Episode 1419 Scott Adams: The Pessimist Says I'm Bald. The Optimist Says I Have an Efficient Vitamin D Receptor on My Head
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Whistling to call your cat
The short-sleeper gene
Female Tour de France fan
12 people, 65% anti-vaxx content
How did you arrive at your opinion
Questioning the COVID death count
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, if I've done everything correctly, the sound quality on this production of Coffee with Scott Adams will be amazing.
Amazing. Yes, and I don't think you could ever have a better time Then, enjoying the simultaneous sip with people around the world.
Around the world, yes.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of Chelsea's dye, and a kinteen 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.
The dopamine here.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it makes everything better.
Watch. Go.
Oh yeah. Oh yeah.
So, I don't know if you've noticed, but the news has slowed down a little bit.
A lot of it has to do with a lack of President Trump.
Man, you take Trump out of the headlines, and there's not much happening, is there?
But we'll talk about what is happening.
This might be the slowest news day in a while.
So over on the Locals platform, where if you subscribe, you can see extra content from me, especially the stuff I don't put on social media, because I'll get cancelled.
But I did a little demonstration of whistling up a cat.
Now, I discovered years ago...
That I could whistle a certain frequency and my cat would come running to me.
And she had not been trained to do that.
It just was a weird thing I noticed.
And then I got another cat and that same cat would respond to the same tone and now my third cat.
So I did a little experiment in which I whistled and I wanted to see if people could get their own cats To come to just the sound of my whistle if they just replayed it in their devices.
And it turns out it worked.
So I got a bunch of...
It didn't work for everybody, but quite a number of people responded and said, yeah, my cat, or my dog in some cases, came running as soon as they played it.
Now here's the interesting part.
Ricky G., who's a subscriber over on Locals, he had his musical keyboard next to him, so he matched...
The tone of my whistle to the keyboard and reports that it is the key of E natural above middle E. So if you're musical and you know how to reproduce that on your keyboard, it's the key of E natural above middle E. So try it and see if you can call your cat with that.
Now I think it's going to work if you're the one doing it as opposed to playing it through a device.
Alright. It turns out that there's such a thing as a short sleeper gene.
I've probably told you way too many times that I hate sleep.
I mean, I hate sleeping.
I do it, because I need to, but I hate it.
And I've maybe told you before that if I get more than five hours a night, I'm not happy about it.
Like, if I were forced to sleep eight hours a night, I would just go crazy.
I just couldn't handle it.
But five? Five's about right.
Now, it turns out that researchers have discovered there are some genes that cause some people to be short sleepers and that they actually get all the sleep they need in these four or five hours.
And these people tend to be I like this part because it sounds good to me.
They tend to be ambitious.
People wake up after four or five hours and go to work, like me.
We tend to be ambitious.
So if you hear that there are some people who don't sleep much, they're just genetically different.
And I would have to assume that I'm one of them because after years and years of experience, I know I can't sleep eight hours.
And I know it's painful.
So... So there you have it.
There's some belief that Trump is one of those people.
I've heard it said from, I think his butler used to say, that he genuinely only slept three hours a night.
Now I think that's probably hyperbole, but I'll bet he didn't sleep more than five, because he does seem to be one of these short sleepers.
And it also said that 90 to 95 percent of them had phenomenal memories.
Now, I definitely don't have a phenomenal memory, or even an especially good one.
You know, I can force myself to do well in school and classes if I need to, but I definitely don't have a phenomenal memory.
All right, my other favorite question, or favorite story, I don't know how to feel about this because do you ever laugh at things you're not supposed to laugh at?
You do, right?
Have you ever found yourself just snickering as something that was bad happening to somebody else, but because it wasn't you and it wasn't somebody you know, you don't feel good about it?
But it's funny.
So, can we all agree, before I talk about this next segment, I'm a terrible person.
I will stipulate, before I even mention this story, apparently I'm not a good person.
If you laughed at this too, well, you're not a good person either.
Join the club. And here's the story.
And it really is bad.
I mean, it's genuinely bad.
No joke.
This is nothing to laugh at, but it's funny.
I can't help it.
Did you see the video from the Tour de France?
Where there was a woman on the sideline, and for some reason, this is a funny part of the story, the story needed to specify in the headline that she was female.
A female fan.
Now listen to the story and ask yourself, What part made the female part important to the story?
I'll just leave that there for you.
But the Daily Mail seemed to think it was important, that you knew it was a female fan.
Maybe it's being sexist.
Maybe it's an important element to the story.
You decide.
So it seems that there was a fan on the sidelines, and some of the Tour de France bicyclists went by, and she decided, don't know what she was thinking yet, that this would be a good time to take a big old cardboard sign and go in front of, you know, actually lean into the route across the road and get a really good...
Good angle on the video.
Because I think they saw that maybe some professional, the video people were over on one corner.
So she was making sure that her sign was very visible to the people taking the video.
Now, the problem came in that there were many, many bicyclists yet to pass that narrow road.
She blocked one of them with her big old sign.
The guy who hit the sign hit the sign and went down.
Behind him were hundreds of people on bicycles who could not go over a person who was on the ground.
They laid down, too.
Now, I don't know how many bikes went down.
They said something like 25, but it looked like more to me.
You saw the whole crowd just go down like dominoes.
From this one, and I don't know why this is important to the story, but a female fan.
As the Daily Mail reports, not just a fan, and not a male fan, but a female fan was important somehow to the story.
Now, I ask you, how often does a national story have an element of narcissism in the story?
How often do you see a story where, if you really dug into it, you would find at the bottom of a story somebody who didn't care about anything except attention?
Now, I'm not going to diagnose this Female fan, as the Daily Mail calls her.
I'm not going to diagnose her as having a particular mental or personality situation, but I will say that a lot of our national stories have an element that makes you go, hmm, there's at least one person in this story who cares about attention more than they care about, let's say, the life of other people on bicycles, as one example.
Now, I hope nobody got hurt and it was a tragedy if you were an elite athlete and you'd worked hard to get into the Tour de France and some idiot with a sign ruined your day.
That's really bad.
Funny. Funny.
But really bad.
Because I'm a bad person.
There's a Center for Countering Digital Hate.
We did a little study.
Barry Ritholtz was tweeting about this on a good thread.
And here's an interesting factoid.
Have you ever thought to yourself, how much impact can one person make?
How much impact can one person make in this big old world?
One person can't make that much difference.
Maybe not. But it turns out that 12 people are responsible for 65% of the anti-vax content on the internet.
12 people are responsible for 65% of the anti-vax content.
Now, for the purposes of this discussion, we're not talking about whether vaccines are good or bad.
That's a separate conversation.
You can have that on your own.
I'm just amazed that 12 people who have some social media presence and have a following, 12 people...
Could control 65% of the content in this topic, the anti-vax content.
It's kind of scary, isn't it?
How many of those 12 were maybe influenced by one or two of the others?
Because it might be that really it's two or three people who happened to influence maybe nine or ten other people who then influenced millions of other people Two or three people can make a big difference when social media is the medium that they're using.
So every time you think to yourself, well, I can't make much difference in this big old world.
Yeah, you can. You can.
You might make a bad difference or it might be a good difference.
But yeah, you can.
Twelve people. All right.
I want to talk about a topic that you normally turn off on.
But I'm going to talk about an angle of it that I feel is worth doing.
I personally have no interest anymore of whether masks work or don't work.
To hear this part clearly, if you're going to try to talk me into whether masks work or talk me into whether they didn't work and they're more bad than good, not interested.
Because it's over. I don't plan to wear a mask again.
But here's what does interest me.
How was it that you came to your opinion?
And how did you rationalize your opinion?
Whichever it was. So again, I don't care what the answer is.
And I don't care that you have a strong opinion on it.
I only want to know how you got there.
Because how you got there will tell you something about how you think versus how other people think and might be useful for the next topic.
Because what if you were thinking incorrectly on this one and nobody caught you?
Well, that would put you in a bad position for the next situation.
You would be equally ill-equipped.
So the only thing I'm going to do is point out the bad arguments, which is not to say you're wrong.
So, for example, if we're going forward and I say, well, you made a bad argument for or against masks, that doesn't mean you're wrong about whether masks are good or bad.
It just means that particular argument doesn't make sense.
Let me give you some examples.
All right. Somebody said, it's math.
These are responses to me about masks.
Mathematically speaking, it's like using a chain-link fence to stop a mosquito.
That is bad thinking.
Because the thinking here is that the virus is tiny and the holes in any mask are really big compared to a tiny virus.
But the people who make this argument always miss the fact that viruses travel on water particles.
Some of the small ones do get through.
The larger ones do not.
And that the principle of friction is in play.
So if your argument is...
The virus is tiny compared to the holes in the masks.
You do not have a rational argument.
So it's not that you're right or you're wrong.
That's not rational, because you're leaving out the biggest part of the argument, which is the viruses travel on water particles, and those are big enough to be stopped by masks.
Not all of them. And again, the question is not whether particles get through.
If you think that's the question, again, you have a bad argument.
Some of them do get through.
A lot of them get through. But the only claim is that for short times, in close quarters, it might make a difference.
That's the only claim of masks.
Another bad argument is that Fauci and the WHO and the CDC told us directly that masks do not work.
Yes, they did.
And then they told you they were lying to keep the supply of masks for the medical people.
So if your argument is that Fauci, the WHO, and the CDC told you directly masks do not work, that's a bad argument.
Because they admitted they were lying and then said they definitely do work.
They could be wrong, and you could still be right.
I'm just saying that that argument that they once told you they don't work is nonsense because they told you they were lying.
All right, here is another one.
Somebody said that there's evidence that masks don't work for surgeries, and therefore they extend that argument to it doesn't work for anything.
Surgeries are very specific in which you're spending a tremendous amount of time In the close quarters.
Nobody believes that if you spent infinite amount of time with a mask on, it would stop an infection.
The whole point is that it might stop some of them if you're in close quarters for a short amount of time.
That's it. That's the entire claim about masks.
So anything about surgery is just a different situation.
Here's another one. There was this one doctor who early on in the pandemic went on Joe Rogan's show and said masks don't work.
Okay. But that one doctor failed to convince all of the top medical professionals in every industrial country and in every state in the United States.
So why did none of these entities agree with that one doctor who was on Joe Rogan?
And why would you?
Why? Why would you say, well, every single state in the country of the United States and every industrialized country are all on exactly the same side that masks do make a difference.
Now, somebody said, what about Sweden?
No mask requirement.
Well, first of all, a lot of people did wear masks in Sweden on their own.
Secondly, the reason they didn't have the requirement had nothing to do with whether masks work.
It was unrelated to that.
It was more of a social-economic decision, right?
So that's a bad argument.
Again, I'm not saying masks work or don't work.
That's irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
I'm only talking about whether your argument made sense, not the outcome.
Here's another one. There was a meta-analysis saying they don't work.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that there was a meta-analysis showing that masks don't work for COVID? Well, I wouldn't believe one if there was one.
And again, why is it that this Twitter user knows there was this meta-analysis, but nobody in charge knows about this?
It's a bad argument.
So the thing is, why don't any of the professionals agree with you in all of the major countries?
What makes you so smart and them so dumb?
One point is that it would be career suicide to disagree.
But yet, I see plenty of professionals who disagree on climate change.
Climate change would be career suicide.
But yet, you could probably name several skeptics who are notable scientists who disagree.
Right? Now, I'm not saying who's right, but I'm saying that in every other topic, there are notable people who disagree, but not on masks.
What's up with that? How do you explain that?
Is it really just people protecting themselves?
Well, here's what you should ask.
And I asked this on Twitter, but I haven't seen all the answers.
Initially, when Fauci, the WHO, and the CDC said masks definitely don't work, was there any medical professional in any country or state who disagreed publicly?
Do a fact check me on this.
When the experts said masks don't work, did all of the experts agree with them?
And then, with no change in data...
When Fauci said, whoops, I was lying.
Masks definitely are useful.
You should wear them. Did all of the experts in all of the countries and all of the states, did they originally completely agree with Fauci that they don't work?
And then, with no change in data, did they all change to they do work?
Did that happen?
Because if that did happen, then the argument that it's just people covering their ass is solid.
Wouldn't you say? So if you stayed with me this long, I'm showing you that there is a good argument on your side, the anti-mask people.
That would be the good argument.
If it's true. I need a fact check on it.
But it looks like it might have been true.
It feels like it's true.
But again, fact check me on this.
If all the experts simply went lockstep to a reverse position with no change in the data...
Then yes, you could say that the medical experts cannot be even listened to.
You wouldn't give them any credibility, even if they were unanimous, all over the world.
Right? I mean, that's what I would look for.
But what if we find, and I think we might, find that there were plenty of people who said, um, I hear what you're saying, Dr.
Fauci, but I'm not quite there.
Was that the situation?
Because here's my memory of it.
My memory of it is that when Fauci, the CDC, the Surgeon General, and WHO all said masks are not useful, I believe I was the only public figure saying that was bullshit.
Could I be wrong?
Of course. Of course I could be wrong.
Easily. I mean, I'm no medical expert.
But I did call it out in public, and I believe I'm the first in the country...
Who is a public figure who said that.
But I don't remember if any medical experts were agreeing with me at the time.
I don't recall any of them, actually.
So that's why you should ask yourself.
One person noted that he or she has been in and out of hospitals during the pandemic, and that if you talk to the doctors, the doctors will say...
Not all of the doctors will say masks are a good idea.
So... If your personal doctor, when they're not being judged in public, when you have a personal conversation with a doctor, are there doctors who are qualified to make a decision on masks?
Do they tell you that they're not a good idea?
Wait a minute. It's a trick.
What does it mean to be not a good idea?
When you say masks are not a good idea, you're throwing in all the social, economic, psychological parts of it.
That's not a medical, strictly a medical question.
So this isn't a good idea.
No matter how many individual doctors say masks are not a good idea, does not tell you anything about whether masks stop infections.
It's a different question.
It could be that they do stop a little bit of infection, but a doctor still doesn't think it's a good idea.
It's a different topic.
So that's my take on this.
So if you want a good argument, the good argument is that the experts change their opinions completely without any change in data.
Therefore, don't listen to them.
That's not a bad argument.
But the argument about the fleas going through the fence, not a good argument, etc.
And somebody was talking about the cause of death being COVID.
You know, I can't get past the fact that we call the cause of death the thing that happened last.
Because the thing that happened last...
I'm not sure that's the cause, right?
If a bubble boy leaves a bubble and catches a cold and dies, was the cause of death the cold?
Or is the cause of death that you were born a bubble boy and the world was going to kill you if you left your bubble?
So the cause of death stuff is irrational, the way we count it, but probably we have to count it anyway.
You sort of have to.
How many of you can tell me the number of people who died of COVID in the United States yesterday?
In the comments, how many of you know the answer to that?
Because I feel that during the height of the pandemic, I could have told you about how many people were dying every day.
You know, in January, February, wasn't it three, four thousand a day?
350. Your numbers are all over the place.
78, zero.
It's not a zero. Maybe a dozen, a few hundred, somebody's saying.
Somebody's saying 300.
Now, let me ask you this.
So we don't know.
So why is it we don't know when the number gets smaller, it's not reported?
Still news, right?
If the number were 10...
That would be pretty big news.
But I don't know what it is.
A few hundred? Now let me ask you this.
Given the imprecision of measuring what is a COVID death versus somebody who is old and was going to die anyway.
Given that imprecision, when you get down to a certain number of COVID deaths, isn't it going to match exactly the level of uncertainty about who died at all?
Aren't we very close to the point where you could say it's effectively zero because if it's a few dozen, that's exactly how many you would list incorrectly.
Your error rate would be about the same as the reported number.
And what happens when the regular seasonal flu, allegedly, starts killing people in the fall?
Are we going to know that it was just the regular flu that killed somebody?
Or are we going to know it was a COVID death?
Will they test every 86-year-old who dies of a flu?
Will they say we better check to see if that's a COVID one or a regular seasonal flu?
I don't think so. Not all the time.
Saginaw says, in your estimation, what percentage point does it take for someone to change their behavior on any health issue?
I don't think it's a percentage question, as in what percentage of doctors, etc.
I think people make a decision and then just stick with it, no matter what the data does.
So all evidence about how humans act suggests that we don't really use data.
You know, we might use it initially without even knowing if the data is right, but then once we commit to a position, we just don't change.
Very few people who are anti-mask would ever change their opinion no matter what kind of research came afterwards.
I don't think anybody would.
He who shouldn't be named was talking about hydroxychloroquine last night.
Was that Trump? Yeah, we're going to see what happens this winter.
And I'm still amazed that we've gone this far into a pandemic without knowing what causes viruses to go away in the summer.
We actually don't even know that.
How much do we know?
So Trump is on rumble now.
Oh, is that the...
Did he make an announcement that he was moving to Rumble?
I thought he was already there.
No? Was that the big announcement he was talking about?
That he's going to put his content on Rumble?
I'll have to look into that.
So I'm just seeing some comments, but I don't know the details.
All right. And let me ask you this.
How many things have our experts gotten right this year?
How many? Oh, he just joined.
So somebody's telling me Trump just joined Rumble.
Well, that's not a big surprise because I think Don Jr.
has been there for a while. And that makes sense.
All right. Well, if Trump's on Rumble, I've got a Rumble account too.
So I'm going to give that a good look.
Don't trust experts.
All right. So experts definitely lied to us about masks.
We know that because they changed their view from no to yes.
So one of those was a lie.
We don't know which one. I suppose you don't know which one.
What else did they lie about?
I'm pretty sure they're lying about seasonal flu.
Daniel says, if I want a complete genetic report, oh, you could...
You can provide it for free and you're on locals.
A genetic report about my ability to sleep.
That's interesting. I don't think I need that genetic report because it's just so obvious in my case that I'm genetically inclined toward not sleeping a lot.
I don't think I even need to test that.
So you're saying the experts might have been wrong about hydroxychloroquine?
I don't know about that. I'm not ready to make that claim.
You probably think the experts were wrong about ivermectin.
Again, possibly.
But I'm not the expert who's going to tell you they got that wrong.
I don't have that qualification.
Oh, about the Wuhan lab being the source of the outbreak.
They were probably wrong about that.
Somebody says they're wrong about the death rate of COVID. I don't know.
Well, let me ask you this. During the beginning of the pandemic, there were quite a few people who said it's a fake pandemic.
But now we have at least a number of, what, 580,000 people allegedly died in this country alone from COVID. Are you convinced that it was real?
Or do you think over half a million deaths were coded wrong?
Or do you think that if you added up all the deaths and translated them into years of life that are taken away, because most of the deaths were over 70, over 80, they didn't have many years of life left.
If you were to say, okay, the average life is 77 years or whatever it is in this country, and you added up all the years lost from the seniors who are dead, And then you translate that back into, you know, one person equals 75 years.
How many people would that be?
Does your over half a million people, if you just translate it into life years of 77 apiece, would it turn out to be 100,000?
50,000? Like, how small would that get?
Because I think if you're over 80, your life expectancy is maybe, what, three years?
So three into 75, you know.
So I think you end up getting fewer than 100,000 lifetimes were lost, equivalent lifetimes.
Somebody says their grandma died at 94 during the pandemic.
And if the death rate changes completely, now here's the big question.
So if the first thing you do is translate into years lost, it looks like a lot less of a problem.
But secondly, what's going to happen next year?
If next year we have an unusually low count of deaths from viruses, or an unusually low death count in general, because it took out so many of the people who are close to death this year that they won't slop into the next year to die,
don't you have to subtract them to find out the net deaths of COVID? So I have a feeling, if you were honest about the death count, And you translated it to a number of years, and then you counted the second year where maybe the death count will be unusually low, because people died the year before.
It could be under 100,000 equivalent deaths, which would get it somewhere pretty close to a normal seasonal flu problem.
Now, of course, it still would have overrun the hospitals, and you still have the long-haul risk, and we still don't know how to get rid of it, so I'm not saying we should have necessarily done anything differently, but data can be manipulated quite a bit in this case.
Somebody says the experts were wrong on lockdowns.
Were they? I don't know that they were wrong on lockdowns.
I believe that you can find a lot of smart people who say...
That the lockdowns worked.
But I think that there's a big difference between a lockdown and a well-executed lockdown.
And when you're looking at them, we kind of throw those all together and say, well, it's all lockdowns.
But wouldn't there be a big difference between, let's say, a Sweden lockdown, in which people just did social distancing largely voluntarily, And they didn't do big gatherings, etc.
So Sweden had a lockdown.
It just was a little more permissive.
And then California had a lockdown, which was probably way too strict.
A lot of businesses closed that didn't need to.
So I'm not sure you can take the permissive lockdown and match it with the non-permissive one.
One might have been short.
One might have been long.
I don't know if you can average that stuff.
Do you think social distancing didn't work?
Social distancing is the one thing that had to work.
It had to. Now, it didn't stop anything, but it certainly had to slow it down.
If you're arguing about social distancing working, that's a crazy argument, because viruses do have a distance limit.
China has no COVID, somebody says.
Well, is that true?
I heard that they were having some outbreaks recently.
And how does China not have a huge major outbreak again?
I don't understand what's going on over there.
All right. China's own vaccines...
Chinese using therapeutics, somebody says.
That's possible. I mean, we're using therapeutics, too.
Maybe different ones. Patrick says, on your anecdotal evidence of your allergies subsiding, Fauci's organization named National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease...
Allergy and infectious disease.
Patrick, Esquire, good catch.
Yeah, so I'm certainly not going to make a claim that my allergies went away because I got the vaccination.
It's just that after the vaccination, my allergies went away.
I don't know why.
I can't tell you why.
It never happened before.
And I just put that out there as a single data point.
Have I read Norm Macdonald's novel?
I didn't know Norm had a novel.
But that's interesting.
I like everything Norm Macdonald does, so I'd probably like his novel.
Fake is hyperbole for change...
Yeah, okay. Then there's questions about the PCR tests, etc.
All right. David says, please talk to Brett Weinstein about COVID stuff.
Why? Why?
What good would that do?
I appreciate the suggestion, but think this through.
If you're familiar with Brett Weinstein's content, what would I add to that?
Because what Brett adds is a rational look at the topic.
Would I be adding an irrational look?
Like, what would I add?
Because I think my approach and his approach to, let's say, analysis would be basically identical, wouldn't it?
And if he and I disagreed on what's the logical way to look at something, He'd probably just change my mind.
So you would just get more Brett.
And I wouldn't add anything.
The big trap that I warn you against is thinking that you watched a podcast and learned something.
That doesn't happen.
Watching a podcast of one expert or two experts who are on the same side saying what they think is true is almost certainly bad information.
Even if the expert's right.
Because there's somebody who's got different context, different point of view, and you kind of need to hear it to know that you're hearing something good.
So my problem with the news model and the podcast interview model is that they're either one side without context, completely misleading and useless, and you shouldn't pay attention to them too much, or Or they try to put two battling people on and it's just bickering and you run out of time and nobody solves anything.
So you really have to watch yourself, believing that you learned something because you watched a podcast.
If you're watching Joe Rogan's material, tremendously entertaining...
You know, high value to the audience, which is, of course, why he is successful, because he provides tremendous value to the audience.
But it's not science.
It's somebody with an opinion talking to another smart person who's getting their opinion, you know, out there.
That's not science.
It's good to hear, and it's an addition to the conversation every time, in my opinion.
So it's all good, but Don't feel like you learned something.
That would be a trap.
Alright. The most you learned is that there is another point of view.
That's what you can learn.
You can't learn what's true.
Let's talk about white rage.
Is there white rage?
And if white rage exists, doesn't it apply to Antifa?
Isn't Antifa mostly white rage?
And isn't Black Lives Matter mostly white rage?
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, Black Lives Matter are black citizens.
So how could black citizens have white rage?
Do the numbers.
How many people who protested in favor of Black Lives Matter were white and were outraged?
A lot. Probably more than the number of black people, just because of the percentages of people in the country.
There were, I'm guessing, do a fact check on this.
If you were to look at the crowds marching for Black Lives Matter, weren't most of them non-black?
And I would think that they looked pretty mad.
Looked like they had a lot of rage.
So white rage...
It's like just being white.
Have you met any large groups of white people who didn't have rage about something?
If you see a bunch of LGBTQ people protesting, most of them are going to be white, and they might be outraged about something.
I don't know any group of white people that you can put together and they're not outraged about something.
You've got your Karens and your Antifas.
Yeah. So white rage is real, except that it's universal.
If you're imagining that the only ones who have it are some white supremacists or something, I think you're missing the point of white people.
We're outraged at everything.
We need to unify the country and focus on all-American rage.
You know, the only reason that people are not unified is that leaders don't want us to be.
Unity takes away your power if you're a leader.
If you want to be a leader to your community and you've got everything you wanted, what happens to your job?
Unity is the last thing you want if you're a leader.
It's only something that the citizens want sometimes.
But there's definitely no leaders that want unity.
It's not a white thing, it's a people thing, yeah.
Yeah, white rage, I'm joking about it, but is there some community that doesn't have rage when they've got a good reason for it?
I don't think so. I think people get outraged very easily.
You're confusing leaders with politicians.
No, I'm not. When I say leaders, I'm talking about leaders of Antifa.
Well, I guess that doesn't count.
Leaders of Black Lives Matter, leaders of any organization.
They don't have to be politicians.
You want me to livestream my e-bike ride?
I might do that.
I might do that.
I was just trying to figure out a good way to attach a camera, because the last time I attached my phone to my e-bike, the holder was not good, and my phone ended up many miles from me on the road.
But I got it back.
All right, that is all I got for now.
It's a slow news day, and I will talk to you.
Oh, wait, one more question from Dean.
What are your thoughts on the next two years in regards to the economy?
Let's predict a crash.
I feel as if we're at a point where all of our crashes are temporary, meaning that if you had bought stock during the 2009 meltdown, you would have made a lot of money.
I didn't buy stock.
If you bought stock during the pandemic meltdown, you would have made a lot of money.
And in that case, I did, because I learned from 2009.
And I said to myself, I'm not going to miss this one.
And I just went all in on stocks, and that turned out to be the best decision I ever made.
Have I ever heard of ultra-white kind of paint?
No, I haven't.
Do I still have the Pope hat?
Of course I do. Yeah, inflation is going to be a problem.
We just don't know how big.
So there's something about the economy in the modern era that doesn't seem stoppable.
I feel that a depression happens when When lots of things get broken and also you can't communicate well to fix it.
I feel like you don't get a depression if people can communicate and move resources where they need to go and that sort of thing.
So I think we're somewhere protected against the biggest downside.
But a 10 to 20% pullback of the stock market?
Yeah. You know that's going to happen.
It might happen this year, it might happen next year, it might happen in five years.
