Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1319 Scott Adams： Biden Takes a Trip on a Plane, Fake News Causes Brain Damage, and UFOs!

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody. Come on in. Come on in. It's time. Time for the best part of the day and

00:00:12.620 I'm going to guarantee you that this Coffee with Scott Adams will be the best one of the

00:00:21.720 entire morning. That's right. There will be no better Coffee with Scott Adams all day

00:00:27.980 long and I can guarantee that this is going to be good. It's going to be rocking. And

00:00:32.680 all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chelsea stein, a canteen, chug or

00:00:36.740 a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee if you

00:00:42.200 didn't know. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine. At the end of the

00:00:47.060 day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going

00:00:52.840 to happen now. Go.

00:00:53.640 Oh my God, the waves of pleasure that are just rippling over my body right now. Can

00:01:08.180 you feel it? It's probably happening to you too. Goosebumps? A little bit? No? All right.

00:01:14.400 Well, finally, there's something fun to talk about in the news. And what did it take? Was

00:01:23.540 it because Biden slipped on some stairs going up the steps to Air Force One? Is that what

00:01:30.200 makes it so fun that an elderly person fell down? No. There's nothing funny about an elderly 1.00

00:01:37.580 person falling down. Unless it has a connection to a Trump story, which it did. Therefore,

00:01:46.720 it's turbocharged. It's regular news, but it's amped up a few levels because you can make a

00:01:53.400 Trump reference to it. You can make Trump memes. If you haven't yet seen the meme of Trump hitting

00:02:01.060 a golf ball that looks like it hits Biden in the head before he falls on the stairs, and

00:02:06.820 then he hits the second golf ball to knock him down the second time. If you haven't seen

00:02:11.300 that meme, go look for it. Go look for it. Because if you don't laugh both times when that golf ball

00:02:21.660 hits Biden and that meme, you're dead inside. So go take a look at that. Now, of course, the whole

00:02:32.640 country is feeling pretty darn good about their President Biden. Not only did he get mocked by

00:02:39.400 North Korea, China, and Russia, and basically embarrassed the country, but he walks up the

00:02:49.260 stairs and falls on his face three times, two or three times, I guess. And the worst part is

00:02:55.980 that it comes so soon after failing in public, you know, with the talks with China, where China

00:03:04.560 basically slapped the American team down. And could this look worse? I don't see how this could look

00:03:13.640 worse. Now, let's compare how the news treated Biden's little slip with Trump's little walk down

00:03:22.960 the ramp, because the news has a lot of articles on this. So here's how the New York Times referred

00:03:30.600 to Biden's slip on the stairs. Quote, Biden was, quote, doing 100% fine after his fall and exited later

00:03:38.440 without an issue. Well, there you go. It was just a little slip. There's nothing to see here.

00:03:45.480 That's exactly how they treated it when President Trump had his little

00:03:48.860 ramp issue, right? Well, you be the judge. Here's what they said about that.

00:03:57.260 This is the New York Times said of Trump's, Trump's halting walk down ramp raises new health questions.

00:04:04.280 The president also appeared to have trouble raising a glass of water to his mouth

00:04:09.580 during his speech. He turned 75. The oldest the president has been in his first term.

00:04:16.680 Now, first of all, who is it? Like, when did it become a stat to say the oldest person in their first

00:04:23.640 term? Wouldn't it be more relevant to say he was or was not the oldest president? Because that would

00:04:30.760 mean something. But the oldest president in his first term? It's like they had to reach a little

00:04:37.080 bit to make him older. How can we make him a little bit older? Well, we'll just limit it to the first

00:04:43.440 term. Therefore, he's the oldest one. When you see this level of media bias, which, you know, we see

00:04:53.680 every day. But every time you see one that's this extreme, you say to yourself, wait a minute,

00:04:59.260 are they even trying to hide it anymore? They're not trying to hide it, right? This is just what it

00:05:06.360 is. More on that. Now, what do you make of the fact that North Korea and China especially can

00:05:15.660 play up American racism and make themselves invulnerable from moral attack? Did Trump ever fall

00:05:26.180 into that trap? I don't remember Trump falling into the trap of telling them how to run their

00:05:32.920 internal affairs because we're doing so well over here. I feel like Trump just didn't make that mistake

00:05:41.120 and Biden walked right into it. And here's the thing. How could he not see that coming?

00:05:48.380 If he's attacking the United States every day for being a racist country, and then he goes to China

00:05:56.200 and he says, hey, or as people do, hey, you're being racist with the Uyghurs and whatnot, there's no

00:06:03.800 moral accountability there or no moral authority. How did he not see that? How is it not obvious

00:06:11.000 that the existence of Black Lives Matter, especially the media talk about the anti-Asian

00:06:18.340 violence, et cetera? How did he not know he was walking right into a buzzsaw? Well, what is a pattern?

00:06:28.760 What is a pattern that we see with Democrats and Republicans? I say it all the time. It's always the

00:06:35.840 same. The Republicans seem to recognize human motivation and make predictions based on the

00:06:43.420 fact that humans always act like humans. We're motivated by the same things. It's very predictable.

00:06:49.240 Democrats act as though human motivation isn't a thing. So the most reasonable prediction you could

00:06:57.200 have made is that China would say, uh, looks like you got your own problems because you do. It's the most

00:07:04.220 obvious thing you'd expect. Didn't see it coming. All right. Um, speaking of the media and speaking of

00:07:13.700 the, uh, all of the, uh, violence against Asian Americans, which we hear is spiking. Here's what's

00:07:20.580 surprising. And I only know this is true because I watch the news. If you don't watch the news, you might

00:07:26.860 not know this. You would be uninformed, but I watch the news. And so this is what I know that may

00:07:34.180 be. You haven't noticed. It's kind of weird. So we've got this spike in Asian American violence,

00:07:39.100 which is horrific. Um, and we, we all condemn, right? We don't need to say any extra about that.

00:07:45.140 Everybody's on the same, same side of that. We need that to be zero and anything, anything less than

00:07:51.080 zero is indefensible. But, um, here's, here's the weird part. That's predictable, right? It's kind of

00:08:02.620 predictable that if you're talking about the, you know, the, the China virus, that some people who

00:08:08.880 are not so smart are going to generalize that to Asian Americans living in this country who may not 0.77

00:08:14.360 even have any China connection, you know, ethnically, culturally, or any other way. So it's kind of

00:08:22.000 predictable, but you know what else was predictable that didn't happen? So it makes you question your

00:08:28.460 predicting ability, right? If, if I told you that there was going to be, um, a big Black Lives 1.00

00:08:34.640 Matter movement, and there would be regular protests and stuff, and there would be much more attention

00:08:41.320 on the, the, uh, let's say the, uh, I don't know, tensions between the black and white community in the

00:08:48.980 United States. Wouldn't you expect an uptick in anti-white crime and violence? Wouldn't you?

00:08:58.640 Wouldn't the most logical, uh, thing you could predict from the Black Lives movement, Black Lives 1.00

00:09:05.340 Matter movement, is that some people, again, not the reasonable people, but some people would say,

00:09:11.660 oh, well, we're demonizing white people now, so have a little more violence against white people. 0.99

00:09:16.760 But the amazing thing is, there's no uptick whatsoever in black and white crime. 0.97

00:09:25.300 It's amazing, isn't it? You would certainly expect that to be true, given the setup, because it's,

00:09:30.960 it's, it's a different setup from the Asian American situation, but in the same sense, just because

00:09:35.920 when things are in the news, when things are in the news, it causes people to react and overreact to it,

00:09:43.640 right? So just putting Black Lives Matter in the news, my, my brain says you would have expected an 1.00

00:09:53.260 uptick in violence. And yet there is none. And the only reason I know there is none, because it's not

00:09:59.080 reported. If, if that were happening, it would be reported, right? Wouldn't it? You don't think they

00:10:10.380 would just ignore it? Do you? Huh? Because if they were going to ignore it, that would make it seem as

00:10:18.000 though the news isn't really real. I have trouble believing that. I mean, don't make me start thinking

00:10:27.320 that the news is just made up shit. I don't want to think that. So we'll just assume that this is true 0.99

00:10:36.740 because it's not being reported. And as you know, that's the way it works. When the news doesn't

00:10:43.180 report something, that means it didn't happen. We'll see another example of that in a minute.

00:10:50.200 Here's a question for you. Now that science has shown that extreme partisanship can cause brain

00:10:56.800 damage, I talked about this earlier. So they've done MRIs on brains, and they can actually show

00:11:03.060 that if you consume only partisan news, another word for that would be fake news. Because the fake

00:11:11.280 news tends to be partisan. I mean, it's not exactly the same concept, but it overlaps so much that for

00:11:18.780 all practical purposes, partisan news and fake news become about the same thing, not 100%.

00:11:25.040 But if fake news causes brain damage, because partisanship does, it would be obvious that

00:11:34.120 fake news would too, shouldn't it be regulated? Shouldn't the FDA regulate a thing which can be

00:11:44.320 administered to be administered to human beings and has a profound effect on their health?

00:11:54.880 I'll just pause to let you think about that. So we know now, because science, and don't you love

00:12:01.000 science? Is there anybody here who loves science more than I do? I doubt it. Watch me hug it.

00:12:06.800 Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. I love you, science. I don't know what the Democrats are saying. They don't think I

00:12:13.480 love you, but I do. Mmm. I love you, science. So that's how much I love science. However much you love

00:12:22.420 science, it's a mere vibration of how much I love science. I would fuck science. I would. And science is 1.00

00:12:33.020 not even good looking. But I would fuck it. I'd fuck it hard. You might only date it. For you, science is 1.00

00:12:42.040 probably a platonic thing. And I don't begrudge that. I'm just saying that your love of science is

00:12:48.900 nowhere near mine. Mine is a fully fulfilled physical, emotional, and spiritual connection.

00:12:56.640 Um, so that's just me. But for a lot of you, you're, um, as I was saying, you're lost in the

00:13:05.920 fake news. And it's causing brain damage. And should the FDA not regulate CNN? Seriously. All right.

00:13:16.060 So I, so I've been, I've been kidding a lot, right? Been doing a lot of sarcasm here. But I'm going to

00:13:22.420 turn the sarcasm mode off. Because this is a real point. If fake news causes brain damage, and we know

00:13:31.820 that, because the science shows it, can be confirmed, just look at the MRI. Why wouldn't the FDA regulate

00:13:40.620 it? Because it is, it is a thing which is created by people that is administered to humans, affects their

00:13:50.640 health. What would be the logic for not regulating it? Now, there might not be a practical way to do

00:13:58.400 it. But shouldn't you talk about it? Shouldn't the FDA? Wait, it gets better. Let's say it's impractical

00:14:07.520 to ban fake news. Maybe they want to. But it's just impractical, because somebody would have to decide

00:14:15.840 what's the real news and what's the fake news. And then you just push the problem up one level.

00:14:21.420 Right? If you don't trust the news, why would you trust the person who tells you what news is true

00:14:26.320 and what isn't? It's just another person not to trust. Right? So maybe we should treat it like cigarettes.

00:14:34.400 Maybe CNN should run a warning before every show that says,

00:14:40.020 consuming partisan news from this network has been shown by science to cause brain damage.

00:14:50.660 To protect yourself, diversify your sources of news.

00:14:59.940 Right? Now, the FDA is in the business of protecting our health. Am I wrong? They're in the business of

00:15:08.700 following science and protecting our health. Now, I would agree it's probably completely impractical

00:15:16.140 to ban any kind of news source, you know, because you're the FDA. That wouldn't fly. But warning labels

00:15:23.420 fly. You know, there was a big fight over putting explicit language warning labels on music. Back in the

00:15:32.860 Tipper Gore days of long ago, it was thought, hey, if you label the music, it's sort of censorship.

00:15:39.740 And you're, you would be putting those artists at a disadvantage if he said, there's naughty stuff on this album.

00:15:45.660 There was a lot of argument about it. But in the end, I think the argument that made the most sense

00:15:50.620 is that why shouldn't you be required to accurately label your product? And if people care about the

00:15:58.460 profanity in the music, and people do care, you know, it's something that's on the top of their list

00:16:03.340 of things they care about, parents mostly, why wouldn't you label it? It's perfectly fair to label

00:16:10.380 something that might have a problem. Just label it. Who exactly complains about more information

00:16:18.940 about a product? Right? If you had more information about CNN, is that bad? Under in what world is having

00:16:28.540 more information bad? And if the more information is that it would be dangerous to your brain

00:16:35.740 to consume just CNN and nothing else, and we know that to be true. And by the way, same thing for Fox

00:16:41.580 News, you know, I pick on CNN, because it's just a universal reference. But you know, Fox News, no

00:16:48.300 different, should also be labeled. Partisan news will damage your brain, make sure you diversify your

00:16:55.660 sources. And it would be hilarious for a public movement to start like Tipper Gore, it was came from

00:17:05.180 the public, it didn't come from the government, to get a warning label on CNN. It would, of course,

00:17:12.060 have to be on the other networks. But it would be funnier if you just did it that way. Well, Maria

00:17:17.500 Pardaroma sort of broke some news with interviewing former DNI, John Ratcliffe. They're talking about UFOs.

00:17:27.260 And they said, apparently, they have a number of sensors for picking up what's flying around.

00:17:33.340 He didn't say what he meant by sensors, but I assume radar, satellites, the usual stuff.

00:17:41.340 And he said they're picking up a lot of UFOs, doesn't mean aliens, just means unidentified. And

00:17:48.780 that these objects are doing things which defy what we know about current technology. So it seems to

00:17:56.460 defy physics. But at the very least, it seems to be beyond what human technology is that we know of.

00:18:05.260 So what do you make of that? Apparently, there's some report coming out soon

00:18:10.220 about what the government does or does not know. We should not expect them to tell the truth,

00:18:17.340 because it's not the government's job to tell us the truth. We kind of pay them not to, right?

00:18:23.020 Part of what value you get from your government is that sometimes, sometimes they need to lie to you for

00:18:31.660 your own good. And if we did have advanced UFO alien technology that we were trying to commercialize,

00:18:39.340 it would be better if you didn't know that. I think you'd be better if you didn't know.

00:18:43.660 So I wouldn't mind if the government lied to us about anything that has security ramifications. But

00:18:53.340 let's use this as an example of how to filter the truth. Okay? Someday, we might actually know the answer.

00:19:03.980 But now we don't. So let's use our tools that we've developed to look at this situation and see if we can

00:19:12.140 predict where this will turn out. Okay? So we use different filters and different

00:19:19.580 framing to predict this. Number one, what are the odds that with so many sightings

00:19:27.500 that it would not be a genuine non-Earth phenomenon? Could you take the fact that there are many sensors

00:19:36.780 that have picked up things that we don't seem to be able to do in this world,

00:19:40.860 and there are lots of reports? Some of them are eyewitness. A lot of eyewitness reports.

00:19:49.500 So how do you, what kind of credibility would you put on lots and lots of reports?

00:19:54.700 Well, it would depend how clear the reports are, right? If somebody had a clear photograph of a ship

00:20:02.620 we'd never seen before, that would be pretty convincing. But what do we know about Bigfoot and

00:20:11.180 the Loch Ness Monster? One thing we know about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster is it's really hard to get a

00:20:18.380 clean photograph because they're not real. Things that are real are relatively easier to photograph.

00:20:29.020 Now, it's not a 100% correlation, but it's pretty good. And with so many things,

00:20:37.340 why do we only have unclear photos of something that looks like a blotch or a glowing cigar?

00:20:45.340 But it's never like a good photograph. Right? We never get that good photograph.

00:20:54.060 So I would say to you that the lack of a good photograph after so many decades of trying to get

00:20:59.500 one probably is a pretty strong indication that there are no flying saucers. All right. So now I'm

00:21:09.260 giving you my opinion based on this filter. The filter that we haven't we haven't gotten a photograph

00:21:16.300 yet? Really? That tells me it's not real. Now, what are the other possibilities? Are you ready?

00:21:25.580 Here are the other possibilities. Number one, we just can't get a good photo because they're fast.

00:21:32.060 Maybe that's the whole story. They're just fast. Can't get a photo. What if it's the U.S. technology

00:21:36.940 that we just don't want other people know that we have or some other country's technology? Could be.

00:21:42.700 Maybe some country, maybe the U.S. has some technology, but it seems to violate physics.

00:21:48.700 I don't think that the United States or China or any advanced country, if I had to guess,

00:21:57.980 and I do, I don't think anybody has anything that violates physics. So I'm going to say that that

00:22:05.180 alone eliminates even alien technology. Because we don't think alien technology is going to violate

00:22:12.220 physics, right? You know, even if it were different where they came from. Physics or physics when you

00:22:19.100 get here. They violate the law of physics once they get to our planet. I mean, maybe. Could be something

00:22:25.180 we don't know about reality. But I'm going to give you my more controversial theory, which you've never

00:22:30.780 heard before. Are you ready? For the best theory about UFO sightings you've ever seen. Have you ever

00:22:39.100 heard me mention that we might be living in a simulation? And that the simulation hypothesis,

00:22:47.180 that we're just sort of some software construct by some other entity that was smart enough to do it

00:22:53.420 at some point in the past. If you buy into that theory that we're a simulation, there is a very shocking

00:23:01.420 part of this, which is that we would be built under a theory of resource constraint. In other words,

00:23:11.580 if you were going to sit down and build a simulated world, just in today's technology, would you build

00:23:17.660 the world to use only 10% of the capacity of your computer? Probably not, right? Because if you're going to

00:23:26.380 build a simulation in order to make it as realistic and complicated and rich as you wanted it to be,

00:23:32.620 you'd probably use something closer to as much of the capacity of the computer or whatever you're

00:23:38.780 working on as you could. Would you say that, first of all, that's a reasonable assumption,

00:23:44.060 that whatever resources would be used if we were a simulation, they would use most of it because you

00:23:51.340 always do. You're always going to use most of it because you need it all. Now, suppose they used up

00:23:57.180 most of their computing sources creating Earth. That's reasonable. Earth's pretty complicated, right?

00:24:05.500 I also believe that if we are simulated, our history is created on demand. It doesn't exist until you need

00:24:13.740 it. In other words, whatever is under the ground in your backyard, if nobody's ever dug a hole,

00:24:20.060 hole, there doesn't need to be anything there until you dig the hole. The simulation isn't going to

00:24:25.660 waste a lot of time filling in all the details at the center of the Earth if nobody's ever going to go

00:24:31.940 there. It'll never be observed. So as you observe it or measure it, it becomes real, and then it has to

00:24:39.180 fill in enough details to be compatible with other histories. And when it's not compatible or the simulation

00:24:45.200 can't make it compatible, it gives one of you a false memory and says, you remembered it wrong.

00:24:52.320 So that's how you get all these different histories that don't match. You just say, well, I guess that

00:24:58.680 other person remembered it wrong. And you just go on with your life. But we have actually maybe infinite,

00:25:06.260 or lots of them, histories that don't even match each other. So that would be the simulation.

00:25:11.860 That's how you would build it. Now, if this simulation had tapped out just to make Earth,

00:25:19.460 but it was also designed to expand over time, and let's say the person who built the simulation

00:25:25.020 got a better job and increased the number of CPUs or processors, and over time could build another Earth

00:25:34.260 once they had enough processing power. What would it look like before you could add the detail?

00:25:40.860 It would look like this. It would look like a spaceship that you couldn't get a good read on,

00:25:48.660 that everybody would look at it and they wouldn't see it clearly. Because the moment we see it clearly,

00:25:54.600 the simulation has to build a history. And to build a history that would support an alien spacecraft

00:26:00.920 requires building a whole planet, a whole civilization. It's way too big for the simulation.

00:26:08.400 So instead, while the simulation doesn't have enough computing power, we'll see indications

00:26:14.140 of this future. But it's not until we get the first picture that the past will be created by the

00:26:22.080 simulation. And that's when that alien planet will become real. And that at the moment, there is no

00:26:30.260 alien life. But there will be. And when there will be, it doesn't mean that we evolve, you know, until

00:26:37.180 there is. It means it becomes completely real at one moment in time that hasn't happened yet.

00:26:46.140 So the history of the alien planets is yet to be written. And maybe it depends on the amount of

00:26:53.860 resources running the simulation. And until those resources become enough, every UFO sighting will

00:26:59.980 be just a blotch. Because we'll never be able to see it in a way that we all see it and then

00:27:06.900 harden its existence in the past. Yeah, you didn't see that coming, did you? All right, throw that in

00:27:14.640 your list. Or as somebody says, Scientology was right. I guess that's the other possibility.

00:27:24.640 I'm going to bet against there currently being any alien planets or UFOs. I'm also going to bet

00:27:31.880 that they do exist in the future. But that they don't exist yet. Because we're a simulation.

00:27:39.220 All right. There's a lot of talk about killing the filibuster. Now, this is one of those boring

00:27:46.540 little wonky stories that it's easy to ignore. But it feels like that's the whole game, doesn't it?

00:27:53.680 That whoever can kill the filibuster while they're in power, they're going to have way too much power.

00:28:00.700 And what are the two ways that that could go? Well, one is that, let's say, Democrats get rid of

00:28:06.120 the filibuster. And that allows them to pass things by a simple majority, instead of needing 60% for some

00:28:13.180 kinds of things. And that would make the Republicans just completely useless. Because the Democrats have 0.88

00:28:21.840 majority, they would just vote what they wanted. It wouldn't matter how much Republicans complain,

00:28:26.500 because there's nothing they could do about it. So would that lead to a one party, I don't know,

00:28:32.500 dictator eventually? Maybe. Maybe. But the other possibility

00:28:38.620 is that the voters would just say, you've gone too far, and then just vote a bunch of Republicans

00:28:45.560 into office. So I feel like it's self-correcting, which I think is the genius of our current system.

00:28:53.460 We have all kinds of problems all the time with our current system. But it seems kind of self-correcting,

00:28:59.300 doesn't it? And I feel like that's what China has to be afraid of. Because China's got a lot of 0.76

00:29:05.520 advantages of size, and being a dictatorship gives them some advantages. But they don't have what we

00:29:10.980 have. The ability to just recreate ourselves on the fly. And that's very powerful. I would bet on that.

00:29:20.000 So, I feel as if there are some stories in politics that really show what's wrong with Biden,

00:29:35.500 meaning that it doesn't look like he's in charge. Now, of course, we're looking for that,

00:29:40.460 because we think it's going to be true. So we're going to look for evidence to make ourselves look

00:29:44.500 smart. But with this latest thing where the White House is firing staffers who admitted who apparently

00:29:51.060 had used pot in the past, marijuana, that doesn't feel like a Biden in charge, does it?

00:30:00.800 Do you feel as if a lucid president, if you sat down with him and said, hey, we're going to fire a whole

00:30:09.160 bunch of our staffers that we liked, and we want to work here, but we're going to fire them over past

00:30:15.560 pot use? Do you think that Joe Biden would say, yeah, yeah, we should get rid of our staff that we did so

00:30:22.500 much work to attract, and we want to keep them, because they used pot in the past? Do you think he said

00:30:30.120 that? Do you think that conversation happened? I don't think so. I feel as if this story is this

00:30:38.680 gigantic red flag that says nobody even talked to Biden about this, right? It looks like he wasn't

00:30:45.580 even involved. And the reason I say that is that this looks like no human was involved. Because you

00:30:51.680 know what a human would do? Not this. Not this. Let's throw a dart at a human. Let's see. All right,

00:31:01.900 I got my dart. Sorry. Sorry, I hit a human with a dart. I just, sorry, I was just picking you

00:31:10.440 randomly with the dart. Just going to, you know, ask this question. Do you think the White House

00:31:17.340 should fire people that it really wants to work there? Because they've used pot in the past, 0.99

00:31:22.800 which, by the way, is legal in Washington, D.C., where they work. So you think that's a good idea,

00:31:29.140 the person I hit with a dart? No. No, you don't think so. And you're not even a fan of marijuana.

00:31:35.000 But even you don't think that's a good idea, right? Anybody you could hit with a dart

00:31:43.500 would say this was a bad idea. Republicans, Democrats, independents. This has the look

00:31:54.700 of a non-human decision. And what I mean by that is there were some rules in place,

00:32:00.560 and the humans just followed them. They didn't use any human judgment. Because I think the rules say

00:32:06.760 that if you broke a federal law, you can't get, you know, you can't get, I don't know, clearance or

00:32:12.160 something. So I think they were just following some technical law. But there doesn't seem to be any

00:32:17.500 chance in the world that the president knew about this. Because there's nobody who could know about

00:32:24.020 this and would have agreed with it. He would have just issued an executive order to redefine,

00:32:30.380 to basically, that's what executive orders are good at, to just put clarification on existing law.

00:32:36.620 He can clarify it any way he wants, and he could just clarify it away.

00:32:42.020 And then we have this extra problem that Kamala Harris admitted her marijuana use in the past. 1.00

00:32:47.440 You kind of have to ask her to leave. Or you don't ask the other people to leave.

00:32:57.560 Again, no human being would have made this decision. Oh yeah, let's fire all the people who are not

00:33:04.500 Kamala Harris for doing all the things that Kamala Harris admits she does, or did. No human would make

00:33:11.540 that decision. This is a leaderless decision. You get that, right? There's no leader that was involved

00:33:19.060 in this, and yet it goes on. And now it's been 24 hours, or whatever it's been, and if Biden had any

00:33:26.920 awareness of what was going on with this issue, I feel like he would change it, right? We would

00:33:33.580 already see a statement saying, oh, I didn't realize this was happening. The rule says we have to do this,

00:33:39.280 but I'm going to look at the rule. We're going to re-examine that rule. That would have happened

00:33:44.640 already if he were anything in charge. So I don't think that we need to get rid of Kamala Harris for 0.67

00:33:51.560 smoking pot in the past, but we have to answer the question, who's in charge? Because it doesn't

00:33:58.160 look like anybody. So there was a federal judge who just issued a minority opinion, and it doesn't

00:34:06.940 matter what case it was, because the case he was working on is not relevant to the story. But this

00:34:12.340 is a federal judge, someone whose job it is to be objective. And I want to read the entire

00:34:18.920 minority statement. And it's Judge Lawrence Silberman, and the headline is he called New York

00:34:26.040 Times, Washington Post, virtually Democratic Party broadsheets, basically working for the party.

00:34:31.880 He says, quote, although the bias against the Republican Party, not just controversial

00:34:36.860 individuals, is rather shocking today, this is not new. There's a long-term secular trend going

00:34:43.560 back to the 70s, Silberman wrote. Then he said, two of the three most influential papers, at least

00:34:50.140 historically, New York Times, Washington Post, and are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets.

00:34:56.560 And, hello? Hello? Yes, hello. Hi, this is Sam Smith here, speaking from the Medicare head

00:35:15.260 office. How are you doing today? I'm doing great. How are you? You're from the Medicare head

00:35:21.080 office? Excuse me? Hello? What kind of spam call is that? Do you know what tipped him off?

00:35:36.640 I was too happy to talk to him. As soon as they hear you're happy to talk to him, they're

00:35:43.400 like, this isn't good. I don't like where this is going. All right, what was I saying? So

00:35:49.540 this federal judge is basically saying that the newspapers are now just a unit of the Democratic

00:35:56.540 Party. Is a Democratic Party trumpet? And he lists some other entities that are saying, this

00:36:03.600 is fairly important, I think. Because for a federal judge to come down this hard on the

00:36:11.280 news business, it feels like that's something that's happening. Now, I keep telling you that

00:36:17.460 the Democrats are eating their own. And a good example is Bill Maher. I don't know if he'd

00:36:25.480 call himself a Democrat, but he calls himself a liberal, a classic liberal. And he's really

00:36:32.340 going hard at the woke group. And it's just fun to watch. So here's a quote from his show

00:36:41.280 last night. And I think it also tells you something, that whatever Bill Maher does on his show becomes

00:36:48.500 news the next day. How often have you seen this? Bill Maher does a show, and then that's

00:36:54.520 the news. That's the news the next day. So good job, Bill Maher, I mean, of being relevant.

00:37:01.420 And he said this, quote, people go to parties now and they don't want to talk. They're like,

00:37:06.340 can I talk? I don't know your girlfriend. She might be woke. He says, really, I'm not making

00:37:13.280 this up. And I believe him. I believe that that's actually something that people worry about.

00:37:18.440 I don't know if I could talk to you because I don't know your girlfriend. She might be too woke. 0.89

00:37:25.960 So he's gone pretty hard at that, you know, the wokeness stuff. And that's good to see. 1.00

00:37:32.060 Speaking of the fake news. Well, yeah. So there's a UK recovery trial. So a big

00:37:42.900 randomized, I think, trial in which they were looking at, I guess they looked at 39,000 COVID

00:37:50.560 patients. And they tried, they looked at them with a bunch of different therapeutics. So not vaccines,

00:37:58.080 they're just looking at therapeutics. And they studied a bunch of them. And I read the headline

00:38:02.280 and it said, so just from the headline, it looked like dexamethasone works. It reduced,

00:38:10.040 I don't know, death or hospitalization by a third. So dexamethasone looked really good.

00:38:16.500 And there was one other thing, anti-ill-6 or something. So another one looked pretty good. 0.51

00:38:21.440 And, but the headline said that the, the ones that were not included and did not make a difference

00:38:27.500 included hydroxychloroquine. So 39,000 people studied and no effect, absolutely no effect of

00:38:37.560 people who were hospitalized, no benefit from hydroxychloroquine.

00:38:42.160 I'll wait for about 10 seconds for somebody in the comments to tell me what's wrong with this

00:38:49.880 story. Now they didn't, I didn't see in the story that they were testing ivermectin. So I don't know

00:38:55.240 about that one. Okay. What's wrong with the story? Well, there you go. Didn't take you long,

00:39:01.340 right? Somebody in the comments already is on it. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

00:39:07.220 The claim for hydroxychloroquine is that it works if you get it really early,

00:39:16.200 like when the first symptoms come on. Now I'm not saying that's true. I don't want to be kicked

00:39:21.180 off of social media. I'm saying that other people's claim was that it works if you get it really early.

00:39:28.100 They also claim that they don't have any reason to believe it would work once you're already

00:39:34.120 hospitalized. What do they test every time they test hydroxychloroquine? They only test it the way

00:39:43.580 nobody thinks it works. Nobody's claiming. Nobody. No scientist. I don't believe anybody has claimed it

00:39:51.400 works once you're hospitalized. The only claim was that it might have an effect if you get it really

00:39:58.220 early. That's the only claim. And every time I see these motherfuckers test it wrong, I just say to 0.95

00:40:06.280 myself, is this happening right in front of me? Are you assholes really only testing the thing that 1.00

00:40:13.520 nobody thinks works? That's it? You didn't fucking think once to test the thing that might work? 1.00

00:40:20.120 Now I'm not saying it works. My guess is it doesn't. If I had to give you my personal opinion 0.99

00:40:25.300 of hydroxychloroquine, it doesn't work. That would be my guess. Because it's been so long

00:40:31.900 without it being confirmed. I feel it would have been confirmed by now. So I've been telling you all

00:40:38.520 along, I started with a reasonable percentage that, you know, it's worth the risk because it's so low

00:40:44.280 cost. But I've said from the beginning that every month that went by without confirming it worked,

00:40:51.400 you should reduce your confidence that it might. And I'd reduced it, you know, all the way to 20% and

00:40:58.000 less. And now if it turns out that it doesn't work at all, even if you gave it to people in the right

00:41:03.840 time, I don't know. So here's the thing. As mad as I am that this has not been tested in the way that

00:41:13.180 people claim it might work. I don't know if that's reasonable. Because I don't know any country that's

00:41:20.400 giving anybody anything just because they might have some symptoms. Do you? Is any country routinely

00:41:29.560 prescribing something to somebody who just has a cough? You know, they're 25 years old and they've

00:41:35.900 got a little COVID cough and they test positive. I think they just send them home. Don't they?

00:41:42.360 Somebody said India, but I'll bet you they only give it to them in the hospital. Because 0.98

00:41:47.620 somebody says Africa, I don't think so. I think in Africa, they may be taking it for malaria and just

00:41:56.120 have it in their system. Now, I don't think, I think the stories about India are not true.

00:42:02.400 And I believe it's the same reason. I don't think that they give it in India just because

00:42:07.780 you had a cough. I'll bet not. I'll bet against it, but I don't know for sure.

00:42:12.600 All right. So here we're supposed to trust and love science. But science, of course, is only

00:42:17.840 reported to us by journalists. And journalists do stuff like this. They say, yeah, hydroxychloroquine

00:42:25.400 doesn't work. And then they don't show you that they didn't really even test it. It doesn't work,

00:42:33.120 but we didn't test it. Football player Deshaun Watson faces, let's see, 22 women are accusing him

00:42:44.680 of sexual, what, sexual allegations, I guess. 22. And I think most of them are massage parlor

00:42:54.800 employees. So what did I tell you when Governor Cuomo got up to like his second accusation?

00:43:04.020 And I said, it never stops at two. It never stops at two. Sometimes an accusation will stop at one.

00:43:14.420 And those you have to wonder if they're true. You know, it's a little less credible. Only one person

00:43:18.600 accuses you. But when you get to two, the odds of a third one coming out, like it just goes off the

00:43:26.080 chart, right? You're going to get a third one. And when I saw this story first, there was one accuser

00:43:31.740 the other day against Watson. I said to myself, if there's two, there might be a lot.

00:43:41.540 22 so far. Now, you really want to be sickened? That's 22 who came forward.

00:43:52.000 That's 22 who came forward. How many were there? Because they don't all come forward.

00:43:59.340 How many people did this guy rape? Rape or sexually whatever the term is for what he did. 0.85

00:44:09.440 This guy is like the biggest monster in the world if these things are true. But he's innocent 1.00

00:44:14.660 until proven guilty. Let me not be a jerk for a moment and respect the system. 0.99

00:44:23.020 The system says that DeShane Watson is innocent until proven guilty. And I'm going to stick with 0.98

00:44:33.520 that. You know, we all have the human intuition that this is way too much smoke to have no fire.

00:44:38.900 But on the other hand, he's innocent until proven guilty. All right. The guy who shot up the

00:44:46.040 massage parlor in Atlanta said he had a sexual addiction. Now there's some talk about whether

00:44:50.960 it's even real. And I've always wondered that too. It's like, where's the line between somebody

00:44:59.160 who's just really, really likes it and somebody who's got an addiction? And some smart people have

00:45:05.120 some lines that they can draw there. But Bill Maher had a statistic. I didn't know where he got it from,

00:45:10.560 but on last night's show. He said that a poll shows that single people on average, let's say,

00:45:18.760 pleasured themselves three times a day during the pandemic. So three times a day, the average single

00:45:26.420 person did a little solo lovemaking. And I said to myself, he didn't specify men.

00:45:34.700 And so somebody says, no way. And so I ask you this, if the average was three times a day,

00:45:46.020 but that included men and women, I would think that the men were maybe bringing the average up and the

00:45:55.420 women maybe were bringing it down. And so what was the average, the actual average just for men?

00:46:02.100 And then what was the average for men under 50? Right? Because you're also throwing in the

00:46:10.780 average men who are 80 years old. I've got a feeling that the men under 40 weren't doing anything else.

00:46:19.800 What else was there to do? I think I'll go to a rest. No. Well, I think I'll go to the gym.

00:46:26.240 Um, no. Well, I could go to a move. No. I could go see my friend. No. Well, I could go, uh, I can't travel.

00:46:41.720 What, uh, what's left?

00:46:43.780 What's left? So if you ask me three times a day, sounds a little bit low, but that's just me.

00:46:54.500 Um, two stories that Rasmussen was tweeting about today, the Rasmussen poll people.

00:47:02.140 Um, I don't know if you knew this, but two separate stories that are kind of connected.

00:47:06.240 So in Arizona, the court approved a state legislature directed a full forensic audit.

00:47:13.840 So this is for the 2020 election. So the election is over, but the Arizona court,

00:47:19.660 now here's the important point. It was a court that approved a full audit.

00:47:26.060 Secondly, uh, in Georgia, uh, there was a court supervised, uh, Fulton County full physical

00:47:36.000 ballot audit, which they don't have a result yet, but it's happening. Now here's the part I'm confused

00:47:41.900 about. See if you can explain this to me. Because on one hand, the courts have found no fraud,

00:47:52.580 significant widespread fraud in the 2020 election. Do we all agree on that? That's just a fact,

00:47:59.620 right? The courts, the courts have found no proof, none, no proof of widespread election fraud.

00:48:13.140 We're all agreed on that, right? That's just a fact. And the Democrats have explained to me

00:48:20.060 that that that means it doesn't exist. And that that's just logic. No courts have found widespread

00:48:28.720 fraud. Then logic says doesn't exist. We've been hearing this on, on all the news and social media

00:48:37.480 for months, right? Did I get that wrong? That if the courts couldn't find any, therefore logically

00:48:45.460 it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. But now here's the confusing part. The courts in both Arizona

00:48:55.300 and Georgia have allowed audits to audit something that can't exist. So why would you approve looking

00:49:10.280 for something that logic says can't exist? Are they just humoring the people? Say, well,

00:49:20.120 you have a right to do it. We know it's not there, but go ahead and look. Anyway, I'm just being a jerk.

00:49:30.020 My prediction, as I've told you, is that the election outcome won't change. But history, 0.90

00:49:34.940 history will have a different take on this election. And what's happening now is probably

00:49:40.780 part of, small part of figuring out what that history is going to look like.

00:49:47.000 Another hoax alert. There's always a hoax alert. Do you remember the alleged racist cop who excused

00:49:55.960 the Atlanta spa shooter by saying that he had, quote, a really bad day? Well, that's a racist, 0.52

00:50:01.260 isn't he? Because he's minimizing a murder of a bunch of Asian or Asian American folks. So very racist. 0.68

00:50:12.260 That was the news all day. But it turns out that all he was doing was trying to characterize

00:50:16.920 the shooter's own opinion. It wasn't his opinion. He was describing somebody else's opinion.

00:50:24.780 Accurately, as it turns out. So fake news. All right, I want to end on this. You know how when

00:50:33.620 you were a kid, maybe you're still a kid, there was always some grandpa or grandma who was telling

00:50:39.700 you how hard things were back in their day? Back in my day. And I tweeted down something that's true.

00:50:47.260 So the following statements are true. And it's just one of those snapshots in time of how things were

00:50:55.260 in my life. So these are true statements. I've been robbed at gunpoint three times and once by knife.

00:51:03.020 I've been in two car crashes and one motorcycle accident. And I've escaped from three burning

00:51:09.380 buildings. And I'm still here. Now, I also cured a few incurable diseases along the way. There was a

00:51:19.260 lot that happened so far. But if you were to do if you were to do a similar tweet, would it look that

00:51:26.500 bad? Let me explain some of them. I was a bank teller. So two of the robberies were when I was working

00:51:32.860 as a bank teller. You know, they come up and stick the gun at you and take your money. One happened in a

00:51:38.400 parking lot in San Francisco at night. Another one happened on Marcus Street in San Francisco at

00:51:43.420 night. That was the guy with the knife. I've been in two car crashes, but I didn't get hurt either

00:51:48.640 one. I've been in one pretty bad motorcycle accident where I was thrown a pretty large distance off my

00:51:55.340 motorcycle. Landed, landed. I stuck the landing, basically. I got really lucky. I'll tell you about

00:52:03.900 that. It was a dirt bike when I was a teenager. I was going across a field. My front tire hit a gopher

00:52:12.540 hole. So if you're going fast and your front tire just stops, your motorcycle flips up in the air,

00:52:20.700 you take a ride. And as I was flying through the air and I was flipping around in the air,

00:52:28.700 and I said to myself, you know, this field I'm going to land in has fairly large rocks

00:52:35.680 all over. It's like a field with a lot of rocks. And I'm in the air and I'm going to come down

00:52:43.700 in this rock field. I'm going to be kind of dead. And I'm having these thoughts as I'm in the air.

00:52:51.760 I'm going to be dead in about a boom. Landed flat on my back. Rocks all around me. Didn't touch

00:53:04.120 a single rock. Landed flat on my back with a helmet. I had a helmet on, so I was fine.

00:53:11.400 Now he shook me up. The motorcycle was toast and was never the same. But I lived. And I look at all

00:53:19.140 these various bicycle accidents and various things that happened to me. And it really makes you wonder

00:53:25.960 about the role of luck, doesn't it? It really makes you wonder about luck. Because so many people

00:53:36.180 whose lives didn't work out well had one of these incidents and it didn't go right. I have a friend

00:53:42.180 who died parachuting. Things don't go right. So it does make me wonder about the nature of our

00:53:51.580 existence. Why is it that I got so lucky? And then somebody says, so why are you lying so much?

00:54:01.500 Do you think any of this is made up? Why would I make these things up? These would be weird things

00:54:06.980 to make up. And I was wondering if other people have lives like that. One of the questions that

00:54:13.220 people asked me was to teach them how to tell a story. And I'm going to do that to you right now.

00:54:20.320 How many of you would like to be better at telling a story? Wouldn't you like to be that person who can

00:54:26.020 get people's attention and everybody's looking at you and you tell that story? Or even just talking

00:54:30.900 to a friend. And I'm going to give you the trick. And it goes like this. You have to tell the story

00:54:38.940 to yourself in your head a lot of times before the first time you tell it to anyone else. Okay? So

00:54:46.680 your story should have some curiosity in the beginning. So when I told you my story about a

00:54:51.520 motorcycle accident and then you started hearing it developing, weren't you curious? So I tried to give

00:54:58.280 you a little curiosity about how it turns out. So that's a good story. Starts with something that

00:55:04.020 sparks your curiosity. Then there's the body of the story, which is just what happened. If you want

00:55:09.940 to be a good storyteller, tell it fast. Don't do this. And then there was a Bob. I think it was Bob

00:55:18.020 Tuesday. And no, it wasn't Bob. It was Larry. It was Wednesday. Anyway, it doesn't really matter

00:55:26.220 when it was. So that's the way most people tell stories. The only way to avoid what I just did

00:55:31.860 is to prepare your story in your head in advance. Now I do this automatically because I'm a writer,

00:55:39.680 but I've kind of always done it. I always think, how would I tell this as a story? What would be the

00:55:44.720 opening sentence? What would be the sequence of events? And then I tell it in my head in words

00:55:49.960 until I can repeat it out loud and it's just repeating what was in my head. And then you have

00:55:56.780 to have some kind of a big ending, like a close, a punchline, something that's amazing or something

00:56:03.860 that's humorous. If it doesn't have a good ending, why are you telling the story? Right? Why make us

00:56:11.680 wait till the end if there's no ending? So you got to have a curiosity, a really rapid pace,

00:56:18.180 boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, only because you practiced it. And then a good twist or a

00:56:23.800 punchline or something at the end. You do those things, keep it tight, keep it short, you'll be a

00:56:30.620 good storyteller. That's it. That's all you need. But preparing it in your head before you tell it the

00:56:36.460 first time is the big trick. So you get that and you'll be in good shape. All right, that's all I need

00:56:41.260 for now. And we will talk to you tomorrow. Bye for now. All right, YouTubers, luck comes from the

00:56:55.580 simulation. It sure feels like it, doesn't it? What is your opinion on psychedelic therapy for gender

00:57:03.340 dysphoria? Well, I've never heard that used per se. But psychedelic treatments, I think, are going to be

00:57:12.600 one of the biggest things in the next few years. So there are some things that just living in

00:57:19.600 California, I get to see first. You know, it's like living in the future compared to the rest of the

00:57:24.280 world. And let me say with certainty, psychedelics will be huge in mental health treatment. Huge.

00:57:37.380 And it will be maybe one of the biggest things in civilization. That's how big it is. Because it

00:57:43.300 will change how you think. There's nothing bigger than that. And it will work almost every time.

00:57:49.200 Not, you know, there will be exceptions, of course. Some people will probably die from it. It's like

00:57:53.480 everything else. But to your specific question about gender dysphoria, if that means what I think

00:58:01.140 it is, which is somebody who thinks they're trapped in the wrong body, you could imagine that psychedelics

00:58:08.500 would allow you to be comfortable with your situation as it is. I can imagine that. I don't know that to

00:58:16.880 be true. And I wouldn't even say it's likely. But I can imagine it. Yeah. And, you know, what I've said

00:58:22.480 with the gender dysphoria is that there is an assumption that if you feel trapped in the wrong

00:58:28.220 body, that the best cause of action would be to try to fix that by altering the body. But I don't

00:58:37.080 know that we have evidence that that works. So I don't know that we have evidence that the person's

00:58:42.120 mental state, their general happiness is going to be necessarily better after a transition. But we do live

00:58:50.040 in a free country, and people do get to make those decisions themselves. And it's not up to me to tell

00:58:55.200 you what will make you happy. But you're also accepting that the gender dysphoria is a mental 0.71

00:59:06.400 problem versus just people are different. At what point does people are different become a mental

00:59:15.580 problem? So I, you know, the way you set up the question is that transgenders would have a mental 0.98

00:59:21.860 problem. It's the way you ask the question. And I reject that. Because I think that there's the, 0.99

00:59:28.420 the range of what is normal to be human is just so vast, such a vast range. So that's, that's well

00:59:34.620 within it, in my opinion, that people who have, you know, non standard thoughts about their sexual

00:59:40.960 entity. It's just sort of normal. I wouldn't call that a mental illness. It's just people are

00:59:49.100 different. At the point that 41% of people like you are killing themselves. Now is, is there a high,

00:59:59.080 there is a high suicide rate among the trans community, right? I don't know that it's that high.

01:00:06.340 I don't think it is. But you can imagine that that would be an unusually difficult life.

01:00:14.980 So it wouldn't surprise me. All right.

01:00:21.660 That's all I got for now. And somebody says tennis, I quit tennis because it was too hard on my body.

01:00:28.560 Now I only do what I call monkey exercises. A monkey exercise is something similar to what an ape or a 0.91

01:00:35.620 monkey would do. As opposed to running a marathon. No monkey runs a marathon. But they might sprint and

01:00:45.060 climb up a tree and lift a baby and pull themselves up on a limb. So I do things that are weight training

01:00:52.360 and flexibility and sprinting. But I don't do distance. And tennis is such a non natural act.

01:01:01.980 You just end up killing all your joints and then you can't exercise. So that's, that's my situation.

01:01:10.940 All right. That's all for now. I'll talk to you later.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - March 20, 2021

Episode 1319 Scott Adams： Biden Takes a Trip on a Plane, Fake News Causes Brain Damage, and UFOs!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript