Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 2050 Scott Adams： Murderous UFOs, SVB Worst Takes, Criminalized Pronouns, Republicans Hunted

00:00:00.000 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and anything else you'd like to be.

00:00:06.000 Welcome to the finest thing that's ever happened in the history of civilization.

00:00:11.000 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a finer moment.

00:00:15.000 And if you'd like to take your situation up a notch, and you're the kind of people who like to do that,

00:00:20.000 well then, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:00:27.000 Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:00:31.000 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the other day.

00:00:35.000 The thing that makes everything better, it's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.

00:00:44.000 Yeah, that's good stuff.

00:00:46.000 And happy St. Patrick's Day to all of you.

00:00:52.000 Probably racist. I don't know. It's hard to know.

00:00:55.000 Well, I'd like to give a shout-out to a prankster who got me pretty good today.

00:01:01.000 And I have to confess, this is a good prank.

00:01:08.000 Let's see if I have the answer to getting rid of the prank yet.

00:01:11.000 Oh, we're looking into it.

00:01:13.000 All right, so when I tweet before the show, I tweet the link to the locals' community as well as YouTube.

00:01:22.000 And apparently, when I do that, some prankster has apparently hacked my account.

00:01:29.000 And so, where it used to show my image automatically, you know, taken from the locals' account,

00:01:35.000 the tweet automatically replaced it with a picture that some prankster put there of Dilbert with a KKK necktie.

00:01:44.000 So, I didn't have time to do the show without looking into it, because we're looking into it.

00:01:53.000 So, if somebody got into my account, or got into the locals' account, or did it on Twitter somehow, I don't know.

00:01:59.000 So, I don't even know what they got into, but somebody got into something they shouldn't have gotten into.

00:02:05.000 And my first thought was, oh, I'd better get rid of this right away.

00:02:11.000 And my second thought was, this is a really good prank.

00:02:15.000 That's like a seriously well-executed prank.

00:02:19.000 So, I'm going to let it run.

00:02:21.000 I'll just leave it there.

00:02:22.000 Yeah, I put it in the comments, and it was a hack.

00:02:25.000 But, we'll draw some more attention to me.

00:02:30.000 Because, you know, I hate that.

00:02:33.000 All right.

00:02:35.000 I've been asked to look into the video of Tucker Carlson talking about UFOs.

00:02:41.000 And, of course, you sent me on a wild goose chase, because I thought it was on his show.

00:02:45.000 But, apparently, it was some separate thing he did.

00:02:48.000 But, I found it.

00:02:49.000 Now, if you don't know the story, Tucker tells the story of, and I hope I get it approximately correct,

00:02:55.000 that he knows or was contacted by somebody who was a tenured professor at Stanford,

00:03:03.000 and was some kind of a brain injury expert.

00:03:05.000 And, allegedly, Tucker was told by this very person,

00:03:09.000 that he was personally contacted by the government some years back,

00:03:13.000 to look into the brain injuries caused by UFOs.

00:03:17.000 What?

00:03:19.000 Yes.

00:03:20.000 The claim, allegedly, is that over a hundred or so...

00:03:25.000 Here, let me see what's up with that.

00:03:28.000 Oh, okay.

00:03:29.000 Already taken care of.

00:03:31.000 So, the racist prank's already been removed.

00:03:34.000 But, it was a good prank.

00:03:36.000 So, let me just give a little hand.

00:03:39.000 Whoever did that.

00:03:42.000 Nicely done.

00:03:43.000 Nicely done.

00:03:45.000 Anyway.

00:03:46.000 So, the story is that this brain injury expert was told by the government and the military

00:03:55.000 that a hundred or so people had been wounded or killed by UFOs, military people.

00:04:02.000 Right.

00:04:03.000 Over a hundred people killed by UFOs, murderous UFOs.

00:04:07.000 Now, the way they killed people apparently was with some kind of radiating force that was giving people brain damage,

00:04:15.000 and sometimes they died if they got near it.

00:04:18.000 And so, people quite reasonably said, what do you think of this?

00:04:25.000 So, here's my take.

00:04:27.000 If there's more to this story, this is the only part I saw.

00:04:31.000 The evidence that is true comes from a telling by Tucker Carlson.

00:04:36.000 So, the first thing you say is, do you believe Tucker Carlson?

00:04:42.000 Separately, I'll ask you about the source.

00:04:45.000 But, do you believe that Tucker Carlson is accurately recounting something that somebody said to him?

00:04:51.000 I'd say yes.

00:04:52.000 I'd say yes.

00:04:53.000 I'd say yes.

00:04:54.000 I feel confident that that's certainly not the sort of thing that most people would make up, and I don't think he would.

00:05:00.000 Like, I see no signs that he would just make up a story.

00:05:03.000 So, let's say that we believe that somebody told him that.

00:05:07.000 That's all we know.

00:05:10.000 This doesn't even look slightly credible to me.

00:05:15.000 Not even like a little bit.

00:05:17.000 There's a hundred deaths.

00:05:19.000 How in the world would you keep that, or injuries that are that severe?

00:05:23.000 How would you keep that a secret?

00:05:25.000 I mean, really.

00:05:27.000 How would you keep that a secret?

00:05:29.000 And, secondly, if you have one source, first of all, do you know it's a tenured professor?

00:05:38.000 Do you know it's a tenured professor who other people think is sane?

00:05:43.000 Has a tenured professor never done a prank?

00:05:46.000 Has a tenured professor never lost their faculties and imagined something that wasn't there?

00:05:52.000 I mean, there's just no credibility to this at all.

00:05:55.000 Generally speaking, a single source is going to be far more likely wrong than right.

00:06:03.000 Would you agree with that general statement?

00:06:06.000 That no matter what this story is, a single source, you'd bet against it.

00:06:12.000 I would bet against a single source all day long.

00:06:15.000 So, who knows?

00:06:17.000 Anything's possible when it comes to these UFOs.

00:06:20.000 But I would say the quality of evidence would be at the lowest rung of credibility.

00:06:29.000 Ben Stein is getting the peacock treatment today.

00:06:34.000 So, he did a little video in which he said, I'll summarize, paraphrase a little bit.

00:06:40.000 He said that 60 years ago when he was young, black Americans looked like they weren't doing well.

00:06:47.000 And, you know, just observationally, it looked like they weren't doing well.

00:06:51.000 But in modern times, they have at least the opportunity to have a good life and go to a good school if they qualify, and get a good job and have a good time.

00:07:04.000 And that was his entire observation, is that things have improved for black Americans.

00:07:12.000 And do you think he was called a racist for that?

00:07:15.000 Of course he was.

00:07:17.000 He was immediately labeled a racist for saying that things used to be worse for black Americans, but they've improved, and under the right conditions, you can have a real good life.

00:07:29.000 Now, do you think that people took him a little too literally?

00:07:34.000 Does that ever happen?

00:07:36.000 Do you think that when he talked about black people, that people may have assumed that he meant every single one was going to live a good life?

00:07:45.000 Because I don't believe that would be a reasonable way to interpret his observation.

00:07:51.000 It's more about opportunity.

00:07:53.000 You know, individuals are still going to have racism, they're still going to have problems.

00:07:56.000 But he's saying there's this, you know, golden highway to success, and anybody can get on it.

00:08:02.000 Now, I couldn't find anything racist for that.

00:08:07.000 But did it matter to Democrats?

00:08:10.000 No.

00:08:11.000 Because this is not about racism, and you know that, right?

00:08:14.000 It's not about racism.

00:08:16.000 It's about taking Republicans off the field.

00:08:19.000 So anybody who says anything about race, anything, they'll just get labeled racist so they can take their voice off the field.

00:08:29.000 Now, these are all political things.

00:08:31.000 There is nothing about racism.

00:08:33.000 Whatsoever.

00:08:34.000 But he's getting the peacock treatment now.

00:08:36.000 And it looks familiar, doesn't it?

00:08:40.000 Let me ask you this.

00:08:41.000 What percentage of stories about public figures are accurate in the first telling?

00:08:50.000 In the first wave of news, you hear a story about a celebrity or a public figure.

00:08:58.000 How often is that accurate and within the right context?

00:09:02.000 It's close to zero.

00:09:04.000 If it's in the political realm, it's really zero.

00:09:07.000 It's actually zero in the political realm.

00:09:10.000 Because what makes the initial story a story is that something incredible happened.

00:09:15.000 That's why it's a story.

00:09:17.000 They don't do stories about somebody acting normal today.

00:09:20.000 They do stories about, whoa, somebody did something unexpected today.

00:09:25.000 Now, Scott Alexander, which is a pseudonym for a blogger, had the best take on this a number of years ago.

00:09:32.000 He said, if something in the news looks incredible, you're like, whoa, I can't believe that happened.

00:09:39.000 It didn't.

00:09:41.000 That's the rule.

00:09:42.000 If you hear the news and you're like, whoa, I can't believe that person said that, they didn't.

00:09:49.000 They didn't say it.

00:09:51.000 That's why it's incredible.

00:09:52.000 Because it didn't happen.

00:09:54.000 Now, they might have said the exact words quite often.

00:09:58.000 But when the context is removed, the exact words can be actually even reversed in meaning just by the change of context.

00:10:05.000 So, a good general rule for following the news is that all political stories are false in the first telling.

00:10:13.000 All of them.

00:10:15.000 Right?

00:10:16.000 So, you say to yourself, well, that can't be true because, you know, the people who support the people are going to tell the truth.

00:10:23.000 Right?

00:10:24.000 No.

00:10:25.000 No, they're not.

00:10:26.000 No.

00:10:27.000 The people who support whatever politician are going to tell the untruth that supports them.

00:10:32.000 Meaning that they'll leave out the context that's inconvenient.

00:10:35.000 Right?

00:10:36.000 So, any news about politics in 2023 is fake in the first telling.

00:10:42.000 All right.

00:10:43.000 Here's the second question.

00:10:44.000 If you buy that as a general rule.

00:10:47.000 Of course, there are exceptions.

00:10:48.000 Right?

00:10:49.000 Everything's hyperbilly.

00:10:50.000 But generally speaking, how long does it take for the fake news about a political situation to be clarified so that even the people who disagreed with it eventually say, hmm, okay.

00:11:02.000 That does look different than what I thought sometime ago.

00:11:05.000 What's the general time it takes for a fake story to be clarified accurately?

00:11:12.000 Some say never.

00:11:14.000 But I think that never, I think that never applies to some people who just can't be convinced.

00:11:22.000 But of the few people who can actually change their mind, I'd say one to five years.

00:11:28.000 One to five years.

00:11:30.000 That's the approximate time it takes for a fake news story about politics to evolve into something true.

00:11:37.000 How long did it take before we found out that the 50 signatures on the Hunter laptop document were liars, basically?

00:11:47.000 How long did that take?

00:11:48.000 Two years, you say?

00:11:50.000 How long did it take to find out that Russia collusion was a hoax?

00:11:54.000 Three years?

00:11:55.000 Something like that?

00:11:57.000 Yeah.

00:11:58.000 How long did it take for the public to get more complete video about January 6th?

00:12:05.000 A year or two?

00:12:08.000 Two years?

00:12:09.000 Two years, right?

00:12:11.000 Yeah.

00:12:12.000 So one to ten years is how long you have to wait to find out if that political story is real.

00:12:18.000 And I would include as a political story anything about bigotry.

00:12:23.000 Because those are political stories if the public figure is known to be associated with one side.

00:12:31.000 Right?

00:12:32.000 The Ben Stein story is not about racism.

00:12:34.000 It's just a political story because he's a political figure.

00:12:37.000 The story about me, I don't know if all of you have realized it yet, but that was completely political.

00:12:45.000 The political right looked at it, looked at the context, said, well, that was alarming, but I see what you did. Carry on.

00:12:52.000 The political left didn't look at the context and didn't care because they only care that I'm a political figure and they wanted to take me off the chessboard.

00:13:03.000 Well, if you think that the initial version of any story about a political figure is true, you haven't been paying attention.

00:13:10.000 Almost never.

00:13:11.000 It would be the rarest thing if the initial story held for five years.

00:13:16.000 You just don't see that.

00:13:18.000 Yeah.

00:13:19.000 Take, somebody mentioned O'Keefe.

00:13:21.000 Take the Project Veritas story.

00:13:23.000 Do you think that whatever you heard in the last few weeks about Project Veritas, do you think that will be the same thing you'll understand in five years?

00:13:31.000 Not a chance.

00:13:33.000 I don't know what's true and what's not true, but I can say confidently in five years you'll have a different opinion if you're a person who can change their opinion.

00:13:44.000 So keep that in mind.

00:13:46.000 Several years ago, I got mocked for saying Republicans would be hunted.

00:13:51.000 Headlines today, more than, I think this is on Fox News, more than a thousand people will face new charges because of January 6th.

00:14:00.000 New charges, a thousand, a thousand people, all Republicans, will face charges that all of us know they would not face if they were Democrats in a similar, had they done exactly the same thing or a similar thing.

00:14:18.000 We know that Democrats would not have been charged.

00:14:21.000 We know that.

00:14:23.000 Now, how do you like my prediction that Republicans would be hunted?

00:14:28.000 If you said to yourself, Scott, a hundred percent of Republicans aren't being hunted, well, then you're bad at understanding life.

00:14:35.000 It never means a hundred percent.

00:14:38.000 It never means a hundred percent.

00:14:43.000 Yeah, Republicans are being hunted by the thousands now.

00:14:46.000 You can actually say out loud without any political spit on it.

00:14:53.000 The Republicans are literally being hunted by the Justice Department.

00:14:57.000 They're looking for them.

00:14:58.000 They're hunting.

00:14:59.000 They're finding them.

00:15:00.000 And then they're punishing them.

00:15:02.000 And there's no doubt about it.

00:15:04.000 It wouldn't happen if they had been Democrats.

00:15:06.000 Nobody questions that.

00:15:08.000 I don't think there's a Democrat that would doubt that.

00:15:10.000 They would not be for for the types of crimes they did.

00:15:14.000 They wouldn't be charged.

00:15:15.000 You know, the trespassing and interfering with the public event.

00:15:19.000 They wouldn't be charged for that.

00:15:21.000 Nobody would be except Republicans who are being hunted.

00:15:25.000 Apparently, the Biden administration is proposing or thinking about making it a violation of Title IX to use the wrong pronouns.

00:15:37.000 So I guess in the school.

00:15:40.000 Well, I don't know too much about this story.

00:15:43.000 But apparently it would be some kind of a hate crime if you use the wrong pronouns.

00:15:52.000 That might be the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

00:15:55.000 Might be.

00:15:56.000 However, the good news is I have a workaround for you.

00:15:59.000 I did a little research today and I found that there are some black academics, which is important, 0.65

00:16:05.000 that there are black academics, have wanted to classify racism as a mental disability or a mental disorder.

00:16:14.000 I Googled it. 0.97

00:16:16.000 It's a real thing.

00:16:17.000 And it's not just black academics.

00:16:19.000 There are other people who think so, too.

00:16:21.000 What do you think?

00:16:22.000 Do you think that actual racism, the real kind, not the fake kind?

00:16:27.000 Do you think that actual racism should be considered a mental disorder, which would allow it to be a disability?

00:16:37.000 Well, whether or not that makes sense or not, I'm going to extend that thought, logically, to bigotry in general.

00:16:47.000 So don't you think that somebody who's a racist is not that different from somebody who's just a bigot in general, right?

00:16:59.000 So you could be a bigot against, let's say, a race or religion, but also a bigot against trans people or non-binaries and be a bigot in every way. 0.80

00:17:12.000 If you were a bigot about everything from race to religion to, you know, you name it, would that be considered a mental disorder?

00:17:24.000 There are experts who say yes.

00:17:26.000 So your opinion may not be important.

00:17:28.000 There are experts who say yes.

00:17:31.000 So if I can get an expert to say in writing, and apparently a psychologist would be sufficient, could a psychiatrist or a psychologist, both of them actually, could they give you a medical note that says you have a disability in the field of bigotry?

00:17:52.000 And they can even give examples, unwilling to use the correct pronouns.

00:17:57.000 And unwillingness or inability, the patient, I can certify that this patient is either unwilling or unable to use correct pronouns.

00:18:10.000 My diagnosis is that they have a disability, because that would be the kind of disability that would prevent you from getting jobs and, you know, operating in a normal way in society, which is what a disability does.

00:18:26.000 It allows you to have less access to society in some way.

00:18:29.000 So I think that just to protect yourself, you should get a psychologist to give you a medical diagnosis of bigotry as a disability.

00:18:41.000 Now, you say to yourself, well, maybe I can't get somebody to do that.

00:18:45.000 But I remind you, years ago, when activists wanted marijuana to be legal in states, they started with medical marijuana.

00:18:55.000 And the critics said, no, you're going to try to get that medical stuff legalized.

00:19:00.000 And then you're going to sneak in with the regular recreational stuff after everybody gets comfortable with the medical stuff.

00:19:06.000 It's just a trick. It's just a trick.

00:19:08.000 But there were always doctors who were willing to say that you needed it for medical reasons, weren't there?

00:19:15.000 Did anybody have it? Well, if you were in the right state.

00:19:19.000 If you were in the right state, did you have any problem getting a doctor to say you needed it for medical reasons?

00:19:25.000 Not your regular doctor. No, not your regular doctor.

00:19:28.000 But you could find a doctor.

00:19:30.000 You can just Google it and find a doctor who would be, let's say, just a little bit more flexible than the average doctor

00:19:38.000 about whether or not you have a medical problem that weed is just right for.

00:19:42.000 But most people can get one.

00:19:45.000 You don't think that there would be a psychologist or a psychiatrist somewhere

00:19:50.000 who would advertise, I will give you a bigotry diagnosis

00:19:56.000 so that you could be taking advantage of whatever benefits you get for being disabled.

00:20:02.000 Now, one of the benefits is you can't be fired simply for your disability.

00:20:07.000 You can be fired if you can't do the work.

00:20:10.000 I think that's illegal, right?

00:20:12.000 You know, if you can't do the work with reasonable accommodations,

00:20:16.000 you can still be fired because you still have to do the job.

00:20:19.000 But I would think that I could get some psychiatrist to say, no, Scott, you have a bigotry disability 0.93

00:20:26.000 and therefore you cannot be fired simply for your opinions or what you said.

00:20:32.000 It'd be sort of like, you know, Tourette's.

00:20:35.000 You know, you can't really help that you shouted out something profane.

00:20:39.000 Do people get fired for having Tourette's?

00:20:42.000 I would think no, right?

00:20:45.000 Because that would be a...

00:20:46.000 You think yes?

00:20:47.000 Well, I would say yes if it's maybe a customer-facing job.

00:20:51.000 But if you're somewhere where everybody understands that you have a disorder,

00:20:57.000 then I would think that the workplace would allow it.

00:21:01.000 You know, a little more yelling than usual, but basically you make some accommodations.

00:21:05.000 Give them an office or something, whatever it takes.

00:21:08.000 Yeah?

00:21:09.000 All right.

00:21:10.000 Well, I think there might be a workaround.

00:21:12.000 If we could get those bigotry diagnoses, you would be protected from the law, 0.74

00:21:18.000 which is kind of ridiculous at this point.

00:21:20.000 All right.

00:21:21.000 I'd like to tell you the worst opinions I've seen on Silicon Valley Bank.

00:21:25.000 All right.

00:21:26.000 The worst one is the so-called moral hazard argument.

00:21:31.000 That if you allow all the depositors to be made whole, that would create what's called

00:21:37.000 a moral hazard, meaning it would incentivize people to take more risks than the system

00:21:43.000 can handle.

00:21:44.000 So you really need to be tough on people who take the wrong risks and things go wrong.

00:21:49.000 Because if you're not tough on them, then everybody will take more risks.

00:21:53.000 So the thinking here is that the managers of the banks would not have done what they did,

00:22:03.000 except for knowing that their depositors were protected.

00:22:09.000 Except their depositors were not protected.

00:22:13.000 And the Silicon Bank people did their bad stuff in the context of knowing that their depositors

00:22:22.000 were not protected.

00:22:23.000 It didn't make any difference.

00:22:26.000 So some people want to make sure that future bankers, if they're going to do something that's,

00:22:32.000 let's say, a little risky, that they would know that the only thing that could go wrong for them is that they would lose their jobs,

00:22:40.000 which are really good jobs if you're the top of a bank.

00:22:44.000 You could lose your job and your reputation.

00:22:47.000 You'll be shamed and scorned in the community.

00:22:50.000 But the thinking here with this moral hazard stuff is that those things are not enough to stop you from bad behavior.

00:22:57.000 So you wouldn't be stopped by losing your job for sure, being shamed and scorned by all your neighbors who lost their money,

00:23:06.000 maybe having to move out of the community.

00:23:08.000 But what would really make you want to do bad behavior is knowing that the strangers were called depositors,

00:23:18.000 people you've never met, knowing that those strangers would be made whole.

00:23:24.000 That would allow you to take the risk of losing your job, losing your reputation, being scorned in society and having to move.

00:23:33.000 So that's the thinking there.

00:23:35.000 The thinking is that people will stop doing bad behavior because of people they've never met.

00:23:43.000 There might be some cost to that.

00:23:46.000 But by the way, you could always blame those other people if they lose their money

00:23:51.000 because they knew there was only a $250,000 limit on insurance.

00:23:55.000 I mean, they knew it. 0.99

00:23:56.000 So it's their own damn fault. 0.99

00:23:58.000 And then here's the follow-up bad opinion, 0.99

00:24:02.000 is that the depositors need to learn to do due diligence.

00:24:09.000 So it's not just about the leaders of the bank.

00:24:12.000 You have to train depositors in the country to do a better job of researching their bank.

00:24:20.000 Right?

00:24:21.000 So you need a few big banks to fail and all those depositors to lose their money.

00:24:25.000 And that will make the other depositors say,

00:24:27.000 whoa, I better stay under that limit and I better watch my risk.

00:24:32.000 That is a terrible opinion.

00:24:35.000 Because if you teach people to manage their risk with banks, there will only be four banks left.

00:24:46.000 It does not make sense to keep your money in the 19th biggest bank.

00:24:50.000 As I said before, when people asked me, did you have money in Silicon Valley Bank?

00:24:55.000 I said, I have a degree in economics, I have an MBA, and I was a banker for years.

00:25:03.000 You think I'm going to put my money in the 19th largest bank?

00:25:08.000 Seriously?

00:25:10.000 I mean, what?

00:25:13.000 To me, as soon as I heard that anybody had money in the 19th biggest bank, I just laughed.

00:25:19.000 I said, you don't know anything about risk management.

00:25:22.000 Being in the 19th biggest bank is the worst idea in the world.

00:25:27.000 Being in one of the top two might be better.

00:25:31.000 It should be. 1.00

00:25:32.000 But being in the 19th largest bank is stupid from the bottom to the top. 1.00

00:25:37.000 There's nothing smart about that. 0.99

00:25:39.000 Now, I get that Silicon Valley Bank had sort of a clever situation

00:25:44.000 where they wanted you to put some of your personal money and your venture capital money

00:25:48.000 and you'd get a little extra benefits somehow with that bank.

00:25:52.000 But that's not enough reason.

00:25:54.000 That is not enough reason at all.

00:25:56.000 The only reason that small banks survive is because depositors don't do due diligence.

00:26:03.000 The minute they did due diligence, they'd all go out of business.

00:26:06.000 It would be crazy to keep your money in a small bank,

00:26:09.000 unless you trusted the government to have your back.

00:26:14.000 And if the government wouldn't have you back in a situation where,

00:26:18.000 you know, like Silicon Valley Bank,

00:26:20.000 then you should pull your money completely out 0.99

00:26:23.000 and put it in the top two banks or under your mattress or some damn thing. 0.99

00:26:27.000 I don't know what you're going to do with it. 0.99

00:26:28.000 Like, I'm not going to give you any advice.

00:26:30.000 But it's a terrible take that depositors should do their own research.

00:26:36.000 And let me give you one specific suggestion I got from somebody on Twitter

00:26:43.000 who was making this case that the depositors should do their work.

00:26:47.000 So here's what he said.

00:26:48.000 And I swear this actually happened.

00:26:50.000 This actually somebody said this in public.

00:26:53.000 In public.

00:26:55.000 On Twitter.

00:26:56.000 This individual said,

00:26:58.000 Anyone going and reading a short bit of history could develop a reasonable risk model.

00:27:03.000 Talking about depositors of banks.

00:27:06.000 So he wants people to do a short bit of history,

00:27:10.000 to find out about history before you open your checking account.

00:27:13.000 So how much history should you look into before opening your checking account?

00:27:18.000 With this solid good advice here.

00:27:20.000 Well, this person suggests you don't have to,

00:27:23.000 but you could start with reading about the second bank of the United States

00:27:27.000 and Nicholas Biddle versus Andrew Jackson.

00:27:30.000 So the suggestion here is that before you open a checking account with your bank,

00:27:35.000 you should do some history and a deep dive of the banking system

00:27:39.000 through the history of the United States

00:27:42.000 and especially look at this case of Nicholas Biddle versus Andrew Jackson.

00:27:48.000 Because what we learn about Andrew Jackson's time is totally relevant to today.

00:27:55.000 This is the worst advice I've ever seen.

00:27:58.000 There's somebody who thinks that an ordinary depositor

00:28:01.000 can research the history of the United States

00:28:04.000 and come up with a risk management model for their checking account.

00:28:09.000 For their checking account. 0.97

00:28:11.000 Ridiculous. 0.91

00:28:14.000 Well, the Congress heard from, let's see, who is it? 0.93

00:28:21.000 Mr. Ortiz, who is the border patrol chief,

00:28:24.000 talking about the border and the situation on the border.

00:28:27.000 And he said about the border border, I like to say border too much,

00:28:32.000 that it's not controlled.

00:28:35.000 This is the guy in charge of it.

00:28:37.000 He says it's not controlled, meaning it's open.

00:28:41.000 I mean, not completely.

00:28:43.000 But basically, we don't have a border security.

00:28:47.000 He also said that Trump's wall should have been built.

00:28:50.000 And I think he backed the people who were accused of whipping migrants on horseback.

00:29:02.000 They were on horseback, not the migrants. 0.99

00:29:04.000 You know, that turned out to be fake news.

00:29:06.000 And so that whipping migrants on horseback, how long did it take before we figured out that was fake news?

00:29:16.000 That was less than a year, wasn't it?

00:29:18.000 Was it less than a year?

00:29:20.000 I think most of the people who knew about horses and stuff knew right away.

00:29:24.000 But I think in terms of the public, when do you think Democrats found out that was fake?

00:29:29.000 Never, right? Never.

00:29:32.000 Yeah, I'll bet it's never been covered on CNN.

00:29:34.000 I'll bet it's never been covered on MSNBC.

00:29:36.000 I don't know, but I bet it's never been covered.

00:29:39.000 So do you think maybe in a few years there might be a story about it on the left

00:29:45.000 and then they would find out about it for the first time?

00:29:52.000 Ultra Derek says I'm confusing depositors with investing.

00:29:58.000 Now, if I'm talking about depositors, you know what I mean.

00:30:01.000 A checking account.

00:30:03.000 Don't pretend that I'm in cognitive dissonance because I just demolished your mental model

00:30:10.000 and now you're hallucinating.

00:30:12.000 Because that's what's happening.

00:30:14.000 I don't think anybody was confused that opening a checking account is an investor in a bank.

00:30:20.000 I don't think anybody was confused by that.

00:30:23.000 All right.

00:30:25.000 So the border's a mess.

00:30:28.000 Rasmussen did a poll asking people what they thought about the Arizona voting integrity.

00:30:37.000 And the result was 55% of likely Arizona voters believe it is likely that problems with the 2020 election in Maricopa County affected the outcome,

00:30:49.000 including 35% who think it's very likely.

00:30:51.000 Very likely.

00:30:52.000 Now, the 35% probably is pretty close to the, you know, the serious Republican number.

00:30:57.000 But at 55%, doesn't that suggest that a number of Democrats are now convinced?

00:31:04.000 Are Democrats in some number now convinced that Maricopa didn't look copacetic?

00:31:12.000 Yeah, we're private.

00:31:13.000 Yeah.

00:31:14.000 So I don't have an opinion of what did or did not happen there.

00:31:25.000 But I haven't seen any convincing evidence that there was anything wrong.

00:31:29.000 But a lot of people believe it.

00:31:32.000 So there's your quality of propaganda.

00:31:39.000 It's good.

00:31:40.000 Now, I call it propaganda because it's unproven allegations.

00:31:43.000 But I'm not saying there's nothing there.

00:31:46.000 I'm saying I haven't seen evidence of it.

00:31:51.000 The anti-Trumpers are losing their frame.

00:31:55.000 Let me explain that.

00:31:56.000 If you're an anti-Trumper, you have this idea in your head, your frame, that everything Trump did was a bad idea,

00:32:03.000 and everything that's the opposite of that was a good idea.

00:32:07.000 But it's really hard to hold that frame when you see that Biden did the opposite of Trump and it's just everything went to hell.

00:32:14.000 And everything that Trump did is starting to look smarter and smarter with time, as I predicted it would.

00:32:21.000 But here's a good example of that.

00:32:26.000 So on CNN, they often have these political analysts and opinion people.

00:32:31.000 And one of them is Julian Zelizer, who you might know is, he's like the worse than a Watergate guy.

00:32:38.000 When CNN needs to remind the public that orange man bad, they have a few people they bring out.

00:32:45.000 All right.

00:32:46.000 We need to remind them orange man bad. 0.98

00:32:48.000 It's been two days.

00:32:49.000 So we'll need an opinion piece.

00:32:51.000 Julian Zelizer, you always say orange man bad.

00:32:55.000 So write us an article about something, but make sure you say orange man bad. 0.55

00:33:00.000 Now, I don't think they had that conversation, but it feels like it.

00:33:05.000 So here's something that this deep anti-Trumper said about Biden.

00:33:15.000 For the 2024 presidential election, we'll establish a similar dynamic because he was talking about Reagan versus Carter.

00:33:23.000 He says for Biden, it will be important to avoid looking like Carter.

00:33:28.000 It will be important to avoid looking like Carter.

00:33:32.000 Meaning that even this anti-Trumper thinks that Biden is starting to look like Carter.

00:33:38.000 Specifically, Carter didn't campaign too much against Reagan when the hostages were being held in Iran.

00:33:46.000 So it was interpreted that Carter wasn't sort of trying hard enough to win.

00:33:51.000 The reality was he was, I guess, working to get the prisoners released.

00:33:58.000 But it was a bad look.

00:34:01.000 And even an anti-Trumper is saying it's going to be a bad look if Trump comes in looking like Reagan and Biden is looking like Carter.

00:34:13.000 Because a lot of our minds like have that model in our head.

00:34:16.000 And it's just going to be devastating for Biden if that's the model that people have in their head.

00:34:20.000 Oh, it's a it's a Reagan versus Carter election version two.

00:34:24.000 In fact, the more times you hear it's Reagan versus Carter version two, the more likely the more likely the Reagan in this example, which would be Trump, is going to win.

00:34:35.000 Because if you can put into people's minds that this is just Reagan versus Carter and it's just a replay.

00:34:43.000 And I have to admit, it looks a lot like it, doesn't it?

00:34:46.000 In my mind, that analogy fits like a glove.

00:34:52.000 So I don't know how many other people would be primed to automatically accept that analogy.

00:34:58.000 But it would be persuasive.

00:35:00.000 It would be persuasive.

00:35:02.000 I always tell you the best story always wins.

00:35:07.000 What's the best story if Biden runs against Trump again?

00:35:12.000 If Biden wins a second time, would you say, oh, that's surprising?

00:35:18.000 Or would you say, all right, that's just more of the usual?

00:35:21.000 So a second Biden win would just be more of the usual.

00:35:25.000 The most interesting story would be the comeback story,

00:35:29.000 where Trump comes back and saves the country from everything that Biden did.

00:35:34.000 That's the better story.

00:35:36.000 Now, even if you're a Democrat, you would still recognize the better story.

00:35:41.000 You wouldn't love it.

00:35:43.000 But you know what the better story was.

00:35:45.000 You certainly know what it looked like.

00:35:47.000 So this whole Reagan versus Carter dynamic could be really important.

00:35:54.000 You know, the more people talk about it, the more it will become the opinion of the public.

00:35:59.000 And then the public will just start viewing things through the Reagan versus Carter frame.

00:36:03.000 And you won't even care that Trump is running.

00:36:06.000 You won't even look at the people who are running.

00:36:08.000 You'll just look at history and say, well, Reagan versus Carter.

00:36:15.000 And I don't think that analogy is off.

00:36:18.000 All right.

00:36:19.000 First, Republic Bank got rescued by some banks that got together and decided to do that.

00:36:24.000 So that's good news.

00:36:26.000 I think our banking problems are not over, but they're not going to be a debacle.

00:36:33.000 I think it's just a challenge that needs to be managed like a lot of other things.

00:36:37.000 So that's my take.

00:36:39.000 I don't make any recommendations about what you do with your money,

00:36:43.000 because I'm not right every time.

00:36:46.000 But my opinion is that we're going to work our way through it

00:36:51.000 and the economy will stay intact.

00:36:54.000 I saw Greg Gottfeld say this yesterday, I guess on the 5 or the day before,

00:37:03.000 talking about any story about Hunter Biden, you get Hunter Biden exhaustion.

00:37:09.000 We've heard so much about Hunter Biden that if tomorrow a news story breaks,

00:37:14.000 it says, well, a new update to Hunter Biden,

00:37:17.000 murdered a family and then cannibalized them himself. 0.89

00:37:21.000 He ate every one of them himself. 0.89

00:37:23.000 If you heard that story today, you'd be like, yeah, Hunter, he's a bad man.

00:37:28.000 What else is in the news?

00:37:30.000 Let's see what else.

00:37:32.000 Like, we're so conditioned to see that there's nothing that Hunter Biden does that could be so bad

00:37:41.000 that it causes anybody to act.

00:37:44.000 Like, we don't have, yeah, we're numb to it.

00:37:47.000 So it's just like outrage fatigue about this one thing.

00:37:52.000 And here's a perfect example.

00:37:53.000 So now apparently we have some banking records that we know that the Bidens, three of them,

00:38:01.000 Haley Biden, you know, the ex of Beau Biden who died and then Haley dated Hunter later.

00:38:10.000 Which, by the way, I don't have a bad opinion about.

00:38:13.000 I know you probably think that just because I mentioned it that I'm judging it.

00:38:18.000 I actually don't judge that at all.

00:38:21.000 I don't judge it at all.

00:38:22.000 And the reason I don't is that I'm not them.

00:38:27.000 I'm not them.

00:38:29.000 And whatever they needed to make themselves happy, that was entirely up to them.

00:38:34.000 They were both legal adults.

00:38:39.000 And it's not, like, really surprising that somebody would like somebody who was like the person they married.

00:38:45.000 It's not, like, really surprising.

00:38:47.000 The fact that any of us are grossed down about it is about us.

00:38:54.000 That's about us.

00:38:56.000 If two people figured out a way for, you know, to legally be happy in an adult way, I have no problem with it.

00:39:04.000 No problem.

00:39:05.000 Now, I get that it, you know, is uncomfortable for the family.

00:39:08.000 I get that it's a bad look.

00:39:10.000 I get that it's bad politically.

00:39:12.000 But, you know, life is short.

00:39:15.000 Life is really short.

00:39:17.000 And it's really brutal.

00:39:19.000 And when I see two people find some little sliver of happiness, I'm sure they liked it while they were doing it.

00:39:25.000 If they find a little sliver of happiness, and it doesn't bother me, and it's completely legal, and they're adults, I'm out.

00:39:34.000 I'm out.

00:39:35.000 You've told me everything I need to know about this situation.

00:39:38.000 That's just an aside.

00:39:40.000 So we can judge him on, you know, maybe corruption if that gets proven.

00:39:44.000 But, you know, his personal life is still his.

00:39:48.000 I wouldn't want to be judged by any of that.

00:39:51.000 All right.

00:39:53.000 So the big Chinese company gave what I guess Biden's lawyer is calling good faith seed money to the Biden family, which got distributed to Haley and Hunter in small amounts, presumably because bigger amounts would have caused higher notice.

00:40:13.000 Now, what do you think it means when somebody, a company gives you good faith seed money?

00:40:20.000 Good faith seed money.

00:40:22.000 That is the most lawyer, lawyerly term for a bribe that I've ever heard.

00:40:26.000 Because this does say it's not for a purpose, that they were given money for no purpose.

00:40:33.000 Obviously, there was some, you know, presumed purpose.

00:40:37.000 But even the lawyer can't figure out like a legal obvious reason that it happened.

00:40:43.000 You had to go with good faith seed money, which is kind of brilliant, because what else are you going to say, right?

00:40:51.000 If you had to say something, that was pretty good. 0.97

00:40:55.000 But it's still kind of ridiculous.

00:40:57.000 I mean, it still says they weren't working for the money.

00:41:00.000 Nobody gives you good faith seed money.

00:41:03.000 Has anybody ever given you any good faith seed money?

00:41:06.000 Hey, I'm not going to ask anything of you, but it's just sort of a good faith seed money situation.

00:41:13.000 So if any of you would like to give me some good faith seed money and require nothing whatsoever from me in return,

00:41:20.000 well, that is your right.

00:41:22.000 That is your right.

00:41:23.000 I don't encourage it, but you have a right to give your good faith seed money, which happens all the time.

00:41:32.000 I mean, such a common thing.

00:41:33.000 I don't even know why we're questioning it.

00:41:35.000 Everywhere I go, people are trying to give me some good faith seed money and ask of nothing in return,

00:41:41.000 because that's a normal thing that happens in the real world.

00:41:45.000 In my opinion, this is probably enough to conclude that they were taking bribes from other countries for access.

00:41:55.000 I don't know what would make it illegal, what's legal or not.

00:41:58.000 But if you had heard this story first, can you imagine?

00:42:04.000 Can you imagine how you'd feel about it if it's the first thing you'd ever heard about the Biden operation?

00:42:12.000 And you'd never heard anything about Hunter.

00:42:15.000 You didn't know about his personal life.

00:42:17.000 You didn't know about, you know, Haley.

00:42:20.000 You didn't know anything.

00:42:21.000 And the first thing you heard was they took all this money.

00:42:24.000 You'd be saying, send them to jail.

00:42:26.000 Send them to jail.

00:42:27.000 Send them to jail.

00:42:28.000 It's obviously corrupt.

00:42:29.000 I mean, after a trial, of course.

00:42:31.000 But obviously corrupt.

00:42:33.000 Lock them up now.

00:42:34.000 But we've been so exhausted, as Greg said, got felt.

00:42:39.000 I can't even get outraged by it.

00:42:42.000 Like I tried to.

00:42:44.000 I looked at it and I'm like, grrr.

00:42:46.000 I guess I'm outraged, Scott.

00:42:48.000 Grrr.

00:42:49.000 It's bad for the Republic.

00:42:51.000 Grrr.

00:42:52.000 You can't do that if you're related to a current or past vice president or president.

00:42:58.000 Grrr.

00:42:59.000 Grrr.

00:43:00.000 Nope.

00:43:01.000 Nothing.

00:43:02.000 Absolutely nothing.

00:43:04.000 I literally am not outraged.

00:43:06.000 I know I should be.

00:43:08.000 Like I'm positive I should be.

00:43:11.000 But I don't have any emotional reaction to it.

00:43:14.000 Am I alone?

00:43:16.000 Are you feeling the same thing?

00:43:17.000 Like intellectually, you're like, oh, yeah, that's a major crime.

00:43:21.000 But your body doesn't feel it at all.

00:43:24.000 Like we've been drained of feelings about Hunter Biden.

00:43:28.000 There's no emotional content.

00:43:31.000 It's hard to believe.

00:43:33.000 And again, if this is the first thing you saw, you couldn't stop screaming.

00:43:37.000 You couldn't stop screaming about it.

00:43:40.000 It's quite an effect.

00:43:43.000 All right.

00:43:46.000 Here's a claim by Robert Kennedy Jr. and a number of you.

00:43:50.000 I think many of you have made the same claim.

00:43:53.000 That ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were not allowed because doing so, at least by the

00:44:00.000 authorities.

00:44:01.000 Because doing so would have made the emergency authorization, which allowed the vaccinations

00:44:08.000 to be developed, would allow that not to have happened, at least under that cloak.

00:44:15.000 Because if you have a treatment, you can't do something risky to make a treatment, if you

00:44:19.000 have a treatment already.

00:44:21.000 How many of you agree that that's the reason that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were depressed?

00:44:31.000 Okay.

00:44:32.000 Now, how would you tell the difference between that, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption?

00:44:37.000 I agree with follow the money.

00:44:39.000 So, I agree that anybody involved in making money on vaccinations almost certainly was also

00:44:46.000 involved in talking down ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

00:44:50.000 Totally agree.

00:44:51.000 So, does that prove that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine work?

00:44:56.000 Does that show you that they work?

00:45:00.000 No.

00:45:01.000 No.

00:45:02.000 No.

00:45:03.000 But I think there's some assumption that, although science is completely useless for

00:45:09.000 everything, the exception is it works for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

00:45:14.000 Oh, yeah.

00:45:15.000 The science is always lying, and it's always about follow the money.

00:45:19.000 But the exception would be these studies we've looked at for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

00:45:25.000 Oh, yeah.

00:45:26.000 We don't believe in vaccinations because we think science is all liars and money chasers,

00:45:32.000 but we do believe in science when it's this other money chasing and other people.

00:45:37.000 Now, I get that maybe the people who did the studies weren't directly benefiting from

00:45:43.000 ivermectin, but somebody was.

00:45:45.000 I mean, somebody would have made a lot of money on ivermectin.

00:45:48.000 I mean, it might have been a generic maker or something, but somebody was.

00:45:53.000 So in both cases, money would be presumably behind the science.

00:45:59.000 But for some reason, we accept that the ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are somehow subject to

00:46:06.000 good science, and that was the one time that people weren't lying to us to make money.

00:46:11.000 But in this other case, we can be sure they were lying to us to make money.

00:46:15.000 Now, here's my take.

00:46:18.000 I completely agree with the fact that the big pharma companies were, let's say, maybe stretching

00:46:25.000 things and cutting some corners and didn't do what we wish they had done and all that.

00:46:30.000 But none of that says the product doesn't work.

00:46:34.000 Also, none of the science says it does.

00:46:38.000 The science does say it does, some of it.

00:46:41.000 But since we don't believe any of the science, what does it matter what science says?

00:46:45.000 It doesn't make any difference.

00:46:47.000 So the only thing I'm pointing out, this is not a conversation about whether vaccinations

00:46:52.000 work.

00:46:53.000 It is not a conversation about whether hydroxy or ivermectin work.

00:46:58.000 I'm not in that conversation.

00:47:00.000 My conversation is, if you don't trust the science, you can't pick winners.

00:47:07.000 It's either all bad or it isn't.

00:47:10.000 And I think it's all bad.

00:47:12.000 So I don't believe anything about the vaccination science, as of today.

00:47:17.000 And I don't believe anything about the ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

00:47:22.000 Now, I heard somebody say, but Scott, all you have to do is, you know, use your own experience.

00:47:32.000 So somebody said, I took ivermectin and I got better.

00:47:35.000 So the observed experience is more useful than the science.

00:47:40.000 What do you think of that?

00:47:41.000 Is your observed anecdotal experience more useful than the science?

00:47:47.000 Go ahead.

00:47:48.000 A lot of people are going to say true to this.

00:47:52.000 Some people are saying yes.

00:47:55.000 Yep.

00:47:56.000 I think there are actually some situations where it is true.

00:48:00.000 Right?

00:48:01.000 If you had the kind of thing which, let's say you had a rash for, suppose you had a rash

00:48:06.000 for 10 years that you couldn't get rid of it.

00:48:08.000 And then you got a recommendation and you rub some cream on it and it went away in an hour.

00:48:13.000 If it went away in an hour after five years, but the science says it doesn't work, would

00:48:22.000 it be reasonable to conclude that the science is wrong?

00:48:25.000 I think so.

00:48:27.000 In that really specific case, I think the anecdote is stronger than the science.

00:48:32.000 Now that doesn't talk to side effects.

00:48:35.000 But if you rub it on and it goes away after 10 years of nothing else working and it happens

00:48:39.000 the same day, that would be a pretty big coincidence unless it worked.

00:48:45.000 And given that, you know, scientific studies, half of them can't be replicated, I would say

00:48:51.000 that your anecdotal experience is much stronger than the science in that weird little case.

00:48:57.000 But generally speaking, here was my response to somebody who said, they took ivermectin and

00:49:02.000 they got better, so ivermectin works.

00:49:06.000 So I explained that I got COVID, I watched television, and I got better fairly quickly.

00:49:13.000 Fairly quickly.

00:49:14.000 So I'm pretty sure it was the television watching, because I don't think it was a coincidence

00:49:20.000 I was watching television, which I didn't do as much of when I didn't have COVID.

00:49:25.000 So I watched a little extra television, rapidly recovered.

00:49:29.000 Anecdotally, I believe television cures COVID.

00:49:33.000 That was my experience.

00:49:35.000 So that was pretty strong, strong evidence there.

00:49:39.000 All right.

00:49:40.000 But we've reached a point where we used to say, trust the science.

00:49:44.000 And that actually sounds like a punchline, doesn't it?

00:49:49.000 It actually sounds like a punchline.

00:49:52.000 Trust the science.

00:49:53.000 Because it's been used as a punchline a lot of times.

00:49:57.000 I think I've used it as a punchline.

00:49:59.000 It used to be the highest level of smart thinking.

00:50:04.000 I know you savages are using your anecdotal and lived experience, but we smart people, we

00:50:13.000 follow the science.

00:50:14.000 You know, if you don't follow the science, well, I don't want to be judgmental, but that

00:50:19.000 would put me up here with the smart people, and that would put you down with the savages 0.80

00:50:23.000 and the wild animals.

00:50:24.000 But, you know, you don't have to follow the science, but all the smart people do.

00:50:29.000 I feel like it was only five years ago that follow the science was the most respectable thing you could 0.99

00:50:36.000 say, and that today you sound like a frickin' clown. 0.98

00:50:41.000 Anybody who follows the science because the science said so, you just have to be a clown. 0.99

00:50:46.000 Yeah. 0.98

00:50:47.000 Yeah.

00:50:48.000 So we've actually replaced follow the science with follow the money.

00:50:53.000 And there's a large proportion of the public who believes that gets you a better answer.

00:50:59.000 And so they say, we followed the money on the vaccinations, and we didn't like what we

00:51:04.000 saw, and we ignored the science because if you follow the money, you don't need the science.

00:51:10.000 The science isn't, you know, dependable.

00:51:12.000 So they said, we got the right answer because we found that the people making it were doing

00:51:17.000 sketchy things that were all directly related to making money.

00:51:23.000 Yeah.

00:51:24.000 Except, here's my problem.

00:51:26.000 They would have done all of those sketchy things even if it works.

00:51:31.000 Even if the vaccine is a good idea, they would have done all the same sketchy things.

00:51:37.000 They still would have wanted ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to go away.

00:51:41.000 They still would have wanted all the competition to go away.

00:51:44.000 They still would have wanted the government to guarantee it.

00:51:46.000 They still would have wanted the government to say they can't be sued.

00:51:50.000 They still would have wanted the government to write them massive checks.

00:51:53.000 They still would want you to think that the shots were more, let's say, more safe than they were.

00:52:00.000 So the fact that the big pharma did every sketchy thing you could do, clearly just to make money, doesn't say anything about the quality of the product.

00:52:12.000 Because they would do that whether the product worked or not.

00:52:15.000 And I don't believe that everything they've ever made doesn't work.

00:52:19.000 I just think some of it doesn't.

00:52:22.000 All right.

00:52:25.000 So follow the money and follow the anecdotes is what we have left because the science has done such a bad job.

00:52:31.000 All right, here's an example of the high ground maneuver.

00:52:34.000 I tweeted this and it ends the conversation, or should, on TikTok and being banned.

00:52:41.000 All right.

00:52:42.000 So Congress is noodling about how do we ban this thing or do we ban it?

00:52:47.000 You know, can we, you know, take out the data part and make the data safe?

00:52:52.000 What if Chinese still owns it? 1.00

00:52:54.000 But is there any way we could get some guarantees that there wouldn't be any bad behavior?

00:52:58.000 But, you know, it's also about persuasion that they could persuade us.

00:53:01.000 It's not just about data.

00:53:03.000 And should we ban it or ban it later or ban just some things or something?

00:53:07.000 So that's what I call being in the weeds.

00:53:09.000 That's being in the weeds.

00:53:12.000 Once the Pentagon and the Department of Justice have weighed in and said,

00:53:17.000 this is a national security risk and it's not a small one, which they have.

00:53:24.000 The Pentagon and the Department of Justice have agreed it's a major homeland security risk.

00:53:33.000 Let me explain how decisions are made by people who are not absolutely incompetent.

00:53:40.000 When the Pentagon tells you it's a national security risk, you immediately cancel it in America

00:53:46.000 and then you take your time figuring out if that was the right answer.

00:53:51.000 We're doing it backwards.

00:53:53.000 We're talking about all the ways you could do it and if you do it.

00:53:57.000 No, that is the wrong way to make a decision.

00:54:01.000 The right way to make the decision is first you remove the risk

00:54:05.000 and then you make sure that was the right decision.

00:54:08.000 And if it was the wrong decision, well, you can reverse it.

00:54:12.000 You can reverse it.

00:54:13.000 So what?

00:54:14.000 People don't have TikTok for two weeks?

00:54:16.000 Well, who's going to die from that?

00:54:19.000 This is the easiest decision in the world.

00:54:22.000 Just the simplest, dead simple decision.

00:54:25.000 Ban it first.

00:54:27.000 Figure out the specifics later.

00:54:29.000 And then I'll add to that, don't let 16 year olds back on it no matter what.

00:54:34.000 Right?

00:54:35.000 Maybe 18.

00:54:36.000 Don't let minors on it just no matter what. 0.98

00:54:39.000 If you're going to make any change at all, do that one.

00:54:42.000 That's the obvious one.

00:54:44.000 Now, you tell me, is this a hard decision?

00:54:49.000 Why is anybody even having a conversation?

00:54:52.000 Just ban it and then figure out if you made the right decision.

00:54:57.000 That's the correct order.

00:54:59.000 And nobody will argue with this, by the way.

00:55:02.000 You won't see anybody say, you know, we really should let this national security risk, you know, continue until we get the right answer that we'll never agree on anyway.

00:55:17.000 Crazy.

00:55:18.000 Crazy stuff.

00:55:19.000 All right.

00:55:20.000 I think in some ways, this is why I think somebody would want to cancel me.

00:55:34.000 Because this is the sort of persuasion, you know, I tweeted this.

00:55:38.000 This is the sort of persuasion that actually moves the needle.

00:55:41.000 Right?

00:55:42.000 Not everything I say has any impact on the world.

00:55:45.000 But every now and then, I can develop a high ground position that really will change opinions.

00:55:53.000 And I would argue that the first time you heard, decide now and then figure out if it was right later.

00:56:00.000 If you had not heard that, I'll bet some of you were still saying, you know, we better make sure we do this right.

00:56:07.000 It doesn't have to be today.

00:56:08.000 You know, let's make sure we've talked it out.

00:56:11.000 I'll bet a lot of you were thinking that, that that was reasonable.

00:56:14.000 But the moment you hear, if it's a national security risk, stop it immediately and then figure out what you did.

00:56:22.000 The moment you hear it, you adopt that opinion.

00:56:25.000 That's called the high ground maneuver, persuasion.

00:56:28.000 So people who have this level of persuasive technique, I'll just call it technique.

00:56:37.000 It's something anybody could learn, are dangerous.

00:56:41.000 They're dangerous.

00:56:42.000 Because I can move maybe 100,000 votes in a day.

00:56:47.000 Or opinions, not votes.

00:56:49.000 It's hard to move votes.

00:56:50.000 But I could probably move 100,000 opinions in a day.

00:56:53.000 And I'll bet I have.

00:56:55.000 You know, I don't know any way to measure it.

00:56:58.000 But I'll bet I have.

00:57:00.000 I'll bet I have.

00:57:01.000 I've got a million followers on Twitter who could have seen this tweet.

00:57:08.000 Do you think 100,000 wouldn't say, oh, yeah.

00:57:13.000 You know, if all, not all millions say it.

00:57:15.000 But if a million saw it, you don't think that 100,000 would immediately say, yeah, that's right.

00:57:20.000 Just ban it immediately, figure it out.

00:57:22.000 At least, I think all 900,000 would say it immediately.

00:57:27.000 But at least 100,000.

00:57:29.000 So I would claim that I can move 100,000 people's opinion in a day.

00:57:34.000 That's my claim.

00:57:36.000 Minimum.

00:57:37.000 I think I could move a million on a good day.

00:57:40.000 But I could move 100,000 in one day.

00:57:43.000 And it's not because I'm special.

00:57:47.000 It's because I have a specific talent set.

00:57:50.000 Anybody who had the same talent set, I think, could do the same thing.

00:57:54.000 I mean, Cernovich could do it.

00:57:56.000 You know, if you want to name some names, Cernovich could do it.

00:58:00.000 He could move 100,000 people in one day.

00:58:07.000 Pandemic conspiracy theory.

00:58:09.000 People are still angry or disappointed in me that I do not accept the conspiracy theory

00:58:16.000 that says the pandemic was planned from the start and the technical problem.

00:58:22.000 So people are mad that I haven't accepted that the pandemic was a plannedemic.

00:58:27.000 It was planned from the start.

00:58:29.000 The virus was created for this purpose.

00:58:32.000 And that the people conspiring did it to gain power and money.

00:58:38.000 Now, here's why I don't believe the conspiracy theory.

00:58:43.000 The people who believe that conspiracy theory, would you agree, have a low opinion,

00:58:48.000 low opinion of the people involved?

00:58:50.000 Would you agree?

00:58:52.000 The people who accept the pandemic, plannedemic, as being all planned,

00:58:58.000 would you agree that they have a low opinion of the people involved with all that?

00:59:03.000 Okay.

00:59:04.000 Very clearly, right?

00:59:05.000 Now, here's your mistake about me.

00:59:09.000 You believe that my opinion is based on having a higher opinion of those people, don't you?

00:59:15.000 Because I think they didn't do that.

00:59:17.000 So does that look like a higher opinion?

00:59:20.000 Oh, no, they wouldn't do that.

00:59:23.000 No, I have a lower opinion than you do.

00:59:26.000 Much, much lower.

00:59:28.000 I don't believe that there's anybody in large numbers who could coordinate this and be undetected so far.

00:59:36.000 Now, you think you've detected them, but not in any legal way, obviously.

00:59:42.000 I don't believe people are that smart, or not even close to that smart.

00:59:46.000 So here's my rule on conspiracies.

00:59:49.000 A conspiracy in which one person and one person only knows about the conspiracy?

00:59:54.000 Could be.

00:59:55.000 That's something I might believe.

00:59:57.000 Conspiracy with three people involved?

01:00:00.000 Yeah.

01:00:01.000 Yeah.

01:00:02.000 Three people who had common interests?

01:00:04.000 Maybe they could keep a secret?

01:00:06.000 Yeah, I'll take three.

01:00:07.000 How about ten people?

01:00:10.000 Well, when you get to ten people, the odds that one of them doesn't, you know, break out of the thing and tell, it gets smaller.

01:00:19.000 But you could still imagine ten people, you know, coordinating.

01:00:23.000 Certainly, like, if it's a mafia thing or something, yeah, yeah, you could imagine 25 people.

01:00:29.000 But I can't imagine hundreds.

01:00:32.000 You know, there's no conspiracy theory where hundreds of people have to keep a secret.

01:00:36.000 That's just not a thing.

01:00:38.000 And I think the plandemic, I don't know if it'd be hundreds, but it's not five people.

01:00:45.000 It would take more than ten people, you know, who would have some connection to the conspiracy.

01:00:52.000 I think it would take a hundred or hundreds.

01:00:56.000 So, no.

01:00:57.000 I don't buy any conspiracy theory in which hundreds of people would have to keep a secret.

01:01:04.000 It's not impossible.

01:01:05.000 It's not impossible.

01:01:07.000 It's not impossible.

01:01:10.000 Somebody said D-Day.

01:01:11.000 D-Day was before internet.

01:01:13.000 Yeah.

01:01:14.000 Before the internet, and if everybody's on the same side, you could probably keep a secret.

01:01:23.000 But in the real world, people are too fractured.

01:01:28.000 You know, all it would take is, you know, one member of the conspiracy theory to disagree politically with somebody else in the group.

01:01:36.000 And then they'd narc on them.

01:01:38.000 So, the only thing, so I don't want to really have a conversation about whether it was or was not a plandemic.

01:01:45.000 Here's the only thing I want to sell to you.

01:01:48.000 Never assume that my opinion of people is higher than yours.

01:01:51.000 You'll always be missing the right context.

01:01:56.000 Always assume that I think people are even less capable than you do, generally speaking.

01:02:03.000 On average.

01:02:04.000 On average.

01:02:05.000 You know, some people are highly capable, of course.

01:02:09.000 All right.

01:02:10.000 Did I tell all of you about the prank on me, or was it just on locals?

01:02:20.000 YouTubers, did I tell you about the prank somebody played on me this morning? 1.00

01:02:25.000 Oh, it was only locals?

01:02:28.000 Oh, it was a really good prank.

01:02:31.000 Did anybody see it?

01:02:33.000 Normally, I wouldn't like it if somebody does a prank on me, if it was just, like, clumsily done.

01:02:39.000 But here's the prank.

01:02:40.000 So, every day I tweet, I tweet that I'm going to be on here doing the live stream, and I tweet the URLs.

01:02:49.000 When I tweet the address for the scottadams.locals.com, it used to put my profile picture up there that I have on locals.

01:02:59.000 So, it would just, you know, automatically grab that image and put it with the tweet.

01:03:04.000 But somebody hacked me somehow.

01:03:06.000 I don't know who or what they hacked.

01:03:08.000 And they replaced my profile picture with a picture of Dilbert wearing a KKK necktie. 0.50

01:03:16.000 And when I tweeted it, I don't get to see it until after it's posted.

01:03:23.000 So, this is why the prank is so good.

01:03:26.000 When I tweet it, I'm just tweeting a link.

01:03:29.000 So, I don't see the image.

01:03:31.000 The image is added after the fact.

01:03:33.000 So, the fact that I'd have to tweet it before I would know that it would put a KKK image there is pretty good. 0.97

01:03:41.000 And I don't know how they got into it.

01:03:43.000 Like, I don't know what they hacked or if it was an insider.

01:03:47.000 It could have been an insider.

01:03:48.000 I don't know.

01:03:49.000 But, and they're looking into it now in locals to find out.

01:03:54.000 But, even though the prank is on me, would you agree that's a pretty good prank?

01:04:01.000 I gotta say, that's A+.

01:04:04.000 A+.

01:04:05.000 Nicely done.

01:04:07.000 Nicely done.

01:04:08.000 I liked it so much, I just kept it up there.

01:04:11.000 I don't know if it'll change automatically if they fix it.

01:04:15.000 I don't think it does.

01:04:16.000 But, I'll just keep it up there.

01:04:20.000 See what happens.

01:04:22.000 Alright.

01:04:23.000 I put in a comment that I knew it was a prank.

01:04:30.000 So, I think I mentioned I was gonna talk to Larry Elder for his show.

01:04:37.000 But, he had some construction.

01:04:39.000 The neighbor was doing construction, so it was too loud.

01:04:42.000 So, we postponed that till Monday, I think.

01:04:46.000 Ruben should comment on it.

01:04:48.000 No, nobody needs to comment on it.

01:04:50.000 Let's just let it be what it is.

01:04:52.000 Yeah.

01:04:53.000 I wouldn't make it a national story or anything.

01:04:56.000 By the way, it's not like, you know, it's not like Dave Ruben was behind it or anything.

01:05:02.000 I don't think so.

01:05:05.000 Wouldn't have noticed the tie if I hadn't pointed it out.

01:05:11.000 Well, that's probably part of the prank.

01:05:13.000 Part of the prank is probably that maybe I wouldn't notice.

01:05:17.000 I've already discussed this.

01:05:21.000 What did I already discuss?

01:05:24.000 Oh, I told you about...

01:05:30.000 Well, you told me I didn't.

01:05:32.000 Maybe I said it early.

01:05:34.000 Oh, I told you about the prank.

01:05:36.000 Okay.

01:05:37.000 So, I know I told it to the locals people before I got on.

01:05:41.000 It's hard to remember what you've just said versus what you plan to say.

01:05:46.000 It's actually hard.

01:05:47.000 When you give a lot of public speeches, the most terrifying thing is that you say a sentence

01:05:53.000 and you say to yourself as you're on stage, did I just say the same sentence twice?

01:05:58.000 Because you can't tell after a while.

01:06:00.000 You just don't know.

01:06:01.000 Did I say that yesterday or was that today?

01:06:03.000 Did I just say that?

01:06:08.000 Yeah.

01:06:09.000 All right.

01:06:10.000 That's all for now.

01:06:11.000 I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately because they're special.

01:06:15.000 The only place you can find the Dilbert cartoon, Dilbert Reborn, is now on the scottadams.locals.com

01:06:21.000 platform.

01:06:22.000 But if you're on YouTube, you should be hitting that subscribe and like button and all that

01:06:27.000 other stuff because it's good for all of us.

01:06:30.000 It's good for everybody.

01:06:32.000 And there's a lot more content there.

01:06:36.000 I've been doing a lot of Robots Read News comics as well.

01:06:39.000 Lots of stuff as well as my over...

01:06:42.000 How many micro lessons do I have now?

01:06:44.000 So on the Locos platform, I put these little two to four minute lessons that give you a

01:06:49.000 life skill, like a total life skill, a thing you can use that's useful in two to four minutes.

01:06:55.000 And there are...

01:06:56.000 I think there are over 200 of them now.

01:06:58.000 Yeah.

01:06:59.000 It's 200 and so.

01:07:00.000 So believe it or not, I came up with 200 things that I could teach you that would be useful

01:07:05.000 right away.

01:07:06.000 And I'm adding to them as we go.

01:07:09.000 I'm going to add another one today probably.

01:07:11.000 And that's all for you, YouTube.

01:07:12.000 I'll see you tomorrow.

01:07:14.000 Thanks for joining us.

01:07:15.000 Thank you.

01:07:16.000 Thanks for joining us.

01:07:17.000 Thank you.

01:07:19.000 Thanks for joining us.

01:07:20.000 Thank you.

01:07:21.000 Thanks for joining us.

01:07:22.000 .

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - March 17, 2023

Episode 2050 Scott Adams： Murderous UFOs, SVB Worst Takes, Criminalized Pronouns, Republicans Hunted

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript