s of our rational minds.

But as Cat Abu mentioned, when Geraldo said 250 cops have been shot in the line of duty this year, Cat says what he didn't mention was that 804 people have been shot and killed by police this year as well. So no, I didn't realize it was a competition but apparently we're scoring it as a competition. And it's cops 804 and citizens 250. So far the cops are winning, shooting more citizens, and the citizens are shooting cops.

Now as somebody pointed out, probably all 804 of those people who were shot by police were criminals. Some of them might have been a little bit innocent. Maybe a few of them were innocent. But I'm not sure you could compare the number of police officers enforcing the law killed to the number of people breaking the law killed. It feels like that's the wrong comparison.

Have I ever mentioned to you that the difference between people who are good at analysis versus bad is if they know what to compare? That's the one thing that always divides the good comparers to the bad comparers. It's what did you compare it to? You and I wouldn't compare those two numbers.

Michael Shellenberger had a provocative tweet that involved a psychologist, Sam Vaknin, who studies narcissism. And he says that the potential for aggression in victimhood movements is much larger than in the general population. So in other words if you're part of a movement that says we are victims, stop doing bad things to us, you're more likely to turn into a violent movement than somebody who just wants different policies I guess. Now that makes sense, doesn't it? The victims are the ones who are going to be the most energetic about changing things. And usually you have to get violent to change anything big, unfortunately. So that kind of makes sense.

So would you say by this measure that the Democrats are more likely to be violent or the Republicans? If this hypothesis holds that the victimhood people are the more dangerous, who is more dangerous really? Now just check your first answer. The reflex answer, your first first answer, is the other side, right? Whoever's the other side. So your first answer is definitely Democrats. It's all the wokeness, right? The wokeness is basically about victimhood right now. Tell me what has been the main message of the Republicans lately. That all the wokeness is making victims of the Republicans. The Republicans have a total victimhood policy as well. They don't express it the same way. It's a different kind of victimhood. But you know, and the Republicans are saying their biggest issue is stop killing babies. Stop killing babies. Stop hunting. I'm responsible for that being a meme, hashtag hunted. Yeah, the Republicans definitely feel like victims. Definitely. But is one more victim than the other? What do you think?

I know. So it probably has to do with how you feel as much as what you say or more I guess. So I'm not sure that standard is as useful as it should be because you always think the other side is the one that's complaining and you think your side is making good points but the other side is just being victim complainers. Do you know what the left says about the right? The left says about the right that the right is complaining too much and acting like victims. And I don't know. I don't know how to compare. So how would you compare those two things? I don't know. I have no idea how you compare those and decide who's the bigger victimhood person.

But I can tell you it's a bad idea to have victimhood as your primary brand. So much so that I will make the following predictions, sort of a generic prediction. That someday a Republican will run against victimhood but has to be in favor of something. So against victimhood as an organizing principle. Say let's not use victimhood as the basis for all of our policies. Instead let's use engineered solutions that can be tested for effectiveness. So imagine anybody—it doesn't matter, it doesn't have to be a Republican—but imagine anybody saying all right, here's the deal. I'm against victimhood as an organizing principle. Foreign, go ahead and complain because we'd like to hear your complaints. So free speech, you know, squeaky wheel, that's all good. Complain as much as you want. But don't use the victimhood as the basis for policy. The victimhood is for the victims to complain and make sure we know what's happening so we can incorporate it. But it shouldn't be the main operating principle. The main operating principle should be what works and do you have a way to test it first?

Now how would that person lose an election? Think about it. Because you're allowing the victimhood to be fully expressed. You're not saying stop saying that. You're just saying don't use that as the basis for decision making. Your decision making should be based on what works and that should be tested whenever you could. This model, it just sounds like one person is a smart operator and the other one's just a whiner. So your comparison again, it's all about comparison. The person who said you should test it and just do what works is going to win that every time unless they have some other gigantic negative following around.

I say it again: winning a national office could not be easier. It's just nobody's doing the obvious thing. It would take the winner. They all just revert to their team because probably that's the only way they get funding I guess.

So I saw something that I read wrong. Somebody in their profile said they were working on anti-effectives and I think it was in a medical sense or some kind of medical term there. And I thought it would be interesting for somebody to run against ineffectiveness. Just say I don't care if you're left or right, don't do things you know won't work. So I'm against ineffectiveness. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm against things that don't work. How would the public like that? And say well you can be a Democrat and you can be a Republican and I respect both of those choices but I'm only going to be for what works. So if we can't prove it works I'm not for it. It doesn't matter whose side it came from.

And you could pick a team. You could say that you're, you know, we'll let you go away Robert since you seem like sort of an alt-right.

Here's another indication