Episode 1319 Scott Adams: Biden Takes a Trip on a Plane, Fake News Causes Brain Damage, and UFOs!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
President Biden trips on AF1 stairs
North Korea, China, Russia, mock President Biden
Simulation theory of UFOs
Killing the filibuster
Clues Biden might not be in charge
How to tell a good story
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Time for the best part of the day, and I'm going to guarantee you that this Coffee with Scott Adams will be the best one of the entire morning.
That's right. There will be no better Coffee with Scott Adams all day long, and I can guarantee that.
This is going to be good. It's going to be rocking.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chelsea stein, a canteen, chug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee, if you didn't know.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen now.
Go! Oh.
Oh. Oh my god, the waves of pleasure that are just rippling over my body right now.
Can you feel it?
It's probably happening to you too.
Goosebumps? A little bit?
No? Alright.
Well, finally, there's something fun to talk about in the news.
And what did it take?
Was it because Biden slipped on some stairs going up the steps to Air Force One?
Is that what makes it so fun?
That... An elderly person fell down?
No. There's nothing funny about an elderly person falling down, unless it has a connection to a Trump story, which it did.
Therefore, it's turbocharged.
It's regular news, but it's amped up a few levels because you can make a Trump reference to it.
You can make Trump memes.
If you haven't yet seen the meme, Of Trump hitting a golf ball that looks like he hits Biden in the head before he falls on the stairs.
And then he hits the second golf ball to knock him down the second time.
If you haven't seen that meme, go look for it.
Go look for it.
Because if you don't laugh both times when that golf ball hits Biden and that meme, you're dead inside.
You're dead inside.
So go take a look at that.
Now, of course, the whole country is feeling pretty darn good about their President Biden.
Not only did he get mocked by North Korea, China, and Russia, and basically embarrassed the country, but he walks up the stairs and falls on his face three times, two or three times, I guess.
And the worst part is that It comes so soon after failing in public, you know, with the talks with China, where China basically slapped the American team down.
And could this look worse?
I don't see how this could look worse.
Now, let's compare how the news treated Biden's little slip with Trump's little walk down the ramp, because the news has a lot of articles on this.
So here's how the New York Times referred to Biden's slip on the stairs.
Quote, Biden was, quote, doing 100% fine after his fall and exited later without an issue.
Well, there you go. It was just a little slip.
There's nothing to see here.
That's exactly how they treated it when President Trump had his little ramp issue, right?
Well, you be the judge.
Here's what they said about that.
The New York Times said of Trump's, Trump's halting walk-down ramp raises new health questions.
The president also appeared to have trouble raising a glass of water to his mouth during his speech.
He turned 75.
The oldest the president has been in his first term.
Now, first of all, when did it become a stat to say the oldest person in their first term?
Wouldn't it be more relevant to say he was or was not the oldest president?
Because that would mean something.
But the oldest president in his first term?
It's like they had to reach a little bit to make him older.
How can we make him a little bit older?
Well, we'll just limit to the first term.
Therefore, he's the oldest one.
When you see this level of media bias, which we see every day, but every time you see one that's this extreme, you say to yourself, wait a minute, are they even trying to hide it anymore?
They're not trying to hide it, right?
This is just what it is.
More on that. Now, what do you make of the fact that North Korea and China, especially, can...
Play up American racism and make themselves invulnerable from moral attack.
Did Trump ever fall into that trap?
I don't remember Trump falling into the trap of telling them how to run their internal affairs because we're doing so well over here.
I feel like Trump just didn't make that mistake.
And Biden walked right into it.
And here's the thing.
How could he not see that coming?
If he's attacking the United States every day for being a racist country, and then he goes to China and he says, hey, or as people do, hey, you're being racist with the Uyghurs and whatnot, there's no moral accountability there, or no moral authority.
How did he not see that?
How is it not obvious that the existence of Black Lives Matter, especially the media talk about the anti-Asian violence, etc., how did he not know he was walking right into a buzzsaw?
Well, what is a pattern that we see with Democrats and Republicans?
I say it all the time.
It's always the same.
The Republicans seem to recognize human motivation and make predictions based on the fact that humans always act like humans.
We're motivated by the same things.
It's very predictable. Democrats act as though human motivation isn't a thing.
So the most reasonable prediction you could have made is that China would say, looks like you got your own problems.
Because you do. It's the most obvious thing you'd expect.
Didn't see it coming. All right.
Speaking of the media, and speaking of all of the violence against Asian Americans, which we hear is spiking, here's what's surprising.
And I only know this is true because I watch the news.
If you don't watch the news, you might not know this.
You would be uninformed.
But I watch the news...
And so this is what I know that maybe you haven't noticed.
It's kind of weird. So we've got this spike in Asian-American violence, which is horrific.
And we all condemn, right?
We don't need to say any extra about that.
Everybody's on the same side of that.
We need that to be zero.
And anything less than zero is indefensible.
But here's the weird part.
That's predictable, right?
It's kind of predictable that if you're talking about the China virus, that some people who are not so smart are going to generalize that to Asian Americans living in this country who may not even have any China connection, ethnically, culturally, or any other way.
So it's kind of predictable.
But you know what else was predictable that didn't happen?
So it makes you question your predicting ability, right?
If I told you that there was going to be a big Black Lives Matter movement, and there would be regular protests and stuff, and there would be much more attention on the tensions between the black and white community in the United States, wouldn't you expect an uptick in anti-white crime and violence?
Wouldn't you? Wouldn't the most logical thing you could predict from the Black Lives Matter movement is that some people, again, not the reasonable people, but some people would say, oh, well, we're demonizing white people now, so have a little more violence against white people.
But the amazing thing is there's no uptick whatsoever in black and white crime.
It's amazing, isn't it? You would certainly expect that to be true, given the setup, because it's a different setup from the Asian American situation, but in the same sense, just because when things are in the news, when things are in the news, it causes people to react and overreact to it, right? So just putting Black Lives Matter in the news, my brain says you would have expected an uptick in violence.
And yet there is none.
And the only reason I know there is none is because it's not reported.
If that were happening, it would be reported, right?
Wouldn't it? You don't think they would just ignore it, do you?
Huh. Because if they were going to ignore it, that would make it seem as though the news isn't really real.
I have trouble believing that.
I mean, don't make me start thinking that the news is just made-up shit.
I don't want to think that.
So, we'll just assume that this is true because it's not being reported.
And as you know, that's the way it works.
When the news doesn't report something, that means it didn't happen.
We'll see another example of that in a minute.
Here's a question for you.
Now that science has shown that extreme partisanship can cause brain damage, I talked about this earlier, so they've done MRIs on brains, and they can actually show that if you consume only partisan news, another word for that would be fake news, because the fake news tends to be partisan.
I mean, it's not exactly the same concept, But it overlaps so much that for all practical purposes, partisan news and fake news become about the same thing, not 100%.
But if fake news causes brain damage, because partisanship does, it would be obvious that fake news would too, shouldn't it be regulated?
Shouldn't the FDA regulate a thing which can be administered to human beings And has a profound effect on their health.
I'll just pause to let you think about that.
So we know now, because science, and don't you love science?
Is there anybody here who loves science more than I do?
I doubt it. Watch me hug it.
Mmm, mmm, I love you, science.
I don't know what the Democrats are saying.
They don't think I love you, but I do.
Mmm, I love you, science.
So that's how much I love science.
However much you love science, it's a mere vibration of how much I love science.
I would fuck science.
I would. And science is not even good looking.
But I would fuck it. I'd fuck it hard.
You might only date it.
For you, science is probably a platonic thing.
And I don't begrudge that.
I'm just saying that your love of science is nowhere near mine.
Mine is a fully fulfilled physical, emotional, and spiritual connection.
So that's just me.
But for a lot of you, you're, as I was saying, you're lost in the fake news.
And it's causing brain damage.
And should the FDA not regulate CNN? Seriously.
So I've been kidding a lot, right?
Been doing a lot of sarcasm here.
But I'm going to turn the sarcasm mode off.
Because this is a real point.
If fake news causes brain damage, and we know that, because the science shows it, can be confirmed, just look at the MRI, why wouldn't the FDA regulate it?
Because it is a thing which is created by people, that is administered to humans, affects their health.
What would be the logic for not regulating it?
Now, there might not be a practical way to do it, but shouldn't you talk about it?
Shouldn't the FDA... Wait, it gets better.
Let's say it's impractical to ban fake news.
Maybe they want to, but it's just impractical because somebody would have to decide what's the real news and what's the fake news, and then you just push the problem up one level, right?
If you don't trust the news...
Why would you trust the person who tells you what news is true and what isn't?
It's just another person not to trust, right?
So maybe we should treat it like cigarettes.
Maybe CNN should run a warning before every show that says, consuming partisan news from this network has been shown by science to cause brain damage.
To protect yourself, diversify your sources of news.
Right? Now, the FDA is in the business of protecting our health.
Am I wrong?
They're in the business of following science and protecting our health.
Now, I would agree it's probably completely impractical...
To ban any kind of news source, you know, because you're the FDA. That wouldn't fly.
But warning labels fly.
You know, there was a big fight over putting explicit language warning labels on music.
Back in the Tipper Gore days of long ago, it was thought, hey, if you label the music, it's sort of censorship.
And you would be putting those artists at a disadvantage if you said there's naughty stuff on this album.
There was a lot of argument about it, but in the end, I think the argument that made the most sense is that why shouldn't you be required to accurately label your product?
And if people care about the profanity in the music, and people do care, you know, it's something that's on the top of their list of things they care about, parents mostly, why wouldn't you label it?
It's perfectly fair to label something that might have a problem.
Just label it.
Who exactly complains about more information about a product?
Right? If you had more information about CNN, is that bad?
In what world is having more information bad?
And if the more information is that it would be dangerous to your brain To consume just CNN and nothing else, and we know that to be true.
And by the way, same thing for Fox News.
I pick on CNN because it's just a universal reference.
But Fox News, no different.
Should also be labeled.
Partisan news will damage your brain.
Make sure you diversify your sources.
And it would be hilarious for a public movement...
To start, like Timper Gore, it came from the public, it didn't come from the government, to get a warning label on CNN. It would, of course, have to be on the other networks, but it would be funnier if you just did it that way.
Well, Maria Pardaroma sort of broke some news with interviewing former DNI John Ratcliffe.
They were talking about UFOs.
And they said apparently they have a number of sensors for picking up what's flying around.
He didn't say what he meant by sensors, but I assume radar, satellites, the usual stuff.
And he said they're picking up a lot of UFOs.
Doesn't mean aliens, just means unidentified.
And that these objects are doing things which defy what we know about current technology.
So it seems to defy physics, but at the very least, it seems to be beyond what human technology is that we know of.
So, what do you make of that?
Apparently there's some report coming out soon about what the government does or does not know.
We should not expect them to tell the truth.
Because it's not the government's job to tell us the truth.
We kind of pay them not to, right?
Part of what value you get from your government is that sometimes they need to lie to you for your own good.
And if we did have advanced UFO alien technology that we were trying to commercialize, it would be better if you didn't know that.
I think you'd be better if you didn't know.
So I wouldn't mind if the government lied to us about anything that has security ramifications.
But let's use this as an example of how to filter the truth.
Okay? Someday we might actually know the answer.
But now we don't.
So let's use our tools that we've developed to look at this situation...
And see if we can predict where this will turn out.
So we'll use different filters and different framing to predict this.
Number one, what are the odds that with so many sightings that it would not be a genuine non-Earth phenomenon?
Could you take the fact that there are many sensors that have picked up things that we don't seem to be able to do in this world, And there are lots of reports.
Some of them are eyewitness.
A lot of eyewitness reports.
So what kind of credibility would you put on lots and lots of reports?
Well, it would depend how clear the reports are, right?
If somebody had a clear photograph of a ship we'd never seen before, that would be pretty convincing.
But... What do we know about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster?
One thing we know about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster is it's really hard to get a clean photograph because they're not real.
Things that are real are relatively easier to photograph.
Now, it's not 100% correlation, but it's pretty good.
And with so many things, Why do we only have unclear photos of something that looks like a blotch or a glowing cigar?
But it's never like a good photograph.
Right? We never get that good photograph.
So I would say to you that the lack of a good photograph after so many decades of trying to get one probably is a pretty strong indication that there are no flying saucers.
So now I'm giving you my opinion based on this filter.
The filter that we haven't gotten a photograph yet?
Really? That tells me it's not real.
Now, what are the other possibilities?
Are you ready? Here are the other possibilities.
Number one, we just can't get a good photo because they're fast.
Maybe that's the whole story. They're just fast.
Can't get a photo. What if it's the U.S. technology that we just don't want other people to know that we have?
Or some other country's technology?
Could be. Maybe some country, maybe the U.S. has some technology.
But it seems to violate physics.
I don't think that the United States or China or any advanced country, if I had to guess...
And I do. I don't think anybody has anything that violates physics.
So I'm going to say that that alone eliminates even alien technology.
Because we don't think alien technology is going to violate physics, right?
You know, even if it were different where they came from.
Physics or physics when you get here.
They violate the law of physics once they get to our planet.
I mean, maybe. Could be something we don't know about reality.
But I'm going to give you my more controversial theory, which you've never heard before.
Are you ready? For the best theory about UFO sightings you've ever seen.
Have you ever heard me mention that we might be living in a simulation?
And that the simulation hypothesis that we're just sort of some software construct by some other entity that was smart enough to do it at some point in the past...
If you buy into that theory that we're a simulation, there is a very shocking part of this, which is that we would be built under a theory of resource constraint.
In other words, if you were going to sit down and build a simulated world, just in today's technology, would you build the world to use only 10% of the capacity of your computer?
Probably not, right?
Because if you were going to build a simulation in order to make it as realistic and complicated and rich as you wanted it to be, you'd probably use something closer to as much of the capacity of the computer, or whatever you're working on, as you could.
Would you say that, first of all, that's a reasonable assumption?
That whatever resources would be used if we were a simulation, they would use most of it?
Because you always do. You're always going to use most of it because you need it all.
Now, suppose they used up most of their computing sources creating Earth.
That's reasonable.
Earth's pretty complicated, right?
I also believe that if we are simulated, our history is created on demand.
It doesn't exist until you need it.
In other words, whatever is under the ground in your backyard, if nobody's ever dug a hole, there doesn't need to be anything there until you dig the hole.
The simulation isn't going to waste a lot of time filling in all the details at the center of the Earth if nobody's ever going to go there.
It'll never be observed.
So as you observe it or measure it, it becomes real, And then it has to fill in enough details to be compatible with other histories.
And when it's not compatible, or the simulation can't make it compatible, it gives one of you a false memory and says, you remembered it wrong.
So that's how you get all these different histories that don't match.
You just say, well, I guess that other person remembered it wrong.
And you just go on with your life.
But we have actually maybe infinite, or lots of them, Histories that don't even match each other.
So that would be the simulation.
That's how you would build it. Now, if this simulation had tapped out just to make Earth, but it was also designed to expand over time, and let's say the person who built the simulation got a better job and increased the number of CPUs or processors, and over time could build another Earth once they had enough processing power.
What would it look like before you could add the detail?
It would look like this.
It would look like a spaceship that you couldn't get a good read on, that everybody would look at it and they wouldn't see it clearly.
Because the moment we see it clearly, the simulation has to build a history.
And to build a history that would support an alien spacecraft requires building a whole planet, a whole civilization.
It's way too big for the simulation.
So instead, while the simulation doesn't have enough computing power, we'll see indications of this future, but it's not until we get the first picture that the past will be created by the simulation.
And that's when that alien planet will become real.
And that at the moment, there is no alien life.
But there will be. And when there will be, it doesn't mean that we evolve until there is.
It means it becomes completely real at one moment in time that hasn't happened yet.
So the history of the alien planets is yet to be written, and maybe it depends on the amount of resources running the simulation.
And until those resources become enough, every UFO sighting will be just a blotch.
Because we'll never be able to see it in a way that we all see it and then harden its existence in the past.
You didn't see that coming, did you?
All right, throw that in your list.
Or as somebody says, Scientology was right.
I guess that's the other possibility.
I'm going to bet against there currently being any alien planets or UFOs.
I'm also going to bet that they do exist in the future.
But that they don't exist yet.
Because we're a simulation.
Alright. There's a lot of talk about killing the filibuster.
Now, this is one of those boring little wonky stories that it's easy to ignore.
But it feels like that's the whole game, doesn't it?
That whoever can kill the filibuster while they're in power, they're going to have way too much power.
And what are the two ways that that could go?
Well, one is that, let's say, Democrats get rid of the filibuster, and that allows them to pass things by a simple majority instead of needing 60% for some kinds of things.
And that would make the Republicans just completely useless.
Because the Democrats have a majority.
They would just vote what they wanted.
It wouldn't matter how much Republicans complained because there's nothing they could do about it.
So would that lead to a one-party dictator eventually?
Maybe. Maybe.
But the other possibility is that the voters would just say, you've gone too far, and then just vote a bunch of Republicans into office.
So I feel like it's self-correcting.
Which I think is the genius of our current system.
We have all kinds of problems all the time with our current system, but it seems kind of self-correcting, doesn't it?
And I feel like that's what China has to be afraid of.
Because China's got a lot of advantages of size and being a dictatorship gives them some advantages, but they don't have what we have.
The ability to just recreate ourselves on the fly.
And that's very powerful.
I would bet on that.
So, I feel as if there are some stories in politics that really show what's wrong with Biden.
Meaning that it doesn't look like he's in charge.
Now, of course, we're looking for that because we think it's going to be true, so we're going to look for evidence to make ourselves look smart.
But with this latest thing where the White House is firing staffers who apparently had used pot in the past, marijuana, that doesn't feel like a Biden in charge, does it?
Do you feel as if a lucid president, if you sat down with him and said, hey, we're going to fire a whole bunch of our staffers that we liked and we want to work here, but we're going to fire them over past pot use?
Do you think that Joe Biden would say, yeah, yeah, we should get rid of our staff that we did so much work to attract and we want to keep them because they used pot in the past?
Do you think he said that?
Do you think that conversation happened?
I don't think so.
I feel as if this story is this gigantic red flag that says nobody even talked to Biden about this.
Right? It looks like he wasn't even involved.
And the reason I say that is that this looks like no human was involved.
Because you know what a human would do?
Not this. Not this.
Let's throw a dart at a human.
Let's see. Alright, got my dart.
Sorry. Sorry, I hit a human with a dart.
Sorry, I was just picking you randomly with the dart.
I'm just going to ask this question.
Do you think the White House should fire people that really wants to work there because they've used pot in the past, which, by the way, is legal in Washington, D.C., where they work?
So you think that's a good idea, the person I hit with the dart?
No. No, you don't think so.
And you're not even a fan of marijuana.
But even you don't think that's a good idea, right?
Anybody you could hit...
With a dart would say this was a bad idea.
Republicans, Democrats, Independents.
This has the look of a non-human decision.
And what I mean by that is there were some rules in place and the humans just followed them.
They didn't use any human judgment.
Because I think the rules say that if you broke a federal law, you can't get clearance or something.
So I think they were just following some technical law, but there doesn't seem to be any chance in the world that the president knew about this.
Because there's nobody who could know about this and would have agreed with it.
He would have just issued an executive order to redefine...
Basically, that's what executive orders are good at.
To just put clarification on existing law.
He can clarify it any way he wants, and he can just clarify it away.
And then we have this extra problem that Kamala Harris admitted her marijuana use in the past.
You kind of have to ask her to leave, or you don't ask the other people to leave.
Again, no human being would have made this decision.
Oh yeah, let's fire all the people who are not Kamala Harris for doing all the things that Kamala Harris admits she does, or did.
No human would make that decision.
This is a leaderless decision.
You get that, right?
There's no leader that was involved in this, and yet it goes on.
And now it's been 24 hours or whatever it's been, and if Biden had any awareness of what was going on with this issue, I feel like he would change it, right?
We would already see a statement saying, oh, I didn't realize this was happening.
The rule says we have to do this, but I'm going to look at the rule.
We're going to reexamine that rule.
That would have happened already if he were anything in charge.
So I don't think that we need to get rid of Kamala Harris for smoking pot in the past, but we have to answer the question, who's in charge?
Because it doesn't look like anybody.
So there was a federal judge who just issued a minority opinion, and it doesn't matter what case it was, because the case he was working on is not relevant to the story.
But this is a federal judge, someone whose job it is to be objective, And I want to read the entire minority statement.
And it's Judge Lawrence Silverman, and the headline is he called New York Times, Washington Post, virtually Democratic Party broadsheets, basically working for the party.
He says, quote, although the bias against the Republican Party, not just controversial individuals, is rather shocking today, this is not new.
There's a long-term secular trend going back to the 70s, Silverman wrote.
Then he said, two of the three most influential papers, at least historically, New York Times, Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets.
And... Hello?
Hello? Yes, hello?
Hello? I'm doing great.
How are you? You're from the Medicare head office?
Excuse me? Hello?
What kind of spam call is that?
Do you know I tipped him off?
I was too happy to talk to him.
As soon as I hear you're happy to talk to him, they're like, this isn't good.
I don't like where this is going.
Alright, what was I saying?
So this federal judge is basically saying that the newspapers are now just a unit of the Democratic Party.
He's a Democratic Party trumpet.
And he lists some other entities that are saying, this is fairly important, I think.
Because for a federal judge to come down this hard on the news business, it feels like something's happening.
Now, I keep telling you that the Democrats are eating their own, and a good example is Bill Maher.
I don't know if he'd call himself a Democrat, but he calls himself a liberal, a classic liberal.
And he's really going hard at the woke group, and it's just fun to watch.
So here's a quote from his show last night, and I think it also tells you something That whatever Bill Maher does on his show becomes news the next day.
How often have you seen this?
Bill Maher does a show, and then that's the news.
That's the news the next day.
So good job, Bill Maher, I mean, of being relevant.
And he said this, quote, people go to parties now and they don't want to talk.
They're like, can I talk?
I don't know your girlfriend.
She might be woke.
He says, really, I'm not making this up, and I believe him.
I believe that that's actually something that people worry about.
I don't know if I could talk to you because I don't know your girlfriend.
She might be too woke.
So he's gone pretty hard at the wokeness stuff, and that's good to see.
Speaking of the fake news, well, yeah, So there's a UK recovery trial, so a big randomized, I think, trial, in which they were looking at, I guess they looked at 39,000 COVID patients, and they looked at them with a bunch of different therapeutics.
So not vaccines, they're just looking at therapeutics, and they studied a bunch of them.
And I read the headline, and it said, so just from the headline, it looked like Dexamethasone works.
It reduced, I don't know, death or hospitalization by a third.
So dexamethasone looked really good.
And there was one other thing, anti-ill-6 or something.
So another one looked pretty good.
But the headline said that the ones that were not included and did not make a difference included hydroxychloroquine.
So 39,000 people studied.
And no effect, absolutely no effect of people who are hospitalized, no benefit from hydroxychloroquine.
I'll wait for about 10 seconds for somebody in the comments to tell me what's wrong with this story.
Now, I didn't see in the story that they were testing ivermectin, so I don't know about that one.
Okay, what's wrong with the story?
There you go. Didn't take you long, right?
Somebody in the comments already is on it.
I don't know how many times I have to say this.
The claim for hydroxychloroquine is that it works if you get it really early, like when the first symptoms come on.
Now, I'm not saying that's true.
I don't want to be kicked off of social media.
I'm saying that other people's claim was that it works if you get it really early.
They also claim that they don't have any reason to believe it would work once you're already hospitalized.
What do they test every time they test hydroxychloroquine?
They only test it the way nobody thinks it works.
Nobody's claiming.
Nobody. No scientist.
I don't believe anybody has claimed it works once you're hospitalized.
The only claim...
Was that it might have an effect if you get it really early.
That's the only claim. And every time I see these motherfuckers test it wrong, I just say to myself, is this happening right in front of me?
Are you assholes really only testing the thing that nobody thinks works?
That's it? You didn't fucking think once to test the thing that might work?
Now I'm not saying it works.
My guess is it doesn't.
If I had to give you my personal opinion of hydroxychloroquine, it doesn't work.
That would be my guess.
Because it's been so long without it being confirmed.
I feel it would have been confirmed by now.
So I've been telling you all along, I started with a reasonable percentage that, you know, it's worth the risk because it's so low cost.
But I've said from the beginning, That every month that went by without confirming it worked, you should reduce your confidence that it might.
And I'd reduced it, you know, all the way to 20% and less.
And now if it turns out that it doesn't work at all, even if you gave it to people in the right time, I don't know.
So here's the thing.
As mad as I am that this has not been tested in the way that people claim it might work, I don't know if that's reasonable.
Because I don't know any country that's giving anybody anything just because they might have some symptoms.
Do you? Is any country routinely prescribing something to somebody who just has a cough?
You know, they're 25 years old and they've got a little COVID cough and they test positive.
I think they just send them home.
Don't they? Somebody said India, but I'll bet you they only give it to them in the hospital.
Because Somebody says Africa.
I don't think so. I think in Africa they may be taking it for malaria and just have it in their system.
Now, I think the stories about India are not true.
And I believe it's the same reason.
I don't think that they give it in India just because you had a cough.
I'll bet not. I'll bet against it, but I don't know for sure.
Alright, so here we're supposed to trust and love science.
But science, of course, is only reported to us by journalists, and journalists do stuff like this.
They say, yeah, hydroxychloroquine doesn't work, and then they don't show you that they didn't really even test it.
It doesn't work, but we didn't test it.
Football player Deshaun Watson faces, let's see, 22 women.
Are accusing him of sexual allegations, I guess.
Twenty-two.
And I think most of them are massage parlor employees.
So, what did I tell you when Governor Cuomo got up to his second accusation?
And I said, it never stops at two.
It never stops at two.
Sometimes an accusation will stop at one.
And those you have to wonder if they're true.
You know, it's a little less credible.
Only one person accuses you.
But when you get to two, the odds of a third one coming out, like, it just goes off the chart, right?
You're going to get a third one.
And when I saw this story first, there was one accuser the other day against Watson.
I said to myself, if there's two...
There might be a lot.
22 so far.
Now, you really want to be sickened?
That's 22 who came forward.
That's 22 who came forward.
How many were there?
Because they don't all come forward.
How many people did this guy rape?
Rape or sexually whatever the term is for what he did.
This guy's like the biggest monster in the world if these things are true, but he's innocent until proven guilty.
Let me not be a jerk for a moment and respect the system.
The system says that Deshaun Watson is innocent until proven guilty.
You're not going to stick with that.
You know, we all have the human intuition that this is way too much smoke to have no fire.
But on the other hand, he's innocent until proven guilty.
All right. The guy who shot up the massage parlor in Atlanta said he had a sexual addiction.
Now there's some talk about whether it's even real.
And I've always wondered that, too.
It's like, where's the line between somebody who just really, really likes it and somebody who's got an addiction?
And some smart people have some lines that they can draw there.
But Bill Maher had a statistic.
I don't know where he got it from, but on last night's show.
He said that a poll shows that single people, on average, let's say, pleasured themselves three times a day during the pandemic.
So three times a day, the average single person did a little solo lovemaking.
And I said to myself, he didn't specify men.
And so, somebody says, no way.
And so I ask you this.
If the average was three times a day, but that included men and women, I would think that the men...
We're maybe bringing the average up, and the women maybe were bringing it down.
And so what was the actual average just for men?
And then what was the average for men under 50?
Right? Because you're also throwing in the average men who are 80 years old.
I've got a feeling that the men under 40 weren't doing anything else.
What else was there to do?
I think I'll go to a rest...
No. Well, I think I'll go to the gym...
No. Well, I could go to a move...
No.
I could go see my friend...
No.
Well, I could go...
I can't travel.
What's left? What's left?
So if you ask me, three times a day sounds a little bit low, but that's just me.
Two stories that Rasmussen was tweeting about today, the Rasmussen poll people.
I don't know if you knew this, but two separate stories that are kind of connected.
So in Arizona, the court approved a state legislature directed a full forensic audit.
So this is for the 2020 election.
So the election is over. But the Arizona court, now here's the important point.
It was a court that approved a full audit.
Secondly, in Georgia, there was a court-supervised Fulton County full physical ballot audit, which they don't have a result yet, but it's happening.
Now here's the part I'm confused about.
See if you can explain this to me.
Because on one hand, the courts have found no fraud, significant widespread fraud, in the 2020 election.
Do we all agree on that? That's just a fact, right?
The courts, the courts, have found no proof, none, no proof, of widespread election fraud.
We're all agreed on that, right?
That's just a fact. And the Democrats have explained to me that that means it doesn't exist.
And that that's just logic.
No courts have found widespread fraud.
Then logic says doesn't exist.
We've been hearing this on all the news and social media for months, right?
Did I get that wrong?
That if the courts couldn't find any...
Therefore, logically, it doesn't exist.
But now here's the confusing part.
The courts in both Arizona and Georgia have allowed audits to audit something that can't exist.
So why would you approve looking for something...
That logic says can't exist.
Are they just humoring the people?
Say, well, you have a right to do it.
We know it's not there, but go ahead and look.
Anyway, I'm just being a jerk.
My prediction, as I've told you, is that the election outcome won't change, but history will have a different take on this election.
And what's happening now is probably part of Small part of figuring out what that history is going to look like.
Another hoax alert.
There's always a hoax alert.
Do you remember the alleged racist cop who excused the Atlanta spa shooter by saying that he had, quote, a really bad day?
Well, that's a racist, isn't he?
Because he's minimizing a murder of a bunch of Asian or Asian American people.
Folks, so very racist.
That was the news all day.
But it turns out that all he was doing was trying to characterize the shooter's own opinion.
It wasn't his opinion.
He was describing somebody else's opinion.
Accurately, as it turns out.
So, fake news. Alright, I want to end on this.
You know how when you were a kid, maybe you're still a kid, There was always some grandpa or grandma who was telling you how hard things were back in their day.
Back in my day.
And I tweeted down something that's true.
So the following statements are true.
And it's just one of those snapshots in time of how things were in my life.
So these are true statements.
I've been robbed at gunpoint three times and once by knife.
I've been in two car crashes and one motorcycle accident.
And I've escaped from three burning buildings.
And I'm still here.
Now, I also cured a few incurable diseases along the way.
There was a lot that happened so far.
But if you were to do a similar tweet, would it look that bad?
Let me explain some of them.
I was a bank teller, so two of the robberies were when I was working as a bank teller.
You know, they come up and stick the gun at you and take your money.
One happened in a parking lot in San Francisco at night.
Another one happened on Marcus Street in San Francisco at night.
That was the guy with the knife.
I've been in two car crashes, but I didn't get hurt either one.
I've been in one pretty bad motorcycle accident where I was thrown a pretty large distance off my motorcycle.
Landed, landed.
I stuck the landing, basically.
I got really lucky.
I'll tell you about that.
It was a dirt bike when I was a teenager.
I was going across a field.
My front tire hit a gopher hole.
So if you're going fast and your front tire just stops, your motorcycle flips up in the air, you take a ride, and as I was flying through the air, And I was flipping around in the air, and I said to myself, you know, this field I'm going to land in has fairly large rocks all over.
It's like a field with a lot of rocks.
And I'm in the air, and I'm going to come down in this rock field.
I'm going to be kind of dead.
And I'm having these thoughts as I'm in the air.
I'm going to be dead in about a boom!
Landed flat on my back.
Rocks all around me.
Didn't touch a single rock.
Landed flat on my back with a helmet.
I had a helmet on, so I was fine.
Now, he shook me up.
The motorcycle was toast and was never the same.
But I lived. And I look at all these various bicycle accidents and various things that have happened to me, and it really makes you wonder...
About the role of luck, doesn't it?
It really makes you wonder about luck.
Because so many people whose lives didn't work out well had one of these incidents and it didn't go right.
I have a friend who died parachuting.
Things don't go right.
So it does make me wonder about the nature of our existence.
Why is it that I got so lucky?
And then somebody says, so why are you lying so much?
Do you think any of this is made up?
Why would I make these things up?
These would be weird things to make up.
And I was wondering if other people have lives like that.
One of the questions that people asked me was to teach them how to tell a story.
And I'm going to do that to you right now.
How many of you would like to be better at telling a story?
Wouldn't you like to be that person who can get people's attention and everybody's looking at you and you tell that story?
Or even just talking to a friend.
And I'm going to give you the trick.
And it goes like this.
You have to tell the story to yourself in your head a lot of times before the first time you tell it to anyone else.
So your story should have some curiosity in the beginning.
So when I told you my story about a motorcycle accident and then you started hearing it developing, weren't you curious?
So I tried to give you a little curiosity about how it turns out.
So that's a good story.
It starts with something that sparks your curiosity.
Then there's the body of the story, which is just what happened.
If you want to be a good storyteller, tell it fast.
Don't do this. And then there was Bob.
I think it was Bob.
It was Tuesday. No, it wasn't Bob.
It was Larry. It was Wednesday.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter when it was.
So that's the way most people tell stories.
The only way to avoid what I just did is to prepare your story in your head in advance.
Now, I do this automatically because I'm a writer, but I've kind of always done it.
I always think, how would I tell this as a story?
What would be the opening sentence?
What would be the sequence of events?
And then I tell it in my head in words until I can repeat it out loud and it's just repeating what was in my head.
And then you have to have some kind of a big ending, like a close, a punchline, something that's amazing or something that's humorous.
If it doesn't have a good ending, Why are you telling this story?
Why make us wait till the end if there's no ending?
So you've got to have a curiosity, a really rapid pace, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, only because you practiced it, and then a good twist or a punchline or something at the end.
You do those things, keep it tight, keep it short, you'll be a good storyteller.
That's all you need.
But preparing it in your head Before you tell it the first time is the big trick.
So you get that and you'll be in good shape.
Alright, that's all I need for now.
We will talk to you tomorrow.
Bye for now. Alright, YouTubers.
Luck comes from the simulation.
It sure feels like it, doesn't it?
What is your opinion on psychedelic therapy for gender dysphoria?
Well, I've never heard that used per se, but psychedelic treatments, I think, are going to be one of the biggest things in the next few years.
So there are some things that just living in California I get to see first.
It's like living in the future compared to the rest of the world.
And let me say with certainty that Psychedelics will be huge in mental health treatment.
Huge. And it will be maybe one of the biggest things in civilization.
That's how big it is. Because it will change how you think.
There's nothing bigger than that.
And it will work almost every time.
There will be exceptions, of course.
Some people will probably die from it.
It's like everything else. But to your specific question about gender dysphoria, if that means what I think it is, which is somebody who thinks they're trapped in the wrong body, you could imagine that psychedelics would allow you to be comfortable with your situation as it is.
I can imagine that.
I don't know that to be true, and I wouldn't even say it's likely, but I can imagine it.
And what I've said with the gender dysphoria is that There's an assumption that if you feel trapped in the wrong body, that the best cause of action would be to try to fix that by altering the body.
But I don't know that we have evidence that that works.
So I don't know that we have evidence that the person's mental state, their general happiness, is going to be necessarily better after a transition.
But we do live in a free country, and people do get to make those decisions themselves.
And it's not up to me To tell you what will make you happy.
But you're also accepting that the gender dysphoria is a mental problem versus just people are different.
At what point does people are different become a mental problem?
So the way you set up the question is that transgenders would have a mental problem.
It's the way you ask the question.
And I reject that because I think that the range of what is normal to be human is just so vast.
Such a vast range.
That's well within it, in my opinion.
The people who have non-standard thoughts about their sexual entity, it's just sort of normal.
I wouldn't call that a mental illness.
It's just people are different.
At the point that 41% of people like you are killing themselves.
Now, is there a high suicide rate among the trans community, right?
I don't know that it's that high.
I don't think it is.
But you can imagine that that would be an unusually difficult life.
So it wouldn't surprise me.
Alright. That's all I've got for now.
Somebody says, I quit tennis because it was too hard on my body.
Now I only do what I call monkey exercises.
A monkey exercise is something similar to what an ape or a monkey would do, as opposed to running a marathon.
No monkey runs a marathon.
But they might sprint and climb up a tree and lift a baby and pull themselves up on a limb.
So I do things that are weight training and flexibility and sprinting, but I don't do distance.
And tennis is such a non-natural act.
You just end up killing all your joints and then you can't exercise.
