I even involved in this question? It's much more credible if women make the decision. Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it's wrong. And it doesn't take away your right to participate. I don't want to take your right to participate in any question. I'm just saying if you want the most credible outcome, it would be women deciding what women do with their bodies, even if there were lots of disagreement on that. It would be the most credible outcome. So that's a good attack vector, I think. I don't know if she'll be successful or what's going to happen to the Supreme Court, but that's good persuasion. It's good persuasion.

Here's a tip for you. Ignore the absolutists. This will be one of the most useful tips you'll ever hear. Ignore the absolutists. What's an absolutist? That's somebody who argues that things just are or they are not, and there's nothing about risk or maybe. There's no ambiguity. There's no uncertainty about data. Anybody who's got an absolute point of view, just ignore them. They're not even humans, basically. They're just NPCs. They're just programmed to walk around and say yes or no. Yeah, that's all they got.

Let me give you an example. And sorry, Locals—there's somebody on Locals who did this, and I don't mean to insult you personally, although that's probably going to happen. So I'm probably going to lose one subscriber on Locals today, maybe more. It goes like this: I just saw a meme that says the vaccines don't stop infections, therefore what good are they? Vaccines don't stop infections, therefore what good are they? That's an absolute. Do you believe that vaccines don't reduce any infections? Because that's not the case. We know that pretty definitively, that people who are vaccinated are way less likely to get infected. They do get infected, though. So it doesn't work as a statement of fact that getting vaccinated protects you from infection. But if you treat that as an absolute—yeah, I'm saying the meme again. I'll read you the meme. It's from a tweet from Anthony Brian Logan. He says, "CDC Director Rochelle Walensky says that the vaccine cannot prevent transmission. So why are all these pro-vaxxers saying it can? Huh? If the CDC director says that the vaccines cannot prevent infections, why take it?"

Well, that's the absolutist view. There's nothing you do because it's absolute. Do you wear your seatbelt because the odds are better with it than without it? Does anybody think that a seatbelt has never killed anybody? I'm sure it has. It's just not as common. So as soon as you're dealing with somebody who says, oh, if the vaccine doesn't stop every transmission, it has no value, you can't talk to people like that. Don't talk to people who talk in absolutes. There's nothing you can do with that. Just walk away. I'm not even sure that they're real people. You know, if we're in a simulation, they seem to be the ones that are non-player characters, if you know what I mean.

Keith Olbermann has a video out. He's trying to get more people vaccinated. If you don't know Keith Olbermann, let's just say that his entertainment value is extreme. He's not the most rational person I've ever seen, but his entertainment value is pretty high. And in his new video, he's saying that we should stop saying that there are people who are vaccine hesitant, because that's too kind to them, says Keith Olbermann. He says instead we should call them morons, snowflakes, and that they're afraid. They're afraid. That's why they don't get the vaccine. They're afraid. They're afraid.

What's wrong with that? What's wrong with it is that every decision about the vaccine or not vaccine is because people are