Episode 1503 Scott Adams: I Invented a New Word to Help You Debate Idiots and Children
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
AI controlled machine gun with facial recognition
"Fair" taxation of big corporations and the wealthy
Whiteboard: Glurpin
Jennifer Rubin off the record
AI reduces human birth rate
Nicki Minaj has the X Factor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Now, I have heard that there's a little issue on YouTube that sometimes the beginning of the show is covered with commercials, and those commercials are obscuring the simultaneous sip.
And so, I'm thinking that today I should do a segment before I do the sip.
What do you think? Yes.
Yes, I think we'll try that.
I think we'll try something new.
Don't be afraid of change.
Don't be afraid of change.
We'll get to that in a moment.
Well, there's a sad story in the news about ex-professional NFL quarterback Colt Brennan who died of what is being called an accidental overdose with fentanyl.
Accidental overdose.
Hmm. An accidental overdose.
So here's what we know about fentanyl.
We know that China intentionally provides it to the cartels to provide to the United States to kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, and they could stop it if they wanted to because they literally know the name and the address of the person who's sending the fentanyl to the United States.
We know they know the name and the address of who's doing it because the United States gave it to them.
It was news. Here's your guy.
Here's literally the guy who's sending us all the fentanyl and killing 30, whatever, 60,000 people a year, whatever the number is now.
We know who it is.
We have his name and his picture.
You have his address.
They didn't pick him up.
Now, is that an accident?
Did this quarterback die of a, quote, accidental overdose?
No. No, it's not an accident when somebody's trying to kill you and they succeed.
Let me give you an analogy, because I know analogies are so persuasive, right?
Oh, shut up. I'm going to give you one anyway.
Remember the Las Vegas mass shooting?
The shooter was up in the window and just started spraying bullets at the crowd of people at the concert.
Now, some people were killed and some people were not.
Would you say that the people who were killed were killed by accident?
Were those accidental deaths?
Because nobody knew who would be killed, right?
When the guy started shooting, he wasn't shooting at anybody.
He was shooting at the crowd.
The fact that he actually killed some people in the crowd and did not kill others, would you call that an accidental death then?
Because he didn't know he was going to kill somebody.
I mean, he didn't know the specific person he would kill.
So it's an accident, right?
No, you fucking idiots.
It's not an accident.
It's fucking murder.
It's murder.
If you spray bullets into a crowd and it happens to kill somebody, but you didn't know exactly who it would kill before you killed them, it's fucking murder.
When China sends us a boatload of fentanyl and it kills 30,000 to 50,000 Americans a year, but they don't know which names in advance are going to die, that didn't make it an accident.
It's still fucking murder.
And when I see a tweet that calls the death by fentanyl overdose an accident, I'm offended.
Because it's not a fucking accident.
It's murder.
And if we don't treat it that way, well, we deserve what we get.
I mean, not the individuals who die from it, They don't deserve it.
But as a country, if we're not going to defend ourselves from tens of thousands of murders every year, well, we deserve what we fucking get.
And you deserve the government you got.
Trump didn't do shit about it.
Biden isn't doing shit about it.
Fuck them all. Now, how would you like to do the simultaneous SIPP? I probably shouldn't have started with that story.
But if you'd like to pick things up, maybe put things at a little bit better pace, well, what can you do?
Well, one thing you could do is grab yourself a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine the other day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's going to happen right now.
Go. Ah, yeah.
China. So the New York Times has this story that confirms what I think the BBC reported months ago.
That the Iranian, the head of the nuclear program in Iran, was assassinated with a robot machine gun.
A robot machine gun with satellite control and artificial intelligence for facial recognition.
That's right.
Somehow Israel, the Mossad, got a one-ton robot into Iran.
I guess they brought it in in pieces in different ways.
So they brought it in, they assembled it, they put it on, I think it was on the bed of a pickup truck, and they parked that pickup truck approximately where they knew that the head of the nuclear program would be going by.
But here's the problem.
They couldn't be sure that it would be that guy and maybe not his wife driving or somebody else driving.
They wanted to minimize the number of casualties, so they set up a second station where there would be a car that looked like it was changing a tire or something, and they would have a camera in it, and they would get a read on the driver of the car so they would know if their target and they would get a read on the driver of the car so they would
So the first thing that they set up just identifies the guy, and then he gets to the place where the robot machine gun is, and the robot machine gun opens fire...
But apparently I think the machine gun had facial recognition too, because it managed to kill the guy they were after without harming the wife.
Now, harm, of course...
Being a relative term means she wasn't shot.
But if you watch your husband being killed right in front of you, you're obviously harmed.
But kind of amazing.
I mean, I don't know if that was luck or skill that nobody else got killed, or at least the wife did.
But when we see that a robot machine gun is killing people using facial recognition, what's next?
How many robots with facial recognition can you put out there to start shooting people with their machine guns?
Yeah, it's similar to remote aerial drones, except that you don't see the drone in the sky, which would be a tip-off.
I guess that's why they didn't use aerial drones, because the drone is big enough.
I think the story was that a drone that was big enough to penetrate Iranian space would also be too big, and the Iranians would see it and shoot it down.
And apparently they can do that.
I guess Iran has the ability to shoot down drones fairly effectively.
Well, Joe Biden tweeted this.
He said, big corporations and the super wealthy have to start paying their fair share of taxes.
It's long overdue.
He says, I'm not out to punish anyone.
All I'm asking is that you pay your fair share, just like middle class folks do.
So, what have I told you about the word fair?
Fair. Fair is a word that was developed for one purpose, to allow idiots and children to debate.
Because if you're an idiot, or you're a child, you may not have reasons and data to support your argument, so instead you just say it isn't fair.
And it must be fair.
Do you know why it must be fair?
Because it's not fair.
But why is it not fair?
Well, it's not. It's just not fair.
And it must be fair.
This is what I call word thinking.
Meaning that if you don't have reasons, or you can't express them, or you don't want to, you try to get away with defining a word in a way that it sounds like the word is the argument.
But words are not arguments.
Words are just things we gave definitions to.
They're not arguments at all.
But yet our dumb little brains often think those words are arguments.
And it works.
That's the weird thing.
Making a word that just substitutes for a rational argument actually works.
And so I thought, how do you debate somebody who just says something isn't fair, and then you go, um, I don't know what to say about that.
Because it's a little bit subjective, isn't it?
Are your taxes fair if the rich people pay the most dollar amount?
Or do they also have to pay the greatest percentage?
Why is one fair and the other one isn't?
I don't know. There's no reason.
We just decide things are fair or not fair and we complain about them.
So I thought, since the word fair introduces an irrational form of debate, how can you counter an irrational form of debate?
Well, you came to the right place.
What you need is a new word.
Something that would counter the word fair.
And that you could just drop it in there and just walk away.
Because you don't need a rational argument because you're not debating a rational argument.
You're debating a A word.
Which is crazy.
So I came up with a new word.
I don't think it's being used.
If anybody's already using this word for something else, let me know.
And the word is called...
Glurpin.
Glurpin. Glurpin. So the word is glerpen, and here's the definition I've given it.
The definition of glerpen is a situation in which different outcomes is better for all.
Let me give you an example of a glerpen.
How many of you can play basketball as well as Stephen Curry?
Anybody? Anybody?
Probably nobody. I'll bet nobody here can play basketball as well as Stephen Curry.
Is that fair? No.
That's not fair. Why is it he can play basketball great?
And I can't. I wasn't born that way.
I don't have these opportunities.
That's not fair. But is it bad for me?
Am I worse off because Stephen Curry is a better basketball player than I am?
Not really. Because he wins, because he gets to play basketball and have a good life, gets paid, and I get to watch him.
And it's entertaining. So am I worse off because of this unfairness?
Or am I better off? Well, I'm actually better off because I would like to watch him.
He likes to play.
We both win.
It's a perfect Glerpin opportunity.
Now, you always look for your Glerpins wherever you've got some kind of unfairness, but it's better than not having the unfairness.
For example... Suppose you raised taxes on corporations, and you raised them to the point where those corporations were no longer competitive in the international market.
Would that be more fair?
Well, perhaps. It would perhaps be a little more fair, the way people define it.
But it would also be a little glerpin, wouldn't it?
Anti-glerpin, I would think.
Anti-glerpin. Because a glerpin situation would be where it's unfair, but you're better off.
So maybe it's unfair that corporations pay smaller taxes.
But if it makes all of us richer, because those profits from corporations flow into the public, directly and indirectly, well, that's a glerpin.
So the next time you get into a conversation where somebody says, you need to pay more taxes...
To make it fair. Here's your response.
I see what you're saying about the fairness, but have you considered the glurpin?
Because this is one of those situations where the glurpin works in your favor.
And then just walk away.
And if somebody says, hold on, what's a glurpin?
I go, oh, a glurpin?
A glurpin is one of those situations in which outcomes are different, but you're better off because of it.
It's a glurpin. Take that to the bank.
All right. I love it when people in the news business fight each other.
I love it when Fox News goes after CNN and vice versa.
And I'm loving this story about Politico screwing Jennifer Rubin hard...
So Politico is doing a hit piece on Jennifer Rubin, basically saying she was tough on Obama and tough on Biden at one point, but now she's loving Biden, I guess.
She's pro-Biden. And they're kind of making the point that she's not a credible pundit, but rather goes where the forces are, let's say, nudging her.
And Jennifer Rubin responded in an email, which she said was off the record.
Off the record. But Politico published it anyway.
I'll tell you why in a moment. In which she claimed it was misogyny and sexism, that she was being singled out because she was a prominent woman.
And so the reason Politico was going after Jennifer Rubin, says Jennifer Rubin, is because of her vagina.
Because of her vagina and breasts.
And possibly womb, maybe uterus.
But the reasons that they went after Jennifer Rubin and not a man is because, obviously, men have penises.
Women have vaginas.
And so, logically, QED, ipso facto, there you go.
Perfectly reasonable response when somebody criticizes your public professional record to claim it's because of your vagina.
That's what I do. Anybody criticizes me, I'm like, ho, ho, ho!
Wait a minute. I hear your criticisms, and an objective person might even say that they're valid, but I think the reason you're doing it is because of my scrotum.
That's what I say to everybody.
I go, ho, ho, ho!
I see you calling me bald, but would you call me bald if I didn't have a scrotum?
I don't think so.
I think this is...
Scrotum-related discrimination.
But anyway, that was Jennifer Rubin's take.
It was all about her vagina.
And Politico, despite the fact that Jennifer Rubin said her email was off the record, Politico published it in full.
What do you think of that?
Well, Politico's excuse was that that's not how off the record works.
They would now. They're in the business, right?
Off the record works like this.
I'd like to say something off the record.
Do you agree? Yes, I agree to keep this off the record.
Okay, here's what I was going to say off the record.
And then, if it's an ethical entity that has agreed, they do not print that.
Here's how off the record does not work.
This is off the record.
And then they just tell you what they're going to say.
That's not off the record.
That's on the record. Because the other entity didn't agree to it.
Had they agreed, it would be off the record.
But if they don't agree, and they're not even given a chance to agree, because she sent the email at the same time as the, you know, this is off the record, apparently they feel they have the ethical, let's say, flexibility to print it in full.
Well, let me give you my opinion on this.
Yes. Yes, they have a point.
Jennifer Rubin does know how off-the-record works, of course, because she's in the business.
Politico also knows how off-the-record works, because they're in the business.
And they applied what they know correctly.
It was correct and accurate that this was not off-the-record, and therefore they did have...
Let's say a right to publish it.
Do you know what else it was?
Really messed up.
Really messed up.
Really unethical.
Really unethical.
Super, super unethical.
Politico, while you are technically within your right, that is a really fucked up thing to do.
Really fucked up. In fact, it's so fucked up that nobody should ever give them a quote again or an interview.
See, that's the cost.
These things have a price.
The price of violating somebody's preference for being off the record, even if they didn't do it right, the preference was expressed.
And if you're going to violate that preference for being off the record on a technicality, nobody should ever do an interview again.
In fact, I'd like to support Jennifer Rubin.
Now, I've not been a Jennifer Rubin supporter in the past on political stuff.
Nothing personal, just political stuff.
But I'm going to support her now.
And in support of Jennifer Rubin, if Politico ever asks me for an interview, I'm not going to give it to him.
No quotes for Politico.
They have crossed the line.
They crossed the line completely within their ethical boundaries, meaning that the standard for off the record is very clear, and they followed the standard, and they found a way around it, and they published it. But it's a fucked-up thing to do.
It's a fucked up thing to do.
I hear somebody in the comments saying she deserved it, blah, blah, blah.
No, that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter that she deserved it, and I don't think that's even a thing.
Nobody deserves anything.
So Politico, here's your pushback.
And I would encourage anybody in the...
I would encourage anybody to not ever do an interview again with an entity that would do this.
Not only did they do it, they're bragging about it.
They're doing it right in front of you.
Do not do business with Politico.
And I don't care what you think of Jennifer Rubin, pro or con, if they can do that to her, they can do it to you.
And if they're going to find a technicality to fuck you, well, then they've lost their moral authority to be in this business, really.
Even though they're technically correct.
People who have no sense of humor are not aware of it.
And that explains a lot of what you see in the world.
People who have no sense of humor don't know it.
If you ever watched American Idol back in the early days of the show, I don't know if they do it anymore, but they would show the people who were auditioning, and a number of those people auditioning didn't know that they couldn't sing, and that they weren't any good at all.
Now, that's unusual.
Most people know if they have a skill.
Usually, they know if they have a skill.
I know, for example, that I don't appreciate opera, but I don't think opera is broken.
I just think I don't appreciate it.
I don't appreciate fine wine, But I understand it's a thing, and people do appreciate it, and they like it.
So I don't think there's something wrong with wine.
I just think there's something wrong with me.
But people who don't have a sense of humor, they actually don't know that they don't have one.
And so they think the problem is with you.
Right? The people with no sense of humor, they think the problem is on your end.
And that's different than other lack of skill.
If somebody, you know, doesn't appreciate music or something, then they don't think the problem's on your end.
All right, so just keep that in mind.
And I think something like a third of the public literally doesn't have a sense of humor.
And you need to stay away from those people if you want to have a good time.
All right, so there's a big dust-up with France and the United States.
And it looks like...
So here's the deal. I guess France had this deal they'd been negotiating for years to sell a dozen non-nuclear submarines to Australia.
But the United States got in their business and said, hey, China's a big threat.
Why don't we sell you some nuclear submarines?
We'll get you some good shit.
None of this non-nuclear submarines for you.
Australia, you're our good friends.
We're going to give you some nuclear submarines so that China will be on notice that the other team has some good stuff in their region.
And France thought this was a crappy deal, and even though I guess we claim there's some technicality in the contract that France and Australia had for those submarines, apparently there wasn't a clause that allowed Australia to cancel the deal.
I don't know what it was, or if other people would agree it was valid, but they did.
France got all mad and recalled their ambassadors for consultation, just to sort of make a point and stamp their feet and complain about it.
I guess it's a pretty big dollar amount, like, I don't know, $65 billion or some big number in the billions.
And I think that the mechanism for this was started during the Trump administration, if I'm right.
Now... Yeah, Biden's...
I'm reading in the comments, Biden is literally who Democrats claimed Trump was.
Doesn't this sound like a Trump thing?
To get into somebody's deal and cancel it and negotiate some for yourself and come out ahead?
Because the U.S. comes out ahead on this.
Yeah. It sounded very much like a Trump deal, and apparently he got it going, and Biden liked it enough that he kept going with it.
And I would compliment both presidents.
This is very America first.
I don't know.
When was the last time you saw anybody do anything that's as America first as this?
And Biden did it, right?
Now... I have viciously criticized Biden for his dementia and lots of other stuff.
Being a liar.
Plenty of stuff. But when he does stuff I like, I'm going to call it out.
And I hope you don't mind that.
I hope you can hang with that.
Because I just think it's more credible.
If you can't compliment the people you're criticizing, you just don't have any credibility at all.
So I would say France doesn't like it, but we're not going to lose France as an ally in the long run.
It's good for our national security, and that's the end of the conversation.
It's good for the United States national security, and we're done here.
Yeah, France is mad.
It doesn't matter.
It's good for our national security in the long run.
All right, I said something controversial here.
Those of you asking for the SIP, you already missed it.
I predicted that wherever artificial intelligence has the most penetration...
He said penetration.
Wherever it has the most penetration, the human birth rate will decline.
Does anybody want to take a guess about why that would happen?
Wherever there's the most artificial intelligence, the human birth rate will go down.
Now, some people said, oh, that's a coincidence, because wherever you have the most industrialized, richest place, the birth rate goes down, and that's exactly where you would have the most artificial intelligence, in the rich places.
And that might be part of it.
That might be part of it. So some of it's just coincidence, right?
Artificial intelligence travels with money, and money makes birth rates go down.
But I'm going to predict that there's another thing going on, and it goes like this.
I don't think that artificial intelligence is ever going to need a plan to conquer humans.
It will never need a plan because it's just going to happen on its own.
No plan needed.
It's just going to be evolution.
So if AI just does what's good for AI, what would that look like?
Let's imagine the AI is like a living entity, but different.
What does it care about?
What is its mission? What does it want to do?
Well, every living thing has one mission, to make more of itself, to survive.
It's not necessarily like an intention that's in their head, but evolution causes you to focus on more than anything.
You evolve...
To be something that reproduces well.
That's it. The whole deal is you evolve to be good at reproducing.
Now, if AI becomes good at reproducing, what would that look like?
It would look like what we see now.
The way the AI reproduces is by being good or useful to human beings.
So as long as it's useful, humans will make more of it, and then eventually the AI will make more of itself.
That's the singularity, and that's the thing you want to be afraid of.
But that's the situation.
Humans are making AI.
Now, I don't think the AI will necessarily say, I would like to be fewer humans.
So AI will never tell us to reproduce less.
It will never directly say, hey, I need fewer humans, because in fact it needs humans to help it reproduce.
So AI actually needs humans, but not all of them.
It doesn't need all of them.
And so one would imagine that as AI pursues its own evolutionary imperative, which is it takes a path in which there will just be more AI... It will cause humans to feed it.
How do humans feed AI? It's when you click on your phone.
It's when you click on social media.
You're feeding it. You're making it more valuable.
Because the AI is the algorithm, among other things.
And if the algorithm works and it causes you to click it more, then the AI is feeding itself and making sure that it survives and making sure that other companies make more AI because it worked.
It made people click more.
Now, if you're clicking more on what the AI wants you to click on, Even if it's not some kind of intention or a plan, it's just happening, evolution.
Are you as interested in reproduction?
Well, in the short term, yeah, sure.
But what about the long term, when you become addicted to your devices?
As you become addicted to your devices, those devices are giving you dopamine and replacing some of the things you get from other people.
And so you become a little click robot to feed the AI. And what you do instead of living and reproducing is work for the AI. I must click for the AI. I must...
And then you're getting...
The AI is giving you a boost, a little reward.
And then you're addicted.
I must do more of this.
I'm addicted. I'm getting a little boost.
And so AI will never need a plan...
To reduce humans on Earth, it will just happen because in order to feed the AI, we have to be turned into click slaves and other kinds of slaves as well.
And when we're being diverted from our main mission, which is to reproduce, there'll be less of it because our energy will just be moved somewhere else.
All right. Now, some of you are saying, keep your hand on the AI, or the programs will be written so the AI won't attack us and try to kill us.
I think that's probably true.
I don't think the AI will ever decide to kill humans.
You know, except for maybe a glitch here or there.
But I don't think humanity will be wiped out by a Skynet, like an actual thinking human who wants to...
or a thinking AI that wants to destroy us.
I think it will simply evolve better than us.
It will simply out-compete us and use us as part of its competition.
And then that's it. It's game over.
All right. Do you ever see a famous person that maybe you don't quite appreciate their talent, but you think, well, okay, they've definitely got that X factor.
And then there are other people you say, I don't quite get what makes this person so famous.
You don't get it, and then you see it.
And then once you see it, you go, oh, okay, I get it.
There was an extra speed.
This person does have this little extra speed.
And for me, this was Nicki Minaj.
Now, of course I knew she was a highly talented musical artist.
But did I think that there was something special about her?
Didn't really see it.
I'm not really a music guy so much.
So while it was obvious she was hugely talented, I didn't know what was the special part.
Until today. Until today.
So she tweeted, because you know the story, Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend allegedly got a vaccination in Trinidad, and allegedly his balls swelled up and he became impotent, but Trinidad says it never happened and there is no such person, etc. But it got Nicki Minaj into the headlines talking about vaccination safety, and apparently she retweeted Tucker Carlson talking about her situation, and Tucker was completely supportive of her.
So she tweets it. Now, of course, she got a lot of crap because Tucker is associated with the right, many of her fans associated with the left, and they got on her pretty hard.
Here's the part that made me appreciate why Nicki Minaj is famous and other people who might also have talent are not.
Here's the X factor. You ready?
Here's what she tweeted in response to all this business.
She goes, right.
I can't speak to, agree with, even look at someone from a particular political party.
People aren't human anymore.
If you're black and a Democrat tells you to shove marbles up your ass, you simply have to.
If another party tells you to look out for that bus, stand there and get hit.
Okay. Here's the moment I fell in love with Nicki Minaj.
If you're black and a Democrat tells you to shove marbles up your ass, you simply have to shove marbles up your ass.
Is that a saying?
Can somebody tell me, is that an existing saying?
Is there something about shoving marbles up your ass that's like maybe something she learned when she was a kid?
Or did she make that up on the spot?
Because here's the thing.
If she made it up, then I get it.
Like, suddenly I get it.
There's a reason that Nicki Minaj is famous and successful, and you can see a little hint of it here.
I don't know. There's just something so perfect about this tweet.
If you're black and a Democrat tells you to shove marbles up your ass, you simply have to.
I could not love that sentence more.
Somebody says, it's Trumpian.
Yup. Yeah.
It's not like Trump exactly, but like Trump, when Trump does a tweet, every time he tweets, you go, okay, that's why he's famous.
That's why we talk about it.
Okay, I get it. Trump can do that time after time after time.
He shows you why he's special every time he opens his mouth.
Kanye too, yeah. Somebody's saying in the comments, Kanye has that same quality.
Yeah, absolutely. All right, switching topics.
As your resident humorist, I feel it is my need to search out funny things for you to consume.
And it's a problem because there are no longer funny movies and very few funny TV shows.
It's almost no longer a thing.
But there are three TV properties that I think are fantastic.
Only three. I can't think of a fourth.
Three things you just got to watch.
Now, yeah, somebody's saying Gottfeld.
Yeah, you have to watch Gottfeld.
So if you're a news junkie, you like the news.
Yeah, that's sort of a specialty case.
But if you're looking for pure humor, as opposed to, you know, newsy plus humor, which is a little different in the genre.
But if you're looking for pure humor, here are the three.
What We Do in the Shadows.
It's the name of a TV show about vampires in America who are just living among the people.
And I'm not going to give away too much of the story, but watch it from the beginning.
And it is just the best thing.
It is so good.
I like everything about it.
It's called What We Do in the Shadows.
Just Google it to find the network and the streaming place it is.
The other is Ted Lasso.
I talked about that. Ted Lasso won just a ton of Emmys.
And I thought to myself, it doesn't look that good.
Because the advertisements just, I don't know, they didn't look good.
But the problem is that it's a show that can't be captured in an advertisement.
There's something about the entirety of the experience that is what makes it great.
It's not about the specific line or the scene that makes it great.
It has lots of great scenes, lots of great lines, but there's something about the whole that makes it special.
You just can't tell by looking at the trailers for it.
And the other is Rick and Morty.
Now, Rick and Morty is a little bit more of a Acquired taste.
Maybe not for everybody. But if you like my content, the odds that you would like these three shows, what we do in the shadows, Ted Lasso and Rick and Morty, is pretty good.
So just give it a try.
There's no guarantees. We're all different.
It's very subjective. But I'd say give it a try.
Those are some real good ones.
Bill Maher continues to be disgusted at the left, which never fails to amuse me.
And he's talking about the fact that AOC's dress had taxed the rich.
And Bill Maher, who of course is rich, would like you to know that the rich pay a lot of taxes.
And I felt like he had to tell his audience that because they didn't know.
Did you know the rich pay most of the taxes?
Most of them. And so when AOC wears her dress to tax the riches, I feel like there are dumb people who think there are things called write-offs and tax breaks that make rich people pay no taxes.
That's not a thing. If a rich person pays no taxes, it's because the system wanted the rich person to pay no taxes.
Do you know what gets you to pay no taxes?
Investing. Hiring people.
That sort of thing. So you're supposed to be doing that stuff.
All right. Sign of the times.
There was an Ohio woman who apparently was shot three times, allegedly by her baby daddy, and instead of calling 911 after she was shot three times, not once, not twice, had three bullet holes in her.
But instead of calling 911, she went on to Instagram Live.
Sign of the times.
That was her first thought.
Her first thought was as she lay there bleeding, like, oh, this is going to be good content.
I'm going to get a lot of clicks.
Now, as luck would have it, her relatives saw the live stream and called 911, and she was saved.
But I don't even know what to say about that.
All right. What the hell do you even say about that?
I guess the story is its own story.
Here's something that snuck up on you.
You know, you were expecting there to be a Pfizer booster shot you had to get.
Well, the FDA just squashed that.
Turns out the FDA, they must have looked at the data and said that the data doesn't support the safety and efficacy of, you know, collectively, safety plus efficacy, of the booster for the Pfizer.
Now, I don't know about Moderna yet.
Maybe that's different.
But did anybody see this coming?
And what does it mean?
And why did they turn it down?
Are they getting more conservative?
I think part of it was, if I'm not mistaken, that you didn't want to do boosters for everybody until everybody got at least one shot or something like that.
So some of it might have had something to do with priorities, right?
Because I think there's...
Some people are arguing that it's a higher priority to give everybody at least one shot than it would be to give the vaccinated a booster.
Right? If you have limited quantities.
And of course, they're always limited.
Yeah, I'm seeing the question, why are the Feds rationing Regeneron?
We've had so much time to make more Regeneron.
Is it that hard to make?
Because I think it is.
Please consider that some topics are too complex.
I need someone in person to push back.
Oh, you mean as in having a guest?
Is that what your comment was about?
Here's why I don't have guests.
You have plenty of that.
Plenty of guests. I don't think people watch me to watch the guests.
Now, if I do guests, and I have considered it a lot...
I would do it as a separate content.
So if I do it, I'd probably do it recorded, and I would...
I don't know. It wouldn't have to be recorded.
But there's a whole technical problem with guests that it's hard to solve, believe it or not.
For a live stream, it's hard to solve.
Yeah, but I didn't like it as much.
I did it in the past, which is how I know I don't like it.
Because I feel like...
If it's a guest who's in the political realm and they're just pundits and they're just taking a point of view, it's just not interesting.
Because they're just lying, right?
Just watching somebody lie and me challenging them.
Is that interesting? But I do think in my future I'll be talking to more people.
So there will be more people to push back.
All right. I saw a tweet from Saifidine.
I don't know. I don't know how to pronounce it.
Saifidine? I apologize.
I'm saying your name wrong.
And his tweet said this.
If you believe lockdowns, social distancing, masks, and vaccines are all effective enough for you to want to do them, but not effective unless you force others to do them, Consider the alternative hypothesis that they're about authoritarianism, not health. What do you think about that?
How many of you believe that the pandemic management, everything from vaccinations to masks and lockdowns and everything, how many of you believe that the real game is authoritarianism and that it's to get control over the public?
I'm going to look at your comments and read them.
Yup, totally. Yes, yes, yes.
Agree, agree. Very, very strong agreement with that.
Depends, somebody says.
Control, plausible. So we've got one person disagree.
One person. And some people saying it might be a useful secondary effect.
Yes, yes, yes.
Gary says no. All right, here's my take on that.
It's crazy. It's crazy.
I don't know how you get that opinion, really.
Now, let me be clear that my opinion is purely subjective, so could I be wrong?
Of course. Have I ever taught you that you should always have a recording playing in your head that says, but I could be wrong, right?
I could have the wrong data.
I could be looking at it wrong.
This is one of those times.
So I'm going to act...
I want to answer that question, but I don't want to get derailed here.
Okay.
I think it's actually crazy to think that all of these government rules are about some hidden desire, or maybe not so hidden, for authoritarianism, to get more control over the people.
I would say the evidence for that is zero, right?
What would be the evidence for that?
Could you imagine that we would get to this point and there would be not one whistleblower, not one anywhere, who would say, you know, I was in this room and the government officials were talking about the real reason is to get more control over the public.
That never happened.
This is not the sort of thing that wouldn't leak.
Are you kidding me?
Because it's governments all over the world.
Even if you could imagine that the United States government would be really good at keeping the secret, can you imagine that the administration changes and when Biden comes in, you've still got a bunch of Trump people still doing work in the deep state?
Or when Trump was in office, there were plenty of Democrats in the bureaucracy?
And you don't think anybody?
There's not one person...
Not one person is going to be a whistleblower and say, I was in that meeting, and the real reason is they want to get some authoritarianism going.
Honestly, I think it's the least likely thing of all things.
If you were to make a list of all the things that people claim, from elections being rigged, to Russia collusion, to you name it, just make a whole list...
Of all the claims people are making that have any skepticism to them.
All the claims. This would be lowest on the list of credibility.
Now again, I'll say it again, because the recording should always play in your head.
I could be wrong, but make me an argument.
No, I realize that this is a complicated, complex issue, and you've only got a few characters for your comments.
But give me just a hint of what would be your logic or support...
Elite old fool.
What would be your logic, data, or even rational support for the fact that there's a secret plot to increase authoritarianism?
And for what purpose?
And why would every country be doing it?
Really? You can't find a single country who doesn't want to do that?
Maybe you could argue that Sweden went its own way.
Yeah, I have a feeling it's disorganized opportunistic power.
Well, I will buy.
I'll buy the following statement.
There are lots of people doing lots of things about the pandemic, and some of them probably want to keep their jobs and get a promotion and stuff.
Yeah, there's some of that. But...
Whoever said, I want to get some authoritarianism, yeah, I want to get some of that.
So here's what I would present to you.
I believe that that is just pure cognitive dissonance.
Maybe confirmation bias, but it feels like cognitive dissonance.
The idea that the politicians are in on some secret global plot that no whistleblower has talked about, and after meeting after meeting after meeting, just nobody talked about it.
Power grab.
Who's grabbing power?
From whom?
Yeah, I don't know.
I mean, I can see that maybe you're saying, oh, it's being used as an excuse to get a bunch of socialist stuff.
That's fair. We're watching that happen right in front of us.
But is that a power grab, or is that just opportunistically?
They're like, oh, this would be a good time to get some socialism in there.
I don't know. I don't think that's authoritarianism so much as socialism.
Opportunistic power grab.
Who? Who's grabbing the power?
Maybe let's just start with that.
Who is it who's grabbing the power?
Name names. There's somebody grabbing power.
Who is it? The government.
Who? Biden?
Biden's the president. Does Biden have to grab power?
He won. He's probably not going to run for re-election.
Why does Biden need to grab power?
He's the president. Of the billionaires?
What do the billionaires have to get out of this?
The World Economic Forum?
Go on.
And how are they benefiting from the authoritarianism?
Scott, please look at Klaus Schwab.
I have. It's completely non-credible.
Each nation's intel community.
Really? How does the intel community gain by you wearing a mask?
And if we wanted to do it to another country, we wouldn't do it to ourselves.
If our own intel is attacking our country...
Here's a comment.
Why would anyone want to control all the money and power?
No, I'm not saying that there's no reason to control money and power.
I'm asking who is doing it, and how are they doing it?
Getting all this authoritarianism.
And why are there no whistleblowers?
All right. So I can't...
As you know, I can't make an argument that something doesn't exist, right?
You can't prove a negative.
So I can't prove that this isn't happening.
I can't prove that there isn't a secret Illuminati who's plotting to grab power with the pandemic and the masking stuff.
I can't prove it doesn't exist.
But I would...
I would point out that you can't prove any part of it exists.
Not any part of it.
There's no evidence, no data, no nothing.
So that's my take on that.
All right. Remember your glerping word.
And I'm just going to look at your comments for a moment.
There's plenty of whistleblowers.
Are they credible? No, they're not.
There are no whistleblowers. There are no whistleblowers who say, I was in the meeting and these people are talking about using this to grab power.
That doesn't exist.
Please move the locals' camera.
Why? Now, is the locals' camera not right?
According to my own monitor, my head would be exactly in the middle...
And what I can see is from my hand to my other hand here.
Are you seeing something different than this?
Oh, I haven't looked at the local.
Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah.
So what I do is I turn my...
I have two iPads.
What happened? What happened?
My local stream just stopped, it looks like.
Yeah. So what I do is I have two iPads side by side, but one of them has to be upside down.
And that puts their two cameras in the same place, but one is high and one is low.
But I didn't have them lined up here, so usually it looks more like I'm looking at the camera.
