cynical

00:44:39.520 and opportunistic way, not a sincere and authentic way. So that's bad flip-flopping. Usually when we

00:44:45.020 call a politician a flip-flopper, what we're saying is their opinions change according to surveys,

00:44:49.880 according to the polling data. So that's bad flip-flopping, okay? But if you really just change

00:44:56.100 your mind about something over time, I've never criticized anybody for that because that's a good

00:45:00.640 thing. That shows that somebody is thoughtful and honest and that they're really trying to figure

00:45:05.060 things out. I do value intellectual consistency, but when I say consistency, I don't mean that your

00:45:10.200 views of today are consistent with your views of 20 years ago. That kind of consistency is not

00:45:16.300 important and is probably a bad sign, if anything. I mean, think about it. If you've never changed your

00:45:22.580 mind about anything major, that means you basically still maintain all of the opinions you had when you

00:45:28.240 were in high school. And those weren't even your opinions. Those were your parents' opinions that you

00:45:33.500 inherited. And those were the opinions that you inherited from your family, from your friends and

00:45:36.740 your community. I mean, the opinions you have as a kid are not really yours fully because you haven't

00:45:41.600 had time to think about it. Your mind is not fully formed yet. And if your values and opinions haven't

00:45:50.080 changed at all since then, I think that's a sign that you're not thinking. That's why people like to

00:45:58.260 give Bernie Sanders credit because he's been saying the same stuff for 40 years. I don't really give

00:46:04.400 him credit for that because number one, he's been wrong for 40 years. But number two, I don't think

00:46:08.940 you should be saying the same things at 78 that you were saying, you know, when you were in your 30s or

00:46:14.740 20s or teens. I'm not saying that all of your views and opinions should change completely, but

00:46:20.260 you should have grown and matured and you should have added some layers, at least in context,

00:46:25.760 onto what you're saying, some texture to it. And yeah, you probably should have changed your mind

00:46:30.420 about some things. The fact that Bernie Sanders has been doing the same schtick for 40 years,

00:46:35.880 50 years, hasn't changed his mind about anything, tells me he's not a very thoughtful person.

00:46:43.140 He has one simplistic way of looking at things and it has not grown. There's been no depth added to it

00:46:49.980 at all. I don't think that's good. So I think we should be constantly refining our positions,

00:46:56.000 rethinking our positions, and analyzing them. We should always be asking ourselves,

00:47:05.820 why? Okay, here's what I believe. Why do I believe it? What is my reason for believing

00:47:12.480 that such and such is true? And we should ask ourselves that. And I feel like if you do that

00:47:20.620 survey now, where you go through all your beliefs, you say, why do I believe these things? First of

00:47:26.580 all, you're going to discover that there are a number of beliefs you hold that aren't really

00:47:29.540 your beliefs because you have no reason to believe them that you can think of. It's just something that

00:47:34.000 you've passively inherited. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means, okay, now I got to take a look at

00:47:38.100 that and figure out, is it right or wrong? I don't know. But if you, if you, if you conduct that

00:47:43.540 personal survey now, and then you conduct it again, 20 years from now, you're going to find

00:47:50.220 different results. So when I talk about consistency, I think it's not that we need vertical consistency

00:47:56.620 in our ideas where we have the same ideas up and down the age, up and down the years, we were saying

00:48:02.300 the same things. So that's the sort of vertical intellectual consistency. I don't think that that is

00:48:07.060 important. I think what's important is horizontal consistency, where all of your current views are

00:48:12.500 consistent with your other current views, where you have one consistent, where you're, you're, you have

00:48:18.840 your principles, your convictions, your ethical views, and you apply them consistently to all the

00:48:25.100 issues. And you don't have any beliefs currently that contradict each other. That's the kind of

00:48:33.600 consistency. And we all, and none of us are a hundred percent consistent, consistent horizontally

00:48:38.180 with our beliefs, but that's the consistency I think we want to strive for. And when you try to

00:48:46.720 establish that kind of consistency, when you say, okay, I think this about this topic and this about

00:48:51.280 that topic, wait a second, they don't really match up. There's a, when we start doing that, that's,

00:48:56.240 that's part of the way we discover that we're wrong about something.

00:49:02.500 That's, you know, that's one of the ways that I, that I found that I consider myself to be wrong

00:49:06.980 about. I mean, I've been wrong about a lot of things, but for example, marijuana legalization.

00:49:11.500 So I'm in favor of it now. I didn't used to be, but I conducted a personal survey and I found that,

00:49:16.940 okay, I believe this and that about the government's role in, in, in, in, in society

00:49:22.680 and what I want the government to be doing. And yet I want the government to be spending billions

00:49:29.440 of dollars trying to stop people from smoking weed. It didn't really make sense according to

00:49:33.780 my own personal convictions. So I had to change it. I didn't even really want to change it because

00:49:39.060 honestly, you know, I don't, it's not my thing and I'm not a big fan of like potheads. So I,

00:49:44.000 it's not even, it's not a belief that I really wanted to hold, but I realized that I kind of have

00:49:48.400 to, because otherwise I'm being hypocritical in my view. So, all right, we'll, uh, we'll wrap it

00:49:55.980 up there. A lot of interesting emails. I do appreciate, appreciate it. And, uh, talk to you

00:50:00.040 tomorrow. Godspeed. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help

00:50:07.660 spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're

00:50:11.600 available on Apple podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to check out the

00:50:16.840 other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knoll show, and the Andrew

00:50:21.060 Klavan show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer,

00:50:26.960 Jeremy Boring, senior producer, Jonathan Hay, supervising producer, Mathis Glover, supervising

00:50:32.100 producer, Robert Sterling, technical producer, Austin Stevens, editor, Donovan Fowler, audio mixer,

00:50:37.820 Robin Fenderson. The Matt Wall show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.

00:50:43.480 Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of the Andrew Klavan show. It is

00:50:46.540 time finally for the Iowa caucuses all across the great state of Iowa. Corn fed Americans

00:50:52.780 are leaving their farms and small towns in order to decide which Democrat candidate will

00:50:58.480 best serve the interests of New York and Los Angeles. We'll talk about it on the Andrew

00:51:02.340 Klavan show. I'm Andrew Klavan.

The Matt Walsh Show - February 03, 2020

Ep. 418 - Feminists Celebrate Empowering Strip Tease

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript