Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1542 Scott Adams： Today I Will Argue the Opposite of my Actual Opinions on the Pandemic. And More Fun

00:00:00.880 Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum. 0.87

00:00:03.480 Well, good morning, everybody.

00:00:09.280 What an amazing, amazing start of the day.

00:00:13.300 It turns out that you woke up today thinking,

00:00:16.820 well, today might be a good day, it might be a bad day,

00:00:18.960 but surprise, it's an amazing day,

00:00:21.320 because you made it here to the simultaneous sip.

00:00:24.540 And some of you are prepared,

00:00:26.240 some of you are scurrying now to grab your cup and your beverage.

00:00:30.180 But while you're doing that, let me give you the introduction,

00:00:33.300 the thing that makes everything better.

00:00:36.000 It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:00:37.620 A cup or a mug or a glass, that's all you need.

00:00:39.880 A tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask,

00:00:42.540 a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:44.540 I like coffee.

00:00:45.800 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

00:00:49.660 the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:51.300 the thing that makes everything better,

00:00:53.940 the thing that connects us across space and time.

00:00:57.020 It's called the simultaneous sip,

00:00:58.820 and it's going to take your antibodies to a whole, whole new level.

00:01:03.400 Watch this.

00:01:04.540 Go.

00:01:09.560 Ah, antibodies.

00:01:11.340 Well, I know you don't like anecdotal evidence.

00:01:17.380 You like data.

00:01:18.520 You like hard data.

00:01:20.440 But let me give you some hard data.

00:01:23.920 Nobody has ever died of COVID

00:01:27.020 while taking the simultaneous sip.

00:01:30.580 You can fact check me on that.

00:01:31.820 Zero people out of 7.8 billion people on this earth,

00:01:36.440 not a single one of them has died of COVID

00:01:40.540 while doing the simultaneous sip.

00:01:43.740 None.

00:01:44.560 Not a single one.

00:01:46.120 Do you think that's coincidence or causation?

00:01:49.640 Clearly causation.

00:01:51.260 Clearly.

00:01:51.940 Because we know how to analyze things.

00:01:53.460 Well, in the news, Elon Musk,

00:01:56.460 his personal net worth

00:01:57.840 is now more than ExxonMobil.

00:02:02.000 His personal net worth.

00:02:04.220 No, not the value of Tesla.

00:02:06.780 Tesla is already much more valuable than,

00:02:09.920 apparently more valuable than ExxonMobil.

00:02:12.640 But Elon Musk himself,

00:02:15.480 he's worth $289 billion.

00:02:20.080 And by the way, at his current age,

00:02:22.940 he should be the first trillionaire.

00:02:26.220 Elon Musk will be our first trillionaire.

00:02:28.400 Pretty sure.

00:02:29.380 I mean, the odds are really good.

00:02:31.980 And he surpassed the value of ExxonMobil,

00:02:35.500 which is only $272 billion.

00:02:37.620 Did you know that ExxonMobil was only $272 billion?

00:02:43.340 I mean, I realize a billion is a lot of money,

00:02:45.560 but I thought they'd be bigger.

00:02:47.660 Actually, I was a little surprised.

00:02:49.420 I guess I should have known.

00:02:51.400 Well, Dave Chappelle addressed the issue

00:02:54.800 with the trans community

00:02:55.960 and the dust-up he's having with his Netflix special.

00:03:01.380 And he had this quite clever thing to say.

00:03:04.640 He said that the trans employees

00:03:09.060 and the LBGQT employees at NetSafe,

00:03:12.980 they say what they want is a safe working environment.

00:03:16.540 A safe working environment.

00:03:18.760 Don't we all?

00:03:19.800 Don't we all?

00:03:20.680 And don't we want that for everyone?

00:03:22.160 Of course.

00:03:22.780 We all want a safe working environment.

00:03:24.680 That's a good thing to ask for.

00:03:26.700 And we certainly want it for the trans community.

00:03:29.600 But as Dave Chappelle cleverly points out,

00:03:32.860 he's the only one who can't safely go to work at Netflix.

00:03:37.560 Now, he doesn't exactly work for Netflix anymore.

00:03:41.000 At least he's not doing any more specials that we know of.

00:03:43.920 But literally, he's the only person who isn't safe at work.

00:03:49.260 That's a pretty good comment.

00:03:50.580 But I'd like to add on to it.

00:03:55.080 Because I think it was a good social commentary.

00:03:58.680 But if I could extend it a little bit.

00:04:02.280 Dave Chappelle might, in fact, not be terribly safe if he worked at Netflix.

00:04:07.780 Because of the anger with the trans and LGBTQ community, I guess.

00:04:12.160 But if I, as a white man, worked for Netflix,

00:04:17.880 but let's not make it about Netflix.

00:04:19.620 Let's just make it generic.

00:04:21.520 A Fortune 500 company.

00:04:24.120 Who would do better at the Fortune 500 company?

00:04:28.520 Let's say equal amount of talent and experience.

00:04:32.100 Dave Chappelle or me.

00:04:34.700 Which one of us would do better in their career?

00:04:39.220 Equal talent and equal experience.

00:04:41.160 Not even close.

00:04:45.100 Right.

00:04:46.080 And who would do better than Dave Chappelle?

00:04:49.540 Who might do even better than Dave Chappelle at a Fortune 500 company?

00:04:54.620 Maybe a trans employee.

00:04:56.640 Because there might be more pressure.

00:04:59.920 Because it's a smaller community.

00:05:01.940 And it's harder to find candidates just because of the smaller pool. 0.51

00:05:05.880 I would guess that if a highly qualified black employee

00:05:10.240 was up for a promotion against a highly, let's say, equally qualified trans employee

00:05:15.980 in a Fortune 500 company, who wins?

00:05:18.740 Same qualifications.

00:05:21.580 I think trans wins.

00:05:23.520 And I think Dave's right about that, Dave Chappelle.

00:05:26.620 You know, you didn't say that directly,

00:05:28.000 but I feel that's the implication.

00:05:30.860 So, we have this weird situation where the only people who can get promoted

00:05:37.180 and, you know, have a safe experience are the ones complaining.

00:05:40.720 This is not to say they don't have valid complaints, okay?

00:05:46.580 So, make sure you hear this correctly.

00:05:50.600 Everybody's got valid complaints.

00:05:53.040 The trans people have tons of valid complaints. 1.00

00:05:56.360 They're valid, right?

00:05:58.100 You might not agree with them, but they're valid complaints.

00:06:00.880 You might disagree about what to do about it.

00:06:04.140 But we all have valid complaints.

00:06:05.620 And so, let's remember that, you know,

00:06:09.780 you're not alone if somebody's treating you poorly, right?

00:06:14.440 If there was one thing that we should all be able to band together 0.99

00:06:17.880 and agree on, is that we're all victims of assholes. 0.99

00:06:22.860 Am I right? 1.00

00:06:24.320 Like, if you could...

00:06:25.760 If you had...

00:06:26.440 Let's say you were an omnipotent being

00:06:30.220 and you could fix the earth and the racial strife.

00:06:35.080 Let's say you had all the power

00:06:37.500 that you could somehow do whatever it took

00:06:39.220 to fix racial division.

00:06:41.800 How would you do it?

00:06:43.220 Would you create a melting pot,

00:06:45.920 the United States model, and throw everybody together?

00:06:48.760 Or would you segregate people and say,

00:06:50.920 hey, one way to get rid of all this division

00:06:53.420 is just divide people.

00:06:55.520 You know, let them live with each other.

00:06:59.000 I don't know.

00:06:59.700 I don't think either of those would work.

00:07:01.440 Here's what I would do.

00:07:03.120 You ready?

00:07:03.720 Here's my solution to racial division. 1.00

00:07:08.140 Separate the assholes in all the groups. 1.00

00:07:11.340 Just put all the assholes together. 1.00

00:07:13.320 So you take all the black people who are also assholes 1.00

00:07:15.960 and you separate them out from the group of black people 1.00

00:07:19.420 who are awesome. 1.00

00:07:21.000 Then you take all the Irish people who are assholes 1.00

00:07:23.960 and you separate them out. 1.00

00:07:26.500 And you keep the Irish people who are not assholes. 1.00

00:07:28.560 And you put them together with the black Americans 1.00

00:07:31.720 who are not assholes. 0.99

00:07:33.360 How do they do? 0.99

00:07:35.580 Really well.

00:07:37.060 Really well, right?

00:07:38.180 They wouldn't have a problem at all.

00:07:40.420 Nothing to do with racism. 1.00

00:07:42.840 Everything to do with who's an asshole 1.00

00:07:44.560 and who's not an asshole. 1.00

00:07:46.260 Right? 0.99

00:07:46.340 So we're completely framing the problem wrong. 1.00

00:07:50.720 If you took the assholes out of the category of white people, 0.99

00:07:56.240 granted, it's a pretty big percentage, 1.00

00:07:59.420 but if you could take the assholes out of the average, 1.00

00:08:03.000 would white people look so bad? 1.00

00:08:04.500 No, no. 0.96

00:08:07.420 We'd look pretty good. 1.00

00:08:09.200 You take the assholes out. 0.99

00:08:11.340 And likewise, 1.00

00:08:12.800 do you think you could get along with somebody

00:08:15.020 from whatever community,

00:08:16.520 just pick a community,

00:08:17.560 LGBTQ,

00:08:19.260 you know,

00:08:19.660 women, 1.00

00:08:20.280 men,

00:08:21.340 black,

00:08:22.100 white,

00:08:22.700 Asian,

00:08:23.040 American,

00:08:23.560 whatever,

00:08:24.020 whatever you want.

00:08:25.180 Pick any group 1.00

00:08:25.860 and then remove the assholes from the group. 1.00

00:08:27.740 How do you like them? 1.00

00:08:29.340 They're great.

00:08:30.580 They're great. 1.00

00:08:31.940 You just remove the assholes. 1.00

00:08:34.300 Now, 1.00

00:08:34.780 the fact that we've been fooled into thinking

00:08:36.960 we have a race problem,

00:08:39.560 think about it.

00:08:40.340 Think about any other ethnic group

00:08:43.160 and then think of somebody you know personally 1.00

00:08:45.500 who just happens to not be an asshole. 0.99

00:08:48.260 Do you like them? 1.00

00:08:49.580 Yeah.

00:08:50.580 Would you hire them?

00:08:52.200 Yeah.

00:08:53.320 Would you date them?

00:08:55.060 Probably.

00:08:56.060 Yeah,

00:08:56.260 I mean,

00:08:56.540 that's a slightly different question,

00:08:57.780 but probably.

00:08:59.860 So,

00:09:00.220 we're all looking at the wrong question here.

00:09:03.500 Really,

00:09:03.820 we're just looking at the wrong question.

00:09:06.160 All right.

00:09:07.540 Kudos to the Biden administration.

00:09:09.820 Yeah,

00:09:10.120 I know.

00:09:10.660 Weird,

00:09:11.000 huh?

00:09:11.640 I'm going to give credit

00:09:12.720 to the Biden administration

00:09:13.940 for something.

00:09:15.200 Now,

00:09:15.600 it's conditional

00:09:16.280 because I'm not sure

00:09:17.880 this isn't a trick.

00:09:20.000 I don't know

00:09:21.000 that this will lead to something good,

00:09:22.580 but it's a good start.

00:09:24.060 And here's the setup.

00:09:25.760 Apparently,

00:09:26.160 the Biden administration

00:09:27.080 is expecting to name

00:09:28.900 Kim Wyman

00:09:29.660 a Republican

00:09:32.140 to a high position.

00:09:34.640 So,

00:09:35.260 Biden is going to put

00:09:36.180 a Republican

00:09:36.840 in a high position

00:09:38.760 in the Homeland Security.

00:09:42.500 So,

00:09:42.860 remember,

00:09:43.360 Biden said he would be,

00:09:45.160 you try to

00:09:46.060 unite the country,

00:09:47.400 be a little more bipartisan.

00:09:49.560 Now,

00:09:50.020 the one he picked

00:09:50.860 happens to,

00:09:51.880 it's not a coincidence,

00:09:53.200 of course,

00:09:54.160 was,

00:09:54.860 went hard at Trump

00:09:56.140 for his,

00:09:57.020 what CNN calls

00:09:58.100 his false claims

00:09:59.280 of fraud

00:10:00.840 in the election.

00:10:01.760 So,

00:10:02.160 it's a Republican

00:10:02.820 who has criticized Republicans.

00:10:06.520 Now,

00:10:07.140 yeah,

00:10:07.320 I know what you're saying.

00:10:08.280 Everybody's typing

00:10:08.980 rhino,

00:10:09.520 rhino,

00:10:09.900 rhino,

00:10:10.240 not a real Republican.

00:10:11.520 I get it.

00:10:12.080 I get it.

00:10:12.400 Can we stipulate?

00:10:14.480 Just so you'll stop typing

00:10:15.820 rhino in the comments

00:10:16.900 and type something else.

00:10:17.740 Can we stipulate

00:10:19.060 that a Republican

00:10:20.660 who's criticizing

00:10:21.800 other Republicans,

00:10:23.560 you have a name for them?

00:10:25.560 You don't have to

00:10:26.220 just keep printing it

00:10:27.300 over and over again

00:10:27.960 in the comments.

00:10:28.660 Just print anything else.

00:10:30.360 Just stop saying rhino.

00:10:32.620 I will stipulate

00:10:34.480 that you have that opinion.

00:10:36.300 Okay?

00:10:37.580 Okay?

00:10:37.920 Can we stipulate

00:10:38.700 so we don't have to

00:10:39.440 just keep saying it

00:10:40.280 over and over?

00:10:41.340 I get it.

00:10:42.300 You don't like rhinos.

00:10:44.000 I get it.

00:10:44.900 Stipulate it.

00:10:46.540 But,

00:10:46.940 who is more likely

00:10:49.060 to criticize

00:10:50.540 both Republicans

00:10:51.760 and Democrats?

00:10:53.440 Do you think

00:10:54.120 a rhino

00:10:54.540 doesn't

00:10:55.420 criticize Democrats?

00:10:58.080 Of course they do.

00:10:59.400 The rhino

00:10:59.900 is going to

00:11:00.640 criticize Democrats

00:11:01.840 but also Republicans.

00:11:03.660 I know you don't

00:11:04.360 like that.

00:11:05.460 And in some cases

00:11:06.220 you say,

00:11:07.020 oh,

00:11:07.220 they don't have

00:11:07.620 the right views.

00:11:09.480 Man,

00:11:10.000 you do not like

00:11:10.640 people who go

00:11:11.420 against your team,

00:11:12.220 do you?

00:11:13.220 The Republicans

00:11:14.040 out here

00:11:14.500 are just going

00:11:14.960 freaking nuts.

00:11:15.960 Let me finish 0.89

00:11:18.600 my point

00:11:19.020 and see what

00:11:19.340 you think.

00:11:19.840 Okay?

00:11:20.480 Now,

00:11:20.960 if your choice

00:11:21.520 was to

00:11:22.080 put a pure

00:11:23.560 Democrat

00:11:23.960 in the job,

00:11:24.760 would that be

00:11:25.260 better or worse

00:11:25.940 than picking a rhino?

00:11:29.240 Let me know.

00:11:30.460 Better or worse?

00:11:33.140 What's better

00:11:33.840 or worse?

00:11:35.700 The same.

00:11:36.660 Somebody says

00:11:37.120 the same.

00:11:37.900 You think

00:11:38.400 that a rhino

00:11:39.800 would not

00:11:41.440 criticize a Democrat?

00:11:42.340 What would

00:11:44.520 stop a rhino

00:11:45.100 from criticizing

00:11:45.940 a Democrat?

00:11:47.280 Nothing,

00:11:47.920 right?

00:11:48.660 I think

00:11:49.500 Biden actually

00:11:50.700 picked the one

00:11:51.580 kind of person

00:11:52.480 who's definitely

00:11:53.800 not a Republican

00:11:54.580 in the classic

00:11:56.180 way,

00:11:57.460 but someone

00:11:57.940 who has a

00:11:58.520 pretty good

00:11:59.080 chance of

00:11:59.780 at least

00:12:00.280 understanding

00:12:01.700 the argument

00:12:02.300 on two sides.

00:12:05.020 I think

00:12:05.620 that's a

00:12:06.580 reasonable step.

00:12:08.320 But anyway,

00:12:08.800 this person

00:12:09.160 will be in

00:12:09.740 charge of

00:12:10.340 protecting

00:12:10.760 future elections.

00:12:11.580 So being a

00:12:12.140 resource to

00:12:12.800 the states

00:12:13.320 to help

00:12:14.460 them prevent

00:12:15.520 being hacked

00:12:16.240 specifically.

00:12:17.900 So her job 0.99

00:12:19.200 is to keep

00:12:19.640 foreign interference 0.89

00:12:20.520 out of the

00:12:20.940 elections.

00:12:21.800 And she

00:12:22.080 would be a

00:12:22.420 resource to

00:12:22.960 the states.

00:12:23.900 Now,

00:12:24.780 is that good?

00:12:26.800 All right.

00:12:28.980 I'm a little

00:12:29.780 disappointed in

00:12:30.660 you,

00:12:30.980 honestly.

00:12:32.580 I'm a little

00:12:33.360 disappointed in

00:12:34.360 the audience.

00:12:35.140 I have to

00:12:35.820 admit.

00:12:36.860 I can't

00:12:37.460 hide it.

00:12:39.180 If you

00:12:39.840 don't understand

00:12:40.500 the point

00:12:40.920 that a

00:12:41.280 rhino would

00:12:42.200 criticize

00:12:42.600 both sides

00:12:43.500 and you

00:12:44.420 really think

00:12:44.900 that a

00:12:45.140 rhino is

00:12:45.560 really just

00:12:46.060 a Democrat,

00:12:47.980 I mean,

00:12:48.340 maybe.

00:12:48.860 I mean,

00:12:49.100 that could 0.68

00:12:49.340 apply to

00:12:49.780 somebody,

00:12:50.440 I guess.

00:12:51.140 But I

00:12:51.460 don't think

00:12:51.740 that's keen

00:12:53.400 insight.

00:12:53.880 I think you

00:12:55.920 should be able

00:12:56.380 to agree with

00:12:57.060 me that a

00:12:57.580 rhino could

00:12:58.220 criticize both

00:12:59.120 sides.

00:13:00.480 Can I get

00:13:00.860 that?

00:13:01.960 Can I get

00:13:02.960 that a

00:13:04.120 rhino would

00:13:04.640 criticize both

00:13:05.460 sides?

00:13:07.180 Just that.

00:13:07.780 You could

00:13:08.720 say you

00:13:08.980 don't like

00:13:09.300 it for

00:13:09.480 other reasons.

00:13:10.300 But just

00:13:10.640 that.

00:13:12.700 All right.

00:13:13.160 So some

00:13:13.840 of you agree

00:13:14.300 with it and

00:13:14.760 others say

00:13:15.600 no.

00:13:16.680 I think some

00:13:17.280 of you think

00:13:17.760 a rhino is

00:13:18.400 somebody who's

00:13:18.860 trying to

00:13:19.200 destroy the

00:13:19.840 Republican Party.

00:13:20.760 Is that what

00:13:21.060 you think?

00:13:22.320 Do you think

00:13:22.720 a rhino is

00:13:23.420 somebody who's

00:13:23.880 trying to

00:13:24.220 destroy the

00:13:24.900 party?

00:13:26.060 Because I

00:13:26.560 don't see

00:13:26.820 that.

00:13:28.240 I see it's

00:13:28.700 somebody who

00:13:29.160 likes them,

00:13:29.680 just wants

00:13:30.040 them to be a

00:13:30.480 little different

00:13:30.880 than they are.

00:13:31.380 All right.

00:13:33.360 So I think

00:13:34.000 that whole

00:13:34.340 rhino thing

00:13:35.000 is just

00:13:35.300 sort of a

00:13:35.820 weird

00:13:37.680 stimulant

00:13:39.740 that just

00:13:40.320 causes people 0.56

00:13:40.900 to go nuts. 0.99

00:13:43.500 Oh, you 0.94

00:13:44.020 know what

00:13:44.200 it is?

00:13:44.440 Maybe it's

00:13:44.840 the uncanny

00:13:46.760 valley.

00:13:48.100 That if

00:13:48.440 somebody's

00:13:48.860 exactly like

00:13:49.640 a Republican

00:13:50.180 and you're

00:13:50.880 a Republican,

00:13:51.540 you say,

00:13:51.880 yeah, right

00:13:52.720 on, that's

00:13:53.160 exactly what

00:13:53.800 I expected.

00:13:54.920 But if

00:13:55.300 somebody's

00:13:55.720 like a

00:13:56.360 Republican but

00:13:57.060 not quite,

00:13:58.500 you know,

00:13:58.820 the rhino

00:13:59.240 thing, well

00:14:00.440 they're like

00:14:00.880 one but

00:14:01.260 not quite,

00:14:01.840 does it

00:14:02.160 cause

00:14:02.400 revulsion

00:14:02.920 like the

00:14:04.380 uncanny

00:14:04.860 valley?

00:14:05.420 If you've

00:14:05.940 never heard

00:14:06.300 of a

00:14:06.720 phrase, the

00:14:07.820 phrase uncanny

00:14:09.040 valley, just

00:14:10.380 Google it

00:14:10.920 separately.

00:14:11.660 It's kind of

00:14:12.300 a cool concept

00:14:13.000 to know.

00:14:13.740 It's about

00:14:14.120 how robots

00:14:14.960 become grotesque

00:14:16.500 when they get

00:14:17.040 close to looking

00:14:17.880 exactly like

00:14:18.600 people, but

00:14:19.900 not quite

00:14:20.360 exactly.

00:14:21.220 They're just

00:14:21.560 close to

00:14:22.060 exact and

00:14:23.160 they become

00:14:23.740 disgusting like 0.96

00:14:24.980 zombies. 0.99

00:14:26.460 You know,

00:14:26.560 they just,

00:14:26.980 ugh, you

00:14:27.480 see somebody

00:14:28.400 who's almost

00:14:28.960 a person,

00:14:29.500 you're like,

00:14:29.740 ugh, what

00:14:30.200 the hell's

00:14:30.480 wrong?

00:14:31.260 Maybe that's

00:14:32.140 what it is

00:14:32.520 with the

00:14:33.120 rhinos.

00:14:34.180 They're like,

00:14:34.680 they're almost

00:14:35.240 Republicans, but

00:14:36.060 ugh, what is

00:14:36.940 wrong with

00:14:37.360 them?

00:14:37.840 Ugh, might be

00:14:39.440 something like

00:14:39.940 that.

00:14:40.760 Anyway, I'm

00:14:42.520 going to

00:14:43.120 withhold my

00:14:44.520 criticism because

00:14:45.320 if the job of

00:14:47.180 this rhino,

00:14:49.540 you call her,

00:14:50.460 is to protect

00:14:51.620 foreign elections

00:14:52.420 or elections

00:14:53.280 from foreign

00:14:53.780 interference, is

00:14:55.180 there any way to

00:14:55.700 do that without

00:14:56.320 knowing that you

00:14:57.160 can also fully

00:14:59.440 audit the

00:15:00.020 election.

00:15:01.240 So here's my

00:15:01.840 stand.

00:15:02.820 Anything short

00:15:03.760 of an explicit

00:15:05.400 effort to make

00:15:07.960 all elections

00:15:08.740 instantly

00:15:09.460 auditable, so

00:15:10.860 you can track

00:15:11.440 your vote

00:15:11.980 individually all

00:15:12.900 the way through,

00:15:14.300 anything but

00:15:15.220 that is not

00:15:16.920 good enough.

00:15:18.200 Not good enough

00:15:19.120 because you

00:15:19.440 would never

00:15:19.740 know if any

00:15:21.140 influence happened.

00:15:22.000 Now, influence

00:15:23.100 may be beyond

00:15:24.380 just vote

00:15:25.140 counting, right?

00:15:25.960 It could cause

00:15:26.820 you to vote the

00:15:27.380 way you do.

00:15:28.160 That's a separate

00:15:28.840 question.

00:15:29.980 But somebody's

00:15:31.260 got to be in

00:15:31.680 charge of making

00:15:32.180 sure the elections

00:15:33.140 are instantly

00:15:33.940 auditable.

00:15:35.280 And if this

00:15:35.860 Kim Wyman is

00:15:37.820 not that person,

00:15:39.420 then this is a

00:15:40.160 complete failure.

00:15:41.640 Complete failure

00:15:42.480 by the Biden

00:15:43.040 administration.

00:15:44.260 I mean, it's

00:15:44.840 good that they

00:15:45.400 have a resource

00:15:45.960 to help against

00:15:46.840 hacking, but

00:15:48.480 it's not even

00:15:49.400 close to what

00:15:51.180 the job

00:15:51.960 requires.

00:15:52.980 The job

00:15:53.460 requires that

00:15:54.480 we have at

00:15:54.900 least an

00:15:55.340 explicit goal.

00:15:57.040 Now, I get

00:15:57.540 that the states

00:15:58.240 have control

00:15:59.020 of the elections,

00:15:59.760 right?

00:16:00.360 I will stipulate

00:16:01.440 that the states

00:16:02.880 have control

00:16:03.480 of the elections.

00:16:04.600 But somebody,

00:16:05.940 maybe the

00:16:06.520 federal government

00:16:07.200 should say,

00:16:08.220 the objective

00:16:08.940 is to be

00:16:09.820 fully auditable

00:16:10.720 and fairly

00:16:11.900 instantly.

00:16:13.320 That should at

00:16:14.080 least be the

00:16:14.540 objective, even

00:16:15.220 if the states

00:16:15.840 say we can't

00:16:16.460 get there or

00:16:17.180 we need

00:16:18.080 resources to

00:16:18.900 do it or

00:16:19.420 we don't want

00:16:19.980 to do it for

00:16:20.420 one reason or

00:16:21.000 not, at

00:16:21.740 the very

00:16:22.100 least it

00:16:22.760 should be

00:16:23.000 the objective.

00:16:25.320 So I'm

00:16:26.340 going to say

00:16:26.700 it's a small

00:16:27.900 step in

00:16:28.540 slightly the

00:16:29.200 right direction

00:16:29.800 and I'll

00:16:30.140 give them

00:16:30.360 credit for

00:16:30.780 that, but

00:16:31.740 I don't see

00:16:32.460 evidence that

00:16:33.140 it's anywhere

00:16:33.540 near enough.

00:16:37.500 Rhinos have 1.00

00:16:38.160 no natural

00:16:38.920 predators.

00:16:40.640 That's

00:16:40.960 interesting.

00:16:42.540 Somebody says

00:16:43.260 that's not the

00:16:43.860 goal.

00:16:44.080 It's my

00:16:44.400 goal.

00:16:45.420 It's my

00:16:45.880 goal.

00:16:46.100 It should be

00:16:47.880 your goal,

00:16:48.420 right?

00:16:49.060 Is there

00:16:49.300 anything?

00:16:49.540 A rhino

00:16:51.340 criticizes the

00:16:52.220 GOP for

00:16:52.820 the wrong

00:16:53.220 things, but

00:16:57.260 that's just

00:16:57.780 an opinion

00:16:59.060 that it's

00:16:59.500 the wrong

00:16:59.860 things, right?

00:17:01.620 I mean, they

00:17:01.980 just have a

00:17:02.400 different opinion.

00:17:05.780 You don't

00:17:06.360 need to argue

00:17:06.900 with me that

00:17:07.420 you disagree

00:17:07.980 with a

00:17:08.980 rhino.

00:17:10.960 I mean,

00:17:11.760 there's nothing

00:17:12.520 there.

00:17:13.380 I get it.

00:17:14.060 You disagree

00:17:14.540 with them.

00:17:14.900 There's nothing

00:17:15.260 else to be

00:17:15.680 said about it,

00:17:16.280 really.

00:17:16.880 It's not

00:17:17.300 interesting in

00:17:17.960 any way.

00:17:21.540 All right.

00:17:23.800 So,

00:17:25.360 Saturday Night

00:17:26.180 Live, how

00:17:26.720 many people

00:17:27.580 saw Saturday

00:17:28.280 Night Live

00:17:28.900 with Jason

00:17:29.520 Sudeikis 0.83

00:17:31.320 roasting Biden?

00:17:34.100 Did anybody

00:17:34.420 see that?

00:17:35.740 Because it

00:17:36.120 felt like a

00:17:36.860 change in

00:17:38.880 tone, didn't

00:17:39.440 it?

00:17:39.660 Did it

00:17:41.420 look to

00:17:41.780 you like

00:17:42.220 SNL just

00:17:43.360 said, oh,

00:17:44.460 hell, we

00:17:46.240 just can't

00:17:47.060 ignore this

00:17:47.700 anymore?

00:17:48.680 Biden's a

00:17:49.820 train wreck?

00:17:51.220 It looked

00:17:51.700 like they

00:17:52.040 went at him

00:17:52.460 pretty hard.

00:17:53.340 They went

00:17:53.660 after his

00:17:54.280 sniffing.

00:17:56.260 They went

00:17:56.920 after his

00:17:57.600 decline, you

00:17:58.920 know, how

00:17:59.160 he used to

00:17:59.520 be all

00:17:59.900 energetic, and

00:18:01.020 now there's

00:18:01.660 not much

00:18:02.020 left of

00:18:02.440 him.

00:18:03.060 I thought

00:18:03.600 it was

00:18:03.860 pretty brutal.

00:18:06.180 Now, are

00:18:07.200 you surprised?

00:18:07.860 because, you

00:18:09.740 know, you've

00:18:10.020 seen that

00:18:10.460 CNN has

00:18:11.240 started to

00:18:11.700 move against

00:18:12.180 him.

00:18:12.500 You've seen

00:18:12.900 Biden's poll

00:18:14.200 numbers are

00:18:14.860 crashing.

00:18:16.980 CNN feels

00:18:17.900 like one of

00:18:19.060 the last

00:18:19.540 holdouts,

00:18:20.520 doesn't it?

00:18:21.320 Like, if you

00:18:22.020 can get

00:18:22.360 SNL to

00:18:23.560 say, all

00:18:24.000 right, you

00:18:24.820 know, we

00:18:25.340 had good

00:18:26.120 hopes, but

00:18:26.600 it didn't

00:18:26.880 work out,

00:18:28.060 which is,

00:18:29.600 somebody says

00:18:30.760 that they

00:18:31.020 went after

00:18:31.440 him very

00:18:31.820 soft.

00:18:32.700 It was

00:18:33.440 gentle in

00:18:34.280 a sense, but

00:18:34.900 they hit all

00:18:35.320 the points.

00:18:36.700 It did

00:18:37.080 seem, it

00:18:37.640 did seem

00:18:38.180 like there

00:18:38.500 was a

00:18:38.940 gentle

00:18:39.360 edge to

00:18:39.840 it.

00:18:39.960 You're

00:18:40.100 right.

00:18:40.400 You're

00:18:40.640 right about

00:18:40.920 that.

00:18:41.540 But they

00:18:42.020 did hit

00:18:42.300 all the

00:18:42.560 points.

00:18:43.300 They did

00:18:43.600 get his

00:18:43.900 mental 0.88

00:18:44.160 decline.

00:18:44.840 They did

00:18:45.080 get, you

00:18:46.180 know, his

00:18:47.320 craziness.

00:18:53.900 Who's a

00:18:54.860 zaobiding?

00:18:58.280 Who is that?

00:18:59.820 Sounds like

00:19:00.320 there's something

00:19:00.760 good that I

00:19:01.560 don't know

00:19:01.800 about.

00:19:03.600 Anyway, the

00:19:04.260 Wall Street

00:19:04.600 Journal has

00:19:05.280 also sounded

00:19:07.420 the alarm,

00:19:08.080 the editorial

00:19:08.740 board.

00:19:09.520 So it's

00:19:09.840 not just

00:19:10.200 an article.

00:19:11.560 The editorial

00:19:12.220 board of the

00:19:12.860 Wall Street

00:19:13.160 Journal basically

00:19:14.420 said we have

00:19:15.120 to stop ignoring

00:19:15.880 the fact that

00:19:16.660 Biden is 0.99

00:19:17.380 incompetent. 0.99

00:19:18.660 Like, you 0.90

00:19:19.140 know, mentally 0.88

00:19:19.940 incompetent, not 0.96

00:19:20.800 just bad at his

00:19:21.500 job.

00:19:22.660 That's a pretty

00:19:23.120 big deal.

00:19:23.940 So now SNL has

00:19:25.020 basically just put

00:19:25.860 it out there.

00:19:26.980 And now the

00:19:27.740 Wall Street Journal

00:19:28.400 editorial board

00:19:29.360 basically just

00:19:30.820 reports it like an

00:19:31.920 obvious fact.

00:19:32.720 You don't even

00:19:33.100 have to, you

00:19:34.020 don't even need the

00:19:34.640 medical examination.

00:19:35.880 It's just sort of

00:19:36.700 obvious now.

00:19:40.440 That's pretty

00:19:41.100 amazing.

00:19:43.340 And I would

00:19:45.060 love to ask

00:19:45.860 people privately

00:19:47.780 who were big

00:19:48.480 supporters of

00:19:49.500 Biden if they

00:19:50.820 got what they

00:19:51.340 wanted.

00:19:52.980 I would love,

00:19:53.580 has anybody had

00:19:54.200 that conversation

00:19:54.900 privately?

00:19:55.900 Has anybody had a

00:19:56.980 private conversation?

00:19:58.100 Because you act

00:19:58.660 differently in public.

00:19:59.860 But has anybody

00:20:00.320 had a private

00:20:01.000 conversation with a

00:20:02.020 Democrat who is

00:20:04.320 regretting their

00:20:06.080 choice?

00:20:09.100 Because people

00:20:10.260 tend to have

00:20:10.780 cognitive dissonance

00:20:11.720 and say they

00:20:12.220 were right even

00:20:13.220 if they were

00:20:13.600 wrong.

00:20:17.880 Yeah, you don't

00:20:18.480 see much of it.

00:20:20.460 Look how little

00:20:21.180 there is.

00:20:21.600 You'd expect there

00:20:22.260 to be a lot of

00:20:22.760 it because the

00:20:23.260 poll numbers are

00:20:24.000 plunging, right?

00:20:24.840 So therefore there

00:20:25.560 should be a lot of

00:20:26.040 people who change

00:20:26.620 their minds.

00:20:28.320 But you can't

00:20:28.960 find them.

00:20:30.480 Yeah.

00:20:30.600 Oh, here's

00:20:31.560 some.

00:20:32.420 So, yep, my

00:20:33.160 neighbor, Lisa

00:20:34.220 says.

00:20:37.620 There's still

00:20:38.200 anything but

00:20:38.780 Trump.

00:20:39.260 Yeah.

00:20:39.740 So I guess they

00:20:40.360 can defend their

00:20:40.960 choice because it's

00:20:41.720 anything but Trump.

00:20:42.680 I guess you always

00:20:43.400 have that to fall

00:20:43.920 back on.

00:20:44.920 Here's my question.

00:20:45.940 If we could put a

00:20:46.700 Tesla automobile in

00:20:48.400 space, and when I

00:20:50.080 say we, I don't mean

00:20:51.020 me, because I had

00:20:52.280 nothing to do with

00:20:53.000 it.

00:20:53.540 But humans, at

00:20:55.420 least some of us,

00:20:56.020 are smart enough to

00:20:56.820 get together and

00:20:57.520 launch an automobile

00:20:59.420 into space.

00:21:01.320 And yet, we can't

00:21:03.540 invent a fake gun that

00:21:05.520 looks real on a

00:21:06.340 movie.

00:21:07.640 Really?

00:21:08.900 Really.

00:21:09.420 The only way to

00:21:10.240 shoot a movie, which

00:21:11.540 is all make-believe, 0.99

00:21:13.200 is with a real gun

00:21:14.220 that could at least

00:21:15.980 potentially fire real

00:21:17.320 ammunition.

00:21:18.540 Nobody can make a

00:21:19.400 fake gun that would 0.74

00:21:21.300 be an actual prop as

00:21:22.580 opposed to a real gun

00:21:23.500 that they pretend is a

00:21:24.420 prop.

00:21:25.820 Can't do that?

00:21:27.780 Nobody's figured that

00:21:28.620 out yet?

00:21:28.940 It does feel as though

00:21:30.540 there is a market for

00:21:31.880 that.

00:21:32.820 Now, my understanding is

00:21:33.920 that there are such

00:21:34.860 things as prop guns.

00:21:37.260 And a prop gun,

00:21:38.240 actually, you couldn't

00:21:38.960 put a bullet in it if 0.81

00:21:39.840 you wanted. 1.00

00:21:40.240 It would just be

00:21:40.680 blocked.

00:21:41.900 But I imagine the

00:21:43.420 prop gun doesn't have

00:21:46.120 the same action, or

00:21:47.480 maybe it doesn't flash

00:21:48.700 the same, or have the

00:21:49.700 kick, or whatever it is

00:21:50.740 that makes it look

00:21:51.960 realistic in a movie.

00:21:52.920 But we couldn't figure

00:21:55.020 out how to solve those

00:21:56.240 problems.

00:21:57.880 I mean, that seems like

00:21:58.700 a solvable problem to me,

00:22:01.220 to have a gun that makes

00:22:02.440 a flash without a bullet.

00:22:04.520 You couldn't make an

00:22:06.040 electronic gun that just

00:22:08.080 lights something that just

00:22:09.480 flashes out the barrel or

00:22:11.760 something.

00:22:13.180 I mean, really?

00:22:15.300 How hard is that?

00:22:16.880 Well, we're also finding 1.00

00:22:17.840 out how dumb Hollywood is. 0.98

00:22:20.120 I'm going to read you 1.00

00:22:21.060 this story, and you're

00:22:22.340 going to swear, if you

00:22:23.240 haven't already heard

00:22:23.880 the story, you're going

00:22:25.520 to swear I'm making this

00:22:26.440 up.

00:22:27.500 All right?

00:22:28.140 Anybody who owns a gun,

00:22:29.700 or has been around guns,

00:22:30.680 or knows anything about

00:22:31.880 guns, you're going to

00:22:33.640 think I made this up.

00:22:35.480 This will blow your 0.98

00:22:37.420 frickin' mind. 0.97

00:22:39.320 All right? 0.93

00:22:40.040 I swear to God, this is

00:22:41.820 true.

00:22:42.900 And I'm going to read

00:22:43.600 it.

00:22:45.060 This is one from CNN.

00:22:46.520 There's this pastime that

00:22:50.040 crew members sometimes

00:22:51.160 do, and this is coming

00:22:52.120 from somebody who knows

00:22:54.300 that world, somebody named

00:22:56.220 Waxman.

00:22:57.120 It's called plinking.

00:22:59.680 So there's something that

00:23:00.720 movie crew members do

00:23:02.020 called plinking.

00:23:03.540 And they go out into

00:23:04.800 rural areas, and they

00:23:06.420 shoot at beer cans.

00:23:08.240 This is with live ammunition.

00:23:11.640 In other words, they take

00:23:13.920 the guns that are used for

00:23:15.800 the movie, they take

00:23:18.620 them to somewhere in a

00:23:21.100 rural area, they replace 0.99

00:23:23.620 the blanks with real

00:23:26.780 bullets, and then they

00:23:28.940 shoot at targets, and then

00:23:31.480 they return the gun.

00:23:36.160 I'm not making that up.

00:23:39.240 They actually do that.

00:23:40.860 Now, everybody who's had

00:23:44.700 gun training, hold on to the

00:23:47.500 top of your head, because

00:23:49.000 it's coming off.

00:23:49.960 It's coming off, isn't

00:23:50.960 it?

00:23:51.640 Okay, ah, ah, ah, the top

00:23:53.480 of my head.

00:23:54.180 Ah, ah, ah, ah.

00:23:58.340 Honestly, can you think of 1.00

00:23:59.520 anything dumber? 0.99

00:24:01.420 If you were going to teach a 0.99

00:24:03.660 class in gun safety, can you

00:24:06.460 imagine a better anecdote of

00:24:08.440 bad behavior?

00:24:10.660 Now, I know what the movie

00:24:12.260 people are going to say.

00:24:14.480 They're going to say, Scott,

00:24:15.840 Scott, Scott.

00:24:17.220 There's somebody in charge of

00:24:18.540 checking all the guns before

00:24:20.660 they're handed to an actor.

00:24:21.740 I mean, it's not like a live

00:24:24.560 round is still going to be in

00:24:25.980 the chamber. 1.00

00:24:27.920 Scott, you fool. 1.00

00:24:29.760 That's why we hire somebody. 1.00

00:24:31.280 We hire somebody just for that

00:24:32.900 job, to make sure that gun is 0.51

00:24:34.340 safe before it gets handed to an

00:24:35.680 actor.

00:24:37.900 And all the people who have

00:24:39.160 any gun training whatsoever 1.00

00:24:40.600 say, you are the dumbest 1.00

00:24:43.580 person in the world if you 1.00

00:24:44.560 think that's a good idea.

00:24:45.880 Because now you've taken the

00:24:47.420 failure point and you've put

00:24:50.140 it on one person who's

00:24:51.520 underpaid and may not be

00:24:53.080 paying attention, might come

00:24:54.280 in with a hangover that day.

00:24:56.240 And lives would be at stake for

00:24:58.840 somebody just to skip a step or

00:25:01.200 something.

00:25:02.100 You would never, ever put a

00:25:05.140 live round in a gun that's

00:25:06.740 going to be used in a movie,

00:25:08.460 no matter how sure you were

00:25:10.740 that you were going to remove

00:25:12.280 it.

00:25:12.700 This gets me to a related

00:25:14.260 topic.

00:25:15.480 So I've had a side conversation

00:25:17.320 with somebody who works on

00:25:19.340 movie sets a lot.

00:25:20.860 You know, he's often on movie

00:25:21.820 sets.

00:25:22.300 It's his job.

00:25:24.040 And is arguing on the

00:25:26.540 internet and can't understand

00:25:27.880 why people don't get his

00:25:29.060 argument.

00:25:29.380 And he argued that Alec

00:25:32.140 Baldwin is not either

00:25:35.120 responsible or 100%

00:25:36.560 responsible because there

00:25:38.980 was somebody whose job it

00:25:40.020 was, and it's the routine

00:25:41.700 way that movies are done,

00:25:43.560 somebody whose job it was to

00:25:44.860 make sure that gun was safe

00:25:46.040 before it was given to him.

00:25:47.460 And therefore, the people who

00:25:49.240 are saying that Alec Baldwin is

00:25:50.580 fully responsible don't

00:25:52.860 understand because clearly it

00:25:54.700 was somebody else's

00:25:55.400 responsibility.

00:25:56.860 And the whole point was to

00:25:58.740 keep the actor just as an

00:26:00.140 actor and not have to worry

00:26:01.280 about this stuff.

00:26:02.560 So, Scott, don't you

00:26:03.540 understand?

00:26:04.620 Don't you understand that the

00:26:06.860 responsibility was, you know,

00:26:09.240 sort of shared, at least, by the

00:26:11.940 person whose job it was?

00:26:14.120 Here's my counter-argument.

00:26:15.800 Are you ready?

00:26:16.040 There's no such thing as one kind of

00:26:19.260 responsibility.

00:26:21.300 And as soon as you imagine that

00:26:22.900 there's one thing called

00:26:24.140 responsibility and it can be

00:26:25.720 defined one way, well, you're lost

00:26:28.600 because there's nothing like that.

00:26:30.800 There's legal responsibility, which

00:26:33.840 has a standard.

00:26:35.580 There's financial responsibility, which

00:26:38.120 might be different than the legal

00:26:40.000 responsibility.

00:26:40.740 Could be the same, but could be

00:26:42.520 different.

00:26:42.800 Then there's what I would call

00:26:44.760 common sense responsibility.

00:26:46.940 It has nothing to do with the law

00:26:48.980 or anything else.

00:26:49.720 It's just, what makes sense to you?

00:26:52.520 Like, as an ordinary person, what

00:26:54.840 makes sense?

00:26:56.460 And then there's gun responsibility.

00:26:59.840 Back me on this, gun owners, so the

00:27:02.820 rest of you who are not maybe trained

00:27:04.440 in firearms, look to the comments of

00:27:06.920 the people who are and see if you agree

00:27:08.540 with the statement, gun responsibility

00:27:11.540 is absolute.

00:27:14.760 It's absolute.

00:27:15.980 So there's no such thing as sharing it.

00:27:18.520 It's absolute.

00:27:20.020 And it's absolute for everybody who

00:27:21.700 touches it.

00:27:23.240 In other words, the gun owner, or the

00:27:25.920 person who has it in their hand, let's

00:27:27.120 say, the person who has it in their

00:27:28.640 hand is 100% responsible for what

00:27:30.960 happens.

00:27:32.200 100%.

00:27:32.560 Even if the person who gave it to

00:27:36.680 him is also 100% responsible.

00:27:39.540 So gun ownership is the only situation 0.88

00:27:41.480 in which the responsibility can add up

00:27:43.240 to over 100%.

00:27:44.460 Am I right?

00:27:46.400 Which is illogical, right?

00:27:48.340 Because responsibility can't add up to

00:27:50.120 100%.

00:27:50.840 But let me say it again.

00:27:52.780 It does.

00:27:53.380 Because gun owners, gun owners, don't 1.00

00:27:58.560 fuck around when it comes to safety. 1.00

00:28:02.140 Right? 1.00

00:28:02.580 There are absolutes.

00:28:04.780 And when you're trying to argue with a

00:28:06.180 gun owner, but don't you get that the

00:28:08.800 system was that this other person takes

00:28:11.180 responsibility?

00:28:12.340 Both people had agreed.

00:28:14.660 You know, Alec Baldwin knew that.

00:28:16.440 The person responsible knew it.

00:28:18.060 They had agreed that it was her

00:28:19.600 responsibility.

00:28:20.600 So therefore, no.

00:28:22.340 No.

00:28:22.580 Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

00:28:25.640 Blah, blah, blah, your reasons.

00:28:28.260 Nobody wants your reasons.

00:28:30.040 If you're a gun owner, or if you have a

00:28:31.820 gun in your hand, it's your

00:28:32.760 responsibility, period.

00:28:34.280 Period.

00:28:35.460 And nobody's going to listen to a 0.99

00:28:37.120 counterargument.

00:28:38.220 Because the moment you allow the

00:28:40.400 counterargument in, people get killed.

00:28:44.260 Right?

00:28:44.700 The moment you allow, well, there could

00:28:46.860 be an exception.

00:28:49.020 Bam.

00:28:49.500 Somebody's dead.

00:28:50.080 Because this was the exception.

00:28:52.580 This was exactly the exception.

00:28:55.420 This is why it always has to be 100%.

00:28:57.360 Because the moment you make the

00:28:59.300 exception, somebody gets shot.

00:29:01.000 Every time.

00:29:02.460 So you don't make that exception.

00:29:04.740 And it has nothing to do with legal

00:29:06.640 responsibility.

00:29:07.460 It's a different standard.

00:29:09.220 Legal responsibility is nuanced.

00:29:11.520 And, you know, you really have to figure out who did

00:29:13.840 what and blah, blah, blah.

00:29:15.160 But gun responsibility is irrational by design.

00:29:21.720 Right?

00:29:22.540 It's rational irrationality.

00:29:25.720 It's rational to be irrational on gun safety.

00:29:30.220 And by irrational, I mean, you don't even put your

00:29:33.200 finger on it unless you're going to do something

00:29:35.520 productive with it.

00:29:36.580 Right?

00:29:36.800 Like, this is how irrational gun safety is.

00:29:40.220 If your gun's on, you know, if this is your gun, you

00:29:43.120 don't even, you don't even do this unless you're going to

00:29:47.680 move it productively, like with a purpose.

00:29:50.860 You don't do anything with a gun.

00:29:53.780 Anything.

00:29:55.320 Unless you're doing it with purpose and safety.

00:29:57.940 Right?

00:29:58.860 So, anyway, people are not arguing the same argument.

00:30:01.520 They're pretending it's all responsibility is one thing,

00:30:04.000 or it's logical, or it's common sense.

00:30:06.120 It's none of those things.

00:30:07.020 And it shouldn't be.

00:30:08.220 As soon as you make that stuff common sense, people die.

00:30:11.540 So, there's a reason for it.

00:30:14.920 I'm going to tell you something, but I can't tell you why.

00:30:18.600 A lot of the big political stories you're hearing now,

00:30:21.360 you are completely misled on what's really behind them.

00:30:25.700 And I can't tell you which stories, and I can't tell you why.

00:30:28.620 But just trust me, I'm seeing in more windows than you see,

00:30:31.860 and I can't even frickin' believe in the stuff I'm seeing.

00:30:34.700 You're never going to hear why, I don't think.

00:30:37.180 I don't think you'll ever know what I'm talking about.

00:30:40.180 But, oh my God, the biggest stories are just so completely wrong

00:30:45.740 in important ways.

00:30:48.420 Anyway, I'll just leave that there.

00:30:50.480 CNN keeps dumping on Facebook, and I'm loving it.

00:30:55.820 CNN's attacked from the left and the right.

00:30:57.660 So, CNN is attacking Facebook for not censoring enough.

00:31:05.020 And their examples would be, you know, January 6th, for example.

00:31:08.440 They didn't censor enough, so it caused people to organize and do bad stuff.

00:31:11.740 And then, of course, the righty thinks they censor too much.

00:31:18.600 And you're not going to like this, but it probably means they're doing a good job.

00:31:23.780 I hate to say it.

00:31:28.060 I'm not a fan of Facebook, by the way.

00:31:29.740 I don't use it.

00:31:30.680 I think it should go away.

00:31:32.500 I just don't like anything about Facebook, honestly.

00:31:34.900 So, I'm not a fan.

00:31:37.000 But if you see that Facebook is being criticized for being not censorious enough,

00:31:45.100 at the same time they're being criticized for being too censorious.

00:31:48.800 Is that a word?

00:31:49.420 Censorious?

00:31:50.440 Censoring too much?

00:31:51.320 I would think that's kind of where you need to be.

00:31:55.520 How could they possibly have both sides happy about that?

00:31:59.400 Does anybody think there's something they could do that would make both sides happy?

00:32:04.380 I don't know that that's even an option.

00:32:06.740 Now, I'm not saying they're doing it the way I would do it or that it's flaw-free.

00:32:12.300 Clearly, there are flaws.

00:32:13.860 But it looks to be the kind of flaws that you would expect in a free system, right?

00:32:18.940 You know, civilization has flaws, but we like to be civilized.

00:32:23.780 Capitalism has flaws, but it's still pretty good compared to the alternatives.

00:32:29.640 Democracy and the republic and all that, lots and lots of flaws,

00:32:34.580 but nobody's figured out a better thing to do.

00:32:38.000 Facebook is starting to feel like democracy.

00:32:43.220 It's a terrible system that we can't figure out a better one.

00:32:46.740 Now, I'm not supporting any decision they made,

00:32:50.200 and I'm not going to criticize any specific thing today.

00:32:53.220 I'm just saying that I wouldn't want one side to be happy with Facebook

00:32:58.940 and the other side to be unhappy.

00:33:01.000 Would you?

00:33:03.460 Tell me, would you want one side to be happy and the other side to be unhappy?

00:33:07.560 No matter which side was happy.

00:33:09.760 I wouldn't.

00:33:10.760 That feels like a very unhealthy situation.

00:33:13.100 The healthiest situation is exactly what we have.

00:33:16.740 Everybody's mad at Facebook all the time.

00:33:20.240 I hate to say it, but that's literally the healthiest situation.

00:33:24.220 Everybody mad at Facebook all the time.

00:33:28.680 All right.

00:33:33.000 So what else we got going on here?

00:33:34.900 There's a reason that I follow Michael Malice on Twitter.

00:33:40.820 If you don't follow Michael Malice, and he's at Michael Malice,

00:33:46.660 just his name's put together.

00:33:50.240 Here's why.

00:33:51.980 I'm going to read you one of his tweets,

00:33:54.640 and you'll know why I follow him.

00:33:57.120 Okay?

00:33:57.580 Just one tweet.

00:33:59.500 He tweeted today, or it might have been yesterday,

00:34:02.020 I wonder when Alec Baldwin will resume shooting.

00:34:09.400 And that's why I follow Michael Malice.

00:34:13.700 Maybe you should, too.

00:34:15.340 Now, a little more explanation.

00:34:18.120 I've talked before how there are some humorists,

00:34:20.580 such as Norm MacDonald,

00:34:22.980 who, if you don't understand his humor,

00:34:25.240 you don't realize that the joke is always on the audience.

00:34:28.580 So sometimes he's, you know, just joking.

00:34:30.220 But lots of times the joke is about how the audience is responding.

00:34:34.720 Now, Dave Chappelle sometimes does the same thing.

00:34:37.680 Dave Chappelle is operating at that, you know, that high level.

00:34:41.520 So that he's telling jokes,

00:34:43.200 but also it's sort of about your reaction to the jokes, too.

00:34:47.420 Right?

00:34:48.500 And you have to understand that Michael Malice

00:34:51.720 is also about your reaction.

00:34:53.700 So don't automatically jump to imagine he's a monster

00:34:59.160 because he says things that get you wound up.

00:35:02.580 His act, if I could call it that,

00:35:05.320 his approach, maybe,

00:35:07.140 is he finds the worst thing you can say about every topic.

00:35:13.120 Whatever is the worst thing you can say.

00:35:15.520 And then he tweets it.

00:35:16.500 And if you can't appreciate, you know, the, I don't know,

00:35:21.800 I guess the edge that he brings to it,

00:35:24.740 you probably shouldn't follow him.

00:35:26.380 But if you get that he's doing it for the reaction,

00:35:29.620 then it's just a great show.

00:35:32.360 So I recommend him highly.

00:35:34.780 And by the way, you won't like it sometimes,

00:35:37.440 which is the point, right?

00:35:39.000 Sometimes it's really going to rattle your chain, too.

00:35:42.140 All right.

00:35:49.100 I've been accused credibly,

00:35:51.880 so here I'd like to agree with my critics.

00:35:54.800 Sometimes people say,

00:35:56.080 Scott, Scott, Scott, you can't admit when you're wrong.

00:36:00.420 I think I do.

00:36:01.760 I think I do, actually,

00:36:02.860 but maybe I'm not admitting when I'm wrong.

00:36:05.280 So I'll try to do it now.

00:36:07.600 And I'm going to agree with my critics

00:36:09.580 that although I've said over and over again

00:36:12.780 that, for example,

00:36:14.540 that I don't care if you get vaccinations,

00:36:16.300 the way I talk about the pandemic

00:36:18.020 leads you to believe that I'm persuading you

00:36:21.760 or that I have a certainty

00:36:23.800 about things I don't have certainty about.

00:36:26.060 So I think my critics are completely right 0.69

00:36:28.080 that you can accidentally influence people

00:36:32.400 just by what you talk about most, right?

00:36:35.000 So if I happen to talk about things

00:36:37.400 that were pro-vaccine,

00:36:38.760 even if I'm not telling you to get it,

00:36:42.260 you would internalize that as,

00:36:43.900 well, he's saying pro-vaccine things.

00:36:46.460 How can you say you're not trying to convince me to get it?

00:36:48.900 You keep saying pro-vaccine things.

00:36:50.840 So as a public service,

00:36:53.360 because I know that it annoys a lot of you,

00:36:55.380 I'm going to argue the opposite of my opinion today,

00:36:59.100 the same way that, you know,

00:37:01.360 I make the mistake the other direction.

00:37:02.860 So it won't be so much I'm making an argument

00:37:05.540 against my opinion

00:37:07.100 as much as I'm giving the other side of the story.

00:37:11.860 Is that fair?

00:37:13.220 So I'm going to concentrate on

00:37:15.300 something that's pro-ivermectin,

00:37:18.440 because usually I talk about the opposite.

00:37:20.920 So I'm going to tell you some things that are pro-ivermectin,

00:37:23.600 even though I'm almost always talking the opposite.

00:37:25.560 I'm not trying to convince you.

00:37:28.140 All right, nothing you hear now

00:37:29.680 will be to convince you it's good or bad or anything.

00:37:32.320 I'm just going to take the other side.

00:37:33.980 Now, this is a good exercise.

00:37:36.660 It's a good exercise

00:37:37.820 to see if you can argue the other point.

00:37:41.200 All right?

00:37:41.940 If you can't argue the other side's point,

00:37:45.460 you have to ask yourself why.

00:37:47.400 Is it because the other side is just whack?

00:37:49.800 Or because you're so cognitively biased

00:37:52.540 that you can't even say the words?

00:37:55.560 That the other side would say.

00:37:58.220 So in the spirit of testing my own cognitive dissonance,

00:38:03.200 I'm going to show you an exercise

00:38:05.120 in which I speak the opposite of my opinion.

00:38:09.240 Okay?

00:38:10.180 And it'll be on the vaccines

00:38:11.380 and also on ivermectin,

00:38:13.540 I think one other thing.

00:38:15.080 I'm going to start with a little context

00:38:16.800 and we'll lead you into it.

00:38:18.820 Rasmussen has a poll about climate change

00:38:20.980 and asks people,

00:38:22.980 is climate change a crisis?

00:38:23.940 51% of the people said,

00:38:26.360 you know,

00:38:26.820 hell yes

00:38:27.780 or,

00:38:29.120 you know,

00:38:29.900 leaning yes.

00:38:31.300 So over half of the people

00:38:32.620 think climate change is a crisis.

00:38:34.760 And it breaks down exactly like you think.

00:38:36.580 75% of Democrats

00:38:37.800 and 31% of Republicans.

00:38:41.720 And interestingly,

00:38:43.080 the moderates are right in the middle.

00:38:44.360 which tells you something disturbing,

00:38:49.040 but that's another story.

00:38:52.000 And then Rasmussen also asked,

00:38:54.760 and I'm paraphrasing their questions,

00:38:56.460 that they put the questions in better form

00:38:59.340 than I'm going to paraphrase them.

00:39:01.380 So just know that they know how to do questions right,

00:39:04.160 even if I say them wrong.

00:39:05.240 All right.

00:39:07.400 They asked,

00:39:08.620 if the country that goes the hardest at climate change

00:39:12.140 and green energy stuff,

00:39:14.480 will they reap the economic and jobs benefit

00:39:17.480 in green energy?

00:39:18.640 In other words,

00:39:20.700 do people think that going hard against climate change

00:39:23.800 ends up being an economic positive?

00:39:25.620 And 56% said yes.

00:39:29.380 56% of the public

00:39:31.860 thinks that going hard at climate change

00:39:34.880 would be a positive economic thing.

00:39:37.040 38% disagree.

00:39:39.560 All right.

00:39:40.700 Again,

00:39:42.200 remember,

00:39:43.540 I'm just sort of giving you some views here.

00:39:47.440 So I'm going to do climate change

00:39:49.320 and then I'm going to do COVID as soon as I'm done.

00:39:52.240 And then do you agree with Biden's approach to climate?

00:39:54.380 48% supported it,

00:39:55.980 but 46% do not.

00:39:58.440 And 6% are unsure.

00:39:59.840 But I think the unsure

00:40:00.760 should be thrown in the do not support category.

00:40:04.200 That would be...

00:40:05.000 So pretty much a tie

00:40:06.680 between supporting Biden and not supporting him.

00:40:10.880 And as Michael Schellenberger is pointing out,

00:40:13.640 the world's green renewable experiment is over.

00:40:17.320 So Biden's climate bill is dead.

00:40:19.360 This is in a Michael Schellenberger tweet today.

00:40:22.180 Norway affirmed oil drilling.

00:40:23.680 So Norway is basically saying,

00:40:25.600 OK, green stuff isn't working.

00:40:26.940 We better drill.

00:40:28.100 Let's get busy drilling for oil.

00:40:30.280 And even Uganda says that the solar and wind force

00:40:32.900 and wind cause poverty in Africa.

00:40:37.340 So Africa is giving up on green energy.

00:40:40.200 Norway,

00:40:41.560 in some ways,

00:40:42.520 the United States,

00:40:43.740 in a minor way,

00:40:44.660 at least the climate bill.

00:40:45.540 And Germany is having the same issue.

00:40:50.340 And I think the UK is looking at nuclear and stuff.

00:40:55.240 So basically,

00:40:56.260 everything you thought you knew

00:40:58.240 or people thought they knew

00:41:00.860 about green energy and its benefits

00:41:03.220 seems to be wrong.

00:41:05.360 So at the same time that Rasmussen is saying,

00:41:07.560 hey,

00:41:08.480 look at all these people

00:41:10.800 who think the climate is a crisis

00:41:12.400 and Biden is doing the right thing

00:41:14.020 are looking at countries all over the world

00:41:17.280 who also thought the climate was a crisis

00:41:19.860 and going green was the right thing.

00:41:21.980 And they've all learned that they were wrong

00:41:23.840 and they're reversing their decisions.

00:41:26.300 At the same time,

00:41:27.340 people are saying,

00:41:27.820 yeah,

00:41:27.980 Biden looks good.

00:41:29.140 The majority of people are saying,

00:41:30.600 yeah,

00:41:30.780 it looks good.

00:41:31.820 While the rest of the world

00:41:32.760 who already went there

00:41:33.980 is changing their mind.

00:41:37.660 Okay.

00:41:38.360 Also good.

00:41:39.860 All right.

00:41:40.260 I'm going to argue the other side

00:41:41.420 quickly for ivermectin and stuff.

00:41:44.320 Here's my question.

00:41:45.500 If you had a drug

00:41:46.560 that you knew worked

00:41:47.800 in a laboratory,

00:41:50.580 in a test tube,

00:41:51.820 and it kills the virus in a test tube,

00:41:54.020 why doesn't it work in people?

00:41:56.140 Now,

00:41:56.500 I know,

00:41:56.960 I know the reason you do the controlled trials

00:41:59.180 is because it's actually rare

00:42:01.140 for something that works in a test tube

00:42:03.600 to also work in a human

00:42:05.460 without hurting them.

00:42:07.920 Do we agree?

00:42:09.460 Everybody knows

00:42:10.400 that the test tube results

00:42:11.920 actually rarely work in people.

00:42:15.640 So you would expect

00:42:16.920 that just because it works in a test tube

00:42:18.400 doesn't really mean anything to people.

00:42:20.920 But,

00:42:22.040 suppose you had a drug,

00:42:23.680 and the reason I ask why is that?

00:42:26.180 Why can't you tell

00:42:27.160 that it will work in people?

00:42:28.180 What's the mechanism

00:42:29.900 that ruins it?

00:42:31.700 And we know it doesn't work,

00:42:33.040 but what's the mechanism?

00:42:34.480 And I heard

00:42:35.220 a number of smart people say,

00:42:37.660 well,

00:42:37.940 the body

00:42:38.500 rapidly breaks down chemicals.

00:42:41.060 So whatever you put into a body,

00:42:43.500 as soon as it interacts

00:42:44.400 with your,

00:42:44.860 you know,

00:42:45.080 your blood

00:42:45.540 and your hormones

00:42:46.320 and everything,

00:42:47.160 it might break you down.

00:42:48.600 And so the effectiveness

00:42:49.460 you saw in the test tube

00:42:51.500 could get just destroyed

00:42:53.180 by the body.

00:42:54.820 Makes sense.

00:42:55.620 But,

00:42:56.960 suppose you have the special case

00:42:59.660 that the drug you're testing

00:43:01.800 is already known

00:43:03.620 not to break down in the body.

00:43:06.540 Let's take ivermectin

00:43:07.900 as my example.

00:43:09.460 Now remember,

00:43:11.200 I'm not promoting ivermectin

00:43:12.500 as working

00:43:13.560 because I don't have any idea.

00:43:15.120 I'm just arguing the other side

00:43:16.440 to see if I can do it.

00:43:18.500 Ivermectin,

00:43:19.000 we know,

00:43:19.340 doesn't break down in the body

00:43:20.700 so much

00:43:22.180 that it doesn't work

00:43:23.060 for what it was invented for.

00:43:24.180 So we know

00:43:26.400 that the body

00:43:27.380 seems to keep

00:43:29.040 ivermectin intact

00:43:30.460 long enough

00:43:32.020 to work against

00:43:33.520 its original purpose,

00:43:35.320 you know,

00:43:35.900 as a dewormer

00:43:36.820 for horses,

00:43:37.460 for example,

00:43:38.160 but in humans as well,

00:43:39.940 originally created

00:43:40.880 for humans.

00:43:42.020 So if you know

00:43:43.100 it's not going to break down

00:43:44.400 and you know

00:43:45.900 it kills a virus

00:43:46.920 in a test tube,

00:43:50.020 can you really,

00:43:50.620 and you know

00:43:51.140 what parts of the body

00:43:52.660 it gets into,

00:43:53.340 presumably you could find out

00:43:55.480 it wouldn't be hard,

00:43:56.640 I imagine,

00:43:57.620 take some blood

00:43:58.300 from a person

00:43:58.960 and say,

00:43:59.600 okay,

00:44:00.480 there's the coronavirus,

00:44:02.220 it's right there

00:44:02.700 in the blood,

00:44:04.060 then you give them

00:44:04.640 some ivermectin

00:44:05.480 and you test their blood again

00:44:06.580 and you go,

00:44:06.920 okay,

00:44:07.740 their blood has ivermectin

00:44:09.140 and it also has

00:44:10.780 coronavirus.

00:44:13.040 Do they both exist

00:44:13.980 in the blood

00:44:14.460 at the same time?

00:44:16.660 And are you telling me

00:44:17.400 that if you put something

00:44:18.260 that doesn't break down,

00:44:20.400 because we know

00:44:20.860 it doesn't break down

00:44:21.660 for its other purposes,

00:44:23.340 that doesn't mean

00:44:24.420 it doesn't break down

00:44:25.140 for this purpose,

00:44:25.960 right?

00:44:26.200 It could break down

00:44:27.000 in a specific way

00:44:28.160 that luckily

00:44:29.600 doesn't matter

00:44:30.580 to one purpose

00:44:31.440 but matters to the other,

00:44:32.560 right?

00:44:32.740 So there's all kinds

00:44:33.400 of possibilities.

00:44:34.940 But,

00:44:36.080 wouldn't you expect

00:44:37.200 it to work

00:44:37.820 more often than not?

00:44:40.680 As long as

00:44:41.460 the drug itself

00:44:42.580 doesn't change

00:44:43.480 too much in the body

00:44:44.420 and it lasts

00:44:45.520 a little while.

00:44:46.960 If your blood,

00:44:48.960 let me ask

00:44:49.660 the question this way,

00:44:50.420 if I drew

00:44:51.440 your blood out

00:44:52.100 and it had

00:44:52.500 coronavirus in it,

00:44:54.560 so I've got

00:44:55.040 a little petri dish

00:44:56.880 full of blood,

00:44:58.080 and let's say

00:44:58.480 I put a Bunsen burner

00:44:59.860 under it so it stays

00:45:00.940 about the right temperature

00:45:01.840 as your body.

00:45:03.300 So now you've got

00:45:03.920 real blood

00:45:04.520 from a real person

00:45:05.320 with real virus in it.

00:45:08.140 If you drop

00:45:08.880 an ivermectin pill

00:45:09.820 in there,

00:45:10.620 I'm simplifying,

00:45:11.500 right?

00:45:11.860 It wouldn't be a pill.

00:45:12.560 So put some

00:45:13.580 ivermectin in there

00:45:14.500 and you just keep it

00:45:16.100 at 98.6

00:45:17.200 and you check

00:45:18.740 in an hour,

00:45:20.360 is it going to have

00:45:21.180 the same amount

00:45:21.720 of virus?

00:45:24.360 What do you think?

00:45:25.740 If you tested

00:45:26.620 it outside the body

00:45:27.660 but it was a real

00:45:28.380 person's blood

00:45:29.500 with virus

00:45:30.080 and real hormones 0.94

00:45:30.960 and real everything

00:45:32.560 else that's in real

00:45:33.400 blood,

00:45:33.760 because it's real blood,

00:45:35.300 and you drop

00:45:36.160 the ivermectin in,

00:45:38.480 would it kill

00:45:39.040 the ivermectin

00:45:39.700 in the blood?

00:45:40.180 Now, I don't think

00:45:42.560 we test it in blood,

00:45:43.960 right?

00:45:45.620 Somebody give me

00:45:46.300 a fact check on this.

00:45:47.360 When they test it

00:45:48.120 in the laboratory,

00:45:48.740 they don't put it

00:45:49.260 in anything like blood,

00:45:50.460 do they?

00:45:50.860 They just put it

00:45:52.480 in a dish with the virus

00:45:54.220 and some kind of medium.

00:45:56.920 Am I right?

00:45:57.820 But shouldn't there

00:45:58.520 be a step where

00:45:59.560 they drop it

00:46:00.160 in human blood

00:46:00.920 and see if it makes

00:46:01.520 any difference

00:46:02.020 or it just immediately

00:46:02.900 breaks down?

00:46:04.980 So here's my question.

00:46:06.880 How in the world

00:46:07.680 do we not know

00:46:08.800 that ivermectin

00:46:09.740 works if it doesn't

00:46:12.540 break down

00:46:13.020 for its other purposes?

00:46:14.420 It doesn't give you

00:46:15.700 side effects.

00:46:16.420 Those are the things

00:46:16.920 we know.

00:46:18.420 It does kill

00:46:19.460 ivermectin in a laboratory.

00:46:22.040 Are you telling me

00:46:22.640 nobody ever did a test

00:46:23.800 where they dropped it

00:46:24.580 in a little pint of blood,

00:46:26.940 real blood,

00:46:27.420 to see if it made

00:46:27.960 a difference?

00:46:28.560 Nobody ever tested that?

00:46:30.200 Because if it did,

00:46:32.120 if you could neutralize

00:46:34.180 a virus in real blood,

00:46:36.520 let's say in an hour,

00:46:37.680 and there was less of it,

00:46:40.800 it doesn't have to be gone,

00:46:42.520 but would it be

00:46:43.320 noticeably less?

00:46:46.060 How could it not work?

00:46:49.360 Now,

00:46:50.700 is this a good argument?

00:46:54.480 Is my argument good?

00:46:56.020 Now,

00:46:58.980 remember,

00:46:59.340 I'm not giving you certainty.

00:47:01.440 There's no certainty

00:47:02.380 involved here.

00:47:03.560 I'm just saying

00:47:04.360 that I would love

00:47:06.320 to see an explanation.

00:47:08.720 Now,

00:47:09.360 if you're saying to yourself,

00:47:10.760 Scott,

00:47:11.180 this is why we test

00:47:12.440 randomized controlled trials,

00:47:14.700 exactly your problem,

00:47:16.640 because you can't tell

00:47:17.820 that the laboratory

00:47:19.080 extends to the real world.

00:47:21.420 But are you telling me

00:47:22.480 if you knew the drug

00:47:23.940 at the level given,

00:47:27.000 let's say we knew

00:47:28.040 that the drug

00:47:28.580 was going to be administered

00:47:29.520 at the same level

00:47:30.300 it is for other stuff,

00:47:31.980 and we know

00:47:32.480 it doesn't have side effects,

00:47:34.020 and we know

00:47:34.680 it doesn't break down

00:47:35.680 quickly,

00:47:36.800 because it works

00:47:37.680 for something else.

00:47:38.660 It doesn't break down

00:47:39.380 too fast for that.

00:47:41.480 Are you telling me

00:47:42.280 that you couldn't test

00:47:43.300 that in blood

00:47:44.300 in a laboratory

00:47:47.000 and really,

00:47:48.620 really be close

00:47:49.840 to knowing

00:47:50.320 if it worked?

00:47:50.960 Again,

00:47:51.600 no certainty.

00:47:52.500 That's why you do

00:47:53.040 the randomized controlled tests.

00:47:55.840 All right.

00:47:57.540 Now,

00:47:57.920 keep in mind

00:47:58.520 what I'm doing here.

00:48:00.160 I'm not promoting

00:48:01.200 ivermectin

00:48:02.400 or talking against it.

00:48:03.920 I'm saying that

00:48:04.920 I hadn't spent enough time

00:48:06.460 talking about

00:48:07.920 the possibility

00:48:08.720 it would work.

00:48:10.160 The possibility.

00:48:11.720 Now,

00:48:12.160 many of you

00:48:12.600 have pointed out

00:48:13.300 ad nauseum,

00:48:14.580 follow the money,

00:48:15.460 and it's about

00:48:16.000 the big pharma

00:48:17.260 doesn't want

00:48:17.840 the cheap thing to work

00:48:18.840 because it's off patent,

00:48:20.140 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

00:48:21.740 Is it possible

00:48:23.080 that big pharma

00:48:24.980 could block

00:48:27.340 ivermectin

00:48:28.960 in every way

00:48:30.160 that people are looking at it?

00:48:31.820 Because it'd be pretty massive.

00:48:34.420 Do you think

00:48:35.020 big pharma

00:48:35.640 could influence

00:48:37.460 like everybody

00:48:38.560 everywhere in the world,

00:48:39.640 like all the governments

00:48:40.820 and all the experts?

00:48:41.620 Yeah, they could.

00:48:46.180 Yeah, they could.

00:48:47.580 If they can find

00:48:48.560 a choke point.

00:48:50.140 Now, I doubt

00:48:50.900 they could do it retail,

00:48:52.320 meaning go to every person

00:48:53.560 and bribe every person

00:48:54.760 and, you know,

00:48:55.260 get to them individually

00:48:56.240 or something like that.

00:48:57.120 So you can't get

00:48:57.800 to them individually.

00:48:59.240 But who controls

00:49:00.160 the data?

00:49:02.360 Who controls the data?

00:49:03.640 Where does it come from?

00:49:07.660 Because if they control

00:49:08.960 the data,

00:49:10.280 then yeah,

00:49:11.140 they can control

00:49:12.120 what everybody

00:49:12.960 thinks of it.

00:49:14.420 Now,

00:49:15.200 do the big pharma companies,

00:49:16.420 do they get involved

00:49:17.960 in the trials?

00:49:19.660 Who is it

00:49:20.200 who's funding

00:49:20.940 the trials of ivermectin?

00:49:23.460 Do you know?

00:49:25.160 I don't know.

00:49:26.980 Suppose they're funded,

00:49:28.140 but maybe some money

00:49:29.120 went to pharma,

00:49:30.420 to some middleman,

00:49:31.540 to some other middleman,

00:49:33.040 and then to the study.

00:49:35.120 Would you know it?

00:49:36.360 I wouldn't know it.

00:49:37.900 I mean,

00:49:38.140 does anybody know

00:49:38.740 who funds studies?

00:49:39.760 I'm not even sure.

00:49:40.300 Is that always reported?

00:49:41.360 I don't even know

00:49:41.780 if it's always reported.

00:49:43.600 But it's possible.

00:49:46.420 So part of my argument

00:49:48.440 had been,

00:49:49.140 you know,

00:49:49.380 there's no way

00:49:49.980 this conspiracy theory

00:49:51.180 could possibly be true

00:49:53.120 because too many people

00:49:54.400 would have noticed

00:49:55.480 it did work.

00:49:57.100 Too many countries

00:49:57.880 would have run a trial

00:49:58.740 where it did work,

00:49:59.680 and then it would be

00:50:00.600 working in the real world

00:50:01.640 and that everybody

00:50:02.360 would notice.

00:50:03.620 And so I've argued

00:50:04.360 that it would be impossible

00:50:05.680 to conceal

00:50:08.560 such a mass conspiracy

00:50:10.240 that affects

00:50:11.340 so many people

00:50:11.980 and is such a big,

00:50:13.360 you know,

00:50:13.580 dollar and life

00:50:14.640 and death

00:50:15.180 and everything else.

00:50:16.420 Unless

00:50:17.220 they control the data.

00:50:20.240 And they could.

00:50:22.000 So I'm not saying they do.

00:50:23.460 I'm saying you can't

00:50:24.400 rule out the possibility

00:50:25.480 that the big pharma

00:50:26.640 controls enough

00:50:28.120 of the trials.

00:50:28.920 They wouldn't have to

00:50:29.440 control all the trials.

00:50:30.760 They would only have to

00:50:31.740 control the big ones.

00:50:34.040 Or put people in charge

00:50:35.580 who don't know

00:50:36.100 how to do trials.

00:50:37.240 There's probably

00:50:37.860 a million ways

00:50:38.520 you can ruin data

00:50:39.660 or manage it.

00:50:41.300 All right.

00:50:42.900 So that's my

00:50:45.220 pro-ivormectin argument.

00:50:47.840 And again,

00:50:48.280 I'm not pro-ivormectin.

00:50:49.640 If I had to guess,

00:50:51.460 I'm going to guess

00:50:52.300 against it being

00:50:53.300 a big deal.

00:50:55.040 Meaning maybe

00:50:55.700 it makes some difference,

00:50:56.580 but I doubt

00:50:57.440 it would change

00:50:58.240 the pandemic.

00:50:59.700 So that's where

00:51:00.440 my opinion is.

00:51:01.140 But I haven't spent

00:51:01.660 enough time talking

00:51:02.340 on the other side,

00:51:02.960 so there you go.

00:51:03.940 All right.

00:51:04.160 How about on vaccinations?

00:51:05.260 I tweeted out earlier.

00:51:08.280 I've got to run

00:51:08.660 in a minute.

00:51:11.060 Graphs from,

00:51:12.520 who was it?

00:51:13.800 Jason Lewis,

00:51:15.160 who is a scientist,

00:51:17.080 but he's a material scientist,

00:51:18.560 but he apparently

00:51:19.060 has experience

00:51:19.760 as a medical data analyst.

00:51:23.260 So he's somebody

00:51:23.940 who's good at data systems

00:51:25.400 and analytics,

00:51:26.600 and he's a scientist.

00:51:28.000 Not the right kind

00:51:29.160 for virology.

00:51:30.380 But he does do

00:51:31.460 medical data analysis.

00:51:32.900 All right.

00:51:33.040 So he knows data,

00:51:34.000 and he knows where

00:51:35.040 to get it,

00:51:35.760 and he knows

00:51:36.120 how to look at it right.

00:51:37.220 So it's sort of

00:51:38.080 the right person, right?

00:51:40.040 And he did studies

00:51:41.240 of vaccinations

00:51:42.300 to see if vaccinations

00:51:43.560 work,

00:51:44.060 and sure enough,

00:51:45.000 there's like a

00:51:45.800 totally solid correlation.

00:51:48.160 The more you're vaccinated,

00:51:49.640 the fewer problems you have.

00:51:53.500 Correlation is unmistakable.

00:51:55.560 You can't miss it.

00:51:56.860 Very, very clear correlation.

00:51:59.380 Vaccination, boom,

00:52:01.040 lower problems.

00:52:01.980 But turns out

00:52:06.860 there's a little bit

00:52:08.280 of a surprise involved

00:52:09.580 in the data,

00:52:10.580 which is that the infections

00:52:12.760 turned down

00:52:13.480 before the vaccinations

00:52:14.880 pretty reliably,

00:52:18.780 which means,

00:52:20.720 and this is just speculation

00:52:22.220 from Jason,

00:52:24.100 the vaccinations

00:52:25.240 might not be

00:52:26.200 the cause of the decline

00:52:27.540 because the decline

00:52:28.920 starts well before

00:52:29.880 with the vaccinations

00:52:30.660 and just continues.

00:52:33.560 And he suggests

00:52:34.540 to people,

00:52:35.660 you've got a lot

00:52:36.340 of problems,

00:52:37.200 and by then

00:52:37.720 you've already masked up

00:52:38.880 and put on

00:52:39.620 and done social isolation.

00:52:43.280 Remember,

00:52:43.820 I'm not arguing

00:52:44.380 my point of view, right?

00:52:46.260 If you're joining late,

00:52:47.760 this is not my point of view.

00:52:49.080 I'm just trying

00:52:49.600 to give the opposite

00:52:50.380 point of view

00:52:50.920 of what I usually do

00:52:51.800 to show that I can do it, okay?

00:52:53.840 So he's got a suggestion

00:52:58.000 that the vaccinations

00:53:00.120 might not make any difference

00:53:01.460 and the masking

00:53:03.340 and the social distances

00:53:04.640 might make a lot of difference.

00:53:06.480 Not concluding,

00:53:08.300 that's not a conclusion,

00:53:10.060 it's just somebody

00:53:10.740 who's really good

00:53:11.380 looking at the numbers

00:53:12.180 said the numbers

00:53:13.980 don't explain

00:53:14.980 why the dip

00:53:16.860 comes well

00:53:18.280 before the vaccinations.

00:53:19.280 So there is

00:53:23.360 at least one person

00:53:24.540 who's good with data

00:53:25.520 who says

00:53:26.180 the data

00:53:27.120 is,

00:53:28.340 I think he used

00:53:29.100 the word

00:53:29.520 agnostic

00:53:31.000 about whether

00:53:32.660 the vaccinations work.

00:53:35.360 Think about that.

00:53:37.440 That here's somebody

00:53:38.120 who's really good

00:53:38.860 with data

00:53:39.360 and he's using

00:53:40.100 public data

00:53:40.900 so you can check

00:53:42.080 his sources, I guess,

00:53:43.360 and he says

00:53:44.260 it doesn't

00:53:45.560 make the case.

00:53:47.480 It doesn't

00:53:48.280 not make the case.

00:53:50.140 But it doesn't

00:53:50.980 make the case

00:53:51.600 because the dip

00:53:52.540 starts before

00:53:53.160 the vaccinations.

00:53:55.780 Alright?

00:53:56.540 Now,

00:53:57.620 again,

00:53:58.500 personally,

00:53:59.320 I think,

00:54:00.380 if I had to guess,

00:54:01.420 I think there's

00:54:01.920 slightly more chance,

00:54:03.420 or maybe a lot more chance,

00:54:04.640 that the vaccinations

00:54:05.720 work.

00:54:07.260 I got vaccinated.

00:54:08.720 I don't recommend

00:54:09.420 you do

00:54:09.880 because

00:54:11.580 there is some doubt,

00:54:13.400 right?

00:54:14.240 If I told you

00:54:15.060 I'm certain

00:54:15.740 I made the right decision, 1.00

00:54:16.780 I'd just be an idiot. 1.00

00:54:18.360 If I told you 1.00

00:54:19.020 I was certain

00:54:19.420 you made the right decision, 1.00

00:54:21.000 I'd be a bigger idiot. 1.00

00:54:22.680 Nobody could be certain 1.00

00:54:23.580 about this stuff.

00:54:24.960 So,

00:54:25.320 just for balance,

00:54:26.860 I show you

00:54:27.320 the argument

00:54:27.700 on the other side.

00:54:29.300 Now,

00:54:29.760 since you also

00:54:30.500 don't believe,

00:54:31.220 many of you,

00:54:31.720 that masks

00:54:32.140 and distancing work,

00:54:33.080 you probably don't

00:54:33.600 buy his alternative

00:54:34.620 explanation,

00:54:35.820 but it does suggest

00:54:36.640 that there's something

00:54:37.260 in the data

00:54:37.680 we don't understand.

00:54:38.840 That's probably

00:54:39.200 the only thing

00:54:39.660 you can conclude.

00:54:41.080 The only thing

00:54:41.660 you know for sure

00:54:42.220 is there's something

00:54:42.720 you don't understand.

00:54:44.380 Not necessarily

00:54:45.260 that vaccinations

00:54:46.040 are not going

00:54:47.620 to work.

00:54:48.640 All right.

00:54:50.380 How many

00:54:51.100 anecdotal reports

00:54:52.660 have you seen

00:54:53.200 of somebody

00:54:53.680 who forgot

00:54:55.160 to get vaccinated

00:54:56.020 or didn't get vaccinated

00:54:57.120 and they died?

00:54:58.560 A lot, right?

00:54:59.700 CNN used to do

00:55:00.500 one every day.

00:55:01.980 Every day.

00:55:02.820 Didn't get vaccinated.

00:55:03.820 I'm dying.

00:55:04.380 Didn't get vaccinated.

00:55:05.240 I wish I had.

00:55:05.940 Didn't get vaccinated.

00:55:06.700 Where are all

00:55:08.660 the anecdotal reports

00:55:10.200 of people

00:55:11.540 who took

00:55:12.020 ivermectin early

00:55:13.160 when they first

00:55:14.260 got symptoms

00:55:14.860 and died anyway?

00:55:16.840 Not horse dewormer

00:55:17.980 and not overdosing

00:55:19.400 on horse dewormer.

00:55:20.940 But where are the reports

00:55:22.020 of even one person,

00:55:24.160 just one,

00:55:25.680 just one,

00:55:26.960 who took

00:55:27.680 ivermectin early

00:55:28.680 and then died anyway

00:55:31.160 and didn't take

00:55:32.200 anything else,

00:55:32.840 just ivermectin

00:55:33.600 and died anyway?

00:55:36.240 Not one?

00:55:37.720 Because CNN

00:55:38.480 is pushing pretty hard

00:55:39.500 on this anecdotal

00:55:40.440 persuasion.

00:55:41.900 They can't find

00:55:42.380 one person

00:55:43.080 who took

00:55:44.620 the ivermectin

00:55:45.420 and then died anyway.

00:55:48.420 Now,

00:55:49.520 again,

00:55:50.440 I'll remind you

00:55:51.120 if you're coming here late,

00:55:52.340 I'm not pro-ivermectin.

00:55:54.960 My personal opinion

00:55:56.260 is that we'll probably

00:55:57.400 find out it's weak

00:55:58.400 or doesn't make

00:55:59.280 much difference.

00:56:01.360 But,

00:56:02.400 isn't it a fair question

00:56:04.500 why we haven't seen

00:56:05.300 one example

00:56:06.140 of what the news

00:56:07.700 tells us is true?

00:56:09.500 The news tells us

00:56:10.280 it doesn't work.

00:56:11.920 Probably there are,

00:56:12.880 I don't know,

00:56:13.260 tens of thousands

00:56:13.920 of people

00:56:14.380 using it anyway.

00:56:16.460 You've got a lot

00:56:17.340 of people

00:56:17.760 that you can look at

00:56:19.480 and ask yourself,

00:56:20.280 all right,

00:56:20.600 did any of them die?

00:56:22.380 Now,

00:56:22.860 you can say,

00:56:23.380 okay,

00:56:23.560 that's what the trials are.

00:56:26.160 The trials

00:56:26.780 sort of sum it up,

00:56:28.400 but where's

00:56:28.840 that one person?

00:56:31.100 I get that the trials

00:56:32.380 show that,

00:56:32.960 you know,

00:56:33.320 some people died

00:56:34.140 even on ivermectin.

00:56:35.440 That must be true.

00:56:36.480 But where's

00:56:38.260 the anecdotal story?

00:56:39.580 Because you know

00:56:40.220 they want to give it to you

00:56:41.180 because they want you

00:56:42.240 to hear that anecdotal story.

00:56:43.580 Where is it?

00:56:45.760 All right.

00:56:47.660 I also ask the question,

00:56:48.900 is it unethical

00:56:49.600 to test a new therapeutic?

00:56:52.040 Because if we know

00:56:53.200 Regeneron works,

00:56:54.220 which we do,

00:56:55.580 how can you not give it

00:56:56.860 to somebody

00:56:57.280 who has COVID?

00:56:58.980 How can you give somebody

00:57:00.260 some new therapeutic

00:57:01.500 that you're testing

00:57:02.340 without also

00:57:03.800 giving them Regeneron?

00:57:06.680 Because if you don't

00:57:07.460 give them Regeneron,

00:57:09.060 they might die.

00:57:10.940 So ethically,

00:57:12.060 can you do a test

00:57:13.440 of another therapeutic

00:57:14.420 once you have one

00:57:15.180 that works?

00:57:16.500 I don't know

00:57:16.860 that you can.

00:57:19.180 All right.

00:57:20.080 Adam Dopamine

00:57:20.860 had an interesting tweet.

00:57:23.500 Listen to this tweet

00:57:24.500 all the way

00:57:24.940 to the last word.

00:57:27.060 Listen to it

00:57:27.720 all the way

00:57:28.220 to the last word.

00:57:30.720 Adam says,

00:57:31.480 the dog not barking.

00:57:34.180 It's been 10 weeks

00:57:34.980 since Pfizer

00:57:35.600 was fully FDA approved

00:57:37.100 to much fanfare.

00:57:38.980 Moderna still not approved,

00:57:41.320 even though

00:57:41.860 the emergency authorization

00:57:43.980 was granted

00:57:45.440 only one week apart

00:57:46.540 from Pfizer.

00:57:48.360 Really raises concern

00:57:49.720 that there is something

00:57:51.100 wrong with the Moderna's

00:57:52.680 lobbyists.

00:57:56.120 Good tweet.

00:57:58.120 There's something wrong

00:57:59.140 with the Moderna's

00:58:00.120 lobbyists.

00:58:01.480 That is a well-constructed tweet.

00:58:05.760 Ladies and gentlemen,

00:58:06.540 this is my show.

00:58:07.660 I must go now.

00:58:08.940 I hope that I have satisfied

00:58:10.320 some of my critics

00:58:11.720 in the limited sense

00:58:13.680 that I can give you

00:58:15.240 an argument

00:58:15.640 for the other side.

00:58:17.080 Doesn't mean it's right,

00:58:19.100 but I think I gave you

00:58:20.240 an argument that at least

00:58:21.280 has a little bit of weight

00:58:22.480 on the other side.

00:58:23.680 Wouldn't you agree?

00:58:25.100 Good.

00:58:25.640 Thank you.

00:58:26.080 Some of you were liking it.

00:58:27.100 I've got to run.

00:58:27.740 I wish I could stay longer,

00:58:28.840 but it's been a treat

00:58:30.060 to be with you.

00:58:31.320 Thank you.

00:58:31.780 Thank you.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 26, 2021

Episode 1542 Scott Adams： Today I Will Argue the Opposite of my Actual Opinions on the Pandemic. And More Fun

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript