The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 423 - The Incredible Heroism Of Hollywood

00:00:00.000 Welcome to the show, everybody. Broadcasting now from a beautiful hotel. Well, not that beautiful,

00:00:06.720 but from a hotel in Atlanta, in any case. And I was speaking at a church yesterday,

00:00:12.080 and that was a lot of fun, great turnout, talking about my book, Church of Cowards,

00:00:17.120 which comes out on February 25th, but you can pre-order right now. Go do that right now,

00:00:22.300 I demand, on Amazon.com. That's Church of Cowards. Again, February 25th is when it comes up.

00:00:29.240 So, did you guys catch the Oscars last night? I can tell you that I was at my event for a good

00:00:39.440 part of the night, but I came home. I did turn it on for maybe 90 seconds in the hotel, and it was

00:00:44.880 just in time to hear an adult person, Sigourney Weaver, stand on stage. I turned it on right at

00:00:55.060 this moment, the perfect moment for me to turn it on, right at the moment when she said the sentence,

00:01:00.660 all women are superheroes. And then everybody applauded. Now, if you want to understand how

00:01:09.660 utterly vacuous and meaningless a statement like that is, just imagine how it would sound if you

00:01:16.680 said it about men. Okay? If you said, all men are superheroes, everybody would say, what?

00:01:21.500 What do you mean all men are superheroes? What does that even mean? What are you talking about?

00:01:26.160 Obviously, some men are great. Other men are atrocious human beings. A lot of them are sort

00:01:31.260 of mediocre. Case in point, there's nothing about being a man that automatically bestows virtue,

00:01:39.240 much less heroism. And the same, of course, is true of women. This is to say nothing of the fact,

00:01:44.800 and you know what I'm going to say next. You know where it's going, but I can't resist.

00:01:50.240 It's to say nothing of the fact that nobody in Hollywood can even define the word woman.

00:01:56.020 So any statement they make about women is inherently without substance. By the way,

00:02:02.100 if all women are superheroes, Andrea Yates, superhero, Eva Braun, Eileen Wuornos, the serial killer,

00:02:12.720 Bloody Mary, superheroes, huh? All of them superheroes. But of course, the thing is, we know that

00:02:19.820 you can mark it down. Remember all of this girl power stuff, the moment that Trump nominates Amy

00:02:28.140 Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, which probably now will happen in his second term. When that

00:02:34.560 happens, remember all this girl power stuff, because it's going out the window. It's getting

00:02:38.960 chucked out the window from the 50th floor, and it's tumbling all the way down to the sidewalk,

00:02:47.140 and it's going to shatter into a million pieces. It's gone. Speaking of female empowerment at the

00:02:54.760 Oscars, Natalie Portman, and you know, I'm serious about this. Natalie Portman, I know I've been critical

00:03:02.740 up until now, but Portman made one of the boldest and bravest statements I've ever seen anyone make

00:03:11.980 at the Oscars or anywhere else, period, in life. I'm stunned by it. They will build statues and monuments

00:03:23.180 to this moment. History books will tell of this moment. Folk songs will be sung. I was up all night

00:03:30.060 thinking about it. I'm going to tell my kids about it, my grandchildren. Down through the generations,

00:03:35.960 people will be inspired by this. I want you to take a look. Watch this. How did you decide to do this?

00:03:43.500 I wanted to recognize the women who were not recognized for their incredible work this year

00:03:52.380 in my subtle way. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. She embroidered her Dior cape with the names of female

00:04:05.260 directors who had not been nominated. Here's the thing. When I'm wearing my $30,000 Dior cape,

00:04:13.900 custom designed, it never occurs to me to embroider a socially conscious message on it.

00:04:18.720 And honestly, if it did occur to me, I don't know if I would have the courage to do it.

00:04:26.600 I'm stunned by it. I am blown away. I don't even know what to say. But unrelated, I was thinking

00:04:33.700 about this. Totally unrelated. But considering Natalie Portman finds some way every, she does this every

00:04:40.320 year at the Oscars where she complains about women directors not being recognized. So if I were to look

00:04:46.020 at her IMDB page, let's say, not that I don't trust her or believe her or anything, of course,

00:04:50.280 believe all women, but in I were to check her films, will I see that she solely or at least mostly works

00:04:58.320 with female directors? As someone who's so concerned with making sure that female directors are elevated

00:05:04.100 and amplified and lifted up and recognized, you would think that she would make a point of working

00:05:09.540 with female directors, right? So let's see. I mean, I got the page right here. Let's just take a look.

00:05:14.880 And I'm sure we're going to find that Natalie Portman is true to her word and has the courage

00:05:22.340 of her convictions. I'm sure we'll find that. I have utter confidence. So looking at her IMDB page

00:05:28.080 this past year, we'll see. This past year, she made a movie called Lucy in the Sky, male director.

00:05:34.160 Okay. The year before that, she made a movie. She was starring in a movie called Vox Lux,

00:05:40.840 male director. Before that, she started a movie called Annihilation, male director. Before that,

00:05:47.840 she starred in Jackie, male director. Before that, Jane got a gun, male director. Before that,

00:05:56.120 a movie called A Tale of Love and Darkness. Here we go. Female director. You got to go all the way back

00:06:01.660 to 2015, but she did. See, there you go. Female director. And that was, who was that? That was

00:06:06.940 Natalie Portman. Oh wait, she directed that herself. So in five years, she starred in one

00:06:15.380 female directed movie, and it was her movie that she directed. I mean, you can't accuse her of not

00:06:21.600 supporting female directors. It's just that the only female directors she supports are herself.

00:06:26.260 I mean, it's almost like Portman herself, when it comes down to it, likes to be in movies that she

00:06:33.900 thinks will be good, even though almost all those movies I just named off are crap, but movies she

00:06:40.400 thinks will be good, and work with directors who she thinks will do great work, regardless of their

00:06:45.440 sex. It seems like for her professional life, she judges based on merit and not sexual organs,

00:06:51.300 because it would be actually very bizarre, it turns out, and demeaning and dehumanizing to say

00:06:56.920 to a woman, I don't think your work is necessarily all that great. I don't think there's anything

00:07:01.500 necessarily special about you as a person, but I'm going to work with you because of your reproductive

00:07:07.320 organs. You have a vagina, and so that's why I'm on your team. See, Portman isn't going to say

00:07:15.220 that to somebody. Nobody would, because it's crazy. It's completely crazy, and yet feminists expect the

00:07:22.600 rest of us to operate this way. They don't, but we should. Even though, again, they don't even

00:07:30.380 actually think that reproductive organs have anything to do with sex anyway, so it's all confused.

00:07:36.020 Okay, now here's something that's not confusing. Fairway is a family-owned grocery chain and a top

00:07:42.420 10 employer in Iowa that's been in business since 1938, and they have over 11,000 employees. They

00:07:48.920 service five states with brick-and-mortar locations before launching Fairway Meat Market to service the

00:07:54.080 rest of the U.S. In December 2018, Fairway announced a new plan to help eligible full-time employees pay

00:07:59.780 off their student loan debt. So we're talking about free market solutions to these problems. That's

00:08:03.720 what Fairway is doing. This adds Fairway Stores, Inc. to the roughly 4% of companies across the nation

00:08:08.340 that offer employee benefits concerning student loan debt. But let's talk about the most important

00:08:14.740 thing about Fairway as far as I'm concerned, and that is meat. The Fairway Meat Department has always

00:08:21.500 been considered the backbone of their operation. What customers can expect from fairwaymeatmarket.com

00:08:26.960 is hand-cut by Fairway employees to ensure the best possible quality. It's the same quality they

00:08:33.340 promised at the counter, and it's delivered right to your home. The guys at Fairway were generous enough

00:08:38.340 me, some product. First of all, to get home after a long day's work, not that I have a real job,

00:08:47.400 but for most people, to get home after a long day's work and find a big old box of meat,

00:08:54.480 you can't ask for anything better than that. That brings a smile to your face. It brings a smile

00:08:57.700 even to my face, and I only smile about two or three times a year. I have it on schedule, on the

00:09:01.660 calendar. So we had different cuts of meat that they sent us, different steaks, different cuts of

00:09:07.960 pork, and it was all delicious. I especially love the sirloin. And listen, I know what you're

00:09:12.220 thinking. You're thinking, Matt, okay, you love the meat, but you're a brilliant chef. You're one of

00:09:17.200 the best chefs of our generation. Was the meat great because of your culinary genius, or is it

00:09:23.020 because the meat was actually that good? And the answer is both. But I think the meat is so good that

00:09:27.860 you'd have a very hard time screwing it up, even if you're not a great chef like me. Fairway Meat

00:09:34.080 Market's quality meat comes straight from America's Heartland. Premium beef, all-natural pork,

00:09:38.200 raised by family members and sourced straight out of corn country. So you got to get this. This week,

00:09:42.160 my listeners can get the Heartland package valued at $230 for just $99.99. That's it. Okay,

00:09:50.100 so you're getting that's over half off on this $230 value for $99.99 plus free shipping when entering

00:09:56.000 Walsh at checkout. The Heartland package includes eight eight-ounce all-natural boneless pork chops,

00:10:01.720 six eight-ounce USDA choice ribeye steaks, which are delicious, one mouth-watering side dish,

00:10:07.500 loaded potato bake, gourmet cheesy corn, or brisket baked beans. That's more than 50% off the best

00:10:14.380 meat in America, plus free shipping. That's fairwaymeatmarket.com, promo code Walsh,

00:10:20.220 and look for the Heartland package. All right, I'm going to move on from the Oscars,

00:10:25.740 but one other quick thing. Joaquin Phoenix won Best Actor for Joker, and I think it was well

00:10:32.360 deserved. It was an extraordinary performance. But I want you to imagine, first of all, how Jared

00:10:38.640 Leto feels right now, because Jared Leto played Joker in Suicide Squad, which was an abysmal movie.

00:10:46.800 And so think about Jared Leto, okay? The guy who had his role before him wins an Oscar. The guy who

00:10:54.500 who had his role after him wins an Oscar. And really, when you think about, you think about the

00:11:00.440 Joker character on film, almost everyone who's portrayed this character has ended up with an

00:11:06.560 iconic performance. Jack Nicholson's Joker, iconic. Even Mark Hamill's Joker in the animated series,

00:11:14.520 iconic. Heath Ledger's Joker, Oscar winner. Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, Oscar winner. Jared Leto's Joker.

00:11:22.380 Joker. Employee of the month at Hot Topic. I think that's all he won. So that's tough. That's tough

00:11:29.900 for his self-esteem. But anyway, so Phoenix got up there after winning and launched into a lengthy

00:11:36.500 lecture that I can't even play for you, because I think it's still going on as we speak. But here's

00:11:42.420 just one snippet of that that caught my ear. Listen.

00:11:46.280 We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow. And when she gives birth, we steal her baby.

00:11:55.420 Even though her cries of anguish are unmistakable. And then we take her milk that's intended for a

00:12:01.460 calf, and we put it in our coffee and our cereal. I have to say, I really wasn't expecting to hear

00:12:07.320 cow insemination mentioned during the show. But here we are. And I want you to think about

00:12:13.220 vegans. Think about a left-wing pro-abortion vegan, which presumably is what would describe

00:12:25.160 Joaquin Phoenix. I don't really know. I'm assuming he's probably not pro-life. It doesn't strike me as

00:12:31.540 that, but who knows? Many vegans are pro-abortion. My only point is, for pro-abortion vegans,

00:12:37.460 their actual position is this, that it is a greater moral tragedy to drink milk than it is to crush a

00:12:47.220 baby's skull in the womb. That is the actual position of pro-abortion vegans. But nice speech

00:12:55.300 and nice performance anyway. Well, I don't know if I'd say nice speech, but entertaining for Joaquin Phoenix.

00:13:00.820 Now, moving on. Look, I've got no dog in this fight, really. And usually I don't care about

00:13:07.080 political ads or take any time to analyze them. But I did want to take a look at this. Joe Biden

00:13:12.280 is swinging and flailing as he goes down in flames, kind of doing the same thing to trying to do the

00:13:18.260 same thing to Buttigieg that Chris Christie did to Marco Rubio in 2016, where he knew he was going

00:13:26.080 down, but he's going to take Marco Rubio with him. And that's what seems like Biden's trying to do.

00:13:31.540 I guess because Biden is 872 years old and Buttigieg is 12. And so Biden, as this ancient man,

00:13:40.320 is, I guess, figures there's some symmetry to it. He's thinking, look, if the oldest guy is going

00:13:45.200 down, then so is the youngest guy. So he released this ad that people on social media seem to think

00:13:50.520 is devastating to Mayor Pete. I really disagree. But watch this. Barack Obama called Joe Biden

00:13:57.240 best vice president America's ever had. But Pete Buttigieg doesn't think much of the vice

00:14:01.760 president's record. Let's compare. When President Obama called on him, Joe Biden helped lead the

00:14:07.360 passage of the Affordable Care Act, which gave health care to 20 million people. And when park goers

00:14:12.680 called on Pete Buttigieg, he installed decorative lights under bridges, giving citizens of South Bend

00:14:17.960 colorfully illuminated rivers. Both vice president Biden and former Mayor Buttigieg have taken on tough

00:14:23.940 fights. Under threat of a nuclear Iran, Joe Biden helped to negotiate the Iran deal. And under threat

00:14:30.540 of disappearing pets, Buttigieg negotiated lighter licensing regulations on pet chip scanners.

00:14:36.560 Both vice president Biden and former Mayor Pete have helped shape our economy. Joe Biden helped save the

00:14:43.000 auto industry, which revitalized the economy of the Midwest and led the passage and

00:14:47.780 implementation of the Recovery Act, saving our economy from a depression. Pete Buttigieg revitalized

00:14:54.020 the sidewalks of downtown South Bend by laying out decorative brick. And both Biden and Buttigieg

00:14:59.660 have made hard decisions. Despite pressure from the NRA, Jill Biden passed the assault weapons ban

00:15:05.700 through Congress. Then he passed the Violence Against Women Act. And even when public pressure mounted

00:15:11.400 against him, former Mayor Pete fired the first African American police chief of South Bend. And then he

00:15:17.980 forced out the African American fire chief to, we're electing a president. What you've done matters.

00:15:27.240 After that video was released, one of Biden's campaign staffers tweeted, gloating, that the video has more views

00:15:36.900 than the population of South Bend. And see, that's exactly the problem. This whole thing has a very,

00:15:43.240 has a, has a real sort of, I'm an important DC guy and you're just some bumpkin yokel mayor energy to it.

00:15:50.700 And that's exactly the wrong kind of energy that you want to bring into a campaign.

00:15:56.400 What's the point of this ad really? Aside from the racism accusations at the very end that are sort of

00:16:01.640 tacked on at the end, because I guess Democrats are not capable of, of making an attack ad against

00:16:07.340 anyone without accusing them of racism. So you have to add it at some point. At the very, even if,

00:16:12.540 even if it's just at the end, hey, by the way, PS, he's also racist. But before that, the rest of it

00:16:19.160 is essentially Mayor Pete is an attentive mayor who took care of things that the folks in the town care

00:16:24.380 about, like putting lights under bridges and fixing the sidewalk. Devastating. Ooh, devastating.

00:16:30.600 This ad, this ad could not be any more tone deaf than if it was about a female candidate. And it

00:16:37.540 said like, while Biden was, was saving the world, this woman was changing diapers. See, attack candidates

00:16:45.940 for not doing their jobs. Don't attack them for doing their job on the basis that the job they did

00:16:50.860 was petty. That's that kind of attack never works, especially when old people vote. Okay. Joe Biden should

00:17:00.440 know something about old people. Old people vote and old people are exactly the ones who get fired up

00:17:06.420 about local issues like bad sidewalks and a lack of proper bridge lighting. I've been to town halls.

00:17:11.880 I know this. So what is this ad saying? It's saying, it's saying not just that Mayor Pete is a young

00:17:19.520 whippersnapper and hasn't done anything important. It's that the concerns of small town Americans are

00:17:24.600 unimportant. That's what the ad is saying. Now, at least it could be taken that way easily. I'm not,

00:17:31.720 I'm not necessarily saying that I take it that way. I don't take offense to it. And honestly,

00:17:36.880 I get kind of sick of all the sucking up the small town America that candidates do. And I say

00:17:42.780 that as somebody who lives in a small town, I live in a very small town myself and I like living in a

00:17:47.680 small town, but I don't need the constant thing. Oh, small town America. You know, I just, I don't

00:17:54.800 need it. Just shut up. I know, I know it's pandering. It's patronizing. It is a, it is a

00:17:59.980 version of Sigourney Weaver saying all women are superheroes. I don't, you know, if I, if I was a

00:18:05.520 woman, which I get, which I could be, as far as you know, uh, I, I wouldn't want to hear that. I

00:18:10.580 don't, I don't need some celebrities. You're a superhero. Let me give you a star. Here's a sticker.

00:18:14.900 I don't need that from candidates. I don't need, you're a great small town America. We love you.

00:18:21.680 But that being said, uh, so I, I don't need the, the, the sucking up, but, but to be condescending

00:18:30.820 and dismissive on the other end of the spectrum is definitely not the right strategy. Okay. And that

00:18:39.460 seems like that's what Biden's doing here. Or again, it's very easy to spin it that way. And

00:18:44.840 that's exactly what Buttigieg did because he like it or not is a smart politician. And so you give

00:18:50.400 him an ad like this, this is a godsend. This is exactly the kind of attack he wants.

00:18:56.520 So his campaign responded and said, uh, at this moment, the American people are crying out for

00:19:01.220 something completely different from this classic Washington style of politics. While Washington

00:19:06.680 politics trivializes what goes on in communities like South Bend, South Bend residents who now have

00:19:11.400 better jobs, rising income, a new life in their city, don't think their lives are a Washington

00:19:15.400 politician's punchline. Pete's on the ground experience as mayor turning around a Midwestern

00:19:20.380 industrial city is exactly why he's running for president. The vice president's decision to run

00:19:24.220 this ad speaks more to where he currently stands in this race than it does about Pete's perspective

00:19:28.360 as a mayor and veteran. Right. And that's, that's a good response. And, and one that Biden walked right

00:19:34.840 into, that's, I think that response completely neutralizes the ad and, um, and so that's, but

00:19:44.740 Biden is a, is at this point, one of the least talented politicians we've seen in a long time.

00:19:53.820 He just has no sense of anything, not just him, but his campaign team, whoever put this ad together,

00:20:00.960 not to mention Biden is taking credit for stuff that he didn't even do.

00:20:07.840 Vice presidents are about as decorative as the lights under those bridges. In fact, more decorative

00:20:12.660 because the lights under the bridges, that's there for a reason. It's to stop boats from running into

00:20:17.280 them at night. So there's kind of a practical reason for that. Vice presidents aren't stopping

00:20:23.720 boats from running into bridges. They're not doing anything. They're glorified first ladies.

00:20:28.200 They take on, you know, they'll, they'll, they'll take on the position of president if the president

00:20:33.740 dies. But if, if he doesn't, then they don't get credit for doing the job by proxy. They didn't do

00:20:39.640 anything. So when Biden says I negotiated deals and passed Obamacare, what he should be saying is

00:20:45.460 I smiled on camera next to the people who negotiated deals and passed Obamacare.

00:20:51.340 Not that the deals or, you know, sending billions of dollars to Iran and cash or signing, passing

00:20:58.920 Obamacare, that's nothing to be proud of, first of all, but it doesn't matter anyway, because he

00:21:05.560 didn't do that stuff. And this is all to say nothing of the awkward fact that Obama hasn't even endorsed

00:21:11.220 Biden. So he goes on and on about Obama, his experience with Obama. Well, it's, there's a,

00:21:19.160 there's a, there's a pretty conspicuous silence here from, from Obama on this. So it's like if I'm

00:21:25.800 trying to get a job and I'm bragging to the interviewer that I was really good friends with

00:21:31.120 the company's old boss. And then, and then the interviewer says, I keep hitting my cough here.

00:21:36.040 Uh, then the interview, you know, the interviewer says like, Oh, okay. Well, is he on your list of

00:21:42.080 references? What? Oh, no, no, no. I didn't put him on the, on the list. I, I, he doesn't want to

00:21:49.520 be a reference or, uh, or actually endorse me for the position, but, but trust me, he thinks I did a

00:21:54.940 great job. He told me, he told me I could tell you that, that he thinks I did a great job. You

00:21:58.940 don't have to ask him. You can't call him up anyway. It's early. He's sleeping. Oh, we could just call him

00:22:04.060 in the afternoon. No, you can't call him in the afternoon. He'll be sleeping then too. He's in a

00:22:07.280 coma. Turns out, actually, I forgot to mention, he's a boating accident, ran into a jet skier.

00:22:11.880 Very, very tragic. So just take my word for it though. Uh, so there's the, the awkward silence

00:22:19.040 there. Um, not that of course, taking credit for things you didn't do is pretty common political

00:22:26.780 strategy. So I don't think that's going to hurt him very much, but attacking the, from

00:22:34.360 his perspective, small or unimportant priorities of small town America, not a great strategy.

00:22:41.300 Another thing that's probably not a great strategy, though. I enjoy it as a viewer is, um, Biden's

00:22:48.300 penchant for insulting his potential voters to their faces. And he's been doing this a lot

00:22:55.200 recently. And really these are, this is the only time I ever like him anymore. When these videos

00:23:00.720 pop up of him randomly insulting his voters and calling them names. And it happened again over

00:23:06.820 the weekend. Here he is at a recent campaign stop, uh, yet again, launching into an insult against a

00:23:13.140 voter who, who made the mistake of asking him a question. Watch this. So how do you explain the

00:23:18.640 performance in Iowa and why should the voters believe that you can win the national election?

00:23:23.880 It's a good question. Number one, I was a democratic caucus. You ever been to a caucus?

00:23:33.060 No, you haven't. You're a lying dog face, pony soldier. You said you were, but you're now

00:23:37.700 you got to be honest. I'm going to be honest with you. It was a little bit confusing in Iowa.

00:23:43.980 Number one, but let's assume it was all, everything was exactly right in Iowa. The idea that you come

00:23:51.520 in with about half the candidates, half the delegates that the leaders come in with in Iowa does not

00:23:57.960 necessarily say how you're going to win Pennsylvania, how are you going to win Michigan? Where, by the

00:24:03.160 way, the, the, uh, black caucus of the Michigan legislature just endorsed me in spite of all of

00:24:09.220 this, where the unions have endorsed me in spite of all this, et cetera. You can't win lying dog

00:24:16.940 faced pony soldier. I don't even know what that means. I have no idea what that means, but it's a

00:24:23.460 great insult. I want to go around calling people that now I'm waiting for an opportunity to call

00:24:29.860 someone a lying dog faced pony soldier, but probably not a great thing to say to your voters, especially

00:24:36.280 a woman who you just called dog faced. And all she did was ask a really fair, respectful question, but

00:24:48.400 it's hysterical. I, I, I gotta say, I love it. I want to go to a Biden campaign event just to be roasted by

00:24:55.440 him. I think he should drop out and just become a, an insult comic. He should do, he should do those

00:25:00.740 roasts on comedy central. That should be his thing because he's good at that. All right. Um, more to

00:25:06.960 talk about, but first a quick word from stamps.com postage rates have gone up again. And, uh, thankfully

00:25:12.540 though stamps.com eases the pain with big discounts off post office retail rates with stamps.com. You save

00:25:17.900 five cents off, uh, every first class stamp and up to 40% off shipping rates. That's, you know, that kind of

00:25:24.840 savings. It really adds up after a while, especially for small businesses. Speaking of, uh, small towns,

00:25:29.380 small businesses, uh, you know, any, any savings you can do, especially on something, a routine thing

00:25:35.320 you need, you need postage, you need stamps. If you could save money on that, there's no reason not to

00:25:39.820 do it. Plus stamps.com is completely online, which saves you time. So no more trips to the post office.

00:25:45.580 You just go online, you take care of it and it's done. Stamps.com brings all the services of the

00:25:49.500 U S postal service right to your computer. Whether you're a small office sending invoices,

00:25:53.860 you're an online seller shipping out products. You're a warehouse sending thousands of packages

00:25:59.440 a day, no matter what your volume is or how big your operation or how small it is. Stamps.com

00:26:04.100 can handle it with ease. Simply use your computer to print U S uh, official U S postage 24 seven for

00:26:10.120 any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it to. Once your mail is ready,

00:26:15.340 just hand it to your mail carrier, drop it in the mailbox. It's that simple. You're done. Okay.

00:26:20.440 Stamps.com not only saves you time, it saves you money too. With stamps.com you get discounted

00:26:24.820 postage rates that you can't, uh, you can't get at the post office. So you're saving the time and

00:26:29.360 you're saving the money. Again, there's no reason to not do this right now. Uh, my listeners get a

00:26:35.800 special offer that includes a four week trial plus free postage and a digital scale without any long

00:26:41.640 term commitment. Just go to stamps.com. Click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in

00:26:47.220 Walsh that stamps.com. Um, enter Walsh stamps.com enter Walsh. Okay. Wanted to talk about this a

00:26:55.140 couple of days ago, a clip was posted of Gail King, CBS journalist, interviewing Lisa, Lisa Leslie,

00:27:02.900 who's a WNBA player and a longtime friend of Kobe Bryant. And in the clip, Gail King asks Leslie

00:27:10.900 about Kobe's rape, rape case back in 2003. Let me play that clip for you here. It's been said that

00:27:18.000 his legacy is complicated because of the sexual assault charge, which was dismissed in 2003,

00:27:24.220 2004. Is it complicated for you as a woman, as a WNBA player? It's not complicated for me at all.

00:27:32.340 Even if there's a few times that we've been at a club at the same time, Kobe's not the kind of guy,

00:27:36.860 never been like, you know, at least go get that girl or tell her or send her this. I have other

00:27:42.480 NBA friends that are like that. Kobe's, he was never like that. I just never see, have ever seen

00:27:48.760 him being the kind of person that would be, do something to violate a woman or be aggressive in

00:27:54.880 that way. That's just not the person that I know. But Lisa, you wouldn't see it though.

