Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1420 Scott Adams： Today's Misleading Title is Cats Loving Dogs and Losing Weight by Breathing

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, it's time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the entire

00:00:11.320 year, not to mention the month, the week, and the day. Today I am streaming to you from two

00:00:17.660 platforms, the Locals platform, subscribers only, who have been talking to me for about

00:00:23.680 five minutes so far. Probably in the future I'm going to be looking to the Locals people

00:00:27.840 to give me ideas for the live stream. I don't have a plan yet about where I'm going to be

00:00:33.600 streaming in the future, but I'll continue on YouTube and may add some options, including

00:00:39.480 Locals. All right, if you're watching it on the Locals platform and you're a subscriber,

00:00:49.320 you would not see any commercials, but you also have the YouTube option if you prefer it.

00:00:54.580 So, how would you like to enjoy the Simultaneous Sip? Yeah, I know you would. All you need is a

00:01:00.940 cupper, mug, or a glass, a tanker, chalice, or stein, a kenteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:01:06.240 Fill it with your favorite liquid. I know you like coffee. Some of you do. And join me now for the

00:01:12.820 unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

00:01:17.400 It's called the Simultaneous Sip. It's going to happen now.

00:01:24.580 Kevin asks, how have I not spilled coffee on a live stream yet? Well, it's time, isn't it? It's

00:01:32.420 about time. All right, let's talk about all the stories. There's a recent report that Space Force

00:01:41.180 is looking to militarize the moon. Now, of course, it's Space Force, so it's a military entity. So,

00:01:51.320 of course, they're militarizing space. But when you hear those words, it's pretty scary, isn't it?

00:01:57.840 It's pretty scary. And apparently, we've now made claim to space around, you know, the lunar situation,

00:02:06.600 the moon. It looks like it's inevitable that we'll try to put military assets on the moon.

00:02:12.760 Because I think whoever controls the moon controls everything, right? So, I would think that there's

00:02:20.640 going to be a massive space race between the major powers to get control of the moon. And

00:02:27.620 pretty much guaranteed, we're going to have a war on the moon. So, that's something to look forward to.

00:02:36.280 War on the moon. Pretty much guaranteed. And so, we've got that going on. Rasmussen reports in their

00:02:47.580 polling that 69% of conservatives say stricter enforcement of existing gun laws would do more

00:02:56.980 than creating new laws, right? So, conservatives, almost 70%, say all we need is the current laws,

00:03:04.320 but just enforce them better. 31% of liberals think the current laws are sufficient, and they would

00:03:13.780 prefer new laws. Now, let me ask you this. How many of the people who answered the poll,

00:03:20.260 conservative and liberal, how many of them even know what the gun laws are? How many liberals

00:03:27.380 could tell you what the gun laws are? I think the conservatives probably could come closer.

00:03:34.320 Because they have to navigate the gun laws to own a gun. But if the liberals don't own guns,

00:03:40.360 you probably don't even know what the laws are. So, how could they think that the laws are sufficient

00:03:46.180 or insufficient if they don't know what they are? So, any kind of poll on gun ownership runs into this

00:03:55.460 wall of people don't know what the laws are or what they could be or what difference it would make.

00:03:59.800 So, these are kind of silly opinions. Speaking of silly opinions, Rasmussen also finds in a telephone

00:04:14.100 and online survey that just 29% of likely voters say laws including that require photo identification at

00:04:24.300 the polls discriminate. 62% say voter ideas laws don't discriminate.

00:04:37.100 What was that all about?

00:04:42.400 Oh, it looks like some people are having problems with the stream, but that'll work itself out.

00:04:46.860 All right. So, what do you think of that? 29% of likely voters say requiring photo ID discriminates

00:04:58.400 against voters. Remember I told you that you can get a quarter of the public, roughly, give or take

00:05:05.760 a few percentages. You can get a quarter of the public to agree to any bad idea.

00:05:12.160 Any bad idea. A quarter of the public is going to say, yeah. If you did a poll that says, how many

00:05:20.660 of you would like us to hit you in the head with a pipe? Well, you get 75% of the people say, hit me

00:05:29.160 in the head with a pipe for no reason. I don't like that at all. 25% of the public would say, give it a

00:05:36.760 chance. Might work. Might work out. So, here we are. 29% don't think that you need photo ID and it

00:05:46.180 won't help. And the only reason is to make it hard for people to vote. Here's another one. 27% of

00:05:52.980 Oregonians support abolishing the police. You see this 25% thing, give or take? You can get a quarter of

00:06:03.800 the country, up to almost a third, to agree to anything. Just anything. You know, I feel as if

00:06:13.720 there used to be a time when you could get 80% of people to agree on something, but maybe those things

00:06:19.200 don't get polled. I suppose if 80% of the country agrees on something, you don't even bother doing the

00:06:24.840 poll because you would know it. All right. So, look for this recurring pattern that a quarter of the

00:06:31.640 public, roughly, will have any whacked opinion. Just crazy opinions. All right. David Boxenhorn on

00:06:40.620 Twitter alerts us to a NPR article about gene editing therapy. So, apparently there's a new success.

00:06:50.400 There's a gentleman who had a rare disorder and they did some genes editing and apparently they edit

00:06:57.820 the genes and they insert the genes into the body or the edited parts. And the edited parts swim around

00:07:05.740 in your body and take hold in exactly the right places. Yeah, it's CRISPR technology. And it's a big

00:07:15.120 story that an incurable disease was just cured. It was a somewhat rare disease, but incurable and now

00:07:23.440 cured. But that's not the whole story. The whole story is that this is now doable. And it's doable on a

00:07:34.400 whole other level than what we've seen before. So, probably in the next, I don't know, five years, it's

00:07:42.600 not very far away, I'd say in the next five years we will be editing genes like crazy because we can do it

00:07:49.640 now. Yeah, we should be taking on, you know, various kinds of cancers and all kinds of blood

00:07:55.660 problems. And what else can you do with this? Can you fix eyesight? What do you think? Apparently

00:08:04.240 there is some kind of specific kind of blindness that can be fixed with this technology or

00:08:08.680 potentially. But what about just being nearsighted? I don't know. Is that genetic? Or is that just age

00:08:16.880 so there's nothing that you can do about it? Or can you reverse aging? Can you do some gene

00:08:21.900 splicing and make somebody live longer? So I told you that people like me probably, according to the

00:08:30.600 science, have a special gene situation that allows me to sleep far less than other people and still

00:08:37.600 function. Yeah, baldness. Baldness will probably get fixed. If you have the option, let's say you're a

00:08:46.060 normal sleeper. If you have the option to do some gene therapy so that five hours of sleep would just

00:08:52.540 be great for you, as it is for me. I was just born that way. Would you do it? Would you enhance your

00:09:00.540 body with that superpower just because you could? If you knew it was safe enough and you could just get

00:09:08.500 a little gene therapy and it would take three hours of sleep off your day, would you do it? I'm looking

00:09:15.620 at your comments. Mostly no's because people say they like sleep. I think that makes sense. But a

00:09:23.340 number of you would do it because you would... I don't know how to tell you this, but I have two

00:09:28.360 lifetimes for year one because those morning hours that I'm awake that most of you are asleep,

00:09:34.240 I do the equivalent of a full day's work, play, entertainment. I mean, I stuff 24 hours into

00:09:41.520 like three or four hours because they're such good hours. You know, brain is maximum. I'm not tired.

00:09:47.680 I'm happy to be alive. So I literally lead the equivalent of two lifetimes. And I like being

00:09:56.720 alive. It's kind of cool. So having two lifetimes during year one is really good stuff. If you could

00:10:04.160 get gene therapy and have two lifetimes instead of one, and trust me, that second lifetime, the one

00:10:10.880 when you're sleeping, is great. It's way better than the other one. The other life where, you know,

00:10:17.780 everybody's awake and I'm just interacting with the world is good. It's a perfectly fine life. But the

00:10:23.280 one when you guys are asleep, most of you, is really good. That part of the day is really good.

00:10:30.400 That's why I enjoy it so much. All right. So that's part of the golden age that's coming.

00:10:39.680 I am still fascinated by the following question that I know many of you feel that you have

00:10:45.820 a solid answer to. I'm not going to talk about the question of whether masks work. I know,

00:10:51.300 I know, you don't want to hear that anymore. But I'm still fascinated by the solidarity of the experts

00:10:57.380 and why that is. Now, the speculation that people have given me is that the reason that the top

00:11:05.200 experts for every country and every state in the union, the United States, every one of them,

00:11:11.480 say that masks work while the science, according to many of you, is less clear. Why is it that there

00:11:19.480 would be so much agreement at the top political level of the medical world? Now, many of you have said

00:11:26.700 quite reasonably, you've said, Scott, it's not about medicine. It's not about the data. It's about

00:11:34.020 people who don't want to lose their jobs. So as soon as they're told what the what the answer is,

00:11:40.100 that will be allowed by the CDC and the, you know, the Fauci's and the who, then all the medical

00:11:45.800 experts who are the sort of the political medical experts, you know, the ones who are helping the

00:11:51.020 government make decisions, that all of them don't want to get fired. They don't want to be embarrassed.

00:11:58.080 They don't want to take a risk. So they just conform to whatever the the consensus is, and then stick to

00:12:04.900 it like they really believe it. Does that explain it? Do you feel that that would explain a complete,

00:12:11.920 I'm really, I think it's 100% of industrialized countries, main experts say that masks do work

00:12:21.240 in specific situations, let's say, in retirement homes and stuff like that? Not necessarily outside.

00:12:28.500 I don't think anybody thinks they work outdoors. But do you think that that explains it all? That you

00:12:36.240 can explain the entire situation by the fact that the experts are lying to you, and that they're just

00:12:43.420 agreeing with with dogma, and that they're literally just lying to you that it's their own opinion?

00:12:50.580 Do you buy that? Do you buy that they would so quickly form around that opinion? Well, here's the

00:12:59.440 wrinkle. Didn't the medical community completely form around the opinion the masks don't work?

00:13:08.620 Before they completely surrounded the opinion that they do? Do a fact check on me. When Fauci and the

00:13:16.160 WHO and Surgeon General, etc. in the United States, were saying masks definitely won't help, because

00:13:22.420 that's what they said at first, what was the consensus of the entire medical community?

00:13:29.440 Didn't they agree? Do a fact check on me, because I don't remember exactly. But I feel as if

00:13:36.400 I didn't see any major medical expert, let's say the head of an organization or something,

00:13:43.080 disagree with that, right? And did any data change? Was there any change in data from the time that

00:13:50.480 Fauci said, no mess, don't work, don't do it, to the time he said they totally work and you should do

00:13:56.880 it all the time? Did any data change? I don't think so, because it wasn't enough time, right? Nobody did

00:14:04.320 a study or anything like that. So, if it's true that the experts went from completely saying x is true

00:14:14.160 to completely saying x is untrue, or the reverse, with no change in the data, then I believe that your

00:14:23.120 opinions would be fair to say that there's nothing the experts are saying which should be taken as credible.

00:14:30.960 Is that amazing? How amazing is it that we can say that statement, and you're probably all saying,

00:14:40.560 you get a point. There's probably nobody here who's listening to this, or almost nobody,

00:14:46.800 who says, yeah, Scott, that's crazy that you're not listening to the experts.

00:14:51.320 Because the experts are completely divorced from the data. If they can have two separate opinions

00:14:57.620 completely reversed with no change in data, we just watched it. So, I would have said not long ago

00:15:05.940 that it's a crazy opinion that the entire medical community could be just following the leader,

00:15:12.340 like that's it. You can't find an honest broker among the entire senior echelon of medical experts

00:15:20.020 working for the governments. Nobody. But maybe we just saw a public demonstration of exactly that.

00:15:28.340 We may have just watched it right in front of our eyes. And that's really amazing. You know,

00:15:33.700 independent of whether masks work or not, the psychology of this just is amazing. All right.

00:15:41.300 But I would add this little caveat, which is, in the rare situation where experts were told masks

00:15:48.820 don't work, and then told that they do, that would seem to me, my common sense would tell me,

00:15:55.140 which, of course, is a real problem. We don't really have common sense. We have the illusion

00:15:59.540 of common sense. But my illusion of common sense is that when you have a situation where it rapidly

00:16:05.860 goes from don't use them to, yeah, you'd better use them everywhere, that you would have plenty of

00:16:10.980 doctors in that situation who would not feel at risk for a while. Right? So, the moment when

00:16:18.740 the opinion changed from definitely don't do it to definitely do it, that was the time everybody

00:16:24.980 was free. If you were a medical expert during the transition of don't do it to do it, how could

00:16:33.140 you be fired for your opinion? Because for a while, both opinions were out there, you know,

00:16:38.180 with equal strength. So, that was a point where you should have seen a lot of disagreement.

00:16:43.780 Do you remember any? I don't remember any. I feel as if it was just a switch.

00:16:52.580 And what does that tell you? You can't even get disagreement during a time when you're switching

00:16:57.300 from yes to no. Even if it's just briefly, like a few weeks maybe. We should have seen all kinds of

00:17:03.940 experts saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we think yes. And other experts saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we say no.

00:17:10.500 Something's very wrong here. Yeah, and I see you mentioning ivermectin every few minutes. And so the

00:17:17.300 question is, could the medical community be as wrong about a therapeutic? Yes. Yes.

00:17:25.700 The old thinking that the medical community could not be so group-thinky and so afraid and so

00:17:36.580 disreputable that they could just go with a lie because it's easier for their career. There was a

00:17:44.020 time I wouldn't have believed that could happen. I believe it now. I do believe now that the medical

00:17:51.940 community is divorced from the data on a lot of big questions. Not all of them. But any question

00:17:58.420 that has a political dimension, the data doesn't matter at all. It just seems to make no difference.

00:18:05.300 We get opposite decisions with the same data. So there you go on that. There's a little fake news,

00:18:13.700 I think, coming about Nike. So Nike's president recently said this, Nike is a brand that is of

00:18:22.900 China and for China. How do you interpret that? That the president of Nike said Nike is a brand that

00:18:30.100 is of China and for China. Well, I think the way it's being interpreted is that therefore Nike has to

00:18:38.100 do whatever China wants them to do, which is fair. I think that's a fair statement. But what do they

00:18:45.300 mean by it? Are they throwing their allegiance behind China versus some other country? Here's what I think

00:18:50.740 it means. I think the context was probably when they say Nike is a brand that is of China, I think they

00:18:59.300 mean that their stuff is made in China. Now that would just be a fact, right? To say that Nike is of

00:19:06.340 China, meaning that China makes their products, that would just be a fact. And then they say for

00:19:11.700 China. Does that just mean they sell their products into China? So there's nothing really being said

00:19:18.900 here, which is China makes our products, we already knew that, and China buys our products, which we

00:19:25.380 already knew. So I don't think there's anything new here. But the way it's stated, especially out of context,

00:19:31.300 makes it makes it look a little extra bad. And it is bad. It's bad because there's a major company,

00:19:40.580 about as major as you can get, that really just has to do what our adversary wants them to do.

00:19:47.380 So that's not cool. Adam on Twitter, Adam Dopamine is his handle. He tweeted this. He said,

00:19:59.900 Scott Adams predicted the country would believe we had elected two presidents after the 2020 vote.

00:20:06.500 True. I predicted that we would elect two presidents, not one. Or at least in our minds,

00:20:13.320 legally, there would be one. But in our minds, there would be two presidents. That was my actual

00:20:19.000 prediction. And Adam points out, when presented with a coin toss, who else called side? How many

00:20:26.460 people predicted that when you flip the coin, it would land on its side and stay there? Just me.

00:20:33.120 I didn't hear anybody else knew it. Did you? I believe I'm the only person who said that we won't

00:20:37.800 have a result in the election. We'll have two presidents. Sure enough, the loudest cheer of the

00:20:43.600 night in Trump's rally was Trump won. And I guess the crowd went wild. And I think, you know, half of

00:20:52.120 the people in this country or more are concerned about the integrity of the election, the last election.

00:20:57.580 So what do you say? Was my prediction correct that we got two presidents? Kind of. It was. So that's

00:21:07.680 one of my weirder predictions. Here's another prediction that we don't know if it's right yet,

00:21:15.200 but it's weird. All right. So remember when Biden said he would sign the infrastructure bill that a

00:21:21.560 bipartisan commission came up with. And I said, not so soon. Just because, sorry, just because the news

00:21:31.280 is reporting that we have a deal. Democrat participants said yes. Republican participants

00:21:40.880 in the little working group said yes. And Biden said yes. So the news said we got a deal. And I told you,

00:21:48.640 no, we don't. We don't have a deal. They're just completely wrong about that. Well, it only took a

00:21:55.800 few hours for Biden to say, when I said I was going to sign it, I didn't mean I'd sign it. What I meant

00:22:02.520 was, if an entirely different bill, full of stuff that I wanted that I didn't get, if that is given

00:22:09.860 to me at the same time, I'll sign the bill, but not unless I get this other bill, which is unlikely to

00:22:16.920 be happening. So basically, he said he wasn't going to sign it after he said he signed it.

00:22:22.400 But then there was some pushback. And the Democrats got embarrassed because Biden was confused again.

00:22:29.460 Am I signing it? Am I not signing it? Kind of pathetic. It kind of makes him even more obviously

00:22:37.500 not capable. So they tried to clean it up by saying, no, no, no, we didn't mean that.

00:22:43.140 What we meant was, he totally signed that one bill. Now, you still need Congress, right? Congress

00:22:52.840 still has to sign the thing. Do you think they will? Why would they? Why would Congress agree

00:23:00.840 just because a committee came up with a bipartisan agreement, and Biden said he'd sign it? Why would

00:23:07.320 that make the rest of the Congress agree? It wouldn't. In all likelihood, it will just be

00:23:13.240 defeated. So my prediction is that everybody who says, yeah, this looks like a done deal, everybody's

00:23:19.020 agreed. I don't think so. I think we live in a world where everything gets stopped just because they

00:23:25.680 can. So one side will stop it. Now, hold that prediction, because it is possible that it'll get

00:23:32.540 signed. I'm not going to say it's impossible. But I'm going to say the odds are that we're not that

00:23:38.100 close to getting this signed. So I'm going to put a, I'll put a, let's say, a limiter on it. I'll say

00:23:45.360 before the end of the year, they won't get anything signed. Eventually, someday, maybe something gets

00:23:51.400 signed. But I'm going to say before the end of the year, no infrastructure deal. That'll be my

00:23:56.460 prediction. Going against the grain. Apparently, Biden's popularity is doing pretty well in some

00:24:05.460 categories. For example, he's getting good marks and he's getting good marks for handling the

00:24:14.060 coronavirus pandemic. And by the way, would you agree? Would most of you agree that Biden does get

00:24:21.440 high marks for handling the pandemic? I feel like that would be a fair statement. I also feel that

00:24:28.500 he inherited a really good situation. I'm seeing a bunch of no's because it's a political question.

00:24:35.620 But I think Biden is doing well on vaccinations because Trump set him up to do well. Whoever was

00:24:46.160 president was going to do well because of what Trump did to prepare, right? If Trump had not done what

00:24:51.820 he did, Project Warp Speed, get the vaccinations up, you know, kick some ass, knock down some walls,

00:24:57.640 the things that Trump is the best at. If he had not done that, would Biden be so popular for doing a

00:25:03.660 good job? I don't think so. Look at Australia. Australia has about 4% of vaccination rate and they're

00:25:10.660 just closed down Sydney again. Think about it. The United States is opening up, I think, for good.

00:25:19.520 Australia has 4% vaccination rate and they just locked down Sydney. Imagine if a major city in the

00:25:28.520 United States got locked down this week. We'd be going nuts about that. Remember I told you that

00:25:36.680 you can't judge how well any country does in the pandemic until it's over. Because I predicted that

00:25:44.360 some countries would start well, maybe for reasons that we don't even understand. Other countries would

00:25:50.360 not do so well, also for reasons we don't understand. But that by the time you got to the end, we'd be

00:25:56.580 smarter about what works and that the United States, because of its capability, you know, it's wealth,

00:26:03.280 its capability. There are a lot of things we do well compared to other countries. And I predicted

00:26:08.540 that we would come out toward the top end of good outcomes. But it would take until the end,

00:26:16.960 right? Here we are. Australia was a model of good behavior and keeping the virus out in the beginning,

00:26:25.220 right? If you looked in the first months of the pandemic, Australia, A+, United States,

00:26:31.940 D-minus. How about now? How would you score it now? Right now you would give Australia an F.

00:26:41.600 You would give Australia a failing grade as of today. And you would give the United States

00:26:47.200 maybe an A, right? Because we're going to get to the end of this in a really solid situation.

00:26:56.900 On top of that, there's news today that the, at least the mRNA vaccinations, the ones where you

00:27:03.540 need two of them, appear to have permanent benefit. So the indication from a new study is that their

00:27:13.060 benefit is lasting and permanent. Maybe not the J&J shot, but the mRNA ones, it might be permanent,

00:27:19.260 permanent protection. And at the same time, they protect against the variants.

00:27:26.760 That's Trump. Now, maybe he got lucky, right? Because I don't know that anybody knew the

00:27:32.520 vaccinations would be this powerful. And I know you're worried about them. And I know that there's

00:27:37.520 concern about side effects. And I'm not minimizing that. But I'm just saying at this point, it looks like

00:27:43.040 the United States, thanks mostly to Trump, is going to kick the ass of almost every country when it

00:27:50.760 comes to the coronavirus. It looks like that's going to happen. So that was one of my predictions as

00:27:57.100 well, that we would come from behind. All right. So I was talking about Biden's popularity. So Biden's

00:28:03.120 popularity because of handling the coronavirus. But mostly that was Trump. Trump gave him a situation that

00:28:11.640 pretty much guaranteed that whoever took over was going to succeed. Because it's not like Biden

00:28:17.060 was sitting in on the meetings on the rollout. It's like, okay, you know, you're going to get

00:28:22.220 three trucks. You're going to drive that vaccine down to Florida. It's not like any of the presidents

00:28:27.820 are going to be involved in the logistics. That was going to happen the way it was going to happen,

00:28:32.740 no matter who was in charge, right? Because it was going to be top priority. There would be money,

00:28:37.580 plenty of people to work on, and plenty of assets. It was going to work.

00:28:40.400 We had everything we needed to make the rollout work. You would have had to try hard to screw

00:28:45.820 it up. And apparently we didn't. So he's got that going for him. The other thing that Biden is doing

00:28:51.740 well on is the economy. Biden is doing well on the economy. Why? Why is Biden getting high marks on

00:29:02.080 the economy? Is it because of how he's changed the tax plan? Well, he hasn't changed it, right? He's

00:29:09.020 proposed things. But nothing's changed. The economy that we have now is Trump's economy. Now, you can

00:29:16.280 say, you know, give or take the stimulus packages and stuff, that maybe that was important. But it

00:29:24.600 looks like the two things that make Biden popular, the economy and the coronavirus handling, were both

00:29:31.700 Trump. Trump put the economy in the strongest position it ever was, so that after the pandemic

00:29:38.400 was over, it would just explode again. Exactly what we saw. But if the economy had been weak before the

00:29:46.280 pandemic, why would you expect it to be strong now? Obviously, you wouldn't. So

00:29:52.280 the things that Biden is not doing well on are immigration, which Trump did better. Trump did

00:30:03.120 that better. I think you could just say that objectively, that in terms of at least restricting

00:30:08.800 it, he did better. You could argue about the humanity of it. That's a different argument.

00:30:12.840 And Biden is doing poorly in his relationship with Russia and China. Some of our biggest

00:30:21.600 challenges, how to handle Russia, how to handle China. Biden's doing better. And what about North

00:30:30.260 Korea? Well, North Korea isn't terribly important at the moment, because Trump fixed it. Trump fixed

00:30:39.400 it. The wars in the Middle East. I guess Biden is bombing some Iranian assets in Syria, because they

00:30:46.820 had some drone attacks come out of there. But basically, even the Middle East is kind of in the

00:30:52.980 best shape it's been in a long time, because of Trump. Right? So everything about Biden can be seen

00:31:00.600 through a filter of what Trump did. So far, it's not even about Biden. If Biden does anything to the

00:31:07.340 economy, is it going to make it better? Probably not, because it doesn't seem to need anything right

00:31:14.220 now, except maybe some debt relief. We'll see if he can do anything about that. All right, I got a

00:31:20.100 question for you. The people on the political right are quite obsessed about the source of the

00:31:28.340 coronavirus. Did it come out of the Wuhan lab? And importantly, are obsessed by whether Anthony

00:31:34.740 Fauci was part of any recommending or funding that went into the Wuhan lab, and specifically that

00:31:41.760 coronavirus part, and then ended up with a worldwide pandemic? And the question I ask you is,

00:31:50.200 why do you care about that? You assume you care, and I also care. But why?

00:31:57.440 Why? Why? Suppose you found out that Anthony Fauci was behind the recommending or the funding

00:32:08.360 of the Wuhan lab. What difference would that make? Because he's clearly not, he wasn't funding

00:32:16.060 military gain of function. Does anybody think that? If what he was doing was funding things that

00:32:27.360 scientists working in that field believed should have been funded, which just sounds like that's what

00:32:32.880 it was, then all he did was fund a thing that people thought should get funded. Because we need to be

00:32:39.200 able to protect against the gain of function, we need to understand it, etc. Now, if that funding

00:32:44.720 went somewhere that produced something bad, is that Fauci's problem? Even if he did? And I think he's

00:32:52.800 denying that he necessarily did anything that would fund it. So I think there's some question about the

00:32:58.220 fact pattern here, too. But what if it is true? Why is that a problem? Because that sounds like his job.

00:33:06.340 Wouldn't his job be to make sure that money got to the places that were researching the things that

00:33:11.780 we thought should be researched? I don't even understand the issue. Now, I see the issue of he may have

00:33:19.760 lied about his involvement. But in the political world, that's sort of a political lie, isn't it?

00:33:27.080 Suppose what he did was he was involved in some way with some funding that did, in fact, make its way

00:33:33.040 over to the lab. But if you ask him, he says, no, I funded this entity, but then this entity funded

00:33:39.400 them. So it wasn't me, it was the other entity. Those are just sort of political differences, right?

00:33:45.340 It's not a lie, and it's not true. It's just a way of looking at it. Well, in one point of view,

00:33:51.400 I didn't fund them. But from another point of view, you could say I did. It's just like every science,

00:33:57.500 not every science, but every political question. You look at the same facts and just interpret them

00:34:02.680 differently. So my question is this, I'm not doubting whether he funded them. I don't know.

00:34:10.200 But I don't know what difference it makes, other than the fact that he may have lied about it,

00:34:16.780 but probably not a science lie, probably a political lie, as in, well, I funded people who funded it,

00:34:24.760 but that doesn't mean I funded it, or something like that, you know, where it's a little gray area.

00:34:30.920 I think that's where that's going to end up.

00:34:32.360 I don't buy into the fact or the allegation that Fauci is attempting to do something bad,

00:34:41.200 or did attempt to do something bad for the country. Why would he? You know, if he was doing

00:34:48.520 something that had a personal financial interest, I'd want to know more about that.

00:34:54.340 Yeah, so Don is saying he is evil. I would say that if that's your interpretation,

00:35:02.920 that Fauci is evil, then you are brainwashed. Because that's the brainwashing take.

00:35:11.420 He could be somebody who did something that was good for his financial interests. That's possible.

00:35:18.860 Also thinking it was good for the country, perhaps. But evil? Really? If your opinion of him is that

00:35:29.020 he's evil, you mean that he intentionally set out to do something bad to the world? I don't think

00:35:35.760 there's evidence of that. So if you say to yourself he may have misled Congress by shading the truth

00:35:42.740 about how things got funded or his involvement, I'd say yeah, probably. That would be just a typical

00:35:48.240 political thing to shade your involvement and frame it the way that makes you sound good.

00:35:53.940 But that's not evil. That's just a Tuesday. Now, I don't want to be the one to defend him.

00:36:01.840 So don't get me wrong. If there's something he did that's bad, let's know about it. But I'm not

00:36:08.480 aware of anything. And I've been watching the news pretty carefully. And everything I see might be true

00:36:14.660 in terms of his funding influence. But I don't know how it makes any difference.

00:36:24.160 So Rachel says, the argument is that there is no good game of function.

00:36:30.760 I've not seen that argument. I don't believe that that's true. That there's no such thing as good

00:36:37.400 game of function research. Because at the very least, you would want to know how the bad guys

00:36:42.740 were doing it. So you'd have to do it to see if it works. And then you'd have something to make a

00:36:49.160 vaccine against. Or at least find out what's possible and what's not. I feel like you'd have

00:36:54.140 to do the game of function stuff just to know how to defend against it. I think. All right.

00:37:01.540 So we're still hearing from CNN about the big lie. And they've done a good job of branding this,

00:37:11.060 by the way. So their branding is very consistent. Talking about Trump's claim that the election was

00:37:15.540 not valid in terms of the vote counting. And according to CNN, it looks like that argument is

00:37:28.780 getting smaller and smaller. Meaning that all of the possible ways that any fraud could be discovered

00:37:35.200 seem to be not happening. So it looks like the last thing that might produce some kind of surprise

00:37:46.260 would be the Arizona Maricopa audit, which is apparently done. They've completed it, but we don't

00:37:52.820 know the outcome. And it's already being criticized for being sloppy. Meaning that they've sort of

00:38:01.120 vaccinated the public into thinking, oh, yeah, there's an audit happening. But let us tell you

00:38:06.300 all the ways they're doing it wrong. So that if something comes out of it, we can just say, well,

00:38:10.960 we told you it wasn't done right. So there's your result. Wasn't done right. Doesn't mean anything.

00:38:16.320 So we're being set up brainwashed, really. We're being into believing that even if something comes

00:38:25.900 out of that audit, it won't mean anything. How does it make sense to have the research done in China

00:38:36.040 and banned in the US? The reason it makes sense is that they're willing to do it there.

00:38:41.320 That's it. They were willing to do it there. That's all you need. All right. So what do you

00:38:51.620 believe at this point? It's been a while, right? If there were irregularities, wouldn't you know

00:38:58.520 about them by now? I mean, proven irregularities. Wouldn't that be in the news by now? Do you really

00:39:03.780 believe that all of the people involved in the Arizona Maricopa audit, that if they had the goods,

00:39:11.320 you wouldn't know about that by now? Do you think? Do you think that they would be able to sit on that

00:39:20.380 for days, if not weeks, if they had the goods in Maricopa? Not a chance. Not a chance. So here's

00:39:30.020 another lesson in prediction. Nobody can keep that secret. There are definitely kinds of secrets you

00:39:38.120 could keep. Here's a secret you could keep. We didn't find anything. Right? Remember how impressed

00:39:46.300 we were that the Russia collusion project with Mueller? Weren't you impressed that we didn't

00:39:54.120 hear leaks? Well, maybe there's a reason. Maybe when the leak is we didn't find anything,

00:40:01.180 people can keep that secret. Because the people who are keeping that secret wanted you to think

00:40:06.380 maybe they did find something. Because the longer you thought maybe there is something,

00:40:11.280 the better it was for the individuals doing it. In other words, if they were anti-Trump,

00:40:16.080 they didn't want to give you the result too fast. They showed there wasn't anything there.

00:40:21.580 So I think maybe people can keep a secret when there's nothing there. Do you know when people

00:40:27.020 can't ever keep a secret? Ever? When there's lots of people involved. Right? The Maricopa audit would have

00:40:35.100 lots of people involved. Family members would be hearing it, etc. People don't keep secrets that

00:40:39.980 well. If they found a big old smoking gun, you would know it by now. You wouldn't know the details

00:40:48.940 necessarily. But people would be saying, wait till Tuesday. Wink, wink, wink. We've got it.

00:40:56.340 We've got you now. Hold on to the details. But we got you. And you know you would have heard that by

00:41:03.980 now. Right? So if you have optimism that the Maricopa audit is going to be the one that brings

00:41:11.000 it home, you should probably release on that. Now it might be that they have some allegations that

00:41:19.260 are interesting. And then they'll be doubted, of course, because the alleged sloppiness of it all.

00:41:26.560 So whatever they come up with will be doubted. But I'll tell you what's not going to happen.

00:41:31.560 A big, shocking, provable error, deliberate or otherwise, that would change the results.

00:41:40.220 You would know that by now. Guaranteed. All right? So that's how to predict the future.

00:41:45.360 Sure. If they found nothing, they might be able to keep the secret. And that looks like what they're

00:41:50.200 doing. But if they found something, nobody's going to keep that secret. They don't have any reason to

00:41:55.380 keep it. They would at least tell you a bombshell is coming. Right? Can you imagine that they did this

00:42:01.720 whole audit, and nobody involved has told you, might be a bombshell coming? Of course they would tell

00:42:09.180 you that. Of course they would, if they had one. All right. We have a continuing... Oh, and here's my

00:42:17.580 question about the audits. Can these audits, let's say the Maricopa audit, could it tell us if there was

00:42:24.380 any, let's say, any bad behavior involving software or databases or hardware? Would their audit pick that

00:42:33.260 up? In other words, are they counting and looking at the right things that they could eliminate the

00:42:39.440 possibility that the machines had any, any issues with them? I think not, but I need a fact check on

00:42:47.040 that. Because it would seem that the most likely place that somebody would hide a major fraud would

00:42:53.820 be in the software. I'm not making any allegations that that happened. I'm just asking the question,

00:42:59.320 how easily could it be discovered if it did? And would this particular audit even have the tools

00:43:06.140 to look into it if they could? So I don't know that we'll know anything conclusive. That's the way

00:43:13.740 the world we live in. Oh, Sparky says the main problem with atheists is that not that they don't

00:43:22.880 believe in the supernatural, but that they don't believe that evil exists. Well, I don't call my

00:43:29.320 self an atheist, but I do not believe that evil exists, except as a frame for people. There are

00:43:37.940 definitely people who like to hurt other people and enjoy it and go out of their way to do it.

00:43:43.600 That's real. If you want to call that evil, that's just a labeling thing. So more and more small

00:43:50.740 businesses are finding they can't hire people because people will take a very small amount of free money

00:43:56.040 and prefer it over a larger amount of money they have to work for. Not too surprising. Now,

00:44:02.980 it seems to me that most of these unemployed people are living with somebody who is feeding them,

00:44:07.980 meaning parents or spouse or something. And it is kind of shocking how many people are not willing to

00:44:15.500 go back to work. It's really quite shocking. But it certainly says that our economy is healthy.

00:44:21.780 It also says that unemployment might not matter that much because the people who are unemployed

00:44:28.100 seem to be doing okay. They're not trying too hard to get back to work, at least in this environment

00:44:34.680 where they're getting free checks. And that is almost what I wanted to talk about. The Daily Mail,

00:44:45.560 which I enjoy watching because it's fun to see how Great Britain is handling, you know, let's say the

00:44:54.160 wokeness stuff. So if you're not familiar with the Daily Mail, they handles, you know, the news of the day.

00:44:59.460 But they also, in a very British way, I guess, have lots of tabloidy things along the side of the

00:45:07.220 page. Yeah, I can give a shout out to Meet Comic on Locals. So Meet Comic came to Locals, huh?

00:45:20.920 Good to have you. So if you want to subscribe to Meet Comics, that would be on the Locals

00:45:25.740 subscription platform. Anyway, the Daily Mail is trying to deal with the fact that one of their,

00:45:33.300 the biggest parts of their business model is showing attractive women, sometimes men, but it's

00:45:40.900 usually women, and then making comments about their appearance. And I've been amused at the trouble that

00:45:47.420 they're having, because they're trying to keep this business model of sort of making a big deal about

00:45:52.780 women's bodies. But they're in an era where it's more acceptable to say that anybody looks beautiful,

00:46:00.840 no matter, let's say, their weight, or what they were born with. Right? So the old standard, the old sexist

00:46:10.140 standard that we're releasing on, is that you could open a publication, and it would say,

00:46:16.240 look at this hot 25-year-old in a bikini. And everybody was good with that, or at least everybody

00:46:22.800 in Great Britain was good enough with it that it allowed, they allowed that to go on. But now they can't do

00:46:28.920 that. So they have to come up with new ways to complement the appearance of people who are, let's

00:46:35.540 say, less than perfect looking. Because that's the new standard. You're beautiful at any weight,

00:46:42.180 you're beautiful at any age, you're just beautiful the way you are. So here are some of the words that

00:46:47.840 they're using. This is just from today. I won't even tell you who they're talking about. But somebody

00:46:53.700 had a very eye-popping display. So if somebody says to you that you're putting on an eye-popping

00:47:02.640 display, are they saying that you're beautiful or sexy? No, not exactly. But you put it on an eye-popping

00:47:10.640 display. Here's another one. This quote would leave little to the imagination in billowing gowns,

00:47:19.200 while some other person I won't mention, works a bedazzled jumpsuit. So the best they can say

00:47:25.960 about the beauty of this particular celebrity is that she's working a bedazzled jumpsuit.

00:47:33.260 Let me tell you, if the news ever says about you, the best thing they can say about you is that

00:47:39.740 you're working a bedazzled jumpsuit, maybe you should go to the gym. That's all I'm saying.

00:47:45.580 And if the best you can do is leave a little to the imagination in a billowing gown, well,

00:47:52.580 maybe you could work on your diet a little bit. Here's another one. Somebody sizzles in a tiny

00:48:00.720 metallic bikini. They sizzled. Were they attractive? Were they great looking? Were they sexy? I don't

00:48:09.560 know, but they sizzled. They were sizzling. Here's another one. Somebody flashed major side boob

00:48:15.160 in a plunging halter top. But did it look good? Was it attractive? Was it hot? Does it make you

00:48:24.620 excited? Well, we don't know. But we know that that side boob got flashed in a plunging halter top.

00:48:31.800 And then there's somebody else who has a jaw-dropping figure. A jaw-dropping figure. Is a jaw-dropping

00:48:39.280 figure a good one? One that looks like a fitness model? Or is it somebody who's

00:48:46.920 more subjectively beautiful, but not according to the classic model, shall we say?

00:48:55.700 So watching the Daily Mail struggle with how to compliment people who do not look like the classic,

00:49:02.140 you know, perfect sculpture kind of people that got complimented in the 70s through 90s is kind of

00:49:09.000 funny. Kind of funny. And what's Robot Reads and News going to say? Well, I will tell you this,

00:49:16.660 for those of you who are not on my Locals channel, that the most recent Robots Read News, my alternative

00:49:23.560 comic that I run mostly on Locals, used the naughtiest word I've ever used in a comic. That's right.

00:49:31.300 The worst word you could ever use in public is now the subject of a comic. But you won't be able

00:49:38.600 to see it here, because I would get cancelled for it. Yes, it's naughty. It's terribly naughty.

00:49:45.220 All right. I see there's somebody here who reads me on Locals. All right. I'm going to go for now.

00:49:53.400 I'm going to turn off YouTube. I'll see you YouTubers tomorrow. I'm going to say a little bit more to the

00:50:00.440 Locals people who will stay signed on. And I will see you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - June 28, 2021

Episode 1420 Scott Adams： Today's Misleading Title is Cats Loving Dogs and Losing Weight by Breathing

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript