Episode 1312 Scott Adams: Hypnosis, Partisanship Causes Brain Damage, Evidence of the Simulation, and the Cuomorona
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Public speaking tip for effectiveness and persuasion
Biden talks to China...about what?
Science confirms: Being partisan causes brain damage
A productive reframing of "racism everywhere"
Light technology effectively treats COVID-19
Governor Cuomo versus the Democrats
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
According to science, this will be the best coffee with Scott Adams.
Of all time.
And if you'd like to get in early, sort of like Bitcoin when it costs a penny, it never costs a penny, but you know what I mean.
All you need is a cup or a mug or glass, a tank or chalice, a sign, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And watch how much you love it.
Yeah, watch this.
Go. Ah.
Did anybody feel a tingle?
Was it just me?
Goosebumps? Anybody?
All right. I'll bet at least one of you got goosebumps just then.
Do you want to find out how suggestible you are?
We're going to talk about hypnosis in a moment.
So I'll do a little experiment with you.
There are many people watching here.
We're all wired similarly in the big ways.
But infinitely differently in all the little ways.
Watch this. Some of you who are watching this right now are going to feel something on your arm, like a little tingle that I just mentioned.
You're going to feel the little goosebumps just start to come right up.
Now this won't affect all of you because you're all wired a little differently.
But watching the comments, how many of you just got goosebumps?
Now that would be a very small example of hypnosis.
If you can get somebody to feel as though the thing you suggested Look at the comments.
Yep, I did.
On my legs.
Now, there'll be a lot of no's, of course, because remember, hypnosis is a very personalized thing.
If you're doing it one-on-one, you craft your technique for the person.
So there's no specific suggestion that's going to work for everybody just the same way.
But I wanted to show you that if you're working with a large group of people, You can get, reliably, some group of them will respond to almost any suggestion.
This is why stage hypnosis works so well, because you're dealing with a group.
You can be pretty sure that if the group is big enough, there's somebody in that group who's going to be, you know, subject to hypnosis in maybe a deeper way than the other people.
All right. By the way, that's a speaker's technique that I just did.
Here's a really, really good tip.
Here's something you'll learn that you could take with you, that you could instantly become more effective, just because of what I'm going to tell you next.
If you're giving any kind of a public talk, the very best thing you can do the moment you get up there is to get the audience to do something physical.
Like I just did. I just got you to look at your arm and think about your body and feel it type of message.
So if you can start by getting people to do something, then you already have them.
When I used to do a lot of public speaking, I'd walk in front of the audience, and there might be a thousand people in the audience, and I would ask the same question first.
I would say, how many of you have ever seen a Dilbert comic?
And people would raise their hands.
Now the point of it was to make them do something.
I walk out on stage.
Boom. 900 out of the 1,000 people just did something because I asked them to do it.
Immediately you own them.
In a small way.
But you're establishing control from the first moment.
Another thing I used to do is hand out Tic Tacs.
You know, the little breath mints.
Back in my corporate days, I would start a meeting that would be about some boring, you know, finance thing.
I was started by handing out some Tic Tacs.
I'd say, hey, pass these around.
And then everybody would do something, which is what I told them to do.
Take a Tic Tac and pass it around.
So even in a corporate setting, and they were executives, and I was like an underling at the time.
So even though they were the executives and I was, you know, In theory, a lower status.
I immediately controlled them by making them do something I wanted them to do the moment I walked in.
Take that tip.
You're really going to thank me for this one.
When you see how effective this is...
By the way, somebody was mentioning Trump with this.
When I met Trump, when I first met him at the Oval Office, he was in the side conference room.
And as soon as you walk in, he takes over the room.
I mean, he already owned the room.
But as soon as I walked in, he started talking and just sort of controlled me.
You can tell that that's probably just his habit all the time, right?
Because he easily could have just sort of finished what he was doing or something.
But as soon as another entity entered the room, he sees me in the doorway, he immediately just sort of like takes over, right?
It's good persuasion.
So there's a story about hypnosis.
I guess in Texas...
The Dallas News is reporting that Texas police, at least until now, had regularly hypnotized witnesses in criminal investigations, helping send dozens of men and women to prison, some to their deaths.
And then, apparently, they decided to end that program.
What do you think of that?
What do you think of the fact that criminal cases were using hypnosis?
Well, the big risk here is that hypnosis can plant false memories.
And when I say hypnosis can plant false memories, it would be a little more accurate to say it does.
Meaning that the odds of creating a false memory is really, really high.
It's not like, well, that could happen.
It's more like, that's going to happen.
Once you realize how easily a false memory can be implanted, you would realize that this was the worst idea.
Now, there's an exception.
There's an exception.
And maybe a few exceptions, but I'll give you one.
It's similar to how lie detectors are not accepted in court.
Have you ever wondered why lie detectors are still in use, widespread use, but at the same time the courts, every court in the United States, agrees that they cannot be accepted as evidence?
Does that make sense to you?
How can those two things be true?
That scientifically they're not valid, The courts have looked at the science and said, nope, these are not valid.
And no court disagrees with that, as far as I know.
I don't believe there's any court or any science that would disagree with my statement that they're not reliable.
And yet, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, it's in widespread use.
How do you explain that? Well, I'm going to explain it to you, and it will allow you to beat a lie detector test should you be in this situation.
Lie detector tests don't work, but the people who take the lie detector test don't know that.
That's why they can still be used.
So, let's say you've got a perpetrator.
They're not very smart, and they're not well informed.
And you say to the perpetrator, who you think is probably guilty, probably guilty.
It would work if they weren't.
But let's just say you think they're probably guilty, and you're looking for them to confess.
So you put them on the lie detector.
You get them sort of excited, you know, because they're worried that they're going to reveal their criminal activity, because they think it works.
And then the questions are asked, and then the person says, um...
And this question of, were you at the scene?
I'm seeing an indication of a little dishonesty there.
And then the person still hooked up to the machine, or maybe just afterwards, is like, um, um, no, uh, I'm sure I was telling the truth.
You know, the machine, the machine says you weren't.
Now you can see how this process...
Could get somebody to confess because they might believe that they already did.
They might believe that their subconscious or their body had already admitted the crime, so why not just say it?
So, the point is, it makes perfect sense if you're an intelligence agency, you're trying to find out who's the mole or whatever, you can get people to confess.
And you can get them to act super squirrely So now knowing this, how do you get out of a lie detector test?
You've murdered somebody and somebody says, will you take the lie detector test?
Here's how you answer.
Will I take the lie detector test?
Absolutely. Yes.
When can we set that up?
Now, should you actually take the lie detector test?
No! No, because you'll be all nervous.
And even though you know the test doesn't really work, you might think that you're giving a false positive and somebody's going to say you failed the test.
Don't take the test, but agree to take the test.
And then add this next part.
But I certainly want to look into, you know, I'll do a little more research about them.
Because I wouldn't want to have a misleading outcome.
But if they work, yeah.
Yeah, I want to take them.
I'll take ten of them if they work.
Let me just do a little research and I'll find out if they're reliable.
I'll get back to you.
That's it. Because you go back, you find out the courts don't accept them, they're not reliable.
You just say, oh, I thought these were reliable when I agreed to do them.
But now that I see they're not reliable according to the science...
What can I do? The science.
Science says they don't work.
I mean, I wanted to.
I really wanted to.
To show my innocence.
Damn, I wish those lie detector tests worked.
Man, I would love to do that.
So that's how you get out of a lie detector test.
By agreeing to do it.
And then researching it.
How do I know that you can plant false memories?
Because I've done it as a trained hypnotist.
I've told this story before.
I used to, when I was learning to be a hypnotist, I would hypnotize volunteers to have them regress and remember previous lives.
Now, just the fact that they did describe their previous lives, some in great detail, Does that mean previous lives and, let's say, reincarnation are real?
No. Unfortunately, if you're the actual hypnotist who's implanting these memories, you're kind of aware of the fact that these are not real.
And the most obvious tell is that nobody was ever Chinese in a prior life.
What are the odds of that?
Because people were different ethnicities than whatever they imagined they were.
But I hypnotized a bunch of people, and none of them were Chinese in their prior life.
Huh. Statistically, somebody was going to be from India, right?
Somebody was going to be from China.
But nobody was.
Instead, they had very interesting past lives.
Some were princesses.
Some were Vikings.
Some were Native Americans, and not the kind that were digging around in the dirt for beetles to eat.
But noble kinds.
Noble kinds.
Warriors, if you will. Bows and arrows.
Riding on their ponies.
Living the good life.
Yeah, so everybody's Cleopatra or some damn thing that you've seen in a movie.
So if you're the hypnotist and you're watching somebody recount these memories, and even after they're done with the hypnosis, they can be easily led to believe that they were real memories of a past life.
Now, not every person.
Some skeptical people will say, I feel like I made that up.
Because they did. But other people, quite easily, you can make them believe that that was a real memory.
And from that day on, they'll have a memory of a false memory.
So implanting memories is easy.
I've done it. Now, in a tweet, I was talking about this, and I said that reincarnation isn't real.
But I was just trying to fit everything into a tweet.
There is a scenario in which you could say reincarnation is probably real.
Like, overwhelmingly probably real.
Which is if we're a simulation.
Because if we're a simulation, it's probably written like a game.
Where you can die and come back.
Or maybe, you know, you experience a life and then you go back and you get another character.
You just, you know, live the same, maybe the same plot, but you do a different character this time.
So... Just put that out there.
That reincarnation could exist.
The other thing that could exist that's compatible with the simulation hypothesis, that we're a software simulation is the idea, is intelligent design.
Because that would require an intelligent designer, but in this case a computer programmer kind of a designer, and not so much a deity in the classic sense.
So the beauty of the simulation is that it can incorporate everything, basically every religion, because the simulation allows everybody to live their subjective experience, to be born again, if that's what the gameplay recommends, and to have an intelligent designer, and everything just makes sense.
I tweeted also that the only way you could make a simulation, if you had limited resources, and of course...
We assume all computing has some kind of limit.
The only way you could build the complexity of what you experience as this reality is to make all of the characters have really bad memories, like really bad memories, and even worse perceptions.
Because if everybody remembered everything perfectly, then everybody's history would have to be compatible.
And it would be too complicated.
But instead, you can have your subjective experience and a memory of history.
I can have one. And then let's say we were in the same room.
At least we thought we were.
And I remember a different thing than you remember.
Most of the time, it never comes up.
It just doesn't come up.
You and I don't know that we have different memories.
When it does come up, you argue about it.
Both of you think the other one just forgot or has a false memory.
But you don't need accurate memories.
You can just explain them away by having people say, I forgot.
I got a false memory.
Same with perceptions.
You're seeing a tiny bit of your actual reality But your brain is building a full picture of it.
So that's the way you would write the simulation to conserve resources.
So you would have very bad perceptions that you would think are good, just like you observe, right?
Look at the people around you talking politics, the ones who disagree with you.
It looks like they have really bad perceptions, doesn't it?
But they think they have good ones.
That's how you would write a simulation.
It's the only way you could write it.
And they think they remember things correctly, but you know they don't.
Now, the problem is that they think your perceptions are bad, and they think your memory is bad.
So that's how you'd write the simulation.
I told you that Trump would keep looking better every day after every day he's out of office, so long as he's not saying anything That isn't just sort of fun.
Like when he attacks another Republican, it's just sort of fun.
But as long as he sort of stays on the sidelines, events will just make him look better.
Here's another one. The Portland mayor is deciding that defund the police was a really bad idea.
Do you know why? When you defund the police, you get more crime.
A lot more crime.
So they've decided that...
Trump and people who agreed with him that you did need strong law enforcement, and there really wasn't a second option, or at least one that somebody's come up with yet.
I'd be happy if somebody did.
So Trump looks smart again, because he was proven right unambiguously.
When the guy who says defund the police goes back to fund the police, There's no longer a discussion about who was right, at least in the short run.
And, of course, Trump looks more right every day on immigration.
Ignore my snoring dog.
That's going to be annoying. And then today's news that the Biden administration is having their first meeting with Chinese...
I guess high-level Chinese people.
And they're not going to talk about tariffs and trade.
They're not going to talk about that.
So here are the things they're going to talk about.
The coronavirus. But nothing's going to come out of that, right?
What are they going to do? Hey, we think you didn't tell us everything you could have about the coronavirus.
And China will say, sure we did.
Yeah, we did. No, you didn't.
Yeah, yeah, we did.
But you didn't.
But we did. What's even the point of that meeting?
Here's the other thing that they're going to talk about.
Climate change. Hey, China, you should really do a lot more on climate change.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're the leader in the world on solar panels.
Who do you think makes them?
Oh. Well, you also are putting in all those coal plants.
You're the worst polluter.
We have a lot of people.
Solar won't get us there.
Why should we live in poverty?
Because you don't like the pollution.
Where is that going to go?
Was China supposed to say, whoa, I wish we'd known this before.
Are you telling me that we're the biggest polluters and contributors to climate change?
Did not even know that.
Whoa, my bad.
My bad. That's on us.
That's on us. Hey, can you turn down the coal plants?
Not down, off.
Just shut them down.
Yeah, yeah, a lot of people will die.
But I'm hearing about this climate change thing.
We didn't know about this, so now we're just going to turn down those coal plants.
What good is that meeting going to do?
And then the third thing is China's behavior in Hong Kong.
Okay. And...
And we're going to talk about it.
The only thing that has any bite or meaning is the tariffs and the trade.
It's basically the thing that we could actually do something and maybe make a deal and whatever.
So they've decided that all their topics will be the ones that couldn't possibly have any use.
I've seen reports that some polls are saying that Biden has high approval levels.
And that's being interpreted as...
Thank goodness we finally have stable adult leadership.
And that's the reason, the stable adult leadership and all of his successes, that's the reason he has high approval.
Is that the reason?
Well, I don't know.
I would say that maybe a bigger reason...
Is the way he's being treated by the media, which is really, really nice.
Now, are we to believe that our opinions come from ourselves?
Do our opinions come from us meditating and spontaneously coming up with ideas just sort of out of nowhere?
It really just comes out of our own minds, really.
Is that what's happening?
Well, let me tell you about something interesting I saw today.
By the way, in related news, apparently CNN's ratings for Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper, and Chris Cuomo just went down by about a third after December.
So they need a new enemy.
That's dangerous.
Who's the new enemy?
White supremacy?
Maybe? I don't know. But there's an article I tweeted, and if you're on my Locals platform, you can see I just posted the link to it on there.
But you can see it on Twitter as well.
An article by David D'Amato.
He's a lawyer, but he wrote a great article.
It's really well-written.
If you only read it to see what really good writing looks like, it's worth it just for that.
Because it's kind of rare.
And... He was talking about how there's been research using MRIs, so they'll do imaging of the brain.
And here's what they found.
Being partisan gives you brain damage.
Let me say that again, because a lot of you apparently have brain damage.
According to this. I'm not saying you do.
I'm just saying according to this article and a lot of research.
That the more partisan you are, the less effective your brain works.
And they can now prove it with magnetic imaging.
And I shouldn't laugh, since we're all getting brain damage.
And it says that if you...
And that that brain damage is caused by consuming, you know, one type of media.
So in other words, science...
Science, I say.
Which we all love.
Could you take a minute to hug some science?
Oh, science.
I love you.
All right. I like to take my love of science up a level.
It's still platonic, but I feel it's on the edge.
I think I've got a shot.
So, yeah, now the science proves that if you watch CNN exclusively, you'll get brain damage.
I'm not making that up.
Actual magnetic imaging of the brain proves that the grooves in your brain will be basically hardened, speaking figuratively, of course, that you will become a partisan by consuming partisan media, Yes, I know it's the same thing if you only watch Fox News.
Just play with me, all right?
Yeah, it's the same no matter which way you go.
So if you're only consuming it in one place, it turns you into a partisan, assigns you your opinions, and gives you brain damage.
And guess who's the only one who doesn't know that you have brain damage?
You! You're the only one.
Everybody else can see it.
Have you ever noticed that people who join any of the organizations you seem to be seeing in the news seem to have brain damage?
Like when you watch the actual white supremacists, do you say to yourself, well, there's a reasonable bunch of people.
They probably looked at the data and the science.
No, no.
You look at them and you say, what's wrong with them?
Right? Do they have some kind of little brain damage sort of thing going on there?
And the answer is, according to science, yes.
Because if they just hang around with like-minded people and become more and more partisan, they actually have the inability to look at things objectively.
Brain damage. And it's actually physical.
Because that's how your brain works.
It physically changes when you learn things or build habits and stuff.
So... How many times have I told you since the beginning of talking about politics, in my case, that I said I was left of Bernie, but better at math, meaning I don't support his policies because the math doesn't work?
And I've told you why I do that, but some of you maybe have not heard the explanation.
The reason I do that, the reason I haven't voted in decades, and I don't know if I've ever said this explicitly, but I didn't vote this time either.
And the reason I didn't is this.
Because as soon as you vote, it kind of took a side.
I want to be able to say that Trump did these things well.
These things not well.
Biden did these things well.
These things not well.
And I want to be able to see them as clearly as possible.
And the way that I avoid brain damage, actual, literal brain damage, is by sampling the news on all sides so I don't get locked in, not joining a team so I don't identify as Republican or Democrat, And when I'm asked, I give a philosophy that doesn't even exist.
Left of Bernie, but better at math?
It doesn't mean anything.
That's why I say it. It literally doesn't mean anything.
I mean, what I hope people think is, I would like to solve problems of the largest type in the kindest way that actually works.
But, you know, that's a little conceptual.
What I hope people hear is, I don't even know what that is, to be left at Bernie, but better at math.
I don't even know what that is.
Is he left? Is he right?
Why is he saying stuff about Trump?
And some of you have heard me say that I do this intentionally to avoid bias.
But I've been using the word bias, but now that we have the science, we know it's more than bias.
It's brain damage.
And it actually makes you dumber.
And they can now measure it, and they can reproduce it, apparently.
So that's interesting.
Speaking of brain damage, let's talk about all the things that I got right.
According to me.
Um... Tucker Carlson was reporting last night that there's some group of experts who are now saying that the Syrian chemical attack in Douma, the one that triggered Trump to launch a bunch of missiles at that airport in Syria, wasn't real.
It wasn't real. Now, take yourself back to 2018, I think, and ask yourself, When the news reported there was a Syrian gas attack and that the only thing that could be done is attacking Syria with, you know, some kind of weaponry, did you say to yourself, that's bullshit.
That's bullshit. That didn't happen.
And did you say to yourself that the reason that's bullshit and it didn't happen is it would be the dumbest thing that Assad could ever do?
Because it would be detectable.
It would cause major repercussions.
He was already winning the war.
It looked like there wasn't anything that was going to stop him from retaking larger control of the country.
It would have been sort of just the dumbest thing he could do.
And it's exactly the kind of thing that gets faked.
And we live in a world where most of our news is fake.
Why would most of our news be fake but this thing?
Oh, this one's real.
When it's the very thing that gets faked, it's a little bit...
If you hear there's a gas attack in Syria, if you don't think Nigerian prints email immediately, maybe you don't have enough contacts.
So, I don't have a perfect memory, speaking of false memories...
I don't have a perfect memory of what I said about it at the time, other than I know I questioned whether it was real a number of times.
If you didn't question that, ask yourself why.
Now at the same time, just to be complete, I did say that Trump's attack of that airport...
To the extent that there were minimal or no casualties, was a really good persuasion, because it made it look like he was a little trigger-happy, which is a real good warning to everybody.
It's like, hey, it's not going to take much.
Do we need confirmation?
I guess we don't even need that.
So, I do think from a first day as the CEO kind of perspective, where you're establishing who you are, because your first impression is the one that sticks, Trump did that really well, I think.
I don't know if he thought that attack was real, and we could find out that the experts who said it wasn't real, maybe they're the hoax, and maybe it was, so anything's possible.
But I'm going to put that on my At least partial success prediction list because I was skeptical and never changed my skepticism on that.
Look at all the stories that have to do with racism or sexism.
So you've got the George Floyd trial.
Race is a big part of that.
Defund the police, race.
Anything with Black Lives Matter, race.
Transgender sports is...
Sex, gender stuff.
Chris Harrison won't be back to do The Bachelorette for at least one season.
That's over. Race comments.
The Harry and Meghan story is race.
White supremacists are everywhere, including rioting at the Capitol.
That's race. Oh, there's a trial of reparations.
There's some Evanston, I think.
So there's one town where they're going to try...
Reparations. 25,000 per, I guess, black person who can establish that they've been there a while or whatever.
Whether or not you like the idea of reparations, I like the idea of testing anything you can test.
So if they tested in this town and only good things happen, maybe it's even good for the economy.
Who knows? So there's that happening.
So you've got the Dr.
Seuss thing that's about race.
Even the COVID is affecting racial groups differently.
You've got the vaccinations, and the stories are about white people getting all the shots that were meant for some inner city area.
You've got the hate crimes against Asian Americans, which is race in it.
You've got the teachers' unions, which are really the cause of systemic racism.
And you've got even climate change.
It was presumed to affect people differently based on their ethnicity, on average, right?
And so I ask you this.
Why is it that everything looks like race now?
I mean, these are not all the stories in the world, but Doesn't it seem as if we're hyper-tuned to it?
Obviously, the wokeness stuff, etc., are driving this.
But we do have a choice of how we filter our subjective reality.
And I would suggest that this filter is good for some people.
Who are in the business of promoting this kind of concern.
But I'm not sure it's good for the people who are the alleged victims.
I feel as if the better filter would have been...
Oh, and by the way, the fact that you see race in all the stories, and that they're the ones that emerge anyway, that is brain damage.
Remember the prior story about how partisanship, you know, watching a steady stream of one side causes brain damage?
The continuous drumbeat of everything's racism, everything's sexism would do the same.
It's exactly the same.
Your brain will physically change based on whatever stimulation.
So if you're continually reminded of race, that's the filter that you get.
Your brain becomes hard-coded for it, and then that's how you approach life.
So your subjective feeling of reality will be racist on everything, and it's the big thing.
Now, when I talk about reframing your experience, here's a perfect example.
By the way, I'm going to do a much bigger lesson on reframing with a whole bunch of different kinds of reframes on locals real soon.
Which will be one of the most important things I do that you'll ever see, probably.
But I would reframe from it's true that racism is affecting everything.
Because I think that's true, right?
The Dr. Seuss images, they did look racist to me, by modern standards, of course.
So it's not that this stuff isn't true.
It's just that if you treat it as your dominant filter, Do you get a good result or a bad one?
And again, some people will get a good result if they're in the business of, let's say, teaching anti-racism courses or they're getting some payoff.
But for people who are just trying to live and get a good outcome, have a good life, improve their family and their situation, it's probably a bad filter.
And a better filter or a way to frame your existence is strategy.
So instead of seeing everything as race, just say to yourself, I'll just change my frame.
See everything as strategy.
Because as soon as you change it to strategy, everybody has a good path.
Everybody. I use this example too much, but let's say you're black and you live in a world that you see racial discrimination everywhere.
Let's say it's true. It's true enough, right?
So you could argue about how bad it is, but it's true enough for this example.
But suppose you also saw that Fortune 500 companies, and indeed startups, pretty much everybody, would be desperate to have you on the team.
Because they really would like to get serious about diversity.
People are watching, right? So their brand, their stock price, their success, their ability to be leaders in the world, it depends on them having some adequate amount of diversity.
They know they're going to pay for it if they don't get it.
If you're black in the United States, you just need a good education.
Now that's hard to do because of the teachers' unions blocking, competition with schools, etc.
But if you took that mindset that everything is a strategy, and you just look for strategy everywhere, you would find all these opportunities where you would have a superior position, and you should just focus on those places, even though there might be all these other places that suck a little bit, or a lot, because you're black.
But these other strategies are really, really good.
I mean, these are open roads.
There's not even a bump in the road if you take the right strategy.
Now, that requires staying out of jail, staying off drugs, getting a good education.
But if you get the basics down, it's like a four-lane highway to whatever you want.
Or you can see it as there's racism everywhere and what can you do?
One of those is better.
Alright, the city of Minneapolis announced a $27 million settlement with the family of George Floyd.
Now, independent of the question of whether that amount of money makes sense, because some of these settlements are more about changing the system and making sure the penalty is big enough, so it's not about necessarily what the family...
I don't want to use the word deserves, because I don't feel like...
Deserving is even part of the question, right?
Everybody deserves.
They deserve to be alive, for the most part.
So I won't say anything about the amount.
The system produced that amount, and it was a negotiated thing.
But how in the world does Derek Chauvin get a fair trial when some other entity that people will imagine is somehow connected to him Because he had worked for the city as a police officer.
It looks like they just admitted that it was a murder.
Doesn't it? Now that's not what happened.
If you look at the details, it's a negotiated settlement.
I think they took some responsibility for allowing this chokehold with the knee.
So technically the city did nothing wrong.
They just did their own business.
They negotiated. They took responsibility.
It's going to be pretty expensive.
Maybe it leads to an improvement.
Maybe they come up with a better way to police.
But how in the world does that guy get a fair trial?
Because in your mind, it just looks like the trial's already over and that smart people elsewhere just decided, oh yeah, this is definitely a murder here.
I don't know. Here's something that's fun.
I don't know if they're a startup, but a company called EmitBio.
They've got a new device that uses proprietary light technology to kill the coronavirus.
Guess where it kills that coronavirus?
Is it on a table?
No. Is it in the air?
No. No.
Is it on your hands?
No. Turns out you have to sort of, let's say, I'll choose my words carefully, insert it into the mouthful area.
Don't mind my medical terms.
I know you can get lost when I get too technical.
But they insert it in the mouthful area.
And shoot the proprietary technology, a type of light, that light...
I've heard that light works as a...
What's that word? Starts with a D. A disinfectant.
A disinfectant.
So the light that works as a disinfectant will kill the coronavirus.
Apparently it kills all kinds of different varieties too.
And a big source of these is on the back of the throat.
Called the pharynx.
P-H-A-R-Y-N-X. Which you could pronounce any way you'd like.
I think I'll call it the pharynx.
You pronounce it at home.
And apparently there's enough virus there if you're infected that's shooting this light on it and kill it.
We'll decrease your overall viral load, and that could be a good thing.
And they're applying for some kind of emergency stuff.
So in summary, there's a disinfectant that's inserted inside the body through the mouthful area.
Some would say injected into the mouth.
But I would say inserted, but you could say if you were not speaking as technically as I am.
You know, I like to use the actual medical terms, like the mouthful area and the frinks.
So, just putting that out there because I like to be right.
Kevin McCarthy is introducing some...
What is he planning on...
A resolution to get rid of Eric Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee.
I think it's more insulting if the thing you're being removed from is called the House Intelligence Committee.
Well, sorry Eric, but we here on the committee, we're the House Intelligence Committee, and we've decided that you're no longer qualified for Intelligence, if you know what we're saying. But I feel as if they're just gaslighting him.
Yeah, you see what I did there?
You can explain it to somebody at home if they didn't get that.
And the argument here is that because Fart Fart once slept with Fang Fang, who is apparently a Chinese smi, Now, if you didn't believe before that your opinions are assigned to you and that the news decides what you think, just think of all the trouble.
Now, this will not be an original thought, but every now and then you have to remind yourself that we're putting up with this.
Like, this is what we've accepted.
We've accepted the following thing is, oh, this is okay.
How long did we put up with the Russia collusion thing?
Under the idea that if Trump had any contact with Russia, that it would be grounds for impeachment, etc.
And that was like the biggest story, and it's all we cared about.
But here we've got the guy who was pushing that, like one of the main guys who was pushing that hoax, was actually sleeping with a Chinese spy at about the same time.
And what is our collective social approach to that?
Let's talk about some racism or something.
Somehow he gets to keep his job out of all places.
The Intelligence Committee.
It's like the last place you'd want to put somebody who had a legitimate contact with a Chinese spy recently.
Now, I have no reason to believe that Eric Swalwell is any kind of an intelligence threat to the country.
I'm not really worried about it too much.
But it is amazing that we're trained to treat his situation as, eh, it's an interesting story but no big deal, whereas the Trump story was the biggest thing in the world.
Are you worried about returning to normal life?
After the pandemic, I have to confess, I am.
And apparently it's a thing.
I hadn't talked about it too much.
So as much as I'm looking forward to it, of course, you know, I would choose it.
There's a lot about these social interactions that I'm not looking forward to.
And I'll get used to it.
But... One of the things that some smart folks are talking about, I think CNN had this article, is that using Zoom might be rewiring our brains too.
So the same kind of brain damage I was talking about before, we might be getting from Zoom.
Although the examples I didn't find that compelling.
One of them is... That if you look at a screen with a bunch of faces that are all looking directly at you, or so it seems, that it will trigger your fight-or-flight instinct because it'll look like you're maybe being attacked by a bunch of faces.
To which I say, eh, maybe.
Maybe. I'm not so convinced that that's so scientific.
Maybe. I would think that all the zooming is rewiring us some way.
Do you remember when I said that when you got to seven Cuomo accusers that the real number's got to be 20 or 30?
Well, there were 30 women who got together to say bad things about working with him.
Now, they don't have sexual complaints per se, but he was a bully or whatever.
Now, 50 lawmakers have called for him to resign.
AOC has, Nadler, Schumer...
Pretty much everybody now has to call for him to resign.
But you know who hasn't?
Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris.
She's getting a pass.
Can you believe she's getting a pass on this?
The media's just sort of letting this go.
Now, they don't have the access that they want.
She's not answering questions.
But it feels like a bigger question than it is.
The Babylon Bee had a great headline.
Today, their satirical site, if you didn't know that, it said, Cuomo invites all accusers to come forward and gather in New York Nursing Home.
I'll just let that sit there a moment.
All right. And that is all I wanted to talk about.
Now, what do you think about Cuomo resigning?
I have real mixed feelings about this Cuomo thing.
On one hand, the allegations sound certainly serious enough that it would be hard to imagine that they're all false.
And they seem substantially different than Kavanaugh because the Kavanaugh stuff look completely made up, like people he may not even know.
Whereas the Cuomo ones, we know that they were around him and there are enough of them and they're specific.
There's something there, right?
But... He hasn't been the subject of any kind of trial or investigation yet.
And on one hand, I'm thinking he's crazy to hold on.
It's done.
He needs to resign. And then he apparently isn't.
Maybe he still will by the time I'm done here.
But I kind of like the fact he's not resigning.
Now, if the investigation...
If he shows all these accusations, or any of them, to be real, then that's a different calculation.
But the fact that he's holding tight on a principle that he hasn't been investigated and he gets to have his day in court, I kind of like that.
Now, if the entire problem was how he handled the nursing homes, that's a different issue.
Because we sort of know the facts enough there.
So if that's the reason he has to leave, then that's a different question.
But I do think he gets to fight if he wants to.
And I like that our system allows him to do that.
And while I would be somewhat shocked and amazed if some kind of investigation didn't somehow kick up something that's worthy of quitting, something, I'd be amazed.
I like the fact that he's sort of sticking up for the system, if you will.
Like, every time somebody says you're going to have to, you know, show some evidence...
I think we're all better off for it.
Because you don't want to be the one who loses your job on accusations alone.
Now, just because his accusations seem a little more credible than most, both by quantity and type, and you know he knew these people, you know he had close contact with them, and all that stuff.
What happens with the next one?
What if the next one isn't quite as clear?
How less clear does it need to be Before you say, whoa, whoa, whoa, people don't lose their jobs over this, you're going to have to have some evidence.
So that's a little dangerous.
All right. Somebody's asking in the comments, why did the Democrats want him out?
What's the real reason? I would say the real reason is that he's a liability now.
He's bad for the brand.
And they want to look consistent on this stuff or else they have no purpose.
You know, if the Democrats can't Address the Cuomo stuff according to their own code of conduct.
If they can't pull that off, whatever credibility they have is really going to take a hit.
So I think they kind of have to play by their own rules.
And I think it's interesting, let's just say, that the Right is forcing the left to play by their own rules, and it's costing.
It's going to cost them. So we'll see where that ends up.
And by the way, I invented the word Cuomo-rona virus, because I feel like the Cuomo story and the coronavirus, they're both evergreens now.
It's like every day we're talking about them, and they kind of merge because of the nursing home thing, and then in our minds, it's all just one story.
It's like Brad and Angelina, you know, Brangelina?
It's just Cuomo-rono.
Cuomo-rono.
Nah, it's too hard to say.
Forget about that one.
It's a terrible hashtag. Alright, that's all for now.
I'll talk to you tomorrow. Alright, YouTubers.
I'm almost done.
I think you would agree this was the best coffee with Scott Adams.
