Episode 1439 Scott Adams: Coffee With Scott Will Be Amazing!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
"The data is very clear"
Designed for widespread fraud
Jen Psaki's "12 people"
"Pandemic of the unvaccinated"
Government brainwashing
Los Angeles Sheriff on new mask order
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, and I think you know it's the best part of the day.
Sometimes you'll say to yourself, hey, I think this part of the day is a little bit better than...
No. No.
You catch yourself, don't you?
You just catch yourself and you say, no, it's not better than Coffee with Scott Adams.
That doesn't even make sense.
In what world could that be true?
And if you'd like to take it up a level to see what it's all about, because a lot of you are just lurkers, and you don't do the simultaneous sip, and you're thinking, I don't see what this is all about.
I don't understand it.
But if you did the simultaneous sip, oh, you'd be plugged in.
You'd get it then. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a diner, a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now.
The unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
Yeah, it's called the simultaneous sip, but it's going to happen right now.
Go. Wow.
So good. So good.
Yes, we've got lurkers and we've got slurpers, as pointed out in the comments.
Know which one you are.
Be a slurper, not a lurker.
That's a bumper sticker we can all believe in.
Alright, I'm going to add a couple of flags for cognitive dissonance.
As you know, I've told you a few things that people say.
That they consistently say when they're experiencing cognitive dissonance.
And so, for example, I've told you before, when somebody starts a sentence with, so, you're saying that snow is made of metal.
You probably never said snow is made of metal.
It's that, so, you're saying...
That's always a tip-off that somebody's starting to hallucinate.
Here's another one I saw today on Twitter.
You've seen it too, in various forums in various places.
And it goes like this, quote, the data is very clear.
Now, I will allow that there are situations in which the data is very clear.
Does smoking cigarettes cause lung cancer?
Yes. The data is very clear.
But there are some situations in which the phrase, the data is very clear, is nothing but a big old signal that you're having a mental breakdown.
You might not know it, but you're hallucinating.
So if you're talking about the pandemic and you're talking about any data about anything, the effectiveness of vaccinations, the risk of the vaccination itself, the masks, the rates of infection, the testing, any of it, any of it at all, if you're willing to look into that big old mess and say, the data is very clear, I'm sorry, yes, you pedantic motherfucker, the data are very clear.
Yes, data.
Data is plural, so the data are very clear.
So all of you pedantic motherfuckers, you're right.
Yeah, you're right.
But may I make a plea from those of us in the writer-author class, which I put myself in?
Do you know how things become common usage?
It's because people like me make them common usage.
If you don't have a professional writer who's willing to write something that isn't quite perfect grammar, it's never going to become common usage.
It'll just be incorrect speech until somebody like me endorses it.
So I hereby endorse the data is.
And now it enters common usage.
That's a power that you don't have because you're not a famous author.
But if you were a famous author, you could take things which are incorrect grammar, move them into common usage simply by using them.
Let's see if that works.
All right, but anyway, if you think the data is very clear on anything in the coronavirus world, you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Now here's the fun part.
You could be right. In other words, your opinion of whatever is true could be totally right.
But if you think the reason you're right is because the data is very clear, that's not even thinking.
There's something else going on.
Some kind of a hallucination.
You're just joining your team or something like that.
And you could be right by coincidence.
But it's not because the data...
It's very clear. That's certainly not happening.
All right. Here's a tweet I said yesterday.
I said a reminder that the courts have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
You all agree that's true, right?
The courts have now found that.
But here's a second reminder.
If an election system is designed, intentionally designed, Such that you can't complete an audit, meaning that there would be elements that can't be audited?
If you design it that way, you're designing it for widespread fraud.
Would anybody disagree with that statement?
If you design a system and you know by the nature of your design, before you've even implemented it, you know that it will be unauditable, what kind of thing have you created?
Well, you've created something that has either the intention of being fraud or the inevitable outcome.
So here we have a system that apparently can't be audited.
Because we're learning that as there are attempts to do it.
Specifically, I'm talking about the electronic part.
You can't really audit some of the things that have been deleted.
You can't audit the software that was actually running at the time of the election.
You just basically can't get into the proprietary stuff of your own election.
It's your own election, and you can't look at how it was done because it's proprietary.
If you design the system that way, you're designing widespread fraud.
The only thing you don't know is if it hasn't happened yet.
Because it's going to happen.
You design the system to get that outcome.
So let's always keep those two things in mind.
The courts have found no widespread fraud in the election.
None. They have found no widespread fraud.
But it is a system designed to create it, either already or fairly soon.
There's no way around it, really.
Bjorn Lomborg, who is a famous name in the climate change world, I don't want to say he's a skeptic because he believes climate change is real and humans are causing it, But he is skeptical of some of the doom projections.
And he points out that...
Did you know this? That even according to the IPCC, the most official climate change people, that even according to them, the hurricanes are not getting stronger.
Or at least they can't detect that they are.
Did you know that? That they can't really find that in the data?
Because, you know, the data...
The data is not very clear.
Yeah. The data is not very clear.
As Bjorn points out.
Now, maybe someday that'll happen.
Now, I believe that also he said somewhere that something like the death from natural disasters have decreased something like 99%.
That's right.
The things we're most worried about from climate change are things that have happened for natural reasons forever.
And we're so good at mitigating the risk by building our air conditioning and learning how to build buildings that don't fall down in earthquakes and survive hurricanes and all that, we're at the point where we've reduced the risk by 99% from some historical high.
So keep that in mind.
The data is not very clear.
All right. Let's talk about Hunter's laptop.
Tucker Carlson was going after him again.
And he said, so were the huge number of emails and texts from Hunter Biden explaining how he was selling access to his father.
Now, is that true?
I've seen some of the emails, but not all of them.
Would you conclude that it is a true statement with no ambiguity that That Hunter Biden's emails explained how he was selling access to his father.
Would you say that they say that directly?
Yeah, selling access is sort of a hyperbolic way to say he was...
Well, he was selling access.
And then there's something, yeah, something about 10% going to the big guy.
So there are really some things happening there.
That appear to be crimes.
To my, you know, non-legal mind, they look like crimes to me.
But what's going on there?
Like, why is it that, you know, we're in a situation where, you know, Trump is in legal jeopardy for something that's an employee benefits tax issue that normally would be a fine and probably not that unusual in corporate America?
But Joe Hunter Biden, not even investigated or anything?
Marusha says, I often argue that people can't be that dumb when it comes to crimes and such, but there are lots of examples where people are that dumb.
All right, I'll take that comment.
So here's the thing.
What would happen...
Let me give you a hypothetical.
What would happen if...
Ex-President Trump gets indicted or prosecuted for these financial crimes, alleged financial crimes, that normally would just be a fine or something like that.
What if he got jail time?
And what if Hunter Biden was never even indicted or investigated?
What would that do to the country?
I feel as if the legal system just can't give us that result because it would be too destabilizing.
So I don't feel as if the legal system has anything to do with these two cases.
Do you? Do you think the legal system will be who decides if Trump gets prosecuted?
Not really. I mean, it's going to be a political process.
Even if there's a jury, they're going to be just acting politically.
And then the Hunter Biden thing is just purely political.
So we have these two high-profile cases...
There may or may not be any crimes involved in either one.
So let me give the presumption of innocence to both entities.
Presumption of innocence to President Trump, same extended to Hunter Biden, because we want to live in a country where the presumption of innocence is still meaningful.
But I don't see that the legal system is going to make any of these decisions.
It just looks like the political system will decide who gets investigated and who goes to jail.
So there's your country right there.
All right, let's talk about vaccine misinformation, as it's called.
Jen Psaki, talking for the White House, said, and you've heard this story, of course, there's about 12 people, she says, that are producing 65% of anti-vaccine information.
And they remain active on Facebook.
Who are the 12 people?
And I'm very curious, is Alex Berenson one of the 12?
Or are his takes not considered the crazy ones?
Because I think, for example, the claim that the vaccination could make you unable to have children or something.
I don't know that somebody like Alex Berenson has ever said anything like that.
Because I don't think the data suggests that.
But... I know he's still on Twitter.
But what would it take to get into that category of the 12 people who the White House thinks should be banned from Facebook?
Oh, I am on Facebook, but I don't really use it.
I just use it to look at some family pictures and stuff.
Um... I think Twitter suspended it.
I think Alex Berenson got maybe temporarily suspended, but he's there today.
And I'm just wondering where they're going to draw the line.
Because I think we would all agree that there are people spreading misinformation about vaccines, right?
Would anybody disagree that that exists?
That it's a thing?
That no matter what you think to be true about vaccinations, would you also agree that there are people spreading misinformation?
Does anybody disagree with that?
I mean, that's just basic, right?
It's the internet, so people are spreading misinformation.
But we really need a list of those 12 people.
Has anybody produced that?
Yeah, who are the 12?
Because we're talking about it in the abstract, and we shouldn't be doing that.
I mean, it's okay to talk about the abstract, but we have 12-ish specific names.
Somebody says it has been published...
The list was published on local...
Oh, here we go. I'm seeing somebody post the list on...
Okay, here we go.
YouTube, I'm going to be reading this from a comment over on the locals platform, subscription platform where you can follow me and other people for a subscription.
They can post images in the comments, which is a big advantage over YouTube.
So I'm looking at one of the images.
It looks like the names are Joseph Mercola, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Democrat, okay.
Ty and Charlene Bollinger, Sherry Tenpenny, Riza Islam, Rashid Batar, Erin Elizabeth Sayer-G, J-I, Kelly Brogan, I've heard of her, Christian Northrup, Ben Tapper, and Kevin Jenkins.
All right. Ben Tapper.
That's interesting. No relation to anybody we know, I'm sure.
So... Emma says, nope, it's all truths.
So I've only heard of a few of those names, and I don't know how much of their information I've seen.
I feel like none. I don't feel like I've seen any of their tweets or anything.
Have you? All right.
So thank you for pasting that in there.
That was really helpful. All right, so those are the 12 people.
I'd love to see what they're saying or what their specific misinformation is, but I don't know that the Internet is going to miss any of them, right?
Now, as I've often said, critics are a national asset, right?
So I talk about Alex Berenson fairly often because I feel like I disagree with him a lot more than I agree.
And yet, you need him, right?
You need somebody to do what he's doing, which is to be super skeptical about everything.
Because you just need that.
Somebody has to occupy that space, right?
And he does that.
So I'm glad he's not on the list, even though I find myself disagreeing with him more than agreeing.
All right. Let's talk about persuasion.
And how the Biden administration is doing on the vaccinations.
Are you ready to be deeply offended?
Because that's coming up.
There are some things I do which I know in advance aren't going to go down well with my audience.
But on the other hand, it is why you come here.
If it hurts a little bit, it's probably what you signed up for.
And here's what's going to hurt.
I'm going to disagree with what the Biden administration is doing, but I'm going to compliment them for the leadership and the technique.
Can you handle that?
Can you handle that I don't like what they're doing, but the mechanism they're using, the skill that they're using...
Pretty good. Let's talk about that.
So CDC Director Walensky said, and apparently this is going to be sort of their branding message, that this is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
Does that sound familiar?
Do you ever wonder...
If the Democrats ever watch the communicators that are more associated with the right, and I would say I'm in that category, even though I don't associate myself with the right, but in terms of my audience, yes.
Do you remember I got in trouble for a tweet saying that if you're unvaccinated, you're in a pandemic, but if you're vaccinated, it's just Wednesday?
Do you remember I did that tweet and it got a lot of attention?
And I did hear from some people at, let's say, senior levels, not Democrats, that that tweet got a lot of attention.
And today, I'm seeing that the main message coming out of the Biden administration is basically a rewording of that idea that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
So... I didn't do that intentionally.
And as I've told you, and I mean this, by the way, I'm deadly serious about this.
I am not trying to persuade anybody on vaccinations.
That would be completely unethical.
I'm not a doctor.
But I certainly can talk about it, can't I? Is it unethical for me to simply give you my opinion or to tell you that I'm vaccinated or what set of risks and benefits I considered?
Because my risks and rewards are not yours.
So I can say, well, I thought it made sense for my psychology and all things considered, but that's not a recommendation for you.
If you're 20 years old and healthy...
Your situation isn't mine.
You're in a different state.
Your situation isn't mine.
So don't take my example as persuasion, but I am also aware of the fact that it has that effect.
But it's not intentional.
Seriously, it's not intentional.
I would consider it deeply unethical and inappropriate on every level if I were trying to influence you on a medical decision that's way beyond my expertise.
So you can look at my decisions and you can say what you like about them, et cetera, and make your own decisions.
But we can also talk about what's true and try to figure that out.
Now, I'm not going to get it right every time, right?
I'm not your live-streaming host who gets everything right.
But wrestling with it, I think, has some value.
I feel that.
But I am aware that I influence accidentally.
So here's a question. Do you think I influence this?
Do you think that the Democrats are smart enough to at least watch the messaging coming from people who are trained to do this stuff?
Because if they're not watching me by now, they're sort of missing a big opportunity.
Because I at least explain things in a way that would help them create better strategies.
Even if they disagreed with me on everything, it would still be useful for them to see how I frame stuff.
So probably an accident.
I'm going to say it's more likely to be an accident than an influence.
But I compliment it.
It's really good framing.
So can you handle this?
Can you handle me complimenting technique but still thinking maybe they shouldn't be forcing people to get vaccinated?
Are you all good with that?
Can we do that? I'm sure we can handle that.
All right. And this is really going to kill you.
Joe Biden is showing impressive leadership on the vaccination stuff.
Oh, don't sign off yet.
There's more to say. It's just true.
Now, do you want to be led to get the vaccination?
Oh, that's a separate question.
The question of whether you should be vaccinated or anybody individually should be, that's a separate question.
Just hold that for a second, right?
We'll talk about that separately.
But is he showing leadership?
The answer is yes, right?
I'm not the big Joe Biden fan.
I don't think his capabilities are anywhere near what we need for a president.
But let's define leadership.
Is leadership telling people to eat cookies when they were already hungry and they love cookies?
No. No.
Telling people to eat cookies when they're hungry and they really enjoy eating cookies is not leadership because they're just doing what they want to do.
How about telling people to go to war when you know that some of those people, specifically the people in the battles, will get killed?
But it's bad for those people who get killed and wounded and the families, etc.
But the idea is that it might be good for the greater national interest.
Is that leadership?
Yes. Yes.
Leadership is telling individuals, I've decided you're going to get killed for the greater good.
That's leadership, right?
Otherwise, you're just telling people what they want to hear, and that could be lots of other things.
But it's not leadership. Leadership is getting you to do something you really don't want to fucking do.
Because you think it's good for the whole.
Now, is that true?
Is it good for the whole? Is it good for the whole if everybody got vaccinated?
Reasonable people could disagree, right?
Right? I'm not even going to have that conversation today.
Reasonable people can disagree on that.
And so, that's why you need leadership.
Leadership is the tiebreaker.
Leadership is the one who says, yeah, that's a reasonable view, and the other side is a reasonable view.
We're going to do one of those two things.
And at least the people with the other reasonable view, well, you're screwed.
I'm going to push this through.
That's leadership. So you could certainly argue, and I won't give you any pushback to this, that he's leading us in the wrong direction.
Right? And certainly you could argue, and I'm not saying that, I'm just saying you could argue that very easily.
And secondly, it could be terrible for you individually.
Right? Very much like being drafted and being sent off to a war, maybe a war you don't even agree with.
Maybe it's Vietnam. Right?
Wouldn't that be terrible for the individual patriot who went over there, joined the military, was trying to do something good, and you end up in Vietnam doing maybe nothing that's useful?
That's leadership. What have I often said about leadership?
Does anybody know what I've often said about leadership?
It's evil. It's evil.
Leadership... Even if you need it, and even if it's good for the country in general, it's evil.
Because it makes you do something you don't want to do.
It makes some people go off and die who weren't going to die otherwise.
It's pure evil.
It's also why I can't do it.
A lot of people ask, you know, why don't you run for office?
Scott, you're such a critic.
Why don't you run for office?
And the reason that I'm not a CEO... And the reason that...
Or it wouldn't be a good one.
Well, I am a CEO of my own corporation, I guess.
But I don't, you know, manage a large group of people.
And I don't want to run for office because I can't do evil things.
It's just hard for me to do evil things.
And leadership is evil.
Because you're choosing who dies.
For the greater good. You know, there's an argument for it.
But you're still choosing who dies.
And I don't like signing up for that personally.
So I would say that Biden, when he said about Facebook, they're killing people, I'm sorry.
I like it.
For technique.
Only for technique.
Doesn't mean it's true.
Doesn't mean you should take a vaccination.
Just technique. He says it directly.
He says it simply, and he says it with authority.
It's really good, persuasion-wise.
But again, make your own decision of whether he should be persuading that at all.
All right. This won't be the first time that the U.S. government has brainwashed the public on an issue of safety.
Is it? In the comments...
I want to see how many examples you can come up with where the U.S. government...
We'll just limit it to U.S. to keep it simple.
Where the U.S. government brainwashed its citizens for something it said was good for them.
I see the war on drugs.
I see helmets, Patriot Act, War on Terror, Japanese internment camps.
I'm just reading what's going on.
The food pyramid...
Swine flu, gun control, low-fat stuff, sugar, drinking water quality, fluoride, MSG, seatbelts, littering, electric cars, war on terror, Iraq, Haiti twice, fluoride and water.
Now, I'm not agreeing with all of your comments, meaning that I don't think these are all examples of that, but...
There certainly is some indication here that your government routinely brainwashes you.
Wouldn't you say? Could we all agree on the following statement?
Some of the examples I don't agree with.
But could we agree with the general statement that your government routinely brainwashes the public?
What do you think the Pledge of Allegiance is?
It's just brainwashing.
Now, it happens to be productive brainwashing that I completely agree with.
We should definitely have the Pledge of Allegiance.
It's good for the country. It gives us some cohesive unity, etc.
But it's brainwashing. Your country brainwashes you all the time for your own good, in their opinion.
Now, some of the stuff like weapons of mass destruction, etc., were not in your best interest, but there are plenty of examples where they do brainwash you for your own best interest.
So the problem, I think, is whether they get it right, much less so than the problem of whether they're doing it.
All right.
Meanwhile, Washington Examiner is reporting that YouTube was fined 100,000 euros, which would be about $118,000, by a German court for removing a video of a coronavirus lockdown protest in Switzerland. by a German court for removing a video of a It's the highest on record in Germany.
So Germany's laws and U.S. laws are pretty different.
But interesting, there's at least one country's courts fighting back against, I suppose, what they would call censorship.
And my notes are a mess here.
I'll get back to the coronavirus stuff.
I just have to inject this.
Did you see Joe Biden's statements when he was with Merkel?
Laura Engram's show had some clips that were just hilarious.
One of the clips was Biden trying to form a sentence and he just kept going and adding words but it wasn't making any sense and he finally just sort of Sort of gave up.
It was just a bunch of babble words in the end.
I feel like maybe you could tease out some meaning from it.
But what I wondered was, how did the translator handle it?
And on Laura Ingram's show, they asked the same question.
And I thought, that's a really good question.
Literally, it's a good question.
If you're an interpreter...
And you're trying to translate Biden, and he goes into one of his nonsense babble sentences, what do you do?
Do you wait and see if you can figure out what the main concept was?
Or do you keep...
Or do you translate as it goes?
Because if you translate as it goes, people are going to think you're a bad translator.
Right? Because they hear you translating, and they say, well, that translation doesn't make any sense.
So... We've got a bad translator here.
Clearly nobody would say those words because they're a bunch of nonsense.
It's just words put together.
It's babble. But that's actually what he was doing.
He was actually babbling.
Now, and that's a serious question.
Is anybody a translator?
Has anybody done that job?
What would you do? Literally a serious question.
Do you translate it? Or just wait and then try to summarize it if he ever gets to a point or just skip it.
What the hell do you do with that?
Anyway, my favorite part was he misstated something about Angela Merkel and said that she was the largest chancellor since Helmut Kohl.
Helmut Kohl was not a thin man.
Helmut Kohl was sort of a large man.
Angela Merkel, nobody has called her svelte in a few years.
The words she never hears is, well, you're looking svelte today.
Joe Biden goes up there and calls her the largest chancellor since Helmut Kohl.
No, he did notice. He realized what he said and he corrected quickly.
But it's still funny.
So apparently the L.A. is going to reinstitute a mask requirement because there are more infections, I guess.
And the L.A. County Sheriff just said, well, this is the funniest statement from an L.A. County Sheriff or any Sheriff.
He said, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Blah, blah, blah, has authority to enforce the order, but the underfunded slash defunded Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department will not expend our limited resources and instead ask for voluntary compliance.
He's basically telling you to go ahead and violate the law or whatever this is.
Is it a law? Or is it a guideline?
What the hell is it? It's an order.
So it's called an order.
I don't know. Do you have to obey an order?
How does that work?
Do you have to obey an order from the government if it's not a law?
What does it even mean, an order?
Who the fuck gives me an order?
I'll obey a rule.
I might even obey a law.
But an order? An order, really.
You're going to give me a fucking order to wear a mask?
I don't think so.
Maybe a suggestion.
I'll listen to a suggestion.
And if it's a law, I'll probably obey it.
But an order?
No. No thank you.
So then he said...
Oh, he said, we encourage the DPH to work with the Board of Supervisors to come up with some mandates that are, quote, both achievable and supportable by science.
Because he pointed out that the CDC says it's not science.
So, best LA County Sheriff ever.
His response to this is just brilliant.
It's just brilliant. It's just the best response ever.
And so... It turns out that my county is one of the idiot counties that is going to require masks again.
Will I be wearing masks in stores?
Well, I think I'm going to go into the...
What would you call it?
A... What do you call it when you deny...
you don't follow the rules?
You're a conscientious objector.
That's what it is. I believe I will be a conscientious objector.
And by that I mean if a store in my local area is requiring a mask for vaccinated people, which I am, I'm going to enter the store without my mask and I'm going to make them ask me to leave.
If they do ask me to leave...
I will very obediently leave, but I'll also point out that the CDC disagrees that there is any reason for me to leave.
Now, they won't get the benefit of my money, and I'll be very polite about it, because the store owner is not my enemy, right?
Remember, the store owner is a victim, just like you, right?
Store owner is not your enemy.
So don't be an asshole to the store owner if they try to enforce it to try to stay out of trouble.
The store owner is not the asshole.
Right? So just be polite to them.
But my personal decision is that I will be a conscientious objector and I will enter without a mask and I will politely explain why.
And if there are enough of me, it's over.
Because we can't let the government make this decision for us.
In the beginning, of course, because it's an emergency.
And it's better to listen to the government in an emergency than probably not.
In most cases, there could be exceptions.
But we're past that part.
Remember, what did the White House just tell me?
The White House just said, it's only a pandemic for unvaccinated people.
What am I? Vaccinated.
I'm not in a pandemic.
The White House told me I'm personally not in a pandemic.
So I'm going to act like it.
Right? Somebody says, I just pretend I'm deaf and keep walking.
Yeah, I don't know what kind of enforcement there is.
So what would happen if you just ignore it?
That would be my recommendation for those who are so inclined.
Here's a sign I'd like to see in a California store window.
I don't think this will happen, but it's what I'd like to see.
And it sort of borrows the L.A. County Sheriff's concept here.
Let's say it's Alameda County where I live.
I'd like to see a sign that says, the county of Alameda has reinstated mask requirements.
We welcome them to help us enforce that requirement.
This store is not staffed for that function.
Do you know why stores don't have enough staff?
The government. Because the government is paying people not to work.
So how can the store have enough staff to deal with masks and also deal with the business of the store when they can't even hire enough people because the government is paying people not to work?
So I think it would be perfectly fair for a store to say, I fully support your mask requirement and I sure wish I could hire enough people to help you with that.
But I can't. So I'm not going to.
We don't have anybody in that position.
The mask...
The position of mask...
What would you call it?
Proctor or something? The mask proctor position is open.
You can even put a help wanted sign.
Mask mandate enforcer wanted.
And just show that it's an open position.
Enforcers, yes. All right.
People are asking, there's a hashtag, HeyTucker now, for people asking Tucker Carlson to tell the public if he has been vaccinated himself.
What do you think of that?
Do you think that Tucker Carlson, a private citizen with a public job, do you think that he should violate his HIPAA privacy rights and tell you if he's personally vaccinated?
I would say he should not if he doesn't want to.
Meaning that it needs to be up to him, of course, as it should be up to all of us.
You saw me make my decision, right?
So my decision was that I'm a public figure, and I talk about this topic all the time, and it would be, in my view, it would be unethical not to tell you my own decision.
But that's a very personal kind of a thing.
I don't think it would be unethical for anybody else.
That's just personally how I feel about it.
Anybody else, that's fine.
Somebody says, you are older.
Exactly. Exactly.
This is why talking about it, I think, is fair.
I'm being begged to get off of this live stream right now for something important, and I'll go in a moment.
Yeah, I can tell you what my situation is, my comorbidities, and then tell you what I did, but that doesn't mean that's your situation.
It doesn't mean you should follow my lead.
All right, France has apparently found a workaround where they got, apparently, Macron...
Got pushed through something that says that you've got to have some kind of a passport or vaccination to do some public stuff.
And it pushed up their vaccination rate like crazy.
So a lot of people are getting vaccinated in France.
So let me reiterate.
Information is good.
If somebody wants to tell you they got vaccinated, great.
But Coercion and persuasion on this topic I feel is inappropriate and unethical, and I would avoid doing it, although I realize I do it accidentally.
