Real Coffee with Scott Adams - June 14, 2020


Episode 1027 Scott Adams： I Solve Police Racism in Terms of Killing, Talk About Deadly Force.


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour and 8 minutes

Words per Minute

152.57022

Word Count

10,492

Sentence Count

780

Misogynist Sentences

5

Hate Speech Sentences

33


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, good morning. Come on in, come on in. It's good to see all of you.
00:00:18.280 Gather around, make sure you have your beverages, your receptacles ready.
00:00:23.220 Which receptacles are you saying? What kind of receptacle should you put your morning beverage in?
00:00:28.560 Well, don't take a chance. You want to use one of these things.
00:00:33.580 Maybe a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
00:00:40.900 Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
00:00:44.920 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better,
00:00:50.940 including triple crises, race crises, pandemics, economic crises.
00:00:58.140 We don't care. One sip and all of that will go away.
00:01:02.040 Go.
00:01:02.320 Mm-hmm. It's better already.
00:01:08.920 It's a little bit better.
00:01:10.860 By the way, if any of you try this experiment, turn off all of your screens and walk outside.
00:01:19.460 Is it different?
00:01:20.380 Let me show you the difference between looking at any of my screens.
00:01:27.780 I'll use my phone as an example.
00:01:31.720 Versus turning my phone off and going outside.
00:01:35.780 First, I'd like to give you my impression of just walking outside without my screens.
00:01:43.240 Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum.
00:01:45.020 Bum-bum-bum.
00:01:45.820 Oh, what a nice day.
00:01:48.080 Summer's coming.
00:01:49.700 Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum.
00:01:52.100 Okay, that's me just walking outside without any of my screens.
00:01:56.340 And now, a one-act play of me looking at any of my screens this month.
00:02:03.320 Let's see what's in the news.
00:02:05.440 Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
00:02:08.620 Ah!
00:02:09.180 Ah!
00:02:09.580 Ah! Ah!
00:02:09.780 Ah! Ah! Ah!
00:02:11.700 Ah! Ah! Ah!
00:02:13.540 Ah! Ah!
00:02:13.860 Ah! Ah! Ah!
00:02:14.420 Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
00:02:15.820 Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
00:02:19.600 can seem. And so I suggest, if any of you are feeling a little bit of tension, a little
00:02:27.960 bit of stress, are you worried about the future? Maybe turn off these things that are jacked
00:02:35.420 into the part of your brain that causes you to be excited and stressed out. Maybe put
00:02:41.260 that aside a little bit, just a little bit. You'll feel a lot better. Let's talk about
00:02:47.660 the news. Wendy's, the hamburger chain, last week announced they were going to give half
00:02:54.800 a million dollars to, I think, some cause that would help with Black Lives Matter to end
00:03:01.680 racial discrimination and calm down the racial problems in this country. Half a million dollars
00:03:08.540 from Wendy's. That's pretty good. In unrelated news, protesters burned down a Wendy's last
00:03:16.820 night. So I guess that didn't work out. In other news, Trump is 74 today. He's 74 years
00:03:25.120 old, which is way too old to be president. Let's be honest. The fact that we even consider
00:03:35.740 candidates who will be over 70 when they're serving as president, it's just not good. That's
00:03:43.960 just not good managing of your country. It really isn't. But I got to say, Trump won fair and square
00:03:51.720 against who he ran against. So there's that. You saw the video, the Trump critics are trying to
00:03:59.900 turn this into something. So Trump gave his speech yesterday, and then a military person helped him
00:04:07.100 down a ramp after his speech. Now, as he was going down the ramp, he was moving very carefully as if
00:04:15.700 there's something wrong. And so, of course, his critics figured that the something wrong was Trump.
00:04:23.700 There must be something wrong with him. He can't walk, blah, blah, blah. However, let me give you some
00:04:30.260 context, just to throw in there. I don't know why he was walking the way he was walking as it appeared
00:04:36.800 on camera. But I will give you this context. If you're wearing a suit, and you're the president, and you
00:04:44.360 have all the money in the world, the odds of your shoes being newish is pretty high, right? I don't think
00:04:51.440 the president wears old, worn-out shoes. Probably got quite a few pairs, and they're almost certainly on the
00:04:58.200 newer side of things. New shoes are slippery. New shoes are slippery. And so are ramps. Ramps are
00:05:09.460 slippery. If you are a certain age, and you've got slippery shoes, and you're walking down a slippery
00:05:15.760 ramp, you walk exactly the way the president did. And if you're smart, you've got somebody next to you
00:05:22.360 holding your arm, because the odds of you going down are pretty good. They're pretty good. It doesn't
00:05:27.180 matter who you are. If you've got slippery shoes on a slippery ramp. Now, do I know that the ramp was
00:05:33.420 slippery? Nope. Do not. But I can tell you that I've given lots of speeches on stages. Sometimes there
00:05:43.480 were ramps. Sometimes I had to navigate a ramp with slippery shoes on. Do you know how I walked?
00:05:51.780 Just like Trump. You take steps that are like one inch. You're like, uh, uh, uh. So you don't take
00:05:59.560 big steps. You take the smallest step you can and just try to stay over yourself because you think
00:06:04.020 you're going down, especially if people are watching, right? So I would say that's a lot of
00:06:09.720 nothing. But I would extend that point to this. Video lies. Now you're saying to yourself, oh yeah,
00:06:19.720 I know that a video can be manipulated. No, no, no. I'm not talking about manipulated video.
00:06:25.320 I'm talking about ordinary video. Um, he was, uh, ordinary video lies basically every time.
00:06:38.460 Now, why do I say that? I don't mean that it lies intentionally. I mean that all video
00:06:45.100 leaves out stuff and the stuff it leaves out could easily be as important as what do you see?
00:06:51.940 For example, the video of the president walking down the ramp. What was shown was the president
00:07:00.120 having some concern walking down a ramp. The video showed that very clearly. What did it not show you?
00:07:08.580 Well, it didn't show you his shoes. It didn't show you the bottom of his shoes to see if they're
00:07:14.020 newish and slippery. It didn't show you the ramp so you can get an idea if they'd modified it to have
00:07:20.160 any gripping stuff on it. Because if there was some kind of a rug on the ramp or a mat in which
00:07:27.260 it was not slippery at all, you'd say to yourself, oh, okay, that's, that's good context. So now I
00:07:32.780 really do have to wonder why he was walking that way. The video doesn't show you what the president
00:07:37.080 was wearing under his suit. Probably a lot of armor, right? Body armor. He's in public. So he's got
00:07:44.340 unusual body weighting. He's 74 years old. He's on a ramp. It's probably slippery. How much of that did
00:07:49.460 you see on the video? Basically none. The important variables weren't even on the video.
00:07:57.120 Likewise, I would say that every video that you see about every topic is a lie. It is a lie. And
00:08:05.020 that should be your first assumption. Our first assumption at the moment is if you see something
00:08:11.200 on video, video for God's sakes. You see it on video, it's just like you're there. So your first
00:08:18.940 instinct is, well, if I'm looking at it, and it's right on video, the odds of it being misleading or
00:08:26.680 wrong are what? What's your first instinct if you see it with your own eyes on video? Your instinct
00:08:34.500 is, well, it could be misleading. I mean, it could be. But I'm looking right at it. So I'm going to say,
00:08:42.460 I don't know, top of my head, 95% chance that what I'm seeing is the correct and accurate story.
00:08:51.520 About 95% chance. Do you know what the real number is? I don't either, but I'm going to put a guess on it.
00:08:59.640 The real number of the times that you would see a video, and let's limit it to videos that are
00:09:06.340 national topics. So I'm not talking about a video of your kid's birthday party that might be perfectly
00:09:12.040 accurate. I'm talking about any video that has caused a national conversation. I'm talking about
00:09:18.140 the important ones, the ones that really move the news. What percentage of them do you think are
00:09:23.320 accurate? Now, accurate would mean that it gives you enough of the story that you don't need anything
00:09:29.920 else. There's nothing left out. There's no context that's important. There's nothing after the video
00:09:36.220 ended that mattered. And there's nothing before it happened that mattered. So how often under that
00:09:41.700 scenario, how often is the video that you see on big national events, how often is it accurate?
00:09:51.420 I would say closer to 20% of the time. That would be my guess. Because there's a rule in play,
00:09:59.140 that's very counterintuitive. And the rule is that the reason that's in the news is because it's
00:10:06.160 shocking. What makes something shocking? What makes something shocking is that it shouldn't happen.
00:10:13.960 It's a violation of expectations in a very major way, or a violation of what's right or proper or
00:10:20.900 should happen, that sort of thing. Now, in any case, whether there's a video or no video,
00:10:27.500 and I suppose you just heard this. You don't know if there's a video, you don't know what evidence
00:10:32.980 is involved, but there's a claim, and it's a shocking claim. That's all you know. Something
00:10:40.260 that doesn't often happen or shouldn't happen or should never happen in a world that's operating
00:10:45.820 right is reported to have happened. How often does it turn out that it's true? And the answer is
00:10:54.960 almost never. Yeah. You don't realize that because you get caught up in the details of things.
00:11:02.480 And there are so many things that do turn out just the way you thought that you don't notice
00:11:07.380 this special category. And the first time I read about this, it just blew my head off.
00:11:13.680 Because once you've heard about it, you see it everywhere. And the special category is that
00:11:19.300 you hear a story that a man bit a dog. So that's wrong, right? A dog bites a man, that's not so
00:11:25.360 unusual. But a man bites a dog? Well, that's in the news. How often, when you find out all the details
00:11:32.000 about that story, about the man who bit a dog, how many times out of all the times that it's happened,
00:11:39.720 does the story turn out to be exactly what you thought? There was a man, there was a dog,
00:11:44.500 that man bit a dog. And the answer is close to zero, close to zero. So the moment you hear a story
00:11:53.320 like that, man bit a dog, your instinct should be close to zero, that it's true. But in fact,
00:12:02.560 your instinct is the exact opposite, because you still, even people who know that fake news is
00:12:08.360 massively, you know, pervasive, even people like that, you still think the news is probably true 95%
00:12:17.260 of the time. It's just a, it's just a reflex. You can't really turn it off, because it comes from
00:12:23.100 sources that, you know, by their design are meant to look credible. So I'm going to extend that point
00:12:31.320 about anything that's an unusual story of the type of man bites dog, that if the video shows a man
00:12:39.780 biting a dog, it's also a lie. Not every time, not 100% of the time, but really close, really close to
00:12:50.760 100% of the time. So your first assumption should be on every video you see from today on, because now
00:12:59.680 you've learned this, right? So from this day forward, no matter how obvious that video is, and let's say
00:13:07.000 again, we're limiting it to things that were so shocking, they made it on the news. Your first
00:13:13.120 reaction should be probably not true. And in fact, probably should be in the 90% range plus, right?
00:13:23.300 But in fact, we have a society that operates on the opposite assumption, and this is what we got.
00:13:29.680 So what you get is exactly what you see. And it should be getting much worse. Because now that
00:13:36.860 it's clear that you can use a misleading video to make any point you want, what are the odds that
00:13:44.120 there will be more misleading videos in the atmosphere? 100%. 100%. So you should be seeing in the
00:13:52.140 next few months, just a blizzard of misleading video. Most of them will be lies. Now, the weird
00:14:02.140 thing about these lies, if I can call them that, is that they can even lie in the right direction.
00:14:08.560 And what I mean by that is the video could be completely misleading, and give you the opposite
00:14:13.860 conclusion from what you should have concluded. But it could also be completely misleading,
00:14:20.300 and lead you to a conclusion that's correct, just by coincidence. So it could be that everything you
00:14:27.640 saw on the video is just total BS. But by coincidence, the bad impression you got was also coincidentally
00:14:36.580 true. So that could happen. So it's a very confusing situation. Speaking of news that gets corrected,
00:14:46.580 Brett Baer apologized for Fox News showing an offensive graphic. I talked about this before,
00:14:53.380 but the apology is worth noting. And the graphic showed how the stock market reacts based on different
00:15:00.480 tragedies, including, you know, famous, in the news shootings of black people, including MLK. Now,
00:15:10.040 of course, most of you have probably exactly the same reaction that I had when I saw it, which was,
00:15:14.980 is this even real? Did somebody think that was okay to put on TV? Turns out it was real. It was real.
00:15:22.420 They really put that on TV. Now, I would not call that a man biting a dog weird situation, because
00:15:31.820 weird and offensive graphics on the news are pretty common, pretty common. So that doesn't fit into
00:15:39.060 so unusual that you shouldn't believe it. But here's what I liked about this story, if I could add some
00:15:46.280 positivity. So Brett Baer, I guess it was on his show that it was shown, gave an apology.
00:15:53.380 And it was unequivocal. Unequivocable. Meaning it was just a complete apology. Complete mistake.
00:16:01.300 Sorry. Fixed it. I give Brett Baer a plus. And Fox News as well. Now again, I remind you that my
00:16:10.340 standard for judging people is the following, and I recommend it to you all. I do not judge people by
00:16:16.260 their mistakes. Because if you did, you're going to hate everybody. Right? If you judge people,
00:16:22.400 by their mistakes, who's left, really? I mean, I hate to be Jesus for a moment, but, you know,
00:16:29.280 let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Kind of rings true in my world. Right? You know,
00:16:36.480 show me the perfect people. You can't. So judging people by their mistakes, well, of course, in the sense
00:16:43.920 of the legal system, you still have to judge them, because you have to have a system that works. But in
00:16:49.020 terms of non-legal issues of just, you know, offense, if somebody apologizes this cleanly,
00:16:57.180 and I think it was within 48 hours, I use that as my standard for quicken off, I say A plus.
00:17:04.900 So Fox News, based on the standard which I apply, which I'd apply to anybody, you know,
00:17:11.420 everybody's the same on the standard, a perfectly clean and clear apology, no ambiguity, no excuses,
00:17:19.180 A plus. I would like to see a lot more of that in the world. Now, I'm not big on apologies in general.
00:17:25.820 I'm not big on apologizing just because you offended somebody. But in this case, the apology is very
00:17:32.200 clear. This was a mistake. We see it too. Didn't see it at first, but now we see it. And apologizing
00:17:40.520 for an actual mistake, always acceptable in my world. Apologizing for somebody's opinion of what
00:17:47.920 you did, well, that's a little different. You don't always have to apologize just because someone else
00:17:53.960 was offended. But if you can see it too, once they point it out, you go, oh, man, I see it too. Yeah,
00:18:01.180 apologize. That's my advice. All right. Facebook fired. I love this story. I got all these feel-good
00:18:10.660 stories for you today. I'm also going to solve racism in policing. So I'm going to do that today,
00:18:18.500 a little bit later. That's worth waiting for. We'll go to the whiteboard for that.
00:18:22.120 So Facebook fired an employee because the employee criticized another employee on Twitter for not
00:18:31.520 adding a statement of support for Black Lives Matter to documentation on an open source project.
00:18:38.080 So let me say this to Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. You know, I, like many people, I've been critical of
00:18:49.560 Facebook. I've said lots of bad things about Facebook, right? You know, we all have. We all have our
00:18:55.480 criticisms. As a company, it's one of the great companies of all time. Zuckerberg himself, say what you will
00:19:04.260 about, you know, I know you've got your opinions, but as a CEO and as an entrepreneur, he's pretty damn
00:19:14.040 good. I mean, really, really, really good. And I think there's general agreement that Zuckerberg is
00:19:22.560 just really, really good at this stuff. You know, it's not an accident that Facebook is big.
00:19:26.960 And so they fired the employee who complained, as opposed to firing, of course, that wouldn't make
00:19:34.060 sense because the other employee was on. He, wait, fired an employee who publicly criticized. Oh,
00:19:42.200 yeah. No, it was a Facebook employee. So Facebook employee criticized the Facebook employee and got
00:19:48.920 fired for it. And I say, good job, Facebook. I wasn't expecting Facebook to be the one that drew
00:19:59.820 the line. You know, like, what's too far? You figure that it would be the conservatives who are pushing
00:20:05.940 back at whatever this, you know, creeping change in society is. And then if it gets too far, it will be
00:20:12.060 the, let's say, the conservative wall of resistance that stops it if it can be stopped at all. But it looks
00:20:18.240 like Facebook just said, and that's far enough. Yeah, you can, if you're complaining about another
00:20:27.200 employee who isn't complaining enough, you're just a dick. Right? That's no longer about the issue.
00:20:34.620 That's about you being a dick to another employee. And if you're going to be a dick to another employee,
00:20:40.840 your ass is fired at Facebook. Facebook. Yeah, I got to be fair. I criticize them all the time,
00:20:54.120 but they got this right. They got that as right as you can get something right. All right.
00:20:58.940 Another fun story, in a weird way, is in Antifa stand, a Christian preacher somehow got into the
00:21:12.060 mix there. He snuck in somehow, started preaching some stuff, and they didn't like what he was saying.
00:21:18.960 I think it was maybe not pro-Antifa enough. And so a group of Antifa grabbed the preacher and put
00:21:28.300 him in a chokehold. They put him in a chokehold. And as they put the chokehold on him, and the guy's
00:21:37.220 yelling, you're choking me. I can't breathe. And I'm not making fun of George Floyd. That part is
00:21:49.400 beyond, you know, way beyond anybody joking about that. I'm only joking about Antifa stand and this
00:21:58.120 preacher guy getting choked. Because if there's one thing, well, all right, the fun part about this
00:22:05.040 is watching Antifa stand realize that they're going to have to recreate everything that they hated.
00:22:12.240 In order to exist, they'll just recreate systems that were a problem. So they've already got a wall.
00:22:19.760 They built a racist wall on day one. They built a racist police force on day two. Now they're putting
00:22:26.440 people in chokeholds for violating freedom of speech. And I guess they're pro-gun now.
00:22:35.760 And they segregated their... They even started Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws in their public garden.
00:22:48.960 Anyway. And again, I tweeted this yesterday, and I didn't get very many retweets. And I have these
00:22:57.920 two feelings about the, you know, the people in Antifa stand. On one hand, it's completely unacceptable.
00:23:04.740 They're taking other people's property. You know, we can't have a system that allows,
00:23:09.360 you know, random chaos. You have to have some kind of control for society to work. You know,
00:23:15.080 so I've got a long list of my complaints, right? But it's not all complaints.
00:23:22.680 I can't shake the fact that I have a natural affection for rebels, people who just can't stand the
00:23:31.560 system. People are going to break the system. Now, it's one thing if you're just a criminal,
00:23:37.560 right? If you're just a criminal, I don't have too much sympathy for you. But if your higher level
00:23:44.220 thinking is that you're not trying to hurt anybody per se, you just have a different idea of how the
00:23:49.040 world should run, et cetera, even if it's a wrong idea, there's something about rebel energy
00:23:55.620 that I just like. I like it. I'm not going to apologize for that, because I know you'd like
00:24:02.280 me to, right? Wouldn't you like me to apologize for that? Because I shouldn't say anything positive
00:24:06.980 about the lawless rebels who are taking over Antifa stand. I agree to the whole list of what's
00:24:13.860 wrong with that. The whole list, every checkbox. There's nothing on the list that I disagree with
00:24:19.500 you about the bad parts. But I just sort of like rebels. And I don't want to hide it, because I
00:24:28.120 feel like I'd just be lying to you if I hid that. And I'll go further and say that although Antifa
00:24:35.300 stand by itself may not be the most productive use of energy, we're going to learn a lot. And if the
00:24:41.880 only thing that came out of this is, hey, let's try the same experiment, but in a more appropriate
00:24:47.240 place. Some place where they've planned it better. Some place where the only people there are the
00:24:52.740 people who want to be there. Some place where they haven't taken over anybody's land or property
00:24:59.560 or anything like that. So I think there's a way for that energy to be channeled into something that I
00:25:05.680 would be fully supportive of, which is people who just want to try something new. Now, trying to change
00:25:12.840 the entire country, because some small group of people have, you know, an idea about that. Well, maybe
00:25:19.180 it's impractical. But trying it in a community, and then finding out it works, or what works and what
00:25:26.120 doesn't, and then extending that learning to other communities, or, you know, maybe in 20 years, the
00:25:31.520 whole country says, you know, these experiments work so well, let's just change our whole system. Could happen.
00:25:37.180 I wouldn't rule it out. So, I am supportive in a weird, emotional way, while I agree with you 100% that law and
00:25:47.740 order must be restored eventually. I wouldn't hurry about it, because I think we're learning something just by
00:25:54.840 watching it. You know, in a week or two isn't going to make that much difference to anybody. All right.
00:26:00.600 I know you want me to talk about the new video of Rayshard Brooks, who was the man who was killed at
00:26:11.520 the Wendy's by police. And I'm going to make a general comment about it. So, I'm only going to
00:26:17.960 talk generally. So, it's not about this incident. It's not about black people. It's not about race.
00:26:24.920 Yes. General comments. I don't care about anybody. I don't care their ethnicity. Not relevant. I don't
00:26:32.400 care about anybody who fights with a police officer and gets killed. I don't. I just don't care about
00:26:39.080 them. Now, that's different from saying everybody did the right thing. It's different from saying the
00:26:44.400 police did exactly what they should have. That's different from saying maybe there's a better system
00:26:49.060 where this could never happen. I'm up for all of those conversations. But I will not care. You
00:26:57.080 can't make me care about somebody who wrestled with a cop and got his ass shot. Now, CNN is reporting
00:27:06.000 this as this poor man was getting ready to celebrate with his daughter her birthday. Okay. Everybody's
00:27:14.980 human. Everybody's got a human side. But that feels like trying to whip up racial division. So, the CNN
00:27:22.640 headline looks like nothing but an attempt, a naked attempt, to make people more racist. Meaning, make
00:27:31.520 people hate each other for race. So, CNN is despicable that they would treat it that way. Now, I also agree
00:27:39.520 that any person who is killed, whether it be in the line of crime or anything else, they're still
00:27:46.180 human beings and still have to be fully valued as human beings. No exceptions to that. But how much
00:27:52.720 I care personally about any person, you know, white, black, or anything else, who gets killed by a cop
00:28:00.180 after wrestling with a cop? I mean, they were actually on the ground. And it looked like the cop, at least one of
00:28:08.520 them might have been injured. It looked like he was limping. And I don't know, I'm going to save all of my
00:28:15.480 sympathy for other people. Do you know who I care more about? A lot more. A black kid who couldn't get lunch
00:28:24.620 today. I care about that. I care about a black kid who couldn't get lunch. I care about that a lot.
00:28:33.500 Do I care about a guy who wrestled with the police and got his ass shot? Zero. Zero fucks. I don't care
00:28:41.540 about that even a little bit. And he can't make me. There's nothing you could do to make me care about
00:28:45.540 that. So, and then on top of that, my other larger issue is, stop making me look like an idiot by debating
00:28:55.360 anecdotes. I refuse to be an anecdote idiot. Can we all agree that the problem is not what happened one day in
00:29:05.140 one place, ever? The big conversation, even if that's a tragedy, even if it's a, you know, a crime, that's not what the
00:29:13.180 conversation is about. It's about the larger issue of, you know, pervasive racism. Don't show me anecdotes
00:29:22.520 if that's your argument. If your argument is the big picture, show me the data of the big picture
00:29:29.360 and take all the anecdotes away. Because the anecdotes do nothing but make it worse. I would argue,
00:29:36.340 however, that the George Floyd thing did one very useful thing for society, which is it made us
00:29:43.660 really talk about an issue that we're having trouble talking about. And there's a very interesting thing
00:29:50.400 happening right now, as in right now, which is that, you know, the first several days, because
00:29:57.340 everything was so raw, first several days after the George Floyd tragedy, emotions were so raw
00:30:03.620 that I think by general common sense and decency, that anybody who had a dissenting opinion on that
00:30:12.080 just said, and I think you have to have some appreciation for this. I think everybody should
00:30:19.360 appreciate the following statement. There were a lot of people who had dissenting opinions right away
00:30:25.520 about their opinion of what we could or could not know about that situation based on the video.
00:30:33.480 Those people with dissenting opinions, just out of a sense of decency and also self-preservation,
00:30:40.680 I'm sure, held off and just said, let's step back and we're not going to be quibbling the details
00:30:48.480 on this one. Like this one isn't the one for debate. This is the one we all felt it the same way.
00:30:54.700 The details, the legalities, the technicalities of it, that's going to come later and those will
00:31:00.500 matter a lot. But what we saw was a shared experience. And I think that I've never seen
00:31:09.580 so much unity on anything in the United States, which was the first, you know, hours and days after
00:31:17.060 it, the people with dissenting opinions just kept them to themselves. And I think that that was
00:31:24.440 again, it's the dog that doesn't bark. So you don't notice it so much. You don't notice what
00:31:28.800 doesn't happen. But this was a gigantic thing that didn't happen. Meaning that a lot of well-meaning
00:31:35.400 people said, okay, I see it. You know, I'd heard it in the statistics. I'd heard the argument.
00:31:42.580 Maybe I had a different sense of the statistics, but I didn't feel it.
00:31:46.360 Like, I can hear the complaints from the black community about police abuse. I hear it.
00:31:54.680 Wow. I'll feel it. And then you watch the video. And now it's different. Now you hear it.
00:32:02.440 But you also feel it. Like you can feel it just it's almost like it's you. Because you're just there.
00:32:09.880 You know, it was part of your almost your experience. Even though the video, you know,
00:32:14.900 give you some distance, didn't feel like distance, didn't feel like much of a distance at all. When
00:32:20.220 you're watching it, it felt like you were inside the video. It was that powerful. So I would like to,
00:32:25.860 you know, shout out to the people who held off. The people out of just simple human decency
00:32:33.300 said at the moment, this is not this is not for fighting. This is not the debate moment. This
00:32:40.840 is a moment for something else. So they stood back. However, there's a time and a place for
00:32:47.060 everything. The brave people who were waiting in include people like Sam Harris, who I think risked
00:32:55.900 his entire life and career by doing a podcast in which he simply talked about the data and the
00:33:01.420 statistics and tried to put this in context in the most rational way that you can. And we'll probably
00:33:08.320 be canceled for it. I don't know if he has been yet. But it was pretty provocative without being
00:33:15.100 bad intentions. And without anything that I heard that was wrong. You know, there was some TDS in
00:33:21.520 there, but that wasn't the topic of it. And then I was just listening to Ben Shapiro yesterday. And Ben
00:33:30.920 Shapiro was also finally, you know, I think he too, like everybody else, just out of a sense of
00:33:38.080 decency, just held off a little bit. But now he's just starting to ramp up into full speed.
00:33:44.600 This is one of those situations where you need a full Shapiro. You know what I mean? You don't want
00:33:50.140 Ben Shapiro operating at 25% power, because that's not enough. You know, you want a Ben Shapiro that's
00:33:58.820 full-throated. Got that yesterday. I don't know how much he said before that. I'm sure he's been
00:34:04.340 leading up to this. But at this point, he's just telling you the truth as he sees it. And again,
00:34:11.520 we're all seeing our own truth. But he's a strong voice. So now you've got a Sam Harris who's telling
00:34:17.640 you, you know, in very, what's the, just honest and well-meaning, but provocative as hell, even
00:34:29.100 though it's honest and well-meaning. And now Shapiro's in the fight. All right? So those are
00:34:34.800 two people who just risked their entire lives to make this better. They did. They both risked,
00:34:44.640 when I say their life. Well, yeah, literally their life. Because I think you could be in physical
00:34:49.940 danger. You could be in physical danger for even having the opinions that they've expressed in
00:34:55.940 public, even though they're well-meaning and based on facts and rational. It doesn't matter.
00:35:01.180 It doesn't matter at all. You know, Tucker's a little bit of a different category because
00:35:06.760 I think he's playing to an audience a little bit more. So if you were to compare Tucker's
00:35:14.680 presentation, it's a little more, let's say, right-leaning. Whereas I would say that Sam
00:35:24.260 Harris is not right-leaning at all. But he makes a similar case. He just doesn't do it with a
00:35:29.560 right-leaning bent. And I would say that Ben Shapiro's take on it, you'd expect it to be
00:35:35.960 leaning right. But you don't see that much of it, you know. I mean, there's reference to family,
00:35:42.480 of course. But you take that out. Otherwise, it's just statistics. So, and I've been trying to speak
00:35:50.820 honestly on this topic. But of course, it gets harder and harder. But I'm going to be a little
00:35:55.600 bit more, you know, following their lead, if you will. If we assume that they're taking a leadership
00:36:02.400 position on the question, and I think that's obvious, they are, then I will follow their
00:36:07.400 leadership and, you know, move in the same direction, just being, trying to be a little more honest
00:36:13.180 about a topic that is hard to be honest about. So I'll just try to move that a little bit.
00:36:19.380 And we'll do that today in a minute. All right. Here's an illusion that I think is hurting the
00:36:24.920 world. See if you think this is an illusion. Conservatives don't care about other conservatives
00:36:35.480 who break the law. Now, let me put it this way. If you heard a story in the news about a
00:36:44.540 black American who broke a law and the police killed him in the process of trying to catch up,
00:36:50.780 let's say there was some resistance. And then there was an identical story of a white Trump
00:36:56.500 supporter who was also a criminal, broke the law, resisted arrest, police killed him. Two identical
00:37:01.820 stories, black guy and a white conservative. If you're black, what do you think conservatives think
00:37:09.580 about those two stories? What's your opinion? Because you probably think, I'm just guessing,
00:37:15.920 actually, I'll put this in terms of a question. So rather than make it a statement, because I don't
00:37:20.600 have facts to back it up. I'll put it in the form of a question. If you're a member of the black
00:37:25.940 community in America, do you think conservatives would see those two identical situations the same?
00:37:33.680 Would they see a Trump supporter who broke a law, resisted arrest, and got killed the same as if
00:37:40.540 a black Democrat did exactly the same thing? Would conservatives see them the same? And the answer
00:37:48.540 is not just yes, but hell yes, why would you even ask that stupid question? It's hell yes, right? It's not
00:37:57.660 even yes. It's yes squared, yes times a thousand. How many times can I say yes? Those are fucking
00:38:06.000 identical to conservatives. Identical. Because there's one standard. Did you follow the law? Did you follow
00:38:17.460 the Constitution? Did you yourself do some dumbass thing that got you shot? Not my problem. All right?
00:38:25.780 Not my problem. I think that that would be the conservative view. I think that the black population
00:38:35.100 believes that conservatives would favor a conservative who is in exactly the same situation.
00:38:41.460 If you changed this Wendy's situation, and you just replace Rayshard Brooks, the person who was killed,
00:38:49.860 if you just replace him with a white guy, do I give a fuck about that white guy? Not any. Not even a
00:38:59.520 little. I do not care about that white guy. In fact, that white guy is making me look bad,
00:39:06.180 right? Because everybody thinks that I'm responsible for everything that any white person does. Isn't that
00:39:11.300 how it works? Like you're all responsible for anything that anybody does who has any commonality with you
00:39:16.920 even if you've never met them? I hate that freaking white guy. I'm glad the police gunned him down. In case
00:39:23.220 you're wondering what I think about the white guys. No love, no affection, no fucks. I don't give a fuck
00:39:31.560 about the white guy who got shot by police if he wrestled with him. And I'm certainly not going to
00:39:37.640 extend that caring to any other group. So I just think that's useful to know for context.
00:39:47.320 Here's a question. What should the police do if the suspect runs?
00:39:53.960 What does the law allow the police to do if a suspect runs? Because if the police can't shoot a
00:40:05.000 suspect who is running, and the suspect is capable of outrunning them, which I would think would be
00:40:11.480 many suspects, you know, a lot of the people get stopped often are young and healthy. The police
00:40:16.540 officer who stops them is often, you know, burdened with equipment on his body, and typically not nearly
00:40:22.860 as healthy or as fast as a young 20-something person of any race who gets stopped. What is the rule
00:40:33.400 for what a police officer can do if they can't catch him on foot and they can't shoot him? So if I got
00:40:42.380 stopped by the police for any crime, let's say I was wanted for robbing a bank. Let's say I was wanted
00:40:49.600 for murder. But I don't have a weapon on me. So there's no weapon on me. And I've been stopped
00:40:55.280 on a suspicion of murder. The police say, hey, you know, put up your hands and turn around. And then
00:41:01.780 I do this. I put up my hands. And then I turn around and I just run. I just run. I'm not a risk.
00:41:08.980 I have no weapon. Right? So I just run. Can they shoot me? Because I'm 63 years old and I don't even
00:41:17.920 think they could catch me. Honestly, I don't think they could catch me. Even at my age. I'll bet I
00:41:24.320 can outrun the police. Most of them. Not every cop, right? A 20-something-year-old cop is going to
00:41:29.860 catch me. But give me a 45-year-old cop, you know, with full police gear on him. I can outrun
00:41:38.620 that guy. So should I do that? Should I just outrun him every time? Because you can't have
00:41:45.980 a system based on that. So I just have a question about the rules. Now, obviously, if the person
00:41:51.640 running away was a serial killer, and you were pretty sure about that, you could probably kill
00:41:56.700 him because you're saving society. If it's a terrorist, and you're pretty sure about that,
00:42:01.460 you could probably kill him if he's running away. If he just shot somebody, and he still has a gun in
00:42:06.840 his hand, and he's running away, well, you could probably kill him. So there's lots of situations
00:42:11.120 where you could certainly shoot somebody in the back, I think. Am I wrong about that? I've seen lots
00:42:18.040 of no's going by, but I don't know which question you're asking. So let me suggest the following.
00:42:26.700 The police should always have a body cam, or at the very least, they should have a camera.
00:42:33.960 And when they stop somebody, before that person turns to run away, you should take a picture.
00:42:40.780 If you have somebody's picture, and especially if you have their car with their license plate,
00:42:46.420 you know who they are. If you have identified somebody, either by taking their picture,
00:42:51.300 because later you could do facial recognition on that. So a picture or a license plate,
00:42:57.220 or looking at their ID, probably tells you who they are. In the specific case where you know the
00:43:04.240 identity of somebody who's running away, and they're not an immediate risk, shouldn't that be good
00:43:10.720 enough? If you know who they are. So this is in the form of a question, because I think you'd have to
00:43:17.780 really work in police enforcement to have a better sense if that's a good or a bad idea.
00:43:22.900 But what's different is, you can now take a picture of somebody and identify them. Maybe not
00:43:30.780 on the spot, but you could certainly figure out who they are from their picture.
00:43:35.380 If you can identify somebody, can you force them to come in to the police department and give
00:43:42.620 themselves up? Maybe in the old days, you couldn't. In the new days, you could close down their entire
00:43:49.740 life. In other words, let's say the police know that you ran away, and they have their name. So the
00:43:56.240 first thing they do is they send you an alert on your phone. Beep. The police have a warrant out for
00:44:02.000 you. Come in or your phone service will be turned off. And you're like, whoa. Next day, you don't come in.
00:44:10.380 Your phone service will now be limited. You cannot use the internet. Your phone service is now limited.
00:44:18.720 You can't text. You can make a regular phone call and call 911. That's it. Your next message comes in.
00:44:28.600 Your name has been given to all retailers, so you can't buy anything. Comes in, your credit has been
00:44:37.820 ruined. You'll never be able to get a loan. You'll never be able to renew your license. You'll never
00:44:43.340 be able to buy insurance. You'll never be able to get married, own a gun, legally, own a gun. You'll
00:44:48.580 never be able to have the rights of a citizen. And we're going to track you forever. Because since
00:44:54.840 you have now surrendered, we're going to track your phone everywhere, and we're going to listen in
00:45:00.660 on it anytime we want. Now, obviously, they'd have to get a burner phone or something like that.
00:45:07.960 But the point is, you could create so much discomfort digitally that you could probably
00:45:14.240 force some people to either come in or to live a life off the grid, which is pretty hard these days.
00:45:21.500 So I don't know if that's a good idea or a bad. I'll just throw it in the mix.
00:45:24.680 And the only thing I'm adding is that technology allows us to know who somebody is in a way we never
00:45:31.040 could have known before. And once you know who somebody is, there might be other ways to squeeze
00:45:36.100 them rather than shooting them in the back as they run away. Greg Gutfeld asked this provocative
00:45:42.800 question, when this is over, how will we deal with all the anchors who incited a race war and ignored
00:45:49.660 the statistics? Because that is what happened. There were people who went on TV and sparked a
00:45:55.860 race war for money. You know, because it's their job. They get paid. And they knew that that would
00:46:02.240 be good for ratings. So who knows what they were thinking, but that's what happened. Here's the
00:46:08.980 funniest thing, the funniest tweet I saw today. I laughed pretty hard at this. So this is from
00:46:15.820 Ephraim Norwood, a Twitter user. And he was referring to a tweet of mine about Brian Stelter's
00:46:25.580 new book. Now, Brian Stelter has a book. And the funny thing is that the title of the book
00:46:30.260 is Hoax. He works for a network that does nothing but push hoaxes. And indeed, Mike Sertovich did
00:46:39.660 this acclaimed documentary called Hoax with an E.D. on the end, which is one of the best things you'll
00:46:46.680 ever see, by the way. If you haven't watched Sertovich's movie Hoax, Google it and find it and watch
00:46:54.880 it. It's sort of mind-blowing. I would say it's in, you know, in the past year, I've only probably,
00:47:02.900 you know, absorbed three or four things that I really enjoyed in terms of movies. And that was one of
00:47:09.260 things. So watch that. Anyway, so Brian Stelter, imagine him in your head. You all know who Brian
00:47:15.120 Stelter is. And he wrote a book named Hoax. And this is what Ephraim Norwood said in his tweet.
00:47:21.680 He said, it's writing a book. My God, it's evolving. Where's this going next? It's evolving.
00:47:30.160 Now, I appreciate a good insult, even when it's directed at me. You've probably seen this. Every
00:47:39.240 once in a while, there'll be a troll who insults me so cleverly on Twitter that I could just have to
00:47:45.240 give it a like because I'm like, oh, that's pretty good. Got to admit, that's a pretty good insult.
00:47:50.120 So I always appreciate a good insult. So nothing personal against Brian Stelter. I'm not really a big
00:47:59.020 fan of making fun of people for appearance. But that's pretty funny. He's evolving. I don't know
00:48:07.620 why that's so perfect. All right. Now let's cure racism. I got 10 minutes left. Last night, I had this
00:48:15.960 thought. I may or may not have been a little bit high. And I wrote it under my whiteboard because
00:48:22.060 I wasn't sure I would remember it in the morning. And when I first had the thought, I thought to
00:48:26.680 myself, I think this is a great idea. But I wonder what it will look like in the morning. You ever have
00:48:34.100 that situation? Yeah, in the, you know, at night, you write down an idea, or you wake up from a dream
00:48:41.140 or something, you write down an idea. And then the next morning, you look at your idea, and you're like,
00:48:45.200 what the hell is wrong with me? I should seek help. This is the worst idea ever. Well, this idea
00:48:50.880 seemed brilliant last night. And it was just as good this morning. And I think I can end police
00:48:59.660 racism killing. So I'm just going to narrow it to police killing more black people than white people
00:49:10.180 as a ratio, right? Here it is. By the way, you're going to love this. You're going to love it and
00:49:18.180 hate it at the same time. Here's the idea. Create a prediction market, also known as a betting market.
00:49:27.460 And you make the predictions based on what you think the coming year will yield in terms of police
00:49:32.780 killings. I'm looking at the comments. You see it, don't you? I don't even have to finish this,
00:49:38.660 do I? If you make a betting market on the statistics of police shooting, and so long as you're tracking
00:49:47.120 it several ways, because that's the problem, right? You want you want all the different statistics that
00:49:52.940 anybody thinks are relevant. So one would be making a bet on the total number of white people killed in
00:49:59.360 the coming year by police. Another would be the total number of black people killed. Now, of course,
00:50:05.420 that doesn't tell you anything about racism, because you'd have to dig deeper. So you'd have those betting
00:50:09.800 markets as well. You'd have the betting market for the percentage as a percentage of population. But that
00:50:17.640 also doesn't tell you everything you need to know. You'd have one for the percentage of people who were
00:50:21.960 stopped by police versus the whole population. But again, that doesn't tell you everything you need to
00:50:28.060 know. So you want to look at it for as many things as you can measure. You get them all. Everything
00:50:33.980 you can measure, even if you think it's not the total answer by itself, it's part of the mosaic of
00:50:39.920 data. You build a betting market, and here's what's going to happen. What will people on the left bet?
00:50:50.380 People on the left will bet that the statistics will show there is racism, and they're going to bet on
00:50:56.780 that. What happens if they lose? Well, if they lose, then our ideas of what the statistics are will come
00:51:09.700 together. Right now, there are two different worlds of statistics. There's the left statistics that say that
00:51:17.020 racism is rampant, and it's obvious in the data. The conservatives have different data that says the data
00:51:25.200 doesn't show racism the way you're explaining it anyway. Racism does exist. Everybody agrees.
00:51:30.840 But in terms of police killing by race, conservatives say all the data says that isn't happening.
00:51:38.440 So how do you fix a problem when people can't agree on the data? A betting market. A prediction market.
00:51:47.200 Let's call it a prediction market because it would be highly inappropriate to bet on people being
00:51:53.920 killed, especially by race. So can we all agree that there's extreme inappropriateness of betting on
00:52:02.680 police killing people by race? You would agree, right? Extremely inappropriate. And you wouldn't do
00:52:08.920 this unless you were adult enough to know where it's heading. And the adult enough to know where
00:52:14.680 it's heading is probably the only thing that will bring us together. Because when you take it down to
00:52:19.800 money, people stop screwing around. All right? I will say something, well, maybe I wouldn't. People
00:52:26.960 will say something that is a little bit untrue to win for their team. But they won't do it when they
00:52:34.080 bet their money on it. People don't bet against what they think is going to happen. But they will
00:52:40.640 certainly argue against what they think will happen. They will certainly exaggerate something if it gives
00:52:48.080 them advantage in an argument. But they won't bet on it, if it's their own money. So if you turn it
00:52:54.200 into a betting market, and you have the right things tracked, which is also key, if you're tracking the
00:52:59.080 wrong things, it's not going to help you at all. But if you track enough of the things, you will
00:53:05.060 eliminate disagreement about the statistics. And once you've eliminated disagreement about the
00:53:14.720 statistics, you've also eliminated that. Now let's say it goes the other way. What if conservatives are
00:53:25.860 the ones that are completely wrong? And once they start tracking this thing, conservatives keep losing
00:53:31.760 their bets. So what would happen if, let's say, conservatives bet billions of dollars that
00:53:42.400 the discrimination of this specific type would not be found in the data? What happens if they bet
00:53:48.280 billions of dollars and then lost? Well, that would be billions of dollars that would be transferred
00:53:53.960 to the people who are aggrieved, assuming that they're betting on their own opinions. So black people
00:54:00.560 could, just theoretically here, black people could bet that their version of reality will be reflected in
00:54:08.920 the data in 2021. So they could place bets. And if they win, they're going to, probably the odds are
00:54:16.380 going to be in their favor, right? They might have 10 to 1 odds that they're going to be right,
00:54:19.920 because that's, a lot of people think that they're right. So they would win billions of dollars
00:54:24.740 that would effectively be reparations. Somebody beat me to it in the comments. That's right. So the
00:54:31.900 betting market would be, in effect, a reparations market. And the only thing that black people would
00:54:38.200 need to do in order to take advantage of it is to be accurate in their understanding of the world.
00:54:45.900 So if their understanding of the world is more accurate than the people betting against them,
00:54:50.960 they would make a windfall and they could just, it would be a money machine. You know, you could just
00:54:55.480 keep betting and winning and betting and winning every year. You could bet every year and win every year.
00:55:00.080 Unless they're wrong, in which case that moves you ahead too. But am I done? Oh, I'm not done. Come on.
00:55:08.880 You think that's enough? No way.
00:55:14.780 I would also just like to see an internet test to identify low information voters. There was a new
00:55:22.620 study that was written up in some Stanford publication. It doesn't matter who the study is for my purposes.
00:55:27.940 But it was a new study that said, so this is brand new. Just today, I just read about it. I'm not sure
00:55:34.400 when it came out, but I think you'll see it in my Twitter feed. Study comes out and it says that in
00:55:39.980 Oakland, so Oakland's important, so you have to know where the place is. A study showed that police
00:55:46.460 would stop, frisk, and handcuff black motorists. I just made up that number, but it's some multiple
00:55:52.680 like that three to five times more. It's way more. It's not even close. So it's way, way more. And then
00:55:59.240 you would have a test, and you'd say, list at least three errors or omissions that would make this less
00:56:06.520 credible than they would like it to be. Now, I did this on Twitter just before I got on here, and I
00:56:12.600 didn't tell people, I did not tell people what the three errors were, because it turns out they're
00:56:18.920 more than three. But let me give you just a sense of them. Here's what they left out. Did black police
00:56:28.900 officers stop black motorists at the same rate as white police officers? Isn't that obviously missing?
00:56:37.260 Because what if you found out, we don't know. What if you found out that black police officers in
00:56:43.820 Oakland stopped black motorists exactly the same rate? That's pretty important. It's not there. Not
00:56:52.380 only is it not there, it's not called out as missing. It's one thing not to track it. It's a very big
00:57:00.180 problem if you don't say, it would also be good to know, you know, if this held across different kinds
00:57:07.180 of police officers, but we don't have that data. That's left out. That is really left out. In fact,
00:57:14.460 it's left out to the point of being criminal, because it's going to cause people to be killed.
00:57:20.140 You can see it in the riots, right? That is actually, not tactically, but from a moral standpoint,
00:57:27.740 that is a criminal omission. Because it will inspire people to violence. It's almost like it's designed to
00:57:35.820 do that. And that omission is so obvious that you'd have to think that the authors were aware
00:57:41.100 that it was missing and chose to leave it out. It was a decision to leave it out. How important is
00:57:47.420 that? Pretty darn important. Here's another thing that was left out. What is the crime rate in Oakland
00:57:57.500 between young black men and, let's say, everybody else? Now, as Ben Shapiro pointed out, I'm going to
00:58:07.900 give you approximate statistics. It's somewhere in this range. There's something like 13% of the
00:58:12.780 population of America is African American, but the rate of crime is like 50%, 50% of, I don't know,
00:58:20.540 some kinds of crimes. 50% or 60%, depending on if it's violent or property crimes, I guess.
00:58:27.420 And Ben Shapiro points out that even that is completely misleading. And until he pointed it
00:58:35.420 out, even I was thinking that that was a useful statistic. Is it useful to know that 13% of African
00:58:44.380 Americans, the population is 13% African American, but that for some types of crimes, 50%, 60% of them
00:58:52.380 are committed by African Americans? Is that a statistic useful and accurate enough? And the answer is,
00:59:00.860 not even close. And Ben Shapiro fixed it for me, and I've never had anybody say that. And it goes like
00:59:08.700 this. It's not 13%, because that would assume that women and men are committing crimes at about the same
00:59:17.660 rate, and they're not. That 13% really should be adjusted down to half of that, because that's the
00:59:25.180 men. It's the men, right? So it's not exactly half, a little more than half, because women do commit
00:59:32.060 crimes. But it's more like 7% of the population, young black men, men, because men are the problem
00:59:43.660 here, are committing 50% to 60% of the crime. Now, if you thought that 7% of the people were committing
00:59:52.060 50% to 60% of the crime, and I told you that that same group were being stopped quite a bit more,
01:00:00.140 say five times more, does that sound out of line? No, it doesn't. Suddenly, because you've added
01:00:10.060 context, it sounds like, well, that's about what you'd expect. That seems, you know, it's in line
01:00:15.980 with the crime. Now, what's missing, also, is what were these motorists doing that caused them to be
01:00:23.140 stopped? For example, does the average 20-year-old black person speed at the same rate in Oakland as
01:00:32.740 the average anybody else? Because if there's a difference, you would expect the people who are
01:00:38.180 speeding the most to get pulled over the most. Suppose young men are the problem. How many young
01:00:45.460 white men are in Oakland compared to how many young black men are in Oakland? I don't know.
01:00:52.020 It's not in the study, right? So the big thing, one of the big things this does is that it mixes up
01:00:59.280 the fact that, you know, it's young men who are the problem, and it doesn't isolate that. It's talking
01:01:04.680 about black people and white people. You should way isolate that a lot more down to men,
01:01:10.900 mostly, and young ones. It's mostly young men. All right, so I did see a study, and I don't know
01:01:21.380 that there's any truth to it, that African-American men were, they actually sped more than other
01:01:28.800 people. I don't know if I believe that. It's possible. But let me tell you my experience for
01:01:35.280 driving through Oakland lots of times. All right, so I have personally driven on 880 that passes,
01:01:43.680 you know, basically through Oakland lots and lots of times because that's my local area.
01:01:49.440 There is sort of a running joke, if you will, that the lane on the left, it's a multiple lane highway,
01:01:57.300 that the lane on the left is the black lane. Now, the reason for that is that if you're driving
01:02:02.500 there and you make the mistake of getting in that lane, somebody will pull up to you at high speed
01:02:08.720 right up to your bumper and, you know, sort of encourage you to get out of that lane,
01:02:13.460 and that car will always be young black men. Now, I've driven that highway a lot of times,
01:02:19.740 and I stay out of the left lane because if I get in it, a car full of, it won't even be one driver,
01:02:27.280 it'll be a car packed with young black men will pull up to my bumper at a high speed, even if I'm
01:02:33.720 doing 85, they'll pull up to my bumper, and I have to get out of the way. Now, do I watch them
01:02:40.160 getting tickets? Never seen it. I've literally never seen anybody get pulled over on 880 for driving
01:02:47.880 too fast in the left lane. I've never seen it. And you can drive there all day long and watch cars
01:02:55.300 full of young black men just zipping through that lane, exceeding the speed level. Now, of course,
01:03:04.980 what I'm telling you is completely anecdotal. Should you reach any conclusions based on
01:03:11.360 one guy's story about driving on a road? No. No. It has no analytical value. None. So you should
01:03:20.140 discount it. I'm just telling you my experience, that I've been to this very place that they did the
01:03:25.240 study. And I'm telling you, visually, haven't done the study, but visually and experientially,
01:03:34.040 there's a really big difference in how everybody's acting. And again, it's emphasis on young. Because
01:03:41.160 if you removed all the black people from Oakland, I'm pretty sure that young white men would still be
01:03:48.820 exceeding the speed limit. You would just replace them with other young men. And they'd probably be
01:03:53.760 doing more illegal stuff than the rest of the public. How about this? What did the study say
01:04:01.400 about how the people who were stopped reacted to the police? Was it the same as everybody else?
01:04:08.300 Because if the police stopped me, I'm very polite. I'm very polite. But I do not come from a history
01:04:17.280 of racism. I have not been told by the media that the police are targeting people like me. I have not
01:04:24.300 lived a life where I'm hearing story after story of somebody I know who was stopped and hassled by the
01:04:31.980 police. I do not live a life in which I have been pulled over often by the police. I have been pulled
01:04:37.620 over for things I didn't do. And it's pretty common, but not really hassle. I mean, they all those
01:04:44.560 situations went perfectly smoothly. So I don't have anything that would bias me toward the police in
01:04:52.680 particular, like no experience in my life that really does that. So how hard is it for me
01:04:58.340 to be reasonable when the police stopped me? It's easy. It's easy. Put me in the life of a young
01:05:06.300 black man now. Just my brain just gets transported into a young black man. And now I get to live his
01:05:13.560 experience. And now the police pull me over. Do I act exactly the same? I doubt it. It's not because
01:05:22.440 I'm black. Because in this experience, I moved my brain into the black person, right? Just for the
01:05:28.200 thought experience. I'm not mad because I'm black. I'm mad because I've got experience that says people
01:05:35.680 will look like that guy, a police officer, is trouble. And I don't like it. It offends my sense
01:05:43.820 of pride. It offends me on an identity level. At my core, I'm offended by this person. Am I going to
01:05:51.780 have some words? Am I going to show a little bit of attitude? Am I going to resist a little bit?
01:05:58.460 See how much I can get away with? I might, especially if I'm 23 years old. I might, right?
01:06:06.120 So I don't think it's racist, even slightly, to suggest that some populations have different
01:06:11.960 experience, right? If the way you act is based on your experience, well, who's going to say that's
01:06:19.420 racist? Of course you act differently based on your experience. So do all the people who have a
01:06:26.060 different experience act the same as people have yet another different experience? Of course not.
01:06:32.960 Where's that in the study? Of course it's silent on that. Not only is it silent on that, but it's
01:06:38.580 silent on being silent about it. It doesn't even say, you know, if we knew this, we'd know more,
01:06:44.100 or maybe we should study this additional thing. It's just silent. It's a lie by omission.
01:06:50.780 How about is it corrected for income? Don't know. Probably not. Is it corrected for level of,
01:06:57.480 let's say, education? No, probably not. How many of the citizens themselves were racists?
01:07:05.620 Who knows? You know, I'm not sure some of those questions are important. But the point is,
01:07:11.040 if you could get people to understand that if they can't look at a study like this and immediately
01:07:17.640 just pick out three major problems that completely invalidate its credibility. Now, that doesn't mean
01:07:26.480 it's not true, right? This is an important distinction. Even if this study is complete bunk,
01:07:33.820 meaning that analytically they did everything wrong, that doesn't mean there's no racism.
01:07:39.020 It just means the study isn't good. All right? So don't think that if the study doesn't show it,
01:07:45.500 it doesn't exist. It doesn't work that way. You could have all the racism in the world,
01:07:50.240 but if a study is poorly designed, you don't know what you're looking at. That's all I'm saying.
01:07:57.200 So we should at least educate people up to the point where they would know for themselves if they
01:08:02.000 are low information voters. And if they could have a little, you know, specific test, give them all the
01:08:09.240 same test and the same questions, and say, tell us where the bias is. If you can locate it, I will
01:08:17.360 listen to your opinions. If you can't tell where all the gigantic problems are in something like this,
01:08:24.380 we can't yet talk. You need to educate yourself up to at least the level that you know data is lying
01:08:32.280 to you routinely. If you don't know that the data is lying to you routinely, it's tough to move
01:08:40.280 forward. All right. That is my lesson for today. I hope it's useful, and I will talk to you soon.