Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein dissect the Supreme Court's ruling against affirmative action, arguing that considering race violates equal protection while critiquing systemic racism narratives. They challenge progressive diversity metrics, favoring socioeconomic background over immutable traits, and dismiss vaccine mandates as scientifically unfounded coercion. Ultimately, the episode contends that meritocracy should supersede government-engineered outcomes, suggesting current policies prioritize flawed statistics over individual liberty and genuine qualification. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Unfairness in the Present00:15:15
Fill her up.
You're listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
What's up, everybody?
What's up?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I'm Dave Smith.
He is Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
How you feeling today, brother?
Oh, I'm doing great.
I've been hold up getting all these porch store dates up, and my work is finally done.
Finally done.
So the whole porch tour is set up.
And I can stop taking Adderall and going back to being a normal person.
But you won't.
Because you could also just keep taking it.
Well, I'm actually out of the Adderall.
So no more dates, anybody, until I am able to procure more Adderall.
All right.
Well, there you go.
And of course, go on over to RobbyTheFire.com.
That's where they can find all those dates.
ComicDaveSmith.com, you can find the stuff me and Rob got coming up.
We got Kansas City July 6th through 8th.
That whole weekend will be at the Comedy Club of Kansas City doing that and then getting ready to film my half-hour comedy special, which is sold out.
That'll be on July 11th.
Hope to see some of you guys out there.
And then right off to Hilarities in Cleveland.
A lot of stuff coming up.
ComicDaveSmith.com.
Go check us all out there.
All right.
Let's get into it.
So a pretty landmark Supreme Court decision just handed down where they have ruled against affirmative action in college admissions.
This was a case that was brought about Harvard, I believe.
And the Supreme Court, of course, very influenced by the appointments of Donald Trump, were able to do something that conservatives have been trying to do for a long time in this country.
It's not too often that there are things that you could call a legit conservative win in America.
I also think this is a win for just people who oppose racism, which is ironic in a sense, because the loudest anti-racist voices in the country are the ones who are very upset by this.
But essentially, the Supreme Court determined that Harvard and other colleges had been discriminating on the base of race against Asians and whites and that this was unconstitutional and it violated the Equal Protection Clause.
This, to me, seems to be pretty obviously the correct view on this.
I don't know.
Any initial thoughts, Rob?
Well, this just came out.
So I haven't fully been able to dive in, but I do have a question for you.
Now, I understand government not being able to legislate that you have to take people from particular minority groups because they're from a minority group, because then you end up in a discriminatory position where you can have someone who clearly, I mean, just look at it.
Like sports is the clearest example.
Imagine if they dictated that you have to have a certain amount of white people on your team and you've got someone who's clearly a much better basketball player and now you have to field a worse team because it's been mandated that you need to have a Jew on your team.
How many Jews are in the NBA right now?
Imagine if they mandated that every team needed to have some whiny Jew and that you needed to give him time on the court, right?
We can all see why that makes no sense.
The same thing happens at Harvard.
I guess every single year they're looking at people and there's one guy who's got slightly better academics and one person who's got slightly worse, but because of the race of the person was slightly worse.
Just to push back on this a little bit already, and I want to get to your point, but if you actually look at it, it's not just slightly worse.
It's appalling.
They've actually done this where they break it down into categories, what's it called?
Decimals, 10 categories.
And if you're in the top category for Asians, you have a lower chance of getting admitted than if you're in the like third lowest category as an African American.
It's not like slightly lower.
It's like the standards are insanely higher for Asians and for white people.
So I fully understand that I wouldn't take the stance that government should mandate that you as Harvard should be forced to, you know, take a black person over a white person if the black person had worst credentials.
However, if it's now good for your business that you look at your college and you go, I'm actually not that concerned with academics.
I want everyone to be over a certain threshold, but I don't want more than 15% Asians and I don't want less than 10% blacks because in order for this to be the Harvard experience, we like to have 60% white people here, 10% black people here and 15% Asian.
That's what the Harvard experience is for our core demographic, which is the 60% whites that attend our college.
I'm making up these numbers, but it is still funny that a rich white American gets to attend the Harvard of their dreams that has exactly 50% Asians and 10% blacks so that they can pretend like that they are more cultured and engaging in, you know, I guess a wider scope of what the world really looks like.
And that's hilarious that that's your, you're going to be with the wealthiest, privileged, and smartest of the world, but yet the fact that they're 10% black adds to your cultural experience.
I'm talking too much here, but just to make my point, if that's Harvard's business decision, I don't think the government should force them that they have to accept the minorities, but if they like having their 15% Asians and don't want to go over that quota, I mean, are we going to take the stance that the government should mandate that it should be purely academics?
Well, listen, I understand the position you're taking.
And I think that if you were to take this like in a vacuum in theory, what the pure libertarian position and what the position, my position, and I think yours too probably would be, is private companies or private institutions can admit whoever they want to for whatever criteria they want to, and that's their business.
And if they're a racist organization and you object to that, then you have every right to speak out against them, every right to not go there, boycott, et cetera.
But really, there should be no role for the government involved.
That is my view on these things.
The situation that we're actually living in is much, much murkier than that.
And for several reasons.
And one of the reasons is because affirmative action in general was sparked by government intervention.
There were laws all over the place for decades that insisted on quotas and actually were doing what you would object to them doing, forcing many different institutions in America to accept minorities, even if they weren't as qualified.
The other major issue you have here is that college is a government program across the board.
I mean, it's just like all of the loans are given by the government, right?
So now you're in a very murky area as to whether you can really consider this a truly private institution.
And the other fact is that we do live under a civil rights regime, whether we like it or not.
That's just the reality.
If you were all of the just, and Justice Roberts pointed this out in his decision, that he said the justices dissenting here would absolutely find this illegal if it were being done to blacks or Hispanics.
That's the truth.
This would be considered illegal if they were being discriminated against under the law.
Nobody would object to that.
They only object to it on the basis of it's okay to discriminate against these races because we want more of these races in.
And as long as you have that type of regime and that type of government involvement, I think the only reasonable thing here is just like we're not no, like either everyone gets protection or no one gets protection.
It can't be this kind of like certain racial groups get protection and others don't.
And if we're living in the world where these certain racial groups are getting protected, but then when it comes to the other racial groups getting protected, we go, well, no, we've got these libertarian principles, so we won't support that.
The de facto answer then is that only certain racial groups get the protections.
So it's kind of got to be either all or nothing.
It's got to be either you can't discriminate based on race or you can and the government's completely decoupled from the situation.
Does that make sense?
Well, I guess what I'm asking is, so there used to be a law that you would by force have to take a certain percentage of minority groups.
It would seem to me that in the ESG world that we live in, you kind of have to like the same way corporations kind of have to promote minority groups now because otherwise it just doesn't look good.
And I've certainly worked in offices where it seemed like white males were very unlikely to get promoted, even if their performance record was far superior to ladies on the sales.
Like, I mean, especially in sales.
In sales, it's very clear.
Hey, I'm the top manager on the floor.
I literally, you can look at the performance record and I've seen where, well, sorry, you can't get promoted because the last three people we promoted were all white men.
So you're going to have to wait in line until we find a person who clearly does not have the same track record as you because they either fill my lady box or minority group box.
But even if you get rid of the government, I guess, mandating, like what is the actual implication from this?
Because I can't imagine that Harvard's going to turn around tomorrow and go, we're only admitting based off of now academic standards and have an institution that's 90% Asian.
Well, that's going to be interesting to see.
And I don't know what the answer is.
I agree with you that I have a hard time imagining that that will be the case.
But I think one of the issues that we have here is that these very strange worldview has kind of permeated our culture and our society in a way that is, it's intertwined with government intervention, but it's not exclusively about government intervention anymore.
And it's been very interesting to kind of see.
I tweeted something out about this earlier today, but how much you we're like living in this upside down world where people are actually like many people, particularly progressives, are actually calling this racist, this decision.
Like they're saying it's racist that you will no longer be discriminating against whites and Asians in favor of blacks and Hispanics.
That's considered racist.
Just think about how much every the meaning of everything has been flipped on its head when that's the worldview.
And I'm not even talking about government intervention.
I'm just talking about like, if you look at the policy of discriminating against a group based on their race, and then you don't see that as racist.
You see that as anti-racist.
And then when that's ended, you see that as racist.
It's very hard to even have a conversation about these things.
And so many people just kind of have that mentality now, which is very, I think, clearly upside down that they go, You know, even like in the example you're talking about in a sales force or something like that, if you're clearly a better salesman, but we're going to promote a woman over you because the last three promotions have gone to men.
So you're discriminating against someone on the basis of sex.
And the justification in their mentality is like, well, otherwise it would be sexist.
Otherwise, it would be sexist if we didn't discriminate against you on the basis of your sex.
That is so bonkers to me.
And it's been basically like instilled in people through the entire affirmative action mindset that somehow it's like the view is somehow like, well, we know that it's been unfair in the past and therefore we must make it unfair in the present to balance out the unfairness in the past.
I've always rejected this because the logic of it to me just seems so goofy.
It's like, if things were unfair in the past, then end what the unfairness was.
You don't have to then make it unfair in the present.
You know, it's like, if you took it to its logical conclusion, the perspective of people who believe in affirmative action should be what?
Well, I guess we got to enslave white people for a few hundred years, then give them another hundred years of Jim Crow.
And then at that point, we can go even.
Now we all get right.
But then you might be like, oh, the whites were enslaved most recently.
So they're suffering the, like, what is that?
And, and of course, none of them would take it to its logical conclusion.
And I, I don't know exactly what their reason for rejecting that would be, but probably because it's like, well, that's, we can't do that.
That's really fucked up to like enslave white people for hundreds of years and then 100 years of Jim Crow for them.
I mean, you know, so we won't take it that far.
We'll just do like a miniature version of that.
But it's still just fucked up.
It's that individual, whoever the individual is who doesn't get the sales promotion or doesn't get admitted to a college, who was more qualified, they're still suffering some type of injustice because of the injustice that they had nothing to do with of the past.
And I've always found the logic of this to just be sorely lacking.
And it's interesting.
It's interesting to see how people perceive these things.
Yeah, I got into a Twitter argument with some of the like more woke libertarian types a few weeks back.
And it was over that someone had made this claim.
Basically what they did was they posted a graph of the, I think it was a demographic breakdown of police shootings.
Like this percentage of, it was the, it was the percentage of like, it was like white people, Asians, blacks, Latinos.
And then it was their, the percentage they are of the population and then the percentage they are of police shootings.
And if you could imagine black people and Hispanic people were way higher than their, than their, you know, it was very disproportionate to the percentage of the population that they are.
They're much more, you know, likely to be shot by the police.
And he said something like, this is proof of systemic racism.
Or that they're engaging in more activities that get them shot.
Right.
And so then, and so I push back.
I go, you have, and, you know, I said something in response, like I was like, you think that's bad?
You know, you should see the NBA or something like that.
You know, it's really, you know, and like something.
And I, you know, and I got into kind of this back and forth with them, but I thought the point that I was making was fairly obvious, but it seemed like there were some people who really struggled to grasp it.
But it's like, this is, it's like basic Thomas Soul shit that disparities in outcomes are not, if not only is it not proof, it's not even evidence of discrimination.
It's just not.
Like in the same way that you'd go, look, I mean, the prison population, and let's, for the libertarian's sake, take out all nonviolent victimless crimes.
So let's just look at like hardcore violent crimes.
The prison population for hardcore violent crimes is somewhere between 95 and 98% male.
Disproportionate Outcomes Explained00:15:57
Now, is that evidence of systemic sexism?
Well, no, because there's a different reason for it.
And the reason is that men commit way more violent crimes than women do.
It's not the case.
Now, if women were committing violent crimes all over the place and not getting prosecuted and there were a whole bunch of like, I hate men judges who were doing it just because they were men, then maybe you'd have an argument, but you have to demonstrate that this is being done because of racist reasons.
You can't just say, oh, look, the outcome is this way, because there are near infinite other factors that you're not controlling for, right?
Like, you know, just so many other things that could be the answer rather than that.
And, you know, like, why are firefighters disproportionately Irish?
That doesn't have anything to do with probably anything other than just tradition.
Like traditionally, that's what they've gone into.
And a lot of they're like, I don't know, my dad was a firefighter, so I'm going to be a firefighter.
It's just that it's, there's, there's many other factors that can lead to disparate outcomes that have nothing to do with any type of discrimination.
So that's kind of one of the things that's, there's a whole mentality about all of this stuff where they seem to get it all completely wrong.
And the idea that you, if you get to an outcome that is not, you know, I don't know, where the racial proportionalities don't line up perfectly to what the proportion of the general population is, that that's somehow evidence that there's some type of systemic injustice is just so stupid.
It's just stupid.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Z Biotics.
If you've ever skipped a workout because of drinks the night before and you're committed to your healthy routine and you don't want that to happen again, you need Z Biotics.
Z Biotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.
It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking.
Here's how it works.
When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut.
It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for your rough next day.
Z-Biotics produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down.
It's designed to work like your liver, but in your gut where you need it the most.
Just remember to drink Z-Biotics before drinking alcohol, drink responsibly, and get a good night's sleep to feel your best tomorrow.
Give Z-Biotics a try for yourself.
Go to zbiotics.com slash P-O-T-P to get 15% off your first order when you use P-O-T-P at checkout.
Z-Biotics is backed with a 100% money-back guarantee.
So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money.
No questions asked.
Remember, head to zbiotics.com slash P-O-T-P and use the code P-O-T-P at checkout for 15% off.
And thanks to Z-Biotics for sponsoring this episode.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Anyway, I got into it with some of these guys.
And what they would throw back at me is they'd say, well, look, don't you think the war on drugs is an example of systemic racism?
And I would say, okay, well, what's your evidence that it is?
And they, again, well, look at the disproportionate outcomes.
It disproportionately affects these certain groups.
And my point to them was that that just doesn't mean anything.
That's not evidence of anything.
And I don't think it's beneficial for people who care about freedom to even talk about things in those terms for a number of reasons.
Like, number one, If your argument is that it's wrong because it disproportionately affects these groups, or it's wrong because the outcome has a racial disparity to it, then by that logic, you also would have to be against the NBA.
You'd also have to be against male violent prisoners being disproportionately men.
If the argument is that if a policy disproportionately affects this group, that's evidence of some type of racism or sexism, then you'd have to be consistent about that.
And then also you're going to end up indicting the free market as pretty racist because anything you have in the free market, it would be an absurd expectation if you had any industry, if you took a look at any industry in a free market and you expected it to be like, okay, well, because black people are 13% of the population, this industry should be 13% black.
It should be 66% white.
It should fit exactly.
It's just an absurd expectation.
There's nothing like that.
There's nothing you can find where it's accurately perfectly representative.
And on top of that, there's this weird thing where like, look, my objection to the war on drugs is that it's a violation of individual liberty.
That's my objection to it.
My objection to it is not that it disproportionately affects one group or the other.
I don't care.
Either their rights are being violated or they're not.
And if they are being violated, then I'm against that.
And if they're not, then that's, then it doesn't matter what the, what the group is either way.
And in a sense, like my point to this is, let's say you're a libertarian and you oppose the war on drugs.
If you're opposing it on the basis that it's systemically racist because it disproportionately impacts black people, then would you think it was better or worse if we started locking up more white people for drugs?
Because that might balance out the systemic racist part, right?
Like if it started, if we started arresting more people for drug crimes or say gun possession crimes or something like that, things that we don't believe should be crimes.
If you started arresting more white people, you would close that gap.
Okay.
And it would not disproportionately affect black people as much.
If you started arresting less white people for those crimes, it would increase that gap and it would be more racist, I guess.
So which would you prefer of those two options?
The ones that makes it less racist or the ones that makes it more racist?
Well, I'd prefer the one that makes it more racist because there's less people's rights being violated.
I don't care what the proportions are.
I care about people's rights being violated.
So I just think it's like a weird mentality.
Does that make sense, Rob?
Like there's a weird mentality the way people look at this stuff.
I guess stated differently, you shouldn't, we should speak out about bad government policies because it empowers the government to do unequal enforcement and to impose its own racist will upon the American people.
Sure.
But I just think the term, I think even beyond that, which I agree with, but I think that there's like these terms have to mean something.
So I would say that I think the term, if the term systemic racism, I don't think is a meaningless term.
I think there are many things that it could apply to.
I think certainly like if you were to look at like Jim Crow or black codes or something like that, that's not just racism.
It's not just like some person like hates, you know, like if the if there was some person who was just like, I hate black people and I won't go anywhere where there's black people there.
You'd be like, okay, that guy's a racist.
But if there's a policy, like if like that there's discrimination under the law based on immutable racial characteristics, I could see calling that systemic racism.
But you can't call something systemically racist just because there's a disproportionate outcome any more than like if there's if there's a law against murder and black people are disproportionately committing murder, that's not racist to have a law against murder.
That doesn't make any sense.
Now, I do think it makes sense to call affirmative action systemic racism.
I think the policy at Harvard could be called systemic racism.
They are discriminating against Asians and whites for nothing other than their immutable characteristics.
If the term means anything, then this policy was an example of that.
And so it's interesting that the ones who yap all day long about systemic racism are also the ones who are in support of this policy.
One of the few examples in current society that you can really find of this.
It's all just a goofy.
It's a very upside down way of looking at things.
I just wonder what we're going to do now to keep, you know, not have our universities be overrun by Asian spies.
Because is that what we want in the future?
Just an entire Harvard of Asian spies bringing back our secrets to China.
Yeah.
Well, I guess that is the downside of all of this.
It's interesting too, though, that the Asians really fuck with the progressive social justice worldview.
Oh, because they're just so high.
They're just such high achievers.
Well, they'll use these, you know, like when all of these arguments, even the ones that I was mentioning with police shootings, Asians are less representative than white people are.
And, you know, like, again, it's, it's like when you take the, you look at these stats, it's like the like the old wage gap number.
They used to say what, you know, women make 77 cents on the dollar to men.
I think now it might be 79 cents on the dollar to men.
And then they repeat that over and over again.
And then you'll hear people saying like, well, women make 77 cents on the dollar for the same work.
And it's like, that's actually not true.
That's not true.
That's not for the same work.
The 77 cents on a dollar number comes from just looking at what the average woman makes and what the average man makes.
And the problem with that is that they control for nothing.
And that's just not scientific.
It's not scientific if you look at numbers and don't do any controls.
I mean, to get that number, they don't even control for hours worked.
Like it's not like as if that's.
I just assumed that the market decided that women were 30% less efficient at everything.
Because we have a market and I guess it just decided that you have to pay a lady 30% less on any given task because they're only 70% as efficient in any given activity.
Yeah.
Well, the market hasn't determined that.
And I'm saying it's a market failure.
I don't know how we haven't determined that yet, but it has.
But you know what I'm saying?
Like they don't control for hours worked.
They don't control for job experience.
They don't control for like if you took 10 years off to maybe go have kids or something like that.
There's like all these factors that you'd have to control for.
And they don't.
They don't control for any of them.
So at the same time with these numbers, like, yeah, Asians are way less likely to get shot by the police, but like Asians are also much less likely to commit violent crime.
Now, why is that exactly?
I don't know.
Probably many different reasons.
But if you don't take that into account, you've just got nothing here.
But anyway, the point I was making about how Asians fuck with the social justice narrative is that it's just like all the things that they point to that say there's systemic racism against these groups or there's a systemic advantage for white people.
There's more of an advantage for Asians.
Asians have a higher salary.
You know, the whole wage gap thing.
Well, there's more of a wage gap between whatever group and Asians than there are between anyone else.
And so like, or I should just say Asians make more, not necessarily that there's a larger gap.
But if you want to go, well, black people only make this much and white people make this much.
It's like, yeah, well, the gap between black people and Asians is even higher.
So do we live in an Asian supremacist society?
Right.
Like this doesn't make any sense.
And no social justice warrior will ever claim that because they know that's not, it doesn't help their narrative, which is really trying to be this like anti-white narrative.
So they just kind of ignore Asians.
But then here you have like a policy of discriminating against a minority group and for what?
For the crime of like having their shit together, being smart, scoring high on tests, working very hard.
This just seems like so incredibly fucked up and backward from any perspective, whether it's like the libertarian perspective, the conservative perspective, or even like a liberal or left-wing perspective.
It seems like you're supporting discriminating against a qualified minority.
How do you justify that?
Anyway, they do try.
They do try.
Here is some legal analysis from MSNBC, the most trusted source in news.
Whenever you raise it.
But I mean, in this case, the issue of affirmative action on college campuses has been before the Supreme Court over multiple decades.
You mentioned back in the 1970s, it came up again in 2003, the big case, Freuder versus Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court ruled race could be considered as a factor in the admissions process because universities had a compelling interest in maintaining campus diversity.
It came up again in 2016, the University of Texas, every time the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the universities with their admission practices.
What's different this time?
Well, the difference is there are six, three.
I don't know what the lineup is for this, but you now have six conservative judges, the same thing that happened with Roe v. Wade.
Now it's our turn.
We get to do what we want to do.
And let me just add, the reason why affirmative action is a good thing, it is not preferential.
It's you're bringing diverse opinions to the table.
What Charles and I are bringing to this conversation today is very different than what white former federal prosecutors would be bringing to you today.
So it's just the timing that you happen to have these two black former prosecutors here.
So it's a sea change because what's going to happen, as Charles said, which happened in California, is like, we're not going to take race into account anymore in our public colleges and everything will be fine.
And as we see, that's not happening.
So it is not preferential.
Race is one factor.
And it's not like, okay, because I said there were only three black people in my law school graduating class.
And that probably was affirmative action.
But now that schools no longer have to consider race, you know, I fear what will happen and what will there be many lawyers who look like Charles and I in the future or doctors or accountants.
It is a problem and it's not preferential treatment.
I think people have to understand the.
So it's quite an interesting take that they have here.
And this is kind of what I mean about the upside down world.
First of all, there's something like particularly, it's such a like race essentialist point of view to say that the reason you have to have black people is because otherwise you just don't have a diversity of opinions.
Like otherwise you don't, we're going to have a very different opinion than some white person who would be here would have.
As if like the thing that defines your opinions are your race and that we couldn't possibly, we just somehow don't have diversity of opinions unless we also have diversity of race, which is, it's just so not true.
There is like almost no diversity of opinion on college campuses.
There's lots of diversity of color, but there's very little diversity of opinion.
They are like lockstep with all of the of the new cultural fads for the most part.
And the truth is that if you took, let's just say in Harvard or any, really almost any college campus you could think of, if you threw me and you in the mix there, Rob, that would be doing a lot more for diversity of opinions than just saying we're going to pick minorities.
Rooting for Group Success00:03:16
It's just a very weird, like the essence of a racist worldview to think that like the defining characteristic about you is your race.
That's, that's one.
Number two, there is something interesting about this, this fear that you have.
Her big fear is that there won't be black doctors or black lawyers or black accountants, she said, in the future.
It's just like a lot to unpack in that.
Number one, it's just like this kind of like naked tribalism.
Like you're rooting for your group to succeed for its own sake.
I want my group to succeed.
Like, okay, that's fine.
I mean, if you're just saying that, like if I, if I were to just say, I just want whatever, I want my, I was going to say whites, but let's go Jews, whatever.
If I go, I want Jews to succeed, I want the Jews to take over everything.
Like, okay, you can want that.
There's nothing wrong with that.
But I don't think it's reasonable to expect anybody who's not in that group to want that.
Why, if you want your group to succeed, why shouldn't I just want my group to succeed?
Why do I have to want your group to succeed too?
Like, I don't, personally, my attitude with this is if I have a doctor or a lawyer or whatever, I just want the best.
That's all I want.
I don't care.
If I'm looking at 20 years for a crime I didn't commit and you're telling me this black dude is the best lawyer, he's got the best, you know, track record of getting people off for these crimes.
I will take that guy.
If he's Asian and he's the best, I'll take the Asian.
If he's a Jew and he's the best, I'll take the Jew.
And let's get real.
The Jew is going to be the best.
So we're going to take the Jew.
But you know what I'm saying?
Like, you want to, you know, my surgeon performed open heart surgery on my three-day old son.
There was nothing I cared about aside from that he was the best surgeon.
Literally nothing else could matter.
The idea that his race would even come into play.
Like when you put something that really matters to you, in this case, the thing that matters the most to me on the line, I am not concerned with what color that person was.
I was very pleased that he is like the best world-renowned heart surgeon.
That was a big deal to me.
I could care less that he happened to be a French Jew.
Think he's French Jew.
He's French for sure.
Anyway, but like that's, it's just, it's a very bizarre way of looking at things.
And the other layer to it is that there's like a real insecurity there.
That it's like, oh, well, if we don't have, she keeps saying it's not preferential treatment, which is just objectively false.
It is preferential treatment.
If someone with better grades and better SAT scores isn't getting in because of you, because of your race, you are getting preferential treatment.
But there's this real insecurity, which also really mimics a kind of racist worldview that you don't believe in a meritocracy.
There will be black people in these positions, you know?
Qualifying Candidates Over Race00:03:09
Like if the answer can't be to have a policy where these black kids who are less qualified get preferential treatment, then what could the answer be?
Well to get their sat scores up, to get their grades up right, but that you already see where.
Now you'd actually have to get into solving the, the root of the problem, whatever exactly that is.
And she seems to feel like that's not possible.
It's almost like the implication is that like well, there's no way to do that.
There's no, there's no way to actually get these kids as qualified as their Asian counterparts.
And and from my perspective, I don't believe that.
I I don't buy into that kind of race essentialist worldview.
But if that were the case, then it's best for all of society that we have the most qualified people.
That's, that's just the truth.
It's best for all of society that the most qualified people go into those positions, the positions that really matter.
You want the most qualified people for all right guys.
Let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, brand new sponsor, who we're thrilled to have on board.
Was your business affected by the draconian lockdowns during the Covid scandemic?
If so, I have to tell you about Capata CPA, why your business might be eligible for an employee retention credit of twenty six thousand dollars per employee, I told at Capata CPA, their expert team can determine your eligibility and help you qualify for the employee retention credit a game-changing tax incentive for your business.
Don't miss out on this valuable opportunity.
Capata CPA can guide you through the process so you can easily receive the employee retention credits.
Here's the short for qualifying for the erc, if your business has experienced a 20 or more decline in quarter one, two or three in 2021 or quarter four in 2020 in gross receipts compared to the same quarter in 2019, you may be eligible for an employee retention credit.
If your business has any quarter of a 50 or more decline in any quarters in 2020 when compared to 2019.
If your business has been partially or fully suspended by a government order due to covet 19 or has faced significant disruptions in its operations, you may qualify for the ERC.
So if you think you might qualify, hit them up.
Capata CPA will help you navigate the qualification process, ensure you meet all the necessary criteria and maximize your credit potential.
Go check them out at Capata Cpa.com.
Slash potp or click the link in the episode description to see if you qualify for an ERC tax credit.
That's C-A-P-A-T-A-C-P-A dot com.
Slash P-O-T-P.
Go check them out right now.
All right, let's get back into the show.
By the way, you know, it's like when I was talking about my son having open heart surgery and we were in the cardiac NICU with a bunch of babies who had open heart surgery is a cardiac NICU.
So it's everyone there had heart surgeries.
And there were babies there of every race.
And so it was black babies and Hispanic babies and white babies and everything.
Diverse Opinions Matter Most00:13:15
I don't remember seeing any Asians, but there might have been.
But they were like, oh, every one of these babies benefits from the surgeon being the best surgeon.
You get my point?
Every one of these, no matter what race you are, you benefit from the absolute best being the one who became the baby heart surgeon.
It doesn't benefit anybody if we just said, we're going to put a slightly less qualified person in there because of their race, whatever that might be.
We all benefit when the best people get to the most important jobs.
And it's just, anyway, it's just like a nutty worldview to think like this.
I'm sorry, I'm ranting, Rob.
Any comments on anything?
No, you're laying down the facts gauntlet.
It is interesting the way that she goes, it's not preferential treatment and then goes on to describe preferential treatment.
It's kind of the same way they like to go, we can't have a democracy unless there's force involved.
It's like a very them thing to redefine the exact term.
And it would be better if you just made your actual argument, which is it's preferential treatment, but here's why the preferential treatment is important.
That would make for a more interesting conversation than just to basically lie to me and go, well, that's not what this, well, that is what it is.
Make for a more interesting conversation.
Yeah, there might be a reason for it.
And then tell me the reason, but don't say that it's not preferential treatment.
Just somewhat strongman, what I think the perspective is in part.
For example, like I was a terrible student.
I think my SAT score is like, maybe I got like a 900 on the PSA.
I don't even remember.
I mean, if you were trying to find high school record indicator of whether or not I was an intelligent individual, you would look at it and go, oh, this guy's a dumbass.
And that would have been, but now just imagine for a second, there was no such institution as college.
And instead, law firms or sales offices just hired out of, out of high school.
Let's just imagine that for a second.
I probably could have been a great lawyer.
It's not what I ended up doing.
I am an A sales guy when I work sales jobs.
Like there certainly are tasks that I'm very good at.
And those academic criteria was not a good indicator specifically for a company in terms of figuring out what that I was smart or not smart.
So when these people complain and they go, I think to strongman their argument, they go, we actually have highly steel, sure.
They actually have, we have highly credentialed kids who would excel maybe at a Harvard environment.
They didn't do as well on their SATs because they go to poor schools.
They didn't have the same opportunities.
And so these scores are actually not a good indicator of that this person will do better than that person.
But then the conversation is that you're using the wrong tools to evaluate.
Yes.
Like you can change it.
The same way if I was staffing a sports team tomorrow, you might have someone who's got a winning record of like a 105, I don't know, over like their high school football career.
And then I'm looking at some other kid who's a 450 pound 7-2 person who I can just look at him and go, oh, I'd rather have that guy as my O-line than this kid who won 100.
Like I don't care what your record was.
I'm looking at this guy.
So you should just have a better conversation about like the actual credentialing of how you're, you know, picking who you fed schools.
If that's your point that you're trying to make, like, no, these kids are actually qualified.
It's just not being reflected in this.
Okay.
If that's your argument, then make it and let's hear why it is that you actually think that's, that's the case.
But they don't seem to be offering anything like that.
And I agree with you.
I'd be somewhat open to that.
I mean, I don't think that like your GPA or your SAT scores are necessarily the perfect measure of how smart you are or how capable you're going to be in the world.
And by the way, I don't really believe in this whole college for everyone thing.
The other thing about this that's kind of interesting is that it's such a it's we're talking about like Harvard here.
At least that was the one who went before the Supreme Court.
Obviously it has implications on other schools as well.
But they hate Asians the most.
Yes.
But it's not as if like the black kid who now won't get into Harvard because he didn't have as good grades or SAT scores as an Asian kid now doesn't go to college.
This is didn't get into Harvard.
Probably lots of other colleges that he could get into.
And I don't know.
I think for a lot of these kids, I mean, I've heard arguments made before from like, I think it was Walter Williams who made a long argument that it's actually really not helpful to get kids into these elite schools when they're not prepared for them, you know, because it's like, it's like they're better off to go to the school they should be going where they could excel rather than going to this school.
But regardless of that, it's not as if there's, you know, it's not like the alternative to that is starving to death or something.
It's just going to like not the most prestigious school.
Anyway, very weird.
I think Harvard's going to be packed with Asians who wants to go there anyways.
Yeah, really.
You're going to be running from that place.
Oh, delightful racism.
All right.
I think we have one more video on this topic.
Other states that already have banned affirmative action programs implemented that.
I think that could provide a roadmap perhaps for the rest of the country.
I mean, is there an alternative that some states that you know of have?
They have been able to?
How do you diversify without taking race in account?
What are you diversifying?
You're diversifying.
You know people's income, you know Clarence Thomas, i'm sorry, can you pause?
Yeah, pause.
That just angers me so much I have to jump on it.
Yeah, the idea would be that I have to correct for the fact that i'm looking at that certain individuals are black and so I don't want them here, and that's racism.
If i'm blindly looking at their credentials and just picking then yes, that should automatically correct for racism, unless you're actually saying that, when it comes to credentialing uh, blacks will be not picked because they're worth, they're not as well credentialed.
Yeah, it's actually a racist argument.
It's actually the argument that black people just can't achieve as much.
Um there's, you know uh, it's also just so funny to go like well, what would, if we're not looking at race, what would we look at for diversity?
And then she throws out income and you're like yeah okay, that is another factor.
Absolutely yes that, in fact, I would argue that that is way more important than race.
Like yeah it's, if you grew up on food stamps or you grew up in a mansion, that is a.
That is a serious diversity of life experience and I would argue that a black kid who grew up in a mansion and a white kid who grew up in a mansion have a lot more in common than the black kid in a mansion has with the black kid on food stamps.
I think the white kid on food stamps has a lot more in common with the black kid on food stamps.
Um, it's like what else could we talk, I don't know, like rural versus urban, that you want diversity, that again, some black dude who grew up on a farm is going to have a lot more in common with a white dude who grew up on a farm.
It's like.
It's just like there's intellectual diversity, that there's a there's a million other different, like things that you could care about just in terms of diversity, that are just not that.
It is just not true that if you have um, you know if, if the Obama daughters go into some elite school, that that school is now more diverse.
Like only superficially, the in the most superficial, uh version of diversity.
Anyway, let's keep playing.
You know it's a the idea of you need diverse opinions.
I'm just formulating.
It's like if you had a bridge and you had a bunch of engineers and they're taking a look at the bridge and they're like hey listen, before we can certify this, we need a blind guy to look at it.
We need a diverse range of opinions.
So, until a blind guy looks at this thing, or why don't we get more uh, mentally handicapped people, more John Fettermans, into positions?
Because, after all, they've got a different perspective.
Are there more jelly beans here or not?
You know what I mean.
They're going to bring an entirely different outlook on how to run a business.
Yeah it's, it's very.
The idea of diversity being um, a good in and of itself is a very bizarre idea.
It's a very bizarre idea.
I mean, i'm not saying there's no areas where, for particular reasons, you'd want diversity.
Like I can think of a lot of areas where like you'd want a diversity of opinions because you'd want to say like, whatever, if there's some policy, we want to have, we want to hear from all these opinions and then we can kind of judge which one's best.
But the idea that just in and of in and of itself, diversity is good is not true in a lot of areas.
It's not true.
Okay, let's let's finish this up.
How do you diversify without taking race into account?
What are you diversifying?
You're diversifying, you know, people's income.
You know, Clarence Thomas, you know, he has criticized affirmative action.
That's how that's one of the reasons why he graduated from Yale.
And we know that's one of the reasons why he's on the Supreme Court.
So it that some part of his argument, like you're not giving enough credit to people of color, that they can accomplish what it is you're saying affirmative action is intended to help the competition.
The problem with that argument is that the issue is not the credit being given to people of color.
The issue is the credit being given or the decision on the decision maker side.
That's the problem.
The problem is never about whether people are qualified.
The issue is whether those qualifications are going to be judged properly by people who are making decisions in such a way that is going to allow the continued access to these spaces by people who have been historically denied them.
Let me expand the conversation.
All right, Lizzie, we can end it there.
That's the end of it.
This is just nonsense.
Clarence Thomas's position is very clear.
His position is that I earned everything I have.
And now people like this are going to claim I'm an affirmative action case.
And that's why I don't like it, because I believe black people can achieve all of these things without needing affirmative action.
He is actually making the non-racist argument that black people can achieve things based on their own merit.
Their argument is that the issue isn't qualifications.
The problem is that the person deciding, we need some guarantee that they will decide in a way that gives these people access to these institutions, which they've been denied access to in the past.
So in other words, we need to make sure you're deciding the right way.
And the way we're judging that is that you're picking these kids.
Again, like you made this point before, when you're talking about the Harvard thing, if you think that GPA and SATs are not a fair metric to decide, then argue that and present an alternative for what would be a better metric.
But there's no argument that people with lower GPAs and SAT scores are getting preferential treatment over those with higher.
And the fact that people, you know, back to my point about enslaving white people to balance out history, if your point is that they've been denied access in the past, okay.
So stop denying them access.
That's a fair, you know, if you can point out a systemic injustice, okay, then end that.
But don't, you know, don't advocate for more systemic injustice.
All right.
And then he also makes the claim that the issue is unless by force of government, decision makers have to take a certain quota of minorities, then they will always discriminate against the minorities and mostly pick whites.
And I think sports is a very good example of the fact that that is not true.
The value, the market doesn't work that way.
If you are the best and you create value for people, guess what?
People like to make money.
They like to be able to offer the best goods and services.
There's absolutely no reason.
For example, look at the hedge fund world.
You think they want to discriminate against Asians and let someone else make all the quant fund money?
Do you think that's what they want to do?
Look at any career in the entire world.
If you are really good at what you do, then that means that someone's probably going to want to hire you because they get to make money off of you.
Yep, 100%.
It's obviously the biggest motivator.
And it's funny that like lefties will complain about this all the time.
They'll complain about how it's the profit motive is all that these greedy capitalists care about.
But then all of a sudden, when it comes down to these issues, they're like, but well, there is one thing they care about more than that, which is like being a bunch of bigots.
I'll take gladly take a corporation that doesn't do well in the marketplace as long as I can walk into an office and only see white people.
Right.
And let me, and I'll make it clear that none of them are being fired because there aren't all that many people that I'll allow in here to compete with them.
Yeah.
And it's, it's so obvious, by the way, that your point is true, that it's like none of this.
All these giant corporations will bend over and start parroting all these woke talking points as soon as they think that's going to be advantageous for them in the market.
You know, you see all these companies, all these big corporations, by the way, who also operate globally, like they're all around the world.
Like Coca-Cola is all around the world.
All these countries.
Yeah.
How many how many rainbow flags were they flying last month in Saudi Arabia?
No, it actually says no queers allowed.
That's what it says.
Yeah.
That's my point.
That's my point.
They don't push this shit in a market where they know it would be devastating for their brand.
Like they don't even know what they're, we know what their, their motivation.
McDonald's actually has a commercials running.
Do you like trying to eat your fries without hands?
Come on in.
Vaccine Risk vs Reward00:14:29
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Freeze Pipe.
For the smoothest cannabis smoking experience, you need a freezable pipe bubbler or bong from Freeze Pipe.
If you're tired of harsh smoke, coughing attacks, or that dragon throat feeling, then try an icy freeze pipe and start enjoying clouds so smooth.
You'll check to see if the bowl is even lit.
Freeze pipes, bubblers, hand pipes, they're as smooth as traditional pieces that cost twice as much, or you can check out their bongs and their dab rigs for an outrageously smooth experience that will change how you light up forever.
The secret is the freezable glycerin chambers that come on every piece.
You pop one of these chambers in the freezer for an hour and a smoke passes through this icy chamber.
It's instantly cooled by over 300 degrees.
Think flavor-packed clouds with zero chest or throat burn.
I got to tell you, all the guys at Gas Digital love this stuff.
Back in my day, we didn't have anything like it.
But if you're a smoker, you got to go check this out for the smoothest smoking glass pipes, bubblers, and bongs.
Visit freezepipe.com and use the promo code P-O-T-P for 10% off your entire order.
That's freezepipe.com, promo code P-O-T-P for 10% off.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Okay, let's let's before we get out of here, I do want to let's quickly cover this other video, which was pretty entertaining.
Happened over this last week.
It was on my boy Patrick Bett David's show, where Jeffrey Toobin, of course, most famous for masturbating on camera in front of his coworkers.
Listen, we all make mistakes.
So anyway, but he, you got to admire his courage for ever showing his face in public again.
So he was on the Patrick Bett David show and the topic of vaccine mandates came up.
Let's play that clip.
Look, you try to force down the vaccine on me.
I didn't like that.
I don't like what you did there as well.
So when you say, I don't like what Fox did, there is tens of millions of people that can say, I can't stand what mainstream media did to judge me just because I wasn't ready to take the vaccine.
You made me feel like shit to want to take the vaccine.
You made me feel like I'm a moron because I'm not willing to take it.
That part is a little bit double standard.
It's not a, and I'm sorry, I'm a complete hardliner on this.
Tell me what you mean.
Because it is that, you know, at CNN and at Fox, you were not allowed in the building unless you were vaccinated.
You think that's okay.
You pause it right there.
Just to be clear, I was at Fox just a few days ago, and that's not true.
He didn't make the claim in the past tense.
There might have been a point.
In fact, there was a point.
I think this had to do with the New York vaccine passport rule.
I don't think this, it might have been a Fox decision as well, but he says it in the present tense that at Fox, you're not allowed in the building.
I can just tell you for a 100% fact that is not true.
It's not true.
So I went into Fox.
I've been in the building several times since all of that, and no one's ever asked for vaccination status.
I don't play that shit.
I don't use a fake card or anything like that.
So like, that's just, it's not true.
It's not true.
You can't go in the building.
Just a factual point.
Anyway, let's keep going.
Exactly.
Tell me why.
Because it's a communicable disease that could, that you could reduce your risk to yourself and to the people around you to a scientific certainty.
And that was a rule that was excellent.
And I was glad CNN had that rule.
I'm sure the people at Fox were glad they had that rule.
And, you know, again, this is not, you know, you're allowed to have opinions about anything you want.
But at some point, when your opinions put other people at physical risk, as, you know, vaccine denial did, that crossed the line.
You know.
All right.
So let's, let's pause it right there.
What a, what a phenomenal statement.
What a phenomenal statement.
You know, Rob, you're allowed to have an opinion, but when your opinion can put other people at risk of physical harm, that crosses the line.
So I suppose the implication is you're not allowed to have that opinion anymore.
What, what a retarded standard.
Now, just think about that for a second.
You can have an opinion, but it crosses the line when your opinion could put someone in physical harm.
Look, people have opinions on war.
They have opinions on healthcare policy.
They have opinions on housing policy.
They have opinions on all of these things, if you get them wrong, put people in physical harm.
The opinion that we should be funding a proxy war on Russia's border puts a whole lot of people in harm.
The decision that we should topple Saddam Hussein puts a whole lot of people in harm.
I believe a million of them died.
Something like 5 million displaced.
This, you know, the idea that this somehow, this was a unique thing with the vaccine opinion where there could be harm.
In fact, the opinion that we ought to mandate vaccines 100% put a lot of people in harm.
So this is just like, there's, I mean, you can claim something as a scientific certainty, which it isn't anything that this vaccine did anything, let alone a significant amount to stop the spread of the virus is absolutely ridiculous.
And everybody knows that it's weird to even see him still hanging on to this justification.
I mean, that's certifiably false because if I had already had COVID and then recovered from COVID, I would be most certainly safer and less likely to get infected with new strains.
So when he goes, hey, it's a scientific certainty, like that's actually scientifically uncertain.
That's not, I mean, it's just not a true claim.
Anyone who had had COVID and recovered, if they hadn't been vaccinated, is actually a safer individual to be around.
Yeah, look, I mean, I think I've told this story on the show before, but I have a friend of the family, one of my mother's friends, their kid was in grad school.
And in order to continue in grad school, they made him get vaccinated.
So he got the first round of the double vaccine.
He then got COVID, got sick and recovered.
And two, I think it was a month and a half, maybe two months after that, they mandated that he get a booster.
This is a 24-year-old kid who had been double vaccinated and had gotten COVID, gotten sick and gotten over it in a typical 24-year-old way, was like sick for a few days and then got over it.
This kid was undeniably like you tell me any scientist in the world who wants to come in and argue that that is actually backed up by the science, that he should have gotten a booster when he was clearly in a position where he had much more immunity.
So there's no debate that he was safer than someone who had just been double vaccinated and never had COVID.
He had been double vaccinated and had had COVID.
And they made him get a booster on top of that.
You cannot argue to me that you are not just taking on whatever the rate of vaccine injury is, just taking on more risk than reward at that point.
And certainly completely unnecessary.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
There is no scientist in the world who could argue with a straight face that a kid who never had COVID, who got the two shots and then got the booster would be safer than this kid who got the two shots and then got COVID.
There's no way you could argue a booster would make him in a better situation than that other kid was.
But that's what they were, that's what they were forcing.
Okay, let's just keep playing a couple more minutes before we wrap up.
Because for you to say that, I can hear someone saying that in Iran.
I can hear somebody saying that in North Korea.
I can hear someone saying that in China.
I can see someone saying that even in Italy, although things are changing in Italy right now with their new leader that they have.
I can see somebody saying that in Venezuela and Cuba.
I can even hear Justin Trudeau saying that in Canada.
Fine, it's fitting.
America?
But they said that.
They said that the CEA, but it's, you know, you're not free to put other people in danger.
Wait a minute.
But that's what that, that's, you know, and it wasn't me who said this.
It was the leadership of these companies.
Well, listen, there's a lot of people now that are sitting there saying you forced some people to take it.
They had repercussion side effects.
It affected a lot of people negatively and you forced it.
And for us to sit there and say with a hundred percent that it was the right move to make with only nine months of data that they had, I think that's a little naive.
Now, don't get me wrong.
We can sit there and look at certain vaccines and say, okay, like, you know, some, some people are like, none of them, you got to go.
I'm not saying that.
There's certain ones like, listen, that we have 30 years of research on this.
Holy yeah.
Do you realize what that did?
Do you know what this saved?
Do you know how many people?
Yeah, we didn't have 30 years.
I totally get that.
But that's the point, though.
The point of saying we didn't have 30 years is more of a reason to say it's a choice.
You either take it or you don't take it.
Wow.
Just disagree.
I know, that's okay that we disagree.
All I'm saying is that the part where when you say, I don't like what Tucker did, Tucker spoke to a lot of people that were part of that camp.
You know how many people in the military that love America, that love being a Marine, that love being a-pause again.
I'm just sorry.
It just makes me so angry.
So the guy admits that we didn't have the data.
But even without the data, I'll say for sure we have to make these decisions for other people by force.
And then even after all of it turned out to be false, including that it prevents infection, that it's risk-free, the death, like literally it all turned out to be false.
But he still stands by the fact that because the government came around and as you already pointed out, his metric of I'm not allowed to make free decisions if it might affect somebody else's health, literally every decision you make.
I mean, you're influenced by your peer group.
So are we going to outlaw that anyone can do drugs or drink?
No, no, no.
Yeah.
Do you have the right?
And there's other illnesses all over the place.
Do you have the right to leave your home when you have a cold?
You don't have a right to leave.
Like, you know, I mean, the implications of it are goofy.
People on medications probably shouldn't drive cars.
They might be more dangerous.
I mean, that's reckless.
Literally anyone on a pharmaceutical medication, they probably shouldn't be allowed to be in a car because it might have an effect on other people.
I mean, I haven't researched or studied whether or not people on meds are more dangerous behind the wheel.
And that's just about as much research as Fauci seems to have done.
Dude, Fauci went door to door and knocked on people's doors who were hesitant to take the vaccine and said to them, we have this on camera.
He said to them, the guy goes, well, I heard it doesn't even prevent you from getting COVID if you get the vaccine.
And Fauci goes, it's very rare that you're going to get COVID.
And if you do, you probably won't even know that you're sick because the symptoms will be so mild.
This is just bullshit.
Just he's outright wrong.
Now, if you want to give the most charitable interpretation of that, which is not really fair to give, you go, he believed that at the time, which there was no reason for him to believe that at the time.
He was certainly speaking way beyond what any data could have actually argued.
He was speaking way beyond what the study showed to make that claim, but even giving them the most charitable interpretation.
To your point, conclusively, that was wrong.
That was not true.
Fauci was going door to door and giving misinformation to people about the vaccine.
He was telling them things that are not true.
And for you to now, after all this stuff has been proven not true, still just kind of stick by this original line is just insane.
Let's play like just another minute of it and then we'll wrap up.
That were part of that camp.
You know how many people in the military that love America, that love being a Marine, that love being, you know, a Navy or Air Force or Army were forced to leave their jobs.
They love, you know, how many people.
Nobody forced them to leave their jobs.
Oh, they had no choice.
No, your choice was to take the vaccine.
I'm out.
Correct.
That's force.
Correct.
Well, that was force.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And that's a good thing.
You think that's a good thing?
Let's just pause it.
I just love, this was my favorite moment of the whole thing.
That's why I wanted to make sure I get to that.
I've never seen anyone go so quickly from that wasn't force to that was force and that's a good thing.
Like it usually takes at least a little bit more time before you go from like the, which is kind of like the progressive order of things.
It goes from this isn't happening, you're crazy to this is happening and it's a good thing.
It just goes, they were forced.
He goes, no, they weren't forced.
Well, I mean, they lose their job if they don't get it.
Isn't that force?
Yeah, of course it's force and it's a good thing.
It's a good thing.
Imagine how you could still even pretend to hold on to this view.
It's just, look, the science on this is just overwhelming.
And particularly for people who have had COVID already, which I don't know exactly what the percentage of, say, like military members who were kicked out of the service for not getting the vaccine.
I don't know how many of them had COVID already, but it's not insignificant.
There's some huge portion.
And particularly for those, there is just no scientific justification whatsoever.
It's just funny that these guys, I love this.
The clip goes on.
I encourage people to go watch it.
Patrick Bed David's show is phenomenal.
I encourage people to check it out.
The clip goes on.
I love something about when these kind of like people from the corporate press come into these podcasts where they actually have to deal with something that they would never have to deal with at CNN, which is someone getting, giving them pushback on these things.
And they just get torn apart, like just torn apart.
You know, it's just beautiful to watch.
All right.
That's going to be our show for today.
Come catch us on the road, robbythefire.com, comicdave smith.com for all of our stuff coming up.
Thank you for watching, everybody.
Catch you next time.
Let me, I'll just put Milwaukee is the next weekend coming up, coming out of Milwaukee.
I'm also doing a free show in Memphis with the Meek Hawks at Freedom Fest and then the weekend after that, Houston at the Secret Group and Texas backyard show with Scott Horden.
So come support the porch tour, especially the secret group club.