May 5, 2025 • 30 mins
Thanks to Lumen for sponsoring! To get 15% off, go to https://lumen.me/BRAD and start improving your health today.
Harvard University is in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. I break down the latest drama in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, TikTokers lash out at Trump supporters in an unhinged new way and Matt Walsh goes viral for a truly deranged take about gay people.
CHECK OUT THE MERCH: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
SEND ME A VOICE NOTE: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Actual exempt status. I mean it's a privilege.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
If the government goes through with a plan, it would
number one be highly illegal.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Harvard messed around with insane, woke racism, and now they're
reaping the consequences. We're going to break this down bless
a bizarre TikTok meltdown over a single demayo and an
unhinged take from Matt Walsh in today's episode of The
(00:29):
Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we take
on the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective. Up first,
like I mentioned at the top, we've got to talk
about the downfall of Harvard University. Perhaps the most famous
institution of higher education, not just in America but in
the entire world, honestly is facing a reckoning as the
(00:53):
Trump administration and the President himself announced huge changes that
could destroy the university. Take a listen to this reporting
from the Hill.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
President Trump's beef with Harvard heats up, the President announcing
Friday he plans to strip Harvard University of its tax
exempt status. Trump writing in a social media post, We're
going to be taking away Harvard's tax exempt status. It's
what they deserve. It's the latest move by the Trump
White House as part of an escalating feud with the
Ivy League school.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Tax exempt status. I mean, it's a privilege. It's really
a privilege, and it's been abused by a lot more
than Harvard. It's something that these schools really have to
be very very careful with, very anti semitic. When you
take a look, whether it's Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, I don't
know what's going on, but when you see how badly
(01:44):
they've acted in other ways also, so we'll be looking
at it very strong with it now.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Harvard is not taking this lying down. They're fighting back.
They're refusing a lot of the administration's demands, and they've
launched several lawsuits as well. There is the president of
Harvard University speaking to the Wall Street Journal responding to
the administration's latest attack.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
If the government goes through with a plan to revoke
our tax exempt status, it would number one, be highly
illegal unless there is some reasoning that we have not
been exposed to that would justify this dramatic move. But
tax exempt status is granted to educational institutions to enable
(02:31):
them to successfully carry out their mission of education and
for research universities of research. Obviously that would be severely
impaired if we were to lose our tax exempt status,
and I should add it would be destructive to Harvard,
but the message that it sends to the educational community
(02:53):
would be a very dire one, which suggests that political
disagreements could be used as a basis to pose what
might be an existential threat to so many educational institutions.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Now I'm going to go over some of the insanely racist,
woke policies that Harvard has that have gotten them in
this hot water in the first place and cause this
whole problem after this, I don't want to end up
like these people.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
But I ate today at fatty good morning buddies, at
pancake so much.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
That's why I use Lumen, an amazing tool that helps
me feel better in my body and maintain a healthy weight.
Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a
device that measures your metabolism through your breath and on
the app it lets you know if you're burning fat
or carbs and gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep,
and even stress management. You can also breathe into it
before and after workouts and meals so you know exactly
(03:52):
what's going on with your body in real time, and
Leoman will give you tips to stay on top of
your health game. It can also track your cycle as
well as the onset of menopause and adjust your recommendations
to help keep your metabolism healthy during hormonal changes so
you can keep up your energy and stave off cravings.
So if you want to take the next step in
your health journey, go to lumen dot me slash brad
(04:14):
to get fifteen percent off your lumen That is l
Umn dot m e slash brad for fifteen percent off
your purchase. Thank you Luhman for sponsoring today's episode, and
now back to the show. Okay, guys, let's talk about
why Harvard is in this situation and why they are
hardly a sympathetic institution or party at this point. For years,
(04:38):
and I mean decades, honestly, they categorically and systematically discriminated
against Asian American and white students in their admissions policies.
This was alleged and in my view documented with ample
evidence by the group students for fair Admissions, which sued
Harvard took it all the way to the Supreme Court
in the case where they struck down affirmative ac and
(05:00):
the evidence was very clear that you could see huge
differences in the test scores and grades required to get
into Harvard if you were Asian versus if you were black,
or if you were white versus if you were black,
and it was a clear case of racial discrimination. In fact,
they would do it through ways that weren't explicit, like
they just somehow magically would always grade Asian people lower
(05:22):
on the personality test, and the amount of Asian students
would stay almost the same like year to year of
the percentage, almost as if there was a quota or
a limit compared to if they just let in the
most qualified students, the number of Asian students as a
percentage would have been way higher. To me, it was
clear racial discrimination that is immoral and evil, wrong in
(05:45):
so many ways, and illegal under the Civil Rights Act
and other federal civil rights laws. And it's not just
in their undergraduate admissions. The kind of insane DEI stuff
really has infected Harvard at many different levels. So for example,
recent reporting on the Harvard Law Review the prestigious publication
makes this abundantly clear. Aaron Sibarium of the Washington Freebeacon
(06:08):
reports that the Harvard Law Review has made DEI the
first priority of its admissions process, and it routinely kills
or advances pieces based on the author's race. It even
vets articles for racially diverse citations. And guess what, editors
at the top journal put this all in writing. So
(06:29):
Sibarium brought the receipts and he showed internal documents from
the Harvard Law Review that are quite explicit and open
about what it is that they're doing. For example, there's
this statement that shows how the Holistic Review Committee selects
editors for the Harvard Law Review, and it says the
HRC shall hold as its first priority the inclusion of
(06:50):
qualified editors from underrepresented groups, considering factors including but not
limited to, race, socioeconomic background, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability,
and recognize the importance of considering candidates intersectional identities. Uh
they basically put it in writing that they preference people
(07:10):
based on their race, gender identity, sexuality, and the law.
They also take into account very blatantly race when it
comes to what articles they're going to publish in the
Harvard Law Review and what they're not. So the Freebreacon
and Sibarium had this in writing as well, from the
negatives of one article being reviewed. Lastly, this author is
not from an underrepresented background, so they're saying one of
(07:32):
the reasons to reject this piece is that it's authored
by a white dude. Basically, these are just a few examples,
but in my view, there really is extensive evidence documenting
the insane extent of DEI policies and woke insanity at
Harvard and other elite universities that yes, violates civil rights
law federal anti discrimination protections, which go both ways. It
(07:54):
doesn't say you just can't discriminate against black people, says
you can't discriminate on the basis of race, and that
means anti white discrimination is included, or anti Asian discrimination
or what have you, or discrimination against men and the light.
They've gotten away with this for decades, but I think
it's incredibly harmful and toxic and they shouldn't be allowed
to do it under our laws as they are written.
But and here's where we have to get nuanced. I
(08:17):
don't support the way the Trump administration is going about this.
For one, it's coming off as overtly political and ideological,
rather than the kind of neutral enforcement from IRS officials
that should if you're going to take this kind of action,
should be happening, or instead seeing tweets from the President,
which isn't how this is supposed to work. As the
(08:39):
Wall Street Journal reports, Trump's repeated comments about Harvard's tax
exempt status breach a norm that attempts to insulate political
officials from decisions about specific taxpayers, including tax exempt groups. Legally,
the tax code prohibits the president and other senior senior
officials from directly or indirectly asking the IRS to conduct
or stop an audio or other investigations, and that is
(09:02):
a crime punishable with a fine and prison time. Prosecuting
such a case, however, would require federal prosecutors and Supreme
Court decisions about execative power and presidential immunity could be
high bars to clear. So certainly I wouldn't anticipate any
charges being brought because of this, But federal law says
the president is not supposed to get involved in these decisions.
It's not supposed to be directing the IRS or deciding
what decisions they're going to make they're supposed to be
(09:24):
picking the people that are in charge of it, but
then letting them go about their business in a nonpartisan manner.
That's not what Trump is doing here. There's also a
free speech and First Amendment issue here, not because any
group has an inherent right to tax exempt status, but
because there is a clear established principle in First Amendment
law that we've seen used to protect many conservative groups
(09:45):
like the NRA when liberal government officials go after them,
that the government can't revoke a benefit, even one that
it is allowed to revoke for explicitly ideological or partisan reasons,
without violating the First Amendment. And Trump in his post
about this has really muddied the waters, making this not
just about federal civil rights law or discrimination complaints, but
(10:05):
also just about him not liking Harvard and the things
in the way that they teach. For example, he posted
on truth Social perhaps Harvard should lose its tax exem
status and be taxed as a political entity if it
keeps pushing political ideological and terrorists inspired supporting sickness. Remember,
tax exem status is totally contingent on acting in the
(10:26):
public interests, so Trump is basically admitting that part of
the reason he wants this to happen is because he
doesn't like the political and ideological sickness of Harvard University, aka,
he doesn't like their ideas. That's a huge problem because again,
it is unconstitutional for the government to punish a group
or revoke a benefit, even when it's allowed to revoke
(10:50):
in other situations for explicitly ideological purposes. That's not allowed.
He also specifically criticizes their choice of professors. In another post,
Trump posted, everyone knows that Harvard has lost its way.
They hired from New York built the Blasio in Chicago
LORI Lightfoot at ridiculously high salaries, two of the worst
and most incompetent mayors in the history of our country
(11:13):
to teach municipal management and government. So Trump specifically singles
out to professors hired that he thinks are bad because
he disagrees with them. And I look, I tend to
agree with him on many of his criticisms of how
New York City and Chicago are governed. But the point
here is he's making ideological critiques of this institution and
retaliating against them because of it. That is unconstitutional. Viewpoint discrimination.
(11:37):
And if Trump can do it to Harvard, even if
you agree with many of the criticisms, and frankly I do,
then a democratic president could do it to Hillsdale University,
could do it to Liberty University, many of these conservative
college campuses, or even go after groups like the Heritage
Foundation or pro life organizations or other groups that rely
on tax exem status because of their ideas. This is
(11:59):
not a path that Republicans should want to go down.
It is not a precedent you should want to establish.
And some people will say, oh, well, Obama weaponized the
irs in his first term, and first off, yes, and
that was bad. We all agreed that was bad, so
shouldn't be doing it. And then some because this goes
far beyond what Obama was alleged to have done his administration,
(12:20):
and that was a scandal. Heads did roll over it,
and rightly so. But they were accused of subjecting to
extreme additional vetting groups that were associated with like the
Tea Party, as they applied for tax exem status, and
that caused delays and other things, and that was unacceptable.
It was absolutely the kind of weaponization I'm objecting to here.
(12:41):
But it's a whole other thing to then take groups
that exist and do all this work that relies on
tax exem status and revoke it punitively. That is an escalation.
That is taking what Obama did and then some if
you were to go through with it.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Now.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
The big counter argument that you hear from folks who
support what Trump is doing here who wanted to revoke
Covered's tax exem status is they often cite a case
from decades ago called Bob Jones, a Supreme Court President,
where it was upheld that the government could decades ago
revoke the tax exem status of a university that engaged
(13:15):
in blatant racial discrimination. In this case, I believe it
was against interracial couples. But this isn't really a valid
precedent that justifies what Trump is doing, at least not
really for one thing. Many of the federal laws we're
talking about here that say a president can't direct the
auditing or revocation of a status were passed after this,
(13:37):
So there are some factors that are just different. And
it's different because Bob Jones had clearly been investigated through
a thorough due process and found to have been violating
these civil rights laws, whereas at this point, they've just
alleged this and are moving forward. The nonpartisan Foundation for
Individual Rights and Expression FIRE, which is the gold standard
(13:59):
First Amendment and free speech organization in America. Disclaimer, I
do a little bit of work with them. They had
this to say about the invocation of the Bob Jones
example to justify the Trump administration's actions here. In that case,
the court emphasized that revoking tax exem status is a
sensitive decision that should be made only when there is
no doubt that an organization violates fundamental and longstanding federal policy,
(14:21):
emphasizing policy agreement among all branches of government. Federal attention
to Bob Jones University's tax exem status spanned four different
presidential administrations and left the public no reason to think
the grounds for revocation were pretextual. Today, by contrast, the
President is explicitly targeting university specifically for its expression and
(14:42):
ideological reasons. Besides, in the more than four decades since
the Bob Jones decision, it appears that no college or
university has ever faced the loss of their tax exam
status over race discrimination. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have
instead addressed such allegations according to the regulations implementing Title six,
which require that the government first attempt to voluntarily resolve
(15:04):
complaints and only allows resolution through financial penalties or other
means authorized by law after those efforts have failed, followed
by formal notice and a waiting period. So this is
the key thing here. Trump is not following the correct
process to address civil rights complaints against university like Harvard,
and then he's muddying the waters by also throwing in
(15:27):
his ideological grievances with them, which are not relevant to
federal policy, and make it a First Amendment issue. Frankly,
two things can be true at once. Harvard is at
this point a toxic institution that has treated thousands upon
thousands of people unfairly and likely illegally because of their toxic,
(15:48):
woke ideology that literally encourages them and requires them, they think,
to discriminate against people in obviously wrong ways. But it
can also be true that the way the Trump administration
is going about addressing this is almost certainly illegal, is
not following the proper process, and if allowed to stand,
would establish a precedent that Democrats can and will run
(16:10):
with Allo when there is another option of simply pursuing
this through normal processes. That's just my take on all
of this, But I definitely want to hear from you guys,
So do let me know what you think in the
comments below, and please do consider subscribing and sticking around
if you haven't yet, and hit that like button while
you're at it. Oh and remember, guys, to send in
voice notes for my Friday episodes. I want to hear
(16:31):
more of your wol car stories, your personal experiences, your
life dilemma is anything where you want some insight or
advice or have a story you want to share. Head
to the Lincoln the description to send me a voice
note that I might respond to on an upcoming show. Plus,
remember to check out the Brad Versus Everyone March, also
linked in the description. Up next, WoT TikTok influencers are
lashing out at Republicans over Sinco Demayo. Yes, seriously, the
(16:56):
fifth of May is a Mexican holiday and celebrated by
a lot of people here in America. But they're not
happy about that, at least not the fact that some
people who are celebrating Sinco de Mayo may have voted
for Donald Trump. Take a listen to uh this first
TikTok and warning guys, this is unhinged.
Speaker 6 (17:14):
Voted for that o ran Tan. I don't want to
see a margarita in your hand in four days. I
don't want to see chips and caesa at your table.
And you better be the fifth of may to you
and nothing else since you want to speak English.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Well doesn't she just seem absolutely lovely in all seriousness,
though at least she didn't wish diarrhea upon those of
you who voted for Trump like this next fellow did.
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
I don't want to see you celebrating cinco de Mario. Okay,
I do not want to see none of this motherfuckers
celebrating a cinco de Mario. Okay, it doesn't belong to you.
You don't deserve, not even want for arvida, bitch, you
don't deserve nothing, not even.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
A fin salsa, nada. What you're talking about?
Speaker 5 (17:58):
You want to eat from the Latin community. Well, no,
it's not gonna happen, bo, because you're not allowed. You're
not allowed to celebrate with us the sinko mayo at all. Okay,
so let me find out you eat one of them
casadijas or one of them burritos.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
I wish you coulda I'm gonna go out on a
limb and say that when you find yourself wishing diarrhea
upon other people, you may have lost the plot a
little bit there, babe. It's also so funny to me
that he mentioned burritos, because I could be wrong about this,
but pretty sure burritos aren't even actually Mexican food. I'mrett
sure it's just like an americanized thing and they don't
(18:36):
actually eat that in Mexico. So a little bit funny there.
But more importantly, I think the premise here is just wrong.
They're basically saying that, well, if you voted for Trump,
you must hate Mexican people and hate Mexican culture, therefore
you have no right to participate it in it or
celebrate it. And I just think that's wrong and completely
not true. I'm sure there are some I'm sure there
are some people who supported Trump's tough on the border
(18:56):
policies and restrictive immigration policies because they're racist, but I
don't think that's most people. As somebody who lives here
in Michigan, and there's lots of people that voted for Trump,
I think they saw the chaos and disorder and just
absolute untenable state of the border under Biden and had
reasonable concerns. A lot of them want people to come
to the country, but want it to be done in
I legal and orderly fashion. And guess what, folks, a
(19:19):
lot of the people that voted for Trump are of
Hispanic descent themselves. And they didn't do it because they
hate themselves or hate their people, or hate their homeland
or anything like that. They did it because they're individuals
who get to have their own opinions and think for
themselves and don't owe you loyalty. And as far as
I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with having a certain political
opinion but still eating chips and salsa or keesadias. And
(19:42):
to me, this kind of unhinged identitarian backlash is the
exact kind of thing and reason why people don't like
progressivism in the first place. Like it's annoying, it's cringeworthy,
it's obnoxious, and it's closed minded. And at some point
some of these people have to get the memo or
they're just going to keep losing because people don't like wokes,
(20:05):
golds and buzzkills. And that's not going to change. Oh
and to all my Trump supporting fans out there, happy
Sinco to MYO. Up next, we've got to talk about
Matt Walsh, the conservative influencer and Daily Wire host, because
he just went on Tucker Carlson and frankly made some
extremely inflammatory and controversial remarks about gay people and gay
(20:26):
parents that I just have to respond to because this
clip here from Matt Walsh, this is toxic. Take a listen.
Speaker 7 (20:32):
A child being in foster care is far from an
ideal scenario. It's very very sad. A child going to
two gay parents. I think it's worse. I think it's
I think it's easily worse. Actually why, it's just more disordered,
it's more confusing for the child. Again, neither neither scenario
is good. We don't like either thing. But I don't
(20:56):
see going to you know, gay parents as an provement
over the what they had before. So do we know
that it screws kids up?
Speaker 3 (21:05):
Or we just sort of intuitively know it.
Speaker 7 (21:07):
I think we intuitively know. But also there's been plenty
of studies done about the mental health effects of kids
that grow up in these you know, single sex same
sex parent homes. There's been a lot of studies done
about it, but honestly, I don't You can look at
the studies, people will fact check and they're there. I
just I don't need studies for this.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
So my first response to this was just say you
hate gay people, and go like it is so obvious
to me that he's just motivated by disgust for gay people,
because I think, look, listen, there's people who might disagree
with me on some of these issues related to this,
who are coming from a good place, just have a
different view. But when you're actually saying with a straight
face that it is better for kids to remain in
(21:49):
foster care than it is to go to two loving,
dedicated parents of the same sex, you've lost the plot.
Foster care. I know a lot of people that work
in it. I'm sure are well intentioned into their best,
but it is an incredibly dysfunctional system with very high
rates of abuse of kids, and even when they're not abused,
the kids are just moved from home to home many,
(22:09):
many times over the course of their childhood. It is
incredibly disruptive. The outcomes are very, very poor, and the
idea that you would just be so motivated by your
disgust for gay people or gay families, that you would
want to legally deprive people, And that is very clear
that that is his position from the full interview of
having a family. Just because it doesn't look the way
(22:31):
you think it should or doesn't match your expectations of
what you believe in is sick. It's honestly really messed
up to want to deny kids a loving home and
leave them stuck in foster care where there are kids
just waiting and waiting to be adopted who never will.
To be clear, for healthy newborn babies, there is way
more people that want to adopt them than there are
(22:54):
babies available for adoption. And we could have a conversation
about maybe you believe that in those cases a mother
and father family should be prioritized over a same sex couple.
I would disagree with that, but we could have a
conversation there. And I don't think that makes you inherently
a hateful person or anything like that. But if you
would literally rather subject kids to foster care, to languishing
(23:14):
in the foster care system then allow them to be
adopted by a same sex couple, you don't care about
the kids. You just hate gay people and are allowing
that to consume your entire world's view at that point,
and I'm not afraid to say it. I mean, he
literally admits that he doesn't care about the facts or evidence. Because,
to be clear, guys, gay people have been adopting and
(23:36):
raising kids for decades and decades and decades in this
country and in many other countries, and so there's ample
evidence and research. We don't have to speculate how do
they come out? Are they going to be all messed up?
Is it going to cause problems in their lives? No,
we've done this, We've seen the experiment. I personally know
people who are raised by two same sex parents who
came out wonderfully. But obviously that's just anecdotal, that's not
(23:57):
super relevant. The studies on this are unambiguous and extremely
overwhelming in their consensus. Kids who are raised by same
sex couples adopted by same sex couples, not only in
some studies do they actually perform better than heterosexual couples,
which is the finding of some of these studies. Though
to be clear, that is because nobody becomes a gay
(24:18):
parent by accident. It's a subset of gay people who
choose to become parents, and they tend to be very
wealthy and very dedicated to raising a child, whereas heterosexual
people sometimes have kids by accident they're not prepared for
and aren't able to take care of. So it's not
like I'm no one is saying that, you know, same
sex parents are superior. But the reason some of those
outcomes might be better is because they're more affluent, they're
more likely to be people who are dedicated to being
(24:39):
good parents, because it's never going to happen by accident
for us, right, So that's that would explain that finding.
But most of the studies simply find no meaningful statistical
difference in this, again not speculation. Cornell University compiled a
review of the literature, and here's what they found. We
identified seventy nine scholarly studies that met our criteria for
adding to knowledge about the well being of children with
(25:00):
gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, seventy five concluded
that children of gay or lesbian parents are no worse
than other children. Only four studies concluded otherwise found some
evidence of negative outcomes. But importantly, those studies included children
from broken homes where they were raised by a gay parent, because,
for example, there was a divorce between that the parents
(25:21):
a man and a woman, and then one of the
parents became out as gay, and then they were living
with the same sex partner, So then they're observed as
raised by same sex couple. But the root of the
negative outcome there is probably the underlying divorce or family dissolution.
So if you want to compare apples to apples, you'd
have to look at stable same sex households versus heterosexual households. Obviously,
(25:43):
a broken family is going to cause problems no matter what.
But regardless, you got seventy five studies to four, so
the evidence on this is very clear. But Matt Walsh
literally says, I don't care about the evidence. I don't
care about the studies. My feelings are what matter. Just
my vibes are that it's icky and I don't like it.
So let them kids languish in foster care, I guess.
And I have to say I would really never normally
(26:06):
comment on someone's personal life or personal behavior, but it's
kind of galling to me that you have someone like
Matt Walsh, and so I will make an exception. Who
is a multi multi millionaire. I'm sure makes a lot
of money at the Daily Wire doing his content, and
I don't begrudge him that. But he's a Christian man,
and I know many Christians of especially out here in
West Michigan, of middle class or modest means, who have
several biological children, but then adopt kids from foster care
(26:28):
or just from a regular adoption, and that's a very
common thing in the Christian community. It is quite notable
to me that Matt Walsh, with his ample resources, I'm
sure he could afford to hire full time nannies if
he was so inclined, as far as I could tell,
and I will absolutely correct myself if I'm somehow proven wrong,
but from what I could find on the internet, has
adopted zero children in addition to his children that he's
(26:48):
had biologically. And so for you, as an extremely wealthy
Christian man, to have never taken the time to rescue
or adopt a single kid from foster care, to then
say with your whole chest that it should be illegal
for other people to do so is astounding in its
audacity and its ignorance. And honestly, I didn't watch the
whole two hour interview, but I watched the whole segment
(27:09):
about this topic that Matt did with Tucker Carlson, and
he just didn't really bring any meaningful arguments. The other
point that he made was this, take a listen.
Speaker 7 (27:18):
We should probably we should look at the way that
human society was structured for thousands of years, and we
should probably consider that they were right about a lot
of that stuff. If human beings did something a certain
way for literally millennia in every civilization that we know of,
it's probably right. I mean, there's probably it's there's probably
(27:40):
a lot to be said for it. Again, not in
every case, but in most cases, so worth pondering anyway.
It tells you something if great if every civilization, none
of which that we know have had contact with each other,
came to the same conclusions exactly. So so it's something
like the you know, gay adoption that and this is
this isn't the only argument against it, but I think
it is a worthwhile argument that there's never been a
(28:03):
society anywhere on Earth, anywhere period where they have had
two men in a romantic relationship starting a family. That's
just that's never existed. It's always been a man and
a woman start a family, or in certain ancient civilizations
and even some primitive ones. Today you might have a
man in several women. You might have polygamy, but that's
(28:25):
pretty common feature. I would say, it's certainly common, but
you never had and why do you have polygamy? It's like,
I'm not I don't support polygamy.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
But so this clipsed out to me for a couple
of reasons. But one is that within sixty seconds he
kind of contradicts and debunks himself. His argument is not
a very strong one, that well, something's been done this
way for a very long time, so not always, but
that means it's probably good. Slavery, mass rape, all sorts
of horrible things have been done for millennia throughout human history.
(28:54):
Doesn't mean they were ever right or moral or good.
Some things, some traditions are good, Some should change with time.
It doesn't tell you anything this argument. The question is
whether same sex parenting is one of the things that
should change or shouldn't, And just the fact that they
didn't do things like that for a very long time,
not even admits doesn't mean that they were always right,
(29:16):
and in fact goes on to contradict himself because polygamy.
You know, one man having multiple wives was a practice
for a very long time and a lot of civilizations seaesus.
Of course, I don't support that, so it's just a
complete non argument. It's a non sequitor. And really he
didn't have much to offer here. He dismissed facts and evidence,
exclusively argued from his own feelings that he wants to legislate,
(29:37):
and then rambled on for minutes with nothing burger points
like this one that don't actually say anything. I thought
it was a really remarkable clip that shows I think
the shortcomings in the seriousness and intellectual depth a lot
of a lot of these right wing culture warriors. But
let me know what you guys think in the comments below,
(29:57):
and that'll be it for today's episode of the Bread
Versus Everyone Podcast. Thank you so much for tuning in.
Please do consider subscribing and sticking around if you haven't yet,
and do consider hitting that like button. Remember to send
voice note and check out the merch and we'll talk
again real soon.
Actual exempt status. I mean it's a privilege.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
If the government goes through with a plan, it would
number one be highly illegal.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Harvard messed around with insane, woke racism, and now they're
reaping the consequences. We're going to break this down bless
a bizarre TikTok meltdown over a single demayo and an
unhinged take from Matt Walsh in today's episode of The
(00:29):
Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we take
on the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective. Up first,
like I mentioned at the top, we've got to talk
about the downfall of Harvard University. Perhaps the most famous
institution of higher education, not just in America but in
the entire world, honestly is facing a reckoning as the
(00:53):
Trump administration and the President himself announced huge changes that
could destroy the university. Take a listen to this reporting
from the Hill.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
President Trump's beef with Harvard heats up, the President announcing
Friday he plans to strip Harvard University of its tax
exempt status. Trump writing in a social media post, We're
going to be taking away Harvard's tax exempt status. It's
what they deserve. It's the latest move by the Trump
White House as part of an escalating feud with the
Ivy League school.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Tax exempt status. I mean, it's a privilege. It's really
a privilege, and it's been abused by a lot more
than Harvard. It's something that these schools really have to
be very very careful with, very anti semitic. When you
take a look, whether it's Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, I don't
know what's going on, but when you see how badly
(01:44):
they've acted in other ways also, so we'll be looking
at it very strong with it now.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Harvard is not taking this lying down. They're fighting back.
They're refusing a lot of the administration's demands, and they've
launched several lawsuits as well. There is the president of
Harvard University speaking to the Wall Street Journal responding to
the administration's latest attack.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
If the government goes through with a plan to revoke
our tax exempt status, it would number one, be highly
illegal unless there is some reasoning that we have not
been exposed to that would justify this dramatic move. But
tax exempt status is granted to educational institutions to enable
(02:31):
them to successfully carry out their mission of education and
for research universities of research. Obviously that would be severely
impaired if we were to lose our tax exempt status,
and I should add it would be destructive to Harvard,
but the message that it sends to the educational community
(02:53):
would be a very dire one, which suggests that political
disagreements could be used as a basis to pose what
might be an existential threat to so many educational institutions.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Now I'm going to go over some of the insanely racist,
woke policies that Harvard has that have gotten them in
this hot water in the first place and cause this
whole problem after this, I don't want to end up
like these people.
Speaker 5 (03:21):
But I ate today at fatty good morning buddies, at
pancake so much.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
That's why I use Lumen, an amazing tool that helps
me feel better in my body and maintain a healthy weight.
Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a
device that measures your metabolism through your breath and on
the app it lets you know if you're burning fat
or carbs and gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep,
and even stress management. You can also breathe into it
before and after workouts and meals so you know exactly
(03:52):
what's going on with your body in real time, and
Leoman will give you tips to stay on top of
your health game. It can also track your cycle as
well as the onset of menopause and adjust your recommendations
to help keep your metabolism healthy during hormonal changes so
you can keep up your energy and stave off cravings.
So if you want to take the next step in
your health journey, go to lumen dot me slash brad
(04:14):
to get fifteen percent off your lumen That is l
Umn dot m e slash brad for fifteen percent off
your purchase. Thank you Luhman for sponsoring today's episode, and
now back to the show. Okay, guys, let's talk about
why Harvard is in this situation and why they are
hardly a sympathetic institution or party at this point. For years,
(04:38):
and I mean decades, honestly, they categorically and systematically discriminated
against Asian American and white students in their admissions policies.
This was alleged and in my view documented with ample
evidence by the group students for fair Admissions, which sued
Harvard took it all the way to the Supreme Court
in the case where they struck down affirmative ac and
(05:00):
the evidence was very clear that you could see huge
differences in the test scores and grades required to get
into Harvard if you were Asian versus if you were black,
or if you were white versus if you were black,
and it was a clear case of racial discrimination. In fact,
they would do it through ways that weren't explicit, like
they just somehow magically would always grade Asian people lower
(05:22):
on the personality test, and the amount of Asian students
would stay almost the same like year to year of
the percentage, almost as if there was a quota or
a limit compared to if they just let in the
most qualified students, the number of Asian students as a
percentage would have been way higher. To me, it was
clear racial discrimination that is immoral and evil, wrong in
(05:45):
so many ways, and illegal under the Civil Rights Act
and other federal civil rights laws. And it's not just
in their undergraduate admissions. The kind of insane DEI stuff
really has infected Harvard at many different levels. So for example,
recent reporting on the Harvard Law Review the prestigious publication
makes this abundantly clear. Aaron Sibarium of the Washington Freebeacon
(06:08):
reports that the Harvard Law Review has made DEI the
first priority of its admissions process, and it routinely kills
or advances pieces based on the author's race. It even
vets articles for racially diverse citations. And guess what, editors
at the top journal put this all in writing. So
(06:29):
Sibarium brought the receipts and he showed internal documents from
the Harvard Law Review that are quite explicit and open
about what it is that they're doing. For example, there's
this statement that shows how the Holistic Review Committee selects
editors for the Harvard Law Review, and it says the
HRC shall hold as its first priority the inclusion of
(06:50):
qualified editors from underrepresented groups, considering factors including but not
limited to, race, socioeconomic background, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability,
and recognize the importance of considering candidates intersectional identities. Uh
they basically put it in writing that they preference people
(07:10):
based on their race, gender identity, sexuality, and the law.
They also take into account very blatantly race when it
comes to what articles they're going to publish in the
Harvard Law Review and what they're not. So the Freebreacon
and Sibarium had this in writing as well, from the
negatives of one article being reviewed. Lastly, this author is
not from an underrepresented background, so they're saying one of
(07:32):
the reasons to reject this piece is that it's authored
by a white dude. Basically, these are just a few examples,
but in my view, there really is extensive evidence documenting
the insane extent of DEI policies and woke insanity at
Harvard and other elite universities that yes, violates civil rights
law federal anti discrimination protections, which go both ways. It
(07:54):
doesn't say you just can't discriminate against black people, says
you can't discriminate on the basis of race, and that
means anti white discrimination is included, or anti Asian discrimination
or what have you, or discrimination against men and the light.
They've gotten away with this for decades, but I think
it's incredibly harmful and toxic and they shouldn't be allowed
to do it under our laws as they are written.
But and here's where we have to get nuanced. I
(08:17):
don't support the way the Trump administration is going about this.
For one, it's coming off as overtly political and ideological,
rather than the kind of neutral enforcement from IRS officials
that should if you're going to take this kind of action,
should be happening, or instead seeing tweets from the President,
which isn't how this is supposed to work. As the
(08:39):
Wall Street Journal reports, Trump's repeated comments about Harvard's tax
exempt status breach a norm that attempts to insulate political
officials from decisions about specific taxpayers, including tax exempt groups. Legally,
the tax code prohibits the president and other senior senior
officials from directly or indirectly asking the IRS to conduct
or stop an audio or other investigations, and that is
(09:02):
a crime punishable with a fine and prison time. Prosecuting
such a case, however, would require federal prosecutors and Supreme
Court decisions about execative power and presidential immunity could be
high bars to clear. So certainly I wouldn't anticipate any
charges being brought because of this, But federal law says
the president is not supposed to get involved in these decisions.
It's not supposed to be directing the IRS or deciding
what decisions they're going to make they're supposed to be
(09:24):
picking the people that are in charge of it, but
then letting them go about their business in a nonpartisan manner.
That's not what Trump is doing here. There's also a
free speech and First Amendment issue here, not because any
group has an inherent right to tax exempt status, but
because there is a clear established principle in First Amendment
law that we've seen used to protect many conservative groups
(09:45):
like the NRA when liberal government officials go after them,
that the government can't revoke a benefit, even one that
it is allowed to revoke for explicitly ideological or partisan reasons,
without violating the First Amendment. And Trump in his post
about this has really muddied the waters, making this not
just about federal civil rights law or discrimination complaints, but
(10:05):
also just about him not liking Harvard and the things
in the way that they teach. For example, he posted
on truth Social perhaps Harvard should lose its tax exem
status and be taxed as a political entity if it
keeps pushing political ideological and terrorists inspired supporting sickness. Remember,
tax exem status is totally contingent on acting in the
(10:26):
public interests, so Trump is basically admitting that part of
the reason he wants this to happen is because he
doesn't like the political and ideological sickness of Harvard University, aka,
he doesn't like their ideas. That's a huge problem because again,
it is unconstitutional for the government to punish a group
or revoke a benefit, even when it's allowed to revoke
(10:50):
in other situations for explicitly ideological purposes. That's not allowed.
He also specifically criticizes their choice of professors. In another post,
Trump posted, everyone knows that Harvard has lost its way.
They hired from New York built the Blasio in Chicago
LORI Lightfoot at ridiculously high salaries, two of the worst
and most incompetent mayors in the history of our country
(11:13):
to teach municipal management and government. So Trump specifically singles
out to professors hired that he thinks are bad because
he disagrees with them. And I look, I tend to
agree with him on many of his criticisms of how
New York City and Chicago are governed. But the point
here is he's making ideological critiques of this institution and
retaliating against them because of it. That is unconstitutional. Viewpoint discrimination.
(11:37):
And if Trump can do it to Harvard, even if
you agree with many of the criticisms, and frankly I do,
then a democratic president could do it to Hillsdale University,
could do it to Liberty University, many of these conservative
college campuses, or even go after groups like the Heritage
Foundation or pro life organizations or other groups that rely
on tax exem status because of their ideas. This is
(11:59):
not a path that Republicans should want to go down.
It is not a precedent you should want to establish.
And some people will say, oh, well, Obama weaponized the
irs in his first term, and first off, yes, and
that was bad. We all agreed that was bad, so
shouldn't be doing it. And then some because this goes
far beyond what Obama was alleged to have done his administration,
(12:20):
and that was a scandal. Heads did roll over it,
and rightly so. But they were accused of subjecting to
extreme additional vetting groups that were associated with like the
Tea Party, as they applied for tax exem status, and
that caused delays and other things, and that was unacceptable.
It was absolutely the kind of weaponization I'm objecting to here.
(12:41):
But it's a whole other thing to then take groups
that exist and do all this work that relies on
tax exem status and revoke it punitively. That is an escalation.
That is taking what Obama did and then some if
you were to go through with it.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Now.
Speaker 3 (12:54):
The big counter argument that you hear from folks who
support what Trump is doing here who wanted to revoke
Covered's tax exem status is they often cite a case
from decades ago called Bob Jones, a Supreme Court President,
where it was upheld that the government could decades ago
revoke the tax exem status of a university that engaged
(13:15):
in blatant racial discrimination. In this case, I believe it
was against interracial couples. But this isn't really a valid
precedent that justifies what Trump is doing, at least not
really for one thing. Many of the federal laws we're
talking about here that say a president can't direct the
auditing or revocation of a status were passed after this,
(13:37):
So there are some factors that are just different. And
it's different because Bob Jones had clearly been investigated through
a thorough due process and found to have been violating
these civil rights laws, whereas at this point, they've just
alleged this and are moving forward. The nonpartisan Foundation for
Individual Rights and Expression FIRE, which is the gold standard
(13:59):
First Amendment and free speech organization in America. Disclaimer, I
do a little bit of work with them. They had
this to say about the invocation of the Bob Jones
example to justify the Trump administration's actions here. In that case,
the court emphasized that revoking tax exem status is a
sensitive decision that should be made only when there is
no doubt that an organization violates fundamental and longstanding federal policy,
(14:21):
emphasizing policy agreement among all branches of government. Federal attention
to Bob Jones University's tax exem status spanned four different
presidential administrations and left the public no reason to think
the grounds for revocation were pretextual. Today, by contrast, the
President is explicitly targeting university specifically for its expression and
(14:42):
ideological reasons. Besides, in the more than four decades since
the Bob Jones decision, it appears that no college or
university has ever faced the loss of their tax exam
status over race discrimination. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have
instead addressed such allegations according to the regulations implementing Title six,
which require that the government first attempt to voluntarily resolve
(15:04):
complaints and only allows resolution through financial penalties or other
means authorized by law after those efforts have failed, followed
by formal notice and a waiting period. So this is
the key thing here. Trump is not following the correct
process to address civil rights complaints against university like Harvard,
and then he's muddying the waters by also throwing in
(15:27):
his ideological grievances with them, which are not relevant to
federal policy, and make it a First Amendment issue. Frankly,
two things can be true at once. Harvard is at
this point a toxic institution that has treated thousands upon
thousands of people unfairly and likely illegally because of their toxic,
(15:48):
woke ideology that literally encourages them and requires them, they think,
to discriminate against people in obviously wrong ways. But it
can also be true that the way the Trump administration
is going about addressing this is almost certainly illegal, is
not following the proper process, and if allowed to stand,
would establish a precedent that Democrats can and will run
(16:10):
with Allo when there is another option of simply pursuing
this through normal processes. That's just my take on all
of this, But I definitely want to hear from you guys,
So do let me know what you think in the
comments below, and please do consider subscribing and sticking around
if you haven't yet, and hit that like button while
you're at it. Oh and remember, guys, to send in
voice notes for my Friday episodes. I want to hear
(16:31):
more of your wol car stories, your personal experiences, your
life dilemma is anything where you want some insight or
advice or have a story you want to share. Head
to the Lincoln the description to send me a voice
note that I might respond to on an upcoming show. Plus,
remember to check out the Brad Versus Everyone March, also
linked in the description. Up next, WoT TikTok influencers are
lashing out at Republicans over Sinco Demayo. Yes, seriously, the
(16:56):
fifth of May is a Mexican holiday and celebrated by
a lot of people here in America. But they're not
happy about that, at least not the fact that some
people who are celebrating Sinco de Mayo may have voted
for Donald Trump. Take a listen to uh this first
TikTok and warning guys, this is unhinged.
Speaker 6 (17:14):
Voted for that o ran Tan. I don't want to
see a margarita in your hand in four days. I
don't want to see chips and caesa at your table.
And you better be the fifth of may to you
and nothing else since you want to speak English.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Well doesn't she just seem absolutely lovely in all seriousness,
though at least she didn't wish diarrhea upon those of
you who voted for Trump like this next fellow did.
Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
I don't want to see you celebrating cinco de Mario. Okay,
I do not want to see none of this motherfuckers
celebrating a cinco de Mario. Okay, it doesn't belong to you.
You don't deserve, not even want for arvida, bitch, you
don't deserve nothing, not even.
Speaker 3 (17:54):
A fin salsa, nada. What you're talking about?
Speaker 5 (17:58):
You want to eat from the Latin community. Well, no,
it's not gonna happen, bo, because you're not allowed. You're
not allowed to celebrate with us the sinko mayo at all. Okay,
so let me find out you eat one of them
casadijas or one of them burritos.
Speaker 3 (18:15):
I wish you coulda I'm gonna go out on a
limb and say that when you find yourself wishing diarrhea
upon other people, you may have lost the plot a
little bit there, babe. It's also so funny to me
that he mentioned burritos, because I could be wrong about this,
but pretty sure burritos aren't even actually Mexican food. I'mrett
sure it's just like an americanized thing and they don't
(18:36):
actually eat that in Mexico. So a little bit funny there.
But more importantly, I think the premise here is just wrong.
They're basically saying that, well, if you voted for Trump,
you must hate Mexican people and hate Mexican culture, therefore
you have no right to participate it in it or
celebrate it. And I just think that's wrong and completely
not true. I'm sure there are some I'm sure there
are some people who supported Trump's tough on the border
(18:56):
policies and restrictive immigration policies because they're racist, but I
don't think that's most people. As somebody who lives here
in Michigan, and there's lots of people that voted for Trump,
I think they saw the chaos and disorder and just
absolute untenable state of the border under Biden and had
reasonable concerns. A lot of them want people to come
to the country, but want it to be done in
I legal and orderly fashion. And guess what, folks, a
(19:19):
lot of the people that voted for Trump are of
Hispanic descent themselves. And they didn't do it because they
hate themselves or hate their people, or hate their homeland
or anything like that. They did it because they're individuals
who get to have their own opinions and think for
themselves and don't owe you loyalty. And as far as
I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with having a certain political
opinion but still eating chips and salsa or keesadias. And
(19:42):
to me, this kind of unhinged identitarian backlash is the
exact kind of thing and reason why people don't like
progressivism in the first place. Like it's annoying, it's cringeworthy,
it's obnoxious, and it's closed minded. And at some point
some of these people have to get the memo or
they're just going to keep losing because people don't like wokes,
(20:05):
golds and buzzkills. And that's not going to change. Oh
and to all my Trump supporting fans out there, happy
Sinco to MYO. Up next, we've got to talk about
Matt Walsh, the conservative influencer and Daily Wire host, because
he just went on Tucker Carlson and frankly made some
extremely inflammatory and controversial remarks about gay people and gay
(20:26):
parents that I just have to respond to because this
clip here from Matt Walsh, this is toxic. Take a listen.
Speaker 7 (20:32):
A child being in foster care is far from an
ideal scenario. It's very very sad. A child going to
two gay parents. I think it's worse. I think it's
I think it's easily worse. Actually why, it's just more disordered,
it's more confusing for the child. Again, neither neither scenario
is good. We don't like either thing. But I don't
(20:56):
see going to you know, gay parents as an provement
over the what they had before. So do we know
that it screws kids up?
Speaker 3 (21:05):
Or we just sort of intuitively know it.
Speaker 7 (21:07):
I think we intuitively know. But also there's been plenty
of studies done about the mental health effects of kids
that grow up in these you know, single sex same
sex parent homes. There's been a lot of studies done
about it, but honestly, I don't You can look at
the studies, people will fact check and they're there. I
just I don't need studies for this.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
So my first response to this was just say you
hate gay people, and go like it is so obvious
to me that he's just motivated by disgust for gay people,
because I think, look, listen, there's people who might disagree
with me on some of these issues related to this,
who are coming from a good place, just have a
different view. But when you're actually saying with a straight
face that it is better for kids to remain in
(21:49):
foster care than it is to go to two loving,
dedicated parents of the same sex, you've lost the plot.
Foster care. I know a lot of people that work
in it. I'm sure are well intentioned into their best,
but it is an incredibly dysfunctional system with very high
rates of abuse of kids, and even when they're not abused,
the kids are just moved from home to home many,
(22:09):
many times over the course of their childhood. It is
incredibly disruptive. The outcomes are very, very poor, and the
idea that you would just be so motivated by your
disgust for gay people or gay families, that you would
want to legally deprive people, And that is very clear
that that is his position from the full interview of
having a family. Just because it doesn't look the way
(22:31):
you think it should or doesn't match your expectations of
what you believe in is sick. It's honestly really messed
up to want to deny kids a loving home and
leave them stuck in foster care where there are kids
just waiting and waiting to be adopted who never will.
To be clear, for healthy newborn babies, there is way
more people that want to adopt them than there are
(22:54):
babies available for adoption. And we could have a conversation
about maybe you believe that in those cases a mother
and father family should be prioritized over a same sex couple.
I would disagree with that, but we could have a
conversation there. And I don't think that makes you inherently
a hateful person or anything like that. But if you
would literally rather subject kids to foster care, to languishing
(23:14):
in the foster care system then allow them to be
adopted by a same sex couple, you don't care about
the kids. You just hate gay people and are allowing
that to consume your entire world's view at that point,
and I'm not afraid to say it. I mean, he
literally admits that he doesn't care about the facts or evidence. Because,
to be clear, guys, gay people have been adopting and
(23:36):
raising kids for decades and decades and decades in this
country and in many other countries, and so there's ample
evidence and research. We don't have to speculate how do
they come out? Are they going to be all messed up?
Is it going to cause problems in their lives? No,
we've done this, We've seen the experiment. I personally know
people who are raised by two same sex parents who
came out wonderfully. But obviously that's just anecdotal, that's not
(23:57):
super relevant. The studies on this are unambiguous and extremely
overwhelming in their consensus. Kids who are raised by same
sex couples adopted by same sex couples, not only in
some studies do they actually perform better than heterosexual couples,
which is the finding of some of these studies. Though
to be clear, that is because nobody becomes a gay
(24:18):
parent by accident. It's a subset of gay people who
choose to become parents, and they tend to be very
wealthy and very dedicated to raising a child, whereas heterosexual
people sometimes have kids by accident they're not prepared for
and aren't able to take care of. So it's not
like I'm no one is saying that, you know, same
sex parents are superior. But the reason some of those
outcomes might be better is because they're more affluent, they're
more likely to be people who are dedicated to being
(24:39):
good parents, because it's never going to happen by accident
for us, right, So that's that would explain that finding.
But most of the studies simply find no meaningful statistical
difference in this, again not speculation. Cornell University compiled a
review of the literature, and here's what they found. We
identified seventy nine scholarly studies that met our criteria for
adding to knowledge about the well being of children with
(25:00):
gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, seventy five concluded
that children of gay or lesbian parents are no worse
than other children. Only four studies concluded otherwise found some
evidence of negative outcomes. But importantly, those studies included children
from broken homes where they were raised by a gay parent, because,
for example, there was a divorce between that the parents
(25:21):
a man and a woman, and then one of the
parents became out as gay, and then they were living
with the same sex partner, So then they're observed as
raised by same sex couple. But the root of the
negative outcome there is probably the underlying divorce or family dissolution.
So if you want to compare apples to apples, you'd
have to look at stable same sex households versus heterosexual households. Obviously,
(25:43):
a broken family is going to cause problems no matter what.
But regardless, you got seventy five studies to four, so
the evidence on this is very clear. But Matt Walsh
literally says, I don't care about the evidence. I don't
care about the studies. My feelings are what matter. Just
my vibes are that it's icky and I don't like it.
So let them kids languish in foster care, I guess.
And I have to say I would really never normally
(26:06):
comment on someone's personal life or personal behavior, but it's
kind of galling to me that you have someone like
Matt Walsh, and so I will make an exception. Who
is a multi multi millionaire. I'm sure makes a lot
of money at the Daily Wire doing his content, and
I don't begrudge him that. But he's a Christian man,
and I know many Christians of especially out here in
West Michigan, of middle class or modest means, who have
several biological children, but then adopt kids from foster care
(26:28):
or just from a regular adoption, and that's a very
common thing in the Christian community. It is quite notable
to me that Matt Walsh, with his ample resources, I'm
sure he could afford to hire full time nannies if
he was so inclined, as far as I could tell,
and I will absolutely correct myself if I'm somehow proven wrong,
but from what I could find on the internet, has
adopted zero children in addition to his children that he's
(26:48):
had biologically. And so for you, as an extremely wealthy
Christian man, to have never taken the time to rescue
or adopt a single kid from foster care, to then
say with your whole chest that it should be illegal
for other people to do so is astounding in its
audacity and its ignorance. And honestly, I didn't watch the
whole two hour interview, but I watched the whole segment
(27:09):
about this topic that Matt did with Tucker Carlson, and
he just didn't really bring any meaningful arguments. The other
point that he made was this, take a listen.
Speaker 7 (27:18):
We should probably we should look at the way that
human society was structured for thousands of years, and we
should probably consider that they were right about a lot
of that stuff. If human beings did something a certain
way for literally millennia in every civilization that we know of,
it's probably right. I mean, there's probably it's there's probably
(27:40):
a lot to be said for it. Again, not in
every case, but in most cases, so worth pondering anyway.
It tells you something if great if every civilization, none
of which that we know have had contact with each other,
came to the same conclusions exactly. So so it's something
like the you know, gay adoption that and this is
this isn't the only argument against it, but I think
it is a worthwhile argument that there's never been a
(28:03):
society anywhere on Earth, anywhere period where they have had
two men in a romantic relationship starting a family. That's
just that's never existed. It's always been a man and
a woman start a family, or in certain ancient civilizations
and even some primitive ones. Today you might have a
man in several women. You might have polygamy, but that's
(28:25):
pretty common feature. I would say, it's certainly common, but
you never had and why do you have polygamy? It's like,
I'm not I don't support polygamy.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
But so this clipsed out to me for a couple
of reasons. But one is that within sixty seconds he
kind of contradicts and debunks himself. His argument is not
a very strong one, that well, something's been done this
way for a very long time, so not always, but
that means it's probably good. Slavery, mass rape, all sorts
of horrible things have been done for millennia throughout human history.
(28:54):
Doesn't mean they were ever right or moral or good.
Some things, some traditions are good, Some should change with time.
It doesn't tell you anything this argument. The question is
whether same sex parenting is one of the things that
should change or shouldn't, And just the fact that they
didn't do things like that for a very long time,
not even admits doesn't mean that they were always right,
(29:16):
and in fact goes on to contradict himself because polygamy.
You know, one man having multiple wives was a practice
for a very long time and a lot of civilizations seaesus.
Of course, I don't support that, so it's just a
complete non argument. It's a non sequitor. And really he
didn't have much to offer here. He dismissed facts and evidence,
exclusively argued from his own feelings that he wants to legislate,
(29:37):
and then rambled on for minutes with nothing burger points
like this one that don't actually say anything. I thought
it was a really remarkable clip that shows I think
the shortcomings in the seriousness and intellectual depth a lot
of a lot of these right wing culture warriors. But
let me know what you guys think in the comments below,
(29:57):
and that'll be it for today's episode of the Bread
Versus Everyone Podcast. Thank you so much for tuning in.
Please do consider subscribing and sticking around if you haven't yet,
and do consider hitting that like button. Remember to send
voice note and check out the merch and we'll talk
again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.