Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1994 Scott Adams： Crowder, WEF And More

00:00:00.000 Da-da-da-da.

00:00:02.220 Dum-dum-dum-dum.

00:00:05.680 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to

00:00:07.840 The Highlight of Civilization.

00:00:10.040 Coffee with Scott Adams. There's never been a finer thing.

00:00:12.880 And if you'd like to take this up to

00:00:14.420 levels that nobody's

00:00:16.380 ever experienced before, unless

00:00:18.060 they've climbed a mountain while

00:00:19.260 doing acid and having sex

00:00:22.160 at the same time, or something like that.

00:00:24.380 But, all we have today

00:00:26.000 is a substitute for all that good stuff,

00:00:28.020 and it's called a cup or a mug

00:00:30.080 or a glass of tankard chalice or stein,

00:00:31.820 a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:00:34.580 Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:37.620 I like coffee.

00:00:39.300 And join me now for the unparalleled

00:00:40.800 pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.

00:00:42.560 The thing makes everything better.

00:00:43.960 It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it's happening now.

00:00:46.820 Go.

00:00:51.060 Yeah, that was a good one.

00:00:54.860 Looks like everything's

00:00:56.100 operating just the way it should today.

00:00:58.600 I'm feeling like you're all going to have a good day today.

00:01:01.460 Is anybody ready

00:01:02.400 for a good day?

00:01:04.160 Yeah.

00:01:07.260 Don M. asked me,

00:01:09.060 what about smoking weed

00:01:10.560 with Scott Adams?

00:01:13.080 Well,

00:01:14.160 sounds like somebody needs to join

00:01:16.320 the locals' community.

00:01:18.660 Where we do visit the man cave

00:01:20.620 in the evenings.

00:01:23.460 And the man cave is a very different,

00:01:26.100 very different situation.

00:01:28.620 But we're going to go private over here

00:01:30.460 on Locals.

00:01:32.160 There are subscription sites,

00:01:33.560 so they get the good stuff.

00:01:36.080 There you go.

00:01:37.020 You're private now.

00:01:38.920 All right.

00:01:40.540 What's going on?

00:01:42.360 Question number one.

00:01:43.440 I saw a user on Twitter,

00:01:47.740 Terry Schilling,

00:01:48.520 asked this question

00:01:49.300 to his users.

00:01:51.220 Should men still open doors

00:01:52.960 for women?

00:01:55.360 Interesting question.

00:01:57.280 Should men

00:01:58.020 still open doors?

00:01:59.620 Now,

00:02:00.180 let me make a distinction.

00:02:03.900 The distinction is,

00:02:05.760 I'm only private

00:02:06.620 on the Locals platform,

00:02:08.720 so I do some extra content there.

00:02:10.480 On YouTube,

00:02:12.200 it's public.

00:02:13.060 This is all public on YouTube.

00:02:18.000 So I make a distinction

00:02:19.220 between opening a door,

00:02:21.220 where a woman walks up to a door

00:02:23.040 and stands there

00:02:23.780 and waits for you

00:02:24.300 to open the door for her,

00:02:25.960 versus you've walked through a door

00:02:27.720 and then you're holding it open

00:02:28.880 for somebody.

00:02:30.360 Or,

00:02:31.280 you just get there first,

00:02:33.980 because you're walking first,

00:02:36.080 and then you hold it open for,

00:02:37.760 could be a woman,

00:02:38.480 but it could be anybody.

00:02:39.120 Okay.

00:02:40.580 Now,

00:02:41.220 yeah.

00:02:43.800 Now,

00:02:44.240 my take on this is,

00:02:45.420 if I don't know their pronouns,

00:02:46.860 I don't want to take a chance.

00:02:49.540 And,

00:02:49.960 if you can't identify a woman

00:02:51.380 by looking at them,

00:02:52.920 and I believe that is the standard.

00:02:55.100 The standard now

00:02:56.020 is that you can't identify a woman

00:02:57.600 just by looking.

00:02:58.740 That would be kind of an assumption.

00:03:00.980 And what if you,

00:03:01.860 what if you saw somebody coming

00:03:03.700 and you said to yourself,

00:03:05.900 ooh,

00:03:06.040 a woman,

00:03:07.620 I think I'll be polite.

00:03:09.440 And then what if you're wrong?

00:03:11.340 What if it's somebody

00:03:12.140 who identifies as a man,

00:03:13.400 but you've misidentified?

00:03:15.000 Well,

00:03:16.000 what a problem.

00:03:18.880 Social problem for you.

00:03:20.980 Probably get canceled

00:03:21.860 on social media as well.

00:03:23.560 So don't take the chance.

00:03:24.920 If you see a woman coming

00:03:27.660 or somebody you identify

00:03:30.280 as a woman,

00:03:31.000 but you don't know,

00:03:32.840 hold that door closed

00:03:34.120 and don't let that person

00:03:35.540 even get through.

00:03:36.920 That's the only way to play it.

00:03:38.780 You got to let them fight

00:03:40.140 with it a little bit

00:03:40.920 and then you'll,

00:03:42.040 you'll all be like equal.

00:03:44.280 No,

00:03:44.520 not even equal.

00:03:46.020 Equitable.

00:03:46.980 That would be equitable.

00:03:49.080 Well,

00:03:49.560 that's just a big cluster F,

00:03:51.060 so we'll see how that works out.

00:03:52.280 Here's a growing positive trend

00:03:56.800 that you wouldn't notice

00:03:58.840 unless you're following

00:03:59.620 certain Twitter accounts.

00:04:01.960 But Corey DeAngelis

00:04:03.800 continues to report

00:04:04.920 that various state legislatures

00:04:08.340 are improving funding

00:04:10.500 that follows the kid

00:04:12.060 instead of the school

00:04:13.000 so that parents could say,

00:04:16.100 let's take our kid

00:04:16.680 to another school

00:04:17.400 and then some money

00:04:18.200 would go with them

00:04:18.840 to help pay for that

00:04:19.840 alternate school.

00:04:20.820 So free market.

00:04:24.240 It's apparently Florida,

00:04:26.380 Florida legislatures

00:04:27.580 just introduced a bill

00:04:28.660 to fund students

00:04:29.460 instead of systems.

00:04:30.620 So a number of states

00:04:31.500 are doing it

00:04:32.140 and the conservative states

00:04:33.880 seem to be passing them.

00:04:36.280 It's a big thing.

00:04:37.900 It's a big deal.

00:04:39.400 And I love the fact

00:04:41.940 that when we talk about

00:04:44.040 the states being

00:04:44.880 the laboratory

00:04:45.480 for the country,

00:04:47.480 this is exactly

00:04:48.620 what we're talking about,

00:04:49.640 let a few smart states

00:04:52.720 try something.

00:04:53.680 They probably won't

00:04:54.560 execute the same way.

00:04:56.320 See if anybody can nail it.

00:04:57.900 If anybody nails it,

00:04:59.640 maybe we know

00:05:00.640 in five to seven years

00:05:02.200 and then we can start

00:05:03.180 copying it.

00:05:04.280 That's a pretty good sign.

00:05:08.480 Actor Alec Baldwin

00:05:09.680 is going to be prosecuted

00:05:12.260 for two counts.

00:05:13.980 We've talked about this

00:05:15.160 way too much,

00:05:15.860 but here's the first thing.

00:05:19.060 I'll bet we're going to find out

00:05:20.100 a whole bunch of surprises.

00:05:22.540 I think the trial

00:05:23.340 will kick up some things

00:05:24.720 that just seem like surprises.

00:05:27.560 And apparently

00:05:28.420 at one point early

00:05:31.160 in the process,

00:05:32.940 Baldwin had said

00:05:34.340 in an interview

00:05:35.040 that he did not

00:05:37.120 pull the trigger.

00:05:39.060 But the forensic people

00:05:41.100 said, yes,

00:05:42.120 the trigger was pulled.

00:05:44.140 Now,

00:05:44.820 is that going to be a problem?

00:05:46.340 Because he said

00:05:46.880 I would never

00:05:47.640 point a gun

00:05:49.960 at a person

00:05:50.780 and pull the trigger.

00:05:53.000 Even if it was

00:05:53.920 a movie gun.

00:05:55.040 He said he would

00:05:55.700 never do that.

00:05:57.080 Which suggests,

00:05:58.380 unfortunately for him,

00:05:59.860 it suggests

00:06:00.440 that he was fully aware,

00:06:02.900 fully aware

00:06:03.680 of the danger

00:06:04.280 of pointing a gun

00:06:05.180 at somebody.

00:06:06.800 And he did pull the trigger.

00:06:08.140 According to the forensics people,

00:06:09.600 we don't know.

00:06:10.040 Yeah, I suppose

00:06:11.760 it could be

00:06:12.180 like a weird defective gun

00:06:13.580 that pulls its own trigger

00:06:15.280 or something.

00:06:16.320 Yeah, the trigger

00:06:16.840 pulled itself.

00:06:19.320 Well,

00:06:20.620 so here's my take on it.

00:06:21.760 I hate,

00:06:23.060 you know,

00:06:23.400 the legal system

00:06:24.360 has to do

00:06:24.840 with what the legal system does.

00:06:26.740 But,

00:06:27.420 I hate

00:06:28.680 that it was

00:06:30.340 a genuine accident.

00:06:32.440 And some,

00:06:33.200 you know,

00:06:33.420 another life

00:06:34.280 and his family

00:06:35.440 will all be

00:06:36.120 scarred by it forever.

00:06:37.660 I don't know.

00:06:39.300 That just doesn't feel

00:06:40.040 like justice.

00:06:40.960 Because you can't

00:06:41.560 bring the person back

00:06:42.640 and it would be hard

00:06:44.360 to punish him

00:06:45.080 more than he's already

00:06:46.080 punished,

00:06:47.660 you know,

00:06:47.920 psychologically

00:06:48.440 and financially

00:06:49.960 and reputationally

00:06:51.340 and everything else.

00:06:53.240 And it's not exactly

00:06:54.540 like there's any message

00:06:56.540 to be sent,

00:06:57.360 is there?

00:06:58.680 Is there anybody

00:06:59.520 in Hollywood

00:07:00.020 who doesn't already know

00:07:01.260 to maybe double-check

00:07:02.520 that gun?

00:07:03.460 Like,

00:07:03.700 nobody's going to learn

00:07:04.580 anything if he goes

00:07:05.420 to jail.

00:07:06.100 There's no learning

00:07:07.040 that will happen.

00:07:08.420 So,

00:07:08.800 and it's not like

00:07:09.320 he's going to be,

00:07:09.840 like,

00:07:10.160 reformed.

00:07:11.100 So if he makes

00:07:11.900 another movie,

00:07:12.640 he won't make

00:07:13.100 that same mistake again.

00:07:14.620 There's just nothing,

00:07:15.560 there's just no benefit.

00:07:17.260 Now,

00:07:17.760 if you say that

00:07:18.780 the family

00:07:19.440 of the deceased

00:07:20.500 should sue him

00:07:22.660 and get a bunch of money,

00:07:23.840 I think that already

00:07:24.560 happened,

00:07:25.000 didn't it?

00:07:26.100 And that feels

00:07:26.880 like the right domain.

00:07:28.380 You know,

00:07:28.540 maybe there's

00:07:29.840 financial compensation,

00:07:32.260 but,

00:07:33.020 I don't know,

00:07:33.500 jail doesn't make sense.

00:07:34.640 Now,

00:07:35.460 let me make

00:07:36.140 a completely different

00:07:37.420 switch my argument.

00:07:39.900 You know,

00:07:40.120 your head's going

00:07:40.800 to spin here.

00:07:41.980 He was also

00:07:42.760 the head

00:07:43.140 of the production.

00:07:45.880 As the head

00:07:46.520 of the production,

00:07:47.680 it looks like

00:07:48.400 he really effed up.

00:07:49.240 It looks like

00:07:50.780 he just didn't do

00:07:52.040 the job

00:07:53.600 of a boss

00:07:54.280 to make sure

00:07:54.960 the right people

00:07:55.580 were in place

00:07:56.280 and the right processes.

00:07:57.780 That's harder

00:07:59.000 to defend.

00:08:00.820 Right?

00:08:02.480 Asking a

00:08:03.340 non-gun owner

00:08:04.400 actor

00:08:05.040 in the

00:08:06.860 context

00:08:07.680 of

00:08:08.300 fictional movie

00:08:09.700 to do

00:08:10.500 all the right things,

00:08:12.100 that's a big ask.

00:08:14.440 But asking

00:08:15.080 a boss

00:08:15.660 to make sure

00:08:16.180 he hired

00:08:16.600 the right people

00:08:17.280 to take care

00:08:17.960 of safety

00:08:18.460 when there were

00:08:19.700 all kinds

00:08:20.100 of safety complaints.

00:08:22.020 That one's

00:08:22.440 hard to defend.

00:08:24.120 So,

00:08:24.600 I think he's

00:08:25.420 in trouble,

00:08:26.240 but we're going

00:08:26.680 to have some surprises.

00:08:28.500 I know we'll

00:08:29.000 have some surprises.

00:08:30.200 Apparently,

00:08:30.660 there were more

00:08:31.300 live bullets

00:08:32.840 in his gun belt.

00:08:34.660 I saw that

00:08:35.200 in a

00:08:35.700 Tim Kast

00:08:37.340 tweet.

00:08:38.820 I don't know.

00:08:41.660 Apparently,

00:08:42.280 we know

00:08:42.560 why the airline

00:08:43.460 failure happened.

00:08:45.460 The FAA

00:08:46.140 said some

00:08:46.760 contractor

00:08:47.480 unintentionally

00:08:48.980 deleted

00:08:50.140 some files

00:08:50.940 that some

00:08:52.960 antiquated system

00:08:54.000 needed to operate,

00:08:55.180 and it was hard

00:08:55.800 to recover

00:08:56.700 the files.

00:08:58.660 Now,

00:09:00.220 the obvious

00:09:01.040 is,

00:09:01.620 why do we have

00:09:02.120 a system

00:09:02.540 that's that weak?

00:09:04.100 That's like

00:09:04.660 the weakest

00:09:05.160 system I've

00:09:05.940 ever seen.

00:09:07.300 Apparently,

00:09:07.760 it's really old.

00:09:08.960 It's like

00:09:09.400 from the generation

00:09:10.340 of the Walkman,

00:09:11.360 I saw somebody

00:09:12.060 in Wall Street

00:09:12.780 Journal say.

00:09:13.300 So,

00:09:15.740 boy,

00:09:16.480 somebody was

00:09:17.040 not doing

00:09:18.160 their job

00:09:18.580 there,

00:09:18.920 but there's

00:09:19.140 not much

00:09:19.460 to say

00:09:19.720 about that.

00:09:21.820 I saw a video

00:09:22.760 at the

00:09:23.520 World Economic

00:09:24.360 Forum

00:09:24.720 in which

00:09:26.100 FBI Director

00:09:27.080 Christopher Wray

00:09:27.840 was talking,

00:09:29.540 and

00:09:29.940 user

00:09:31.700 ALX

00:09:32.580 on Twitter

00:09:33.480 tweeted this.

00:09:35.160 This is what

00:09:35.980 Wray actually

00:09:36.540 said.

00:09:37.800 Now,

00:09:38.120 it's a little

00:09:38.540 out of context,

00:09:40.680 but my point

00:09:41.860 will be that

00:09:42.540 he shouldn't

00:09:43.040 be there

00:09:43.540 in any

00:09:45.160 capacity.

00:09:46.280 So,

00:09:46.600 even in

00:09:47.300 context,

00:09:48.020 it's all

00:09:48.360 wrong.

00:09:49.200 But this

00:09:49.560 is probably

00:09:49.920 a little

00:09:50.340 bit out of

00:09:50.760 context,

00:09:51.320 but here's

00:09:51.620 what he

00:09:51.800 said.

00:09:52.720 The level

00:09:53.160 of collaboration

00:09:54.520 between the

00:09:55.700 private sector

00:09:56.460 and the

00:09:56.880 government,

00:09:57.720 especially the

00:09:58.460 FBI,

00:09:59.380 has made

00:09:59.840 significant

00:10:00.540 strides.

00:10:04.160 Yes,

00:10:04.940 it has.

00:10:06.740 Yes.

00:10:07.800 As a matter

00:10:08.420 of fact,

00:10:08.860 it has.

00:10:11.500 Isn't

00:10:11.760 that the

00:10:12.140 scariest thing

00:10:12.760 you've ever

00:10:13.100 heard?

00:10:14.660 Why are we

00:10:15.440 sending a

00:10:16.120 representative of

00:10:17.060 the United

00:10:17.520 States to

00:10:19.120 embarrass us in

00:10:20.060 front of the

00:10:20.400 world?

00:10:21.660 What?

00:10:22.460 Like, why is

00:10:23.080 that okay?

00:10:24.340 Like, why does

00:10:24.900 he still have a

00:10:25.460 job?

00:10:26.940 Like, everything

00:10:27.620 about that is

00:10:28.460 just creepy and

00:10:29.280 wrong.

00:10:31.860 But, it was

00:10:32.820 probably out of

00:10:33.360 context, and

00:10:34.080 I'm sure the

00:10:34.740 context would

00:10:35.680 have not

00:10:36.820 sounded as

00:10:37.940 scary.

00:10:39.000 So, this is

00:10:39.480 something the

00:10:39.940 WEF does, is

00:10:41.160 they do things

00:10:41.740 which certainly

00:10:43.180 sound scary, and

00:10:45.160 who knows what

00:10:45.760 they actually

00:10:46.340 intend to do.

00:10:49.320 So, here's

00:10:51.140 what I'm trying

00:10:51.660 to understand

00:10:52.220 about the

00:10:52.620 World Economic

00:10:53.220 Forum.

00:10:55.860 Is it a

00:10:58.600 useless Dilber

00:10:59.680 entity where a

00:11:00.880 bunch of people

00:11:01.380 get together and

00:11:02.480 say a bunch of

00:11:03.300 jargon and have

00:11:04.300 a nice holiday

00:11:04.900 and go home?

00:11:05.460 How many

00:11:06.980 people think

00:11:07.460 that's what's

00:11:07.880 happening, and

00:11:08.480 that they don't

00:11:08.980 really have any

00:11:09.500 impact on anything?

00:11:10.780 Like, everything

00:11:11.320 would have happened

00:11:12.120 on its own.

00:11:13.440 They just talk

00:11:14.100 about it and take

00:11:14.740 credit and pat

00:11:15.980 each other in the

00:11:16.540 back.

00:11:17.680 Oh, I'm saying

00:11:19.060 yeses and noes,

00:11:20.280 but I think it's

00:11:22.300 at least partly

00:11:22.980 that, wouldn't

00:11:23.540 you agree?

00:11:24.940 No matter what

00:11:26.100 else it is, it's

00:11:27.780 partly just a

00:11:28.560 bunch of jargon

00:11:30.280 spewing, you

00:11:32.740 know, woke

00:11:34.980 signaling people

00:11:35.960 having a nice

00:11:37.060 vacation.

00:11:38.540 It would be

00:11:39.540 easy to

00:11:40.160 overestimate how

00:11:41.460 much power they

00:11:42.060 have, but it

00:11:43.040 would be easy to

00:11:43.760 underestimate it

00:11:44.480 too, because there

00:11:45.540 might be some

00:11:46.020 circles, you know,

00:11:46.980 some areas where

00:11:47.760 they do influence.

00:11:49.000 Now, I saw on

00:11:49.660 Tucker Carlson's

00:11:51.100 show the claim

00:11:52.260 that the WEF was

00:11:54.440 behind Sri Lanka's

00:11:57.100 destroyed economy,

00:11:58.940 because Sri Lanka

00:12:00.840 didn't use proper

00:12:02.840 fertilizer, because

00:12:04.920 it was sort of,

00:12:06.200 you know, poo-pooed

00:12:07.480 by the WEF in

00:12:08.580 some way.

00:12:09.780 Is that true?

00:12:11.580 Let me say that

00:12:12.460 without even looking

00:12:13.160 into it, it doesn't

00:12:13.920 sound true.

00:12:15.940 It doesn't sound

00:12:16.900 true.

00:12:21.280 Yeah.

00:12:22.800 So, let me say

00:12:25.020 that I'll go look

00:12:27.220 that, oh, let me do a

00:12:28.380 little research, I was

00:12:29.660 going to do that

00:12:30.080 before I got on, but

00:12:31.500 I want to comment it

00:12:32.300 before I research.

00:12:34.740 Before researching it,

00:12:35.980 it doesn't sound

00:12:36.720 true.

00:12:39.020 It sounds like it's

00:12:40.480 true-ish.

00:12:42.120 It has the ring to

00:12:43.360 it of something that

00:12:44.180 sounds true, but if

00:12:45.880 you looked into it,

00:12:46.960 there'd be a little

00:12:47.540 something there.

00:12:49.620 Well, let me

00:12:50.900 understand this.

00:12:51.740 The WEF cannot

00:12:52.680 require anybody to

00:12:53.860 do anything, am I

00:12:54.980 right?

00:12:55.160 So, they didn't

00:12:57.360 require anybody to

00:12:58.420 do anything.

00:13:00.120 And so, Sri Lanka

00:13:01.000 was under no more

00:13:02.500 or less requirement

00:13:03.700 than every other

00:13:05.340 country.

00:13:05.920 Is that true or

00:13:06.920 false?

00:13:07.820 Every country had

00:13:08.880 the same set of

00:13:09.760 standards that were

00:13:11.220 being pushed on

00:13:11.960 them, but one of

00:13:13.260 them made a

00:13:13.940 horrible, catastrophic

00:13:15.120 decision to, I

00:13:18.060 don't know, follow

00:13:18.920 some specific part

00:13:21.420 of it too far?

00:13:22.080 Why did nobody

00:13:24.080 else do it?

00:13:25.800 Incentives?

00:13:26.660 Did the WEF offer

00:13:27.880 them incentives?

00:13:30.360 All right.

00:13:31.680 Heavily encouraged?

00:13:34.320 Did they heavily

00:13:35.300 encourage them to

00:13:36.200 look for substitutes,

00:13:37.340 or did they heavily

00:13:38.040 encourage them to

00:13:38.980 farm in a way that

00:13:40.420 would not possibly

00:13:42.340 work?

00:13:44.160 Because I have

00:13:44.880 trouble believing

00:13:45.540 that the WEF said,

00:13:47.000 get rid of your

00:13:47.960 fertilizer and don't

00:13:48.960 replace it with

00:13:49.620 anything.

00:13:49.900 I don't believe

00:13:51.580 that happened.

00:13:52.840 Do you believe

00:13:53.360 that happened?

00:13:55.040 I don't believe

00:13:55.880 that happened.

00:13:57.300 And only one

00:13:58.200 country, in all

00:13:58.980 the countries,

00:14:00.080 only little Sri

00:14:01.220 Lanka actually

00:14:02.780 took that advice.

00:14:04.940 They're the only

00:14:05.720 ones.

00:14:08.640 All right.

00:14:09.500 Now, am I

00:14:13.000 acting too

00:14:13.820 confident for

00:14:14.920 someone who has

00:14:15.520 no information on

00:14:16.540 the topic whatsoever?

00:14:17.400 probably.

00:14:21.080 Probably.

00:14:22.900 But I want you

00:14:24.860 to see, so this

00:14:26.420 is like a little

00:14:26.920 test.

00:14:28.760 It's a little

00:14:29.340 test.

00:14:30.280 I believe that

00:14:31.160 you can usually,

00:14:32.340 let's say 80% of

00:14:33.300 the time, identify

00:14:34.700 bullshit without

00:14:35.720 doing any research.

00:14:37.500 80% of the time.

00:14:38.600 Now, the 20%

00:14:39.460 that you're wrong

00:14:39.980 could be a real

00:14:40.640 problem, right?

00:14:42.000 So I'm not saying

00:14:43.320 80% is good, but I

00:14:46.080 think about 80% of

00:14:47.140 the time you can

00:14:47.680 tell it's bullshit

00:14:48.280 just from the

00:14:50.040 story itself.

00:14:51.460 So I'm going to

00:14:52.400 call bullshit on

00:14:53.920 the story with a

00:14:56.680 complete lack of

00:14:57.840 knowledge about the

00:14:58.640 context.

00:15:00.900 Because I think I

00:15:01.900 have an 80% chance

00:15:03.000 of being right, and

00:15:04.580 then a 20% chance

00:15:05.660 of embarrassing

00:15:06.180 myself, but I

00:15:06.920 never care about

00:15:07.500 that.

00:15:08.420 So it's just an

00:15:09.200 experiment.

00:15:09.500 I don't know

00:15:10.600 what's true.

00:15:11.360 I'll just make an

00:15:12.300 80% bet.

00:15:13.200 Then tomorrow, if I

00:15:14.220 remember, we'll

00:15:15.740 check, and I'll

00:15:16.360 tell you if there's

00:15:16.860 any context that

00:15:17.620 changes the

00:15:18.800 situation.

00:15:20.080 But I don't

00:15:20.760 believe it's true.

00:15:22.620 But I could be

00:15:23.380 wrong.

00:15:24.780 Let's talk about

00:15:25.820 Stephen Crowder

00:15:27.480 versus The Daily

00:15:28.340 Wire.

00:15:29.620 I knew this story

00:15:30.900 was going to get

00:15:31.520 more interesting.

00:15:33.280 Didn't you?

00:15:34.820 Couldn't you kind

00:15:35.360 of smell it?

00:15:36.800 Like there was a

00:15:37.640 little story.

00:15:38.120 I'll give you the

00:15:39.040 starting point, but

00:15:39.940 just from the very

00:15:41.200 beginning, I

00:15:41.920 thought, this is

00:15:43.220 going to go deeper.

00:15:44.880 And then it did.

00:15:46.760 All right, so the

00:15:47.200 story is internet,

00:15:50.180 let's say,

00:15:50.720 conservative

00:15:51.320 superstar, Stephen

00:15:54.320 Crowder, who has

00:15:55.540 millions of

00:15:56.240 followers on

00:15:57.000 YouTube and

00:15:57.900 other places.

00:15:59.320 And he was

00:16:00.320 offered a very

00:16:01.340 lucrative contract

00:16:02.620 to work with

00:16:03.740 Daily Wire.

00:16:05.280 And what went

00:16:07.320 wrong was the

00:16:08.340 Daily Wire made

00:16:09.080 a large offer,

00:16:10.060 $50 million over

00:16:10.980 four years with

00:16:12.020 the option to

00:16:13.140 extend.

00:16:14.380 Now that $50 million

00:16:15.280 would include his

00:16:16.300 production costs,

00:16:17.500 but maybe that's

00:16:18.740 10 or 20% of it.

00:16:21.280 So it was a big

00:16:22.040 deal.

00:16:25.180 Got a connection

00:16:25.960 problem there.

00:16:27.320 And Stephen

00:16:28.840 Crowder went

00:16:30.100 public, but he

00:16:31.160 didn't name the

00:16:31.940 entity.

00:16:32.520 He didn't name

00:16:33.100 Daily Wire

00:16:33.660 initially.

00:16:34.300 Daily Wire outed

00:16:36.420 themselves because

00:16:37.260 I think they

00:16:37.940 assumed people

00:16:38.560 would figure out

00:16:39.220 who they were.

00:16:39.980 There are not

00:16:40.460 many entities on

00:16:42.300 the right who

00:16:43.220 could offer a big

00:16:43.960 contract.

00:16:45.040 And he was

00:16:45.760 leaving Blaze,

00:16:47.260 the Blaze.

00:16:48.560 So there

00:16:49.120 basically were

00:16:49.760 like two entities

00:16:51.660 that could offer

00:16:52.340 him a lot of

00:16:52.860 money, and the

00:16:54.260 Daily Wire was

00:16:55.000 one.

00:16:56.240 So people would

00:16:57.180 have figured it

00:16:57.660 out.

00:16:57.860 I think that

00:16:59.720 trying to

00:17:00.700 imagine, yeah,

00:17:03.840 I think that

00:17:04.720 trying to imagine

00:17:05.760 that nobody would

00:17:07.400 figure it out was

00:17:08.320 unrealistic, in my

00:17:09.720 opinion.

00:17:10.220 Somebody would have

00:17:10.760 figured it out from

00:17:11.620 the hints.

00:17:13.140 But Crowder said

00:17:15.100 that the real issue

00:17:15.860 was that the Daily

00:17:16.840 Wire's offer was

00:17:19.120 in, let's see if I

00:17:21.240 can, I'll try to do

00:17:22.880 my most honest

00:17:24.520 attempt to

00:17:25.740 accurately

00:17:26.360 characterizes his

00:17:28.520 opinion, which is

00:17:29.700 always sketchy.

00:17:30.900 Whenever you're

00:17:31.560 trying to summarize

00:17:32.200 someone else's

00:17:32.980 opinion, you almost

00:17:34.540 never get it right,

00:17:36.000 because I watch

00:17:36.560 people do it with

00:17:37.260 me, and they

00:17:37.780 never get it right.

00:17:39.140 So I'm wary that

00:17:41.600 I might be

00:17:42.120 misrepresenting his

00:17:43.120 opinion, but you

00:17:43.940 all, many of you

00:17:45.820 have seen it, so

00:17:47.480 keep me honest,

00:17:48.300 okay?

00:17:48.920 So call me out if

00:17:50.620 I'm not representing

00:17:51.500 his side as

00:17:52.080 accurately as

00:17:52.620 possible.

00:17:53.740 Part of the deal

00:17:54.640 said that if

00:17:56.100 Crowder got

00:17:57.460 demonetized by

00:17:59.260 YouTube, for

00:18:00.080 example, or some

00:18:01.080 other platforms,

00:18:02.060 that would have

00:18:03.000 a, obviously have

00:18:04.220 a big impact on

00:18:05.400 their shared

00:18:06.180 revenue.

00:18:06.960 So the idea was

00:18:07.820 Crowder would make

00:18:08.640 content, Daily

00:18:10.240 Wire would promote

00:18:11.180 it and put it on

00:18:11.860 their platforms,

00:18:12.760 et cetera, and

00:18:14.160 then the two of

00:18:14.740 them would share

00:18:15.260 the combined

00:18:16.240 money.

00:18:17.380 But if Crowder

00:18:18.800 did something that

00:18:19.540 would get them

00:18:20.020 demonetized or

00:18:21.600 banned on

00:18:22.120 platforms, the

00:18:23.400 amount of money

00:18:23.980 the two of them

00:18:24.660 could make could

00:18:26.060 be substantially

00:18:26.860 decreased, so

00:18:28.980 the Daily

00:18:30.220 Wire's first

00:18:31.120 offer, and

00:18:31.840 first offer is

00:18:32.640 important, first

00:18:34.020 offer is not a

00:18:34.720 final offer, his

00:18:36.040 first offer was

00:18:36.880 that there would

00:18:37.260 be financial

00:18:38.860 offsets for that,

00:18:39.860 or penalties, you

00:18:40.920 might call it, so

00:18:42.560 that they wouldn't

00:18:43.240 have to pay

00:18:43.820 Crowder millions

00:18:45.640 of dollars if he

00:18:46.800 was making no

00:18:47.660 money for them.

00:18:48.340 Now, Crowder

00:18:51.720 interpreted this as

00:18:54.400 effectively a form

00:18:56.640 of censorship

00:18:57.320 because he would

00:18:59.360 be penalized if

00:19:01.600 some other

00:19:02.380 platform that he

00:19:03.240 can't control

00:19:03.980 decided he said

00:19:05.600 something they

00:19:06.140 didn't like.

00:19:07.660 So in effect,

00:19:09.160 his point, which

00:19:10.660 is accurate, this

00:19:12.420 is an accurate

00:19:12.980 point, is that the

00:19:15.040 Daily Wire's

00:19:15.780 offer would make

00:19:17.420 him still subsidiary

00:19:19.500 to the social

00:19:20.420 media censors.

00:19:22.120 In other words,

00:19:22.760 he would, now the

00:19:24.080 Daily Wire would

00:19:25.720 be an extra force

00:19:27.120 on the side of the

00:19:28.860 censors.

00:19:30.620 Does that capture

00:19:32.520 it?

00:19:32.980 That the Daily

00:19:33.840 Wire's offer,

00:19:34.740 because it included

00:19:35.520 a penalty for bad

00:19:37.040 behavior, you know,

00:19:38.040 bad behavior, in

00:19:39.240 quotes, that that was

00:19:40.980 the same as being on

00:19:42.000 the side of the

00:19:42.680 censors.

00:19:43.380 How many would take

00:19:44.460 that view?

00:19:44.900 Oh, and furthermore,

00:19:46.580 furthermore, he said

00:19:47.740 very clearly, it is

00:19:49.440 not about the money.

00:19:51.540 It is not about the

00:19:52.900 money.

00:19:53.920 Does that capture it?

00:19:56.160 And then he backed

00:19:57.560 up his not about the

00:19:58.620 money by saying, I

00:20:00.540 never said the 50

00:20:01.520 million wasn't

00:20:02.200 enough.

00:20:03.220 I never even

00:20:03.860 discussed the dollar

00:20:04.700 amount, which

00:20:06.040 apparently is true.

00:20:08.420 So does that back his

00:20:11.560 view that it's not

00:20:12.540 about the money?

00:20:13.840 Because he never

00:20:14.400 discussed the 50

00:20:15.260 million.

00:20:16.260 It's only about them

00:20:17.280 being on the side of

00:20:18.240 the censors, and

00:20:19.840 that he was also

00:20:21.460 concerned, not so

00:20:23.100 much for himself, but

00:20:24.660 he said directly on

00:20:25.860 an audio we heard, he

00:20:27.540 said, but what about

00:20:28.460 the smaller person who

00:20:29.940 comes up and can't

00:20:30.780 negotiate with you?

00:20:32.160 What about them?

00:20:33.260 Are they going to get

00:20:33.880 this deal too, where

00:20:35.460 basically everybody's

00:20:36.620 just going to be under

00:20:37.260 the heel of the

00:20:38.020 censors, which is

00:20:38.820 exactly what we don't

00:20:39.780 want?

00:20:40.080 And then he

00:20:41.120 suggested that they

00:20:41.960 move away from being

00:20:43.860 dependent on

00:20:44.740 advertising.

00:20:48.000 Now, so would you

00:20:49.160 characterize that as

00:20:50.260 number one, not about

00:20:52.480 the money?

00:20:53.960 How many would you

00:20:54.740 agree that Crowder's

00:20:56.840 complaint was not

00:20:57.780 about the money?

00:21:03.060 You're not quite sure,

00:21:04.180 are you?

00:21:05.480 Well, I'm going to

00:21:06.620 clear it up for you in

00:21:07.480 a minute.

00:21:07.720 All right, so let me

00:21:13.800 give you three

00:21:14.420 different takes on

00:21:15.300 this.

00:21:16.220 The first take will

00:21:18.060 be people who don't

00:21:19.240 have experience in

00:21:20.320 business.

00:21:22.320 Second take will be

00:21:23.800 from a lawyer.

00:21:26.080 The third take will

00:21:27.420 be from somebody who

00:21:28.260 is very experienced

00:21:29.380 and negotiating

00:21:30.740 contracts very much

00:21:32.480 of this type.

00:21:34.360 All right.

00:21:35.200 Do you think those

00:21:36.080 three views are going

00:21:36.840 to be the same?

00:21:37.720 Not even close.

00:21:40.840 Not even close.

00:21:42.200 All right.

00:21:42.920 So for our first

00:21:44.520 stand-in for the

00:21:45.720 opinion of someone

00:21:46.500 who I believe, and

00:21:48.360 if, by the way, if

00:21:49.460 I'm mischaracterizing

00:21:50.600 this individual, please

00:21:52.720 correct me.

00:21:54.000 But do you know

00:21:55.800 Carolyn Borisenko

00:21:57.880 on Twitter?

00:21:59.420 Dr. Carolyn

00:22:00.800 Borisenko.

00:22:01.400 Now, she's a popular

00:22:04.180 tweeter.

00:22:04.720 You've seen a lot of

00:22:05.480 her tweets probably.

00:22:07.200 And her take was,

00:22:11.360 oh, first of all, you

00:22:12.240 need to know that

00:22:12.780 Stephen Crowder recorded

00:22:13.980 his phone call with the

00:22:14.980 Daily Wire, and then he

00:22:16.880 played it on the air.

00:22:19.140 Okay.

00:22:19.480 We'll talk about that.

00:22:20.360 But Dr. Borisenko says,

00:22:25.960 Stephen Crowder recorded

00:22:27.040 a phone call with the

00:22:27.800 Daily Wire CEO that

00:22:28.780 absolutely destroys the

00:22:30.440 narrative that they,

00:22:32.280 meaning the Daily Wire,

00:22:33.920 have been trying to sell

00:22:34.840 you.

00:22:35.020 And so I listened to

00:22:39.840 the audio, and I

00:22:42.360 didn't hear that.

00:22:44.300 I didn't hear anything

00:22:45.220 like that.

00:22:46.380 I didn't hear any

00:22:47.100 narrative get destroyed.

00:22:49.460 Do you know what I

00:22:50.120 heard?

00:22:51.420 I'll tell you in a

00:22:52.260 minute.

00:22:53.560 So somebody who, and

00:22:56.460 again, if I'm

00:22:57.420 mischaracterizing this,

00:22:59.660 you know, somebody

00:23:00.100 should correct me,

00:23:00.900 because I'll apologize.

00:23:02.320 But I don't think that

00:23:03.300 Dr. Borisenko would

00:23:05.640 characterize herself as

00:23:08.200 an expert in business

00:23:09.400 or negotiating.

00:23:10.740 I don't think so.

00:23:12.340 Now, if you're not, if

00:23:14.000 you're not really

00:23:14.720 experienced in

00:23:15.580 negotiating, would it

00:23:18.220 be reasonable that your

00:23:19.200 take on this is

00:23:20.160 incomplete?

00:23:21.720 That there's maybe some

00:23:22.780 blind spots?

00:23:23.680 Because just the lack of

00:23:24.560 experience in this, it's

00:23:25.960 a very unique domain,

00:23:27.460 right?

00:23:27.940 It's a domain that if

00:23:29.160 you're not quite

00:23:31.380 experienced with,

00:23:33.300 there would be huge

00:23:34.280 things that are not

00:23:35.080 obvious to you.

00:23:36.240 It would just be

00:23:36.780 obvious to somebody who

00:23:37.620 does it for a living.

00:23:39.820 So that's one take.

00:23:41.420 So I'll say more about

00:23:43.400 that.

00:23:43.740 But initially, I would

00:23:44.780 say it looks like she's

00:23:46.760 agreeing that it wasn't

00:23:47.800 about the money, and it

00:23:50.240 looks like she's agreeing

00:23:51.200 that it was about the

00:23:53.440 censorship.

00:23:55.180 Is that a reasonable

00:23:56.540 take for somebody who's

00:23:58.460 not an expert at

00:23:59.600 negotiating contracts?

00:24:00.900 Is that reasonable from

00:24:03.540 that perspective, let's

00:24:04.620 say?

00:24:05.460 I think so.

00:24:07.420 I mean, it sounds like a

00:24:08.820 smart person, because she

00:24:10.600 is smart.

00:24:12.040 She's, you know, she's

00:24:12.880 above average, way above

00:24:14.200 average, I think.

00:24:15.420 Way above average in IQ and

00:24:17.960 accomplishment.

00:24:19.640 And it's reasonable.

00:24:21.580 You know, if that was your

00:24:22.860 frame of reference.

00:24:24.680 Now, let's take another

00:24:25.620 frame of reference.

00:24:26.360 There's an attorney, maybe

00:24:29.780 you've heard of him, Robert

00:24:31.240 Barnes.

00:24:32.220 Has anybody ever heard of

00:24:33.280 attorney Robert Barnes?

00:24:35.820 Well, he's got a take.

00:24:39.280 In which he said on

00:24:41.200 Twitter, Crowder called the

00:24:42.600 gilded cage of censored

00:24:46.900 speech slavery to big tech,

00:24:49.820 not the dollar offer.

00:24:51.800 And he says Crowder was

00:24:53.180 right.

00:24:53.460 So, from a lawyer's

00:24:55.240 take, he's sort of more

00:24:59.100 of like a technical take

00:25:00.760 on what he said.

00:25:02.460 And his technical take is

00:25:04.020 that it was about censored

00:25:05.540 speech, you know, slavery

00:25:07.000 to big tech.

00:25:08.000 It was not about the

00:25:09.260 dollar amount of the

00:25:10.400 offer.

00:25:11.900 So, that's the lawyer's

00:25:13.020 take.

00:25:15.180 By context, Robert Barnes is

00:25:17.400 who I call the dumbest

00:25:18.380 attorney in the world.

00:25:20.160 But that doesn't mean he's

00:25:21.320 wrong on this.

00:25:22.020 He's wrong about me.

00:25:25.460 I just have a problem with

00:25:27.500 him personally.

00:25:28.800 But, you know, is that a

00:25:30.960 reasonable opinion?

00:25:32.440 Do you think that the

00:25:33.660 attorney view, because it

00:25:35.480 very much agrees with

00:25:37.560 Carolyn, Dr.

00:25:40.600 Bisenko?

00:25:42.660 Pretty reasonable.

00:25:44.200 Yeah, I'm going to say that's

00:25:45.000 reasonable based on what he

00:25:46.260 heard.

00:25:46.460 All right, now I'm going to

00:25:47.880 give you the third view,

00:25:49.280 which is someone with

00:25:50.240 extensive business experience

00:25:52.000 in this exact domain.

00:25:55.300 And that would be me.

00:25:56.880 Because not only am I a

00:25:58.320 content provider, who has

00:26:00.120 done lots of content

00:26:02.300 providing contracts of all

00:26:04.040 kinds, but I also used to

00:26:07.040 be a contract negotiator for

00:26:09.520 a living.

00:26:10.880 And, you know, I've got a

00:26:11.800 degree in economics and

00:26:12.980 an MBA.

00:26:13.580 So I have exactly the

00:26:15.600 qualifications for exactly

00:26:17.660 this topic.

00:26:19.140 All right?

00:26:19.600 So would somebody who has

00:26:21.660 lots of experience in it

00:26:23.340 have the same view as the

00:26:25.360 attorney and as Dr.

00:26:29.400 Bisenko?

00:26:30.320 Well, here's my take.

00:26:31.400 It's always about the

00:26:33.480 money.

00:26:35.660 It's always about the

00:26:36.860 money.

00:26:39.360 Here's why.

00:26:41.380 Now, in order to

00:26:42.440 understand that, you would

00:26:43.480 have to have some

00:26:44.120 experience.

00:26:45.960 So the idea was that

00:26:48.420 Crowder would lose money if

00:26:50.760 he got demonetized on a

00:26:52.160 platform.

00:26:53.460 But the Daily Wire, quite

00:26:55.160 reasonably, quite reasonably,

00:26:57.940 the Daily Wire said, well, if

00:26:59.600 you make less money, shouldn't

00:27:01.680 we pay you less money?

00:27:03.620 Is that unreasonable?

00:27:05.960 He says that if you pay me

00:27:07.600 less money, it's censorship.

00:27:09.560 No, it isn't.

00:27:10.220 It's less money.

00:27:11.820 If he didn't care about the

00:27:13.400 money, he wouldn't be

00:27:15.080 complaining about the

00:27:16.120 contract.

00:27:17.440 Because the contract allows

00:27:18.900 him to say anything he

00:27:20.080 wants, wherever he wants.

00:27:23.040 What would be the penalty?

00:27:25.180 Just money.

00:27:25.960 The reason he feels he's

00:27:28.920 trapped in the gilded

00:27:30.100 cage is that he'll lose

00:27:32.100 money if he says what he

00:27:35.540 wants to say and is judged

00:27:37.940 unfit for the platforms.

00:27:40.380 So he doesn't want to be

00:27:41.580 under the yoke of

00:27:43.500 advertisers.

00:27:45.440 We agree with that.

00:27:46.920 He should not be under the

00:27:48.080 yoke of advertisers.

00:27:49.400 But what should he have

00:27:50.700 done?

00:27:51.760 How should he have handled

00:27:52.700 it if he were an

00:27:53.780 experienced business person

00:27:55.140 operating with full

00:27:57.040 ethics?

00:27:58.200 Number one, you never

00:28:00.440 record somebody's phone

00:28:01.920 call in a negotiation and

00:28:03.760 play it in public.

00:28:05.060 If you do, no one should

00:28:07.200 ever work with you again.

00:28:11.680 No, there's no forgiveness.

00:28:14.380 There's no second strike.

00:28:16.600 There's no second chance for

00:28:18.200 that one.

00:28:19.480 Right?

00:28:19.640 That is game.

00:28:23.740 It's so hard not to swear.

00:28:27.260 That is game over.

00:28:29.240 From an ethics perspective,

00:28:31.440 unless, you know, if we find

00:28:32.780 out later, let me soften this

00:28:34.320 a little because there might be

00:28:35.580 something I don't know.

00:28:37.020 So, you know, if in 48 hours we

00:28:39.160 find out that the Daily Wire knew

00:28:41.660 they were recorded and agreed to

00:28:43.460 it and agreed to have it public,

00:28:45.020 that'd be fine.

00:28:47.860 But that's not an evidence.

00:28:49.420 At the moment, it looks like he

00:28:50.660 recorded them without their

00:28:52.100 knowledge and played it without

00:28:53.920 their knowledge.

00:28:54.640 If that's true, the Daily Wire

00:28:56.900 should not be working with him.

00:28:59.360 That would be evidence that he's

00:29:01.460 not a person you could trust.

00:29:04.360 That would be one of the worst

00:29:05.620 things I've ever seen in a

00:29:07.440 business context.

00:29:09.500 Right?

00:29:09.880 Now, he didn't steal any money,

00:29:11.440 but it's as bad as a, you know,

00:29:14.380 Gary, as a Madoff, FTX, Sam

00:29:18.820 Bankman, I mean, except for the

00:29:20.720 money amount, because no money

00:29:22.620 was lost.

00:29:23.640 But in terms of ethical breaches,

00:29:28.940 it's as big as it gets.

00:29:30.040 I mean, it's literally illegal,

00:29:31.780 depending on where you are.

00:29:33.300 I think it depends on the state or

00:29:34.500 something.

00:29:35.020 But it's literally illegal to

00:29:37.040 record somebody with audio without

00:29:39.160 their permission.

00:29:40.040 In my state, it is.

00:29:41.360 It's different, I think, in

00:29:42.480 different places.

00:29:44.540 So that's the first thing you

00:29:45.680 need to know.

00:29:46.700 So the Daily Wire has played

00:29:49.360 this so far professionally, and I

00:29:53.220 got to give him credit for that.

00:29:55.060 Now, here's what Crowder should

00:29:56.880 have done or could have done if

00:29:58.480 he had more experience and wanted

00:30:01.720 to solve this.

00:30:03.340 He could have said to them,

00:30:04.620 look, I totally understand that if

00:30:08.380 we have a deal where we're both

00:30:09.780 doing something to make money, and

00:30:12.040 if I do something that makes you

00:30:13.440 not have money, that that needs to

00:30:15.900 be dealt with somehow.

00:30:17.460 Because otherwise, why would the

00:30:18.600 Daily Wire make a deal when they

00:30:19.980 didn't, you know, without protecting

00:30:22.500 the thing that's their biggest risk?

00:30:25.220 Here's how they do it.

00:30:26.600 It's a very typical contract problem.

00:30:30.200 Stephen Crowder could counter with

00:30:33.060 this.

00:30:33.880 How about we share the

00:30:36.720 subscription revenue, and I just

00:30:39.720 keep all of the YouTube revenue, and

00:30:42.640 then it's my problem if they, you

00:30:44.540 know, I'll say whatever I want, and

00:30:46.320 it's just my problem if they

00:30:47.720 demonetize me.

00:30:49.020 But we'll have a much smaller dollar

00:30:50.940 amount, and we'll just share the

00:30:53.140 subscription money, so that the Daily

00:30:55.600 Wire will never, ever be in a

00:30:57.220 position where even accidentally

00:30:59.640 they're on the side of the

00:31:01.360 censors. Because that's what a

00:31:03.380 subscription gets you. People just

00:31:04.760 pay it no matter what.

00:31:06.700 That would be the counteroffer.

00:31:08.720 I've made those counteroffers

00:31:10.160 before. It's very standard

00:31:11.820 business. Now, you might say, but

00:31:14.560 why didn't the Daily Wire offer

00:31:16.840 that in the first place? To which I

00:31:19.220 say, that's not the way it works.

00:31:21.300 No, they make the offer that's good

00:31:23.880 for them, the Daily Wire, and they

00:31:26.580 make it close enough to something

00:31:28.260 that's good for the other person,

00:31:29.540 that when they negotiate, you

00:31:31.600 know, they're not too far off. You

00:31:32.860 could go back and forth. So

00:31:34.680 Crowder could have easily said, how

00:31:36.880 about way less money, but I'll have

00:31:39.780 full control to say what I want, and

00:31:42.160 if I get demonetized, it only affects

00:31:44.220 me. Now, they might not have gone for

00:31:47.540 that offer, but that's the offer. But

00:31:51.900 in every case, it's only about the

00:31:53.800 money. It's only about the money.

00:31:56.140 Because the money is what causes the

00:31:58.480 censorship. So to say it's about the

00:32:01.420 censorship is, honestly, that seems

00:32:03.980 disingenuous. Like, I don't even know

00:32:06.760 what to think about that.

00:32:10.000 Jared says, wow, Scott, you completely

00:32:12.220 miss Stefan's point. I'll bet I don't.

00:32:16.320 his point is that the Daily Wire would

00:32:20.660 be colluding in a sentence,

00:32:23.640 accidentally, but colluding with the

00:32:25.620 big tech companies to censor him.

00:32:27.880 Isn't that the point?

00:32:36.320 Right? I'm just saying, did I really

00:32:39.900 miss the point? I don't think I did.

00:32:42.700 I think you missed the first part where

00:32:44.400 I described his point in detail. So, how

00:32:50.620 do I do a deal like this? Same way.

00:32:55.500 Same way. So, when I do a deal with a

00:33:00.140 publisher, do you think the publisher

00:33:02.360 says, I'll give you millions of dollars

00:33:04.680 no matter what you do? Of course not.

00:33:08.840 Do they say, we will give you a contract

00:33:11.000 if you give us a book we can't publish

00:33:12.960 because it's so terrible? No.

00:33:15.780 In every case, people have to perform.

00:33:19.520 Performing to a contract is the most

00:33:22.620 basic thing any contract does.

00:33:24.900 So, they just said, this is what we

00:33:26.400 expect of you. If this thing happens to

00:33:29.300 you, it's going to happen to us at the

00:33:30.720 same time. We're both not going to get

00:33:33.280 that YouTube money. So, let's share the

00:33:35.600 risk. If he wanted them to take more of

00:33:38.140 the risk, he could have done it. He could

00:33:42.000 have just offered something else.

00:33:46.480 So, it's always about the money because

00:33:49.300 the thing he's talking about can be

00:33:51.180 transferred into money. Anytime anybody

00:33:54.320 says it's not about the money, stop

00:33:56.740 listening to them. Everything they say

00:33:59.100 after it's not about the money, when

00:34:00.760 there's 50 million dollars there, it's

00:34:02.800 always about the money. Always. You

00:34:06.840 know, the fact that he's talking about

00:34:08.440 it in public, what's that about? It's

00:34:11.440 about the money, right? You know, he's

00:34:14.760 knows. So, I'm going to be strongly on

00:34:18.940 the side of the Daily Wire on this. They

00:34:21.800 made a good first offer. He didn't

00:34:23.460 counter. He could have. There are lots of

00:34:25.540 ways to counter. He didn't. And he

00:34:28.440 recorded them. And I would never even

00:34:30.880 take his phone call. Would you? If

00:34:35.160 Steven Crowder called you, would you

00:34:37.860 even take his call? If you know he

00:34:41.140 recorded somebody and then played it, I

00:34:43.320 wouldn't even answer the phone. I don't

00:34:46.400 know how he could ever go forward and do

00:34:47.940 business with anybody at this point. I

00:34:50.040 mean, seriously. That is an ethical

00:34:52.440 lapse of just monumental size, in my

00:34:55.300 opinion. Maybe it's just a pet peeve.

00:34:58.440 All right. Here's something

00:34:59.320 interesting on Fox Business, on Charlie

00:35:03.760 Payne's show, Making Money. This big

00:35:07.400 master of finance, Jeffrey Gundlach, he's

00:35:11.180 the double-line CEO. So, he's one of the

00:35:14.200 masters of the universe in finance. And

00:35:17.300 he's talked about fentanyl. And he says

00:35:22.420 that the lack of action to shut down

00:35:25.140 fentanyl has to be intentional. He said

00:35:29.460 that right on TV. He goes, there's no

00:35:33.420 explanation for the lack of action. It has

00:35:35.560 to be intentional. This is, I don't know if

00:35:39.200 he's a billionaire. He's probably a

00:35:40.380 billionaire. This is somebody who's high

00:35:42.800 credibility in the business world, who's

00:35:45.260 looked at this and says, there's no

00:35:46.680 explanation. It has to be intentional that

00:35:49.400 we're letting 100,000 people die. For what

00:35:52.440 reason, we don't know. But since you know

00:35:55.160 what the problem is, and you know what you

00:35:57.300 would do if you were trying to solve it, and

00:35:59.640 we're not doing the things that you would do if

00:36:01.120 you were even trying. Like, it would be one

00:36:04.080 thing to try and fail, but we're not trying.

00:36:08.060 See, that part is unexplained. Failing

00:36:12.460 everybody gets. Failing, that's just, you

00:36:15.100 know, business as usual. But not trying on one

00:36:19.180 of the biggest problems in the country that

00:36:20.880 everyone realizes is the biggest. That has to

00:36:25.160 be corruption. It has to be. It's a process of

00:36:29.160 elimination. If you could give me one other

00:36:32.140 explanation, I would take it. But it's got to

00:36:35.260 be corruption. Now, it might not be all money

00:36:38.540 corruption. It might be somebody doesn't want

00:36:40.640 to, you know, raise their head and say

00:36:42.400 something that would get them, you know, fewer

00:36:45.400 voters or something. But it's still corrupt,

00:36:48.400 because they're not doing the people's work. It's

00:36:50.700 just a different kind of corruption. All right,

00:36:54.520 well, it was good to know that somebody smart

00:36:56.680 and prominent has exactly the same opinion. The

00:36:59.740 first thing I did was go to his Twitter

00:37:01.260 account and find out if he was following me.

00:37:05.260 Because I haven't heard anybody else say it. Have

00:37:07.220 you? Have you? Have you heard anybody else say

00:37:10.940 that the lack of action process of elimination,

00:37:14.940 it's got to be intentional? Has anybody else said

00:37:19.060 that? No, he doesn't follow me on Twitter. So

00:37:25.700 that's even more impressive, because it means I'm

00:37:30.980 not the only one noticing. But it means that just

00:37:34.440 smart observers are seeing the same thing, that

00:37:37.780 there's no action, and there's no explanation for

00:37:39.820 the action. Do you know what was the other time I

00:37:43.120 saw this? When Obama reversed his position when he

00:37:47.120 said he wouldn't touch the dispensaries and the weed

00:37:49.300 business in states, and then he did exactly the

00:37:52.560 opposite. And he said he would go after the

00:37:54.640 dispensaries, and he never said why he changed his

00:37:58.240 view. Never said. To which I said, if you don't explain why

00:38:02.820 you changed your opinion, corruption is the assumption. It

00:38:06.220 has to be corruption. So I assume that Obama's a criminal, based on

00:38:13.060 that. Just on that alone, I assume he's a criminal. There's a funny

00:38:21.640 story about the Supreme Court leaker. Remember with that Roe

00:38:25.840 versus Wade thing that got overturned? And Jonathan Turley says

00:38:29.620 that on Twitter, the Supreme Court's report indicates that they

00:38:35.160 cannot isolate the culprit among the over 80 possible suspects. So

00:38:40.380 that's people who had access to the document. And it is an

00:38:44.200 admission that is almost as chilling as the leak itself. 80

00:38:49.400 people. And then Joel Pollack, writing in Breitbart, notes that

00:38:54.940 it appears that the Supreme Court did not investigate the Supreme

00:38:59.720 Court justices themselves.

00:39:06.200 Now, I don't know this for sure, unless it was done in secret. But

00:39:10.200 there's no mention, no mention, that the Supreme

00:39:14.640 justices themselves are obvious suspects. Now, here's the funny

00:39:21.160 part. Well, it's funny or tragic, you decide. So the Supreme Court

00:39:26.980 should be, in our system, the most credible entity we have. Because

00:39:33.360 it's sort of our final defense against other entities being

00:39:37.020 corrupt, right? So if your Supreme Court isn't your best people, in

00:39:43.960 terms of credibility and honesty, you've got a real problem. Because

00:39:47.620 that's like, you know, the cap of the whole business, right? So here's

00:39:53.260 what's hilarious. Oh, and also, some of the people they talked to

00:39:57.900 admitted they talked to their spouses. So some of the 80s said, no, I didn't

00:40:02.700 leak it to the media, but I did tell my spouse. So we now have a situation where

00:40:10.660 we can't trust the justices. We can't trust at least 80 of their staff. And I'm

00:40:17.660 not sure we can trust their spouses. So it turns out that the entity that we

00:40:23.380 should trust the most has more suspects to this crime than any group you can

00:40:30.420 imagine. Like, if this happened in, you know, any retail store that had lots of

00:40:36.900 employees, I don't think they would have hundreds of suspects. Do you? Have you

00:40:42.620 ever seen any crime in which there were hundreds of suspects of the same entity?

00:40:48.340 When a bank, when a bank gets robbed, it's an insider job, are there hundreds of

00:40:56.300 suspects? The fact that everybody is a suspect is to be as hilarious. Like just

00:41:05.580 everybody, they're all, they're all untrustworthy. See, that's why transparency

00:41:10.940 is the only solution. You really can't trust anybody in government. You just have to

00:41:16.780 have transparency. It's the only way. Speaking of transparency, Rasmussen's

00:41:24.740 reporting did a very provocative poll and reported that 57% of likely U.S. voters

00:41:32.500 believe Congress should investigate the CDC over their vaccine handling. But it gets

00:41:42.420 even more interesting. 41% don't think it's likely the CDC has provided complete information.

00:41:50.380 22% say it's not likely that they got complete information. So unfortunately, I fall into the

00:42:02.420 22%. Wah, wah, wah. Because I famously always say 25% or so get every poll wrong. In other words,

00:42:12.760 they have the dumb answer for every poll. But here I am in the 22%. I'm in the group that says

00:42:20.260 it's not likely at all that the CDC provided complete information about vaccine risks. Do you know why

00:42:27.260 it's not likely they provided complete information? Because they're not psychic? How could they possibly

00:42:35.220 have complete information? Did the CDC know what was going to happen in five years? You know, when

00:42:41.560 any potential problems might arise? No. No. All they knew is what the manufacturers told them, basically.

00:42:50.320 So how in the world could they have that information? They can't tell you it's safe. They could just tell you

00:42:55.940 what somebody told them. That's all they could do. So anybody who thought that they should know

00:43:01.820 it's safe, how would they possibly know that? That was unknowable. All right. But then it gets

00:43:09.260 more interesting. Rasmussen asked people how many of them know somebody they think died from vaccines

00:43:15.940 or had vaccine injury. It's like 28%. What? 28%. How about this? 68% of the, this is from Rasmussen also,

00:43:30.060 68% of the 260 million adults, that would be 177 million adults in the United States. So 177 million

00:43:39.560 indicate received the COVID vaccination and 7% of those reported major side effects. Now that would

00:43:49.000 translate to 12 million people with major side effects. I guess that would include, I don't know,

00:43:59.220 I guess that doesn't include death because they couldn't have answered the poll. But that got picked up in the

00:44:04.820 the other question. So how do you interpret this? Let's say, and by the way, hold, hold your analysis

00:44:11.260 for a moment, right? Because I've got some, I'll go deeper. So suppose the, I think the polling is

00:44:20.460 probably accurate in the sense that 7% really did answer that they had in their, in their opinion,

00:44:26.200 major side effects. Let's say you knew that was true. We don't know that's true. But let's say you

00:44:33.200 know it was a fact. The 7% reported major side effects that they associate with the vaccination.

00:44:41.820 Would you say that is strong evidence there's a problem, evidence of nothing, or strong evidence

00:44:50.900 that the vaccinations work? Go. Strong evidence the vaccinations are killing people doesn't tell us

00:44:58.820 anything, or it's strong evidence that the vaccinations were a good idea on a risk reward basis.

00:45:05.760 What's your interpretation? A lot of people say nothing. Interesting. Well, remember, you know,

00:45:13.540 it's a poll of people's opinions. So, you know, by, by definition, that's not science. But

00:45:19.820 wouldn't you be worried if the VAERS report had this? How is it different than the VAERS report?

00:45:27.820 Is it less reliable than the VAERS report? Which is where the doctors input who they think got

00:45:34.540 injury from the vaccinations. All right, let me give you some context. So 7% report that they believe

00:45:44.560 the vaccination injured them. Doesn't mean they're right. That's just their best view of what it was.

00:45:50.880 But in context, 80% of the United States believes angels are real. 80%. 60% believe in ghosts. The ghosts

00:46:00.660 are real. 60%. 6% of Americans are not, don't believe it, but they are sensitive to gluten. 6% are sensitive

00:46:13.280 to gluten. But 25% self-diagnosed as sensitive to gluten. So only 6% are scientifically sensitive to it,

00:46:25.120 but 25% believe they are. Right? The placebo effect. How big is the placebo effect? If you compare the

00:46:36.000 non-active pill to the real pill to the real pill in a study, the placebo effect is 30% to 60%.

00:46:43.840 So 30% to 60% of people will report that the pill helped them. 30% to 60% when it did nothing.

00:46:53.920 Or maybe it did because their body just reacted to their belief. How about how many people believe

00:47:01.760 Elvis is that Elvis is alive? 4%. 4% of the country thinks Elvis is alive. What percent of the country

00:47:10.720 think Bigfoot is real? 14%. According to an NBC poll, this was taken some time ago, how many believe

00:47:21.520 Hillary Clinton is honest? What percentage of the country believes Hillary Clinton is honest? 11%.

00:47:30.640 11%. All right. So 11% of the country thinks Hillary is honest, but only 7% think they were injured

00:47:42.000 by vaccinations. I don't know. Does that context do anything for you? So the context should be how

00:47:51.680 accurate are people self-reporting anything? Yeah, 7% actually sounds low to me.

00:47:59.040 It says low. I would have expected more like 20%. But 7% is probably exactly the number of people

00:48:10.480 who had a major health problem at around the same time as the vaccination.

00:48:17.120 I don't know about you, but at my age, I tend to have some major health issue every year.

00:48:22.240 Do you? Now, when I say major, I mean like I had problems with my blood pressure meds.

00:48:28.160 You know, at one point, my sinuses were bad. You know, at one point, I had some reaction from

00:48:33.600 some other meds. And I got, I thought my fitness declined quite a bit for a while during the pandemic.

00:48:42.240 So I had all these things that I could have said, you know, I might have said, were due to the shock.

00:48:50.400 But what if it's something like this? It caught my eye that 6% of the public is sensitive to gluten,

00:48:59.600 and almost the same number believed they had vaccine side effects. Do you think it could be

00:49:06.000 as simple as there's some people who have a specific allergy, and they did have bad outcomes with the

00:49:13.040 vaccine? Yeah. I don't know. I don't know if you, I don't know if the vaccine is something you can

00:49:20.080 have an allergy to, because it has to be alive. It doesn't have to be alive to give you an allergic

00:49:25.040 reaction, technically. Oh, I think it does. It doesn't have to be alive to give you, I think there's like

00:49:33.600 a technical definition that requires something to be alive. But you could have a bad reaction to

00:49:38.400 something that's not alive. So it looks the same. All right. So here's what I'd say. I would say this

00:49:45.360 is super alarming in the same way that the VAERS reports are. But if you take it too much beyond

00:49:52.560 that, then you'd be into pretty speculative range. All right. So I'd be worried about it. Apparently,

00:50:02.080 there's another report on one of the vaccinations giving strokes to even older people, because

00:50:08.320 we know there's some extra risk with the younger people. So one of them might actually have some

00:50:13.120 older people risk, but they're looking into that. Drip, drip, drip. So I was listening to a Spaces,

00:50:19.280 that audio program on Twitter, and there was a conversation about the vaccine injury and stuff,

00:50:26.560 and Alex Berenson was there. And they were talking about the fact that there are more vaccinated people

00:50:34.240 being hospitalized and having bad outcomes than unvaccinated. And it was an extended conversation.

00:50:42.080 And while I was listening to it, I didn't hear the whole thing. I didn't hear anybody bring up the

00:50:46.800 obvious point that whether the vaccines work or don't work, at least the way we currently,

00:50:55.040 you know, the way the doctors currently say they work, which is not spreading, not stopping the spread,

00:51:00.640 but rather helping you survive. So here's what they were not saying. How would you interpret the fact

00:51:14.000 that it's mostly the heavily boosted, the more boosters you have, the more likely you have a bad

00:51:19.120 outcome? What's your interpretation of that? Your interpretation is that the vaccine not only doesn't

00:51:24.720 work, it gives you a negative impact, right? Because that's not my interpretation.

00:51:32.880 But that seems to be the way everybody else is interpreting it. And I'm trying to figure out,

00:51:36.720 is it me? All right, here's my interpretation.

00:51:43.840 What group of people are most likely to get boosted? The people who spend the most time around people,

00:51:50.320 in crowds, because they would have the most chance of getting infected, and the people who are weak

00:51:55.040 and old and have comorbidities. If you took just the group of people who have comorbidities and around

00:52:01.840 lots of people, and compared them, you know, forget about vaccinations. Just compare the people who are

00:52:08.240 weak and around a lot of people to the people who are healthy and not around a lot of people. Would they have

00:52:13.360 the same amount of outcomes? It should be hugely different, right? The old people are dying like

00:52:20.240 crazy. The young people, it's just a sniffle. Right? Now, which group is more likely to get the most

00:52:27.680 shots and the most boosters? The ones who know they have no real risk to begin with, and they're not

00:52:34.160 around people all the time? Or the people who are around people and also have the highest risk?

00:52:39.760 They should, the ones who are around people should be the most vaccinated, the ones who are also

00:52:44.960 have comorbidities or they're old. So if you took that group and you decrease the risk by half,

00:52:51.440 I'm just making up a number. If you decrease that, the vulnerable group by half, it should still be

00:52:59.200 way higher than the people who never got vaccinated at all, even if the vaccination worked great.

00:53:07.120 So these numbers tell me the vaccination could be working great. If it reduced the risk by half,

00:53:17.600 but it's still like, you know, two or three times more than the healthy people, that's exactly what

00:53:22.640 I'd expect. So the numbers are exactly what I'd expect if the vaccine did protect people. I'm not

00:53:30.560 saying it did. I mean, that's not my claim because we don't know, right? We could be surprised tomorrow.

00:53:36.560 You know, tomorrow we learn all kinds of new stuff. Who knows? And it hasn't been tested for long enough

00:53:41.040 that you can be sure about anything. But here's my problem. I don't know if that's a good point.

00:53:48.880 And here's what I would need to know. When they do these studies of who's hospitalized,

00:53:56.400 are they looking at people with the same comorbidities, vaccinated versus unvaccinated?

00:54:02.560 Or are they looking at healthy people who didn't get vaccinated much compared to unhealthy people

00:54:08.000 who are around a lot of people all the time who did get vaccinated? Because that's probably what it is.

00:54:14.400 If all they did is look at the outcomes, then they didn't do the study right. It's just a dumb study.

00:54:20.640 Now, I always mention Andres Backhaus, you know, because he's better than I am by a lot

00:54:28.240 in looking at data and figuring out if at least the analysis is correct or they've, you know,

00:54:33.440 confused correlation and causation. And I believe his exact comment on this stuff

00:54:43.360 was LOL. I don't know exactly what he's thinking, but I don't think it was worth more than an LOL.

00:54:52.720 Because there's no way that they've sorted out causation from correlation.

00:54:58.240 I don't think so. And there was nobody on that spaces call who would even bring up the question.

00:55:04.480 Now again, I'm not sure it's the right question. Because if they really controlled the study somehow,

00:55:11.920 then maybe they controlled for it. But I doubt it. I don't think they could.

00:55:17.200 It's proven, Scott. No, the data might be proven.

00:55:21.680 The data might be proven.

00:55:22.800 But the interpretation is sketchy.

00:55:30.720 Now, is it cognitive dissonance if I allow that both possibilities are entirely possible?

00:55:42.400 Cognitive dissonance is almost always when you've made up your mind.

00:55:46.240 I'm telling you explicitly both possibilities are alive. Can you hear that or not?

00:55:52.880 Edith? Edith is yelling cognitive dissonance.

00:55:55.680 Edith, you're in cognitive dissonance. You're experiencing it. You're totally having a hallucination.

00:56:02.720 Because I'm the one saying either one is possible and the data allows both interpretations.

00:56:08.240 You're saying I'm having cognitive dissonance. That's cognitive dissonance.

00:56:11.840 You are experiencing it. Because you have some certainty about something that couldn't be certain.

00:56:18.800 No, you are. No, you are. You projecting person.

00:56:28.880 People think they can read my body language and determine that I'm being disingenuous.

00:56:34.560 Yes. Okay.

00:56:42.080 All right. Here's the problem I keep having when I bring up this same point.

00:56:47.520 Everybody goes quiet. What's wrong with you today?

00:56:53.040 Why does everybody go quiet when I bring up that point? Every time.

00:56:56.320 You know, some people are just triggered into cognitive dissonance.

00:57:00.640 But the rest of you are just sort of commenting, you know, indirectly in general.

00:57:07.760 I don't see people saying, Scott, I agree with your interpretation.

00:57:12.560 Do you agree with my interpretation? Or no?

00:57:17.760 That my interpretation is, well, my interpretation is that there are two interpretations.

00:57:22.400 And they're both alive at the moment.

00:57:25.600 Okay.

00:57:27.360 So I think that needs to be at least part of every conversation on this, or it doesn't feel real.

00:57:34.080 All right.

00:57:37.600 That's about all I had in this.

00:57:38.880 I'd like to say again, even though that I think, I believe Alex Berenson is misinterpreting this data.

00:57:45.440 But I'd like to say that I think he's a valuable asset to the country.

00:57:49.520 Because I do like the fact that people were pushing really hard against the safety claims of the vaccines.

00:57:57.440 They might, you know, they may be overzealous, but you need that.

00:58:03.040 Like society really needed, you know, these people pushing hard who are incredible people.

00:58:08.000 So I appreciate Alex Berenson's service to the country.

00:58:11.200 I don't know if he's, you know, got every question right, but that's not how I would judge him.

00:58:15.200 I wouldn't judge him by whether he got everything right during a pandemic.

00:58:20.480 Because nobody did, right?

00:58:22.480 So I'm not going to judge anybody for being wrong during a pandemic.

00:58:27.680 I told you in the beginning of the pandemic I wasn't going to do it, and I'm trying to be consistent.

00:58:34.960 All right.

00:58:36.960 Did I miss anything?

00:58:37.840 Any stories happening that I missed?

00:58:47.120 Are you going to talk about the Democrats being hunted in New Mexico?

00:58:51.460 Now, is that the story about the serial killer who, there was a serial killer who hunted down some Democrats?

00:58:58.360 I did see something like that.

00:59:00.420 I typically don't talk about crime stories, but that's worth mentioning.

00:59:08.620 So the Republicans are always talking about, and I'm always talking about, Republicans being hunted.

00:59:14.080 But there was a case of somebody who looks like they went out and just tried to kill some Democrats.

00:59:19.940 And we, of course, condemn that at the highest possible level.

00:59:25.200 But, yeah, that's a fair comment.

00:59:27.360 And, see, now that's the kind of criticism that I appreciate.

00:59:33.980 Because that was, first of all, totally fair, that there was something that was counter to my narrative that I didn't mention.

00:59:41.160 Now, again, the reason is because I don't talk about specific crimes too much.

00:59:45.340 That's sort of my thing.

00:59:46.440 I don't talk about them.

00:59:47.460 But in that case, I should have.

00:59:48.860 You're right.

00:59:49.540 That absolutely should have been mentioned as the, you know, counterbalance.

00:59:54.580 So, good for you.

00:59:55.700 I like it when you call me on stuff that's, you know, as clearly wrong as that was.

01:00:03.740 All right.

01:00:05.900 What did Crenshaw say?

01:00:09.400 Crenshaw is supporting military against the cartels.

01:00:14.120 Well, there we go.

01:00:16.460 Is there anybody who doesn't?

01:00:17.580 Now, I'm going to ask you a question that I know I'm going to get mocked for.

01:00:27.620 All right.

01:00:27.960 I sometimes think that one of my special, let's say, services that I can do for the republic are to take something that you can't talk about and normalize it so that it becomes part of the option set.

01:00:44.060 Because there's some things that people just want to say first, because whoever goes first will just get shot down.

01:00:49.500 And I'm pretty sure I've been the loudest public voice about a military intervention in Mexico.

01:00:57.260 And I said it loudly and clearly.

01:01:01.080 I supported it.

01:01:02.420 And I will argue it in public.

01:01:05.520 I'll argue it with anybody who wants.

01:01:07.340 And I'll make my case.

01:01:08.760 Because it has to be part of the option set.

01:01:11.720 Now, I believe that I did enough of it that it demonstrated that people were more open to it than maybe you would have assumed.

01:01:21.040 Wouldn't you agree?

01:01:21.640 There was plenty of pushback on the practical part of it, and there should be.

01:01:27.160 Like, I don't want to recommend war and have nobody in the United States disagree.

01:01:34.200 Do you want to live in that country?

01:01:36.440 No.

01:01:37.300 No, I always want a healthy disagreement about war.

01:01:41.300 Like, yes, no.

01:01:42.720 That should be the biggest fight we ever have.

01:01:45.100 But it should be a fair fight, right?

01:01:46.500 We should be serious about it, about whether we ever use military force.

01:01:51.640 But I put that out there, and I think after people ask questions about, you know, how it could work, and are you serious, and what would it look like, largely people, I think, accepted it as an option.

01:02:04.840 Would you agree?

01:02:06.860 Now, I'm not, you know, I suppose maybe somebody else talked about it, and I'm not aware of it.

01:02:12.260 But Lance says you never did that.

01:02:16.780 Can somebody tell Lance that for a long time I've been saying we should attack the cartels militarily?

01:02:23.500 A long time.

01:02:24.540 And I've been saying it publicly on live stream.

01:02:28.900 I've said it on Twitter.

01:02:30.500 And I think that helps normalize it.

01:02:34.140 Because remember what happened when, who was it who talked about Trump brought it up once privately, and one of his staffers basically just shot it down like it's not even something you can talk about?

01:02:46.680 Well, and that's what I wanted to change.

01:02:49.820 I wanted to make sure that Trump could say that in public, which he did.

01:02:54.060 He put on a video saying it directly, because I think he saw that the room had been softened enough that you could say it and you could defend it.

01:03:04.280 So, anyway, I normalize more war.

01:03:13.760 Well, war is normalized, isn't it?

01:03:17.000 Do you think I did that?

01:03:18.780 Pretty sure that was normalized a long time ago.

01:03:21.440 We haven't been out of a war since I can remember.

01:03:26.000 Yeah.

01:03:26.920 I would love whoever said that was crazy to say that to me.

01:03:31.960 Do you think they would?

01:03:34.280 See, I mean, I would just eviscerate anybody who said that.

01:03:42.760 It just would be, it would be just destruction on camera.

01:03:48.280 All right.

01:03:51.980 Oh, he also implied in many rallies earlier, too.

01:03:54.920 Yeah.

01:03:55.280 But I think the direct, the direct statement that special forces will go in and obliterate the, the cartel's operation,

01:04:02.840 that was the part that he, he says directly, Trump does.

01:04:07.160 And it's the reason that I'm going to back him, because I'm a single issue voter.

01:04:10.560 I'm a single issue voter on fentanyl.

01:04:13.060 So whatever Trump does that you don't like, not my problem.

01:04:17.720 Yeah, he can defend that himself.

01:04:19.640 All right.

01:04:24.800 Would politician families be targeted by the cartels if we bombed them?

01:04:30.620 Probably.

01:04:32.800 Probably.

01:04:36.360 The Virginia Merit Scholar story.

01:04:38.600 Oh, yeah.

01:04:40.940 Yeah.

01:04:43.260 It's the story that in Virginia, some students were not informed that they'd won the National Merit Scholarship.

01:04:51.980 They were not informed in time to put it on their resume, which would have helped them get into a better college.

01:04:57.200 They were told after.

01:04:58.660 But only the white ones.

01:05:00.040 So somebody held back the white people.

01:05:04.840 Now, if that's true, that's a horrible crime.

01:05:08.620 This isn't one that, oh, was it all Asians?

01:05:13.020 Yeah, maybe it was just basically anti-Asian and anti-white.

01:05:19.320 Mostly Asians?

01:05:20.680 All right.

01:05:20.840 So whatever group was held back there, that is huge.

01:05:29.900 When I heard that story, I almost couldn't believe it.

01:05:34.560 We did get to the point where that would be done intentionally.

01:05:39.920 Yeah, somebody should go to jail for that, don't you think?

01:05:42.880 I would think that's, I don't know if it's a crime, but it ought to be.

01:05:47.500 Yeah.

01:05:50.840 13 schools.

01:05:53.200 God.

01:05:55.260 God.

01:05:56.220 That's just amazing.

01:05:58.840 Yes for over a year.

01:06:00.060 Oh, my God.

01:06:03.180 Yeah.

01:06:07.000 Life after death.

01:06:08.400 Life after death would just be the end of the simulation for you.

01:06:13.660 But it might mean that you're, you know, I also think we might be inhabited by another species

01:06:18.900 who just uses us when we're awake.

01:06:23.280 So they would just be like a video game where you turn off the video game.

01:06:27.780 That's all it would be.

01:06:30.160 Yeah, they should lose something for doing that.

01:06:32.640 All right.

01:06:32.840 Is there any other story I missed?

01:06:35.040 I think I'm all good.

01:06:36.940 All right.

01:06:46.260 It would be the only efficient.

01:06:47.320 On the other hand, when you asked it about marriage, it was clear that you can't do a

01:06:50.480 complex math analysis.

01:06:51.900 How would you be judging when to trust it and when?

01:06:54.500 Oh, so chat GPT.

01:06:56.540 This is a good question.

01:06:58.040 You know, when would you trust it to do searches?

01:07:00.560 Well, it's not connected to the internet.

01:07:02.120 So right now, all it is using basically everything it knows about language to create intelligence.

01:07:10.020 As soon as it's connected to the internet, then it will be able to check its answers against

01:07:14.400 a manual search.

01:07:16.080 And then you'll either be comfortable with it or not.

01:07:19.700 But I think it'll take a while to evolve to where it's better.

01:07:23.020 All right.

01:07:34.360 Just looking at your classified documents.

01:07:43.960 Oh, what do you think of Trump's claim that he kept hundreds of classified document folders,

01:07:50.780 empty folders, because they were cool souvenirs?

01:07:55.560 Believe it or not.

01:07:58.520 Do you think he would keep them as cool souvenirs?

01:08:04.620 I thought of one situation in which he might.

01:08:09.060 Right?

01:08:09.640 My first reaction was, that doesn't sound like a good explanation.

01:08:14.560 Who would keep empty folders?

01:08:16.040 And then I thought to myself, imagine if he wanted to create a piece of art in which the

01:08:23.220 wall was just all the empty classified folders.

01:08:27.300 And I think maybe some of them had different fronts.

01:08:31.320 So imagine a display of empty folders.

01:08:35.180 It's just, you know, the flat folders on a wall.

01:08:37.920 And you would know what was in those folders.

01:08:41.120 There wouldn't be in there.

01:08:43.660 But you would know somehow, like this one was about North Korea, and this one was about

01:08:48.720 nuclear weapons and stuff.

01:08:50.260 Because it would be like a visual representation of Trump's job in office.

01:08:56.040 His job in office was, hey, look at this secret file, and let's make some decisions.

01:09:01.480 And then that would be like the tapestry of his term.

01:09:06.120 And there wouldn't be any details.

01:09:08.620 It would just be a visual representation of how many secrets a president has to do.

01:09:13.820 Now, if he had said that, I don't think anybody would believe it.

01:09:18.560 But when I thought about it, I thought, you know, that would actually be a really cool display.

01:09:23.480 Wouldn't it be?

01:09:25.880 Like, you know, a wall of just the folders, the empty folders.

01:09:29.420 It would be kind of cool.

01:09:30.980 I would stop and look at it.

01:09:32.660 And I would also think, oh, those folders, every one of those folders was touched by

01:09:38.440 the president of the United States and had a state secret in it, which would be kind of cool.

01:09:47.140 I have a request for a parting sip for the YouTube people, and I think I will comply.

01:09:54.280 Here's your parting sip for this great live stream.

01:09:57.740 I'm going to talk to the locals people after.

01:09:59.500 Join me now in the parting sip.

01:10:08.320 All right, YouTube, thanks for joining.

01:10:09.980 I'll see you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 20, 2023

Episode 1994 Scott Adams： Crowder, WEF And More

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript