All Episodes
Jan. 3, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:20:09
Episode 1612 Scott Adams: Today I Will Violate the Narrative on the 2020 Election and Vaccination Safety. Will I Be Suspended?

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Algorithms are rigged and our "news" is fake Algorithms biased toward approved narratives Dr. Malone, claims and counter-claims 2020 election integrity Marjorie Taylor Green's Twitter ban Are the COVID vaccines safe? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Humming* Well, good morning everybody.
Welcome to my last day on social media, according to most of my followers.
I've accepted a challenge.
We'll talk about that later.
To violate the narrative and see if I get kicked off of social media.
So let's see what happens.
But before we do that, would you like to have one possibly final simultaneous sip?
It might be the last one ever.
And actually, it might be the last one ever.
This is real, by the way.
I actually am going to see how close I can fly to the sun.
And I'm doing it...
For the purpose of making a point.
Now, if I get deleted for what I say today, we really have a problem in this country.
If I don't, well, maybe I will have defined the boundary and will have a little better sense of what gets you kicked off.
But first, what about the simultaneous sip?
Yeah, all you need is a copper mugger glass, a tanker, chalice, and a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled and possibly final pleasure.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen now.
Ah.
Yeah, it's good.
It's good. Well, we're going to wait for the audience to build up for the big event to see if I can get kicked off social media.
But before we do that, let's talk about some other things.
I cheekily ran a little question on Twitter because I'm always interested in whether our decisions are made by reason and good data, or are our decisions made irrationally, and then we rationalize them after the event.
And so I asked the following question.
I gave people two choices.
They could have a 100% chance of dying or a 25% chance of dying.
What do you think people chose?
You could have a 100% chance of dying or, option two, a 25% chance of dying.
Which did they choose?
Well, of course, I'm sort of...
Presenting the situation in a misleading way to make a point.
Because I didn't ask it as simply as that.
I rather complicated it with a hypothetical.
That the reason that you would either die or not die, based on those odds, would have to do with the vaccination.
So I thought to myself, what would happen if you just introduced the idea of a vaccination into a decision which is amazingly simple?
Would people have trouble answering a really simple question if you just added a little vaccination in there?
Are we so worked up about vaccinations that even if you eliminate all risks and say it's either 100% chance of dying or 25%?
You get to pick.
But it's about vaccinations.
As soon as you throw the vaccinations, people can't answer the question.
Now, of course, they suspected a trick.
They were like, hmm, I'm not sure I want to answer this question because then he's going to turn it into something else.
No. No, I wasn't going to turn it into something else.
Let me give you the exact question.
If the next variant...
So if the next variant were to spread as easily as Omicron, the idea is that everybody would get it eventually, because Omicron is sort of unstoppable, but had a 100% death rate.
So imagine that there was some new virus that came out that killed everybody in a month.
It doesn't kill them instantly.
They linger for about a month so that they can spread it to other people.
It's the worst-case scenario.
100% of people die, but not until they've spread it around, which would be weird, right?
Because most viruses, if it kills you, that stops the virus.
But this is a weird one, hypothetically.
It's not a real one, but hypothetically.
It sticks around, infects everybody, and then 100% of you die.
Or, hypothetically, and this is not real...
You could take a vaccine, again, hypothetically, no real data here, with a known 25% chance of killing you, but a 75% of protecting you.
As soon as I threw the vaccine in there, as soon as you threw in the vaccine part, people couldn't answer the question.
Now, I think the reason they couldn't answer it is that there's a consistency issue that we all have.
So if you've taken a stand, it's hard to change your stance, even if the data changes.
We all know that, right?
You're all aware of that in yourselves, right?
Would you say that's true of yourselves, that once you've decided you're the person who always says X... Even if there's some information that maybe doesn't make that look like a good idea, you still want to be the person who says X. Because that's who you were, it's who you want to be. It's hard to change your consistency.
And so, you should read the thread of how people responded to a 100% chance of dying versus a 25% chance.
Turns out, it was a much harder question than people thought.
I would like to compliment the people who answered it correctly.
So among the people who answered them correctly, one of them said yes.
Yes, they would rather have a 25% chance of dying than 100%.
Somebody's asking, what time frame?
Well, remember, it's Omicron, so it's going to get you.
You can hide it in the woods forever, but once you get out of the woods, you're going to get it from the animals, because the animals will have this new virus, too.
Now, of course, everybody wanted to Kobayashi Marumi and change the question.
Well, if I were to change the question...
No, no, you don't get to change the question.
Anyway, I don't think that proved anything, but it was a fun little experiment to see if somebody could answer the simplest question in the world if you complicated it by adding the word vaccine.
As soon as you add that word, people just...
their powers of reason just go sideways.
Eric Weinstein answered the question correctly.
The correct answer is, of course you take the 25% over the 100%.
But...
Beware of people who use hypotheticals like that in the wrong way.
So I don't think there could have been a more perfect answer to the question.
Yes. Yes.
But beware of this technique.
Of course you should. Now, yesterday I was having a lot of fun with my critics, and Ian Miles Chiang noticed, and he said, watching people get mad and unfollow, Scott Adams says, for refusing to validate their confirmation biases by punching through their echo chamber should be a reminder that everyone, no matter where they stand on the political spectrum, is vulnerable to mass formation psychosis.
So Ian thinks that people are suffering from this thing called confirmation bias, and that that's why they're having trouble with my opinions, this confirmation bias.
So I responded to him.
I said, what is confirmation bias?
Never heard of that.
But I'll tell you what people have informed me I'm doing.
So this is what people told me I was doing yesterday.
Nothing about confirmation bias.
What they said is that what I'm actually doing is trying to cope because I was, quote, afraid of the coup while I was wrong about all the things that I never actually said, and also I was refusing to, quote, accept the L while everyone dunks on me and I marinate in my ratio.
So, Ian, I appreciate that you're trying to defend me, in a sense, in thinking that my critics were suffering confirmation bias, but I don't think that's the case.
I think the problem's on my end.
What with my coping and being afraid of the goof and being wrong about the things I've ever said, refusing to accept the L, getting dunked on, and marinating in my ratio.
So that's what's really going on.
Well, the CEO of Volkswagen just tweeted that we need more cooperation and presence in China, not less, because it would be very damaging to Germany if the EU wanted to decouple from China.
And it made me wonder, I'm starting to see a pattern here.
It's like Germany has a theme, right?
It's like they have a theme. I think Germany's theme is, if I may paraphrase it, trusting the wrong people.
What is up with Germany trusting the wrong people?
Let me give you an example. They trusted Greta Thunberg and then started closing their nuclear plants and then ran out of electricity.
They are trusting Putin to have a pipeline and give them some gas.
That seems like a bad idea.
Trust in Putin.
And now the CEO of Volkswagen says we should trust China.
So that's President Xi.
So let's say Germany has this pattern of trusting the wrong people.
So there was Greta Thunberg, Vladimir Putin, President Xi.
I feel like there's somebody I'm forgetting.
Was there anybody else that Germany trusted that they shouldn't have historically?
I don't know. Kaiser Wilhelm.
Kaiser Wilhelm.
I feel like there's still one I'm missing.
I don't know. If you can think of it, get back to me on that.
But speaking of mass formation psychosis, several of you, quite reasonably, quite reasonably, criticized my opinion on it.
Now, should you be surprised that I just said that the critics were quite reasonable?
Well, you should be, because I have it on good authority that I have never, ever, ever admitted I was wrong.
But I'm doing it now.
I think my critics were correct.
I should have done more reading on this mass formation psychosis before brushing it aside as nonsense.
So yesterday I did a deep dive.
You know, back to the original source, find out what he said, etc.
And this thing is way scarier than I thought.
So I sort of brushed it aside as simply new words for something we already knew, that people are irrational and it's easy to get them worked up about anything.
So I thought it wasn't adding a thing.
And then I looked into it and saw the full presentation and...
It's really scary.
It's really scary, but not in the way you think.
So let's dig into that.
So mass formation psychosis, the idea is that when people are afraid, let's say there's a totalitarian government and just tells them there's something to be afraid of.
There's some entity or some other that they should be afraid of.
That will get people in an irrational sense of fear, and then they will grab onto whatever the leaders tell them, because they need some kind of certainty and confidence.
They can't handle the unknown part of it.
Now, this can be exacerbated, says the theory, by social isolation.
And some would say that the pandemic is exacerbating the social isolation.
So, so far, every bit of this I agree with.
But it's also ordinary.
If you were a...
Oh, I should have added this one.
We have a new asshole on YouTube.
So I forgot to add when I was mocking my critics that if you find yourself in the hole, stop digging, Scott.
So let me revise.
Let's go back. My critics are so good.
That... So what I'm doing is I'm coping because I'm afraid of the coup.
I'm wrong on all the things I've never said.
I'm refusing to accept the yell.
I'm in a hole. I keep on digging.
And everyone's dunking on me, and I'm marinating in my ratio.
But thank you for that update.
So back to mass formation psychosis.
So yes, we have all the conditions for mass formation psychosis, but I will say that anybody who had a background in psychology or persuasion or hypnosis would be completely familiar with this mass formation psychosis thing.
There wouldn't be actually anything new in this, like actually nothing new.
Now, do you believe me?
How many believe me when I say that if anybody studied even a little bit in this field, you would know completely this whole mass formation psychosis?
All of the parts of it are just ordinary.
Have I ever told you that fear is the strongest persuader?
Of course. Of course I have.
Lots of times. Have I ever told you that if people are uncertain, they'll gravitate to a confident voice?
I don't know if I ever told you that, but that's just basic understanding within the field.
So everything that's in this idea of the mass formation psychosis is ordinary, but real.
It's both ordinary and totally real.
Every bit of it. Do you think I'm debunking any of it?
Does anybody think I'm debunking the idea of a mass formation psychosis?
Either what causes it, or the fact that we're in one right now.
I'm not debunking it, right?
I'm wholly accepting it without change.
Completely accepting 100% of it.
But none of it's scary, so far.
Because it's also our normal situation.
Do you remember when...
How many of you are old enough to remember Reagan's presidency?
Do you remember the Reagan presidency?
He was a fascist, he was Hitler, there were riots in the streets, and it was a mass psychosis.
It was a mass formation psychosis.
Do you remember weapons of mass destruction?
And 9-11, those were mass formation psychoses.
Now, that was based on real stuff.
At least the 9-11 was real-ish, depending on your point of view.
But that was mass formation psychosis.
Trump derangement syndrome, mass formation psychosis.
Some would say climate change.
Now, you would get a disagreement of opinion there.
Some would say climate change is a real thing, but on top of it, There's a mass formation psychosis.
Now, here's my question to you.
And I'll tell you why I'm so afraid of this thing.
Why are we all talking about it now?
It's not because Dr.
Malone brought it up, is it?
Because I thought I was seeing it before he brought it up.
Can you give me a fact check on that?
Fact check me. He brought it up after it was already out there, right?
True, right? So it wasn't because he brought it up on Joe Rogan, which would make anything get a lot of attention, but it was already out there.
Now, why is it out there now?
Why is it a big topic that's trending now?
Now, when I watched one presentation of it, the implication was that there's some kind of ruling elite that are unnamed, and that that ruling elite is acting sort of like a dictator, effectively, and that it's putting people into this menticide situation where they don't believe any of the news, everything's BS, so they don't know what's true, and then they're easy to manipulate.
So all of that's happening.
But do you think that there is actually an elite group who are making actual conscious decisions to do this?
And who are the elites?
Are they Democrats or are they Republicans?
Or is this priming us for Trump?
In case Trump runs again, is this saying, hey, watch out.
This is how dictatorships get formed, so you've got to watch out for Trump.
Who is it against?
Is the mass formation psychosis an attack on the Democrat elite?
You know, the deep state, so to speak?
Or is it a preemptive attack on whoever runs as a Republican?
Why is it out here now when suddenly...
It was always the case since Reagan, and none of it's new, right?
None of these ideas in this mass formation psychosis are new.
Actually, they're very old.
They're all very old ideas.
So why are we all talking about it?
Do you know where I'm going with this?
There is some force that put this into our heads...
And this is a narrative.
What does it mean when a new narrative is introduced?
Because the idea of a mass formation psychosis is a narrative, right?
It's a story to explain something.
That's a narrative, a story to explain something.
It doesn't mean it's true.
Or the only story that can explain something is just one.
This is literally a piece...
Not literally. This is like a piece of software that has been slipped into our operating system.
So where some of you were not so aware that there's a thing called a mass formation psychosis, and you were probably less aware that it's something you should worry about at the moment...
Scott's doing a 180?
No, wait for it. Wait for it.
Wait for it.
Don't assume you know where I'm going.
So, here's my concern.
My concern is whoever introduced the idea of the mass formation psychosis into the public in a way that made it trend, etc.
I don't think that happened organically, do you?
It could have. Yeah, you can't eliminate the possibility that it happened organically.
But it doesn't have the smell of an organic thing.
It has the smell of something that somebody pushed into our software.
Because somebody, and this would be speculative, right?
It looks like somebody has an advantage...
Or imagines as an advantage for making this a program that runs in your head such that the next time you see something, you can fit it into that frame.
Because until you have the narrative...
The new things you see in your environment don't fit into a story.
They're just things. But now you have a narrative.
And you see the new thing might be confirmation bias.
You might be over-interpreting that thing.
But you're going to add it to your framework now because it exists.
And this idea will probably just keep getting stronger because you saw what happened in the last two weeks.
This whole idea went from something you hadn't heard of, many of you, to something that's like the big thing we all have to worry about.
I don't believe this is organic.
But it's also unclear who would do this.
It looks like it's preemptive to take Trump out, to get people all worried about Trump.
But here's the real meta part.
Are you ready for this? I'm going to go super meta here.
Maybe I'm using the word wrong.
We'll find out. But the mass formation psychosis says that one way to control people is to scare them and then give them some certainty so that their fear goes away.
That's what the mass formation psychosis idea is doing.
The mass formation psychosis idea is the fear.
It is the fear.
And it gives you the reason.
Like the explanation.
Here, here's something really big and scary to be afraid of.
Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler!
To be afraid of.
And here's the solution.
Do you think it's a coincidence that they talked about how scaring you can manipulate you and then gave you a thing to scare you and then manipulated you with it?
This is a little bit too on the nose, if you know what I mean.
Like, everything about this topic smells of intentional.
It does not smell organic.
So, if you said to yourself, hey, there's this thing called mass formation psychosis, I should learn about it, and then I should incorporate it into my point of view, I feel like you've been brainwashed.
Because there's nothing here.
The mass formation psychosis adds nothing.
Nothing. It's all a bunch of stuff everybody in the field has known forever.
There's not a single new idea here, and it has nothing to do with the current moment.
Here's one of the ways you know something is a fake.
I've told you this technique before.
If they say five things that are true, and then slip in one that you know isn't, then you know it's brainwashing.
Right? Right? Right.
You could call that the Hannity trick.
But he's not the only one who does it.
You see it on the left and the right.
You'll say a bunch of things that are true, and people will go, huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, and you'll slip one in there that's not quite true.
Here's the one that's not quite true.
We are socially isolated and, therefore, more susceptible to BS and believing things that are not true.
That's not true. We're not socially isolated.
We might be physically isolated, but with social media, we are more connected than at any time in human history, by far.
Not even close.
And if the point is, how do you know that something's true or not, unless you've got somebody showing you the counterpoint, social media is nothing but a bunch of counterpoints.
Social media is the opposite of of what mass formation psychosis would require.
Mass formation psychosis requires you not to have access to the entire world to tell you you're wrong.
But social media gives you access to the whole world.
Now, the problem is you get in your bubble, right?
If you're in your bubble, social media doesn't work to help you at all.
It just makes everything worse.
But I reject the idea that we are socially isolated in a way that would make mass formation psychosis worse.
In fact, the entire...
All right, let me give you my best guess what's going on here.
There is one entity that would benefit the most...
Two entities, actually, collectively, that would benefit the most from making you think that mass formation psychosis is the thing you should focus on.
Imagine it as a diversion.
Imagine it as taking your mind away from something that somebody doesn't want you to think about.
What is it that's happening in the world that's big, That there's some entity or entities that don't want you to think about it, but they'd rather you concentrate on this new idea, this mass formation psychosis.
And the answer is the news business.
The news business.
Because you know what the alternative explanation for mass formation psychosis?
What is the alternative explanation for everything you see...
Without ever needing mass formation psychosis.
Fake news.
Fake news gives you everything that mass formation psychosis promises.
It gives you fear.
It gives you certainty that you latch onto, even though it's not true.
Right? So if I had to guess, somebody who is involved with either social media misinformation or the news and fake news wants you to think that you should really be looking at this new smart idea called mass formation psychosis and don't concentrate so much on the fact that your algorithms are rigged, allegedly, and your news is fake intentionally.
Am I right? Doesn't mass formation psychosis seem like an empty theory that has no purpose other than to distract you from the obvious problem that the news is lying to you?
Am I right? I mean, I can't say that anybody did that with intention.
I'm just saying it reeks of intention.
I don't have any evidence of it, but it reeks of it.
All right. Rasmussen did a poll and asked if people thought the January 6th riot at the Capitol represents a threat to American democracy.
Huh. A threat to American democracy.
Well, that would be a scary thing.
What would help the public if there was a scary thing?
And they felt all uncertain.
Well, how about the left gives you an answer and says it's an insurrection and puts some of those scary people in jail?
Now you'll feel better, won't you?
You're concerned about this happening again?
Well, in the answer to the question, 35% of the people said that the riot on January 6th was a threat to the American democracy.
But 43% said no.
That's a pretty substantial difference.
And 21% said not sure.
So a full 64% of the public is either not concerned or definitely isn't worried about the Capitol riot, and we're still doing an entire committee investigation about the thing that 64% of the country thinks isn't even a thing.
Why would the fake news and the liars in Congress want you to be thinking about a mass formation psychosis?
Because they don't want to tell you that they're lying about January 6th right in front of you.
It's fake news. You don't need any complexity to understand that if the news is lying to you, you've got some trouble.
Sure enough. All right, I did a thread today about systems.
As you know, I am somewhat well known for saying that systems are better than goals.
And a good system is a great thing.
Here are some good systems. Capitalism is a good system.
Lots of flaws. But one of the great things about capitalism is you can populate capitalism with a bunch of defective human beings And somehow, it still works.
At least it works better than the alternatives, right?
So you can take defective humans, put them into this system called capitalism, and somehow the system corrects, on average, for all these defects and gives you some kind of a generally good result over the long term.
Democracy and the republic are a lot like that, too.
You can take all these uninformed...
You know, not too smart citizens, plug them into this system called, you know, democracy, the republic, and it sort of works, which doesn't make sense, you know, if you looked at it on paper.
How do you put a bunch of dumb people into a system and then get a good result?
But it does. It's sort of a self-correcting system.
At the very least, it gives you a credible outcome, even if it's not a good one.
So those are good systems. Also, the justice system is good because you can take ordinary citizens with all of their defects, put them on a trial, on a jury, and you generally get pretty credible results.
So those are three systems that we've had great experience with putting defective humans into them and still it sort of self-corrects, which is amazing if you think about it.
I mean, how hard is it to correct a system where you put garbage in and you get gold out?
I just told you three of them.
We have three major systems where we can feed it garbage and it turns into gold.
We can feed it stupidity and it turns into reasonably good decisions compared to the alternatives.
Lots of problems, of course, but kind of amazing.
Now, contrast that to social media.
Take a bunch of flawed human beings and give them social media accounts.
Does the social media act like these other systems and take these flawed humans and sort of, over time, correct for their excesses?
No, it does the opposite.
It exacerbates them.
So social media is a system that takes the flaws of humans and accelerates them.
It exacerbates them.
Am I right? So the system is not by design per se, but where it evolved to, is the opposite of a good system.
And so rather than complaining, I thought I'd suggest some ways to tweak it.
So here are some ways we could tweak our information-getting systems.
So I'm going to say that the news business plus social media are collectively a system for getting accurate information to the public.
So that system could be tweaked.
I would recommend the following tweaks because I don't think we need to go through a legal, constitutional process to do this.
Number one, stop calling anonymous sources anonymous sources.
You could say that they're anonymous, but instead of calling them anonymous sources, we should all agree to call them unreliable sources.
Because they are. Imagine the news...
If every time they have an anonymous source, they tell you it's anonymous, because that's just part of the story, but they also say, and based on this unreliable source, they should call them unreliable.
Right? Wouldn't that help?
Just as a standard for social media and a standard for the news, to simply say that if something is anonymous, the source is, it is also, by definition, unreliable.
Somebody says unverifiable.
That's not good enough.
Not good enough. Unverifiable is true and maybe even more accurate, but it's not good enough.
I think you have to go all the way to unreliable because we've had so much trouble with it.
If we'd never had trouble with it, I would go with unverifiable because that just sits there.
But unreliable does more work.
Unreliable says we've had trouble with this in the past.
Why wouldn't we have trouble in the future?
Unverified might not be a problem.
You just don't know one way or the other.
But this is definitely a problem.
So go with unreliable.
Secondly, and this one will take you some thinking, all right?
You might not instantly embrace this.
We could agree, we meaning the public and the press and everybody else, we could agree to ignore claims, any claim, that is not in close proximity to the fact-check Or the criticisms.
Now, what do I mean by close proximity?
Well, Twitter is a good example.
If I tweet something that's false, in very close proximity, there will be, almost guaranteed, a tweet right below it, a comment, that says, no, you're wrong, here's the fact check.
So I think Twitter is a reasonably good mechanism for information, so long as you read the comments, right?
So we should agree to read the comments.
Because in that model, the claim and the counterclaim are right next to each other.
They're in close proximity.
That doesn't make you smart, but at least it's a good system.
Now compare that to the Joe Rogan model of interviewing one expert for three hours.
If that expert talks for three hours and covers all kinds of different topics, it is as far away as you can get from the fact check.
Or the criticisms or the counterclaims.
So my problem with the Joe Rogan model is that it's great entertainment.
Obviously. It's hugely successful.
It is informative.
Definitely informative.
But we should be smarter consumers and we should treat that as entertainment.
If you came away from the Joe Rogan show and said, I learned some new things about science...
You shouldn't. What you should do is say, I watched an entertaining program with a doctor who said some things that counter the mainstream narrative.
That's all you did.
You didn't get any information.
To get information, you would need the claim and the counterclaim to be in close proximity.
And then, and only then, could you say, I learned a new thing.
Because I saw the claim, I looked at the counterclaim, and I decided that the claim was stronger than the counterclaim.
Mark is saying, Scott's telling us what to think.
Mark, you are officially too dumb to be on this live stream.
Because could the rest of you confirm that I'm not telling you what to think, but rather the technique for thinking and systems?
So Mark, you're officially too dumb to be a member of this conversation.
You will now be banned to loserdom as I hide you on this channel.
Telling you what to think.
I don't know why you're watching.
Anyway... I do not have all the answers for how to fix our information systems, but I put out some ideas, and I would recommend that we sort of promote a standard that says if it's anonymous, it's also unreliable, and we should always say that, and that if it's a claim that's not in close proximity to fact-checkers, it's just entertainment.
It could be valuable, and it could give you information.
But you should not use it for decision-making.
You should not use it for decision-making.
Does anybody agree with that standard?
Because it doesn't say anything good or bad about Dr.
Malone. It just says that in that format, you've got some entertainment and some information, but not the kind you can use.
You've got information, but here's the key.
Not the kind you could use until you see the counterclaims.
And then maybe. Maybe.
So there might be some other ways to go about this.
Anyway. I offered on Twitter, because there are a lot of supporters of Dr.
Malone, and I said this.
I'll make you a deal. I will watch the entire three-hour Joe Rogan interview with Dr.
Malone. I've already started, so I'm partway through it.
I'll watch the entire three hours.
But I would like you, or most of you, To look at the fact check on Dr.
Malone, the claims that apparently got him kicked off of Twitter.
I'll talk about those in a minute. And I'm just asking you to look at the counterclaims.
So I will agree to go through three hours of that content.
I've already started. I'm just going to ask you to look at the counterclaims.
Now, did I just tell you that the counterclaims are the correct ones?
Did you hear that? I hope we didn't, because I'm going to tell you that at least one of the counterclaims is really bullshit, right?
So we're going to talk about the counterclaimers also having some issues, the fact-checkers also some issues.
So what I'm asking you is always look at the fact-check as well as the data.
I'm not telling you in this case that the fact-check is the believable one.
I mean, it is, but that's not today's topic, right?
I'll tell you honestly that I looked at the fact checks and I looked at the claims, and the fact checks do look stronger than the claims, but how could we judge, right?
If you're not an expert in any of that stuff, how can you judge?
But one of the fact checks did look like bullshit.
We'll talk about that. All right.
Pretty soon I will see if I can get kicked off of social media.
Now, the idea was the bet...
That I'm taking here, and we'll get to this, is that social media is supporting one narrative and suppressing another.
How many of you would say that that would be true of these two topics?
The 2020 election integrity and vaccine safety.
How many of you would say that the official narratives are being promoted, but any alternative narratives, people are getting kicked off?
Now, I want to make a distinction between the algorithms, which might, you know, de-boost things and boost others.
Can we all agree that the algorithms appear to choose some narratives over others?
Would we all agree with that?
That our lived experience, it sure feels like it.
I mean, I've seen lots of examples, many of them, many of the examples I've seen didn't hold up to scrutiny.
But, I mean, you can smell it and feel it.
It just feels like it couldn't be anything but that, right?
Now, I would say that even the social media companies would admit, they would admit, That they support the approved narrative if science seems to support it by consensus.
So you should see exactly that.
You should see the official narrative get more boost because the social media companies tell you that directly.
We're going to boost the things we think are true and have credibility, according to them.
Maybe not to you, but according to them.
So let's not have any disagreement...
Today, about whether the algorithms are biased.
We'd all accept that, right?
Even if they're biased with good intention.
That part is debatable.
But there's no question that they're biased toward the official narrative, which the social media companies believe is actually true and helpful and useful.
So, the thought is that if anybody goes against the narrative on social media, they will be banned.
Let me give you an example.
Marjorie Taylor Greene was permanently suspended by Twitter.
Here are some things she said.
Apparently she included a misleading...
Oh, she said that on Saturday she tweeted, falsely, they say, the claim is that this is false, that there are, quote, extremely high amounts of COVID vaccine deaths.
And then she included what is called by the fact checkers a misleading chart.
They showed information from a government database, the VAERS database.
You all know about that. Now, the VAERS database is not confirmed problems, but rather suspected or possible problems.
And it has a lot of activity with the recent vaccinations.
So New York Times is fact-checking her on that, as did Twitter, saying that that VAERS database It's a decades-old system that relies on self-reporting, and so when Marjorie Taylor Greene showed that that was evidence of a lot of COVID deaths, that she had to get kicked off.
But is anything missing from this story?
Do you know what I would have liked to see in this New York Times story?
I would have liked them to say, what is normal for a vaccine rollout?
Does the VAERS database normally get this much attention?
Or is the fact that the VAERS database, if it is, I don't know if this is even true, if the VAERS database has more reports, let's say, by a factor of 10, and I have no reason to believe that's true, but just hypothetically, Would the New York Times have some obligation to tell you,
no, you cannot rely on the VAERS database for certainty, but when it's, and again, this is hypothetical, but when it's ten times as big as any other vaccine that was rolled down, that's not true, these are hypotheticals, it's notable.
Don't you think the New York Times is selling a narrative as opposed to doing a fact check?
Because I think if it were a fact check, they'd say, yes, it's true that there is an alarming number of reports in the VAERS database.
But you must understand that the pandemic is getting a lot of attention, and there might be some over-reporting.
Possible. There might be some under-reporting.
Possible. So although you should not take it as the final word, if the VAERS database reporting is way out of line with what one might expect, that should be taken as a signal to research more reliable data.
That's what a fact check would look like.
This wasn't a fact check.
And by the way, I'm not supporting Marjorie Taylor Greene's interpretation because I think she too should have softened her assertions to what we know to be true.
Now, I would say that this is a case of Marjorie Taylor Greene being misleading on a health-related topic.
Would you? Would you disagree?
That if Marjorie Taylor Greene showed you the VAERS database without also giving you the context that it can't be relied on, you know, as the final word, that that would be misleading.
But is it more misleading than the fact check?
It is not. It is not more misleading than the fact check.
The fact check is plenty misleading.
So you might say to yourself, wait a minute, Why did Marjorie Taylor Greene get kicked off for being misleading?
But the New York Times doesn't even get criticized for being misleading in the other way, by leaving out some context.
Here's another thing that Marjorie Taylor Greene was hit with.
She had five strikes, according to Twitter.
Let's see. She told you...
What was the other thing she said?
Uh... She had tweeted that COVID-19 was not dangerous.
That was one of them. And according to the New York Times, she, quote, falsely posted that the vaccines were failing.
So one of her strikes is that she said the vaccines were failing.
Quote, failing. Doesn't that depend on what your standard for success was?
If your standard for success was stopping the pandemic, well, I think she's right, because it didn't stop the spread as much as we hoped it would.
But if the topic is, does it keep you from dying, the data suggests strongly yes.
So in that case, she would be very wrong.
But again, there's a little context missing here.
But I would agree that the way she approached it Could be considered false and dangerous.
Okay. And by the way, I'm going to give you a stronger argument than Marjorie Taylor Greene about the safety risks of vaccines.
And then we'll see if I get kicked off.
Because I'm going to use her as my model.
I'm going to make a stronger claim than she's making, but I won't use what I consider false data to do it, or misleading data.
So my assertion is that you do not get banned by social media if you tell the truth.
So that's the test.
So I'm only going to tell the truth, but my case against getting vaccinated will be stronger than than the person who got kicked off.
Do you think I could do that?
We'll see. In a related topic, Rasmussen, and I haven't seen this anywhere else, and I don't know why, but Rasmussen was tweeting, the Rasmussen reports were tweeting, that apparently the 2020 Arizona election audits found a number, 10 different types of paper Used on the ballots.
There is only one that is approved.
Now, I'm not sure any of this information is true.
Do you believe that we really found in Maricopa County ten different papers for ballots and that that has been confirmed and that only one kind of paper is approved?
Do you believe that?
I'm going to say I don't believe it.
But if it is true, we've got some questions.
So let's keep an eye on that.
I don't know why this isn't a bigger story, even if...
Maybe is there a fact check on this?
I guess I should have checked.
So here's a perfect example where I need to go back to the comments and see if somebody did a fact check on this.
I would say that I have trouble believing that there were ten different types of paper used.
Because even if fraud were involved...
Would they use ten different pieces of paper?
Ten different types?
If fraud were involved at this level, I mean, this would be somewhat sophisticated, I would figure that they would at least use one type of fake paper.
Really? I mean, so there's something about this that doesn't pass the sniff test.
But Rasmussen Reports has not been kicked off of Twitter.
Because they reported something that's true in terms of it's truly being reported.
Well, let me see. I don't know if the fact about the paper is true, but it's being reported, so that's true.
So Rasmussen did not say anything that is false.
They reported what's being reported.
Didn't get kicked off.
And I think I can do the same.
So I'm going to give you also a stronger argument...
Against the idea that the election was credible than I think anybody's given yet.
And I will not be kicked off of social media, I predict, because I won't say anything that isn't true.
So here's the line.
I don't believe you get kicked off of social media for saying things that are true and are easily demonstrably true.
I believe that the only people getting kicked off are actually saying things that are really misleading.
Now, that doesn't mean the fact-checkers are right.
Don't get me wrong. But we'll test my theory.
All right. So, let me violate the narrative a little bit.
You ready? Here's my...
We'll start with the elections.
There have been many claims of election fraud...
They have been either rejected or they weren't big enough to make a difference.
So as we stand today, there are no court-proven examples of fraud in 2020 that were big enough to have changed the result.
Right? Now, having said that, there's almost nothing I can say after that that would get me banned from social media.
That's my belief.
Because I said a true thing, that no court has found any kind of fraud in that election big enough that would make any difference.
Now, I'm going to argue against that narrative the strongest argument that you've ever heard.
There is no such thing as a system that is very important.
In other words, as a high dollar value or social value or, let's say, the government value.
There's no such thing as a system that's high value that can't be fully audited.
And that's the situation with our elections.
They can't be fully audited.
You can look at little parts of them.
But we don't have a mechanism at all to fully audit any election.
Because you can't get into the electronic part.
So if you can't audit it, and it's a big system that means a lot, and the stakes are very high, the odds of that system becoming fraudulent are 100% over time.
The only thing we don't know about 2020 is if the level of fraud has yet reached the point where it changes election results.
It will, 100%.
It will.
Rose, I have some advice for you.
Rose says I'm getting a bit tedious lately.
And Rose, I would recommend that you go fuck yourself instead of watching this.
All right. So...
Check my assertion.
My assertion is that there is 100% chance our election system is already moving in a fraudulent direction, is guaranteed to be fraudulent in a way that would change election results.
We just don't know if it happened yet or it will happen next.
I think that's the strongest argument.
And did I say anything that's not obviously true?
Anything. Did I? You tell me, is that the strongest argument against election integrity?
Using things we know to be true.
Now, did I say anything that wasn't true?
No. No.
Nothing I said about that is untrue.
Will I be banned from social media for saying what I just said?
The strongest argument so far against election integrity.
No. Not even a chance.
Because nobody would listen to what I said and say, oh, I disagree.
There's literally nothing to disagree, in my opinion.
And it violates the narrative completely.
The narrative is, if you didn't find any fraud, it's fine.
I could not have violated that narrative any stronger.
Now let's do vaccines.
This may be the last 10 minutes you ever see me.
According to you, I believe I'll be safe because I'm not going to say anything that isn't untrue.
All right, let's say it.
So Dr. Malone got kicked off of Twitter for some claims.
I would recommend that you look at the fact check.
I tweeted it so you can see it in my Twitter feed.
Andres Backhouse found it.
And I'm not saying that the fact check is correct.
I'm saying you should look at it if you've looked at Dr.
Malone's claims. But here's one of the things that the fact checkers said when talking about Dr.
Malone. They said...
I guess Dr.
Malone said that vaccines could be dangerous for children in some situations.
But... They quote Malone as saying, That's the claim that got him, or I think one of them, that got him his Twitter ban.
So the claim is there's no benefit, no benefit, not some, no benefit, for your children or your family to be vaccinating your children against the small risks of the virus.
And the risk-benefit is not even close.
Now, the fact-checkers talk to three doctors, and they don't tell us who those doctors are.
Wait a minute. They talk to three doctors to do a fact-check.
And those doctors are anonymous sources.
Oh, so the fact check is using unreliable sources for a fact check.
Because they're anonymous.
Right? That should be the standard.
They're unreliable sources.
So what do the unreliable sources say about Dr.
Malone's claim, given that Dr.
Malone is a reliable source?
Wouldn't you say? If somebody's an expert, they give you their name, they go on video, They clearly explain their point of view.
They could be right or they could be wrong.
But is Dr. Malone a credible person?
Yes. Yes.
Doesn't mean he's right. It means he's highly credible.
Are the doctors who fact-checked him credible?
No. We don't know who they are.
We don't know if they have his credentials.
So we have an unreliable group fact-checking a reliable entity.
Doesn't mean one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
That's just the situation.
Now, here's what they say.
The three doctors said, quote, the theoretical risk of COVID vaccines absolutely do not outweigh the benefits of the vaccine, said Greenhouse.
Oh, actually, one of the doctors might have their name in there.
So if their names are there, then fact-check me.
Then it's less unreliable if their names are in there.
So what do you think?
Do you believe that Dr.
Malone is right, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or do you think the fact-checking doctors are right?
Three of them. Three of them.
They say it's the opposite.
Go. Who's right?
Who's right, the fact-checking doctors or the fact-checking Dr.
Malone? The answer is, it is unknowable, because nobody knows the long-term risks of the vaccination, and nobody knows the long-term risk of COVID. Am I right?
Nobody knows the long-term risk of the vaccination, especially boosted, especially Mixed.
If you're cross-fading with your vaccinations, check with your teens to see what I just said.
That won't make any sense to you.
If you know anybody who's a teenager, say that you're watching this live stream.
The cartoonist said, don't cross-fade with your vaccines.
And they'll laugh, and then they'll explain what that meant.
But I'm not going to tell you right now.
So if you mix two different vaccines together, who tested that?
Nobody. Who tested the booster?
I don't know that the boosters have been around long enough to test them.
Who tested the second and third booster on children?
Nobody. How can Dr.
Malone say that the cost-benefit is bad and these doctors can say the cost-benefit is very good when neither Dr.
Malone nor the critics have any fucking idea what the risks are?
Am I wrong? Neither of these entities who are arguing with a high degree of certainty have any data that would support either of their opinions.
Am I wrong? These are two experts who are trying to bamboozle the public into thinking that they can make really certain decisions with no data.
With no data.
No data on the long-term effects.
Are we worried about the short-term risks?
Is that the big concern?
The short-term risks. In other words, the first few months.
Well, that's been tested.
Have some of you seen some data that said that there's secretly, but we didn't know until recently, that the vaccines cause a lot of harm to people in the first weeks?
Has anybody seen that?
It's debunked, right?
Yeah, look for the debunk.
If you see that, just look for the debunk.
It's completely debunked.
Now, you could argue that the debunk isn't good, but it's a pretty strong one.
So as far as I know, to the best of my knowledge, there's no credible information to say that there's a short-term risk with the vaccines.
Well, let me get that right.
There's no credible information that the short-term risk is higher than the short-term gain.
Now, but it also doesn't go the other way.
You know, I don't think you can prove it safe.
But there's no evidence about the long-term, and especially with boosters, because you can't study the future.
So, here's the strongest argument against...
Vaccine safety.
And here will be my last minute on Twitter if many of you are right that violating the narrative is all it takes.
So I'm going to violate the narrative, but I'm not going to tell a lie.
Okay? Number one, the pharma industry is known to be wildly corrupt.
Agree? The pharma industry is known to be wildly corrupt.
Not a little bit corrupt. Not average corrupt.
I'm talking food industry corrupt.
Like, that's the highest standard.
I think the highest standard of corruption is the food industry.
But in that neighborhood is pharma.
All right, so we have a drug that's created by an industry.
I'm not talking about a specific company now, necessarily.
But created by an industry we know to be just full of corruption and the kind of corruption where they will kill you for profits.
Am I right? It's the kind of corruption where they will actually kill you To make money.
And that there are lots of examples of this.
Okay. So we have a vaccine from a source that cannot be trusted.
We have data that we don't trust.
I don't know if it's good or bad data, but I can tell you we don't trust it.
Because we don't trust any data.
Especially from an industry that's known to be corrupt.
We know that the money involved in vaccines is gigantic, and we know that money corrupts.
If money corrupts, what does a trillion dollars do?
If money corrupts, a trillion dollars guarantees corruption.
It removes all doubt, right?
Now, that assumes there's an opportunity and a reason to be corrupt.
If the vaccines work great, nobody had to do any corruption, right?
But if there was any possibility that corruption would give somebody an advantage, a trillion dollars or two will get you there fast.
So we've got a corrupt industry.
Rushed a product that was not tested in the long-term sense, because you can't test the future.
We know that the money is huge, and that always corrupts things when there's opportunity.
We don't know if there's an opportunity to corrupt, but it would if there were.
We know that Fauci, who is the voice of all of our pandemic requirements, is a confirmed liar.
So our main source of this information, that we should take vaccines, is a confirmed liar.
And he's a confirmed liar on this topic, which is the pandemic.
Because he lied about masks, and then he told us he lied.
Now he gave us the reason, and I think the reason actually wasn't terrible.
But whether or not he had a good reason is a little bit separate from From the question of, do we know that the main mouthpiece for this is a liar?
And the answer is yes. He admitted it.
So you've got an industry you can't trust.
They're known to be liars.
They will kill you for money. The money is huge.
Money always corrupts.
We don't know the long-term risks.
And the person who is the spokesperson for this is a known liar.
Admitted liar. And when you read the fact check from these doctors, they're either stupid or lying to you or persuading.
Because when they say that they absolutely know that the risks of two unknowns can be assessed, oh, this unknown is way bigger than this unknown...
No, that's not a thing.
You can't compare two unknowns and then be sure which is the big one.
I mean, not in this context.
There would be contexts in which you could do that.
But not in this one. Because the risk is that you die, right?
So... Well, enough about that.
So... Why would you give your child a vaccination...
That came from a corrupt industry that you know would be corrupt, is corrupted by money, went through the FDA that you know is corrupt.
By the way, you know the FDA is corrupt because of the rapid testing scandal.
We don't know the details, but I think you have to assume corruption because they never even explained.
They never even explained why we don't have as many rapid tests as we should.
That's a clear signal of corruption without actual proof, right?
So we've got a corrupt FDA, a corrupt industry-making vaccinations that they rushed, funneled through a corrupt government with a lying Fauci, and doctors telling us, even today, that they can determine which of the unknown risks is the bigger fucking risk.
The unknown risks.
And they're telling us those are the big fucking risks.
Seriously? Seriously?
All right. Now...
Have I achieved my standard of violating the narrative?
Have I? You tell me.
Have I violated the narrative?
Because that's the test.
If I don't violate the narrative, then this is not a test.
Right. Most of you are saying yes.
All right, so, you know, this is not the kind of test you can satisfy everybody.
Somebody's going to say, you didn't violate it enough because you didn't make a claim about some data that you think is true that I don't.
But I think this is the strongest argument, that literally everybody involved is a liar.
That's the summary. Literally, everyone, everyone involved...
From the drug makers, through the FDA, through the government, through Fauci, to the fact-checkers, to the New York Times, everyone is lying, and obviously.
Now, I'm not saying everybody's lying on every point.
I'm just saying it's a nest of proven liars.
And you're being asked to put a drug into your body that was developed and promoted by known liars.
Now, on top of that, we have the Omicron situation.
Now, suppose you knew that the Omicron virus had the characteristics we're told it has, mild illness and such a rapid spread that you can forget about your mask because your mask is going to help you a bit.
I still think masks probably helped with Delta and Alpha because masks reduced the plume And the plume is where all the viral load is.
So if you didn't do anything except reduce the plume, probably could have helped.
Don't know for sure. But probably could have helped with delta and alpha.
But if what they're telling us about Omicron is true, you know, a little particle that escapes from the side of your mask is going to infect the whole room, right?
Because just any exposure seems to be enough with the Omicron.
So... In the context of vaccines which cannot be assessed for their risk long term, can't be.
With an Omicron that's going to do what Omicron does, which is it's going to sweep through in about the next two weeks, doesn't it make more sense to wait?
Would the smart person wait to see what happens with Omicron, or would they get another booster?
Well, I'm waiting on my booster.
I don't imagine that I would even consider a booster until after February 1st.
And then it's sort of a, see what's happening.
Are there any other variants?
Do we know anything else about the thing?
You know, have we learned anything that we don't know now?
But I don't think that your officials are being honest with you about the potential benefits of...
The Omicron.
Secondly, and lastly, I have been criticized for not saying enough about the social costs of lockdowns and mandates.
How many of you would agree with that statement?
That I have not said enough about the social costs and health costs, especially to children, of all the shutdowns.
Do you think so? That may be a valid criticism.
I think that's a valid criticism.
But I'll tell you why I haven't.
Because I think it's just obvious.
I tend to ignore the obvious because you don't need to be told the obvious.
And the obvious is there's a real big problem with mandates.
And we don't know how to size it.
But it's obvious, and it's real big.
I just don't think I'd need to tell you that every time I talk about the topic.
To me, that would be like, let me explain this baseball game, how that went.
First, you need to know that there's oxygen.
And so all the players had oxygen.
They were breathing. I don't have to tell you that there's oxygen.
That part you already knew.
You're living it. You're breathing the oxygen.
Likewise, you're breathing the mandates.
Depending on where you are. So, I believe I will be demonetized on YouTube.
By the way, if there's somebody who can text me right now and tell me if I've already been demonetized, I'm not sure if you can tell.
But I imagine I'll get demonetized because that would change the algorithm.
But I predict that I will not...
I don't think I'll get a strike, nor do I think I'll be banned from social media, because as far as I know, everything I said was true and would be easy to demonstrate.
Have I made my point?
Yes, it's true that I can do this kind of a test, and you can't, because if I got kicked off of social media, I would just retire.
I would just retire, and I'd be pretty happy.
Actually, you'd be fine. So I don't have the risks that you have, so I can run this test.
You have to tweet it, somebody says.
Do I? I don't know.
Do I have to tweet it?
I mean, I'll tweet these.
This content gets tweeted.
Try this. Try taking me, try quoting me, and then tweeting it.
Because you'll probably misquote me, and that'll get me in real trouble.
I thought that was going to be my answer.
I'm just waiting to see if I'm already demonetized.
Oh, not yet. So I'm not yet demonetized on YouTube.
I guess if you challenge them and tell them it's a contest, they get a little more serious.
I get demonetized almost automatically on a lot of my content, but then upon review it gets reversed.
All right. Somebody says, I'm not elected and I'm not an expert in the field.
That is correct. Are there any people who have been banned from social media...
For misinformation about the election or for COVID who were not elected and not experts?
I think the answer is yes, right?
Yeah, Alex Berenson. Yeah, Alex Berenson.
Right. So I think the test still stands because I have a prominent account with a lot of Crowder.
Yeah, Crowder. Dave Rubin, he got a strike, right?
Naomi Wolf, she got a strike.
Well, Trump was elected.
All right.
So, here's the bottom line.
Assuming that I'm still here today, or still here tomorrow, and I don't get banned, my claim has been this.
I want you to make better arguments when you agree with me.
I don't like to be on the same side as people whose arguments for my own opinion are bad arguments.
I think it's a bad argument that people are being banned for saying true things on Twitter.
Because I don't think it's happening.
And if it happens, I think sometimes they get reversed on appeal or whatever.
But I don't think that's the big problem.
I think the big problem is the way people are saying it.
In other words, Marjorie Taylor Greene, I think she could have easily avoided being banned if when she tweeted the VAERS database she simply said, you know, this should not be taken as the final word, or it's an indication, or it's a red flag, something like that.
If she just said it was a red flag, I'm pretty sure she would not be banned, because that's true.
Yes, words matter.
All right. I believe this is the best live stream I've ever done, if it's not the last one.
And I'd like to check with you on that.
Was my discussion of the mass formation psychosis useful?
Did it give you any new insight?
And did I make my claim, you can't be 100% on any of this, that It's probably the inaccuracy that's getting people booted off of Twitter.
For the most part.
I know you can find an exception.
But I don't think there's an organized effort to ban people who say true things just because they don't like the narrative.
I don't think that exists.
I do think you have to worry about the algorithm...
Like suppressing this or suppressing other things.
That's different. But remember, YouTube hasn't demonetized me.
At least yet.
And if they don't demonetize things, that usually keeps it pretty high in the algorithm.
It's the demonetized stuff that gets pushed down.
So, we'll test it. Now, you could also, if you want to go deep into the conspiracy, you could say, well, Scott, they knew you were testing it.
They were watching you.
They knew you were testing it, so, you know, they didn't do it.
Let's talk about China for a moment before I go.
Apparently, they've got some big problems over there.
Have you noticed? So let me ask you this.
Did you know that in the Chinese culture that karma is a big thing?
How many of you knew that?
Can I have a confirmation, please?
Some of you might be Chinese-American or even Chinese.
Can you give me a confirmation on that?
That karma is a cultural thing in China.
I think it came from the Confucius stuff, or maybe from, I don't know.
But, okay, so I have a confirmation from somebody who is Chinese who said, yes, karma is a big thing.
Now, what happens when China, who is being criticized for its treatment of the Uyghurs, It's certainly being criticized for the release of the virus.
It's being criticized for a whole number of things that look abusive, that look like bad behavior.
And at the same time, China's having a lot of bad luck.
So they've got some economic problems.
They've got... Probably they're going to have a big problem with the Omicron Olympics.
I think they're going to have an Omicron breakout.
Now, how long will it take before the Chinese citizens start to believe that the bad luck they're experiencing as a country is related to the bad things that they're doing to other people, meaning the Uyghurs?
And how hard will it be to connect those two thoughts?
Because I'm doing it right now.
If you live in China...
And you think your government is creating bad karma for you through the treatment of the Uyghurs, and that what's happening to you is maybe the curse of the Uyghurs, and that every time something bad happens in China that may have any cause, has nothing to do with the Uyghurs, I believe I will be labeling that the curse of the Uyghurs.
Now, if it turns out that the Chinese public...
Or even the Chinese leadership are superstitious?
It will be kind of a vexing idea to connect the Uyghur treatment with all the bad luck that happens seemingly in unrelated ways.
It's almost the kind of idea that could take down a government.
Because if the people in China get it in their head, then it's not a coincidence that That China's having this unbroken string of bad luck, at the same time that they're mistreating the Uyghurs, at the same time that the public has a great belief in karma, I think we should enforce that idea, or reinforce it.
And so, going forward, if you see any stories that look like bad things happened in China, be sure to tweet them with the hashtag Uyghur, karma.
Uyghur, you have to look up the spelling.
I have to look up the spelling of Uyghur every time I use it.
Every time. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to tweet something about the Uyghurs, and I didn't feel like looking up the correct spelling, so I was just like, ah, get back to it.
So, yeah...
The Uyghurs are causing a karma problem in China, and as long as China comes to believe that, which they will, maybe something good can happen.
Export Selection