Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1807 Scott Adams： Who Is Trying To Brainwash You This Week And Largely Succeeding

00:00:00.000 And welcome to the highlight of your life and civilization itself.

00:00:04.420 Sort of a bright, glowing spot in this big universe of darkness.

00:00:11.740 But, where you are, things are looking up.

00:00:15.420 Things are looking up.

00:00:16.560 And all you need to take it to another level

00:00:18.620 is a cup of mugger, a glass of tanker, a chalice, a cider, a canteen jugger,

00:00:21.860 a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:27.080 You're right, Dennis.

00:00:28.080 That Scott Adams is one bad dude.

00:00:31.880 True. Fact check. True.

00:00:34.960 And now, will you join me for the unparalleled pleasure,

00:00:39.120 the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:40.500 the thing that makes everything better in the entire world.

00:00:42.920 It's called the simultaneous sip, and nothing's ever been better ago.

00:00:50.180 Ah.

00:00:50.740 I would like to start with a checklist for the golden age.

00:01:01.360 Are you ready?

00:01:02.560 I think I might put this on paper, thinking about it.

00:01:06.620 I was thinking about all the things which have somewhat subtly turned positive

00:01:12.060 while we're in this environment of everything going to shit. 0.65

00:01:16.180 And you can lose sight of anything that's maybe getting better

00:01:21.040 because our focus is always on, you know, the latest disaster.

00:01:25.760 Number one, there have been no major forest fires in California this year.

00:01:30.640 Now, knock on wood, right?

00:01:32.120 Pup, pup, pup, pup.

00:01:32.660 But I believe that's because of the helicopter rapid response team.

00:01:38.020 I think we're actually getting on the fires faster.

00:01:41.380 In other words, we adjust it.

00:01:43.320 We found a way to make a difference.

00:01:45.280 We're not talking about it, right?

00:01:47.580 Why is nobody talking about California on fire?

00:01:51.960 It could be luck.

00:01:53.760 It could be luck.

00:01:54.620 It could be weather.

00:01:55.400 It could be chance, right?

00:01:56.800 But I feel like maybe we got on top of it.

00:02:00.300 Or at least there's a substantial improvement.

00:02:04.080 How about climate change and nuclear energy,

00:02:07.900 which is really the only solution to it?

00:02:10.080 All positive.

00:02:11.440 All positive.

00:02:12.360 Everything in the nuclear energy field went from super negative,

00:02:16.500 I don't know, five years ago, to super positive.

00:02:20.560 So you've got your climate change, your nuclear energy.

00:02:23.260 Now, in the short run, we've got a lot of challenges with power, etc.

00:02:30.600 Now, let me ask you about, let's talk about inflation.

00:02:35.380 Energy prices seem to have maybe stabilized and dropped a little.

00:02:39.700 Too soon to be happy.

00:02:41.560 But it looks like inflation, at least on the energy part, the biggest part,

00:02:46.740 looks like it might have slowed down.

00:02:48.120 And then the energy cost, if it slows down, will ripple through the rest of the product stuff.

00:02:55.160 We might have seen something closer to the top of inflation.

00:02:58.940 I guess some of the core stuff is still going to be higher for a few months.

00:03:02.680 But that should get pulled back.

00:03:04.500 It should get pulled back.

00:03:06.520 Because there...

00:03:08.460 Now, let's take China.

00:03:11.120 I just saw another article.

00:03:12.340 It's hard to speculate what's happening in China, right?

00:03:15.000 We don't know.

00:03:15.540 But it looks like China is in an actual recession already, if you read the tea leaves, right?

00:03:21.820 They don't report that, but it looks like they might be.

00:03:25.260 And it looks like China, as the growing power that we have to worry about, 1.00

00:03:31.600 may have taken quite a hit.

00:03:33.460 Because I think their manufacturing base will be, I would say, drained forever.

00:03:41.620 I don't think people are going back.

00:03:43.120 So, in terms of how we deal with China, even though it's hard for our supply chains and stuff,

00:03:49.780 I believe we're probably moving our pharma back.

00:03:53.700 Because if anything scared us straight, I would imagine big pharma has plenty of money.

00:03:59.400 Am I right?

00:04:00.700 Does big pharma have money?

00:04:02.140 Of course.

00:04:02.800 They've got all they need.

00:04:03.800 So, they can move their plants back to wherever they need to get it out of China.

00:04:08.240 So, I believe that our position in the world relative to China is better. 0.96

00:04:17.360 What do you think?

00:04:19.240 I mean, you could easily be wrong.

00:04:21.100 We could all be wrong about this stuff.

00:04:22.660 But even though we both took a hit,

00:04:24.500 I believe the United States will take less of a hit going forward.

00:04:31.520 About Russia.

00:04:33.040 Our two biggest competitors in the world, right?

00:04:35.500 Russia and China.

00:04:37.040 I feel like Russia is taking a step backwards relative to the United States.

00:04:42.060 At the same time, the United States is not doing, you know, terrific.

00:04:45.480 But, relatively, I think we opened a gap.

00:04:50.820 So, I would say that the United States has improved its position, maybe, maybe,

00:04:56.040 with Russia and China, its two biggest competitors.

00:04:59.900 I think we'll get past inflation.

00:05:02.580 What about that risk of nuclear war with Russia?

00:05:06.660 I haven't worried about it lately, have you?

00:05:09.340 I feel like we're past it.

00:05:11.440 And I feel like there's some kind of a stalemate situation happening there

00:05:14.580 that's expensive.

00:05:17.100 But I feel like the end point of Ukraine is looking a little more clear.

00:05:22.840 Looks like a stalemate where Russia will control what they control 0.96

00:05:26.580 and Ukraine will complain about it forever. 0.51

00:05:31.040 How about AI?

00:05:35.420 Now, AI is either going to be the greatest thing or the worst thing,

00:05:38.760 but it's going to change everything.

00:05:40.100 Whatever you think about the change that AI will bring, you have no idea.

00:05:47.640 There's nothing that will be the same.

00:05:50.180 After virtual reality and AR hit, AI,

00:05:54.500 if you combine AI and virtual reality,

00:05:57.940 what life looks like in 10 years is completely unpredictable.

00:06:03.440 There's just no way to know what's going to go.

00:06:05.180 I mean, it's going to be really interesting.

00:06:06.600 But it might be better.

00:06:09.580 There's a whole segment of the world that literally can't find happiness

00:06:13.380 because the resources don't exist.

00:06:16.540 There are people who can't find a mate,

00:06:20.000 which is sort of important for happiness.

00:06:24.780 And I think people will just take a drug,

00:06:29.440 put it on the VR helmet, and go into their other life,

00:06:32.340 and that other life will be fully satisfying.

00:06:36.520 Even if in the other life they're in love with an AI,

00:06:39.520 an NPC or something, driven by an AI.

00:06:42.260 It'll be a relationship.

00:06:44.900 And it'll be somebody that's not treating them poorly.

00:06:48.180 So I think that for, I don't know, 60% to 80% of the public,

00:06:53.900 they would be better off with an AI partner.

00:06:58.660 Eventually.

00:06:59.100 Everybody who disagrees with that,

00:07:02.940 100% of the people who disagree with that statement,

00:07:05.900 are thinking of current technology,

00:07:08.420 which couldn't come close to that.

00:07:10.980 But future technology,

00:07:12.760 and it's not that far in the future,

00:07:15.400 in the future there will be a better version

00:07:18.140 of a human for your enjoyment

00:07:21.420 than any human could ever compete with.

00:07:25.400 It won't even be close.

00:07:26.840 In the long run, it won't even be close.

00:07:29.460 It'll take a while for the crossover.

00:07:31.180 We're not there.

00:07:32.500 People, still better than robots.

00:07:34.520 Still better.

00:07:35.780 But that gap is just closing like crazy.

00:07:38.420 There's no question where it's going.

00:07:40.600 I mean, it can only go one direction.

00:07:44.080 Can they do plumbing and electrical?

00:07:46.680 Probably.

00:07:48.120 Probably.

00:07:48.560 All right.

00:07:50.160 I made a claim on Twitter.

00:07:55.840 I got a slight adjustment to by Paul Graham.

00:07:59.140 If you don't know Paul Graham,

00:08:01.300 you can Google him,

00:08:02.540 but he's one of the high-value accounts.

00:08:05.620 You know, tech founder,

00:08:07.600 generally considered one of the smart people

00:08:09.540 in California or Silicon Valley,

00:08:12.940 or I'm not sure where he lives now.

00:08:14.180 But anyway, the point of that is he's real smart.

00:08:17.860 So when he says stuff, you should pay attention.

00:08:20.780 And I had said, provocatively,

00:08:23.740 that the most valuable words for success

00:08:27.600 are be useful.

00:08:29.640 That if you didn't know anything else

00:08:31.460 about anything else,

00:08:33.020 and you're just like,

00:08:33.760 well, how do I be successful?

00:08:35.660 Just focus on being useful.

00:08:37.240 And the more useful you are,

00:08:40.360 the better off you'll be, right?

00:08:42.200 More is better, but be useful.

00:08:44.080 If you focus on that, things will go well.

00:08:46.460 Now, a lot of people agreed.

00:08:48.180 Paul Graham added this twist.

00:08:50.940 He said that if it's a business,

00:08:54.340 that's effectively making what people want.

00:08:57.080 So basically, if you're in a business,

00:09:01.020 being useful translates to making products

00:09:04.060 that people want.

00:09:04.920 And here's the part that gets interesting.

00:09:08.540 I'm not sure that's exactly right.

00:09:12.220 It's like close.

00:09:13.580 Feels like an 80% sort of situation.

00:09:21.300 And here's why I think there's a difference,

00:09:24.740 but help me think this through.

00:09:26.600 This is like preliminary thinking.

00:09:28.780 In my opinion,

00:09:30.420 if you focus on what the customer wants,

00:09:32.880 you can get a good result.

00:09:35.940 If you focus on making yourself useful,

00:09:40.800 I think you could also get a good result.

00:09:43.440 If you focus on making yourself useful

00:09:45.800 via the process of making a product

00:09:48.760 that somebody wants,

00:09:50.740 well, then I think Paul Graham's point

00:09:52.400 makes a lot of sense.

00:09:53.800 Like the being useful

00:09:54.720 and giving them something they want

00:09:56.280 ends up being pretty much the same thing.

00:09:58.540 But here's where I disagree a little bit.

00:10:01.920 And I'm not sure if my thinking is clear on this yet.

00:10:05.160 I feel like what you focus on makes a difference.

00:10:08.840 Even if you say,

00:10:09.840 well, you know,

00:10:11.020 the outcome is going to look about the same.

00:10:12.720 I don't know.

00:10:14.020 I think what you focus on

00:10:15.420 makes a difference for the gray areas

00:10:17.960 of which you would expect many.

00:10:20.480 I think if you focus on being useful,

00:10:22.460 you're always going to win.

00:10:23.560 But if you focus on giving people what they want,

00:10:27.480 sometimes they don't know what they want.

00:10:31.100 Know what I mean?

00:10:33.180 Being useful is a little bit more objective.

00:10:36.160 Okay, this is useful or not.

00:10:38.540 This is more useful than that.

00:10:40.240 You can usually kind of suss that out.

00:10:42.700 What is more useful than something else?

00:10:45.300 But I don't know if you can deal with what people want.

00:10:49.280 People's wants are not necessarily

00:10:51.000 tethered to what they need

00:10:52.740 or what's good for them

00:10:53.840 or they even know

00:10:55.160 how it's going to turn out.

00:10:57.240 They've got short-term wants

00:10:58.660 that are in conflict

00:11:00.740 with their long-term needs, right?

00:11:03.000 So I feel as if focusing on anybody's wants

00:11:06.700 is going to give you some problems sometimes.

00:11:12.520 The difference is mind-reading, maybe.

00:11:15.480 All right.

00:11:17.220 Apparently there's a class-action suit

00:11:19.080 against the candy Skittles

00:11:21.140 because there's some ingredient in there,

00:11:24.420 titanium dioxide,

00:11:25.940 that I think in Europe it's already banned

00:11:28.000 and there's some indication

00:11:30.000 that it might not be good for you.

00:11:31.920 But when I saw this,

00:11:33.120 I thought, you know,

00:11:33.820 I don't have too much of a thought about Skittles

00:11:36.300 because I have a rule.

00:11:39.500 I don't eat things

00:11:41.300 which don't seem to have any food in them.

00:11:48.560 So that's just my rule.

00:11:50.780 If you're putting something in your mouth

00:11:52.580 and digesting it

00:11:54.880 and it doesn't have any food-related quality

00:12:00.620 that you can determine,

00:12:02.580 well, I feel like you're really asking for trouble there.

00:12:06.140 Probably just food and medicine

00:12:09.180 is the only thing you should put in your mouth.

00:12:11.240 Okay, you've got a dirty mind.

00:12:13.140 Go ahead, make your dirty jokes.

00:12:15.860 Okay, we're done.

00:12:17.220 But otherwise, the only thing you should put in your mouth

00:12:19.040 is food and medicine and dirty stuff.

00:12:23.320 And naughty stuff.

00:12:24.340 But this brings me to my macro point.

00:12:31.160 Our food supply,

00:12:34.400 maybe it's more the United States

00:12:36.740 or the industrialized countries,

00:12:38.660 but let me tell you something

00:12:39.760 that's really, really obvious in America.

00:12:43.780 I want to see if there's anybody

00:12:45.340 who will disagree with the following statement.

00:12:48.060 Our food supply is poison.

00:12:52.860 You just look around.

00:12:55.200 People, just look around.

00:12:58.160 Just go to the mall and just look around.

00:13:02.100 And you tell me,

00:13:03.100 our food supply is not fucking poisoned.

00:13:06.080 It's obvious.

00:13:07.880 It's obvious.

00:13:09.440 And somehow, the food industry

00:13:11.500 got away with blaming us.

00:13:14.260 Think about that.

00:13:15.540 The food business is getting away

00:13:18.200 with blaming us

00:13:19.440 for being unhealthy

00:13:21.120 because we ate the wrong food.

00:13:24.340 I don't think so.

00:13:25.960 If you're selling, you know,

00:13:27.820 crack to children,

00:13:29.780 I don't think it's the children's fault

00:13:31.480 if they get addicted, is it?

00:13:32.900 If you sell crack to children,

00:13:36.060 it's your fucking fault. 0.99

00:13:37.720 It's not the children's fault.

00:13:39.500 And in this analogy,

00:13:40.740 we adults are the children.

00:13:41.880 We don't know any better.

00:13:43.260 You give me a fucking french fry,

00:13:44.680 I'm going to put it in my mouth.

00:13:46.540 Right?

00:13:47.080 Do I know that eating french fries

00:13:48.900 is not my optimal health-related thing?

00:13:51.260 Oh, I do.

00:13:52.840 I do.

00:13:53.740 But if you put a basket of fries

00:13:55.420 in front of me,

00:13:57.060 do you know what I'm going to say

00:13:58.000 in about a second and a half?

00:13:59.940 Well, one basket of fries

00:14:01.320 isn't going to hurt me.

00:14:02.860 Right?

00:14:03.140 I'm going to rationalize it

00:14:04.320 in a heartbeat

00:14:05.560 because they're really delicious.

00:14:09.540 We don't have a chance.

00:14:11.700 This food is engineered

00:14:12.800 to overwhelm our whatever

00:14:15.220 you think is your willpower,

00:14:16.860 which is an illusion.

00:14:17.920 So you're operating against something

00:14:21.040 that's scientifically designed

00:14:22.540 to beat you.

00:14:23.800 If you're fighting every day

00:14:25.300 against, let's say, an enemy

00:14:29.160 who is scientifically designed

00:14:31.720 to beat you every time,

00:14:34.360 well, don't be surprised if you lose

00:14:36.360 because it was scientifically designed

00:14:39.340 to beat you every time.

00:14:41.140 That's the sugar, fat, and salt combination.

00:14:45.220 If you manipulate the sugar, fat, and salt,

00:14:47.280 which is the name of a book

00:14:48.860 you should read,

00:14:50.080 it's addictive.

00:14:53.400 Right?

00:14:53.660 There's a reason you can only,

00:14:55.100 you can't eat more than one potato chip.

00:14:57.640 Right?

00:14:58.040 That's real.

00:14:59.460 I really can't eat one.

00:15:01.460 I've tried.

00:15:02.740 Have you ever tried to eat

00:15:03.480 one potato chip?

00:15:05.480 If you're all alone

00:15:06.560 and you keep the potato chips

00:15:08.980 in your room

00:15:09.500 and you're still hungry?

00:15:11.440 You just can't do it.

00:15:12.800 I would say that

00:15:14.640 if you were to rank me

00:15:17.060 against other human beings

00:15:19.340 in terms of willpower,

00:15:21.460 I think I'd be pretty high up there.

00:15:23.780 I would say my track record of life

00:15:26.260 suggests that I can put off pleasure

00:15:28.820 for a long time

00:15:29.980 to get some larger gain.

00:15:31.780 I have pretty high emotional intelligence

00:15:34.860 as objectively measured.

00:15:37.260 But I can't resist a second potato chip.

00:15:40.140 That's crazy.

00:15:42.340 I would just talk myself into it in a heartbeat.

00:15:45.120 So,

00:15:46.280 I think we have to come to

00:15:48.500 some kind of a

00:15:50.140 I don't know,

00:15:52.260 realization or awareness.

00:15:54.660 Our food supply is killing us.

00:15:57.260 It's not even close to adequate.

00:15:59.200 It's not even close.

00:16:00.940 It's not even in the general zip code

00:16:03.120 of fucking food.

00:16:06.100 Have you ever met somebody

00:16:07.080 who ate clean?

00:16:08.980 Like really clean?

00:16:10.140 Now you think you have

00:16:13.100 because you have a friend

00:16:14.100 who's a vegan or something like that.

00:16:15.480 No, not even close.

00:16:17.220 The difference between eating clean,

00:16:19.620 like really eating clean,

00:16:20.980 no additives,

00:16:22.040 no preservatives,

00:16:22.840 all that stuff.

00:16:24.700 If you meet one of those people,

00:16:27.300 they're not like you, are they?

00:16:29.260 They're not like you.

00:16:31.020 Their bodies and their health

00:16:32.680 is really different.

00:16:34.400 And it's very noticeable.

00:16:35.360 I once

00:16:37.020 briefly dated a woman

00:16:40.100 who was just the cleanest eater

00:16:42.180 and didn't use any

00:16:43.500 unnatural shampoos

00:16:46.420 or didn't even put

00:16:47.600 things on externally.

00:16:50.740 And it was so obvious

00:16:53.180 that that human being

00:16:55.020 was operating at a different level

00:16:56.600 of health.

00:16:57.840 It was just really obvious.

00:16:58.800 And I don't think

00:16:59.520 she started 0.79

00:17:01.060 as the healthiest person

00:17:02.180 in the world.

00:17:02.640 I think it's what she eats.

00:17:04.540 I think it's just that.

00:17:05.760 Now, I couldn't do what she did.

00:17:07.800 It was just too extreme.

00:17:09.280 It was just really extreme.

00:17:11.000 But no question it worked.

00:17:14.040 No question it worked.

00:17:17.720 All political movements

00:17:19.040 of any scale are fake

00:17:20.360 in terms of protests,

00:17:23.020 you know, like big movements.

00:17:24.000 whether it's your Antifas

00:17:26.400 or your January 6th events

00:17:28.400 or your

00:17:29.160 or your

00:17:31.380 fine people marches

00:17:32.780 or your Antifa.

00:17:36.580 I think they're all fake.

00:17:38.960 And here's what I mean.

00:17:40.540 I don't mean that the individuals

00:17:42.420 who are marching

00:17:43.400 don't have sincere feelings.

00:17:46.060 They do.

00:17:47.520 But they wouldn't be there

00:17:49.100 except that

00:17:50.660 some artificial entity

00:17:52.800 funded it

00:17:53.860 and organized it, right?

00:17:55.320 Now, here's the thinking.

00:17:57.020 You can imagine a time

00:17:58.560 in the 70s,

00:17:59.660 I don't know if it's true,

00:18:00.580 but you can imagine a time

00:18:01.960 when maybe spontaneous

00:18:04.160 large-scale protests

00:18:06.120 did happen, right?

00:18:08.260 Maybe.

00:18:09.360 But probably not even then.

00:18:11.300 And here's the reason.

00:18:14.100 It's that the organizers

00:18:15.380 have too much to gain.

00:18:17.720 They can monetize it.

00:18:19.480 If it's possible

00:18:20.520 to monetize leadership

00:18:22.140 of an organization,

00:18:24.160 well, you're done here, right?

00:18:26.360 Follow the money.

00:18:27.960 What's going to happen

00:18:28.900 if it's possible,

00:18:30.120 just if it's possible,

00:18:31.600 to monetize leadership

00:18:33.360 of a political movement?

00:18:36.760 Somebody's going to buy it.

00:18:38.940 There's somebody

00:18:39.420 who's going to buy your loyalty.

00:18:41.040 Because they can.

00:18:41.780 It's for sale.

00:18:42.960 You can monetize it.

00:18:43.920 Now,

00:18:45.200 without going into

00:18:47.760 a long argument,

00:18:48.700 here's the short version.

00:18:50.360 If you follow the money,

00:18:52.840 it has to be,

00:18:54.260 in the long run,

00:18:55.680 that all major

00:18:56.700 organized political movements

00:19:00.000 are all artificial.

00:19:01.800 In other words,

00:19:02.280 somebody just funded them

00:19:03.460 to look like

00:19:04.560 a grassroots movement.

00:19:05.920 But it's the organizers

00:19:07.200 that are getting

00:19:07.760 everybody spun up.

00:19:08.720 In the long run,

00:19:10.940 they all become owned

00:19:12.880 by a bad entity.

00:19:14.540 Because they're all

00:19:15.220 for sale.

00:19:16.900 Ultimately.

00:19:17.940 In the short run,

00:19:18.880 maybe not.

00:19:19.820 In the short run,

00:19:20.640 you can imagine

00:19:21.160 people spontaneously

00:19:22.200 running into the street

00:19:23.320 to protest something.

00:19:24.740 And I think maybe

00:19:25.480 the abortion situation

00:19:27.660 on day one

00:19:28.600 was probably

00:19:29.880 just organic.

00:19:30.820 On day one,

00:19:32.560 people probably just said,

00:19:33.740 oh, shit.

00:19:34.320 And they just got up

00:19:35.060 and made a sign

00:19:35.700 and walked outside.

00:19:37.960 But,

00:19:38.660 wait a little while,

00:19:40.980 whoever has the most

00:19:41.960 money and influence

00:19:42.860 will eventually

00:19:43.620 get to whoever

00:19:45.260 the organic leaders are

00:19:46.700 and say,

00:19:47.040 you know,

00:19:47.820 you're doing well

00:19:48.500 as an organic leader,

00:19:49.600 but you're not making

00:19:50.240 any money,

00:19:50.780 you're not feeding

00:19:52.360 your family.

00:19:53.440 How about I give you

00:19:54.340 a bunch of money,

00:19:55.260 make you much more effective?

00:19:57.000 They say,

00:19:57.440 yeah,

00:19:58.340 you're on my side.

00:20:00.140 I mean,

00:20:00.360 there's no downside,

00:20:01.940 right?

00:20:02.620 I just get more money

00:20:03.680 and I do the same thing.

00:20:05.360 But people who give you

00:20:06.360 money own you.

00:20:09.000 No matter what

00:20:09.900 your original motivation was,

00:20:12.280 as soon as you start

00:20:13.140 taking money,

00:20:13.880 you've got a boss.

00:20:15.880 Right?

00:20:16.280 So basically,

00:20:17.200 every leader

00:20:17.840 who might be

00:20:19.040 organic in the beginning

00:20:20.480 ends up getting owned

00:20:22.100 by somebody

00:20:22.640 who has enough money

00:20:23.360 to do that.

00:20:24.920 So,

00:20:25.640 I can't see

00:20:26.700 any situation

00:20:27.500 in which a large-scale

00:20:29.400 protest on

00:20:30.280 either side

00:20:31.020 for any reason

00:20:32.560 would ever be organic

00:20:34.340 in the long run.

00:20:37.720 I just can't see it.

00:20:39.780 So,

00:20:40.040 from this point on,

00:20:41.200 I assume all large

00:20:42.040 protests are fake.

00:20:44.020 A little bit.

00:20:45.040 Doesn't mean the people.

00:20:46.460 The people might be

00:20:47.260 very sincere.

00:20:48.280 But in terms of

00:20:49.040 what got them all there,

00:20:51.040 probably always fake

00:20:52.340 from now on.

00:20:53.600 I don't think

00:20:54.240 we live in a world

00:20:54.860 in which it can't

00:20:56.340 rapidly go fake

00:20:57.560 because follow

00:20:58.560 the money.

00:21:00.000 The money

00:21:00.400 will always be there.

00:21:01.540 There's always

00:21:01.900 going to be somebody

00:21:02.520 on that side.

00:21:03.620 Even if there's

00:21:04.340 nobody in the United

00:21:05.140 States

00:21:05.640 who wants this

00:21:06.880 protest.

00:21:08.040 There's always China. 0.95

00:21:09.720 There's always

00:21:10.240 another country

00:21:11.580 that wants some

00:21:12.120 trouble here.

00:21:13.340 So you can always

00:21:14.120 get it funded.

00:21:14.580 NPR has launched

00:21:20.760 what they call

00:21:21.760 a disinformation

00:21:22.600 reporting team.

00:21:24.580 So a group of people

00:21:25.580 who will tell you

00:21:26.400 what's true

00:21:26.940 and what isn't.

00:21:28.500 Here is what

00:21:29.660 I invented today.

00:21:31.160 I call it the

00:21:31.760 Adams Law

00:21:32.600 of Fact Checkers.

00:21:35.060 The Adams Law

00:21:36.340 of Fact Checkers.

00:21:38.260 It goes like this.

00:21:40.360 All fact-checking

00:21:41.300 organizations are

00:21:42.240 liars by omission.

00:21:43.800 and it isn't

00:21:45.440 fixable.

00:21:47.360 All fact-check

00:21:48.440 organizations are

00:21:49.600 liars by omission.

00:21:51.660 That's their job.

00:21:53.120 Their job is to

00:21:54.120 lie by omission.

00:21:55.580 If you don't know,

00:21:56.380 that's the real

00:21:57.060 mission.

00:21:58.340 So the job of

00:21:59.420 a fact-checker

00:22:00.000 is to say,

00:22:01.100 well, obviously

00:22:01.800 there are too many

00:22:02.380 things in the world.

00:22:04.220 You can't look at

00:22:05.060 every fact and

00:22:06.940 try to check it,

00:22:07.680 right?

00:22:07.840 So you have to

00:22:08.180 pick ones.

00:22:09.260 What happens when

00:22:10.080 the fact-checkers

00:22:10.900 pick the facts

00:22:11.920 to fact-check?

00:22:13.920 Well, they're not

00:22:14.760 going to pick the

00:22:15.300 one that's bad

00:22:15.940 for their team,

00:22:17.020 so they just

00:22:18.120 lie by omission.

00:22:19.600 They simply

00:22:20.340 leave out a

00:22:21.240 fact-check,

00:22:22.140 because it would

00:22:22.540 be inconvenient

00:22:23.200 to have one,

00:22:23.900 and then when

00:22:24.240 you look for

00:22:24.640 the fact-check,

00:22:25.300 it goes,

00:22:25.600 well,

00:22:26.340 nothing there.

00:22:28.260 So, and if

00:22:29.720 you've read any

00:22:30.320 of the fact-checks

00:22:31.120 so far,

00:22:32.620 the ones that

00:22:33.620 are obviously

00:22:34.080 fake fact-checks,

00:22:35.340 and you know

00:22:36.000 which ones I

00:22:36.600 mean, right?

00:22:37.480 You've seen it

00:22:38.160 yourself.

00:22:38.900 There are ones

00:22:39.320 that are just

00:22:39.620 obviously fake

00:22:40.560 fact-checks.

00:22:42.640 You can tell

00:22:43.400 what they left

00:22:43.920 out.

00:22:45.080 You just look

00:22:45.920 at it and go,

00:22:46.580 well, you know,

00:22:47.960 you've left out

00:22:48.660 like a main

00:22:49.280 variable.

00:22:49.860 You haven't

00:22:50.080 even ruled on

00:22:50.880 it, like you've

00:22:51.680 just ignored a

00:22:52.420 main variable.

00:22:53.760 That's a lie.

00:22:55.380 If your fact-checking

00:22:56.760 ignores what is

00:22:58.160 obviously a major

00:22:59.480 variable in the

00:23:00.460 decision, that's

00:23:02.300 a lie by omission.

00:23:04.320 So in the long

00:23:05.280 run, I don't

00:23:06.080 think they can

00:23:06.620 go in any other

00:23:07.360 direction.

00:23:07.760 So all

00:23:09.320 political

00:23:09.720 organizations

00:23:10.420 become, you

00:23:11.440 know, corrupted

00:23:12.020 eventually by

00:23:14.240 money, and all

00:23:15.840 fact-checkers

00:23:16.680 eventually become

00:23:18.240 liars by

00:23:20.920 omission.

00:23:21.960 Now, I don't

00:23:22.840 think that they

00:23:23.460 usually lie

00:23:24.540 directly.

00:23:27.000 There might be a

00:23:27.900 case of that,

00:23:28.780 but I think that

00:23:29.920 would be rare.

00:23:31.040 You don't see the

00:23:31.720 fact-checkers say,

00:23:32.600 oh, this happened

00:23:33.320 on this date when

00:23:34.420 it didn't.

00:23:35.120 The fact-checking

00:23:37.300 tends to be

00:23:37.860 right, but they

00:23:39.320 lie by leaving

00:23:40.420 out other facts.

00:23:42.300 If there's a

00:23:42.920 fact on the

00:23:43.400 other side, just

00:23:44.000 don't mention it.

00:23:45.200 There you go.

00:23:46.820 So do you

00:23:47.720 think that the

00:23:48.220 fact-checkers could

00:23:49.500 ever act

00:23:50.100 independently?

00:23:53.300 It's not even

00:23:54.100 designed to do

00:23:54.820 that.

00:23:55.800 Do you think

00:23:56.200 that they look

00:23:56.680 for the most

00:23:57.100 independent fact-checkers

00:23:58.560 to form the...

00:23:59.720 Do you think

00:24:00.220 NPR said, you

00:24:01.120 know, we are a

00:24:02.720 left-leaning

00:24:03.160 organization, but

00:24:05.260 for fact-checking,

00:24:06.520 that's exactly the

00:24:07.740 kind of bias you

00:24:08.480 want to get rid

00:24:09.180 of.

00:24:10.120 So rather than

00:24:11.020 just maybe

00:24:11.540 promoting our

00:24:12.480 obviously left-leaning

00:24:13.660 people into a

00:24:14.520 job of trust and

00:24:15.900 fact-checking, we're

00:24:17.280 going to scour the

00:24:18.020 world and find

00:24:19.440 people who are

00:24:20.020 famous for being

00:24:21.160 able to disagree

00:24:22.680 with their own

00:24:23.340 team.

00:24:24.780 That's the people

00:24:25.580 you want with

00:24:26.040 your fact-checkers,

00:24:27.020 because that's

00:24:27.500 people who have a

00:24:28.040 track record that

00:24:28.780 says, I don't

00:24:29.900 care if my team

00:24:30.600 says this is true.

00:24:31.520 It's just not

00:24:32.080 true.

00:24:33.160 And then they

00:24:33.860 hired those

00:24:34.360 people who

00:24:34.820 could go

00:24:35.260 against the

00:24:35.760 grain because

00:24:36.300 that's who

00:24:36.880 you could

00:24:37.180 trust.

00:24:38.880 No.

00:24:40.520 Nothing like

00:24:41.300 that's happening.

00:24:42.860 They're hiring

00:24:43.700 leftists, and

00:24:45.860 what do you

00:24:46.160 think the

00:24:46.480 leftists would

00:24:47.460 do if they

00:24:48.400 got a situation

00:24:49.220 in which,

00:24:50.680 let's say,

00:24:51.160 hypothetically,

00:24:52.640 let's say there

00:24:53.900 was a left-leaning

00:24:54.820 person who

00:24:55.700 legitimately wanted

00:24:57.000 to do fact-checking.

00:24:58.620 And let's say

00:24:59.160 this left-leaning

00:24:59.940 person said,

00:25:00.560 you know, I'm

00:25:01.640 going to seriously

00:25:02.480 try to be

00:25:02.980 objective here.

00:25:03.680 I know I'm

00:25:04.080 left-leaning,

00:25:05.160 but I'm being

00:25:05.940 hired to be

00:25:06.500 objective.

00:25:06.940 I'm going to

00:25:07.240 be objective.

00:25:08.140 And let's say

00:25:08.700 some facts came

00:25:09.580 to that person

00:25:10.280 that showed

00:25:11.360 that the

00:25:11.980 fine people

00:25:12.880 hoax was a

00:25:14.600 hoax, and

00:25:15.700 maybe it's the

00:25:16.160 first time they

00:25:16.640 heard it.

00:25:16.960 Do you think

00:25:18.280 a left-leaning

00:25:19.280 person working

00:25:20.140 for NPR,

00:25:21.640 even if they

00:25:22.260 believed it

00:25:22.940 true and

00:25:23.960 discovered that

00:25:24.800 the fine people

00:25:25.600 hoax was in

00:25:26.440 fact a hoax,

00:25:27.080 the hoax part

00:25:29.640 is just that

00:25:30.340 Trump called

00:25:31.420 neo-Nazis

00:25:32.100 fine people,

00:25:32.860 which we know

00:25:33.840 didn't happen

00:25:34.380 because of the

00:25:34.760 video.

00:25:36.100 But imagine

00:25:37.440 if you had

00:25:38.560 an impulse

00:25:39.620 to debunk

00:25:40.260 that.

00:25:41.320 Could you

00:25:41.660 do it?

00:25:43.380 No.

00:25:44.400 No.

00:25:45.680 You couldn't

00:25:46.060 do it.

00:25:46.920 And not

00:25:47.360 keep your

00:25:47.860 job.

00:25:49.340 Do you think

00:25:50.160 even if somebody

00:25:50.960 thought they

00:25:52.180 had the facts,

00:25:53.280 do you think

00:25:53.660 they could

00:25:54.020 debunk a

00:25:54.740 major left

00:25:56.500 talking point

00:25:57.420 and then

00:25:58.280 keep their

00:25:58.680 job?

00:25:59.400 Not a chance.

00:26:01.060 Not a chance.

00:26:01.920 They wouldn't

00:26:02.320 even be able

00:26:02.640 to go to a

00:26:03.060 party.

00:26:04.780 Imagine going

00:26:05.460 to a party

00:26:06.080 after you

00:26:06.500 debunked the

00:26:07.340 left's whatever

00:26:08.280 biggest talking

00:26:09.120 point.

00:26:10.180 Couldn't do

00:26:10.620 it.

00:26:11.440 It would be

00:26:12.280 like Alan

00:26:12.780 Dershowitz being

00:26:13.600 expelled from

00:26:15.400 polite company.

00:26:19.220 So by their

00:26:20.360 design, fact

00:26:21.280 checker

00:26:21.760 organizations

00:26:22.480 can't work

00:26:23.340 if they

00:26:23.720 come out

00:26:24.060 of organizations

00:26:25.140 that have

00:26:25.520 a bias.

00:26:26.680 Or even

00:26:27.300 if you

00:26:27.540 just live

00:26:27.960 in the

00:26:28.160 world, you

00:26:29.320 can't be

00:26:29.720 unbiased about

00:26:30.720 fact checking.

00:26:33.080 All right,

00:26:33.540 so another

00:26:34.800 robot that

00:26:36.140 is getting

00:26:36.720 close to

00:26:37.340 looking like

00:26:37.760 people.

00:26:38.580 Nobody has

00:26:39.360 yet solved

00:26:40.580 for making

00:26:41.580 a robot

00:26:42.100 actually look

00:26:43.140 like a

00:26:43.420 person, but

00:26:44.340 they're getting

00:26:44.620 closer and

00:26:45.160 closer.

00:26:46.180 What happens

00:26:46.840 when you

00:26:47.240 can't tell

00:26:47.600 the difference?

00:26:48.820 Because that

00:26:49.260 feels like

00:26:50.040 that's going

00:26:51.200 to happen,

00:26:51.620 at least on

00:26:52.160 video, right?

00:26:53.000 If you

00:26:53.300 did a

00:26:53.580 Zoom call

00:26:54.060 to a

00:26:54.400 robot,

00:26:55.220 someday you

00:26:55.840 won't know

00:26:56.160 the difference.

00:26:58.440 And how

00:26:59.480 would you

00:26:59.740 know the

00:27:00.020 difference?

00:27:00.460 And I

00:27:00.700 have this

00:27:01.440 suggestion,

00:27:04.100 that the

00:27:05.020 way you

00:27:05.320 can spot a

00:27:05.860 robot in the

00:27:06.380 future is the

00:27:06.980 same way you

00:27:07.380 can spot an

00:27:07.920 NPC today,

00:27:09.680 if in fact

00:27:10.740 NPCs exist,

00:27:12.040 which it

00:27:12.500 appears they

00:27:12.960 do.

00:27:13.960 It appears

00:27:14.520 they do,

00:27:14.920 doesn't mean

00:27:15.300 they do.

00:27:16.560 And that is

00:27:17.340 that NPCs and

00:27:18.520 robots won't

00:27:19.060 have stories.

00:27:21.260 They won't

00:27:21.620 have stories.

00:27:23.760 So yesterday

00:27:24.940 I was doing

00:27:25.300 a little video

00:27:25.840 from my

00:27:26.720 man cave

00:27:27.300 live stream,

00:27:28.580 and I was

00:27:29.160 challenging

00:27:29.500 people to

00:27:30.460 prompt me

00:27:31.820 to tell a

00:27:32.320 story.

00:27:33.600 And so there

00:27:34.020 were things

00:27:34.320 like what

00:27:34.660 was your

00:27:34.980 most embarrassing

00:27:35.720 moment,

00:27:36.560 or what was

00:27:38.220 the moment

00:27:38.560 that you

00:27:38.860 realized this

00:27:39.560 or that.

00:27:40.340 And for

00:27:40.800 each of

00:27:41.080 those,

00:27:42.080 I had a

00:27:42.520 story.

00:27:43.640 I go,

00:27:44.000 oh,

00:27:44.280 well,

00:27:44.760 let me tell

00:27:45.160 you the

00:27:45.360 story,

00:27:45.680 how I

00:27:45.980 felt,

00:27:46.520 and blah,

00:27:47.460 blah,

00:27:47.720 the surprise

00:27:48.260 ending.

00:27:49.200 And I

00:27:49.700 have lots

00:27:50.000 of stories.

00:27:51.360 But there

00:27:51.860 are definitely

00:27:52.220 people who

00:27:52.700 can't tell

00:27:53.040 you a story

00:27:53.520 about anything

00:27:54.120 that happened

00:27:54.560 to them.

00:27:55.280 And I

00:27:55.560 think robots

00:27:56.220 in the

00:27:56.720 short run,

00:27:58.100 a robot

00:27:58.580 won't be

00:27:59.020 able to

00:27:59.260 tell you

00:27:59.540 a story.

00:28:00.800 If you

00:28:01.280 talk to

00:28:01.600 a robot

00:28:01.920 about what's

00:28:02.480 happening

00:28:02.800 at the

00:28:03.100 moment,

00:28:03.600 well,

00:28:03.820 maybe you

00:28:04.140 can't tell

00:28:04.460 the difference.

00:28:05.800 But if you

00:28:06.180 say to the

00:28:06.560 robot,

00:28:06.900 hey,

00:28:07.740 can you

00:28:08.300 tell me a

00:28:08.720 story about

00:28:09.320 the best

00:28:10.240 thing you

00:28:10.540 ever got

00:28:10.820 for your

00:28:11.100 birthday?

00:28:13.200 You're

00:28:13.600 done.

00:28:15.520 Now,

00:28:16.220 could you

00:28:16.620 program a

00:28:17.260 robot to

00:28:17.860 fool you

00:28:18.580 about its

00:28:19.600 own biography?

00:28:20.820 Like maybe

00:28:21.260 it steals

00:28:21.740 from somebody

00:28:22.300 else's

00:28:22.600 backstory?

00:28:23.220 Probably.

00:28:24.120 So you

00:28:24.420 could definitely

00:28:24.840 get a robot

00:28:25.720 to fool you.

00:28:26.880 But that

00:28:27.280 leads me to

00:28:28.020 my next

00:28:28.840 observation.

00:28:31.860 We really

00:28:32.840 need a law

00:28:33.780 that if

00:28:35.200 something is

00:28:35.780 AI or a

00:28:36.760 robot,

00:28:37.320 it's got to

00:28:37.940 be labeled.

00:28:40.480 Right?

00:28:41.120 We do

00:28:41.580 truth and

00:28:42.340 labeling.

00:28:43.280 You've got to

00:28:43.820 label those

00:28:44.360 robots.

00:28:45.540 If you come

00:28:46.280 at me with a

00:28:46.920 robot pretending

00:28:47.760 to be human

00:28:48.420 and I

00:28:48.760 can't tell

00:28:49.160 the difference,

00:28:49.780 you and

00:28:50.160 I have a

00:28:50.520 problem.

00:28:51.940 All right?

00:28:52.580 Don't send

00:28:53.600 your robot at

00:28:54.400 me and

00:28:55.800 try to make

00:28:56.280 me think

00:28:56.620 it's human.

00:28:57.580 If you do

00:28:58.320 that, you

00:28:58.700 and I have

00:28:59.080 a problem.

00:28:59.620 You have

00:29:00.160 done something

00:29:01.320 to me that's

00:29:02.080 immoral and

00:29:03.560 unethical.

00:29:04.820 You have made

00:29:05.520 me think that

00:29:06.420 a robot was a

00:29:07.200 human being and

00:29:07.920 then maybe I

00:29:08.520 interacted with

00:29:09.280 it or made

00:29:09.860 decisions based

00:29:10.640 on it.

00:29:11.480 No bueno.

00:29:12.200 That needs

00:29:13.400 to be flat

00:29:14.160 illegal.

00:29:16.020 And the

00:29:17.420 voice as

00:29:18.020 well.

00:29:19.520 We need to

00:29:20.400 have a law

00:29:20.880 that says AI

00:29:22.220 voices cannot

00:29:23.480 be modulated

00:29:24.480 outside a

00:29:25.160 certain parameter.

00:29:26.560 In other words,

00:29:27.240 we can't let AI

00:29:28.240 be persuasive.

00:29:30.080 Not by voice.

00:29:31.720 You can't let

00:29:32.700 AI persuade you

00:29:35.040 with a human-like

00:29:36.000 voice.

00:29:36.540 That's got to be

00:29:37.400 illegal and we

00:29:38.180 got to do it

00:29:38.660 now.

00:29:39.860 Because the

00:29:40.560 first AI with

00:29:41.800 a human voice

00:29:42.640 that's persuasive

00:29:43.960 and maybe even

00:29:44.600 can modulate the

00:29:45.420 voice and change

00:29:46.120 it, that is too

00:29:47.320 dangerous.

00:29:48.580 And we know

00:29:49.060 it's dangerous.

00:29:50.320 You don't have

00:29:50.760 to wonder about

00:29:51.440 it.

00:29:51.900 Is there anybody

00:29:52.360 here who would

00:29:52.820 doubt the

00:29:53.500 proposition that

00:29:55.060 an AI that

00:29:55.960 sounded like a

00:29:56.660 human, enough

00:29:57.260 that you couldn't

00:29:57.720 tell, and also

00:29:59.240 could change its

00:29:59.940 voice quality to

00:30:00.840 be more persuasive

00:30:01.720 or less persuasive?

00:30:02.980 You don't want

00:30:03.780 that shit loose

00:30:04.900 in the world.

00:30:06.420 You do not want

00:30:07.440 that loose in

00:30:08.000 the world,

00:30:08.280 believe me.

00:30:09.200 It's bad enough

00:30:09.960 that I'm loose

00:30:10.660 in the world.

00:30:15.240 This isn't my

00:30:16.180 favorite category

00:30:16.920 of things to

00:30:17.600 say.

00:30:20.260 One of my

00:30:20.960 categories is

00:30:21.580 things which

00:30:22.080 cannot be

00:30:22.620 communicated.

00:30:24.680 They're easy

00:30:25.420 concepts, but for

00:30:26.300 whatever reason

00:30:26.800 you can't tell

00:30:27.300 something, like

00:30:27.780 the boy who

00:30:28.420 cried wolf.

00:30:30.080 The boy who

00:30:30.920 cried wolf

00:30:31.520 cannot communicate

00:30:32.560 that there's an

00:30:33.160 actual wolf.

00:30:34.760 You can say

00:30:35.200 the words, but

00:30:36.580 it can't be

00:30:37.020 communicated because

00:30:37.780 you already

00:30:38.180 believe that he

00:30:38.840 lies about

00:30:39.340 wolves, so

00:30:40.140 there's no way

00:30:41.320 to get from

00:30:41.760 here to there.

00:30:43.720 But here's

00:30:44.840 what I like to

00:30:45.460 say, sort of

00:30:46.300 in that genre.

00:30:47.780 If anybody knew

00:30:48.820 what I could

00:30:49.300 actually do, I

00:30:51.400 would be

00:30:51.700 murdered.

00:30:53.400 It would be

00:30:54.100 too dangerous to

00:30:55.740 have me loose

00:30:56.340 in society.

00:30:57.520 But the only

00:30:58.140 reason that I'm

00:30:59.260 completely safe is

00:31:01.000 that nobody has

00:31:01.620 any idea.

00:31:03.100 Nobody has any

00:31:03.980 idea what I

00:31:05.820 could accomplish

00:31:06.520 through persuasion.

00:31:07.940 If you did, I'd

00:31:09.560 be in jail.

00:31:10.920 Because you

00:31:11.300 just wouldn't

00:31:11.720 want, it would

00:31:12.600 be like having a

00:31:13.480 nuclear bomb

00:31:14.240 wandering around

00:31:15.180 without government

00:31:16.500 control.

00:31:17.680 That's sort of

00:31:18.380 what I am.

00:31:19.380 But I will always

00:31:20.340 be free because

00:31:21.320 nobody will ever

00:31:22.200 believe what I

00:31:24.540 could actually do.

00:31:25.980 Now, what I

00:31:27.180 could do might be

00:31:27.920 only a fraction of

00:31:28.900 what an AI could 0.79

00:31:29.760 do eventually,

00:31:31.220 persuasion-wise,

00:31:32.040 because it would

00:31:32.560 have all the

00:31:33.160 tools instantly.

00:31:34.660 It could quickly

00:31:35.860 check those tools

00:31:36.880 against the

00:31:37.380 individual.

00:31:38.600 Basically, everything

00:31:39.580 I do the slow

00:31:40.580 human way is 0.91

00:31:42.320 programmable.

00:31:43.800 It's all, and

00:31:44.640 better.

00:31:45.580 In fact, the AI

00:31:46.420 will be better at

00:31:47.560 detecting your

00:31:48.320 micro-changes than

00:31:49.720 even I am.

00:31:50.860 And I'm trained to

00:31:51.860 do it.

00:31:53.040 One of the big

00:31:53.620 skills of a

00:31:55.800 hypnotist is not

00:31:57.520 what you say,

00:31:58.800 but it's observing

00:31:59.900 how what you said

00:32:01.560 influenced the

00:32:02.880 person.

00:32:04.360 And there's a

00:32:05.200 look, there's a

00:32:07.020 look that people

00:32:07.740 present, and

00:32:09.020 hypnotists can tell

00:32:10.160 you this, when

00:32:11.420 they're in a

00:32:11.880 certain mode,

00:32:13.380 right, when their

00:32:14.120 mind has entered,

00:32:15.060 I don't know, like a

00:32:15.680 maintenance mode or

00:32:16.480 something, you can

00:32:17.740 see it.

00:32:19.140 Now, it's easy to

00:32:20.200 recognize if you

00:32:20.840 have experience, it

00:32:21.720 would be impossible

00:32:22.500 to recognize if you

00:32:23.380 didn't.

00:32:24.320 But an AI could do

00:32:25.240 it right away.

00:32:26.420 You would just have

00:32:27.220 to give it, okay,

00:32:27.960 here's ten pictures of

00:32:29.680 people in that

00:32:30.280 mode, you know,

00:32:31.140 that mental mode,

00:32:32.740 here's ten people

00:32:33.480 not, done.

00:32:35.460 The AI would be

00:32:36.480 able to spot it

00:32:37.100 every day after

00:32:37.660 that.

00:32:38.420 You know, I'm

00:32:38.820 simplifying, but

00:32:39.520 that's the basic

00:32:40.100 idea.

00:32:42.380 All right, so

00:32:43.460 yes, let's get

00:32:44.640 some laws about

00:32:45.720 robots and AI

00:32:47.080 pretending to be

00:32:47.980 people.

00:32:48.520 That needs to be

00:32:49.560 stopped right

00:32:50.820 away, because the

00:32:52.480 first one is going

00:32:53.140 to be like a

00:32:53.580 nuclear weapon.

00:32:55.060 You've got to

00:32:55.420 stop it right

00:32:56.220 away.

00:32:57.400 Do you know

00:32:57.780 how many

00:32:58.220 social media

00:33:00.360 followers, the

00:33:02.140 first robot that's

00:33:03.240 indistinguishable from

00:33:04.660 a human would 0.88

00:33:05.300 have?

00:33:07.020 Many as it

00:33:07.720 wanted.

00:33:08.860 As many as it

00:33:09.700 wanted.

00:33:11.860 All right, let's

00:33:13.360 do the January 6th

00:33:14.360 hoax update.

00:33:16.340 I can't call the

00:33:17.420 January 6th thing

00:33:18.440 like anything but a

00:33:20.160 hoax anymore,

00:33:21.240 because I feel at

00:33:22.380 this point it's just

00:33:23.020 so fucking obvious.

00:33:27.480 Somebody says for

00:33:28.480 $9.99 for a

00:33:30.400 super chat, it's

00:33:31.520 funny because the

00:33:32.300 chat influences

00:33:33.160 Scott more than

00:33:34.060 the influence,

00:33:34.840 than he influences

00:33:35.800 the chat.

00:33:37.280 It's definitely a

00:33:38.140 two-way street.

00:33:40.000 You definitely

00:33:40.660 influence me.

00:33:43.700 I didn't know.

00:33:46.340 You often fill in

00:33:47.400 contacts, but you

00:33:48.120 do actually fact

00:33:49.120 check.

00:33:49.320 Yeah, I'm

00:33:52.020 definitely influenced

00:33:52.960 factually, but the

00:33:55.900 nature of the

00:33:59.620 technology is that

00:34:02.060 maybe I guess I'm

00:34:02.900 like group peer

00:34:04.240 influence or

00:34:04.880 something like that,

00:34:05.840 but generally

00:34:06.440 speaking this is not

00:34:07.400 an influential

00:34:08.300 platform in two

00:34:11.100 directions.

00:34:12.680 It's influential in

00:34:14.080 my direction because

00:34:14.960 you can see me and

00:34:15.880 hear me, but I've

00:34:17.520 just got text to

00:34:18.480 look at.

00:34:19.160 So that handicaps 1.00

00:34:20.680 you quite a bit

00:34:21.300 compared to the

00:34:22.920 persuasion that I

00:34:23.660 can apply.

00:34:25.420 But anyway, so

00:34:30.080 here's the thing

00:34:33.260 that was bothering

00:34:34.500 me yesterday.

00:34:35.160 So we heard a

00:34:35.680 report that one

00:34:36.720 of the January

00:34:37.400 6th protesters is

00:34:40.080 going to get maybe

00:34:41.280 15 years for a

00:34:44.020 list of charges

00:34:44.920 that didn't look to

00:34:46.220 me like a 15-year

00:34:47.580 sentence, but I

00:34:49.640 guess there are

00:34:49.960 all these, what

00:34:52.100 do they call

00:34:52.520 them, will you

00:34:55.320 put on top of

00:34:55.880 the charges?

00:34:57.160 They're like

00:34:57.580 stimulants to the

00:34:59.560 charge, they're

00:35:00.880 extras, what's the

00:35:01.780 word?

00:35:02.900 Enhancements.

00:35:03.800 Yeah, so the judge

00:35:04.720 can add these

00:35:05.360 quote enhancements

00:35:06.500 to the sentence

00:35:09.920 and say, oh,

00:35:11.400 because of this or

00:35:12.340 that, it's extra

00:35:13.280 bad.

00:35:14.920 Now, here's the

00:35:16.980 problem.

00:35:17.880 In order for the

00:35:18.960 Democrats to sell

00:35:20.940 the January 6th

00:35:22.200 hoax, there's one

00:35:23.860 thing that has to

00:35:24.800 happen.

00:35:26.480 Really long jail

00:35:27.760 terms for at least

00:35:29.480 some of the

00:35:30.120 protesters, am I

00:35:31.320 right?

00:35:33.440 They really can't

00:35:34.580 sell the hoax

00:35:35.500 unless these people

00:35:37.360 go to jail for a 0.76

00:35:38.200 long time.

00:35:40.640 These people should

00:35:41.640 be freed immediately.

00:35:44.440 They should be

00:35:45.200 freed immediately,

00:35:47.620 irrespective of the

00:35:49.240 crimes they

00:35:49.760 committed.

00:35:51.500 Let me say it

00:35:52.280 again, and I would

00:35:53.020 say this if they

00:35:53.660 were Democrats,

00:35:54.400 right?

00:35:54.960 This is not team

00:35:56.060 play.

00:35:56.720 Well, it is team

00:35:57.360 play.

00:35:57.740 It's team America.

00:35:59.580 This is America.

00:36:02.100 In America, we do

00:36:04.320 not, we do not,

00:36:06.720 we do not, in

00:36:09.400 America, if we

00:36:11.120 want to stay

00:36:11.880 America, like if

00:36:13.720 you really want to

00:36:14.380 be America, we

00:36:16.220 do not set our

00:36:18.820 length of sentence

00:36:20.660 based on what the

00:36:22.460 Democrats need

00:36:23.360 politically.

00:36:25.520 We do not.

00:36:27.420 This is happening

00:36:28.200 right in front of

00:36:28.780 you.

00:36:29.740 Right in front of

00:36:30.740 you, it's very

00:36:31.440 obvious that these

00:36:32.320 are going to be

00:36:32.680 long sentences,

00:36:33.500 because if they

00:36:34.780 were dismissed,

00:36:37.100 what would the

00:36:37.880 January 6th

00:36:38.820 hearings look like

00:36:39.900 if while they

00:36:41.040 were happening,

00:36:42.780 the people accused

00:36:43.760 were getting

00:36:44.180 dismissed without

00:36:45.080 charges?

00:36:45.820 What would that

00:36:46.220 look like?

00:36:47.300 It would look like

00:36:48.240 the January 6th

00:36:49.120 thing was bullshit

00:36:49.880 because it is,

00:36:52.500 mostly.

00:36:53.320 I mean, you

00:36:54.040 know, let me say

00:36:55.420 the obvious thing

00:36:56.360 in case there's any

00:36:57.200 NPCs watching.

00:36:58.640 This is just for

00:36:59.400 the NPCs, right?

00:37:00.820 The smart people,

00:37:01.560 you can ignore this.

00:37:02.700 The real humans,

00:37:04.200 but the NPCs are

00:37:05.620 going to say,

00:37:06.440 well, what you're

00:37:07.040 ignoring, the

00:37:07.980 actual violence of

00:37:09.240 the people.

00:37:10.700 No, I'm not.

00:37:12.480 No, I'm not.

00:37:13.900 There's nobody in

00:37:14.840 the world who

00:37:15.540 thinks actually

00:37:16.360 violent people

00:37:17.240 should not be

00:37:18.680 dealt with by the

00:37:20.000 legal process.

00:37:20.980 Nobody.

00:37:22.120 So the NPCs, if

00:37:23.980 you're watching,

00:37:25.240 oh, you're

00:37:25.840 forgetting the

00:37:26.320 violence.

00:37:27.040 No, I'm not.

00:37:28.160 No, I'm not.

00:37:30.160 But we're not

00:37:32.440 America, if we

00:37:35.420 can watch

00:37:36.140 without acting

00:37:37.440 American citizens

00:37:39.560 who did make

00:37:40.220 some mistakes,

00:37:41.680 right?

00:37:42.280 I'm not going to

00:37:43.060 whitewash any of

00:37:44.840 their actions.

00:37:45.500 That's up to them.

00:37:47.100 Their actions are

00:37:47.940 just for them to

00:37:48.880 deal with.

00:37:49.740 Here's what I have

00:37:50.520 to deal with.

00:37:52.720 America, right?

00:37:54.660 Yeah, my problem

00:37:55.220 is America.

00:37:55.800 And America is a

00:37:58.020 little bit broken

00:37:58.600 right now, and

00:37:59.760 it's broken right

00:38:00.440 in front of us, and

00:38:01.900 what do we do?

00:38:03.500 What do Americans 0.57

00:38:04.960 do when something's

00:38:06.920 broken and it's

00:38:08.740 right fucking in

00:38:09.460 front of you?

00:38:11.400 You fix it.

00:38:13.440 There's only one way

00:38:14.400 to fix this.

00:38:16.480 You've got to vote

00:38:17.200 the Democrats out.

00:38:19.500 Because at least

00:38:20.300 you can pardon

00:38:20.880 people or whatever

00:38:21.740 the hell you're 0.83

00:38:22.180 going to do.

00:38:22.480 If there were no

00:38:25.880 other, well,

00:38:27.920 actually, let me

00:38:29.220 make a stand.

00:38:30.560 I'm going to make

00:38:31.260 a stand right now.

00:38:33.460 No matter who

00:38:34.540 the Republican,

00:38:35.540 well, it could be

00:38:36.040 even the Democrat,

00:38:37.220 but no matter

00:38:37.900 which candidate

00:38:38.680 says I'm going

00:38:39.680 to pardon all

00:38:40.500 the January 6th

00:38:41.500 protesters, has

00:38:43.120 my support.

00:38:45.040 And I'll even

00:38:45.860 change my opinion.

00:38:46.860 If Trump runs

00:38:47.840 and says I'll just

00:38:48.560 do that one thing,

00:38:50.300 he has my full

00:38:51.580 support.

00:38:53.160 I don't think

00:38:53.900 he should be

00:38:54.300 running because

00:38:54.800 he's too old.

00:38:56.060 I don't think

00:38:56.520 anybody should run

00:38:57.200 at that age.

00:38:58.540 But if he runs

00:38:59.560 and if he says,

00:39:02.560 you know, I got

00:39:03.140 all these other

00:39:03.760 ideas, but I'll

00:39:04.840 tell you one thing

00:39:05.420 I'm going to do

00:39:05.960 is I'm going to

00:39:07.020 fix this problem

00:39:08.020 of people being

00:39:09.520 sentenced based

00:39:10.480 on Democrat

00:39:11.360 political needs.

00:39:12.800 I'm just going

00:39:13.460 to fix that.

00:39:14.060 and this is so

00:39:22.000 important that I

00:39:24.760 could be a single

00:39:25.620 issue voter over

00:39:27.400 this.

00:39:28.120 I could also be

00:39:28.840 a single issue

00:39:29.400 voter over

00:39:30.260 fentanyl.

00:39:33.000 If a candidate

00:39:33.880 said, I got some

00:39:36.220 other policies,

00:39:37.960 you might like

00:39:38.460 them, you might

00:39:38.900 not, but I'm

00:39:39.960 going to drop a

00:39:40.560 drone on the

00:39:41.300 cartels.

00:39:42.480 Every time fentanyl

00:39:43.720 comes into this

00:39:44.300 country, I'm going

00:39:45.460 to make one, for

00:39:47.780 every death, I'll

00:39:48.620 send a rocket.

00:39:50.180 For every fentanyl

00:39:51.200 death, we'll send

00:39:51.920 one drone to blow

00:39:53.300 up some shit in the 0.78

00:39:54.260 cartel area.

00:39:55.720 Every time.

00:39:56.800 If you kill 100,000

00:39:58.560 Americans, we'll send 1.00

00:39:59.480 100,000 missiles into

00:40:02.380 Mexico.

00:40:03.920 One missile for one

00:40:04.980 death.

00:40:05.480 Or something like

00:40:06.140 that.

00:40:06.320 I'm just making

00:40:07.080 that up.

00:40:08.120 But if we had a

00:40:08.940 candidate who said,

00:40:10.260 you know, I'm just

00:40:11.000 going to solve this

00:40:11.900 one problem, and I

00:40:12.940 don't care if I have

00:40:13.620 to invade Mexico to 0.86

00:40:14.740 do it.

00:40:15.560 And by the way, I

00:40:16.900 would support a

00:40:17.540 candidate who said

00:40:18.280 he would invade

00:40:18.840 Mexico.

00:40:20.220 Let me say that

00:40:20.980 directly.

00:40:22.080 I'm in favor of

00:40:23.080 invading Mexico 0.99

00:40:23.940 militarily.

00:40:28.200 Just to say

00:40:28.880 directly, I'm in

00:40:30.360 favor of militarily

00:40:31.700 invading Mexico.

00:40:33.760 Because it's not

00:40:34.380 really a government

00:40:35.380 government.

00:40:35.960 It's a narco 0.82

00:40:36.800 government.

00:40:37.940 They're taking

00:40:38.660 100,000 of our

00:40:40.560 people.

00:40:41.700 If Trump ran for

00:40:42.980 president on invading

00:40:44.160 Mexico, I'd vote 0.92

00:40:44.900 for him.

00:40:47.260 Now, if Mexico 0.91

00:40:48.180 wanted to do

00:40:48.840 something about it

00:40:49.800 to avoid being

00:40:51.240 invaded, they 1.00

00:40:52.740 should do that

00:40:53.180 right away.

00:40:54.200 I'd even help

00:40:55.000 them do it.

00:40:56.180 Help them fund

00:40:56.880 it.

00:40:57.720 Give them some

00:40:58.220 resources.

00:40:59.080 Let them do what

00:41:00.420 they can to become

00:41:01.160 an independent,

00:41:02.620 strong ally.

00:41:03.840 But at the

00:41:04.340 moment, I would

00:41:04.960 support a

00:41:05.360 candidate who

00:41:05.920 said, invade

00:41:06.700 Mexico militarily.

00:41:08.860 Absolutely.

00:41:09.680 In a heartbeat.

00:41:10.920 I wouldn't even

00:41:11.520 hesitate.

00:41:14.900 So, those are

00:41:15.940 my big issues.

00:41:17.640 Freeing the

00:41:18.240 January 6th people

00:41:19.400 who are overcharged.

00:41:20.820 Again, we're not

00:41:22.260 forgiving any real

00:41:23.220 crimes.

00:41:24.140 They're just

00:41:24.560 obviously overcharged

00:41:25.880 for Democrat

00:41:27.220 political purposes.

00:41:28.440 It's just obvious.

00:41:29.380 You can't do this

00:41:30.140 right in front of

00:41:30.740 us.

00:41:31.560 Right?

00:41:32.480 It's like, it's

00:41:33.820 one thing to

00:41:35.200 fuck Americans 0.95

00:41:36.220 like privately

00:41:37.500 and I don't hear

00:41:38.460 about it.

00:41:39.120 But if you do it

00:41:39.980 right in front of

00:41:40.680 me, I'm not

00:41:42.020 going to let you

00:41:43.020 fuck Americans 0.95

00:41:43.940 right in front of

00:41:44.680 me.

00:41:46.300 That's going to be

00:41:47.720 noticed.

00:41:48.360 Here's the other

00:41:51.600 story that, I

00:41:52.740 don't know, it's

00:41:53.520 just amazing what

00:41:54.600 the public can be

00:41:55.560 sold.

00:41:58.260 And I saw Kyle

00:41:59.640 Becker was

00:42:00.340 responding the same

00:42:01.880 way I would have.

00:42:02.980 So there's a story

00:42:03.800 now, and I need a

00:42:05.340 fact check on this.

00:42:06.520 Can somebody verify

00:42:07.380 this is really true?

00:42:08.800 So I heard it from

00:42:09.420 one source on

00:42:10.280 Twitter.

00:42:11.100 So, you know, use

00:42:12.960 your judgment.

00:42:13.360 But apparently

00:42:15.200 there's a story

00:42:16.180 that Clinton

00:42:17.200 campaign lawyer

00:42:18.100 Michael Sussman,

00:42:19.920 who allegedly

00:42:22.360 ran three

00:42:23.060 fraudulent

00:42:23.900 operations against

00:42:24.860 Trump in 2016

00:42:25.880 and 17,

00:42:26.780 traveled to

00:42:27.480 London and

00:42:28.760 met with, you

00:42:30.280 know, spies and

00:42:31.020 stuff at the

00:42:32.280 British Spy

00:42:33.800 Center, GCHQ,

00:42:36.180 and the British

00:42:37.160 eavesdropping

00:42:37.940 agency that

00:42:38.620 provided materials

00:42:39.840 to CIA chief

00:42:40.860 John Brennan.

00:42:41.580 So we know

00:42:42.700 that John

00:42:44.900 Brennan said

00:42:45.540 he did get

00:42:46.840 some stuff

00:42:47.360 from Britain.

00:42:49.180 We know

00:42:49.800 that Christopher

00:42:50.340 Steele was

00:42:50.960 an ex-British 0.82

00:42:52.440 intelligence

00:42:53.000 officer, and

00:42:54.580 we were sold

00:42:55.440 on the concept

00:42:56.960 that there's

00:42:57.520 such a thing

00:42:58.120 as an ex-British

00:43:00.260 intelligence

00:43:00.920 officer, or

00:43:02.120 professional.

00:43:03.980 Do you think

00:43:04.600 there's such a

00:43:05.140 thing as an

00:43:05.720 ex-British 0.85

00:43:07.580 intelligence

00:43:08.840 person?

00:43:10.640 No.

00:43:11.580 Now, I

00:43:13.160 believe he's

00:43:13.600 not on the

00:43:14.020 payroll.

00:43:16.100 I believe he's

00:43:16.960 not on the

00:43:17.380 payroll.

00:43:18.960 Well, that's

00:43:19.380 not like being

00:43:19.860 an ex.

00:43:21.280 Do you think

00:43:21.920 that he could

00:43:22.360 do something

00:43:22.820 that his

00:43:23.300 masters didn't

00:43:24.420 like?

00:43:25.360 No.

00:43:26.500 I mean, not

00:43:27.040 in hope to

00:43:27.640 have a

00:43:28.240 relationship with

00:43:29.000 him in the

00:43:29.340 future, which

00:43:30.440 I'm sure was

00:43:30.940 valuable to

00:43:31.480 him.

00:43:32.540 So we

00:43:33.780 never say

00:43:34.780 directly that

00:43:36.200 it's obvious

00:43:36.800 that Great

00:43:37.260 Brennan was

00:43:37.800 involved in the

00:43:38.540 Russia collusion

00:43:39.200 hoax, if not

00:43:40.400 completely behind

00:43:41.260 it, with

00:43:42.680 Hillary Clinton.

00:43:44.280 But why do

00:43:45.020 we act like

00:43:45.600 it's not

00:43:46.500 there?

00:43:48.340 It's right

00:43:48.900 there.

00:43:50.260 Christopher

00:43:50.600 Steele was

00:43:51.980 an ex-

00:43:52.740 British spy.

00:43:56.840 Why don't we

00:43:57.840 call it

00:43:58.360 British

00:43:59.540 interference?

00:44:00.980 It's just

00:44:01.720 crazy that we

00:44:02.540 all agree that

00:44:03.700 it's Russian

00:44:04.140 interference when

00:44:05.540 the actual

00:44:06.420 reporting is

00:44:07.180 British

00:44:07.460 interference.

00:44:07.900 we're looking

00:44:09.000 right at it.

00:44:10.200 The news has

00:44:11.000 reached a point

00:44:11.580 where they can

00:44:12.060 put it right in

00:44:12.580 front of you

00:44:12.980 and tell you

00:44:13.400 it's not

00:44:13.760 there.

00:44:15.300 Here's all the

00:44:16.620 Brits being 1.00

00:44:18.100 behind this

00:44:18.680 Russia collusion

00:44:19.340 thing, but it

00:44:20.840 was Russia.

00:44:22.140 Here's all the

00:44:22.820 evidence it was

00:44:23.480 really Great

00:44:23.960 Britain.

00:44:24.780 Let's talk

00:44:25.240 about Russia.

00:44:26.740 We can actually

00:44:27.360 do that, like

00:44:28.660 right in front of

00:44:29.360 you.

00:44:30.420 All of the

00:44:31.120 information is

00:44:31.680 right there.

00:44:32.920 It's obvious

00:44:33.760 Great Britain was 0.91

00:44:34.840 involved in some

00:44:36.400 level.

00:44:37.380 Obvious.

00:44:40.180 But we just

00:44:41.000 act like it's

00:44:41.620 not true.

00:44:43.020 All right.

00:44:45.380 San Francisco

00:44:46.160 is trying to,

00:44:48.600 I guess the

00:44:49.000 mayor is beyond

00:44:49.560 this, they've

00:44:50.420 got a proposal

00:44:51.080 in which the

00:44:51.800 police would be

00:44:52.640 able to

00:44:53.080 continuously

00:44:53.840 monitor

00:44:54.900 neighborhoods and

00:44:57.540 cities through

00:44:59.000 your personal

00:45:00.540 security system.

00:45:04.560 What?

00:45:05.240 That's right.

00:45:06.980 If you have a

00:45:07.660 ring camera that's

00:45:08.620 connected to a

00:45:09.220 network, the

00:45:10.400 San Francisco

00:45:10.960 police, this is a

00:45:12.740 proposal, would

00:45:14.000 like to, at any

00:45:14.940 time they want,

00:45:16.460 look through your

00:45:17.360 camera, total

00:45:19.200 access to it at

00:45:20.060 any time, and

00:45:21.520 see what you

00:45:22.220 would see if you

00:45:22.840 were standing on

00:45:23.380 your front porch.

00:45:24.660 And the idea is

00:45:25.460 that once they

00:45:26.360 had access to

00:45:27.040 all this

00:45:27.500 surveillance, yeah,

00:45:31.960 what about your

00:45:32.480 indoor cameras, you

00:45:33.560 ask, quite

00:45:34.880 reasonably, quite

00:45:36.880 reasonably.

00:45:37.940 And do you

00:45:38.400 think the police

00:45:39.020 would misuse this

00:45:40.140 ability to see

00:45:40.840 what's happening

00:45:41.340 in your house?

00:45:43.180 Of course.

00:45:45.340 Of course.

00:45:46.640 Somehow.

00:45:47.080 Of course.

00:45:47.660 Of course.

00:45:49.600 Yeah.

00:45:50.920 And don't you

00:45:51.800 think they could

00:45:52.220 tell when you're

00:45:52.740 home?

00:45:54.340 Yeah.

00:45:55.300 The police will

00:45:56.040 know when you're

00:45:56.520 home.

00:45:57.740 Do you want the

00:45:58.280 police to know

00:45:58.900 when you're home?

00:45:59.380 Now, I'm a big

00:46:01.280 supporter of the

00:46:01.960 police.

00:46:03.640 Love the police.

00:46:05.280 It is, however, a

00:46:06.460 fact that there's

00:46:08.080 not much difference

00:46:08.940 between a police

00:46:10.320 officer and a

00:46:11.080 criminal.

00:46:13.560 Now, there's an

00:46:14.400 important difference,

00:46:15.600 which is one is on

00:46:16.540 the side of the law

00:46:17.340 and one is not, but

00:46:19.080 in terms of their

00:46:19.740 personalities, not

00:46:21.280 that different.

00:46:22.660 You know, the

00:46:23.280 ability to do

00:46:24.760 dangerous things for

00:46:26.800 benefit, for really

00:46:28.280 not that much

00:46:28.860 benefit, you 0.65

00:46:30.180 know, if you

00:46:30.740 assume they're

00:46:31.360 underpaid, which I

00:46:32.400 assume.

00:46:33.540 So, I don't

00:46:35.260 know.

00:46:36.120 If you said, what

00:46:37.160 is a group of

00:46:37.900 people you at

00:46:38.600 least want to

00:46:39.660 know if you're

00:46:41.020 home, number

00:46:42.620 one would be

00:46:43.360 criminals, right?

00:46:44.920 The number one

00:46:45.880 people you want

00:46:46.960 to know, you

00:46:47.740 don't want to

00:46:48.160 know if you're

00:46:48.740 home or not,

00:46:50.220 is criminals.

00:46:51.100 But what is the

00:46:51.820 number two

00:46:52.660 organization, the

00:46:54.700 second group that

00:46:56.320 you would most not

00:46:57.440 want to know

00:46:58.060 about what's

00:46:58.560 happening around

00:46:59.140 your home?

00:47:00.580 Isn't that the

00:47:01.380 police?

00:47:03.060 And it's the

00:47:03.860 police because I

00:47:04.540 wouldn't trust

00:47:05.080 them, not because

00:47:07.040 they'd see my

00:47:07.820 private stuff, which

00:47:08.700 is a good enough

00:47:09.420 reason.

00:47:11.020 Somebody says, my

00:47:11.900 wife.

00:47:12.400 Yeah, your ex-wife.

00:47:14.800 Do you think

00:47:15.800 anybody will be a

00:47:17.300 police officer with

00:47:18.340 access to the

00:47:19.140 system who also

00:47:20.960 has an ex who

00:47:23.060 has that system?

00:47:24.780 Imagine the

00:47:25.500 police officers being

00:47:27.000 able to see their

00:47:27.920 ex-wife or

00:47:29.540 husband and

00:47:30.980 their new lover

00:47:32.480 visiting the

00:47:34.780 house.

00:47:35.960 Do you want

00:47:36.720 any of that?

00:47:39.460 The amount of

00:47:41.200 intrusion into

00:47:42.720 your personal life

00:47:43.560 is just through

00:47:44.520 the roof.

00:47:46.180 Now, here's

00:47:46.660 something that I

00:47:47.280 would be okay

00:47:49.580 with.

00:47:50.680 If the police

00:47:51.860 said, optionally,

00:47:53.500 if you want to put a

00:47:54.440 separate camera

00:47:55.160 system in front of

00:47:55.960 your house and

00:47:56.880 give us access to

00:47:57.860 it, but it's your

00:47:58.500 choice, it's got to

00:47:59.920 be a specific kind

00:48:00.960 where we can't get

00:48:01.740 to any of your

00:48:02.400 other cameras or

00:48:03.300 anything, so it's

00:48:04.180 got to be a walled

00:48:05.140 off system.

00:48:05.980 If you'd like to

00:48:06.840 have that kind of a

00:48:07.520 system and you

00:48:09.940 agree, then we'll

00:48:11.960 be able to look at

00:48:12.820 it.

00:48:13.240 But you have to

00:48:13.860 agree, and you

00:48:15.020 have to know

00:48:15.360 exactly what they

00:48:16.080 have access to and

00:48:16.900 what they don't.

00:48:17.480 I could imagine

00:48:20.420 having a Ring

00:48:24.020 doorbell, let's 0.92

00:48:24.760 just say, and

00:48:26.220 let's say if Ring

00:48:26.960 could somehow wall

00:48:28.160 off its software so

00:48:29.500 that the police

00:48:31.120 could only look

00:48:31.800 through the front

00:48:32.340 door if you've

00:48:32.960 got another camera

00:48:33.600 somewhere.

00:48:34.980 Could you imagine

00:48:35.560 labeling it law

00:48:37.880 enforcement monitored?

00:48:40.540 That would be

00:48:41.260 better, wouldn't

00:48:41.740 it?

00:48:42.460 Like if you were

00:48:43.080 worried about your

00:48:43.700 own security and

00:48:45.160 you had a Ring

00:48:45.640 camera, that's 0.87

00:48:46.300 good.

00:48:46.580 But if you

00:48:47.760 had a Ring

00:48:48.100 camera that you

00:48:48.720 knew the police

00:48:49.220 could look at in

00:48:49.920 real time, that's

00:48:51.760 a little scarier.

00:48:53.820 Right?

00:48:54.260 As long as

00:48:54.720 everything you did

00:48:55.260 was voluntary,

00:48:56.840 that's a different

00:48:58.680 situation.

00:48:59.660 But if they're

00:49:00.800 going to force

00:49:01.480 this, no, I

00:49:04.160 don't think it

00:49:04.780 could get approved.

00:49:05.880 Do you?

00:49:06.660 Do you think

00:49:07.040 there's any way

00:49:07.500 that could get

00:49:07.960 approved?

00:49:09.200 If the resident

00:49:10.540 doesn't, you

00:49:12.240 think there is?

00:49:13.340 I mean, maybe.

00:49:15.560 Maybe.

00:49:16.580 It seems like a

00:49:17.320 long shot.

00:49:20.220 But maybe.

00:49:23.600 All right.

00:49:24.580 I could tell you

00:49:25.560 when the Ukraine-Russia 0.69

00:49:27.080 war will end if you

00:49:28.500 could give me the

00:49:29.240 following information.

00:49:30.900 And I know you

00:49:31.500 can't, but maybe

00:49:33.220 someday somebody can.

00:49:34.660 It goes like this.

00:49:35.900 How quickly can

00:49:36.940 Russia find and

00:49:39.040 spin up new ammo

00:49:40.700 warehouses?

00:49:42.400 Right?

00:49:42.540 Because their ammo

00:49:43.160 warehouses are being

00:49:44.040 targeted for destruction

00:49:45.300 by Ukraine, who

00:49:47.100 now has new,

00:49:48.540 accurate, long-range

00:49:49.880 weapons to get to

00:49:51.260 all their ammo

00:49:51.780 depots.

00:49:52.760 And if their ammo

00:49:53.660 depots were beyond

00:49:54.660 that range, they

00:49:55.940 also wouldn't be

00:49:56.680 useful.

00:49:58.080 Right?

00:49:58.700 So now Ukraine looks 0.83

00:49:59.980 like they can get to

00:50:00.920 any useful ammo

00:50:03.380 dumps that Russia 0.99

00:50:05.020 would have on Russia's

00:50:06.460 side of the territory.

00:50:07.520 Now the question is

00:50:08.980 this.

00:50:09.680 We have X many

00:50:10.960 missiles and rocket

00:50:12.800 launchers that can do

00:50:13.980 that level of

00:50:14.760 accuracy.

00:50:16.140 Is it the, what's

00:50:17.320 the name of them?

00:50:17.980 The H-I-M-A-S or 1.00

00:50:20.300 something?

00:50:21.220 There's a specific

00:50:21.980 type of weapon.

00:50:23.260 So they're being

00:50:23.840 shipped to Ukraine,

00:50:24.660 and I think they have

00:50:25.260 nine, hi Mars.

00:50:27.160 H-I-M-A-R-S. 1.00

00:50:29.600 So I think Ukraine has 0.83

00:50:31.600 nine of them.

00:50:33.260 People are saying,

00:50:34.200 can we get a hundred?

00:50:34.880 Now, carried a gun

00:50:40.360 in the capital, and he

00:50:41.320 threatened to kill his

00:50:42.060 family if they turned

00:50:43.040 him, they turned him

00:50:44.940 in, right?

00:50:48.560 So the warning there

00:50:50.760 was that the person

00:50:52.500 who was overcharged

00:50:53.640 at the capital, there

00:50:55.160 was some extenuating

00:50:56.100 situation there.

00:50:58.100 Maybe, right?

00:50:59.740 But in general, the

00:51:01.640 overcharging in general,

00:51:02.900 there will be specific

00:51:04.100 cases where people

00:51:04.860 where there's a real

00:51:05.800 argument there.

00:51:07.200 All right, but getting

00:51:07.600 back to my point,

00:51:09.480 how many rockets can

00:51:11.880 a high Mars, one

00:51:14.520 high Mars system

00:51:15.520 send per day?

00:51:17.980 Could they send a

00:51:19.540 hundred rockets per

00:51:20.560 day?

00:51:22.000 What do you think?

00:51:23.960 230?

00:51:25.520 They could do at

00:51:26.840 least dozens, right?

00:51:28.560 Now, how fast can the 0.98

00:51:31.100 Russians build ammo 0.99

00:51:32.620 warehouses as they're

00:51:34.860 being destroyed?

00:51:35.500 Now, I'm making an

00:51:37.360 assumption here that

00:51:37.960 we're always going to

00:51:38.720 know where they are

00:51:39.640 because we have eyes in

00:51:41.460 the sky and we've got

00:51:42.600 probably just tons of,

00:51:44.520 you know, local intel.

00:51:45.900 Because remember, Russia 0.92

00:51:46.940 is occupying an area in

00:51:49.600 which not everybody being

00:51:50.780 occupied is happy about

00:51:51.880 it.

00:51:52.800 So in theory, the locals

00:51:54.920 should be plenty happy to

00:51:56.780 say, you know, I saw some

00:51:57.880 ammo trucks heading into

00:51:58.880 that building.

00:51:59.360 So I feel like we would

00:52:01.320 always know where they

00:52:02.140 are.

00:52:04.000 And I would also say that

00:52:05.720 Russia's military capability

00:52:07.140 would basically disappear if

00:52:09.000 their ammo did, right?

00:52:10.880 Now, everybody adjusts.

00:52:12.200 Maybe they'd threaten with

00:52:13.760 nukes or something.

00:52:14.880 So we don't know what would

00:52:15.840 happen.

00:52:17.100 But in theory, the number of

00:52:19.920 HIMAR missiles blowing up a

00:52:22.740 number of ammo depots, if

00:52:24.840 you have enough missiles, and

00:52:26.480 you know, the number of

00:52:27.320 missiles is increasing as

00:52:28.600 they're getting more of

00:52:29.320 them.

00:52:30.280 And the rate at which

00:52:32.080 Russia can replace them 0.99

00:52:33.940 at some point will be

00:52:36.020 lower than the rate at

00:52:37.840 which they can be

00:52:38.480 destroyed.

00:52:39.960 As soon as that becomes a

00:52:41.400 permanent situation, which

00:52:42.720 seems very likely, the war 0.90

00:52:45.000 is over.

00:52:46.560 I feel like we now know

00:52:48.740 what it looks like.

00:52:50.560 Now, of course, anything

00:52:53.080 could be wrong, right?

00:52:54.560 Predicting war is sort of

00:52:57.500 silly, because it's always

00:52:59.000 based on surprises and

00:53:00.340 adjustments and, you know,

00:53:01.800 things you don't see

00:53:02.580 coming and the fog of war

00:53:03.900 and who knows if anything

00:53:05.220 we've heard about the war is

00:53:06.160 even true at this point.

00:53:08.420 So, but it does seem to me

00:53:11.420 that the number of HIMARs

00:53:13.780 compared to how rapidly

00:53:15.220 Russia can build new depots

00:53:17.180 that are functional, I think

00:53:19.700 it's down to that, right?

00:53:20.620 Am I right?

00:53:22.680 It's down to that.

00:53:24.200 And what appears to be what

00:53:26.300 is going to happen is that

00:53:28.080 Russia will start to think 0.94

00:53:30.520 that they're lucky if they

00:53:31.640 can keep what they've got.

00:53:34.180 And they'll make a deal that

00:53:35.740 doesn't make them happy at the

00:53:37.060 same time the Ukrainians will 1.00

00:53:38.180 make a deal that makes them

00:53:39.140 very unhappy too, which is a

00:53:40.920 good deal.

00:53:41.700 Makes everybody unhappy.

00:53:46.900 Somebody asked if I was

00:53:48.020 registered to vote.

00:53:48.940 The answer is, I don't remember

00:53:50.760 if I'm registered, do you

00:53:52.900 register once or do you

00:53:53.980 have to register every time

00:53:55.100 you move?

00:53:56.420 How does that work?

00:53:57.880 But I don't vote.

00:54:00.940 I'm not registered as a

00:54:02.580 Republican or, well, I take

00:54:04.120 that back.

00:54:05.320 I might be registered as

00:54:06.360 something.

00:54:07.500 I don't remember.

00:54:08.620 If I registered as either a

00:54:10.360 Democrat or a Republican,

00:54:12.700 it wouldn't have meant

00:54:13.600 anything to me.

00:54:14.680 It would not have been an

00:54:15.760 indication of who I was

00:54:16.800 going to vote for.

00:54:17.900 If I probably said

00:54:19.180 independent, wouldn't.

00:54:20.760 Because I have registered

00:54:21.820 in the past.

00:54:23.340 I don't know if I'm

00:54:24.240 registered at the moment.

00:54:26.260 And I don't have a plan to

00:54:27.840 vote.

00:54:28.680 The reason I don't vote is

00:54:30.180 different from your reasons.

00:54:31.780 It's because I do this

00:54:32.780 publicly.

00:54:34.300 I don't think you should vote

00:54:35.440 if you're going to try to be

00:54:37.420 objective about anything.

00:54:39.200 Now, it's hard enough to be

00:54:40.440 objective about anything.

00:54:41.640 And I don't think I hit that

00:54:43.020 standard.

00:54:43.560 I wish I did.

00:54:44.220 But for me, there would be a

00:54:48.460 bias that would occur if I

00:54:49.940 voted that would increase

00:54:52.780 whatever bias I'm already

00:54:54.000 operating under and struggling

00:54:55.680 against.

00:54:57.960 The rest of you, you should

00:54:59.200 vote.

00:55:00.200 I recommend it.

00:55:01.740 If you're talking in public

00:55:03.080 about politics, at least give a

00:55:06.120 thought to not voting.

00:55:07.800 I wouldn't want you to give up

00:55:09.760 your right to vote.

00:55:10.820 If it makes you feel good, go

00:55:12.160 ahead and do it.

00:55:12.840 But just be aware that casting

00:55:15.120 an actual vote, like acting

00:55:16.700 with your body, makes it

00:55:19.040 really, really hard later to

00:55:20.400 say that you made a mistake.

00:55:22.480 Right?

00:55:23.260 If I tell you I think this

00:55:24.600 candidate's better than

00:55:25.500 another one, then it turns

00:55:26.460 down I'm wrong.

00:55:27.860 Well, it's going to be hard

00:55:28.760 for me to say I was wrong,

00:55:30.260 but at least I didn't vote

00:55:31.860 for him.

00:55:33.020 Do you see it now?

00:55:35.160 Well, okay, that candidate I

00:55:36.960 was pretty sure would be the

00:55:38.060 good one, turned down poorly,

00:55:39.840 but at least I didn't vote for

00:55:42.060 him.

00:55:43.300 Do you get it?

00:55:44.560 That would make me more

00:55:45.620 biased.

00:55:46.760 There's no way I would act the

00:55:48.040 same if I had voted for him.

00:55:50.720 Right?

00:55:51.060 If I voted for him, I'd feel

00:55:52.580 like I had to defend it to the

00:55:54.180 death, even though logically I

00:55:55.920 shouldn't.

00:55:59.400 Revolver has an article

00:56:01.040 basically mocking the New York

00:56:03.320 Times coverage of the Ray Epps

00:56:05.220 situation.

00:56:06.540 So you all know Ray Epps was

00:56:08.020 caught on camera inciting

00:56:09.540 protesters to go into the

00:56:11.220 Capitol on January 6th.

00:56:13.100 And he seemed to be, if not

00:56:15.120 the most vocal organizer,

00:56:17.460 certainly one of them.

00:56:18.880 I think the most, right?

00:56:20.540 In terms of going inside the

00:56:22.140 Capitol, I think he was the

00:56:23.060 most vocal.

00:56:25.140 I think he had a megaphone and

00:56:27.020 everything else, did he not?

00:56:29.120 And fact check me on that.

00:56:30.640 Did he have a megaphone?

00:56:31.460 I think I may have just imagined

00:56:34.740 that, right?

00:56:37.260 Somebody says yes?

00:56:38.720 Or are you, I'm seeing yeses and

00:56:40.540 nos.

00:56:42.600 Yeah.

00:56:43.160 Isn't that interesting?

00:56:44.480 So some of us have false

00:56:46.760 memories, and it might be me.

00:56:50.280 Yeah, I think I've conflated him

00:56:51.900 with other people.

00:56:52.960 There was a megaphone person there,

00:56:54.400 but I don't know if it was him.

00:56:55.480 Anyway, we won't settle this right

00:56:56.800 away, but it doesn't matter.

00:56:57.620 And here's some of the things

00:57:01.720 that the Revolver story says

00:57:03.260 about the New York Times wrote

00:57:05.640 what, to many of us, our

00:57:08.540 impression is that the New York

00:57:10.720 Times was trying to cover for

00:57:13.100 some intelligence agency and run

00:57:15.900 a cover story that would make

00:57:17.580 their operative, allegedly, look

00:57:21.560 like he was just an innocent

00:57:22.480 citizen.

00:57:23.640 So it looks, to many of us,

00:57:26.480 can't prove it.

00:57:27.620 But it looks like the New York

00:57:28.560 Times is just working for an

00:57:29.800 intelligence agency to write a

00:57:31.760 fake story about Ray Epps to

00:57:33.760 cover their tracks.

00:57:35.040 That's what it looks like.

00:57:36.420 Now, do I believe that's what

00:57:37.900 happened?

00:57:38.520 I don't know.

00:57:40.380 But the New York Times has been

00:57:42.240 credibly accused and proven to be,

00:57:45.980 you know, untrustworthy on a

00:57:48.040 number of topics of great interest

00:57:50.140 to the public, from weapons of

00:57:52.160 mass destruction and, you know,

00:57:53.880 you name it, Russia collusion.

00:57:55.160 I mean, they have a long record of

00:57:58.580 clearly backing fake news.

00:58:01.380 Clearly.

00:58:03.000 So, when they say Ray Epps is just a

00:58:05.720 citizen and there's nothing to worry

00:58:07.720 about here, do we believe them?

00:58:10.900 Well, I will tell you that just this

00:58:13.460 week, my famous Democrat friend who I

00:58:16.640 mentioned anonymously, a smart person

00:58:19.600 that I often have conversations with

00:58:21.060 about politics, or I have in the past.

00:58:23.640 And he told me in the context of some

00:58:26.260 other conversation, it didn't have

00:58:27.940 anything to do with January 6th, I

00:58:29.820 don't think, but he told me that it was

00:58:31.920 in the New York Times and therefore,

00:58:33.800 you know, it was reliable.

00:58:36.120 And I thought, what?

00:58:38.480 In 2022, how could you possibly say that?

00:58:44.660 In 2022, there's like an adult human who

00:58:49.040 pays attention, who believes that because

00:58:51.380 it was in the New York Times, that makes

00:58:53.800 it very likely to be true.

00:58:56.020 Not 100%, nothing's 100%, but very likely

00:58:59.120 to be true because it was in the New York

00:59:00.440 Times.

00:59:01.460 To which I say, well, if you've been alive

00:59:03.800 for the last five years, you would know

00:59:06.500 that if it's a political story that favors

00:59:09.920 one side or the other, it's not going

00:59:12.960 to be true.

00:59:14.460 It's, you know, maybe facts and dates

00:59:16.080 are true, but the political spin, I don't

00:59:19.780 think anybody expects that to be true.

00:59:22.300 That's a spin like everything else.

00:59:26.540 So here's what, here's some quotes from

00:59:28.620 the Revolver article.

00:59:29.860 You can see it in my Twitter feed.

00:59:31.920 I tweeted it.

00:59:32.480 The only problem is that Ray Epps didn't

00:59:35.400 go to Trump's speech.

00:59:37.260 So apparently there's evidence that he

00:59:39.740 planned the protest, like he had advanced

00:59:44.340 planning, and we know that, that he would

00:59:46.900 be part of the protest.

00:59:48.240 He went all the way to Washington and did not

00:59:51.240 attend the speech, Trump's speech.

00:59:54.700 He went directly to the Capitol, where he

00:59:57.180 immediately started organizing them to go in,

01:00:00.260 which apparently he had talked about in

01:00:02.100 advance with somebody.

01:00:05.000 All right.

01:00:05.800 So the guy who went there innocently didn't

01:00:08.380 even go there for the reason that people

01:00:11.560 went there.

01:00:12.520 He had a different agenda.

01:00:14.560 All right.

01:00:17.840 And it says, quote, the Revolver piece

01:00:20.380 says, the Times piece attempts to wave off

01:00:22.340 Epps' January 6th participation as negligible,

01:00:26.260 negligible, similar to those who committed minor

01:00:29.660 offenses and weren't charged.

01:00:31.900 Yet Epps is the key person caught on video

01:00:34.620 with an advanced plan to go into the Capitol.

01:00:38.060 He's the primary person on video organizing

01:00:41.740 people to go into the Capitol, and we know he

01:00:44.520 had an advanced plan to do it.

01:00:46.900 And he's being treated like people who trespassed.

01:00:51.140 There's no correlation.

01:00:52.960 That's not just a person who trespassed.

01:00:54.540 That's somebody with a plan.

01:01:00.700 And even the New York Times, who dismisses the

01:01:09.220 conspiracy theories about Ray Epps, this is

01:01:12.360 according to Revolver as well, refers to Epps in

01:01:15.940 its own definitive video documentary.

01:01:18.740 So this is New York Times against New York Times.

01:01:21.120 They refer to him as a rioter for whom storming the

01:01:24.580 Capitol was part of the plot all along.

01:01:28.840 So the original New York Times reporting was that he's

01:01:31.500 obviously a key member of the plot, and he was, you know,

01:01:36.040 planned to go into the Capitol all along.

01:01:38.080 So New York Times has said this directly in the reporting,

01:01:41.080 and now they're reporting that he was basically a minor

01:01:43.320 person like other people who were released.

01:01:45.800 And then, according to the Revolver, this is more

01:01:52.340 opinionated, I think, that the New York Times ominously

01:01:57.360 suggests Epps will sue news outlets for defamation if they keep

01:02:02.040 saying things about him.

01:02:04.100 So doesn't this look exactly like the New York Times is doing a

01:02:07.960 cover piece for an intelligence agency?

01:02:09.980 Not that they are.

01:02:12.220 That's something I can't confirm.

01:02:15.080 But it looks exactly like it.

01:02:18.720 I don't know.

01:02:19.940 Unless there's something I'm missing.

01:02:27.920 Here's the most interesting part.

01:02:30.340 Revolver asked this.

01:02:31.520 I wonder if the author of the New York Times piece, Alan

01:02:35.080 Feuer, could clarify for the record, did he ask Epps if he had

01:02:40.720 any association with any intelligence agencies or cutouts of

01:02:45.060 such agencies?

01:02:46.300 If so, what did he say?

01:02:48.860 If not, why not?

01:02:50.240 And I read this, and I thought, wait a minute.

01:02:53.860 The New York Times did an article on the topic of whether Ray

01:02:57.980 Epps was working for an intelligence agency.

01:03:02.100 That was the point of the piece, and they didn't ask him if he

01:03:05.200 did, or if they did ask him, they didn't report his answer, that

01:03:10.640 being the only point, and they interviewed him, and they didn't

01:03:15.400 ask him if he's part of an intelligence agency, the only question

01:03:19.660 that mattered.

01:03:21.060 Now, here's the funny part.

01:03:23.500 If Revolver had not helpfully pointed out that he hadn't asked the

01:03:26.860 question, I don't know if I would have noticed.

01:03:31.020 Would you have noticed?

01:03:32.420 If you read a whole article about how he definitely totally wasn't an

01:03:37.180 intelligence operator, just a normal person, would you have noticed that

01:03:41.820 they never asked him the question and then reported the answer?

01:03:45.360 I don't know if I would.

01:03:46.900 I think that that is so clever that I would not have noticed.

01:03:51.500 Now, Revolver has more of an interest in this because they reported on

01:03:56.780 Ray Epps, so they're also defending their own reporting.

01:04:01.020 So they looked a little closer, and they noticed, and I didn't even

01:04:04.020 notice that.

01:04:05.600 Did any of you know that, that the New York Times did that article and

01:04:09.120 didn't report on whether they asked him if he was a member of an

01:04:12.420 intelligence organization?

01:04:14.540 We didn't notice that, did we?

01:04:16.320 Think about that.

01:04:17.120 Oh, you did notice.

01:04:20.720 Somebody says they noticed.

01:04:22.800 Good for you.

01:04:24.660 All right.

01:04:27.020 Apparently, a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from some kind of

01:04:33.040 ruling that would allow transgender students to use the same restrooms as 0.97

01:04:37.340 their identification, but also to allow transgender to join sports teams

01:04:42.800 corresponding with their chosen genders.

01:04:45.260 And the federal judge has blocked it.

01:04:49.880 Now, I would like to reframe this again.

01:04:58.180 I think we ought to look at the sports as what's broken and not the athletes.

01:05:03.320 And every time that we look at the athlete as, is the athlete good?

01:05:07.140 You know, is that fair for them to do what they're doing?

01:05:09.160 Or is there something wrong with the athlete?

01:05:11.200 Every time we're focusing on the athlete, we're just looking in the wrong

01:05:15.380 direction.

01:05:16.100 There's something wrong with how we organize sports that this is even a

01:05:19.160 question.

01:05:20.460 Why in the world are people not playing against people of equal ability?

01:05:26.400 When was that okay?

01:05:28.460 Why is it okay that your awkward kid who's not good at sports has to go to a

01:05:35.140 school in which only the gifted, physically capable people get to be heroes and they get

01:05:41.260 to be lauded for their accomplishments and they get all the boys and the girls and all

01:05:45.620 that?

01:05:46.740 Why is that fair?

01:05:48.520 Why is it fair that people of lower ability don't get to play on an organized sport in

01:05:53.420 the high school?

01:05:53.760 At least the ones with prestige.

01:05:55.360 They can play unorganized sports or lesser organized sports.

01:05:58.860 So I feel like we should just scrap the whole thing and say, how about people who have roughly

01:06:05.660 equal abilities play each other, right?

01:06:09.220 If you go to high school and the high school team you're playing against has Shaquille O'Neal,

01:06:13.680 you know, young Shaquille, on the other team, is that fair?

01:06:17.840 Should you even have a game?

01:06:19.800 What would be the point of playing?

01:06:21.740 Let's say your tallest guy on your team was 6'1 and you're playing against Shaquille O'Neal's

01:06:27.720 team in high school.

01:06:29.300 Are you going to win?

01:06:30.900 No.

01:06:31.980 No.

01:06:32.420 Because Shaquille, for whatever reason, is not like you.

01:06:35.560 He's not like anybody else.

01:06:36.960 So what would be even the point of playing those games?

01:06:38.980 It's like, what's the point of swimming against, you know, Leah Thomas if you're a woman? 0.54

01:06:43.680 What's the point?

01:06:45.140 Because you know how it's going to turn out.

01:06:46.740 So we don't have a problem of just, you know, trans on sports.

01:06:51.340 We have a problem of wildly out-of-the-norm athletes playing on sports.

01:06:58.860 The problem is athletes that are way out of the normal playing on the wrong team.

01:07:04.560 And the wrong team in this case just means ability.

01:07:06.740 It doesn't mean gender.

01:07:08.120 Why in the world do we care the gender of who's on the team?

01:07:10.600 Now, the whole idea that women need to get awards is just a bullshit woman thing. 1.00

01:07:17.380 Sorry.

01:07:17.860 Because if it worked the other way, probably you wouldn't see any change.

01:07:22.680 If women had always been the athletes, you know this is true. 1.00

01:07:26.560 If women had traditionally been the only ones who played sports, and socially we had adjusted to that, you know, to a time we adjusted that was right. 0.99

01:07:34.640 But then we got more aware and said, hey, men aren't playing sports. 0.95

01:07:40.020 How about get some men into these sports? 1.00

01:07:42.180 Do you think anybody would give a fuck?

01:07:44.380 No.

01:07:45.760 Nobody would give a shit if sports had always been about women and men wanted to get it. 1.00

01:07:51.120 Nobody would change the law for that.

01:07:53.400 Of course not.

01:07:53.920 It's only because men were, you know, and boys were playing sports.

01:07:58.660 Unfairly.

01:07:59.360 I'm not saying that was a good deal.

01:08:00.860 It was very unfair for the women. 1.00

01:08:02.400 But the reason it changed is because it was women asking for it. 1.00

01:08:07.520 I don't think it works the other way.

01:08:10.580 And I don't think that it was ever a good change.

01:08:13.940 Because what women ask for is, hey, can't women get their own awards? 1.00

01:08:18.920 To which I say, well, why can't shitty male athletes get their own awards?

01:08:23.920 Why isn't there a varsity team for short male basketball players? 0.68

01:08:31.880 Why is that wrong?

01:08:33.400 Why is there not a varsity male basketball team for people under 5'8"? 0.99

01:08:40.880 Why can't they win an award?

01:08:44.100 Well, you say, well, Scott, they're just bad athletes.

01:08:49.640 You don't give awards to bad athletes for whatever the reason.

01:08:52.280 Sure, they're 5'8", but, you know, you want to reward the good athletes.

01:08:57.740 To which I say, well, I wasn't born where I can compete with Shaquille O'Neal.

01:09:03.000 Look at me.

01:09:04.720 What?

01:09:05.580 Am I going to stop his dunk?

01:09:07.000 So why in the world should I, let's say, hypothetically, I had no sporting ability,

01:09:15.960 why should I be, like, you know, glorifying the people who were good at a random event?

01:09:21.880 Sports are completely random rules.

01:09:24.960 And I, as a person who just, you know, wouldn't be good at some of those sports,

01:09:29.460 I have to go glorify, and my tax, you know, some of my tax base goes to support their awesomeness.

01:09:36.960 You know, why am I paying for some athlete that I'm not?

01:09:40.620 So first you've got to figure out how we got here.

01:09:43.860 How we got here is that women complained. 1.00

01:09:48.400 I would have, too.

01:09:49.840 Perfectly reasonable.

01:09:51.460 And they worked to get, you know, sort of equal treatment,

01:09:55.240 but it wasn't what they should have asked for.

01:09:58.220 They got what they asked for, but it's not what they should have asked for.

01:10:01.720 It was good for girls and good for women, 1.00

01:10:04.380 so I can't fault them for asking for what's good for them.

01:10:07.280 That's the way it works.

01:10:08.340 You do get to ask for what's good for you.

01:10:10.620 I'm not going to criticize people asking for what's good for them.

01:10:14.420 But if we had re-architected the whole thing from scratch,

01:10:17.800 we would have said, you know, that's a good point.

01:10:21.240 Maybe we should just have teams that are based on ability,

01:10:24.340 and the best female players who are on teams mostly with men

01:10:30.020 would still be superstars, wouldn't they?

01:10:34.260 Could you imagine if a female made it onto a high-end team 1.00

01:10:40.660 in which the only other people who could play for that team were male?

01:10:45.080 Wouldn't that one woman who could actually legitimately make the team 1.00

01:10:48.360 be like, really?

01:10:50.240 It would be Danica Patrick, right?

01:10:53.020 Danica Patrick probably made more money than 99% of all male race car drivers. 1.00

01:10:59.260 Why?

01:11:00.060 Because she was interesting.

01:11:02.700 She was interesting.

01:11:03.740 She was pretty. 0.97

01:11:04.480 That helped.

01:11:05.260 But she was interesting because she was the highest-level female 1.00

01:11:09.200 in a largely male-dominated sport.

01:11:11.580 What's wrong with that model?

01:11:14.560 Do you think Danica Patrick thinks,

01:11:17.280 oh, I've been so discriminated against in this male sport?

01:11:21.080 Or does she think that she is world-famous

01:11:23.800 and has great opportunities because of it?

01:11:28.900 I don't know.

01:11:29.260 So, really, the trans topic has everything to do with the fact

01:11:38.040 that women are treated as a little bit more special than men,

01:11:42.120 and we've agreed that we're okay with that.

01:11:45.700 And then the trans thing just messes up the whole model. 1.00

01:11:49.060 Just messes up the whole model.

01:11:51.400 But I'm going to leave you with this one thought

01:11:55.080 that I'm not going to change.

01:11:57.040 You'll never talk me out of this.

01:11:59.260 The trans are not broken.

01:12:02.020 Trans people are not broken.

01:12:03.940 Sports are broken.

01:12:05.500 Just fix the sports.

01:12:07.120 I know it's not going to happen.

01:12:08.620 I'm just saying look in the right place for the problem.

01:12:10.900 It's not the trans people. 1.00

01:12:13.920 All right.

01:12:17.820 So, you know, who was it?

01:12:19.860 The Trump's Secret Service people testified for the January 6th people.

01:12:25.320 And here's an interesting fact that you would never notice

01:12:30.300 if I were not here to bring it up.

01:12:33.700 You know, I always notice, I always mention when CNN runs an opinion piece,

01:12:39.600 often by Chris Silesa.

01:12:41.240 Silesa?

01:12:41.740 I hope I'm saying that right.

01:12:43.560 And he's one of their superstar opinion people.

01:12:46.180 And he'll do a story that's sort of anti-Republican by its nature.

01:12:51.060 And does a good job.

01:12:52.200 And there's a couple others.

01:12:57.420 Collinson, I think, is the other one, who are their standard go-to.

01:13:01.560 I think they have like three or four big name opinion pieces

01:13:05.840 who always jump in when you need to rescue a Democrat problem.

01:13:10.660 Right.

01:13:10.820 If there's something in the news that's skewed a little bit too Republican,

01:13:15.240 you know, one of their big names jumps in and squashes it down.

01:13:18.580 Well, I noticed with interest,

01:13:20.300 and maybe it could be just summer vacations or something,

01:13:24.040 but they've got a, what I think is an unknown, at least to me,

01:13:27.680 somebody named Jeremy Erb,

01:13:29.860 who writes the opinion piece to say that

01:13:32.020 the House January 6th Committee corroborated key details

01:13:37.060 involving former President Trump's heated exchange with Secret Service

01:13:41.900 when Trump was told he could not go to the Capitol.

01:13:46.380 Okay.

01:13:47.640 So they corroborated key details about that exchange.

01:13:54.460 Let me think.

01:13:55.120 What did that story include?

01:13:57.240 Let's say there was a story about him throwing food against a wall,

01:14:02.020 which he denies.

01:14:03.780 There was a story about Trump allegedly grabbing the steering wheel

01:14:07.180 of the car he was in to try to, you know,

01:14:10.460 encourage the driver to go toward the protests.

01:14:16.040 And, but yet the reporting by Jeremy Erb

01:14:20.680 is that the key details were corroborated.

01:14:26.540 What do you think were the key details?

01:14:29.720 Which part was corroborated?

01:14:32.020 You see what's missing?

01:14:35.340 Here's a fact that was corroborated.

01:14:38.180 Here's another fact that was corroborated.

01:14:40.400 Here's the fact.

01:14:41.280 Here's the corroboration.

01:14:42.940 It doesn't have that.

01:14:44.840 It just says that key things were corroborated.

01:14:47.240 Were the key things, the actual things that you think are the key?

01:14:52.540 Because I think if Trump grabbed the steering wheel of a moving car,

01:14:57.120 that would be, I'd like to know that.

01:14:59.560 Did he say that happened?

01:15:01.220 I don't think so.

01:15:02.940 I don't think that was one of the key details.

01:15:04.660 I've got a feeling that no key details that you care about were confirmed at all.

01:15:12.400 And I got a feeling, and this is just a feeling, so I can't prove what I'm going to say now.

01:15:19.400 It feels as if, and it's probably just summer vacations, but it feels as if the big name opinion pieces,

01:15:25.920 people couldn't do it.

01:15:28.180 They're just like, seriously?

01:15:30.460 You want me to act like he corroborated the thing he didn't mention?

01:15:34.520 I feel like the ones that do the big pieces have a little more pride.

01:15:39.000 It's like, I can spin this, but I'm not going to just ignore the key detail

01:15:44.040 and say that other key details were corroborated and just lie about it.

01:15:47.820 I think they had to get somebody who is new who would go this far.

01:15:52.220 Again, this is pure speculation, right?

01:15:56.000 I can't read any minds.

01:15:57.340 I don't know what CNN is really doing.

01:15:58.780 It could just be that the bigger guys are on, and bigger women are on vacation,

01:16:04.920 so they had to find somebody to fill in.

01:16:06.800 But he hilariously fills in by doing just the most ham-handed job of spinning this in an illegitimate way.

01:16:16.160 He'll probably get a permanent job there.

01:16:18.740 It was so good.

01:16:19.840 All right, well, it turns out that that was the end of my notes,

01:16:23.960 because I thought I had a third page,

01:16:25.420 but it turns out that my printer decided all it needed was that little line there.

01:16:32.380 So it printed that little line, and that's all it needed to do.

01:16:38.600 Now, have I changed your minds anything?

01:16:48.260 Nope.

01:16:48.620 Nope.

01:16:49.840 I don't change too many minds on here, except that Skittles might not be a food group.

01:16:57.480 If you think Skittles is a food group, I hope I changed your mind.

01:17:03.280 You agree on the sports?

01:17:04.800 Good.

01:17:05.500 You know, part of it is because I played co-ed intramural sports quite a bit,

01:17:10.760 and it was just better.

01:17:11.960 And it was just better.

01:17:13.820 It was just better to have a mixed group.

01:17:15.960 If I could have played at the highest level of soccer in college, for example,

01:17:22.940 I probably wouldn't want, you know, anybody on my team who couldn't keep up.

01:17:27.480 But that was not the case.

01:17:29.800 When I played soccer with, you know, women on the team, they kept up with me. 0.87

01:17:34.960 You know, maybe they couldn't keep up with the best male players on the team, but they certainly kept up with me.

01:17:40.760 All right.

01:17:47.220 Oh, you know about Hartwick.

01:17:48.900 Yeah.

01:17:49.680 The tiny college I went to, Hartwick College, recruited European soccer players before that was a big thing.

01:17:58.280 So one year that I was there, we had the number one soccer team in the country, won the country.

01:18:04.420 Tiny little school.

01:18:06.960 That was quite exciting for us.

01:18:10.940 All right.

01:18:13.300 Should your theory on sports carry over to intelligence in the classroom?

01:18:17.500 Well, it does.

01:18:18.700 I mean, that's being reversed a little bit.

01:18:21.000 But ideally, you want people of equal capability to be in the same class.

01:18:26.500 Don't you?

01:18:28.280 Isn't that obvious?

01:18:29.320 You can't always get that.

01:18:31.080 There's practical reasons why you can't do it.

01:18:33.840 But you'd want it if you could get it.

01:18:38.500 What if music were treated like sports?

01:18:40.760 Well, I don't know where that's going.

01:18:46.060 Don't take criminal questions?

01:18:49.920 Oh, how about the interview office in town?

01:18:52.860 You know what?

01:18:55.000 I had a thought this morning.

01:18:56.520 Let me run this by you.

01:18:57.400 So I told you I was thinking of starting like an actual podcast studio.

01:19:02.820 Maybe something in town where people don't have to come to my house.

01:19:06.820 You know, something small, very small, but professional.

01:19:10.440 And maybe something I could have an audience.

01:19:13.340 So I could bring in an audience sometime.

01:19:14.800 But I realized that maybe what I have to do is host debates.

01:19:20.560 I feel like everything has sort of lined up that I'm the only one who can do it.

01:19:28.780 Now, I'm not the only one who has the skill.

01:19:32.900 That would be lots of people.

01:19:34.200 But I might be the only one who has the minimum amount of skill and the willingness to do it.

01:19:39.180 If there's nobody willing to do it, it doesn't matter how much skill they have.

01:19:44.020 So I don't think I have the highest level of skill.

01:19:46.020 I think I have, like, just enough.

01:19:48.780 But now to do this, I would have to do it on a video, though, because I don't think I could get people to come where I live.

01:19:55.040 It's just not like in L.A. where people are going to go there anyway.

01:19:58.880 If you had an office in New York, you could get everybody because they're in town anyway.

01:20:03.360 But people are not in my town anyway.

01:20:06.160 So I think I'd have to do a video.

01:20:10.000 And I might set it up so there's, like, three videos, you know, two of the competing people and then me.

01:20:17.680 But I would be live if anybody wanted to be there in the audience.

01:20:21.020 And my model would be heavy interruption.

01:20:25.040 So it wouldn't be a regular debate.

01:20:28.080 It would be a debate in which I interrupted both sides.

01:20:30.640 Oh, you're ignoring the question.

01:20:33.060 That sort of thing.

01:20:35.560 Medical software.

01:20:36.640 More evidence in the new golden age.

01:20:38.200 Oh.

01:20:39.300 Oh, interesting.

01:20:40.820 Julia Scherer says that Corpusim, C-O-R-P-U-S-I-M, is a thrilling, useful, new open source medical software.

01:20:51.240 Open source medical software.

01:20:53.600 How much do I want that?

01:21:04.960 That's either the worst idea or the best idea.

01:21:08.100 Imagine, if you will, that everybody who wanted to purchase...

01:21:11.080 I have no idea what this product is.

01:21:12.940 So what I'm going to talk about, don't assume that has anything to do with this product.

01:21:16.940 But imagine if just people could contribute their experience of what they did.

01:21:23.660 Right?

01:21:23.880 I had this problem.

01:21:24.860 I did this for it.

01:21:27.840 Eventually, wouldn't it turn into a giant AI?

01:21:31.020 And you wouldn't need doctors anymore except for the physical manipulation of things.

01:21:35.820 I don't know.

01:21:37.520 I think it would go in that direction.

01:21:43.840 Who would be the first and second debaters? 0.91

01:21:47.120 I'm not sure that I would bring in necessarily the politicians.

01:21:55.080 So the trouble with politicians debating is that they're professional liars and we don't expect much more from them.

01:22:02.200 Am I right?

01:22:03.940 Like, having a debate between two politicians feels like a complete waste of time.

01:22:07.820 Having a debate between experts, I can imagine a model where I could make that work.

01:22:15.880 But any debate between pundits or politicians would be just a complete waste of time.

01:22:23.120 Do both?

01:22:25.400 I just think it's a waste of time to do the politicians.

01:22:28.420 It really is.

01:22:29.840 I mean, the only reason to do the politicians is that you get more audience because they're noticeable.

01:22:34.540 And you can embarrass somebody and maybe there's a gaffe.

01:22:38.800 But it would be the least useful thing to do.

01:22:40.820 You know, if I did an actual debate on policy, nobody would watch, probably.

01:22:48.580 Is Rand Paul a professional liar?

01:22:51.220 Quote, yes.

01:22:53.460 Yes.

01:22:54.280 Now, I have a high opinion of Rand Paul.

01:22:57.020 And I think he's probably one of the most honest people.

01:22:59.940 But you don't think that he's ever left anything out?

01:23:04.580 Do you think he provides all the context for the other team or maybe just shows his side?

01:23:11.900 I don't feel like you can be in politics and give complete, let's say, complete respect to the other team's argument before you state what your opinion is.

01:23:22.200 And without that, I'm not sure that's really honest.

01:23:26.660 That's doing a good job as a politician.

01:23:29.460 I love Rand Paul as a politician, by the way.

01:23:31.960 I think he's a national asset.

01:23:34.260 There are a few politicians that I think have, let's say, they've surpassed Congress in terms of who they are.

01:23:41.920 Like, there's some people who are just members of Congress.

01:23:45.300 You've never even heard their names if they're not from your state, and even that.

01:23:49.580 But, yeah, Tom Cotton's one.

01:23:51.540 He rises above.

01:23:53.440 And Rand Paul's one.

01:23:55.300 So I believe there are some people who have risen above their limited role that they get elected for, and he's one, in a good way.

01:24:04.100 Well, Speaker of the House is a special case.

01:24:08.660 Ted Cruz, yeah.

01:24:09.580 Now, often it's people who have ambition to be presidents.

01:24:15.080 Yeah.

01:24:15.420 Ted Cruz, I think, for sure.

01:24:17.480 Yeah.

01:24:17.860 And MTG.

01:24:19.340 Yeah, some other people.

01:24:20.320 Thomas Massey, good example.

01:24:22.420 Thomas Massey and I do not agree on everything.

01:24:26.320 But whenever we disagree, his reasons are good.

01:24:30.500 Which bothers me, frankly.

01:24:34.240 I hate to feel disagreement with people whose reasons on the other side are actually solid.

01:24:38.540 Like, oh, that's actually a pretty good reason.

01:24:41.760 And Thomas Massey does that to me all the time.

01:24:44.900 I think probably three or four times I've had an immediate disagreement with something I thought he said.

01:24:51.660 And then you hear the larger argument, and you go, oh, okay.

01:24:55.220 Maybe I don't agree with it, because I'm not quite as, you know, my politics don't line up exactly with some of his stuff.

01:25:04.680 But when he gives his reason, I usually say, okay, that's the reason.

01:25:10.480 Yeah, he's more libertarian than I am.

01:25:13.200 But he's consistent.

01:25:14.460 You know, being consistent is worth a lot.

01:25:19.080 And there are libertarian arguments that you say to yourself, well, I don't know that that would work, but I can't rule it out.

01:25:26.820 You know, it's got some logic behind it.

01:25:30.820 You'd pay good money to hear that?

01:25:32.320 Now, that's somebody I would debate.

01:25:36.120 I would definitely debate Thomas Massey.

01:25:39.240 Because like you said, he doesn't operate like a traditional politician.

01:25:43.940 Oh, here's the biggest compliment I'll ever give a politician.

01:25:47.580 You ready for this?

01:25:49.060 This is literally the biggest compliment I will ever give a politician.

01:25:53.520 I'm positive that if I had a debate with Thomas Massey on some topic, which we disagreed, and I made a better argument, he would change his mind right in front of you.

01:26:08.200 Now, I'm not saying I have the ability to do that, or that there's any topic which stands out as the one that I would do that.

01:26:14.280 However, it is my opinion that if I gave him a better argument in public, that he would have the capability.

01:26:23.340 It's the capability that's important, right?

01:26:25.500 Because others would just cowardly retreat to their team.

01:26:29.320 I believe he would actually tell you in public that he changed his mind under the unusual condition that I made a better argument and, you know, it had some weight.

01:26:37.740 I don't know that anybody else could do that.

01:26:40.780 Do you?

01:26:41.180 Would you trust anybody else to change their mind in public when faced?

01:26:46.140 I would, but I'm not a politician, right?

01:26:49.060 So, but a politician.

01:26:51.440 I don't know.

01:26:53.420 Name one other person you think would be capable.

01:26:57.000 Forget about willing, you know, just capable.

01:27:01.720 I mean, Joe Rogan would, but again, not a politician.

01:27:09.000 What?

01:27:10.320 Co-punt? 0.61

01:27:11.960 Is that a word?

01:27:16.700 If Trump and DeSantis debated, it would be horrible.

01:27:19.800 Yeah.

01:27:20.740 That would be a weird one, wouldn't it?

01:27:22.740 Imagine Trump and DeSantis debating.

01:27:25.860 I can't see that ever happening.

01:27:32.140 Yeah, I see some support for Dan Crenshaw over on YouTube.

01:27:37.920 Conservatives have a real mixed feeling about him, don't they?

01:27:40.280 I forget what the issue is.

01:27:46.840 Yeah.

01:27:49.080 Crenshaw is interesting because he's smarter than he lets on.

01:27:54.540 I don't know if you know that, but Crenshaw is super smart.

01:28:00.160 And I think he's smart enough not to let you know just how smart he is, because I'm not sure that would play right.

01:28:06.660 So he's very smart.

01:28:07.660 So he's very smart.

01:28:09.380 Whether you disagree with him or agree with him, you know, I'm not going to have that conversation right now.

01:28:13.940 Oh, somebody's calling him a rhino.

01:28:15.580 Is that what's happening?

01:28:16.200 Well, I don't know about any of that.

01:28:19.120 I did an interview with him, and I'll tell you my first impression was all positive.

01:28:25.140 So I had only positive feelings.

01:28:27.000 So it's mostly the anti-war versus not anti-war enough thing that people have a complaint about.

01:28:38.800 Yeah, I don't know.

01:28:39.640 I'm not up to date, so I don't have anything to disagree with him about.

01:28:42.560 But maybe I would.

01:28:43.720 Who knows?

01:28:44.080 But you like Bill Gates, too.

01:28:50.620 Well, I think the shine on Bill Gates is coming off a little bit.

01:28:57.460 Here's what I like about Bill Gates.

01:29:00.060 Unlike you, I believe he's operating in the best interest of humanity.

01:29:06.480 I don't know that you could ever talk me out of that.

01:29:08.520 Because if you think he's operating to get power, there's no indication that he's after power.

01:29:15.080 He could have had all the power he wanted.

01:29:17.080 There's no indication he wants it.

01:29:19.340 And there's no indication that he's in it for money.

01:29:23.300 I don't see any indication of that.

01:29:26.260 Now, I could be wrong, right?

01:29:27.920 Because we're all just reading minds.

01:29:29.720 I can't read his mind.

01:29:30.860 But I would say the indication of anything except good intentions.

01:29:34.460 Now, does he get everything right?

01:29:37.040 No.

01:29:37.480 Does anybody?

01:29:39.500 No.

01:29:40.340 But if you were to bet consistently on what he predicted versus what other people predicted,

01:29:46.660 I think you'd come out ahead going with what he predicted.

01:29:51.500 All right.

01:29:52.100 Well, we're running a little long, I see.

01:29:53.720 And today, I think we've nailed it.

01:29:56.760 It's Sunday.

01:29:58.140 So it's the best show ever on a Sunday.

01:30:02.600 And yes, I am better at predicting.

01:30:05.080 You're right.

01:30:07.480 And, oh, I don't think carpool duty will recommence.

01:30:14.060 So when school starts, I will be in a different living situation.

01:30:18.440 So I won't be carpooling.

01:30:21.820 And that's all for now.

01:30:23.780 Ladies and gentlemen.

01:30:25.460 And thank you.

01:30:31.080 I'm just reading your comments and getting transfixed by them.

01:30:34.440 But goodbye, YouTube, for tonight.

01:30:37.160 We'll see you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - July 17, 2022

Episode 1807 Scott Adams： Who Is Trying To Brainwash You This Week And Largely Succeeding

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript