Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1544 Scott Adams： It's a Cornucopia of Fake News Today. Watch Me Tear it Apart and Tell You What is True

00:00:00.000 Well, look at this. This is amazing. So many of you made it to the best place and time in the

00:00:11.320 entire universe, for right now anyway. It's called the Simultaneous Sip. It's coming up soon as part

00:00:18.040 of Coffee with Scott Adams. The best time anywhere. And question for you before we begin.

00:00:26.540 Has anybody noticed a strange energy in the world lately? I'm not talking about electricity.

00:00:34.220 But my personal life, just the details of just getting stuff done, just went crazy in the last

00:00:42.940 week. Just crazy. And the world seems to have gone crazy too. The news is just packed with stuff.

00:00:50.740 You know, sometimes you've got low news days. The news is just packed with all kinds of crazy

00:00:57.220 stuff. But same with my personal life. You know, I'm not talking relationships exactly. Just

00:01:03.160 everything. For example, smallest example. Every month I give my dog Snickers a flea pill. A flea

00:01:12.420 pill. It's easy. You put it in a little treat. You give it to the dog. This month I go to give it to

00:01:20.360 her and she chews the good stuff and spits out the pill. And she does it several times. I'm like,

00:01:25.300 I'm going to have to trick her by getting a new kind of pill pocket. You know, a better treat. So

00:01:30.740 she'll eat the whole thing without knowing there's a pill in there. But they're out of stock. So I

00:01:35.920 can't find them. I spend weeks looking for them. I finally find the right treat. I go to put a pill in

00:01:40.840 it. But apparently I'd thrown them away or somebody threw them away. But they're prescription. So I can't

00:01:46.460 easily replace them. So I call my veterinarian to get the prescription to replace the ones that are

00:01:51.740 lost. To put in the pill pockets that had to be replaced for weeks of training to put in into my

00:01:58.360 dog. And my veterinarian says, yeah, we can do that. But we have a requirement that we check the dog

00:02:05.600 out for heartworm or something. So now I went from a process that is, do, do, do, do, do. Here you go,

00:02:13.340 Snickers. Boom. Done. To something that will take days to work out. Like I've got, I had to set up an

00:02:20.540 appointment. I've got to get my dog checked out. And do you think the veterinarian is going to find

00:02:24.920 nothing wrong with my dog? Of course they will. So just a simple process of putting a dog,

00:02:31.700 a pill in my dog turned into a life-changing event that will consume me. Now multiply that by

00:02:40.220 everything that happened in the last week. It's just out of control. Is anybody having the same

00:02:46.000 experience or is it just a weird coincidence? Just wondering. There's some weird energy in the world

00:02:53.160 and I think there's too much energy and not enough places for it. Do you feel that? I feel that the

00:03:00.520 energy in the country far exceeds the activity. You know what I'm talking about? Do you know how

00:03:08.760 like you just got to do something but you don't have anything productive to do so you're going to

00:03:13.460 go do something bad? Because you got to do something. You got to do something. I feel like the country has

00:03:19.980 too much energy. Am I right? Because we can't quite do enough. Way too much energy. It feels like a war

00:03:27.720 coming. That's what it feels like. It feels like the energy has to go somewhere and it's going to go

00:03:32.900 somewhere and we don't know where it's going to go. But as soon as there's a, I don't know, a break in

00:03:39.160 the barrier that keeps us together, something's coming out. Now I don't think there's a civil war coming.

00:03:44.760 All right. Nothing like that. I don't see any energy toward a civil war. You know, there might be

00:03:51.300 little spats here and there. But something big is happening and I don't think we can predict exactly

00:03:57.700 where it's going to come out. Just watch this. The next, I would say between now and the end of the

00:04:01.560 year, something we didn't expect and very large will happen. Hopefully not a war. But I think

00:04:10.040 historically, that's, you end up with a war in these situations. Hyperinflation? I don't know.

00:04:17.360 I mean, maybe, but that doesn't feel like with this kind of energy. But first, let's do the

00:04:22.520 simultaneous sip because all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice, a tiny canteen,

00:04:26.340 jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:04:29.220 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dope of being here today, the thing that makes

00:04:37.260 everything better, including your antibodies. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens

00:04:41.960 now. Go.

00:04:46.980 Ah, antibodies. Feeling good.

00:04:52.320 I would like to address some of my critics yesterday who say, number one, Scott doesn't

00:04:57.540 read the comments. Well, I read your comment and so I'm going to address them. I was criticized

00:05:05.000 yesterday by several people who said that lately I've been acting smarter than my audience and

00:05:10.260 they don't like it one bit. Agree or disagree? I've been acting arrogantly smarter than my

00:05:16.420 audience lately and you don't like it one bit. Go. Disagree, agree. A little. Disagree.

00:05:25.040 Be right today. Disagree. No. So you can see there's disagreement, but clearly there are people

00:05:33.800 saying yes. All right. So even those who disagree, you can see there are plenty of people who say

00:05:39.060 yes. So is that a valid criticism? Is the criticism valid? I'd say so. If there are this many people

00:05:47.000 who have it and it's an opinion, I'll call it valid. But here's my counter to it, which is

00:05:54.420 not, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Like that's your opinion. Let me put it this way. If people are

00:06:01.280 having an impression, a subjective experience of this, it's not right or wrong. It's just your

00:06:07.280 experience. So you can't be wrong. You're having an experience and you just told me what it was.

00:06:11.900 So you're right in your experience. That's what you feel. So obviously there's something I'm doing

00:06:16.980 that's causing that feeling in you. So criticism right on point. But I will add this framing.

00:06:24.440 That's the whole point of watching this. You're supposed to be watching this because you think

00:06:29.340 on the specific way that I attack the issues, persuasion, economics usually, that I am smarter

00:06:37.220 than the audience. Otherwise you shouldn't watch. Would there be any point of this? Because you don't

00:06:42.700 watch this just to get the news, right? You can get the news from better sources for me. I would

00:06:48.840 think that the only reason anybody would watch it is that I'm going to say something you hadn't heard

00:06:53.980 somewhere else that sounds smart enough to be worth listening to. So my claim is not that I'm smarter

00:07:00.940 than my audience. I would never make that claim because that's a misunderstanding of what intelligence is.

00:07:07.420 intelligence very clearly is this distributed thing where there are lots of things you could

00:07:13.700 be smart about. I'm smart about some of them, but not most of them. Not most of them. I'm not smart

00:07:21.360 about fashion. I'm terrible at navigating, you know, just getting from one place to another in my car.

00:07:27.640 Terrible sense of direction. No musical talent. I could go on and on about the things I don't know.

00:07:34.740 Never took chemistry. I never took chemistry or physics in school. So the list of things which

00:07:39.960 I don't know, and my audience would be smarter than I, or is it smarter than me? Grammar is another

00:07:47.900 one, that you would be smarter than I, or me, or they. But my point is, I don't believe in intelligence

00:07:55.420 per se, as some global thing. I believe that people are intelligent about different things.

00:08:01.120 How many of you would be better at parenting than I would? A lot of you. A lot of you. Because

00:08:10.900 you're smarter about that, right? So I don't believe that people are smart, you know, in some universal

00:08:18.040 way. I get that IQ picks that up. But you tend to be smart in the things you focus on and the things

00:08:24.120 that, you know, your genetic propensity leads you toward. So, um, I can't change your impressions

00:08:31.480 or your subjective opinion, but I will tell you this. If you think in my mind that I'm thinking

00:08:38.060 I'm smarter than you, that's not happening. Not in my mind. In my mind, I think there's some

00:08:43.860 narrow topics that I do know more than most of you. That's my only claim. But there are all

00:08:50.940 kinds of stuff you know that I don't know. So arrogance doesn't really fit into my mental

00:08:56.840 model, because I would assume I'm thinking I'm better than you, and I don't see any, any

00:09:01.160 evidence of that. I just see evidence that you're good at some things, I'm good at other

00:09:05.380 things. That's it. That's the only thing we can conclude. There's no, there's no better

00:09:10.600 than. So, so if you're picking up some kind of arrogance in my approach, probably the frame

00:09:16.760 you should put on it is that this is a show. And even though I do it in a personal style,

00:09:22.960 you know, almost like I'm talking to you, you have to know that this is the, this is

00:09:27.240 my public presentation, right? It wouldn't be, it wouldn't be the same in person. All right.

00:09:34.180 And also, uh, I heard some criticism that I never admit I'm wrong. I would just like to

00:09:39.760 suggest that the people who watch all of my content don't have that opinion. The people

00:09:45.320 who have sampled that probably do. But I would, I would say, and I'll just put this out there

00:09:51.280 as a provocative claim that no, no public figure has admitted they were wrong more than I have

00:09:58.140 about, you know, in this topic about the news. I don't think any public figure has admitted

00:10:04.540 more times they've been wrong, except maybe, uh, Tucker Carlson. Uh, am I wrong about this?

00:10:11.280 I feel as though Tucker Carlson is one of the few people who, when he's wrong and, you know,

00:10:16.820 events prove it that he starts his program by saying, we said X, we were totally wrong.

00:10:24.400 And then he goes on to update the story. Haven't you seen him do that? I feel like I've seen him

00:10:29.640 do that a number of times and it always stands out as being honest. I try to do that, but I don't

00:10:35.980 know if I succeed. All right. Enough about me. Here's all the fake news. How many of you believe

00:10:40.200 that, uh, Tony Fauci was behind some, uh, research, either funding it or otherwise, uh, in animal

00:10:48.660 cruelty? In other words, they weren't testing animal cruelty. They were testing on monkeys.

00:10:53.720 How many believe, how many believe that Fauci was somehow involved in, uh, torturing monkeys

00:11:01.780 for science? Anybody believe that? Because that was on the news yesterday. It was all over

00:11:07.340 the internet. And the answer is no, no, there, there's no truth to it. There's no connection

00:11:13.400 between Fauci and any monkey research or animal dogs, anything. So apparently there's nothing to

00:11:20.220 the story. Now here's the standard that I'm using to decide whether it's true or not. So it's not my,

00:11:27.300 not my magic. Like I'm not using magic to like look into the details that you can't see.

00:11:32.180 I'm using a simple standard that if one of the two networks, CNN or Fox News reports it as true

00:11:40.100 and the other one debunks it, believe the debunk. It doesn't matter which direction.

00:11:45.960 If one of them debunks a fact and the other one says it's true, it's not true. If both of them say

00:11:51.960 it's true, it's probably true. Probably, not certainly, but probably. If only one of them says it's true,

00:11:59.000 it's just never true. I haven't seen an exception. Let me say that there could be exceptions. I just

00:12:04.640 haven't seen one. CNN says, well, actually not even CNN, but Twitter's fact check says, no,

00:12:11.460 there's no connection. So I could be wrong, but I'd say that's probably 95% chance that the story is

00:12:19.600 fake news. So that's your first fake news of the day. Watch the pattern that emerges here.

00:12:24.800 There's a pattern emerging and let's see if you can see it, but don't blame me, the messenger.

00:12:30.440 Okay. Cause in a story or two, you're going to get pretty mad at me. If, if my prediction is

00:12:36.100 correct, you're going to get a little bit mad at me in a few stories because you're going to notice

00:12:40.980 the pattern and you're not going to like it at all. I don't think I'll have to tell you the pattern.

00:12:45.600 You're going to see it yourself. All right. Here's the next one. Uh, well, I'm going to skip

00:12:50.220 around a little bit, but I'll make the, uh, I'll tell you the pattern later. So the Alex Baldwin,

00:12:54.860 uh, story, every time we get a new detail, you just shake your head. Here's the latest one.

00:13:00.760 Apparently this same armor, the person who handles the, the real and fake weapons on the movie set,

00:13:06.660 um, apparently was almost fired on a Nicholas Cage movie. Uh, and this is what somebody said,

00:13:13.200 and I quote, she didn't carry the firearm safely. And I'm thinking to myself, huh, what would be a,

00:13:19.600 what would be a way to carry firearms unsafely? Because it seems like that'd be fairly easy to

00:13:26.760 carry them safely. So how do you do unsafely? Well, here's the description. She had pistols

00:13:31.520 tucked under her armpits and was carrying rifles in each hand. Okay. That would do it. Yeah. That

00:13:36.820 would do it. Yeah. Pistols under each armpit while you're carrying rifles with, yeah, that would do it.

00:13:43.640 Yep. That would be what I would call unsafe carrying of weapons. You would have to, yeah. And

00:13:51.500 apparently she even like turned around a few times. So the weapons were aimed at people.

00:13:56.480 So not only were they tucked under her arm, but she was like turning around so that at any given

00:14:01.520 time she was, yeah, exactly. I'm looking at the comments that the, the only one that captures all

00:14:10.380 this is good Lord. You know, sometimes there's a, an exasperated phrase. That's the only one that

00:14:18.360 works. I think this one is good Lord. That just covers it. How did she ever get this job? Well,

00:14:26.860 apparently she is the daughter of a famous, uh, or a well-established Hollywood person who

00:14:32.880 was an armorer. So she's a legacy that probably had something to do with it. Probably just people knew

00:14:39.100 the, knew the parents. Um, so Joe, Joe Biden's got, uh, looks like he's negotiated with the Democrats

00:14:48.020 and getting down that, uh, so-called infrastructure bill to, uh, to what? 1.75 billion. Started down at

00:14:58.380 3.5 trillion with a grab bag of all these things they wanted, but they were unreasonable, terribly

00:15:03.620 unreasonable. So now they're being negotiated back to 1.75 and there's some optimism that will get

00:15:09.800 passed. I'm going to still bet against it. What do you think? I'm going to bet against

00:15:17.260 the 1.75 passing only. And the only reason is has nothing to do with what's in it. Has nothing to do

00:15:25.380 with what's in the bill because we don't know who knows what's in the fricking bill. I'm just going to

00:15:30.480 say that I don't think Congress can do anything. I think Congress is just permanently useless. 0.96

00:15:36.840 You're hearing my, my, my cat is wanting to get out because I've got the door closed. Um, 0.72

00:15:43.780 boo, come up here and say hi. Boo. Brown. Come up here. Yeah. Come up here. We'll see if I can call 0.97

00:15:53.240 a cat. That'll be a good test. All right. So nobody knows what's in this bill, but if Biden gets this

00:15:59.100 through, I'm going to try to be consistent. If he asked for 3.5 trillion so that he could get 1.75

00:16:09.440 and he succeeds, that is going to be a very Trump like negotiating process starting high. You know,

00:16:18.260 the most basic thing you should do in negotiating starting so high that we got used to 3.5 trillion,

00:16:24.820 didn't we? Now we were always horrified by it, but we got a little bit used to it, didn't we?

00:16:31.340 And by the time he says 1.75 trillion, does it sound a lot like a lot anymore? Biden,

00:16:38.600 Biden made a trillion dollars sound like it wasn't much money. And now,

00:16:45.560 and now he'll get to, uh, maybe go to a vote on this. So if, so let me, uh, let me be clear about

00:16:58.540 this. Um, if, if Trump had done this, let's say this bill was something I approved of. If Trump had

00:17:06.340 started at 3.5 trillion and managed to get us used to it and then get 1.75, I would think that was a 0.97

00:17:13.420 damn good job. Depending what was in the bill, of course. Now, separate from what's in the bill,

00:17:18.920 I'm going to give Biden, I'm going to give him an A plus. I hate to tell you, but if he pulls this

00:17:25.960 off, it's an A plus for just negotiating because he actually convinced us that 3.5 was a lot

00:17:32.380 and 1.75, well, that's in the ballroom, that's in the range. That would be pretty amazing persuasion.

00:17:38.220 I'm not saying I approve of the, the bill because none of us know what's in it. Apparently we're,

00:17:43.720 we're going to approve this bill or not, but if we do approve it, maybe then we'll find out what's

00:17:48.900 in it. You know, it's garbage, don't you? I think we know it's garbage. 0.99

00:17:57.920 All right. 0.91

00:17:58.520 You can see, uh, my, my cat's little, uh, uh, uh, feeding tube there. I have to keep that in for a

00:18:09.340 little while. All right. So I'm bored about this, uh, spending bill, the human infrastructure versus

00:18:16.740 the physical infrastructure. And, uh, uh, uh, I don't know if it'll ever get passed. Um,

00:18:25.380 here's some, here's a weird thing that's happening. So, uh, and you have to wonder if this is a

00:18:33.400 Chinese plot. There are things happening in this country that are so, uh, hard to explain in any way

00:18:41.840 except, is this a Chinese plot? Did China, is China behind this? No, I'm not saying they are.

00:18:48.200 Um, I'm just saying that, uh, I'm just saying it looks like it because you can't explain why else

00:18:55.720 things like this would happen. Here's a good example. So this is, uh, I think this was from,

00:19:00.600 I forget where, CNN maybe. So these executives of the major fossil fuel companies, so mostly oil

00:19:07.720 executives, et cetera, were coming to Congress today and they're going to, uh, talk about

00:19:13.280 disinformation on the climate change crisis. Now, when I read this, I said to myself,

00:19:18.740 oh, this is what we need. This will be great. All the oil executives are going to talk to Congress

00:19:25.000 about all the climate change misinformation. So I thought to that, I thought to myself, this is great.

00:19:31.700 This is basically the same thing that Michael Schellenberger testified to Congress about,

00:19:36.980 I assumed, because as he testified, if we kill our, uh, and I, I think he said this, he says it on

00:19:44.940 Twitter and in his books, et cetera, that, uh, if we kill our existing fossil fuel stuff too quickly,

00:19:53.660 we will snuff out all, uh, you know, our growth and our prosperity and the growth and prosperity are

00:20:00.620 the single biggest things that cause you to clean up the planet. So in other words, the more oil you

00:20:06.740 use, the cleaner you'll get, because once you have, uh, uh, an industrial base and things that are

00:20:14.680 working well, then you have the luxury of buying a Tesla, right? So on a per person basis, getting

00:20:21.680 rich first with carbon fuels and building up your manufacturing allows you to get to a clean world.

00:20:28.960 Whereas if you're a developing country, for example, you can't, you can't develop with solar and wind

00:20:35.880 power. There's not enough power, not reliable. And you would be there stuck in poverty forever

00:20:41.180 or, or what, right? So I thought that these, uh, fossil executives were going to come in

00:20:48.540 and say that they were right all along, that doing a lot of fossil fuels as, as much as we can

00:20:55.800 would actually be better for climate change in the long run.

00:20:59.040 It turns out they're going to do the opposite. They're going to come in and, uh, apparently

00:21:06.220 the, the, some members of Congress are going to try to get them to admit that they've been

00:21:11.180 lying on various claims about their role in the crisis. So I think that the oil executives

00:21:18.300 probably have some explaining to do. I'm sure they did some BS propaganda for their side as

00:21:23.820 well, but I think we framed this wrong, didn't we? This looks like Chinese framing, doesn't 0.99

00:21:30.500 it? Cause this is, this is exactly what Trump warned us about with climate change being a

00:21:36.920 hoax, right? Now remember when he said it was a hoax, he wasn't really directly addressing

00:21:42.860 the science of it so much as the, the strategy, the political strategy. And China was going to

00:21:49.360 get a big gift if we did what we were going to do, which is slow our own development while

00:21:53.840 they didn't slow theirs. So that was the, that was the hoax part. I think, I mean, I don't

00:21:59.260 want to read Trump's mind, but that's, that would be the reasonable interpretation. And now

00:22:03.480 it looks like Congress has completely reversed from the, the Michael Schellenberger frame, which

00:22:09.680 was the productive one that you have to do some of these things you don't like to get to

00:22:15.200 a place you do like. And the new frame is you don't have to do the things you don't

00:22:20.260 like. You can just magically get to the new place of clean energy, but nobody knows how.

00:22:28.400 So this is pushing us into the loser frame. Whereas the Schellenberger approach would be

00:22:34.920 the winning frame where you could account for, you know, all the costs and benefits and make

00:22:39.280 a reasonable decision. All right. Uh, I love this. There's a famous venture capitalist

00:22:45.360 under fire for calling new dads losers. If they take months of paternity leave, uh, was

00:22:52.620 this Joe Lonsdale? Um, I think it was. And yeah, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale. He responded

00:23:02.140 to a tweet Wednesday about, uh, talking about Pete Buttigieg who took time off for his, his

00:23:06.620 child. And, uh, Joe Lonsdale said, quote, any man in an important position who takes six

00:23:14.220 months of leave for a newborn is a loser. In the old days, men had babies and worked harder 0.84

00:23:21.700 to provide for their future. That's the correct masculine response. Now, if you'd like my opinion

00:23:31.640 on this, I don't really have one. You know, I don't think this is a, uh, I don't think this

00:23:38.760 is a situation in which my opinion should have anything to do with you and your baby. Do you?

00:23:43.960 Do you, do you think I should have an opinion about what you do with your baby? No, no. I mean,

00:23:51.040 I suppose if I were in this situation, I'd want the option. And if I'm not in the, if I'm not in

00:23:56.800 the situation, I'll, I'll just look to you. Uh, if you want the option, I think I can live with it.

00:24:01.860 I don't have a problem with it. But, uh, I just love the fact that he would say this opinion in

00:24:06.340 public. It's the saying it in, it's the saying it in public that makes it a funny story. It's not

00:24:12.340 like a lot of people weren't thinking it, but, um, it's, it's hilarious that he said it in public.

00:24:19.340 Anyway, uh, I, I'm not really, um, you know, completely, uh, defined by, you know, the men

00:24:29.200 have to be masculine in, in every way, in every situation or anything like that. But I think

00:24:34.360 it's perfectly fine for him to say it, yes. So I'm glad he could say it without getting

00:24:38.500 canceled. I think he's, he's rich enough he doesn't get canceled. Uh, Rasmussen has, uh, some

00:24:45.060 poll results saying that the majority across political spectrum. So no matter what party you

00:24:50.440 are, um, you're concerned about what is being taught in public schools. Now, of course, you

00:24:55.780 would be concerned in a different way if you're a Democrat versus a Republican, but a lot of people,

00:25:01.620 so 90% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 76% of the non-affiliated people are concerned that

00:25:11.900 public schools may be promoting controversial beliefs and attitudes. I feel as if these numbers

00:25:18.880 tell us that the traditional school system is dead. Maybe not right away, but it looks like

00:25:26.100 we're, we're about to be, enter a, I don't know, an irreversible, uh, trend toward getting other

00:25:36.400 people's brainwashing away from your children because it is brainwashing. The only difference

00:25:41.720 between the modern brainwashing and the old brainwashing, the old brainwashing was, you

00:25:46.840 know, patriotism and melting pot and everything like that is the old brainwashing was explicitly

00:25:52.600 designed to turn kids into good citizens, you know, patriots, et cetera. Now it was brainwashing

00:25:59.780 and you could argue that it was unethical, but also militarily necessary to, to, to defend the

00:26:06.720 homeland. You have to brainwash the children to make them, uh, patriots. Now you could say 0.82

00:26:11.560 it's just education, but that's just word thinking. It is what it is. We're training

00:26:16.800 people who do not have critical thinking to have a specific point of view. If you train

00:26:22.260 somebody who doesn't have yet have critical thinking skills into a specific point of view,

00:26:27.060 it's brainwashing. It might be productive and that's what I'm saying it is, but it's

00:26:31.000 still brainwashing. It's not like they, it's not like you gave the kids some information

00:26:35.000 and let them make their own decision. So brainwashing is universal, but it used to be the kind that

00:26:40.740 we pretty much all thought was a good idea. And now they're brainwashing them in different

00:26:45.460 ways. Yeah, not everybody agrees it's a good way. So I think that we, we have to develop

00:26:52.020 a hybrid system that's not, doesn't have the problems of homeschooling. Oh yeah, there are

00:26:57.400 problems and doesn't have the problems of public school. And I feel like it's going to be, you

00:27:04.860 know, clusters of people who band together, maybe with the help of an app or some parent

00:27:09.800 company and form, I don't know, groups of 12 people for homeschooling, get together at

00:27:16.120 somebody's house, put it on the big screen TV. All you need is a parent somewhere in the

00:27:20.260 house, something like that. There's going to be some model that's neither a pure homeschool

00:27:26.000 nor pure public school. That's inevitable. All right. Uh, I've been trying not to follow

00:27:31.520 this Virginia governor's race with Terry McAuliffe and somebody whose name I forget, Youngkin.

00:27:37.100 Okay. And, uh, do you know this whole story is fake news? The whole, uh, Virginia governor

00:27:43.740 race, whatever you heard about it, it's fake news. Let me give you an example. Um, there

00:27:49.180 is, there is a governor's race. That part's real. So I guess Terry McAuliffe at one point in

00:27:53.500 past said, uh, when making his point about the limits of parental behavior versus the

00:28:00.040 school's responsibility, he said something like, you know, parents can't just go in and,

00:28:04.660 you know, ban books on their own in the school. Do you agree with him? Do you agree that parents

00:28:11.140 shouldn't be the ones who just like unilaterally go in and say, well, there are 20 of us who

00:28:16.180 hate this book. So this book is gone. Do you agree that we shouldn't be banning books based

00:28:23.620 on some small group of people thinking they should be banned? That's what Terry McAuliffe

00:28:28.780 said. And that got turned into parents can't have any say about their school. Right? So

00:28:36.820 that, that got turned into somehow he doesn't want parents to have, uh, input in the school.

00:28:42.820 That's just fake news. Literally nobody thinks that literally nobody thinks that parents should

00:28:50.100 have no input in the school. Now there's a way to do it right and there's a way to do it wrong,

00:28:54.800 but literally nobody thinks that. So if you believe that Terry McAuliffe, who I'm not supporting,

00:29:00.600 by the way, I'm just telling you what the fake news is. If you believe that he didn't think parents

00:29:04.860 should have a say in their public education, I don't think that's true. All right. Now,

00:29:12.760 if you think you heard it, um, I'm not going to be able to talk you out of it. Old fool, Scott, 0.99

00:29:19.920 that's the comment on YouTube. You old fool. He said that. Now, some of you are saying, 1.00

00:29:25.340 my God, Scott, he said it directly. No, no, he didn't. What does this sound like? It sounds

00:29:34.200 exactly like when you thought, uh, or the news thought Trump called neo-Nazis fine people. And

00:29:41.600 the argument was, we saw it, Scott. Don't tell us it didn't happen when we saw it. And I'm not the

00:29:48.280 only one. Millions of people saw it. So how could it not happen if we saw it? We heard it. We saw it

00:29:55.420 easily, easily. Here, here's my statement for why without even watching it, without watching what

00:30:03.300 you watched. So I didn't watch those debates, but without even, even without reading that the

00:30:08.680 transcript, without reading the transcript, without educating myself on the topic, without watching

00:30:15.180 any of the videos, I'm going to say with complete confidence that there's nobody, including Terry

00:30:20.640 McAuliffe, who has the opinion that you have given to him. Nobody has that opinion. Nobody. Not in the

00:30:28.080 whole world, including Terry McAuliffe. That's all I'm going to say. If you believe that you saw it

00:30:33.400 with your own eyes, and heard it with your own ears, and read it in the transcript, I say you didn't.

00:30:39.520 Okay? It's uncomfortable, isn't it? It's pretty uncomfortable. Because the reason that you watch

00:30:46.460 me is that I've been right more than I've been wrong. I've been wrong my fair share, of course.

00:30:52.080 Of course. But it's uncomfortable, isn't it? Because you know that my, my perception on this

00:30:59.400 has been right more than it's wrong. And if it differs with your, with yours, you're saying to

00:31:03.260 yourself right now, is that possible? Could I be this positive that this really happened, and it

00:31:09.980 never happened? That's what I think. I think you're positive it happened. You're positive you saw it,

00:31:16.220 and it didn't happen. Because it couldn't happen. It's the same argument with the, the hoax that

00:31:23.040 Trump said drink bleach, or the hoax that Trump said neo-Nazis are fine people. The reason you know

00:31:30.720 it didn't happen, it couldn't happen. It wouldn't happen with anybody, anywhere. In any, in any reality,

00:31:37.240 those things can't happen. So this also can't happen. It didn't happen, in my opinion.

00:31:44.680 It's not an analogy, it's an example. An example is slightly different than an analogy. You can give

00:31:51.580 examples to show that it happened, but it would be proper to pick on the analogy.

00:31:56.800 Um, let's, here's some more. Here's, uh, Geraldo on the five yesterday. They were talking about

00:32:02.880 inflation, and Geraldo, who's now sitting in as the, I guess, uh, the liberal, liberal leaning

00:32:11.800 kind of player on the five, he said that inflation is partly a good thing, because that way employees

00:32:18.460 would get raises. So there's some pressure on employers to give raises to people, and raises

00:32:22.960 are good things. So maybe you should say that inflation is not all bad. It's not all bad, because

00:32:29.060 people got raises. Um, have I ever mentioned to you that not everybody understands economics?

00:32:38.380 And a lot of these people are in, in the news business. As someone quickly pointed out to him

00:32:44.800 on the five. It didn't take long. Uh, the, their salaries are going up, but only in the same amount

00:32:53.460 as the prices are going up. So you're not going to be able to buy more gas with your raise. You'll

00:32:59.720 buy the same as you used to be able, because the price of gas went up too. So now that would be good

00:33:06.120 if nothing else went up. But if everything's going up, then everybody getting a raise, well, it's better

00:33:10.480 than not getting a raise. But it's not good. It's not a positive. It's just keeping up with something.

00:33:18.000 Let's talk about this story about the boy in the skirt, who assaulted two times, and once in the

00:33:25.000 bathroom. Number one, you would like me to say, Scott, Scott, Scott, you were so right, when you were so

00:33:31.220 wrong, when you said, I don't think that there's a transsexual element to the story. But then we found 1.00

00:33:38.420 out that the boy does, in fact, wear a skirt. Now, I called him a boy, but that may be incorrect,

00:33:44.400 because I think he says he's non-binary. Is that right? Non-binary? Or was it gender fluid?

00:33:51.760 Which one was it? Gender fluid? Gender fluid. Now, here's my understanding of the story.

00:33:58.320 The reason it's a national story, is it a national story because there was an assault?

00:34:03.920 Is that what makes it a national story? No, unfortunately, because assaults are every day.

00:34:10.200 But we don't make them national stories. Was it a national story because this is the second

00:34:15.280 time he did it, and the administrators or somebody in charge should have made sure he didn't do it a

00:34:19.880 second time? Is that what makes it a national story? No, unfortunately, because repeat offenders

00:34:26.760 are very, very normal. So that didn't make it a national story. Was it a national story because

00:34:36.880 we are worried that, not we, because I wasn't worried, but there was a lot of worry that the

00:34:43.640 transgender rights would allow people who were born with male equipment to pretend to be female and go 1.00

00:34:51.360 into a woman's restroom and then do some raping. And this looks like exactly that, doesn't it? 0.99

00:34:59.840 Exactly what you were worried about, isn't it? Oh, my God, as soon as you let these, what you would

00:35:05.520 call men, in quotes, into the ladies' restroom, there's going to be sexual assaults. It's going to be, 1.00

00:35:12.060 and sure enough, here it was. Is that what happened? Because I don't think that's what happened.

00:35:18.240 I think it looks like, here's how it looks to me, and this is really just a framing. So this would be

00:35:25.140 an opinion, not a fact, okay? The way it looks to me is that there was a kid who had two issues.

00:35:31.360 One issue is the either wanted attention or was gender fluid or whatever, and then the second issue

00:35:38.280 is that he was a sexual offender. And I don't know that the two are connected. Let me ask you this.

00:35:44.900 Could we prevent sexual assaults in the whole world by keeping men out of women's restrooms? 0.97

00:35:56.300 Like, how much of a difference would it make? Let's say you had some magic way to keep anybody

00:36:01.200 who was born with male equipment. They could never go into a woman's restroom forever. That 1.00

00:36:06.380 just would never happen. How much of a difference in the world would that make in terms of sexual

00:36:11.300 assaults? Some. Maybe some. I don't know that it would make much of a difference.

00:36:17.580 So I don't think, here's what it looks like to me. It looks like the world, the world on the right,

00:36:24.620 you know, sort of the ones who are not buying into the trans rights arguments entirely,

00:36:29.580 I think the people on the right were looking for the perfect story. And this one came along,

00:36:35.000 and it wasn't quite it. But it was forced into the perfect story because they needed a perfect story

00:36:40.820 to match that narrative that the trans thing is going to lead to assaults in bathrooms. 1.00

00:36:48.680 I don't think this was a trans situation, was it? And here's my question. Why does someone who is 1.00

00:36:56.620 gender fluid get to use the other restroom? Is that a rule? If you're telling me that 1.00

00:37:04.780 transgenders can use the restroom of their choice, I'd say that's one issue. You could agree or 1.00

00:37:11.400 disagree, but that's a separate issue. But gender fluid? Whoever said that gender fluid people could 1.00

00:37:17.580 use whatever restroom they wanted? Has that ever even been a conversation? Has it? I always thought

00:37:25.540 it was limited to the trans, people who have made up their mind who they want to live as. I've never 1.00

00:37:31.520 heard it applied to people who weren't sure or wanted to be a little of both. I've never heard

00:37:37.480 of that. Have you? So it looks to me like the way this fake news was manufactured is taking something

00:37:44.560 that reminded you of a trans situation but wasn't and made you think that that's what was happening.

00:37:51.640 That's what it looks like. It looks like fake news. Now, the real part was the assault and the real

00:37:56.200 part apparently was the skirt, which I predicted you wouldn't find to be true. So I was wrong in

00:38:03.320 that prediction about the skirt. But it doesn't look like it fits the model to me. And I'm hearing

00:38:11.020 to hear that the real story is the cover-up. So I understand that there was a cover-up,

00:38:15.580 but that doesn't make it a national story in any way whatsoever. So all the things that you thought

00:38:23.640 were important about this were really just something that happened to some individuals

00:38:27.800 and it was tragic. It doesn't look like a national story to me in any way. Then add the America Garland

00:38:34.020 part. Oh, now this is perfect. So suddenly this one anecdotal story makes us think about the parent

00:38:42.580 of the victim of the victim of that story. That parent caused some trouble at a school board

00:38:48.200 meeting, I guess, and had to be removed. And so that makes us think, you know, we think of this

00:38:54.220 one story and then we think, oh, there's a lot of this happening. And then the fake news is that

00:38:59.880 America Garland was sicking the FBI on parents. How many of you think that's what happened? How many of

00:39:07.620 you believe the fake news that America Garland wrote a memo saying that the parents of school

00:39:14.160 boards were sort of like domestic terrorists and they should be looked at by the FBI for their

00:39:21.120 domestic terrorism stuff? How many think that that really happened? Okay, nothing like that happened.

00:39:29.240 Now, I'm using the same standard, which is that I'm not saying CNN's correct and Fox News is

00:39:35.260 incorrect. I'm saying that whichever says it didn't happen is right on any story, political

00:39:41.740 story. Any political story, if one side, it doesn't matter which it was, Fox News or CNN,

00:39:47.940 if one side says it didn't happen, you can depend on it, it didn't happen. Doesn't matter which side

00:39:53.300 said it didn't. So here's what did happen. There was apparently the administration worked with some

00:40:01.340 national school board association and did write a letter. So this was not Merrick Garland. But this

00:40:08.480 association wrote a letter saying that these parents were like a form of domestic terrorism.

00:40:14.020 But then after the blowback, they they withdrew it and apologized. Right. So having nothing to do

00:40:20.860 with Merrick Garland, completely separate from him, some other organization called parents domestic

00:40:27.240 terrorism, terrorists. But separate from that, there does seem to be some kind of an uptick

00:40:32.480 in maybe, you know, parental energy at these meetings. And given that the energy and the, let's say,

00:40:40.320 the divisiveness is high. It looks like Merrick Garland was asked to make sure that the FBI could be a

00:40:47.580 resource should things get out of hand. And so Merrick Garland wrote a letter that had nothing to do with

00:40:54.080 parents being domestic terrorists, but simply offered that the FBI would work with the local law

00:40:59.240 enforcement, should there be a, should there be a reason? Should there be a reason? So there was no,

00:41:08.800 there's no truth to the story that Merrick Garland called parents domestic terrorists, nor that he wrote

00:41:16.280 a letter that would treat them as such, nor that he was behind any, anything that would categorize them

00:41:22.840 as such and denied it completely. And there's no evidence of it. Now, you probably watched Ted Cruz

00:41:30.000 talking about it and some of the other Democrats. And the way they couched it, it made it look as

00:41:37.780 though, if you saw the videos out of context, it made it seem as though Merrick Garland had in fact

00:41:44.100 been seeking the FBI on parents and framing them as domestic terrorists in some cases.

00:41:50.840 Nothing like that ever happened. Nothing like that ever happened. There was a letter by the school

00:41:58.060 board that was, you know, overblown and they took it back. So that's done. That's done. They apologized

00:42:05.300 and took it back. So that letter's done. Nobody else mentioned parents as being domestic terrorists

00:42:10.800 and nobody said the FBI should be monitoring them. They're just available in case there is ever a

00:42:16.620 situation in which it becomes domestic terrorism. Is that wrong? Maybe I wouldn't have done it. Maybe

00:42:24.660 you wouldn't have done it, but it doesn't really fit into any controversial bucket that I can find.

00:42:30.780 All right.

00:42:34.820 So this, of course, created the most wonderful situation. So Aaron Rupar, who is famous

00:42:41.980 for tweeting misleading video clips, you know, a clip out of context. So, so famous for it that we

00:42:51.320 even call them Rupar videos. So if I say somebody published a Rupar video, you probably know, oh,

00:42:59.320 that's one where they took something out of context to change its meaning. So he properly calls out

00:43:05.020 that that's what's happening. So Rupar points out that the right is taking stuff out of context

00:43:13.440 and making it look like Merrick Garland was, you know, calling parents domestic terrorists. Nothing

00:43:19.940 like that happened today. Rodzilla says, Scott is off today. What you know for sure is that you're

00:43:26.520 having a problem with what I'm saying. What you don't know for sure is I'm wrong. The same way I don't

00:43:32.160 know for sure you're wrong. What you know for sure is I'm saying things that were not compatible with

00:43:38.900 what you thought. But that is exactly why you watch this content. If I said what you already believed,

00:43:44.660 you could just watch Fox News, because they're going to say exactly what you believe. All right.

00:43:54.000 But, so Rupar is correctly calling out that other people are Ruparing videos. At the same time,

00:44:00.440 he Rupar'd a new Rupar. He Rupar'd. He called people out for Ruparing on this topic, and then

00:44:07.960 immediately, he tweets a Rupar'd video, meaning anacontext, which accuses Ted Cruz of defending

00:44:16.620 a parent who did a Nazi salute. Did that happen? Did Ted Cruz defend a parent at a school board

00:44:24.920 meeting who did a Nazi salute? Yes. Yes. This is how Rupar'd videos work. Yes. It's anacontext.

00:44:34.220 What was the context? The context was that the person who did the salute was mocking the school

00:44:41.460 board for being Nazis. The person who did the salute and Ted Cruz are anti-Nazi and using it as

00:44:50.040 an insult against the school board that was acting like Nazis in that context. That is pretty much the

00:44:57.640 opposite of what Rupar tweeted, right? But the fact that he's calling out other people's Rupar while

00:45:03.900 he's Ruparing is pretty funny. Pretty funny. Yes, it's just free speech. And by the way, even if this

00:45:13.120 person had done a Nazi salute, you could still defend him. You wouldn't agree with him, but you 0.96

00:45:20.740 could defend it on free speech. But that's not what happened. You know, that wasn't the issue.

00:45:26.380 They weren't pro-Nazi in the first place. They were anti-Nazi to begin with. All right.

00:45:31.960 Here's another fake news, in my opinion. The whole debate about who is a woman or a man

00:45:36.360 is so ridiculous. So ridiculous. We act like we're talking about the same thing, but it's a fake 0.99

00:45:43.280 disagreement. The conservatives like to say, no, it's the most basic question. If you can have

00:45:50.840 babies, you're a woman. You know, if you have the other equipment, you're a man, and that's it. 0.90

00:45:55.180 There's no shading it. That's just it. The whole woman versus man thing is settled by who can 0.98

00:46:03.800 reproduce and who can't. The left doesn't use the same definition and just says, yeah, we understand

00:46:11.780 the whole who can reproduce part. But they also would like somebody who feels that they're more of

00:46:18.520 the other gender than they were born could have that right. These are not disagreeing opinions.

00:46:26.660 These are two opinions that don't disagree in any way, pretending they do. And then people are taking

00:46:32.880 sides. It's a fake fight. There's nobody who is pro-trans who doesn't understand that, you know,

00:46:40.380 gender and reproduction were connected and blah, blah, blah. It's not like they don't know that. 0.98

00:46:46.180 There's nothing to debate there. They simply have a preference for changing the definition.

00:46:52.460 So here's what's not a good argument. I'll make an analogy because you love those. Let's say,

00:46:59.420 I say, you know, this word is losing its meaning for historical reasons. Why don't we consider

00:47:06.020 changing the definition of the word? And here are the reasons why we should change the definition.

00:47:11.540 And then the conservatives say, no, the word means X. And then the other side, okay, yeah,

00:47:19.480 we agree on that. We agree what the word has always meant. What we're suggesting is that we update

00:47:25.300 that and here's our reason why. And then the conservatives say, you idiot. That's not what 1.00

00:47:31.440 the word means. And then the other side says, okay, I feel like you're not understanding what

00:47:36.980 I'm saying. I'm not arguing who could have babies and how it used to be and how that made sense.

00:47:42.640 I'm saying, here are my reasons why we should update this. You can agree with them or disagree

00:47:49.040 with them, but let's talk about my reasons. And then the conservatives say, I don't know

00:47:55.460 how many times I can explain this. That's not what the word means. You're not even having

00:48:00.400 the same fucking conversation. So the reason I don't talk about this much is that there's 0.98

00:48:05.420 nothing to talk about. It's two people just having a conversation with themselves. There's

00:48:10.340 not even any, anything there. So there's my take on that. I'm going to run out of time

00:48:20.680 quickly. So let me run through some things. Wall Street Journal is having a fight with

00:48:26.460 itself because their opinion, their opinion section printed Trump's letter in which he made

00:48:33.300 claims, which the fact people don't agree with. So I guess the news people in the journal

00:48:38.480 are mad at the opinion people for printing a Trump opinion. Now, what is an opinion section

00:48:45.560 if it can't have opinions, including fake facts? I don't know. I would, I think I'm going to side

00:48:55.200 with the opinion piece as long as the body fact checks it. Don't you think that opinions should be

00:49:04.200 fact checked if it's in the same publication? What do you think of that? So I'm okay with

00:49:11.240 opinions being wrong or even having fake news in them. But I think the publication that puts such an

00:49:18.980 opinion in it should have a little, you know, news fact checking. Now it could, you know, have more than

00:49:25.940 one source because maybe the fact checkers don't agree and that would be ideal. Adam dopamine on

00:49:33.900 Twitter had an interesting observation, which I'm going to agree with. It goes like this. So you know

00:49:41.880 that Biden got elected by simply not appearing in public. His Biden's strongest quality was that

00:49:49.500 people didn't see him talking. And if he did, did I lose a bunch of money on what? I don't know

00:49:57.700 what you're talking about. No, I haven't lost a bunch of money. I don't know what you're talking

00:50:00.660 about. So Biden won by not being seen. And lately we're seeing that Kamala Harris is sort of being

00:50:08.980 de-emphasized. Could it be that they're going to put Kamala Harris on ice so you don't see anything

00:50:17.080 about her for months until Joe Biden, let's say, retires for medical reasons. And then you don't

00:50:25.360 have any current fake news or even real news about Harris. So the idea would be that they'll keep her

00:50:34.960 out of the light because the more you see her, the less you like her. All right. This is a pretty

00:50:44.620 good idea. This just came to be a tweet by Carmine Sabia. He said, every Democrat voted against a

00:50:52.740 mandate to vaccinate those crossing the border. Every single one. Tell me more about the science. 0.97

00:50:59.980 That's interesting. Now, I don't have an opinion yet because I haven't thought about it long enough.

00:51:05.320 But this is a very provocative idea to require mandatory vaccinations for all immigration across

00:51:13.720 the border. If we believe in the science, you kind of have to believe in this, don't you? If you

00:51:20.620 believe in any kind of mandate and you believe in the science, wouldn't you have to be in favor of

00:51:24.700 this? Apparently, every Democrat voted against it. Did that really happen? I don't know that there

00:51:31.020 was a bill about that, but I assume Carmine knows. It's a good question. I'm not sure what,

00:51:38.980 I'm not sure my opinion on that because I'm opposed to mandates. But if you're going to have mandates,

00:51:45.840 why wouldn't you apply them in a rational way? It's a good point. All right. You think your state

00:51:54.060 is awesome? Watch this. I live in California and there is a reason California is the best.

00:52:01.740 We had, of course, problems with forest fires here, pretty big problems. How did we solve our forest

00:52:07.560 fire problem? Crisis? With a storm crisis. We added a gigantic rainstorm to solve our other crisis,

00:52:16.520 and it did. We solved our forest fires with our rainstorm. So thank goodness for climate change,

00:52:22.120 because it probably made all that worse, so they say. Now, but we're even smarter than that.

00:52:28.800 You know, school choice was a big problem. People were not into it. Well, we solved school choice

00:52:33.600 with COVID. The pandemic pretty much made everybody sick of the school system, so probably more school

00:52:40.160 choice coming. We got that going. Traffic was a gigantic problem in California, but thanks to COVID,

00:52:46.820 we used that to solve the commuting problem. And it looks like, you know, we also have an energy

00:52:51.500 problem in California. We run out of energy sometimes. But it looks like we're going to solve

00:52:55.740 the energy problem by the supply chain crisis. The supply chain would be so bad, nobody can go anywhere

00:53:02.440 and buy anything. So I think the energy shortage is solved as well. So only California can solve a

00:53:10.460 crisis with a crisis. I'll bet your state didn't think of that. You give us a crisis, we'll find

00:53:17.840 another crisis to solve that crisis. Now, you might say, but Scott, that leaves you with whatever crisis

00:53:23.580 you use to solve the other one. Sure. But is that a problem? Not if you can solve it with another

00:53:28.780 crisis? You just keep solving things with one crisis after another. I don't think there's

00:53:35.340 anything wrong with that idea. Is there? All right. There's a reverse discrimination case. A white 0.95

00:53:44.200 male marketing VP in some hospital in North Carolina got $10 million because he was fired to make room for

00:53:51.700 a white woman and a black woman to replace him in his position. And apparently, he's not the only

00:53:57.240 one. In his complaint, he alleged that the same thing happened to the chief legal officer, the medical

00:54:03.720 group president, the chief information officer, the patient experience officer, and the president of

00:54:09.240 blah, blah, blah, something else. They were all replaced either by a black person or a woman 1.00

00:54:13.720 in the 12 to 18 months after him. The jury agreed with him. The jury agreed with him that his complaint

00:54:26.120 was valid. He was being replaced because of his ethnicity and his gender and that a whole bunch

00:54:33.180 of people have been replaced for that reason. Now, let me ask you this. I don't know if I've seen a

00:54:40.100 case where people were fired to make room for diversity, but I've certainly seen lots of cases

00:54:45.540 where people could only get a job if they were the right ethnicity, including me. So if you know my

00:54:53.240 story, when I worked in corporate America, I was told explicitly that I couldn't be promoted because

00:54:58.560 I was white and male. Let me ask you this. If you were to compare the numbers of explicit

00:55:04.900 racism of the old-fashioned way where, let's say, somebody who's black or LGBTQ or a woman 0.87

00:55:11.120 is discriminated against for who they are in a corporate setting, let's say a big company,

00:55:17.340 a big corporation, how much of that do you think you get compared to the reverse discrimination?

00:55:22.840 What do you think is the ratio of real discrimination, the classic kind, against, let's say,

00:55:29.360 black Americans in particular, versus this kind where there was a white person who was discriminated

00:55:34.780 in corporate America? Not in the small businesses. That would be different. I would say 1 to 10

00:55:42.240 or maybe 1 to 100. Maybe 1 to 100, yeah. Google red herring, Scott. Make a point, will you?

00:55:55.100 Like, you're such a fucking dumbass. Comments like that just have no purpose here. You should 1.00

00:56:02.080 just stop watching this content. Just go away. Somebody's over there on YouTube saying,

00:56:08.460 red herring, Scott. Red herring. I don't even know what frickin' topic you're talking about.

00:56:13.320 Could you do a little bit better than that? Go Google red herring. Go Google red herring. 0.84

00:56:17.900 Come on. Do better. Improve your game. There's an antidepressant that looks like it helps with COVID.

00:56:26.020 Fluvoxamine. And maybe others, too. Apparently, it's an anti-inflammatory. Interesting.

00:56:34.660 What are the odds that the reason that fluvoxamine works as an antidepressant is that it is an

00:56:41.520 anti-inflammatory? What if that's the only mechanism that makes it happy? Let me ask you this.

00:56:48.220 Have you discovered that people are complaining a lot about inflammation?

00:56:51.400 In the comments, tell me. Is there somebody in your life, and it might be you,

00:56:56.740 who's complaining about inflammation a lot? Like, everybody's talking about it. Like,

00:57:01.640 I got this inflammation. Yeah, look at the comments. Yes, yes, yes, I am. Yes, yes.

00:57:08.120 I feel as though there might be some correlation between inflammation and depression, and maybe

00:57:13.920 anxiety, and that there's something in the environment, and maybe a lot of things, maybe our

00:57:19.420 lifestyle, maybe our food, maybe a lot of things, is causing inflammation. And I have a sneaking

00:57:26.260 suspicion that inflammation makes you feel depressed. And do you know what weed does? It's

00:57:35.180 an anti-inflammatory. It makes you happy. Fluvoxamine, it's an anti-inflammatory. It makes you happy.

00:57:42.560 Pattern recognition, people. You know, I mean, it would just be something I'm curious about. But I'll bet

00:57:50.240 if you googled anti-inflammatory and antidepressant, you would find that somebody, and I haven't done

00:57:56.420 this. I just had this thought. I'll bet you would find that somebody's looking into it. Now, aspirin 2,

00:58:03.840 maybe. Yeah, aspirin 2, maybe. All true. Prednisone. Prednisone is an anti-inflammatory and also used

00:58:15.700 against COVID. But I don't know if it, oh, God, when I was on, oh, good point. When I was on

00:58:22.780 prednisone, that literally makes you happy. And you're also very on, you have no inflammation. That's

00:58:34.540 a good example. I wonder if, does ivermectin work that way? Is ivermectin an anti-inflammatory?

00:58:42.320 I don't know. Yeah, exercise is a, it blows up your body, right? I don't know what you mean.

00:58:52.780 All right. Well, let's keep an eye on this, because this fluvoxamine is really cheap. And if

00:58:58.960 it works, woohoo. I have a plan to make the U.S. Postal Service solvent. Just have a premium

00:59:07.180 service in which I can pay them to not deliver my mail. I would pay the post office to stop

00:59:11.720 bringing garbage to my house. I would pay $300 a year to turn off my mail service so they won't

00:59:18.940 deliver anything. Just nothing. Not first class mail, not anything. I would pay $300 a year to just

00:59:25.020 turn it off. There you go. Budesonine. Yes, okay. Maybe we've cured the pandemic here. I gotta run.

00:59:34.800 Bye for now.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 28, 2021

Episode 1544 Scott Adams： It's a Cornucopia of Fake News Today. Watch Me Tear it Apart and Tell You What is True

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript