Matt Walsh (24:46)
Okay, so a bunch of things to go over here. First of all, Bill Maher, as usual, is defending basically the weakest version of the right side of this argument. The fact that me and Bill Maher are ostensibly on the same side of the trans debate is just a reflection of how insane the left has gotten. Of course, because in actuality, Mars still has a leftist view of the trans issue. You know, that's the crazy thing is that he's seen as this kind of voice of reason on the trans stuff, but. And he is in comparison to like the guy that he was just talking to. He is. But he still has a liberal view of the issue, which, by the way, I don't Think he. I don't think he would object to that characterization. He doesn't object. He doesn't object to. He is a liberal. I don't think he would deny that. So now he objects, for the most part, to castrating kids, which is good that he objects to that. But he doesn't really deny the validity of transgenderism in principle. Right. That's the point. Because that is, if there's a quote unquote conservative position on this, it's not just that, oh, we shouldn't be harming kids, it's that transgenderism itself is a category error. The category itself is made up. That's the conservative position. That's not Bill Maher's position. In fact, I believe he said recently, in the last couple of weeks, that the right goes too far when they say that sex is only male and female. He kind of alluded to it there, where he said that, you know, his position is basically like, most of the time, you can tell if a baby is male or female from birth. But that's not always the case. It's not always the default setting. So he thinks there are exceptions. Which means that mars position on transgenderism is the left wing position of 15 or 20 years ago. The difference is that he did not keep sliding insanely to the left. He just stayed in his spot while the rest of the left drifted that way. And that's what makes Maher the reasonable one in all these conversations. It's not that he's conservative at all. It's that he's the exact same liberal that he was 15 years ago. He has the exact same liberal positions that he did 15 years ago. His progressivism did not progress. It didn't go into remission either. It just kind of stayed in one spot. And that's important to emphasize, because whenever you see Marr debating transgenderism with a leftist, you have to remember that the position he's defending is actually a very liberal position. But it's still too much. It's too conservative, it's too sane for the more left wing person he's arguing with. That's always the dynamic in these conversations we've seen, and that's the dynamic here. And then we hear from the other guy, John Lovett, and his answer, as expected, is a total mess. First of all, he says, hey, remember when conservatives claimed. Claimed that LGBT activists were recruiting kids? That was crazy. That turned out to be false. Right? So clearly what they're saying now about the trans stuff is also false. And his point is that conservatives were obviously wrong about LGBT activists recruiting kids, which means that they're also wrong about the trans stuff. Except that we weren't wrong about kids being recruited. That's exactly what happened. Yeah, you're right. We did claim that, and we have been proven correct. That's why you see an explosion in LGBT identification over the past 10 years. The last number I saw this was in a poll, Gallup poll in April or March or April of 2024. I think maybe there's been a more recent one. But the number was about 20% of Gen Z identifies as LGBT. And you hear these kind of numbers. Maybe you hear them so much you get numb to them. But really think about that. 20%, 20% of the entire generation identifies as LGBT. That is double the LGBT identification rate among millennials and, like, 20 times the number among boomers, which would be their grandparents. So how did that happen? How does that happen? Well, it happens because there was a concerted effort to use the public school system and the media and Hollywood and so on, and social media to indoctrinate children into this lifestyle. Again, think about this in the terms of theories, okay? A good theory should have predictive power. If a theory is true, then I should be able to, based on this theory, predict what will happen in the future if my theory is true. So take the idea that children are being indoctrinated into the LGBT lifestyle, that there's an actual recruitment effort underway to indoctrinate and brainwash kids into this. Somebody like myself who has made this claim for years, is putting forward a theory, and that theory predicts if it's true. It predicts that we should see a massive disproportionate jump in LGBT identification in the generation that is being indoctrinated. So if we're going around claiming that, hey, they're indoctrinating kids into LGBT lifestyle, and then you look at the numbers and you see, yeah, well, yeah, but kids, this. This youngest generation, they identify as LGBT at about the same rate as, you know, the last ten generations before them. And if that was the case, then that would be a fact that really disproves the theory that kids are being indoctrinated. Then there's just. There's no evidence of it, except that we do see this massive jump. The thing that our theory predicts came true, which is very good evidence that the theory itself is true. So John's argument, if you can call it that, falls apart already. And then he starts droning on about studies. He says that gender affirming care, quote, unquote, Saves lives and studies prove it. Again, simply false. We've gone over these studies many times and all of the studies, and I mean all of them, literally all of them, that allegedly prove the efficacy of quote unquote, gender affirming care. All of these studies are bunk. The methodology is insane in all of them. Often these are studies funded by people who have a vested financial interest in a certain outcome. And the studies are, as I always point out, are impossible anyway. I mean it's actually impossible to have. Even at this point, even at this point, it is impossible to have a reliable study that proves the efficacy of this quote unquote treatment. And that's because the question has always been, it's not really a question, you know, to normal people, to sane people it's not a question. But just using the term loosely, the question has always been about the long term effects of sterilizing and castrating somebody and trying to change their gender. The question is the long term effect. How they feel about it a month later is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. How they feel about it a year later is irrelevant five years later. Even that is not really the question. Although a lot of them a year later or five years later will regret it. The regret sets in very, very quickly for many of these people. But even that's not the question. The question is what is their life going to be like 20 years from now? Especially if this is being done at 13 years old. If you've got a 13 year old kid who was quote unquote transitioned, well, checking in with that 13 year old when he's 15 isn't going to tell us much. He's still a kid. So no, what I want to know is that 13 year old kid, how is he doing when he's 35? When he's a full grown man, how is the 35 year old version of that 13 year old kid feeling about the fact that he can't have kids ever and he's stuck in this body that is still male and will never be female, but is sort of in this state of like permanent prepubescence. How does he feel about that as a 35 year old man? How does a 13 year old girl feel, feel when she's 35? How does the 35 year old version of that 13 year old girl feel about not having breasts and not being able to ever bear children? What that means is that we are still like 10 years away from being able to do any kind of reliable follow up with the, you know, for lack of a better term, the first batch of kids who this stuff was done to en masse. We're a decade away from being able to even follow up in any kind of meaningful way. Which is why all along there were two options. One of them is, well, let's just do this to a whole bunch of kids and hope it works out and use them as lab rats and check back in two decades and see how their lives are working out. That's one option. That's the insane, you know, mad scientist option where you are using human beings as lab rats and performing human experiments. That's one option. The other option is to use your common sense and say, well, no, I don't need to check back. Like I already know that. It's not going to improve their lives or their well being in the long run or even the short run to mutilate their bodies and interfere with its natural processes. So you can just use common sense. Your basic common sense will tell you that. Your basic human, basic human decency tells you that, or should. Anyway. Let's see. Daily Mail headline Airlines could soon charge overweight passengers more for plane tickets. Do you agree? A debate is brewing over whether airlines should adopt weight based pricing, charging passengers based on their weight to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. This discussion follows a broader trend of US airlines implementing fees for checked baggage. While Samoa Air's 2013 fat tax failed to gain traction, Finnair recently conducted a three month voluntary data collection initiative gathering passengers weight along with their carry on luggage. This anonymized data, including age, gender and travel class, will be used to refine aircraft balance and loading calculations from 2025 to 2030. A separate study of about 1,000 U.S. adults examined the public's reaction to three pricing models. The current system, a weight threshold model and a body weight model. Okay, so there's no actual story here. The headline makes it sound like there's an airline actually adopting a policy of charging fat passengers extra. It doesn't sound like that's actually going to happen anytime soon, but should it happen? Yeah, absolutely it should. Obviously. Obviously it should happen. And the policy should be pretty simple. If you're over a certain weight, you should have to buy two seats. And then you'll actually get two seats, right? And you'll get the middle seat of your row and either the aisle or window. That's the most fair thing. It'll also be the more comfortable thing for everybody involved. But requiring another passenger to be squeezed into a seat and pressed against the body of a morbidly obese person, I mean, it's Just it's inhumane. It really is. And I don't use that word lightly, but it is inhumane. If I'm paying for a ticket on an airplane. And this is bare minimums, bare minimum stuff. If I'm paying for a ticket on an airplane, I should not have to make bodily contact with another person for the whole flight. No part of my body should have to be in constant contact with a stranger. But that's what ends up happening if you get seated right next to a morbidly obese person because their body is spilling over into your space. Now there are some nuances to work out. What is the weight limit? You know, is a question. How do you adjust it according to height? Do you adjust it? We can figure that out. I mean, I'm inclined to say that it should be something pretty simple, like if you're over. Pretty simple. And I also think it could be generous. You know, I'm not saying that there should be. You have to be under £200 or you got to pay extra because there are also plenty of people that could be over 200 pounds and not actually overweight. So let's just say 350 pounds I think is a pretty, that's a pretty, pretty generous bar, I think. £350. If you're over that, you have to pay for an extra seat. And that would include a small number of very tall people who are 350 pounds and not overweight or not that overweight. I would say even they should have to pay extra even though it's not their fault. You know, that's not their fault. But these are people who are so big that again, requiring someone to sit right next to them means that you're not even. I paid for a seat. I don't even get my whole seat because this huge person is sitting right next to me and spilling over into it, which is just not right. So to me that's a pretty simple solution. Could it create awkward situations? Yeah. And it would mean that there would have to be some kind of scale in the airport. Like they have, you know, they have those kind of bins so you can measure your carry on and make sure it's the right size. There would need to be something like that, but for people. And it would mean that if you are a fat person and you go to the airport and it's not clear just by looking at you if you're over 350 or under it. Yeah. You'd have to get on a scale at the airport. It would be very humiliating, but hopefully it's a wake up call. That's the other advantage to something like this. It's a fairer system. It makes more sense and you're not setting out to humiliate people. But if that happens, then it becomes also an incentive. That's a pretty good incentive to lose weight, isn't it? If you knew that you're going to be traveling in six months because you're going to a wedding or something and that you might get weighed at the airport. I can't think of a better incentive to lose weight. So I think it's a win win across the board. Let's get to the comment section. Congratulations, you're the unwitting star of the Internet's most invasive reality show, where data brokers are auctioning off your personal information to whoever's got pocket change and Internet connection. Your name, address, Social Security number are floating around out there like a chain email from 2002 that just won't die. And these data brokers, well, they're building their empire on your While you're fending off endless spam calls and suspicious emails, they're profiting from every detail of your life that they can get their hands on. However, I recently found a solution in a service called DeleteMe. DeleteMe is a subscription service that removes your personal info from hundreds of data brokers. Which is great because I have better things to do with my time than chase my personal information across the Internet's endless databases. You tell Deleteme what information you want gone and their experts handle the cleanup. They'll send you detailed reports showing exactly where they found your information and what they've removed. And unlike those unsubscribe buttons that never seem to work, DeleteMe actually stays on the job, constantly monitoring and removing your personal information. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme now at a special discount for our listeners. Today you can get 20% off your delete me plan by texting Walsh to 64,000. Text Walsh to 64,000. That's Walsh to 64,000. Message data rates may apply. See terms for details. I too had to rewind to make sure that was a smoke detector beeping. How do people live with that CONSTANT BEEPING NOISE? 95% of the comments for the show yesterday were about the smoke detector beeping in the video of the IRS employee crying about losing his job. So that's about 95% of the comments were about the smoke detector. And I have no idea. I Don't know how people can live with the beeping noise. It drives me insane. I can't deal with it. And usually it's a pretty simple fix. You just change the batteries. Look, why is this such an accurate stereotype? I have no idea. I mean, the funny thing about the video yesterday, of course, is that there's this long running Internet meme that if you're a very online person, as I said, Liam, you're quite aware of it. This sort of running joke about videos of black people in their homes. And there's often a smoke detector beeping in the background. And that meme, that stereotype exists for a reason. It's definitely a trend. I don't know why, but it's a thing. I mean, it's certainly a thing. We all know that it's a thing. Actually, I've thought about this, and my theory up to now has been. I mean, just to be totally frank, my theory has been that fatherlessness is endemic in the Black community. It's 70 or 80%, and dads are the ones who usually change the smoke detector batteries. I mean, that's, that's. That's kind of been my theory. Now, in that video, it was a grown adult man who. Whose smoke detector was beeping. So that doesn't really explain that video. But generally speaking, I kind of think that's. That's why, I mean, someone should do a study on that, you know, taking different demographics and then looking at their fatherlessness rate and then comparing that to, on average, how long a smoke detector is allowed to beep in the home before someone changes the batteries. That's. That is a study that someone should do. And we should. USAID should fund that study. Should put. Should put $40 million into that study. Some professions, like nursing and nearly every other patient care staff, have to document what the heck they're doing in critical and excruciating detail throughout an even routine shift, hour by hour, if not by minute, with others basing later care on what they write as well. Nobody with writer block there. Well, yeah, now you know that you're being oppressed, that you have to. You're expected to give an account of what you've done at work. So you didn't know that you're being oppressed, but now you know, so that's a good thing to know. I tried doing the obligatory quarantine beer during COVID and gave up six days in because it was freaking ridiculous looking and itchy as f. I'm sorry, you said six days. Was that a typo did you miss the zero? Because you must have meant 60 days, right? I mean, you're not actually coming to me. You're not leaving a comment under my show claiming that you tried. You tried to grow a beard for six days. You don't expect me to accept that excuse, do you? Six days is trying. That's not trying. You didn't even. You barely got to the point of itchiness. I mean, you had one itch and you turned back. I just explained. Yesterday, you hit the itchiness wall, the itchiness threshold. When you're growing a beard and you have to push through it, it will take a couple of weeks. But you didn't even. You didn't make it one day into the itchiness. The itchiness set in and you immediate. You panicked. It looks ridiculous. Yeah. For six. You're six days in. Yes. For the first few days, you're gonna look like you're just lazy and you forgot to shave. For the first few days, you're gonna look just unshaven, as opposed to bearded. Right? You go from a shaven person to. To unshaven looking and then bearded. So you were very much smack dab in the middle of the unshaven period. You didn't even get to bearded. You never had a beard. You just had stubble. You tried. Don't give me that. I don't want to hear that. How dare you. You're banned from the show. Obviously you're not. Stop listening to the show with that kind of weak sauce. Grow. Grow a beard. Give it. Give it three weeks, and then you'll be allowed to listen to the show again. Matt, you're so wrong. Each Lord of the Rings movie is three and a half hours long or longer, and that's more than justified. But I'll concede that no other movie has any right to be that long. A lot of comments about this, too, saying, you know, I said no movie should be three and a half hours long like the Brutalist that awful movie was. And a few attempts to come up with exceptions to the rule. And Lord of the Rings was mentioned by several people. Sorry. Not only is Lord of the Rings not an exception, but it's actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Okay, so let's just take Return of the King, which I think was the longest one of all three movies, and I like those movies, by the way. But the theatrical release. The theatrical release of Return of the King was about three and a half hours. It was about what the Brutalist is, and Then there are all these extended cuts that are four and a half hours long, which is just obscene. That's offensive. I'm offended. If I pick up the Blu Ray. Not that I watch Blu Ray anymore, but. And it says four and a half hours long. I'm offended by that. That's so insanely long. How would you. How do you. That you would dare even sell that? That you would put that on the shelf for anyone to watch? Four and a half hours. So. But no, let's just take three and a half hours. That was too long. That was way too long. Okay. That. You could have cut Return of the King. You could have cut at least 45 minutes out of that movie. At least 45 minutes. And it would have been a better movie. And if you cut 45 minutes, it's still a movie. That's 2 hours and 45 minutes long. It's still a long movie. I mean, 2 hours and 45 minutes is a long freaking movie. So can you. Can you just cut it down from epic marathon length to very long? Can we just make that. It would be a better movie. Quite infamously, the movie has three endings. Let's start with that. Just pick one. You don't need three. Okay? Pick one ending. I mean, the movie really ends with Frodo and Sam. They're, you know, they're stranded on the rock and the lava's all around and then the bird comes and picks them up. And as many people, so many people, of course, have pointed out, and it is true, it's a major plot hole that, well, why didn't they just ride the bird to Mordor, this movie? So we get between the three movies, we get like 12 hours of screen time. It could have been 30 minutes total if they just hopped on the bird, go drop the ring off in the volcano or whatever, and they'd be fine. But fine. So the bird picks them up and they're flying away on the bird into the sunset. You know, last shot, you've got the. They're flying away from. You get the lava and everything and Mordor's collapsing. But then you see them on the bird and they're going off into the distance and you see it's green and green pastures ahead and it's a great closing shot and it kind of. It tells you everything you need to know. We don't need to then, see, oh, now he's laying in bed and he's meeting and he sees his friends again and he's happy and he's jumping on the bed and hugging Them like, I know that that's gonna happen. I don't need to actually see it. And then we get another scene where everybody is congratulating Frodo. Again, we get like five scenes after the end of people congratulating Frodo, which, again, we get it and is. And it's even more grating because Frodo didn't even do a good job in the first place. He whined like a baby the entire time. And then he tried to turn back at the last moment and not even do the job. And it only happened because Gollum tackled him. So by accident, he actually completed the journey. And then we gotta go through 45 minutes of just watching people kiss this guy's ass. It was a little bit. It's a little much. It's a little much. So you could have cut that and. And you could have cut from Return of the King. And this, to me is a problem with the movie that almost ruins it for me entirely is the whole subplot of the Ghost Soldiers, or whatever it was where Aragon goes and Aragorn goes and recruits these ghost soldiers to go and fight the big battle at the end. And you could have cut the whole thing with the ghost soldiers and that would have saved you 40 minutes or so, probably. And then you lose this massive plot hole, which is that the ghost soldiers show up halfway through the battle. I don't know why they're late. And then they just go. It's pretty lame. We get this great battle scene, and then the ghost soldiers show up and they just go through. They're like swarming army ants. And they easily kill everybody. They kill all the bad guys and the battle's over. And they're able to easily kill everyone because they're already dead. They're invincible, right? They're these corporeal creatures that can't be harmed, can't be killed. There's no stakes for them in the battle. They got literally nothing to lose. They're already dead. So why didn't you just get the Ghost Soldiers from the beginning? You could have had the ghost soldiers fight every battle through all three movies. They would have easily won. Again, the movie's over in an hour. And then at the end of that, Aragorn is like, oh, you've proven yourself in battle. Ghost Soldiers, be free now. How do they prove themselves? It required no courage for them to fight that battle. They were already dead. And they're hanging out in a cave somewhere for eternity. So you did them a favor. I mean, they're both. They're both. They're bored to death, literally hanging out in a cave underground. You let them come up to the surface and fight a battle where they can't lose, and somehow they've proven their mettle, they've proven their courage, and now they get the curse lifted. And now the curse is lifted. They just disappear into nothingness. They become dust, which is. I don't know what kind of reward that is. So anyway, now I have complained about Lord of the Rings, and it has taken as long for me to complain about it as the movie is also. So this has just been a total waste of time. The question is, everyone talking right now, what did you do last week? No idea why this is causing so much drama, but. Well, here's what we did. Last week, the entire Daily Wire gang went back to DC for backstage live at cpac. Ben Shapiro and Christopher Ruffo broke huge news when they leaked tapes exposing Department of Education contractors supporting sex tapes and schools. Michael Knowles faced off against 25 LGBTQ trans activists in Jubilee's most explosive debate yet. I released Clearing the the behind the Scenes look at the number one documentary of the decade, am I racist? And that list is just to be compliant with Doge's asks. Seems simple enough. Don't miss a moment of the news, the shows, the entertainment that we have at Daily Wire become a Daily Wire + member now@dailywire.com subscribe now. Let's get to our daily cancellation. A few years ago, you might remember the national manhunt that took place after a viral incident in the city of Lufkin, Texas, about 120 miles northeast of Houston. A teenage girl filmed herself removing a tub of Blue Bell ice cream from a grocery store freezer. And then, on camera, she licked the lid along with some of the ice cream before placing the whole tub back in the freezer for someone else to find. In response to this, Blue Bell, which is headquartered in Texas, dispatched an emergency response team, which they have on hot standby at all times just in case something like this were to ever happen. If there's a licking incident, they're there. And to their credit, Blue Bell quickly identified the store in question because, of course, their staff recognized the freezer from the storage. After all, they didn't become the number two vanilla ice cream brand in the country without a deep understanding of their local markets. And then Blue Bell's people rushed inside the store like a SWAT team, removed all ice creams of the same flavor that the woman licked in the video. For the record, the flavor was tin roof which, according to the New York Times highly detailed investigative report of the story, features vanilla ice cream with chocolate fudge swirl and roasted peanuts dipped in dark chocolate. I don't know anyone would ever want to eat ice cream with peanuts in it, but that's a whole different story. Meanwhile, doctors spoke to various media outlets about the dangers of consuming Blue Bell ice cream that had someone else's saliva on top of it. And surprisingly, not all the news was bad. One doctor, for instance, claimed that the risk of infection was partly diminished because of the ice cream's low temperature and high sugar content, since freezing could cause the water and bacteria to freeze and expand, destroying the bacteria and sugar could leach water out of the bacteria. Close quote. Now, eventually, mercifully, the saga ended when Police caught the 17 year old responsible for this particular incident, although they didn't have much luck with the 10 million copycats who sprang up. But as media attention subsided, as far as we know, the licking stopped. At least we hope it did, and people went about their lives. Customers could buy Blue Bell ice cream in peace, without fear that somebody's saliva might be part of the ingredients. But there was one question about that video that was never addressed, even though it's the most interesting part of the whole thing. And that question is this. Why did the teenage girl do that? Why exactly did she film herself committing a crime and then upload the incriminating footage on the Internet for everyone to see? What psychological factors are involved in a decision like that? Is this something that's more common among women or is it equal among the genders? And how can we stop young women or people of any or young men from engaging in this kind of behavior for their good and the good of everyone who wants to eat sanitary, unmolested ice cream? Well, unfortunately, despite the wall to wall coverage, no one ever addressed that aspect of the whole situation. But this is a discussion worth reopening today after a woman using the name Sarah Roberts uploaded perhaps the most incriminating footage that has been posted on TikTok. This does not involve ice cream or anything being licked, but this is kind of the Blue Bell Licking Incident Times about a thousand. If the Blue Bell licking incident resulted in a long form New York Times article and segments on every major television network, then this one deserves a primetime special of some kind. So behold, as Sarah Roberts informs the world of two relevant pieces of information, neither of which advances her own interests in any way. First, she declares that she wants Elon Musk to be murdered. And then for good measure, she adds that she has not paid her taxes for the better part of a decade. Watch.
