Oct 10, 2026 · 21 min
Walsh challenges selective outrage in criminal cases
Feminists Have Created The Worst Song In Human History
The episode examines how online reactions to violent crimes become a test of moral consistency, then extends that argument to lessons taught to children.
- 1Matt Walsh argues that feminist reactions to Lindsay Clancy and Christa Pike reveal selective outrage and broader moral inconsistency.
- 2A child says he would reject bullying a girl, refuse to participate, and tell an adult when asked about an attack.
- 3Walsh criticizes explicitly presenting extreme crimes as moral lessons for very young children, comparing them with serial killing and cannibalism.
Don't miss
A child calmly says he would refuse to hurt a girl, avoid joining in, and tell an adult, before Walsh turns to the limits of moral lessons for children.
The brief
Matt Walsh opens by comparing online feminist reactions to the cases involving Lindsay Clancy and Christa Pike, arguing that outrage is applied selectively rather than consistently.
The episode’s central argument is that reactions to notorious crimes expose broader moral contradictions, especially when sympathy and condemnation appear to depend on the identity of the accused.
A child is asked what he would do if peers hurt a little girl. He says he would not join in and would tell an adult, drawing praise from the interviewer.
Walsh then objects to teaching very young children that gang rape is wrong, calling such lessons as unnecessary as warning them not to become serial killers or cannibals.
The episode leaves a tension between clear moral guidance and extreme hypothetical instruction: how much should children be asked to understand about crimes they are unlikely to encounter?