"You Are HYPOCRITES!" Michael Knowles MANSPLAINS: Hot Women In Commercials

Okay, fellas. Since Hollywood can't do anything right anymore, we did their job for them. The Daily Wire's newest movie is an ode to the great funny action films of the 80s and 90s, good guys win, bad guys lose, no one apologizes for it. Check out Run Hyde Fight Infidels now streaming only on The Daily Wire. Imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new grippy setting mist from Mabelie, New York. Jelly mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours, with flexible all-day comfy grip. No tightness, no stickiness, no residue, just plump, dewy hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new grippy setting mist from Mabelie, New York. Maybe it's Mabelie. Am I misogynistic left-isplonding? I think you're misogynistic for many different reasons. I like seeing hot, white women. I'm not going to cheer that people are watching more straight pornography than gay pornography. It is fundamentally hypocritical of Michael to applaud a naked advertisement as he stepped toward a conservative America. I got in big trouble the other day, and not just with my wife, with you, the beloved audience, because Sydney Swini made a sports commercial. And in it, she was not wearing very much clothing, and she was covering various parts of herself with footballs and basketballs and things like that. And I pointed out that the Sydney Swini half-naked pro-gambling commercial is actually probably on the whole a positive development in our culture. I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not saying that we're pro nudity or gambling or any of the like, but given where the culture was, I said, there was probably a change generally in the right direction. I was pilloried, ripped apart in the comments section. The the lips are upset, the feminists are upset, the conservatives and the trad's are upset. So I decided I needed to invite a bunch of women on to tell me why I'm wrong. And those women are Tilly, Middlehurst, leftist blondie. Welcome back to the program. Emily saves America. Here is always and justice, hope, keel. Ladies, thank you for being on. Wonderful to be with. Thank you all for wearing clothing, by the way, because that's a big part of the controversy here. I just want to go down the line. Sydney Swini commercial, love it, hate it, think it's kind of bad, but generally good for the culture. We're right down the line. What's your opinion? Leftist blondie. Sure. Well, I suppose you made this comment about thank you for wearing clothes. I think however your opinion would be that if we wouldn't, it would be some great move for conservatism. But I think that when we have to start out by saying, my culture's not your costume, Michael, you don't get to, you know, well, sexual liberation just to own the lips. It goes completely against your Catholic doctrine, I think, first of all. The left's job as far as the feminists and the liberals being upset is to critique systems that they think are harmful. And that's what they're doing. Now they're doing it for the wrong reasons, I believe, and we can talk about that later. But I do think that the real harm in this that people are overlooking is the promotion and the weaponizing of women's bodies as objects for class and for money and for gambling. So I think that's the real issue and we can, you know, fill it to that. The male gaze. Now just one point in response to what you said, you said, Michael, I'm surprised, given your opinion of the Sydney Swini ad that you aren't encouraging us all to be naked. No, no, that would be a bad change for my show. Michael, the Michael Null show, this is a PG show, a family program. We do not have naked women on. So if I went from clothed women to naked women, that would be a change in the wrong direction on my show. But for the pop culture, which is deeply pornographic and obscene all the time, to me, at least this kind of attractive little im modest advertising of a beautiful woman is better than the recent, what we've seen for the last 10 years, im modesty where the advertising is all like gargantuan men of androgyny wearing dresses. And anyway, let's keep going down the line. What's your opinion of the Sydney Swini ad? Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's fundamentally something different or unique, comparative to what we've seen before in the culture. I do think that it is fundamentally hypocritical of Michael to applaud a naked advertisement as a step toward a conservative America. When in his world, I have read your book, Michael, under blasphemy law, Sydney is not only shame. She's also find and blamed for men's lust. I mean, you can say that you're happy, she's a registered Republican. You can say that you're happy. She's a naked registered Republican. Those are all five positions. But I think the only naked conservative woman you should truly be so happy to see is, of course, your life. Yes, I think that's fair. And you may have mispoken. In my ideal regime, she would not have violated a blasphemy law. She would have violated an obscenity law. But I do want the obscenity law to yes. Okay, all right. Next one, bring it on. Come on, hypocrite, bio misogynist, whatever you want to call me, bring it on. My take is a little bit less. Yeah, you know, I'm not going to call you hypocrite. Thank you. I do, I do slightly disagree with you. I think I get what you're saying incrementally. This is like a better direction to be headed. But I think that the principle of double effect applies here, like doing something slight, doing something wrong for the sake of somehow creating a good outcome is still something wrong. And she's still naked on TV on our screens. She's still presenting sexuality in a context outside of what it was designed for, which is in the context of marriage. Our sexuality is powerful. It is beautiful. It is eye catching, and it was meant and created to exist in a specific context. And that context is not on TV for every man to come across online. I'm a mother of a little boy. I don't want him going online and seeing naked, Sydney, Sydney or naked anybody else. And so, but I also think as a conservative Christian, it's really important that we approach our response to her charitably and with love that we make sure that we are differentiating between calling out of wrong behavior and putting a label on her as a person like this is who you are. I was Miss Tennessee, USA years ago. I was on national television in the bikini. So, some people could look at me and be like, this is really ironic that you're like, you're saying this. My heart has changed since then. The Lord has done amazing work in my life since then. I knew him then and I hope that I know him better now. And I've grown and matured. And I was also in my early 20s and I'm in my 30s now. And so, I think that we want to leave space for people also to grow and for the Lord to develop them. And so, I think that's a really important part of all of this is having a charitable perspective towards her as well. Yeah, I think that's true. And you bring up bikinis. I would go further even though I'm kind of mildly defending the Sydney Swini ad or I'm at least trying to look on the bright side of it. I'm anti bikini too. You know, the bikini didn't exist until the 40s and it violated all sorts of public indecency laws. And I think it should. And it would be it would be better actually if we did not have bikinis out today. Now Sydney Swini, she's half naked in this ad. It's not she's not going the full Monty, but you know, it's pretty suggestive. And she seems very little to be imagination. It's very little left imagination. Yeah, it's not good. People who want to keep custody of their eyes, probably not good to see that ad. So, okay, incrementally, yes, okay, there's this issue. Final thought, Emily saves America. Pro anti Swini ad. I love it. She's hot. If anyone had that body, they would also be showing it. It's sexy gambling. The two things that sell. We she got the exact reaction she wanted. I like seen hot white women back on top that she looks amazing. No one can argue that the only people are that are upset. And I understand, you know, the fate tried can serve as a, oh, no, this is so bad. It's actually a net positive. Okay. And then the other people are upset are the women writing the articles who are unfortunate looking usually overweight and jealous. And you know what? If it was a fat black girl or someone's friends or someone with one arm or an indigenous person, they'd be so excited for her. Hold that thought. Apropos of nothing. Go watch the DailyWire's new movie Run Hyde Fight Infadels. We cannot run or hide. From what is coming, we have to fight. I will be rewarded 10,000 times in the next life when you die. You're nothing. Run Hyde Fight Infadels only on the DailyWire. Okay. So this I think is what really motivates at least my reactions to the advertisement is the fact that for the last 10 years, it's like fat, pygmy, multi-ethnic, androgynous. They, them, men who are wearing, you know, lingerie in a victorious secret ad. And the popular culture tells us not just merely to look at that kind of perverse obscenity, but to say that it's beautiful and to dare us to, to in any way, contradict the idea that that's beautiful when it obviously is not. So when you get back to the critique that leftist blondie was just making, you say your problem with this is that it attracts the male gaze, basically, that it uses women's physical beauty in order to sell products. And so I, I see that feminist issue. The trad problem with it, which also was just mentioned, is that it presents sex outside of marriage. No, it's not, it's not actual sex. Like she's not, you know, bumping ugly is on screen or anything, pardon the expression. But, you know, it, never the less portrays this sexual image, and it appeals to the Prairie and Interest. There's no question. But I guess my point is advertising has always played on these kinds of things. One of the feminist critiques of Swini's ad is that this is not what female sports is about. Women in sports are about, you know, physical prowess and Excel. playing in games and whatever. I guess my point though is, sports is about the body. Mathematics is about the mind, sports is about the body. But to leftist blondies point, when you say this is using women's bodies to appeal to this basic kind of male gaze, I guess that is the part that I would defend as an improvement over the previous idea. Because I wanna return to a culture that is modest, that does not promote gambling. We haven't even really touched on the gambling part of the whole thing. But where we are right now is we're told that we have to lie about how even the base desires of human nature work. Even that appeal to the purine interest, even what does appeal to our lusty aspects. And so it seems to me that if we're moving from that culture of lies to the culture that actually gets human nature right, that says that, yeah, men like pretty thin blonde girls with large personality, that is an improvement because we're at least grounding our advertising in the truth. And you can't move to the perfect world until you at least get to that middle ground. Am I misogynistic leftist blondie? - I think you're misogynistic for many different reasons, but I think you have very, very, you know, done a good job at misunderstanding the critique that I was living there. The critique was not that women cannot make themselves into sexual beings. It's not that they can't express their sexualities in the ways that they desire. It's about the end goal of it being used as a political bludgeon to say, like we get to own the lips now and we also get to promote gambling. This thing that disenfranchises young adults and teens, the younger men, especially men or two to one or about three to point four to one, times as likely as women to engage in gambling, people who are low income, people who have substance use disorders are more prone to addiction, and especially with things like gambling. So if you want to say, like this is the issue of the left is like it's diminishing women's sports. I don't think that any reasonable interpretation of the ad is that Sydney Swini is here to sell you women in sports. Sydney Swini is here to sell you sex in order to get you to opt into gambling for sports. So it's completely uncharitable. - Hold on. - I have a contradiction, I want to clarify it. So you just said, Michael, you've misinterpreted what I'm saying. I am not saying that women shouldn't use their sexuality in any way that they choose. What I'm saying is, Sydney Swini should not have used her sexuality in the way that she chose, because it advances things that you object to. So isn't that a contradiction? - No, it's not a contradiction, unless you want to point it out to me, you can syllogize it if you'd like to, but it's not a contradiction. The point is that the end goal is bad. So I can say, maybe I have a really charismatic personality. Now we, of course, all in this panel probably disagree with that. But if I use my charismatic personality to, oh, thank you, I appreciate it. But if I use my charismatic personality to sell someone cocaine, I think I'm doing something wrong. No one is interpreting Sydney Swini's physique. - But hold on, then I want to just establish, then it seems like your major premise is wrong, 'cause, and there I think I would agree with you. It seems like what you're saying is, no, no, no, women should not be using their sexuality in any way that they so choose. There are some ways that are good, and there are some ways that are bad. And we might disagree over the good and bad ways, but you're saying it's bad to promote it in a way that sells sex to normy men and sells gambling. And so what you're saying, it seems to me, if you're critiquing Sydney Swini is, hey girl, you should not use your sexuality in this way. You should use your sexuality in a way that I approve of. - Of course, I think that people should use their sexuality in ways that I approve of. I don't think that people who have certain sexualities that are aggressive towards other people or sexualities that are geared towards the moral things should be doing, of course not. The thing is not to say that a woman being sexual. No, of course not. The problem was not about the autonomy. It was about the promotion of gambling, which harms people, and it's a tool to uphold class status. Sydney Swini carriers far more about class than she does about, you know, sexualizing about-- - So the problem isn't the sex, the problem is the gambling. - Of course, absolutely. Okay, all right. - The sexual appeal is the tool to the end goal of getting people to gamble. - So the sex isn't the problem, but I think the rest of the ladies on the panel, well, not Emily saves America, but the other two ladies on the panel would say that the problem is the sex more than it is the gambling. Do I have that right? - I don't know that I'd say more than the gambling. To be honest, I haven't even thought about the gambling part. I saw the ad, and I was like, this is so offensive. Just her being naked, I know that she's got stuff covering vinyl layers, she might as well be naked. Yeah, she's basically naked, mostly naked on screen. And I think that's the problem with the ad, if you will. What then comes from the ad, there's more things, you know, gambling, and who knows what else will come from the ad. I don't know. But the ad itself, the problem that I have with it is her nakedness. - But then, I guess is my problem with that critique, which I agree with. You know, at a principle level, I agree with you. But it seems to me that given where we are in the culture, and given that our culture is filled with people who think exactly like leftist blondie, which is that there should be absolutely no limit whatsoever to the use of one's sexuality as such, that living in that culture, we are not going to go from that to the Victorian age. We are not going to go from that to, like the lady shouldn't show a little ankle to sell bow ties or something, you know. We're, there has to be some kind of intermediate stage. And so I'm willing to say, just as Irving Crystal said, two cheers for capitalism instead of three. I'm willing to say two or even maybe one cheer for the hot Sidney Swini ad, because at least it's, would you at least agree it's moving us in the right direction? Or no, you think it's moving us further down the wrong direction of purience and vice? - Yeah, 'cause I think that's a problem, 'cause people are just redirecting, it's still sexual sin. So we're just redirecting the sexual sin into a different sin. It's like, I'm not going to cheer that people are watching more straight pornography than gay pornography, even though I think that homosexual relationships are the biological norm and how God created us to function. I'm not going to celebrate, oh yeah, like more people are watching straight porn. - Okay, but I'm not just thinking to look at culturally. - But this is what I'm asking. Let's say it's all bad, you know, porn is just bad and gambling is bad too in most cases. Okay, well, I think about my main man, Dante Alighieri, who's listing all of the sins in the inferno, and there's the sin of lust, there's Paloan Francesca being blown around on the winds of their own lust and their inability to discipline themselves, but then further down in hell, that is a more serious sin would be the sins of like homosexual satamy and other kinds of, even other kinds of sexual sins and then there are many more sins than that. So because a guy being attracted to a hot blonde check, holding a couple of footballs in front of her chest, because that is more natural, that is more in line with natural and potentially well-ordered desires than say, you know, homosexuality or thruples or trans or whatever, then I think you would even have to agree that is necessarily an improvement. Even if it's all bad, it's still better than the alternative. - Yeah, and I would say it feels more conservative than what we're used to seeing, like you guys were talking about, where there's this sort of forced, we're trying to force a narrative that like, everybody is equally attractive, biologically, everybody, you know, and you can just be attracted to anybody or anything. Yeah, it's gonna feel more conservative than that, but it's still not conservative. - Okay, but Emily, you're taking a different view than the mayor. - Emily, your view is she's hot, she's blonde, she's white, she's all the things, she's a woman, she's all the things that you're not allowed to be for the last 10 years. - Exactly, exactly what I was saying. - Let's just, let's just dumb this down for everyone that will be potentially listening. We're going back to the OG 90s when you used to see NASCAR, all the girls were hot, blonde, bombshells, they had big tits, they were nice to look at, so already no one's arguing with that. So of course it's a win. If I'm gonna watch someone on TV and they're gonna promote sex and gambling, God bless her, she's great to look at, even as a straight woman. Do I wanna see her or do I wanna see a trans-indigenous person with their balls hanging out on TV promoting it? Yes, this is a win for all of us. At least it's not, you know, boring our eyeballs off, which is what I've been used to, being shoved down my throat for, I don't know, 10 years now. It's a win across the board. They're gonna promote sex and gambling, whether we like it or not. - No, though, it does occur to me as you're making this point, which I'm basically inclined to agree with. It does occur to me if they had some big, fat, indigenous man wearing lingerie, that would probably be better for my soul than Sydney Swini, because I'm not attracted to the big, fat, ugly, indigenous man. It doesn't arouse me in the way that a good-looking lady wearing very little clothing potentially could. But on your broader point where you say, look, the 90s are back. I think you are totally right. You are hitting the nail on the head here. What we are looking at is 90s liberalism. And