Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1250 Scott Adams： Free Speech is Different, Q is Still a Mystery, Impeachment Hypocrites and More

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody. Come on in, come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best

00:00:09.480 part of the day. Every single time. What do you need to make this special? Well, one thing

00:00:18.160 would be a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a cantine jug or a flask,

00:00:23.440 a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the

00:00:27.760 unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

00:00:32.520 It's called the simultaneous sip. And I think it can fix just about everything except for

00:00:39.960 the total end of our freedom of speech. Join me now. Go.

00:00:44.520 So years ago, there was a story about actor Richard Gere. You probably already know the

00:01:01.220 story. It involved a gerbil and a visit to the emergency room. Now, as far as I know,

00:01:10.000 there's no truth to this. It was just a popular rumor years ago. But here's the part of the story I

00:01:17.560 like the most, is that Richard Gere never denied the story. Now, I'm positive it's not real.

00:01:29.760 But how much zen-like awesomeness do you need to possess to go for years and years without ever once

00:01:37.880 denying that you had once inserted a gerbil in an embarrassing place and had to go to the

00:01:44.100 emergency room to get it out? Now, I have never had more respect for an actor than the fact that

00:01:51.820 Richard Gere has never denied it. Even though you know it didn't happen. I mean, I think you know it

00:01:57.600 didn't happen. The fact that he would not deny that is awesome. This brings us to Kanye West,

00:02:04.900 who is being, he's the subject of a rumor that he and Kim Kardashian would be,

00:02:13.920 Kardashian West would be breaking up over an alleged affair that Kanye West allegedly have with

00:02:21.840 Jeffree Star, a YouTube star who does makeup. He's a very successful makeup person. And I don't know

00:02:32.500 anymore how to characterize other people's sexuality. But I think he would, would he,

00:02:40.960 would he identify as gay? I don't even know. But let's, let's just say for the purpose of the story,

00:02:47.020 he's, he's gay enough for the story. He can, he can label himself however he wants. And I will,

00:02:54.520 I will respect that. By the way, I'm not the one who mocks people for being what they want to be,

00:03:00.680 or for wanting to be called whatever they want to be called. I'm fine with that. But it's confusing

00:03:05.620 for the rest of us. You know, as long as, as long as you have some understanding that the rest of us

00:03:12.220 aren't going to get these things right, then I'm okay with anything you want. As long as you know,

00:03:18.400 I'm doing my best, right? So Jeffree Star, let's call him gay enough for the purposes of this story. 0.60

00:03:26.120 I don't know how he identifies. But the story was that he had an affair, Jeffree Star did with Kanye

00:03:33.480 West. Apparently, they've been friends and supporters for a while. Or at least there's a

00:03:38.700 connection in the family through Kim, I think. So they know each other. And now Jeffree Star

00:03:43.880 immediately laughed it off and denied it in a video. So Jeffree Star has said flat out,

00:03:50.400 nothing, nothing, just nothing like that completely made up thing. And I believe it's there is nothing

00:03:56.580 there. But here's the fun part. I don't know yet, if Kanye West has denied it.

00:04:05.440 And I'm kind of wondering if he will. Because there is something just infinitely cool

00:04:13.360 about not denying a rumor like that. Like, imagine being so cool that you just say,

00:04:21.920 okay, if you want to believe it, it's okay with me. And I don't know, you know, my guess is he'll

00:04:30.720 probably deny it. Jeffree Star did. It's a ridiculous rumor. I don't think there's any chance

00:04:36.440 it's true. But if he doesn't deny it, he's going to go up a little bit in my esteem the same way

00:04:43.160 Richard Gere did. By the way, I plan to use this same technique someday, and it might come soon.

00:04:51.200 Someday, I'm going to be accused of something so insanely ridiculous. And if you hear me not deny it,

00:04:59.820 you'll know what I'm doing. Because it doesn't mean it's true. It just means I've decided it's

00:05:06.640 funnier not to deny it. So if you see that happen, you'll know what's happening. You'll be on the

00:05:12.020 inside. Casino mogul and billionaire Sheldon Adelson died. And of course, condolences to the family.

00:05:21.820 But what a weird simulation we live in. Because that probably would have been enough to keep

00:05:30.920 Trump from getting reelected. If nothing else had happened, and of course, a lot did happen.

00:05:37.420 But if nothing else had happened, that could have been, you know, a world changing event,

00:05:42.060 just because he wouldn't be available to be his major donor. And I got a feeling that made a difference.

00:05:47.820 So that was a weird coincidence. Here's an update to something I'd been asking for a while. I kept

00:05:55.040 asking, why is it that we haven't seen some country or state that did nothing but, I was talking about

00:06:03.180 hydroxychloroquine, so that we know for sure by now that that state or country that only did,

00:06:11.460 you know, early treatment with hydroxychloroquine, how'd they do? Did it work? Did it not work?

00:06:17.820 By now we should see that, right? So there's a similar question with the drug ivermectin,

00:06:24.360 which has that similar to hydroxychloroquine, at least reputation, it's not chemically the same,

00:06:32.000 but reputation in that some people claim that it would, you know, stop coronavirus and COVID in its

00:06:41.240 tracks. So ivermectin, it turns out, I need a fact check on this. So I'm going to put this,

00:06:47.820 forward as a thing I don't necessarily believe. In fact, I would bet against it. So I'm going to

00:06:54.380 tell you something that's, I just have a question on, I'd bet against it being true, slightly. And

00:07:02.120 that is that there's a part of a state in Mexico, Chiapas, in which they did adopt the early treatment

00:07:11.720 ivermectin in July. And if you look at the graph of all the other states in Mexico, and compare it to

00:07:20.380 that one state that used ivermectin, the ivermectin is flat at, you know, pretty close to zero deaths,

00:07:27.720 and all the other ones are hockey sticks. Now, does that prove anything? I'll tell you what it proves.

00:07:35.220 It proves that I saw an unsourced graph on the internet. That's all it proves. That's exactly

00:07:43.240 the totality of the credibility of the story, is that a cartoonist saw an unsourced graph on the

00:07:50.360 internet. So I wouldn't put a lot of credibility in it. But I did ask the question if it's real.

00:07:56.040 So we'll find out. But there's a corollary or a related question. If you were to make a list of

00:08:06.840 the poorest countries in the world, and then a second list of the richest countries in the world,

00:08:13.940 which of those two lists has the lower death rate from the coronavirus? What do you think?

00:08:20.560 Do you think that the countries that have really good health care systems and tracking

00:08:25.580 and testing? Do you think they're doing better? Or are they doing worse than the countries that

00:08:32.560 don't have any of that stuff? I don't know the answer to that. But anecdotally?

00:08:40.960 Anecdotally, it looks like the poor countries are doing better. Now, I have to say that in the

00:08:45.760 beginning, I thought that the only reason was they kept poor records, right? In India, for example,

00:08:52.800 a lot of people will just die at home. It never becomes part of the public record. So I thought

00:08:58.480 what was happening is that Africa, for example, probably had massive problems and it's just not

00:09:05.940 being reported because you don't track it or something. But by now, by now, if Africa was having 0.57

00:09:15.940 a massive problem just like everybody else, and whether they had good reporting or not,

00:09:22.620 it would be so massively widespread and obvious and bodies piled up like cordwood, that you would

00:09:29.280 know it by now if they were doing worse than the more developed countries. So does this not ask the

00:09:39.480 question? What is happening? Is it possible that the biggest comorbidity is wealth? Because if you go

00:09:50.320 to a poorer country, do they have the same amount of diabetes? Do they have the same amount of, you

00:09:56.340 know, obesity? I don't know. It could be that having a rich country is the worst thing that could happen

00:10:02.940 to you if you've got a virus going around. Maybe the poorer countries, better, more exposure to 0.96

00:10:10.980 various viruses. Maybe they've got a better immune systems because they've been working overtime. 0.90

00:10:16.780 I don't know. But I sure want to know that. Don't you think that the question of the poor versus the

00:10:23.280 rich countries, that's way up on my list of curiosities. Because somebody says lower average age,

00:10:31.500 that's a good hypothesis too. So it could be that there are several things, weight, lower age,

00:10:38.140 more time outside in the sun, I don't know, getting your vitamin D. But one of the things I'd look for

00:10:44.340 is do the poor countries typically use the lowest cost treatments, which would be hydroxychloroquine,

00:10:52.440 maybe ivermectin early. So we don't know what's causing this, but I think we need to know that.

00:11:01.500 Here's an observation I made a while ago that the longer we go, the better this observation looks.

00:11:08.440 And this is based on my experience as owning two restaurants in my past. And I've worked at a

00:11:15.420 bunch of resorts. And so I have lots of experience in the restaurant and recreation industries

00:11:22.400 throughout my life. And here's one of the things that I noted early, that I had to wait a while to

00:11:28.920 find out if it's going to play out that way. But have you noticed it's weird that our entire

00:11:34.580 restaurant, recreation, travel industry just got savaged? And yet the stock prices are up.

00:11:43.540 And the economy is doing strangely well for the amount of unemployment from the coronavirus,

00:11:51.700 and the number of businesses that are closed. How do you square the fact that the economy seems

00:11:58.100 weirdly better than you think, while this entire gigantic industry just got wiped out? How do you

00:12:05.960 explain that? And the way I explain it is the way that I said it early on, which is that they don't

00:12:12.100 contribute much to the economy. If you looked at all the employees who worked at my restaurant,

00:12:17.280 how many of them paid taxes? Not much, right? They probably didn't pay much taxes at all.

00:12:26.380 Many of them lived with somebody else who was the main breadwinner, lived at home, students,

00:12:32.540 that sort of thing. So we didn't lose much in terms of taxes, because servers just don't pay a lot of

00:12:38.380 taxes, and people who work at that level in these industries. And then the businesses themselves.

00:12:44.460 How about the restaurants that closed? How many of them were paying taxes? Let's say income taxes.

00:12:50.460 And the answer is, probably not most of them. I don't know what the percentage is. You know,

00:12:56.300 the Cheesecake Factory or some big chains, of course, are making profits and paying taxes.

00:13:01.480 But I would say almost 80%, maybe higher, of the independent restaurants weren't making money in the

00:13:09.660 first place. Virtually all restaurants fail eventually. Both of mine failed. And it's not

00:13:18.780 like I didn't know that. I did it for lifestyle and community reasons. I didn't do it as a smart

00:13:24.360 investment, obviously. I would like you to know that I'm smart enough not to invest in a restaurant

00:13:30.720 as an investment. You know, you have to have other reasons for doing it, as I did.

00:13:39.240 So my speculation is that those industries were contributing actually very little to the economy.

00:13:45.460 We enjoyed them. We want them back. But I just, I think we discovered that they don't do much for

00:13:50.500 the economy. It just isn't a big deal. And if some other industries, say the oil industry or

00:13:56.180 something had been destroyed, it would be a really big deal. So it looks like the House of

00:14:02.980 Representatives are working on their, their 25th Amendment thing to get rid of Trump early. And

00:14:09.400 they got their articles of impeachment. Are you finding that you don't care? Like that's my feeling

00:14:18.320 this week. It's like, ah, they're going to impeach Trump. And I think, why do I care? He's going to

00:14:25.700 be, he's going to be out of office in a few days. I can't get interested. I just, I mean, I guess

00:14:32.480 they got their reasons. But it doesn't affect me. How about if they do the 25th Amendment?

00:14:40.540 I don't care. It's only a few days. What's the difference? If they want to do useless things in

00:14:48.640 Congress, to me, that just looks like another Tuesday. They've been doing useless things all year.

00:14:53.840 Why would this be the time they stopped doing useless things? So I feel as if CNN and all the

00:15:02.440 people who are anti-Trump forever, this is just a feeling. I feel as if the people who, let's say,

00:15:13.180 won, the people who are anti-Trump, they feel like winners right now. And so as part of their winning,

00:15:20.080 they're trying to enjoy it by sort of rubbing it in. And, you know, we didn't just beat him in the

00:15:25.680 election. They would say, you know, he questions that, but they would say, we didn't just beat him

00:15:31.240 in the election. We're going to, we're going to ruin his reputation, his business, his family. We're

00:15:36.860 going to destroy everything about him. And I feel as if it's not any fun for them unless his supporters

00:15:44.040 care. Right? I mean, I care about Trump as a person because I like him. You know, when I met

00:15:52.900 him, he was very, very generous and respectful and nothing like any of his reputation. And so I like

00:16:00.600 him. You can't not like somebody that you've had a personal interaction with and they were,

00:16:05.260 they were great in that interaction. It's just natural. It's a bias. And, you know, I want his

00:16:11.440 family to do well. I don't want them to be punished. But the fact is, it's not hurting me directly.

00:16:16.800 So I feel as if CNN wants to really, really, really get you back and grind you down for being

00:16:23.280 a Trump supporter. And I feel like, yeah, whatever. 25th Amendment. Okay. If you want, if it makes you

00:16:31.620 happy, okay. I feel like it's maybe very disappointing to them that we don't care more.

00:16:40.700 Why would we care? It's only a few days. If you care about this, you're caring about all the wrong

00:16:45.480 stuff. All right. Yes, I am next. I know that. Here's a question. In today's age, who do you trust?

00:16:53.660 Who are your most credible public voices? I would like to put forward the following nomination

00:17:03.440 for the most credible voice of the last, let's say the last four years, just say the Trump term.

00:17:10.940 I think that's me. I think that's me. Now, I'll just put that out there as the nomination of the

00:17:19.440 most credible person, not most right. Being right is something that you can't do all the time, right?

00:17:26.640 If you were to look at all the things I've told you, and then rank them by which ones turned out

00:17:32.800 to be right, which ones turned out to be wrong, and then there'd be some that we don't know yet.

00:17:38.080 But I think you would find that my right to incorrect ratio may be the best in the world

00:17:45.380 right now, maybe. Could be the best in the world. It feels like it is, just anecdotally. Now,

00:17:54.080 if somebody does a detailed study and finds out that's not the case, maybe. I mean, I haven't done

00:18:00.180 a detailed study. But here's why I put myself forward as your most credible voice. Think of the

00:18:07.340 things I told you were BS early, right? Russia collusion, told you it was BS, the fine people hoax,

00:18:15.120 the bleach, drinking bleach hoax, the secret sonic weapon in the embassy, the fact that

00:18:22.560 originally the Vegas shooter, they thought he was ISIS. I told you he wasn't. I told you Q was BS

00:18:31.080 early, early, early, and took a lot of abuse for that. I took years of abuse for telling people that

00:18:38.180 Q wasn't real. Now, I also got the first election of Trump right. The second election of Trump will end

00:18:46.880 up on my official scorecard as incorrect. So even I will agree that given that Biden will be

00:18:56.080 inaugurated, it looks like, I would agree that I would score that as an incorrect prediction.

00:19:01.640 I would just simply add the asterisk that there's a question. Some people are questioning

00:19:09.200 the credibility of the election. And certainly, even if you don't, even if you don't question

00:19:16.360 the credibility per se, it's an observable truth that there were rules changes and the coronavirus

00:19:23.920 change that probably changed the outcome. So even where I was wrong, take a look at why.

00:19:33.280 Was I wrong about the number of people who supported Trump versus the other side? Don't know. Because

00:19:40.000 the election didn't go the way elections normally go. There was the, you know, the mail-in ballots,

00:19:45.820 et cetera, that changed the whole dynamic of everything. So we don't know. But I will take that as

00:19:51.260 being incorrect. Um, I think that would be fair. So I will, uh, I'll make the following claim. Number

00:19:59.280 one, I am not bought by anybody. So nobody pays me. Every once in a while, somebody asks me who pays

00:20:04.620 me. If I could get paid by somebody directly for this, I don't think I'd take it because then it would

00:20:12.780 defeat the whole point. The point of this is that there was this big opening in civilization

00:20:19.460 for somebody you could think, well, at least he isn't lying. I guess that's the only thing that I

00:20:26.380 would, I would say is the, the fairest statement you could say about me. At least I'm not going to lie

00:20:33.120 to you because I don't have any incentive to do that. I'm not protecting, you know, some paycheck

00:20:39.800 somewhere. My, my benefit personally would be to do the best job of predicting things accurately,

00:20:45.680 right? There's, there's no other way for me to be, to be well off except doing something that's a,

00:20:51.720 you know, a service to the people watching. So I would just say that since I don't have any incentive

00:20:56.560 to lie to you and that my track record might be the best in the world. I mean,

00:21:02.540 if it's not the best in the world, I'd say top 20% easily. Um, keep that in mind when you're trying to

00:21:10.020 figure out what is real and what is not. And it might avoid the things such as Q people storming 1.00

00:21:16.600 the Capitol. All right. Um, how is it that the Republicans in Congress have not, um, introduced

00:21:28.480 articles of impeachment for Kamala Harris for exactly the same behavior that Trump is being, um, 0.74

00:21:37.020 looks like he'll be impeached for. Don't know yet. Now Trump is being blamed for, let's see,

00:21:43.440 let's see the exact, uh, the exact article of impeachment for Trump says this, that Trump, uh,

00:21:51.700 willfully made statements that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in imminent lawless action at

00:21:59.420 the Capitol. Now, if you just change at the Capitol, uh, in Portland or in cities across the United

00:22:07.580 States, doesn't the statement hold true for Kamala Harris? Did Kamala Harris willfully make statements 1.00

00:22:14.300 that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in imminent lawless actions in Portland and other cities around

00:22:23.580 the country. That is so completely, obviously true that how do you not put that into an impeachment?

00:22:34.340 How do you not do that? I feel as if Republicans are sort of letting their, their supporters down.

00:22:42.220 You tell me there's not one Republican with enough balls to at least call them out on consistency,

00:22:49.660 put it, put it together in an actual impeachment. Now, I suppose you have to wait for her to take

00:22:56.100 office, but on day one in office, they should file the articles of impeachment. Now, I don't know if

00:23:02.280 Biden has similarly, uh, said similar things. Cause I don't, he may have, but I don't think so. I think

00:23:10.560 Biden has been more, uh, been more circumspect about what he encourages and what he doesn't. And by the

00:23:18.100 way, by the way, you know, I'm no, I'm no fan of Joe Biden as a president, but if it's true that he

00:23:26.640 resisted, and I don't know if that's true, but if he resisted directly supporting, you know, the summer

00:23:33.180 riots that were clearly going to cause a lot of death and destruction, if Biden didn't do that,

00:23:39.280 well, that's a pretty good, that's a pretty good mark on his side, isn't it? Uh, I'll need a fact

00:23:46.000 check on that. I don't know. I don't know if he did or didn't, but I don't feel like he did. I don't

00:23:50.640 remember it. And if we're being fair, we would have to give him credit for that, but you would also have

00:23:57.540 to impeach Kamala Harris. The same standard. All I'm asking is the same standard. That's all. Is that,

00:24:05.620 is it too much to ask that the standard be similar for both sides? I don't think that's even

00:24:10.480 unreasonable. If Trump gets impeached for this exact behavior, you have to impeach Kamala Harris.

00:24:21.200 You have to, or at least attempt it, right? If it's not even introduced as an article of impeachment,

00:24:27.720 actually, I don't know the process. Maybe the process will stop him.

00:24:31.100 But it doesn't feel like trying for the Republicans. It looks like they've just given up.

00:24:38.840 Hillary Clinton continues to make things worse. Uh, that seems to be a, seems to the pattern that 1.00

00:24:45.820 we've noticed is if things are bad and you want them to be worse, well, call Hillary. She has a way.

00:24:53.280 So I guess she did a op-ed and, um, she says that the, uh, the capital, uh, insurrection,

00:25:02.180 if you want to call it that protest that led to some insurrection. Um, she said that it was all

00:25:09.340 based on white supremacy and that that's the real cause of the riots. Like the, the bottom cause

00:25:16.060 is white supremacy. Now I happen to be pretty immersed in the MAGA world. I just don't see it.

00:25:29.600 What the hell is she looking at? Is she looking at news reports? Because I, I sort of live and breathe

00:25:36.300 and have existed in this full Trump supporting world for four years. And this white supremacy

00:25:44.020 she's talking about, I've just never fucking seen it. I haven't heard, it hasn't been in a private

00:25:50.260 conversation. Where is it? Now, if she's saying that there are too many white supremacists who are

00:25:59.600 also, uh, you know, associated with the right, I don't know, maybe, I don't know how many there are.

00:26:06.700 I don't run into them where I am. So I don't have an opinion on that, whether there are too many of

00:26:11.760 them, but I certainly have an opinion that it's not like some giant force that's, that's moving the

00:26:18.840 Republican party. If I were to rank white supremacy as to where it is on the list of causations,

00:26:25.620 where would it be compared to, I don't know, let's just pick randomly some other thing to compare it

00:26:32.780 to. How about Hillary Clinton calling all Trump supporters white supremacists and deplorables? 1.00

00:26:40.580 How about the way Hillary Clinton talks about and treats and ignores a larger segment of the

00:26:48.500 population? Do you think that, uh, that this group of Trump supporters watching their jobs

00:26:55.320 being sent to China, do you think that that might've had something to do with it?

00:27:01.140 How about Joe Biden saying that he would, uh, focus the relief effort, the money for the, uh,

00:27:08.400 coronavirus, you know, support stuff that he's going to do. How about him saying in public and out loud

00:27:14.520 that the only group he wasn't going to help were, uh, poor white people?

00:27:20.140 Joe Biden said that in public, that the only group he wasn't going to help were low-income white

00:27:29.160 people. That actually happened. Now he words it, he words it in the more positive way where he'll say,

00:27:39.620 I'm going to focus on, uh, women, minority owned companies. I think those are the two categories, 1.00

00:27:47.880 women and minority owned companies. Now, um, poor white males or low-income white males are neither

00:27:55.600 women nor minorities. And so Joe Biden stood in public and said, I'm going to help this group of

00:28:04.180 people, but the group of people who are primarily associated with Trump supporters, low-income white

00:28:11.160 males. He said, I'm not going to help you. He said that in public. It was a speech. Now, do you think 0.99

00:28:22.040 that might've had something to do with the attitude of the protesters? Suppose I said to you,

00:28:32.080 I'm going to give a speech. You're going to help everybody except, uh, black people. 1.00

00:28:38.980 Would I expect that black lives matter would care about that and perhaps organize some kind of

00:28:45.740 protests? I would hope so. I will join them. If any politician in this country ever says I'm going

00:28:53.720 to help everybody, but black people, well, I'm going to be on the street pretty fast. I would hope you 0.86

00:28:59.040 would too. If they ever said we're going to help everybody except women, I hope you would be on 1.00

00:29:05.540 the street immediately. I would. But Joe Biden said right in front of the whole world, I'm going to

00:29:11.600 help everybody except low-income white people. And low-income white people just sat here and said,

00:29:19.100 I guess that's normal. I guess that's normal. We lost the election. So I guess only other people

00:29:26.720 get help now. Do you think that had nothing to do with the, with the protests that turned into more

00:29:32.940 than protests? Of course it did. Of course it did. Do you think if Trump supporters had not been

00:29:39.720 largely emotionally and fiscally abused for years, do you think they would act the same?

00:29:48.420 I don't think so. Do you know why there were not that many rich white people protesting? I'll put

00:29:57.680 myself in that category at the moment. I've been a poor white male. At the moment I'm a rich white

00:30:03.340 male. Do you know why I'm not like on the street? Because I don't have a problem. Do you know who I am?

00:30:13.780 I'm Joe fucking Biden. That's who I am. I'm a rich white person who is watching other rich white people

00:30:22.960 like Biden throwing poor white people under the bus because it's good for rich white people.

00:30:31.480 Biden gets to keep his job and his reputation and everything if he discriminates against people

00:30:37.180 who look like him but don't have money. Because apparently that's okay. He did it in public. He

00:30:43.440 didn't do it with embarrassment. He was not asked to apologize. He said it right out loud like it's

00:30:49.120 okay. It is so not okay. And the trick of course is that white people, the press, the media, the 0.57

00:30:59.240 popular narrative, treats them as one group. What happens when you treat any other group as if they're

00:31:06.740 like all the same? What happens if you say, well, Hispanics, they're all going to do this or they're 1.00

00:31:12.780 all going to do that? What happens? Well, the first thing that happens, I hope, is that every

00:31:18.220 Hispanic in the world raises their hand and says, what the hell are you talking about? We don't all 0.99

00:31:24.840 vote the same. We don't all think the same, act the same. You know there's a lot of variety in that

00:31:30.840 group, right? That's the first thing you'd hear. If you heard all black people did this, the first thing 1.00

00:31:36.480 you'd hear is, what are you talking about? People are all over the place, right? There's no one black

00:31:42.720 opinion. But when it comes to white people, you can take the rich ones who are doing great, lump them

00:31:50.200 in with the low-income people who just don't have anything going for them, and act like it's all an 0.99

00:31:55.560 advantage group. And we all just like, well, sounds good to me. So Joe Biden up there throwing

00:32:02.260 the poor members of the demographic group he belongs to under the bus is quite common in this country,

00:32:10.640 very common. So Hillary, you are the cause of the problem by far. Trump doesn't get a pass for the 1.00

00:32:17.380 things he said that were more proximate to the actual violence and death. But you can't say that he's

00:32:24.440 the problem. He was the trigger. He might have been the match. But there was a lot of gasoline,

00:32:31.480 and he wasn't the gasoline. He was the match. And in our system, we blame the match. You don't blame

00:32:38.760 the gasoline. But the gasoline is there. Whether you blame it or not is still there. You don't not

00:32:44.900 count that. All right, if you want the ultimate red pill, figure out who was behind boosting the Q 0.99

00:32:53.380 movement. Some of you already know the answer to this, right? So the most official story we have

00:33:01.760 about where Q came from and what that was all about, I would have to say I have deep, deep skepticism 1.00

00:33:08.760 about what we think we know about that. But the official story is that a few users came up with sort

00:33:18.000 of a prank idea that was just sort of to make people think differently, they said, and that the

00:33:25.760 prank grew out of control. Now, the out of control part appears, according to reporting by Reuters,

00:33:34.300 to be boosted by Russian troll accounts. So in other words, it was a prank that got a little traction,

00:33:40.960 but it didn't go big until lots of Russian troll accounts, largely on Twitter, etc., started boosting

00:33:48.340 it. I guess there's part of the story where user Tracy Beans started writing about the Q stuff. And

00:33:57.220 it could be, I guess it could be identified fairly conclusively that the traffic that she was getting

00:34:03.560 for those posts was coming from Russian entities. So Russia was boosting her message. And that was sort

00:34:12.760 of the beginning of the big Q movement. Now, given that we know, somebody said, Chuck says, it's wrong

00:34:22.160 that it's Russia. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me acknowledge that point. So there's a skeptic here who says that

00:34:29.680 even though Reuters is reporting, that you can clearly identify that these were Russian accounts,

00:34:38.120 and that they, you can clearly identify that they were boosting this message. But maybe that's not true.

00:34:45.220 Could it be that the news is just fake? Could it be that whatever intelligence agencies or whoever did

00:34:51.700 the research just made it up? Yeah. Yeah. We actually live in a world where just because you read a story

00:35:00.280 in Reuters that says, we know that Russian troll accounts were pushing this, it doesn't mean it's

00:35:06.200 true. It literally, I don't know what credibility you put on it, but no more than 60%. I'd say a story in

00:35:15.920 Reuters accusing Russia of influencing the election in a specific way. I'd give it 60% credibility.

00:35:25.120 So whoever was saying, you know, it's ridiculous that I would believe that Russians were behind Q,

00:35:31.380 I would say I don't discount that. I don't discount that that's just a made up cover story.

00:35:36.680 But I think it's a little more likely that it's true. Just a feel. But let's extend this. So now the Q movement 1.00

00:35:49.420 has created this, you know, these bad events in the capital. Are you seeing a lot of stories today

00:35:57.300 about what influenced Q? Because to me, it looks like it's an obvious disinformation operation.

00:36:06.680 Now, I'm no expert in intelligence operations, but I know just enough to know this looks exactly like

00:36:15.840 one, which doesn't mean it is one, just looks exactly like one. Now, what are the odds there's

00:36:20.940 something that should have been an intelligence operation? In other words, if Russia didn't boost

00:36:27.520 these signals, why not? Were they not trying? They should have. It would have been the obvious play.

00:36:33.420 We would have done it if the situation had been reversed, I hope. So there's a lot we don't know

00:36:40.060 about this Q situation. But the big question I have is, why did we stop hearing about Russian

00:36:45.780 involvement? Why did that stop? Did some other force start influencing Q? What about China?

00:36:56.200 Do we think that Russia was all over this Q stuff, but China decided to give it a pass? 0.84

00:37:03.740 Maybe. Could be. But anyway, if we ever figured out who was behind all the Q stuff, and I don't mean 1.00

00:37:12.260 the founders, and I don't mean the people who subscribe to it, but rather there's somebody

00:37:17.140 behind the curtain who's just feeding stuff in there a little bit or boosting things. I think

00:37:24.120 it's at least Russia, and we don't know who else it would be. All right. So here's what

00:37:35.080 Christopher Hill on Twitter said, Twitter user Christopher Hill says about this Q stuff. He

00:37:41.660 says, one of the most convincing reasons that Q was or is a professional operation is that Q has not

00:37:48.980 posted since December 8th. I'll need a fact check on that, but here's the claim that Q has not posted

00:37:56.760 since December 8th. And then Christopher goes on. He says, there is no internet troll in the history of

00:38:03.080 the internet who could resist this past month. Well, that's kind of true, isn't it? What kind of troll or

00:38:11.780 political commentator would, especially Q, would not comment this month? A whole month? Doesn't that

00:38:21.500 tell you that whatever the forces behind the Q hoped to accomplish, that they're done? Right? It feels

00:38:31.500 like that whoever was boosting it got what they wanted, and now they just stopped. So they don't

00:38:37.880 need to post anymore. All right. So we continue to find increasingly disturbing things about the

00:38:48.360 people who are in the Capitol building on the assault. And today's reporting says there was

00:38:55.060 somebody there with a military-style automatic weapon. Now, because this is the popular press and the

00:39:02.700 fake news, what do you think a military-style automatic weapon means to a journalist? Probably

00:39:10.940 not automatic, right? Probably not a fully automatic weapon. Because those are hard to get. You can get

00:39:17.860 them, but you have to pay, I don't know, tens of thousands of dollars and go jump through some hoops

00:39:22.840 and buy it from somebody who already owns it, as opposed to buying it in the usual way. So you can have,

00:39:28.600 it's possible. I mean, it's possible somebody had a military-style automatic weapon, but I would think

00:39:34.680 it's just as possible it was misidentified and that it was semi-automatic. Just guessing. But they also

00:39:44.140 said that there were 11 Molotov cocktails, and no matter what these weapons were, there were enough

00:39:49.580 weapons that this was a way more dangerous situation than I first thought. My first, I think one of my

00:39:57.260 first tweets about the protests that had turned into a capital assault is, I was just joking about it.

00:40:04.540 I thought, I literally just thought it was funny, because it looked like a bunch of Trump supporters,

00:40:09.820 they were going to shout and make some trouble and stop some traffic or something, but that looked

00:40:14.680 like that's all it was going to be. Now, of course, I wish I could take that back, because there was

00:40:19.940 nothing funny whatsoever about what happened. It was very unfunny, and people died, etc. So I certainly

00:40:28.260 take it pretty seriously now, but here's the thing. Every time we find out more about how many weapons

00:40:35.840 got into the capital, it's just increasingly obvious that the shooter who took out the woman who died

00:40:44.920 coming through the window, it's just increasingly obvious that was the right decision. Because

00:40:49.660 they didn't get through, right? Isn't it true that the shooter stopped them at that doorway?

00:40:57.440 Because nobody came through after he killed the first one, right? Now, if that's the case,

00:41:04.100 and again, the fact-checking here is wild, because the reporting, who knows what's true anymore.

00:41:09.200 But if that's true, that there were that many weapons who got inside, and that police officer

00:41:15.960 who took the shot stopped them from breaching another barrier, that's the best shooting you've

00:41:21.940 ever seen. That's not even gray area, right? That feels like an absolute justified, you should

00:41:32.560 get a medal, you know? Now, was the person specifically that you got shot, should they

00:41:39.520 have been shot? No. The specific person who got shot was not that dangerous per se, but was part

00:41:46.420 of a mob that was dangerous and well-armed, and I think you have to treat them the same. Because if

00:41:51.480 she had gotten through, and other unarmed people had gotten through, then the armed people would have

00:41:56.980 been through two, what do you do? I would have taken the shot. So, even in retrospect. Now, one of the

00:42:06.020 things that people said to me is they said, Scott, you were saying that it was okay to take that shot

00:42:11.220 because a police officer had been killed just minutes earlier, so that's how dangerous this was.

00:42:18.820 And people said to me, Scott, there's no video of a police officer being killed by the MAGA people.

00:42:24.280 To which I say, well, there is a video of one being beaten to the point where he wasn't moving.

00:42:31.640 I don't know what happened to him. But does that change the point? I don't think it changes the

00:42:37.400 point. And then other people said, but the person who took the shot didn't know, didn't know that the

00:42:43.940 other person, the cop, had been beaten, whether to death or not. So, if you don't know that that's

00:42:50.180 happening, it's not a good shot. To which I say, yes, it is. He made a judgment call about how

00:42:56.780 dangerous the crowd was, and he called it correctly. You know, this cop is being treated very badly for

00:43:05.780 being right about everything. He was right about how dangerous the crowd was. And his actions probably

00:43:13.640 saved lives, even though he killed somebody who I don't think should have been killed. But on the

00:43:19.880 whole, on net, probably saved lives. All right, so there's a real big question on free speech,

00:43:29.880 obviously, duh. When the president gets kicked off of social media and other people are being

00:43:35.560 kicked off, I guess, 70,000 Q supporters have been kicked off of Twitter. My guess is that that's

00:43:43.360 the biggest reason for my drop. So, I've lost maybe 50,000 or 60,000 users in the last day or so,

00:43:51.000 a few days. My guess is the majority of them were Q accounts or Q boosting accounts. So, I don't miss

00:43:59.600 them. I'll be happy to get rid of them. But we don't know what else is on there. All right,

00:44:05.380 so here's my issue. When freedom of speech was originally built into the Constitution and it

00:44:11.800 was part of our founding principles, you couldn't really hurt anybody with freedom of speech.

00:44:18.960 Well, let me take that back. You could hurt somebody, but you couldn't take down the whole

00:44:23.060 country. Because if you're some crazy farmer who's saying things that aren't true, well, nobody knows.

00:44:30.520 You're just a crazy farmer talking to your neighbors. You know, maybe something could get

00:44:35.280 in a newspaper, but even that's going to be local. So, freedom of speech was basically a non-dangerous

00:44:41.600 thing that had a great upside. Like, it would be a great way to bind the country and maintain our

00:44:48.820 freedom. But it didn't really have a downside, except maybe, you know, your neighbor would get

00:44:53.900 hurt or something. But it wouldn't destroy the whole country. But then you add social media. And

00:44:59.440 suddenly, an individual, let's say Tracy Beans, the perfect example, one person who did not have any

00:45:08.040 kind of fame or platform at the time, was able to become very large because of the magnifying effects

00:45:15.920 of social media. And so her message about the Q stuff became big enough that you could argue it started 0.98

00:45:24.960 a chain of events that ended in the attacking of the capital. So you can't say that freedom of speech

00:45:34.060 is the same thing that it used to be. Because now one person can bring down a country. One person.

00:45:41.460 Just one person with a sticky idea and maybe some Russian trolls that boosted and next thing you know,

00:45:48.500 one person's free speech can bring down the whole country. Now, let's take this analogy. You know

00:45:57.400 analogies are not persuasive. But I'm going to give you some context. You probably, most of you are

00:46:04.420 conservative if you're watching this live stream. I think majority of you probably. And you probably

00:46:11.480 also are big supporters of the Second Amendment. And you believe that individuals should be able to own

00:46:16.780 weapons. But I'm guessing that many of you, if not most, would say to yourselves, yeah, a private

00:46:25.080 handgun or even, you know, maybe a rifle that's got more killing power. Some of you would say, yeah,

00:46:31.880 that's appropriate. But can you build, let's say, chemical weapons in your garage? And the answer is 0.66

00:46:42.020 you can't. Because if you were to make chemical weapons in your garage, then you would have the

00:46:47.340 power to kill, you know, I don't know, hundreds of thousands. So we don't treat the ability to have

00:46:52.520 a gun and kill the people who are just around you, as bad as that is, you know, mass shootings, etc.

00:46:59.540 But it's still limited to where the shooter is. Whereas there are other weapons, you know,

00:47:05.320 could you build a nuclear weapon in your garage if you knew how? The answer is no. That's not legal.

00:47:11.920 So we do already have a principle, which is we say, you can have this freedom up to the point where

00:47:18.800 it would destroy too much stuff. Right? So that's the way we treat guns. You can have freedom to have

00:47:25.540 a little bit of firepower. But you do not have the freedom to have a tank or your own F-35, even if you

00:47:33.020 could afford it. So with freedom of speech, we ended up accidentally moving in the same direction

00:47:39.020 as guns. Meaning that a little bit of free speech is great. Just like having a gun for defending your

00:47:50.560 house. A little bit of things can be great. But too much firepower and you've got a new problem.

00:47:58.320 Free speech that can allow one person to tell a lie that destroys the whole country. That's a

00:48:06.880 different level. So appreciate that the social media platforms, even if you don't like what they're

00:48:14.860 doing, and there's plenty of reason not to like it, they don't have options. What the hell is the

00:48:21.380 option? Should we allow individuals to destroy countries? If I put that question to you just that

00:48:30.500 way, do you think a random citizen should have the ability to destroy the country even accidentally?

00:48:38.920 You know, they're not even trying, just accidentally. What would you say to that? Would you say, yeah,

00:48:44.320 that's okay, let individuals destroy the country? I don't know. It's a tough question. So

00:48:51.240 I don't know how you deal with the fact that freedom of speech went from largely harmless,

00:48:59.960 and more good than bad by far, to absolutely lethal. And it's because our ideas can spread more easily

00:49:10.220 over social media. So anyway, just keep that in mind, that this is not as easy a question because

00:49:18.120 freedom of speech is not what it used to be. If one person can destroy a country, maybe you need some

00:49:26.420 kind of control. But here's the problem. Suppose you accept, and I think we, as a country, not you

00:49:34.560 necessarily individually. But as a country, we seem to be accepting by not resisting enough. That's the

00:49:43.240 accepting part. We're not resisting enough to change it. So we'll probably accept that the president could

00:49:49.360 be kicked off of social media for the reason that he was causing a dangerous situation.

00:49:57.640 Now, I am somewhat famous for telling you that the slippery slope argument is not real. Meaning that

00:50:07.820 everything has a reason to go to where it does, and then there's a reason for it to stop. And that's

00:50:13.020 the whole story. Things that don't have any friction will happen, and then friction will appear, and then

00:50:19.880 things will slow down. So the slippery slope thing, I have not accepted as a concept, because unless you

00:50:26.800 have a reason for the slip, don't expect it to happen. But if there's a reason, let's say an incentive

00:50:35.300 is added for, let's say the government changed the tax laws, so if you get a puppy, you get $10,000 in

00:50:43.800 tax relief. How many people would get puppies? A lot. You'd have a lot of puppies. So you don't need the

00:50:52.500 slippery slope to look that when you change the incentives, you make it positive incentives,

00:51:00.000 you'll get more of it, you make it negative incentives, you get less of it. And that's just

00:51:05.000 basic, right? So here's the thing. If we allow that freedom of speech can be limited when there's a

00:51:16.680 physical danger, such as you can't yell fire in the crowded theater. And now that's been extended to

00:51:23.020 you can't question the reliability of a vote once it's been certified, because that would be dangerous

00:51:31.480 for the country. What about the next topic? Let's say climate change. Suppose science, as is the exact

00:51:44.320 case, believes that climate change is a gigantic problem. Lots of people could die if we handle it

00:51:51.120 wrong. What happens if you say the wrong things about climate change? Because now we have a precedent.

00:51:58.060 Can Twitter kick you off for having an opinion which counters the scientific consensus? I would say

00:52:06.200 we've proven yes. Because once you've established the standard that as a private company, they can decide

00:52:13.760 what is too much danger. It's not a question of free speech, because they're private companies.

00:52:18.900 It's a question of danger. Would you call it dangerous to support messages against aggressively

00:52:27.400 fighting climate change when the scientific consensus says that's dangerous? I think you should expect

00:52:35.740 that the situation is there's no resistance to social media kicking off climate skeptics. There's no

00:52:45.360 resistance to that. Because we just watched it happen with Trump for the reason of being dangerous.

00:52:51.020 It would be easy to make the argument that climate change wrongness would be dangerous. Easy, easy. I mean,

00:52:59.240 you don't even have to work at that one. If you get climate change wrong, in either direction. If you

00:53:05.060 spend too much on it, that will kill people. Because that's money that could have been used more

00:53:10.320 productively somewhere else. If you don't spend enough, that's going to kill people. So if you're on the

00:53:15.920 wrong side of that, how can social media keep you on there? Take any other topic. Let's say

00:53:23.040 immigration. If you, depending on what policies you put into effect on immigration, does it not change

00:53:29.620 the mix of danger? Suppose somebody says you can't let people, you can't do massive, loose

00:53:40.260 immigration because there'll be too much crime happening in the country. And let's say social 1.00

00:53:46.020 media says, eh, don't like that message. A little bit dangerous. So you just can't say it anymore.

00:53:54.940 Or you get banned from social media. You can pretty much take every topic, because there's no topic

00:54:00.160 that doesn't have a dangerous opinion with it. Almost every decision that's big that a government makes

00:54:09.300 decides who dies and who doesn't. That's why they're big government decisions. These are life and death

00:54:15.800 even if it's an economic decision. It's life and death, right? Because people do kill themselves if

00:54:21.520 they have bad economic situations, etc. They have less health, good health outcomes, etc. So what I

00:54:28.340 would expect is that literally every topic would become a question of, is what you're saying dangerous?

00:54:36.660 Instead of saying, is it right or useful? It's going to turn into, is it dangerous? And every topic is

00:54:44.380 dangerous? Everyone. So we have now created for ourselves a practical way to eliminate free speech,

00:54:53.000 which is to give that power to the social media companies. Now they didn't ask for it. It was just

00:54:58.700 an evolution of their success. Once they became so successful, they effectively control speech,

00:55:06.680 even if the government says you can say anything. If social media says you can't say it on our

00:55:11.740 platforms, well then you're like the farmer in the field. You've been reduced to crazy farmer in the

00:55:17.500 field who can't hurt anybody or help anybody. So I don't see how that can change. And there was a

00:55:27.300 survey on, let's see, some students were asked their feelings about free speech. And it turns out that a

00:55:38.840 large number of students, a large number of students believe that freedom of speech is dangerous and should

00:55:49.900 be limited. That's right. Students in school today, I'm looking for the actual number here because I know I

00:55:59.240 wrote that. I wrote that down and I will find it in one minute here. Yeah, I'm really bad at taking notes,

00:56:08.500 let's say. All right. Well, I remember that it was a large percentage of students said, oh, here it was.

00:56:16.360 Yeah. Large percentage of students in some survey said that they don't care about freedom of speech

00:56:22.200 anymore. Now, when I was a student, I was taught that freedom of speech is the bedrock right. And if

00:56:32.260 you don't have freedom of speech, even for unpopular ideas, that you're guaranteed you will lose your

00:56:38.560 country. If you're a certain age, were you taught that? That without free speech, you're pretty much

00:56:45.780 guaranteed to lose everything. That's what I was taught. Apparently, that is not what's being taught

00:56:52.180 today. Today, what's being taught is that free speech is actually dangerous because it would be

00:56:58.940 discriminatory toward minorities and it would be bullying and all those things. And by the way,

00:57:04.460 those things are all true. It is bullying, etc. Oh, here's the statistic. Nearly 40% of students

00:57:11.740 believe government should restrict the speech of climate change deniers. So the very thing I was

00:57:16.920 talking about. So at the moment, right now, in this UW-Madison students survey, 40% of them say the

00:57:30.420 government should restrict the speech of climate change deniers. Why? Because they think climate change

00:57:40.260 deniers are dangerous. If you apply that standard, that's the end of the country. And we are. So

00:57:48.280 we're on a path, which if we stayed on it, would guarantee the end of the country. I don't think

00:57:54.740 there's any other way it could go. Now, my expectation is there'll be counter forces and too

00:58:00.700 many things to predict. So I don't think things go in a straight line. And I'm actually not worried

00:58:06.380 that it's going to go that way. I think we'll find a way to correct. But at the moment, the way we're

00:58:12.920 training students, apparently, is to not think that free speech is good and rather that it is bad.

00:58:20.160 Now, whose fault would that be? Do you know what I'm going to say next? Whose fault is it that students

00:58:28.280 are being taught to destroy their own country? Because that's what would happen. If you treat free

00:58:34.500 speech as a danger, you're teaching the students to destroy the country. It's the teachers' unions.

00:58:43.320 Always. The teachers' unions. It's the teachers' unions that decide what the students are saying

00:58:49.760 or not saying. They eliminate competition because they have so much power. So there's no other voices.

00:58:56.520 The teachers' unions are destroying the country. Unambiguously, right in front of you,

00:59:05.380 no doubt about it. The teachers' unions are destroying the country. Now, when I say that I'm

00:59:12.760 an optimist and I believe that we'll figure out ways to adjust, that would be the first way. The first

00:59:18.500 way to adjust would be to either parents just massively taking their kids out of school. That

00:59:26.880 could happen to teach them at home or something. But I think the teachers' unions pretty much

00:59:34.560 have a reckoning coming. I don't know what that will look like. James Todaro, MD, made this

00:59:43.280 observation today. He said in 2019, he said this on Twitter, in 2019, the courts ruled that Trump was

00:59:50.080 not allowed to block critics on Twitter because it was, quote, unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

00:59:58.400 So we know that the president would not be allowed to block people. Now, of course, the president

01:00:05.000 is the government. And free speech is a question of government, not a question of individual private

01:00:12.780 companies. But in 2021, Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit,

01:00:18.360 Twitch, Snapchat, and Discord are given carte blanche to discriminate away. So the president was not

01:00:26.600 allowed to block people because it would block free speech. But the private companies are explicitly

01:00:32.420 allowed to do exactly that with all the same bad outcomes because they're private companies.

01:00:39.480 So, wow. So here's some other examples of things that you know are going to become questions of not free

01:00:52.860 speech, but a question of whether you can say something that might be dangerous. Could you speak out about

01:00:58.040 pro-gun rights if the standard is you don't want to say things that could get people hurt? No, you couldn't say

01:01:05.200 pro-gun stuff. You won't be able to talk about religious affiliations, probably. The food pyramid.

01:01:15.080 Think about the food pyramid, which was completely bad science. The government put out the food pyramid. 0.96

01:01:21.840 Could you criticize the food pyramid? Under current guidelines, the private companies could throw you off

01:01:30.120 for being correct in criticizing the food pyramid. You would have been correct. Now, time has proven

01:01:37.980 that you'd be correct, so that's not controversial. We now know that the food pyramid was, in fact,

01:01:43.560 not science. But if you had said that, could people have said, well, you're going to cause people to

01:01:50.500 eat poorly with your bad science, so therefore that's dangerous. Can't talk about that. I think that's

01:01:57.020 where it's going. One of the weirdest things about being me at the moment is that I know my time is

01:02:10.960 coming. I know I'm on the list of people who are targeted for destruction. I mean, that's obvious.

01:02:17.860 And I spend a lot of time wondering how they'll do it. Yeah, it's like, I know I'm going to get,

01:02:26.500 I'll say, figuratively speaking, murdered, but I don't know what weapon they're going to use yet.

01:02:33.800 So I'm just saying, I wonder if they'll do this, or I wonder if this is how they'll get me. Here's

01:02:38.900 some of the ways that I think are possible. One is the controversial association play.

01:02:45.160 They just have to find a photograph of me with somebody that you already hate. And just say,

01:02:52.060 well, a photograph, so they're basically the same person, which is proven by the fact that

01:02:58.180 they're standing next to each other in a photograph. So, or there'll be some other

01:03:03.380 association that they'll find. So the first way you can bring down somebody like me is find some

01:03:08.880 controversial association. It won't be real, but people won't care. The other is to associate me

01:03:16.880 with domestic terrorism. And that's already started. So the terrorists who got into the Capitol,

01:03:23.840 already on Twitter, you see people blaming me for supporting terrorists.

01:03:28.400 How would you like to be me right now? So that's already happening, but in a lower level way,

01:03:36.580 I would expect to see more of that. The other way is just a pure fake news story, where they just

01:03:41.400 take something I really said, so that when people check, they'll say, oh yeah, those are his words.

01:03:46.160 There he is on video saying it, or there's his tweet. But take it in a context, and then add a

01:03:52.100 narrative to it, and so something innocent turns into something awful. So that's definitely going

01:03:58.120 to happen. Now that's happened to me dozens of times in my career, but none of them were kill shots.

01:04:03.720 Somehow I survived. But probably they need a bigger one, like a bigger fake story, the kind that nobody

01:04:09.700 can get away with. So I'd expect to see that. You should expect to see a sensational fake news story

01:04:16.740 about me that most people will believe is true. I could use the wrong pronouns. That could get me

01:04:24.340 taken out. I could do that easily. Or I could express an opinion on yet another topic that somebody

01:04:34.760 else labels dangerous. For example, I might say, as I often do, that while I don't have an opinion

01:04:42.220 about the science of climate science, I have strong opinions about the economic projections over 80

01:04:47.860 years, which are clearly BS. Now, if I say that those economic predictions are clearly BS, have I

01:04:55.460 done something that would maybe limit the aggressiveness that people are using to take on

01:05:03.060 climate change? Maybe. Sounds like a dangerous opinion. That's the kind of opinion that could get

01:05:08.440 people killed. See where I'm going? I could very easily be thrown into the dangerous opinion category

01:05:15.740 and it wouldn't even be untrue. Are my opinions dangerous? Yeah. Yeah, they are dangerous. I would

01:05:23.300 say my opinions are dangerous because every opinion on a big topic is dangerous. If my opinion turns out to

01:05:31.860 be right, it's still dangerous. If the people on the other side of my opinion turn out to be right,

01:05:39.220 it's still dangerous. These are just dangerous topics. Somebody dies no matter which way you go.

01:05:45.140 So there are several ways that I could be taken out. I'm sort of curious which way will become the

01:05:49.980 primary way. And then the number one way would be economics. So if I get kicked off of all, you know,

01:05:58.000 banking in terms of this stuff, if I get kicked off of banking, that would be the most direct way to do

01:06:03.840 it. So I would expect that. That's common. All right. Rasmussen did a little poll and asked this.

01:06:12.100 They said, does the news media have too much power influence, too little or the right amount? So what

01:06:19.080 do you think people answered to the question, does the news media have too much power and influence?

01:06:24.560 Well, conservatives, 75% of them said the media has too much power and influence and you're not. I guess the

01:06:32.480 only thing that surprises me is that it's that low. Wouldn't you expect the conservatives to be closer to

01:06:38.380 90% plus saying that the media has too much power? If you're a conservative and you're in the 25%

01:06:46.560 who don't think the media has too much power and influence, what media are you consuming?

01:06:54.420 What are you looking at that makes you think they don't? Just a question. So that's conservatives.

01:07:00.200 75% say media too much influence. Moderates, no surprise, they're moderates. Only 41% of them say that the media

01:07:10.780 has too much influence. How about liberals? Liberals, self-identified liberals, only 21% of them think the media

01:07:21.380 has too much power and influence. Think about that. If you're a left-leaning person, let's call them

01:07:30.080 liberals. Only 21% of liberals. Only 21% of them have noticed that the media has too much power and

01:07:38.700 influence. 79% of liberals haven't noticed the power that the media has. We have a problem here.

01:07:52.320 I mean, a big problem. Because even liberals apparently perceive the media to be on their

01:08:03.100 side, but they think that their side is just being right. They don't even understand that the media is a

01:08:13.020 double propaganda machine, where the right is just propaganda for the right, the left is just

01:08:19.000 propaganda for the left. Liberals don't even know that. How would you like to go through life not even

01:08:27.700 knowing that? That the media is biased? That would be like being blind to the most basic reality of your

01:08:39.780 your entire environment. That's shocking. I think that Rasmussen poll will be available to the rest of you

01:08:48.540 sometime soon. I got a little sneak peek. So, is this feed skipping for anyone else today? That's a good

01:08:59.360 question. Anybody having any problems with the quality of the feed? Typically, the feed quality

01:09:06.960 questions are your own connection, typically. Lost friends because they believe the news? Yeah. Yeah,

01:09:18.980 I've lost friends because my friends believe the news was actually news. And it's a real head shaker.

01:09:25.500 All right. So, YouTube is smooth sailing. Most of you know, most of you know that Periscope will be

01:09:36.040 discontinued as a product sometime in March, I think. I believe Twitter has some kind of a different

01:09:42.540 video product, but I don't know the details. But between now and then, I would recommend that if

01:09:49.960 you're on the Periscope live stream, that you at least check out the YouTube live stream and see if

01:09:57.780 you prefer it, because that's the one that'll go forward. At Locals, I'll probably add some, I think

01:10:04.800 they'll have some live stream in a few months. All right. I'm glad that it's working for most of you.

01:10:11.720 So, I'm not, Rumble doesn't have, I do have a Rumble account. So, I mirror these live streams. They end up

01:10:22.760 on Rumble, but they don't have a live stream option yet. You prefer Periscope, huh?

01:10:33.760 Twitch. Yeah, I probably need to get on Twitch, but I haven't done that yet. All right. That's all we need.

01:10:38.640 That's all for today, and I'll talk to you later.

01:10:41.720 All right. Periscope is off. A couple more minutes here on YouTube. Somebody says,

01:10:49.080 don't do Twitch. Twitch doesn't seem like my perfect platform, but I don't know too much about it.

01:11:02.060 Switch to Rumble. Rumble doesn't have live stream. So, I am on Rumble. You just have to see it after

01:11:10.280 it's done. Scope just crashed. No, I just turned off Periscope.

01:11:20.040 The terms of service of Twitch are too much. Oh, that could be. Twitch tends to be biased toward

01:11:26.240 younger people, so I can imagine that my content would not be right there.

01:11:29.680 Tracy Bean's house burned down. Do not smear her. Well, I feel sorry for her house burning down,

01:11:39.840 but I don't think it's a smear to say that she was one of the early people talking about Q.

01:11:46.460 Is that a smear? I believe that's just understood truth. All right. That's all for now. I will talk to you

01:11:55.060 tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 12, 2021

Episode 1250 Scott Adams： Free Speech is Different, Q is Still a Mystery, Impeachment Hypocrites and More

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript