So I got in a little Twitter exchange this morning with an anti-Trumper who said, and I'm paraphrasing this. This is somebody who said this in public, so here's the funny part about it. You think you're living in the same world with everybody else and you think, well, everybody must see what I see, right? You're seeing what I see, right? I'm watching this, you're watching that, we're all seeing the same thing, right?

And if I've taught you nothing, it's that that isn't true. And I thought it was a little more obvious by now. And again, this Twitter exchange with an anti-Trumper who said, I'm summarizing, everyone can see what Trump is like now. So if you support him, well, you're responsible because according to her everybody can see what Trump is like now.

And I responded that is the lowest level of awareness you're ever likely to see. The lowest level of awareness is to imagine it's all mind-boggling. There's somebody who can walk and talk and read and write, someone who's smart enough to tweet so they can use a device of some sort, an adult, and yet they have not noticed, have not noticed that people have a different perception of who Trump is.

So for her to start from the presumption that we're all seeing the same thing is the lowest level of awareness that you're ever going to see. Now there was a point in the evolution of civilization and the human mind, and that point wasn't long ago. It was just maybe 2015.

I would say if you said in 2015, hey, everybody's looking at the same thing so if you're still supporting this president or this anything, well you're going to have to own it because we see what we're getting. That was so 2015.

I warned you back then that Trump was going to rip a hole in the fabric of reality and you were just going to see reality in a whole new way. For most people I think they've made the leap. They've made the leap from what I'd call the second dimension to the third dimension. The second dimension is you think that everybody sees what you see. And this poor tweeter was stuck in the second dimension. I forgot anybody's still there.

And the third dimension is that it's absolutely obviously true that we're watching two movies on one screen. We're looking at the same stuff. Some people say Kavanaugh definitely guilty. Some people look at the same stuff, definitely innocent. How could it not be obvious now?

I completely understand if in 2015 somebody was still saying I think we're all looking at the same stuff so if you've come to a different conclusion you're evil. You're either evil or stupid because we have the same information. We now know that that's two-dimensional thinking and that we're all living in a world of our own creation that exists almost entirely in our own experience, in our own mind.

And it does not mean that if somebody supports President Trump they must be evil on the inside. It just doesn't mean that. It just means we're seeing something different than you're seeing.

Here's a curious one. We're having this big national discussion about Judge Kavanaugh's temperament. Now of course as I've told you, temperament is a sexist term. It's an anti-male term because you don't really see it applied that much to women in a similar way. You don't see the word hysterical applied to men. Hysterical is sort of a sexist word applied to women. Temperament seems to be the sexist word that's applied to men.

But what we're watching is a lot of people saying, well we've all watched the same thing. We've watched Judge Kavanaugh's, let's say, emotional response in his comments in front of Congress. And some people are saying that especially his references to Clinton and the Democrats trying to get him, that that makes him a biased judge. That he can never be unbiased because he's talked about Clinton. He's talked about clearly one side out to get him.

And I said to myself, did you say the same thing about Judge Curiel? Do you remember the Judge Curiel case? The Judge Curiel case presumed that because he had Mexican heritage, he was not Mexican citizen, he was second generation, but because his whole family had heritage from Mexico you would imagine that he had a lot of family influence. And that his family in all likelihood, we don't know, but in all likelihood members of his family were anti-Trump because the media had set up that fight and they turned the Trump strong on immigration into some kind of an anti-Mexican thing.

So that's what half of the country was seeing. So it was completely reasonable in that context, in the legal context, to say well there's a situation here that has a unique potential, can't guarantee it, but a potential impact on the bias of this judge. Is that fair to say? Is it fair to say that if this judge is likely surrounded by family members who don't like President Trump that that could have at least the appearance of bias in his decisions?

And people pushed back on that and they said no, you can't call a judge with Mexican heritage, you can't call him potentially biased because that's racist. Well it was crazy then because people, and still crazy because people are biased machines. That's what we are. We are pattern recognition machines and when we see patterns we're influenced by them.

And in the legal context it's perfectly appropriate to say I think these patterns are having a larger than normal influence on a judge. Maybe this judge should recuse in this specific case. Likewise with Judge Kavanaugh. Just so we can be consistent. Either judges are never biased by their situation or judges are biased by their situation. It can't be true that both are true.

You know in general, we're not talking about these specific judges now, but it can't be simultaneously true that Judge Curiel could not be biased by his family, which is weird. I mean if there's anything that's going to bias you it's going to be your family, right? Your family is going to bias you pretty much.

What is it that's bothering Judge Kavanaugh? Well to a large extent it's the effect on his family too. And he's feeling that this is coming from one direction, sort of the Democrats, sort of the Clinton-friendly part of the world. And so he called it out.

Now I would only ask people to apply the same standard. If you're willing to say that this judge has shown a political opinion, or a political opinion, if you think that him displaying this political opinion makes him unqualified to be a judge, just be consistent. That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking you to change your opinion. I'm asking you to be consistent.

Because if it's true that Kavanaugh could be biased by his situation in a way that would make him ineffective as a judge, stick with your opinion but also extend it to Judge Curiel who having nothing to do with his particular ethnicity wasn't really even the issue. It was that his family is very likely to be influenced by this and it would be hard to imagine that his family doesn't influence him, right?

So I'm of the camp that biased judges are the only kind. There's no such thing as an unbiased judge because they're human. There's no such thing as an unbiased human. There are however judges who can learn to read and interpret the law in a way that they can do in public and other people can say okay you're probably biased on the inside but I'm looking at your opinion, I'm looking at your reasoning, I'm looking at your conclusion and I would say that was fair compared to the law.

So you've got two judges here who are accused of bias in a way that should make them ineffective. I say pick one. Pick a side. Either judges are biased by their situation, their environment, especially things involving their family. Of course they are. Of course they are. But are they too biased? Well it's hard to know.

You saw maybe Judge Kavanaugh wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal I think. And in it he said, I'm not going to quote him because I don't want to take time to look it up, but essentially he said that his primary audience for his testimony and statements in front of Congress, that his primary audience was not necessarily the public at large, not just the people in the room, but that his primary audience was his family.

Where have you heard that before? Who was the first person who told you that? If you're evaluating whether Brett Kavanaugh was exactly accurate when he said how much he drank, if you're evaluating to see if he was exactly accurate about the meanings of those words in high school on his yearbook, I said to you he's talking to his family. You cannot judge a man who's talking in front of his family because if he's talking in front of his family and he's talking in front of you, he's not thinking about you. You get that right?

If his family is in the room or they're part of the audience, his family, the people he cares the most about, his children, his children that he's trying to raise, trying to be a good role model, if they're in the room he doesn't care about you. Do you want him to be different? Do you want him to care about you when his family's in the room? I don't. I want him to care about his family.

If he can sit in that room and care more about me or more about Senator Feinstein or even more about getting the job, if he could care about any of those things more than the example he's setting for his family, the way that they exist as a cohesive family unit, the way they think about themselves, their reputation, what experience the children would have when they're dealing with their friends, if you think he could ignore his family in favor of giving the technically correct answer about something trivial, really the things he did when he was 17.

And I'm not talking about the alleged allegation. I'm talking about the drinking in general and I'm talking about the comments in general on his yearbook. So to me, and I didn't see anybody call it out for what it was, I haven't seen anybody until I'm doing it right now. When Kavanaugh wrote that editorial and he said my primary audience was my family, let me interpret that. If it wasn't obvious to you let me interpret it.

My primary audience was my family means that on the little how much he drank, did he black out, did he say some inappropriate things in a yearbook when he was 17, he lied. He just admitted he lied and he told you why in very clear language in my opinion. Now apparently it wasn't clear enough because I think I'm the first person saying it. Have you heard anybody else say this? But now that you hear it it's obvious, right?

Once I explain it to you it's obvious that when he says my primary audience was my family he is explaining that that low-level stuff that everybody's saying well if he lied about how many beers he's had he must have lied about raping somebody or whatever. He's not accused of rape, let's be clear about that.

So I believe he just told you the most adult thing you've ever seen in your life. Think about it. It's the most adult thing anybody ever told you. He just came out and said listen adults, in his Wall Street Journal editorial, I'm talking to you adults. Because guess what he's saying. But his children probably are not the audience for the Wall Street Journal, maybe they did because it's their dad in this case, but he's talking to adults when he writes an article in the Wall Street Journal. Wall Street Journal is for adults.

He's talking to adults and he's saying adults understand I was in public but my primary audience for some of these questions, for some of these questions my primary audience was my family. Is there anything else you need to know?

So if you're such a freaking idiot that you're gonna say that he lied about how much he drank in front of his daughters and now that he's told you explicitly that's what he was doing, I think you have to see this in a different light. The parent filter. Thank you. Yes you have to put the parent filter on this. That's a perfect way to say it.

He wasn't a judicial candidate or candidate for the Supreme Court. He was not a Supreme Court nominee every minute during that testimony. Of course he is. He was a Supreme Court nominee technically in every sense. But depending on the question he was answering he was changing his mode. He was putting his dad mode on there for a while. And he has a pretty long history of showing that he's willing to give it up for the kids if you know what I mean, right? He coaches. He sacrifices for them. So this is a guy who gives it up for the kids. We know that about him. He's got a long record of that. So keep it in context.