Back to episode — Episode 1063 Scott Adams - Cognitive Dissonance in Trump Haters, Mask Science, Protests
Context —
So here's a question I've been asking just because the answers are funny to me. It goes like this. After three and a half plus years of Trump — three and a half years, I guess is right — after three and a half years of Trump, we don't have to wonder what he'll do wrong because you've got three and a half years to look at it. So I like asking people, can you tell me what is the worst thing he's don…
← Previous segment →So here's a viewpoint that I want to share with you. Somebody shared this with me sincerely and because it was sincere I wanted to share it with you and see if you feel the same. And it goes like this. That the wearing of masks, while it might have a medical benefit or it might not — so this is somebody who's at least open to it being beneficial — but the larger point is that wearing masks could lead to the breakdown of society and the collapse of the country.
So the point of view, if I can, I hope I can express it right because it was worthy of mention. So the point of view is that if we're forced to wear masks we lose the thing that connects us as human beings. And once you've lost that thing that connects you as humans, because covering this much of the face really disconnects you from people, that once you do that the social cohesion of the country will be diminished and the risk of complete civil war becomes bigger than it would have been.
Now it doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to be a civil war because you wore masks. That's not the claim. The claim is that the odds of a civil war go up enough by wearing masks that that's a mortal risk and it's enough of a reason not to wear masks.
What would you say? Would you agree with that statement that wearing masks loses our humanity and our connection to each other sufficiently so that it could cause — it would be one factor that might make it more likely for a revolution which would be a gigantic expense? I would say I don't buy into this at all, not even a little bit. But I wanted to see if anybody else felt that. It feels like the smallest risk in the world. But I wanted to see if anybody had a feeling that — oh, there's some people who are agreeing. So somebody's saying yes I agree. True empathy. Block. Others saying good grief. No. Agree. Agree.
So some people have some sympathy for that view. Now I don't know that that is something that could be tested. But just because something can be expressed in words as a risk doesn't mean you should consider it a risk. So I'm typically on the view of, well you know there's no such thing as zero risk. You should at least put some odds on it. But that would not extend to something that is so obviously not a risk that maybe you don't need to do the math.
Oh well, there's enough of you who think there's something to it. Let me ask you this. Do you feel any different? I know the people I care about tend to be the people that I see without masks anyway. The people I would care about would be my family, you know, people who are close to me. I just don't have that feeling. I just don't think it's a thing. But some of you do. So we'll leave it there. That's all we can say.
Context —
Charles Barkley had a public statement on video that was really echoing what Kareem Abdul-Jabbar said, which is he was encouraging Black people to not be anti-Semitic because it works so much against your self-interest, because obviously it does. And Barkley says this directly: we can't be prejudiced if we're asking White people to respect us. And he says I don't understand how you beat hatred wit…
Next segment → →