Atheist Talks About Matt Walsh Vs. Ken Ham (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 128)

The Catholic Church, Pope Francis, and Matt Walsh

Well, another sex abuse scandal took place in the Catholic Church. Is anyone really surprised at this point? Seriously, are Catholics even surprised at this point? I'm not. Only a few years ago they were caught shuffling pedophile priests around like a game of 3 card Monty.   

Of course the church has always had a history of pure evil. Rather it be censorship, repression, or murder and war. However, the excuse I always here from self-described catholic apologist is that "was in the past". Which is true. However, the only evolution they've made are the most basic things someone could imagine. They no longer kill for leaving the religion? They should have never started doing that in the first place. 

Others tell me that the crimes of Islam are much worse than the crimes of the church. This isn't entirely wrong. But if your best excuse is that your belief system isn't as bad as the one that kills gays, makes you get gender reassignment surgery if your homosexual, doesn't treat women like human beings, and is partly guilty for the biggest terrorist attack and mass shooting in US history then your faith is pretty bad. 

Higher ups in Islam kill. Higher ups in Catholicism rape children. These are both objective facts. 

Let's not forget how much of an open secret this has been throughout all of history. It was first publicized in 1985, over 30 years ago. The church has done very little since then to stop this problem because they don't care. 

Pope Francis was forced to deal with the fact that yet another sexual abusive scandal happened. With such ground-breaking and controversial previous takes as "Climate change is real" and "If god made everything, I guess that includes being gay" said basically what you'd expect.

You see, Pope Francis is against child abuse. Not against it to the point where he wants to do anything about it. But he doesn't like it enough to the point where he's willing to complain about it just before flying his private jet to complain about climate change. And let's not forget when someone asked him about his links he refused to answer. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Just like how reports are now coming out that he knew about this and said nothing.

That is when the media bothers to report on it. The mainstream media has been spending so much time defending Francis and the church that it's honestly sad. You would think they were trying to censor them. Which does actually make sense considering they are the Catholic Church. Even the people who are pretending to be critical are failing right into the traps of the church.

Enter Matt Walsh, Daily Wire columnist and someone who I have spent much time taking about before. In his recent column The Worst Bullies In America Matt is angry that LGBT activists got an orphanage shut down for, as he puts it, "the crime of being Catholic". 

I have two quotes from this column I would like to share with you. However, before I do I figure I should remind you he wrote this in defensive of a Catholic owned organization that has the sole purpose of caring for kids during a sex abuse scandal involving raping kids:

It is almost irrelevant to not that the organization's original adoption policy [of not allowing homosexuals to adopt] was . . . keeping with reason and science. Studies consistently show that . . . children win same-sex parented households have higher rates of . . . abuse.

The one and only "inequality" [homosexuals have] left [to protest] was the rule prohibiting active homosexuals from donating blood, due to astronomically higher rates of HIV in the gay community. But even this is under attack and being repealed. The LGBT lobby will risk giving HIV to hospital patients if it means they get to win another battle.

I would like to remind everyone Matt is a self identified Catholic and father of small kids. If Matt's thinking is correct, most notably that statics mean everything and 100% of the time apply to individuals no matter how old they are, then shouldn't he give up his own kids? Even buying Matt's excuse it's the fault of gays within the church (it makes about as much sense as it sounds), that still means gays are common within the church. So should Matt not be allowed to have his kids. Maybe. Honestly, I'm just sick of these excuses.  

   

         

The Right-Wing War On Mental Health

If you've been watching The Ephrom Josine Show, or even reading the blog, you've more than likely heard of Matt Walsh. After all, I have covered him quite a bit. You may also be aware of what I've called "the war on mental health". Again I've covered that pretty often. 
However, it was only recently those two things combined, leading to the topic of today's article. Jumping on the bandwagon of people like (committer of treason) Oliver North and Candace Owens, and now believes ADD and ADHD aren't real. Maybe he's bitter that Thom Hartmann, someone who has written a lot of books about ADHD (and who came up with the hunter vs. farmer hypothesis), was a Bernie supporter.
Mind you, this isn't the first time Matt has expressed skepticism. In an article called The Four Terrible Things That Are Destroying Boys In Our Culture Mr. Walsh makes it clear that he thinks "The education system is designed for girls". 

boys are twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. By high school, 20% of boys - 20% - are diagnosed

20%, a whole 20%. In case you don't see what Matt is saying, it's 20%. 
Yet, I still have a few questions. Mostly, if this is a plot to turn men into women (at least, that's what I think Matt is saying), why isn't it a majority? Are only 20% of boys what Matt would consider "real boys"? If so, what about the other 80%. I get it's easy to look at the 1 in 5 and assume something big is going on, but the other side of the coin is 4 in 5.
Second, he says "boys are twice as likely to be diagnosed", well if this is a plot against boys, how can you even calculate it? Shouldn't it be closer to 100 to 1 instead of 2 to 1? To give you an idea of how much that really is, that means 1/3 of people diagnosed with ADD or ADHD are girls. Yet Matt doesn't focus on those numbers. 

Yet . . . we never stop to consider that perhaps we are not . . . diagnosing boys as we are diagnosing boyhood

And girlhood in 1 out of every 3 cases. In case you're wondering, Matt also doesn't believe in transgenderism.

If the school system were not predicated on sitting still and memorizing things . . . there would be no ADHD

And if everyone had (insert illness that no one is debating exists here) no one would. That's really all Matt had to say in this article, luckily, he expanded on it. 
Now, before we actually read the article, I think we should actually look at some of the reactions to it. I know, it seems kind of odd to not start at the start, but I have a reason. You see, even Matt's own fans didn't think what Walsh said in this article wasn't completely accurate. So, he spent a few days trying to defend himself on Twitter. Here are some of my favorite defensive. At one point, someone mentioned the idea that Mr.Walsh had no medical experience. Matt responded:

This may be shocking, but I have discovered a thing called a “book.” I can use it to learn information on many topics. Try it sometime!

Well, Matt, I would like to recommend you read some books as well. Just head to Amazon, and type ADHD in the books section and you should find some good work. In fact, I'll do it for you. 
On a side note, can I address something I'm sick of? I've seen all these older people talk about how books are the only place where truth is held my entire life and it has always confused me. Karl Marx wrote books, I'm sure Matt Walsh disagrees with those. What about books that are responding to other books and authors? Going back to Karl Marx, there are tons of books about him, some like him, some don't. Are they both equally true? Sorry, just needed to vent for a second.
Mind you, it seems Matt himself doesn't believe what he just said considering he said this:  

The fact that you cite the DSM as a legitimate medical text is pretty hilarious.

But Matt, it's a book. I thought those were always right. 

I never claimed that people with an “ADHD”-type personality don’t exist. I claimed that it is not a DISORDER.

Replace ADHD with something like bipolar disorder and you'll really see how strong this argument is. A bipolar like personality does exist, but does that make it a disorder. The answer is yes?
Or what about depression. Is depression real or is it just a bunch of people being Debby downers? 

What is a regular person? Who decided that he is regular? How do we know the regular person isn’t actually the irregular person? Or is it possible that there is no such thing as a regular person?  

Matt Walsh the philosopher. 
But to answer Matt's question, regular in this case, means they are part of the majority who can function in society. 
I have a theory. I think Matt may have been diagnosed with ADHD when he was younger and his certain it's just everyone else who is wrong. You know, my father once told me Republicans think like they're 10 years old, and the more I read people like Matt, the more I know he was right.
But fine, let's look at Matt's article We Have Turned Childhood Into A Mental Disorder. And It's Ruining Our Kids.

According to a report, there has been a dramatic rise in children misusing and overdosing on ADHD medication. I happen to see that report a day after I read another study revealing an increased risk for obesity and diabetes in kids who take ADHD meds. This is not to be confused with the recent research showing that ADHD drugs could be linked to brittle bones. These must all be added . . . to the . . . already known side effects, including insomnia, irritability, decreased appetite, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

I'd actually like to point out a hypocrisy I noticed, that this paragraph helps to highlight. When I first read this article, I also checked the comments. Out of all of them, this is one I find the most interesting:

Apparently I had ADHD when I was a kid. Every time the symptoms appeared I got a dose of leather. Oddly, leather seems to be a known cure for ADHD but doctors can't prescribe it.

I like this comment because it shows a double standard. Notice, how in the column Walsh wrote, he blames ADHD medication for all of these and acts like none of these symptoms can be overcome. Compare that to the commenters' view that all symptoms of ADHD can be overcome with punishment. Try as I might, I couldn't find a comment that went like this:

Apparently I took ADHD medication when I was a kid. Every time a side effect appeared I got a dose of leather. Oddly, leather seems to be a known cure for side effects of ADHD medication but doctors can't prescribe it.

 But let's see more of what Matt has to say:

Maybe this is why a majority of kids diagnosed with ADHD wind up developing other mental illness as they grow older

Or because some things take longer to develop than others. 

Drug companies and the psychiatric industry have so far gotten almost 20 percent of the country onto psychiatric drugs

Or, maybe that's because 20% of the country have ADHD. Why does the amount of people who are diagnosed with it matter anyway? If 100% of people had HIV, would that make HIV fine?

Many of these drugs cause suicidal thoughts, anxiety, and depression. Meanwhile, a lot of Americans are having suicidal thoughts, anxiety, and depression. One need not be a detective to notice a potential causal relationship here.

And we have no way to deal with depression. It's not like there's a form of medicine known as anti-depressants. Oh wait, are those a conspiracy too? 

The psychiatric industry has set out to catalog and medicalize virtually every human behavior, emotion, inclination, temptation, and personality trait.

Blogspot doesn't recognize the word "medicalize" by the way. But okay, so if psychiatrists (or "the psychiatric industry, whatever that means) are just making up illnesses, why does it matter if people on ADHD medication develop depression?
Matt goes on to this for a while. Basically pointing to a symptom of ADHD and responding with "well, kids have it".

So, how can we know when normal childhood behaviors may be a manifestation of mental illness?

Well, most people can't. That's why we have these people called psychologists. But, Matt hates those people. 

With ADHD . . . pediatricians and psychiatrists claim to have identified a malfunction of the whole human person.

Google (or read a book about, if you prefer) neuroscience.
Matt is also outraged at this quote from The Mayo Clinic. Any emphasis is his by the way:

In general, a child shouldn't receive a diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder unless the core symptoms of ADHD . . . create significant problems at home and at school on an ongoing basis.

Now listen to how Matt summarizes it:

According to the medical community, a child's personality becomes diseased at the precise moment that his personality interferes with his schooling.

So, Matt can't read. Because if he could he would have known the statement he just quotes said ADHD "create[s] significant problems at home and at school". Of course, the other option is that Matt is directly lying, but why would he do that? 
Now Matt tries to argue that psychiatrists actually just don't understand god. 

Of course, if you take an entirely materialistic view of the human person . . . then you must believe that everything he fells, everything he thinks, all of his traits . . . are all just material phenomena. The mind is an illusion in that case. You are just your brain and nothing more. If . . . you factor in the soul, and free will, and the uniqueness of each person who is created by a Divine Force, it becomes clear that the mind exist, and it drives the brain much more than the brain drives it.

For the record, Matt believes "the uniqueness . . . [that] is created by a Divine Force" will send most of us to hell, just saying. And I have no idea where he got the "The mind is an illusion in that case" point from. As for the soul point, of course no doctor takes it seriously, they only deal with the psychical world. Even if you believe in a soul, you can't interact with it on a psychical level. 

But even if we put all of that aside . . . and even if you accept . . . that brain chemistry determines everything about a person, that still wouldn't prove . . . the ADHD personality, is disordered. It doesn't prove . . . that a person isn't supposed to be that way.

Reminder: Matt Walsh is the man who believes people aren't born gay. Even though they are supposed to have ADHD. But Matt, I have a question for you. And for that, we must look a little earlier in your article. 

If you go to the doctor because you think you have diabetes, he won't ask: "Well, is the diabetes causing problems at home or school?" Diabetes is diabetes no matter how convenient or inconvenient it may be to you or inconvenient it may be to you or those around you.

His mention of diabetes struck me at first. Because, what Matt doesn't seem to know is, type one diabetes is 100% genetic. Were those kids supposed to have diabetes? And that's not going into the many birth defects that I could go into. 
That's every point he made in the article. He goes on to talk about how a child should act like a child and how ADHD drugs are stopping kids from being kids, and none of it makes any sense. So in conclusion, take your meds.    

  

  

  

      

  

  

       

   

    

   



  

The Daily Wire Meltdown

On Friday it was announced that CNN contributor Anthony Bourdian killed himself at the age of 61 years old. A man who CNN has called "a gifted chef and storyteller" and who many have felt sad for. Combine this the recent death of Kate Spade, also from suicide, and the nation is currently trying to figure out what's going on. 
Now I didn't know much about either of these people until this week. I don't follow famous chiefs or fashion so I would have no reason to know about either of these people. Basically, I don't have a dog in this fight. However, and this is a big, however, this doesn't mean that I can't call out the awful reactions I have seen from the right in response to this.
Take, for example, the founder and editor in chief of The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro. In a recent episode of The Ben Shapiro Show, he spends some time talking about the new "epidemic" (I'll explain why it's in quotes in a bit) and how his website is going to talk about it in the future. But let's hear why he thinks this is happening:

First of all, clinical depression is obviously linked to suicide  

Okay, Ben figured out a basic psychological fact, I'll give him that. I take it he makes sure of that with his wife (who is a doctor, in case you haven't heard) but still.

I would suggest there is a societal lack of meaning. That young people have basically been taught  . . . there emotional state is key. . . we've treated each other as objects. Some of that has to do with . . . social media.

Slow down. Ben already talks fast as it is and now he's giving one nonsense reason after the other.

And some of that has to do with decline of religion 

What? 

There are good studies that suggest

This will be fun

 As religion declines . . . rates of depression go up

Which studies? Yeah, remember the rule of thumb I gave a few posts ago. Whenever someone says that studies show something, they haven't read those studies. 
However, while Shapiro talks about the changes that are going to be made, it seems like another columnist jumped the shark a little. Yes, it's time to talk about Matt Walsh. In a recent post, Matt thinks he found the reason the whole suicide thing is taking place, atheism. 

People will say that suicide is on the rise because we are not doing enough to fight the "mental health crisis" but . . . the rate was a fraction of what it is today back when nobody had ever heard of "mental health".-Matt Walsh

This [the story of Adam and Eve] was before doctors, so cancer and that kind of stuff didn't exist yet-Stan Smith

Figured I'd keep it in Matt's ballpark with what I compare him to. In fact, let me burst Matt's (and the entire media's) bubble real quick, there is no depression epidemic. The rate of diagnosis has gone up, however, the rate of depression has stated the same and we are just getting better at finding it.
Ignoring this fact has led to all sorts of weird conspiracies popping up that we need to ignore. Remember, when we made this same mistake before we honestly thought vaccines caused autism. The housewife who hid her drinking problem in the mid-1950's didn't have depression by the standards of those days, now she would because we know more about depression. Or, no one use to die of AIDS, they died of GRID.

There is an emptiness at the core of our culture . . . [because] We have fled from God . . . and embraced a soft kind of nihilism

And where is Matt's proof that either of the two people that caused him to write this article, Anthony Bourdian and Kate Spade, were nihilists? Seriously, I'm asking you because I can't find it. 

We stop at the brain . . . but we never pause to ask why all our brains have apparently gone haywire . . . If this is all just a matter of mental disorders, why in the hell are these "mental disorders" so common now?

This is one of the main mistakes Matt and his types have made with how they address issues. They always assume that we have always had the exact same knowledge and as such whenever something ticks up or down, it's because of humans. Also, Matt doesn't understand anatomy very well.  

I think it's because [depression] is not purely psychological. It goes beyond our brains and into our souls

Matt, where is my soul? Point to my soul right now. Also for it to not be psychological it would have to be at least somewhat physical. 

What everyone craves deep in their bones

Your bones do not have cravings. Fine, I'm nitpicking.

What everyone craves deep in their bones is truth and meaning. . . that is objective and inherent and beyond our ability to remove or change.But our culture tells us that nothing of the sort exists . . . And if we make nothing of it, and find nothing of it, then . . . there is no reason to carry on living anymore.

 For the record, Matt did not cite one study or article during that entire rant. Nor does he during this entire column. Not the claim that we need "meaning . . . that is objective and inherent" (whatever that means), or the claim that nihilism is on the rise, or that "our culture" is promoting it.

If someone is feeling [depressed], yes, it is good to give them a number to call, and tell them they are not alone and people care for them . . . But it's not enough . . . People need more than . . . therapy and phone numbers. They even need more than the knowledge that other people love them. They need meaning. They need hope. They need there to be a point to all of this, a reason.

Quick question to Matt, what does that even mean? I guess you could ask what the meaning of what you just said was, or was the point of all of that, the reason. Oh, by the way, guess what he thinks the solution is.

Well, praise God because . . . there is a meaning. God is our founation . . . We are not mere accidents. We are not clumps of dust that grew randomly from the Earth and somehow devoloped consciousness and a moral code and the capacity for love. 

Random question: Does Matt have a deadly fear of lists with commas? 

That doesn't make sense, and we all know it doesn't make sense, and we will literally kill ourselves trying to make sense of it.

Can I have the list of famous, well known, and vocal atheists who have killed themselves? Hitchens didn't, Harris hasn't, Dawkins hasn't, TJ Kirk hasn't, Cult of Dusty hasn't, George Carlin didn't, and I could go on. Also, notice my use of commas and learn Matt. 
One more thing, I showed this to fellow Ephrom Report blogger J.P Savard, and his words exactly:

Walsh: I think it is because the disorder is not purely psychological.

J.P,: Dude, you're still not answering the question

Walsh: something about God

J.P.: Matt no

Walsh: That doesn't make sense, and we all know it doesn't make sense, and we will literally kill ourselves trying to make sense of it. 

J.P.: Nothing does, Walsh. Nothing does.  

Walsh also talked about this on twitter, and did a little better:

You can’t go on about “the right to die” and describe suicide as “death with dignity” and then expect that your words of solace to suicidal people will mean anything. You just explicitly promoted suicide as a dignified and rightful death. What did you think was going to happen? 

So Matt doesn't think there's a difference between letting someone who is going to die very soon and in horrible pain (physical pain by the way, not emotional ones) and allowing people with a long life ahead of them. Interesting to know he's that simple in his worldview.  

We treat “doctor assisted suicide” as not only morally acceptable but even courageous and inspirational. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why so many people are killing themselves. We are fools.

Who's inspired by doctor-assisted suicide? 

Here’s a crazy thought: if we don’t want people to commit suicide, maybe we should stop celebrating suicide. 

I do agree with Matt that we shouldn't celebrate suicide. Good thing no one is doing that. 
Back to Ben:

You see this in regard to opioid addiction as well 

Ugh 
Let's see if he's at least more tolerable in article form.

Surely rising rates of opioid abuse have contributed to the suicide increase 

Citation needed. 

There's one measure that we . . . can take more immediately: thinking about how we cover suicide. 

Now up until now, you may be thinking "isn't this the same reaction these people had after the last shooting?". 

In the age of mass media, the . . . Werther Effect . . . is the temporary uptick in suicide rate that often follows heavy media coverage of suicide.

Conservatism: The philosophy that society is best when people are ignorant. 

when Netflix released the suicide-glorying 13 Reasons Why

13 Reasons Why didn't glorify suicide. It told a story about suicide.
So what's the moral here? If you don't want people to kill themselves, pretend that never happens. Just like they pretend boom-bust cycles don't, or really most things.   

  

  

  

   

Tying up some loose ends

So, the last week has been pretty interesting if you're someone who follows the right-wing media. Ever since the shooting in Texas last week, the right-wing media seems to have been angrier that media covered it than they are at the shooting itself.
You may think that's an exaggeration, but you would be mistaking. Conservative Youtuber Blaire White took to Twitter to prove that:

Studies have shown that mass shooters thrive on media attention. STOP SHOWING THEIR FACES, they do not deserve fame.

I would like to know which studies show that, but that's beside the point. A little rule of thumb for my readers, whenever someone just says "studies show", they haven't read those studies. Also, didn't you give attention to radical liberals when you recorded yourself being attacked for wearing a Trump hat? I guess next time a conservative is attacked you can thank Blaire White. 
Meanwhile over on Fox, Tomi Lahren is saying the shooters name is "not worth mentioning". Mind you this is the same woman who said that Obama is friendly to Jihadists, so what does that make her? I may not know much about the shooting, but I do know that the shooter was not a Muslum. 
NRA president (and committer of treason) Oliver North also went on Fox News Sunday and had this to say on the shooting.

They’ve been drugged in many cases. Nearly all of these perpetrators are male. ... Many of these young boys have been on Ritalin since they were in kindergarten

Guns don't kill people, Ritalin kills people. The only way this statement could have been worse is if he started it with "studies show". 
You made be wondering why I'm writing this article. After all, I already have an article on this topic that was published Monday. Well while that article covered a lot there was one thing I forgot to go after. I think this idea has been best given by the twitter account Educating Liberals:

the biggest reason for the rise in school shootings is because of the decline in moral values in this country.

I've noticed this idea appear a lot, made even more radical by the replies to these tweets who really think a theocracy is a good idea. Don't believe me, here are some of the replies to some of the tweets I showed you in the previous article as well as the one I just showed you exactly as they were written.
Bill Mitchell: 

 What people don’t understand is these weapons have been around for a very long time without these issues. The issue is we have raised the most nihilistic and violent generation our country has ever seen. They are just scratching the surface of the evil they can do.

I would personally call the generation that tried to leave the US to keep slaves a little more immoral, but that's just me.
Candace Owens:

When does society tell the left that “we tried it their way and it’s been a total disaster” and it’s time to fix it! The left is the poorly raised child to whom mommy and daddy won’t dares say no to. That needs to change or we’ll be joining the muzzlames soon in the septic tank! 

Maybe if you guys didn't screw up the sex education people who were 16 (seriously, name a single person that would actually do this that isn't a teen mom) weren't getting pregnant as often than we wouldn't have that problem. 

The breakdown of the family and home - and they are trying best they can to keep God out of it all. It is the evilness in one’s heart that allows one to take such actions. 

Less than 5% of the prison population is Atheist, just saying. 

The core of this ongoing tragedy is the breakdown of our ethical, social, family and religious structure. We did have family dinners without burying our faces in an electronic device. We use to watch the start and finish of the tv schedule with a picture of the American flag.

I have an article planned on how the internet isn't giving you depression, so I'll say it for that. 
Educating Liberals:

Yep!!! Kids who are not taught that #GOD Loves them, and to Reverence HIM, are left spiritually 'bankrupt' and wide-open for demonic influence. #SchoolShootings #2A 

I just going to make a Jerry Falwell joke and leave this person alone.

 It's because they took God, and American values out of school! 

Well in order for it to be "American values" we're going to need a lot more lighthouses. 

The complete destruction of family values by one of the political parties contributes to nearly everything that happens in our society. So yes, BIG factor. 

 He is right when he says one political party is destroying family values. The party whose leader has 3 failed marriages (including his current one) and is best friends with a former bigwig in the party who left his wife because she had cancer. Which party is that again? 

 We have the nihilistic Heffnerized nirvana the leftist 60's hippies and their offspring wanted: sex, drugs, and, well, they thought they were getting rock and roll but ended up with hip hop instead. Families and values, out the window. School shootings are one of the outcomes.

I take it a hippy stole his girlfriend in high school and he's still really bitter. 
I can laugh but the fact is the idea they spread is complete nonsense. The fact is moralism is much MORE likely to kill than even the worst forms of nihilism (I don't consider myself a nihilist by the way). 
For instance, Joseph Stalin had a very strict sense of morality, as did Mao Zedong. They were so strict that if you disobeyed them they were killed. Yet no one would consider a single thing they did moral on any level.
"But what about religion?"
Well were the kings during the middle ages moral? Are the Catholic bigwigs who molested kids moral? Hitler (regardless of what his religion actually was) used Christianity in propaganda constantly, because of his sense of morality by the way. The fact is religion is often the excuse people have for already existing moral views, not what changes or creates moral views. 
Let's say any communist dictator had been a nihilist, meaning they did not believe in any morality. If so people like Castro, Stalin, or Mao would have no reason to believe that communism is morally superior and as such have less of a reason to kill over it. 
What I'm getting at is, these people really don't understand anything. 
Now I think I've debunked any case they can make. *Sees Ted Nugent blaming Diets* Of course. 

Why Bill Mitchel and Candace Owens Are Both Idiots (and The Real Way "the American Media Promotes the Cycle of Violence")

I remember I was going through the Cursed Boomer Images twitter account (@WeWuzBoomers) when I found one of the worst things I've ever seen on twitter. Bill Mitchell saw the recent Texas shooting and, like a good Republican used it as a chance to blame something he doesn't like.  

Just a hint. If a student is a 1) loner, 2) quiet, 3) is bullied, 4) loves violent video games and 5) wears a trench coat to school - you can pretty much profile them as a potential mass shooter

I had 3 reactions to this tweet and, after realizing there is no possible way I could be too mean towards him with this blog post considering what he just said unless I encouraged violence towards him (which I don't), decided to just give you all three.
1-Guns don't kill people, trench coats kill people
2-I take it then you bully them until they do commit a mass shooting because Bill Mitchell doesn't care how many people did as long as he's proven right.
3-Since you seem to love lists I figured I would give you the first 5 words that came to my mind when I first saw this tweet. 1)What 2)is 3)wrong 4)with 5)you. 
Mind you, Bill's twitter is filled with all sorts of hot takes that show you how much of a Republican he is. Here are a few of my favorites:

#Democrats hate God. God started America. Democrats hate America. Makes perfect sense.

The single biggest #HateGroup in America is the #DemocratParty and they hate America most of all. The amusing part is, very few will actually even try to deny this. They're actually proud of it. P.S., Second thing they hate the most? 3 letters, starts with G, ends with d. 

Democrats hate God and Israel. At least they're consistent.

These are just some of the many takes that prove Al Gore correct which Bill spits out on a daily basis. However, it's undeniable his mass shooting take is easily his worst. The thing that makes this the evilest is that how he seems to be saying that if someone is being bullied you should bully them more. To any school administrators reading this, Billy over here seems to think that if you see a kid being bullied you should be more worried about the victim becoming a shooter than you should be with stopping the bullying.
Mind you, that's still not the hottest take I found on this subject. Candace Owens, or the person who wants a legal fund so she can sue media outlets that are mean to black conservatives, had one of the worst takes possible. 

There is no law, no president, and no congress that can be responsible for raising our children. I wonder which networks & journalists will be brave enough to ditch the usual political banter, and start addressing the real issues at the core of these shootings. #TexasShooting  

 When someone asked her what the "real issues" are the results were downright comical: 

The breakdown of the family. The mocking of religion The over-medicating of society.

Let's break this down one by one.
"The breakdown of the family" is a bad thing, however, it's not happening. And even if it is, where's her proof it would lead to mass shootings? 
"The mocking of religion" just doesn't make any sense, especially when you consider Candace's views on Muslims. In most of the middle east mocking Islam is punishable by death and yet, as Candace herself has pointed out many times, many Muslims are violent. In fact, her saying that could be considered mocking the religion of Islam, and as such she could be considered part of the problem.  
"The over medicating of society" is easily the most harmful right-wing conspiracy theory. Excuse me for being dismissive of an idea that led to a man trying to kill himself, but please shut up. Look, Penn and Teller: Bullshit has tons of episodes on this, just go watch those. They're instant play on Hulu and I don't have time to go through every reason why this is so wrong.
While not as harmful, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk still had some takes so hot that the weather channel just couldn't predict them. Here are some of my favorites:  

Did you know: Over the last 25 years, the U.S. gun homicide rate has fallen by over half while the gun violence victimization rate has fallen by about 70% Gun crime is rapidly decreasing as conceal carry becomes more abundant and people are allowed to legally protect themselves

Did you know: If you put "Did You Know" at the beginning of any statement you don't have to cite any sources for Republicans to believe it.

The NRA is continually the only organization to get blamed for actions their members do not commit

 Did you know: The president of the NRA is Oliver North who sold weapons to Iran and gave that money to terrorists in the 1980's. For a group that isn't a terrorist organization, they sure seem to be friendly with terrorists.

When tragedy strikes, if your immediate instinct is to restrict someone’s rights you are most likely a liberal

I'm just going to back-to-back it with this:

If the Bush FBI put a spy in the Obama campaign people would be in prison by now 

But easily, the worst reaction by Charlie and his buddies is the blame on the mainstream media.

Maybe we should stop showing the killers face on TV and start showing the armed heroes that prevent these shootings Stop saying his name. Stop giving attention to murders. The attention is partly why they do this. Our media creates these monsters 

 Yes Charlie, let's stop informing people when a mass shooting happens. To be fair, this is an idea many people have thought of so it is worth taking seriously. Many of you may have seen this video by AlternateHistoryHub making the same argument.
My response to this argument is actually not as much anger as some would think because they aren't entirely wrong. However, the issue isn't that they are covering these shooters, it's that they are trying to humanize them. 
Within hours of the shooting, you can already find stories about how the shooter was bullied or trying to find some way as to how this wasn't his fault. Compare this to how we teach kids about the Nazi's, Stalin, or terrorists (typically because they weren't white or American but that's another story). We don't pretend like they had any kind of point instead, we only teach them to see these views as the evil they are. 
Treat the shooters as the evil they are and I can promise you the cycle of violence will be far less common.  

   

    

Throwback: Dennis Prager Praises Hypocrisy

Some of you may be familiar with the right-wing radio host/ founder of Prager "University", as well as open supporter of "maybe a man-eating lion" Donald Trump, Dennis Prager. Mainly, how much of a hypocrite he is. 
For instance, how can a man love the free market but at the same time sue YouTube for his failure? How can he say the parties never switched but also say that JFK was a Republican? How can he say he hates crony capitalism but also be for school choice? Well, it turns out his New York Times bestseller (but remember they're biased against him) Think A Second Time explains why. 
You see imminently after the chapter on why people who don't like astrology are wrong because Marxism is worse, oh yeah did I not mention that:

The notion that a planet's location determines events is hardly more absurd than the belief that history is determined by "scientific laws" of dialectical materialism. Every major prediction of Karl Marx has failed to materialize. In fact, the very opposite of what he predicted came about. Yet, despite its lack of rational basis, its unparalleled series of failures, and capitalism's ability to thrive and improve the lots of its working class, many intellectuals continue to believe in Marxism.   

Yeah, this book is kind of weird. But anyway chapter 18 is titled The Virtue of Hypocrisy, it's just as amazing as you would think. 

The end of hypocrisy won't mean that everyone is always living up to moral standards. It will mean that there are no longer moral standards against which people's behavior can be judged hypocritical.

Dennis, you were on thin ice when you called your book Think A Second Time, but this proves it. How does it go? War is peace, freedom is slavery, double standards are the only standards. But maybe I'm being unfair, let's actually look at his reasons:

the televangelist Jim Bakker was labeled as such [a hypocrite] for his sexual encounter with a young devotee. . . Hugh Hefner . . . slept with thousands of young women devotees over the course of a life [and] was never labeled a hypocrite 

The girls Jim Bakker slept with were underage, not just young. Meanwhile, I am unable to find a single story (that isn't from an insane right-wing website) that says that Hugh Hefner slept with anyone before they were the age of consent. What Hefner did (sleep with many young women) may be morally wrong, but what Jim Bakker did was definitely pedophilia. Your example doesn't even make sense, but I'm nice so I'll hear you out. 

Those who don't claim to be religious are rarely judgeable by external standards. Irreligious people therefore can almost never be deemed hypocrites. How can we ever judge them hypocritical when there is no higher standard by which to judge them? 

The standards they themselves have. Now what you need to do is convince people that your standards are the correct ones. Something you seem to try to do considering you have an entire book on how great the 10 commandments are. Shouldn't you not need to do that if you were correct?
But even then, many of your hypocrisies have nothing to do with your religious viewpoint (although you do have many of those). Don't believe, look at the start of this post and notice that none of the hypocrites that I pointed out had anything to do with your views on religion. They had to do with your views on economics, politics, and education, not religion.  

Many people want to do whatever they want and not be judged. Religion doesn't allow for that.

Isn't the whole idea of your political philosophy that people should be able to do whatever they want? You are Mr. "the bigger the government the smaller the citizen" after all. 
But at the same time, I think both Dennis and I can agree that not every principle religion spouts is good (remember, he just said "religion" and not anyone in particular). You have people on PragerU all the time that talk about how bad radical Muslims are (which you are correct on) and yet you talk about how great the vague concept of religion is. This isn't me calling you a hypocrite by the way, that would mean I believe you have standards in the first place. 
I would like to end with this, if you would like to make the case that hypocrisy doesn't make you wrong then that's perfectly fine. However, you instead have to twist that into religious-based nonsense due to you being unable to mask your true intentions. To make a long story short, you're the exact same today as you were 20 years ago because you haven't yourself even really thought a first time, let alone a second.