Episode 1065 Scott Adams: The Enemy of the People Trying to Hurt Tucker Carlson's Family, FOX News Scandals
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Kamala's face
Kanye tweets
Will NYT cross the line?
Kayleigh McEnany to do COVID19 updates?
Mayo clinic and masks with exhale valves
Accusations against 4 FOX News people
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
But if you have a co-host, then you've got to worry about coordinating with them and are they talking when you want to talk and all those things.
So instead of having a co-host, I just recorded myself complimenting myself.
That is brilliant.
So that's my co-host.
And of course, if I say something that's hilarious, normally the co-host would do the fake laugh.
But I just recorded my own fake laugh.
So imagine I say something funny and then...
See?
So you don't need an actual person.
I've replaced another human with a robot.
Now, I know why you're here, and I know you want to have the simultaneous sip before we get to the good stuff, and all you need is a cupper mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and you can enjoy it now.
Go! I don't know about you, but I feel that my mouth is becoming like an N95 mask just from having the Simultaneous Sip.
Yeah, I am that protected from the coronavirus.
So, here's an interesting thing.
Reddit, or somebody on Reddit, did a split screen of Kamala Harris, so you could see her before and after.
Her face looked different for reasons that we don't have any confirmation for, but I have alleged, based on my expert advisors, That Kamala probably had some cosmetic surgery.
Not probably. I'd say something in the 100% range of probability.
Had some cosmetic surgery.
But what was interesting is that Reddit did a split screen where they took the left part of her face from a few weeks ago.
And then they put the right side of her face as it looked in that interview next to it.
And man, it does not look like the same person.
It really doesn't look like the same person.
So people were speculating on Reddit, because it's Reddit, that maybe it was a deep fake.
Maybe it's the first time you've seen a digital reproduction of a politician and it wasn't actually her.
Is that possible?
No. No, it's not.
It's not possible.
Let me say this.
It's possible technically.
Technically, they could have done a digital deepfake of Kamala Harris that would look a lot more like her prior self than the one that was actually on camera, which didn't look like her at all because she's still a bit swollen, I think, from the surgery. It may have some nerves that need to...
You know, reconstruct themselves over time.
So here's my take.
The reason that we eliminate the option that it was a deepfake, what's the one reason that you know it wasn't a deepfake?
Because it wasn't good enough.
Right? If you did a deepfake, it would look a whole lot like the real person.
But because of the surgery, she didn't look even close to what she used to look like.
So you wouldn't do a deep fake that poorly.
So you can rule out deep fake as one of the options.
Somebody said that it was a body double.
You can't rule that one out.
You want to rule out body double because it's ridiculous, but...
I can't rule that one out.
I happen to think it's a very low chance it's that.
And like I said, 100% chance really that it was just recovering from surgery.
And like I said, I'm definitely not, if any of this sounds like I'm making fun of her, or that I'm mocking her for that, I'm not.
Because I'm completely in favor of cosmetic surgery.
But there are good ones that are bad ones, and there are ways to handle it, and there are ways not to handle it.
And if I were her, I would not have gone on camera that soon.
But she did.
And if everything heals up the way it should, she's probably going to look great, relative to how she looked before.
And she'll come out ahead.
Possible. But I think that the fact that she had the surgery this close to the Because I just can't see her doing that interview with her post-cosmetic surgery face, I assume. Just an assumption.
I can't see that her advisors would have let her do that.
Unless they just didn't know how to say to her, Kamala, give it a few weeks.
You don't look quite right yet.
But they should have. So it's making me wonder if she's still the number one choice for Biden, because this would argue against it.
But we'll see. Here's a question I have for you.
How close are we as a country to having widely available, and widely available is important, because if it's not widely available, it doesn't count, instant test results for COVID-19?
I've heard of at least one startup that was trying to get that done fairly quickly and thought they were close to it.
But that was over a month ago, so I don't know where that's at.
So here's the question. How can we get to the other side of this without either vaccines or the ability to get a test result right away so you don't go out and reinfect the public for six days while you're waiting for a test?
Don't say vaccines.
Never. So some of you think the vaccines will never happen, and I don't disagree with that.
I would say I am curious why this one would have a widely effective vaccine when that's not something we've had in the past.
Maybe because we're trying harder?
I don't know. But I've got a real question on that, and there's no reporting that I know of showing startups who are close to having some kind of instant Now that's different from a quick test.
The test itself is quick.
Getting the results is what makes you wait.
How interesting is it that the United States has put now some sanctions on some Chinese elites in the Communist Party for their abuse of the Uyghur Muslim minority in China?
Why is it that The people who hate Trump the most...
Well, I guess I'm answering my own question.
But they don't seem to focus on the fact that the United States is actively and at great risk trying to put pressure on China to treat their Muslim minority better.
That feels like a counter-narrative to everything that people think about Trump.
But why doesn't anybody really talk about that?
It's just so obviously...
Opposed to everything that people say about Trump.
What do people say about Trump?
He wants a Chinese deal for his own personal political reasons, no matter what.
So that's what they say.
And they also say he's a big old racist who hates Muslims.
But what we're watching in the news, literally today, the news is that he's screwing the Chinese elites And putting pressure on them because they're abusing their Muslim minority.
It's exactly opposite of everything that the left thinks about them, but you don't see it reported that way.
It's just sort of reported factually.
You don't see it reported in terms of it being counter to the narrative, which is the way I would expect it to be reported.
So if you missed the Kanye, or shall we call him Ye, Drama last night.
I tell you, these social media tools are amazing because Kanye was having some personal problems, literally with his family, and he was tweeting it in real time.
And he was sending like a tweet a minute there for a while, and you'd see it, you know, five minutes ago, four minutes ago, three minutes ago, and a fresh one would come in.
So as it was happening, the tweets were appearing, and it was...
Just sort of amazing that you could look into his life through his eyes as it was happening.
And I guess what the problem was is that allegedly Kim Kardashian was upset about something he said about the children or his behavior in general.
It's not clear. And may or may not have, this is the accusation, have tried to bring a doctor out to Wyoming to Bring Kanye, I don't know, to get him away from this or whatever.
And it is just so fascinating to watch.
Now, can Kanye become president?
I would say no, after yesterday.
It looks like a big no.
I wouldn't have said that even two days ago, actually.
Two days ago, I would have said, well, it's a wild long shot.
But I wouldn't rule him out, because look at the other things he's done.
There were also long shots.
So if you're ruling Kanye out of anything because it's a long shot, you have to look at the context of his whole life.
Long shots is what he does, sort of the thing he does consistently.
So I wouldn't have ruled him out until this episode, because I think this episode reveals that there's some turmoil that would be certainly worth considering when you're trying to figure out, do you want a president who can keep the country calm?
Or do you want a president who needs the country to keep him calm?
So I feel like he took himself out of contention yesterday with this.
However, how many times have we been surprised?
How many times have we been surprised that something we thought couldn't happen happened?
So I guess you could never rule Kanye out.
But he does have an album that's dropping.
And I don't think I've ever seen anybody promote an album better than him.
He is the best.
Album promoter of all time.
The fact that he's doing this just when his album comes out.
Yeah, somebody's reminding me in the comments that even in his tweets, there's a level of creativity.
Because he said that, you know, he calls himself Ye, Y-E. And so he said that Kim tried to bring a Camye.
C-A-L-M-Y-E. Kanye to calm him down instead of Kanye.
So I thought that was pretty funny.
Anyway, so we watch with interest, and I think most of you would join me in wishing that Kanye and his family do well.
It looks like they've got some challenges there, but I hope that works out.
So a week ago...
I was being ridiculed by the press.
Ridiculed, I say. Nothing new for me, of course.
Being ridiculed by the press is sort of my daily situation.
But last week, the stories and the tweets sounded like this.
Ridiculously claims that Republicans will be hunted if Biden is elected.
Ridiculous. What a nut job.
Republicans being hunted.
Come on, Scott. You Dilbert cartoonist crazy guy.
A little bit of hyperbole, don't you think?
Kind of crazy. That was last week.
This week, the New York Times is trying to kill Tucker Carlson's family.
So a lot can change in a week.
If you're not watching that story, so as you know, Antifa found Tucker Carlson's prior home just a year ago or whatever it was, and they protested while his wife was inside, his family, and scared them quite deeply to the point where they moved.
So Tucker Carlson actually moved because they found out where his house is.
And now he is revealed...
And we have to wait to see the details of this, but he's probably right about this, that the New York Times is preparing a story which will reveal where his new home is.
Now, what will happen to Tucker Carlson's family if the New York Times does, as Tucker alleges, reveals where he lives?
Now, they might not do it with an address.
They might do it in some somewhat indirect way that still gets you to the same place, but If this happens, what would be the news value of doxing Tucker Carlson and his family?
And may I remind you that his family doesn't have anything to do with any of this.
They are not actively participants in anything that anybody is mad at Tucker Carlson about.
And, you know, you wonder where the line is, right?
At what point does a line get crossed?
And boy, this seems like a line getting crossed.
Wow! Does this seem like a line getting crossed?
Now, we don't know yet if they'll cross it, because I think the stakes are very high for the New York Times.
Certainly for the New York Times, this could be an extinction event.
And by that I mean, you could imagine the New York Times going out of business.
I mean, things have changed amazingly quickly in the last few months, such that it's now easy to imagine almost anything happening in two weeks, because things are just changing so quickly.
So could the New York Times actually be going out of business?
I think if they doxed Tucker Carlson, that that would light a fuse, which would make that very likely.
I don't want to suggest what kinds of things might come out of this, but let's just say that if Tucker Carlson's family is targeted by the New York Times, that will change everything.
That's not games anymore.
That would change everything.
And again, I don't want to put into words anything that sounds threatening, but I don't need to, right?
I kind of don't need to.
Half of the country would have exactly the same opinion should this happen.
So I think it's good that the right has put down a marker.
I will simply read to you what Rasmussen quoted.
So Rasmussen of Rasmussen Polls, their Twitter account, tweeted this to that story.
In raw national reach and ability to deliver impressions, Fox News could, if they chose to, retaliate, talking about the New York Times, retaliate in an overwhelming fashion against every single New York Times doxer, including its publisher.
And perhaps the time for that has arrived.
Oh my God!
It's the New York Times move, next move.
So Rasmussen just put it out there.
I mean, they just laid it out there, that if this line is crossed, you should reasonably expect an aggressive response.
Now, what an aggressive response looks like, and who is doing the responding, unknown.
Unknown. But it would be a very aggressive response.
And again, I so want to describe what that might look like, but I'm not going to because I don't want to be whipping up a frenzy when we haven't seen yet what the New York Times is actually going to do.
But if they actually dox Tucker Carlson's family, there will be an aggressive response.
Can we all agree on that?
Would you all agree that there will be an aggressive response?
It will not be words.
Let me say that as clearly as possible.
The response will not be limited to words.
I'm not saying that I'm doing anything personally, so I'm not making any kind of a threat personally.
I'm just predicting that this is a line.
If they cross this line, they have to do it knowingly.
Do it with your eyes open.
It could be an extinction event for the New York Times because This is just a line.
You can't ignore this line.
It's not something that society can ignore.
Is it fair to call the press the enemy of the people?
Well, look at this story.
Look what they did to Scott Alexander, who was just minding his own business and they doxed him.
Pretty much could have ruined his career for no reason.
There was no... You can actually hear my dog snoring.
Yeah, that's Snickers snoring.
Anyway, at the same time we see that the McCloskeys, the pair who were guarding their expensive home with their handgun and rifle, apparently they've been charged a number of charges.
What? So they've actually been charged.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, so I won't weigh in on whether the charges are reasonable or likely to be successful.
If I had to guess, I would say there's no chance that they'll be successful.
And if they were successful, if I were the McCloskeys, I would want to hurry up this trial to get some kind of a presidential pardon working.
Because if anybody was ever going to get a presidential pardon, it's the McCloskeys.
All right? Honestly, if the McCloskeys got prosecuted, And Trump did not pardon them.
And by the way, can he pardon them?
Is that federal charges?
Or is it state?
If it's state, he can't do it, right?
So actually, I guess I'd have to look into that.
Did you hear the story about there was a judge who was assigned to this Epstein-related Deutsche Bank case, So she was just assigned to the case, and then some guy dressed as a FedEx deliverer comes to their house and shoots her husband and son.
The husband will survive, the son did not.
She was downstairs, so she didn't get shot.
Now, of course you might ask yourself, what are the odds that someone who was just assigned a case Epstein-related would get shot?
And then the guy who did the shooting is also dead, I think, as suicide.
So when you first read that, you say, well, here we go again.
You know, Ghislaine Maxwell is going to be killed in jail and all that.
However, once you find out more about the shooter, it turns out that he just had a history of anti-women problems, and he had a problem with this judge, it sounds like, and So it probably had nothing to do with Epstein, just a coincidence.
That's what it looks like.
So the president, apparently taking a cue from pundits, etc., decided to photograph himself and tweet a photograph of himself wearing his mask, and he said this, We are united in our effort to defeat the invisible China virus, and many people say that it is patriotic.
Many people say that it's patriotic to wear a face mask when you can't socially distance.
There is nobody more patriotic than me, your favorite president.
And then there's a picture of him with his face mask.
And I'll say it again. He looks good in a face mask.
I don't think you can say that about everybody, but the president actually looks good in a face mask.
It matches his suit.
If he was worried about it looking silly, I think that that would be a worry that he shouldn't worry about, because it doesn't look silly at all.
It looks good.
It actually looks good.
There's no other word for it.
So, how much is the President just responding to public...
I don't think this was much of a step in that direction, but it's at least making clear that he's pro-face mask.
So that clarity may be useful, and at least now nobody can say, hey, Mr.
President, if you had not acted the way you were, then maybe your followers Your supporters would be more likely to wear masks.
I think this might go a long way to taking that away, or at least the complaint away.
I don't know if it will go a long way to making people wear masks, but it could be politically smart.
Apparently Trump is considering holding coronavirus updates a few times a week, but without the coronavirus task force.
Now, I don't know if that's real news or fake news.
Doesn't that sound like fake news?
That the president's going to hold coronavirus updates but the task force members won't be invited?
That doesn't even sound real.
Because what would be...
If you wanted...
If you...
I'm reading your tweet and I'm smiling at your comment.
You know who you are. Um...
If you were going to advise President Trump to lose the election, what would that look like?
Let's say you were really a mole, and you were advising the President, but you were secretly advising him in a way that he would lose the election.
So you're not really trying to help, you're trying to trick him into doing something that's bad for him.
What would that look like?
Well, if it were me, and I wanted the President to lose the election, I would ask him to hold coronavirus updates a few times a week and don't invite the experts.
I can't see any possibility that this could go well for him.
So I don't know what's going on.
I think he may be responding to the fact that he's being criticized for not having leadership around the coronavirus.
If he were really disciplined, he could pull this off.
But does he think that he is that disciplined?
Does President Trump believe of himself that he could be so disciplined that he would not just opine about medical things and maybe make some over claims about the virus wearing itself out, etc.? Would he be Disciplined enough to do that.
Does he think that of himself?
We don't know. But I gotta tell you, there's nothing about this that looks right, like it's a good idea.
But on the other hand, he almost has to get out there.
Because if he's just sort of silent and hanging back while the country is falling apart with coronavirus, that will not look like leadership.
So he has to do something.
But it looks like he's been tricked into doing the very worst thing, which is him riffing about coronavirus without his experts.
If I were to put in a suggestion, maybe Kayleigh McEnany.
If you wanted to do additional, let's say, leadership stuff around coronavirus, it might be tempting to say Kayleigh McEnany will do those.
Because she is disciplined.
If you want to pick somebody who's not going to leave message, and who's going to make a dent, and who's going to get the headlines that you want to get, it would be her.
So she's the strongest communicator on the team.
But of course, the president needs to show leadership himself.
So what's that look like?
Because it doesn't make sense for Kayleigh and the president to be at the same event, because she is his You know, his replacement substitute, if you will, when he's not talking.
So I don't know how they're going to pull this off.
I think it can be done.
I think it's just really dangerous.
But it can be done, and maybe it needs to be.
It might be that it's just absolutely necessary.
Now, if I were to advise the president, which I guess you could say everybody in social media is advising the president because he does watch it.
The president does, and his staff, they do monitor social media, which they should, right?
To find out what messages work and what messages don't work, and get the mood of the room.
So of course they're watching. So in the sense that all of us are advising the president, let me do mine.
I would say that if he stuck to A very limited palette of messages.
He could do a good job.
So in other words, if he came out and said what he said in the tweet, look, I know you guys have a difference of opinion about masks, but I think it is patriotic to at least consider your fellow humans, consider the whole, and I would ask you to consider it a patriotic Now, should he say that, I think he could get away with that.
But again, it would have to be clean and stick to just the stuff we know.
If he wanders into the science of masks, big mistake.
If he wanders into the science of the therapies, big mistake.
But I think it would also be very useful For him to present the argument that the economy is life and death.
And he hasn't made that case as well as he could.
And if he reinforced that week after week, between now and Election Day, while we're trying to open up, but we know there will be deaths.
There's no way around it.
There will be deaths. If he made his case for the economy equals life and death, That's worth making, because I don't think that's been made strongly enough.
So there are some opportunities he could make this work, but man, it's a risky proposition.
But when was the last time Trump ran away from a risky proposition in terms of him appearing somewhere?
I don't know. I don't think he does.
And probably at this point he has to do this.
Did you hear that the Major League Baseball is going to have an app that lets the fans who are at home cheer into their phone or their mobile device, and the amount of cheering that they're doing at home will be translated into some kind of software at the event,
the live baseball game, and then the speakers at the live baseball game I believe what they will do is they'll reproduce artificial cheering, but it will be gauged to match what is actually happening at home.
So you won't hear the voices of the people at home.
If you're the player, you're not going to hear any individual voices at home.
You can hear cheering, but it will be gauged to be the same level and timing as the people cheering at home.
It's pretty good. It's pretty good.
Now, you remember at the very beginning of the shutdown that that was exactly what I suggested, although I think they improved it.
Because what I suggested is that you actually hear the people at home.
You just sum it up into one thing.
But I think the way they're doing it probably makes more sense.
You know, just technically, and it'll end up about the same.
So good for them.
And look how quickly this happened.
In just a few months, an app was built.
The entire idea of outdoor entertainment at a big event have changed.
I mean, this is pretty impressive timing if they get that to work.
Let's see. You know, have you seen any photos of downtown Portland?
You know, the media is, at least the mainstream media, is largely blocking out the stories of this.
Because all Trump would have to do to get elected is just show Portland.
Like, you could just stop everything.
You know, the president could say, you know what?
You know, normally, I'm not recommending this, but just to make a point.
The president could say, you know, normally I talk about lots of different things.
You know, the economy and dealing with China and everything.
But this election is much simpler.
It's me versus Portland.
Portland is what you get.
If you elect Biden.
That's what you get.
And then show lots of pictures of Portland being basically closed down and full of graffiti.
And say, that's your choice.
And you don't even have to talk about anything else.
You don't have to talk about taxes.
I mean, you can just say, look at these pictures.
This is what you're voting for.
You are guaranteed to get this and a lot more of it.
I'll promise you that I'll work against this.
That'd probably be enough. Let's see, before I get myself cancelled, because I've got a cancellation topic coming up here, I get closer and closer to the rim.
There's an article, or at least a tweet, by the Mayo Clinic Health Systems.
Now, it's the Mayo Clinic, so...
There are some trusted medical experts, right?
So this is from the Mayo Clinic.
And they say that the N95 masks are not as safe as you might think because the air is filtered as it's coming into the mask.
That's what they do. They filter the air coming in.
But the person who's wearing the mask when they exhale There's a valve built into it that just lets the exhaling out the valve.
So Mayo Clinic is reminding people that that's the case or telling them and saying that that is unfiltered air coming out of the mouth.
So if that person who's wearing the mask is infected, their unfiltered breath is going through the valve and therefore not as safe as you think.
So that's pretty good information, right?
Aren't you glad that they gave you that information?
Because you feel smarter now, safer, far more informed.
Now you really understand what to do about the masks.
No. No.
It's the Mayo...
I don't want to swear, but I think I'll try to hold off.
It's the Mayo Clinic.
So here's what they should have said.
Yes, it's true that the N95 masks are primarily for healthcare professionals and primarily to filter things that are coming into the healthcare professional.
That part we all agree on.
Let's talk about the exhaling.
The exhaling, we also agree.
There's a valve involved, so when you're inhaling, the valve is closed, but when you exhale, it opens and lets the unfiltered air out of the mask.
But here's the question.
The Mayo Clinic Doesn't answer.
It's the one that matters.
So the question that matters the most, by far, there's one big question that matters.
And they don't mention it.
They don't mention it.
And here's what matters.
That unfiltered air that goes through that little valve, where does it go?
Because I've looked at the valve, and to me, it looks like there's a valve and then there's a barrier, and then the air would come out from around the barrier.
So in other words, it doesn't go straight out the valve and shoot at the person you're talking to.
It goes to the left and the right and up and down.
Isn't that exactly why you're wearing a non-N95 mask?
You're not trying to filter out all of the virus because stuff's coming out the side if it's a regular mask, right?
You're trying to just keep it local.
The whole point of the person who may or may not have coronavirus and not know about it is to keep that person and their viruses local to them and not project it as far as it might project.
So the N95 would probably do that.
If it doesn't do that because this is some kind of a miracle valve which projects things out even though there's a barrier there, a plastic barrier, Which should project it, I think it projects it down, but I'm not positive about that.
So leaving out where does the air go, and is it important if it stays near the person who exhaled it, is just criminally, criminally bad information.
I mean, this is just so bad that this is actually in the news.
And why does a cartoonist have to explain that to you?
And by the way, nobody's disagreeing with what I said, right?
I don't believe there's anybody disagreeing that that little valve does change the direction of the exhaled air.
And if it doesn't change it in a positive way, well, they should tell us that.
They should tell us that. If it does change it by keeping it closer to your body, they should tell us that.
Why? Because it's the most important question left out of the whole story.
Boy, it's hard not to swear when I say stuff like this.
It's just hard.
All right, meanwhile, over at...
Let's get me canceled.
I don't think I've done enough to cancel myself yet.
So let's see if I can get that done.
So over at Fox News...
They've got some drama. There are two separate women who are accusing at least four male celebrities over at Fox News.
Now, you have to separate the two accusers because they're very different situations.
One of the accusers has accused, I think, four different people, including Ed Henry.
Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Howard Kurtz.
Now, if you look at the nature of the accusations, you'll say to yourself, well, I guess all women have to be trusted.
All women have to be believed.
Except that you look at the accusations and they just don't look believable.
I do believe, and it sounds completely believable, that if you create a situation with rich male alpha good-looking guys, and then you populate it with attractive younger women who dress in a certain way with tight skirts and heels, you are guaranteed problems.
So... Independent of these accusations, which actually sound pretty thin, let me just come around and say I doubt them.
We don't know, but the accusations from one of the women look completely not credible.
The one who accused all four of them of bad behavior.
So, I don't know where that will go, but Fox News looked into it and said, no, there's nothing here.
And apparently they looked into it pretty hard and found nothing there.
But people are people, and you have to assume that there's a little bit of flirtatiousness that you can't get out of the system.
I mean, maybe you'd like it to get out of the system.
But if you create a situation with that many young, good-looking, healthy people, it's pretty hard to get rid of all the bad behavior.
Then there's the other one.
So the other one has accused, I believe, only Ed Henry of rape.
But when you read the accusation, it really doesn't sound that way.
Now, I get it, I get it.
Believe all women. You have to treat all these things seriously, and so we shall.
So we'll treat it seriously, because it has to be treated seriously.
But I can tell you my opinion.
Right? Because there will be a jury involved and presumably there will be some probable cause involved, etc.
And if I were on the jury and I heard this story, the way it's been reported, I would just shake my head and vote not guilty.
Now, of course, there will be lots more evidence coming out.
But let me give you just one report from it.
So there are at least two or three occasions where the accuser willingly went and had drinks with Ed Henry and willingly went to his hotel room, according to her.
Those things she did willingly.
Now, willingly, of course, gets into what about the power difference?
Is there really any such thing as willing when there's a power differential?
Those are good questions.
I won't deal with that right now.
But in one specific part of the allegations, they say they went back to his room and that he, quote, ripped her clothes off.
Now, when you hear that phrase, ripped her clothes off, what does that sound like to you?
Does it sound like it actually ripped?
In other words, does she have a blouse that's sort of ripped?
Does she have any ripped clothes?
Because if your accusation could be described with normal words, such as, you know, we undressed or something like that, you have to ask yourself, have they just put in provocative words where if you had gotten rid of the provocative words, it wouldn't sound like anything?
Yeah, the way it's written, so I would say that neither of these accusations appear credible on the surface.
With the exception of, if the argument has to do with the power imbalance and the assumptions made by the young woman, then I would say that's different than rape.
Very different. Now that would be a question that would be appropriate for your employer.
If your employer felt that the power imbalance was creating this bad situation, and that you have to fire the person who's maybe taking advantage of the power imbalance, that's an employer-employee situation.
I don't know that that's illegal.
Is it? Where is the line at which you can say, okay, now that's a crime?
I don't know where that line is, actually.
If it's just, if you're talking about the internal thoughts of people, And they're internally thinking that there's pressure, but nobody's actually said it, and there's actually some attraction between the two people.
Where do you draw that line?
I don't know where that is.
I have no idea.
Yeah, so the question is whether consent is real in a case where there's a power imbalance, or is consent always coercion just by the nature of the situation?
Well, that's a different question.
But I would note that I don't believe Ed Henry's accuser is making that kind of accusation.
There's some hint of it, but it looks like the accusation is really about forceful rape, and I would say that the way the story is told suggests that's not the case.
Now, if later somebody tries to cancel me by saying, Scott said it didn't happen.
He doesn't believe women.
That didn't just happen.
You did not witness me saying that I know what happened.
Because I don't know what happened. You don't know what happened.
I'm not even sure Ed Henry knows what happened.
And I mean that. Don't you think that Ed Henry is sitting home thinking something like this?
You know, it didn't feel like that was happening when I was there.
I mean, I was there.
There was no better witness than me.
I was in the room every single time.
And it didn't feel like any of these things to me.
I feel like that's probably what's happened.
I think he's probably saying.
So he says, Scott, do you believe Biden?
I would say that the Biden accusation is similarly sketchy.
Meaning that if you were to just look at it on its surface, you'd probably say, that doesn't sound like something that happened.
So yes, I would treat them similarly.
Now, I will say that when Tara Reid appeared on interviews, she looked completely convincing.
Meaning that you can have a situation where the accuser is completely credible.
And Tara Reid is.
Now, we haven't seen these two accusers talk in public yet.
It's completely possible, if not probable, that if you heard them, you would say, okay, that sounds pretty credible.
Maybe? I don't know.
So the Tara Reid situation is different because if you only heard the accusation, you'd say, that doesn't sound real.
But if you hear her talking about it, she does sound credible, which doesn't mean it's true.
It just means she sounds credible.
Whereas... And similarly, if you hear the story about the Ed Henry accuser, it doesn't really sound credible.
But maybe if you hear her tell it in person, it would be.
I don't know. That's separate.
Did they come across like Mary Trump?
Yeah, Mary Trump did not come across as credible.
And I believe the Mary Trump story is largely just going away.
Does anybody remember Mary Trump?
She sold about a million books in the first day, so she did okay.
All right. Did Eckhart believe she was providing a service for a promotion?
Oh, that's the accuser.
So yes, did the accuser think that she was doing something for a promotion?
No, but she did suggest...
That being nice to somebody who had some weight at the network could be good for her career.
But that crosses into the territory of But wasn't she sort of using her attractiveness to further her career?
And then you don't know.
Because that would be an internal thought.
Nobody knows what any of these people were thinking.
So if you're convicting somebody based on what you think they're thinking, that's always sketchy.
Did the left dox me?
I'm kind of hard to dox, because how would you do that?
I don't know. Would I care if people came to my home?
I guess it's a different situation for me.
Because some homes are better armed than others, and some people like attention more than other people do.
Honestly, this is no joke.
I often fantasize about an angry mob protesting my house, and when I imagine it, I'm never afraid.
I'm just sort of excited, thinking, I got an angry mob in front of my house?
This is so cool.
I don't know if I could be doxed.
Because an angry mob in front of my house would just sort of amuse me.
And I think I would just get more Twitter followers.
I would definitely livestream it.
So, I guess it would be bad for me?
Allegedly? I don't know.
Now, I don't want to be doxed, but I also can't imagine...
It turning out bad for me, and maybe that's a flaw with my personality, is that I like attention more than I worry about risk.
And by the way, if they'd like to find out what would happen, I'd like to find out too.
Let's find out together.
And by the way, I know exactly what I would do if an angry mob came to my house.
The first thing I do is walk directly into it.
So the first thing I do is I would leave my house and I'd walk right into the middle of the mob.
Now, you should not do that, but I would do that.
And then once I walked into the middle of the mob, and they would be yelling at me and, I don't know, trying to push me around or whatever, I would look at one of them and say, who's in charge?
And then I wouldn't yell. I'd just say a quiet to whoever was near me pushing me or whatever they're doing.
I'd say, which one of you guys is in charge?
Who's in charge here? Can I talk to whoever's in charge?
And watch what would happen to the group when you ask who's in charge.
They wouldn't know how to handle it because nobody's in charge.
Or if somebody is in charge, you'd say, can I talk to you?
What's your issue? And just talk it through.
The technique here, by the way, and again, I do not recommend that any of you do what I just suggested.
Probably better just to stay in your home.
That's what I would recommend.
Call authorities if you need to, but I wouldn't do what I would do.
The reason it would work in my case is that I know how to change people's frame.
So if the frame is they're protesting my house, they will act like they're protesting my house.
If you walk into the middle of their crowd and ask them who's in charge, what is that?
What is it? It's not really a protest anymore.
Because the guy you're protesting just walked into the middle of your crowd and asked if he could talk to you.
It kind of ruins it.
Like all the fun is gone.
And then when they start talking to me, they'd find out I'm not nearly as crazy as they thought.
Maybe I don't even disagree with them on a lot of stuff.
And it would just sort of ruin the fun.
So don't do that.
But there are some few people who would be sufficiently trained to do that.
I'll give you one other good example.
Mike Cernovich could do that.
Again, I don't recommend it because anything could be dangerous.
But if you actually knew how to handle that situation, you could actually just walk into it and diffuse it.
But there aren't too many people who would have those skills.
So I've got to admit, I would be a little bit excited by it.
And again, that's probably a personality flaw.
It's nothing I can be proud of.
Somebody says, someone will sucker punch you.
They might. They might.
That would be the risk, wouldn't it?
But, you know, if somebody did sucker punch me, I would chase them to the end of the earth.
That's That's one difference between me and other people, is that I would definitely find out who it was, and I would chase them to the end of the earth.