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.

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,

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

00:40:44.900 for him.

00:40:47.260 Now, if Mexico

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

00:49:59.980 like they can get to

00:50:00.920 any useful ammo

00:50:03.380 dumps that Russia

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

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.

00:50:29.600 So I think Ukraine has

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

00:51:31.100 Russians build ammo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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"?

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.

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,

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

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

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.

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.

01:11:04.480 That helped.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript