Episode 232 Scott Adams - The Battle of the Sexes, 2018

Oh pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom boom Peter Duke come on in here hey Jen a UNIX mark Tyler Tyler you're always in here early you got fast fingers based diva hello well we got lots of talk about and when I say we have a lot to talk about I'm mostly talking about Bret Cavanaugh's junk right remember when we used to talk about North Korea and the economy and president Trump's tweets do you remember those days it seems so long ago now yeah now it's pretty much non-stop talk about Bret Cavanaugh's genitalia so let's get to it after the simultaneous hip join me will you mm simultaneous hip raise your copy of glassier Chellis your mug coffee optional so there's a poll asking who do you believe in the Cavanaugh situation and Christine Ford people who believe hurt 36 percent Brett Kavanaugh 30% some more people believe in Kristine Ford but almost an equal number of both of those categories are unsure now how does that poll compare to the poll you saw that said only 25% of women believed the accuser completely different right right and this is a Fox News poll so you would expect that they would want this they would want the result to come out saying that nobody believes the accuser you know you would assume that that would be their bias so that first poll that people like me tweeted around absolutely fraudulent who did that first poll that said there was only a 25 or 28% people believed Kristen's Christine Ford I think Tucker highlighted it I'm sure I tweeted it and when I find out where that came from I won't be I won't be tweeting that source again ever so the first thing you should keep in mind is that that first poll you saw is so different from this one that one of them is just made up this one is the Fox Fox one is opposite of what you think their bias should be so it automatically is more credible because it doesn't support their own you know preferred story one assumes whereas the other one was just oh so yeah it was a Huffington Post poll so Huffington Post had a poll this is weird what's happened to the world so Huffington Post ran a poll result there was a opposite of what they would want it to be and then it was debunked by a Fox News poll that was the opposite of what Fox News would want it to be is that a step in the right direction I don't know I don't know if that's a step in the right direction all right let's talk about a few more things it does it doesn't seem like it's shaping up this Thursday event with Christine forward and Kavanagh Christine Ford's testifying in particular does it seem like this battling up it's forming the battle of the sexes again those of you who are not old enough let me explain what the battle of the sexes refers to so it was the 70s I think in which X number one tennis player male tennis player Bobby Riggs who was sort of a famous gambler you know crazy personality guy he bet Billie Jean King who was the at the time the current number one female player that he could player in tennis and beat her she's the number one best female player in the world at the time and he was a retired older or I forget in his late 50s or whatever he was but he was way past his prime but he said that even past his prime a man could beat a woman at tennis now it was all great fun and I remember watching it live when I was a kid and we didn't know who would win it was actually really interesting I had no idea as it turns out Billie Jean King won and it was considered a big a big event in terms of the overall work of men and women now it seems to me that this Cavanaugh conformation is lining up to really not be about Cavanaugh anymore it started that way but it's not really about Cavanaugh anymore is it doesn't seem like it's really another battle of the sexes because the objections to Cavanaugh are almost entirely based on what what people believed he would rule in terms of women's reproductive rights that's the main issue right so it's primarily about a gender difference and preference and all of the discussion of whether he did or did not do the things which he is accused of doing have everything to do with the credibility of women making it making accusations so this is what makes it a battle of the sexes because it's left the the battle has left the field of these two people and whether one person gets a job it's no longer about that it's no longer about somebody getting appointed it's now elevated to the bigger question of power you know who has the power do women have the power in in this case it would be to be believed without the benefit of corroborating support or do men have the power which is the ability to you know presumably abuse and get away with it a lot and also the power to not be accused of something you didn't do and to still be innocent until proven guilty so there's a lot on the line here that has nothing to do with the individuals involved has a lot to do with our bigger impression of the patriarchy versus the matriarchy who has power who doesn't can a man ever run for office what will happen to what will happen to the sons you know will it be safe for men and women to even be together you know would it if you're watching this and you're in the corporate world I just saw tweet this morning somebody in the corporate world said that they've discontinued all all private contact with women just discontinued in a business setting so in a business setting this is someone who won't make a phone call privately to a woman it will actually require someone else to be on the call it requires a witness to a phone call and you say to yourself well that's crazy you don't need a witness just to make a phone call a man to a woman in a business setting but maybe you do all right it's not crazy it's sort of them yeah the mike pence rule attenuated a little bit I'm sure he makes phone calls to women but yeah you could take it to that extreme and you wouldn't be crazy it wouldn't be crazy it would just be safe so what do you think this is going to do to turnout gender-wise seems to me that women would be highly incented I would imagine that they turnout for the midterm among women would be very high what would be the turnout among men if you were to guess what more would there be a greater increase in turnout of men or a greater increase in turnout for women based on you know what's in the atmosphere right now what would you guess more men or more women now here's a yeah I was going to say something and I'm pulling back we're gonna change the subject and keep myself out of trouble I noticed that Michael Moore's movie did you see the the box office results for Michael Moore's new movie it's it's called Fahrenheit 11:9 referring to the day after the election and it's an anti-trump movie I believe the Michael Moore movie let me give you the actual numbers because it's it's shocking how poorly it did now he's not Michael Bohr is not a you know box office draw anymore but still let's see if I can give you the real number that headline has already disappeared darn it somebody he'll tell me but it not only did it bomb it almost didn't exist it was it did so poorly that it was almost non-existent in the box office you know I think the the total income was in the low few thousands of dollars and you've noticed that if I were to ask you all right I'm gonna ask you a question in a minute and I want you to give me the first three names that come to mind all right so I want you to name the first three people who have come to mind and here it is male Democrats go the first three male Democrats you think of male Democrats go now some of you thought of Michael Moore Chuck Schumer and and most of you are watching men being excoriated that even word and it seems to me that the brand the Democrat brand is just so it's so flagrantly anti male at this point that I just don't know how men can be members of that party actually I'm actually I don't know how it works oh damn it I was just going to tell you something very interesting and oh the hero was so I was watching Tucker Carlson show the other day and there's a there's an anti-trump Democrat whose name I don't remember you'll recognize them he's one of them one of the regulars who comes on Tucker's show and argues against Trump he's got a shaved head and he likes to get off target he likes to leave the topic until dr.

Elsa and my camera member is named by the way he's one of the standard representatives of the Democrats and here's an interesting thing you said he was talking about how they I guess is the Judiciary Committee he has a bunch of old white men now other people have said that and it's actually a good point you know we live in a diverse society why is some important representative group just a bunch of white men so it's the point perfectly good point but here's the way the anti-trump er Democrat explained it he said the entire committee has no as no ethnic you know diversity whatsoever so far good point so far fair statement the Judiciary Committee has no you know ethnic diversity and that he went out to say more importantly it has no women more importantly how important is more importantly so here's the guy representing the Democrats and with nobody questioning this statement he said that this group of that are all just old white men has no diversity you know no ethnic diversity and you go good point and then he says more importantly it doesn't have women and I thought to myself more importantly interesting now it might be more important I'm not going to say that the point is wrong the point might have been right that maybe that's the balance that we needed you know even more than ethnic diversity because it's the courts and or more they're more more things about reproductive rights than there are things about other things so his point may have been completely good but here's the interesting part even Tucker let it go as a non-controversial statement you know something not worth following up on that he said publicly and clearly representing Democrats and nobody questioned it they're having more female representatives on the group is more important than having ethnic diversity now what have I been telling you is the brand-- problem that the Democrats have the brand problem is that they're they they seem to have more interest in solving the problems of women than solving the problems of let's say African Americans and you can see that fairly clearly in that in that comment but mostly because it was non-controversial that a simple statement that getting more women on the committee is more important than getting let's say African Americans on the committee and that nobody questioned that Richard Goodstein maybe that sounds right but I'm not sure I won't confirm that let's talk about let's talk about James Woods so he is apparently refusing to delete the offending tweet and so James Woods as supposed to be you know got suspended from Twitter but he can go back on as soon as he defends the offending tweet now part of the issue which I didn't know about is that apparently his girlfriend is the one who retweeted this thing that was an old beam that James Woods had tweeted a long time ago and didn't get in trouble the first time but this time you did what is his girlfriend did not so his girlfriend tweeted it but did not get did not get blocked or suspended and I also wonder what about all the other people who retweeted it why don't they also get suspended if one person can get suspended why can't all the people who retweeted it now it's probably good that that's not the rule that that the only one who gets suspended is the creator of the not the meme in this case but the creator of the message that went with a meme which is presumably what made it worse that's a good question what why did the retweet errs get a pass I don't know so I told you my take on it which is that because the way James Woods presented the meme is probably what was problematic because he said it's probably not true but it could be true in this world which leaves open the possibility it's true which is just enough oxygen that you could expect other people to think it is true right and since other people thinking it is true could influence the election which I think it could actually it was a strong meme it was strong enough that it actually could move people not many but it could move a few people and so Twitter's rules are essentially they don't want fake news moving elections which is a good a good objective it's just hard to execute because there's a lot of judgment call now here's here's the interesting point that comes out of the whole James Woods thing before we could measure the impact of persuasion we we couldn't make it illegal right we nobody would try to kick you off social media for being persuasive it's only and you know in all of the questions about Google and the big companies whether or not they're biasing the algorithms all of that stuff that stuff only matters because we've entered an age where where our persuasion gets measured that were thinking of measuring it even when we can't measure it so in the case of let's say the Russian persuasion we couldn't really measure if anything happened I think the impact was probably so close to zero it didn't make a difference but the fact that we live in a world where there is persuasion and we understand what it is and we can we can recognize it a little better but we also now have technology to measure it pretty quickly you try this meme you compare it to this meme and you see which one gets more clicks so once you can measure something it takes on new importance alright so here's the key point once you can measure something it takes on new importance because things that we can measure we care about things we think are true and may be happening but are hard to measure we don't care about the reason that global warming climate change is such a big international issue in part is because it's measurable now there's a big debate about whether it's being measured correctly or interpreted correctly but that's less important than the fact we've entered an age where we're making serious efforts to measure it once you can measure it or you think you can measure it or someone thinks they can measure it it gains new importance so the fact we can measure persuasion almost guarantees it will someday be illegal let me ask you this if you could measure how how how persuasive I am let's just say that was possible it might be possible it's almost possible oh but let's say let's say you could measure how how persuasive I am just personally just as a personality on Twitter and periscope if you could measure how I change people's votes and I think we're very close to the point where at least the tech companies could measure that even if I can't and let's say they looked at my persuasion and it was all weighted in one direction well say it was weighted Republican and it was measurable and let's say that I didn't have any any gross factual errors that you know are clearly something I made up right so I might be wrong on some facts but that would be like everybody else as long as it looks like I didn't make up facts just to you just to change the election but let's say just I know you make sure you make fun of the way I say measure the measurements I come from the upper upstate New York we measure but you can measure if you want to measure so would it be someday illegal for someone who is trained in persuasion to be super persuasive and wait'll I finish this this thought if we all agree that fake news that moves that moves an election should be eliminated from the platform's what about people like me who don't use any fake news or at least not intentionally we I would never do that intentionally but I can absolutely move outcomes shouldn't I be kicked off the platform should night because if I can move people's opinion without changing you know any factual news and you know nothing's untrue I can just move people's opinion do they have free will is it free will if the information you get from me is exactly the same as why you rather than the news but the way I framed it the words I use the you know the emphasis I put on things the techniques I used actually change your opinion in the way you could measure should I be illegal on social media now the reason that this sounds like a ridiculous question is because there are very few people who are actually persuasive it's kind of rare it's it's one of the reasons that President Trump you know enjoys pretty much an empty field when it comes to persuasion he's sort of the only one who's good at it at the moment who was even in the political realm on social media there are lots of people who have big followings and stuff but there aren't that many people who were actually trained to persuade all right Mike sort of itch he's one he's trained he actually actually has the background the knowledge he's written books and the topic he writes about it he's persuasive and you can tell by the number of followers he has that you know it's it's pretty obvious so would people like us someday be kicked off of social media just for being persuasive what do you think I think it depends how persuasive we are see if you're thinking to yourself no you could never you could never criminalize or punish just being persuasive that would be going way too far and I say only because you can't measure it well the moment you could measure how much impact I had on the 26th 2016 election if it were possible to know how much impact I personally had on that election I would be kicked off social media I'm pretty sure that's true now it might it might have to happen in a indirect way they might have to find something I did that violates a rule that I didn't know I was violating you know I haven't I don't think I've ever intentionally violated any rule on social media I can't think of any time I've done that yeah I'll be falsely accused of something but just think about that point the only reason it's legal is because they have not yet found a effective way to measure it that it was objective all right am i persuading Twitter to kick me off I'm not I would hope to persuade them otherwise alan dershowitz hmm okay so what is your net net of that let's go back to Cavanaugh for a minute because it's the interesting thing oh by the way I treated this morning it was pretty popular tweet and I said what are the odds were going to get to the end of this week without a description of Cavanaugh's genitalia and matching it to some kind of vegetable or fruit I'm going to say that the odds of getting to the end of this week with in an actual description of his genitalia is low now I'll tell you I don't know who would who would try to get that job ever again give you imagine you know if somebody I I've actually considered this in the past I've thought to myself oh I'd make it pretty good I'd make a pretty good Supreme Court justice if they if they took people who had never been lawyers and then I thought I thought I would who would want to go through this process I sure wouldn't can he make a persuasion scale to say it was who was more persuasive on 1 1 to 10 oh yeah and and by the way the latest accusation is that he exposed his private part when he was 14 am I wrong that that's roughly the age that he is accused of doing this new thing right the am I wrong about that the age it was an accusation that he may have exposed himself when he was 14 years old and we're treating it and and that and that if he did it was in the context of a joke because they were pretending to do something blah blah so it wasn't you know I'm not I'm not defending it so let me say that clearly I'm not defending it I'm describing it and I'm describing it as the context was a joke let me tell you a incident that happened at my restaurant I owned so years ago my restaurant manager her name is Stacy the restaurants closed now so this is past past history she was working so she was the my co-owner and manager of the restaurant and she was working in the the the walk-in freezer and she was down she was crouched down organizing some boxes or something so sue she's doing something on the floor and one of the server's who was a friend of hers so he worked there so he was an employee but there were also friends they knew each other pretty well he he took a sausage you know just like a sausage and apparently spent a little time in the kitchen carving the end of the sausage so that it looked let's say a little more lifelike if you know what I mean and he took the sausage and he put it through his pants zipper so that what he walked into the walk-in closet to surprise to surprise Stacy I was a freshman at Yale okay so I had the year Rome he was 18 the accusation is it was 18 so that's a correction if everybody missed this we're not talking about freshman in high school we're talking about freshman in college that's the accusation so Kavanaugh would have been 18 if if what I'm saying in the comments is right sounds right so so the the the server puts the sausage through his pants so it looks like it belongs to him he's spent some time to do some carving on the end of it to make it look more realistic but it's still the the shape and texture of a sausage so he walks into the the walk-in where Mike co-owner of the restaurant Stacey was crouched down so she was probably on her knees or to crouch down and he he says you know something to her and she turns around and comes face the sausage with a sausage that he has put through his pants supper now here's the question how long did he keep his job so did the server get fired on the spot what happened well in this case she thought it was the funniest thing she's ever seen in her life because it totally fooled her for a moment so when she turned around she actually thought it was not only part of the server you know so she did think it was part of his body but because it was literally a carved sausage there was it was like hideous at the same time so she thought it was real and hideous simultaneously as she was surprised and she saw and she screamed but when she realized the joke she she thought it was like the funniest thing she's ever seen and she told all her friends and you know she loves telling the story and not only did he keep his job he was you know one of the favorite employees now when you hear that story you're probably saying to yourself well if somebody did that in my office they would not keep their job very long and of course everything depends on the situation and the people and how well do you know the person and you know is this really a joke or is this sexual harassment a lot of it just depends on the person in this case yeah this was this was clearly a situation where you could imagine someone getting fired it were you know practically arrested probably not arrested but you could certainly see somebody getting fired for it or written up or something but because they knew each other you know nothing like that was the case it was just a very inappropriate funny time yeah she was not in the category of people don't have a sense of humor that's true so I asked you earlier to name three men they remind you of Democrats so who are the three men who were Democrats and I would think Michael Moore comes to mind Chuck Schumer Cory Booker who are your three who are the top three Democrats you think of so anyway my point is that if the three men you think about if you're a if you're a woman and you think of political people the three Democrats you think ever Michael Moore Harvey Weinstein Chuck Schumer that's a that is a sad sad place to be a man Biden yeah you got a raise okay that's funny if Harvey Weinstein was good-looking would this be an issue of course he would of course it would so his intention the key yeah intention intention does make a big difference it's not enough to keep you out of jail but it certainly should make a difference so but think about this here's something I've said before why is it that you're rubbing against your own pants typically doesn't make you sexually aroused it's because the physical contact isn't really the thing it's it's always been a mental process so intention does matter yeah there's a reason that your doctor can touch you and it's not arousing and something else can touch you and it is so the intention is it's a big part yeah because we we register intention as important Tim Kaine yes Rosen Stein resigning somebody says I'll bet that's not real I'll just google that to see if that were true it would be a headline but apparently it's not not true a Booker and chef yeah I guess there's I guess there aren't too many you know manly men on either side but yeah that's somebody said Mc.

Cabe that's funny your answers are mean anyway I think the battle of the sexes is on and the Thursday will be the day is that is the accusers is her testimony going to be public can somebody tell me that will Christine Ford's testimony be public and televised or not because I would think she would ask for it not to be but I haven't heard somebody answer that for me please will the testimony be public I hate this delay I wish your answers could be here in real time yes you can't tickle yourself to my prior point about intention the reason you can't tickle yourself is probably because you know you know your own intentions and you know you know what it's going to feel like sois well yes well Wells up-and-comer these is my Congress person here I've met him a few times through mutual friends so you know if you're up let's talk about Abu Dhabi now when you think of Arvind AMI who do you think of stormy Daniels right so avenatti stormy Daniels avenatti stormy Daniels it's impossible not to think of stormy Daniels and therefore porn in porn stars so avenatti has attached himself to this new headline because he's good at attaching himself to headline there he has apparently some new witness he was going to say something about Kavanagh now if you were on the side of fighting against Kavanagh so so there were two sides there's the pro Kavanagh and there's the anti Kavanagh of the Democrats mostly if you're on the Democratic side and you're saying oh ho we've got this we've got all the good people on our side saying let's you know let's do the right thing let's take calculation seriously you know we're on the side of the Angels here we're looking good wait we just joined our side Michael who who just joined our side Michael a vanetti he's on our side now Mike Michael a vanetti the guy who's defending the porn star okay this is not helping our brand this is not helping so the only thing that could make the allegations against Kavanagh look less important and less respectable this is Michael a vanetti it has nothing to do with his his talent has nothing to do with whether his the person he's representing is telling the truth has nothing to do with that unit it's just we make this automatic association with stormy Daniels and because she's in an industry which has a low regard probably presumably on the left he just brings with it some some psychological baggage that he's bringing to his his new client who who may not be a porn star probably not but she's got a porn store the the new client has a porn star lawyer as her lawyer so that's not a good look either so in terms of the battle of the sexes I would say that the Democrats were essentially the party of women at this point you know primarily the party for and about women again not saying that's good or bad just observing that there's a serious gender difference between the parties now and which is not to say that Republicans are the party of men but they are the party that has men and has women who like men and it seems a little different than than the Democrats so Fox News is reporting Rob know that Rosenstein is let's see that let's see that because I don't see that it's not on their website that would be the top thing let's look on Rosen's we'll find this out in real time oh my god CNBC is reporting it rod Rosenstein is reportedly resigning according to CNBC he's expecting to be fired da and it could be immediate so actually so ACCI OSIS the is the basis source for the reporting and it cites a source familiar with the matter okay so we have an anonymous source familiar with the matter does that mean he's really resigning no it does seem likely he would resign and it seems reasonably would reasonable he would and you could certainly predict it but so far we have a story that depends on Axios having citing a source familiar with the matter that's nothing if we've learned anything if we've learned anything it's that that's nothing anonymous source familiar with the matter alright so I won't be surprised if he does resigned but I I wouldn't put any credibility in an anonymous source familiar with the matter no credibility we don't live in that world anymore yeah I know CNBC is reporting him but they're reporting it based on Axios reporting at least that's the way it's stated here on CNBC's website and Fox News says reports say sounds like every one of these reports say is probably going back to the same anonymous source that we can't check and we wouldn't you be surprised if he's not resigning doesn't rod Rosen Stein sword a need to resign so it was only a matter of time whether he was fired or resigned so it doesn't that much actually as it possible Trump is riling up women intentionally no why would even do that has resigned so that'll be interesting who would replace rod Rosenstein or Steen that matters and would Jeff Sessions be the one to hire their replacement it's his job somebody said why are you surprised I said the opposite I said I said it's likely that he would resign eventually but whether or not this story is true that he's resigning right now you can't give it credibility based on an anonymous report okay that's all for now I will talk to you all later bye for now

Oh pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom

boom

Peter Duke come on in here hey Jen a

UNIX mark Tyler Tyler you're always in

here early you got fast fingers based

diva hello

well we got lots of talk about and when

I say we have a lot to talk about

I'm mostly talking about Bret

Cavanaugh's junk right remember when we

used to talk about North Korea and the

economy and president Trump's tweets do

you remember those days it seems so long

ago now yeah now it's pretty much

non-stop talk about Bret Cavanaugh's

genitalia so let's get to it

after the simultaneous hip join me will

you mm simultaneous hip raise your copy

of glassier Chellis your mug coffee

optional so there's a poll asking who do

you believe in the Cavanaugh situation

and Christine Ford people who believe

hurt 36 percent Brett Kavanaugh 30% some

more people believe in Kristine Ford but

almost an equal number of both of those

categories are unsure now how does that

poll compare to the poll you saw that

said only 25% of women believed the

accuser completely different right right

and this is a Fox News poll so you would

expect that they would want this they

would want the result to come out saying

that nobody believes the accuser you

know you would assume that that would be

their bias

so that first poll that people like me

tweeted around absolutely fraudulent who

did that first poll that said there was

only a 25 or 28% people believed

Kristen's Christine Ford

I think Tucker highlighted it I'm sure I

tweeted it and when I find out where

that came from

I won't be I won't be tweeting that

source again ever so the first thing you

should keep in mind is that that first

poll you saw is so different from this

one that one of them is just made up

this one is the Fox Fox one is opposite

of what you think their bias should be

so it automatically is more credible

because it doesn't support their own you

know preferred story one assumes whereas

the other one was just oh so yeah it was

a Huffington Post poll so Huffington

Post had a poll this is weird what's

happened to the world so Huffington Post

ran a poll result there was a opposite

of what they would want it to be and

then it was debunked by a Fox News poll

that was the opposite of what Fox News

would want it to be is that a step in

the right direction I don't know I don't

know if that's a step in the right

direction all right let's talk about a

few more things it does it doesn't seem

like it's shaping up this Thursday event

with Christine forward and Kavanagh

Christine Ford's testifying in

particular does it seem like this

battling up it's forming the battle of

the sexes again those of you who are not

old enough let me explain what the

battle of the sexes refers to so it was

the 70s I think in which X number one

tennis player male tennis player Bobby

Riggs

who was sort of a famous gambler you

know crazy personality guy he bet Billie

Jean King who was the at the time the

current number one female player that he

could player in tennis and beat her

she's the number one best female player

in the world at the time and he was a

retired older or I forget in his late

50s or whatever he was but he was way

past his prime but he said that even

past his prime a man could beat a woman

at tennis now it was all great fun and I

remember watching it live when I was a

kid and we didn't know who would win it

was actually really interesting I had no

idea as it turns out Billie Jean King

won and it was considered a big a big

event in terms of the overall work of

men and women now it seems to me that

this Cavanaugh conformation is lining up

to really not be about Cavanaugh anymore

it started that way but it's not really

about Cavanaugh anymore is it doesn't

seem like it's really another battle of

the sexes because the objections to

Cavanaugh are almost entirely based on

what what people believed he would rule

in terms of women's reproductive rights

that's the main issue right so it's

primarily about a gender difference and

preference and all of the discussion of

whether he did or did not do the things

which he is accused of doing have

everything to do with the credibility of

women making it making accusations so

this is what makes it a battle of the

sexes because it's left the the battle

has left the field of these two people

and whether one person gets a job it's

no longer about that it's no longer

about somebody getting appointed it's

now elevated to the bigger question of

power

you know who has the power do women have

the power in in this case it would be to

be believed without the benefit of

corroborating support or do men have the

power which is the ability to you know

presumably abuse and get away with it a

lot and also the power to not be accused

of something you didn't do and to still

be innocent until proven guilty so

there's a lot on the line here

that has nothing to do with the

individuals involved has a lot to do

with our bigger impression of the

patriarchy versus the matriarchy who has

power who doesn't can a man ever run for

office what will happen to what will

happen to the sons you know will it be

safe for men and women to even be

together you know would it if you're

watching this and you're in the

corporate world I just saw tweet this

morning somebody in the corporate world

said that they've discontinued all all

private contact with women just

discontinued in a business setting so in

a business setting this is someone who

won't make a phone call privately to a

woman it will actually require someone

else to be on the call it requires a

witness to a phone call and you say to

yourself well that's crazy you don't

need a witness just to make a phone call

a man to a woman in a business setting

but maybe you do all right

it's not crazy it's sort of them yeah

the mike pence rule attenuated a little

bit I'm sure he makes phone calls to

women but yeah you could take it to that

extreme and you wouldn't be crazy

it wouldn't be crazy it would just be

safe so what do you think this is going

to do to turnout gender-wise

seems to me that women would be highly

incented I would imagine that they

turnout for the midterm among women

would be very high

what would be the turnout among men if

you were to guess what more would there

be a greater increase in turnout of men

or a greater increase in turnout for

women based on you know what's in the

atmosphere right now what would you

guess more men or more women now here's

a yeah I was going to say something and

I'm pulling back we're gonna change the

subject and keep myself out of trouble

I noticed that Michael Moore's movie did

you see the the box office results for

Michael Moore's new movie it's it's

called Fahrenheit 11:9 referring to the

day after the election and it's an

anti-trump movie I believe the Michael

Moore movie let me give you the actual

numbers because it's it's shocking how

poorly it did now he's not Michael Bohr

is not a you know box office draw

anymore but still let's see if I can

give you the real number that headline

has already disappeared darn it somebody

he'll tell me but it not only did it

bomb it almost didn't exist it was it

did so poorly that it was almost

non-existent in the box office you know

I think the the total income was in the

low few thousands of dollars and you've

noticed that if I were to ask you all

right I'm gonna ask you a question in a

minute and I want you to give me the

first three names that come to mind all

right so I want you to name the first

three people who have come to mind and

here it is male Democrats go the first

three male Democrats you think of male

Democrats

go now some of you thought of Michael

Moore Chuck Schumer and and most of you

are watching men being excoriated that

even word and it seems to me that the

brand the Democrat brand is just so it's

so flagrantly anti male at this point

that I just don't know how men can be

members of that party actually I'm

actually I don't know how it works

oh damn it I was just going to tell you

something very interesting and oh the

hero was so I was watching Tucker

Carlson show the other day and there's a

there's an anti-trump Democrat whose

name I don't remember you'll recognize

them he's one of them one of the

regulars who comes on Tucker's show and

argues against Trump he's got a shaved

head and he likes to get off target he

likes to leave the topic until dr. Elsa

and my camera member is named by the way

he's one of the standard representatives

of the Democrats and here's an

interesting thing you said he was

talking about how they I guess is the

Judiciary Committee he has a bunch of

old white men now other people have said

that and it's actually a good point you

know we live in a diverse society why is

some important representative group just

a bunch of white men so it's the point

perfectly good point

but here's the way the anti-trump er

Democrat explained it he said the entire

committee has no as no ethnic you know

diversity whatsoever so far good point

so far fair statement the Judiciary

Committee has no you know ethnic

diversity and that he went out to say

more importantly

it has no women more importantly how

important is more importantly so here's

the guy representing the Democrats and

with nobody questioning this statement

he said that this group of that are all

just old white men has no diversity you

know no ethnic diversity and you go good

point and then he says more importantly

it doesn't have women and I thought to

myself more importantly interesting now

it might be more important I'm not going

to say that the point is wrong the point

might have been right that maybe that's

the balance that we needed you know even

more than ethnic diversity because it's

the courts and or more they're more more

things about reproductive rights than

there are things about other things so

his point may have been completely good

but here's the interesting part

even Tucker let it go as a

non-controversial statement you know

something not worth following up on that

he said publicly and clearly

representing Democrats and nobody

questioned it they're having more female

representatives on the group is more

important than having ethnic diversity

now what have I been telling you is the

brand-- problem that the Democrats have

the brand problem is that they're they

they seem to have more interest in

solving the problems of women than

solving the problems of let's say

African Americans and you can see that

fairly clearly in that in that comment

but mostly because it was

non-controversial that a simple

statement that getting more women on the

committee is more important than getting

let's say African Americans on the

committee and that nobody questioned

that

Richard Goodstein maybe that sounds

right but I'm not sure I won't confirm

that let's talk about let's talk about

James Woods so he is apparently refusing

to delete the offending tweet and so

James Woods as supposed to be you know

got suspended from Twitter but he can go

back on as soon as he defends the

offending tweet now part of the issue

which I didn't know about is that

apparently his girlfriend is the one who

retweeted this thing that was an old

beam that James Woods had tweeted a long

time ago and didn't get in trouble the

first time but this time you did what is

his girlfriend did not so his girlfriend

tweeted it but did not get did not get

blocked or suspended and I also wonder

what about all the other people who

retweeted it why don't they also get

suspended if one person can get

suspended why can't all the people who

retweeted it now it's probably good that

that's not the rule that that the only

one who gets suspended is the creator of

the not the meme in this case but the

creator of the message that went with a

meme which is presumably what made it

worse that's a good question what why

did the retweet errs get a pass I don't

know so I told you my take on it which

is that because the way James Woods

presented the meme is probably what was

problematic because he said it's

probably not true but it could be true

in this world which leaves open the

possibility it's true which is just

enough oxygen that you could expect

other people to think it is true right

and since other people thinking it is

true could influence the election which

I think it could actually it was a

strong meme it was strong enough

that it actually could move people not

many but it could move a few people and

so Twitter's rules are essentially they

don't want fake news moving elections

which is a good a good objective it's

just hard to execute because there's a

lot of judgment call now here's here's

the interesting point that comes out of

the whole James Woods thing before we

could measure the impact of persuasion

we we couldn't make it illegal right we

nobody would try to kick you off social

media for being persuasive it's only and

you know in all of the questions about

Google and the big companies whether or

not they're biasing the algorithms all

of that stuff that stuff only matters

because we've entered an age where where

our persuasion gets measured that were

thinking of measuring it even when we

can't measure it so in the case of let's

say the Russian persuasion we couldn't

really measure if anything happened I

think the impact was probably so close

to zero it didn't make a difference but

the fact that we live in a world where

there is persuasion and we understand

what it is and we can we can recognize

it a little better but we also now have

technology to measure it pretty quickly

you try this meme you compare it to this

meme and you see which one gets more

clicks so once you can measure something

it takes on new importance alright so

here's the key point once you can

measure something it takes on new

importance because things that we can

measure we care about things we think

are true and may be happening but are

hard to measure we don't care about the

reason that global warming climate

change is such a big international issue

in part is because it's measurable now

there's a big debate about whether it's

being measured correctly or interpreted

correctly but that's less important than

the fact we've entered an age where

we're making serious efforts to measure

it once you can measure it or you think

you can measure it or someone thinks

they can measure it it gains new

importance so the fact we can measure

persuasion almost guarantees it will

someday be illegal let me ask you this

if you could measure how how how

persuasive I am let's just say that was

possible it might be possible it's

almost possible oh but let's say let's

say you could measure how how persuasive

I am just personally just as a

personality on Twitter and periscope if

you could measure how I change people's

votes and I think we're very close to

the point where at least the tech

companies could measure that even if I

can't and let's say they looked at my

persuasion and it was all weighted in

one direction well say it was weighted

Republican and it was measurable and

let's say that I didn't have any any

gross factual errors that you know are

clearly something I made up right so I

might be wrong on some facts but that

would be like everybody else

as long as it looks like I didn't make

up facts just to you just to change the

election but let's say just I know you

make sure you make fun of the way I say

measure the measurements I come from the

upper upstate New York we measure but

you can measure if you want to measure

so would it be someday illegal for

someone who is trained in persuasion to

be super persuasive

and wait'll I finish this this thought

if we all agree that fake news that

moves that moves an election should be

eliminated from the platform's

what about people like me who don't use

any fake news or at least not

intentionally we I would never do that

intentionally but I can absolutely move

outcomes

shouldn't I be kicked off the platform

should night because if I can move

people's opinion without changing you

know any factual news and you know

nothing's untrue I can just move

people's opinion do they have free will

is it free will if the information you

get from me is exactly the same as why

you rather than the news but the way I

framed it the words I use the you know

the emphasis I put on things the

techniques I used actually change your

opinion in the way you could measure

should I be illegal on social media now

the reason that this sounds like a

ridiculous question is because there are

very few people who are actually

persuasive it's kind of rare it's it's

one of the reasons that President Trump

you know enjoys pretty much an empty

field when it comes to persuasion he's

sort of the only one who's good at it at

the moment who was even in the political

realm on social media there are lots of

people who have big followings and stuff

but there aren't that many people who

were actually trained to persuade all

right Mike sort of itch he's one he's

trained he actually actually has the

background the knowledge he's written

books and the topic he writes about it

he's persuasive and you can tell by the

number of followers he has that you know

it's it's pretty obvious so would people

like us someday be kicked off of social

media

just for being persuasive what do you

think I think it depends how persuasive

we are see if you're thinking to

yourself no you could never you could

never criminalize or punish just being

persuasive that would be going way too

far and I say only because you can't

measure it well the moment you could

measure how much impact I had on the

26th 2016 election if it were possible

to know how much impact I personally had

on that election I would be kicked off

social media I'm pretty sure that's true

now it might it might have to happen in

a indirect way they might have to find

something I did that violates a rule

that I didn't know I was violating you

know I haven't I don't think I've ever

intentionally violated any rule on

social media I can't think of any time

I've done that yeah I'll be falsely

accused of something but just think

about that point the only reason it's

legal is because they have not yet found

a effective way to measure it that it

was objective all right

[Music]

am i persuading Twitter to kick me off

I'm not

I would hope to persuade them otherwise

alan dershowitz

hmm okay so what is your net net of that

let's go back to Cavanaugh for a minute

because it's the interesting thing oh by

the way I treated this morning it was

pretty popular tweet and I said what are

the odds were going to get to the end of

this week without a description of

Cavanaugh's genitalia and matching it to

some kind of vegetable or fruit I'm

going to say that the odds of getting to

the end of this week with in an actual

description of his genitalia is low now

I'll tell you I don't know who would who

would try to get that job ever again

give you imagine you know if somebody I

I've actually considered this in the

past I've thought to myself oh I'd make

it pretty good I'd make a pretty good

Supreme Court justice if they if they

took people who had never been lawyers

and then I thought I thought I would who

would want to go through this process I

sure wouldn't

can he make a persuasion scale to say it

was who was more persuasive on 1 1 to 10

oh yeah and and by the way the latest

accusation is that he exposed his

private part when he was 14

am I wrong that that's roughly the age

that he is accused of doing this new

thing right the am I wrong about that

the age it was an accusation that he may

have exposed himself when he was 14

years old and we're treating it and and

that and that if he did it was in the

context of a joke because they were

pretending to do something blah blah so

it wasn't you know I'm not I'm not

defending it so let me say that clearly

I'm not defending it I'm describing it

and I'm describing it as the context was

a joke let me tell you a incident that

happened at my restaurant I owned so

years ago my restaurant manager her name

is Stacy the restaurants closed now so

this is past past history she was

working so she was the my co-owner and

manager of the restaurant and she was

working in the the the walk-in freezer

and she was down she was crouched down

organizing some boxes or something so

sue she's doing something on the floor

and one of the server's who was a friend

of hers so he worked there so he was an

employee but there were also friends

they knew each other pretty well

he he took a sausage you know just like

a sausage and apparently spent a little

time in the kitchen carving the end of

the sausage so that it looked let's say

a little more lifelike if you know what

I mean and he took the sausage and he

put it through his pants zipper so that

what he walked into the walk-in closet

to surprise

to surprise Stacy I was a freshman at

Yale okay so I had the year Rome he was

18 the accusation is it was 18 so that's

a correction if everybody missed this

we're not talking about freshman in high

school we're talking about freshman in

college that's the accusation

so Kavanaugh would have been 18 if if

what I'm saying in the comments is right

sounds right

so so the the the server puts the

sausage through his pants so it looks

like it belongs to him he's spent some

time to do some carving on the end of it

to make it look more realistic but it's

still the the shape and texture of a

sausage so he walks into the the walk-in

where Mike co-owner of the restaurant

Stacey was crouched down so she was

probably on her knees or to crouch down

and he he says you know something to her

and she turns around and comes face the

sausage with a sausage that he has put

through his pants supper now here's the

question how long did he keep his job so

did the server get fired on the spot

what happened well in this case she

thought it was the funniest thing she's

ever seen in her life because it totally

fooled her for a moment so when she

turned around she actually thought it

was not only part of the server you know

so she did think it was part of his body

but because it was literally a carved

sausage there was it was like hideous at

the same time so she thought it was real

and hideous simultaneously as she was

surprised and she saw and she screamed

but when she realized the joke she she

thought it was like the funniest thing

she's ever seen and she told all her

friends and you know she loves telling

the story

and not only did he keep his job he was

you know one of the favorite employees

now when you hear that story

you're probably saying to yourself well

if somebody did that in my office they

would not keep their job very long and

of course everything depends on the

situation and the people and how well do

you know the person and you know is this

really a joke or is this sexual

harassment a lot of it just depends on

the person in this case yeah this was

this was clearly a situation where you

could imagine someone getting fired it

were you know practically arrested

probably not arrested but you could

certainly see somebody getting fired for

it or written up or something but

because they knew each other you know

nothing like that was the case it was

just a very inappropriate funny time

yeah she was not in the category of

people don't have a sense of humor

that's true so I asked you earlier to

name three men they remind you of

Democrats so who are the three men who

were Democrats and I would think Michael

Moore comes to mind Chuck Schumer Cory

Booker who are your three who are the

top three Democrats you think of

so anyway my point is that if the three

men you think about if you're a if

you're a woman and you think of

political people the three Democrats you

think ever Michael Moore Harvey

Weinstein Chuck Schumer that's a that is

a sad sad place to be a man

Biden yeah you got a raise okay that's

funny if Harvey Weinstein was

good-looking would this be an issue of

course he would of course it would

so his intention the key

yeah intention intention does make a big

difference it's not enough to keep you

out of jail

but it certainly should make a

difference so but think about this

here's something I've said before why is

it that you're rubbing against your own

pants typically doesn't make you

sexually aroused it's because the

physical contact isn't really the thing

it's it's always been a mental process

so intention does matter yeah there's a

reason that your doctor can touch you

and it's not arousing and something else

can touch you and it is so the intention

is it's a big part yeah because we we

register intention as important Tim

Kaine yes Rosen Stein resigning somebody

says I'll bet that's not real I'll just

google that to see if that were true it

would be a headline but apparently it's

not not true a Booker and chef yeah

I guess there's I guess there aren't too

many you know manly men on either side

but yeah that's somebody said McCabe

that's funny

your answers are mean anyway I think the

battle of the sexes is on and the

Thursday will be the day is that is the

accusers is her testimony going to be

public can somebody tell me that will

Christine Ford's testimony be public and

televised or not because I would think

she would ask for it not to be but I

haven't heard somebody answer that for

me please will the testimony be public I

hate this delay I wish your answers

could be here in real time

yes you can't tickle yourself to my

prior point about intention the reason

you can't tickle yourself is probably

because you know you know your own

intentions and you know you know what

it's going to feel like

sois well yes well Wells up-and-comer

these is my Congress person here I've

met him a few times through mutual

friends so you know if you're up let's

talk about Abu Dhabi now when you think

of Arvind AMI

who do you think of stormy Daniels right

so avenatti stormy Daniels avenatti

stormy Daniels it's impossible not to

think of stormy Daniels and therefore

porn in porn stars so avenatti has

attached himself to this new headline

because he's good at attaching himself

to headline there he has apparently some

new witness he was going to say

something about Kavanagh now if you were

on the side of fighting against Kavanagh

so so there were two sides there's the

pro Kavanagh and there's the anti

Kavanagh of the Democrats mostly if

you're on the Democratic side and you're

saying oh ho we've got this we've got

all the good people on our side saying

let's you know let's do the right thing

let's take calculation seriously you

know we're on the side of the Angels

here we're looking good

wait we just joined our side Michael who

who just joined our side

Michael a vanetti he's on our side now

Mike Michael a vanetti the guy who's

defending the porn star okay this is not

helping our brand this is not helping so

the only thing that could make the

allegations against Kavanagh look less

important and less respectable

this is Michael a vanetti it has nothing

to do with his his talent has nothing to

do with whether his the person he's

representing is telling the truth has

nothing to do with that unit it's just

we make this automatic association with

stormy Daniels and because she's in an

industry which has a low regard probably

presumably on the left he just brings

with it some some psychological baggage

that he's bringing to his his new client

who who may not be a porn star

probably not but she's got a porn store

the the new client has a porn star

lawyer as her lawyer so that's not a

good look either so in terms of the

battle of the sexes I would say that the

Democrats were essentially the party of

women at this point you know primarily

the party for and about women again not

saying that's good or bad just observing

that there's a serious gender difference

between the parties now and which is not

to say that Republicans are the party of

men but they are the party that has men

and has women who like men and it seems

a little different than than the

Democrats so Fox News is reporting Rob

know that Rosenstein is let's see that

let's see that because I don't see that

it's not on their website that would be

the top thing

let's look on Rosen's we'll find this

out in real time oh my god CNBC is

reporting it rod Rosenstein is

reportedly resigning according to CNBC

he's expecting to be fired da and it

could be immediate so actually so ACCI

OSIS the is the basis source for the

reporting and it cites a source familiar

with the matter okay so we have an

anonymous source familiar with the

matter does that mean he's really

resigning no it does seem likely he

would resign and it seems reasonably

would reasonable he would and you could

certainly predict it but so far we have

a story that depends on Axios having

citing a source familiar with the matter

that's nothing

if we've learned anything if we've

learned anything it's that that's

nothing anonymous source familiar with

the matter alright so I won't be

surprised if he does resigned but I I

wouldn't put any credibility in an

anonymous source familiar with the

matter no credibility we don't live in

that world anymore

yeah I know CNBC is reporting him but

they're reporting it based on Axios

reporting at least that's the way it's

stated here on CNBC's website and Fox

News says reports say sounds like every

one of these reports say is probably

going back to the same anonymous source

that we can't check and we wouldn't you

be surprised if he's not resigning

doesn't rod Rosen Stein sword a need to

resign so it was only a matter of time

whether he was fired or resigned so it

doesn't

that much actually as it possible Trump

is riling up women intentionally no why

would even do that has resigned so

that'll be interesting who would replace

rod Rosenstein or Steen that matters and

would Jeff Sessions be the one to hire

their replacement it's his job somebody

said why are you surprised I said the

opposite I said I said it's likely that

he would resign eventually but whether

or not this story is true that he's

resigning right now you can't give it

credibility based on an anonymous report

okay that's all for now I will talk to

you all later bye for now