Episode 1544 Scott Adams - It's A Cornucopia of Fake News Today. Watch Me Tear it Apart
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Dr. Fauci and animal cruelty - President Biden's infrastructure bill - Joe Lonsdale comments on Pete Buttigieg - Public school brainwashing - VA Governor race fake news - Did Merrick Garland sic FBI on parents? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
Well, look at this. This is amazing. So many of you made it to the best place and time in the entire universe right now. Anyway, it's called the simultaneous sip. It's coming up soon as part of Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time anywhere. Question for you before we begin. Has anybody noticed a…
View segment →something bad because you got to do something? You got to do something. I feel like the country has too much energy. Am I right? Because we can't quite do enough. Way too much energy. It feels like a war coming. That's what it feels like. It feels like the energy has to go somewhere and it's going t…
View segment →ming, right? Nothing like that. I don't see any energy toward a civil war. You know there might be little spats here and there but something big is happening and I don't think we can predict exactly where it's going to come out. Just watch this. The next, I would say between now and the end of the y…
View segment →here could be exceptions. I just haven't seen one. CNN says, actually not even CNN but Twitter's fact check says no, there's no connection. So I could be wrong but I'd say that's probably 95% chance that this story is fake news. So that's your first fake news of the day. Watch the pattern that emer…
View segment →the reasonable interpretation. And now it looks like Congress has completely reversed from the Michael Shellenberger frame which was the productive one that you have to do some of these things you don't like to get to a place you do like. And the new frame is you don't have to do the things you don…
View segment →at doesn't have the problems of homeschooling. Oh yeah there are problems. And doesn't have the problems of public school. I feel like it's going to be clusters of people who band together maybe with the help of an app or some parent company and form groups of 12 people for homeschooling. Get togeth…
View segment →y else mentioned parents as being domestic terrorists and nobody said the FBI should be monitoring them. They're just available in case there is ever a situation in which it becomes domestic terrorism. Is that wrong? Maybe I wouldn't have done it. Maybe you wouldn't have done it. But it doesn't real…
View segment →ion of the word and here are the reasons why we should change the definition. And then the conservatives say no the word means X. And then the other side, okay yeah we agree on that. We agree what the word has always meant. What we're suggesting is that we update that and here's our reason why. And…
View segment →really cheap and if it works, woohoo. I have a plan to make the U.S. Postal Service solvent. Just have a premium service in which I can pay them to not deliver my mail. I would pay the post office to stop bringing garbage to my house. I would pay $300 a year to turn off my mail service so they won'…
View segment →Well, look at this. This is amazing. So many of you made it to the best place and time in the entire universe right now. Anyway, it's called the simultaneous sip. It's coming up soon as part of Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time anywhere.
Question for you before we begin. Has anybody noticed a strange energy in the world lately? I'm not talking about electricity, but in my personal life, just the details of just getting stuff done just went crazy in the last week. Just crazy. And the world seems to have gone crazy too. The news is just packed with stuff. You know, sometimes you've got low news days. The news is just packed with all kinds of crazy stuff. But same with my personal life. You know, I'm not talking relationships exactly, just everything.
For example, smallest example: Every month I give my dog Snickers a flea pill. A flea pill. It's easy. You put it in a little treat, you give it to the dog. This month I go to give it to her and she chews the good stuff and spits out the pill. And she does it several times. I'm like, I'm gonna have to trick her by getting a new kind of pill pocket, you know, a better treat so she'll eat the whole thing without knowing there's a pill in there. But they're out of stock, so I can't find them. I spend weeks looking for them. I finally find the right treat. I go to put a pill in it but apparently I'd thrown them away or somebody threw them away. But they're prescription, so I can't easily replace them.
So I call my veterinarian to get the prescription to replace the ones that are lost, to put in the pill pockets that had to be replaced, for weeks of training to put into my dog. And my veterinarian says, yeah, we can do that, but we have a requirement that we check the dog out for, I don't know, heartworm or something. So now I went from a process that is here you go, Snickers, boom, done, to something that will take days to work out. Like I've got, I had to set up an appointment. I gotta get my dog checked out. And do you think the veterinarian is gonna find nothing wrong with my dog? Of course they will.
So just this simple process of putting a pill in my dog turned into a life-changing event that will consume me now. Multiplied that by everything that happened in the last week. It's just out of control. Is anybody having the same experience or is it just a weird coincidence? Just wondering. There's some weird energy in the world and I think there's too much energy and not enough places for it. Do you feel that? I feel that.
The energy in the country far exceeds the activity. You know what I'm talking about? Do you know how like you just got to do something but you don't have anything productive to do so you're going to go do something bad because you got to do something? You got to do something. I feel like the country has too much energy. Am I right? Because we can't quite do enough. Way too much energy. It feels like a war coming. That's what it feels like. It feels like the energy has to go somewhere and it's going to go somewhere and we don't know where it's going to go. But as soon as there's a, I don't know, a break in the barrier that keeps us together, something's coming out.
Now I don't think there's a civil war coming, right? Nothing like that. I don't see any energy toward a civil war. You know there might be little spats here and there but something big is happening and I don't think we can predict exactly where it's going to come out. Just watch this. The next, I would say between now and the end of the year, something we didn't expect and very large will happen. Hopefully not a war, but I think historically that's you end up with a war in these situations. Hyperinflation? I don't know. I mean maybe, but that doesn't feel like with this kind of energy.
But first let's do the simultaneous sip because all you need is a couple of margaritas, tank or Chelsea's tiny canteen, trigger, flashlight, 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 everything better, including your antibodies. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now. Go.
Ah. Antibodies. Feeling good.
I would like to address some of my critics yesterday who say, number one, Scott doesn't read the comments. Well, I read your comment and so I'm going to address them. I was criticized yesterday by several people who said that lately I've been acting smarter than my audience and they don't like it one bit. Agree or disagree? I've been acting arrogantly smarter than my audience lately and you don't like it one bit. Go. Disagree. Agree a little. Disagree. Be right today. Disagree. No.
So you can see there's disagreement but clearly there are people saying yes. All right. So even those who disagree, you can see there are plenty of people who say yes. So is that a valid criticism? Is the criticism valid? I'd say so if there are this many people who have it and it's an opinion, I'll call it valid.
But here's my counter to it, which is not, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Like that's your opinion. Let me put it this way. If people are having an impression, a subjective experience of this, it's not right or wrong. It's just your experience. So you can't be wrong. You're having an experience and you just told me what it was. So you're right in your experience. That's what you feel. So obviously there's something I'm doing that's causing that feeling in you. So criticism, right on point.
But I will add this framing. That's the whole point of watching this. You're supposed to be watching this because you think in the specific way that I attack the issues, persuasion, economics, usually, that I am smarter than the audience. Otherwise you shouldn't watch. Would there be any point of this? Because you don't watch this just to get the news, right? You can get the news from better sources. For me, I would think that the only reason anybody would watch it is that I'm going to say something you hadn't heard somewhere else that sounds smart enough to be worth listening to.
So my claim is not that I'm smarter than my audience. I would never make that claim because that's a misunderstanding of what intelligence is. Intelligence very clearly is this distributed thing where there are lots of things you could be smart about. I'm smart about some of them but not most of them. Not most of them. I'm not smart about fashion. I'm terrible at navigating, you know, just getting from one place to another in my car. Terrible sense of direction. No musical talent. I could go on and on about the things I don't know. Never took chemistry. I never took chemistry or physics in school. So the list of things which I don't know and my audience would be smarter than I, or is it smarter than me? Grammar is another one that you would be smarter than I or me or they.
But my point is I don't believe in intelligence per se as some global thing. I believe that people are intelligent about different things. How many of you would be better at parenting than I would? A lot of you. A lot of you. Because you're smarter about that, right? So I don't believe that people are smart, you know, in some universal way. I get that IQ picks that up but you tend to be smarter on the things you focus on and the things that you know, your genetic propensity leads you toward.
So I can't change your impressions or your subjective opinion but I will tell you this. If you think in my mind that I'm thinking I'm smarter than you, that's not happening. Not in my mind. In my mind I think there's some narrow topics that I do know more than most of you. That's my only claim. But there are all kinds of stuff you know that I don't know. So arrogance doesn't really fit into my mental model because I would assume I'm thinking I'm better than you and I don't see any evidence of that. I just see evidence that you're good at some things, I'm good at other things. That's it. That's the only thing we can conclude. There's no better than.
So if you're picking up some kind of arrogance in my approach, probably the frame you should put on it is that this is a show. And even though I do it in a personal style, you know, almost like I'm talking to you, you have to know that this is my public presentation, right? It wouldn't be the same in person.
All right. And also I heard some criticism that I never admit I'm wrong. I would just like to suggest that the people who watch all of my content don't have that opinion. The people who have sampled it probably do. But I would say, and I'll just put this out there as a provocative claim, that no public figure has admitted they were wrong more than I have about, you know, in this topic about the news. I don't think any public figure has admitted more times they've been wrong except maybe Tucker Carlson. Am I wrong about this?
I feel as though Tucker Carlson is one of the few people who, when he's wrong and you know events prove it, that he starts his program by saying we said X, we were totally wrong, and then he goes on to update the story. Haven't you seen him do that? I feel like I've seen him do that a number of times and it always stands out as being honest. I try to do that but I don't know if I succeed.
All right, enough about me. Here's all the fake news.
How many of you believe that Tony Fauci was behind some research, either funding it or otherwise, in animal cruelty? In other words they weren't testing animal cruelty, they were testing on monkeys. How many believe that Fauci was somehow involved in torturing monkeys for science? Anybody believe that? Because I saw it on the news yesterday. It was all over the internet. Yeah, the answer is no. No, there's no truth to it. There's no connection between Fauci and any monkey research or animal dogs, anything. So apparently there's nothing to the story.
Now here's the standard that I'm using to decide whether it's true or not. So it's not my magic. Like I'm not using magic to look into the details that you can't see. I'm using a simple standard that if one of the two networks, CNN or Fox News, reports it as true and the other one debunks it, believe the debunk. It doesn't matter which direction. If one of them debunks a fact and the other one says it's true, it's not true. If both of them say it's true, it's probably true. Probably, not certainly, but probably. If only one of them says it's true, it's just never true. I haven't seen an exception. Let me say that there could be exceptions. I just haven't seen one.
CNN says, actually not even CNN but Twitter's fact check says no, there's no connection. So I could be wrong but I'd say that's probably 95% chance that this story is fake news. So that's your first fake news of the day. Watch the pattern that emerges here. There's a pattern emerging and let's see if you can see it. But don't blame me the messenger, okay? Because in a story or two you're gonna get pretty mad at me if my prediction is correct. You're going to get a little bit mad at me in a few stories because you're going to notice the pattern and you're not going to like it at all. I don't think I'll have to tell you the pattern. You're going to see it yourself.
All right, here's the next one. Well, I'm going to skip around a little bit but I'll tell you the pattern later. So the Alec Baldwin story. Every time we get a new detail it, you just shake your head. Here's the latest one. Apparently this same armorer, the person who handles the real and fake weapons on the movie set, apparently was almost fired on a Nicolas Cage movie. And this is what somebody said and I quote, she didn't carry the firearm safely. And I'm thinking to myself, huh, what would be a way to carry firearms unsafely? Because it seems like that'd be fairly easy to carry them safely. So how do you do it unsafely?
Well, here's the description. She had pistols tucked under her armpits and was carrying rifles in each hand. Okay, that would do it. Yeah, that would do it. Yeah, pistols under each armpit while you're carrying rifles with, yeah that would do it. Yep, that would be what I would call unsafe carrying of weapons. You would have to, yeah. And apparently she even like turned around a few times so the weapons were aimed at people. So not only were they tucked under her arm but she was like turning around so that at any given time she was, yeah exactly.
I'm looking at the comments. The only one that captures all this is "good lord." You know, sometimes there's an exasperated phrase that's the only one that works. I think this one is "good lord." That just covers it. How did she ever get this job? Well apparently she is the daughter of a famous or a well-established Hollywood person who was an armorer. So she's a legacy. That probably had something to do with it. Probably just people knew the parents.
So Joe Biden's got, looks like he's negotiated with the Democrats and getting down that so-called infrastructure bill to what, 1.75 trillion. Started down at 3.5 trillion with a grab bag of all these things they wanted but they were unreasonable, terribly unreasonable. So now they're being negotiated back to 1.75 and there's some optimism that will get passed. I'm still gonna bet against it. What do you think? I'm gonna bet against the 1.75 passing. Only, and the only reason is it has nothing to do with what's in it. Has nothing to do with what's in the bill because we don't know. Who knows what's in the freaking bill?
I'm just going to say that I don't think Congress can do anything. I think Congress is just permanently useless. You're hearing my cat is wanting to get out because I've got the door closed. Boo, come up here and say hi. Boo, Brow, come up here. Yeah, come up here. We'll see if I can call a cat. That'll be a good test.
All right. So nobody knows what's in this bill but if Biden gets this through, I'm going to try to be consistent. If he asked for 3.5 trillion so that he could get 1.75 and he succeeds, that is going to be a very Trump-like negotiating process. Starting high, you know, the most basic thing you should do in negotiating. Starting so high that we got used to 3.5 trillion, didn't we? Now we were always horrified by it but we got a little bit used to it, didn't we? And by the time he says 1.75 trillion, does it sound like a lot anymore? Biden made a trillion dollars sound like it wasn't much money. And now he'll get to maybe go to a vote on this.
So if so, let me be clear about this. If Trump had done this, let's say this bill was something I approved of, if Trump had started at 3.5 trillion and managed to get us used to it and then get 1.75, I would think that was a damn good job, depending what was in the bill of course. Now separate from what's in the bill, I'm gonna give Biden, I'm gonna give him an A plus. I hate to tell you but if he pulls this off it's an A plus for just negotiating because he actually convinced us this 3.5 was a lot and 1.75, well that's in the range. That would be pretty amazing persuasion.
I'm not saying I approve of the bill because none of us know what's in it. Apparently we're going to approve this bill or not but if we do approve it maybe then we'll find out what's in it. You know it's garbage, don't you? I think we know it's garbage.
All right. You can see my cat's little feeding tube there. I have to keep that in for a little while.
All right. So I'm bored about this spending bill, the human infrastructure versus the physical infrastructure. And I don't know if it'll ever get passed.
Here's a weird thing that's happening. So and you have to wonder if this is a Chinese plot. There are things happening in this country that are so hard to explain in any way except is this a Chinese plot? Did China, is China behind this? No, I'm not saying they are. I'm just saying that I'm just saying it looks like it because you can't explain why else things like this would happen. Here's a good example.
So this is I think this was from, I forget where, CNN maybe. So these executives of the major fossil fuel companies, so mostly oil executives etc., were coming to Congress today and they're going to talk about disinformation on the climate change crisis. Now when I read this I said to myself, oh this is what we need. This will be great. All the oil executives are going to talk to Congress about all the climate change misinformation. So I thought to myself this is great. This is basically the same thing that Michael Shellenberger testified to Congress about. I assumed because as he testified, if we kill our, and I think he said this, he says it on Twitter and in his books etc., that if we kill our existing fossil fuel stuff too quickly we'll snuff out all our growth and our prosperity. And the growth and prosperity are the single biggest things that cause you to clean up the planet.
So in other words the more oil you use the cleaner you'll get because once you have an industrial base and things are working well then you have the luxury of buying a Tesla, right? So on a per person basis, getting rich first with carbon fuels and building up your manufacturing allows you to get to a clean world. Whereas if you're a developing country for example you can't develop with solar and wind power. There's not enough power, not reliable, and you would be there stuck in poverty forever or what, right?
So I thought that these fossil executives were going to come in and say that they were right all along, that doing a lot of fossil fuels as much as we can would actually be better for climate change in the long run. They're going to do the opposite. They're going to come in and apparently some members of Congress are going to try to get them to admit that they've been lying on various claims about their role in the crisis. So I think that the oil executives probably have some explaining to do. I'm sure they did some BS propaganda for their side as well.
But I think we framed this wrong, didn't we? This looks like Chinese framing, doesn't it? Because this is exactly what Trump warned us about with climate change being a hoax. Now remember when he said it was a hoax he wasn't really directly addressing the science of it so much as the strategy, the political strategy. And China was going to get a big gift if we did what we were going to do which is slow our own development while they didn't slow theirs. So that was the hoax part I think. I mean I don't want to read Trump's mind but that would be the reasonable interpretation.
And now it looks like Congress has completely reversed from the Michael Shellenberger frame which was the productive one that you have to do some of these things you don't like to get to a place you do like. And the new frame is you don't have to do the things you don't like. You can just magically get to the new place of clean energy but nobody knows how. So this is pushing us into the loser frame whereas the Shellenberger approach would be the winning frame where you could account for all the costs and benefits and make a reasonable decision.
All right. I love this. There's a famous venture capitalist under fire for calling new dads losers if they take months of paternity leave. Was this Joe Lonsdale? I think it was. And yeah, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. He responded to a tweet Wednesday about talking about Pete Buttigieg who took time off for his child. And Joe Lonsdale said quote, any man in an important position who takes six months of leave for a newborn is a loser. In the old days men had babies and worked harder to provide for their future. That's the correct masculine response.
Now if you'd like my opinion on this I don't really have one. You know that I don't think this is a situation in which my opinion should have anything to do with you and your baby. Do you? Do you think I should have an opinion about what you do with your baby? No. No. I mean I suppose if I were in this situation I'd want the option and if I'm not in the situation I'll just look to you. If you want the option I think I can live with it. I don't have a problem with it. But I just love the fact that he would say this opinion in public. It's just saying it. And this is saying it in public that makes it a funny story. It's not like a lot of people weren't thinking it but it's hilariously said in public anyway.
I'm not really completely defined by men have to be masculine in every way in every situation or anything like that. But I think it's perfectly fine for him to say it. Yes. So I'm glad he could say it without getting cancelled. I think he's rich enough he doesn't get cancelled.
Rasmussen has some poll results saying that the majority across political spectrum, so no matter what party you are, you're concerned about what is being taught in public schools. Now of course you would be concerned in a different way if you're a Democrat versus a Republican but a lot of people. So 90% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 76% of the non-affiliated people are concerned that public schools may be promoting controversial beliefs and attitudes.
I feel as if these numbers tell us that the traditional school system is dead. Maybe not right away but it looks like we're about to enter an irreversible trend toward getting other people's brainwashing away from your children. Because it is brainwashing. The only difference between the modern brainwashing and the old brainwashing, the old brainwashing was patriotism and melting pot and everything like that. The old brainwashing was explicitly designed to turn kids into good citizens, patriots etc. Now it was brainwashing. You could argue that it was unethical but also militarily necessary. To defend the homeland you have to brainwash the children to make them patriots. Now you could say it's just education but that's just word thinking. It is what it is. We're training people who do not have critical thinking to have a specific point of view. If you train somebody who doesn't yet have critical thinking skills into a specific point of view it's brainwashing. It might be productive and that's what I'm saying it is but it's still brainwashing. It's not like you gave the kids some information and let them make their own decision.
So brainwashing is universal but it used to be the kind that we pretty much all thought was a good idea and now they're brainwashing them in different ways. Not everybody agrees it's a good way. So I think that we have to develop a hybrid system that doesn't have the problems of homeschooling. Oh yeah there are problems. And doesn't have the problems of public school. I feel like it's going to be clusters of people who band together maybe with the help of an app or some parent company and form groups of 12 people for homeschooling. Get together at somebody's house, put on the big screen TV. All you need is a parent somewhere in the house. Something like that. There's going to be some model that's neither pure homeschool nor pure public school. That's inevitable.
All right. I've been trying not to follow this Virginia governor's race with Terry McAuliffe and somebody whose name I forget, Youngkin. Do you know this whole story is fake news? The whole Virginia governor race, whatever you heard about it, it's fake news. Let me give you an example.
There is a governor's race. That part's real. So I guess Terry McAuliffe at one point in the past said, when making his point about the limits of parental behavior versus the school's responsibility, he said something like parents can't just go in and ban books on their own in the school. Do you agree with him? Do you agree that parents shouldn't be the ones who just unilaterally go in and say well there are 20 of us who hate this book so this book is gone? Do you agree that we shouldn't be banning books based on some small group of people thinking they should be banned? That's what Terry McAuliffe said. And that got turned into parents can't have any say about their school. Right? So that got turned into somehow he doesn't want parents to have input in the school. That's just fake news. Literally nobody thinks that. Literally nobody thinks that parents should have no input in the school.
Now there's a way to do it right and there's a way to do it wrong but literally nobody thinks that. So if you believe that Terry McAuliffe, who I'm not supporting by the way, I'm just telling you what the fake news is, if you believe that he didn't think parents should have a say in their public education, I don't think that's true.
All right. Now if you think you heard it, I'm not going to be able to talk you out of it. Old fool Scott. That's the comment on YouTube. The old fool. He said that. Now some of you are saying my God Scott he said it directly. No no he didn't.
What does this sound like? It sounds exactly like when you thought or the news thought Trump called neo-Nazis fine people. And the argument was we saw it Scott, don't tell us it didn't happen when we saw it. And I'm not the only one. Millions of people saw it. So how could it not happen if we saw it? We heard it. We saw it.
Easily, easily. Here's my statement for why. Without even watching it, without watching what you watched, so I didn't watch those debates but without even reading the transcript, without reading the transcript, without educating myself on the topic, without watching any of the videos, I'm going to say with complete confidence that there's nobody, including Terry McAuliffe, who has the opinion that you have given to him. Nobody has that opinion. Nobody. Not the whole world including Terry McAuliffe. That's all I'm going to say. If you believe that you saw it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears and read it in the transcript, I say you didn't.
Okay, it's uncomfortable isn't it? It's pretty uncomfortable because the reason that you watch me is that I've been right more than I've been wrong. I've been wrong my fair share of course, of course. But it's uncomfortable isn't it? Because you know that my perception on this has been right more than it's wrong and if it differs with yours you're saying to yourself right now is that possible? Could I be this positive that this really happened and it never happened? That's what I think. I think you're positive it happened. You're positive you saw it and it didn't happen because it couldn't happen.
It's the same argument with the hoax that Trump said drink bleach or the hoax that Trump said neo-Nazis are fine people. The reason you know it didn't happen, it couldn't happen, it wouldn't have with anybody anywhere in any reality. Those things can't happen so this also can't happen. It didn't happen in my opinion. It's not an analogy. It's an example. An example is slightly different than analogy. You can give examples to show that it happened but it would be proper to pick on the analogy.
Let's hear some more. Here's a, Geraldo on The Five yesterday. They were talking about inflation and Geraldo who's now sitting in as the liberal leaning kind of player on The Five, he said that inflation is partly a good thing because that way employees would get raises. So there's some pressure on employers to give raises to people and raises are good things. So maybe you should see that inflation is not all bad. It's not all bad because people got raises.
Have I ever mentioned to you that not everybody understands economics and a lot of these people are in the news business? As someone quickly pointed out to him on The Five, it didn't take long, their salaries are going up but only in the same amount as the prices are going up. So you're not going to be able to buy more gas with your raise. You'll buy the same as you used to because the price of gas went up too. So now that would be good if nothing else went up but if everything's going up then everybody getting a raise, what's better than not getting raised? But it's not good. It's not positive. It's just keeping up with something.
Let's talk about this story about the boy in the skirt who assaulted two times and once in a bathroom. Number one you would like me to say Scott, Scott, Scott you were so right when you were so wrong when you said I don't think that there's a transsexual element to the story but then we found out that the boy does in fact wear a skirt. Now I called him a boy but that may be incorrect because I think he says he's non-binary. Is that right? Non-binary or was it gender fluid? Which one was it? Gender fluid.
Now here's my understanding of the story. The reason it's a national story, is it a national story because there was an assault? Is that what makes a national story? No, unfortunately, because assaults are every day but we don't make them national stories. Was it a national story because this is the second time he did it and the administrators or somebody in charge should have made sure he didn't do it a second time? Is that what makes it a national story? No, unfortunately, because repeat offenders are very very normal. So that didn't make it a national story.
Was it a national story because we were worried that, not we because I wasn't worried, but there was a lot of worry that the transgender rights would allow people who were born with male equipment to pretend to be female and go into a woman's restroom and then do some ravaging. And this looks like exactly that, doesn't it? Exactly what you were worried about isn't it? Oh my God as soon as you let these what you would call men in quotes into the ladies restroom there's going to be sexual assaults. It's going to be. And they hear it and sure enough here it was. Is that what happened?
Because I don't think that's what happened. I think it looks like, here's how it looks to me and this is really just a framing so this would be an opinion not a fact. The way it looks to me is that there was a kid who had two issues. One issue is that he either wanted attention or was gender fluid or whatever. And then the second issue is that he was a sexual offender. And I don't know that the two are connected.
Let me ask you this. Could we prevent sexual assaults in the whole world by keeping men out of women's restrooms? Like how much of a difference would it make? Let's say you had some magic way to keep anybody who was born with male equipment, they could never go into a woman's restroom forever. That just would never happen. How much of a difference in the world would that make in terms of sexual assaults? Some, maybe some. I don't know that it would make much of a difference.
So I don't think, here's what it looks like to me. It looks like the world on the right, you know sort of the ones who are not buying into the trans rights arguments entirely, I think the people on the right were looking for the perfect story and this one came along and it wasn't quite it but it was forced into the perfect story because it needed a perfect story to match that narrative that the trans thing is going to lead to assaults in bathrooms. I don't think this was a trans situation was it?
And here's my question. Why does someone who is gender fluid get to use the other restroom? Is that a rule? If you're telling me that transgenders can use the restroom of their choice I'd say that's one issue. You could agree or disagree but that's a separate issue. But gender fluid, whoever said that gender fluid people could use whatever restroom they wanted? Has that ever even been a conversation? Has it? I always thought it was limited to the trans people who have made up their mind who they want to live as. I've never heard it applied to people who weren't sure or wanted to be a little of both. I've never heard of that. Have you?
So it looks to me like the way this fake news was manufactured is taking something that reminded you of a trans situation but wasn't and made you think that that's what was happening. That's what it looks like. It looks like fake news. Now the real part was the assault and the real part apparently was the skirt which I predicted you wouldn't find to be true so I was wrong in that prediction about the skirt. But it doesn't look like it fits the model to me. And I'm hearing here that the real story is the cover-up. So I understand that there was a cover-up but that doesn't make it a national story in any way whatsoever, right?
So all the things that you thought were important about this were really just something that happened to some individuals and it was tragic. It doesn't look like a national story to me in any way. Then add the Merrick Garland part. Oh now this is perfect.
So suddenly this one anecdotal story makes us think about the parent of the victim of that story. That parent caused some trouble at a school board meeting I guess and had to be removed. And so that makes us think, you know we think of this one story and then we think well there's a lot of this happening. And then the fake news is that Merrick Garland was siccing the FBI on parents. How many do you think that's what happened? How many of you believe the fake news that Merrick Garland wrote a memo saying that the parents at school boards were sort of like domestic terrorists and they should be looked at by the FBI for their domestic terrorism stuff? How many think that that really happened?
Okay, nothing like that happened. Now I'm using the same standard which is that I'm not saying CNN's correct and Fox News is incorrect. I'm saying that whichever says it didn't happen is right on any story, political story. Any political story. If one side, it doesn't matter which, was Fox News or CNN, if one side says it didn't happen you can depend on it. It didn't happen. Doesn't matter which side said it didn't.
So here's what did happen. There was apparently the administration worked with some national school board association and did write a letter. So this was not Merrick Garland but this association wrote a letter saying that these parents were like a form of domestic terrorism. But then after the blowback they withdrew it and apologized. All right. So having nothing to do with Garland, completely separate from him, some other organization called parents domestic terrorists. But separate from that there does seem to be some kind of an uptick in maybe parental energy at these meetings. And given that the energy and the divisiveness is high it looks like Merrick Garland was asked to make sure that the FBI could be a resource should things get out of hand. And so Merrick Garland wrote a letter that had nothing to do with parents being domestic terrorists but simply offered that the FBI would work with the local law enforcement should there be a reason.
So there was no truth to the story that Merrick Garland called parents domestic terrorists nor that he wrote a letter that would treat them as such nor that he was behind anything that would categorize them as such. And denied it completely and there's no evidence of it.
Now you probably watched Ted Cruz talking about it and some of the other Democrats and the way they couched it it made it look as though if you saw the videos out of context it made it seem as though Merrick Garland had in fact been siccing the FBI on parents and framing them as domestic terrorists in some cases. Nothing like that ever happened. Nothing like that ever happened. There was a letter by the school board that was overblown and they took it back. So that's done. They apologized and took it back. So that letter's done. Nobody else mentioned parents as being domestic terrorists and nobody said the FBI should be monitoring them. They're just available in case there is ever a situation in which it becomes domestic terrorism. Is that wrong? Maybe I wouldn't have done it. Maybe you wouldn't have done it. But it doesn't really fit into any controversial bucket that I can find.
All right. So this of course created the most wonderful situation. So Aaron Rupar who is famous for tweeting misleading video clips, you know a clip out of context, so famous for it that we even call them Rupar videos. So if I say somebody published a Rupar video you probably know oh that's one where they took something out of context to change its meaning. So he properly calls out that that's what's happening. So Rupar points out that the right is taking stuff out of context and making it look like Merrick Garland was calling parents domestic terrorists. Nothing like that happened.
Today Rupar says Scott is off today. What you know for sure is that you're having a problem with what I'm saying. What you don't know for sure is I'm wrong. The same way I don't know for sure you're wrong. What you know for sure is I'm saying things that were not compatible with what you thought. But that is exactly why you watch this content. If I said what you already believed you could just watch Fox News because they're going to say exactly what you believe.
But so Rupar is correctly calling out that other people are Rupar-ing videos. At the same time he reported, new Rupar, he Rupar'd. He called people out for Rupar-ing on this topic and then immediately he tweets a Rupar video meaning out of context which accuses Ted Cruz of defending a parent who did a Nazi salute. Did that happen? Did Ted Cruz defend a parent at a school board meeting who did a Nazi salute? Yes. Yes. That's this is how Rupar videos work. Yes it's out of context.
What was the context? The context was that the person who did the salute was mocking the school board for being Nazis. The person who did this salute and Ted Cruz are anti-Nazi and using it as an insult against the school board that was acting like Nazis. In that context that is pretty much the opposite of what Rupar tweeted, right? But the fact that he's calling out other people's Rupar while he's Rupar-ing is pretty funny. Pretty funny. Yes it's just free speech. And by the way even if this person had done a Nazi salute you could still defend them. You wouldn't agree with them but you could defend it on free speech. But that's not what happened. That wasn't the issue. They weren't pro-Nazi in the first place. They were anti-Nazi to begin with.
All right. Here's another fake news in my opinion. The whole debate about who is a woman or a man is so ridiculous. So ridiculous. We act like we're talking about the same thing but it's a fake disagreement. The conservatives like to say no it's the most basic question. If you can have babies you're a woman. You know if you have the other equipment you're a man and that's it. There's no shading it. That's just it. The whole woman versus man thing is settled by who can reproduce and who can't.
The left doesn't use the same definition and just says yeah we understand the whole who can reproduce part but they also would like somebody who feels that they're more of the other gender than they were born could have that right. These are not disagreeing opinions. These are two opinions that don't disagree in any way. Pretending they do and then people are taking sides. It's a fake fight.
There's nobody who is pro-trans who doesn't understand that gender and reproduction were connected and blah blah. It's not like they don't know that. There's nothing to debate there. They simply have a preference for changing the definition.
So here's what's not a good argument. I'll make an analogy because you love those. Let's say I say you know this word is losing its meaning for historical reasons. Why don't we consider changing the definition of the word and here are the reasons why we should change the definition. And then the conservatives say no the word means X. And then the other side, okay yeah we agree on that. We agree what the word has always meant. What we're suggesting is that we update that and here's our reason why. And then the conservatives say you idiot that's not what the word means. And then the other side says okay I feel like you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not arguing who could have babies and how it used to be and how that made sense. I'm saying here are my reasons why we should update this. You can agree with them or disagree with them but let's talk about my reasons. And then the conservatives say I don't know how many times I can explain this. That's not what the word means.
You're not even having the same conversation. So the reason I don't talk about this much is that there's nothing to talk about. It's two people just having a conversation with themselves. There's not even anything there. So that's my take on that.
I'm going to run out of time quickly so let me run through some things. Wall Street Journal is having a fight with itself because their opinion section printed Trump's letter in which he made claims which the fact people don't agree with. So I guess the news people in the Journal are mad at the opinion people for printing a Trump opinion. Now what is an opinion section if it can't have opinions including fake facts? I don't know. I think I'm going to side with the opinion piece as long as the body fact-checks it. Don't you think that opinion should be fact-checked if it's in the same publication? What do you think of that?
So I'm okay with opinions being wrong or even having fake news in them but I think the publication that puts such an opinion in it should have a little news fact checking. Now it could have more than one source because maybe the fact checkers don't agree and that would be ideal.
Adam something on Twitter had an interesting observation which I'm going to agree with. It goes like this. So you know that Biden got elected by simply not appearing in public. Biden's strongest quality was that people didn't see him talking. And if he did, did I lose a bunch of money on what? I don't know what you're talking about. No I haven't lost a bunch of money. I don't know what you're talking about.
So Biden won by not being seen and lately we're seeing that Kamala Harris is sort of being de-emphasized. Could it be that they're going to put Kamala Harris on ice so you don't see anything about her for months until Joe Biden let's say retires for medical reasons and then you don't have any current fake news or even real news about Harris? So the idea would be that they'll keep her out of the light because the more you see her the less you like her.
All right. This is pretty good. This just came to me, a tweet by Carmine Sabia. He said every Democrat voted against a mandate to vaccinate those crossing the border. Every single one. Tell me more about the science. That's interesting. I'm not, I don't have an opinion yet because I haven't thought about it long enough but this is a very provocative idea to require mandatory vaccinations for all immigration across the border. If we believe in the science you kind of have to believe in this don't you? If you believe in any kind of mandate and you believe in the science wouldn't you have to be in favor of this? Apparently every Democrat voted against it. Did that really happen? I don't know that there was a bill about that but I assume Carmine knows. It's a good question. I'm not sure what my opinion on that is because I'm opposed to mandates but if you're going to have mandates why wouldn't you apply them in a rational way? It's a good point.
All right. You think your state is awesome? Watch this. I live in California and there's a reason California is the best. We had of course problems with the forest fires here. Pretty big problems. How do we solve our forest fire problem crisis? With a storm crisis. We added a gigantic rainstorm to solve our other crisis and it did. We solved our forest fires with our rainstorm. So thank goodness for climate change because it probably made all that worse so they say now.
But we're even smarter than that. You know school choice was a big problem. People were not into it. Well we solved school choice with COVID. The pandemic pretty much made everybody sick of the school system so probably more school choice coming. We got that going. Traffic was a gigantic problem in California but thanks to COVID we used that to solve the commuting problem. And it looks like we also have an energy problem in California. We run out of energy sometimes. But it looks like we're going to solve the energy problem by the supply chain crisis. The supply chain will be so bad nobody can go anywhere and buy anything so I think the energy shortage is solved as well.
So only California can solve a crisis with a crisis. About you, your state didn't think of that. You give us a crisis we'll find another crisis to solve that crisis. Now you might say but Scott that leaves you with whatever crisis you use to solve the other one. Sure but is that a problem? Not if you can solve it with another crisis. You just keep solving things with one crisis after another. I don't think there's anything wrong with that idea is there?
All right. There's a reverse discrimination case. A white male marketing VP in some hospital in a, I don't know, lineup got 10 million dollars because he was fired to make room for a white woman and a black woman to replace him in his position. And apparently he's not the only one. In his complaint he alleged that the same thing happened to the chief legal officer, the medical group president, the chief information officer, the patient experience officer and the president of blah blah something else. They were all replaced either by a black person or a woman in the 12 to 18 months after him. The jury agreed with him. The jury agreed with him that his complaint was valid. He was being replaced because of his ethnicity and his gender and that a whole bunch of people have been replaced for that reason.
Now let me ask you this. I don't know if I've seen a case where people were fired to make room for diversity but I've certainly seen lots of cases where people could only get a job if they were the right ethnicity including me. So if you know my story when I worked in corporate America I was told explicitly that I couldn't be promoted because I was white and male.
Let me ask you this. If you were to compare the numbers of explicit racism of the old-fashioned way where let's say somebody who's Black or LGBTQ or a woman is discriminated against for who they are in a corporate setting, let's say a big company, a big corporation, how much of that do you think you get compared to the reverse discrimination? What do you think is the ratio of real discrimination, you know the classic kind against let's say Black Americans in particular, versus this kind where there was a white person who was discriminated against in corporate America? Not in the small businesses that would be different. I would say one to ten or maybe one to a hundred. Maybe one to a hundred. Yeah.
Google red herring Scott. Make a point will you? Like such a dumb ass comments like that just have no purpose here. You should just stop watching this content. Should go just go away. Somebody's over there on YouTube saying red herring Scott, red herring. I don't even know what freaking topic you're talking about. Could you do a little bit better than that? Go Google red herring. Go Google red herring. Come on do better. Improve your game.
There's an antidepressant that looks like it helps with COVID. Fluvoxamine and maybe others too. Apparently it's an anti-inflammatory. Interesting. What are the odds that the reason that fluvoxamine works as an antidepressant is that it is an anti-inflammatory? If that's the only mechanism that makes it happen.
Let me ask you this. Have you discovered that people are complaining a lot about inflammation in the comments? Tell me is there somebody in your life and it might be you who is complaining about inflammation a lot? Like everybody's talking about it. Like I got this inflammation. Yeah look at the comments. Yes yes yes I am. Yes yes. I feel as though there might be some correlation between inflammation and depression and maybe anxiety and that we're, there's something in the environment and maybe a lot of things, maybe our lifestyle, maybe our food, maybe a lot of things is causing inflammation. And I have a sneaking suspicion that inflammation makes you feel depressed.
And do you know what weed does? It's an anti-inflammatory. It makes you happy. Fluvoxamine, it's an anti-inflammatory. It makes you happy. Pattern recognition people. You know I mean it would just be something I'm curious about but I'll bet if you googled anti-inflammatory and antidepressant you would find that somebody, and I haven't done this I just had this thought, you would find that somebody's looking into it now. Aspirin too maybe. Yeah aspirin too maybe.
All true. Budesonide. Prednisone is an anti-inflammatory and also used against COVID but I don't know if it, oh God when I was on, oh good point. When I was on prednisone that literally makes you happy and you're also very, you have no inflammation. That's a good example. I wonder if, does ivermectin work that way? Is ivermectin an anti-inflammatory? I don't know. Yeah exercise is, it blows up your body right? I don't know what you mean.
All right well let's keep an eye on this because this fluvoxamine is really cheap and if it works, woohoo.
I have a plan to make the U.S. Postal Service solvent. Just have a premium service in which I can pay them to not deliver my mail. I would pay the post office to stop bringing garbage to my house. I would pay $300 a year to turn off my mail service so they won't deliver anything. Just nothing. Not first class mail, not anything. I would pay three hundred dollars a year to just turn it off. There you go. Budesonide yes.
Okay maybe we've cured the pandemic here. I gotta run. Bye for now.
well look at this this is amazing so many of you made it to the best place and time in the entire universe right now anyway it's called the simultaneous sip it's coming up soon as part of coffee with scott adams the best time anywhere and question for you before we begin has anybody noticed a strange energy in the world lately i'm not talking about electricity but my personal life just the the details of just getting stuff done just went crazy in the last week just crazy and the world seems to have gone crazy too the news is just packed with stuff you know sometimes you've got low news days the news is just packed with all kinds of crazy stuff but same with my personal life you know i'm not talking relationships exactly just everything for example smallest example every month i give my dog snickers a flea pill a flea pill it's easy you put it in a little treat you give it to the dog this month i go to give it to her and she chews the good stuff and spits out the pill and she does it several times i'm like i'm gonna have to trick her by getting a new kind of pill pocket you know a better treat so she'll eat the whole thing without knowing there's a pill in there but they're out of stock so i can't find him i spend weeks looking for him i finally find the right treat i go to put a pill in it but apparently i'd thrown them away or somebody threw them away but they're prescription so i can't easily replace them so i call my veterinarian to get the prescription to replace the ones that are lost to put in the pill pockets that had to be replaced for weeks of training to put in into my dog and my veterinarian says yeah we can do that but we have a requirement that we check the dog out for i don't know heartworm or something so now i went from a process that is here you go snickers boom done to something that will take days to work out like i've got i had to set up an appointment i gotta get my dog checked out and do you think the veterinarian is gonna find nothing wrong with my dog of course they will so just this simple process of putting a dog a pill in my dog turned into a life-changing event that will consume me now multiplied that by everything that happened in the last week it's just out of control is anybody having the same experience or is it just a weird coincidence just wondering there's some weird energy in the world and i think there's too much energy and not enough places for it do you feel that i feel that the energy in the country far exceeds the activity you know what i'm talking about do you know how like you just got to do something but you don't have anything productive to do so you're going to go do something bad because you got to do something you got to do something i feel like the country has too much energy am i right because we can't quite do enough way too much energy it feels like a war coming that's what it feels like it feels like the energy has to go somewhere and it's going to go somewhere and we don't know where it's going to go but as soon as there's a i don't know a break in the barrier that keeps us together something's coming out now i don't think there's a civil war coming right nothing like that i don't see any energy toward a civil war you know there might be little spats here and there but something big is happening and i don't think we can predict exactly where it's going to come out just watch this the next i would say between now and the end of the year something we didn't expect and very large will happen hopefully not a war but i think historically that's you end up with a war in these situations hyperinflation i don't know i mean maybe but that doesn't feel like with this kind of energy but first let's do the simultaneous sip because all you need is a couple of margaritas tanker chelsea's tiny canteen trigger flashlight vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dope being hit of the day the thing that makes everything better including your antibodies it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now go ah antibodies feeling good i would like to address some of my critics yesterday who say number one scott doesn't read the comments well i read your comment and so i'm going to address them i was criticized yesterday by several people who said that lately i've been acting smarter than my audience and they don't like it one bit agree or disagree i've been acting arrogantly smarter than my audience lately and you don't like it one bit go disagree agree a little disagree be right today disagree no so so you can see there's disagreement but clearly there are people saying yes all right so even those who who disagree you can see there are plenty of people to say yes so is that a valid criticism is the criticism valid i'd say so if there are this many people who have it and it's an opinion i'll call it valid but here's my counter to it which is not um i'm not saying it doesn't exist like that's your opinion let me put it this way if people are having an impression a subjective experience of this it's not right or wrong it's just your experience so you can't be wrong you're having an experience and you just told me what it was so you're right in your experience that's what you feel so obviously there's something i'm doing that's causing that feeling in you so criticism right on point but i will add this framing um that's the whole point of watching this you're supposed to be watching this because you think on the specific way that i attack the issues persuasion economics usually that i am smarter than the audience otherwise you shouldn't watch would there be any point of this because you don't watch this just to get the news right you can get the news from better sources for me i would think that the only reason anybody would watch it is that i'm going to say something you hadn't heard somewhere else that sounds smart enough to be worth listening to so my claim is not that i'm smarter than my audience i would never make that claim because that's a misunderstanding of what intelligence is intelligence very clearly is this distributed thing where there are lots of things you could be smart about i'm smart about some of them but not most of them not most of them i'm not smart about fashion i'm terrible at navigating you know just getting from one place to another in my car terrible sense of direction no musical talent i could go on and on about the things i don't know never took chemistry i never took chemistry or physics in school so the list of things which i don't know and my audience would be smarter than i or is it smarter than me grammar is another one that you would be smarter than i or me or they but my point is i don't believe in intelligence per se as some global thing i believe that people are intelligent about different things how many of you would be better at parenting than i would a lot of you a lot of you because you're smarter about that right so i don't believe that people are smart you know in some universal way i get that iq picks that up but you have you tend to be smarter than the things you focus on and the things that you know your genetic propensity leads you toward so um i can't change your impressions or your subjective opinion but i will tell you this if you think in my mind that i'm thinking i'm smarter than you that's not happening not in my mind in my mind i think there's some narrow topics that i do know more than most of you that's my only claim but there are all kinds of stuff you know that i don't know so arrogance doesn't really fit into my mental model because i would assume i'm thinking i'm better than you and i don't see any any evidence of that i just see evidence that you're good at some things i'm good at other things that's it that's the only thing we can conclude there's no there's no better than so so if you're picking up some kind of arrogance in my approach probably the frame you should put on it is that this is a show and even though i do it in a personal style you know almost like i'm talking to you you have to know that this is the this is my public presentation right it wouldn't be it wouldn't be the same in person all right and also i heard some criticism that i never admit i'm wrong i would just like to suggest that the people who watch all of my content don't have that opinion the people who have sampled it probably do but i would i would say and i'll just put this out there as a provocative claim that no no public figure has admitted they were wrong more than i have about you know in this topic about the news i don't think any public figure has admitted more times they've been wrong except maybe tucker carlson am i wrong about this i feel as though tucker carlson is one of the few people who when he's wrong and you know events prove it that he starts his program by saying we said x we were totally wrong and then he goes on to update the story haven't you seen him do that i feel like i've seen him do that a number of times and it always stands out as being honest i try to do that but i don't know if i succeed alright enough about me here's all the fake news how many of you believe that tony fauci was behind some research either funding it or otherwise uh in animal cruelty in other words they weren't testing animal cruelty they were testing on monkeys how many believe how many believe that fauci was somehow involved in uh torturing monkeys for science anybody believe that because i was on the news yesterday it was all over the internet yeah the answer is no no there's no truth to it there's no connection between fauci and any monkey research or animal dogs anything so apparently there's nothing to the story now here's the standard that i'm using to decide whether it's true or not so it's not my not my magic like i'm not using magic to like look into the details that you can't see i'm using a simple standard that if one of the two networks cnn or fox news reports it as true and the other one debunks it believes the debunk it doesn't matter which direction if one of them debunks a fact and the other one says it's true it's not true if both of them say it's true it's probably true probably not certainly but probably if only one of them says it's true it's just never true i haven't seen an exception let me say that there could be exceptions i just haven't seen one cnn says uh actually not even cnn but twitter's fact check says no there's no connection so i could be wrong but i'd say that's probably 95 chance that this story is fake news so that's your first fake news of the day watch the pattern that emerges here there's a pattern emerging and let's see if you can see it but don't blame me the messenger okay because in a story or two you're gonna get pretty mad at me if if my prediction is correct you're going to get a little bit mad at me in a few stories because you're going to notice the pattern and you're not going to like it at all i don't think i'll have to tell you the pattern you're going to see it yourself all right here's the next one uh well i'm going to skip around a little bit but i'll make the i'll tell you the pattern later so the alex baldwin story every time we get a new detail it you just shake your head here's the latest one apparently this same armorer the the person who handles the real and fake weapons on the movie set apparently was almost fired on a nicolas cage movie and this is what somebody said and i quote she didn't carry the firearm safely and i'm thinking to myself huh what would be a what would be a way to carry firearms unsafely because it seems like that'd be fairly easy to carry them safely so how do you do unsafely well here's the description she had pistols tucked under her armpits and was carrying rifles in each hand okay that would do it yeah that would do it yeah pistols under each armpit while you're carrying rifles with yeah that would do it yep that would be what i would call unsafe carrying of weapons you would have to yeah and apparently she even like turned around a few times so the weapons were aimed at people so not only were they tucked under her arm but she was like turning around so that at any given time she was yeah exactly i'm looking at the comments the the only one that captures all this is good lord you know sometimes there's an exasperated phrase that's the only one that works i think this one is good lord that just covers it how did she ever get this job well apparently she is the daughter of a famous or a well-established hollywood person who was an armorer so she's a legacy that probably had something to do with probably just people knew the knew the parents um so joe joe biden's got uh looks like he's negotiated with the democrats and getting down that uh so-called infrastructure bill to uh to what 1.75 billion started down at 3.5 trillion with a grab bag of all these things they wanted but they were unreasonable terribly unreasonable so now they're being negotiated back to 1.75 and there's some optimism that will get passed i'm going gonna still bet against it what do you think i'm gonna bet against the 1.75 passing only and the only reason is has nothing to do with what's in it has nothing to do with what's in the bill because we don't know who knows what's in the freaking bill i'm just going to say that i don't think congress can do anything i think congress is just permanently useless you're hearing my my my cat is wanting to get out because i've got the door closed um boo come up here and say hi boo brow come up here yeah come up here we'll see if i can call a cat that'll be a good test all right so nobody knows what's in this bill but if biden gets this through i'm going to try to be consistent if he asked for 3.5 trillion so that he could get 1.75 and he succeeds that is going to be a very trump-like negotiating process starting high you know the most basic thing you should do in negotiating starting so high that we got used to 3.5 trillion didn't we now we were always horrified by it but we got a little bit used to it didn't we and by the time he says 1.75 trillion does it sound a lot like a lot anymore biden biden made a trillion dollars sound like it wasn't much money and now and now he'll get to uh maybe go to a vote on this so if so let me uh let me be clear about this um if if trump had done this let's say this bill was something i approved of if trump had started at 3.5 trillion and managed to get us used to it and then get 1.75 i would think that was a damn good job depending what was in the bill of course now separate from what's in the bill i'm gonna give biden i'm gonna give him an a plus i hate to tell you but if he pulls this off it's an a plus for just negotiating because he actually convinced us this 3.5 was a lot and 1.75 well that's in the ballroom that's in the range that would be pretty amazing persuasion i'm not saying i approve of the the bill because none of us know what's in it apparently we're going to approve this bill or not but if we do approve it maybe then we'll find out what's in it you know it's garbage don't you i think we know it's garbage all right you can see uh my my cat's little uh uh feeding tube there i have to keep that in for a little while all right so i'm bored about this uh spending bill the human infrastructure versus the physical infrastructure and uh uh i don't know if it'll ever get passed um here's some here's a weird thing that's happening so and you have to wonder if this is a chinese plot there are things happening in this country that are so hard to explain in any way except is this a chinese plot did chi is china behind this no i'm not saying they are i'm just saying that i'm just saying it looks like it because you can't explain why else things like this would happen here's a good example so this is i think this was from i forget where cnn may be so these executives of the major fossil fuel companies so mostly oil executives etc we're coming to congress today and they're going to talk about disinformation on the climate change crisis now when i read this i said to myself oh this is what we need this will be great all the oil executives are going to talk to congress about all the climate change misinformation so i thought to that i thought to myself this is great this is basically the same thing that michael schellenberger testified to congress about i assumed because as he testified if we kill our uh and i think he said this he says it on twitter and in his books etc that if we kill our existing fossil fuel stuff too quickly we'll snuff out all uh you know our growth and our prosperity and the growth and prosperity are the single biggest things that cause you to clean up the planet so in other words the more oil you use the cleaner you'll get because once you have an industrial base and things are working well then you have the luxury of buying a tesla right so on a per person basis getting rich first with carbon fuels and building up your manufacturing allows you to get to a clean world whereas if you're a developing country for example you can't you can't develop with solar and wind power there's not enough power not reliable and you would be there stuck in poverty forever or or what right so i thought that these uh fossil executives were going to come in and to say that they were right all along that doing a lot of fossil fuels as as much as we can would actually be better for climate change in the long it run out they're going to do the opposite they're going to come in and apparently the the some members of congress are going to try to get them to admit that they've been lying on various claims about their role in the crisis so i think that the oil executives probably have some explaining to do i'm sure they did some bs propaganda for their side as well but i think we framed this wrong didn't we this looks like chinese framing doesn't it because this is this is exactly what trump warned us about with climate change being a hoax right now remember when he said it was a hoax he wasn't really directly addressing the science of it so much as the the strategy the political strategy and china was going to get a big gift if we did what we were going to do which is slow our own development while they didn't slow theirs so that was that was the hoax part i think i mean i don't want to read trump's mind but that's that would be the reasonable interpretation and now it looks like congress has completely reversed from the the michael schellenberger frame which was the productive one that you have to do some of these things you don't like to get to a place you do like and the new frame is you don't have to do the things you don't like you can just magically get to the new place of clean energy but nobody knows how so this is pushing us into the loser frame whereas the schellenberger approach would be the winning frame where you could account for you know all the costs and benefits and make a reasonable decision all right uh i love this there's a famous venture capitalist under fire for calling new dads losers if they take uh months of paternity leave uh was this joe lonsdale um i think it was and yeah uh palantir co-founder joe lonsdale he uh responded to a tweet wednesday about talking about pete buttigieg who took time off for his child and joe lonsdale said quote any man in an important position who takes six months of leave for a newborn is a loser in the old days men had babies and worked harder to provide for their future that's the correct masculine response now if you'd like my opinion on this i don't really have one you know that i don't think this is a i don't think this is a situation in which my opinion should have anything to do with you and your baby do you do you think i should have an opinion about what you do with your baby no no i mean i suppose if i were in this situation i'd want the option and if i'm not in the if i'm not in the situation i'll i'll just look to you uh if you want the option i think i can live with it i don't have a problem with it but i just love the fact that he would say this opinion in public it's just saying it and this is saying it in public that makes it a funny story it's not like a lot of people weren't thinking it but it's it's hilariously said in public anyway uh i i'm not really um you know completely uh defined by you know the men have to be masculine in every way in every situation or anything like that but i think it's perfectly fine for him to say it yes so i'm glad you could say it without getting cancelled i think he's he's rich enough he doesn't get canceled uh rasmussen has a some poll results saying that the majority across political spectrum so no matter what party you are um you're concerned about what is being taught in public schools now of course you would be concerned in a different way if you're a democrat versus a republican but a lot of people so 90 of republicans 66 percent of democrats and 76 percent of the non-affiliated people are concerned that public schools may be promoting controversial beliefs and attitudes i feel as if these numbers tell us that the traditional school system is dead maybe not right away but it looks like we're we're about to be enter a i don't know an irreversible uh trend toward getting other people's brainwashing away from your children because it is brainwashing the only difference between the modern brainwashing and the old brainwashing the old brainwashing was you know patriotism and melting pot and everything like that is the old brainwashing was explicitly designed to turn kids into good citizens you know patriots etc now it was brainwashing you could argue that it was unethical but also militarily necessary to to defend the homeland you have to brainwash the children to make them patriots now you could say it's just education but that's just word thinking it is what it is we're training people who do not have critical thinking to have a specific point of view if you train somebody who doesn't have yet have critical thinking skills into a specific point of view it's brainwashing it might be productive and that's what i'm saying it is but it's still brainwashing it's not like they it's not like you gave the kids some information and let them make their own decision so brainwashing is universal but it used to be the kind that we pretty much all thought was a good idea and now they're brainwashing them in different ways yeah not everybody agrees it's a good way so i think that we we have to develop a hybrid system that's not doesn't have the problems of homeschooling oh yeah there are problems and doesn't have the problems of public school i feel like it's going to be you know clusters of people who band together maybe with the help of an app or some parent company and form i don't know groups of 12 people for homeschooling get together somebody's house put on the big screen tv all you need is a parent somewhere in the house something like that there's going to be some model that's neither uh pure home school nor pure public school that's inevitable all right i've been trying not to follow this virginia governor's race with terry mcauliffe and somebody whose name i forget young kim okay and uh do you know this whole story is fake news the whole uh virginia governor race whatever you heard about it it's fake news let me give you an example um there is there is a governor's race that part's real so i guess terry mcauliffe at one point in the past said when making his point about the limits of parental behavior versus the school's responsibility he said something like you know parents can't just go in and you know ban books on their own in the school do you agree with him do you agree that parents shouldn't be the ones who just like unilaterally go in and say well there are 20 of us who hate this book so this book is gone do you agree that we shouldn't be banning books based on some small group of people thinking they should be banned that's what terry mcauliffe said and that got turned into parents can't have any say about their school right so that that got turned into somehow he doesn't want parents to have uh input in the school that's just fake news literally nobody thinks that literally nobody thinks that parents should have no input in the school now there's a way to do a right and there's a way to do it wrong but literally nobody thinks that so if you believe that terry mcauliffe who i'm not supporting by the way i'm just telling you what the fake news is if you believe that he didn't think parents should have a say in their public education i i don't think that's true all right now if you think you heard it um i'm not going to be able to talk you out of it old fool scott that's the comment on you youtube the old fool he said that now some of you are saying my god scott he said it directly no no he didn't what does this sound like it sounds exactly like when you thought or the news thought trump called neo-nazis fine people and the argument was we saw it scott don't tell us it didn't happen when we saw it and i'm not the only one millions of people saw it so how could it not happen if we saw it we heard it we saw it easily easily here here's my statement for why without even watching it without watching what you watched so i didn't watch those debates but without even even without reading the the transcript without reading the transcript without educating myself on the topic without watching any of the videos i'm going to say with complete confidence that there's nobody including terry mcauliffe who has the opinion that you have given to him nobody has that opinion nobody not the whole world including terry mcauliffe that's all i'm going to say if you believe that you saw it with your own eyes and heard it with your own ears and read it in the transcript i say you didn't okay it's uncomfortable isn't it it's pretty uncomfortable because the reason that you watch me is that i've been right more than i've been wrong i've been wrong my fair share of course of course but it's uncomfortable isn't it because you know that my my uh perception on this has been right more than it's wrong and if it differs with you with yours you're saying to yourself right now is that possible could i be this positive that this really happened and it never happened that's what i think i think you're positive it happened you're positive you saw it and it didn't happen because it couldn't happen it's the same argument with the the hoax that uh trump said drink bleach or the hoax that trump said neo-nazis are fine people the reason you know it didn't happen it couldn't happen it wouldn't have with anybody anywhere in any in any reality those things can't happen so this also can't happen it didn't happen in my opinion it's not an analogy it's an example an example is slightly different than analogy you can give examples to show that it happened but it would be proper to pick on the analogy um let's here's some more here's a geraldo on the five yesterday they were talking about inflation and geraldo who's now sitting in as the i guess uh the liberal liberal leaning kind of player around the five he said that inflation is partly a good thing because that way employees would get raises so there's some pressure on employers to give raises to people and raises are good things so maybe you should see say that inflation is not all bad it's not all bad because people got raises have i ever mentioned to you that not everybody understands economics and a lot of these people are in in the news business as someone quickly pointed out to him on the five it didn't take long uh the their salaries are going up but only in the same amount as the prices are going up so you're not going to be able to buy more gas with your raise you'll buy the same as you used to be able because the price of gas went up too so now that would be good if nothing else went up but if everything's going up then everybody going to raise what's better than not getting raised but it's not good it's not positive it's just keeping up with something let's talk about this story about the boy in the skirt who assaulted two times and once in a bathroom number one you would like me to say scott scott scott you were so right when you were so wrong when you said i don't think that there's a transsexual element to the story but then we found out that the boy does in fact wear a skirt now i called him a boy but that may be incorrect because i think he says he's non-binary is that right non-binary or was it gender fluid which one was it gender fluid gender fluid now here's my understanding of the story the reason it's a national story is it a national story because there was an assault is that what makes a national story no unfortunately because assaults are every day but we don't make them national stories was it a national story because this is the second time he did it and the administrators or somebody in charge should have made sure he didn't do it a second time is that what makes it a national story no unfortunately because repeat offenders are very very normal so that didn't make it a national story um was it a was it a national story because we were worried that not we because i wasn't worried but there was a lot of worry that the transgender rights would allow uh people who were born with male equipment to pretend to be female and go into a woman's restroom and then do some raven and this looks like exactly that doesn't it exactly what you were worried about isn't it oh my god as soon as you let these what you would call men in quotes into the ladies restroom there's going to be sexual assaults it's going to be and they hear it and sure enough here it was is that what happened because i don't think that's what happened i think it looks like here's here's how it looks to me and this is really just a framing so this would be an opinion not a fact okay the way it looks to me is that there was a kid who had two issues one issue is the either wanted detention or was gender fluid or whatever and then the second issue is that he was a sexual offender and i don't know that the two are connected let me ask you this could we prevent sexual assaults in the whole world by uh keeping men out of women's restrooms like how much of a difference would it make let's say you had some magic way to keep anybody who was born with male equipment they could never go into a woman's restroom forever that just would never happen how much of a difference in the world would that make in terms of sexual assaults some maybe some i don't know that it would make much of a difference so i don't think what here's what it looks like to me it looks like the world the world on the right you know sort of the ones who are not buying into the trans rights arguments entirely i think the people on the right were looking for the perfect story and this one came along and it wasn't quite it but it was forced into the perfect story because i needed a perfect story to to match that narrative that the trans thing is going to lead to assaults and bathrooms i don't think this was a trans situation was it and here's my question why do someone who is gender fluid get to use the other the other restroom is that a rule if you're telling me that transgenders can use you know the restroom of their choice i'd say that's one issue you could agree or disagree but that's a separate issue but gender fluid whoever said that gender fluid people could use whatever restroom they wanted has that ever even been a conversation has it i always thought it was limited to the trans people who have made up their mind who they want to live as i i've never heard it applied to people who weren't sure or wanted to be a little of both i've never heard of that have you so it looks to me like the way this fake news was manufactured is taking something that reminded you of a trans situation but wasn't and made you think that that's what was happening that's what it looks like it looks like fake news now the real part was the assault and the real part apparently was the skirt which i predicted you wouldn't find to be true so i was wrong in that prediction about the skirt but it doesn't look like it fits the model to me um and i'm hearing here that the real story is the cover-up so i understand that there was a cover-up but that doesn't make it a national story in any way whatsoever right so all the things that you thought were like important about this were really just something that happened to some individuals and it was tragic it doesn't look like a national story to me in any way then add the america garland park oh now this is perfect so suddenly this this one anecdotal story makes us think about the parent of the victim of that story that parent uh caused some trouble at a school board meeting i guess and had to be removed and so that makes us think you know we think of this one story and then we think well there's a lot of this happening and then the fake news is that merrick garland was sicking the fbi on parents how many do you think that's what happened how many of you believe the fake news that merrick garland wrote a memo saying that the parents of school boards were sort of like domestic terrorists and they should be looked at by the fbi for their domestic terrorism stuff how many think that that really happened okay nothing like that happened now i'm using the same standard which is that i'm not saying cnn's correct and fox news is incorrect i'm saying that whichever says it didn't happen is right on any story political story any political story if one side it doesn't matter which was fox news or cnn if one side says it didn't happen you can depend on it it didn't happen doesn't matter which side said it didn't so here's what did happen uh there was uh apparently the administration worked with some national school board association and did write a letter so this was not merrick garland but this association wrote a letter uh saying that these parents were like a form of domestic terrorism but then after the blowback they they withdrew it and apologized all right so having nothing to do with garland completely separate from him some other organization called parents domestic terrorism terrorists but separate from that there does seem to be some kind of an uptick in maybe you know parental energy at these meetings and given that the energy and the let's say the divisiveness is high it looks like merrick garland was asked to make sure that the fbi could be a resource should things get out of hand and so merrick garland wrote a letter that had nothing to do with parents being domestic terrorists but simply offered that the fbi would work with the local law enforcement should there be a should there be a reason should there be a reason so there was no there's no truth to the story that america garland called parents domestic terrorists nor that he wrote a letter that would treat them as such nor that he was behind any anything that would categorize them as such and denied it completely and there's no evidence of it now you probably watched ted cruz talking about it and some of the other democrats and the way they couched it it made it look as though if you saw the videos out of context it made it seem as though merrick garland had in fact been seeking the fbi on parents and framing them as domestic terrorists in some cases nothing like that ever happened nothing like that ever happened there was a letter by the school board that was you know overblown and they took it back so that's done that's done they apologized and took it back so that letter's done nobody else mentioned parents as being domestic terrorists and nobody said the fbi should be monitoring them they're just available in case there is ever a situation in which it becomes domestic terrorism is that wrong maybe i wouldn't have done it maybe you wouldn't have done it but it doesn't really fit into any controversial bucket that i can find all right um so this of course created the most wonderful situation so aaron rupar who is famous uh for uh tweeting misleading video clips you know a clip out of context so so famous for it that we even call them roop our videos so if i say somebody published a rupaul video you probably know oh that's one where they took something out of context to change its meaning so he properly calls out that that's what's happening so rupaul points out that the right is taking stuff out of context and making it look like um merrick garland was you know calling parents domestic terrorists nothing like that happened today rodzillo says scott is off today what you know for sure is that you're having a problem with what i'm saying what you don't know for sure is i'm wrong the same way i don't know you for sure you're wrong what you know for sure is i'm saying things that were not compatible with what you thought but that is exactly why you watch this content if i said what you already believed you could just watch fox news because they're going to say exactly what you believe all right um but so rupaul is correctly calling out that other people are ruparing videos at the same time he reported new rupar he rupard he called people out for ruparing on this topic and then immediately he tweets a uh a roupart video meaning out of context which accuses ted cruz of defending a parent who did a nazi salute did that happen did ted cruz defend a parent at a school board meeting who did a nazi salute yes yes that's this is how roop our videos work yes it's out of context what was the context the context was that the person who did the salute was mocking the school board for being nazis the person who did this loot and ted cruz are anti-nazi and using it as an insult against the school board that was acting like nazis in that context that is pretty much the opposite of what rupaul tweeted right but the fact that he's calling out other people's rupaul while he's rupauring is pretty funny pretty funny yes it's just free speech and by the way even if even if this person had done a nazi salute you could still defend them you wouldn't agree with them but you could defend it on free speech but that's not what happened you know there that wasn't the issue they weren't pro-nazi in the first place they were anti-nazi to begin with all right uh here's another fake news in my opinion the whole debate about who is a woman or a man is so ridiculous so ridiculous we act like we're talking about the same thing but it's a fake it's a fake disagreement uh the conservatives like to say no it's the most basic question if you can have babies you're a woman you know if you have the other equipment you're a man and that's it there's no there's no shading it that's just it uh the whole woman first man thing is settled by who can reproduce and who can't the left doesn't use the same definition and just says yeah we understand the whole who can reproduce part but they also would like somebody who feels that they're more of the other gender than they were born could have that right these are not these are not disagreeing opinions these are two opinions that don't disagree in any way pretending they do and then people are taking sides it's a fake fight there's nobody who is pro-trans who doesn't understand that uh you know gender and reproduction were connected and blah blah it's not like they don't know that there's nothing to debate there they simply have a preference for changing the definition so here's here's what's not a good argument i'll make an analogy because you love those let's say i say you know this word is losing its meaning for historical reasons why don't we consider changing the definition of the word and here are the reasons why we should change the definition and then the conservatives say no the word means x and then the other side okay yeah we agree on that we agree what the word has always meant what we're suggesting is that we update that and here's our reason why and then the conservatives say you idiot that's not what the word means and then the other side says okay i feel like you're not understanding what i'm saying i'm not arguing who could have babies and how it used to be and how that made sense i'm saying here are my reasons why we should update this you can agree with them or disagree with them but let's talk about my reasons and then the conservatives say i don't know how many times i can explain this that's not what the word means you're not even having the same conversation so the reason i don't talk about this much is that there's nothing to talk about it's two people just having a conversation with themselves there's not even any anything there so that's my take on that i'm going to run out of time quickly so let me run through some things wall street journal is having a fight with itself because their opinion their opinion section printed trump's letter in which he made claims which the fact people don't agree with so i guess the news people in the journal are mad at the opinion people for printing a trump opinion now what is an opinion section if it can't have opinions including fake facts i don't know i would i think i'm going to side with the opinion piece as long as the the body fact-checks it don't you think that opinion should be fact-checked if it's in the same publication what do you think of that so i'm i'm okay with uh opinions being wrong or even having fake news in them but i think the publication that puts such an opinion in it should have a little you know news fact checking now it could you know have more than one source because maybe the fact checkers don't agree and that would be ideal adam dopamine on twitter had an interesting observation which i'm going to agree with it goes like this so you know that biden got elected by simply not appearing in public his biden's strongest quality was that people didn't see him talking and if he did did i lose a bunch of money on what i don't know what you're talking about no i haven't lost a bunch of money i don't know what you're talking about um so biden won by not being seen and lately we're seeing that kamal harris is sort of being de-emphasized could it be that they're going to put kamala harris on ice so you don't see anything about her for months until joe biden let's say retires for medical reasons and then you don't have any uh current fake news or even real news about harris so the idea would be that they'll keep her out of the light because the more you see her the less you like her all right um this is pretty good idea this just came to be a tweet by carmine sabia he said every democrat voted against a mandate to vaccinate those crossing the border every single one tell me more about the science that's interesting i'm not i don't i don't have an opinion yet because i haven't thought about it long enough but this is a very provocative idea to require mandatory vaccinations for all immigration across the border if we believe in the science you kind of have to believe in this don't you if you believe in any kind of mandate and you believe in the science wouldn't you have to be in favor of this apparently every democrat voted against it did that really happen i don't know that there was a bill about that but i assume carmine knows that's it's a good question i'm not sure what i'm not sure my opinion on that because i'm opposed to mandates but if you're going to have mandates why wouldn't you apply them in a rational way it's a good point all right um you think your state is awesome watch this i live in california and there's a reason california is the best we had of course uh problems with the forest fires here pretty big problems how do we solve our forest fire problem crisis with a storm crisis we added a gigantic rainstorm to solve our other crisis and it did we solved our forest fires with our rainstorm so thank goodness for climate change because it probably made all that worse so they say now but it but we're even smarter than that you know school choice was a big problem people were not into it well we solved school choice with covet the pandemic pretty much made everybody sick of the school system so probably more school choice coming we got that going traffic was a gigantic problem in california but thanks to covid we use that to solve the commuting problem and it looks like we also have an energy problem in california we run out of energy sometimes but it looks like we're going to solve the energy problem by the supply chain crisis the supply chain will be so bad nobody can go anywhere and buy anything so i think the energy shortage is solved as well so only california can solve a crisis with a crisis about you your state didn't think of that you give us a crisis we'll find another crisis to solve that crisis now you might say but scott that leaves you with whatever crisis you use to solve the other one sure but is that a problem not if you can solve it with another crisis you just keep solving things with one crisis after another i don't think there's anything wrong with that idea is there all right there's a reverse discrimination case a white male uh marketing vp in some hospital in a north korean lineup got 10 million dollars because he was fired to make room for a white woman and a black woman to replace him in his position and apparently he's not the only one in his complaint he alleged that the same thing happened to the chief legal officer the medical group president the chief information officer the patient experience officer and the president of blah blah something else they were all replaced either by a black person or a woman in the 12 to 18 months after him the jury agreed with him the jury agreed with him that his complaint was valid he was being replaced because of his ethnicity and his gender and that a whole bunch of people have been replaced for that reason now let me ask you this i i don't know if i've seen a case where people were fired to make room for diversity but i've certainly seen lots of cases where people could only get a job if they were the right um ethnicity including me so if you know my story when i worked in corporate america i was told explicitly that i couldn't be promoted because i was white and male let me ask you this if you were to compare the numbers of explicit racism of the old-fashioned way where let's say somebody who's black or lgbtq or a woman is discriminated against for who they are in a corporate setting let's say a big company a big corporation how much of that do you think you get compared to the reverse discrimination what do you think is the ratio of real discrimination you know the classic kind against let's say black americans in particular versus this kind where there was a white person who was discriminated with in corporate america not in the small small businesses that would be different i would say one to ten or maybe one to a hundred maybe one to a hundred yeah google red herring scott make a point will you like such a dumb ass comments like that just have no purpose here you should just stop watching this content should go just go away somebody's over there on youtube saying red herring scott red herring i don't even know what freaking topic you're talking about could you do a little bit better than that go google red herring go google red herring come on do better improve your game there's a antidepressant that looks like it helps with covet fluvoxamine and maybe others too apparently it's an anti-inflammatory interesting what are the odds that the reason that fluvoxamine works as an antidepressant is that it is an anti-inflammatory if that's the only mechanism that makes it happen let me ask you this have you discovered that people are complaining a lot about inflammation in the comments tell me is there somebody in your life and it might be you who is complaining about inflammation a lot like everybody's talking about it like i got this inflammation yeah look at look at the comments yes yes yes i am yes yes i feel as though there might be some correlation between inflammation and depression and maybe anxiety and that we're there's something in the environment and maybe a lot of things maybe our lifestyle maybe our food maybe a lot of things is causing inflammation and i have a sneaking suspicion that inflammation makes you feel depressed and do you know what weed does it's an anti-inflammatory it makes you happy fluvoxamine it's an anti-inflammatory it makes you happy pattern recognition people uh you know i mean it would just be something i'm curious about but i'll bet if you googled um anti-inflammatory and antidepressant you would find that somebody and i haven't done this i just had this thought uh about you would find that somebody's looking into it now uh aspirin too maybe yeah aspirin too maybe um all true breton zone prednisone is an anti-inflammatory and also used against covet but i don't know if it oh god when i was on oh good point when i was on prednisone that literally makes you happy and you're also very un you have no inflammation that's a good example i wonder if does ivory mech didn't work that way is ivermectin an anti-inflammatory i don't know yeah exercise is uh it blows up your body right i don't know what you mean all right well let's keep an eye on this because this flu voxamine is really cheap and if it works woohoo i have a plan to make the u.s postal service solvent just have a premium service in which i can pay them to not deliver my mail i would pay the post office to stop bringing garbage to my house i would pay 300 a year to turn off my mail service so they won't deliver anything just nothing not first class mail not anything i would pay three hundred dollars a year to just turn it off there you go budestone yes okay maybe we we've we've cured the pandemic here i gotta run bye for now
well look at this
this is amazing
so many of you
made it to the best place and time in
the entire universe
right now anyway it's called the
simultaneous sip it's coming up soon as
part of coffee with scott adams
the best time
anywhere
and
question for you before we begin
has anybody noticed a strange energy in
the world lately i'm not talking about
electricity
but
my personal life
just the the details of just getting
stuff done
just went crazy in the last week
just crazy
and the world seems to have gone crazy
too the news is just packed with stuff
you know sometimes you've got low news
days the news is just packed with all
kinds of crazy stuff but same with my
personal life
you know i'm not talking relationships
exactly just everything
for example smallest example
every month i give my dog snickers a
flea pill
a flea pill it's easy you put it in a
little treat you give it to the dog
this month
i go to give it to her and she chews the
good stuff and spits out the pill and
she does it several times i'm like i'm
gonna have to trick her by getting a new
kind of pill pocket you know
a better treat so she'll eat the whole
thing without knowing there's a pill in
there
but they're out of stock
so i can't find him i spend weeks
looking for him i finally find the right
treat i go to put a pill in it
but apparently i'd thrown them away or
somebody threw them away but they're
prescription so i can't easily replace
them so i call my veterinarian
to get the prescription to replace the
ones that are lost to put in the
pill pockets that had to be replaced for
weeks of training to put in into my dog
and my veterinarian says yeah we can do
that
but we have a requirement that we check
the dog out for i don't know heartworm
or something so now i went from a
process that is
here you go snickers boom
done
to something that will take days to work
out like i've got i had to set up an
appointment
i gotta get my dog checked out and do
you think the veterinarian is gonna find
nothing wrong with my dog
of course they will
so just this simple process of putting a
dog a pill in my dog
turned into a life-changing event that
will consume me
now multiplied that by everything that
happened in the last week
it's just out of control is anybody
having the same experience or is it just
a weird coincidence
just wondering there's some weird energy
in the world
and i think there's too much energy and
not enough places for it
do you feel that
i feel that the energy in the country
far exceeds the activity
you know what i'm talking about
do you know how like you just got to do
something
but you don't have anything productive
to do so you're going to go do something
bad
because you got to do something you got
to do something
i feel like the country has too much
energy
am i right
because we can't quite do enough
way too much energy it feels like a war
coming
that's what it feels like it feels like
the energy has to go somewhere and it's
going to go somewhere and we don't know
where it's going to go
but as soon as there's a i don't know
a break in the barrier that keeps us
together
something's coming out now i don't think
there's a civil war coming
right
nothing like that i don't see any energy
toward a civil war
you know there might be little
spats here and there but something big
is happening
and i don't think we can predict exactly
where it's going to come out just watch
this the next i would say between now
and the end of the year
something we didn't expect
and very large will happen
hopefully not a war
but i think historically that's
you end up with a war in these
situations hyperinflation
i don't know
i mean maybe but that doesn't feel like
with this kind of energy
but first let's do the simultaneous sip
because all you need is a couple of
margaritas tanker chelsea's tiny canteen
trigger flashlight vessel of any kind
fill it with your favorite liquid i like
coffee
and join me now for the unparalleled
pleasure
the dope being hit of the day the thing
that makes everything better including
your antibodies it's called the
simultaneous sip and it happens now go
ah antibodies
feeling good
i would like to address some of my
critics yesterday who say number one
scott doesn't read the comments
well
i read your comment and so i'm going to
address them
i was criticized yesterday by several
people who said that lately i've been
acting smarter than my audience and they
don't like it one bit
agree or disagree
i've been acting arrogantly smarter than
my audience lately
and you don't like it one bit
go
disagree agree
a little disagree
be right today
disagree no so so you can see there's
disagreement
but clearly there are people saying yes
all right so even those who who disagree
you can see there are plenty of people
to say yes
so is that a valid criticism
is the criticism valid i'd say so if
there are this many people who have it
and it's an opinion
i'll call it valid
but here's my counter to it
which is not um
i'm not saying it doesn't exist like
that's your opinion
let me put it this way if people are
having an impression
a subjective experience of this
it's not right or wrong it's just your
experience so you can't be wrong
you're having an experience and you just
told me what it was so you're right in
your experience that's what you feel
so obviously there's something i'm doing
that's causing that feeling in you so
criticism right on point but i will add
this framing
um that's the whole point of watching
this
you're supposed to be watching this
because you think on the specific way
that i attack the issues persuasion
economics usually
that i am smarter than the audience
otherwise you shouldn't watch
would there be any point of this because
you don't watch this just to get the
news right you can get the news from
better sources for me i would think that
the only reason anybody would watch it
is that i'm going to say something you
hadn't heard somewhere else that sounds
smart enough to be worth listening to
so
my claim is not that i'm smarter than my
audience
i would never make that claim because
that's a misunderstanding of what
intelligence is
intelligence very clearly is this
distributed thing where there are lots
of things you could be smart about
i'm smart about some of them
but not most of them
not most of them i'm not smart about
fashion
i'm terrible at navigating you know just
getting from one place to another in my
car terrible sense of direction
no musical talent
i could go on and on about the things i
don't know never took chemistry i never
took chemistry or physics in school so
the list of things which i don't know
and my audience would be smarter
than i
or is it smarter than me grammar is
another one that you would be smarter
than i or me
or they
but my point is i don't believe in
intelligence per se
as some global thing
i believe that people are intelligent
about different things
how many of you would be better at
parenting
than i would
a lot of you
a lot of you
because you're smarter about that right
so i don't believe that people are smart
you know in some universal way i get
that iq picks that up but you have you
tend to be smarter than the things you
focus on and the things that you know
your genetic propensity
leads you toward
so
um i can't change your impressions or
your subjective opinion but i will tell
you this
if you think in my mind
that i'm thinking i'm smarter than you
that's not happening
not in my mind in my mind i think
there's some narrow topics that i do
know more than most of you
that's my only claim
but there are all kinds of stuff you
know that i don't know so arrogance
doesn't really fit into
my mental model because i would assume
i'm thinking i'm better than you and i
don't see any any evidence of that
i just see evidence that you're good at
some things i'm good at other things
that's it
that's the only thing we can conclude
there's no there's no better than
so so if you're picking up some kind of
arrogance in my approach
probably the frame you should put on it
is that this is a show
and even though i do it in a
personal style you know almost like i'm
talking to you you have to know that
this is the
this is my public
presentation right
it wouldn't be it wouldn't be the same
in person
all right
and also i heard some criticism that i
never admit i'm wrong
i would just like to suggest
that the people who watch all of my
content don't have that opinion
the people who have sampled it probably
do
but i would i would say and i'll just
put this out there as a provocative
claim that no no public figure has
admitted they were wrong more than i
have
about you know in this topic about the
news i don't think any public figure
has admitted more times they've been
wrong except maybe
tucker carlson
am i wrong about this i feel as though
tucker carlson is one of the few people
who when he's wrong
and you know events prove it
that he starts his program by saying we
said x
we were totally wrong
and then he goes on to update the story
haven't you seen him do that
i feel like i've seen him do that a
number of times and it always stands out
as being honest
i try to do that
but i don't know if i succeed alright
enough about me here's all the fake news
how many of you believe that tony fauci
was behind some
research either funding it or otherwise
uh in animal cruelty in other words they
weren't testing animal cruelty they were
testing on monkeys
how many believe
how many believe that fauci was
somehow involved in
uh torturing monkeys for science
anybody believe that because i was on
the news yesterday it was all over the
internet yeah the answer is no
no
there's no truth to it there's no
connection between fauci
and any monkey research or animal dogs
anything
so apparently there's nothing to the
story
now here's the standard that i'm using
to decide whether it's true or not
so it's not my not my magic like i'm not
using magic to like look into the
details that you can't see i'm using a
simple standard
that if
one of the two networks cnn or fox news
reports it as true
and the other one debunks it believes
the debunk it doesn't matter which
direction
if one of them debunks a fact
and the other one says it's true it's
not true
if both of them say it's true
it's probably true
probably not certainly but probably
if only one of them says it's true it's
just never true i haven't seen an
exception
let me say that there could be
exceptions i just haven't seen one cnn
says uh actually not even cnn but
twitter's fact check says no there's no
connection
so i could be wrong
but i'd say
that's probably 95 chance that this
story is fake news so that's your first
fake news of the day
watch the pattern that emerges here
there's a pattern emerging and let's see
if you can see it but don't blame me the
messenger okay
because in a story or two you're gonna
get pretty mad at me
if if my prediction is correct you're
going to get a little bit mad at me in a
few stories
because you're going to notice the
pattern and you're not going to like it
at all
i don't think i'll have to tell you the
pattern you're going to see it yourself
all right here's the next one
uh well i'm going to skip around a
little bit but i'll make the i'll tell
you the pattern later so the alex
baldwin
story every time we get a new detail it
you just shake your head here's the
latest one apparently this same armorer
the the person who handles
the real and fake weapons on the movie
set
apparently was almost fired on a nicolas
cage movie
and this is what somebody said and i
quote
she didn't carry the firearm safely and
i'm thinking to myself huh
what would be a what would be a way to
carry firearms unsafely
because it seems like that'd be fairly
easy to carry them safely so how do you
do unsafely well here's the description
she had pistols
tucked under her armpits and was
carrying rifles in each hand okay that
would do it yeah that would do it
yeah pistols under each armpit
while you're carrying rifles with yeah
that would do it
yep
that would be what i would call unsafe
carrying of weapons
you would have to
yeah and apparently she even like turned
around a few times so the weapons were
aimed at people
so not only were they tucked under her
arm but she was like turning around so
that at any given time she was
[Laughter]
yeah exactly i'm looking at the comments
the the only one that captures all this
is
good lord
you know sometimes there's an
exasperated phrase that's the only one
that works i think this one is
good lord
that just covers it
how did she ever get this job well
apparently she is the daughter of a
famous
or a well-established hollywood person
who was an armorer so she's a legacy
that probably had something to do with
probably just people knew the knew the
parents
um
so joe joe biden's got uh
looks like he's negotiated with the
democrats
and getting down that uh so-called
infrastructure bill
to uh
to what
1.75 billion
started down at 3.5 trillion with a grab
bag of all these things they wanted but
they were unreasonable terribly
unreasonable so now they're being
negotiated back to 1.75
and there's some optimism that will get
passed
i'm going gonna still bet against it
what do you think i'm gonna bet against
the 1.75 passing only and the only
reason is has nothing to do with what's
in it has nothing to do with what's in
the bill
because we don't know who knows what's
in the freaking bill i'm just going to
say that i don't think congress can do
anything
i think congress is just permanently
useless
you're hearing my
my my cat is wanting to get out because
i've got the door closed
um
boo come up here and say hi
boo brow
come up here
yeah come up here
we'll see if i can call a cat that'll be
a good test
all right so nobody knows what's in this
bill but if biden gets this through
i'm going to
try to be consistent
if he asked for 3.5 trillion so that he
could get 1.75
and he succeeds
that is going to be a very trump-like
negotiating process starting high you
know the most basic thing you should do
in negotiating starting so high
that we got used to 3.5 trillion didn't
we
now we were always horrified by it
but we got a little bit used to it
didn't we
and by the time he says 1.75 trillion
does it sound a lot like a lot anymore
biden
biden made a trillion dollars sound like
it wasn't much money
and now
and now he'll get to uh
maybe go to a vote on this
so if
so let me uh
let me be clear about this
um if if trump had done this
let's say this bill was something i
approved of if trump had started at 3.5
trillion and managed to
get us used to it and then get 1.75 i
would think that was a damn good job
depending what was in the bill of course
now separate from what's in the bill
i'm gonna give biden
i'm gonna give him an a plus
i hate to tell you
but if he pulls this off it's an a plus
for just negotiating
because he actually convinced us this
3.5 was a lot and 1.75 well that's in
the ballroom that's in the range
that would be pretty amazing persuasion
i'm not saying i approve of the the bill
because none of us know what's in it
apparently we're going to approve this
bill or not but if we do approve it
maybe then we'll find out what's in it
you know it's garbage
don't you
i think we know it's garbage
all right
you can see uh
my my cat's little uh
uh feeding tube there i have to keep
that in for a little while all right
so i'm bored about this uh spending bill
the human infrastructure versus the
physical infrastructure
and uh
uh i don't know if it'll ever get
passed
um
here's some
here's a weird thing that's happening so
and you have to wonder if this is a
chinese plot
there are things happening in this
country
that are so
hard to explain in any way except
is this a chinese plot
did chi is china behind this no i'm not
saying they are
i'm just saying that
i'm just saying it looks like it because
you can't explain why else things like
this would happen here's a good example
so this is i think this was from
i forget where cnn may be
so these executives of the major fossil
fuel companies so mostly oil executives
etc we're coming to congress today
and they're going to
talk about disinformation on the climate
change crisis now when i read this i
said to myself oh this is what we need
this will be great all the oil
executives are going to talk to congress
about all the climate change
misinformation
so i thought to that i thought to myself
this is great this is basically the same
thing that michael schellenberger
testified to congress about i assumed
because as he testified if we kill our
uh and i think he said this he says it
on twitter and in his books etc
that
if we kill our existing
fossil fuel
stuff too quickly we'll snuff out all uh
you know our growth and our prosperity
and the growth and prosperity are the
single biggest things that cause you to
clean up the planet
so in other words the more oil you use
the cleaner you'll get
because
once you have
an industrial base
and things are working well then you
have the luxury
of buying a tesla
right so on a per person basis getting
rich first with carbon fuels and
building up your manufacturing
allows you to get to a clean world
whereas if you're a developing country
for example
you can't you can't develop with solar
and wind power there's not enough power
not reliable
and you would be there stuck in poverty
forever
or or what right so i thought that these
uh fossil executives were going to come
in
and to say that they were right all
along
that doing a lot of fossil fuels as as
much as we can would actually be better
for climate change in the long
it run out they're going to do the
opposite
they're going to come in and apparently
the the some members of congress are
going to try to get them to
admit that they've been lying on various
claims
about their role in the crisis so i
think that the oil executives probably
have some explaining to do
i'm sure they did some bs propaganda for
their side as well
but i think we framed this wrong didn't
we
this looks like chinese framing doesn't
it
because this is this is exactly what
trump warned us about
with climate change being a hoax right
now remember when he said it was a hoax
he wasn't really directly addressing the
science of it so much as the
the strategy the political strategy and
china was going to get a big gift
if we did what we were going to do which
is slow our own development while they
didn't slow theirs
so that was that was the hoax part i
think i mean i don't want to read
trump's mind but that's that would be
the reasonable interpretation
and now it looks like
congress has completely reversed from
the the michael schellenberger frame
which was the productive one
that you have to do some of these things
you don't like
to get to a place you do like
and
the new frame is you don't have to do
the things you don't like
you can just magically get to the new
place of clean energy but nobody knows
how
so this is pushing us into the loser
frame
whereas the schellenberger approach
would be the winning frame where you
could account for you know all the costs
and benefits and make a reasonable
decision
all right uh
i love this there's a famous venture
capitalist
under fire for calling new dads losers
if they take uh months of paternity
leave
uh was this joe lonsdale um
i think it was
and yeah
uh palantir co-founder joe lonsdale
he uh responded to a tweet wednesday
about
talking about pete buttigieg who took
time off for his child
and
joe lonsdale said quote any man in an
important position who takes six months
of leave for a newborn is a loser
in the old days men had babies and
worked harder to provide for their
future that's the correct masculine
response
now
if you'd like my opinion on this
i don't really have one you know that i
don't think this is a
i don't think this is a situation in
which my opinion should have anything to
do with you and your baby do you
do you think i should have an opinion
about what you do with your baby
no
no
i mean i suppose if i were in this
situation i'd want the option
and if i'm not in the if i'm not in the
situation i'll i'll just look to you uh
if you want the option
i think i can live with it i don't have
a problem with it
but i just love the fact that he would
say this opinion in public
it's just saying it and this is saying
it in public that makes it a funny story
it's not like a lot of people weren't
thinking it
but
it's
it's hilariously said in public anyway
uh
i i'm not really
um
you know completely uh defined by you
know the men have to be masculine
in every way in every situation or
anything like that but i think it's
perfectly fine for him to say it yes
so i'm glad you could say it without
getting cancelled i think he's he's rich
enough he doesn't get canceled
uh rasmussen has a
some poll results saying that the
majority across political spectrum so no
matter what party you are
um
you're concerned about what is being
taught in public schools now of course
you would be concerned in a different
way
if you're a democrat versus a republican
but a lot of people so 90 of republicans
66 percent of democrats
and 76 percent of the non-affiliated
people
are concerned that public schools may be
promoting controversial beliefs and
attitudes
i feel as if these numbers tell us that
the
traditional school system is dead
maybe not right away
but it looks like
we're we're about to be enter a
i don't know an irreversible
uh
trend
toward getting other people's
brainwashing away from your children
because it is brainwashing
the only difference between the modern
brainwashing and the old brainwashing
the old brainwashing was you know
patriotism and
melting pot and everything like that is
the old brainwashing was explicitly
designed
to turn kids into good citizens
you know patriots etc
now it was brainwashing you could argue
that it was unethical
but also militarily necessary
to to defend the homeland you have to
brainwash the children
to make them patriots now you could say
it's just education
but that's just word thinking it is what
it is we're training people who do not
have critical thinking
to have a specific point of view if you
train somebody who doesn't have yet have
critical thinking skills
into a specific point of view it's
brainwashing it might be productive and
that's what i'm saying it is but it's
still brainwashing it's not like they
it's not like you gave the kids some
information and let them make their own
decision
so brainwashing is universal but it used
to be the kind that we pretty much all
thought was a good idea
and now they're brainwashing them in
different ways
yeah not everybody agrees it's a good
way so i think that we
we have to develop a hybrid system
that's not doesn't have the problems of
homeschooling oh yeah there are problems
and doesn't have the
problems of public school
i feel like it's going to be you know
clusters of people who band together
maybe with the help of an app or some
parent company
and form i don't know groups of 12
people for homeschooling get together
somebody's house put on the big screen
tv
all you need is a parent somewhere in
the house
something like that there's going to be
some model that's neither
uh pure home school nor pure public
school that's inevitable
all right i've been trying not to follow
this virginia governor's race with terry
mcauliffe and somebody whose name i
forget young kim okay
and uh do you know this whole story is
fake news
the whole uh virginia governor race
whatever you heard about it it's fake
news let me give you an example um there
is there is a governor's race that
part's real
so i guess terry mcauliffe at one point
in the past said
when making his point about the limits
of parental behavior versus the school's
responsibility he said something like
you know parents can't just go in and
you know ban books on their own in the
school
do you agree with him
do you agree that parents
shouldn't be the ones who just like
unilaterally go in and say well there
are 20 of us who hate this book
so this book is gone
do you agree that
we shouldn't be banning books
based on some small group of people
thinking they should be banned
that's what terry mcauliffe said
and that got turned into parents can't
have any say about their school
right so that that got turned into
somehow he doesn't want parents to have
uh input in the school
that's just fake news
literally nobody thinks that
literally nobody
thinks that parents should have no input
in the school now there's a way to do a
right and there's a way to do it wrong
but literally nobody thinks that so if
you believe that terry mcauliffe
who i'm not supporting by the way i'm
just telling you what the fake news is
if you believe that he didn't think
parents should have a say in their
public education
i i don't think that's true
all right now if you think you heard it
um
i'm not going to be able to talk you out
of it
old fool scott that's the comment on you
youtube the old fool
he said that now some of you are saying
my god scott he said it directly
no
no he didn't
what does this sound like it sounds
exactly like when you thought
or the news thought trump called
neo-nazis fine people and the argument
was we saw it
scott
don't tell us it didn't happen when we
saw it
and i'm not the only one millions of
people saw it
so how could it not happen if we saw it
we heard it we saw it
easily
easily here here's my statement for why
without even watching it
without watching what you watched so i
didn't watch those debates but without
even
even without reading the the transcript
without reading the transcript without
educating myself on the topic without
watching any of the videos i'm going to
say with complete confidence that
there's nobody
including terry mcauliffe
who has the opinion that you have given
to him
nobody has that opinion nobody
not the whole world
including terry mcauliffe that's all i'm
going to say if you believe that you saw
it with your own eyes
and heard it with your own ears and read
it in the transcript
i say you didn't
okay
it's uncomfortable isn't it it's pretty
uncomfortable because the reason that
you watch me is that i've been right
more than i've been wrong i've been
wrong my fair share of course
of course
but it's uncomfortable isn't it because
you know that my
my uh
perception on this has been right more
than it's wrong and if it differs with
you
with yours you're saying to yourself
right now
is that possible
could i be this positive that this
really happened
and it never happened
that's what i think i think you're
positive it happened you're positive you
saw it and it didn't happen
because it couldn't happen
it's the same argument with the the hoax
that uh trump said drink bleach
or the hoax that trump said neo-nazis
are fine people the reason you know it
didn't happen it couldn't happen
it wouldn't have with anybody anywhere
in any in any reality those things can't
happen
so this also can't happen
it didn't happen in my opinion
it's not an analogy it's an example
an example is slightly different than
analogy you can give examples to show
that it happened but it would be proper
to pick on the analogy
um let's here's some more here's a
geraldo on the five yesterday they were
talking about inflation and geraldo
who's
now sitting in as the i guess
uh the liberal
liberal leaning
kind of player around the five he said
that inflation is partly a good thing
because that way employees would get
raises so there's some pressure on
employers to give raises to people and
raises are good things so maybe you
should see say that inflation is not all
bad it's not all bad because people got
raises
have i ever mentioned to you
that not everybody understands economics
and a lot of these people are in in the
news business
as someone quickly pointed out to him on
the five it didn't take long
uh
the
their salaries are going up but only in
the same amount as the prices are going
up
so you're not going to be able to buy
more gas
with your raise you'll buy the same as
you used to be able because the price of
gas went up too
so
now that would be good if nothing else
went up but if everything's going up
then everybody going to raise what's
better than not getting raised but it's
not good it's not positive it's just
keeping up
with something
let's talk about this story about the
boy in the skirt
who assaulted two times
and once in a bathroom
number one you would like me to say
scott scott scott you were so right when
you were so wrong
when you said i don't think that there's
a
transsexual element to the story but
then we found out that the boy does in
fact wear a skirt
now i called him a boy but that may be
incorrect because i think he says he's
non-binary
is that right non-binary or was it
gender fluid
which one was it gender fluid gender
fluid now
here's my understanding of the story
the reason it's a national story
is it a national story because there was
an assault
is that what makes a national story no
unfortunately because assaults are every
day
but we don't make them national stories
was it a national story because
this is the second time he did it and
the administrators or somebody in charge
should have made sure he didn't do it a
second time
is that what makes it a national story
no unfortunately because repeat
offenders are very very normal
so that didn't make it a national story
um
was it a
was it a national story because
we were worried that
not we because i wasn't worried but
there was a lot of worry that the
transgender rights would allow
uh people who were born with male
equipment
to pretend to be female and go into a
woman's restroom
and then do some raven
and this looks like exactly that doesn't
it
exactly what you were worried about
isn't it oh my god as soon as you let
these
what you would call men in quotes into
the ladies restroom there's going to be
sexual assaults it's going to be and
they hear it and sure enough here it was
is that what happened
because i don't think that's what
happened
i think it looks like here's here's how
it looks to me and this is really just a
framing so this would be an opinion not
a fact okay the way it looks to me
is that there was a kid who had two
issues
one issue is the
either wanted detention or was gender
fluid or whatever and then the second
issue is that he was a sexual offender
and i don't know that the two are
connected
let me ask you this
could we prevent sexual assaults
in the whole world
by uh keeping men out of women's
restrooms like how much of a difference
would it make
let's say you had some magic way to keep
anybody who was born with male equipment
they could never go into a woman's
restroom forever that just would never
happen how much of a difference in the
world would that make in terms of sexual
assaults
some
maybe some i don't know that it would
make much of a difference
so i don't think what here's what it
looks like to me
it looks like the world
the world on the right you know sort of
the ones who are not buying into the
trans rights arguments entirely
i think the people on the right were
looking for the perfect story
and this one came along and it wasn't
quite it
but it was forced into the perfect story
because i needed a perfect story to to
match that
narrative that the trans thing is going
to lead to
assaults and bathrooms i don't think
this was a trans situation was it
and here's my question
why do someone who is gender fluid get
to use
the other
the other restroom
is that a rule
if you're telling me that
transgenders can use you know the
restroom of their choice i'd say that's
one issue
you could agree or disagree but that's a
separate issue but gender fluid
whoever said that gender fluid people
could use whatever restroom they wanted
has that ever even been a conversation
has it
i always thought it was limited to the
trans people who have made up their mind
who they want to live as i i've never
heard it applied to people who weren't
sure or wanted to be a little of both
i've never heard of that have you
so it looks to me like
the way this fake news was manufactured
is taking something that reminded you of
a trans situation but wasn't
and made you think that that's what was
happening
that's what it looks like it looks like
fake news now the real part was the
assault
and the real part apparently was the
skirt which i predicted
you wouldn't find to be true
so i was wrong in that prediction about
the skirt
but it doesn't look like it fits the
model to me
um and i'm hearing here that the real
story is the cover-up so i understand
that there was a cover-up
but that doesn't make it a national
story
in any way whatsoever
right so all the things that you thought
were like important about this were
really just something that happened to
some individuals and it was tragic it
doesn't look like a national story to me
in any way then add the america garland
park oh now this is perfect
so suddenly
this this one anecdotal story
makes us
think about the parent of the victim of
that story that parent uh
caused some trouble at a school board
meeting i guess
and had to be removed and
so that makes us think you know we think
of this one story and then we think well
there's a lot of this happening
and then
the fake news is that merrick garland
was sicking the fbi on parents
how many do you think that's what
happened
how many of you believe the fake news
that merrick garland wrote a memo
saying that the parents of school boards
were
sort of like domestic terrorists
and they should be
looked at by the fbi
for their domestic terrorism stuff how
many think that that really happened
okay nothing like that happened
now i'm using the same standard
which is that i'm not saying cnn's
correct and fox news is incorrect
i'm saying that whichever says it didn't
happen is right
on any story
political story
any political story if one side it
doesn't matter which was
fox news or cnn if one side says it
didn't happen
you can depend on it it didn't happen
doesn't matter which side said it didn't
so here's what did happen
uh there was uh apparently the
administration worked with some national
school board association
and did write a letter so this was
not merrick garland
but this association wrote a letter uh
saying that these parents were like a
form of domestic terrorism but then
after the blowback they they withdrew it
and apologized
all right
so having nothing to do with
garland completely separate from him
some other organization called parents
domestic terrorism terrorists
but separate from that there does seem
to be some kind of an uptick
in maybe you know parental energy at
these meetings
and given that the energy and the let's
say the divisiveness is high
it looks like merrick garland was asked
to make sure that the fbi could be a
resource
should things get out of hand
and so merrick garland wrote a letter
that had nothing to do with parents
being domestic terrorists but simply
offered that the fbi would work with the
local law enforcement
should there be a
should there be a reason
should there be a reason
so
there was no there's no truth to the
story that america garland
called parents domestic terrorists
nor that he wrote a letter that would
treat them as such
nor that he was behind any
anything that would categorize them as
such and denied it completely and
there's no evidence of it
now you probably watched ted cruz
talking about it and
some of the other democrats and the way
they couched it it made it look as
though if you saw the videos out of
context it made it seem as though
merrick garland had in fact been seeking
the fbi on parents
and framing them as domestic terrorists
in some cases
nothing like that ever happened
nothing like that ever happened
there was a letter by the school board
that was
you know
overblown and they took it back so
that's done
that's done they apologized and took it
back so that letter's done
nobody else mentioned parents as being
domestic terrorists and nobody said the
fbi should be monitoring them they're
just available in case there is ever a
situation in which it becomes domestic
terrorism
is that wrong
maybe i wouldn't have done it maybe you
wouldn't have done it but it doesn't
really fit into any controversial bucket
that i can find
all right
um
so
this of course created the most
wonderful situation
so aaron rupar who is famous
uh for
uh tweeting misleading video clips you
know a clip out of context
so so famous for it that we even call
them roop our videos
so if i say
somebody published a rupaul video you
probably know oh that's one where they
took something out of context to change
its meaning
so he properly calls out
that
that's what's happening
so rupaul points out that the right is
taking stuff out of context and making
it look like
um merrick garland was you know calling
parents domestic terrorists nothing like
that happened today
rodzillo says scott is off today
what you know for sure is that you're
having a problem with what i'm saying
what you don't know for sure is i'm
wrong
the same way i don't know you for sure
you're wrong
what you know for sure is
i'm saying things that were not
compatible with what you thought but
that is exactly why you watch this
content
if i said what you already believed you
could just
watch fox news
because they're going to say exactly
what you believe
all right
um but
so rupaul is correctly calling out that
other people are ruparing videos at the
same time he reported new rupar
he rupard
he called people out for ruparing on
this topic and then immediately
he tweets a uh a roupart video meaning
out of context which accuses ted cruz of
defending a parent who did a nazi salute
did that happen
did ted cruz
defend a parent at a school board
meeting who did a nazi salute
yes
yes that's this is how roop our videos
work
yes
it's out of context
what was the context
the context was that the person who did
the salute
was mocking the school board for being
nazis
the person who did this loot and ted
cruz are anti-nazi
and using it as an insult
against the school board that was acting
like nazis in that context
that is pretty much the opposite of what
rupaul tweeted right but the fact that
he's calling out other people's rupaul
while he's rupauring
is pretty funny
pretty funny
yes it's just free speech and by the way
even if even if this person had done a
nazi salute
you could still defend them
you wouldn't agree with them but you
could defend it on free speech
but that's not what happened
you know there that wasn't the issue
they weren't pro-nazi in the first place
they were anti-nazi to begin with
all right uh here's another fake news in
my opinion the whole debate about who is
a woman or a man
is so ridiculous
so ridiculous we act like we're talking
about the same thing but it's a fake
it's a fake disagreement
uh the conservatives like to say
no it's the most basic question if you
can have babies you're a woman
you know if you have the other equipment
you're a man and that's it
there's no
there's no
shading it that's just it uh the whole
woman first man thing is settled by who
can reproduce and who can't
the
left
doesn't use the same definition and just
says
yeah we understand the whole who can
reproduce part but they also would like
somebody who feels that
they're more of the other gender than
they were born could have that right
these are not these are not disagreeing
opinions
these are two opinions that don't
disagree in any way
pretending they do
and then people are taking sides it's a
fake fight
there's nobody who is pro-trans who
doesn't understand
that uh you know gender and reproduction
were connected and
blah blah it's not like they don't know
that
there's nothing to debate there they
simply have a preference
for changing the definition
so here's
here's what's not a good argument i'll
make an analogy because you love those
let's say i say you know this word is
losing its
meaning for historical reasons why don't
we consider
changing the definition of the word
and here are the reasons why we should
change the definition
and then the conservatives say no the
word means
x
and then the other side okay yeah we
agree on that we agree what the word has
always meant
what we're suggesting is
that we update that and here's our
reason why
and then the conservatives say you idiot
that's not what the word means
and then the other side says okay i feel
like you're not understanding what i'm
saying
i'm not arguing who could have babies
and how it used to be and how that made
sense i'm saying here are my reasons
why we should update this
you can agree with them or disagree with
them but let's talk about my reasons and
then the conservatives say
i don't know how many times i can
explain this
that's not what the word means
you're not even having the same
conversation
so the reason i don't talk about this
much is that there's nothing to talk
about it's two people just having a
conversation with themselves
there's not even any anything there
so
that's my take on that
i'm going to run out of time quickly so
let me run through some things
wall street journal is having a fight
with itself because their opinion
their opinion
section printed trump's letter in which
he made claims which the fact people
don't agree with so i guess the news
people in the journal are mad at the
opinion people for printing a trump
opinion
now
what is an opinion section if it can't
have opinions including
fake facts
i don't know
i would i think i'm going to side with
the opinion piece
as long as the the body
fact-checks it don't you think that
opinion should be fact-checked
if it's in the same publication
what do you think of that
so i'm i'm okay with uh opinions being
wrong or even having fake news in them
but
i think the publication that puts such
an opinion in it should have a little
you know news fact checking
now it could you know have more than one
source because maybe the fact checkers
don't agree and that would be ideal
adam dopamine on twitter
had an interesting observation which i'm
going to agree with it goes like this
so you know that biden got elected by
simply not appearing in public
his biden's strongest
quality was that people didn't see him
talking
and if he did
did i lose a bunch of money on what
i don't know what you're talking about
no i haven't lost a bunch of money i
don't know what you're talking about
um
so biden won by not being seen
and lately we're seeing that kamal
harris is sort of being de-emphasized
could it be
that they're going to put kamala harris
on ice so you don't see anything about
her for months
until joe biden
let's say retires
for medical reasons
and then you don't have any uh current
fake news or even real news about
harris
so the idea would be
that they'll keep her out of the light
because the more you see her the less
you like her
all right
um
this is pretty good idea this just came
to be
a tweet by carmine
sabia
he said every democrat voted against a
mandate to vaccinate those crossing the
border
every single one
tell me more about the science
that's interesting i'm not i don't i
don't have an opinion yet because i
haven't thought about it long enough
but
this is a very provocative idea to
require mandatory vaccinations for all
immigration across the border
if we believe in the science
you kind of have to believe in this
don't you if you believe in any kind of
mandate and you believe in the science
wouldn't you have to be in favor of this
apparently every democrat voted against
it
did that really happen i don't know that
there was a bill about that but i assume
carmine knows
that's it's a good question i'm not sure
what
i'm not sure my opinion on that because
i'm opposed to mandates
but if you're going to have mandates
why wouldn't you apply them in a
rational
way it's a good point
all right um
you think your state is awesome watch
this i live in california and there's a
reason california
is the best
we had of course uh problems with the
forest fires here pretty big problems
how do we solve our forest fire problem
crisis
with a storm crisis
we added a gigantic rainstorm
to solve our other crisis and it did we
solved our forest fires with our
rainstorm so thank goodness for climate
change because it probably made all that
worse so they say
now but it but we're even smarter than
that
you know school choice was a big problem
people were not into it well we solved
school choice with covet
the pandemic pretty much made everybody
sick of
the school system so probably more
school choice coming we got that going
traffic was a gigantic problem in
california but thanks to covid we use
that to solve the commuting problem
and it looks like we also have an energy
problem in california we run out of
energy sometimes but it looks like we're
going to solve the energy problem by
the supply chain crisis the supply chain
will be so bad nobody can go anywhere
and buy anything
so
i think the energy shortage is solved as
well so only california can solve a
crisis with a crisis
about you your state didn't think of
that
you give us a crisis we'll find another
crisis to solve that crisis
now you might say but scott that leaves
you with whatever crisis you use to
solve the other one sure
but is that a problem not if you can
solve it with another crisis
you just keep solving things with one
crisis after another
i don't think there's anything wrong
with that idea
is there
all right
there's a reverse discrimination case a
white male
uh marketing vp in some hospital in a
north korean lineup got 10 million
dollars because he was fired to make
room for a
white woman and a black woman to replace
him in his position
and apparently he's not the only one
in his complaint he alleged that the
same thing happened to the chief legal
officer the medical group president the
chief information officer the patient
experience officer and the president of
blah blah something else
they were all replaced either by a black
person or a woman in the 12 to 18 months
after him
the jury
agreed with him
the jury
agreed with him
that his complaint was valid
he was being replaced because of his
ethnicity and his gender
and that a whole bunch of people have
been replaced for that reason
[Music]
now let me ask you this i i don't know
if i've seen a case where people were
fired to make room for diversity but
i've certainly seen lots of cases where
people could only get a job if they were
the right
um
ethnicity including me so if you know my
story when i worked in corporate america
i was told explicitly that i couldn't be
promoted because i was white and male
let me ask you this
if you were to compare the numbers of
explicit
racism of the old-fashioned way where
let's say somebody who's black or lgbtq
or a woman is discriminated against for
who they are
in a corporate setting let's say a big
company a big corporation
how much of that do you think you get
compared to the reverse discrimination
what do you think is the ratio
of real discrimination you know the
classic kind against let's say black
americans in particular
versus this kind where there was a white
person who was discriminated with in
corporate america not in the small small
businesses that would be different
i would say one to ten or maybe one to a
hundred
maybe one to a hundred yeah
google red herring scott
make a point will you
like
such a dumb ass
comments like that just have no purpose
here you should just stop watching this
content
should go just go away
somebody's over there on youtube saying
red herring scott red herring i don't
even know what freaking topic you're
talking about
could you do a little bit better than
that
go google red herring go google red
herring
come on do better
improve your game
there's a antidepressant that looks like
it helps with covet
fluvoxamine
and maybe others too apparently it's an
anti-inflammatory
interesting
what are the odds that the reason that
fluvoxamine works as an antidepressant
is that it is an anti-inflammatory
if that's the only mechanism that makes
it happen let me ask you this
have you discovered that people are
complaining a lot about inflammation
in the comments tell me is there
somebody in your life and it might be
you
who is complaining about inflammation a
lot
like everybody's talking about it like i
got this inflammation
yeah look at look at the comments
yes yes yes i am yes yes i feel as
though there might be some correlation
between inflammation and depression
and maybe anxiety and that we're there's
something in the environment and maybe a
lot of things maybe our lifestyle maybe
our food maybe a lot of things
is causing inflammation
and i have a
sneaking suspicion
that inflammation makes you feel
depressed
and
do you know what weed does
it's an anti-inflammatory
it makes you happy
fluvoxamine it's an anti-inflammatory
it makes you happy
pattern recognition people uh you know i
mean it would just be something i'm
curious about but i'll bet if you
googled
um anti-inflammatory and antidepressant
you would find that somebody and i
haven't done this i just had this
thought
uh about you would find that somebody's
looking into it
now uh
aspirin too maybe
yeah aspirin too maybe
um all true
breton zone prednisone is an
anti-inflammatory and also used against
covet but i don't know if it oh god when
i was on oh
good point when i was on prednisone
that literally makes you happy
and you're also very un
you have no inflammation
that's a good example i wonder if
does ivory mech didn't work that way is
ivermectin an anti-inflammatory
i don't know
yeah exercise is uh
it blows up your body right i don't know
what you mean
all right well let's keep an eye on this
because this flu voxamine is really
cheap and if it works woohoo
i have a plan to make the u.s postal
service solvent
just have a premium service in which i
can pay them to not deliver my mail i
would pay the post office to stop
bringing garbage to my house
i would pay 300 a year to turn off my
mail service so they won't deliver
anything
just nothing not first class mail not
anything i would pay three hundred
dollars a year to just turn it off
there you go
budestone
yes okay
maybe we we've we've cured the pandemic
here i gotta run bye for now