00:27:59.140 As his friend, you wouldn't see it. And that's possible. I just, it's just, I just don't,

00:28:05.220 I just don't believe that. And I'm not saying things didn't happen. I just don't believe

00:28:09.680 that things didn't happen with force. Is it even a fair question to talk about it,

00:28:16.240 considering he's no longer with us and that it was resolved? Or is it really part of his history?

00:28:22.540 I think that the media should be more respectful at this time. It's like, if you had questions about

00:28:32.340 it, you've had many years to ask him that. I don't think it's something that we should keep

00:28:36.980 hanging over his legacy. I mean, he went to, it went to trial. Yeah, with the cases, it was dismissed

00:28:43.600 because the victim in the case refused to testify. So it was dismissed. And I think that that's how

00:28:50.320 we should leave it. Now that was taken from a longer interview that covered the life and legacy

00:28:56.120 of Kobe Bryant. And this was just one line of questioning in an otherwise favorable segment

00:29:02.500 on Kobe Bryant. But nonetheless, people freaked out, accused King of disrespecting Kobe's memory,

00:29:11.180 et cetera, et cetera. And there were people issuing death threats and everything. As unfortunately,

00:29:16.800 we've come to expect in these situations. But one of the people that issued a threat of violence,

00:29:22.000 seemingly was Snoop Dogg, who had this to say about the interview.

00:29:26.820 Gail came out of pocket for that. Way out of pocket. What do you gain from that?

00:29:38.040 I swear to God, we the worst. We the worst. We expect more from you, Gail. Don't you hang

00:29:45.120 out with Oprah? Why y'all attacking us? We your people. You ain't coming after Harvey Weinstein.

00:29:51.980 Asking them dumb questions. I get sick of y'all. I want to call you one. Is it okay if I call

00:30:00.800 him one? Funky dog head. How dare you try to torrent my mother homeboy's reputation?

00:30:08.280 Punk mother. Respect the family and back off before we come get you.

00:30:13.960 Okay. Hopefully we can all agree that this kind of reaction is totally beyond the pale and wrong and

00:30:20.020 stupid. And hopefully we could also agree that Snoop Dogg might be the most overrated person

00:30:24.600 in the history of the music industry. My six-year-old could write more interesting lyrics than this guy.

00:30:30.600 But in any case, that aside, it should be generally agreed that threatening violence and that sort of

00:30:38.160 thing is ludicrous and morally atrocious. But I don't want to talk about the most extreme overreactions.

00:30:44.840 I want to talk about the sort of general feeling that people seem to have that after a famous person

00:30:50.880 dies, or really after anybody dies, we're immediately supposed to shove the negative aspects of their

00:30:57.840 lives into the memory hole and pretend it never happened. And that must actually be the position

00:31:04.700 of King's critics considering she's a journalist. It's two weeks since his death. She's doing an

00:31:09.980 interview. She's talking about Kobe Bryant. And she mentions it for like one minute in that interview.

00:31:17.660 People are upset about it. So I guess what they're saying is that subject should not be broached at

00:31:22.600 all. We should simply not talk about it at all. We should pretend it never happened.

00:31:26.740 When we talk about Kobe Bryant, and we talk about his life, okay, so you could talk about when he

00:31:34.460 was a kid. You could talk about when he was in high school. You could go through. But once you get to

00:31:39.900 that little episode, you've got to leapfrog right over it and continue on along. That's what people

00:31:44.880 seem to be saying, which is a problem because it's not really a little episode. It's kind of a big

00:31:52.380 episode. And I'm not saying Kobe is guilty. I don't know. I said a couple weeks ago that there

00:31:57.820 are good reasons to doubt the accusations. And that's true. But there are also compelling reasons

00:32:02.860 to potentially believe them. Such as the fact that the woman went to the police basically right away.

00:32:08.740 She didn't wait 20 years and then come out about it. She allegedly told a friend right away about it.

00:32:13.540 She had bruising on her that Kobe admitted was from choking her. She was bleeding. And he eventually

00:32:21.020 paid her off. It didn't go to trial because she decided she didn't want to testify, which maybe

00:32:27.460 that means she was lying. But it could also mean that he's a beloved sports figure and she's just a

00:32:33.000 peon like you or me. And she knows that his high power defense team is going to tear her apart and

00:32:39.300 eat her for breakfast and bring all her skeletons out of the closet. And she doesn't want to go through

00:32:43.620 that. So she backed out. So that could be it, too. We don't know. We just don't know.

00:32:54.460 Did Kobe commit the rape? I think that question is very much in the air. But it is unreasonable to

00:33:06.040 declare his innocence as if the case against him was laughable. Like it was against Kavanaugh.

00:33:14.780 And I've heard people say, oh, there's no evidence. There was no evidence against him. There was evidence.

00:33:20.380 First of all, somebody accusing you of a crime in and of itself is evidence. Now, I'm not saying it's

00:33:26.640 anything close to conclusive evidence. And depending on the circumstances, it might not be very good

00:33:31.320 evidence, like with Kavanaugh, but a witness, in this case the victim themselves, saying this person

00:33:39.760 did it, that is a piece of evidence that you have to weigh against everything else. It's just like if

00:33:44.900 you were accused of murdering somebody else and they didn't have any physical evidence, but they

00:33:50.460 had a witness saying, I saw him do it, that would be evidence. Not enough to convict you, but it is

00:33:56.340 evidence. So it's saying there's no evidence. You can't really say that. But also on top of that,

00:34:00.620 they had the bruising. They did have physical evidence. They had his own admission about choking

00:34:05.080 her. Okay. And what does it mean? It means that maybe he raped a woman, maybe he didn't. But maybe

00:34:15.100 he did. At a minimum, he was a serial adulterer by his own admission. That fact that he had affairs

00:34:23.880 doesn't completely overshadow his achievements and his good points, but it is a fact about his life.

