Episode 1532 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About Mandatory Vaccinations for Robots. And More Nonsense.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Is "Long COVID" mass hysteria?
The need to become more humble in our certainty
Don Lemon doubles down on CNN lie-by-omission
Suppressed tweet on President Trump election fraud?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Practically nothing. And by now, you're starting to realize that something special has happened.
Right? Somehow you made it to the best place in the world.
Seven plus billion people Wandering around lost by you, my friends, made it to exactly the right place and even before the time to start.
Very good. Very good.
If you'd like to take it to another level, all you need is a cup of margarita, a glass of tanker gel, a canteen jug, a flask of basil of any kind.
Fill with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Ahem. Ahem.
Except my throat.
It's called the simultaneous sip, but it happens now.
Go. Ah, antibodies.
Yep, those antibodies are surging.
Now, some of you, and I'm sorry, YouTube people, I hate to tell you, but you missed this.
Last night was the prototype first episode of Of After Dark with Scott Adams.
Yes, not the simultaneous sip, but the simultaneous talk.
And only the people on the local subscription service got to see that.
Yes, we hung out in my man cave.
A good time was had by all.
Might do more of that in the future.
Well, how about the good news?
Shall we start with that? Shall we start with the good news?
Here's the coolest news and the one I've been waiting for.
There's a company called Joby Aviation.
CNN is reporting this.
They've developed at least a prototype of a six-rotor helicopter-slash-airplane.
Now, it's a slash-airplane because it can lift off with its six rotors like a helicopter.
So suddenly you don't need an airport.
It can fly 200 miles an hour.
Do you know how fast a Cessna flies?
Not that fast.
So it's faster than a small airplane.
It's actually faster than a PITS, which is an aerobatic plane.
Oh yeah, I know all about planes, because I listen.
Somebody says 250? I think it depends on the Cessna.
But your typical Cessna, you could be, you know, if you're getting 160, 180, wouldn't that be on the high end?
145 for a typical Cessna, somebody's saying?
Anyway, it's electric.
Did I mention that? It's electric.
And it's safer than a helicopter because it has six rotors.
I assume six engines.
Probably some redundancy.
I'm guessing that if you lose one of the rotors, you're probably in pretty good shape to finish your flight.
Guessing. And it'll go 150 miles on a charge at 200 miles an hour.
It'll seat four passengers and one pilot.
I think they solved everything.
Didn't they? It feels like they solved every problem with flight.
Think about every problem you have with flight.
Doesn't this kind of solve most of them?
Not the long hauls, but certainly the shorter flights.
All right, so that's pretty cool.
Looking forward to that.
Dr. Anarchy on Twitter, who's a real doctor, suggests that maybe when I was talking about the Havana syndrome being a mass hysteria, which I wouldn't say is confirmed yet, but at this point...
The smart money is on mass hysteria for the Havana Syndrome secret sonic weapon.
And Dr. Anderke points out, you know, it might be a mass hysteria with this long COVID stuff.
To which I say, hmm, could be.
Because it does have the right characteristics, which is the news is talking about it, people are suggestible, and there's a whole bunch of grey area stuff like brain fog, headaches, and loss of appetite that people get anyway.
So it's pretty easy to imagine that people would be imagining they're having more problems than they have.
Now, let me be really specific here.
I'm not suggesting that long COVID isn't real.
I'm not suggesting it isn't real.
I'm saying that whether it's real or not, almost certainly there are lots of fake, or let's say misdiagnosed symptoms that are just accidental and coincidental.
So we don't know how big that effect is, but if you think that you know...
That long COVID is real and that it's 25% of the people who get it or whatever the statistic is from some study.
I don't think we know that.
I don't think we know that.
I think all we know is that it's reported.
And so we have this bizarre situation.
The most bizarre situation ever.
What are all of us trying to do?
Make decisions based on data, right?
So 100% of us are making decisions based on data.
Now, of course, it's how much you trust the data as well.
But we've come down to the point, we've actually evolved to the point where our decision on getting vaccinated or not, at least the individual's decision, is based on comparing two mass hysterias.
Two mass hysterias.
Maybe. Maybe. Or at the very least, we don't know what the date is.
So if you're making your decision on vaccination, you're probably saying, all right, what is the risk of getting vaccinated and being damaged by the vaccination?
Do you know what the answer to that is?
You don't know. You don't know the risk.
It can't be known.
You can know what they've found so far and reported, but that's not the same as what the risk is.
Now, what about all the anecdotal reports of people having problems after the vaccination?
Well, there's enough noise on that to say it could be real, but it also could be mass hysteria.
How would it look different if the reports of vaccination damage and side effects, how would it look different if it were mass hysteria Or completely real, as many of you believe.
How would it look different?
The answer is it wouldn't.
It would look exactly the same if it were a mass hysteria as if the vaccination actually has lots of side effects.
It would look exactly the same.
So you don't know what it is because it would look exactly the same.
But which one's more likely? I don't know.
You know, there's some cases where mass hysteria is easy to spot.
Let me give you some examples.
Mass hysteria that the devil has occupied a bunch of people.
Easy. Because the devil claimed it would be so unlikely.
Just on the face of it, you could say, that's a mass hysteria.
The Meg Martin school kids' case was an obvious mass hysteria.
A bunch of people believed in satanic worshipping happening at a school.
That's crazy. And it turned down it wasn't true.
Mass hysteria about witches.
Believing that witches are all around in Salem, for example.
That was easy. Because witches are real.
So you say, wait a minute, you're believing in something that's almost certainly not real, a witch?
Probably a mass hysteria.
Look at the Havana Syndrome.
Easy to spot as a mass hysteria.
Because, really?
A secret sonic weapon that's just being used on Americans?
I don't know. So there's just an obvious thing on the face of it that's probably not true, like a ghost or a devil or a secret sonic weapon.
But what happens if you have a normal situation?
A normal situation is that medicine and vaccinations can have side effects for some people.
So you can't really spot a mass hysteria in this case because there's nothing on the face of it that's ridiculous.
If you tell me, but Scott, it is ridiculous that all these smart people would approve a drug that has all these side effects.
No, that's not ridiculous.
That's something you hope didn't happen.
I don't have a spoon.
If I had a spoon, I would clank it in my coffee for sticks and hammer.
If I had one. So...
Yeah, there is no spoon.
I don't have a spoon.
Sorry. If I had one, I would be happy to comply.
So, do you feel that you're making your vaccination decision based on data?
Or lack of trust for the source?
Which one do you think it is?
Because... The two datas that you're comparing could be both mass hysterias.
We might have a mass hysteria about vaccination side effects.
At the same time, we have a mass hysteria about COVID long haul.
Or, one of them could be real and the other one not.
Or, both of them could be totally real.
You don't know. How could you tell?
How could you tell...
So somebody says that they're basing their decision more on lack of trust, based on the source.
I would suggest to you that no matter which way you go, it's because of lack of trust.
Lack of trust should be universal on both sides of the question.
You shouldn't trust anybody at this point.
Really, you shouldn't trust anybody.
So if the only people you're not trusting are the government...
You need to ramp up your skepticism at least double.
Because the government is not the only source of bad information.
It's one of them.
It's not the only one.
So you would be comparing your lack of trust in the government to your more trusting belief that shit you see on the internet is pretty good.
So we don't have data...
And if you're using some kind of...
In other words, you can't use the data to make a decision because we don't have good enough data.
But if you're trying to game the system with a rule of thumb, like, oh, these people are always lying, or this group, let's say the government, is always trying to put one over us, or the big pharma is lying about its statistics, maybe all of that's true.
But you know what else you can't trust?
Everything on the other side of the argument.
If you think one side of the argument is credible and the other isn't, where have you been lately?
Because I'll tell you what's not happening is you're not getting any credible information.
Credible doesn't mean incorrect.
It just means that you shouldn't believe it on the surface because you can't tell.
All you know is it came from some source and it's a source that's been wrong a lot before.
Either people on the internet, been wrong a lot, or the government, been wrong a lot.
So how in the world are you convincing yourself you're making a data-driven decision?
You know you're not, right?
Don't you know that? And if you try to game the system, like I said, with, oh, well, I don't need the data...
Because I can just look at the situation and the players, and I can figure out which are the credible players and which are not, and sort of that's how I'll make my decision.
You can't do that.
You don't know who's lying to you.
Because they're all not trustworthy.
Everybody, including me.
Do you trust me?
Should you? Well, what the hell do I know about...
I wouldn't trust me too much.
Here's the most you should trust me.
This is the maximum amount you should trust me.
You should trust me to be similar to the way I have been in the past.
Is that fair? You should trust me to be the same person I was a year ago.
I haven't really changed that much. That's all you can trust.
Now, if you said, okay, a year ago, you said some things that were surprisingly good predictions, but you also got some notable things wrong.
Is that a fair statement?
Is that a fair characterization of me?
That I had some impressive predictions in the last five years, let's say, but also got some big stuff wrong, like everybody did.
Is that a fair characterization?
So why would you trust me?
How can you tell that the next thing I make a prediction on is a good one?
If you could tell which of my predictions were good ones, then you would be good at predicting.
You wouldn't need me at all if you could tell the good ones from the bad ones.
You can't. Even I can't tell the good ones from the bad ones.
I have varying levels of confidence, but that's different from knowing what is likely to be right.
So I think all of us need to get a little more humble...
About how we're making decisions.
Let me tell you what I learned on day one in hypnosis class.
If there's anybody on YouTube watching, there might be three people who don't know I'm a trained hypnotist.
But the first day of hypnosis class, decades ago, the first thing you learn is that people don't use information to make decisions.
And when you hear it, you're like, oh, I think that's an exaggeration.
I mean, yes, some people, some decisions.
Yeah, I see what you mean. But now you're into outright hyperbole.
Because obviously people do use data to make decisions.
Nope. Nope.
Never. Never.
They just don't.
They don't use data to make decisions.
It's just an illusion that we do.
Now, do we make decisions that are in the same direction as the data, and then they work out well?
Yes, we do. Yes, we do.
We also look at the data and misinterpret it and do things, and sometimes that works out well, too.
Because we not only misinterpreted the problem, but we misinterpreted the answer.
And we got lucky.
And our misinterpreted problem was solved by our misinterpreted answer.
But mostly we're doing random stuff or we're doing things because other people say we should do them or we're afraid to buck the other opinions or something like that.
But does it have anything to do with the data?
We'd like to think so.
But trust the hypnotists.
Funniest story of the day is Don Lemon doubling down and defending CNN's characterization of Joe Rogan's COVID treatment that included, among other things, ivermectin, the human kind.
Yeah, yeah. Has anybody heard that before, that ivermectin comes in two forms?
One, the human kind, developed first, very important, later became also a veterinarian horse dewormer.
And Don Lemon has Sanjay Gupta on, and he's doubling down on CNN's lie.
Now, it's a lie of omission, right?
Don Lemon tries to go technical.
He's like, it's not a lie that Ivermectin is a horse warmer.
And Sanjay, to his everlasting lack of credit, agreed with that statement.
Sanjay, I just embarrassed myself by defending you yesterday.
You motherfucker.
I just defended you in public yesterday for being reasonable in not defending CNN. For the dewormer stuff.
And then he goes right back on CNN and lets the lie by omission stand.
I mean, seriously, Sanjay.
We do expect a little more out of you, if I'm being honest, because I know you have more.
I will reiterate that I don't think Dr.
Sanjay Gupta is one of the bad guys.
I think he's one of the good guys.
But he also has a boss, right?
If you have a boss, you're going to respond to it.
And I'd advise Sanjay Gupta that he could push a lot harder on his bosses and his co-workers without real risk.
Because the only thing I would ask him to say is it could be misleading to people to not call this a human drug first.
It's worth pointing out, if you'd like to, for context, that it's also horse dewormer.
But that part is not relevant whatsoever to Joe Rogan's decision to take a human drug.
Now, that would be a good answer, right?
It would not directly call CNN liars.
But it would correct them and say, you know, let's say the better context is to start by saying it's a human drug.
They can be prescribed off-label.
Don't know if it works or not.
The evidence is not confirming that it works.
But it's not unusual for people to take that kind of risk with such a small chance of side effects.
Now, if Dr. Sanjay Gupta said anything like that, I'd say that's a pretty good answer.
He's not really calling CNN out as liars, but he's fixing their context for them.
Don't you think he should do that?
I feel like there's an ethical lapse in this story.
I mean, it's subjective, right?
It's not an objective thing.
But subjectively, it looks like an ethical lapse.
Not a big one. I mean, it's smallish.
But I feel if you're in the medical field that you shouldn't have any of those.
And when you do, you should quickly circle back to correct it.
Because obviously, you know, mistakes happen.
So that would be my ask for Dr.
Gupta. If he had a chance to circle back and just put a little context on that for us.
It would just feel a little better.
But the fact that Don Lemon is trying to double down on that lie by omission is hilarious.
He's a broken man, isn't he?
Don Lemon looks broken.
He's dealing with a pretty serious sexual harassment allegation from a man who says that he got touched.
We don't know if that's true.
Remember, the context here is we don't know if anything's true.
It's just an allegation.
But he's having a tough time with this.
Don Lemon is. I wish him well.
So, here's a question for you.
I tweeted a thread yesterday in which I reframed Trump's challenging of the 2020 election and it got very few retweets.
What's up with that?
So, Keep in mind, here's some context.
When most of you were claiming, I think, Twitter is shadow banning me and your tweets don't show up, I was pretty much on the side of saying, hmm, that's probably an illusion based on the fact that not all tweets show up and there are reasons for it.
It might not be a bad reason.
But I tweeted something that in any prior time...
I think would have been over a thousand retweets easily, just because of the content.
I'm reasonably good at guessing which of my tweets will get big responses and which won't.
I have a pretty good track record of it, because the ones that go viral have certain qualities to them.
This one had all the qualities of a viral tweet.
And it just sat there and died.
When I checked, it was at 187 tweets.
Retweets. Tweets, I guess.
What would you call it? I guess it would be a retweet, because I'm the original author.
So... And I'll tell you what the thread was about in a minute, but...
Is this an obvious shadow ban?
Now, the people who said they didn't get it, remember, you don't get everybody's everything.
That's normal. Does everybody know that?
It's normal... That you don't get everybody's every tweet.
You should know that's normal.
I think there's a setting that allows you to see them all or see them according to the algorithm or something, right?
Now, you're wondering if it picked up a keyword the algorithm did and suppressed this.
I had 38 quote tweets...
Listen to this ratio.
There are 187 tweets, which would suggest a low amount of interest based on the size of my follower base.
So over 640,000 followers, something like that.
And for me to only get 187 tweets after a day would be low.
So that would be a low number of tweets.
But 38 quote tweets?
That's a lot.
So it suggests that the people who did see it were very interested in engaging with it, but not many people saw it.
So what is the situation in which many people are interested in engaging, and yet many people didn't engage?
How does that happen?
Well, am I reading too much into the data?
Yeah, because sometimes you do get a lot of quote tweets relative to the number of tweets.
So I check my history to see if that ever happens.
And it does happen in situations where just people have a reason to comment.
It doesn't necessarily mean something's up.
But it's a flag.
Sort of a flag.
It's like... Maybe I should look at this a little more.
Now, would you be surprised if Trump being banned from Twitter was not also at least suppressed so that other people don't just tweet his material for him?
Because what would Twitter do if...
Let's say somebody like me, just to make it interesting, let's say somebody like me makes a deal with Trump and says, hey, I'll retweet everything you want me to tweet.
It'll just come from my account.
You can tell that it's from you.
But I'll just be your official retweeter.
Now, what would happen? Wouldn't Twitter shut you down?
I mean, they should, right?
It makes sense. If they're going to ban the author, which would be Trump, wouldn't they necessarily need to ban anybody who was just going to retweet everything he said?
Now, there are people who retweet everything he said.
But they tend to be smaller accounts, and they haven't really been picked up as the way to follow him.
If he actually gets in the race, I think those, let's call them, what would you call them, mirror accounts?
Or retweeter accounts or something?
I think there will be a number of them, so that you'll be able to follow Trump.
You'll just be following the mirror, people being a mirror.
Now, will all those people be banned?
No. They should, right?
I mean, should based on the consistency of the guidelines, I would think.
It's the same content, so why wouldn't you ban it?
I don't know. I don't know if they would treat it that way, but logically, you would imagine they might.
So here's my question.
If Trump himself is banned, why wouldn't Twitter also suppress topics that are favorable to him?
I feel like that just makes sense, right?
Less Trump is less Trump.
They either wanted more of him or less of him, and they decided to have less of him.
So let me tell you what I tweeted, and I need your help here, okay?
I'm asking for your help.
I have a bias here that's pretty obvious, because I think my tweet was good, but I'm operating from deep bias.
You have less bias relative to me on this topic.
I want to see if you can call out my bias on this.
Am I wrong?
All right, let me tell you what the point is.
So the point of this thread was this.
That most people think Trump is making a terrible mistake in continuing to hammer...
And continuing to hammer on the 2020 election.
And also to continue to claim that there was massive fraud and that it's all been documented.
Now, number one, how many of you think that's a bad strategy?
Or up until my tweet, how many of you thought that was a bad strategy to just keep hammering on that 2020 election?
Forget about whether he's right.
We're not talking about right or wrong.
We're only talking about strategy.
Alright, so a lot of people saying they think it's a bad strategy.
Alright, so here's my argument for why it's a good strategy.
You ready? Do you think I can convince you it's a good strategy?
How many think I can do that?
Here's the argument, and it goes like this.
What are the odds...
That at least one precinct somewhere in all the precincts can be found that was clearly fraud.
Now, we're not looking at every precinct, so that doesn't mean we'll find it, but it's a big country.
What are the odds that there's no precincts which flip from Biden to Trump?
Now, remember, a precinct is not a state, and a precinct is not a county.
A precinct would be, you know, the smallest unit.
In any large complex system, is there fraud?
Let's take the stock market.
The stock market is policed pretty carefully.
The stock market is also a big thing with lots of people involved.
Is there always fraud in the stock market?
Yes, yes. The odds of finding fraud in the stock market, let's say, next year, specific examples, are 100%.
Does everybody agree it's 100%?
That if you look for fraud, some, just any example of fraud in the stock market, next year, 100% chance you would find it.
Yes, right? It's just obvious.
Now, let's take a big pharmaceutical company.
Pick any one. They've got lots of products, lots of trials, lots of things.
Do you think that in any big pharma company, even one that you respect, do you think that if you could somehow look at all the things they're doing, like all the employee decisions, the studies and everything, do you think you'd find any corruption in a big pharmaceutical company?
Just one person doing one corrupt thing, do you think?
Yes. And what are the odds you would find it?
What are the odds? 100%.
I mean, if you have the ability to look for it, you don't always have the ability to look for it.
But if you could, it would be 100%.
You don't know how big it is.
I'm not saying it was big enough to recall a drug or anything like that.
But yeah, 100%.
How about the government?
Let's take Congress. Congress is a pretty big body of people.
What are the odds that there's not one person in Congress who's somewhat explicitly taking a bribe?
Zero, right?
Even if you believe Congress is mostly pretty honest, because we're watching them pretty closely, what are the odds that at least one person...
Is doing something that's close to, maybe it's legal, but in effect it's a bribe, you know, something unethical.
What are the odds that at least one congressman will do that next year?
It's 100%.
Right?
It's 100%. All right, now let's get back to the election.
So the election is, you know, thousands and thousands of people operating semi-independently all over the country.
Every precinct is managed in its own way with its own people.
A vast process.
What are the odds that one of those precincts cheated in a way that flipped it from, and intentionally cheated, from the way that flipped it from Biden to Trump?
Just one of them. How many precincts are there?
Somebody give me a fact check.
How many precincts are there in the country?
Just Google that and put it in the comments for a second.
Yeah, 100%. Now look at Trump's bet.
Does Trump need to prove to you That enough votes were flipped to change the election result.
Does Trump need to prove to you in court that there were enough votes flipped to change the election?
He does not.
Because you know why?
You all operate on anecdotes.
You need one good example that you believe for sure.
Arizona is kind of sketchy, isn't it?
Because even the people who ordered it said, you know, maybe we're a little uncomfortable, but we can't say for sure it was rigged.
But what if you had one precinct where the question was asked and answered and everybody knew it was rigged?
Even the Democrats said, oh, okay, that was rigged.
But it's small.
It's small. It's just one precinct.
Nobody's proving that the election was rigged.
Just one precinct. If Trump gets one precinct that even Democrats can see was clearly fraud, he's your next president.
Because how does January 6th look if he can find one precinct, just one, That there was fraud.
Suddenly January 6th looks really different, doesn't it?
Now, it doesn't make any of the crimes go away, right?
Anybody who engaged in violence will pay a price, and I'm happy about that.
But your overall feeling of how inappropriate Trump was will very much be modified if we find one solid example...
So Trump is making a bet that he has a good chance of losing, because maybe we won't find one precinct with that problem.
But he's only one precinct away from being the next president.
Nothing else could keep him out of the office.
I don't think. I don't think there's anything else that could keep him out of office.
And because he's so far into it at this point, January 6th, etc., he's so far invested, he kind of has to ride this horse all the way.
If he suddenly changed opinion and said, you know, I'll let this election go, his base would rebel.
He would lose his base if he let go of it.
So, you know, well, let's let it go.
We'll just play another day.
He'd lose his base.
So he wants to keep his base, and he's placed a bet that they can find one example he can sell.
He only needs one. If he can sell one, he's the next president.
Now, here's my question I'm asking you.
Is that point of view, whether you agree with it or not, we're not talking about whether you agree with it, is that the kind of tweet that you would expect to see get a thousand retweets?
Am I wrong about that? So just check my viral tweet assumption.
Now remember, threads always get more attention than tweets.
So it's part of a thread.
Factor that in. Trump stuff always gets more attention than non-Trump stuff.
Factor that in. I'm known to say this kind of message.
So when the tweeter is talking about their topic of expertise or something they're known for, They get more attention, right?
When Monica Lewinsky talks about Bill Clinton, she gets more retweets than if she talks about purses.
So the things which make a tweet get 1,000 retweets, I feel are all in this tweet thread.
But it didn't. Now, again, since most of the theme of what I've talked about today is don't make too much from anecdotal evidence, Aren't I judging whether this got shadow banned based on anecdotal evidence?
Okay, yes. Yes, I am.
That's why I'm asking instead of stating.
I just want to get a second opinion on this.
Just see if you feel the same way about it.
We won't be able to confirm anything.
Okay. Should put down a rhino blacklist.
You know, I don't care about that rhino stuff.
The whole Republican and name-only thing, I don't have any interest in that as a way to frame things.
Things are either good ideas or they're not.
You know, how you decide to label yourself or other people, I don't care.
I'm going to look at the topic.
If the topic's good, I might support it.
But I don't care if somebody is relabeling their friends.
Oh, you're a rhino.
You're not a rhino. That does nothing for me.
All right. Let's see what else we've got going on here.
Nothing. Nothing at all.
All right. Yeah.
Let's go, Brandon. All right.
Am I missing any big stories?
U.S. intelligence caught flat-footed again by China.
In what context did the U.S. intelligence get flat-footed?
China weapon?
Hypersonic weapon? Oh, is there some kind of...
China has a hypersonic missile?
Great. You know, the one thing that I worry the least about is China launching a preemptive nuclear attack.
There's probably nothing that I think less about than China launching a preemptive attack.
Because China's game is wait.
They just wait. They can wait a few hundred years and dominate the world.
It looks like it's going that way.
Never talk about, oh, yeah, Katie Couric.
So there's a story about Katie Couric, who edited a Ruth Bader Ginsburg interview to make Ruth Bader Ginsburg look better.
What was the topic?
Ginsburg said, oh, voter registration?
Was it voter registration that she was...
Oh, kneeling. Yeah, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said something that the kneelers were kind of spitting in the face of the country that made their family successful.
And then Katie Couric decided that that would make Ruth Bader Ginsburg look bad, so she took it out.
Now, the reason I didn't comment on that story is that the whole story is in the story.
Usually I like to talk about things where I can add a reframe of it or a different point of view or something.
But the Katie Couric story, it's all there.
She edited a story to create what you might call fake news, but I mean it was misleading because she edited it.
And... That's the whole story.
So if you want to see another example of the media being something you can't trust, well, there's one for you.
Is that unusual?
I don't know. I can tell you that I've been edited to look smarter.
I told you, I think I mentioned that the Playboy interview was one of the most professional, best interviews I've ever been involved in.
They did a lot of fact-checking, etc.
Now, the Playboy interview, they do edit it to make you look good.
But what I mean by that is, if you say a sentence that's kind of clunky, they will re-edit your sentence as if you spoke it perfectly the first time.
Now, I don't mind that, because what they're doing is just clarifying what you really said.
They're just doing a better job of saying it than you said it.
So if they fix your words and get rid of a verbal tick...
Say, for example, that I use the word like.
So let's say they ask me a question, I go, well, that's like this or that.
They might get rid of the word like, because it didn't add anything, and it just makes me look like an idiot when I talk that way.
But the content would be the same.
So Playboy played it completely straight on content, but they didn't make me look smarter because they just took out my verbal texts.
North Korean Army video.
That's just theater.
Yeah, the fact that Buttigieg is on a two-month...
I guess it's a maternity leave.
At the time that we have the biggest problem in the country with his department, that's really a bad look.
On one hand, I certainly am happy that parents can take maternity leave and stuff and paternity leave.
But parental leave, let's call it.
Let's be less sexist.
But I feel like this should be an exception.
I feel like if that were me...
I don't know if a Zoom calls with the office is going to be good enough.
But they do need to bond with the baby.
That's important, too. I wouldn't minimize that.
The content is the same, and they made Scott look smarter.
Yeah. I suppose that is mildly fake news.
I would agree with you. It's mildly fake news.
You are very impressed by his McKinsey pedigree.
I'm very impressed by his analytical pedigree.
Meaning that he has the ability to look at the numbers and figure stuff out.
So that part I'm still in favor of.
I think his McKinsey pedigree is strong.
But I don't believe I ever told you that his McKinsey pedigree makes him a good leader.
Because McKinsey isn't about leadership.
They're more about nerdishly looking at numbers and strategy.
He should have at least named his backup.
Well, of course he's got a backup.
I'm sure somebody's in charge.
VAERS. The VAERS database, I think we've talked about, we can't trust the information in it, and that's the whole story.
But certainly there's enough reporting in there that it's a red flag.
Doesn't mean that the vaccines are dangerous.
If you think the VAERS database is telling you the vaccines are dangerous, you need to do more research about what the VAERS database is and is not.
It is definitely not telling you the vaccinations are dangerous.
It definitely is raising a big flag that says, maybe you should look at this a little bit closer.
It's definitely doing that, but it's not confirming anything.
Is California moving forward with nuclear reactors?
I doubt it only because we're incompetent politically.
Who's the baby's dad?
I don't care. All right, just looking at some of your comments.
Scott, let me record a drum intro for your show.
Okay. Go ahead and record one and send it to me somehow.
But I have to play it myself, ultimately.
But if you have an idea for it, I'd love to hear it.
The glow face generation?
What's the glow face? The people on devices?
How is Boo today?
She's happy and affectionate today.
Oh, send it on Instagram.
That's perfect. By the way, if you want to get a message to me that I'm more likely to see, my Twitter size is, I don't know, 600 and some thousand followers.
But my Instagram, I think, is 17,000.
Most of them are fake followers, I think.
I think at least half of my Instagram followers are a slightly overweight woman with large breasts who has posted one picture and says, hey, hey.
I've got scads of those.
I think at least 1,000 of my 17,000 followers are random women with one photo going, hey, hey.
Do you get those too?
Obviously, they're not real people.
I assume they're just guys.
Generation Z is the glow face.
I think glow face refers to your phone lighting up your face, right?
Could it mean something else?
I think that's all it means.
Are you on Facebook?
Yeah, but I don't read all my messages on Facebook.
And I don't accept friends on my personal account.
How many of you are watching this on the toilet right now?
We're being asked.
Anybody? How many are on the toilet right now?
Anybody? Like right now?
Who's on the toilet right now?
Well, at least some of you were for a part of it.
All right, I think that's a good way to end this show.
Possibly the best thing that will ever happen to you today.
Some of us get embarrassed easier than you.
Some of us get embarrassed easier than you.
Ha ha ha ha And Rick says, I'm on the couch, but I gotta pee.
that counts.
That counts, right?
Quasi-bully Tiffany Dover, right?
I don't know who she is. Wow, some doctors out there in Canada say they will lose their license if they say anything negative about vaccines.
Sheesh. Sheesh.
Oh, good. Scott Opelt.
I hope things work out for you.
All right.
Delta decided to not mandate vaccination.
Smart move. I think smart move.
Well, thank you.
Please try to stop cussing again.
You know, it's a continuous struggle.
Sidebar with Viva.
Oh, I am going to do Viva and Barnes.
I think it's...
Is it this week? So I did agree to do Viva inborns.
You've had better tweets?
Yeah, I'm sure I have. Okay.
So... So the clanking is...
So Sticks and Hammer clanks his coffee with his spoon.
Well, I don't use anything in my coffee.
So I don't need a spoon.
I take my coffee.
Black. Are you saying that I interact more on Twitter than on locals?
Actually, that's not true.
I interact with more people on locals.
Some more individual comments I interact with.
But on Twitter, I just get more engagement because there are more people.
And I probably tweet more.
I probably tweet, obviously, I tweet more.
But I interact with more individuals on Locals, actually.
At least I try to.
DeSantis and Tulsi. How come no one mentions Tulsi?
Well, we're not in a political race yet.
If she were, we would.
Alright, that's all for now. I will talk to you tomorrow.
How do you avoid coffee stains on your teeth?
Well, full disclosure, my teeth are not real.
So these are, what do you call it?
They're not real. They cover my real teeth.
Yeah, they're porcelain.
They're veneers, I'm sorry, that's the word.
They're veneers. So I don't know if the veneers have the same risk of stain.
Yeah, they're veneers.
So with a veneer, your real teeth are underneath, but they've been ground down.
So you'll never be able to use your real teeth because they're ground down to fit the veneer over it.
