All Episodes
Previous Next
March 14, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
49:41
Episode 450 Scott Adams: Mueller, Beto, Cohen, Media Matters, Insurance Policies
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Beep beep beep beep.
Bum bum bum bum bum.
Bum bum bum.
Bum bum.
Hey everybody.
Come on in here.
We got stuff to talk about, there's news.
There's news today.
And you know it goes well with news.
Coffee. And the best way to enjoy your beverage is with a simultaneous sip.
Grab your mug, grab your cup, your chalice, your stein, your thermos, if you will.
raise it to your lips and join me for the simultaneous sip.
I see somebody asking me about Beto.
Um...
Beto is going to be far more entertaining than Than I had hoped.
Because it turns out that he's sort of mockable by both sides.
So you're going to see a lot of Democrats trying to take him down because he looks like an entitled white male.
While at the same time the Republicans will try to take him down just because he's a Democrat.
I would say the person who has the smallest chance of winning the presidency...
It's Beto O'Rourke.
But boy, is he going to be entertaining.
So I think people are going to give him the star child treatment where everything he says looks new agey and sort of non-serious.
So it will be interesting.
But he's not going to win.
So the big story today is the sleep well tonight quote.
So apparently Michael Cohen I was in conversation with a lawyer who was at least considering being his lawyer, who knew Giuliani, who talked to Giuliani about the case, and assured Michael Cohen that Michael Cohen had friends in high places and he should sleep well tonight.
And people say, Bo White, is he promising him some kind of a pardon?
To which I say, Doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
The guy who said it wasn't the president, wasn't Giuliani, didn't say he was talking for the president, didn't say he was talking for Giuliani.
It was just something some guy said.
Now, you could suspect that he talked to somebody who told him to talk like that, but that's not in evidence.
You could suspect that your neighbor murdered somebody, but there's no evidence of it.
So it's one of those non-story stories that even under the unlikely condition that it's being reported accurately, you're still just guessing that some kind of a crime happened.
You would actually need real evidence.
And a guy who doesn't work for the president Talking to somebody else, trying to make you feel good, definitely does not meet any kind of standard for evidence that the president was in some kind of a crime.
All right. Have you noticed that the only time the press believes the president, there are two conditions in which they believe that the president is telling them the God's honest truth.
All the other times they believe he's lying or he has his facts wrong.
But there are two conditions in which the left will absolutely insist President Trump is telling the truth as he believes it.
Condition number one, when it's an obvious lie and you know why he's lying and he's doing it for the country.
For example, when the President goes easy on Putin and says, well, he says he didn't do it, or he says about Kim Jong-un, well, he says he's going to denuclearize, or he says about MBS, Saudi Crown Prince, and he says, well, he says he wasn't involved.
Now, unless you're three years old, you should understand that he's saying in the clearest possible terms, Whether or not these things are true and whether or not they're telling the truth, I prefer to frame it this way for advantage.
In other words, it's a strategic advantage to treat these dictators nice and to act as though I'm taking them at their word because that might be good for us.
But what does the press do?
They take what is an obvious political...
Lie, which is literally presented as a lie.
In my opinion, the president presents it packaged as a lie.
When he says, I take MBS at his word, or he says he didn't do it, you're not supposed to think he believes it.
He's signaling as clearly as possible, okay, you don't have to believe this is true.
But we're going to proceed under this understanding.
And the press says that's the one time they're going to take him at his word.
The one time he's obviously signaling, don't take me at my word.
Don't take this literally.
I'm just saying that he says he didn't do it.
So that's one condition.
The other condition that they take him at his word is when they made it up.
When they make up what the president said, that's the other time that they believe it.
They don't believe what he said, they believe what they made up that he said.
For example, when he called the countries shithole countries, they made up that he meant that the people there were bad people.
He didn't say that. He was talking about their socioeconomic system.
But they made up that he's calling these people shitholes, and then they decided that it was honest, his honest opinion, for the first time.
Hey, he's being honest about the thing we totally made up.
There was also the fine people hoax, where they reported that he said Nazis are fine people, which literally never happened.
And yet, that's the one time they say that he meant it.
The one time they just made it up.
So the two situations that they act like he's telling the truth are when he's telling you he's not telling the truth, but just go with it because it's good for the country.
They believe that when he says he's lying in the clearest possible terms.
And they also believe it, yeah, in the Tim Apple situation.
They believe that he called Tim Cook, Tim Apple, as if he couldn't remember his last name, when in fact he was just shortening it, Tim from Apple.
Tim, Apple.
So when they make it up, they believe he meant it.
Yeah. So those are the only two cases that they believe him, is when they made it up or when he's telling you not to believe him.
I'm having another topic here.
How weird in simulation is it?
You know, I always talk about us living in a simulation.
Coincidences are typically usually just coincidences.
They don't mean anything. But there's a weird one happening right now.
And I only point it out because coincidences are fun.
So don't read too much into this.
Coincidences are fun.
That's it. That's the end of the only meaning of what I'm going to say next.
So the Green New Deal comes out and the critics say, are you kidding me?
You want to ground all the airplanes?
How could you suggest that we get rid of air travel?
It's crazy. It's crazy.
Now, it probably is crazy, but that's not my point.
What are the odds that we will go from that conversation directly to today's news?
That the Boeing's MAX 8 are grounded?
That's a lot of planes, I think.
That's a lot of grounded planes.
And secondly, this monster storm hits the country and grounded 3,100 flights today.
So as we're having the conversation about how crazy it is to stop air travel, air travel stopped.
What were the odds of that?
What are the odds you're having that conversation at the same time that air travel stopped?
I'm exaggerating.
It didn't completely stop.
But it's kind of a weird coincidence that those two things were happening at the same time.
Let's talk about the Lisa Page quote.
I know you want me to update you on this.
The insurance policy text message.
You heard me bragging yesterday that her testimony proves That it had been misinterpreted, that the insurance policy did not mean that they were trying to remove a president through illegitimate means, but rather,
the way she explained it, was that just in case something came of the investigation into Russian collusion, you wouldn't want to stop it before, you know, once he becomes president, it's even more important.
It might become irrelevant if he doesn't become president, But you need that insurance policy just in case you might get elected and just in case there might be something to the Russian stuff.
But it turns out that the president and Rand Paul and Looks like maybe everyone else in the world disagrees with me, or at least everyone else on the right side of the world.
So the way it's being reported, and maybe they actually believe this, I don't know, but it's being reported as though the insurance policy is now confirmed to mean that they wanted to get rid of Trump.
But that's not in evidence.
What is in evidence is that she had a job, and that job was somehow involved with this investigation, or she was talking about it.
Either way, it's the same.
And the insurance policy was that you better do your job well, and you better not drop the investigation, just in case he gets elected, and just in case there's something to the Russia collusion story.
Now, how do you rule out the ordinary?
What was she supposed to do if it was her job to investigate this thing and she genuinely didn't know if there was anything to it?
It was her job to find out.
How are you supposed to act?
She should have acted exactly the way she acted, even if she was totally biased and even if She wanted the president out of office.
So the fact that she wanted him out of office does not automatically mean that she was going to do illegal or inappropriate things to make it happen.
So that's the air gap here.
There is no evidence that she wanted to do anything illegal, that she wanted to do anything outside of her job description.
Or that she wanted to manufacture facts that weren't there.
So I believe there's nothing in evidence to suggest she intended to do anything illegal or inappropriate.
Am I wrong? I didn't see any evidence in any of that.
You would have to assume that she secretly meant That she would do inappropriate things to get rid of Trump because that was the main goal.
But that's not an evidence.
That is not an evidence.
Now the people saying, wrong, wrong.
I'll give you one warning.
But those of you who have been watching me for a while know that I block people for using the word wrong without a reason.
You're always welcome to give me a reason.
I welcome it. In fact, I enjoy it when I find out I'm wrong, because it's usually interesting, and it fits within the context of what I talk about, which is how easily people could be wrong about simple stuff.
So I don't mind when it happens to me.
I didn't mind when I was wrong about my first impression to the Covington thing.
I didn't mind that I was completely wrong, and I corrected it immediately, because I learned something, as did we all.
So if you have a reason Feel free to offer it.
But if you just type in capitals WRONG, I'm going to assume that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance.
So just know that when you say WRONG to me, you are saying, I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance.
I don't have any reasons, but I need to lash out.
That's all I hear. All right.
So, let's put it this way.
It's an open question whether or not we have a final answer on what insurance policy means.
But we do have two versions.
One completely ordinary.
I was doing my job.
Doing my job is the most ordinary explanation of what the insurance policy meant.
That's it. The insane version of it, which might actually be true.
So there's nothing to rule out that it really was a deep state plot and she was part of it and she really would have done anything to get rid of the president, whether it was legal, whether it was within her job description, or whether it was inappropriate but maybe legal.
There's no evidence she was willing to do anything illegal or inappropriate.
It wasn't in her statement.
It wasn't in her texts. And why would you even assume it?
It's just not in evidence.
So, I'm not saying that she wasn't biased.
I'm not saying that the bias would not influence her decision-making.
But there's no evidence of evil or illegal intention.
She just had a bias.
Like 100% of the people in every part of the government, people had very strong biases about this election.
You couldn't find somebody on earth who had a government job, at least that kind of government job, and didn't have a bias.
That person doesn't exist.
All right. I'm having a wonderful time.
Watching the pro-collusion people, the people who have been pushing that for the last two years or whatever, watching them trying to step back.
I'm watching them try to step back.
Somebody's probably just joking by saying, you're wrong, Scott, in capital letters, but I'm going to block them just because that was the rule.
Now you know the rule.
Okay. So, I just watched a fascinating little clip.
It was probably from CNN last night, which Don Lemon is talking to Chris Cuomo, and they're talking about how the Mueller report might be a lot of nothing.
And they both wanted to let the viewers know that they never personally said impeachment was a good idea.
Now, That's probably true.
So on a fact-checking level, I wouldn't be surprised if that's true, that neither of them said impeach, because that really wasn't their job to give that opinion.
Or was it? Well, maybe it was sort of their job.
They are opinion people.
But watching them try to distance themselves from the story is frankly very entertaining.
And so watch the clip about the two of them talking about it.
It's quite hilarious.
And it's even funnier because apparently they're friends in real life, Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo, and they do things.
But watching Don Lemon humiliate Chris Cuomo in that clip for being an idiot...
It was, frankly, great entertainment.
You know, you have to put it in context that they're friends in real life, but he did totally humiliate him on that clip.
I don't know what was in his mind when he was doing that, but it was funny.
So, Tucker Carl had an interesting piece that I just tweeted, which he was talking about.
Chris Hayes had the, I guess, the head of Media Matters on.
And Media Matters is sort of the watchdog to make sure that there are no racists in the Republican Party.
They're sort of a Soros-funded organization that just tracks down and tries to target Republicans for something that they may or may not have ever done or did a long time ago, just to take them out of the game.
So Media Matters is Sort of the worst people in the world doing the worst thing in the world, making the world the worst place.
And Tucker finds these quotes from the head guy who was on Chris Hayes' show.
So the Media Matters head guy apparently said some really racist things in the past.
Things have gotten really interesting.
So it turns out there's almost nobody who can't be taken out if you can look at all their past comments.
If you can dig into people's past, you can pretty much take out anybody.
Now, not David Brock, so I don't know if there's some difference between a founder of Media Matters versus whoever's in charge of it at the moment.
There may be some difference there.
But it wasn't David Brock.
And typically, you would expect that Tucker Carlson would not have done that, except they dug into his 10-year-old quotes, which were made in the context of people on a show about inappropriate things saying inappropriate things.
So there was a pretty weak attack against Tucker, but it just opened up for a counterattack.
And now I wonder, can you just take out anybody?
If you can go back in time, and we can now, because everybody's got a record of their history, I think you can take out anybody.
You can find something that would sound terrible taken out of context, or even in context, in this case.
So there's a story which I will not make light of, In which Rosie O'Donnell has a new book out, which is probably pretty interesting.
I know you may have some negative feelings about Rosie O'Donnell, but I have to think that her new book is probably going to be an interesting read, just because her story is interesting and she's an interesting person.
So even if you don't like anything about her or her opinions, it's probably an interesting book.
So I say that as an author.
But she's making the claim that's in the book, and she's talking about it now, that her father had molested her for years.
Now, that's probably true.
I would imagine, you know, why would you lie about that?
You know, we live in a world where you can't believe anything anymore, but I believe that.
And it made me wonder this.
Trump represents, in sort of a...
What's the best word?
In a sort of a collective way we view the world archetype, maybe that's it.
Trump feels like your father who's tough but fair.
Right? So, yeah.
And for a long time, people have been calling Trump daddy.
Right? So that was a thing during the election.
Right? I think Milo Yiannopoulos probably started that, or at least he said it a lot, in which people literally refer to him as the father figure.
And it makes me wonder, and this is not a claim, so when you take this out of context, whoever is watching who is going to take this out of context, let me say clearly, this is not a claim, it's a hypothesis.
In other words, it's something I think would be worth studying.
And what is worth studying is, do people who have a bad experience with their own father have a bad feeling about President Trump?
Wouldn't you imagine that you could find that correlation?
Now, not any kind of one-to-one correlation, of course, but don't you imagine That given that people on both sides, sort of in the subconscious and maybe even conscious way, they see him as a father figure, but they also have feelings about their own father.
I imagine if you did some kind of a controlled study, you would find that people who had good feelings about their father, and maybe Trump, you know, mirrors some of those qualities, which is he's not a perfect person by any means.
But he's tough, he loves you, and he's fair, or he tries to.
So, I would not be surprised if a scientific study could be done in which you would find that it either biases people one way or the other toward him or against him based on their father experience.
And by the way, this would be a completely normal hypothesis.
There's nothing weird about this.
This would be a pretty reasonable thing to hypothesize.
Because people are influenced by things that look alike, feel alike, seem alike, remind you of.
That's well established that people conflate things and then the goodness or badness of one thing spills over to the other thing.
It's really what's behind endorsements and advertising.
It's the most well established Well-established concept you could have about people.
So it would be worth seeing.
And I also wonder if the, especially the women, the women who have been victimized by their own fathers, I wonder if they're the ones who are most likely to go hard at Trump.
In other words, the ones who are willing to really just put themselves out there and to say that he's a monster who must be stopped.
So that's a study I would love to see.
All right, now let me give you an update on how many of you have followed my...
Back and forth with actor, filmmaker Nick Searcy, who is a noted conservative type who has a big presence on Twitter, etc.
And we're discussing the factual claim and not the political opinion.
So what you're going to hear now is not my opinion and not a suggestion of my opinion and not a hint of Of what my opinion is.
So it's nothing that here is about my opinion.
It was a discussion of fact.
Because Alyssa Milano asked a perfectly reasonable question.
And just because I disagree with her on 99% of her opinions, that does not in any way make it inappropriate to ask a fact question.
And so she asked a fact question.
Is there anybody out there who believes Literally believes that Democrats are in favor of killing a baby after it's been born that's viable and could be revived.
So it's just a fact question.
Does such a person exist?
Because there's a belief that such a person exists, but there's no evidence of it.
And so we had some back and forth and I have to tell you how this went so you get an insight into the world.
So I said, well, I amplified it on Twitter and I said, I also have the same question because I've never met such a person.
I've never, you know, I've never seen that put forth.
I'll talk about Peter Sanger in a minute.
And And so, in asking for evidence, Nick Searcy first forwarded his movie, Gosnell, in which apparently, I haven't seen the movie, but apparently there's a doctor who did exactly that.
He was killing babies after they had been taken out of the mother.
I don't know the details, but he's in jail for it.
So, that's sort of a special case of somebody who committed terrible crimes.
Now he's in jail for it.
So I dismiss that as a special case, which doesn't tell you the general thing.
You know, I understand that serial killers exist, but it would not be true that you could find people in favor of murder.
Right? So the fact that serial killers exist is not evidence that ordinary people are in favor of murder.
It just means that people do murder.
So I said, but can you show me the law that somebody is proposing?
Because that would be more factual.
Show me a law that somebody proposes that will allow a baby that could survive and is alive after birth that there's any law that would allow you to kill it directly or to allow it to die through neglect if it could survive.
And Nick sends me a link to a New York Post article.
Now the New York Post is not your probably most reliable source for medical opinion.
So I read the article and it says very clearly that there are some laws considered that would make it legal to kill a baby born alive.
So the New York Post Had an article which says directly exactly what Nick Cersei says, that the law would allow you to kill a baby after it was born that could have otherwise survived.
So I say to myself, well, let's look where he's linking to, because if he's making such a claim, obviously there's a link to the law, or at least the text of the law, so you can see it for yourself.
But the article didn't have that.
It was literally just...
And an opinion person talking without any reference to the facts which that is based on.
So I said, okay, well, let's see the law.
It's a claim of fact.
And so somebody who is on the pro-abortion side weighed in who happened to be a researcher.
So a researcher who actually could find things and was helping out in the conversation says, all right, here's a copy of the actual law for New York.
And you read the actual law and there's nothing like that in there.
The actual law and the person who, you know, the chief of staff Who was putting it through for whichever politician was talking about it and clarified that if a baby is born and it still has a heartbeat, it's illegal to kill it.
It's murder. Because once you're born, you have all the rights of a born person.
So, the law Which was the subject of the New York Post article, was opposite of what the author said it was.
And you can tell that just by looking at it.
It's quite obvious. And then you talk to the politician who was pushing the law, and that politician says in the clearest possible sense, no, there's no condition in which you can kill a live baby.
That's just murder.
Everybody agrees. So, we had this interesting, and then the other evidence that was offered was the Northrum video, in which he says in direct language that there could be a case where you could let a baby die after the abortion.
Of course, the context is left out.
The context is that the baby was going to die no matter what, that it's a hospice decision.
And it's a question of whether you keep it comfortable or you try anyway, even though it's obvious it cannot survive.
And obvious means, well, maybe you're wrong, but it's still obvious that it would be a bad idea.
So that would be the decision.
And likewise, there's some politician named Tran who also was out of context, etc.
So the evidence that Nick Cersei offers is a New York Post article that talks about a law the opposite of the actual law.
Because you can look at the law and you can look at the article.
You can see that what he says about it It has no correlation.
The other evidence were two pieces of video which are completely out of context.
And so when these were pointed out to Nick Cersei, what do you think his answer was?
Did he say, well, let me give you a better source?
Did he say, I have interpreted those two situations wrong?
What he said was, you have to read between the lines.
And I thought, read between the lines.
And other people said, you have to know how these people think, meaning the Democrats.
And other people said, you have to understand that they wouldn't say it directly.
It's just their weasel way to get into baby killing through the side door.
And so it became clear...
Somebody says, show us the law, Scott.
I've tweeted that a few times.
I've tweeted connections to it.
So it turns out that Nick Searcy's entire opinion on this topic appears to be based on a hoax.
And the hoax is supported by two videos and a context, one of Northram, one of Tran, and then a New York Post article that is the opposite of reality.
In other words, somebody says something, but then you check the reality and it's obviously the opposite.
Now, most of you are trying to change the conversation, as I'm sitting here.
And so people are saying, well, wait a minute.
What about, you know, abortion?
Isn't that killing a baby?
And I'm not talking about that.
That's a perfectly good line of conversation, but that's not what we're talking about.
I'm only fact-checking Alyssa Milano's claim that there's anybody in the world or any law That allows you, that anybody thinks it's a good idea to kill a baby that could otherwise survive.
It's just a hoax.
It doesn't exist. All right.
So, I've also watched some people questioning me on my comments about transgender athletes.
And some people have seen my opinion and said to me, In effect, your opinion is so puzzling, meaning it doesn't make sense, that you must be doing it for some kind of clever trick or effect, or there's some kind of long-range strategy to it, but clearly you couldn't possibly believe what you're saying.
I do believe exactly what I'm saying about transgender athletes.
And let me say it as clearly as possible.
Sports are mostly about unfairness, unfair advantages.
The entire field of sports is mostly people losing.
Best case scenario, if there are only two people competing, best case scenario, 50% of them are losers.
So most people lose most of the time, and most people can never, no matter how hard they exercise, can become as good as an elite athlete.
So the entire field of sports is people trying to deal with unfairness.
So when Stephen Curry is driving toward a basket, and the person guarding him is seven feet tall, That's what's fun, because it's a complete mismatch, because Stephen Curry is six feet, whatever, six feet around one or two or three or something.
And so it's an unfair advantage, and then he succeeds anyway.
Sports, the thing that makes it fun...
is watching people beat unfair advantages.
So the entire context is people trying to get an advantage and trying to overcome an advantage.
The only thing that's fair about sports is that you have one set of rules.
But those rules are not intended to remove the fact that the entire endeavor of sports is about people trying to take advantage of their advantages, trying to overcome other people's advantages.
It's completely unfair by design.
By design, it's unfair.
If they were trying to make sports fair, you could only have basketball teams with people the same height and the same age.
We don't do that. We like all that unfairness, because that's the fun part, watching people overcome it.
And then every now and then you get a freak like Michael Phelps, and I say freak in a loving way, not a bad way.
He's a freak in the sense that he's so good.
Now, that's fun to watch because he's so dominant.
Likewise, any top star are fun to watch because they're so dominant.
But the existence of that dominant athlete necessarily kicked somebody off the team because they didn't exist.
Anyway, so let me put this in context.
My comments about transgender are trying to illustrate that there's an illusion that people are operating under.
And what I talk about with all of the topics in the news is the illusion.
So I'm being consistent, and it doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum you're on.
If I see something that looks like an illusion and that people are acting on the illusion, I call it out.
I believe that people's feelings about transgender are primarily bigotry, primarily bigotry, which they have rationalized into something about fairness and reason, etc.
But that since sports is not fair by design...
those comments about fairness are really just rationalizations.
Um... Here's somebody who says, wrong, ball handling is not equated with height.
That's the sort of rationalization that I've been watching.
It's never fun watching a dominant athlete beat the hell out of a lesson.
I disagree.
And I think you will disagree if I... You'll realize that when I give you an example.
If you watch Stephen Curry, the best guard who ever played, some might say.
Maybe it's Michael Jordan.
But if you watch him on a fast break against a second-string player on the other team who is seven feet tall and you see him overcome that lesser player...
And that player's advantage and make him look like he doesn't belong on the basketball court, that's fun to watch.
That's really fun to watch.
So watching a top player humiliate a lesser player is really fun.
In fact, there are lots of highlight clips which are just that.
The better player absolutely humiliating a lesser player.
If it is completely out of balance, women will not play.
Why would they?
That's correct. Yeah, the free market should take care of MMA and boxing.
So people like to argue in their attempt to rationalize their bigotry.
This is just my speculation.
I'm not mind reading.
Speculating that people trying to rationalize their bigotry against transgender athletes Are bringing up the extreme case, which is boxing and MMA, in which the advantage of the transgender athlete would be not only a lot, but there would be an actual safety concern, like a real safety concern.
To which I say, who cares about safety in boxing and MMA? People don't watch those sports to watch somebody not get hurt.
You watch them to watch somebody get hurt.
So from the perspective of the spectators, somebody getting hurt is sort of why you watch, right?
But from the perspective of the athletes...
Who would have to compete against, let's say, a transgender man who was six foot...
No, let's say it's the wrong term.
A transgender athlete who was born a man but is now a woman, and let's say is six foot six and ripped.
And you're a female competitor in the MMA, and you're in good shape, but you know you could actually literally be killed.
Like, this would be such a mismatch.
Why would you fight? You just wouldn't fight.
And if you did, you'd be dumb.
So, if you had somebody in that situation, a transgender athlete, who clearly should not be in the same cage with a female athlete, a biologically born female athlete, both of them are women, so the rules would say it's okay.
But in the real sense, That person would just forfeit or not accept the match.
And if they did accept, they would know that they would get killed.
And if they want to do that for a payday, it's a free world.
Apparently that's legal and they can do it.
So, yeah, and then the other rationalizations people say is, but Scott, if we use your standard, you might as well just say there's no such thing as women's teams and men's teams.
To which I say, nobody's arguing for that.
That's an interesting question, but in the real world, there's literally nobody who says we should have only one team and not men or women teams.
Since nobody wants it, let's just not talk about it.
And then people say, but wouldn't your thinking allow people to use illegal chemistry to get an advantage?
And to which I say, that's the current situation.
The current situation is people use all kinds of steroids and stuff to get advantages in sports.
Everything from high school to professional sports is the current situation.
It's just not legal.
It's not about fairness.
A man has a financial incentive.
Correct. So, the way capitalism works is that whenever you have a temporary dislocation, in other words, something gets out of whack, capitalism will fix it over time.
So, I do accept That allowing transgender athletes to join teams could create some situations in which nobody wants to play that team.
The most common situation, I would imagine, is that a team has one transgender athlete at most, because, you know, there just aren't that many in the world.
They might have one.
That person might make the starting team.
They might win some extra games.
No big deal. No big deal.
The thought that men will massively become transgender because they can dominate women's sports might actually happen.
But as soon as that happened, those sports would fall apart.
In other words, the transgender athletes who are trying to take advantage of the system Would make the sport go away.
In the end, it would just become ridiculous and nobody would watch it and nobody would pay them to be on the team and nobody would compete against them and it would just fall apart.
But it would take a while.
People get banned for using steroids but probably not your top athletes.
In all likelihood, the top athletes are getting a free pass.
If you don't believe me, look at the muscle development of the top athletes.
Somebody says, so do away with the rules?
So that's when you know you're in complete cognitive dissonance.
If you listen to everything I said, and you say to me, so Scott, are you saying you might as well do away with all the rules?
That is so far away from anything that anybody wants to do that that's an indication you're having cognitive dissonance.
since you're not even part of the rational conversation anymore.
Then some of you trying to go science on me and saying, there's no such thing as a transgender, to which I say, legally there is. to which I say, legally there is.
Thank you.
Thank you.
If the law says that you're female under a certain set of conditions, that's the law.
All right. Guys don't get satisfied by dominating a women's league.
Most guys don't.
I would say it's a problem that is possible.
You know, you would massively have male athletes turning into becoming transgender when they wouldn't have otherwise, just to win at sports.
It's possible.
I don't think it's a big problem.
But gender is a rule, and you're suggesting doing away with it.
Alright, so somebody said this, gender is a rule, and I'm suggesting doing away with it.
No. I'm suggesting playing by the rules.
The rule is that if you're transgender, you're a woman, and therefore you can play on the woman's team.
I'm saying follow the rules.
So if you're saying, why don't you get rid of all the rules?
That's the opposite of what I'm saying.
I'm saying follow the rules.
Average male golfers, yes, it's true.
That if somebody wanted to pretend to be transgender to win money, they could do that in a temporary situation until it ruined the sport.
So you're absolutely right that one of the risks One of the risks is that there might be some man somewhere who wants to pretend he's transgender to try to win a sporting event.
That will definitely happen.
It will definitely happen.
It's not the biggest problem in the world.
So let me be clear.
I'm not saying that allowing transgender athletes to compete on women's teams, I'm not saying that that's without problems.
I'm not saying it wouldn't cause people to be unhappy.
I'm not saying there wouldn't be any other type of problem.
It definitely would cause problems.
It would cause people to be unhappy.
It would cause some people to not watch.
It might have a financial effect.
It would cause some people who could have made the team to not make the team.
It has all kinds of problems of that nature.
You know what else had all those problems?
Integrating the military. So you want to check your thinking and say, you know, just because there are these problems which you can identify, is that the reason that bigotry is okay?
You know, you can...
There are reasons for every kind of bigotry.
We just, as a society, collectively agree that they're not good enough.
Let me give you a reason for racism.
All right? Here's a reason.
I don't want to...
Let's not make it about me.
Let's say somebody says they don't want to hire a black employee to have a public-facing image because they believe that their customers are racist.
Wouldn't that be a perfectly legitimate business reason to be a racist?
Because you're saying, well, I'm just doing this for business.
My customers are racist, not me.
So if I have a black employee, I'll lose my customers.
That's a perfectly good reason, isn't it?
And it's one that we collectively, as a society, have chosen to accept.
Because bigotry is a bigger problem.
So bigotry is this big.
The problems you mentioned are this big.
But they're not zero.
Nobody is arguing that you wouldn't have abuse with transgenders, you know, somebody gaming the system.
Nobody is saying that somebody doesn't lose their spot on the team.
Nobody is saying that all the women will love it on day one.
Nobody is saying that the viewership would be the same.
Nobody is saying the economics would be the same.
Nobody is saying that it would be trouble free.
The only argument is bigotry is a bigger problem.
▲
Export Selection