My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Vaccination mandate defiance growing
President Trump's new Arizona election statements
Do you personally know people injured by the vax?
No hospitalization for willingly unvaccinated?
UK: Net zero emissions via nuclear energy
"leaky" vaccinations increase number of variants?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, ladies and gentlemen, I'm running a little bit late this morning, so you've seen the unprepared version of me.
Watch me print my notes and close my blackout shutters and pull up my comments without even missing a beat, because that's what I do.
All right.
Oh, damn it.
Damn it, damn it.
I'm not going to be able to do what I want to do.
All right.
Hold on, locals people.
I'm going to make a quick adjustment here.
And then everything will be cool.
Well, people on YouTube, you're seeing the show before the show.
It's the one that usually only the local subscribers see.
Whoa! I can't reach my notes.
I have to unplug.
Hold on.
You know what I say about quality?
Totally overrated.
Yeah, I could try to make this a quality program.
But who would want to watch that, really?
I think you'd rather watch me struggle and fail.
Let's see. Let's see.
In one moment, I'm going to be up and running here.
How many of you found empty shelves today?
God damn it.
Hmm. Hmm.
Okay. For some reason, that didn't work.
Hold on again. I'm having a technical difficulty.
Tweet failed to send.
Hmm. For some reason, I can't tweet.
I wonder what that would be. Is Twitter down?
Weirdly, if I can't tweet, I can't see your comments.
Oh, and now I'm all fucked up here.
All right. Well, I'm going to have to keep this on this perspective.
Wow! Your local store had no spaghetti?
Are you kidding me? How the hell do you run out of spaghetti?
That's pretty bad. All right.
So, I know why you're here, and sometimes it has to do with the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug, a glass of tank or chalice, a canteen jug, a flash vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better except my punctuality.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and watch it improve your antibodies.
Now, go. Mmm.
Mmm. My favorite story of the day was in the Huffington Post.
The Huffington Post.
Ah, antibodies.
Yeah. And the Huffington Post reports that this is the headline.
Daniel Craig, you know him, he plays James Bond, prefers going to gay bars, and you probably can't guess why.
That's right. Daniel Craig, he prefers going to gay bars, and you probably can't guess why.
I think I can.
I'm going to take that challenge, and I think I'm going to guess why he goes to gay bars.
Well, I think I'll keep my guess to myself.
But I've got a hypothesis.
Why a good-looking actor would go to a gay bar time and time again with his gay friend often.
The article was written by, in Huffington Post, by Ron Dicker.
D-I-C-K-E-R. Ron Dicker.
So, I don't know, maybe you could meet this challenge too.
Why would an actor go to a gay bar...
I don't know. I'm stumped. I assume it's because the drinks were low cost?
Maybe better parking?
I don't know. Could be a lot of reasons.
Have I told you that following the money always predicts?
Everybody knows that if you follow the money, people tend to do whatever is in their financial interest, right?
No surprise there.
But it also works...
And I don't know why, where it shouldn't work.
Let me give you an example.
Remember the story about the elk that had a tire?
Somehow it got a tire around its neck, but then its antlers grew, so it couldn't get the tire off.
So after years of people sighting this elk, I guess they tranquilized it, and they removed the tire.
But the way they removed the tire is by removing the elk's antlers.
Now, that's not a big deal because antlers regrow every season, but people asked, well, wouldn't it make more sense to cut the tire?
Why wouldn't you cut the tire?
Just leave the antlers.
And I got the best answer to that from Grover Norquist.
You might recognize that name.
All of the news junkies know that name.
Grover Norquist. So he's most famous for being against extra taxes.
Yeah, he's the low-tax guy.
So we follow each other on Twitter, and Grover saw that story.
And in answer to the question why the antlers were removed instead of the tires, Grover tweets...
They could not sell the tire for as much as antlers.
They could not sell the tire for as much as antlers.
I thought to myself, well, that's probably true.
They probably didn't throw away the antlers, did they?
Because it seems like, do people buy them?
I guess they do, right?
People buy antlers?
Is that a thing? Now, here's the funny part.
I don't personally believe that that had anything to do with why they removed it the way they did.
But watch how often it predicts.
You'll see a situation in which there's no way the money makes any difference.
It's like a big psychological decision, or it's political, or it's health-related.
But it's definitely not about the money.
But coincidentally...
The decisions will always be in the same direction as the money.
Even if it's not much, and even if the other decisions or other variables are way bigger.
It's just something to watch for, let's say, for fun.
I will not assert that it works in some statistically meaningful way.
I just know that my observation is it always works.
I assume that's confirmation bias.
It couldn't always work, right?
That can't be true. It can't always work.
But it looks like it.
I mean, it's hard to find any...
Maybe you just don't notice the exceptions.
That could be the case. Maybe the exceptions are just boring and they don't make you even notice.
All right. Last night, I'm told, Tucker Carlson had a segment...
About the Auckland, I think he was a professor, who did a study and determined that the Havana Syndrome, the so-called secret microwave-slash-sonic weapon that was injuring diplomats in our embassies, probably was nothing but mass hysteria.
Now, how many of you saw that?
How many of you watched Tucker's episode about the Havana Syndrome possibly not being real?
A lot of you saw it. Here's the funny thing.
I record Tucker every night.
I have an app that works with my Comcast slash Xfinity.
And I record that show every night, as well as Gutfeld and The Five.
So those are the three shows that I record every day.
The only show that doesn't have audio on my recordings is this one.
The ones I recorded yesterday are all fine.
And, in fact, the show before Tucker's was fine.
Like, it has a little lead-in.
It records, like, a minute before the show starts, and that has audio.
As soon as Tucker starts, the audio goes off.
And I thought to myself, oh, darn, it's my device.
So I went to a different device.
Same thing. The app is called Stream, and it's part of the Xfinity, the cable company where I live.
So it's the cable company's app.
So... Here's the weird part.
There is nothing I've wanted to see more than that episode.
Because it agreed with me.
Right? So yesterday, you know, I heard that Tucker had something that doubted that there was a weapon.
Now, most of you know, I think I'm the only public figure who said on day one of that whole Embassy Havana Syndrome thing that it's mass hysteria and there's no weapon.
So the fact that there would be a major segment on a major news channel, even an opinion show, was really, really interesting to me because I have skin in the game.
Why is that the only thing I can't play?
No, I looked for it on YouTube, and I looked for the clips, and it doesn't exist.
Now, here's the interesting thing.
Part of the story...
And I don't know if Tucker talked about this, but part of the story, whether Tucker talked about it or not, is that the media has been reporting this as true, that there's some kind of weapon, maybe, probably, allegedly.
And NBC and CNN has been part of that reporting.
And as you know, if you follow Glenn Greenwald especially, NBC is often accused of being the CIA's captured Meaning that NBC News basically reports what the CIA wants them to report.
Now, I'm not saying that's true.
I'm saying that's the allegation.
And you see people like Glenn Greenwald back up the allegation quite well.
So I'm saying it's an allegation with a lot of evidence.
That's all I know.
So you've got...
NBC, still trying to sell this thing as maybe some kind of a Russian weapon, which sounds exactly like something the CIA would want you to believe if they want to put pressure on Russia and they need the public to back them.
And I'm asking you this.
What are the odds that that one thing that the CIA doesn't want you to see, allegedly, right?
We can't confirm that.
But what are the odds that the one thing that the CIA doesn't want you to see also is the one thing that can't be seen?
It's not anywhere else.
Can somebody find a clip of that, just that segment of the Auckland professor talking about the Havana Syndrome, and tweet it at me?
Because I wonder if it exists.
I wonder if it's already been scrubbed from the internet.
Is that a coincidence? Because you have to ask yourself, is the one thing that you know the CIA doesn't want you to see?
When I say you know it, let's say you're highly confident.
We can't know anything in today's world.
So certainly, any absolute confidence of anything is ridiculous in 2021.
But it feels like it.
Just a coincidence? That that's the one thing I can't watch?
I don't know. Probably a coincidence.
Let me say it clearly.
Probably a coincidence.
But the fact that I have to even ask the question is very disturbing, isn't it?
Like, why do I even have to doubt that that happened naturally?
Just a technical problem.
I don't know. I hate that I have to ask the question.
How many of you think Taiwan is at real risk of China attacking militarily?
In the comments. In the comments.
How many of you think there's a real risk of a military attack?
And let's say in the next two years.
Next two years, risk of a military attack.
I'm seeing some yeses and some low percentages, like 5%.
Okay, yeah. Somebody here pedantically is saying, yes, there's a risk.
Okay, technically, there's a risk, right?
So I would say that's a given, that there's a risk.
It's just so small.
So CNN had an opinion piece on this.
I thought it was pretty good. I forget who wrote it.
But the point of it is that there's not really any indication that China is too serious about a military attack.
And I saw a map of the incursions, which was very interesting, because I'd never seen it before.
It was some context about all these military planes that China is putting into Taiwan's airspace.
Now, when you heard that, what did your mind give you as a picture?
When you heard that Chinese warplanes, lots of them, We're suddenly penetrating Taiwan airspace.
What did your brain give you as a picture for that?
Like, what was the little visual that you got?
You gave it to yourself, because you didn't see a visual.
But what did it look like?
Did it look like planes flying directly over Taiwan?
Probably not, because you're sophisticated viewers of the news.
And you said to yourself, no, no, not over the land.
They were over the airspace.
Meaning that over the ocean, around Taiwan, that China claims as their own.
Right? I saw a picture of that incursion.
Let me show you what it looked like.
Now, my picture is not to scale, and it's not the same dimensions, but I'll give you the idea.
Imagine, if you will, that this napkin is the space that Taiwan claims for their airspace.
Let's say Taiwan is right in the middle and occupies maybe, I don't know, 20% of the space, but it's in the middle here.
Maybe even 10%.
Where do you think all the Chinese incursions were?
They're all on this corner right here.
That's it. Or maybe a little bit more.
That's it. It was in this weird little corner, Which Taiwan, when it draws its airspace around itself, it declares its own airspace.
So I don't think it's an international standard.
It's just Taiwan saying, hey, this is our space.
And China just flies directly out, and they cross this little corner of the ocean that Taiwan claims as their airspace.
How many of the flights were in all of this other area?
None. None.
They were all just in this little corner.
All China did was clip this corner, but they did a lot.
You know, hundreds of times.
But just this little corner.
That's it. If they had flown here, like just outside this little corner, we wouldn't be talking about it.
But because they clipped the corner, we're talking about it.
Now, what gives Taiwan the right to this little piece right here?
The only piece that was violated.
What gives Taiwan that right?
Nothing. Nothing.
Taiwan just claimed the right.
They just said, hey, this is ours.
And I looked at...
My example is bad because it's symmetrical.
But the actual airspace is more...
I don't know.
It's more like weird-shaped...
Something like this. So the corner that China is clipping off is sort of the extended corner.
It's the one that looks a little furthest from the island itself.
Am I wrong that if you had seen that picture from the start and known that the violation is the most trivial violation that they could get away with?
China is violating their airspace, of course, but in the most trivial way.
According to the picture.
And I had never seen the picture until today.
Yeah, it's still provocative, etc.
But the people who seem to be smart on this topic don't think there's any real risk.
It looks like it may be for internal politics because there's some big Chinese meeting coming up.
So it's probably just for internal reasons.
So I think you can stop worrying about that one right away.
Well, finally, the country is coming together.
Because the people who are against vaccination mandates are gloriously, gloriously all over the map.
So you got your Black Lives Matter, you got your Christian conservatives, you got your police officers, you got your teachers.
So you got your Democrats, you got your Republicans.
I can't think of another issue that unified the country this much.
Can you? Airline pilots, thank you.
It's weirdly...
I want to join the rest of you and feel anxious and bad about the division in the country, because we're all talking about it, but I'm not feeling it.
Like, I know it's there. I'm not denying the division in the country.
I'm just saying that a lot of this stuff looks like the normal and maybe even preferred evolution of thought.
Meaning the fact that the government took control during the emergency.
Wouldn't you want that? Don't you want the government to take a firm control, even if they make mistakes, it's your best bet, during an emergency?
I see somebody says no.
I like that you're consistent.
So I appreciate the people saying no.
I don't want the government to ever take control of any situation.
I feel that's a legitimate opinion and I won't criticize it because it's consistent.
I imagine that those saying that just always say that.
So if you're consistent, I support you.
So let me just put it in my opinion.
In my opinion... Because obviously a lot of you disagree.
In my opinion, the government needs to take control of military matters and maybe a big crisis like this.
Did they do it well? That's a separate question.
But I think it's your best bet.
Now, I'll accept that you disagree with me on that.
But it's only good if the people can take it back.
The people need to regain, you know, grab it back.
And, of course, the government, when it takes power, doesn't like to give it up at all.
We know that, right? But we have plenty of examples of, let's say, hurricanes, where the government took power during the hurricane as an emergency, and as soon as they were done, they got out of there as soon as they could.
Because they didn't want to be there grabbing any power.
They just wanted to do the job and leave.
And what I see as this anti-vax coalition, which isn't organized in any sense, but sort of an informally natural coalition without organization, I feel good about it.
I feel good that there's a balance of power.
The government took control...
Most of you disagree, but I thought, well, it was our best bat, even if it's not ideal, but it might have been our best bat.
That's how you get the vaccines, etc.
But I love the fact that the country is starting to push back.
And I'm not even, you know, it doesn't even matter that I'm on the side of the pushback people or not.
I like that they exist.
It's a good reminder to the government who's in charge.
So the more people who resist and the more actively they resist, I'm not saying I'm on their side or not on their side.
They can make their own decisions.
What I say is I like living in a country where it's happening.
I like living in a country where the government can take control and then the people can say, you know, just about now is when you need to be giving it back.
And they won't take no for an answer.
That's not all bad, right?
It's an uncomfortable place to be.
We're not happy where we are.
We'd like to be in a better place.
I get all that. But I like that our system allows this constructive tension between government and the people.
And so far I still see the people having the power.
It might take a while. It's not going to be instant.
But I think the people will get what they want.
I believe the mandates will not stand.
What do you think? Do you think the mandates will stand?
I think they'll stand in some places.
But I don't imagine that the people will let them stand for long.
And certainly not everywhere.
Yeah, I think there'll be too much pushback eventually.
So I've got this question whether we have a supply chain problem or the simulation has been proven.
When I go to the local grocery store where I live, the shelves are basically full, right?
If you look down the row of shelves, it looks full, with one exception.
You'll see this long row of products, and then there'll be this little hole in the shelf, no more than this big.
In a gigantic line, everything's full, but just this little bit.
That little hole represents the product I came for.
And I'm like, whoa, crap, the one thing I want is the only thing missing.
So I go to the next aisle to look for the other thing I'm looking for, and there's only one thing missing, and it's the damn thing I want.
Now, I noticed this first during the pandemic.
Christina asked me for some very specific things.
A specific brand of soda, which literally disappeared during the pandemic.
It doesn't exist anymore.
As soon as she started saying, this is the only soda I want, it just disappeared.
It was Dr.
Pepper, no caffeine, and also diet.
Just disappeared. I think that's what it was.
And likewise, she had a food product that was on a shelf with all the food products that were there except that one.
That one food just disappeared and never came back.
Now, am I supposed to believe that the one thing I look for is the thing that's missing?
Here's the other possibility.
So one is that it's just a coincidence and it's confirmation bias and I don't notice the other things that are missing.
You know, just normal psychological phenomenon.
But it's also very consistent with us being in a simulation.
Here's why. Because there's nobody else buying food.
If this is a simulation, I'm the only one buying food.
And everything else is an illusion, right?
So the NPCs don't buy food.
They just look like it when you're shopping.
They look like they're buying food, but as soon as you leave, they empty the carts and put it all back on the shelves.
So here's my point.
If the simulation has a bug, the only thing that's going to be missing is the food that you buy, because it's your simulation.
The generic food that's the background food that you'll never buy is just there to create scenery.
It never changed and there was no bug in it.
So the only thing changed was your specific food.
Now, I'm not too serious.
Jen says, oh my God, Scott, where is your brain going?
Simulation theory is such an illusion.
Now, Jen, do you know that Elon Musk...
Has the same opinion I do about the simulation.
And the actual scientists and philosophers who know what they're talking about do.
It's accepted science in the sense that it's accepted as a serious alternative understanding of reality.
Doesn't mean it's true, but it is completely accepted by smart people as, well, maybe?
All right. By the way, I just did that one for fun.
I'm not too serious about the supply chain thing.
Trump has said some new provocative things about Arizona, which I will not tell you are true.
So I'm going to tell you a bunch of things that Trump says, but don't imagine that I say any of this is true.
Is that clear? I don't know that it's untrue.
I don't have an opinion on it, true or untrue, but we'll talk about it in a moment.
So these are Trump's claims.
Talking about a couple of precincts in Pima, Arizona.
And apparently there are great irregularities there, Trump and others have claimed.
And Trump says they overplayed their hand and got caught.
Two precincts in Pima had over 100% turnout for mail-in ballots, which is impossible.
And 40 precincts had over 97% returned, which is basically impossible.
And that if you add these things together, the irregularities is more than enough margin to win.
Turnout rates of 99% and 100% is what you get in a third world country.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. So, and he shows a graph in his statement.
Now, the graph that he showed to demonstrate that there was a certain time of night when all the ballots turned in a different direction, I think it was Dr.
Shiva's, his analysis.
So... Here's my question.
Why is Trump complaining about Arizona irregularities and not using information that came from the Arizona audit?
Wasn't the Arizona audit on his side?
What am I missing in the story?
Can somebody connect the dots for me?
How could it be that Dr.
Shiva... Has this solid, incontrovertible evidence that Trump is putting forward now?
How could Dr. Shiva have that, but the people who were certainly looking for that, the Arizona audit, they didn't have that?
They didn't have that.
Or they didn't believe it enough to put that forward as a claim.
A different county.
Is that why? So Pima wasn't part of the Maricopa audit?
Okay, that's the answer. Thank you.
Remember I was telling you yesterday that this model that we have, where I talk out loud and you correct me in real time?
It is effectively like a different form of intelligence.
Because in real time, you just basically fixed my brain, because I couldn't connect why there was a disconnect there.
It was just a different county. So that's the answer.
Okay. Now, if you didn't know anything except what I just told you, and that describes most of us, if you didn't know anything but what I just told you, Trump makes these claims.
Dr. Shiva seems to be the source of some part of it.
And it claims more than something close to 100% turnout, which would be impossible.
How credible are these claims?
Go. Don't tell me whether they're true or false, because you don't know.
We don't know if they're true or false.
We don't know if true or false had changed the election.
Only is it credible.
Meaning, is it the kind of thing you would be inclined to believe because of its nature and maybe the source and everything you know about life?
Credible or not credible?
I'm just looking at your answers, and I see not, interestingly.
I thought most of you were going to say yes.
I really thought you were going to say yes.
Interesting. I'm kind of shocked.
I'm blown away. So I think most of you are good with the difference between what is credible versus what is true.
Often you can't know what's true, but you can tell if the claim is credible.
All right, so some of you think it's credible, some of you think it's not.
I told you at the beginning of the process of the election and the audits that 95% of everything you see about a claim of irregularity, without even knowing what the claims would be, before they even happened, I told you 95% would be bunk.
Was I right? How was my prediction...
That 95% of the specific claims, not the general idea that there was a fraud.
I'm not talking about the general idea.
I'm talking about specific claims.
I said 95% of them would be false, maybe 100, but that at least 95% of them would be false.
How close was I? One of my best predictions.
Because no matter what you think about whether the election was fair or not overall, would you agree with me at this point that the specific claims have 95%, well, you could say 100%, been debunked?
True? True or not?
I think that's one of my best predictions of all time.
Because, again, I'm the only person saying it that I know of.
I can't think of anybody else who said, no, 95% of everything you hear is going to be wrong.
He only provided data, not claims.
Yes.
How are you measuring this?
I'm not measuring it with any science.
I'm just saying that I haven't seen any claims that have been confirmed yet.
So predicting that 95% of them or more would not be confirmed seems to be pretty close to the mark.
No? All right.
So let's keep an eye on that.
That's kind of fun. There's something happening here that's really interesting.
Now, I might...
I think some of you are going to imagine I've changed my opinion when you hear this next part.
Because on Twitter today, I think I saw at least three people hallucinating my opinion and telling me that, you know, it's about time I came to the right opinion.
Because I was so wrong before.
To which I say, I never had that opinion you thought I had.
I never had that opinion. So some of you are going to have that experience in a moment.
You're going to have an experience that you think I changed an opinion.
That isn't going to happen.
But see if you feel like it.
Tell me in the comments if it feels like I changed my opinion.
It just feels like that to you.
I've told you before that one way I judge the truth of things in the news is I look for a correspondence between what the science says and And what direct observation tells me.
Now, if my direct observation conflicts with what the science says, it doesn't mean the observation is right.
It means I've got questions.
For example, science says that smoking cigarettes can give you cancer.
My observation is that people who have lung cancer almost always smoke cigarettes.
Very good. Compatible.
Totally compatible. Science says if you take this antibiotic, your bacterial infection will probably go away.
I take the drugs, my infection goes away.
Good. Science and observation, pretty good.
They conform. But science is also telling us that very few people are being injured by vaccinations.
Science is very clear about that.
Yes, people can be injured by any kind of vaccination, really any kind of medicine.
But there are not many.
Not many. At least compared to the number of people who are having COVID problems.
But I asked on Twitter, because people keep telling me anecdotally that they know people who are injured by vaccinations.
Now, first question.
Does anybody know...
That somebody in their circle was injured by the vaccination.
Do they know it?
Or is it just that they got the vaccination and then a very unusual health problem happened soon after?
You agree they don't know it, right?
They just have a strong, strong suspicion.
So strong that they speak of it as if it's obvious.
And you also know that in a big country, there would be coincidences like that that would look exactly like people were being injured, even if they weren't.
Don't give me the VAERS database, because that's a different story.
All right. So here's my opinion that you're going to think is a change of opinion, but it isn't.
You ready? So I asked on Twitter how many people personally know people who are injured by the vaccination.
That doesn't mean they know it.
It means they strongly suspect it.
And it's a lot.
It's a lot. The people who say, I personally know people or multiple people that they believe were injured by the vaccine, it's a lot.
So... What do I have now?
I've got the science telling me one thing, that the side effects are rare, and then I've got personal observation, but it's really a third-hand personal observation.
Really, all I can observe is people telling me they observed something.
Pretty sketchy, right?
But if I had observed it myself, I would likewise be subject to confirmation bias.
So the fact that other people are telling me and maybe they have confirmation bias probably doesn't change much.
Because if I had directly seen it myself, I'd probably have the same confirmation bias.
So... Let me say this as clearly as possible, and tell me if you think this is a change of my opinion.
There is clearly a disconnect between observation and science.
Are you happy? Everybody happy?
How many of you have been beating me up saying, Scott, Scott, Scott, there's so many people, you know, I hear all these reports, it's in the VAERS database, which is not confirmed stuff.
Are you happy? I too, I too see what you see.
Meaning that it is clear to me there is a disconnect between the science and the observation.
That does not mean the science is wrong.
You all get that, right? Doesn't mean the science is wrong.
But it is a big honking red flag.
So all of you who keep telling me, Scott, Scott, Scott, why are you missing the big red flag?
I'm not. I'm not.
It's a big red flag. Exactly like you say.
But just be aware that confirmation bias is still the most likely explanation.
I don't know that that's the explanation.
Again, I can't be sure of that.
Just like I can't be sure that the reports are real, I can't be sure of anything at this point.
But yes, I am completely on the side that says, there's something going on here, and I don't feel like we're fully informed.
That's different from saying you shouldn't take a vaccination, right?
I'm not saying you shouldn't get vaccinated, and I'm not saying you should.
I'm saying that this is one of those perfectly crafted situations, accidentally crafted, in which your science and your observation, they've got some disconnect.
I would say that's true. I still think it's probably confirmation bias, plus probably these vaccinations have more side effects than others.
Probably. That's as far as I can go.
All right, um... Chris Vickers, a Blue Check Mark fellow on Twitter, you've probably never heard of him, but he's a Blue Check.
He tweeted this today.
He goes, set a date now.
After that date, no hospital services for the willingly unvaccinated.
So it's a Blue Check Twitter person calling for unvaccinated people to not have medical care after a certain date because, you know, they've been warned.
You've been warned. To which I tweeted back, if we didn't need to treat citizens who injured themselves by their own choices, one way or another, we could close 90% of our hospitals and still have extra capacity.
So Chris, have you not noticed that most of the reasons people are in the hospital are bad choices?
Now, you think this one's a bad choice.
Other people don't. So I'll recognize that people disagree with her.
Vaccination is a good or bad choice.
But that's mostly what the medical community does.
The entire medical community is correcting for your dumbass mistakes.
I mean, of course people are dying from natural causes, but when was the last time you saw somebody in the hospital waiting room or the emergency room who looked perfectly fit?
And if they do, it's a broken leg because they did something dumb.
It seems to me that a tremendous amount of our entire healthcare budget is correcting people's dumbass choices in life.
So why would you call this one out to be special?
It's not special at all.
We're making a bad choice every time we wake up.
Exercise today?
Nah, I'm busy.
Eat less?
Eh, not today.
Smoke less?
Okay.
Provocatively, I asked this question.
Is it just a coincidence that everything I try to influence goes my way?
Is that just a coincidence?
Probably not 100%.
But have you ever noticed that coincidence?
That whenever I'm persuading on a particular topic, it seems to go my way?
Well, today we learned that Great Britain has decided that nuclear energy will be the cornerstone of their plan to get to zero carbon emissions.
Great Britain is all in on nuclear power.
Now, Adam Townsend had a podcast, I think it was yesterday, in which he had...
An expert from OKLO, I think.
OKLO. A new generation nuclear startup.
And asked this question on my behalf.
So Adam had solicited questions to ask these experts.
And one of my questions got asked.
And it was, if America can't get nuclear...
If we can't get nuclear in America, how can we get it in space?
Now, the expert explained that because it's space...
The type of energy you can use up there is not every kind of energy.
You couldn't burn oil or you can't use coal in space.
You can't run an extension cord for electricity.
So there are lots of things you can do to get energy in space, but the one thing you can do is nuclear.
In fact, we already do it.
I think some satellites are nuclear, right?
Fact check me on that.
And Adam asks, on my behalf, can there be a space force...
Without that. And the expert said, basically, you need nuclear for space.
Now, once you know that you need a domestic nuclear program, a good one, a robust nuclear program, because otherwise you'd give up space, it's over, isn't it?
The question of whether America needs to go hard into nuclear energy for domestic use is completely answered by just that one fact.
If we give up space, that's the end.
That's basically putting a timer on the United States to no longer be an important power.
You know, it might be 50 years in the future, but it definitely puts the timer on.
It says, okay, if you're not going nuclear, you're not in space.
If you're not in space, you're not going to rule anything on Earth either.
You're done. It's the end of your republic.
So I think this only could go one way, and also climate change, etc., was screaming for an answer.
The answer was already there.
It was nuclear. Just people were not well informed.
So when people like Michael Schellenberger testified to the American Congress and gave them information for the first time, a lot of them were under-informed, but once they were informed, you saw that the United States Congress, both parties, are like, yeah, nuclear.
Boom. So just being informed and brought up to date on what the real risks are with the newer technologies, etc., was enough, probably.
So Schellenberger for the win.
But did you know that Michael Schellenberger also did the same thing in Great Britain?
Also... Brought his expertise to Great Britain in 2019, and he was asked, you know, what to do about climate change, etc., and told them the same thing.
There is one solution.
It works.
There's one solution.
Nuclear. There's not a second solution.
And now Great Britain also, now informed.
Yeah, Apocalypse Nefer was...
Michael Schellenberger's book that talked about that.
And now informed, Great Britain's not just on board with nuclear, but aggressively.
Aggressively on board. So I asked this question provocatively.
I said, you know, is it a coincidence that everything I persuade on goes my way?
It's not because I caused it.
It's because I could tell which way things are going to go.
Right? Now, I did, of course, try to influence as much as possible.
Mark Schneider was a big part of informing me so that I could inform others.
And I don't know if you know, but a number of people in Congress followed me on Twitter.
Did you know that? There are quite a few people in the news business and in Congress who follow me on Twitter.
And so I've been informing, basically, using what I knew from Mark Schneider, from Michael Schellenberger, to communicate the safety and the necessity of nuclear.
And here we are. But I don't think it was my power of persuasion that made the difference.
Obviously, Schellenberger made a big difference.
Mark Schneider, I think, made a big difference.
But I think it was inevitable.
I basically predicted something that couldn't go any other way.
There was only one way this could go.
It was a matter of how much time But as soon as people were brought up to speed information-wise, there was only one way it was going to go.
So when I cheekily say, is it a coincidence that everything I try to influence goes my way, it's not because I influenced it necessarily.
Maybe I did, but not necessarily.
It's because I'm good at picking things that are going to go that way anyway.
Let me give you another example. One of my earliest efforts for influence was getting smoking out of public places and out of offices and stuff.
So I put a lot of work into that.
But wasn't that going to go my way anyway?
I mean, really? Do you think that smoking was always going to be allowed indoors?
No, no. I just knew it was obvious which way it was going to go.
I threw in on that direction.
Maybe I made some difference, maybe not.
But it was more like a prediction.
And it's easy to predict the inevitable.
Likewise, other persuasion that I've been very involved in was the right to die, to have a doctor-assisted death.
So in California that passed, so that was the law.
And I persuaded very hard on that topic.
But again, wasn't it going to go that way anyway?
Really, I feel like I just picked the topic that was going in the right direction.
So, just keep that in mind.
But I like putting that out there because it's provocative.
Here's a question.
Alright, I'm going to quiz you to see your general knowledge of a very important fact about COVID. You ready?
If you get this fact right, if you get the right answer, then I would say that your opinion about vaccinations...
Might be credible, because it means that you know more than other people.
So here's the test.
We're going to see if you know enough to have a good opinion about vaccinations.
Here's the question.
Do vaccinations cause more variants, like the Delta?
Now, the Delta came before the vaccinations, but do the vaccinations cause more, or could they cause, More variants.
Look at the answers that are streaming by on each of your platforms.
We're seeing a mixture of nos and yeses.
Do you see that the mixture is pretty mixed?
Pretty mixed.
Seeing a lot of yeses, but seeing a lot of nos.
Now, how could you have an opinion on vaccinations unless you know this?
Pretty important, isn't it?
Alright, how many of you have heard of the chicken vaccinations, which there is a study that shows that the vaccinations for the chickens, for some chicken disease, actually did, according to a study, did increase the variance.
How many of you are aware of that study?
Are you aware of the study about the chickens and how their vaccinations increased the number of variants?
Because that's what is always tweeted to me when I bring up the topic.
So if you're not on Twitter, maybe you've never seen it, but let's just say there is a study, and the study says that where they vaccinated the chickens, it increased the variance.
So, let's say that was true.
Now, it's just a study.
You'd want to see some more studies, etc.
But let's say it's true.
Let's say you believe it. If it's true, does it tell you something about the coronavirus vaccine?
If it's true for chickens...
Oh, and I'll add something. I'm going to add something.
The chicken vaccination is also leaky, just like the coronavirus one.
Leaky meaning that even when you're vaccinated, you can still get it.
You just won't die.
So they're both leaky...
Does the fact that you know the chicken vaccination, let's say you do know that, cause more variants, does that mean that you have the same risk with the coronavirus?
Go. Let's see in the comments.
This vaccine is novel, so you can't compare.
That is a correct answer.
I'm looking for something else, but that is a good comment.
Yeah, you can't compare.
They're just different technologies, etc.
We're not comparing to natural immunity now.
Drop that topic for now.
Chickens are not humans, of course.
But remember, we're talking about the logic of it.
We're only talking about the logic of it.
Is the logic that if your vaccine stops most of the virus, that the only ones that can get out are the bad ones, the variants that escape the vaccinations coverage?
This paid comment says, selecting for a specific protein to target, which is what we do with coronavirus, increases the probability it could cause mutations.
I haven't heard that before.
But I don't know if that's true, but add that to your questions.
All right. Here's what I believed was true.
What I believed is that the more virus, the more variants.
Anybody? Does anybody agree with me?
Not the more filters, but the more virus.
To me, if you had a billion times more viruses, they'd be just naturally mutating all over the place, and some of them would be stronger, like the Delta, and they would take over.
But suppose only one person in the world was ever infected.
We'll just take the extreme.
Only one person in the world has ever been infected.
With that one person...
Create just as many variants as if a billion people were infected.
The answer is no.
A billion people infected create more variants because there's more virus.
So if your vaccine was not leaky, would you have a problem?
Nope. If your vaccine is not leaky, give somebody the vaccination and they're just out of the game.
They're taken completely out of the game because they won't get it.
And they won't transmit it if it's not leaky.
But our vaccines are leaky.
So in that case, do they cause more variants or fewer?
Well, let me tell you about the chicken vaccination.
The case of the chicken vaccination does tell you something, I think, about the coronavirus vaccination.
It does tell you something, and it's important.
Except that it tells you the opposite of what you think.
Here's the problem with the chicken virus.
It was completely different.
Opposite, really, from coronavirus.
What is the thing everybody says about coronavirus?
Damn it! It only kills less than 1% of the people who get it.
And most of them are old. Right?
So coronavirus is a virus that kills almost nobody, percentage-wise.
There's still a lot of people, number-wise.
The chicken virus would have killed all the chickens fairly quickly.
So without a vaccine, the chicken virus basically just takes out the chicken.
So they give the chicken a vaccine, but then it can still get the virus.
And now the chicken that would have been dead and couldn't spread is a chicken that's very much alive and spreading like a motherfucker.
The study about the chickens proves the opposite point Than the people who are sending it to me think.
What they think is that it shows that vaccinations cause more variants.
What it really shows is that if you have more virus everywhere, you get more variants.
Because these vaccinated chickens are just full of virus.
Almost as if they had not been vaccinated in the classic way.
So, keeping chickens alive so they can spread virus like crazy causes more variants.
Because there's more virus.
Because there's more virus.
So, the more virus, the more variants.
It probably isn't because of the vaccination.
Now go to coronavirus. You get a vaccination for coronavirus.
Is it the vaccination that causes you to live longer?
No. The thing that causes you to live longer is that the coronavirus doesn't kill you in the first place.
Except less than 1%.
So, Where the chicken virus kept chickens alive that would have otherwise not spread, because they would have been dead, the coronavirus doesn't keep anybody alive as a percentage.
Okay, I shouldn't put that in an absolute.
As a percentage of people with coronavirus, it's trivial, because the people who die are less than 1%.
Does that make sense?
That the coronavirus doesn't change the number of people who...
We have virus except to reduce it.
Because we do know that if you get the vaccination, you'll be spreading it for fewer days.
So probably the coronavirus creates less infected people, whereas the chicken virus created more infected chickens.
Literally the opposite, right?
So the chicken virus is opposite of what you should learn from coronavirus.
Just remember this.
More virus means more variants.
Keeping chickens alive creates more virus.
Keeping people alive doesn't change anything because they were going to be alive anyway, except for the less than 1%.
How's my argument?
Now, remember, I'm not a virologist.
Most of you knew that. Most of you knew I'm not a virologist.
But the person who first said this is a virologist.
So the opinion I'm giving you has no credibility because it's coming from me, but now I'm going to drop the bomb on you.
It came from somebody who actually knows the field.
I'm just repeating it.
Now, I don't know what the general consensus is, but I know that one expert said exactly what I just said.
In a sense, more virus means more variants, and that's the end of it.
More virus is more variants.
Period. So just look for wherever there's more virus, more variants.
So the Brett Weinstein, I'm seeing this in the comments, is that the virus forces evolution.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't force evolution.
The virus is creating variants at exactly the same rate, no matter what.
It doesn't force any evolution.
What it does is let things escape.
It does let things escape.
But some things are going to escape anyway.
So let me just say this.
Brett... He's also highly educated, and I think even in the correct fields, largely speaking.
Luke says, now Scott knows more about biology than Brett Weinstein, who's a biology expert.
No. I'm just telling you that somebody who does have the right expertise disagrees with him, and I'm repeating that argument.
Now, what credibility should you put on my discussion today?
Of the variance. Low.
Low. You shouldn't put too much credibility in what I said.
But I am trying to present the argument in a way that at least you can figure out what's wrong with it.
So all I've added to it is the notion that more virus equals more variance with no exception.
And that's something you can fact check.
So now ask your experts, is that right?
More virus just always means more variance?
So just boil it down to that.
And let's get a fact check.
Because could Brett Weinstein be right?
That the vaccinations are somehow promoting or causing variants?
He could be. Definitely could be.
I wouldn't know.
But now you have a question.
Does more virus cause more variants?
Or does more blocking cause more variants?
Good question. All right.
Marussia says, facts, framing, and resistance.
Okay. I read your comment, but I don't want to mention that one out loud.
All right. That is pretty much what I wanted to tell you today.
Okay. Letter to God, please give Scott a Jordan Peterson intervention and save Boo.
Why does Jordan Peterson need an intervention?
What's the difference between observation and empirical evidence?
Well, I think level of rigor.
Empirical evidence suggests that you tried to collect it in an organized fashion.
Whereas anecdotal just means you sort of ran into it.
Well, I don't know that Jordan Peterson needs any interventions.
He seems to be, you know, I mean, he has some medical problems, but I can't help on that.
Oh, itty-bitty?
Thank you for that. Oh, you liked my assistant story yesterday?
That's strange. What's this?
Patrick Carey says, Brett agrees with your statement.
You mean the statement that more virus means more variants.
Is that right? So, yeah, I guess I should have been more careful with my response to that.
I don't know exactly what...
Brett's opinion is on this.
So I shouldn't try to characterize it and then talk about it if I haven't seen the details.
So just assume that everything I said about that is low credibility.
Why are we vertical today?
Because... So there's a weird locals...
I guess a bug or maybe a design flaw.
It would be hard to explain why...
But it has to do with the fact that the only way I can see the comments and also have you in the right orientation is to have two screens.
The only way I can see the comments is if I tweet, and then I go to Twitter and open it, and then it takes me to the right place.
Otherwise, I can't find it.
I mean, I could, but I don't want to do it live while you're waiting.
And so it's just an interface oddity that makes it difficult if you're pressed for time.
Yeah, the number of variants doesn't matter.
It just matters if you get a bad one, right?
Please read Steve Kirsch's analysis on the vaccines for balanced analysis.
Mine's pretty balanced.
Do you think that my take on the vaccines is not balanced?
The reason you hate me, well, those who do, is because it's balanced.
I don't think anybody has a more balanced opinion than I do, do they?
Do they? Somebody says, I'm not balanced.
What would be an example of that?
Not being balanced on the vaccination.
Be more specific.
I'm open to that being true, by the way.
I'm not denying it.
I'm asking for a specific so I can see if I can agree with you.
Because I'm trying to be balanced.
It seems to lean toward pro-vax for sure.
Let me push back on that.
So I think that's where this is coming from.
People think that I speak more about things that are pro-vax.
How many of you would agree with that?
I think I would agree with it, too.
Do most of you see that? That I say more things that are pro-vax by their nature than anti-vax?
I agree with that, too.
So that would be an observation that I think is just objectively true.
Does that mean that I'm unbalanced?
Does it mean that I'm unbalanced if I talk more about one side?
Is that how that works?
Is it by how much time you spend?
Because that does matter.
If you spend more time on something, people do get the feeling that that means more to you.
Well, what if the information is biased in one direction?
At least the official information is biased in one direction.
If I talked about every claim on the internet that is not accepted by general science, then there would be maybe even more content anti-vax.
Would you agree with that? If I addressed every claim that's anti-vax, I would be talking more about anti-vax stuff than pro-vax stuff.
Do you think? Because there are a lot of claims on Twitter that are anti-vax.
Now, what is the reason that I don't talk about them?
What is it about my approach that causes me to talk less about the many, many claims of vaccination?
Somebody says lack of knowledge.
I would argue that I see all of that because people want to send it to me.
People are trying to change my mind, or at least my approach.
And people are sending me the anti-vax stuff just all day long.
I've seen a lot of it.
So I think I'm well informed about what the anti-vax people are saying.
Why do you think that I don't talk about it as much?
How deep do you read it?
Fairly deep. I mean, as deep as I read other stuff.
I don't think I skim it more than I skim anything else.
Yeah, don't bring an analogy in yet, because that just gets us off track.
Explain the agreement for ADE, why don't you?
ADE is what?
Define ADE. Can somebody define ADE for me?
What is that? The intervention is for you.
All right. Scott, people hear you say you don't want to persuade them to take the shot, but still you word things in a way that feels to them you actually are.
How could I avoid that?
How could I avoid wording it in a way that you think I'm talking you into it if the data leans that way?
Should I not lean the same direction as the official data?
Would it be anti-dependent enhancement?
Anti-body dependent enhancement?
Meaning what? I mean, I know what the words mean.
But why should I be talking about that?
So, yeah.
So the thing that I lean...
Thank you. Thank you.
Exactly. I try to lean toward credibility, meaning that the official responses, as wrong as they've been, the official science about COVID, as wrong as it's been, it tends to have higher credibility, you know, until they change their minds, than things that you hear about in a...
In some Twitter link to an article that never gets any traction.
So I wait for the scientists to tell me which of the other things I should pay attention to.
And you give too little weight, two VAERS. I do give...
Wait, were you here?
So somebody said I give too little weight, two VAERS. If you watch this entire live stream, do you say that's true or false?
I give too little weight to VAERS. Now VAERS is where reports of bad outcomes are.
I just had a whole discussion where I said, I agree with you that the number of reports of bad outcomes is alarming and conflicts with and actually hurts the credibility of the scientific opinion.
I said that as clearly and directly as you could possibly say it.
And the VAERS database is just the obvious example of those reports.
But it doesn't have to be in VAERS because I asked on Twitter and tons of people said, yeah, I got a friend, I got a friend, I got a friend.
Scott, would you call Joe Rogan for a chat?
I don't think he and I are the right ones for that chat.
Oh, but let me say this.
I don't know how often...
Joe Rogan has multiple guests for like a panel discussion.
I don't think he does that model.
But if he did, there are better people than me to put on it.
I don't think I'm the right person for that.
It would be entertaining, but it wouldn't be as useful as you want it to be.
Somebody says, I got vaccine because of Scott's discussion and my doctor's advice.
Well, I hope your doctor's advice was a little bit weighted more than mine.
Well, I've been on Joe Rogan's program, so if you Google it, you can find it.
He does have multiples on, but not multiples who are on different sides, right?
Has Joe ever had people who are on different sides of a debate at the same time?
I'm seeing a yes. I don't think I've ever seen one.
Oh, he has a few times. That would be the perfect situation.
Although he's on Spotify.
So he's up behind a paywall.
It would be better not to be behind a paywall.
Yeah, a Tim Pool...
Would be sort of a good choice for that.
I think I'd be a good choice, but I don't have the wherewithal to set it up.
I mean, I do have the wherewithal, but I don't have the time and interest right now.
Spotify is free.
Why are you saying Spotify is free?
Are you saying that his program on Spotify is free?
That's not true, is it?
Wait, am I missing something important?
It's not a paywall? Oh, it's just ads.
Really? I didn't know that.
I don't use Spotify. So Spotify is not a subscription service.
It's just got ads. Oh.
That's the reason I didn't have Spotify.
Maybe I should get it.
All right. Well, thank you.
See? This is that example again of a new kind of intelligence.
In real time, you watched my mind be changed.
And you saw it a few times.
It's kind of cool, isn't it?
That we are collectively like a single rational entity.
It just takes all of you to correct me on a regular basis to get there.
Body autonomy.
What about...
I don't know.
So didn't watch the episode with Dr.
Gupta Complete. I did not.
No. All right.
So there's no ads if you have a subscription on Spotify?
Okay, that makes sense. Alex says, God, can you imagine being married to this guy?
I assume you're talking about me, right?
Well... I'm not sure I understand.
That was my phone. My phone just said, I'm not sure I understand.
Well, I do understand.
Somebody said, imagine being married to that guy.
You're not wrong. Imagine being married to me.
It's no picnic, believe me.
So you're right about that.
Would I host Brett Weinstein versus Andres Backhouse?
No. I would not host them.
If just the two of them, no.
Because that's not the right two.
The ones you want are...
Because both of them are skeptics, I would say.
Skeptic of different things.
But I want somebody who's a believer and at least one skeptic.
And then somebody who can do some fact-checking.
So you want three people.
One of them just a fact-checker.
And the other two being on other sides of the issue.
So that would be the ideal model.
And then maybe... One moderator.
So you need four people. Moderator plus those three.
Three plus those. Good, yeah.
Actually, let's make that a thing.
You want to make that a thing?
You want to do a little...
Let's do a little persuasion experiment.
Whoever just said, let me call you out, TwixBar.
So user TwixBar over in the locals platform just has a comment that says three plus host.
And I like that branding.
So let's see if we can make 3 plus host a model that people understand as the best model.
Now, of course, the news will often violate that model, but let's see if we can get somebody to do it.
3 plus 1.
The plus 1 is the host, and the 3 are people on two sides of an issue, and then a fact-checker who doesn't seem to be associated with either of them.
And then a host...
Who can keep it all straight?
Oh, and then here's the last part.
The last part is not a timed event.
Or if it's timed, it's a lot of time.
It could be three hours.
But you don't want a five-minute hit.
It can't just be an episode on Hannity or something.
It's got to be its own show.
It can't be an episode on somebody else's show.
We wouldn't have enough time. So let's see if we can make that happen.
Three plus one is the model, three plus host, and it will be one fact checker, two people on opposite sides, and the host does a good job of moderating and making sure the fact checker gets in there.
What do you say? Let's make it a thing.
Let's see if somebody can do one of them, and then, you know, no matter how it works, then we refine the model.
Maybe the first one isn't so good, but you just refine the model based on what you learned.
Oh, Ben Shapiro would be...
Yeah, there's lots of people you could think of who have the platform.
So here's the first thing we need.
We need the platform and the host, right?
Getting the guests, I think, would be the easy part.
Ooh, Dave Rubin.
Dave Rubin. I think he has all the technical wherewithal, which is what you need, because you need the three screens and, you know, the organization of it all.
That's the stuff I can't... I don't have the time to do.
But Dave Rubin. Wouldn't you watch Dave Rubin?
Now, I would make, with all respect to Dave Rubin, who, by the way, Dave Rubin is one of my examples of the talent stack guy.
He's got, like, a whole bunch of talents that just work together perfectly.
I mean, his career is a...
He's a role model in terms of how to make something work.
I mean, he really does a great job of combining talents to make something special.
But part of his talent stack is that he's agreeable and people like him.
I don't know. I think you need somebody who's a little bit more of a bastard for the pushback.
A little bit more of a bastard.
I don't know if he could go full bastard.
Because you're going to need to shut down both of the experts, but at different times.
And maybe even the fact checker.
So you're going to have to have a strong, like a dictator's hand to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, that didn't make any sense.
Now, I worry that Dave is too nice, because he usually does interviews in which there's not a lot of conflict.
But maybe, maybe.
I mean, if he wanted to do it, he'd be a great platform for it, because he's got a big platform.
So Dave, if you're listening to this, and somebody will probably tell you if you're not listening, that's a challenge to you.
If you could put this together and be tough on them, or alternately, guess somebody who would be.
Just because you're the host doesn't mean you have to be the moderator.
So the 3 plus 1 doesn't have to be the host.
The host could just introduce it and say, here you go.
It's my program, but...
You know, take it away. So that could work.
That could work. But I think Dave could do it.
I just don't know if he wants to be the one to be that much of a bastard.
You need a bastard. Like, I'd be good at it, because I'm a bastard.
Michael Malice. Cernovich would be good.
Cernovich could do it. Maybe Corolla.
See, the problem is, you've got to find somebody who's also well-informed.
So being a bastard isn't enough.
You need to also be well-informed.
Dvorak. Crowder.
Gottfeld. Oh, there you go.
Mark Levin. Okay.
There's one. So let's just take that as our example.
Mark Levin. Is he well-informed?
Yeah. Is he a good communicator?
Yes. Big platform? Yes.
Could he be a bastard?
Yes. Yes.
I mean that in a complimentary way.
Yeah, he could totally be a bastard about it.
Somebody said Bill Maher.
I accept that.
Bill Maher could be a bastard.
Again, in the best way.
You just have to be a bastard sometimes and shut people down and challenge them.
Too polarizing, somebody says.
Maybe. I'm probably too polarizing, too.
You do it from Ruben's studio?
I would do that. I would do that if you wanted to.
I don't know if it needs to be in the studio, but you'd need the resources.
All right. Sam Harris.
Good suggestion.
Sam Harris. Actually, that's my dream team right there.
My dream team would be not even me doing it.
My dream team would be Sam Harris doing it.
That'd be pretty good. Because I think Sam Harris has the intellectual weight as well as the ability to change his mind, which is rare.
So I think he could do it.
He'd be good at that. I don't know if he could be enough of a bastard.
Probably. I don't know.
What do you think? Could Sam Harris be enough of a bastard to make that work?
You probably need somebody who...
Well, let me revise that.
I think Sam... For all of his strengths, his sort of intellectual approach to things might not fit the bastard host model as closely as possible.