00:34:29.740 It just is. Are we not supposed to deal with that fact at all? I'm not saying it should

00:34:36.060 be brought up in the eulogy or during the memorial service. And I, myself, was critical of the people

00:34:40.900 who immediately, within minutes of the death being reported, were online bringing it up and

00:34:47.400 calling him a rapist and so on and so forth. That, to me, is obviously inappropriate, especially

00:34:53.260 when you consider it wasn't just him who died. It was his daughter. It was eight other people

00:34:57.040 besides. So to immediately, within minutes, the first thing you're doing is saying, oh,

00:35:03.220 remember his rape case. To me, obviously inappropriate. But does that mean we're never

00:35:08.560 supposed to talk about those things ever again? We're supposed to rewrite his life story? His story,

00:35:15.280 you know, we're supposed to turn it into something more palatable, more family-friendly because we're

00:35:19.880 uncomfortable with this detail. And this is what we do with death. We lie. We ignore. We make posthumous

00:35:28.040 alterations to people's lives. We canonize almost everybody who dies. Not everyone. And this

00:35:35.160 determination can be a little arbitrary, right? Because there are some people who die, and for them,

00:35:41.160 the negatives are the only things we remember. For example, he's not dead yet, but what do you

00:35:48.440 think is going to happen when OJ dies? You think people are going to observe a respectful silence

00:35:54.080 about his murder trial? No, it's going to be the first thing. It's going to be in the headlines,

00:35:59.880 right? Accused murderer OJ Simpson dies. That's going to be the headline. That's going to be the main

00:36:06.460 thing people talk about with him. But OJ Simpson was a sports legend, too. He was an icon before

00:36:11.580 the murder charge. He was not only an icon in sports, but after that in pop culture. He starred

00:36:18.700 in movies. He was a beloved figure. And he was found not guilty. I think he was guilty, but none of

00:36:26.500 us can ever really know. Yet for him, I think we all know it's going to be different. What about when

00:36:31.080 Paterno died? The Penn State rape scandal was very much at the forefront of our discussion about him.

00:36:37.180 Even though he had this long, very long career and had done many great things in the community and

00:36:43.500 many great things for the kids who played for him. But the main thing we talked about was this.

00:36:49.280 So I think there's some arbitrariness to this. The people that we decide after they die, oh,

00:36:56.200 they're a saint and that's all we're going to say. And then there are other people who die and we say,

00:37:00.560 okay, well, here's the one bad thing they maybe did. And that's the only thing we're going to talk

00:37:04.240 about it. So it's pretty arbitrary. Generally, though, with dead people, what we do is we usually

00:37:10.440 go the positive direction and we do these rewrites, these edits, where it's not just that we ignore

00:37:16.960 the bad, but we actually implicitly deny that the bad ever happened. And with famous people,

00:37:23.560 this process can happen very fast and it can be very extreme to the point that with someone like Kobe,

00:37:30.100 the posthumous canonization and sanctification and whitewashing goes way, way, way overboard,

00:37:37.680 way overboard. We go from remembering a great ball player to suddenly we're talking about the dude

00:37:45.020 like he's Mother Teresa with ball handling skills. Like he's basically a basketball playing Mother Teresa.

00:37:50.300 I mean, people who didn't even know him go around talking about, oh, he's a great husband,

00:37:57.880 great family man, which maybe he was. Maybe he was. But I mean, I don't know. Most of us have no idea.

00:38:05.840 And I mean, and if he was a great husband, it was after the adultery and the potential rape. So

00:38:11.580 maybe after that, he became a great husband. Maybe he did. You know, I don't know.

00:38:14.880 But I just don't get how people feel entitled after someone dies. They feel like, well, as long

00:38:24.180 as I'm saying something positive, I can basically lie about the person and I can make up details that

00:38:28.420 I couldn't possibly know to be true. As long as it's positive, I can do it. And I can throw out,

00:38:35.920 I can discard the bad things that I do know about. I just throw it out. I mean, I just pretend it didn't

00:38:42.620 happen. And why? You know, what's the point? Like I said, we do this with non-famous people, too.

00:38:50.180 Many of us have seen this process play out closer to home. Somebody dies, someone close,

00:38:57.480 someone who was definitely human, you know, had serious flaws, as all of us do. Maybe someone who

00:39:04.640 was a bit of a selfish jerk, if we're being honest, or had that side to them. Maybe it's an older person

00:39:11.300 who, in truth, really wasn't the greatest mother or the greatest father, actually was kind of

00:39:16.540 self-absorbed, actually kind of neglected the kids for long periods of time, was kind of emotionally

00:39:21.880 absent. And then they die. And almost immediately in our conversations, they become someone who bears

00:39:28.380 no resemblance to the person who really lived. We start rewriting them, right?

00:39:33.960 It's not merely a matter of focusing on the good in the immediate aftermath, which, of course,

00:39:43.480 you're going to do. And like I said, in the eulogy, at the funeral, in the hospital, if the person dies

00:39:49.020 in the hospital, the things you're talking about. So in those immediate moments, in those emotionally

00:39:52.780 charged moments, yeah, you're talking about the positive. And that's a normal thing to do. But the

00:39:56.500 problem is that so often with death, when somebody dies, we begin that rewriting process,

00:40:02.500 not just in the immediate aftermath, but that's how it stays forever in our memory. We have turned

00:40:08.080 this person into someone that they weren't. I think we shouldn't do this. We think we're

00:40:17.240 respecting the dead when we do this, but we're not. We're lying. Would you respect a living person

00:40:24.100 today by telling lies about them? By making up facts about them? By trying to improve them?

00:40:30.320 By lying about them? How is that respect? It's the opposite. Because part of respecting

00:40:36.980 something or someone is to recognize it for what it is. And that's why respect has multiple

00:40:42.520 connotations. We also talk about, if you're going for a walk in the woods in Montana, you should

00:40:48.000 respect the bears that are in Montana by bringing some bear spray with you. Now, respect here means

00:40:54.160 not admiration, but recognition of what a bear is, what its presence means. Well, I think we should

00:41:01.620 respect people, alive and dead, in the same way, recognizing them for what they are or what they

00:41:07.160 were, who they were, who they are, letting them exist, whether in reality or in our memory,

00:41:14.340 authentically. We should pay them that respect of letting them be who they are or who they were

00:41:21.720 and trying to remember them that way. It can be difficult, of course, with people that are close

00:41:27.540 to you. But with famous people, it shouldn't be that hard because we're not, yes, they were a part

00:41:34.380 of our lives in some way, but only in a very distant kind of way. We had no real connection with them.

00:41:39.500 All right. So I, you know, with someone like Kobe Bryant, I guess my, to summarize, I don't see

00:41:49.840 why, why can't we say, what's wrong when talking about Kobe? What's wrong with saying great basketball

00:41:56.420 player, legend of the game, did a lot of great things in the community. His family seems to have

00:42:03.720 loved him. His community seems to have loved him. But he had a dark side and he was credibly accused

00:42:13.300 of rape and he was not always a loyal husband. Yeah. Why can't it be that? Yes, that's not very

00:42:22.200 neat. It's not, it's not a neat picture of a person. You can't wrap a nice bow on it. And it's hard when

00:42:28.060 you, when you, when you acknowledge that about someone, it's hard to turn them into a, into a

00:42:32.580 historic hero that, that can be worshiped and that you could build monuments to. It's true.

00:42:38.240 But he's a person. That's how people are. It's, it's really difficult. Most people are not neat like

00:42:43.580 that.

00:42:43.880 Um, I want to go to emails, but first a word from Honey. Here's the thing with Honey. Uh,

00:42:57.080 they're trying to save you money. That's all they want to do. And there's no reason to decline the

00:43:00.860 invitation. If you shop online, which we all do in the year 2020, uh, you got to have Honey. I think

00:43:06.160 it's, it's a, it's a must. You know that Honey is the free online shopping tool that automatically

00:43:10.620 finds the best promo codes and applies them to your cart. And you know how great it feels to save,

00:43:16.440 but how does it feel to save with Honey is the question. Well, I think saving with Honey feels

00:43:21.120 like hitting every green light on your commute to work, finishing up the podcast right as you walk

00:43:28.480 into work or getting stuck in the middle seat on a plane, but then the person in the aisle doesn't

00:43:33.560 show up. And so you get to move over just like that. Uh, feels great. In other words, a little,

00:43:39.300 little small, tiny victory. Remember also Valentine's day is coming up and, uh, it's not

00:43:44.320 too late to buy a gift online. And of course the, the very definition of love is to buy

00:43:49.400 gifts for someone at the last minute. So go ahead and do that. But as you're buying those gifts online

00:43:55.180 for Valentine's day, make sure to save some money by using Honey. Honey has found a, it's over 18

00:44:00.340 million members, over $2 billion in savings. Did you know, Honey supports over 30,000 stores online,

00:44:05.940 including Macy's, Target, Sephora, Best Buy, many more than that. And every day they're adding more.

00:44:12.000 So it's only going to get better. Using Honey feels pretty great. Think of it as a little daily

00:44:16.560 victory, a little savings, sometimes big savings, you know, plus it's free to use and installs in

00:44:21.260 just a few seconds. Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Walsh. That's joinhoney.com slash Walsh.

00:44:27.700 All right. Let's go to emails. Uh, Matt Walsh show at gmail.com. Matt Walsh show at gmail.com.

00:44:34.760 A lot of interesting ones. I'm just going to read one email to wrap up this conversation that

00:44:40.020 I wasn't expecting so much feedback and participation in it. But this, this thing about

00:44:48.140 the, the simulation theory, the theory that we're all living in a simulation. None of us are real.

00:44:54.480 We're like virtual reality. We're not even that, but we're, we're, we're, we're like video game

00:44:58.360 characters. Basically, this is a theory that some people have postulated. And apparently it has,

00:45:04.620 it has at least based on my inbox right now, it has a fair number of, uh, of advocates, or at least

00:45:10.260 not, if, if not advocates, at least people who take it seriously. And so we were talking about that.

00:45:15.340 Let me, uh, read one email from, who is this from?

00:45:22.800 From Matt. Uh, says, hi, Matt. I was listening to your rebuttal of simulation theory and couldn't

00:45:31.640 help but feel like you missed the point a bit. Bostrom postulates that one of the following must

00:45:36.160 necessarily be true. One, the fraction of human level civilizations that reach a post-human stage,

00:45:42.300 that is one capable of running high fidelity ancestor simulations is very close to zero or

00:45:47.480 two, the fraction of post-human civilizations that are interested in running simulations of their

00:45:52.080 evolutionary history or variations thereof is very close to zero or three, the fraction of all people

00:45:57.400 with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one. Again, one of

00:46:02.540 these must be true. Therefore, your criticism that the theory ignores probability misses the mark

00:46:06.700 as the argument is entirely based on probability. Your argument about Sims and Mario and other video

00:46:12.240 game characters doesn't work because the simulated humans postulated in theory would be designed by

00:46:16.600 post-humans who possess technology far beyond our comprehension. We aren't talking about some

00:46:22.260 low-powered Nintendo or Xbox where the goal is to just play a game. Personally, I find the first

00:46:27.140 choice of the three entirely possible. Humanity just won't get to the stage where we are able to do

00:46:31.720 that because we'll be wiped out by ourselves or others before it happens. The second choice seems

00:46:35.940 highly unlikely to me. If we get to a post-human stage where we have the technology to run advanced

00:46:40.100 ancestor simulations of humans throughout history to find out what makes them tick, we'll almost

00:46:45.040 certainly do so because that is the exploratory nature of humans and I see no reason to assume

00:46:50.120 that we will lose that over time. Therefore, if we do reach the stage in our evolution or have already

00:46:55.440 reached that stage and we just don't know it because we are in one of their simulations, the number of

00:46:59.820 simulated minds will no doubt outnumber the number of real minds by a staggering order of magnitude

00:47:04.600 because of all the different simulations people throughout the world will be running. Therefore, it is

00:47:08.760 probable that we are more likely simulated than not assuming we aren't going to be wiped out before

00:47:14.600 creating advanced simulation technology. When Rogan interviewed Bostrom, he was unable to get past the

00:47:20.080 question, why assume any of these three statements are true? Keep in mind that one of these three

00:47:24.660 statements has to be correct. This is not the same as assuming there's a pink unicorn circling the

00:47:29.460 earth or something like that. Thanks, love the show. Okay, so I basically what you're saying is

00:47:36.960 probability wise, either we are simulated people and not real, or humanity is going to be wiped out

00:47:44.880 in some sort of nuclear catastrophe or something like that. Those are the two, those are the two

00:47:52.300 possibilities. That's all we get. Rather, rather grim. I like it. I like grim. I like grim.

00:47:57.900 Um, so, okay, I, I, I do understand the point of the simulation theory, but maybe, maybe my rebuttal

00:48:07.340 was, was off in the weeds. So let me try to refocus more on the point. So the, the argument is, if I can

00:48:13.420 simplify here, that there's this idea of a simulation that a future society might run simulating the past

00:48:19.880 so they can observe and see what it was like. And, and maybe we are currently in that simulation.

00:48:24.980 We are characters in it. And a future civilization is watching us, hoping that we don't catch on,

00:48:31.220 or maybe hoping that we do. I don't know. As Bostrom says, either society never develops the

00:48:36.700 ability to create the simulation, and thus we aren't in one, or it develops the ability and

00:48:41.320 decides not to, and thus we aren't in one, or society develops the ability to create one and does,

00:48:46.400 and thus we might be in one. Okay. Well, yes, I agree that those are the options.