the left hates it because they thought they'd move past 90s liberalism. For them, Bill Clinton is basically Edmund Burke at this point. They're playing around with like a son-piker in all these radical leftists. So they don't want to deal with that. And then the conservatives say, well, hold on. We didn't really like 90s liberalism that much either. We did impeach Bill Clinton for sexual sins, and the 90s were not the peak of human civilization. And I also agree with that. I think there are some people on the right who say, we don't want to go back to the 50s. We don't want to go back to the 1220s, which is what I would prefer to go back to. We want to go just back to the 90s, leave it there. It was all good. Is that your position or is your position that the 90s were a good intermediate stage to go back to say, I don't know, the more is of the Carolingian era? >> I like the 90s. I miss supermodels. They're supposed to be skinny. They're supposed to be pretty. They're supposed to be interesting looking. I like the Victorian secret angels, and by the way, as a woman, it gave me motivation to level up. And it should give all women motivation to level up. Like, the whole point is you're not supposed to look like everyone. It's supposed to be almost unattainable. That's what makes them special. But we gave everyone, including all the fat, ugly, short women, trophies for existing. And we were like, yeah, let's celebrate everyone. Let's not. Let's celebrate the people that are naturally gifted, and Sydney Sweeney's one of them. And the only people like us that have an issue with it are very unfortunate people. And I don't really care what they say. And the women on the left, no one hates women, more than other women, and specifically women on the left. I mean, what is wrong with you talking about women being exploited? It's women who exploit themselves. They're sell their vagina online, they're prostituting themselves, they're hosting naked online. We're blaming the men. It's the women choosing to be prostitutes and exploit themselves for the most part now. >> Well, men are the consumers, but it is true that all women hate each other. That's like a sociological fact, very well established. So we've brought up Edmund Burke, we've brought up Dante. And now I think we need to bring up René Girard, because you make another good point, which is that it's not just about the effect of Sydney Sweeney on men, but also on women, that were creatures of mimetic desire. And so when a woman sees like, you know, perversity and ugliness all around them, they're going to make themselves more perverse and ugly, which is what a lot of the millennials did for the 20 teens. And you know, they just like would pierce themselves everywhere, get a bunch of crazy tattoos. And so now if we have like really good looking women, maybe they'll start to desire that and to shape themselves into that. What is your take, Tilly, is that we've now got the fullest defense of Sydney Sweeney, which is this is good for men. This is good for women actually. It's good for everybody involved. You disagree. >> Yeah, I mean, I sort of sit in the middle here. I don't have a particular issue with the ad itself, but I do think this is ultimately why both Michael and Emily are not real conservatives, right? I think you guys are representative of a synchrotistic reactionary movement that spawned very recently and not to be trusted. I'm much more interested in the discourse that's sprung from the ad itself. And I think we can say something about asymmetry here. For example, Sabrina Carpenter, we can probably agree she's an attractive blonde, white woman in sort of conventional terms as in she's objectively beautiful. I don't think that she does a lot more and absorbs a lot of hatred from the right for her licentiousness because she is sexy liberally. She is sexy left to sleep. She says that men are bad while she takes her clothes off. Sydney Sweeney, she's been assigned this political value and by all accounts she possesses that to some degree herself. So her body is read as ideological by both sides of that spectrum too. And so her nakedness is nakedness conservatively, which is in sorts, I think that this is ultimately an oxymoron. I think that there is no world in which it logically follows to say that this woman is naked in an advertisement or even a white beautiful woman is naked in an advertisement. I don't think that leads to the West is becoming more Christian or more conservative because if a beautiful white leftist woman were naked in an ad, you would probably raise the alarm bells about degenerate cultural Marxism or even suggest that she's perverting the minds of men outside the West, causing them to view white women as promiscuous and sexual. So I just see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides here. I don't think that we need any help leading people to conclude that white women in the West are being promiscuous and obscene. I think there's been a lot of precedent for that already. The charge though that you're leveling it may, I think you're misinterpreting because I am not in any way suggesting that the advertisement is conservative. I am not in any way suggesting that I would promote it. In the Michael polity, all of those advertisements would be illegal. They would be punished by the law. So I'm not suggesting that at all. I am not a libertarian. I do not want to return to the 90s. I want to return to the 890s or the 990s. I want to return to a period before William of Ockham, okay? However, I think where we disagree is not on syncretism of ideology. It's on the paramount political virtue, which is prudence. It's the practicality of how things are actually improved. So it seems to me, my only thought on the advertisement is that it represents a movement in the right direction from a cultural position that is very, very bad in the hours, very, very late. So do you disagree with that point? Do you think, in other words, that given where we are, are depraved, decadent stage of culture? Do you think that the ad represents a movement of the culture getting worse or getting better, even at the most marginal level? Yeah, I mean, I think that if I were to just accept those beliefs as they come and if I would argue from your own turf, I would say that Catholic moral teaching sort of always forbids doing evil so that good make or many way. I mean, St. Paul. But I'm not encouraged. I'm merely observing it. I'm merely asking you more interpretation of it. Does that represent the culture getting worse or getting better? I don't think it represents the culture moving in one way or another per se, because I don't think that the ad is particularly unique. I think that we've always seen beautiful women take their clothes off for advertisements in order to sell things. I think that that's something that we can all find common ground on, using our eyes to understand that this is something that continues to happen and happens even when fat people are also in advertisements. Well done. If this doesn't represent a cultural change, then why are people talking about this ad in particular? If your point is this is just business as usual, there's nothing interesting or novel about it, then why is it that this ad of a nice-looking blonde lady wearing very little selling gambling? Why has that dominated the cultural discourse for a week now? Yeah, I mean, I think that what's unique about her is firstly, she's probably, and you can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I think she's one of the only new generation of household names who is young, female, and also a registered Republican. I think that that's unique about it, and I think it's also unique that she has the reach that she does. I think those two things create this cocktail of cultural discourse that people regurgitate and argue with and debate on those grounds, and I think that conservative commentators routinely condemn sexualized pop culture as proof of Western decline, and really the principle that makes this nudity redemptive for you and the other nudity degenerate is simply the fact that Cindy Swini is a Republican, in which case I'm from your argue about what is that she's beautiful? Yeah, it's that she's beautiful. I'm not saying the ad is redemptive, I certainly wouldn't say that, but the reason I say that it's a change in the right direction, the reason I say that it's implausible, I think, that you say, oh, this is really business as usual, there's nothing interesting about it. Well, the entire internet disagrees. The entire internet seems to be, I think it's pretty interesting. And I think it's really Emily's point. I think what's interesting about it is we have not really seen good-looking non-feminist blonde women just selling female beauty as such in advertising for 10 or 15 years now. I think that is what's really dominating the discourse about it. And so I would not say that that is redemptive, though beauty itself actually can be redemptive, so that's an interesting conversation separately. But nevertheless, the reason that we're talking about it is because something new has happened. And so if something new has happened, it's either improving or damaging the culture. And I think Emily's right in so far as she's saying, this is an improvement to the culture. That's my whole claim. It has nothing new, she's being a Republican. Because we're missing a big point on Sidney Swingy's reactions. She had the interview that went viral that turned into the meme where she's like, when I want to speak about something, you're going to hear my opinion because she shut it down with, I think it was an anti-white comment. I would be shocked if it was anything else. And then this, she posted on her Instagram stories, the photos of, you know, the lesbians naked, the black girls naked, everyone else naked and knowing how to problem. What we like about her is she is shifting the culture because she's doubling down. She's not apologizing and she's showing all the leftists their hypocrisy of like, oh, you guys aren't upset about these things. That is a big shift in culture. Yes, you know, let me liken it to another major culture word debate, which is the abortion debate. Because the people who are attacking Sidney Swingy from the right here and saying that this is actually a bad move for the culture, I think it's kind of like the abortion abolitionists who attack the pro-life movement. The argument from the abolitionists against the pro-life movement is that they're not going nearly far enough. They're not moving nearly quickly enough. They're not giving us perfect policy. And they'll even make moral arguments as the one that we just heard from Tilly, which is they'll say, well, look, we can never cooperate with evil in any way. So if if I were governor of a state right now, if I were on the Supreme Court for that matter and someone said, okay, we're going to overrule Roe v Wade on the grounds that we're going to send the abortion decisions back to the states, which in some cases could even liberalize abortion. I guess from a purely principled perspective, I could say, well, I'm not going to overrule Roe v Wade then because I'm still cooperating with evil because we'll still have abortion legal in the states. We might even expand abortion. So I'm not going to do that. Or if I were governor and I got a pro-life law across my desk and it said, we're going to get rid of 80% of abortions, but we're going to tolerate some abortions in the early stages and with exceptions for rape, incest, whatever. And so it would reduce the abortions tremendously, but it would still permit certain abortions. The purist would say, well, I can't do that. I'm cooperating with evil in some way. You're still killing babies. It's still fundamentally immoral. I'm not signing that legislation. Get rid of all the abortions or give me nothing. At a less consequential level, I think that's what you're seeing with the swinging ad, which is, okay, well, if someone's going to be jiggling around half naked on camera, I'd at least have them appeal to natural desires rather than unnatural desires. I don't think that's immoral or hypocritical or I don't know, contrary to anyone's deep faith, is it? question about this actually. Okay. Yeah, my question is, is do you think that encouragement of another's grave sins is a grave sin in of itself? No, I would certainly would never encourage sin, but I would applaud if people move from a grave sin to a less grave sin. In other words, if someone is caught in habitual vice and particularly grave vice, I would not immediately lambast them. If as they are moving from vice to virtue, they get caught in a little bit of incontinence or confusion over virtue and morality. I would encourage a movement in the right direction. Well, I don't suppose that the ad is doing anything like appealing to men who might not be heterosexual. So I mean, the ad is clearly intended towards young heterosexual men to get young heterosexual men to gamble. So my question, once again, and I'll reask it, is the encouragement of a vice or complacency with a with a vice like a moral mortal sin? Is that itself a mortal sin? That was the question, Michael. No, well, you could fall into the sin of scandal, which is what I'm arduously attempting to avoid here by clarifying this position, which is you say, okay, we got this advertisement that's promoting gambling and appealing to lust. And so that's bad. We don't want that. It'd be better if we could get rid of all of that. But given that condition, if we previously, for the last 10, 15 years, had ads that were appealing, that were selling gambling and appealing to lust by appealing to, I don't know, homosexuality or otherwise deviant sexual desires. And now we have one that is not doing that, but is appealing to a more natural form of sexuality. I would have to conclude that that is an improvement. So I'm not encouraging more advertisements like this. I'm merely observing and interpreting that that is a movement in the right direction. Now, justice, you had a point. Yeah, I think when we're talking about incrementalism as far as abortion goes, the way that you can look at passing an incrementalist law is that I'm reducing abortion by X amount. So there is a reduction in evil that's happening that's actually measurable versus saying, I'm okay with abortion up until this point. For example, I live in a state where a heartbeat and went into effect immediately as soon as Robbie Wade was overturned. And that wasn't to say, we're okay with abortion up until the heartbeat. It's to say, we're limiting, we're placing limitation. Of course, I want to ultimately see all abortion become illegal across the nation. But when we're talking about this ad, I don't think that we can like equate those two because it's still lust. Lust is still lust. And I think as Christians are killing babies, yes, but killing less babies. Right, we're reducing the severity of it. But I guess that that's my point on the advertisements is if we live in a popular culture, which again spreads by my mesas. So when you get a few big corporations promoting a ton of weird stuff, you get those same kinds of themes everywhere, Threatica, all the small companies start promoting that too. So guess my point is if we've had advertising, which is objectionable on so many grounds that has been promoting really, really unnatural stuff for the last 10 or 15 years. And now you're seeing major advertisers beginning to promote less unactually natural stuff albeit imperfect. It seems to me, I would view that as a kind of a pie chart that the more natural albeit objectionable advertising is going to memetically crowd out the unnatural weirdo perverse advertising that Emily was just describing for the last 10 or 15 years. And so it seems to me that those comparisons are pretty apt because you are getting a reduction of the severity and the gravity of the sins, even though you're still in a substantially vicious and sinful kind of environment. Am I misreading that? I guess it depends on your take on the severity of different sins. I would say lust is a problem regardless of who or what you're lusting after. And a measurable number of abortions being reduced. So if like, you know, let's say instead of a thousand babies being killed pin, that's better. Like we say to you now, 990 babies that way, there's not that same wantifiable, like it's not like a reduction in lust. It's still lust. Well, I don't know, I mean, in other words, not to be too, not to be too evocative about it, but if I have desires, if I willfully entertain desires about my wife that are contrary to morality, the sort of thing that I really I need to confess, even though it's my wife, but I shouldn't be, you know, thinking of my wife and just purely as an object of lust or something like that. That's bad. And I, it's a sin and I should confess it, but that is much less bad than if I were thinking about some other woman in that way or some man. And that would be way worse if I were thinking about some man in that way or a Billy goat and said, that would be way worse than if I were even thinking about the man. So in other words, we can't just say that all impure thoughts are exactly the same. Some actually, it seems to me are less grave than others. Would you disagree with that? Good question. It's a good question. I don't know. I asked it. Okay. The producers are telling me I have to leave it there. Ladies, it's wonderful to be with all of you. I think you've all been totally one more minute. Yes. Okay. I would never say no to you, Emily. We're not even touching on a huge aspect, which is, of course, laughing women who are always upset, talking about their upset about sports. Okay. This is a mockery of women's sports. When did you guys start caring about women's sports? I am sorry. I saw you guys first while getting to define a woman. And now you have men and women's sports, whooping women's asses, taking their trophies, literally crushing their skulls and little girls I've seen interviewed in real life on Fox News, mean like, yeah, they're just coming in and like, I just, I don't know what to do anymore, moms are crying. So I'm like, host, so now all of a sudden, they care about women's sports and they want to take it seriously after letting men once again dominate us. I'm out. Emily out. I totally agree. I couldn't have said it better myself. And I certainly wouldn't have said it is directly and evocatively. Women, women, ladies, always wonderful to be with you. Thank you. I think I've convinced all of you of my point of view. Is that right? Before I get an answer, we'll just say goodbye. I'm Michael and I'll see you next time. Oh, yeah. Sorry. I didn't get you. Before I let you go, ladies, where can people find you? Down the line. Left is going. Left is bonding. All social media. I'm blonde praxis pretty much everywhere except Instagram, where I'm tilly with loads of L's because I won't change that one. On Instagram, I've just this hope keel and I have a podcast that's on all podcast platforms and YouTube called with all her mind. @EmilySaysAmerica, absolutely everywhere. Everywhere. You see her everywhere and you can see all of these ladies here on the Michael Nilshow for which I'm very grateful. See you all next time. Every significant move in history started with protesting. This is our generation civil rights. I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo, given the current climate, should have figured as polarizing as place Saunders, you can be allowed on campus. Can you hear me okay? Saunders is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman. This is a decision I cannot find. Islam will conquer the West. We paying attention. They've taken over the building. They're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. We cannot run and hide. Muhammad is the messenger of God. There is no God but Allah. What do you say? We turn those vessel bees into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leapfrog. Stretch them out when they listen. You need a course in safe weapons handling.