All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 2, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:19
Episode 649 Scott Adams: Debra Messing, Straight Pride Parade and Some Other Things
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Boop, boop, boop. Boop, boop, boop, boop, boop.
It's a holiday here in the United States.
Holiday day. Labor Day it is.
And it's a wonderful day.
It's a great day to have coffee with Scott Adams.
As luck would have it, that's me.
You know who you are.
You know what it takes to enjoy coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous sip which is coming up.
Yes, all you need.
All you need is a cup, a mug, a glass, a stein, a chalice, a tag, or a service, a flask, a canteen, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip.
The thing that makes everything better all day long.
And the rest of your week, too.
Go! All right, here's my favorite story of the day.
There was a flying student, a student who was learning to fly a plane.
And he's up in the air.
And this just happened, by the way, real story in Australia.
And the flight instructor passes out.
And the flight trainee is trying to wake him up, like literally he keeps falling over.
So the trainee calls the tower and says, I'm a flight trainee, and my instructor just passed down.
I can't wake him up. So what do they do?
Well, the first thing they said is, have you ever landed a plane before, any other kind of plane?
And the trainee says, it's my first lesson.
First lesson.
And his flight instructor passes out while he's in the air.
So the short version of the story is they talked him down.
They basically trained him in the air how to land the plane.
I guess he took a few practice approaches just to see if he could get the approach right.
And then he landed it.
And he landed it, apparently, successfully.
And my favorite part was that the trainee, after he lands the plane, he said that his instructor said he's the best student he's ever had.
Talk about the best student you've ever had.
If you have a heart attack in the plane, well, I don't know what happened to him, but he passed out.
And his student lands the plane on the first try.
Pretty good, pretty, pretty good.
I love that story. So you all know about the Straight Pride Parade.
Did you see AOC's comment about it?
All right, so there was a parade organized by straight men, and I don't know how...
I guess it was sort of tongue-in-cheek, but maybe they had a point.
I don't know. Didn't really pay attention to it too much.
But AOC had an interesting comment about the Straight Pride Parade.
She said... And I quote, for men who are allegedly so proud of being straight, they seem to show real incompetence at attracting women to their events.
Seems more like a, quote, I struggle with masculinity parade to me.
Hope they grow enough over the next year to support and join LGBTQ family next.
Now, here's the thing.
Isn't the whole point...
Of supporting the LGBTQ community.
Isn't the whole point of that is not making fun of people for their sexual situation, their sexual preferences, their sexual identity?
Isn't that the whole fucking point?
Sorry, I forgot kids are home from school today.
So make sure your kids didn't hear that.
But wasn't that the whole point?
Is that you don't say stuff like this If you're trying to be an inclusive person, because correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, the straight pride parade is not anti-LGBTQ. Even slightly.
As far as I can tell, they're taking them as their model and trying to emulate it.
In fact, the head of ceremonies was the most famous gay conservative of all, you know, Milo Yiannopoulos.
So certainly these people were not anti-LGBTQ. I mean, who knows what individuals were thinking, but in terms of the event, it was not.
And so to me, it seems wildly inconsistent to For her to mock people for their sexual identity.
I mean, I don't understand it.
Either we can do that or we can't, right?
Either acceptable behavior allows us to do it, or acceptable behavior says don't do it.
But you have to pick one. I don't think you can say, yes, it's unacceptable to mock this group, but this group's fine.
No problem with that group.
I'm not sure. My digital assistant is talking to me.
Alright, let's talk about Debra Messing.
So she had a tweet which she said, I am proud to be a donor when I contribute to a campaign.
I am happy to be listed when I attend a fundraiser.
I'm assuming anyone who donates to Trump's fundraiser would feel the same.
Why wouldn't they?
So she's talking about Eric McCormick and her tweets in which they're saying that there's some fundraiser in Hollywood for Republicans and they would like to see a list of those people, Eric McCormick said this, so they could know who to avoid working with in the future.
And then, so Deborah Messing's message is sort of playing off of that, and she's saying she's proud to be a donor when she contributes to a campaign.
Why wouldn't somebody be proud to say they donated to Trump's fundraiser?
Why wouldn't they? She asks.
So I tweeted back, because of you.
How does she not realize that the reason people don't want to give up their privacy on who they donated to, if it's a Republican, is because of Debra Messing.
She's the problem.
Because she and Eric McCormick are organizing boycotts against them.
Is she really confused about what the problem is here?
I don't think anybody would have a problem saying who they voted for except for the existence of Eric McCormick And Deborah Messing and anybody who is like-minded.
They're the problem. Of course people are afraid of them because they're aggressive and they're dangerous to people's careers and social reputations and stuff.
They're dangerous. So these two dangerous people are threatening people and wondering why the people they're threatening, indirectly, they're wondering why the people they're threatening are not willing to give their identities.
Well, maybe it's because you're threatening them, idiot.
All right. Let's talk about gun control.
I got a lot of people chattering yesterday with my opinions because I said that I have the only opinion on guns and gun control in the world.
And I stand by that.
Now, I saw a few people almost get close to having an opinion, but not really.
So I'm going to say it again.
I have the only opinion on gun control.
Nobody else has an opinion. A lot of people think they have opinions, but they don't.
They have half opinions.
They have half an opinion, meaning that they talk about the right to own guns, Without talking about what that costs, meaning the cost in terms of deaths.
And then there are other people who only talk about the deaths, and they don't talk about what that might cost us in terms of protecting the Republic and protecting ourselves, etc.
I'm the only person who is given an honest opinion.
Now, you could agree with it or disagree with it, but you can't...
It'd be hard to argue that anybody else has an opinion.
So here's my opinion.
I like the Second Amendment and I would be willing to keep it up to a cost of about 20,000 accidental and I guess intentional murders per year.
That's my number. If you can't give me a number, you don't have an opinion.
You don't have anything.
You're just talking about stuff.
But if you want a full opinion, You should say, I would like the benefits of the Second Amendment, personal protection, freedom, protecting from tyranny, all those things.
I want all of those things, up to a cost of 20,000 deaths per year.
Now, some people said, but wait a minute, we're already there, because you can't count suicides.
To which I say, sure I can.
It's my opinion.
I can count anything I want.
I'm just showing my work.
Do I think that we should have half as many suicides?
Of course I do. I'd also like half as many murders.
I'd like all of it to go down.
Now, if you're saying to me, but Scott, you can't make suicide go down by controlling guns, I didn't say you could.
Did you hear me say that?
I didn't say that. Now, there may be other solutions for making suicide go down.
It could be mental health treatments.
It could be something more creative.
I don't care how we get there.
I'm just saying that if we can, that's my number.
20,000 would be an acceptable number in a country our size for the freedom that it gives us.
All right. Here are some of the arguments I'm not sure of their arguments, but the points that people gave me to give some context.
A number of people said, Buzz Scott, there are 45,000 people dying a year in automobiles, and there are people dying from alcohol, and there are people dying from cigarettes, and there are people dying in swimming pools, and all that.
And what about all that?
What's your number for those things?
To which I say, Keep in mind, all of those things Have limits.
All of those things have restrictions.
You can't drive a car any way you want, whenever you want, under every condition.
You don't have that freedom.
Automobiles are deeply restricted, including you have to wear your seatbelt, because that number of deaths was too high, and society collectively decided to see if they could make it lower.
Likewise with cigarettes, likewise with almost everything else.
There are great restrictions on all of those things.
Guns would be another category.
But the main thing is, it really doesn't matter how many people die from other things.
That's not a point.
If you're talking about gun control, and you say, yes, but X people die doing other things, that has nothing to do with guns.
That context is interesting, and it might tell you that there's something else unrelated to firearms that you also want to talk about.
But probably there are already restrictions in that other thing, as there are with alcohol and guns and cigarettes and stuff.
So it does not matter if there are other things that kill you too.
It's interesting, but it has nothing to do with how you make a decision on gun control.
Let me give you an analogy because they're so persuasive.
Remember, analogies are good for making a novel point, but analogies are not good for persuading.
So I'm just going to make a point.
If the Boy Scouts of America, just, you know, the Boy Scouts, I think they're just called Scouts now.
If the Scouts, let's say, killed accidentally 10,000 Scouts per year, Would you say to yourself, that's not much.
It's only 10,000 children per year killed in the scouting profession or in the scouting organization.
So that's fine.
It's only 10,000 because there are so many other people who die of cancer.
You wouldn't say that.
By the way, there's nothing like that, dying from scouting.
This is just a crazy example.
But if there were, you would say, well, let's look at scouting.
There's something wrong with scouting here.
We've got to fix this.
So it doesn't matter how many people die from unrelated things.
You're still going to look at every decision individually.
Somebody said controlling guns In any additional way, would not reduce suicide because, quote, Japan has the second highest rate of suicides in the world and some of the strictest gun control.
Confiscating guns would not curb the rate of suicides.
Really? First of all, here's the first problem.
You can't compare Japan to the United States on suicide.
If I moved to Japan, I'd probably kill myself in a year.
Are you kidding me? Have you seen how tragic and horrible it is to live in Japan if you're a young person?
You don't have privacy.
You're probably not having sex.
You're working all hours.
You're living a home.
I would frickin' blow my brains out if I were in Japan.
And if you didn't give me a gun, I'd go find another way.
Living in Japan sounds exactly like a place that would have a high rate of suicide.
So I'm not surprised by that.
I don't think you can compare those two.
But here's the thing. Anytime you introduce friction to anything, you reduce the amount of that thing.
You can't really find exceptions to that that are meaningful.
I mean, maybe you could find some weird exception, but it wouldn't be meaningful in terms of a general generalization.
All friction reduces the number of people who do that thing.
So, let me walk through the thinking.
If you're suicidal, and it's sort of a temporary situation, and you also have a loaded gun in your house, I would think your danger of suicide is much higher than if you had to plan it and think about it and go to the doctor and get some kind of pills that would kill you and do some research and all that.
I'd have to think that simply making you think about it and plan it and do it in a maybe way that is less certain We'll probably reduce some suicides.
Take, for example, all the young people who do these mass shootings.
Don't they seem like suicides to you?
I mean, we talk about all the people they kill, but they seem like fancy suicides.
So if you restricted guns from some of those people who might do fancy mass shooting suicides, you might redo some.
Now, people said to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, why are you so in favor of gun restrictions?
To which I say, I've never said that.
I have never said I am in favor of gun restrictions.
Never. Here's what I do say.
I am in favor...
of testing a variety of changes which could include some restrictions, but it might include, and I think it's worth testing, more guns.
So there are two sides.
There tend to be two sides.
Some people say, give more people guns and you'll be safer.
And some people say, take away the guns or restrict them in some ways and you'll be safer.
And I say, I think it depends.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable to imagine, and I don't know the answer to this question, but wouldn't it be reasonable to imagine there are some situations in which additional guns make you safer, while at the same time there are some situations that you could easily identify in which guns make you a little less safe?
Don't you think that there's a difference between situations?
So if somebody says, I'd like to test in this Texas county having more guns, we'll just see what happens.
I say, if it can be tested, go ahead.
Go ahead and test it.
If somebody else wants to test having fewer guns, let's say Chicago, I'd say, let's test it.
Let's see. See if it makes a difference.
Now, in order for your test to be successful, you would need to have some sense of comparables, meaning other places, I think?
Now, it might take more than a year.
It might take three, five years or something.
But if we're not continually testing to see what works and what doesn't, and if we're not open to the fact that what works in Chicago may be completely opposite of what works in some place in Texas, if we don't acknowledge that there could be a gigantic difference in what works in different situations, we're not really serious about this.
alright so that's all I had to say on that um there's not much else going on except the hurricane uh Well, there's another story going on that I'm very confused about.
There's this horrible tragedy.
Did you hear about this? And I'm trying to make this not sound like a joke.
All right? So, I'm going to say something involving a tragedy, That you might take as meaning to be a joke, but I don't mean it that way.
It's an actual question I have.
So apparently there was some very large diving ship, a ship that takes people to go on diving excursions that caught on fire, and I guess dozens of people perished.
And I'm asking myself, it was a ship full of people Who are trained divers on the water?
How in the world do people who are trained divers die on a boat fire?
And I'm not joking.
There's something we need to know.
There's something more about...
Yeah. Even if they were sleeping.
But do you think 75 people were below deck?
And they couldn't get out?
I don't know. If the ship was designed so that there was only one way to get out, and I would imagine that would be kind of typical for a ship, wouldn't it?
Or was it the smoke?
Yeah. Somebody says, how long can you dive?
I'm just saying that if they had jumped off into the water, I believe the water is warm enough that they could, you know, where it was, probably warm enough that they could have survived for quite a while.
And they were all people who knew how to swim.
They were all divers. So I think there might be more to this story than we know, so we'll wait on that.
Now the other big story is the hurricane, of course.
So this morning I used the interface by WenHub app, my company's app, And I made a call to Jennifer Becker, who had signed up to give me some updates, or to give anybody who called her, some updates on the hurricane.
Now Jennifer, and Jennifer might be on this Periscope watching, so hi Jennifer.
So Jennifer took the interface call, but she's in the panhandle.
And so far in the panhandle, it's still kind of a nice day.
It looks like it's getting a little cloudy, a little windy.
But in the panhandle on the other side of the state from the hurricane, not so bad yet.
So if there are other people who want to be storm reporters, you can set your price at zero, as Jennifer did.
You don't need to charge.
It's optional. But if anybody wants to call in and just see for themselves what people are doing Before the phones go dead, you have a way to do it.
All right. I'm just looking.
Yeah, the Bahamas got smashed.
So the other story I saw was that Disney has their own island.
I don't know if you know this. But the company, Disney, they own an island called Castaway Cay in the Bahamas.
And apparently they're keeping their staff there.
So some members of their staff are riding out the hurricane on this little island that Disney owns.
Now, I've been to that island.
So I've been on...
Castaway Cay, Disney's own island.
So it's this tiny little island where you could walk from one side to the other.
I'm pretty sure there are no hills or mountains or anything.
It's just sort of a barely above sea level island.
So here's the key part.
It's barely above sea level.
Somebody says it's pronounced Castaway Cay.
C-A-Y is pronounced Key.
Good to know. So thank you for that.
All right, so Castaway Cay.
And I'm asking myself, having been on that island not too long ago, well, I guess it was long ago, 12 years ago, I can't imagine surviving a hurricane on that island.
So there must be something on that island that's like a hurricane shelter.
Because that would be one scary place to be.
There's not much in the way of shelter on the island that I saw, so it must be some underground stuff.
And if it's underground, how do they avoid flooding?
Because it feels like the entire island would be underwater under some situations because it's such a load of the ground.
Anyway, I have some real worries about the employees who stayed on that island to hope they're safe.
But I'm sure Disney is a pretty serious company.
So if Disney says that they're safe, I tend to think they are.
I'm just curious how they could possibly be.
So, that's all I have for today.
Why are they making them stay?
I have no idea. No idea.
I mean, there could be a good reason.
I just don't know what it is.
Of course they have a shelter.
It's a multi-billion dollar company.
Well, I'm just telling you I've been on the island and there are just these little like bathrooms and minor, I think there's like a snack bar.
That's about it. There's no other building on the island that I saw.
Might have been some maintenance buildings or something.
Why stay on that island?
I have no idea. Why are cheat days?
Is that a diet question?
Actually, we'll talk about that at some point.
I will talk about cheat days.
Well, I'll talk about it now.
If you're on a diet that allows you cheat days, you're not on a diet.
There are probably some people here who are going to resist that, but I'll just say it again.
If you're on a diet that allows you cheat days, days when you can eat whatever you want, you're not on a diet.
You have no chance of making that a permanent part of your life because all you do is all week long you just crave that bad food and then it re-ups your addiction to it and then you have to fight, fight, fight all week until you get your addiction fixed and then you fight, fight, fight all week. You have no chance.
So when anybody tells me that their diet has a cheat day, the first thing I hear in my head is, oh, you're not on a diet.
You're just doing something terrible to yourself.
You're torturing yourself and you have no chance of making this a lasting change.
Here's the difference. People who are on real diets have learned this, which is your cravings for the food that's bad for you.
In my case, french fries.
I have a craving for french fries more than any other food, but the potatoes in french fries plus the fact that they're fried is terrible for you.
They're just terrible carbs.
Everything about french fries is unhealthy for you.
And I can't resist them unless I have resisted them for a long time.
In other words, if I go a month without french fries, I lose the craving.
And then if I keep it up, I can just forget that I ever liked it in the first place.
So every food that gives you a craving, if you're allowing a cheat day, it's sort of like, well, I'm going to get off of heroin, but I have a cheat day.
So yeah, I'm going to do heroin on Saturday, but all the rest of the week, I'm not going to do any heroin.
Would you say to yourself, well, there's a person who's getting off of heroin, No!
No, you wouldn't.
You would say, there's a person who's going to be on heroin forever.
So food is like heroin in the sense that it's addictive.
The bad carbs, the sugar, literally trigger the addiction centers in your brain.
It's designed that way.
There's a book called Sugar, Salt, Fat.
I may have those words mixed up.
But it teaches you about how the food science business...
It manipulates sugar, salt, and fat, the three main variables of flavor, or at least addiction flavor.
And they manipulate them until your brain can't do without them.
It's really hard to quit them if you get those in the right combination.
And so a diet...
It should be seen as breaking an addiction.
If you break the addiction to the bad things that you normally like and you keep it broken and you don't go back to them, well, that's a diet.
And it wouldn't matter what else you're doing.
If the only thing you did Was get rid of your addiction to things that are bad for you.
You know, sodas, candy, cake, potatoes, white rice, that stuff.
If that's all you did, you'd be great.
All right. What do I think about vaping?
Well, I'm no expert on vaping.
I hear all the stories about the dangers of vaping and people's lungs collapsing and all that.
Honestly, when I see anybody vaping, I have two thoughts.
One is I like them less.
Sorry. You know, I'm just biased.
When I see somebody vaping, I see somebody who looks like they're not trying.
And they might be trying, so it's a bias on my part.
If I see somebody vaping, I say, there's somebody who doesn't care about other people, and they're not really trying to get off nicotine, and they're...
I don't know.
It's a bad look.
So let me say this.
Seeing somebody smoke a regular cigarette, for those who don't smoke, We get pretty judgmental, right?
We say, well, there's a person I would not date in many cases.
There's a person I wouldn't necessarily want to hire because the smoking's going to have an effect on productivity, etc.
So I have the same feeling when I see somebody vaping.
I say, well, there's somebody...
Vaping is a signal.
Okay, here's the best way to put it.
Vaping is a very visible signal That you don't know how to manage your life.
That's what it looks like to me.
If you see somebody who's really fit, you know, you see that their body is fit and they have lean muscles and stuff, what do you say to yourself?
You say to yourself, oh, wow, there's somebody who figured out how to do that stuff right.
Probably they'd be good employees too, because their fitness is signaling to me that they know how to have a structure, they know how to do things that are hard, they know how to work a system, etc.
But if I see somebody vaping, I say, there's somebody who doesn't know how life works.
Now, I get that maybe some people are trying to get off cigarettes, and that might help.
So, you know, you can't tell the difference between somebody who's using it as a transition strategy if that's real.
I don't know if it really works as a transition strategy, but I would feel differently about somebody who's actually on some kind of a process to try to get off of tobacco.
All right. I'm seeing more and more people saying that my book, How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, has changed their lives.
I just tweeted around somebody else who noted that.
If you have not read that book, Thank you.
I got books on all kinds of stuff.
But if you're going to read one book of mine, you should read Had It Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, because that one will change your life the most.
And you can see in the comments people saying it worked for them.
Yeah.
Oh, actually, you may be talking about something else.
You might be talking about vaping when you say it worked for you.
So I'm not sure what your context is.
What's my thoughts on Brad Easton's, Elsa's book?
I have not read it. Oh, a lot of people in the comments are saying that my book changed their life.
Okay. People cope in different ways.
I'd be pissed if someone told me to forego coffee.
Well, I don't tell you to forego coffee.
I do think there might be some medical situations in which you should, but I think coffee has passed all the tests of being good for you in most cases.
All right. I'm just looking at your comments here.
Why don't Borders carry your books?
They do. Everybody carries my books.
All right.
What's a good diet for energy?
Protein. So somebody said, what's a good diet for improving your energy?
And the answer is protein.
What's a good diet for losing weight?
Eat more protein. Because the more protein you eat, the less hungry you are for more food, and that more food might be something less good for you.
Basically, if you only wanted to do one thing, keep it simple, you'd say, every time you're hungry, say, what's the best protein I can get right now?
If you say that every time you're hungry, it will guide you toward more protein, and that would be very helpful.
Mostly because they guide you away from bad carbs.
Somebody says, when I see someone drink coffee, I assume they don't know how to get enough sleep.
Would you do an audio of Bigley?
There is an audio book of Wint Bigley.
I recorded that.
In a few weeks, I go in to record my new book, Loser Think.
So that hasn't been recorded yet.
That ends up getting done closer to publication date.
So in a few weeks, I'll be in the studio for several days recording that book.
What proteins do you eat?
Mostly fish and nuts and protein supplements.
Are eggs good?
Yeah. I mean, you hear different things.
Have I read Atomic Habits?
I haven't read it, but I do know that James Clear has very similar concepts, and he says he was influenced by my How to Fail book.
I'm not a vegan.
I eat fish. I've never been a vegan.
I was once a vegetarian.
The slaughter meter. Yeah, the slaughter meter is at 100% right now.
So, the slaughter meter is the percentage chance that President Trump will win re-election.
And at this point, it looks like there's nobody to give him a tough run.
Yeah, avocados are good.
I probably eat one avocado a day.
Minimum. If you exercise aerobically a lot, you should eat a lot of carbs.
You should eat good carbs, not bad ones.
So, by the way, Christina and I are building a studio in the house here so that we can do some more professional sort of YouTube videos with two people.
She'll be joining me.
And we're going to do some content separate from this.
I'll still do this every morning.
but separate from that we're going to do some content with the two of us in more of a standard podcast form and probably have some guests at some point alright I'm just looking at your comments Yes.
Do you read Wait But Why by Tim Urban?
I have not read that.
Yeah, if there's a recession, that's going to change things, but my guess is that we won't have one.
Anybody waiting for Michelle Obama is going to be disappointed.
There's no chance, no chance that Michelle Obama will get into the race.
No chance at all.
Not even the slightest, tiniest chance.
There are very few things I would say have zero chance.
Because that's almost stupid to say that.
And I always tease people who say, well, there's no chance of that.
Because there's always some chance of things happening, right?
You can always be surprised.
But the odds of Michelle Obama getting into the race at this point, I think that's a zero.
You know, put a gun to my head.
Yeah, I'll take the bat and I'm not worried about the gun.
We don't have a name for our podcast, Christina and I do not.
Yeah, it'll be like the Joe Rogan studio, sort of the poor man's version.
Joe Rogan has an engineer.
Who does the technology and sits there during the podcast.
Christina is going to be the engineer in my case because she likes that stuff.
So Christina is actually putting the whole studio together.
She's done everything from the lighting to the sound to the video to the editing.
She's pulling that all together.
What are good carbs?
Complex carbs like yams.
There are lots of examples of good carbs.
Broccoli, good carb.
Are you going to do anything with Bill Pulte?
Yes. Well, see, Bill Pulte is more of an ongoing...
What would I say?
More of an ongoing effort.
So there's never a beginning or an end...
To what Bill Pulte is doing, his philanthropy on the internet.
So yes, I'm sure that I'll have some conversations with him.
Why no red meat?
I just don't care for it.
It's purely personal.
And I don't digest it well.
What topics would you have?
We're still talking about that. I think we're going to talk about, we won't do politics.
With possibly one exception.
We might do some trivia about politics, but not politics per se.
I think we're going to talk more about interesting things and relationship things and some topics that are just interesting.
Will you meet Christina?
Yeah, she'll be the co-host of the podcast.
So she'll be on every podcast...
The entire time.
So yes, you will.
We're going to do it recorded so it won't be live and we'll just take it to YouTube.
Will I have virtual reality in the studio?
No. Do I eat dairy?
I don't avoid it, but I don't, you know, I'm not going to drink milk or eat a raw egg.
I don't know why I'm just babbling now.
I'm just looking at your questions because I'm avoiding work.
Weed? What about weed?
Can you talk about the effect of virtual reality on the mainstream?
Well, in my office right here where I am, I have a virtual reality setup.
It's the HTC, and I've used a number of the contents.
So here's my bottom line on virtual reality.
Number one, it does make you sick.
At the moment. I imagine that we'll fix that.
But at the moment, if you play any of the virtual reality games, and there's motion involved, there's a good chance that you will be, essentially, you have sort of a motion sickness when you take it off.
And keep in mind that I don't have motion sickness in the real world.
So I can do anything.
I can do rides, car trips, anything, and I don't get any motion sickness, but the VR will make me sick 100% of the time.
And the sickness lasts, I'd say, an hour.
It doesn't last all night, but for a good hour, you're sick.
You don't throw up.
There's no vomiting, but you're nauseous for about an hour after you use it.
Now, if they don't get that fixed, there's no future to it.
But I'm imagining they probably will.
It feels like the sort of thing that could get fixed.
The other thing that you realize is that you do treat the virtual reality world like it's real.
In other words, the things you feel with the goggles on Your sensations are as if real.
So motion feels real.
You know, space feels like you're really in that space.
you have actual fear about doing things in the virtual reality that look like they'd be dangerous, even though you know that they're not real.
All right.
Danger of deepfake videos.
Well, those dangers are obvious.
Yeah, when you put the virtual reality headset on and you spend a little time in that world, it's really easy to imagine that we are a simulated species.
It's real easy.
Can you integrate hypnosis with VR? I suppose you could.
I don't know why.
You'd need a reason. What's going to happen if Trump doesn't win?
Well, then you got a Democrat for a president.
How dumb is Beto?
How dumb is Beto?
He does seem a little bit dumb, doesn't he?
It's hard to judge people's intelligence just by their public personas, but I have to admit, it feels like if Beno did an IQ test next to other politicians, he would not do so well.
I mean, let me ask you this.
Who's smarter, Andrew Yang or Beto O'Rourke?
Andrew Yang. Simple, right?
Who's smarter, Kamala Harris or Beto O'Rourke?
Kamala Harris. Who's smarter, Elizabeth Warren or Beto O'Rourke?
Elizabeth Warren. You know, not even close.
Who's smarter, Bernie or Beto?
Bernie. I mean, is there anybody dumber?
Yeah, who's smarter, May or Pete?
Or Beto O'Rourke, Mayor Pete.
It would be really hard to come up with somebody who is dumber than Beto, who is actually on the Democrat ticket.
Yeah. So have you noticed that AOC has not been with the squad so much lately?
Could be because it's summer and schedules are different.
But I've been predicting that AOC will make a break with the squad.
She may not publicly make a break, but you're just going to see her operating independently, trying to work on her own brand.
Now, if she doesn't do that, It would be a gigantic persuasion and career mistake.
Because the squad is taking a lot of fire.
Now, it's great that she's, you know, willing to back them.
You know, I'm glad that she has loyalty and all that.
But at some point she's going to realize that, you know, at least Omar is probably going down.
And I don't think that AOC wants to go down with Omar.
She's got some things she's going to need to explain.
You all know the stories. So, there's that.
Somebody said Swalwell.
Swalwell isn't dumb.
Swalwell isn't even close to dumb.
He just does things you don't like.
That's very different. Um...
Did you see Tucker Carlson's segment on the Beto is dead?
I didn't see that. How likely Trump will lose?
Not likely at all.
Take your call about what?
Alright, so that's all for now and I'll talk to you tomorrow if I can make this go away.
▲
Export Selection