Episode 1356 Scott Adams: Turkey Gets Stuffed, Propaganda Updates, Mandatory Kneeling, and More Outrages
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
"Dry Wood" theory and COVID death rate
India's COVID issues spiking
Kirsten Hening refused to kneel
Brain Damage warning for propaganda "news"?
Biden recognizes Armenian Genocide
MSNBC still pushing "Drinking Bleach" HOAX
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, I don't want to ruin it, but it might be one of the best coffees with Scott Adams of all time.
And if you'd like to enjoy it to the maximum potential, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a stein, a canteen drink, a flask, a vessel of any kind, filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that's going to make everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and watch it happen right now.
Go! Ah!
That's what I call good stuff.
Well, let's see what's going on today.
So according to Fox News, Biden's catch-and-release program for migrants, so these are the ones who authorities are processing, and then they're released without court dates.
So more than 15,000 have been released into the wild.
But here's my question.
I'm not sure that releasing people after they've been processed in 2021 is exactly the same as it used to be.
Because you know, there's one technology that's a little different now.
I assume that part of the process of processing these folks Involves taking a photograph?
Is that fair to say?
Does a photograph get into the government system every time we process somebody?
I assume so, right?
Now once you have a photograph of somebody who is undocumented, and we have facial recognition which is rolling out everywhere, is the ability to just blend into the economy and disappear without being a legal citizen?
I don't know if that exists anymore.
I feel as if our electronic, let's say, requirements of life now will follow you.
I mean, if they take your picture, you're effectively tagged.
It's just like tagging an animal and releasing.
Because anywhere there's a camera, you can find them.
So I would imagine that although we don't have all the assets in place to immediately track every citizen everywhere...
You know it's coming. So I'm not so sure that it matters as much as it used to if you release people into the country.
Now, I know you don't like it.
I'm just saying that compared to the risk of the past, the technology might be coming to its own, and maybe you don't like that either because of privacy, etc.
But just stating it as a fact, facial recognition is going to make it really hard to disappear.
Right? So, immigration and facial technology are going to bump into each other.
And that's going to be a big story coming up.
New York Times is reporting that the death rate for 2020 was the highest above normal ever recorded in the country, surpassing even the 1918 flu pandemic.
Now, I put that out there, and New York Times reported it, and I tweeted it, and I asked if the skeptics, the pandemic skeptics, have they been convinced?
You know, is this enough to finally convince the skeptics that there was a real pandemic and it really killed a lot of people?
And the answer is, Nope.
Not even close. Not even close.
And I'm always amused at what level of information it would take to change anybody's mind.
And let me tell you the pushback.
And by the way, the pushback is valid.
So even though it came from the New York Times, it looked like it would be a pretty big claim to make if they couldn't back it up.
But we have questions.
If you look at the 1918 pandemic, the Spanish flu, you see that they too had a gigantic spike in deaths over the baseline.
No surprise, right?
But the following year, After the gigantic Spanish flu spike in deaths, it was way under the death rate.
So the amount of the next year that it was below the average largely compensated for the amount that was above the average the year before.
So, what do we know about the death rate from coronavirus so far?
Nothing. We don't know anything.
Because until we have another full year, we don't know if we're going to have that same situation where there's a spike and then a gigantic below average year.
If that happens...
We're going to be close to break-even.
And it's going to look like...
What is the theory?
The dried tinder theory?
That the people who died of coronavirus are the people who are very, very likely going to die in the next 12 months from whatever comorbidity they had.
Now, maybe they didn't know it, but the data might actually show that that's what's happening.
Can we look at this data and say, my God, it's clear that this virus was extra, extra deadly?
Nope. Because we don't know how the numbers come out.
And, importantly, we don't know how many of those deaths are because of the lockdown.
Right? That's what you want me to say.
How many of you were just saying, Scott, say there are also deaths because of the lockdown.
Say it. Say it, Scott.
Okay, I said it. I think everybody agrees that there is some number of extra deaths attributed directly to the pandemic lockdown and extra suicides, extra, you know, doses of everything.
And then here's another question I ask about the Spanish flu pandemic.
In 1918, how well were we counting deaths?
Because I feel as if a lot of people probably just died at home, didn't they?
In 1918? And if you have a pandemic, maybe people end up in the hospital because it takes a little while for them to die, and maybe they get counted.
See where I'm going? In 1918, maybe all that happened was they were good at counting COVID deaths, but they were bad at counting every other kind of death.
Because maybe just people died at home and didn't get recorded somehow.
I'm just speculating. So I don't know if the 1918 deaths tell us anything, and I don't know if the 2020 deaths tell us anything.
And they're also not done, because I think they cut off in September of 2020.
So every time I think I'm going to learn something because data came out, have you noticed it doesn't work?
No matter what you do, oh, we got this new fresh data.
Now we know, no we don't, we don't know anything.
How did you feel about data five years ago?
Think about it. What was your belief about any kind of data that you saw in the news about a big issue?
Five years ago, didn't you think it's probably true?
Right? You know, not always, because there were lots of things that weren't true always.
But five years ago, you probably said to yourself, well, it's probably true.
It's in the news.
What do you say now?
Don't you say it's probably not true?
I feel like that's a big shift, right?
You know, there's almost nothing I can see in the news in terms of new data that I would actually just believe the first time I saw it.
I would say, maybe.
I might talk about it like it's true, but in the back of my mind I'd be thinking, eh, maybe, maybe not.
So that's a big change in society that we've moved from believing data that our officials give to us versus assuming it's not true.
And I believe there's some extra freedom in that, meaning that maybe it's a good thing.
Maybe it's a really good thing that we don't believe official data.
Maybe that's a big improvement.
There's something going on in India, and like everything else in the world, we don't understand it.
So India we thought was doing unusually well and couldn't explain it.
But now India is doing unusually not well, and I'm still not sure we can explain it.
I think they may have changed some social distancing standards, but I don't know if that's the reason, because we never know.
But we do know that their hospitals are overrun.
So we know something's happening because the hospitals are, you know, overfilled and they're running out of oxygen and stuff.
And there's a big question about whether the United States is doing enough to help in terms of vaccine materials, etc.
Now, I don't know the details of that.
It could be that it's just not easy to help and we can't do it.
I gotta think that for the long run, I can't think of anything that would be better for American homeland security than making a really good try to help India.
Because the only thing that's keeping China from dominating the world is that there are other big countries that ideally can band together.
The United States and India are natural allies because they both have concern about China.
They're both democracies.
And, you know, we get along great, India and the United States.
So I don't feel that we should be treating India like a normal ally.
I don't think we should treat India like France.
And we're good to France.
France is a long-term ally.
I feel like we should be a little extra good to India, because they're a little extra important to our long-term future, just as we are to theirs.
We're sort of You know, bound together by the common threat of China, I believe.
So whatever we can do there to make sure that the population of India goes away saying that the United States did what it could.
You know, people understand that countries will take care of their own population first, but still, Probably a little bit we could do that we're not doing.
And I feel like I'd like the Indian public to know that the United States was squarely on their side, like unambiguously, just on their side.
So if we could get that done, that would be good.
Well, I finally crossed 100,000 subscribers on YouTube.
Yay! And I thought I'd give you a little update on shadow banning, allegedly.
Now, the weird thing about any of this social media shadow banning or whatever it is, is that you can never really be sure.
Right? There are all kinds of things that look like, maybe?
Was this shadow banning?
I really can't tell.
But I'll just sort of tell you what's happening.
As you know, a number of my videos get demonetized, sometimes taken down, more rarely taken down.
But YouTube does watch me pretty carefully, and apparently I've been close enough to the line of getting canceled that I get demonetized on a regular basis.
And that's sort of their warning, that there's something you're doing that's not quite 100% cool with the rules.
Now, almost all I don't know the ratio, 95% maybe, of the things they demonetize get reversed on appeal, meaning that they shouldn't have been demonetized.
Is it intentional?
Do you think that getting demonetized 95% of the time Is nothing but the algorithm looking for keywords and there's no human intervention in that?
Could be. Because I talk about a lot of controversial issues.
So the keyword alone could make some advertisers anxious.
So it could be just that.
I wouldn't rule that out. But I was looking at my traffic over the last year, and you can see that my traffic built and built and built through the end of 2020.
But just about the time when the big conversation was the big lie.
Do you remember the big lie?
That's what the mainstream media decided was the term for anybody who was talking about the election integrity in the non-approved way.
So if you had any non-approved thoughts about election integrity...
You were in trouble on social media.
So my traffic was up, up, up, up, and roughly my hand is about where the chart was.
It was a pretty good climb.
Up, up, up, up, up, until all the conversation was about the integrity of the election, and then straight downhill for several months, and then as soon as nobody was really talking about the election integrity anymore, up, up, up, up, up, up, right back up.
So... I can't tell if there was any human involvement or algorithmic involvement in what was straight up, straight down, and then back up again.
But it does coincide with the time that the powers that be were trying to suppress competing opinions about the credibility of the election.
Was that a coincidence?
Was it just because the Trump conversation fell off?
But then I would expect my traffic just to go down forever, right?
If the only thing that changed was that Trump is out of office, so people who wanted to listen to me for that purpose didn't need to, but that would just mean it would go down forever, or flatten, but it took off again.
You just have to wonder, right?
And the fact that we don't know if this is natural or manipulated is really concerning.
I feel as if I should know if there are human beings suppressing what I'm doing or just the algorithm or just life in general.
I have no idea.
In fact, I don't even have a good guess of which one of those things is causing the change.
So there's a story about a young woman, Kirsten Henning, she was on a soccer team for some college, and she refused to kneel as part of the Black Lives Matter stuff.
She was very much in favor of the concept, the Black Lives Matter as a concept, but did not like the organization and didn't think that she wanted to participate.
So she didn't kneel, and she got kicked off the team.
For not kneeling. Since when is kneeling mandatory in the United States?
Seriously? You know, lots of times when I look at people's behavior, I ask myself, would I do that?
If I were in that situation, would I be the one person who got kicked off the team?
And the answer is, yeah.
Yeah, I would have been her.
So, there is a really, really big difference between, hey, we'd like you to kneel, we're mad at you that you didn't, and you have to.
The moment it becomes required, required to kneel to an organization or, really?
In the United States, you're required to get on your knees to an idea?
I don't care how good the idea is.
That's not happening.
So let me say as full-throatedly as I can that I support this Kirsten Heening, I guess.
Henning or Heening. So yeah, and I would hire her in a heartbeat if I were hiring whatever it is that she's going to look for a job.
Because that's the person you want.
You want the person who is going to say, yeah, now you've gone too far.
I'm with you on the concept, but I'm not going to get on my knees because you're going to make me.
It's just not going to happen.
So yeah, I would have walked down to the team as well.
You know, Twitter has become this weird alternate reality where a number of people that I follow and follow me are in the skeptical camp.
And It is amazing to see the data that the skeptics put on Twitter versus everybody else.
It's just completely different worlds.
And the data, if you didn't know any better, if you weren't good at sort of recognizing BS, It looks just as good.
They're opposites.
One will say that the sky is blue, the other says the sky is orange, and they'll just be at the same time, about the same data, as if we can't tell the difference.
We can't. I actually don't know sometimes what's true.
But I've started to block the skeptics who have been so wrong for so long.
You know, I say this often, but the people who are doubting the official narrative are, you know, patriots and heroes, and you need them, even when they're wrong.
You need the skeptics even when they're completely wrong.
You just have to have that tension.
But we've reached a point where some of the skeptics, I'm not going to name names, but some of them have been so wrong for so long That I just can't see them anymore.
I just have to block them out of my life.
So you may disappear if you're following me, if you've gone too far, right?
I'm still okay with the people doubting mask effectiveness, if you want.
That's fine. But, you know, there are some things that are just so beyond proven now that I don't think skepticism is warranted.
But it's a judgment call.
Here's an update on propaganda.
Some people call it news.
Huffington Post ran this headline.
People are tweeting it around.
Cops kill six people in 24 hours after the Chauvin conviction.
Don't you feel that headline needed a little context?
That the police kill six people in 24 hours after the Chauvin conviction?
Sort of makes you feel as if the police were just going wild and shooting black people.
Nothing like that actually is indicated.
But boy, the Huffington Post doesn't even try to be anything but propaganda.
So I'm wondering if the FDA should require warning labels on news.
What do you think of that?
And I'm not sure if they have that power, but let's just talk about this.
Now we've talked about the fact that science has determined that watching only the news on one side of the political aisle gives you brain damage.
That's the actual word that they use, the scientists do.
Brain damage. Because you can't discern reality from fake news if you're only watching one side.
It doesn't matter which side, only the right or only the left.
Now I've said before that the people on the right, We tend to be automatically exposed to the news on the left because that's in the atmosphere.
It's just sort of around all the time.
But it doesn't work the other way.
The people on the left will never watch Fox News.
They'll never click on a link.
They'll just never see it.
So they're not going to watch Breitbart.
They're not going to watch anything on the right.
So although both sides can be silly, if you're only watching one side, you do get brain damage.
And I wonder if something like the FDA could put a warning label on the news.
And why not?
If you knew that consuming only news from one source gave you brain damage, and again, there's no hyperbole here.
Literally, actually, those words coming from the scientists.
Brain damage.
Shouldn't you label it?
Now, I don't think the label should go too far, because then you'd be impinging on, you know, maybe freedom of speech a little bit too much.
You don't want the government putting too much pressure on freedom of speech.
But truth in labeling is good.
Telling us when there's a legitimate danger, I will still watch it or not watch it.
I still have a choice. You're not taking my right to watch it away.
But what if CNN and the other...
I just use CNN as my example.
You could apply this to all the news stations.
What if they had to run a little notice that said, consuming news from only one source or one cluster of sources, because you know what that means, you know, only the left, only the right...
Or one cluster of similar sources can cause brain damage and make you less capable of functioning as an adult.
Wouldn't that be useful?
Imagine consuming the news with a warning that they just have to run that says much of this news is unlikely to be true.
Because unfortunately, much of the news turns out later to not be true.
But does the public know that?
I don't think the public knows that.
I think some of the public knows it.
But let's put a warning label on the news.
And I would put it on all the news.
I wouldn't discriminate and say it's just CNN or MSNBC. You'd have to do it on all of them.
That's my take. So I guess there was some big UFC fight last night.
I don't really follow this sport.
And the reason I don't follow it is...
I'm just not a fan of any sport that guarantees brain damage for lots of people.
I guess that's my theme today, brain damage.
And I'm sensitive to the argument that it's a free country and people can take whatever risks they want.
But I really don't understand this one.
I don't understand how you can watch people get brain damage as entertainment.
I've watched some pretty bad things as entertainment, but I can't watch people getting brain damage as entertainment.
I watched a clip yesterday, and I don't know if this was the fight or it was the fight before the fight, but there were two female combatants, and one of them, you know, they were facing off, and one of them does this devastating kick to the head of the other one, And you see the other one just wandering around in a daze and can barely stand up?
And this daze lasts, you know, a long time.
At least in those terms, a long time.
It's obvious, I think, can somebody give me a fact check here?
If somebody gets a strong blow in the face or head, and they're walking around like they're confused, that is brain damage, right?
I mean, we'll call it a concussion or something else, but isn't it brain damage?
And everybody's cheering, yay!
That was magnificent.
Let's replay that.
All I saw was somebody get brain damage.
Like, forever.
Forever. That shit doesn't go away, you know.
When your concussion wears off, you still have the brain damage.
Right? It's only a question of how much.
If you haven't looked into this whole brain damage situation, it's a big deal.
It's a big deal.
And we act like it's not.
So if you want to say it's a free country and people want to damage their brains for your entertainment and their profit, I don't know, maybe that's okay.
It's a free country. But I don't know how you can watch it.
Like, really, I don't. I don't understand it at all.
But it's, you know, personal differences.
So Biden has, somewhat surprisingly, recognized the Armenian genocide by the Turkish historical state.
And if you don't know about this, the general sense of it is that around World War II, I'm sorry, World War I, Turkey was getting rid of Armenians and shipping them off to death camps or camps where they died, or they're murdering them, and basically it was genocide.
Not basically, it was genocide.
And I guess most nations agree on this, but in Turkey they teach their own students that it didn't happen.
So if you're a student in Turkey, you will literally be taught it didn't happen.
Now, given that Turkey is a NATO ally, right, and we don't want problems with Turkey because we need to work with them, it was kind of ballsy for Biden to put the hammer down on him.
And I'm going to say again, You know, you've watched me say good things about Trump when he was in office, and some criticisms.
So I'm going to be, I'll try to be at least a little even-handed.
I think this should have been done by Trump.
I don't know why Trump didn't do this.
This feels like a Biden success that was not a Trump success, and it should have been.
Somebody said he did.
That's not true. No, Trump did not do this.
But I also have to wonder if there's anything behind it.
Is there anything about our relationship with Turkey or anything about the Armenian-American group or anything?
I feel like there's something more to the story about why it happened.
Because Biden's kind of cautious, and I don't think he causes trouble unless he's got a reason.
So I feel like there's more to know about this story, but on the surface, I would say I... I agree with him.
Now, a personal note is that I own some stock in a Turkish company that I thought was going to be a good stock for, let's say, The 20 or 30 years that I thought I'd hold it, which was the Turkish cell phone company.
Now, the company itself is doing great, except that the foreign exchange, the Turkish currency, just went to hell.
So anything you invest there is a loser.
So it's way underwater.
But at this point, I feel like now that the United States has recognized the Armenian genocide and that Turkey is still denying it, I feel like I just don't want my money there anymore.
So I'll probably pull it out on Monday, just for patriotic reasons, really.
I'm not sure it'll be a bad investment in 10 years, but who knows.
So I don't make any investment advice, so I don't see any investment advice in this.
I'm just telling you, I'm no longer comfortable having any money in Turkey.
Feels like a bad place to have money.
Just my personal opinion.
I love the feud that CNN and Fox News have, where it feels like every day Fox News hosts are being called racist by CNN, and every day that Fox News people are calling CNN as propagandists.
And I feel as if they found a business model where they can make money off of each other's flaws.
So part of the content of each of those news networks is insulting the other one.
It's kind of clever that they managed to weaponize their hatred of each other and their flaws.
But it's working, so good for them.
I would like to make a point which I made in my book, How to Fail Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
It's about optimizers versus simplifiers.
And I think it explains what's going on with the Tony Fauci situation.
Situation meaning that Anthony Fauci is, of course, a technical, medical...
Not medical, but an expert on pandemics, etc.
And he's been telling us that we've got to keep our masks on even if we're vaccinated.
Now, that's an optimizer.
So an optimizer is somebody who doesn't want to leave anything undone.
If you can get everything done, do it, even if it's more complicated.
Whereas a simplifier would say, you know, we'd like to do everything, but it's going to be too hard.
So let's just pick the simplest thing we can do that's also big and see if we can get at least one thing done right.
And I would say that leaders tend to be simplifiers.
I'm going to make a generality here.
Somebody who's a leader or a president, for example, or a governor would be a simplifier because they have to be.
You can't be a good leader if you're complicating your messages.
You've just got to be a Trump-like simplifier.
Reagan was a good simplifier.
But scientists are optimizers.
Scientists are optimizers.
And so it's pretty obvious why you get a difference.
Tony Fauci is saying if you wanted to optimize, you know, reduction of risk, you would get the vaccination, but you would also wear your mask.
And part of it is so that other people, you know, don't feel free that they could take their masks off and maybe they're not vaccinated.
And I think that Dr.
Nicole Sapphire said it best, wrapping up this point, in a tweet.
And she said this.
The best strategy to overcome COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is to assure the public that vaccines will lead to normalizing our lives.
That would be a simple message, right?
Unfortunately, the CDC, Dr.
Fauci, Biden have all missed the mark with messaging, and their lack of liberation recommendations adds to the hesitancy.
So the point here being that if you could say to people, get your vaccinations, And you can take your mask off.
Simple, right? Now, is it true that we know for sure that taking your mask off would be okay, or okay enough?
The answer is there's a little bit of uncertainty, but we do know that the risk would be smallish.
And so, As Dr.
Sapphire says, and I agree, if you're trying to get people to take the vaccination, and that's the most important thing, let's say from the perspective of our government, percentage of people getting vaccinated is the most important thing.
You can disagree about vaccinations, but just follow along with the point.
If it's the most important thing, you don't want to work against yourself by saying you still have to wear masks when you're done.
Even if that would be a little bit better, we think maybe not so sure, a little bit.
You're way better letting people die to that tiny little risk because the greater benefit of getting more vaccinations, according to the government, would be much better.
Matthew says, I'm spitting facts.
I don't know what that means.
60% of new cases had the vaccination.
I doubt that's true. But there is a period between the vaccination and when you're covered.
So that might be part of any data problems there.
Somebody says, all the evidence shows that COVID shots are dangerous.
Now this is that two worlds thing.
You can live on Twitter in a certain world in which all of the information says that the shots are more bad than good.
But you can live in a different world in which it's unambiguously true that the vaccinations are good for you in the world.
Those worlds are completely...
They're complete.
You can just go into either of those worlds and live in it like the other one doesn't even exist.
So if there's somebody out here who says all of the data says that the shots are dangerous, you're in a bubble.
Maybe you picked the right bubble.
That would be lucky. But just be aware that the smartest people in the world disagree with you.
Sorry, that's just a fact.
The smartest, most well-informed people in the world are overwhelmingly pro-vaccination.
Overwhelmingly. Not even close.
So if you're living in a little Twitter, social media world in which it seems that vaccinations are a bad idea, you're not seeing the smart people.
You seem to have found a bubble in which there are some smart people, but they would be in the skeptical camp.
All right. It's like wearing a helmet in a car, somebody says.
Yeah, so the point is, whether or not being vaccinated is a complete reduction of risk or not, you should still simplify and act like it is.
Because that's how to get to the finish line better.
All right. Somebody says, the smartest people want to enslave us?
Well, it's still optional, right?
If the smartest people say, you know, X has a risk, so far we still have some options about it, right?
Now, shots won't prevent...
So there's somebody here saying that shots won't prevent COVID-19.
You really have a data problem, if you believe that shots...
Oh, in fact, I was seeing this morning, one of the people that I had to block was presenting graphs that show that the number of infections skyrockets after the vaccines roll out.
I don't know of anything that is less likely to be true than that.
And they have official sources.
Official sources that show a whole different world than the rest of the world is seeing.
The rest of the world sees that when the shots roll out, the number of infections plunges.
United States, Israel, etc.
But there's a whole other world where they're seeing exactly the opposite graphs.
That as soon as you get a vaccination, you get the disease and the number of infections skyrockets.
They can't both be true.
And I feel very confident in saying that vaccinations are not causing more COVID. And I feel very confident in saying that we do know by now that they work.
Now, if you're worried about long-term complications, that's something we don't know about.
Right? There's no way to know because it's not the long term yet.
But certainly we know that they vastly reduce the risk of getting COVID. We do know that.
So if there's anybody here who still thinks that the vaccinations just don't work, you are really lost, my friends.
I mean, you're really lost.
because overwhelmingly the smart people know they work.
All right.
So I went over to MSNBC, and sure enough, they've got a big article there about the biggest hoax of 2020, or one of the two biggest...
And still, they're saying a year later that Trump recommended drinking or ingesting disinfectants.
They're still saying that.
As of today, MSNBC is still telling its audience that Trump recommended drinking disinfectants.
Now, that's the most debunked lie in the world.
If anybody's here who doesn't know it, just Google Heal Light.
H-E-A-L-I-G-H-T. That's the technology that is the UV light that's injected into the body via trachea, you know, a ventilator-like device into your trachea.
That was in the news and around social media at the same time that Trump was talking about it.
I had tweeted about it. I'd talked about it.
It was a real thing. And he talked about it as UV light.
He clearly was aware of that technology.
Whether that becomes a good technology or not, probably not.
I mean, most things they test don't work out.
But it was a real thing.
And MSNBC said that.
He was talking about bleach or disinfectant or something.
Just amazing. It's amazing that this can happen right in front of you.
So the propaganda is just over the top.
And I feel like there was something I was going to tell you that I forgot.
But maybe I didn't.
Oh yes, this. Given that I've reached 100,000 subscribers on YouTube, which I think was kind of a...
Kind of a tightrope between getting cancelled and not getting cancelled.
But so far I haven't been cancelled.
And I was inspired by the story that I told you about the young woman who wouldn't kneel.
And she sort of inspired me a little bit, honestly, to do the following tweet.
Alright? And I tweeted this.
We'll see if this gets me cancelled.
I said, as a general rule...
I try to not care about anyone who acts as if they don't care about themselves.
That's why I don't care about anyone who resists arrest.
It's still a tragedy, but it won't ever be a priority of mine.
I do care about ending systemic racism by teachers' unions, so that's in my tweet.
Now, let me tell you the technique I had to use to keep myself from getting cancelled here.
If you don't know how to do this, don't do what I did.
Because you could so easily get cancelled for a tweet like this if you don't have enough technique.
So let me tell you the technique that's in it.
Number one, I did not say that I don't care about black lives.
That would get you cancelled.
Because, of course, I do care about black lives.
Number two, I did not say all lives matter.
Because that'll get you cancelled.
So I stayed away from the third rails that are the obvious ones.
But I'm still in dangerous territory, right?
Because I'm saying very clearly that I don't care about anyone who is resisting arrest.
And the theory is, why should I care about someone who's not acting as if they even care about themselves?
I get that it's a tragedy.
It's a tragedy for the person.
It's a tragedy for the police officer.
Nothing good comes from a shooting.
Tragedy for the family. So it's definitely a tragedy, but it's not my tragedy.
And if I'm going to rank all the tragedies to care about, it's going to be close to last.
You have to at least care about yourself before you can even come to me and ask me to care about you.
And although I can't read your mind, if you're acting exactly like you don't care about your own life, I don't care about you.
I really don't. So when I watch any police shooting of somebody resisting arrest, I just don't care.
I really don't.
Now, I understand it's a tragedy.
Actually, I do care about the family.
So I care about the surviving family.
Because they didn't do anything, right?
The family was just minding their own business.
So it's a tragedy for them.
But I don't care about the perpetrator.
Because they took that...
They took that away. If you're not going to act, just at least act like you care about yourself.
Then I'll get involved.
I'll care about you too. But I'm not going to help people who can't do the smallest thing to help themselves.
That's just a complete waste of time.
Has anybody here ever tried to help somebody who was a lost cause?
How'd it work out? In the comments, let me see how many of you have tried it.
Have you tried to help somebody who was just too far gone and you just wasted your time?
Just nothing good came from it.
How many of you have been in that situation?
Look at the comments. Yep, yep, it never works out.
Yep, you give up.
Yes, it red-pilled me.
Oh, somebody says it worked out good.
Every once in a while. Many times.
Yes. Yes, it didn't.
Yes, yes, yes. Save your breath.
Yeah. I would say the minimum requirement of wasting your...
Not wasting your time. Let me restate that.
The minimum requirement to care about other people enough to help them out is that you have to see they're doing something for themselves.
Like that they have some intention...
There are tons of people who have no intention of success.
That's very obvious.
They have no intention of succeeding, no intention of being a good citizen.
And what can you do?
That's interesting.
The best advice you ever gave me was on deciding.
Okay.
Let me restate that advice.
So a user here is saying the best advice I ever gave was about deciding.
And now what that was, was the difference between wanting something and deciding to have it.
The people resisting arrest and getting hurt, they want to be treated right.
And they want to be safe and they probably want to live.
But they haven't decided.
Because if you decide, it's got to sell out.
So I can't tell you how many times over my career somebody has called me a sellout.
Now, let me summarize by saying that that comment sort of labels you as a fucking idiot.
Because you understand that public people are selling things for a living, right?
That we're all selling something?
What does selling out mean?
Because... You have my honest opinion.
You know that I've probably lost a third of my income by giving my honest opinions.
So what exactly is selling out?
I'll tell you what it means. Everybody who uses that term is so low on the awareness level as a human being that you're somewhere between stupid and fucking asshole.
So, try to improve your game.
Criticism's great. I don't mind it at all.
I've told you that a good criticism is like money in the bank.
If somebody criticizes me in a way that I can change something, improve it, I'm like, whoa!
Cha-ching! That's a good criticism.
I'll take it. But...
Scott's selling out.
I tell you, it's such a low level of criticism that I just don't know how you can wake up and keep yourself fed.
I mean, really, you're barely human at that level.
So, I have a suggestion for all the conservatives who are tired of being called racists for just having an opinion on pretty much anything.
And I'm going to get this...
This comes from a classmate of mine in seventh grade.
Her name was Debbie.
I doubt she's watching this.
Now, Debbie was one of the cute girls, you know, the attractive girls who tend to be the mean girls because they can get away with it.
You know, they're popular and they're attractive.
And one of the things that the mean girls did is, and it was especially devastating at that age, if you tried to talk to them and you were not one of the cool boys, they would mock whatever you said this way.
I'll give you my impression.
So if a guy, say a 7th grade boy, came up to Debbie or one of her friends and said, Hey Debbie, would you...
Would you like to hang out with me this weekend?
Debbie would look at you and in front of her friends would say, Oh, you'd like to hang out with me this weekend?
And she would just say what you said, but like somebody with brain damage.
And it was devastating.
Because there's nothing you can do to it.
You just shrink away.
You're like, alright. You just get out of there.
It's just absolutely devastating.
And I was thinking about it because, you know, every day CNN is blaming a Fox News host of being a racist for one thing or another.
And it would just be hilarious if the way all the conservatives handled those accusations is the way Debbie did.
So that when, you know, let's say Jim, whatever his name is, on CNN... So let's say he's doing an opinion piece, and he says, blah, blah, blah, blah, that cartoonist has said this or that, and so he's a racist.
And my response would just be, well, Jim had a quote today.
He said, oh, Jim Acosta, yes.
Jim Acosta said, and just leave it there.
Don't even deal with the facts.
Just go, he's a racist.
And just every time they say it, just do the same Debbie Mean Girl, and just leave it there.
Never, ever deal with any of the content.
You know that mocking is powerful, right?
If you haven't been mocked by a 14-year-old girl when you're a 14-year-old boy, you haven't been mocked.
Let me tell you. That's like the gold standard of mocking.
Really good stuff.
Powerful. I'm watching some of you do it in the comments, and I can tell that this is popular.
Critical race theory.
F-f-f-f-f-f-f-f.
Yeah, President Trump was the gold standard of mocking.
Yeah, you're right. He probably was better.
All right, so a lot of you are laughing about that.
All right, we'll try it out. And the next time one of my critics comes after me, I'll do a little video in which I'll respond to my critics with just...
