Episode 1295 Scott Adams - The Ongoing Disinformation Campaign Against the American Public, and Tiger
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Elon Musk's reply to the Washington Post - Brit Hume explains Dr. Fauci - AOC, our only national leader, and future President - FAKE NEWS creation, by CNN's Chris Cillizza - Puppet-master redirection of public's attention - Peanuts and cause of death ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Hey everybody, you're right on time, almost early. Come on in, gather round, grab a chair. It's time for the best part of the day. Yeah, once again. Isn't it great that there's Coffee with Scott Adams every day? That's right, it's the best part. And all you need is a copper
View segment →mug or glass or a chalice or a canteen, jug or flask, vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid — I like coffee — and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes, that's right, everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it hap…
View segment →so good. What a day. All right, well let's start with all the good news. Do you want the good news first? Of course you do. Of course you do. In pandemic news, the new single shot vaccination from J&J looks like it has 85 percent efficacy. And if you don't like the word efficacy, well you haven't…
View segment →e. I think I'll be in the next wave. So maybe in a few weeks. I'm not sure. Here's some more good news. As you know, I think over 20 states have legislation to associate funding for school with the children instead of the school so that the child could go to a different competing school, a private…
View segment →t effective. But then you would also have to factor in what happens to the school they left behind. Did it get worse? What happened to the average? So I don't think things like this can be studied actually. So I wouldn't totally trust this number. But it does, but at the very least it can help you s…
View segment →it was a gray area. Right? Let me tell you how to judge that argument. If there were just as many coronavirus deaths as the regular flu, early on, pretty good argument. Pretty good argument. It doesn't mean it's true but you'd have to take it seriously. Suppose the corona deaths were 20 percent mor…
View segment →hing up. Right? We are way beyond the point where questioning whether coronavirus deaths are real is a rational opinion. It used to be. It used to be a rational opinion which I think time has shown us did not hold up. But you are not being rational today if you think that the issue is miscounting. W…
View segment →d they say, "Wow yeah it does look like Sweden is a mystery. They didn't lock down and they got the same result or better." All right. I just saw a comment that's making my brain explode but I'm not gonna go there. All right, let's talk about something else. So fact checkers, check me on that Swede…
View segment →n my opinion. It's his opinion. I'm just talking about it. Please, please give me another minute of social media. All right. But when I was commenting about the story Stephen Crowder replied to me on Twitter. So I don't know how banned he was if he's already replying to me on Twitter the same day t…
View segment →ah I get that everybody's different but we can't have a different bathroom for every person etc. I would like my own bathroom. I'd like to be my own gender so I could not have to share a bathroom when I go to the mall. It's just my own bathroom. People like me, whatever I am. So the only thing I wo…
View segment →charge of the economy. He's not in charge of children's suicides etc. I mean he cares about those things obviously. He's a human and he's American so of course he cares about those things you assume. But that's why I'm not bothered by him because I see him in context. If you see him out of context…
View segment →ulsi. Tulsi is a good name. And that I would say Tulsi compared to AOC would be, I hate to say this because I really like Tulsi Gabbard as a political voice, but I feel like she's the Mike Pence to AOC being Trump. I hate to say that. That's really not a fair thing to say. But Tulsi doesn't bring th…
View segment →ere but damn it we're going to figure it out. We're going to figure it out. And if we can't figure it out well at least we tried. That's the leader I want. I don't want somebody who says you know I'm not even going to try to get there unless I know all the steps. When Kennedy said we're going to th…
View segment →ar. That's because they listen to the news and social media and they believed 44 percent of liberals, almost half, believe that the number is close to a thousand or more. Now let me ask you something. If police were killing a thousand unarmed black men a year in this country you couldn't keep me of…
View segment →feels like that's just a serial killer vibe, doesn't it? I don't know. But she's pretty happy with herself. All right. I also wonder if she owns a pet. Imagine if you had killed 500 mammals for fun. Does she have a dog? Does she have a dog? Because that dog would be really nervous. I mean would she…
View segment →'s sophistry or you're twisted in pretzels my observation of living life and being a trained hypnotist is that those people are experiencing cognitive dissonance and that's exactly what it feels like. So if your take on my argument was well I understand your argument Scott but I disagree with it be…
View segment →Hey everybody, you're right on time, almost early. Come on in, gather round, grab a chair. It's time for the best part of the day. Yeah, once again. Isn't it great that there's Coffee with Scott Adams every day? That's right, it's the best part. And all you need is a copper mug or glass or a chalice or a canteen, jug or flask, vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid — I like coffee — and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes, that's right, everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go stretch everybody. I feel so good. What a day.
All right, well let's start with all the good news. Do you want the good news first? Of course you do. Of course you do.
In pandemic news, the new single shot vaccination from J&J looks like it has 85 percent efficacy. And if you don't like the word efficacy, well you haven't said it out loud. Try it. Try it at home. Say "efficacy." It's fun. It is. It has 85 percent efficacy 28 days after you get it. That's pretty good. And it has almost 88 percent efficacy, did I say efficacy, of blocking asymptomatic infections. Bam. Pretty good stuff.
Would you take the single shot that gave you 85 percent efficacy or would you wait for the double shot that gives you a little bit more? I don't know. I told you that I'm going to wait until the last possible moment because I'm not eligible yet. But I think I will be. I think I'll be in the next wave. So maybe in a few weeks. I'm not sure.
Here's some more good news. As you know, I think over 20 states have legislation to associate funding for school with the children instead of the school so that the child could go to a different competing school, a private school for example, and the funding would move with them, the government funding. So that is a really big trend that's happening now. Corey DeAngelis on Twitter — you'll find him on Twitter — does the most tweeting about this productively. He's most involved in this and he does more than tweeting obviously. He's active in this space.
But a new study says, according to Corey, that charter schools are 35 percent more cost effective and produce a 46 percent larger return on investment than district schools do. Do you trust that statistic? I don't. You know this is a sort of statistic that you want to trust because it agrees with you already. I want it to be true that having competition in anything makes things better, just as a general statement, no matter the field. If you add competition to it, it should make things better.
So I want it to be true that these charter schools are more cost effective. But then you would also have to factor in what happens to the school they left behind. Did it get worse? What happened to the average? So I don't think things like this can be studied actually. So I wouldn't totally trust this number. But it does, but at the very least it can help you size things. So I think this at least is evidence that charter schools are not worse. But I don't think you could say that numbers such as this, I wouldn't ever trust them to be accurate per se. But if there were some big problem where they spent more money and got less results you'd probably see it. They'd probably be good enough to see.
All right. Digital Doug on Twitter was questioning the fact that the coronavirus numbers in the United States are over half a million deaths whereas regular seasonal flu would be maybe 10 percent of that typically. And Digital Doug says if you pay hospitals five figures for treating the flu, meaning the regular seasonal flu, and five figures more for putting patients on respirators, let's see what the regular flu numbers look like then.
So Digital Doug believes that if hospitals were incentivized to record the regular seasonal flu that there would be 10 times as much death attributed to the regular flu. Does that make sense to you?
Now let me tell you how to think of this argument. If the argument is that financial incentives cause people to code more things as coronavirus, that's a good argument. Would you say? Does anybody disagree with that? That if you, and I say this a million times, if you put friction on something you'll get less of it almost always. Doesn't even matter what you're talking about. You add friction and you get a little less of it. If you add incentives, again for almost anything, you're going to get more of it.
So the argument is that incentives have been added somewhat accidentally because people had good intentions. But there's an incentive to say that something is a COVID infection or a COVID death when maybe it was a gray area. Right?
Let me tell you how to judge that argument. If there were just as many coronavirus deaths as the regular flu, early on, pretty good argument. Pretty good argument. It doesn't mean it's true but you'd have to take it seriously. Suppose the corona deaths were 20 percent more than the regular flu deaths in a year. Ah, then you'd have to take that argument pretty seriously because like I said you incentivize anything and it wouldn't be surprising to get 20 percent more of something that had a financial incentive. You'd all agree with that, right? Getting 20 percent more, that wouldn't be surprising.
But that's not where we are. We're at 10 times more deaths from coronavirus. It's real. This argument used to make sense. I've said it myself. If you incentivize something you get more of it. But you don't get 10 times more without somebody noticing that there's something up. Right? We are way beyond the point where questioning whether coronavirus deaths are real is a rational opinion. It used to be. It used to be a rational opinion which I think time has shown us did not hold up. But you are not being rational today if you think that the issue is miscounting. We're not even close to that being a reasonable hypothesis. But it was. It was at one point. So I think you need to update your thinking on that.
Here's another one. So Ivor Cummins, who you probably see on the internet, tweets a lot about the coronavirus, tweeted a graph today that shows that Sweden's excess deaths are among the lowest in Europe. And the claim is that they did not do as aggressive a lockdown in social distancing and therefore proof positive that lockdowns and social distancing don't work according to Ivor or Evor, I don't know how to pronounce his first name, Cummins.
So I just tweeted this right before I came on live here and I asked the fact checkers to check that. Let me ask you, do you think that that's true? Do you think that when the other people comment on his tweet do you think they're going to say, "Oh yeah we checked the numbers and these look like the accurate numbers"? I would bet against that. Yeah, I'm seeing in the comments there's some disagreement about whether it's true or not.
This is the kind of statistic that is just a little suspiciously too on the nose, isn't it? I just don't believe those numbers. Now by the end of this live stream I could be changing my mind. In other words if the people I consider good at fact-checking look at this and they say, "Wow yeah it does look like Sweden is a mystery. They didn't lock down and they got the same result or better." All right. I just saw a comment that's making my brain explode but I'm not gonna go there.
All right, let's talk about something else. So fact checkers, check me on that Sweden death thing.
Elon Musk continues to be the most interesting of the billionaires, maybe just the most interesting person in the country right now while Trump is taking a little break. And I guess he was asked to comment on a Washington Post story that was critical of Tesla. And as you know the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos who you could consider a competitor to Elon Musk because they're both trying to conquer space if you will. And they're trading places as the richest person in America ever. It goes back and forth.
And here was Elon Musk's reply to the Washington Post hit piece on Tesla when asked. He said, quote, "Give my regards to your puppet master." Musk replied to the paper's request for a story. "Give my regards to your puppet master."
Now could there be a more perfect response? If you put together like a team of experts in communication, all right team of experts we're gonna have to respond to this, what are you gonna do? And the team of experts would have said, well we'll put out this statement. It'll be hundreds of words and it will say Tesla denies the allegations and we make good cars.
Right? Elon Musk in one, how many words? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. And seven words just annihilated this thing. "Give my regards to your puppet master."
Now what's beautiful about it is not just the comment that there could be some bias in the story. And by the way I don't know that the story has any bias. I mean I'm not alleging that. But as a comment about the story is golden. It's just perfect. It's the smallest comment you can make that packs the most powerful punch because you can't really think of anything but what Elon said. Right? You've already forgotten what the story was. I didn't read the story but if I had I would have forgotten it already because all I'd be thinking is that Elon Musk says the Washington Post is puppets to Bezos. It's just more interesting, right?
So what Elon Musk does is he simply does things more interestingly than other people. Fact check me on this. Tesla doesn't do standard marketing, does it, in advertising? Can somebody fact check me on that? I thought that was true that they don't do regular ads because they don't need it. All you have to do is put a bio weapon defense in your car and you don't need advertisements. You have something to talk about, right? Yeah, I'm seeing people confirm it. I think that's true.
So what Elon Musk does is brilliant. He just acts more interesting than other people and he doesn't need to advertise. Now you have to be able to pull that off, right? Because this comment from Musk was probably just off the top of his head. So you can't do that, right? You could try but being this interesting spontaneously so that the headlines just go with your interesting comment instead of the thing you're commenting about, that's skill. And maybe you don't have it.
All right. Stephen Crowder, you know him from Louder with Crowder. I have a question about the story. He said the story this morning was that he had been suspended from Twitter after saying that he can confirm that some people voted addresses that do not exist. That's his claim. Don't cancel me please. Please, please, please don't cancel me. It's not even my opinion. It's his opinion. I'm just talking about it. Please, please give me another minute of social media.
All right. But when I was commenting about the story Stephen Crowder replied to me on Twitter. So I don't know how banned he was if he's already replying to me on Twitter the same day that I heard the story. So I don't know if he's back or I got the story wrong. Did he get banned from a different platform? Can somebody clear that up? Did he get banned and he's back on already or did he get banned from a different... Oh it's a 12-hour ban. 12-hour suspension. That makes sense. All right, 12-hour suspension. Let's go with that because that sounds right anyway.
And as I have told you my new theme is that if somebody gets banned or censored, let's say if they get censored, I'm going to send them some money for being censored. So I want to make it, and I know a lot of people are on the same page, that individually you might buy his shirt or his mug from his store. I tweeted the address of his store. And to you it's 10 bucks but basically you're just voting for freedom of speech. It's a 10 vote to support freedom of speech whenever you see one of these situations happen.
So buy Stephen Crowder's stuff. I want to say while I'm at it that I do not agree with all of the things Stephen Crowder says. Doesn't matter. That's not what we're here to talk about, right?
And I'll tell you just so I'm on record with it, I'm not a fan of his argument that there are two genders. I know you hate it. Here's my argument. The two gender thing is a social construct based largely on biology. I mean it's not just invented out of nothing. It's based on observation and biology and stuff like that. But it's a convenience. Society categorizes things for convenience and it is convenient and useful to have two genders because then you just have two bathrooms and you can keep rapists away from women and there are lots of good reasons that we narrow it down to two. But it's social reasons.
I think a more productive way to look at people is that there are 7.5 billion people, rounded off whatever it is, and they're all different. Every one of them is just different. They're different sexually. They're different mentally, different physically, different health-wise. We're just all different. That's the healthiest way to look at the world. It's not two genders except for convenience.
Now if you argue should we keep it to two genders because we can't afford to have like a bathroom for every option, I would say that's a conversation. That's reasonable. You can reasonably say yeah I get that everybody's different but we can't have a different bathroom for every person etc. I would like my own bathroom. I'd like to be my own gender so I could not have to share a bathroom when I go to the mall. It's just my own bathroom. People like me, whatever I am.
So the only thing I would put in your head is that while it's perfectly reasonable, perfectly reasonable to argue that you should limit things to two genders for practical reasons, that's very bad for a lot of people because they don't feel they fit into a category, right? So you have to make practical decisions when it comes to how to organize society and not everybody is going to win. But I think we should be more compassionate. The people are just different and not worse, not better, just different. And just take that as our model.
I would like to give a shout out to Brit Hume. He made another wonderful comment today on Twitter and I've been watching you for a long time, you know, Fox News association there. And I don't think I've ever seen Brit Hume say something that wasn't reasonable and backed by evidence. And I don't know if you can say that about everybody that you see on TV. It takes a while before you realize. I was sort of realizing it today. It's like I've never seen Brit Hume say anything that was, I've never seen him even spin a story. And you can tell when somebody's spinning a story, right? That's the most common thing.
So just a shout out for being one of the most useful people in the news business. When he talks I feel that whether I agree with him or not it's just not, it's just like an actual honest opinion based on data and stuff. It's so rare that I call them out. It's like all right because I'm going to be talking about people doing the opposite in the pit.
And what he pointed out was about Dr. Fauci and it explained to me why I'm not as bothered by Fauci as almost everybody else seems to be. Fauci's sort of become our coronavirus Grinch, right? He's sort of the Grinch of the coronavirus and everybody wants to hate him. But I haven't ever felt that and I was trying to figure out why. Like why is it that Fauci could be right or wrong but I don't have bad feelings about him at all.
And Brit Hume explains it indirectly. He wasn't trying to but he says, remember in this tweet he said about Fauci, he said his job is to fight the COVID outbreak. He has no responsibility for children's mental health or education. The economy is someone else's problem. So are missed cancer screenings, suicides and other collateral damage from lockdowns.
And that explained it. Explained my own opinion to me. And that is that I only saw Fauci as a bad cop. And as a bad cop he's excellent. It's not his job to tell you what to do about the economy. It's not his job as Brit Hume points out. It's just not his job. The other stuff. So when you're evaluating Fauci evaluate him on his job. But also you're an adult so you can say it's not the only word on everything. He's not in charge of the economy. He's not in charge of children's suicides etc. I mean he cares about those things obviously. He's a human and he's American so of course he cares about those things you assume.
But that's why I'm not bothered by him because I see him in context. If you see him out of context and you imagine that he is responsible for the economy and those other things then he would be doing the worst job ever. But he's not. He's only responsible for his little wing and he's acting exactly like a guy who's responsible for that little wing. So just keep that frame in mind when you're judging him. I think he's very valuable. Very valuable. I don't agree with him on everything but I think he's very valuable. You just got to keep him in his box as to what his job is. That's a very good addition from Brit Hume.
Of course the Tiger Woods accident is all the headlines because it's Tiger Woods. But what are the odds that the best golfer of all time can't drive straight and ended up in the rough? I feel as though this simulation is just messing with us because really, really, the best golfer in the world, he can't drive straight and he ends up in the rough. That feels, doesn't even feel like a coincidence. It just feels like the simulation ran out of ideas and it's just recycling stuff.
But of course we, you know we, everybody cares about Tiger Woods. One of the things that Tiger Woods does and I don't think he gets enough credit for it, he does get credit for it, but can you think of anybody in the world right, but I'll say the United States just to keep it local-ish but it would apply to the world, is there even one person who doesn't like Tiger Woods besides maybe his ex-wife? I don't know. He's like the most popular person ever.
And I think that his contribution to social cohesion and any racial stuff, he's one of the most productive, useful, best things that's ever happened to America just by being good at golf and being at least partly black which people see as black. So I don't think we can understate his contribution to the betterment of our social situation just by being black somewhat and excelling and being such a star and being so likable. I mean I think he's just good for the world.
There was a sports guy who got in trouble, Andy Scholes, because he sort of speculated that painkillers were part of the story whereas there is no evidence of inebriation. But he hasn't been blood tested yet. I would like to say that maybe Andy Scholes did get a little ahead of himself by speculating that he wasn't surprised about Tiger Woods's accident because Tiger Woods has a history of painkiller use and maybe overuse. I think he went to some rehab for it. But it is premature. It would be premature.
Somebody says 7:30 a.m. and he crashed. That bat, well that could be if he were taking any kind of painkillers because he had pain and he did have back surgery recently. You would take them at any time of day, right? You'd take them whenever they were prescribed. So yeah that could certainly be a factor. But I feel like it explains it. Does it? How do you explain the extent of the accident that he went so far? I don't know that. I don't even think drugs can explain it, right? I feel like there's at least one other thing that we don't know about. And even if he has some painkillers in his body I don't feel like that's what happened. Somebody says he was probably texting. I don't know. He could have been texting but it just looks like something else happened unless the speed was so high that that fooled you.
On the plus side the SUV that he was in, the Genesis GV80 apparently performed well because the entire front part of the car was crushed but Tiger survived in a pretty bad accident. So a shout out to the makers of the Genesis vehicle assuming the vehicle was not part of the accident. It looks like it may have saved his life. So there's some good engineering there.
Romney is saying that if Trump ran in 2024 he would easily win the nomination. What do you think about that? Do you think Trump would easily win the nomination? I feel like he would, right? Because you'd have a number of people running and he would certainly get at least 25 percent of the vote just like the last time. And that would be more than any of the others individually got. So just the fact that he's the biggest fish who would be in that lake, the biggest one gets nominated. So it does look like Trump. I would agree with Romney that if he ran again he'd at least get the nomination.
I would be very skeptical that he could win the election. He may be too crippled by the assault on the Capitol. But he could win the nomination.
Now that brings up the second question of who are the leaders in this country anymore? I feel like we have this gigantic vacuum of leadership both on the left and the right. Now there are certainly people that are being talked about for running for president but none of them have really the kind of star power that we're used to. And maybe it's just the Trump effect. We have an expectation of a certain amount of star power but maybe that's unrealistic.
So here's my take and I want to tell you that if you will be bothered in the future about me saying that AOC like Trump has real skill even if you don't like her policies you probably don't want to follow me because I'm going to be talking about it a lot. And the reason I'm going to be talking about a lot is that AOC is the only leader in the country right now.
Now I don't like the things she's talking about in every case. Some of it I do like actually. But so I'm not agreeing with her policies but I would say she's the only national leader we have at the moment. I know that's a big statement but I think it is. And she is very wisely, which I mean I think she's guaranteed to be president eventually. You just don't know when.
So this here's my prediction. AOC is guaranteed to be president eventually unless there's some new scandal that we don't know about. But if she just keeps doing what she's doing she will be president. And here's the thing. You can back a leader that you don't agree with if they're leading. At least they're leading, right? I backed Trump as you know even though there were a number of things that he wanted to do that I would not agree with such as deporting 11 million people when he took office. Right now I knew that he wouldn't do that and he didn't. But I can back a leader who has things in their policies I don't like as long as they're a leader because you need the leadership, right? You can't do without it.
And I would say AOC is now the only national leader if you don't count Trump who's sort of on hiatus at the moment. I'm watching the comments and watching people throwing up. People are going into spasms. No she's not a leader. She's a fake. AOC or a fake isn't saying anything because all leaders are putting on a show. So she's putting on a show. And if you say to me but wait she's fake because she's just putting on a show I say what did you think Trump was? He was a guy who was smart enough to know how to put on the show and it worked. The same skills.
All right. So AOC is in the news again because she took on the Biden administration for reopening the Texas migrant facilities which in the past have been called kids in cages. Although the actual cage may be down the road if the numbers keep coming in the way they are. But still it's a facility where you're locking up kids. And AOC came out publicly and even though it's her own party she said this is not okay. And she said never has been okay, never will be okay no matter the administration or party. She tweeted that. That's leadership. That's leadership.
All right I'm going to delete you. All right let me give you a rule here. Everybody who says that when I talk about AOC's skill that I'm really having a crush on her, I'm, you're just going to get blocked because I don't want to deal with that level of high school mentality, okay? People can be female and also good at leadership. Can we not accept that that's like a thing? So goodbye to Kent. All right. If anybody else wants to suggest that my real interest in her is because she's a woman I'd like to block you right away so I don't have to deal with that anymore. Okay. All right.
Who else would you say? I'd like to see in your comments. I've made a claim that some of you don't like that she's the only national leader at the moment because she's going against her own party. You're not a leader if all you're doing is agreeing with your side. Did Trump always just agree with his side? He didn't. That's partly why there's so much trouble, right? He was always fighting with his own side. If you're not fighting with your own side in addition to the other side you're not a leader. You're just a team player.
All right. So until you see somebody cross their own party line you're not talking about a leader. You just talk about a political hack basically. So AOC has done it twice in the past week. I forget what the other one was. But we have one leader in the country like it or not. Give me another name of somebody who would fall into that camp.
I'm seeing Rand Paul. Tulsi. Tulsi is a good name. And that I would say Tulsi compared to AOC would be, I hate to say this because I really like Tulsi Gabbard as a political voice, but I feel like she's the Mike Pence to AOC being Trump. I hate to say that. That's really not a fair thing to say. But Tulsi doesn't bring the heat, you know, the energy. And partly because her personality is sort of low key. So she brings capability and good things that you like and would be very capable president in my opinion. I could get behind that. But I don't know if she has the star power.
It would be an interesting contest. How would you like to see a presidential contest someday between Tulsi Gabbard and AOC? Just woman and woman versus woman. That'd be pretty interesting. I could get into that. That would be fun. And maybe time, maybe it's time for two women to be running for president. That would be the real, that would be the real up, wouldn't it?
Somebody says she's charismatic and dangerous like many evil leaders of the past. So she's added some nuance to what AOC has to what she's saying about border and getting rid of ICE and opening the borders and stuff. And all of it sounds crazy, right? When you first hear it you're like what are you talking about opening the borders? That's the worst idea I've ever heard in the entire world.
But if you actually hear her talk about it in more depth what she's talking about is figuring out how to do it. And the idea is that there might be a big idea of just rethinking everything that would make aggressive border control not necessary. That it doesn't mean it would be bad for the United States but there's the feeling that you could get from where we are to some better place and we don't know what the path is now.
What do you think of that? What do you think of the fact that AOC's plan for immigration is we'll do something that nobody's thought of yet and I haven't thought of it either but it'll be really good and it'll fix things. What do you think of a plan like that? Is your first thought, "Oh my God she doesn't have a plan. There's no plan." Right? That's your first thought.
Here's my first thought. That's the leader I want. Now I'm not saying AOC. I'm saying I want a leader who talks exactly like that. That's exactly what I want to hear. I want to hear that here's where we want to get to. Here's where we are and we have no idea how to get there but damn it we're going to figure it out. We're going to figure it out. And if we can't figure it out well at least we tried. That's the leader I want.
I don't want somebody who says you know I'm not even going to try to get there unless I know all the steps. When Kennedy said we're going to the moon did he say we already know how to get to the moon? No. The reason Kennedy is called such a great leader for saying we're going to the moon is specifically because, wait for it, we didn't know how to do it. I mean we figured we could figure it out but we didn't know how when he talked about it.
We don't know how to fix immigration such that strong enforcement would not even be necessary. We don't know how to do that. AOC says let's figure it out. I like that. I don't know if we can figure it out but I also would not have known if we could figure out landing on the moon. I wouldn't have known. I was somebody who, AOC challenged the country to figure out how to do this without being cruel to people coming across. Is it impossible? If you say it's impossible check your thinking. It might be impossible. I can't see a way to do it. I don't think you can see a way to do it. But I don't want to live in the country where my leader agrees with me, right?
I don't want my leader to say, "Oh you can't see how to do it. I guess we can't do it. Guess we can't go to the moon." Anybody, anybody can. Somebody build a rocket. Anybody in the audience? None of you. Nobody knows how to build a rocket to the moon. Guess we can't go. You don't need that kind of leadership. You need the people who say we're going to make this work. We don't know how yet but we're going to make it work. We don't know how. Now or she's crazy in the comments. Somebody says or she's crazy.
Well let me put it to you this way. If she were crazy you'd see it in lots of different ways. I think you know it would be sort of obvious. But if she's smarter than you think she is she would talk like this. She says directly I don't know how to do it. If she said I do know how to do it but I'm not telling you well then she's crazy. Or if she said I do know how to do it and what she described clearly wouldn't work such as just throwing the gates open and opening the border. But she's not saying that. She is smart enough to know that that wouldn't work and she doesn't know what would work but she has a moonshot idea about how to get there.
All right. Chris Cillizza. Let's talk about the fake news. So I love how CNN creates news out of nothing using the opinion people. And they're not alone I suppose. Fox News does the same. But this example shows you how it's done.
So Cillizza in a larger article talking about a number of things talks about Senator Johnson said last week that he didn't believe what happened at the Capitol was quote an armed insurrection. So there's a quote from a senator saying he didn't think it was an armed insurrection at the Capitol. And then Cillizza finishes the sentence with comma, despite ample evidence that it was. So it's just put out there like common knowledge. Despite ample evidence that it was an armed insurrection.
To which I say I didn't see any. Did they report some ample evidence that it was an armed insurrection? I didn't see any evidence. In fact I saw lots of evidence that it wasn't. I mean lots and lots of evidence that it wasn't. It was just individuals who wanted a different election outcome or wanted transparency. But he just puts it out there in an opinion article as if that's just an established fact.
Now if you were a CNN consumer and you weren't let's say following the news every day but you read this article wouldn't you accept that this must be just an established fact? Never happened. Nothing like this established that as a fact. In fact it's obviously not true. You don't even have to be an expert to know that's not true. Just look at the photos of the actual assault. They're obviously not trying to overthrow the government. They could never have had any plan that says if we put the Viking hat guy and the zip tie guy in this room that's empty they will control the government of the United States. I mean it's just ridiculous.
So this is one example of CNN, their technique for perpetuating fake news.
Tucker Carlson had a real interesting piece about the disinformation campaign in this country, the so-called disinformation campaign. And there's a part I don't quite agree with Tucker but sadly I've had enough experience disagreeing with Tucker and then later agreeing with him that I'm not going to say that just because I disagree with him on a minor point he's necessarily wrong. So don't take that from it. I'm just saying I'm not on the same page but he could be right. We'll find out.
And here's his point. That there was a researcher who found out that around 2011 when the Occupy Wall Street stuff was happening, and remember Occupy Wall Street was really about going after the rich, the Wall Street rich, those rich people. So it was an anti-rich movement, anti-rich people movement. Have you heard about that lately? When was the last time you heard about Occupy Wall Street and all those rich people? It just sort of went away, didn't it?
What replaced it? Well what replaced it is the narrative that the biggest problem in the United States is race. It was just replaced. So instead of going after rich people it turned into the races going after each other. And who, how did that happen? How'd that happen? Was it did it just sort of naturally happen? Did it evolve into happening and there was no decision making?
Well here's where I might be on a different page from Tucker because the suggestion or at least what I took from it, I could be misinterpreting it, but I took from Tucker's piece that there was some intention there by important figures who are the puppet masters of our society to make people stop focusing on the rich because the rich people don't want that and give you a diversion. Something shiny. Here's something to back Tucker's point.
He says that let's see when people were asked how many unarmed, the key word is unarmed, people have been killed by police. Specifically how many unarmed African-Americans were gunned down by police in 2019. So they do a survey and they say take your best guess how many unarmed, key word unarmed, black citizens were gunned down by cops that year presumably meaning killed. What do you think people guessed?
Democrats guessed, 44 percent of Democrats or no actually 44 percent of liberals said they believed it was about a thousand or more per year. That's because they listen to the news and social media and they believed 44 percent of liberals, almost half, believe that the number is close to a thousand or more.
Now let me ask you something. If police were killing a thousand unarmed black men a year in this country you couldn't keep me off the street, right? Like I would be in Black Lives Matter. Like I would be a charter member. Due Spain remember if this number were anywhere near that you would have to leave your house. You would have to protest. You would have to defund the police. You would have to if this were even close to true. But of course it's not. The real number is under 30.
So liberals think it's a thousand or more a year. You would act very differently if it were a thousand or more a year. You would act very differently, right? So you can almost understand why there's this big difference. There's a news black hole, no pun intended, in which liberals just don't know what's happening and conservatives do.
So actually 25 percent of conservatives even thought that. What kind of news are the conservatives watching? Because I don't know any conservative news sites that have reported this incorrectly or suggested that it was anywhere in that range. But even the conservative news talks about what CNN talks about. In other words they, the news covers the news. So maybe wherever you watch you could be misled.
But just think how big a deal that is. I mean and then this question was not asked but how many liberals believe that President Trump once said that neo-Nazis were fine people? I'll bet it's over 80 percent. Could be 90 percent. I'll bet 90 percent of liberals believe that that fake news actually happened. Most conservatives know it's a hoax. If you look at the full transcript he said the opposite.
But man it is so clear that the real problem in this country is a disinformation campaign from the media. And it's hard to discount it as unintentional, isn't it? It's really hard to look at this set of facts and say well nobody's doing that intentionally. Although I'm not, I'm not sold that the case has been made that they're shadowy puppet masters. Who are they? What are the names? When do they have a meeting? Did they have a meeting or did they just know what to do? So that part I'm not quite buying that it was a plot. But you can buy that it happened. You can simply observe that the movement against Occupy Wall Street disappeared at about the same time that the word racism took off in mentions in the media.
Now there were also events. You know there was a George Floyd event, other tragic events. So there were reasons. But were all of those reasons present in 2011? Did the country become more bad racist since 2011? I don't think so. I feel like we probably got less racist just like every single year of the United States probably every year of the republic people on average have gotten a little less racist. It feels like it to me. You know maybe any given year might be different but over time. So wouldn't you say that racism is probably somewhat less than it was in 2011 when apparently that wasn't even a big issue relative to the Occupy Wall Street issue being bigger.
In other news there's a flight, American Airlines flight, that reported a UFO sighting. Doesn't mean it's an alien ship. Just unidentified. That looked like a cruise missile that went over there that just went over their plane. Now do you believe that there was an unidentified long tubular object that went right over an airplane that was not known to flight control? And the way they asked the question was they said the pilot said do you have any targets up here because he thought a missile just went past them at a target. And he was wondering is there anything in the air near me then I need to worry about because somebody shot a missile at it. I'd be worried about that.
Now of course we don't know the answer to this. We don't know that anything got shot into the air or that any big missiles landed anywhere that we don't know about. So it's just a mystery. That's all it is. If I had to guess I would say they didn't see anything. Maybe they saw a shadow of some kind. I don't know. So my guess is they didn't see anything but we'll find out.
There's a story about a woman who's a trophy hunter getting a lot of heat for killing a giraffe, cutting out its heart which is pretty big, and holding it up for social media. Now if that wasn't bad enough apparently this one woman has killed over 500 big animals: lions, leopards, elephants, etc. 500. And she was really, really excited and couldn't handle herself when she learned that she could kill an adult giraffe.
Now I'm not anti-hunting per se. You know there are some times when it makes sense. And if she had gone big game hunting once or twice I wouldn't like it but I'd have a different opinion than if she did it 500 times. If you kill 500 big animals you're just a serial killer who doesn't want to get in trouble with the law. It feels like that's just a serial killer vibe, doesn't it? I don't know. But she's pretty happy with herself.
All right. I also wonder if she owns a pet. Imagine if you had killed 500 mammals for fun. Does she have a dog? Does she have a dog? Because that dog would be really nervous. I mean would she ever look at her dog and think to herself I love my dog but oh man it would be fun to kill it. I'd love to just shoot my dog. If you've killed 500 mammals you don't think she fantasizes about shooting her own dog if she has one anyway.
Biden is allegedly, I think we need some confirmation on this story because I saw it in an Asian publication, but apparently he's, Biden is considering an executive order to push alternate supply chains to go around China specifically for tech stuff like chips and batteries and rare earth stuff. Now if that's true that Biden has an EO coming in which we're going to build out a separate supply chain that doesn't involve China I would be giving Biden a lot of credit for that.
Now I would think that he wouldn't do it if Trump had not gotten the ball rolling in turning the opinion of the United States citizens against China. If Trump had not made it possible for Biden to do this I don't think he could have. So I'm good. So if this happens I will give Biden credit because it, you know that's the rule, right? If something good happens under his administration I'm going to give him credit. But we can put an asterisk next to it and say you know it wouldn't have happened without Trump. But still Biden has to do it so he gets credit if he does. And this would be very important but I don't know if it's true yet.
Apparently Biden has not declared yet that the Uyghur situation in China is a genocide. I guess Trump made that declaration just before he left to sort of leave it with Biden as a problem. And Biden he has not decided to do that. Canada however, the parliament voted Monday to pass a non-binding motion classifying China as being involved in a genocide. So Canada, good work. United States look at Canada. Come on Biden. Canada did it. You can do it. Do it. Do it Joe. Do it.
All right. And I remind you that we are in a war with China and they're killing 70,000 people a year with fentanyl which they easily could stop because there's one guy in charge of it. We've already told them who his name is. They know where he is. He's still doing it. So China has decided explicitly to send us fentanyl and kill us and to not stop it. If we sent them some fentanyl their way it would not be inappropriate. Probably not a good idea but it would not be morally wrong to fight fire with fire. That's just my opinion. That's just my opinion.
Somebody says where is Jack Ma? I don't know. He's got a problem.
All right. My next segment called experts are dumb. And I've been having an online conversation with a number of doctors and ER doctors and pediatricians who are very mad at me for having opinions. Oh they're very mad at me because if you've noticed I am not a doctor and apparently you can't have doctor-related opinions if you're not one because they'll be pretty mad at you. Pretty bad.
But here's what I've learned. The whole question about the seasonal flu, the regular flu killing 50,000 people a year which I am skeptical of, I've been learning more about that. And when I hear that children were dying from it I had some questions. And here's what I've learned. That even if you don't have an underlying problem that has a name to it the regular flu can kill you if you're a child under specific conditions. And I guess the specific condition is a high viral load with some kind of difference in the architecture of your lungs that would make you somewhat unique. And maybe something about the immune system not being developed. I don't know about that. But that there's something different about the children who die from the flu. Both an exposure level and architecture of the lungs.
Now that sort of opens up the question of what it means to be healthy. What's the definition? Would that be a definition of a healthy child dying from the virus when 99.9 percent of children don't and don't even get close to death? So would you say that that's a healthy child when they can't survive the environment that they are meant to be in?
So if you say yes that kid is completely healthy because if they didn't have access to this virus they'd be fine. But what would you say about a bubble boy? Somebody who if they left their bubble almost any kind of infection would kill them. When they're inside the bubble do you call them healthy? Because they can live out their whole life without a physical problem if they don't get infected. So is that person healthy?
See you can see how the definition of what healthy means is driving the discussion. It's not about what's happening. It's about what you insist is the word you're going to use. That's word thinking I call it. It's people who think they're arguing but they're really trying to hold on to a definition or win by defining the word the way that works for them.
Here's my definition of healthy. It's different from the medical definition. It's more of a common sense definition. It goes like this. If you are not capable of surviving the environment for which you are naturally born into such as just living in the atmosphere I don't know that I would call that healthy. I would call that somebody who has a major health problem because the normal environment operating just the way you think it will will kill them but it wouldn't kill 99.9 percent of people who had exactly the same exposure. I would call that unhealthy by definition.
But in a medical sense if they have not been exposed to the thing that's going to hurt them doctors are going to say no that's perfectly healthy. It's the virus that killed them. That's kind of a definitional problem, isn't it? Aren't we both talking about the same thing that you need the virus but you also need the person to have a specific situation going on? And if you call that specific situation perfectly healthy it just happens to cause you to die if it comes in contact with something that is commonly in your environment. I'm not sure I would call that healthy.
So I'm not, I don't know that there's a disagreement about that other than what word you want to use for it. But on top of that is the question of why we don't hear about people dying of the regular flu when they're allegedly dying in the same numbers as people who die from car accidents and overdoses and we hear about them all the time. We personally know people have died from those other things. Almost every adult does. But I don't know anybody who died in regular flu.
So then somebody on social media said Scott you know you're finally on our side now. We've been saying the same thing about coronavirus that the way it's counted is probably wrong. To which I say wait a minute no. I am making the opposite point. Completely opposite point. If you think that me questioning the statistics of regular seasonal flu is sort of the same argument as the people who are questioning the number of people dying from coronavirus you have it a hundred percent backwards. They're opposites.
The question is why does my observation as just living in the world not agree with the science in the case of the normal flu? There's a disagreement. My observation is I haven't seen anybody die of regular flu. Now I'm not saying the children haven't died. There are enough reports that that's obviously true. But how come I have so many examples of COVID? I observe people I know who know other people etc. who have really died of COVID and there are half a million of them.
In the case of COVID the science says a whole bunch of people are dying. My observation is that a whole bunch of people are dying. Completely compatible. Observation and scientific opinion totally match. Now that doesn't mean they're both right but at least they match. In the regular flu deaths my observation is nowhere near the scientific opinion. That's the problem.
I'm not making a statement about what the answer is to unravel that. It's a question. It's a legitimate question meaning I don't have the answer and I'm not telling you that the question tells you what to think about the answer. If you jump to a conclusion because I ask a question that's sort of on you because I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I actually don't know why this mystery endures that the observation and the science don't match.
All right. So let's see what else we got here. Let me ask you this question just to make it more provocative. If somebody has an allergy to peanuts, allergy to peanuts, and they go forth in the world and they encounter some peanuts and they die what does the death certificate say? If you are allergic to peanuts you're exposed to them and then you die would the death certificate say killed by peanuts? What do you think? Would the death certificate say that? Killed by peanuts. Cause of death: peanuts? No.
But if you get exposed to the virus let's say the regular seasonal virus the cause of death would be the virus. But why isn't the cause of death with the peanut the peanut? And the answer to what the death certificate says is anaphylactic shock, right? That's what the death certificate would say. Now you need both. The person to have a biological genetic propensity and then you also need the peanut. If you only have one or the other the person is alive. Both situations. Gotta have a peanut. Gotta have a natural reaction to it.
How's that different from the virus? If you only have the virus and 99.9 percent of the people let's say the seasonal virus not the coronavirus if you only have the seasonal virus and your body is like 99.9 percent of all other bodies no problem. It's only when you have both situations. A virus plus a body that by its design or nature can't handle it. So in one case you say the cause of death is the virus. In the other case you say it's the reaction to the virus based on peanut plus whatever you naturally have going on. You see that they're handled differently, right?
Now my only point is we're talking about definitions of words. It's not maybe not a real argument.
All right. Analogy. Now an analogy can help you understand a concept which is what I just did. It doesn't help you win an argument. So it would not be true that therefore peanuts are handled this way therefore I'm right about viruses. That would be irrational because it's just two different situations. But if the peanut thing makes you ask the question hey if you need two things the peanut and the person being in a special situation it helps you think differently about the other one. So helping you think differently is what it does. It doesn't, it's not like a reason. So that's the difference.
Why doesn't pointing out hypocrisy work? I don't know the answer to that except I'll speculate. And I've said forever that pointing out somebody's hypocrisy never makes them change their mind. And the reason is they know they're doing it. So the people who are being hypocritical they know they're being hypocritical. They're doing it because they're taking a side. They're on a team.
So if you point out to somebody hey you're being hypocritical you're not telling them something they don't know. You have not introduced new information. They never meant to be serious. They're just making an argument because they think it might work. That's all. That's all. So yeah hypocrisy, pointing it out will never change anybody's opinion. I've never seen it. Have you? Have you ever seen anybody change their opinion because somebody said hey you're a hypocrite and then the person says oh yeah yeah I hadn't really looked at it that way but now that you mention it I'm a hypocrite. I change my mind. I think I'll not be a hypocrite. No. They will immediately tell you the situations are different. That's it. They'll just say that's a different situation. I'm not a hypocrite.
Did the butter kill the man with a heart attack? Butter is good for you. You have to use a better example. We used to think butter was bad but we learned it is not. I believe that's the current science is that butter is not bad for you. All right. Like eating meat but being against killing giraffes is hypocrisy. Yeah so I don't need meat so I can say anything I want about giraffes. But I don't think that the game hunting and big game hunting and killing animals for food that is not the same thing. Yeah I could certainly understand that you have to kill something to eat. That's different.
No meat for you. The only reason I don't eat meat is because I don't digest it well. I do eat some fish but I don't love it. I just do it for the health.
All right. Somebody says big game hunting supports big game. Well the experts based on reading about it this morning a lot of experts are saying that that is a ridiculous argument and that big game hunting does not support big game. There's an argument that it does but smart people say that's a ridiculous argument. I don't know who's right but it doesn't sound like a good argument to me.
Somebody says let's see. Robo Steve says Scott tying himself in knots trying to defend his nonsense. Is that a reason? Is that a good comment right there? Tying myself in knots trying to defend my reasons. Let me tell you if you think, let me ask the rest of you here. Many of you disagree with me on lots of different things which is part of the fun of coming here, right? If you agreed with me all the time I don't know it would be as much fun. But would you say for the benefit of Steve here that even when you disagree with me am I irrational often? Are my arguments unreasonable even when you disagree with me? Don't you think that at least the arguments got some merit? I mean you might think I have a fact wrong or maybe you think I haven't considered everything but do you think my arguments are twisted in pretzels?
It's hard to know based on the comments whether people just agree with me and so therefore I look brilliant. If you agree with somebody they look brilliant in general. Yeah I would like to suggest that whoever says I'm tying myself in pretzels with my argument I'm not saying I'm right all the time or anything like that but I don't think you'll find the arguments are too irrational. And when they are people point it out and sometimes I adjust.
All right. Somebody says sometimes you can say maybe I got that wrong though. That flu thing was like a pretzel. Well give me an example. See here's my contention that those of you who are having the and whoever says sophistry as well. Those of you who say that's sophistry or you're twisted in pretzels my observation of living life and being a trained hypnotist is that those people are experiencing cognitive dissonance and that's exactly what it feels like.
So if your take on my argument was well I understand your argument Scott but I disagree with it because of this reason or this fact or this priority you probably are not experiencing cognitive dissonance. You're a person with a different opinion. If you listen to my opinion on the regular flu stuff and you concluded that it didn't make sense that it was all like pretzely and sophistry you are almost certainly experiencing cognitive dissonance.
And the reason I point that out is look at the other people's comments. When you see let's say I'll just pick a number for argument 75 percent of the people say I completely understand your argument even if I don't agree with it and then 25 percent say I think your argument is pretzel logic and sophistry almost always you can depend on those people being the cognitive dissonance ones. And the people who say I see the argument but sometimes I disagree with it this reason or that probably just different opinions.
All right. So that's all I got for you and now I take my leave and I will talk to you tomorrow. Bye for now.
All right YouTubers I've got an extra minute by the way on YouTube. I'll just tell you guys I created yesterday on the Locals platform subscription service a lesson on how to become a cartoonist. Now separately I'll do a lesson on how to draw a cartoon but the business side and what tools to use and how to think about it and how to break into the business and sort of the general setup of how someone would become a cartoonist is now on the Locals platform. Locals.com just search for my name.
And the reason I did it is not because I think a lot of people want to become cartoonists. What you'll find is a whole lot of non-obvious suggestions which I think you'll find interesting. Just the non-obvious ones. And it'll also give you an idea about breaking into any kind of field that is unfamiliar. So if you look at the concepts that I talk about with cartooning.
Really? Richard McCarthy did you really just send me a hundred dollars? You're a saint. You know I have to say that it's weird. No it would not be telling you something you don't know that I'm rich. The Dilbert cartoon did a good job for me and I don't do this because of the money, right? But I do monetize. I do monetize and that does make me work harder. I'm pretty sure that I do more work because it's monetized actually. I'm positive. There's no doubt about it. I do way more effort and put more into it because it's monetized even if I don't need the money.
So when I just saw that notice come in somebody just gave me a hundred dollars. I don't know why exactly but I did something that somebody said that's worth a hundred dollars. And I gotta say that while I don't need a hundred dollars that you made my day because I just feel like a compliment, right? And but a compliment with money that's a real compliment. You know you don't have to wonder if it's insincere, right? It's a hundred bucks. That's sincere.
So thank you for that. That actually moved me because it's just a vote of confidence and I appreciate it. I appreciate it very much. And I'm going to end on that happy note. So thank you.
hey everybody you're right on time almost early come on in gather round grab a chair it's time for the best part of the day yeah once again isn't it great that there's coffee with scott adams every day that's right it's the best part and all you need is a copper mugger glass attacker challenge designed to canteen jugger flash vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes what that's right everything better it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now go stretch everybody i feel so good what a day all right well let's start with all the good news do you want the good news first of course you do of course you do in pandemic news the new single shot of vaccination uh from j it looks like it has 85 percent efficacy and if you don't like the word efficacy well you haven't said it out loud try it try it at home say efficacy it's fun it is um it has 85 efficacy 28 days after you get it that's pretty good um and it has a almost 88 of efficacy did i say efficacy um of blocking asymptomatic infections bam pretty good stuff would you take the single shot that gave you 85 efficacy or would you wait for the double shot that gives you a little bit more i don't know i told you that i'm going to wait until the last possible moment because i'm not eligible yet but i think i will be i think i'll be in the next wave so maybe in a few weeks i'm not sure here's some more good news as you know i think over 20 states have legislation to associate funding for school with the children instead of the school so that the child could go to a different competing school a private school for example and the funding would move with them the government funding so that is a really big trend that's happening now corey deangelis on uh you'll find him on twitter does the most tweeting about this productively he's most involved in this and he does more than tweeting obviously he's active in this space but a new study says according to corey that charter schools are 35 percent more cost effective and produce a 46 percent larger return on investment than district schools do you trust that statistic i don't you know this is a sort of statistic that you want to trust because it agrees with you already i i want it to be true that having competition in anything makes things better just as a general statement no matter the field if you add competition to it it should make things better so i want it to be true that these charter schools are are more cost effective but then you would also have to factor in what happens to the school they left behind did it get worse what happened to the average so i don't think things like this can be studied actually so i wouldn't totally trust this number but it does but at the very least it can help you size things so i think you know this at least is evidence that charter schools are not worse but i don't think you could say that numbers numbers such as this i wouldn't ever trust them to be accurate per se but if there were some big problem where they spent more money and got less results you'd probably see it they'd probably be good enough to to see all right uh digital dog on twitter was questioning the fact that the coronavirus uh numbers in the united states are over half a million deaths whereas regular seasonal flu would be you know maybe 10 percent of that typically and digital doug says if you pay hospitals five figures for treating the flu meaning the regular seasonal flu and five figures more for putting patients on respirators and let's see what the regular fluid numbers look like then so digital doug believes that if if hospitals were incentivized to record the regular seasonal flu that there would be 10 times as much death attributed to the regular flu does that make sense to you now let me tell you how to think of this argument if the argument is that uh financial incentives cause people to code more things as coronavirus that's a good argument would you say does anybody disagree with that that if you and i say this a million times if you put friction on something you'll get less of it almost always doesn't even matter what you're talking about you add friction and you get a little less of it if you add incentives again for almost anything you're going to get more of it so the argument is that incentives have been added somewhat accidentally because you know people had good intentions but there's an incentive to say that something is a covet infection or a cover death when maybe it was a gray area right let me tell you how to judge that argument if there were just as many coronavirus deaths as the regular flu early on pretty good argument pretty good argument it doesn't mean it's true but you'd have to take it seriously suppose the corona deaths were 20 more than the regular flu deaths in a year ah then you'd have to take that argument pretty seriously because like i said you incentivize anything and it wouldn't be surprising to get twenty percent more of something that had a financial incentive you'd all agree with that right getting twenty percent more that wouldn't be surprising but that's not where we are we're at 10 times more deaths from coronavirus it's real this argument used to make sense i've said it myself if you incentivize something you get more of it but you don't get 10 times more without somebody noticing that there's something up right we are way beyond the point where questioning whether coronavirus deaths are real is a rational opinion it used to be it used to be a rational opinion which i think time has shown us did not hold up but you are not being rational today if you think that the that the issue is miscounting we're not even close to that being a reasonable hypothesis but it was it was at one point so i think you need to update your thinking on that here's another one so uh ivor cummins who you probably see on the internet tweets a lot about the uh coronavirus tweeted a graph today that shows that sweden's excess deaths are among the lowest in europe and the claim is that they did not do as aggressive a lockdown in social distancing and therefore uh proof positive that lockdowns and social distancing don't work according to ivor or evor i don't know how to pronounce his first name cummins so i just tweeted this right before i came on live here and i asked the fact checkers to check that let me ask you do you think that that's true do you think that when the other people comment on his tweet do you think they're going to say oh yeah we checked the numbers and these look like the accurate numbers i would bet against that yeah i'm seeing in the comments there's some disagreement about whether it's true or not this is the kind of statistic that is just a little suspiciously too on the nose isn't it i i just don't believe those numbers now by the end of this live stream i could be changing my mind in other words if the people i consider good at fact-checking look at this and they say wow yeah it does look like sweden is a mystery they didn't lock down and they got the same result or better all right i just saw a comment that's making my brain explode but i'm not gonna go there all right um let's talk about something else uh so fact checkers check me on that sweden death thing uh elon musk musk continues to be the most interesting of the billionaires maybe just the most interesting person in the country right now while while trump is taking a little uh break and i guess he was asked to comment on a washington post story that was critical of tesla and as you know the washington post is owned by jeff bezos who you could consider a competitor to elon musk because they're both trying to conquer space if you will and they're they're they're trading places as the richest person you know in america you know ever it goes back and forth and here was elon musk's uh reply to the washington post hit piece on tesla when asked he said quote give my regards to your puppet master musk replied to the papers request for a story give my regards to the puppet masters now could there be a more perfect response if you if you put together like a team of experts in communication i said all right team of experts we're gonna have to respond to this what are you gonna do and the team of experts would have said well we'll put out this statement it'll be you know hundreds of words and it will say uh tesla denies the allegations and we make good cars right elon musk in one how many words uh one two three four five six seven and seven words just just annihilated this thing give my regards to your puppet master now what's beautiful about it is not just the comment that there could be some bias in the story and by the way i don't know that the story has any bias i mean i'm not i'm not alleging that but as a comment about the story is golden it's just perfect it's the smallest comment you can make that packs the most powerful punch because you can't really think of anything but what what elon said right you you've already forgotten what the story was i don't i didn't read the story but like if i had i would have forgotten it already because all i'd be thinking is that elon musk says the washington post is or puppets to bezos it's just more interesting right so what elon musk does is he simply does things more interestingly than other people fact check me on this tesla doesn't do standard marketing does it in advertising can somebody fact check me on that i thought that was true that they don't do regular ads because they don't need it all you have to do is put a bio weapon defense in your car and you don't need advertisements you have something to talk about right yeah i'm seeing people confirm it i think that's true so what elon musk does is brilliant he just acts more interesting than other people and he doesn't need to advertise now you have to be able to pull that off right because this comment from musk was probably just off the top of his head so you can't do that right you could try but being this interesting spontaneously so that the headlines just go with your interesting comment instead of the thing you're commenting about that's skill and maybe you don't have it all right uh stephen crowder you know him from louder on crowder um uh i have a question about the story he said the story this morning was that he had been suspended from twitter after saying that he can confirm that some people voted addresses that do not exist that's his claim don't cancel me please plea please please don't cancel me it's not even my opinion it's his opinion i'm just talking about it please please give me another minute of social media all right but when i was commenting about the story stephen crowder replied to me on twitter so i don't know how band he was if he's already replying to me on twitter the same day that i heard the story so i don't know if he's back or i got the story wrong did he get banned from a different platform can somebody clear that up did he get banned and he's back on already or did he get banned from a different oh it's a 12-hour ban 12-hour suspension that makes sense all right 12 hours suspension let's go with that because that sounds right anyway um and as i have told you my my uh new theme is that if somebody gets banned or censored let's say if they get censored i'm going to send them some money for being censored so i want to make it and i know a lot of people are on the same page that you know individually you might buy his shirt or his mug from his store i tweeted uh i tweeted the address of his store um and to you it's you know 10 bucks but basically you're just voting for freedom of speech it's it's a 10 vote to support freedom of speech whenever you see one of these situations happen so by stephen crowder's stuff i want to say while i'm at it that i do not agree with all of the things stephen crowder says doesn't matter that's not what we're here to talk about right and i'll tell you just so i'm on record with it i'm not a fan of his argument that there are two genders i know you hate it here's my argument the two gender thing is a social construct based largely on biology i mean it's not it's not just invented out of nothing it's based on observation and biology and stuff like that but it's a convenience society categorizes things for convenience and it is convenient and useful to have two genders because then you just have two bathrooms and you can keep rapists away from women and you know there are lots of good reasons that we narrow it down to two but it's social reasons i think a more productive way to look at people is that there are 7.5 what 7.5 billion people rounded off whatever it is and they're all different every one of them is just different they're different sexually they're different mentally different physically different health-wise we're just all different that's the healthiest way to look at the world it's not two genders except for convenience now if you argue should we keep it to gen two genders because we can't afford to have like a bathroom for every option i would say that's a conversation that's reasonable you can reasonably say yeah i get that everybody's different but we can't have a like a different bathroom for every person etc i would like my own bathroom i i'd like to be my own gender so i could not have to share a bathroom when i go to the mall it's just my own bathroom people like me whatever i am so the only thing i would put in your head is that while it's perfectly reasonable perfectly reasonable to argue that you should limit things to two genders for practical reasons that's very bad for a lot of people because they don't feel they fit into a category right so you have to make practical decisions when it comes to how to organize society and not everybody is going to win but i think we should be more compassionate the people are just different and not worse not better just different and just just take that as our model i would like to give a shout out to brit hume uh he made another wonderful comment today on twitter and i've been watching you for a long time you know fox news um association there and i don't think i've ever seen britt hume say something that wasn't reasonable and backed by evidence and i don't know if you can say that about everybody that you see on tv it takes a while before you realize i was sort of realizing it today it's like i've never seen britt hume say anything that was i've never seen him even spin a story and you can tell when somebody's spinning a story right that's the most common thing so just a shout out for being one of the most useful people in the news business when he talks i feel that whether i agree with him or not it's just not it's just like an actual honest opinion based on data and stuff it's so rare that i call them out it's like all right because i'm going to be talking about people doing the opposite in the pit and what he pointed out was was about dr fauci and it explained to me why i'm not as bothered by fouchy as almost everybody else seems to be fauci's sort of become you know our coronavirus grinch right he's sort of the grinch of the coronavirus and everybody wants to hate him but i i haven't ever felt that and i was trying to figure out why like why is it that you know fauci could be right or wrong but i don't have bad feelings about him at all and bri hume explains it indirectly he wasn't trying to but he says remember in this tweet he said about fouchy he said his job is to fight the corona the covet outbreak he has no responsibility for children's mental health or education the economy is someone else's problem so are missed cancer screening suicides and other collateral damage from lockdowns and that explained it explained my own opinion to me and that is that i only saw uh fauci as a bad cop and as a bad cop he's excellent it's not his job to tell you what to do about the economy it's not his job as as bri hume points out it's just not his job the other stuff so when you're evaluating fouchy evaluate him on his job but also you're an adult so you can say it's not the only word on everything he's not in charge of the economy he's not in charge of children's suicides etc i mean he cares about those things obviously he's a human and he's american so of course he cares about those things you assume but um that's why i'm not bothered by him because i see him in context if you see him out of context and you imagine that he is responsible for the economy and those other things then he would be doing the worst job ever but he's not he's only responsible for his little wing and he's acting exactly like a guy who's responsible for that little wing so just keep that frame in mind when you're judging him i think he's very valuable very valuable i don't agree with him on everything but i think he's very valuable you just got to keep him in his box as to what his job is that's a very good addition from brit hume of course the tiger woods accident is all the headlines because it's tiger woods but what are the odds that the best golfer of all time can't drive straight and ended up in the rough i feel as though this simulation is just messing with us because really really the best golfer in the world he can't drive straight and he ends up in the rough that feels doesn't even feel like a coincidence it just feels like the simulation ran out of ideas and it's just recycling stuff but of course uh we you know we everybody cares about tiger woods one of the things that tiger woods does and i don't think he gets enough credit for it he does get credit for it but can you think of anybody in the world right but i'll say the united states just to keep it local-ish but it would reply to the world is there even one person who doesn't like tiger woods besides maybe his ex-wife i don't know uh he's like the most popular person ever and it i think that his contribution to um let's say social cohesion and you know any racial stuff he's one of the most productive useful best things that's ever happened to america just by being good at golf and being you know at least partly black which people see as black so i don't think we can understate his contribution to the betterment of our social situation just by being black somewhat and excelling and you know being such a such a star and being so likable i mean i think he's just good for the world there was a sports guy who got in trouble andy scholes because he sort of speculated that painkillers were part of the story whereas there is no evidence of inebriation but he hasn't been blood tested yet i would like to say that maybe andy schulz did get a little ahead of himself by speculating that he wasn't surprised about tiger woods's accident because tiger woods has a history of painkiller use and maybe overuse i think he went to some rehab for it um but it is premature it would be premature um somebody says 7 30 a.m and he crashed that bat well that could be if if he were taking uh any kind of painkillers because he had pain and he did have back surgery recently um you would take them at any time of day right you'd take them whenever whenever they were prescribed so yeah that that could certainly be a factor but i'll feel like it explains it does it how do you explain the extent of the accident that he went so far i don't know that i don't even think drugs can explain it right i feel like there's at least one other thing that we don't know about and even if he has some painkillers in his body i don't feel like that's what happened i i somebody says he was probably texting i don't know he could have been texting but if it just looks like something else happened unless the speed was so high that that were fooled by it on the plus side the suv that he was in the genesis gv80 apparently performed well because the entire front part of the cart was crushed but tiger survived in a pretty bad accident so a shout out to the makers of the genesis vehicle assuming the vehicle was not part of the accident it looks like it may have saved his life so there's some good engineering there uh romney is saying that if trump ran in 2024 he would easily win the nomination what do you think about that do you think trump would easily win the nomination i feel like he would right because you'd have a number of people running and he would certainly get at least 25 percent of the vote just like the last time and that would be more than any of the others individually got so just the fact that he's the biggest fish who would be in that lake the biggest one gets nominated so it does look like trump i would agree with romney that if he ran again he'd at least get the nomination i would be very skeptical that he could win the election um he may be too crippled by the uh the assault on the capital but he could win nominations now that brings up the the second question of who are the leaders in this country anymore i feel like we have this gigantic vacuum of leadership uh both on the left and the right now there are certainly people that are being talked about for uh running for president but none of them have really the the kind of star power that we're used to and maybe it's just the trump effect we we have an expectation of a certain amount of star power but maybe that's unrealistic um so here's my take and i want to tell you that if you will be bothered in the future about me saying that aoc like trump has real skill even if you don't like her policies you probably don't want to follow me because i'm going to be talking about it a lot and the reason i'm going to be talking about a lot is that aoc is the only leader in the country right now now i don't like the things she's talking about in every case uh some of it i do like actually but so i'm not agreeing with her policies but i would say she's the only national leader we have at the moment i know that's a big statement but i think it is and she is very wisely which i i i mean i think she's guaranteed to be president eventually you just don't know when i so this here's my here's my prediction aoc is guaranteed to be president eventually unless there's some like new scandal that we don't know about but if she just keeps doing what she's doing she will be president and here's the thing you can back a leader that you don't agree with if they're leaving at least they're leading right i can i i backed trump as you know even though there were a number of things that he wanted to do that i would not agree with such as deporting 11 million people when he took office right now i knew that he wouldn't do that and he didn't but i can i can back a leader who has things in their policies i don't like as long as they're a leader because you need the leadership right you can't do without it and i would say aoc is now the only national leader if you don't count trump who's sort of on hiatus at the moment i'm watching the comments and watching people throwing up people are going into spasms no she's not a leader she's a fake um a calling or a fake isn't saying anything because all leaders are putting on a show so she's putting on a show and if you say to me but wait she's fake because she's just putting on a show i say what did you think what do you think trump was he was a guy who was smart enough to know how to put on the show and it worked the same skills all right so ao sees the news again because she took on the biden administration for reopening the texas migrant facilities which in the past have been called kids in cages although the actual cage cage may be down the road if the numbers keep coming in the way they are but still it's a facility where you're locking up kids and aoc came out publicly and even though it's her own party she said this is not okay and she said never has been okay never will be okay no matter the administration or party she tweeted that's leadership that's leadership all right i'm going to delete you all right let me give you a rule here everybody who says that when i talk about aoc's skill that i'm really having a crush on her i'm you're just going to get blocked because i don't want to deal with that level of high school mentality okay people can be female and also good at leadership can can we can we not accept that that's like a thing so goodbye to kent all right if anybody else wants to suggest that my real interest in her is because she's a woman i'd like to block you right away so i don't have to deal with that anymore okay all right um who who else would you say i'd like to see in your comments um i've made a claim that some of you don't like that she's the only national leader at the moment because she's going against her own party you're not a leader if all you're doing is agreeing with your side did trump always just agree with his side he didn't that's partly why there's so much trouble right he was always fighting with his own side if you're not fighting with your own side in addition to the other side you're not a leader you're just a team player all right so until you see somebody cross cross their own party line you're not talking about a leader you just talk about a you know political hack basically so aoc has done it twice in the past week i forget what the other one was but we have one leader in the country like it or not give me another name of somebody who uh would fall into that camp i'm seeing rand paul tulsi tulsi is a good name and that i would say tulsi compared to aoc would be i hate to say this because i really like tulsi gabbard as a political voice but i feel like she's the mike pence to aoc being trump i hate to say that that's really not a fair thing to say but tulsi doesn't bring the heat you know that the energy and partly because her personality is sort of low-key so she brings capability and good things that you like and would be very capable president in my opinion i could i could get behind that but i don't know she has the star power the quite it would be an interesting contest how would you like to see a presidential contest someday between tulsi gabbard and aoc just woman and woman versus woman that'd be pretty interesting i i could get into that that would be fun and maybe time maybe it's time for two women to be running for president um that would be the real that would be the real up wouldn't it um somebody says she's charismatic and dangerous like many evil leaders of the past so she's um she's added some nuance to what aoc has to what she's saying about border and getting rid of ice and opening the borders and stuff and all of it sounds crazy right when you first hear it you're like what are you talking about opening the borders that's the worst idea i've ever heard in the entire world but if you actually hear her talk about it in more depth what she's talking about is figuring out how to do it and the idea is that there might be a big idea of just rethinking everything that would make uh aggressive border control not necessary that it doesn't mean it would be bad for the united states but there's you know the feeling that you could get from where we are to some better place and we don't know what the path is now what do you think of that what do you think of the fact that aoc's plan for immigration is will do something that nobody's thought of yet and i haven't thought of it either but it'll be really good and it'll fix things what do you think of a plan like that is your first thought oh my god she doesn't have a plan there's no plan right that's your first thought here's my first thought that's the leader i want now i'm not saying aoc i'm saying i want a leader who talks exactly like that that's exactly what i want to hear i want to hear that here's where we want to get to here's where we are and we have no idea how to get there but damn it we're going to figure it out we're going to figure it out and if we can't figure it out well at least we tried that's the leader i want i don't want somebody who says you know i'm not even going to try to get there unless i know all the steps when kennedy said we're going to the moon did he say we already know how to get to the moon no the reason kennedy is called such a great leader for saying we're going to the moon is specifically because wait for it we didn't know how to do it i mean we figured we could figure it out but we didn't know how when he talked about it we don't know how to fix immigration such that strong enforcement would not even be necessary we don't know how to do that ao says aoc says let's figure it out i like that i don't know if we can figure it out but i also would not have known if we could figure out landing on the moon i wouldn't have known i was somebody who challenges us aoc challenged the country to figure out how to do this without being cruel to people coming across is it impossible if you say it's impossible check your thinking it might be impossible i can't see a way to do it i don't think you can see a way to do it but i don't want to live in the country where my leader agrees with me right i don't want my leader to say oh you can't see how to do it i guess we can't do it guess we can't go to the moon anybody anybody can somebody build a rocket anybody in the audience none of you nobody knows how to build a rocket to the moon guess we can't go you don't need that kind of leadership you need the peop the people who say we're going to make this work we don't know how yet but we're going to make it work we don't know how now or she's crazy in the comments somebody says or she's crazy well let me put it to you this way if she were crazy you'd see it in lots of different ways i think you know it would be sort of obvious but if she's smarter than you think she is she would talk like this she says directly i don't know how to do it if she said i do know how to do it but i'm not telling you well then she's crazy or if she said i do know how to do it and what she described clearly wouldn't work such as just throwing the gates open and opening the border but she's not saying that she is smart enough to know that that wouldn't work and she doesn't know what would work but she has you know a moonshot idea about how to get there um all right chris eliza let's talk about the fake news so i love how cnn creates news out of nothing using the opinion people and they're not alone i suppose fox news does the same but this example shows you how it's done so crystal is a in a larger article talking about a number of things talks about senator johnson said that last said last week that he didn't believe what happened at the capitol was quote an armed insurrection so there's a quote from a senator saying he didn't think he was armed insurrection at the capitol and then seliza finishes the sentences sent that sentence with comma despite ample evidence that it was so it's just put out there like common knowledge despite ample evidence that it was an armed insurrection to which i say i didn't see any did they report some ample evidence that it was an armed insurrection i didn't see any evidence in fact i saw lots of evidence that it wasn't i mean lots and lots of evidence that it wasn't it was just individuals who wanted a different election outcome or wanted transparency but he just puts it out there in an opinion article as if that's just an established fact now if you were a cnn consumer and you weren't let's say following the news every day but you read this article wouldn't you accept that this must be just an established fact never happened nothing like this established that as a fact in fact it's obviously not true you don't even have to be an expert to know that's not true just look at the you just look at the photos of the actual assault they're obviously not trying to overthrow the government they could never have had any plan that says if we put the viking hat guy and the the you know the ziptie guy in this room that's empty they will control the government of the united states i mean it's just ridiculous so this is one example of cnn their technique for perpetuating fake news tucker carlson had a real interesting piece about the disinformation campaign in this country um so-called disinformation campaign and there's a part i don't quite agree with tucker but sadly i've had enough experience disagreeing with tucker and then later agreeing with him that that i'm not going to say that just because i disagree with him on a minor point i'll tell you about a minute that he's necessarily wrong so don't take that from it i'm just saying i'm not on the same page but he could be right we'll find out and here's his point uh that there was a researcher who found out that around 2011 when the occupy wall street stuff was happening and remember occupy wall street was really about going after the rich the wall street rich those rich people so it was an anti-rich movement anti-rich people movement have you heard about that lately when was the last time you heard about occupy wall street and all those rich people it just sort of went away didn't it what replaced it well what replaced it is the narrative that the biggest problem in the united states is race it was just replaced so instead of going after rich people it turned into the races going after each other and who how did that happen how'd that happen was it did it just sort of naturally happen did it evolve into happening and there was no decision making well here's where i might be on a different page from tucker because the suggestion or at least what i took from it i could be misinterpreting it but i took from tucker's piece that there was some intention there by important figures who are the puppet masters of our society to make people stop focusing on the rich because the rich people don't want that and make and give you a diversion something shiny here's something to back tucker's point he says that let's see when people were asked how many unarmed the key word is unarmed people have been killed by police specifically how many unarmed african-americans were gunned down by police in 2019.
so they do a survey and they say take your best guess how many unarmed key word unarmed uh black citizens were gunned down by cops that year presumably meaning killed um what do you think people guessed democrats guessed uh 44 of democrats or no actually 44 of liberals said they'd believe it was about a thousand or more per year that's because they listen to the news and social media and they believed 44 of liberals almost half believe that the number is close to a thousand or more now let me ask you something if police were killing a thousand unarmed black men a year in this country you couldn't keep me off the street right like i would be in black lives matter like i would be a charter member due spain remember if this number were anywhere near that you would have to leave your house you would have to protest you would have to defund the police you would have to if this were even close to true but of course it's not the real number is under 30.
so liberals think it's a thousand or more a year you would act very differently if it were a thousand or more a year you would act very differently right so you can almost understand why there's this big difference there's a news uh black hole no pun intended in which liberals just don't know what's happening and conservatives do so actually 25 of conservatives even thought that what what kind of news are the conservatives watching because i don't know any conservative news sites that have reported this incorrectly or suggested that it was anywhere in that range but even the conservative news talks about what cnn talks about in other words they the news covers the news so maybe wherever you watch you could be misled but just think how big a deal that is i mean and then this question was not asked but how many liberals believe that president trump once said that neo-nazis were fine people i'll bet it's over 80 percent could be 90 percent i'll bet 90 percent of liberals believe that that fake news actually happened most conservatives know it's a hoax if you look at the full transcript he said the opposite but man it is so clear that the real problem in this country is a disinformation campaign from the media and it's hard to discount it as unintentional isn't it it's really hard to look at this set of facts and say well nobody's doing that intentionally although i'm not i'm not sold that the case has been made that they're shadowy puppet masters who are they what are the names when do they have a meeting did they have a meeting or did they just know what to do so that part i'm not quite buying that it was a plot but you can buy that it happened you can simply observe that the movement against occupy wall street disappeared at about the same time that the word racism took off in mentions in the media now there were also events you know there was a george floyd event other tragic events so there were reasons but were all of those reasons present in 2011 did the country become more bad racist since 2011 i don't think so i feel like we probably got less racist just like every single year of the united states probably every year of the republic people on average have gotten a little less racist it feels like it to me you know maybe any given year might be different but over time so wouldn't you say that racism is probably somewhat less than it was in 2011 when apparently that wasn't even a big issue relative to the occupy wall street issue being bigger in other news there's a flight american airlines flight that reported a ufo sighting doesn't mean it's an alien ship just unidentified that looked like a cruise missile that went over there that just went over their plane now do you believe that there was an unidentified long tubular object that went right over an airplane that was not known to flight control and the way they asked the question was they said the pilot said uh do you have any targets up here because he thought a missile just went past them at a target and he was wondering uh is there anything in the air near me then i need to worry about because somebody shot a missile at it i'd be worried about that now of course we don't know the answer to this we don't know that anything got shot into the air or that any big missiles landed anywhere that we don't know about so it's just a mystery that's all it is if i had to guess i would say they didn't see anything maybe they saw a shadow of some kind i don't know so my guess is they didn't say anything but we'll find out there's a story about a woman who's a trophy hunter getting a lot of heat for killing a giraffe cutting out its heart which is pretty big and holding it up for social media now if that wasn't bad enough apparently this one woman has killed over 500 big animals lions leopards elephants etc 500 and she was really really excited and couldn't couldn't handle herself when she learned that she could kill an adult giraffe now i'm not anti-hunting per se you know there are some times when it makes sense and if she had gone big game hunting once or twice i wouldn't like it but i'd have a different opinion than if she did it 500 times if you kill 500 big animals you're just a serial killer who doesn't want to get in trouble with the law it feels like that's just a serial killer vibe doesn't it i don't know but she's pretty happy with herself all right um i also wonder if she owns a pet imagine if you had killed 500 mammals for fun does she have a dog does she does she have a dog because that dog would be really nervous um i mean would she ever look at her dog and think to herself i love my dog but oh man it would be fun to kill it i'd love to just shoot my dog if you've killed 500 mammals you don't think she fantasizes about shooting her own dog if she has one anyway biden is allegedly i think we need some confirmation on this story because i saw it in a asian publication but apparently he's biden is considering an executive order to push alternate supply chains to go around china specifically for tech stuff like chips and batteries and rare earth rare earth stuff now if that's true that biden has a eo coming in which we're going to build out a separate supply chain that doesn't involve china i would be giving biden a lot of credit for that now i would think that he wouldn't do it if trump had not gotten the ball rolling in turning the opinion of the united states citizens against china if trump had not made it possible for biden to do this i don't think he could have so i'm good so if this if this happens i will give biden credit because it you know that's the rule right if something good happens under his administration i'm going to give him credit but we can put an asterisk next to it and say you know it wouldn't have happened without trump but still biden has to do it so he gets credit if he doesn't and this would be very important but i don't know if it's true yet apparently biden has not declared yet that the the uyghur situation in china is a genocide i guess trump made that declaration just before he left to sort of leave it with biden as a problem and biden he has not decided to do that canada however the parliament parliament voted monday to pass a nine non-binding motion uh classifying china as being involved in a genocide so canada good work united states look at canada come on biden canada did it you can do it do it do it joe do it all right and i remind you that we are in a war with china and they're killing 70 000 people a year with fentanyl which they easily could stop because there's one guy in charge of it we've already told them who his name is they know where he is he's still doing it so china has decided explicitly to send us fentanyl and kill us and to not stop it um if we sent them some fentanyl their way it would not be inappropriate probably not a good idea but it would not be morally wrong to fight fire with fire um that's just my opinion that's just my opinion somebody says where is jack ma i don't know he's got a problem all right my next segment called experts are dumb um and i'm have been having an online conversation with a number of doctors and er doctors and pediatricians who are very mad at me for having opinions oh they're very mad at me because if you've noticed i am not a doctor and apparently you can't have doctor-related opinions if you're not one because they'll be pretty mad at you pretty bad but here's what i've learned the whole the whole question about the seasonal flu the regular flu killing 50 000 people a year which i am skeptical of um i've been learning more about that and when when i hear that children were dying from it i had some questions and here's what i've learned that even if you don't have a an underlying problem that has a name to it the regular flu can kill you if you're a child under under specific conditions and i guess the specific condition is a high viral load with some kind of difference in the architecture of your lungs that would make you somewhat unique and maybe something about the immune system not being developed i don't know about that but that there's something different about the children who die from the flu both an exposure level and architecture of the lungs now that sort of opens up the question of what it means to be healthy what's the definition would that be a definition of a healthy child dying from the virus when 99.9 of children don't and don't even get close to death so would you say that that's a healthy child when they can't survive the environment that they are meant to be in so if you say yes that kid is completely healthy because if they didn't have access to this virus they'd be fine but what would you say about a bubble boy somebody who if they left their bubble almost any kind of infection would kill them when they're inside the bubble do you call them healthy because they are they can live out their whole life without a physical problem if they don't get infected so is that person healthy see you can see how the definition of what healthy means is driving the discussion it's not about what's happening it's about what you insist is the word you're going to use that's word thinking i call it it's people who think they're arguing but they're really trying to hold on to a definition or win by defining the word the way that works for them here's my definition of healthy it's different from the medical definition it's more of a common sense definition it goes like this if you are not capable of surviving the environment for which you are naturally you know you're born into such as just living in the atmosphere i don't know that i would call that healthy i would call that somebody who has a major health problem because the normal environment operating just the way you think it will will kill them but it wouldn't kill 99.9 percent of people who had exactly the same exposure i would call that unhealthy by definition but in a medical sense if they have not been exposed to the thing that's going to hurt them doctors are going to say no that's perfectly healthy it's the the virus that killed them that's kind of a definitional problem isn't it aren't we both talking about the same thing that you need the virus but you also need the person to have a specific situation going on and if you call that specific situation perfectly healthy it just happens to cause you to die if it comes in contact with something that is commonly in your environment i'm not sure i would call that healthy so i'm not i don't know that there's a disagreement about that other than what word you want to use for it but on top of that is the question of why we don't hear about people dying of the regular flu when they're allegedly dying in the same numbers as people who die from car accidents and overdoses and we hear about them all the time we personally know people have died from those other things almost every adult does but i don't know anybody who died in regular flu so uh then somebody on social media said scott you know you're finally on our side now we've been saying the same thing about coronavirus that the the way it's counted is probably wrong to which i say wait a minute no i am making the opposite point completely opposite point if you think that me questioning the statistics of regular seasonal flu is sort of the same argument as the people who are questioning the number of people dying from coronavirus you have a hundred percent backwards they're opposites the question is why does my observation as just living in the world not agree with the science in the case of the normal flu there's a disagreement my observation is i haven't seen anybody die of regular flu now i'm not saying the children haven't died there are enough reports that that's obviously true but how come i have so many examples of covid i observe people i know who know other people etc who have really died of covid and there are half a million of them in the case of covet the science says a whole bunch of people are dying my observation is that a whole bunch of people are dying completely compatible observation and scientific opinion totally match now that doesn't mean they're both right but at least they match in the regular flu deaths my observation is nowhere near the scientific opinion that's the problem i'm not making a statement about what the answer is to unravel that it's a question it's a legitimate question meaning i don't have the answer and i'm not telling you that the question tells you what to think about the answer if you if you jump to a conclusion because i ask a question that's sort of on you because i'm not jumping to any conclusions i actually don't know why this mystery endures that the observation and the science don't match all right so uh let's see what else we got here uh let me ask you this question just to make it more more provocative if somebody has an allergy to peanuts allergy to peanuts and they go forth in the world and they encounter some peanuts and they die what does the death certificate say if you are allergic to peanuts you're exposed to them and then you die would the death certificate say killed by peanuts what do you think would the death certificate say that killed by peanuts cause of death peanuts no no but if you got if you get exposed to the virus let's say the regular seasonal virus the cause of death would be the virus but why isn't the cause of death with the peanut the peanut and the the answer to what the uh death certificate says is anaphylexic if i'm saying it right an anaphylactic shock right that's what the death certificate would say now you need both the person to have a biological genetic propensity and then you also need the peanut if you only have one or the other the person is alive both situations gotta have a peanut gotta have a natural you know uh reaction to it how's that different from the virus if you only have the virus and 99.9 of the people let's say the the seasonal virus not the coronavirus if you only have the seedless little virus and your body is like 99.9 of all other bodies no problem it's only when you have both situations a virus plus a body that by its design or or nature can't handle it so in one case you say the cause of death is the virus in the other case you say it's the reaction to the virus based on peanut plus whatever you naturally have going on you see that they're handled differently right now my only point is we're talking about uh definitions of words it's not uh maybe not a real argument all right analogy now an analogy uh an analogy can help you understand a concept which is what i just did it doesn't help you win an argument so it would not be true that therefore peanuts are handled this way therefore i'm right about viruses that would be irrational because it's just two different situations but if the peanut thing makes you ask the question hey if you need two things the peanut and the person being in a special situation it helps you think differently about the other one so helping you think differently is what it does it doesn't it's not like a reason so that's that's the difference uh why doesn't pointing out hypocrisy work i don't know the answer that except all speculate and i've said forever that pointing out somebody's hypocrisy never makes them change their mind and the reason is they know they're doing it so the people who are being hypocritical they know they're being hypocritical they're doing it because they're taking a side they're on a team so if you point out to somebody hey you're being hypocritical you're not telling them something they don't know you have not introduced new information they never meant to be serious they're just making an argument because they think it might work that's all that's all so yeah hypocrisy pointing it down will never change anybody's opinion i've never seen it have you have you ever seen anybody change their opinion because somebody said hey you're a hypocrite and then the person says oh yeah yeah i hadn't really looked at it that way but now that you mention it i'm a hypocrite i change my mind i think i'll not be a hypocrite no they will immediately tell you the situations are different that's it they'll just say that's a different situation i'm not a hypocrite did the butter kill the man with a heart attack uh butter is good for you you have to use a better example we used to think butter was bad but we learned it is not i believe that's the current the current science is that butter is not not bad for you all right like eating meat but being against killing giraffes is hypocrisy yeah so i don't need meat so i can say anything i want about giraffes but i don't think that the game hunting and big game hunting and killing animals for food that is not the same thing yeah i could certainly understand that you have to kill something to eat that's different uh no me for you why uh the only reason i don't eat meat is because i don't digest it well um i do eat some fish but i don't love it i just do it for the health all right somebody says big game hunting supports big game well the experts uh based on reading about it this morning the a lot of experts are saying that that is a ridiculous argument and that big game hunting does not support big game there's an argument that it does but smart people say that's a ridiculous argument i don't know who's right but it doesn't sound like a good argument to me somebody says let's see robo steve says scott tying himself in nuts trying to defend his nonsense is that a reason is that is that a good comment right there tying myself in nuts trying to defend my reasons let me tell you if you think let me ask the rest of you here many of you disagree with me on lots of different things which is part of the the fun of coming here right if you agreed with me all the time i don't know it would be as much fun but would you say for the benefit of steve here that even when you disagree with me am i irrational often are my arguments unreasonable even when you disagree with me don't you think that at least the arguments got some merit i mean you might think i have a fact wrong or maybe you think i haven't considered everything but do you think my arguments are twisted in pretzels it's hard to know based on the comments whether people just agree with me and so therefore i look brilliant if you agree with somebody they look brilliant in general yeah i would like to suggest that whoever says i'm tying myself in pretzels with my argument i'm not saying i'm right all the time or anything like that but i don't think you'll find the arguments are too irrational and when they are people point it out and sometimes i adjust all right um somebody says sometimes you can say maybe i got that wrong though that flu thing was like a pretzel well give me an example see here's my contention that those of you who are having the uh and whoever says sophistry as well those of you who say that's sophistry or or you're twisted in pretzels my observation of living life and being a trained hypnotist is that those people are experiencing cognitive dissonance and that's what it exactly what it feels like so if your if your take on my argument was well i understand your argument scott but i disagree with it because of this reason or this fact or this priority you probably are not experiencing cognitive dissonance you're a person with a different opinion if you listen to my opinion on the regular flu stuff and you concluded that it didn't make sense that it was all like pretzely and sophistry you are almost certainly experiencing cognitive dissonance and the reason i point that out is look at the other people's comments when you see let's say i'll just pick a number for argument 75 percent of the people say i completely understand your argument even if i don't agree with it and then 25 percent say i think your argument is pretzel logic and sophistry almost always you can depend on those people being the cognitive dissonance ones and the people who say i see the argument but sometimes i disagree with it this this reason or that probably just different opinions all right so that's all i got for you and now i take my leave and i will talk to you tomorrow bye for now all right youtubers i've got an extra minute by the way on youtube um i'll just tell you guys i created yesterday on the locals platform subscription service a lesson on how to become a cartoonist now separately i'll do a lesson on how to draw a cartoon but the the business side and what tools to use and how to think about it and how to break into the business and sort of the the general setup of how how someone would become a cartoonist is now on the locals platform locals.com just search for my name and the reason i did it is not because i think a lot of people want to become cartoonists what you'll find is a whole lot of non-obvious suggestions which i think you'll find uh interesting just the non-obvious ones and it'll also give you an idea about breaking into any kind of field that is unfamiliar so if you look at the concepts that i talk about with cartooning really richard mccarthy did you really just send me a hundred dollars you're a saint you know i have to say that it's weird no it would not be telling you something you don't know that i'm rich the dilbert cartoon did a good job for me and i don't do this because of the money right but i do monetize i do monetize and that does make me work harder i'm pretty sure that i do more work because it's monetized actually i'm positive there's no doubt about it i do way more effort and put more into it because it's monetized even if i don't need the money so when uh i just saw that notice come in somebody somebody just gave me a hundred dollars i don't know why exactly but i did something that somebody said that's worth a hundred dollars and i gotta say that while i don't need a hundred dollars that you made my day because i just feel like a compliment right and but it a compliment with money that's a real compliment you know you don't have to wonder if it's insincere right it's a hundred bucks that's sincere so thank you for that that actually moved me because it's just a vote of confidence and i appreciate it i appreciate it very much and i'm going to end on that happy note so thank you
hey everybody
you're right on time almost early
come on in gather round grab a chair
it's time for the best
part of the day yeah once again
isn't it great that there's coffee with
scott adams
every day that's right it's the best
part and all you need is a copper mugger
glass attacker challenge designed to
canteen jugger flash vessel of any kind
fill it with your favorite liquid i like
coffee
and join me now for the unparalleled
pleasure the dopamine hit of the day
the thing that makes what that's right
everything better it's called the
simultaneous sip and it happens now
go
stretch everybody
i feel so good what a day
all right well let's start with all the
good news do you want the good news
first
of course you do of course you do in
pandemic news
the new single shot of vaccination
uh from j it looks like it has 85
percent
efficacy and if you don't like the word
efficacy well you haven't said it out
loud
try it try it at home say efficacy
it's fun it is um it has 85
efficacy 28 days after you get it that's
pretty good
um and it has a almost 88
of efficacy did i say efficacy
um of blocking asymptomatic infections
bam pretty good stuff
would you take the single shot that gave
you 85
efficacy or would you wait for the
double shot
that gives you a little bit more i don't
know
i told you that i'm going to wait until
the last possible moment
because i'm not eligible yet but i think
i will be
i think i'll be in the next wave so
maybe in a few weeks i'm not sure
here's some more good news as you know
i think over 20 states have legislation
to
associate funding for school with the
children
instead of the school so that the child
could go to a different
competing school a private school for
example and the funding would move with
them
the government funding so that
is a really big trend that's happening
now corey deangelis
on uh you'll find him on twitter does
the most tweeting about this
productively he's most involved in this
and
he does more than tweeting obviously
he's active in this space
but a new study says according to corey
that charter schools are
35 percent more cost effective
and produce a 46 percent larger return
on
investment than district schools
do you trust that statistic
i don't you know
this is a sort of statistic that you
want to trust because it agrees with you
already
i i want it to be true that having
competition in anything makes things
better
just as a general statement no matter
the field if you add competition to it
it should make things better
so i want it to be true that these
charter schools are are more cost
effective
but then you would also have to factor
in
what happens to the school they left
behind did it get worse
what happened to the average so i don't
think things like this can be
studied actually so i wouldn't totally
trust this number
but it does but at the very least
it can help you size things so i think
you know this at least is evidence that
charter schools are not worse
but i don't think you could say that
numbers numbers such as this
i wouldn't ever trust them to be
accurate per se
but if there were some big problem where
they spent more money and got
less results you'd probably see it
they'd probably be good enough to
to see all right uh
digital dog on twitter was questioning
the fact that the coronavirus
uh numbers in the united states are over
half a million deaths
whereas regular seasonal flu would be
you know
maybe 10 percent of that typically
and digital doug says if you pay
hospitals five figures for treating the
flu
meaning the regular seasonal flu and
five figures more for putting patients
on respirators
and let's see what the regular fluid
numbers look like then
so digital doug believes that if
if hospitals were incentivized to record
the regular seasonal flu
that there would be 10 times as much
death
attributed to the regular flu does that
make sense to you
now let me tell you how to think of this
argument if the argument is
that uh financial incentives
cause people to code more things as
coronavirus
that's a good argument would you say
does anybody disagree with that
that if you and i say this a million
times if you put
friction on something you'll get less of
it
almost always doesn't even matter what
you're talking about
you add friction and you get a little
less of it
if you add incentives again
for almost anything you're going to get
more of it
so the argument is that incentives have
been added
somewhat accidentally because you know
people had good intentions
but there's an incentive to say that
something is a covet
infection or a cover death when
maybe it was a gray area right
let me tell you how to judge that
argument
if there were just as many coronavirus
deaths
as the regular flu
early on pretty good argument
pretty good argument it doesn't mean
it's true
but you'd have to take it seriously
suppose the corona deaths were 20
more than the regular flu deaths
in a year ah then you'd have to take
that argument pretty seriously
because like i said you incentivize
anything and
it wouldn't be surprising to get twenty
percent more
of something that had a financial
incentive you'd all agree with that
right
getting twenty percent more that
wouldn't be surprising but that's not
where we are
we're at 10 times more deaths from
coronavirus
it's real this argument
used to make sense i've said it myself
if you incentivize something you get
more of it but you don't get
10 times more without somebody noticing
that there's something up
right we are way beyond the point
where questioning whether coronavirus
deaths are real
is a rational opinion it used to be
it used to be a rational opinion which i
think time has shown us
did not hold up but you are not being
rational
today if you think that the that the
issue
is miscounting we're not even close to
that being
a reasonable hypothesis but it was it
was at one point
so i think you need to update your
thinking on that here's another one
so uh ivor cummins who you probably see
on the internet
tweets a lot about the uh coronavirus
tweeted a graph today that shows that
sweden's
excess deaths are among the lowest in
europe
and the claim is that they did not do as
aggressive a lockdown
in social distancing and therefore uh
proof positive that lockdowns and social
distancing don't work
according to ivor or evor i don't know
how to pronounce his first name
cummins so i just tweeted this right
before i came
on live here and i asked the fact
checkers to check that
let me ask you do you think that that's
true
do you think that when the other people
comment on his tweet
do you think they're going to say oh
yeah we checked the numbers and these
look like the accurate numbers
i would bet against that
yeah i'm seeing in the comments there's
some disagreement about whether it's
true or not
this is the kind of statistic
that is just a little suspiciously too
on the nose isn't it
i i just don't believe
those numbers now by the end of this
live stream i could be changing my mind
in other words if the people i consider
good at fact-checking
look at this and they say wow yeah it
does look like sweden
is a mystery they didn't lock down and
they got the same result
or better
all right i just saw a comment that's
making my brain explode but i'm not
gonna go there
all right um
let's talk about something else uh so
fact checkers check me on that sweden
death
thing uh elon musk musk
continues to be the most interesting of
the billionaires
maybe just the most interesting person
in the country right now while
while trump is taking a little uh break
and i guess he was asked
to comment on a washington post story
that was
critical of tesla and
as you know the washington post is owned
by jeff bezos
who you could consider a competitor to
elon musk because they're both trying to
conquer space if you will and they're
they're
they're trading places as the richest
person you know
in america you know ever it goes back
and forth
and here was elon musk's uh reply
to the washington post hit piece on
tesla
when asked he said quote give my regards
to your puppet master
musk replied to the papers request for a
story
[Laughter]
give my regards to the puppet masters
now could there be
a more perfect response if you if you
put together
like a team of experts in communication
i said all right team of experts
we're gonna have to respond to this what
are you gonna do
and the team of experts would have said
well we'll put out this statement
it'll be you know hundreds of words and
it will say
uh tesla denies the allegations
and we make good cars
right elon musk
in one how many words uh one two three
four
five six seven and seven words
just just annihilated this thing
give my regards to your puppet master
now what's beautiful about it
is not just the comment that there could
be some bias in the story
and by the way i don't know that the
story has any bias
i mean i'm not i'm not alleging that but
as a comment about the story is golden
it's just perfect
it's the smallest comment you can make
that packs the most powerful punch
because you can't really think of
anything but what what elon said
right you you've already forgotten what
the story was
i don't i didn't read the story but like
if i had i would have forgotten it
already
because all i'd be thinking is that elon
musk says the washington post is
or puppets to bezos it's just more
interesting right
so what elon musk does is he simply
does things more interestingly
than other people fact check me on this
tesla doesn't
do standard marketing does it in
advertising
can somebody fact check me on that i
thought that was true that they don't do
regular ads
because they don't need it all you have
to do is put a bio weapon defense
in your car and you don't need
advertisements you have something to
talk about
right yeah i'm seeing people confirm it
i think that's true
so what elon musk does is brilliant he
just acts more interesting than other
people and he doesn't need to advertise
now you have to be able to pull that off
right
because this comment from musk was
probably just off the top of his head
so you can't do that right you could try
but being this interesting spontaneously
so that the headlines just go with your
interesting comment instead of the thing
you're commenting about
that's skill and maybe you don't have it
all right uh stephen crowder you know
him from louder on crowder
um uh i have a question about the story
he said
the story this morning was that he had
been suspended from twitter
after saying that he can confirm that
some people voted addresses that do not
exist
that's his claim don't cancel me please
plea please please don't cancel me
it's not even my opinion it's his
opinion i'm just talking about it
please please give me another minute of
social media
all right
but when i was commenting about the
story
stephen crowder replied to me on twitter
so i don't know how band he was
if he's already replying to me on
twitter the same day that i heard the
story
so i don't know if he's back or i got
the story wrong did he get banned from a
different platform
can somebody clear that up did he get
banned and he's back on already or did
he
get banned from a different oh it's a
12-hour ban
12-hour suspension that makes sense all
right 12 hours suspension
let's go with that because that sounds
right anyway
um and as i have told you my
my uh new theme is that if somebody gets
banned or censored
let's say if they get censored
i'm going to send them some money for
being censored
so i want to make it and i know a lot of
people are on the same page
that you know individually you might buy
his
shirt or his mug from his store i
tweeted uh
i tweeted the address of his store
um and to you it's you know 10 bucks but
basically you're just voting for
freedom of speech it's it's a 10 vote
to support freedom of speech whenever
you see one of these situations
happen so by stephen crowder's stuff i
want to say
while i'm at it that i do not agree with
all of the things stephen crowder says
doesn't matter that's not what we're
here to talk about right
and i'll tell you just so i'm on record
with it
i'm not a fan of his argument that there
are
two genders i know you hate it
here's my argument the two gender thing
is a
social construct based largely on
biology
i mean it's not it's not just invented
out of nothing it's based on
observation and biology and stuff like
that
but it's a convenience society
categorizes things for convenience
and it is convenient and useful to have
two genders because then you just have
two bathrooms and you can keep
rapists away from women and you know
there are lots of good reasons
that we narrow it down to two but it's
social reasons
i think a more productive way to look at
people
is that there are 7.5 what 7.5 billion
people
rounded off whatever it is and they're
all different
every one of them is just different
they're different sexually
they're different mentally different
physically different health-wise
we're just all different that's the
healthiest way to look at the world
it's not two genders except for
convenience
now if you argue should we keep it to
gen two genders because we can't afford
to have like a bathroom for
every option i would say that's a
conversation that's
reasonable you can reasonably say yeah i
get that everybody's different
but we can't have a like a different
bathroom for every person etc
i would like my own bathroom i i'd like
to be my own gender so i could
not have to share a bathroom when i go
to the mall it's just my own bathroom
people like me whatever i am
so the only thing i would put in your
head is that while it's perfectly
reasonable
perfectly reasonable to argue that you
should limit things to two genders for
practical reasons
that's very bad for a lot of people
because they don't feel they fit into a
category right
so you have to make practical decisions
when it comes to how to organize society
and not everybody is going to win
but i think we should be more
compassionate the people are just
different
and not worse not better just different
and just
just take that as our model i would like
to give a shout out
to brit hume uh he made another
wonderful
comment today on twitter and i've been
watching you for a long time
you know fox news um association there
and
i don't think i've ever seen britt hume
say something that wasn't
reasonable and backed by
evidence and i don't know if you can say
that about everybody
that you see on tv it takes a while
before you realize
i was sort of realizing it today it's
like i've never seen britt hume
say anything that was i've
never seen him even
spin a story and you can tell when
somebody's spinning a story right that's
the most
common thing so just a shout out for
being one of the most useful people
in the news business when he talks i
feel that whether i agree with him or
not
it's just not it's just like an
actual honest opinion based on data and
stuff
it's so rare that i call them out it's
like all right because i'm going to be
talking about people doing the opposite
in the pit
and what he pointed out was was about dr
fauci
and it explained to me why i'm not as
bothered
by fouchy as almost everybody else seems
to be
fauci's sort of become you know our
coronavirus
grinch right he's sort of the grinch of
the coronavirus
and everybody wants to hate him but i i
haven't ever felt that
and i was trying to figure out why like
why is it
that you know fauci could be right or
wrong but i don't have bad feelings
about him at all
and bri hume explains it indirectly he
wasn't trying to
but he says remember in this tweet he
said about fouchy he said his job is to
fight the corona the covet outbreak
he has no responsibility for children's
mental health or education
the economy is someone else's problem so
are missed cancer screening suicides
and other collateral damage from
lockdowns and that
explained it explained my own opinion to
me
and that is that i only saw uh fauci
as a bad cop and as a bad cop
he's excellent it's not his job
to tell you what to do about the economy
it's not his job
as as bri hume points out it's just not
his job
the other stuff so when you're
evaluating fouchy
evaluate him on his job but also you're
an adult
so you can say it's not the only word on
everything he's not in charge of the
economy he's not in charge of
children's suicides etc i mean he cares
about those things obviously he's a
human
and he's american so of course he cares
about those things you assume
but um that's why i'm not bothered by
him because i see him in context
if you see him out of context and you
imagine that he
is responsible for the economy and
those other things then he would be
doing the worst job ever
but he's not he's only responsible for
his little wing
and he's acting exactly like a guy who's
responsible for that little wing
so just keep that frame in mind when
you're judging him
i think he's very valuable very valuable
i don't agree with him on everything but
i think he's very valuable you just got
to keep him in his box
as to what his job is that's a very good
addition
from brit hume of course the tiger woods
accident is all the headlines because
it's tiger woods
but what are the odds that the best
golfer of all time
can't drive straight and ended up in the
rough
i feel as though this simulation is just
messing with us
because really really the best golfer in
the world he can't drive straight and he
ends up in the rough
that feels doesn't even feel like a
coincidence
it just feels like the simulation ran
out of ideas and it's just
recycling stuff but of course uh
we you know we everybody cares about
tiger woods
one of the things that tiger woods does
and i don't think he gets enough credit
for it he does get credit for it but
can you think of anybody in
the world right but i'll say the
united states just to keep it local-ish
but it would reply to the world is there
even one person
who doesn't like tiger woods besides
maybe his ex-wife i don't know
uh he's like the most popular person
ever
and it i think that his contribution to
um let's say social cohesion
and you know any racial stuff
he's one of the most productive useful
best things that's ever happened to
america just by being good at golf
and being you know at least partly black
which people see as black
so i don't think we can understate his
contribution to the betterment
of our social situation just by
being black somewhat
and excelling and
you know being such a such a star
and being so likable i mean i think he's
just good for the world
there was a sports guy who got in
trouble andy scholes
because he sort of speculated that
painkillers were part of the story
whereas there is no evidence of
inebriation but he hasn't been
blood tested yet i would like to say
that maybe andy schulz did
get a little ahead of himself by
speculating that he wasn't
surprised about tiger woods's accident
because tiger woods has a history of
painkiller
use and maybe overuse i think he went to
some rehab for it
um but it is premature
it would be premature um
somebody says 7 30 a.m and he crashed
that bat
well that could be if if he were taking
uh any kind of painkillers because he
had pain and he did have back surgery
recently
um you would take them at any time of
day right you'd take them whenever
whenever they were prescribed so yeah
that that could
certainly be a factor but i'll feel like
it explains it does it
how do you explain the extent of the
accident that he went
so far i don't know that
i don't even think drugs can explain it
right i feel like there's at least
one other thing that we don't know about
and even if he has some painkillers in
his body i don't feel like that's what
happened
i i somebody says he was probably
texting
i don't know he could have been texting
but if
it just looks like something else
happened unless the speed was so high
that
that were fooled by it on the plus side
the
suv that he was in the genesis gv80
apparently performed well because the
entire front part of the cart was
crushed
but tiger survived in a pretty bad
accident
so a shout out to the
makers of the genesis vehicle
assuming the vehicle was not part of the
accident
it looks like it may have saved his life
so there's some good engineering there
uh romney is saying that if trump ran in
2024
he would easily win the nomination
what do you think about that do you
think trump would easily win the
nomination
i feel like he would right because you'd
have a number of people running
and he would certainly get at least 25
percent of the vote just like the last
time
and that would be more than any of the
others individually got
so just the fact that he's the biggest
fish who would be in that lake
the biggest one gets nominated so it
does look like
trump i would agree with romney that if
he
ran again he'd at least get the
nomination i would be very skeptical
that he could win the election
um he may be too crippled by the uh
the assault on the capital but he could
win nominations
now that brings up the the second
question of
who are the leaders in this country
anymore
i feel like we have this gigantic vacuum
of leadership
uh both on the left and the right now
there are certainly people that are
being talked about
for uh running for president but none of
them have really the
the kind of star power that we're used
to
and maybe it's just the trump effect we
we have an expectation of a certain
amount of star power
but maybe that's unrealistic um
so here's my take and i want to tell you
that
if you will be bothered in the future
about me saying that
aoc like trump has real
skill even if you don't like her
policies
you probably don't want to follow me
because i'm going to be talking about it
a lot
and the reason i'm going to be talking
about a lot is that aoc
is the only leader in the country right
now
now i don't like the things she's
talking about
in every case uh some of it i do like
actually
but so i'm not agreeing with her
policies
but i would say she's the only national
leader we have at the moment
i know that's a big statement but i
think it is
and she is very wisely which
i i i mean i think she's guaranteed to
be president eventually
you just don't know when i so this
here's my
here's my prediction aoc is guaranteed
to be president eventually
unless there's some like new scandal
that we don't know about
but if she just keeps doing what she's
doing
she will be president and here's the
thing
you can back a leader that you don't
agree with
if they're leaving at least they're
leading
right i can i i backed trump as you know
even though there were a number of
things that he wanted to do that i would
not agree with
such as deporting 11 million people when
he took office right
now i knew that he wouldn't do that and
he didn't
but i can i can back a leader
who has things in their policies i don't
like
as long as they're a leader because you
need the leadership right
you can't do without it and i would say
aoc is now the only national leader
if you don't count trump who's sort of
on hiatus at the moment
i'm watching the comments and watching
people throwing up
people are going into spasms no
she's not a leader she's a fake um
a calling or a fake isn't saying
anything because all leaders are putting
on a show
so she's putting on a show and if you
say to me
but wait she's fake because she's just
putting on a show
i say what did you think what do you
think trump was
he was a guy who was smart enough to
know how to put on the show
and it worked the same skills all right
so ao sees the news again because she
took on the
biden administration for reopening the
texas migrant facilities
which in the past have been called kids
in cages
although the actual cage cage may be
down the road if the numbers
keep coming in the way they are but
still it's a facility where you're
locking up kids
and aoc came out publicly and even
though it's her own party
she said this is not okay
and she said never has been okay
never will be okay no matter the
administration or party
she tweeted that's leadership
that's leadership all right i'm going to
delete you
all right let me give you a rule here
everybody who says that when i talk
about aoc's
skill that i'm really having a crush on
her
i'm you're just going to get blocked
because i don't want to deal with that
level of high school mentality
okay people can be female and also good
at leadership can can we can we not
accept that that's like a thing
so goodbye to
kent
all right if anybody else wants to
suggest that my real
interest in her is because she's a woman
i'd like to block you right away so i
don't have to deal with that anymore
okay all right
um who who else would you say i'd like
to see in your comments
um i've made a claim that some of you
don't like that she's the only
national leader at the moment because
she's going against her own party
you're not a leader if all you're doing
is agreeing with your side
did trump always just agree with his
side
he didn't that's partly why there's so
much trouble right
he was always fighting with his own side
if you're not fighting with your own
side
in addition to the other side you're not
a leader
you're just a team player all right so
until you see somebody cross
cross their own party line you're not
talking about a leader
you just talk about a you know political
hack basically
so aoc has done it twice in the past
week
i forget what the other one was but we
have one leader in the country
like it or not give me another name of
somebody who
uh would fall into that camp i'm seeing
rand paul
tulsi tulsi is a good name and that
i would say tulsi compared to aoc
would be i hate to say this because i
really like
tulsi gabbard as a political voice
but i feel like she's the mike pence
to aoc being trump
i hate to say that that's really not a
fair thing to say
but tulsi doesn't bring the heat you
know that
the energy and partly because her
personality is
sort of low-key so she brings capability
and good things that you like and would
be very capable president
in my opinion i could i could get behind
that
but i don't know she has the star power
the
quite it would be an interesting contest
how would you like to see a presidential
contest someday
between tulsi gabbard and aoc
just woman and woman versus woman
that'd be pretty interesting i i could
get into that that would be fun
and maybe time maybe it's time for two
women to be running for president
um that would be the real that would be
the real
up wouldn't it um
somebody says she's charismatic and
dangerous like many evil leaders of the
past
so she's um she's added some nuance to
what aoc has to what she's saying about
border
and getting rid of ice and opening the
borders and stuff and all of it sounds
crazy right
when you first hear it you're like what
are you talking about opening the
borders
that's the worst idea i've ever heard in
the entire world
but if you actually hear her talk about
it in more depth
what she's talking about is figuring out
how to do it
and the idea is that there might be a
big idea of just
rethinking everything that would make uh
aggressive border control not necessary
that it doesn't mean it would be bad for
the united states
but there's you know the feeling that
you could get from where we are
to some better place and we don't know
what the path is
now what do you think of that what do
you think of the fact
that aoc's plan for immigration is
will do something that nobody's thought
of yet and i haven't thought of it
either
but it'll be really good and it'll fix
things what do you think of a plan like
that
is your first thought oh my god she
doesn't have a plan
there's no plan right that's your first
thought
here's my first thought that's the
leader i want
now i'm not saying aoc i'm saying i want
a leader who talks
exactly like that that's exactly what i
want to hear
i want to hear that here's where we want
to get to
here's where we are and we have no idea
how to get there but damn it we're going
to figure it out
we're going to figure it out and if we
can't figure it out
well at least we tried that's the leader
i want
i don't want somebody who says you know
i'm not even going to try to get there
unless i know all the steps
when kennedy said we're going to the
moon
did he say we already know how to get to
the moon
no the reason kennedy is called such a
great leader for saying we're going to
the moon
is specifically because wait for it
we didn't know how to do it i mean we
figured we could figure it out but we
didn't know how
when he talked about it we don't know
how to fix immigration such that
strong enforcement would not even be
necessary we don't know how to do that
ao says aoc says let's figure it out
i like that i don't know if we can
figure it out
but i also would not have known if we
could figure out landing on the moon
i wouldn't have known i was somebody who
challenges
us aoc challenged the country
to figure out how to do this without
being cruel to people coming across
is it impossible if you say it's
impossible check your thinking
it might be impossible i can't see a way
to do it
i don't think you can see a way to do it
but i don't want to live in the country
where my leader agrees with me right
i don't want my leader to say oh you
can't see how to do it i guess we can't
do it
guess we can't go to the moon anybody
anybody can somebody build a rocket
anybody in the audience
none of you nobody knows how to build a
rocket to the moon
guess we can't go you don't need that
kind of leadership
you need the peop the people who say
we're going to make this work we don't
know how yet
but we're going to make it work we don't
know how
now or she's crazy
in the comments somebody says or she's
crazy well let me put it to you this way
if she were crazy you'd see it in lots
of different ways i think
you know it would be sort of obvious but
if she's smarter than you think she is
she would talk like this she says
directly i don't know how to do it
if she said i do know how to do it but
i'm not telling you
well then she's crazy or if she said i
do know how to do it and what she
described
clearly wouldn't work such as just
throwing the gates open
and opening the border but she's not
saying that
she is smart enough to know that that
wouldn't work
and she doesn't know what would work but
she has
you know a moonshot idea about how to
get there
um all right chris eliza let's talk
about the fake news
so i love how cnn creates
news out of nothing using the opinion
people
and they're not alone i suppose fox news
does the same
but this example shows you how it's done
so crystal is a in a larger article
talking about a number of things
talks about senator johnson said that
last said last week
that he didn't believe what happened at
the capitol was quote an
armed insurrection so there's a quote
from a senator saying he didn't think he
was
armed insurrection at the capitol and
then seliza finishes the sentences
sent that sentence with comma despite
ample evidence that it was
so it's just put out there like common
knowledge
despite ample evidence that it was an
armed insurrection
to which i say i didn't see any
did they report some ample evidence that
it was an armed insurrection
i didn't see any evidence in fact i saw
lots of evidence that it wasn't i mean
lots and lots of evidence that it wasn't
it was just individuals who
wanted a different election outcome or
wanted
transparency but he just puts it out
there
in an opinion article as if that's just
an established fact
now if you were a cnn consumer and you
weren't
let's say following the news every day
but you read this article
wouldn't you accept that this must be
just an established fact
never happened nothing like this
established that as a fact
in fact it's obviously not true you
don't even have to be an expert to know
that's not true
just look at the you just look at the
photos of the actual assault
they're obviously not trying to
overthrow the government
they could never have had any plan that
says if we put the viking hat guy
and the the you know the ziptie guy
in this room that's empty they will
control the government of the united
states i mean it's just ridiculous
so this is one example of cnn
their technique for perpetuating fake
news tucker carlson had
a real interesting piece about the
disinformation campaign in this country
um so-called disinformation campaign
and there's a part i don't quite
agree with tucker but sadly
i've had enough experience disagreeing
with tucker and then later agreeing with
him
that that i'm not going to say that just
because i disagree with him on
a minor point i'll tell you about a
minute that he's necessarily wrong
so don't take that from it i'm just
saying i'm not on the same page but he
could be right
we'll find out and here's his point
uh that there was a researcher who found
out that around
2011 when the occupy wall street stuff
was happening
and remember occupy wall street was
really about
going after the rich the wall street
rich
those rich people so it was an anti-rich
movement anti-rich people movement
have you heard about that lately when
was the last time you heard about occupy
wall street
and all those rich people
it just sort of went away didn't it what
replaced it
well what replaced it is the narrative
that the biggest problem in the united
states
is race it was just replaced
so instead of going after rich people
it turned into the races going after
each other
and who how did that happen
how'd that happen was it did it just
sort of naturally happen did it evolve
into happening and there was no decision
making
well here's where i might be on a
different page from tucker
because the suggestion or at least what
i took from it i could be
misinterpreting it
but i took from tucker's piece that
there was some intention there
by important figures who are the puppet
masters of our society
to make people stop focusing on the rich
because the rich people don't want that
and make
and give you a diversion something shiny
here's something to back tucker's point
he says that let's see
when people were asked how many unarmed
the key word is unarmed people have been
killed by police specifically how many
unarmed african-americans were gunned
down by police
in 2019. so they do a survey and they
say
take your best guess how many unarmed
key word unarmed uh black
citizens were gunned down by cops that
year
presumably meaning killed um
what do you think people guessed
democrats guessed
uh 44 of democrats or no actually 44
of liberals said they'd believe it was
about a thousand or more
per year that's because they listen to
the news
and social media and they believed 44
of liberals almost half
believe that the number is close to a
thousand or more
now let me ask you something
if police were killing a thousand
unarmed
black men a year in this country you
couldn't keep me
off the street right like i would be
in black lives matter like i would be a
charter
member due spain remember if this number
were anywhere near that
you would have to leave your house you
would have to protest
you would have to defund the police you
would have to
if this were even close to true but of
course it's not the real number is
under 30. so liberals think it's
a thousand or more a year you would act
very differently if it were a thousand
or more a year
you would act very differently right so
you can almost understand
why there's this big difference there's
a news uh
black hole no pun intended in which
liberals just don't know what's
happening and conservatives do
so actually 25 of conservatives
even thought that what
what kind of news are the conservatives
watching because i don't know any
conservative news sites that have
reported this incorrectly or suggested
that it was anywhere in that range
but even the conservative news talks
about what cnn talks about
in other words they the news covers the
news
so maybe wherever you watch you could be
misled
but just think how big a deal that is
i mean and then this question was not
asked
but how many liberals believe
that president trump once said that
neo-nazis
were fine people i'll bet it's over 80
percent
could be 90 percent i'll bet 90 percent
of liberals believe that that fake news
actually happened most conservatives
know it's a hoax
if you look at the full transcript he
said the opposite
but man it is so clear that the real
problem in this country is a
disinformation campaign from the media
and it's hard to
discount it as unintentional isn't it
it's really hard to look at this set of
facts and say
well nobody's doing that intentionally
although i'm not i'm not sold that the
case has been made
that they're shadowy puppet masters who
are they
what are the names when do they have a
meeting did they have a meeting or did
they just know what to do
so that part i'm not quite buying that
it was a plot
but you can buy that it happened you can
simply observe
that the movement against occupy wall
street disappeared
at about the same time that the word
racism took off
in mentions in the media now there were
also events
you know there was a george floyd event
other tragic events
so there were reasons but were all of
those reasons present
in 2011 did the country become
more bad racist since 2011
i don't think so i feel like we probably
got
less racist just like every single year
of the united states
probably every year of the republic
people on average have gotten a little
less racist
it feels like it to me you know maybe
any given year
might be different but over time so
wouldn't you say that racism is
probably somewhat
less than it was in 2011 when apparently
that wasn't even a big issue
relative to the occupy wall street issue
being bigger
in other news there's a flight american
airlines flight that reported
a ufo sighting doesn't mean it's an
alien
ship just unidentified that looked like
a cruise missile that went over there
that just went over their plane now
do you believe that there was an
unidentified
long tubular object that went right over
an airplane
that was not known to flight control
and the way they asked the question was
they said
the pilot said uh
do you have any targets up here because
he thought a missile just went past them
at a target and he was wondering
uh is there anything in the air near me
then i need to worry about because
somebody shot a missile at it
i'd be worried about that now of course
we don't know the answer to this
we don't know that anything got shot
into the air or that any big missiles
landed anywhere that we don't know about
so it's just a mystery that's all it is
if i had to guess
i would say they didn't see anything
maybe they saw a shadow of some kind i
don't know
so my guess is they didn't say anything
but we'll find out
there's a story about a woman who's a
trophy hunter getting a lot of heat
for killing a giraffe cutting out its
heart
which is pretty big and holding it up
for social media
now if that wasn't bad enough apparently
this one woman has killed over 500
big animals lions leopards elephants etc
500 and she was really really excited
and
couldn't couldn't handle herself when
she learned that she could
kill an adult giraffe
now i'm not anti-hunting per se
you know there are some times when it
makes sense and
if she had gone big game hunting once or
twice
i wouldn't like it but
i'd have a different opinion than if she
did it 500 times
if you kill 500 big animals you're just
a serial killer
who doesn't want to get in trouble with
the law
it feels like that's just a serial
killer vibe doesn't it
i don't know but
she's pretty happy with herself all
right um
i also wonder if she owns a pet imagine
if you had killed
500 mammals for fun
does she have a dog
does she does she have a dog because
that dog would be really nervous
um i mean would she ever look at her dog
and think to herself
i love my dog but oh man it would be fun
to kill it
i'd love to just shoot my dog if you've
killed 500 mammals
you don't think she fantasizes about
shooting her own dog
if she has one anyway biden
is allegedly i think we need some
confirmation on this story
because i saw it in a asian publication
but
apparently he's biden is considering an
executive order to push
alternate supply chains to go around
china
specifically for tech stuff like chips
and batteries and rare earth
rare earth stuff now if that's true
that biden has a eo coming in which
we're going to build out a separate
supply chain that doesn't involve china
i would be giving biden a lot of credit
for that
now i would think that he wouldn't do it
if trump had not
gotten the ball rolling in turning the
opinion of the united states citizens
against china if trump had not made it
possible for biden to do this i don't
think he could have
so i'm good so if this if this happens i
will give biden credit
because it you know that's the rule
right if something good happens under
his administration
i'm going to give him credit but we can
put an asterisk next to it and say
you know it wouldn't have happened
without trump but still biden has to do
it
so he gets credit if he doesn't and this
would be very important but i don't know
if it's true yet
apparently biden has not declared yet
that the
the uyghur situation in china is a
genocide
i guess trump made that declaration just
before he left
to sort of leave it with biden as a
problem and biden
he has not decided to do that canada
however
the parliament parliament voted monday
to pass a nine non-binding motion
uh classifying china as being involved
in a genocide
so canada good work
united states look at canada
come on biden canada did it
you can do it do it do it joe
do it all right and i remind you that we
are in a war with china
and they're killing 70 000 people a year
with fentanyl which they easily could
stop
because there's one guy in charge of it
we've already told them who his name is
they know where he is
he's still doing it so china has decided
explicitly to send us fentanyl and kill
us
and to not stop it um
if we sent them some fentanyl their way
it would not be inappropriate
probably not a good idea but it would
not be morally wrong
to fight fire with fire
um that's just my opinion
that's just my opinion somebody says
where is jack ma
i don't know he's got a problem all
right my next
segment called experts are dumb um
and i'm have been having an online
conversation with a number of
doctors and er doctors and pediatricians
who are very mad at me for having
opinions oh they're very mad at me
because if you've noticed i am not a
doctor
and apparently you can't have
doctor-related opinions if you're not
one because they'll be pretty mad at you
pretty bad but here's what i've learned
the whole the whole question about the
seasonal flu the regular flu
killing 50 000 people a year which i am
skeptical of
um i've been learning more about that
and when
when i hear that children were dying
from it
i had some questions and here's what
i've learned
that even if you don't have a
an underlying problem that has a name to
it
the regular flu can kill you if you're a
child under
under specific conditions and i guess
the specific condition is
a high viral load with some kind of
difference in the architecture of your
lungs that would make you somewhat
unique
and maybe something about the immune
system not being developed
i don't know about that but that there's
something different about the children
who die from the flu
both an exposure level and architecture
of the lungs
now that sort of opens up the question
of what it means to be healthy
what's the definition would that be a
definition of a healthy child
dying from the virus when 99.9
of children don't and don't even get
close to death
so would you say that that's a healthy
child
when they can't survive the environment
that they are meant to be in
so if you say yes that kid is completely
healthy because if they didn't have
access to this virus
they'd be fine but what would you say
about a bubble boy
somebody who if they left their bubble
almost any kind of infection would kill
them
when they're inside the bubble do you
call them healthy
because they are they can live out their
whole life
without a physical problem if they don't
get infected
so is that person healthy see you can
see how
the definition of what healthy means
is driving the discussion it's not about
what's happening it's about what you
insist is the word you're going to use
that's word thinking i call it it's
people who think they're arguing
but they're really trying to hold on to
a definition
or win by defining the word the way that
works for them
here's my definition of healthy it's
different
from the medical definition it's more of
a common sense definition
it goes like this if you are not capable
of surviving
the environment for which you are
naturally
you know you're born into such as
just living in the atmosphere
i don't know that i would call that
healthy i would call that
somebody who has a major health problem
because the
normal environment operating just the
way you think it will
will kill them but it wouldn't kill 99.9
percent of people who had exactly the
same exposure
i would call that unhealthy by
definition
but in a medical sense if they have not
been exposed to the thing that's going
to hurt them
doctors are going to say no that's
perfectly healthy it's the the virus
that killed them
that's kind of a definitional problem
isn't it aren't we
both talking about the same thing that
you need the virus
but you also need the person to have a
specific situation going on
and if you call that specific situation
perfectly healthy
it just happens to cause you to die if
it comes in contact
with something that is commonly in your
environment
i'm not sure i would call that healthy
so i'm not i don't know that there's a
disagreement about that
other than what word you want to use for
it but on top of that is the question of
why
we don't hear about people dying of the
regular flu
when they're allegedly dying in the same
numbers
as people who die from car accidents and
overdoses and we hear about them all the
time
we personally know people have died from
those other things
almost every adult does but i don't know
anybody who died in
regular flu so
uh then somebody on social media said
scott
you know you're finally on our side now
we've been saying the same thing about
coronavirus
that the the way it's counted is
probably wrong to which i say
wait a minute no i am making the
opposite point
completely opposite point if you think
that me
questioning the statistics of regular
seasonal flu
is sort of the same argument as the
people who are questioning the number of
people dying from coronavirus
you have a hundred percent backwards
they're opposites
the question is why does my observation
as just living in the world
not agree with the science in the case
of the normal flu
there's a disagreement my observation is
i haven't seen anybody die of regular
flu
now i'm not saying the children haven't
died there are enough reports that
that's obviously true
but how come i
have so many examples of covid
i observe people i know who know other
people etc who have really died of covid
and there are half a million of them in
the case of covet the science
says a whole bunch of people are dying
my observation
is that a whole bunch of people are
dying completely compatible
observation and scientific opinion
totally match now that doesn't mean
they're both right
but at least they match in the regular
flu deaths
my observation is nowhere near the
scientific opinion
that's the problem i'm not making a
statement
about what the answer is to unravel that
it's a question it's a legitimate
question meaning i don't have the answer
and i'm not telling you that the
question tells you what to think
about the answer if you if you jump to a
conclusion because i ask
a question that's sort of on you because
i'm not jumping to any conclusions i
actually don't know
why this mystery endures that the
observation
and the science don't match
all right so uh
let's see what else we got here uh let
me ask you this question just to make it
more
more provocative if somebody has an
allergy to peanuts
allergy to peanuts and they go forth in
the world and they encounter some
peanuts
and they die what does the death
certificate
say if you are allergic to peanuts
you're exposed to them and then you die
would the death certificate say killed
by
peanuts what do you think would the
death certificate say that
killed by peanuts cause of death peanuts
no no but if you got
if you get exposed to the virus let's
say the regular seasonal virus
the cause of death would be the virus
but why isn't the cause of death with
the peanut
the peanut
and the the answer to what the uh
death certificate says is anaphylexic
if i'm saying it right an anaphylactic
shock right that's what the death
certificate would say
now you need both the person to have a
biological genetic propensity
and then you also need the peanut if you
only have one or the other the person is
alive
both situations gotta have a peanut
gotta have a natural you know uh
reaction to it
how's that different from the virus if
you
only have the virus and
99.9 of the people let's say the the
seasonal virus not the coronavirus
if you only have the seedless little
virus and your body is like 99.9
of all other bodies no problem
it's only when you have both situations
a virus
plus a body that by its design
or or nature can't handle it
so in one case you say the cause of
death is the virus
in the other case you say it's the
reaction to the virus
based on peanut plus whatever you
naturally have going on
you see that they're handled differently
right now
my only point is we're talking about uh
definitions of words
it's not uh maybe not a real argument
all right analogy now an analogy
uh an analogy can help you
understand a concept which is what i
just did
it doesn't help you win an argument so
it would not be true
that therefore peanuts are handled this
way therefore i'm right about viruses
that would be irrational because it's
just two different situations
but if the peanut thing makes you ask
the question
hey if you need two things the peanut
and the person being in a special
situation
it helps you think differently about the
other one so helping you think
differently is what it does it doesn't
it's not like a reason so
that's that's the difference uh why
doesn't pointing out hypocrisy work
i don't know the answer that except all
speculate
and i've said forever that pointing out
somebody's hypocrisy
never makes them change their mind and
the reason is they know they're doing it
so the people who are being hypocritical
they know they're being hypocritical
they're doing it because they're taking
a side they're on a team
so if you point out to somebody hey
you're being hypocritical
you're not telling them something they
don't know
you have not introduced new information
they never meant to be serious they're
just
making an argument because they think it
might work
that's all that's all so
yeah hypocrisy pointing it down will
never change anybody's opinion i've
never seen it have you
have you ever seen anybody change their
opinion because somebody said hey you're
a hypocrite
and then the person says oh yeah yeah
i hadn't really looked at it that way
but now that you mention it
i'm a hypocrite i change my mind i think
i'll not be a hypocrite
no they will immediately tell you the
situations are different
that's it they'll just say that's a
different situation i'm not a hypocrite
did the butter kill the man with a heart
attack
uh butter is good for you you have to
use a better example
we used to think butter was bad but we
learned it is not
i believe that's the current the current
science is that butter is not
not bad for you
all right like eating meat but being
against killing giraffes
is hypocrisy yeah so i don't need meat
so i can
say anything i want about giraffes but i
don't think that
the game hunting and big game hunting
and
killing animals for food that is not
the same thing yeah
i could certainly understand that you
have to kill
something to eat that's different uh
no me for you why uh the only reason i
don't eat meat
is because i don't digest it well um i
do eat some fish but i don't love it i
just do it for the health
all right somebody says big game hunting
supports big game well the experts uh
based on reading about it this morning
the
a lot of experts are saying that that is
a ridiculous argument
and that big game hunting does not
support big game
there's an argument that it does but
smart people say that's a ridiculous
argument
i don't know who's right but it doesn't
sound like a good argument to me
somebody says let's see robo steve says
scott
tying himself in nuts trying to defend
his nonsense
is that a reason is that is that a good
comment right there
tying myself in nuts trying to defend my
reasons
let me tell you if you think
let me ask the rest of you here many of
you disagree with me
on lots of different things which is
part of the the fun of coming here right
if you agreed with me all the time i
don't know it would be as much fun
but would you say for the benefit of
steve here that even when you disagree
with me
am i irrational often are my
arguments unreasonable
even when you disagree with me don't you
think that
at least the arguments got some merit i
mean you might think i have a fact wrong
or
maybe you think i haven't considered
everything
but do you think my arguments are
twisted in pretzels
it's hard to know based on the comments
whether people just agree with me
and so therefore i look brilliant if you
agree with somebody they look brilliant
in general yeah i would like to suggest
that whoever says i'm tying myself
in pretzels with my argument
i'm not saying i'm right all the time or
anything like that
but i don't think you'll find the
arguments are too irrational
and when they are people point it out
and sometimes i adjust
all right um
somebody says sometimes you can say
maybe i got that wrong though that flu
thing
was like a pretzel well give me an
example
see here's my contention that those of
you who are having the
uh and whoever says sophistry as well
those of you who say that's sophistry or
or you're twisted in pretzels my
observation of living
life and being a trained hypnotist is
that those people are experiencing
cognitive dissonance
and that's what it exactly what it feels
like so if your
if your take on my argument was
well i understand your argument scott
but i disagree with it because of
this reason or this fact or this
priority
you probably are not experiencing
cognitive dissonance
you're a person with a different opinion
if you listen to my opinion on the
regular flu stuff
and you concluded that it didn't make
sense
that it was all like pretzely and
sophistry
you are almost certainly experiencing
cognitive dissonance
and the reason i point that out is look
at the other people's comments
when you see let's say i'll just pick a
number for argument 75 percent of the
people say
i completely understand your argument
even if i don't agree with it
and then 25 percent say i think your
argument
is pretzel logic and sophistry
almost always you can depend on those
people being the cognitive
dissonance ones and the people who say i
see the argument but sometimes i
disagree with it this this reason or
that
probably just different opinions all
right
so that's all i got for you and now
i take my leave and i will talk to you
tomorrow bye for now
all right youtubers i've got an extra
minute by the way on youtube
um i'll just tell you guys i created
yesterday on the
locals platform subscription service
a lesson on how to become a cartoonist
now separately i'll do a lesson on how
to draw a cartoon
but the the business side and what tools
to use and how to think about it and how
to break into the business and
sort of the the general setup of how how
someone would become a cartoonist
is now on the locals platform locals.com
just search for my name
and the reason i did it is not because i
think a lot of people want to become
cartoonists
what you'll find is a whole lot of
non-obvious
suggestions which i think you'll find uh
interesting just the non-obvious ones
and it'll also give you an idea about
breaking into any kind of field that is
unfamiliar so if you look at the
concepts that i talk about with
cartooning really
richard mccarthy did you really just
send me a hundred dollars
you're a saint you know
i have to say that it's weird no
it would not be telling you something
you don't know that i'm rich
the dilbert cartoon did a good job for
me
and i don't do this because of the money
right but i do monetize i do monetize
and
that does make me work harder i'm pretty
sure that i do more work
because it's monetized actually i'm
positive there's no doubt about it
i do way more effort and put more into
it
because it's monetized even if i don't
need the money
so when uh
i just saw that notice come in somebody
somebody just gave me a hundred dollars
i don't know why exactly but i did
something that somebody said
that's worth a hundred dollars and i
gotta say
that while i don't need a hundred
dollars that you
made my day because i just feel like a
compliment
right and but it a compliment with money
that's a real compliment you know you
don't have to wonder if it's insincere
right it's a hundred bucks that's
sincere so
thank you for that that actually moved
me because
it's just a vote of confidence and i
appreciate it
i appreciate it very much and i'm going
to end on that happy note so thank you
