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
Words per Minute
159.49876
Summary
There's a strange energy in the world lately, and it's not just in the news. It's in your personal life, and in the things you do every day that seem to be out of control. Is it just a weird coincidence, or is there something big coming?
Transcript
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
00:04:52.320
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.
00:15:36.840
You're hearing my, my, my cat is wanting to get out because I've got the door closed. Um,
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
00:29:19.920
that's the comment on YouTube. You old fool. He said that. Now, some of you are saying,
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
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
00:34:51.360
into a woman's restroom and then do some raping. And this looks like exactly that, doesn't it?
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,
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?
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
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.
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
00:36:56.620
gender fluid get to use the other restroom? Is that a rule? If you're telling me that
00:37:04.780
transgenders can use the restroom of their choice, I'd say that's one issue. You could agree or
00:37:11.400
disagree, but that's a separate issue. But gender fluid? Whoever said that gender fluid people could
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
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.
00:42:34.820
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
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
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.
00:45:55.180
There's no shading it. That's just it. The whole woman versus man thing is settled by who can
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.