All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 25, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
54:01
Episode 640 Scott Adams: The Hockey Stick Graph, RBG, Biden Gaffes, The End of Reality
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum hey everybody come on in here It's a wonderful day.
One of the best.
One of the best days in all of history.
Why? Because it's the most recent one.
It's the one you're in. It's going pretty well.
I'm checking the news and I don't see a lot of problems there that we can't handle.
So, why not make it a little better?
How about that? How about that?
All you need to make this day a better day than it already is going to be is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a stein, a chalice, a tanker, a thermos, a flask, a cantina, a vessel of any kind with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Go! Yeah, delicious.
Do you notice that I've started shuffling papers and doing this?
And a little of this.
That's for the benefit of those of you who listen to it before you go to sleep.
It's ASMR. It's entertainment.
Well, it's everything. It's all here.
So here are some things happening in the news.
Well, this is not in the news, but it's a question I have.
Do we have religious freedom in the United States?
Do we? Because I would think that that's one of the great illusions, one of the great brainwashing accomplishments of this country.
And when I talk about brainwashing in terms of patriotism and the United States and the Pledge of Allegiance and all that, I mean brainwashing in a positive way.
Meaning that it's very productive and a good thing to brainwash your country into thinking it's a good country and it belongs together and it should defend itself and all that stuff.
So brainwashing in the context of patriotism, nationalism, if you don't go too far with it, is all good stuff.
But here's the question.
Is the United States a country in which we have freedom of religion?
I would say not even close.
Here's what we have.
You have the freedom to have a religion which is largely compatible with Christianity.
If your religion is kind of sort of close to Christianity, or at least it doesn't conflict with it too much, you're free to practice it.
Judaism? Close enough.
A modern version of Islam where people are sort of keeping to themselves and, you know, following the Constitution?
Fine. It's all perfectly compatible.
Hinduism? No problem.
Doesn't seem to be incompatible with Christianity.
But how about if somebody, let's say, for example, there were a religion...
In Elbonia. Elbonia is a country you probably haven't heard of.
Let's say the Elbonians had a religion in which they approved of something that we would consider heinous.
I don't know what it would be.
Torturing animals or having sexual relations with underage people.
Just something we can't tolerate in the West.
Would that religion Be tough-rated.
Could you say, hey, freedom of religion?
I'm a member of the Elbonian religion, and we believe in virgin sacrifices.
Can I take my religious belief to the United States, and will the Constitution protect me?
No! No, of course not.
Of course it won't.
And so, the question I always ask myself is, Why is religious discrimination like other discrimination?
Now this is something I can say because I'm not a believer.
So I'm pro-Christianity.
As an organizing set of beliefs that work.
It works for a lot of people.
It's something you can observe.
It's something studies back up.
It clearly seems to be a system that produces benefits compared to a lot of other systems, maybe all other systems, as far as I know.
So I'm very pro-Christianity.
If anybody wants to engage in that, believe in it, I say that's a good filter on life.
I can't tell you what's real, because I'm not sure that our brains ever evolved to the point where we even know what's real.
But you can certainly tell if something's working.
You can tell if it hurts you.
You can tell if using this process gives you good results consistently.
And Christianity seems to be one of those systems that consistently works.
So I have no problem with the United States having a system that is biased toward a particular religion and allows religions that are largely compatible with it.
But don't confuse that with freedom of religion.
The last thing you would want is freedom of religion.
You wouldn't want that because that would allow somebody to come in with some horrible set of beliefs and spread them.
We probably wouldn't let people like that in the country.
Let's take for an example.
Let's say the Elbonians were a racist country.
Let's say all Elbonians believed that anybody who wasn't an Elbonian was inferior and needed to be treated as such.
Would we allow as much immigration from Albania as we allow from any other country?
I don't think so.
I actually don't know how that works.
Would we? Would we take into consideration that the people we would bring in from the country of Albania would bring in, you know, in their minds a set of ideas that are so diametrically opposed to what works in this country Wouldn't you have to reduce the number of those you brought in the country to keep things stable?
So I guess the question here is, does the government of the United States have the ability to discriminate by belief system when doing immigration?
I don't know the answer to that, by the way.
I have no idea. Maybe somebody can tell me.
Can the United States discriminate by belief when Suppose the belief system is not religious-based.
Suppose the belief system is just racism.
Suppose the belief system is that there should be no age of consent.
That's not a religion.
But if you knew that a community had a set of beliefs that were not compatible with U.S. laws, would your immigration criteria be exactly the same for Albania?
Bringing in people who have problematic ideas?
I don't know. These are questions.
Don't have answers. All right.
Here's a question for you.
What will happen to humanity and reality when we can predict your decisions before you make them?
Because that's coming. And in my lifetime, I'm sure.
And what I mean is we have better and better brain sensors and scanners.
We're probably very close to the point where we can scan your brain, maybe ask you a few questions just to test the hardware, and we can tell you based on the physical construction of your brain What you're going to choose when presented with two choices.
Now, in the first place, you would probably constrain the choices to, let's say, showing you a house.
And asking you, if you had a choice, all things being equal, here are two houses.
They both have the same cost and they're in the same location, hypothetically.
Which one do you prefer?
Do you like this house or do you like this house?
We're very close to the point.
Where we can scan a person's brain, maybe watch it operate for a while, and then say, oh, okay, given these two choices, we already know which way this person is going to choose.
What happens when a machine can tell you what you're going to choose before you choose it and can get it right every time?
Because it would just be looking at your wiring and say, okay, with that wiring, it can only go one way.
Well, that's going to happen.
If there's one thing that I could be sure of, that's going to happen.
Now, it won't be able to make every decision right away, but it will be able to freak you out by making decisions, you know, or by predicting your decisions before you make them.
And when it can reach 100% reliability, what will that do to our sense of reality?
What will happen when you realize that you don't have free will?
Because if you can predict somebody's choices 100% of the time, they don't have free will.
They're just a machine.
You give this input, you get this output.
And we'll be able to predict that in my lifetime, just by scanning the brain and watching it in action.
So... I've got a feeling that we're coming to a time in civilization where our sense of who we are as independent creatures who make independent decisions with free will and souls and all that is really going to get shook up.
That's coming. All right.
Here's some other topics in the news.
When was the last time you saw Steve Cortez on CNN? So Steve Cortez, most of you know, a pro-Trump voice, a, I don't know, pundit would be the right word, journalist, writer. And CNN has employed him to be sort of the voice of the pro-Trump side of the world.
Have you noticed that he hasn't been on in a while?
I bet you're not going to see him on again.
Do you know why? He was too good.
That's actually the truth.
So they hired Steve Cortez to present Trump, but what they didn't count on is that he would be good at it.
Didn't see that coming, I guess.
I don't know why they underestimated him, but after he thoroughly dismantled their most fundamental fraudulent news, you know, the fine people hoax, and did it over and over again, and then by the time he drove a stake through his heart with the PragerU thing that I think is, I don't know, four or five million views by now, How could they have him back on the air?
They can't! He just dismantled their entire reputation single-handedly.
And that wasn't his job.
His job was to do a bad job, so that they would always have this bad representative for Trump, and then they could have their normal programming where they make fun of Trump and there's no defense.
But sorry, he was too good.
And by the way, there's no exaggeration here.
That is literally exactly what happened.
He was too good at making his case.
So they're going to have to find somebody weaker.
So watch for somebody becoming the new voice of Trump defenders on CNN. And you're going to find somebody weaker.
A lot weaker, because it turns out that Cortez is a superstar, and they did not see that coming, which is hilarious to me.
All right, let's talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm going to try to do this with as much respect and sensitivity as I can.
All right, so I mean no disrespect.
To Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who's been a dedicated public servant for many years, and like Joe Biden, she earns our respect.
So even if you disagree with all of her decisions, she should earn you respect for being a valuable part of a system which you buy into, the Supreme Court, the Constitution, etc., So there was a statement about her cancer treatment recently.
So I'm going to talk about the communication of it.
I'm going to talk about this statement.
I mean no disrespect.
To Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who I hope does well.
So I have good thoughts and I hope that she recovers and I hope that everything's good and she can, you know, enjoy her time on this earth.
But here's the actual statement, which I could not help but notice.
So these are quotes from the Supreme Court's own statement about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
They say, quote, The tumor was treated definitively, and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body, the court said.
And then they went on and said, the justice tolerated treatment well, the court said, no further treatment is needed at this time.
How do you interpret that statement?
Do you interpret that as, well, she's been treated, and I guess she can go home, looks pretty good?
Maybe. I mean, you can't rule out That they got it, and maybe she's, you know, in a good place.
But let's read the actual words, because remember, this came from the Supreme Court.
So you're talking about people who are the best, I mean, you could argue that they're the best people in the world at interpreting words, right?
I mean, that's what the Supreme Court does.
It interprets meaning.
So probably whoever writes the statement for the Supreme Court and whoever approved it Are among the best people in the world at putting words together and putting them together in exactly the way that they mean them with no ambiguity.
And these are the words they chose.
The tumor was treated definitively.
What's that mean?
The tumor was treated definitively.
Now, had they said... Had they said the tumor was removed or the cancer was cured definitively, you would know what that meant, right?
If they said, we took care of it, we got that out of there, the problem is gone definitively.
Well, that would mean it's totally gone.
But that's not what they said.
They said the tumor was treated definitively, meaning that the definitively We're good to go.
They did a definitive treatment, no statement whatsoever about whether it worked.
And then they said, and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body.
That's a very specific statement.
There is no evidence of the disease elsewhere, meaning that they can't say that there's no disease left where it was treated, the pancreas.
If there were no disease anywhere in the body, When they were done with these treatments, I feel like the sentence would have been clear, and it was said, there is no evidence of disease anywhere in her body.
But they don't say there's no evidence of disease anywhere.
They say there's no evidence of disease elsewhere, which leaves open the possibility that there's still evidence of disease at the spot it was treated.
Then they say the justice tolerated treatment.
Well, I think that's a clear statement.
We know what that means. And then here's the kicker.
The court said, and I quote, no further treatment is needed at this time.
What's that mean? There are at least two reasons that no further treatment is needed.
One is that you cured it and you know you cured it and you're done.
And I feel like they're allowing us to make that interpretation.
It seems intentional that they're allowing us to make that interpretation.
Here's the other interpretation.
No further treatment is needed at this time because it wouldn't make any difference.
It's not needed because we don't have anything else.
There's nothing else left.
Now, other people have said that the, and I'm no doctor, so I can't put a credibility rating on this, but some people on Twitter are saying that the stent, apparently, that she got is usually the signal that times up.
In other words, the stent is something, again, this is not me talking, this is other people who act like they know what they're talking about.
I don't know if they do. They act as though pancreatic cancer and stent It's sort of telling you that your odds of a much longer life are not that good, so we don't know what that means.
So, again, no disrespect to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a long-time and loyal public servant, but the statement from the Supreme Court certainly would suggest That there's a political event that's upcoming sometime in the next.
Certainly, I would say within this administration or the next four, whoever's in charge, it looks like there's going to be a decision that needs to be made.
All right. Joe Biden continues showing us why he will never be president.
He tweeted a picture of himself doing a little humorous stare down of a baby with a mother.
And he said, this election is not a joke.
That was his tweet.
So he wrote, this election is not a joke.
Man, if there's anything I could teach you, don't say not.
Say, this election is serious, if that's what you mean.
Or say, this election is important, if that's what you mean.
But if that's what you mean, don't ever word it this way.
This election is not a joke.
Because what do you hear?
This is the hypnotist trick.
What you hear is, this election is a joke.
And then there's a picture of Joe Biden.
He put joke next to a picture of himself and then tweeted it.
He should not be allowed to tweet, and whoever is tweeting for him might be the mole.
You know, I used to talk about the mole, a hypothetical person who worked for Hillary Clinton, who was so bad at tweeting that the hypothetical mole must be working for the Trump campaign because it was doing such a bad job for Hillary.
But it looks like the mole may have gone to work for Joe Biden.
Then also yesterday, and this is just yesterday, He was in New Hampshire and he said Vermont was lovely.
Now, that's not a big deal, right?
People get their town and their place mixed up.
If I were campaigning for president, I would totally make that mistake a bunch of times.
I forget what state I'm in.
Now, I've done some public speaking where you fly in, every hotel looks the same, you do your thing and you fly home and you forget even what city you went to.
So I totally get...
Not knowing what state you're in.
You don't have to be Alzheimer's to have that problem.
But it's starting to add up.
And then, to make it worse, Biden tells voters that you should, quote, don't vote for me if you're concerned about my age.
Oh, my God.
He told voters in his own words that if they're concerned about his age, don't vote for him.
Is he still trying?
I just don't...
I mean, I'm just feeling sorry for him now.
I want to laugh, but it's hard.
All right. Yesterday, in my Periscope, I made the grievous mistake of saying that donkeys are sterile, and they are a combination of mules and horses.
I got that wrong.
Apparently I don't know my ass from a horse, because I got that wrong.
It's the mules that are sterile, not the donkeys.
So the donkeys and the horses, if they have a baby, it's a mule, and that mule is sterile, I'm told.
So I had that wrong yesterday.
So ignore everything I said yesterday.
Alright, so there's an interesting story about, maybe you've heard of, it's been going on for a few years, a court case in which Michael Mann and Dr.
Tim Ball were...
We're going to court, and I guess Dr.
Tim Ball had questioned Michael Mann, who is a climate scientist type, probably the most famous one, and is the author of the hockey stick graph, the graph that says that the heat is going to get warmer and warmer, but there's a point when it's going to get really warm really fast.
That's the hockey stick shape of the graph.
And that became sort of the most well-known graph in climate science for years.
Dr. Tim Ball had his doubts that that hockey stick graph was based on good data and good analysis.
And so he publicly questioned Michael Mann, and I guess that was taken as slanderous.
And then there was a court case.
Michael Mann, if I have this right, I think he was suing Tim Ball for defamation or whatever the Canadian version of that is.
And Dr. Tim Ball, his defense was that he told the truth, meaning that his accusations against Mann We're true, and therefore it can't be defamation because it's just the truth.
Now, in order to make his case that it was true, Dr.
Tim Ball and his lawyers demanded from Michael Mann the data and the analysis so that the court could look at it and public could look at it, or at least the court, and decide if the data and the analysis supported Michael Mann's hockey stick.
Because if it did, I suppose even if there were a mistake in there, then he would still be honest, even if there was a mistake in the math.
But the accusation was that it would be obvious from the data and the analysis, should it be released, that there was intentional fraud.
I don't know that data could ever prove that, but here's the interesting wrinkle.
Michael Mann refused to release something called the R2 regression analysis, some combination of data and calculations.
And because he refused to release the very information that would prove or disprove the credibility of the hockey stick, the way the court system works is that the person who won't release information that's necessary loses.
And so Dr. Tim Ball wins the case and actually he wins the right to have his court costs paid by Michael Mann.
So Michael Mann had to pay his own court costs plus those of the people he accused.
But does that therefore mean that Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph are wrong?
It doesn't. It doesn't.
All we know is we didn't see him.
We are left to speculate why it is that we didn't see them.
And I can think of a few different reasons.
And we don't know the reasons, so I'm just saying that don't assume you know the reason, because there are multiple explanations.
One of them might be that it has some kind of economic value.
Seems unlikely, but maybe it has some economic value and...
If it goes public, it would lose its value.
I'll just throw that in there.
I think that's unlikely. Another one is that Michael Mann might expect that there are some errors in there, honest errors.
And certainly nothing that would prove any kind of intentional fraud.
But he might suspect there are some errors in there.
And he wouldn't want people to see him.
So that's a possibility. Again, I'm not saying that's the case.
I'm saying considering all the possibilities why somebody wouldn't release their information.
Another one might be that he lost it.
You know, scientists are regular people, right?
They might have just lost it.
It's totally possible. Just lost it.
And if he lost it, then, you know, he would not be able to support his graph, so he'd have to sort of, you know, redo it or get rid of it.
Now, I don't know if that's likely, but if you tell me it's not possible that he could lose his data, I would say, look for any data that I have.
I lose all of my data. I've lost more data than most people have ever had.
Losing data is pretty normal, even with backups.
Another possibility is that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with his data, but he knows that releasing it would open him up to all kinds of criticisms.
And we wouldn't know the difference if those criticisms were valid or not.
That would be a good reason.
And it might be a good enough reason that he'd be willing to eat the core costs to avoid it.
Somebody says you're not a scientist.
Right. I don't know what kind of a point that is.
I'll tell you, if there's one thing that bothers me more than anything about the whole climate change debate, it's watching idiots explain to other idiots what science is.
Or watching people explain it to me, which I suppose is the same thing.
Can we all stop explaining to each other what science is and how it works?
I don't know that there are too many people in the debate who actually don't know the basics of science, that there's peer review, and sometimes it can be wrong, and it improves over time.
You've got to compare things and you've got to have a control.
I don't think there's anybody who needs to have science explained to them, but yet that's what we do.
It's like, well, Bob, let me explain to you how science works.
How about you don't?
How about we assume that most of us know the basics?
All right. So anyway, here's my take on the Michael Mann-Tim Ball thing.
It's interesting and it's curious why Michael Mann would not release his R2 regression analysis, but we cannot Or should not leap to the assumption that that's because it's fraudulent.
That's not an evidence.
What we know is that there are several reasons he might not want to release it, and he didn't release it.
That's all we know. Bill Maher has said that, he said again in his show, he said it first in a tweet and then he reiterated on his show, that he would be willing to vote for Trump If Trump became very focused on fixing the environment, which I assume includes climate change, etc.
And I asked in my tweet, does that include nuclear energy?
Because think about it.
Remember, I've been telling you that Bill Maher is not like most anti-Trumpers, if I can even call him that.
He's not like the regular ones.
He's one of these strange creatures who can change his mind based on data.
That's very unusual.
There are very few people who can change their mind.
It's almost like a magical kind of a thing.
Mar is one of them. You know, I could name a few other people, but it would be such a small number of people who can do that in public anyway.
So I'm talking about public personalities who can change their mind.
And I believe that Bill Maher could change his mind in five seconds if somebody presented some good evidence, you know, that was backed up and had an argument.
I think it would be that fast.
It would just take a good argument.
So Bill Maher's put down a challenge.
He said he'd vote for Trump if Trump becomes the big maniac about protecting the climate.
Now, I don't know that Trump could ever achieve whatever Bill Maher's standard is for that.
Because Trump's sort of a regulation cutter and that's going to work against at least the public's opinion of what it looks like to support the environment.
But what if Trump became more vocal about, or really just vocal in the first place, about nuclear energy?
Because his administration's Department of Energy is doing a lot of stuff to support testing of new nuclear fuels.
So if Trump did nothing but talk about what he's already doing, And the case could be made for anybody who's willing to listen.
The case could be made that generation three and four, four is upcoming.
That's what they're testing.
But we already have safe, practical, affordable alternatives to the dirty fuels.
All we have to do is build them.
And what would it take to be able to build more nuclear energy?
Well, it would take people like Bill Maher to say, oh, we've got this giant climate change problem, according to many experts, and we have this technology that totally works, and it is, in fact, the only solution that anybody knows that could handle the size of the problem.
Even if you go as hard as you can at solar, Even if you go hard at all the other things, there's still going to be the gigantic energy gap that only nuclear can fill as far as we know.
In other words, until something magic gets invented that's better, it's the only thing we know.
So, could Bill Maher, hypothetically, become a Trump supporter if Trump made the case for nuclear energy as the best solution for protecting the environment?
And how hard would it be to make that case?
Easy. Turns out it's easy.
It's really easy to make the case.
What you can do, easily, is change people's emotional state around nuclear energy.
But remember, we're not talking about changing everybody's mind.
Where we started was talking about one particular mind, which is Bill Maher.
So Bill Maher, being an open-minded, sort of evidence-based personality, and again, completely unique in our public conversations, as somebody who could change his mind if the data supported it.
Somebody just needs to make the data available.
Because I've never seen...
I don't think I've seen Marr comment specifically about nuclear energy.
I would imagine that, like most people, he's not that technically informed on it.
But it wouldn't be hard to do it, you know, to give somebody the basics of it.
It wouldn't be hard. So think about it.
Bill Marr is this close to supporting Trump Because he doesn't know that the requirement he's asking of Trump, that Trump be the biggest supporter of the environment, he doesn't know that Trump already is.
It's just not, that support is simply not packaged.
In a way that we could recognize it.
Because it comes in the form of his Department of Energy is moving aggressively to support nuclear.
We just don't hear about it much.
You know, there are press releases and stuff, but we don't hear about it much.
Meanwhile, 23,000 kilograms of Chinese fentanyl was seized at Mexico's biggest seaport.
Apparently they know it came from China.
23,000 kilograms.
That's a lot.
Do you know how many people you could kill with 23,000 kilograms of fentanyl?
Amazing. So here's something that's going to happen.
So when the president pushed on China and said, you know...
Basically we're going to tariff them and we're going to be clamping down on their packages and looking for fentanyl and that they've essentially lied to us on fentanyl.
I believe that what's happened, and correct me if I'm wrong, the initial reaction from everybody smart was, oh no, we can't break off relations with China.
We have too many connections.
It would be too big of a blow to the economy and the world would go into a depression or anything.
So that was everybody's first impression, right?
Doesn't it remind you of everyone's first impression, at least the anti-Trumpers, the first impression of when Trump got elected?
Remember what everybody said who was on the other side?
They said, well, it's obvious now.
Trump got elected.
There's going to be a recession.
And then not even close.
Not even close.
Now everybody who's smart says, my God, messing with China like this and pushing back, that's going to cost us a fortune.
Economies will crumble.
Here's what Scott says.
Economies can get used to anything.
Economies can get used to anything.
It might take a while.
But they also are forward-looking.
Markets look at the future, they don't look at today.
If you said, what would be the effect for the next six months or the next year, I'd say it might be negative.
Could easily be negative.
If you say, what is the effect over five or ten years, I'd say, huh, probably a lot of companies moving back to this hemisphere, which in the long run could be positive.
So, what I would expect on Monday is for the stock market to improve.
You know, the stock market is going to be choppy, so it's going to be up and down.
But I would not expect the stock market to start some, you know, daily dive toward doom.
I would expect that people are going to absorb the China news.
They got a little panicked and people sold on the news.
Now they're going to think about it.
They're going to think about, you know, we could do without China.
We could figure it out.
It's a big world. China's part of it, but it's a big world.
We could be closer to India, for example.
You know, we've got a lot going on.
We don't need their market if we don't have to have it.
So, and there's stories in the news about the U.S. is gearing up to look for rare earth minerals because we depend on China for a lot of our rare earth minerals, so we'll have to scramble to find them elsewhere.
So, we can find some rare earth minerals in other places.
You don't think our allies have any rare earth minerals?
Of course they do. We'll just find them somewhere else.
Yeah, maybe in Greenland.
You never know. So I think we'll get closer to India, and I think that the economy will start to adjust.
And my prediction, by the way, is no Chinese trade deal ever.
So is there anybody else who's making that prediction?
Actually, I don't know.
So my prediction might be standing alone.
So my prediction is we won't reach a trade deal with China ever, by ever meaning within a Trump administration.
And I'm assuming that that will be six more years.
So under the assumption of a Trump administration second term, I see no Chinese trade deal.
But I do see us moving production out of there to the extent that that's possible and adjusting.
That's what I see. And maybe, you know, tariffs forever.
We'll just tariff until there's no reason to tariff anymore.
All right. I asked a question on Twitter yesterday.
So, Christina, my significant other, And I are going to do some videos.
We're just planning what we're going to do.
Where we'll do some videos not in replacement of Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'll keep doing these by myself.
Or if I have a guest, it'll be pundits or political people.
But we're going to do separately some videos where Christine and I will answer some questions.
So I tweeted that. You can find that if you have questions you want to put in the list.
We will take them just for fun.
Joe Walsh running for president.
Yeah, I can't care yet.
I just, you know, Joe Walsh, he's not going to get nominated.
I don't know.
I just don't care.
Just 30 billion to farmers.
Yeah.
Can Dershowitz's image ever recover?
So you're asking that because of the Epstein stuff, right?
Well, you know, it's the nature of smears that you never really get rid of them.
You know, smears just live with us forever now.
So when somebody smears you, it doesn't matter if it's true or false.
You're sort of stuck with it.
Now, given that Dershowitz is, what, 80%?
He doesn't have that many years to sort of get past smears because the older the smear, the smaller it gets.
So he doesn't have that many years left to extinguish a smear.
But it does look like there will be no new evidence about it that's believable because the people who have talked so far, he did a good job of...
of describing their lack of credibility.
So that's going to work for him.
So I was going to do another episode of Outrage Theater today, in which I pick things that people are pretending to be outraged about, But there wasn't one today.
And, you know, maybe it's because I wasn't paying attention.
Maybe there have been other days when there's no outrage.
But it seemed weird.
There was no outrage, and there really wasn't much about the racism thing.
Are you feeling that because the New York Times got busted on creating this framework that they were going to make everything about racism and therefore about President Trump, do you think that...
Took the power out of that, the fact that we all know that it's a made-up thing now.
Because I've got a feeling that mocking the people who are outrage actors, the people acting in outrage on behalf of other people, I think we can mock that out of existence.
And, you know, it's always going to come and go.
But it's very mockable.
And things which are mockable are hard to maintain.
And they're really hard to maintain if you're a Democrat.
Because Democrats don't like to be mocked.
Well, nobody likes it.
But I think Republicans can handle it better for some reason.
Maybe because they get mocked more.
They've had more practice. But mocking outrage theater, and specifically, here's the thing to mock.
You don't want to mock the topic.
Because if you mock the topic, then they just have more outrage about you.
Oh, you're mocking the topic.
Oh, you're a bad person.
But you could mock people pretending to be outraged on behalf of other people.
Because that's just ridiculous.
People are not outraged on behalf of other people.
It's not even a thing.
It's pure theater. How many times have you been actually outraged by something you saw in the news?
It happens.
There are things that make you angry, but nobody's really outraged about the word somebody used, the image somebody used.
Nobody's really outraged.
So mocking the fake outrage, I think, is pretty effective.
Talk about the PragerU lawsuit.
Yeah, I've mentioned this.
I mentioned it and tweeted it.
So PragerU is going after Google slash YouTube for suppressing their videos, about 200 of them.
Now, I guess it made it to the Ninth Circuit Court, which is a famous liberal court.
So we don't necessarily expect that PragerU will get what they want out of this because they may have an unfriendly court, but we'll see.
Because their claim probably is going to require some kind of discovery if it goes forward.
And I would love to see what that produces because I think Google would have to either produce their algorithm Or PragerU wins the lawsuit, right?
It's the same problem that Tim Ball and Michael Mann had.
Tim Ball required, you know, insisted in his court case, give me the data.
Michael Mann said, I'm not going to, and that's the end of it.
Michael Mann loses because he won't give him the data.
It might be the same thing.
I would not be surprised if the way the PragerU thing goes is, should it reach an actual court case?
I think that's the real question, whether it can actually become an evidence-based court case or not.
But if it does, the first thing PragerU's attorneys are going to ask for is the algorithms.
They're going to ask, show me the emails of people talking about it, show me the algorithm, give me an expert to explain how it's done.
I don't believe Google can do that, meaning that they won't want to.
And they might actually end up paying PragerU off to not have to give them their data.
But won't that just encourage me to sue the next?
Because PragerU's situation is identical to mine and identical to David Pakman, identical to Bill Mitchell, identical to lots of people, right?
So left and right.
There are people who could sue Google and ask for their algorithm.
So if Google doesn't produce their algorithm for PragerU, they won't produce it for anybody else.
Which means that they would lose every case.
Yeah, I heard that Laura Loomer also has a case going forward for similar types of things.
And it does seem to me that something really interesting is going to happen because of the discovery phase.
I don't know how that's going to go.
All right. Did Bill Mitchell mislead his followers asking for donations?
Well, I would say that's between Bill Mitchell and his followers.
So the basic story there is I guess Bill Mitchell had a GoFundMe for relocating his studio.
And then he relocated his studio and he spent the money.
But in between he had talked separately about going to D.C. because that would be a good place for a studio.
But in the meantime he decided that Florida was going to work out better for whatever reasons.
So he used that money in Florida.
I don't know how to score that one.
I think you're all going to have to make your own decision on that one.
Because the GoFundMe did not mention location, and he used the money for what the GoFundMe said.
But separately he said some things that people took to be part of the GoFundMe, and you could see why they would be concerned.
Not the biggest issue in the world.
Not the biggest issue.
Yeah. What do you think of Mike Cernovich saying a big trend is homeschooling?
He is right. I would go so far as to say this.
Sending a kid to public school is pretty close to child abuse at this point.
Pretty close. I mean, it will never be called that, but I've been close enough To watching, you know, my own stepkids, etc.
So I've seen firsthand knowledge of a lot of kids going through the school system.
My local school system is one of the highest rated ones in the state.
And probably one of the better ones in the country.
So, you know, my community has just one of the best school systems, public school systems.
And I wouldn't even think about sending a kid to that school.
In the future. Because it's getting so hard.
The influences from other kids is devastatingly bad.
And they have access to every drug, sex, alcohol.
I mean, it's really bad now.
Stereotype, generalization, BS. That's what we're doing.
We're doing generalizations.
You can't criticize me for a generalization when the topic is a generalization about homeschool versus public school.
It is a generalization.
That's not a valid complaint that I made a generalization when I'm making a generalization.
Yeah, you know, there must be bad homeschool situations.
Surely there are situations where people should not homeschool.
But when do you ever hear bad outcomes from homeschools?
I don't really hear it, do you?
Now, I don't know exactly how homeschooling works, but I don't hear bad outcomes.
And I do have...
I do have a sense that the whole public school thing is going to fall apart.
I don't think it could last into the future.
I would say if you fast forward 30 years into the future, there will be no...
30 years?
Yeah. I'll say 30 years in the future, I don't think that public school will be a thing anymore because it's just too destructive.
All right.
You sound outrage over being accused of generalizing.
Okay.
Well, yeah.
Social awkwardness is the only negative of homeschooling.
But that, too, depends on if you do it right.
Because homeschooling doesn't mean that the kid has no access to other kids.
I mean, you can still have sleepovers and everything else.
Let me ask you this question.
For those of you who have kids, do your high school kids spend every weekend staying up all night?
Is that a thing everywhere?
Because that's sort of a thing in my town.
I would say pretty much, not even high school, but all of the school kids who are old enough to have sleepovers, they pretty much all stay up all night every weekend.
If they're with other kids, and they often are.
Is that a thing where you live?
Because to me, that feels bad for your health.
Yes, I'm seeing some yeses come in.
Yeah, people are saying yes, yes, yes.
Somebody says no. Yes.
Yeah, you know, one of the things that we...
The weird thing is that we say that children are the future and, you know, everything should revolve around children.
But how many of our children are eating fast food and staying up all night on weekends?
Those are pretty unhealthy things.
But I don't know if there's any way to prevent it.
Because you'd either have to prevent them from being with their friends...
Or if they have sleepovers, which are probably really good for bonding and social skills, etc.
If you have sleepovers at all, they're going to stay up all night.
So that's just a question.
I'm not sure I would ban sleepovers or ban fast food, but there's a big disconnect between what we say about children and the food and sleep that we require they get.
All right. I will...
Talk to you later.
▲
Export Selection