00:48:55.060 But then those are the options for any imaginary technological ability that I might conjure in my

00:49:00.280 head. I could do this with literally anything. Do you see the problem? For example, I could say,

00:49:05.440 either society never develops the ability to put dogs in a dream state where they think they're human,

00:49:11.000 and then imagine a human life with human experiences and human memories, or it develops that ability

00:49:16.180 and decides not to, or it develops that ability and decides to do it, and thus I might actually be

00:49:21.760 a dog in a laboratory dreaming of a human existence. That's, you have to admit, right, that those are the

00:49:29.820 options. One of them must be true, which means you must admit that there's at least a chance that we're

00:49:37.200 all a bunch of dogs dreaming. You can't prove you're not. That is, theoretically, technology that

00:49:46.700 could be developed. Or maybe I'm just, maybe I'm the only real dog, and you're all figments of my

00:49:53.040 imagination. Who knows? Now, you could say that the ancestor simulation is more likely than the dog

00:50:00.380 thing, but why would you say that? I think that to me seems utterly arbitrary, because they're both

00:50:05.640 entirely imaginary, invented hypotheticals. There is no actual evidence for either. There's no reason

00:50:13.240 to believe it. As in, you haven't seen anything in your life for which the best explanation of that

00:50:19.960 particular thing in isolation is the simulation. Okay? You've never experienced in your life a single

00:50:27.360 thing where you could say, okay, the best explanation for this phenomena is that we're in a simulation.

00:50:33.580 Everything you see and experience can easily be explained by your physical and real existence.

00:50:41.640 So there just isn't any reason to think that there's anything beyond that.

00:50:46.720 Or that, you know, there isn't any reason to postulate anything besides that you exist physically,

00:50:53.220 and that's why you're experiencing stuff. And that's another problem with the theory.

00:50:57.020 That the simulation to be worth doing would have to function exactly like real life, right?

00:51:04.120 Which means you can't say that there's something in your life that would be best explained by the

00:51:08.380 simulation, because if the simulation seems like a simulation, then there's no point to it. Which

00:51:13.880 means that even if we're in the simulation, there could never be any reason to think we are,

00:51:18.500 by definition. So even if it's true, by far the most rational thing, regardless, is to still assume

00:51:25.040 that it isn't true. Which makes the theory useless, at best, because if it isn't true,

00:51:32.680 it has no explanatory power. And if it is true, it has no explanatory power. That's the thing about

00:51:37.420 a theory. See, an actual theory has to explain something. It has to have explanatory power,

00:51:43.120 as in, you know, you come up with this theory, and now you're looking around the world at stuff,

00:51:47.260 and you say, okay, well, this makes sense now. That's what a theory does. But by definition,

00:51:53.000 this simulation hypothesis can have no explanatory power. Because again, if it does,

00:51:59.760 then that means that the simulation in some way seems like a simulation, which means it's a bad

00:52:03.680 simulation, and there's no point to it. I mean, why would you have a simulation to see how people

00:52:08.120 operated in the past if they know they're in the simulation, and then that's going to throw off

00:52:13.360 everything? There's no point to doing it, right? Also, you still haven't explained how a simulated

00:52:20.020 being could have conscious experiences. And you can't just say, well, technology will figure that

00:52:24.900 out. I mean, you can say that, but it's literally a deus ex machina. You're invoking some random

00:52:32.180 unexplained machine or tech to explain this massive hole in your theory.

00:52:37.120 How could a simulated being have inner experience?

00:52:40.520 It would seem that a simulated being could not have inner experience, because inner experiences

00:52:45.660 are themselves, in effect, simulations. Your brain, organic matter, this is the only way we know

00:52:51.300 how consciousness works. Your brain, organic matter, takes bits of information from reality,

00:53:00.560 reconstructs it in your mind, so that really, we're all sort of hallucinating all the time.

00:53:06.180 We're all experiencing a hallucination every second of the day, in effect.

00:53:09.720 Because our brain is reconstructing from all the billions and trillions of bits of information,

00:53:15.200 it's reconstructing. And this is how illusions and things work, by manipulating what your

00:53:24.580 brain predicts. So that means the simulated beings would have themselves the capacity to

00:53:31.780 simulate. We are then simulated beings building simulations of the simulation. You see how absurd

00:53:38.440 this gets? Especially when there is no known way, even in theory, to build such a machine.

00:53:45.480 Now, we know of ways, in theory, to travel across the galaxy, even if we have to use wormholes,

00:53:50.980 which are also theoretical. But in theory, we understand how that could work.

00:53:59.520 Nobody, even in theory, could tell you how it could work for a machine to create simulated

00:54:06.080 beings that have consciousness. Because we're not even talking about robots. I mean, you could

00:54:12.220 sooner argue that we're all a bunch of lifelike robots. I mean, why not argue that? You could do

00:54:16.080 the same exact thing with that. And at least robots are material. Now, I still think that putting

00:54:25.200 consciousness in a robot is impossible. But the idea of having consciousness sort of hovering in

00:54:30.600 the ether with these simulated beings, we have no way, in theory, of doing that.

00:54:37.760 One other thing. If humanity is moving inexorably towards building simulations with conscious

00:54:41.840 experiences, which I don't think it is, and honestly, I think my dreaming dog theory is just

00:54:46.020 as likely. But if it is, then wouldn't the simulation be headed in that direction, too? So

00:54:51.220 wouldn't the simulation build simulations? And then the simulations in the simulations

00:54:55.400 would also build simulations. And then the simulations in the simulations would build

00:54:58.640 simulations in the simulation. On and on and on. So maybe we're the simulation of a simulation

00:55:04.240 of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation of a simulation

00:55:07.880 and maybe all of this simulating is happening in the mind of a dreaming dog. Maybe. But there's

00:55:15.920 no reason to think any of this. There's no tangible evidence. So that's my answer. As fun

00:55:24.080 as it is to think about, at least for me. You know, for me and you and some people emailing,

00:55:28.600 it's fun to think about and talk about. I suspect that may be boring everyone else to death. So I

00:55:33.520 will leave it there. Thanks, everybody, for watching. Thanks for listening. Have a great day.

00:55:38.300 Godspeed.

00:55:45.920 The Word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're

00:55:49.560 available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the

00:55:54.800 other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew

00:55:59.020 Klavan Show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer

00:56:04.780 Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, supervising producer Mathis Glover, supervising

00:56:10.060 producer Robert Sterling, technical producer Austin Stevens, editor Donovan Fowler, audio mixer

00:56:15.680 Robin Fenderson. The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.

00:56:21.400 Hey, everyone. It's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show, while Joaquin Phoenix won

00:56:25.760 the Oscar for Joker and made a speech denouncing milk. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking,

00:56:30.780 Klavan, the stuff you invent just cracks me up. Nope, it really happened. And I will tell

00:56:35.740 you what it all means on The Andrew Klavan Show. I'm Andrew Klavan.

The Matt Walsh Show - February 10, 2020

Ep. 423 - The Incredible Heroism Of Hollywood

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript