Real Coffee with Scott Adams - September 08, 2021


Episode 1493 Scott Adams： I'll Tell you Who is Being Persuasive and Who is Not, In the News Today

Topics
cis number three football killing Chinese fentanyl dealers persuasion vaccine immunity CDC vaccination risks
Hosted by
Scott Adams
Mentioned
Joe Biden Trump Abbott Ellen Barkin Fern Law Hunter Glenn Greenwald Rasmussen Poll Matt Walsh Tony Moore Bob Costas Johnson Jailed Andres
Episode 1492 Scott Adams： Dr. Fauci versus Rand Paul Rematch, and Lots of New Information About the Things You Care About Episode 1494 Scott Adams： Lots of Good Persuasion Content Today, and Trump Too

Episode Stats


Length

46 minutes

Words per minute

149.15

Word count

6,891

Sentence count

704

Harmful content

Misogyny

5

sentences flagged

Toxicity

36

sentences flagged

Hate speech

16

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, host Scott Adams talks about the dangers of fake news, Ellen Barkin's "expiration date" for white males, and why the media should be worried about that kind of language.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.720 La-da-da-da-da. 0.98
00:00:03.820 Good morning, everybody.
00:00:06.080 Hey, it's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
00:00:08.500 Again, one of the best things that's ever happened to you in your whole life.
00:00:13.640 And I will die on that hill.
00:00:16.120 And if you'd like to take it up a notch, you probably do.
00:00:20.740 All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice, or a steinac, a jug, or a flask.
00:00:25.240 A vessel of any kind.
00:00:27.140 Fill it with your favorite liquid.
00:00:28.580 I like coffee.
00:00:30.620 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day,
00:00:35.700 the thing that makes everything better except ivermectin.
00:00:40.640 It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
00:00:43.140 Go.
00:00:43.280 Go.
00:00:47.440 Ah.
00:00:50.740 I saw an interesting comment just moments before I went live here from Ian,
00:00:58.160 who says, I wonder if we would be in the same situation if Trump had not become the thing that the media lied about.
00:01:08.500 So Trump not only exposed the media for being fake news, but by his existence, he probably created more of it.
00:01:17.700 Because they were after him so hard, they just started making up stuff like, oh, he says drink bleach, or neo-Nazis are fine people.
00:01:25.740 Now, most of you watching this know that those never happened.
00:01:28.520 Those were hoaxes.
00:01:29.280 But if the media keeps selling you hoaxes, and then a pandemic comes, and the only way that you know what to do is because the media told you what is true and what is false,
00:01:42.900 what are you going to do?
00:01:45.220 What are you going to do?
00:01:47.600 And I wonder if the media is not killing hundreds of thousands of people.
00:01:52.780 Well, let's go to another topic.
00:01:55.580 Ellen Barkin, famous aging actress Ellen Barkin, tweeted,
00:02:02.100 What is the expiration date for cis white males? 0.58
00:02:05.300 What?
00:02:08.020 What is the expiration date for a demographic group?
00:02:15.320 Shouldn't we be a little worried about that kind of language? 1.00
00:02:18.860 Is the group that I belong to have an expiration date?
00:02:22.500 As in, I'm not allowed to be a member of society?
00:02:26.460 What exactly does it mean if I expire?
00:02:29.020 Can I be shot?
00:02:31.740 Jailed? 1.00
00:02:33.180 Executed?
00:02:35.300 What's it mean?
00:02:36.760 Well, Glenn Greenwald was not about to let that go, and so he tweeted about her tweet.
00:02:42.820 It's utter madness that discourse like this is acceptable, and even celebrated, rather than resulting in instant shunning.
00:02:50.500 Now, interesting that he used shunning instead of cancelling.
00:02:53.500 I don't think he's a big fan of cancellation, but individuals can shun.
00:03:01.320 And then he adds this note.
00:03:02.680 He goes, Moreover, famous, straight, rich, white women, she literally is or was married to a billionaire and was a famous actress, right? 0.98
00:03:11.400 So that's her situation.
00:03:13.140 Famous, straight, rich, white women somehow concocts a definition of the privileged class that excludes her. 1.00
00:03:19.620 How in the world did she not find herself in the privileged class that's annoying the rest of the world?
00:03:27.400 Now, here's a question for you.
00:03:29.600 How many of you know what cis, white male, even means?
00:03:35.640 C-I-S. 1.00
00:03:37.100 In the comments, tell me how many of you don't even know what that means.
00:03:40.920 So, yes or no.
00:03:43.480 No means you don't know what it means.
00:03:48.660 Look at all the no's.
00:03:50.180 A lot of yes's, but a lot of no's.
00:03:52.960 Now, isn't it a word that's been in the news for quite some time?
00:03:57.340 It has been, right?
00:03:58.880 Do you know when I learned what it means?
00:04:02.560 I was today years old when I learned what it means.
00:04:06.060 I looked it up just before I came on.
00:04:09.120 Now, I always knew what it meant in context.
00:04:12.520 You know, it was just your generic, basically a generic person who was,
00:04:17.620 the actual definition is somebody who was born the same gender that they present themselves as.
00:04:26.260 All right.
00:04:26.960 I mean, I think I'm botching the definition a little bit.
00:04:30.080 But basically, it's somebody who was born in the gender that they recognize as their current gender.
00:04:36.060 So, I guess it's some, I thought the CIS stood for something, but it's just some Latin derivation, I guess.
00:04:45.740 And, anyway, just the fact that that word exists is kind of a, kind of an eyebrow raiser.
00:04:53.540 But, yeah, so there are people who can actually say on Twitter that an entire demographic group,
00:04:58.820 of which I am a member, maybe needs to be expired.
00:05:03.540 And we're okay with that.
00:05:06.280 That's okay.
00:05:07.040 I guess you can say that in public.
00:05:10.200 Wow.
00:05:11.100 Here's three things we learned in the past year.
00:05:13.080 Number one, if you don't look for a problem, logically, it does not exist.
00:05:19.980 Now, I read this again on CNN's page today.
00:05:24.540 Today, even today, literally today, an opinion piece says that the courts didn't find any fraud,
00:05:34.680 therefore, logically, it doesn't exist.
00:05:38.160 Now, is it the job of a court?
00:05:40.620 Are they designed to find fraud that nobody has brought to their attention?
00:05:45.000 Nope.
00:05:45.360 Number two, the things we've learned this past year, do your own research,
00:05:52.180 leads to at least some people eating horse pills and snarfing bleach and then dying.
00:05:57.280 Of course, I'm being hyperbolic and all that.
00:06:00.720 But my point is that doing your own research, have we proven now that that was never a real thing?
00:06:08.320 I mean, you could try it.
00:06:10.460 But haven't we proven that people can't do that? 0.99
00:06:13.000 Who was the first person you ever heard tell you that doing your own research is the dumbest fucking thing anybody ever thought of? 0.97
00:06:22.480 Now, I'm not saying that there are people who can't get the right answer. 0.99
00:06:26.300 But they don't know they have the right answer.
00:06:29.880 It's luck.
00:06:31.520 You can't do your own research.
00:06:33.960 That's not a thing.
00:06:35.500 It's not a thing even close to a thing.
00:06:37.280 It's not even in the realm of the zip code of a universe in which that's a thing.
00:06:44.980 You can't do your own research.
00:06:47.160 You're not smart enough.
00:06:48.840 Do you know who else can't do their own research on, let's say, medical stuff? 0.91
00:06:53.700 Doctors.
00:06:55.140 Because they're not coming to the same conclusion.
00:06:57.680 If they all came to the same conclusion, we'd either all like ivermectin or not like ivermectin.
00:07:04.180 But we'd be on the same page.
00:07:05.660 The fact that even doctors disagree whether ivermectin works or is proven to work or is a good risk management thing to do.
00:07:15.380 If the doctors can't figure it out, what the hell are you going to do?
00:07:20.240 Right?
00:07:20.760 And you say to yourself, well, Scott, Scott, Scott, 95% of doctors are on the same side.
00:07:27.100 So clearly they can do it on average.
00:07:29.600 And clearly they came to the right answer.
00:07:31.840 Oh, really?
00:07:32.880 Is that what happened?
00:07:33.760 Do you think all 95% of those doctors did their own research?
00:07:38.340 No.
00:07:39.800 Some probably did.
00:07:41.480 The rest of them just listened to what the other doctors were saying.
00:07:44.840 Said the same thing.
00:07:45.980 Just like every other profession.
00:07:48.740 All right.
00:07:49.600 Number three, things we learned.
00:07:51.440 It's a coincidence.
00:07:53.280 Total coincidence.
00:07:54.880 That every public health policy is also good for big pharma.
00:07:57.860 It's just a coincidence.
00:08:02.820 How many boosters do you need?
00:08:05.700 Unlimited.
00:08:07.240 Maybe for the rest of your life.
00:08:12.540 Is it a coincidence?
00:08:15.140 It looks like it.
00:08:17.020 Right?
00:08:17.200 I mean, I can't connect any dots and tell you it's not a coincidence.
00:08:23.000 But it's a pretty big one.
00:08:25.360 Pretty big one.
00:08:27.280 All right.
00:08:28.960 There's a story coming out today.
00:08:31.440 I saw it in the Daily Mail.
00:08:32.500 That there are anonymous Biden staffers who claim that when Biden is on TV talking, they will turn down the sound because it makes them too anxious, thinking that Biden will say the wrong thing.
00:08:49.000 He'll either gaffe or he'll take questions when he's not supposed to take questions.
00:08:52.380 Do you think that's true?
00:08:55.320 It's in the news.
00:08:57.220 It's in the news.
00:08:58.200 Anonymous staffers say they sometimes will turn off the sound because it's too cringy to watch their boss talk.
00:09:06.260 True?
00:09:07.120 Not true.
00:09:09.140 All right.
00:09:09.440 Let's try this test.
00:09:11.760 If you saw this story about Trump, would you believe it?
00:09:17.700 Would you believe it if you heard it about Trump?
00:09:19.920 Anonymous staffer says something behind his back.
00:09:26.560 Would you believe it?
00:09:27.920 No, you wouldn't.
00:09:29.360 If it was your president, and I'm just saying that because I think most of my audience was or is Trump supporters.
00:09:37.480 If you heard that about Trump, you wouldn't believe it.
00:09:40.640 So why would you apply a different standard to Biden?
00:09:44.260 Well, confirmation bias, right?
00:09:46.340 You think to yourself, well, if it's Biden, they probably do think that.
00:09:50.800 Yeah, if it's Biden, they probably do turn off the sound.
00:09:54.540 Maybe.
00:09:55.620 Here's what is most likely.
00:09:58.240 Probably somebody said it.
00:10:01.620 Probably the number of people who do it is that one person who said it, or maybe the one person who said it heard about one person who did it.
00:10:09.960 And it probably wasn't a high-level staffer.
00:10:13.100 We're not talking about the chief of staff turning off the sound.
00:10:16.380 Right?
00:10:16.620 That didn't happen.
00:10:17.880 So it might be, like, slightly, slightly tiny true for one person who talked to one reporter. 0.99
00:10:24.000 But no, this is bullshit. 0.99
00:10:26.120 Right? 1.00
00:10:26.760 Shoo on the other foot. 0.84
00:10:27.840 If this were Trump, you wouldn't believe it for a second.
00:10:30.700 Anonymous internal sources.
00:10:33.040 Yeah.
00:10:33.460 Don't believe it for a second.
00:10:35.000 Could it be true?
00:10:35.960 Yeah, it could be.
00:10:37.200 It could be true.
00:10:37.900 It's not credible.
00:10:41.500 But it could be true.
00:10:44.520 Texas passed their voting law, new voting laws.
00:10:48.800 Of course, the critics say it's trying to make it harder for minorities to vote.
00:10:55.960 But here's what we know.
00:10:58.360 Abbott, Governor Abbott of Texas, and other lawmakers, they argue that the new rules will make it easier to vote.
00:11:04.940 So they're not trying to restrict voting.
00:11:07.900 They say they're trying to make it easier.
00:11:10.320 And one of the ways they're doing that is by expanding the required early voting hours in the state.
00:11:14.680 So how can you argue with that?
00:11:18.720 Expanding the number of hours to vote, does that restrict voting?
00:11:24.440 Or does it give you more time to vote for everybody?
00:11:28.680 Oh, that's just one version of the story.
00:11:31.500 You want to hear the other version?
00:11:32.560 This is on CNN, too.
00:11:34.980 But critics point to the reduction in early voting hours in some of the state's most populous areas, which will now be prohibited from allowing overnight early voting.
00:11:47.060 So they're increasing the early voting in general.
00:11:52.440 But some places already had more early voting than that.
00:11:56.480 So the places who already had overnight voting have to reduce to get back to the standard.
00:12:01.360 And all the places that didn't have early voting, or as much of it, have to increase to reach the standard.
00:12:09.160 So is this a clever trick by the Republicans to...
00:12:14.660 Because let's say that they know the populous areas are where there's more minorities, and it's making it harder to vote there, but easier to vote in your white areas. 0.62
00:12:24.320 Is that what's happening?
00:12:26.060 Because if it is, critics have a point, don't they?
00:12:31.540 Well, let me put this rule out there for you.
00:12:35.660 Nobody is ever going to make a voting change that works against their party.
00:12:41.740 Are we done?
00:12:43.600 Are we done?
00:12:45.300 There's nothing else to say.
00:12:46.740 No politician will ever make any changes to the election process unless they believe it's good for their party.
00:12:57.660 Does it matter that it might also make sense in some logical way of reducing fraud?
00:13:04.620 Well, it matters.
00:13:06.560 But it's not why they do it.
00:13:08.140 Do you think if the Republicans were easily getting elected with the current system, and they thought that that would continue, do you think they'd be all about fixing the system?
00:13:20.620 No.
00:13:23.840 Hello, Dr. Johnson, and goodbye.
00:13:27.480 I'll hide you on this channel.
00:13:31.320 Anyway.
00:13:31.840 So, when I look at how CNN has covered this, it is almost as if they don't want you to understand the topic, right?
00:13:40.960 Let me read these two sentences again, and you tell me, does CNN want you to understand the topic, or to accept uncritically that it's racist?
00:13:53.460 Which are they doing here?
00:13:54.740 Read the two sentences again.
00:13:56.160 Abbott and other lawmakers argue the new rules will make it easier to vote by expanding the required early voting hours in the state.
00:14:03.860 And then they say, but critics point to the reduction in early voting hours in some of the state's most populous areas, which will now be prohibited from allowing overnight early voting.
00:14:14.920 So those are two points of view that are opposites.
00:14:19.660 Doesn't CNN owe us a little bit of a solution, as in a little bit more analysis that says which of these views is correct?
00:14:32.340 All they did is simply tell us what other people think.
00:14:36.420 Is there no objective truth here?
00:14:39.140 Is it purely opinion?
00:14:40.600 And once you've said what the two opinions are, you're done.
00:14:43.440 This is a news organization.
00:14:44.820 Shouldn't a news organization say there are two opinions, and let us fact-check those two opinions?
00:14:51.580 Nope.
00:14:52.520 No fact-checking.
00:14:53.800 Just shows you the opinions.
00:14:55.720 Why would they show you the opinions without the fact-checking?
00:15:01.480 Well, for the same reason that any political party will only make choices about changing the election that help them,
00:15:10.660 CNN will also only do things that help CNN.
00:15:13.320 And CNN doesn't want you to see clearly, apparently, does not want you to clearly know what the Texas law is, and is not.
00:15:24.700 They don't want you to know.
00:15:26.780 Does Fox?
00:15:27.820 Does Fox News want you to know exactly what the law is, and why some say it's racist, and really sort of dig into that?
00:15:36.060 But I doubt it.
00:15:38.400 I think they want to wave their hands at it and get their audience assuming that it's a good thing.
00:15:46.500 And CNN wants to wave their hands at it and get their audience to assume it's a bad thing,
00:15:52.080 without anybody digging into it to say why it's good or why it's bad.
00:15:58.040 All right.
00:15:58.560 So it's all illegitimate.
00:16:03.120 Here's some news on the infrastructure plan.
00:16:06.300 If you'd like, you can record this and just replay it every day.
00:16:10.220 Well, it looks like there's going to be some trouble getting the infrastructure plan passed through Congress.
00:16:16.720 Do you know what the news on this will be tomorrow?
00:16:18.740 Well, it looks like there's some trouble getting the infrastructure bill through Congress.
00:16:24.320 How about the week after, two weeks after, three months later?
00:16:28.700 Well, looks like there's trouble getting the infrastructure bill through Congress.
00:16:33.480 Just guessing.
00:16:35.100 Well, Matt Walsh was trending today.
00:16:37.900 I guess we could call him conservative writer or commentator.
00:16:41.720 Would that be a fair description?
00:16:43.100 I don't like to describe people in words that they don't use to describe themselves,
00:16:48.580 but just so you know who I'm talking about.
00:16:51.640 And he tweeted this.
00:16:52.900 I guess there's some controversy that he's following up on.
00:16:55.740 He said, yes, I said that I don't like female analysts and reporters in football.
00:17:01.220 No, I don't care if that upsets you.
00:17:03.560 No, I don't apologize.
00:17:05.540 Yes, I think women are feminizing traditionally male spaces. 1.00
00:17:10.960 Yes, I think that's bad.
00:17:12.900 Yes, I'm right.
00:17:14.740 No, your whining doesn't change any of this.
00:17:17.160 And, of course, he's trending because women said he was being terribly, terribly sexist.
00:17:25.600 And why can't women have jobs in sports, in men's sports in particular? 1.00
00:17:31.660 Now, personally, I do not watch brain damage as entertainment.
00:17:40.540 And football and boxing are basically brain damage packaged as entertainment.
00:17:46.820 It's a little bit of hyperbole, but not too much.
00:17:49.780 So I don't really watch it.
00:17:50.960 I don't care.
00:17:51.480 I don't care who's broadcasting it, especially with all the kneeling and stuff.
00:17:56.040 I really don't care about football at all.
00:17:59.120 But if I were a fan, I'm pretty sure I would want the commentators to have experience playing football.
00:18:06.620 Wouldn't you?
00:18:09.080 I would think.
00:18:10.860 Now, clearly there are people who, men, who do comment on sports with which they're, you know,
00:18:18.400 not terribly familiar because they didn't play it.
00:18:20.960 That's a thing.
00:18:22.620 But I would say the same thing about the men.
00:18:24.900 Again, all things being equal, wouldn't it be better if the sportscasters had experience with the game they're sportscasting?
00:18:32.240 Now, they have color commentary to help them out on that.
00:18:36.200 So it plugs the gap a little bit.
00:18:38.240 But I would think you'd want experienced people, people who have at least played it in high school or something.
00:18:42.960 You know, they know how it feels.
00:18:45.240 Somebody mentioned Bob Costa, because he's like 5'6 or something, and said,
00:18:50.800 well, you know, he probably didn't play football.
00:18:53.340 To which I say, no, if he was a boy in America, he almost certainly played football, at least, you know, during gym class and stuff.
00:19:02.020 I don't know any males in America who haven't played football if they're that age.
00:19:07.560 I suppose things might have changed.
00:19:09.880 Is there any?
00:19:11.020 Let's see in the comments.
00:19:12.120 Let's say people over 40.
00:19:15.420 If you're over 40 and male, is there anybody who's over 40 and male who has never played football?
00:19:22.520 You know, not even a pickup game?
00:19:26.060 Oh, yeah.
00:19:26.680 Some people say, I've never played football.
00:19:29.540 So it does exist.
00:19:31.780 But it's kind of rare, I think.
00:19:34.540 Somebody says, I'm 46 and not once.
00:19:36.720 Yeah, I would think, yeah, of course I played football.
00:19:41.560 I mean, pickup games.
00:19:43.680 Pickup games without padding.
00:19:46.100 And we played tackle when I was a kid.
00:19:49.000 We played tackle football without padding, without helmets.
00:19:53.520 I thought everybody did.
00:19:55.420 We weren't very smart.
00:19:58.040 Rasmussen Poll says that 77% of the people polled say they would get a booster shot.
00:20:05.320 Which surprises me.
00:20:07.300 I would think that would be closer to 100%.
00:20:09.980 Because it seems to me that once you've committed yourself to the vaccination path,
00:20:16.580 I feel like your brain would talk you into being consistent with your last decision.
00:20:22.980 So I'm actually surprised that it's only 77%.
00:20:25.820 And maybe it's, of course, could be skewed by people who did not get the vaccination answering it too, I suppose.
00:20:33.640 But anyway, that seemed low to me.
00:20:37.760 Now, it seemed low not because of whether you should get a booster or not.
00:20:41.400 That's not the point.
00:20:42.520 It seemed low because, in terms of psychology, people like to be consistent.
00:20:46.880 And 77% is pretty big, but I would have thought it would be 90%, 95% would have been where my best guess would have been.
00:20:56.340 Well, over in the Philippines, police have killed four Chinese nationals in a sting operation
00:21:02.380 because the Chinese were bringing in half a ton of meth.
00:21:06.900 Do you know how much damage you can do with half a ton of meth?
00:21:12.720 Because it doesn't take much meth to get you going.
00:21:17.480 Half a ton they brought into the Philippines.
00:21:20.640 So the Philippine police killed them.
00:21:23.520 I don't know the details of that. 0.95
00:21:26.820 But I'd like to see more killing of Chinese dealers. 1.00
00:21:32.000 And I'll say again, I think we have the moral and legal right to kill Chinese fentanyl dealers in China, 0.99
00:21:39.860 like in their house. 0.98
00:21:40.780 I think we have the moral and complete legal authority to do that.
00:21:47.880 Now, you could argue, blah, blah, blah, that it's illegal.
00:21:51.440 I just don't want to hear it because it's just self-defense.
00:21:54.900 There isn't really any argument against self-defense.
00:21:58.440 I'm sorry, there's no argument against self-defense.
00:22:01.000 And killing Chinese dealers whose names we know, whose addresses we know. 0.57
00:22:06.600 We know their names and addresses of the actual dealers in China. 1.00
00:22:09.660 And we should kill them right where they sleep. 1.00
00:22:14.660 It doesn't have to look like murder. 1.00
00:22:16.840 I mean, it could look like a fentanyl overdose, for example.
00:22:20.400 Right?
00:22:20.880 It doesn't have to look like murder.
00:22:22.560 But they should be dropping like flies at this point. 0.90
00:22:25.080 Now, would this cause Chinese intelligence agencies to start killing Americans? 0.99
00:22:31.900 Maybe. 0.93
00:22:33.580 It's still worth doing.
00:22:35.560 Because they're not going to kill 94,000 Americans to get even if we kill one dealer, or three or four.
00:22:43.180 They might kill three or four people we don't want to be killed.
00:22:45.820 But we're talking about trying to reduce tens of thousands of fentanyl deaths a year.
00:22:51.880 Now, you could argue, oh, Scott, if you stop the Chinese fentanyl, somebody else will just jump in and make it. 0.73
00:22:58.480 The cartels will figure out how to make it themselves.
00:23:00.900 Something like that.
00:23:02.120 Yeah, maybe.
00:23:02.640 But they're going to need those precursors that come out of China. 0.98
00:23:07.160 So I would say we need to normalize the idea that we should be killing Chinese citizens on Chinese soil if they're mass murderers of Americans. 0.99
00:23:19.400 And that means they're dealers of fentanyl. 0.99
00:23:22.160 And I wouldn't worry about it one bit.
00:23:24.420 I wouldn't worry about the Chinese reaction for one second. 0.99
00:23:27.680 Because the problem is so huge that you need to kill people to stop it. 1.00
00:23:36.300 You just need to kill people. 1.00
00:23:38.520 You need to kill the dealers, specifically. 1.00
00:23:41.180 I'm not talking about the little dealers that sell little at a high school or something. 1.00
00:23:45.580 All right.
00:23:46.140 Joe Biden was talking about tornadoes the other day.
00:23:49.460 And he says they don't call them that anymore.
00:23:52.780 Have you heard of the new name for tornadoes?
00:23:56.160 I haven't.
00:23:57.680 I have some ideas.
00:24:00.980 We should call them wind nommies. 1.00
00:24:05.360 Maybe bloicanes.
00:24:07.240 Bloicanes? 0.99
00:24:11.440 About...
00:24:12.800 Yeah.
00:24:15.080 All right.
00:24:15.600 So enough of that.
00:24:18.060 Dr. Tony Moore tweeted this about ivermectin.
00:24:24.500 So he's a doctor.
00:24:25.280 So listen to him because he's a doctor.
00:24:27.380 But we're going to analyze his persuasiveness, right?
00:24:30.440 So in the following discussion, I am not concerned with whether ivermectin works or does not work.
00:24:36.540 I'm only going to talk about his persuasiveness, okay?
00:24:38.840 And he says the ivermectin nonsense must stop, okay?
00:24:43.240 Already a persuasion mistake.
00:24:45.380 What is the persuasion mistake in the first five words?
00:24:49.600 The ivermectin nonsense must stop.
00:24:51.940 He's not pacing.
00:24:52.440 He's not pacing.
00:24:54.460 The people he's trying to convince don't think it's nonsense.
00:24:59.040 So if you start with calling it nonsense, you've already backed him into a corner, you've put the defensive shield up, you're done.
00:25:06.960 You don't even need to write the rest of it because there's nothing that can happen well after you say the ivermectin nonsense.
00:25:15.620 Soon as you've dismissed other people's opinions as nonsense, they're going to stop listening to you.
00:25:21.960 All right?
00:25:22.180 So he goes on.
00:25:22.980 He goes, it is literally killing people.
00:25:25.640 Those who have been peddling false claims.
00:25:27.880 Wait, is it literally killing people from the overdose?
00:25:33.360 I don't know that the ivermectin is, but possibly the lack of vaccinations might be what he's referring to.
00:25:39.340 So I'm going to give him that one if he means lack of vaccinations.
00:25:43.400 And he says, those who have been peddling false claims of its enormous benefit, when the evidence is stating the complete opposite, must be pressured by the media to explain their ludicrous claims.
00:25:57.920 All right.
00:25:58.580 Here's the other problem.
00:26:00.700 He says that the evidence is stating the complete opposite.
00:26:06.340 Does it?
00:26:08.260 In the comments.
00:26:09.940 Is that a statement?
00:26:10.760 Does it ring as true to you?
00:26:12.720 All right?
00:26:13.520 This is subjective.
00:26:15.160 But does it ring true to you that the evidence on ivermectin is the complete opposite, meaning that the evidence completely shows it doesn't work?
00:26:25.720 Completely.
00:26:27.160 How many of you agree with that statement?
00:26:30.000 None, basically.
00:26:31.040 I'm looking at the comments going by.
00:26:32.240 Basically none.
00:26:33.800 So pretty much none of you agree with that statement.
00:26:37.620 Okay?
00:26:37.820 That is a persuasion failure of epic proportions.
00:26:44.660 Because in order to convince you, and you're the ones that need to be convinced, because there are probably more doubters here than in other places, he has to pace you.
00:26:54.200 He has to find a way to agree with you first.
00:26:57.260 And then you say to yourself, oh, this is a person who agrees with me.
00:27:00.320 So far, so good.
00:27:01.240 And then, once you get them to agree with you, you might be able to nudge them somewhere.
00:27:07.160 But until they know you're on the same side, they're not going anywhere.
00:27:11.680 So if you start out with ivermectin nonsense, you just took a team, and you guaranteed that the people you're trying to persuade won't listen to you.
00:27:20.320 Guaranteed it.
00:27:21.200 Right there.
00:27:21.600 Now let me...
00:27:25.600 So saying that the evidence is stating the complete opposite makes you look like a liar, even if you're right.
00:27:33.280 Right?
00:27:33.740 So remember, persuasion is not about what's true.
00:27:36.920 It's about persuading people.
00:27:39.260 And this doctor could be completely right that there's just nothing to ivermectin.
00:27:44.700 But if he's insulting people and telling them that everything they believe is wrong, he's not going to get any persuasion.
00:27:51.860 Here's what he should have done.
00:27:54.440 Let's say I wanted to persuade you to not take ivermectin.
00:27:58.380 I don't want to persuade you of that, by the way, because I'm not a doctor.
00:28:01.580 So I'm not going to persuade you to take it or not to take it.
00:28:04.680 And nothing I say here should be construed as that.
00:28:07.740 That's a doctor problem.
00:28:09.280 Talk to your doctor, not me.
00:28:10.720 But if I wanted to persuade you, here's how I'd do it.
00:28:15.600 I would say there are lots of studies that show ivermectin works.
00:28:21.660 That's pacing.
00:28:22.820 Because you believe that to be true, right?
00:28:25.160 I'm not saying it's true.
00:28:26.940 I'm talking about persuasion.
00:28:28.720 You believe it's true that there are lots of randomized controlled trials, 31 of them actually, that indicate ivermectin works.
00:28:37.060 Plus, a whole bunch of observational trials that collectively say it works.
00:28:43.000 That's what you believe to be true, right?
00:28:44.960 Now, whether or not that's true, here's how you would approach somebody who believes that's true.
00:28:51.400 You'd go like this.
00:28:53.200 There are, as you know, dozens, dozens of randomized controlled trials that indicate ivermectin works.
00:29:02.020 That's how you start.
00:29:05.220 Because everybody here just says, okay, okay, that's true.
00:29:09.320 Now, I'm not saying it's true.
00:29:11.200 I'm saying that's how I would try to persuade you.
00:29:13.480 I would tell you it's true because you think it's true.
00:29:16.200 It might be true.
00:29:17.640 It might not be true.
00:29:19.160 But that's not relevant here.
00:29:20.920 You think it's true, so therefore it's good persuasion.
00:29:23.040 Then I would say, once I had you on my team, yeah, we're on the same team.
00:29:28.400 We know that there's all these studies.
00:29:30.640 And then I'd say, but did you know that if you remove the low-quality studies from that group, it reverses the outcome?
00:29:41.160 How'd that feel?
00:29:43.680 How'd that feel?
00:29:44.560 When I agreed with you completely that these studies exist, and you said, yeah, yeah, now we're on the same page, but then I added something that maybe you didn't know, that if you remove the low-quality studies from that group, it reverses the outcome.
00:30:01.420 How many of you knew that?
00:30:04.400 Now, that would persuade you, wouldn't it?
00:30:06.460 In the comments, and forget about what's true for a moment, okay?
00:30:10.560 Again, we're only talking persuasion.
00:30:12.020 So it doesn't matter if it's true that removing those studies reverses it.
00:30:16.940 I think it's true, but it doesn't matter to the point, right?
00:30:20.640 And I think it's true that there are lots of randomized controlled trials.
00:30:26.240 I think all those things are true.
00:30:28.860 What is low-quality, somebody says.
00:30:31.000 Yes, what is low-quality?
00:30:32.460 Well, low-quality would be, among other things, a low number of people in the trial,
00:30:37.440 or something about the controls that weren't as perfect as they could have been.
00:30:42.620 Maybe it's not as blind as it should have been, for example.
00:30:45.700 So it would be a variety of things, but people who understand this world could fairly easily pick out the low-quality studies.
00:30:53.580 I think Andres has done that backhouse.
00:30:57.400 So it's something that an economist could do.
00:30:59.520 Somebody who knows studies and statistics could just look at them and say,
00:31:02.820 yeah, I think I'd pick these ones out.
00:31:04.580 Now, would that make it a subjective process as opposed to science?
00:31:11.540 Yes.
00:31:12.480 Yes.
00:31:13.500 If you're using your judgment to decide what studies are credible,
00:31:19.260 I'm not sure that's science, is it?
00:31:22.900 I mean, it's not illogical, but it's not exactly science.
00:31:27.260 It's a little bit judgy.
00:31:28.760 Now, I'm not saying judgment is wrong.
00:31:31.660 Like, you know, I always support, for example, doctors using their judgment about what to prescribe,
00:31:37.240 even if that judgment disagrees with the mainstream recommendations.
00:31:41.200 So, you know, I think you can be judgy.
00:31:45.520 That's fine.
00:31:46.500 You know, you don't always have access to perfect information, so you have to make your call.
00:31:52.260 Anyway, that would be more persuasive.
00:31:54.820 Speaking of persuasion, the CDC has a video trying to persuade you to get a vaccination if you've recovered from COVID.
00:32:03.680 In the comments, how many of you think it's a good idea, forget about the fact that you need vaccinations to travel and stuff like that,
00:32:14.260 assume that nobody would care, do you think it's medically a good idea to get a vaccination if you've already recovered?
00:32:23.800 In the comments, you're not doctors, so it's just your opinion, almost all knows, right?
00:32:28.380 No, no, no, no, no.
00:32:29.840 Everybody thinks it's a bad idea.
00:32:31.160 So when the CDC says, yes, you do need it, and they say the reason is this,
00:32:38.000 because we don't know how long natural immunity lasts, did that persuade you?
00:32:44.520 So I'm adding some new information.
00:32:48.000 You believe that natural immunity lasts, otherwise your answers would not look like this, right?
00:32:54.100 The reason that almost all of you, I think every one of you that's answering this right now,
00:32:57.900 I think every one of you is saying you don't want the vaccination if you've already recovered.
00:33:03.440 But suppose it was true, and I don't know if it's true,
00:33:08.260 but suppose it's true that the smartest people don't know if that immunity will last.
00:33:15.860 Would that change your mind?
00:33:17.040 Depends on the timing, but the point is that we don't know the timing.
00:33:23.600 We don't know if it's going to last a week or a month or a year, right?
00:33:28.400 Well, here's the problem.
00:33:31.060 You know enough to know that nobody's natural immunity has run out yet, right?
00:33:37.260 Is there even one example of somebody whose natural immunity just expired,
00:33:43.240 unless they had some kind of special medical problem?
00:33:47.960 I don't know.
00:33:49.140 It seems to me we've gone a year or so, and people still have pretty good antibodies.
00:33:55.220 Am I wrong about that?
00:33:57.040 I'm not trying to spread misinformation, so fact-check me if that's wrong.
00:34:01.300 So here's the problem.
00:34:02.360 It's exactly the same problem as the last example.
00:34:04.840 The CDC is not pacing you first.
00:34:10.340 They're not pacing you first.
00:34:12.940 They're telling you something that you don't believe is true,
00:34:15.480 and they're not really giving you a counterargument,
00:34:18.020 because the uncertainty argument applies to everything.
00:34:23.020 Do you know what else the CDC doesn't know?
00:34:26.220 If you wait two years after you get vaccinated,
00:34:29.020 if a problem could pop up in two years,
00:34:32.500 do they know that?
00:34:33.280 No, of course not.
00:34:34.960 They can't know it, because it hasn't been two years.
00:34:37.100 They wouldn't even be able to observe it.
00:34:40.000 So when they tell you that you should make a decision
00:34:42.720 because there's one thing that's uncertain,
00:34:45.220 but they don't mention that all of the other things are uncertain too,
00:34:49.540 it's all uncertain. 0.99
00:34:52.420 You just look like a liar. 0.96
00:34:54.580 If you say one thing's uncertain 0.99
00:34:56.220 when it's obvious that all the things are uncertain, 0.99
00:34:58.340 you just look like a freaking liar, right? 0.99
00:35:03.000 You would lose all credibility 1.00
00:35:04.380 if you're only treating one variable as uncertain
00:35:07.240 when they're all uncertain.
00:35:09.120 So it's a terrible argument.
00:35:11.380 A terrible argument.
00:35:12.680 What would be the better argument?
00:35:13.980 I don't know.
00:35:17.620 Because I don't know of a good argument for this.
00:35:20.920 I guess the best argument would be extra is better.
00:35:25.120 Right?
00:35:25.580 Now, if the science shows
00:35:27.440 that natural immunity
00:35:29.520 plus vaccination
00:35:31.580 gives you the maximum amount of antibodies,
00:35:34.360 and I think it does, right?
00:35:36.160 Fact check me on that, but I think it does.
00:35:38.460 That's the argument.
00:35:39.400 More antibodies is better.
00:35:43.840 That's it.
00:35:45.460 All right, let's say I said to you,
00:35:47.380 the higher your antibodies,
00:35:49.140 the less problem you're going to have
00:35:50.700 if you get the COVID,
00:35:51.700 and you're definitely going to get COVID.
00:35:54.560 All right?
00:35:55.320 How many of you think
00:35:56.340 you're definitely going to get COVID
00:35:57.660 even if you're vaccinated?
00:35:59.500 Because it's just going to be around forever, right?
00:36:01.920 Yeah.
00:36:02.480 Most of you think you're going to get COVID.
00:36:04.100 I'm watching the responses now.
00:36:06.060 So the first thing you do
00:36:07.780 if you're the CDC,
00:36:09.280 and I'm trying to convince you,
00:36:10.320 I'd say,
00:36:10.860 you're probably going to get COVID.
00:36:13.740 And then what's your first reaction to that?
00:36:15.640 Oh, thank you.
00:36:16.680 You're finally being honest.
00:36:18.460 I'm probably going to get COVID.
00:36:19.900 That's exactly what I think.
00:36:21.760 Doesn't mean it's true.
00:36:23.240 Remember, we're talking about persuasion, not truth.
00:36:25.760 So now they have you.
00:36:27.420 So now you've paced them.
00:36:28.820 You're probably going to get COVID.
00:36:30.800 Now, you have two possibilities.
00:36:32.180 You can get COVID with high antibodies
00:36:34.940 or COVID with low antibodies.
00:36:37.780 Those are really two choices.
00:36:39.640 The CDC says you should get
00:36:41.240 the highest antibodies you can
00:36:42.900 to make your odds the best.
00:36:48.300 How's that argument?
00:36:49.880 The higher your antibodies,
00:36:51.860 the better you will do,
00:36:54.060 and you're definitely going to get COVID.
00:36:56.460 That's not bad, is it?
00:36:58.680 Judge my persuasion.
00:37:00.480 It doesn't mean it convinces you,
00:37:01.820 but just judge it.
00:37:03.100 It's not the same antibodies, somebody says,
00:37:07.960 but both are their additive.
00:37:12.120 Okay.
00:37:12.920 So I see some people are great.
00:37:14.960 Now, my larger point is that the doctors
00:37:17.280 and the scientists are terrible at persuasion.
00:37:20.820 Just terrible.
00:37:22.300 And it's really hurting us.
00:37:23.940 I think the country is,
00:37:25.040 I think it's killing people.
00:37:26.180 I think the inability of scientists
00:37:28.700 and medical people
00:37:30.560 to persuade with correct form,
00:37:34.200 correct form.
00:37:35.980 What I'm teaching you is not a natural ability.
00:37:40.760 It's form.
00:37:42.620 Pace and then lead.
00:37:44.580 It's just really basic stuff.
00:37:47.160 So they need to learn that stuff.
00:37:48.800 Here's the other big problem
00:37:50.840 that I think the public is dealing with,
00:37:53.500 and the doctors and scientists
00:37:55.420 are doing a terrible job of sorting it out.
00:37:58.040 Yes, we're going to the whiteboard.
00:38:00.280 Going to the whiteboard.
00:38:02.020 All right.
00:38:02.340 So this is the part where some of you will bail out,
00:38:04.940 but you're going to wish you didn't.
00:38:08.140 You're going to wish you didn't.
00:38:09.520 All right.
00:38:12.820 How do you make decisions
00:38:14.220 when there are so many unknowns?
00:38:17.780 What do you do?
00:38:19.100 Well, it's tough.
00:38:20.460 I'm going to give you some little rules
00:38:22.660 about how to make a decision
00:38:23.920 with many unknowns.
00:38:26.120 This is not to persuade you.
00:38:28.720 It's how to make a decision with unknowns.
00:38:31.320 See you, Hunter.
00:38:33.740 Hunter, I think you would be happier
00:38:35.240 to see this one.
00:38:36.220 You should probably stay for this one.
00:38:38.100 All right.
00:38:38.280 Here's the idea.
00:38:39.220 Let's say there's vaccination risk
00:38:40.760 and there's unvaccinated risk.
00:38:43.560 If you get vaccinated,
00:38:45.540 the odds of having a bad side effect
00:38:47.320 is probably less than 1%.
00:38:49.620 It's probably way less than 1%.
00:38:53.340 But would everybody agree
00:38:55.000 it's less than 1%
00:38:56.060 based on what we know?
00:38:58.620 Not based on what we don't know
00:39:00.060 because everything's possible.
00:39:01.700 But based on what we know,
00:39:03.820 side effects usually happen early.
00:39:06.920 So the longer you wait,
00:39:08.440 the less chance there's going to be
00:39:09.560 any more of them.
00:39:10.260 But would you say less than 1%?
00:39:13.220 All right.
00:39:13.460 Let's just go with it for now.
00:39:16.400 The odds of getting COVID and dying
00:39:19.120 if you're vaccinated is also way under 1%.
00:39:22.680 It's like way under 1%.
00:39:25.120 Okay.
00:39:26.060 Likewise, the unvaccinated risk.
00:39:28.160 What is the risk of long haul?
00:39:30.780 Don't know.
00:39:31.940 I'm not even sure it's real.
00:39:33.680 Are you?
00:39:34.060 I mean, the risk of long haul COVID
00:39:36.940 might be zero.
00:39:38.900 But it might be 25%.
00:39:40.660 That's the range we've actually seen.
00:39:43.680 I don't know if anybody's going over 25.
00:39:46.000 I saw some 30.
00:39:47.320 But I think 25 to zero
00:39:48.940 is the range of uncertainty.
00:39:51.540 I think zero is pretty unlikely.
00:39:54.620 But 25% seems unlikely too.
00:39:57.720 So it's probably somewhere
00:39:58.800 in the middle of that range.
00:40:00.840 Just guessing.
00:40:01.620 All right.
00:40:02.880 So let's say you accept this.
00:40:04.180 I'm just working through
00:40:04.920 the logic of decision making.
00:40:06.800 You can put in your own numbers later
00:40:09.580 but wait for the big reveal.
00:40:11.400 There's a point that I'm working up to.
00:40:13.800 If you haven't heard it yet,
00:40:14.820 it's worth it.
00:40:16.680 What are the odds of,
00:40:17.760 if you're unvaccinated,
00:40:18.960 what are the odds of getting COVID
00:40:20.280 and just dying?
00:40:22.280 Well, let's say it's less than 1%
00:40:23.780 because you're not an old person
00:40:25.620 and you don't have too many comorbidities.
00:40:28.980 All right.
00:40:29.280 Here's my tip.
00:40:31.620 Ignore everything under 1%.
00:40:35.220 Because we confuse group risk
00:40:39.840 with individual risk.
00:40:42.740 This is the big point.
00:40:45.260 When the government
00:40:47.340 is trying to do its job,
00:40:49.620 which type of risk does it look at?
00:40:51.760 Individual risk or group risk?
00:40:55.160 It has to look at group risk.
00:40:56.500 Because if you're the president
00:40:58.160 and you cause 1% of your public to die
00:41:00.940 and you lose 3.6 million people
00:41:03.720 that maybe didn't need to die,
00:41:05.660 you're fired.
00:41:07.120 You're very fired.
00:41:09.220 But if you individually,
00:41:11.580 as just an individual,
00:41:13.320 decide to take a chance,
00:41:14.660 a 1 in 100 chance,
00:41:16.300 something will go wrong,
00:41:17.500 and you decide to take that chance,
00:41:18.760 and then let's say something goes wrong 0.84
00:41:20.760 and you die, 0.93
00:41:21.880 you're still thinking
00:41:23.360 you lived the life you wanted to,
00:41:25.940 and there aren't many of you.
00:41:27.360 So here is my advice to you.
00:41:30.320 Everything under 1% 0.81
00:41:32.140 act like it doesn't exist
00:41:35.160 for the individual risk.
00:41:38.680 The one you make
00:41:39.780 when you decide to wear a mask,
00:41:41.820 when you decide to get vaccinated,
00:41:43.560 those are your personal risks.
00:41:46.700 But understand
00:41:48.380 that the government
00:41:49.520 has to look at the whole,
00:41:51.980 and that's a whole different calculation.
00:41:53.860 They can't lose 3.6 million people
00:41:55.940 and keep their jobs.
00:41:59.520 So,
00:42:00.920 oh, YouTube needs a little adjustment.
00:42:04.380 There you go.
00:42:06.120 Let me get away from the board for a second
00:42:08.120 and straighten you both out
00:42:10.540 so you can see it.
00:42:14.980 All right.
00:42:15.700 So the,
00:42:16.700 I'm not trying to convince you
00:42:18.400 to get vaccinated or not vaccinated
00:42:20.340 because I'm not a doctor
00:42:22.020 and I don't do that.
00:42:22.840 It would be immoral and unethical
00:42:24.220 for me to do that.
00:42:25.340 But,
00:42:26.220 the only thing I'm going to add
00:42:28.060 is that
00:42:29.820 every risk that's under 1%
00:42:32.340 that you as an individual
00:42:34.700 should treat as zero.
00:42:37.620 You got that?
00:42:38.780 Because if you're trying to make a decision
00:42:40.380 because you think
00:42:41.180 this risk is 10 times this risk,
00:42:45.640 but they're both under 1%,
00:42:47.500 you're not being rational
00:42:50.260 because you really can't tease out
00:42:52.980 those differences for you specifically.
00:42:54.800 You can only tease out
00:42:56.780 those differences for large groups.
00:42:58.660 You don't know what your risk is.
00:43:01.020 You just know you're in this
00:43:02.040 under 1% range.
00:43:03.220 That's all you know.
00:43:04.420 So just treat it all as zero.
00:43:06.760 And the only one that might be bigger
00:43:08.640 is the long haul.
00:43:11.280 And the long haul could be zero too.
00:43:13.580 But at least the odds are
00:43:14.960 it's bigger than that.
00:43:16.400 So,
00:43:16.840 that's the only thing you should look at
00:43:18.660 are things that are greater than 1%.
00:43:20.940 Does anybody disagree with me?
00:43:24.280 Let me see in the comments
00:43:25.800 if you track with this thinking.
00:43:29.420 And the only part of it
00:43:30.540 that I want you to agree or disagree with,
00:43:32.620 as an individual,
00:43:34.940 can you ignore every risk under 1%? 0.99
00:43:39.900 Can't see the damn board. 0.99
00:43:42.980 Yeah, let me fix that for you. 0.99
00:43:45.620 I'm going to let the locals people
00:43:47.380 get a clearer look at that.
00:43:50.940 All right.
00:43:54.920 Well, it looks like I made my case.
00:43:57.500 So, you know,
00:43:58.560 I've told you before
00:43:59.280 that I rest my decision
00:44:01.120 on only whether the long haul
00:44:03.080 is likely to be real or not.
00:44:06.360 My guess is that it's real.
00:44:09.580 But it's not a scientific basis.
00:44:12.880 It's just a guess.
00:44:14.240 And I think that
00:44:14.980 my argument is unclear.
00:44:19.080 Really?
00:44:20.440 Fern Law,
00:44:21.820 so I assume you're a lawyer,
00:44:23.320 and you think this argument is unclear?
00:44:26.800 Let me summarize it.
00:44:28.900 For a personal decision,
00:44:30.460 which is different from
00:44:31.420 what a government decides about the whole,
00:44:33.980 but for your personal decision,
00:44:35.380 you should ignore every risk under 1%.
00:44:37.600 That's it.
00:44:38.920 That's the whole argument.
00:44:40.600 Right?
00:44:41.020 Fern Law,
00:44:43.240 do you disagree with the statement
00:44:44.740 you should ignore an individual,
00:44:47.660 not the government.
00:44:48.640 Government makes different decisions.
00:44:50.280 But an individual should ignore
00:44:51.520 every risk under 1%.
00:44:52.780 That's not much to argue with there.
00:44:57.360 I mean,
00:44:59.200 maybe you could say
00:45:00.020 it's under 0.1%
00:45:01.580 or something,
00:45:02.520 but
00:45:02.640 1%
00:45:05.220 still seems kind of high.
00:45:06.840 Does it?
00:45:09.260 1%?
00:45:10.960 I don't know.
00:45:12.480 Because remember,
00:45:13.620 these things are well under 1%.
00:45:15.680 We're talking about the risk
00:45:17.420 of dying driving to the store.
00:45:19.680 You know,
00:45:19.920 you're down in that range.
00:45:21.160 Personal risk can be higher
00:45:25.060 if you have,
00:45:25.740 yeah,
00:45:26.100 comorbidities.
00:45:26.900 That's right.
00:45:27.660 So this would be the framework
00:45:29.600 and then you'd adjust it
00:45:30.880 for your own specific situation.
00:45:33.800 All right.
00:45:34.180 That is all I have to talk about today.
00:45:38.720 That's right.
00:45:39.520 Your own data makes it
00:45:40.480 27.4% less risky.
00:45:43.100 I know what excellent comic
00:45:44.480 you read today.
00:45:47.180 All right.
00:45:49.140 And that
00:45:50.020 is the show for today.
00:45:52.040 YouTube,
00:45:53.360 all you watchers,
00:45:54.440 thank you for joining.
00:45:55.720 I think I'm going to be
00:45:56.600 on Rumble pretty soon.
00:45:58.680 I did get a response on that.
00:46:01.160 So I think I've got to
00:46:02.660 tweak a few things
00:46:03.620 and then I can be
00:46:05.140 live streaming on Rumble as well.
00:46:07.440 I hope I have enough
00:46:08.220 Wi-Fi to do that.
00:46:09.800 And I will talk to you
00:46:10.980 tomorrow.
00:46:12.060 Thank you.