Episode 1094 Scott Adams: Witches and Video, Three Civil Wars Scheduled, Low Information Voters, Firenadoes, Homeschooling
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The media's extraordinary ability to disappear stories
70% of the country will never know what happened
We need a fact quiz to ID low-information people
3 American civil wars brewing
Home schoolers...the revolution is on
A new form of hiring discrimination?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time for a hot and sweaty version of Coffee with Scott Adams.
That's right. Today will be hot.
No, not in the content way, but rather in the way That if you live in the third world country like I do, it's called California.
Have you heard of it? So California is one of those places that doesn't always have electricity.
So that's the first thing you need to know about it.
The other thing is that if something breaks, you're not going to get it fixed.
My air conditioning just went out.
And I'm not going to be able to get that fixed.
So it's going to get really warm for me today, at least in my office.
I think it's working in the rest of the house.
But to make everything better, as good as it can possibly be, possibly the best thing that will happen to you today is this simultaneous sip.
And all you need to make it a reality in your life is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stye, a canteen drink or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill that thing with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better except, apparently, the temperature.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go! Oh, I was wrong.
It actually may be a little cooler.
I guess there's nothing that coffee can't do.
The simultaneous sip, that is.
So, condolences to the Trump family.
The President's brother passed away, as you all know.
And what a horrible thing.
Made more horrible by the world we live in because, of course, the trolls are saying just the most despicable things, as you can imagine.
By a portable AC, somebody says, I plan to look into it, but...
What are the odds that there are any portable ACs left in California?
I'm pretty sure those are in demand right now.
Because as you know, the only time that you ever need a repair person for your AC is when there's a hot streak.
It's the only time it ever breaks.
So those are the times you can't get it fixed.
When you need it. Alright, enough about me.
So I tweeted this, and it immediately got 10,000 retweets.
It's probably at 13,000 by now.
And here's what I said.
See if you agree with this. Democrats and the FBI, or Democrats and the FBI and the media, conspired to overthrow the government, got caught, and 70% of the country will never hear about it.
This is actually happening, and it's so mind-boggling.
The ability of the press to disappear a story of that size is really impressive, and not in a good way.
And I think that that's actually happening.
I believe that there was a legitimate, honest-to-God coup attempt.
We know their names.
At least this Clinesmith guy looks like he's in a lot of trouble.
We now have enough information that there's no real question that it happened.
Nor is there any question that the media was complicit in pushing this narrative without proper evidence.
And the fact that the media can just make this go away like it didn't even happen is incredible.
It makes anything you thought about Animal Farm or whatever weird thing you thought was possible in the future, well, it's the future.
And imagine now if the government got rid of, say, Fox News or a few other blue-checked people on social media.
At the moment, the only way you know what the news is is Twitter and social media.
Think about what you wouldn't know about the protests that are ongoing every night if you didn't have Twitter.
It's not in the news. So, you know, certainly you've got a few, you know, right-leaning entities.
You've got your Breitbart's and you've got your Fox News, etc.
But what if you had a President Biden?
Can you imagine a scenario where they'd find some legal or other way to just make the entities on the right go away?
And they could just disappear them from social media, from search.
I think they already did that to Breitbart, right?
Didn't Breitbart get disappeared?
If you do a search, it doesn't even come up on the news.
So the ability to make history actually disappear, it's happening right now, right while you're watching it.
History disappearing.
It's the most amazing thing.
And there's not much to say about it, because it's not like a complicated topic.
They're just not talking about it.
So it makes it disappear.
And I thought, well, at least it'll be in the history books when the students learn about it.
No, it won't.
It actually won't be in the history books.
Think about that.
Students learning history about this period of time will never learn that there was an actual, honest-to-God, almost successful coup attempt.
It won't even be in the school books.
Now, it will be in individuals writing books, but how many students are going to go out and buy a history book that they don't have to read?
Not too many. All right.
And so this makes me wonder if what we need is what I'll call a low-information voter quiz.
We need a test that I can just forward to people who disagree with me to find out what their baseline of understanding about the news in general is.
Now the tough part is, a lot of our disagreements are on opinion.
So it's an opinion that this will be better than that.
It's an opinion that we can find a way to pay for something, etc.
But there are other things that are no longer opinion.
And one of them is, one of the questions would be, do you believe the President colluded with Putin to rig the election in 2016?
That should be on the test.
Because if somebody says yes, They're a low-information voter, because neither the left nor the right report that to be true.
How about if you said the FBI colluded to overthrow the government?
Now, that's just a fact, right?
Wouldn't you say that that qualifies as a fact at this point?
I mean, maybe you wait for Durham, but with the Clinesmith plea deal, I think it moves into fact, right?
And you can imagine quite a few other facts.
For example, you would ask, do you believe it's been proven that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for coronavirus and that it might be dangerous?
If you said yes, you're a low information voter, because that has not been proven.
It hasn't been proven for sure that it works in a gold standard way, but there are lots of tests that suggest that it does.
With lower credibility.
Alright. And you can imagine a number of other...
And I actually do want to make this test.
Like actual, honest to God, a real test.
And here's the thing.
If you think the only people who are going to fail this test are on the left, you would be wrong.
Because I have lots of conversations every day with people who basically agree with me on Trump-related stuff and still don't have current information, still have just basic facts about stuff wrong.
So we should have a low-information voter quiz, and then you could just stop arguing with anybody who's low-information.
Say, look, I'll debate you, but you've got to get at least an 80% on this test.
If you don't get an 80% or higher, maybe you're not the person I need to debate with.
So I got into it today with, I don't know why I keep making the same mistake over and over.
Some critic on Twitter will say some dumbass thing, and I'll say, well, that looks really dumb.
Let me set you straight.
And I'll send my smart little comment off, and I think I've straightened things out.
And then that person will get back to me with something that's even dumber than the first thing.
And I'll think, how did you get dumber from that first tweet?
I just straightened you out.
Well, one more time, let me clarify.
And they'll be, alright, I've done good work.
I was confused, I clarified, had a follow-up question.
I clarified, we're done here.
Third message, crazier than the first two.
And then I say, oh, click on the profile, Look at the career.
It's a frickin' writer, an artist, and then we're done here.
You just can't have a conversation with somebody in the arts about politics.
They believe that they know enough to have the conversation, and they are so not even close.
They're not even in the general universe of rational discussion.
And I will go further and say That the number of my critics who come after me with any kind of harsh criticism have become almost entirely artists.
The people who are rational people who have at least spent some time looking at my opinions, they will sometimes make a clarifying or You know, a mildly critical comment.
But usually it takes one set of interactions to end up on the same page.
Somebody will say, well, you're not considering X. And then I'll say, good point.
That's it, right? Good point.
Yeah, I should consider X. Or they'll say, you didn't consider X. And I'll say, well, that's because I'm looking at it through this lens.
You know, and that's a different question.
And the first person will say, oh, that's a good point.
That's it. When you deal with people who know how to make decisions, know how to compare things, know how to set priorities, you can usually reach agreement, or at least find the factual part that you might disagree on, in seconds.
It just takes no time at all.
And those people largely disappeared from my criticism tree, I guess.
Well, we've got three revolutions planned that I know of.
Now, before I scare you by saying that we have three civil wars, I guess civil wars would be the better way to put it.
We have three civil wars planned in this country.
They're on the calendar.
And I don't know if they can be avoided because we don't have much time.
But here are the competing factors.
I've told you that there's something called the Adam's Law of slow-moving disasters.
If you can see something coming from a long ways away, you can usually adapt and be ready for it.
Year 2000 stuff, such as running out of oil, we didn't.
Running out of food, because of population anyway, we didn't.
And climate change will be similar to that.
We've got so much time to remediate, we'll be fine.
But, do we have enough time to make sure that our election is fair?
Not really.
We don't. Because it looks like the post office will be some part of the process, if not everywhere, maybe some states.
And if that's true, there's nothing that has lower credibility than the post office, is there?
Think of something that you would just automatically say, well, that's even less credible than the post office.
There's kind of nothing.
Congress? Who is less credible than the post office?
Now, I'm not saying that we all know everything about the post office.
I might know a little bit more than you do.
My father worked for the post office for 30 years, so just about every night I heard a post office efficiency story, and it didn't go well.
Let's put it that way. So, unless the post office got a lot better, let's hope they did.
But here's what we can know for sure.
If nothing changes, if things just go the way they're heading, we'll have an election that absolutely nobody believes is credible.
What happens? What happens if Trump wins narrowly?
Well, if Trump wins narrowly, it's a civil war.
It has to be, because people will say it's rigged.
Suppose Trump loses narrowly.
Maybe a civil war, but the people on the right might be a little less inclined to do that.
But if they really think it got stolen, what if they think it's not just a gray area?
What if they say, my God, it's just like this FBI Clinesmith guy.
We thought this couldn't possibly happen, but there it is.
What if the people on the right just say, there's not really any question that this was rigged.
What do they do then? I don't know.
How about when the officers that arrested George Floyd, and tragically he died during that encounter, what happens when the jury says it looks like he died from fentanyl overdose?
And the police officers might not get off completely free, but certainly they're not going to be charged with, or they're not going to be convicted of murder.
I think we can say that with a fair degree of certainty at this point.
What happens when that verdict comes down?
Civil War, right?
What happens when, let's say, Trump wins by a solid majority?
Will there be a second coup attempt?
Like the first one. Of course there will.
Of course there will. Because the coup attempt almost worked.
It almost worked.
Of course there'll be another one.
If people took those ridiculous chances before, nothing says they won't take more ridiculous chances again.
So I would think we've got at least three civil wars coming.
A coup attempt, a George Floyd riot situation, and certainly the election has no credibility at this point.
We can just stop pretending it'll be credible.
We should just prepare for it not to be.
Would you agree? It doesn't look like our government has the capability of producing a credible outcome during the pandemic, with short notice.
Certainly we could get it right if we had enough time, but we don't.
So here's the thing.
What do you do? What do you do if you know There are three civil wars coming, and they're basically on the calendar.
There's nothing you can do to change any one of these, is there?
Is there? I don't think there's anything you can do to change any one of them.
So, we'll have to deal with that.
Looks like three civil wars.
But, as I say, when you can see something coming, you can adjust.
Certainly, every conservative has...
Let's put in some ammo.
I see in the comments, buy ammo.
That used to be a joke.
There was a time when I would have said, well, you know, hypothetically, the citizens might need to be armed because you never know.
Your government might try to do this or that.
And usually I was thinking of it in terms of the government itself.
But I think you'd have to worry at this point about Antifa and People who actually want to overthrow the government.
Now, here's something that hasn't happened yet.
I wonder if I could get kicked off of Twitter for saying this.
Let me try to find a way to say this without getting kicked off of Twitter.
So I'll start by saying I'm not promoting this idea.
I'm not predicting it.
So I'm neither promoting this, nor predicting it, nor do I wish it to happen.
I'm just wondering why it hasn't yet.
Because you know there's going to be a massive gun event, right?
Like, you know that's sort of brewing.
And the massive gun event may not be Antifa or the protesters doing the shooting.
Sooner or later, there's going to be a crazy person on the right who has a lot of firepower and is going to take matters into their own hands.
Feeling that they're patriots, not that anybody would ask them to do that and not that anybody would be happy about it.
But I'm a little bit amazed at the restraint that has been shown so far.
Now, I would guess that that restraint has everything to do with the fact that there's still a big police presence Even though the police are being relatively generous in how they go rough on the protesters.
But don't you think that if those protests start slopping into places where there is not police, somebody's going to take out not just one of them.
We're not heading toward a place where there's one tragedy that happened and one person got hurt.
We're sort of heading toward the part Where you're looking like a mass casualty event.
And I think that might be whatever is the turning point.
In other words, right now it's very safe to go out and protest.
All right. Well, screw it.
I'm going to get kicked off of Twitter.
I might as well go down in glory.
If you're going to get kicked off of Twitter, you might as well do it right, right?
Or kicked off of Periscope, whatever happens.
It might be that that's the only thing that would change the direction of things.
I don't want it to happen.
I want to be really clear about that.
But you have to predict that it will, because that's sort of the obvious thing that would happen eventually.
Sooner or later, somebody's going to say, well, there's a mob in my streets.
It's my town.
They just broke some windows.
The police aren't doing anything.
I'm armed to the teeth.
It's time to stop it.
I can imagine somebody going into the street and just taking out the whole crowd.
Like just all at once.
Just literally just clearing the street if you know what I mean.
Before anybody has a chance to respond.
Now again, not recommending this.
Not promoting it.
Don't want anybody to get killed.
But how does it not happen?
Really? Because it's only a matter of how far people get pushed, right?
I would say...
I feel like giving a standing ovation to the armed conservatives in this country.
Because, my God, the level of restraint that they're showing is pretty impressive.
Now, some of it is because they live in different areas than the protests.
And like I said, as long as there's a big police presence...
You could argue that the force part is taken care of.
You don't need to get into that.
But the moment there's a mob and there aren't enough police, and this extends into some less urban area, I think it ends one way, eventually.
And I think we would get to the point where the protesters say, well, there's a one in ten chance that if I go out and protest, I could get slaughtered.
At what point is that risk too high?
Would the protesters who are protesting, if it was a 1% chance that they would get hurt, probably they'd keep protesting.
If there's a 10% chance they'd go to jail, yeah, maybe they'd keep protesting.
But suppose they thought there was a 10% chance of them and all their friends being slaughtered.
And even if they had the odds wrong, maybe just because they saw a news event, in their mind, the odds of it happening again would be much harder.
That's what happens with terrorism, right?
If there's one terrorist act, it's all you can think about.
So in your mind, it's like it's happening every day, even if it just happened once.
So if you're worried about where the protests go, and you're worried about the fact that law enforcement appears to have not the power...
Or the support from above to stop it, you'd have to ask yourself, where does it stop?
And the obvious answer is if the government doesn't stop it, the citizens will.
Would you agree that that statement is just a hard fact?
If the government is unwilling or unable to stop the protests from growing out of their contained areas there, wouldn't it be fair to say that the citizens will?
I don't see that there's any other way that goes.
I would also like to state for the record that should I ever be chosen for jury duty, I don't have any intention of seeking justice.
Not even a slight intention.
Because if I find that there's some Antifa person who shined a light into a police officer's eyes and blinded him, well...
If that police officer killed that guy with the laser, not guilty.
I don't even need to hear the evidence.
If a police officer takes out an Antifa person, put me on the jury.
I don't even need to hear the details.
Alright, so that's where I stand on that.
In your two worlds, two movies on one screen, do you notice that CNN and the Trump-hating media They only report which states are getting worse.
But if you go over to some conservative media, they're more likely to tell you that most of the states are improving, which is what Trump will say.
So it's something like, well, 40-some states are getting better, but several states are getting worse.
So they can give you whichever view of reality you want.
Things are getting worse, or they're getting better.
There's another one. Rasmussen did a poll of likely voters supporting President Trump, and if you ask likely voters, you get a ridiculously, or at least impressively, high number of black voters who support the president, support him in terms of doing a good job.
Now that's likely voters.
So what does ABC poll do?
Do they poll likely voters to see if they can get a number similar to Rasmussen?
No. No. They poll all citizens.
So they talk to people whether they vote or not.
And so you get a completely different idea of what the public thinks of the vice president pick.
So, we don't have anything like news anymore.
And I was thinking, I would think that the best news channel, if you could say that, would be if there's a Twitter feed, and maybe somebody could start this, One Twitter account that would do nothing but take other Twitter journalists and combine them so that you had something like a coherent news source.
Now right now that's all over Twitter and if you're clever you found most of them and you're following Andy Ngo and stuff like that.
But what if you didn't know where to find all that stuff?
Wouldn't it be nice if somebody just had a Twitter feed that takes only the news from independence and puts it together?
That might be the only way we can get past the fake news on TV. The CNN types.
So, one of the things that I'm finding really interesting is this schooling situation.
And the coronavirus is obviously making a huge impact on homeschooling.
So apparently the number of homeschool applications that people have asked to have permission to homeschool.
And let's just stop right there.
Permission? Permission to teach your own kids?
What? Why do you need permission to educate your own children with your own resources better than the government can do it?
You need permission for that?
We live in a free country and you need permission to teach your own kids?
There's something deeply wrong with that.
Now, I get the fact that we should have universal education...
But that has more to do with the fact that we're forcing kids to have some kind of school.
But if somebody can do it better and you won't let them...
So the school unions, the teachers' unions, I mean, the teachers' unions are the ones who are behind the limits on how many homeschoolers can be in a school district.
And they're keeping that cap.
During a pandemic, during a pandemic, an emergency when the kids...
Health and mental well-being are completely on the line.
I mean, we're talking about kids dying if they don't have better structure.
And the teachers' unions, pure evil, and the source of all systemic racism, or at least all that matters in the current era.
No, I won't say all the matters.
They're the biggest source of systemic racism.
Let's say 90%.
They're stopping the only thing that can make things better for some people.
And the reason is that other people don't have those advantages.
Now, do you want to live in a world where you can't do what's good for your kids because somebody else that you don't know can't do something good for their kids?
Is that a reason not to protect your own kids?
Well, I think we're talking about Civil War 4.
Here's what I think is going to happen.
I think there are enough people who want to homeschool that they can't all be arrested.
So I think that there's going to be a school revolution, meaning that there will be enough conservatives and people who just want to get out of the school system.
I think there will be enough that they'll just do it.
Because you can't be stopped from just doing it if there are enough of you.
If there's a small number of you, then the police can arrest you for not sending your kid to a proper school, I suppose.
But if there's enough of you, it's a non-issue.
You just have to have enough people to say, let me explain this to you.
It's a pandemic.
I'm not sending my kids to the pandemic.
I am going to educate them at home.
If you come and try to stop it, I'm armed.
Right? Because the homeschoolers are mostly armed.
Now, I don't think you should use your arms if the police come to your house.
Of course, that would be the worst idea that you ever had in your life.
But it's certainly going to put a little friction into the idea that there's any kind of law enforcement that can change that situation.
So I would say at this point, You should not obey the government on school requirements.
Let me say that as clearly as possible.
If you're a conservative, you're worried about your kids and you have the ability to homeschool them in some way, you should not obey the government.
Let me say that louder.
Do not obey the government on this homeschooling stuff if you can make it work.
Do not obey the government.
If there's a law, break it.
Break it. Now typically I would not encourage anybody to break a law.
But there are laws that are unjust.
And a law telling you you can't educate your kid because a stranger can't educate his is an unjust law.
You have a patriotic responsibility to disobey an unjust law.
It's not just an option.
It's your responsibility to disobey laws that stop you from educating your own child.
Period. You have a responsibility to disobey that law.
Now, not all of you think it's a good idea, I don't have the resources, etc.
But if you're in that situation, boy do you have...
Let me just say you've got at least 30% of the country has your back.
And when I say has your back, I mean has your back with weapons.
You know? I'm talking about something that's so important that armed America isn't going to take it anymore.
So I don't think we're at the point where this is a conversation anymore.
If you can homeschool your kids, do it.
Please. Please do it.
If the only reason is that it takes power from these school districts, The teachers' unions who are evil.
By the way, not the teachers.
I'm still getting people who are saying, Scott, why are you saying teachers are bad?
I've never once said that.
I've never once said anything bad about teachers.
Only the union.
It's a whole different entity.
It's not teachers.
It's the union. So it's only the union that I target for destruction.
So, homeschoolers, the revolution is on.
You have my full backing, and I don't see anything that can stop you.
Certainly not the law.
Because you're watching people looting frickin' stores and not getting in trouble.
If people are looting stores, getting caught, and then basically released, you can homeschool your kid if you want to.
We no longer live in the world Where the government can stop you from doing that.
There are too many of you.
It's too obviously the right thing to do.
Just go ahead and do it.
That's what I say. Alright.
You saw some stories that said the administration and the FDA have approved some rapid testing technologies.
Some people said to me, hey, maybe they're listening to you about this test strip stuff, but that's a whole different thing.
The thing that the FDA has approved is a two-day test.
You mail it away. There's some kind of device involved.
It's faster and better and maybe cheaper, but it's not anywhere close to the idea that is on the table.
Which could be called more of a screening test.
So rather than saying it's more or less sensitive or more or less accurate, those words don't kind of tell the story.
The one dollar or so paper strips that you just test at home, because you just use your saliva and it changes color in a few minutes.
So that test exists, right?
There's nothing about the technology of creating these that's hard.
And for rapid screening of everybody all the time, it would work really well, even if it missed some people with infections.
It's okay. You can miss some people with infections if you're testing everybody every day, and it's so cheap that you can do that.
You can still get the virus under control with less than perfect Test specificity or test accuracy or test sensitivity.
Every one of those words is wrong, by the way, because they all have their own little flavor.
But you know what I'm talking about.
So, the administration has not responded to or approved one of the ideas that has the most promise to get the virus under control.
So, if you're saying to yourself, is the administration doing a good job or a bad job, I think you can look at this, and this would be a case where if they don't at least respond to the public and say, yeah, we did look into this, and it won't work, here's our reasons, you might agree, you might disagree, but I would say that would be responsible country management.
If you don't hear...
Why the most promising technology that we have to really make a difference, if you don't even hear why it's being blocked by the FDA, there's just no communication, then that is your government just not doing its job.
So I've been arguing with people that you can't tell if a leader is doing the right thing or the wrong thing, because everybody was guessing, first of all.
So if somebody guessed right, they're not the good leader.
They're just the ones who guessed right.
Somebody was going to guess right.
Somebody was going to get better results than somebody else.
And then after the fact, you say, oh, they were the smart ones.
No. Everybody was guessing.
But, that said, If you don't have good communication with your country, your voters, then you can say, yeah, that's not good management.
And this is a case where, in my opinion, the administration is failing and pretty hard.
Failing at maybe what could be, in fact, the top priority.
So if you're not hearing some communication about what could be the most important thing, Then you can't say that that's a good job.
They may be still mulling it or researching it, but if you don't hear something yes or no from your government, that's just not a good job.
Sorry. There's an anonymous report, Politico reported, and Business Insider picked it up as a story, that allegedly Obama told another Democrat during the 2020 primary campaign Quote, don't underestimate Joe's ability to F things up.
Now, if this anonymous report was about President Trump, and it had been whatever, he had said something, wouldn't you think it was not true?
Right? If you heard this about Trump, you'd say, ah, that didn't happen.
Anonymous person?
There's always an anonymous person, isn't there?
But, because we have this gel man amnesia, We look at this Obama story and we think, oh, that probably happened.
Yeah, that probably happened.
I don't know if this happened or not, but it plays a little bit into your bias, doesn't it?
Doesn't it feel a little bit too on the nose, if you know what I mean?
Obama's a pretty cautious guy.
Do you think he would have said to somebody who could have blabbed it that he thinks Joe would F things up?
Do you think he would have said that to anyone in the political sphere knowing that everything gets blabbed.
Do you think that Obama wanted people to know that he said this about Biden?
I'm going to say fake news on this one.
I'm going to say fake news on this.
It doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
It is within the realm of possibility.
It is, however, not in the realm of credibility, meaning it could be true But by the nature of the way it's reported, you should assume not.
You should assume not.
It's a fun story, but just put that filter on and say, if they were talking about your guy, somebody on your team, you wouldn't believe this was true.
You probably wouldn't. Alright.
Alright, I need a ruling on this.
There's a new form of discrimination that popped up Which I believe is far worse than whatever we had before.
So one of the unintended consequences of the Black Lives Matter and the protesters is this.
It is one thing to have a difference of political opinion.
And in the history of the United States, that hasn't made too much difference in your hiring decisions.
I've never heard of anybody in my whole life who made a hiring decision, plus or minus, Based on somebody's political leanings.
Never heard of it. Not even one time in my whole life.
I'm sure it's happened. It's a big country.
I'm sure it's happened. But I've never heard of it.
So it's not like the most common thing.
But what about now?
What about now? Suppose somebody came into your office and you're a conservative.
And you're just hiring somebody and resume looks good and the person comes in and somehow you learn that they were part of the protests or they belong to Black Lives Matter.
And let's say you're a white conservative and let's say you're male, just to make it extra hard.
What would you think...
About what the applicant thinks of you.
Now, I'm not talking about what you think of the applicant.
So you might say to yourself, you know, freedom of speech.
I'm completely happy that you protested.
And in fact, I agree with your message.
Black Lives Matter. Totally need to make sure that police are doing their job.
So you could be a conservative that even completely agrees philosophically with the approach, but maybe not the technique.
And still, wouldn't you have to worry a little bit that although you feel okay about the applicant, that the applicant probably hates your guts and would look for any excuse to take you down because you're part of systemic racism?
Wouldn't you feel that?
Would you not feel that your applicant hates you?
Now that's never been the case before.
I can't think of it. Is there any time in history, let's say in my life, if I were to interview a black candidate for a job, which of course I have, everybody has, if you've done a hiring, and not once have I ever thought that even though I know we live in a racially sensitive world,
and even though I know black citizens on average might have a A little bit of a bad feeling about white citizens on average.
I can't think of any time in the past that would have mattered to me.
Like, because it just, it would have been sort of a low-grade, you know, I just have these feelings, but everybody's got a little bias.
You can't really hire people who don't have a little bias.
No big deal. You just deal with it, right?
But today, today, if you hired, given our hyper-partisan If you hired somebody today, and you were, let's say, a white male conservative, and you hired a young female black activist who was in Black Lives Matter, what would you think that person thinks of you?
And what would be your risk?
Would you be at greater risk of being attacked?
Meaning, legally, if something goes wrong, are you going to get sued?
And I would think that in our current environment, we've accidentally created a whole new kind of discrimination, which is weirdly legal.
Completely legal.
You could actually not hire somebody, not because they're black, like it wouldn't even be racial, because you would say the same thing about, let's say, the white protesters.
You just say, I just can't hire anybody who is part of that complaining.
In other words, the complaint is that they're complainers about something that maybe you don't think they should be complaining about, hypothetically.
I don't know.
It's a dangerous situation.
Political discrimination is legal, I believe.
It is completely legal to discriminate on political belief.
I believe. I think that's legal.
I was told by somebody who knows more than I do.
That very thing. You're probably already at risk of being sued if you don't hire the person.
Well, no, that's not true.
Because you could find somebody who...
Well, yeah, I suppose you're always at risk.
You're right. You're always at risk.
Somebody says you'd be hiring a walking lawsuit.
That's what it feels like.
Even if that's not true.
So that's what discrimination is.
Alright. So everybody wants me to talk about Millie Weaver's film Shadowgate, which is now available on YouTube, somebody says.
Let me tell you that during the course of my day, lots of people send me videos that they think I'm interested in.
I don't watch most of them.
So sending me a link to a video without a summary of why I should watch it, that will kind of never get me to watch it.
But if you send me a link and say, this person made this claim, I might think, oh, I'd like to see about that.
But if you just send me a link and say, what do you think about it?
I'm not going to watch that. Because the context is, lots of people are doing that all day long.
I'm just getting links all day long.
Watch this video. Watch this video.
I'm not going to watch any of them.
None of them. But if you summarize it, you might get my attention.
Then I might watch it. Alright.
Yeah, so here in California we've got lightning, rain, power outages, firenados, homelessness, drug overdoses, crumbling economy, and somebody is floating the idea of a wealth tax for Californians.
Now, if you don't think a wealth tax will empty this state, you don't know this state.
There's a lot of people with wealth who have one foot out the door, and a wealth tax, that would just be the end of it.
