Episode 1721 Scott Adams: Political Retaliation as Strategy, Elon Musk Builds a City, Ghost Drones?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CNN+ shuts down after a month
Michael Shellenberger gets key CA endorsement
FL Disney special tax status revoked
An Elon Musk designed city
Johnny Depp, Amber Heard trial
Mike Tyson vs annoying heckler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
It's an experience. You're going to feel this from the inside out today.
The hair on the back of your neck is going to be tingle, tingle, tingle.
And not only that, but you're going to feel...
Like everything's starting to head in the right direction.
Why? Because perhaps it is.
This might be the beginning of something special that begins with a simultaneous sip.
You don't want to miss it because it could be the key to unlocking all of the happiness for the rest of your life.
I'm just saying, you might regret it if you miss it.
And all you need is a cup of mug, a glass, a tankard, a cellist, or a stein, a canteen drug, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite...
Beverage. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine of the day.
I think it makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now. Go! Yes, the oft-quoted verse.
That's correct. Oh, that was so good.
What is that? Um...
Well, what's happening lately?
So, CNN's a streaming service called CNN Plus.
It's not a plus anymore.
So, CNN Plus got minused.
So, their new owners of the company that bought CNN said, let's get rid of this lame service that only reportedly had 10,000 subscribers, which is...
I think the bad part was not, if you think about it, the bad part is not that they didn't get a lot of customers.
What? Okay.
Somebody paid $50 for the most obtuse comment on YouTube ever.
But the problem, I think, with CNN Plus is that as a subscription service, and it was subscription, right?
That was the whole point.
I think this is where CNN showed the world how much people valued their content.
Because nobody would pay for a little extra.
Isn't that the real problem?
So the real problem, I don't think, is that it didn't work out as a technology or as a business model.
I think what it did is it showed that the flagship of the property, the main TV show, probably isn't something that anybody would pay for.
Now, that kind of makes sense, doesn't it?
Because you would think that you would see the same news for free somewhere else.
But when you see the same news that's on Fox News...
For free somewhere else, because they have a streaming service that is still around, so must be doing better.
If you think about it, CNN actually doesn't have a product, because their product can be substituted with, how about nothing?
I'll just watch MSNBC, and I'll read the New York Times, and I'll look at a website, and I'm going to see the same news.
You know, because the left-leaning news has lots of competition.
So that's really the big story is that nobody would pay for it.
Here's a smallish story becoming a big story.
And I wonder if the big corporate press will pick up on this or not.
I think they might have to kill this story.
But as you know, Michael Schellenberger is running for governor in California as an independent.
Which normally would be just sort of the graveyard to losing an election.
But he's the most unique candidate.
Well, that doesn't make sense.
Nothing is the most unique.
But he's the first candidate I know of who has tried to run on competence and knowledge.
Somebody was going to try it eventually.
So all he does is he's got books that are exactly on topic.
That he has researched, and so he has very specific solutions that are exactly tailored for the state.
They have wider application, but they're perfectly suited for running for governor.
So he's demonstrated a body of knowledge in great detail, along with solutions to the specific problems of California.
And he just won...
So here's the big news.
He just won a coveted endorsement from...
One of the biggest endorsing groups, taxpayer groups in California, whose name I dumbly forgot to copy and paste into my notes.
But the point is, he just got a huge endorsement as an independent.
And it's not an accident.
Before, yeah, it was the Jarvis...
Somebody will tell me it's the Jarvis Taxes, somebody, blah, blah, blah.
So it's a very influential group.
And... The fact that they liked him and their orientation is taxes, that's a pretty strong endorsement, given that he's coming in with lots of solutions for social problems.
The fact that the tax people like him also.
Who does that?
Who gets an endorsement?
Who comes in...
With specific, proven solutions for social problems like homelessness and drug addiction and drug addicts on the street, but also climate change.
Not from a panicked perspective, but from a practical perspective of what you can and cannot do and what works and what doesn't.
So he comes in with all these things that fix They're really designed to fix the problems that the people on the left would also say are big problems.
And he gets an endorsement from the people who like low taxes.
It just shows you that his solutions don't require a lot of money.
And they work.
So apparently they read all of his books and said, okay, these are practical solutions that don't look like they cost a lot of money.
And... I mean, this is a really, really big deal, and it's probably teetering on the edge of the larger corporate press, noticing that something's going on here that's not like anything else.
Do you know what makes this story?
It's not a story if a dog bites a man, because that happens all the time, but it's a story if a man bites a dog.
So the news is always looking for somebody who's doing something not just better, because that's not really news, and not really just more of it, because that's why you don't see a lot of reporting on the details of shootings every weekend, because it's sort of the same story.
There's just more of it. So that's not as newsworthy as other stuff.
But when somebody does something in a completely different way, like AOC... You know, AOC was sort of a story of the way she did it, wouldn't you say?
Because she did things differently, that's what was exciting.
She was young, she just had everything going on to make it something that was different.
But Schellenberger's doing the same thing in a far more directed way, like directed solutions way.
And nobody's done this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody's even tried this.
Nobody's tried to demonstrate great mastery of content with specific solutions and then run for office.
Am I wrong? I don't think it's ever been done.
And if it has been done, I doubt it's been done as well because it's so directed at things that Californians care about.
Anyway, it's going to get big.
So let's talk about...
Do you all know the background to the story about...
DeSantis fighting against Disney and taking away Disney's special status because Disney opposed the so-called don't-say-gay law, which isn't really a don't-say-gay law.
And are you following this whole story, everybody?
So I don't want to give you the whole background because most of you probably are familiar with it.
So you can Google it if you need to.
But here's my take on it.
So even Fox News uses the word retaliation as for why DeSantis wants to remove from Disney some special status they had where they could control the land and the area that they owned without as much government red tape and interference.
Now my understanding is that when it was first granted to them, it was because it just made everything easier.
They just didn't have to go through all the government red tape to do things that...
Probably made sense.
It was good for the state. Florida got lots of tourists, and Disney got their work done cheaper and easier, and I don't know, maybe some tax.
Did they have some tax benefits too?
Something like that. So I don't know the history of it, but here's the thing.
I could not argue that it should or should not exist, because I'd have to look into it more deeply, but I don't care about that at the moment.
If you're doing something in the political realm that even the people who are on your side call retaliation, I feel like you should be impeached for that.
And otherwise, I think DeSantis is sort of a superstar.
I mean, I can easily imagine a DeSantis presidency that would do a lot of good stuff that would not be crazy and wouldn't be as divisive as maybe other people.
Anybody you're thinking of.
So I have a very high opinion of DeSantis.
Now, hold on.
Hold on. Have you heard my argument yet?
I'm seeing the critics already descend.
But I'm going to get to your point of view.
I promise you I will try to characterize your point of view as accurately as possible.
If you'll allow me.
Just hold off, right? Because this isn't the place you come to for the reflex opinions that are going to look like everybody else's opinions.
You wouldn't be here for that.
Now, so the argument in favor of retaliation would go like this.
And see if I can characterize this for you as strongly as you'd like.
The argument for DeSantis would be you really have to push back every place you can.
Otherwise, the left, if they get an inch, they'll take a mile.
You've seen it a million times.
Nothing matters but power.
It's all about power.
And if you let them push you and you don't push back, then the whole thing falls apart.
Is that strong enough?
Does that... Does that capture your general opinion?
Okay. Now, I'm also going to start agreeing with you.
So now I've described your opinion.
Now, somebody called that a straw man.
Was that a straw man? I thought that was actually a steel man, but is that a straw man?
I feel like that's a strong argument, so I'm going to now agree with it.
In my opinion...
The argument that you should push back against anybody who's trying to continuously push you, right?
We're not talking about like a one-off situation that you might treat differently.
I'm talking about like a permanent power situation where one side is always pushing you.
They're just always pushing you.
I would think that it's a perfectly strong and valid argument based on history and human psychology and motivation and basically every observation in science we know that it makes sense to push back.
Are we all on the same page?
So far? Is that a straw man?
I'm not sure if I can satisfy some of you people.
How much more can I agree with you?
Alright, here's the but.
Do you think there could ever be an exception?
Do you think there should ever be an exception?
And I would say there should be one exception.
It should be, if you can't win with your argument in the realm of politics, if your argument isn't strong enough, And so you resort to something that's literally called retaliation by your own side for something that's a separate topic.
Everybody would agree it's a separate topic.
So retaliating against Disney, right in front of us, right in front of the public.
You know, there's nothing being hidden here.
A separate topic, just for the power balance to push back, I feel is impeachable.
Hold on. Let me make my argument.
You haven't heard my argument yet.
Okay? How many of you liked Ronald Reagan?
Pretty good, right? If you're a Republican or you lean right, probably you liked him a lot.
Now, what was he really good at?
Well, one of the things he was really good at is making his case.
So, what is a better strategy?
Making the better argument or retaliation?
Now, if I put Reagan into the example, and I'm not even talking about a specific policy, suppose you had Ronald Reagan, and he could just make the better argument, or he could get some retaliation in an unrelated area.
Which would be the better strategy?
Well, I would say the strategy is to win.
The strategy is not to retaliate.
Do you know what retaliation is in this model?
Because all of us are spectators to a spectator sport that we kind of like, don't we?
Admit it. If you're watching this live stream, it's probably, for most of you, it's because you sort of like the entertainment element of politics as much as knowing what's going on.
And if you like the entertainment element, what is that little reward you get when you watch entertainment?
What's the reward for any kind of entertainment?
It's dopamine, right? I mean, I might be wrong about the chemical signature, but you get a little chemical hit, right?
It's like a reward. If your team wins, you get a little chemical boost.
It might be testosterone, but it's like a little high, right?
A little testosterone when your team wins, especially.
So when you see your team retaliate, how does that feel?
How does it feel? Just forget about the strategy.
We're not talking whether it's a good idea.
Forget about the policy. Forget about the specific topic.
But how does it feel? It feels pretty good, doesn't it?
It feels pretty good. So, if you like to feel good, then DeSantis' retaliation is exactly what you wanted.
And if that's what you want, I guess I would support you with that.
If you like it because it's delicious and you know what you like and it's an entertainment sport and you decide, you know, it would just really feel good to see DeSantis kick some ass, wouldn't it?
It would feel kind of good.
All right? So you can get what you want with the retaliation.
Now, personally, I just have a different preference because I didn't get the dopamine hit.
I don't know why. Don't know why, but I'm watching the same story you are, but I didn't get a dopamine hit.
Like, when I heard that he was using it, retaliation, that word just triggered the fuck out of me.
Like, I don't know, just something in my brain just went, what?
What? I'm paying somebody?
Meaning, not me, I'm not paying DeSantis, but taxpayers.
Taxpayers hired a guy, a person, And that person is telling us right in front of us that on our dime, he's getting retaliation.
Fired. You're fucking fired.
You know, I'm sorry.
I didn't hire you to give me a dopamine yet.
You're not my fucking drug dealer.
I want you to win.
How about winning? I hired you to fucking win.
If I care about this issue, the law and the school, let's win the fucking thing.
Let's do it right. Let's do it like Reagan would do it.
Let's do it like Clinton would do it.
Let's do it like fucking Obama would do it.
Do you know how Obama would do it?
He'd argue it better.
He'd do a better job.
Do you know how Reagan would do it?
He'd argue better.
He'd do a better job.
Do you know how Trump would do it?
He'd argue better.
He'd do a better fucking job.
DeSantis just apparently whiffed on this or something, because he didn't feel like he was winning, and so he's going to retaliation.
That's weak. That's weak.
He can't win his own argument.
That's weak. So to me it looks weak, and I wouldn't hire a guy to retaliate.
If he were your employee, let's say you were an owner of a plumbing contract company, and one of your employees told you straight out, I decided to retaliate against one of my customers because then word will get around and maybe the next customer won't treat me the same way.
Would you say, well, good job.
You really have to retaliate against customers because If you don't retaliate against the customer, the next one's not going to respect you.
No! You would fucking fire him on the spot.
Because you don't hire people to retaliate.
It's not a good strategy.
It's not a winning strategy.
It's a dopamine drug strategy.
You don't hire him to be your drug dealer.
DeSantis is your governor.
He's not your drug dealer.
He's not there to make you feel good.
He's there to win.
Now, winning should feel good.
But win the right battle.
Like, don't win the bullshit.
All right. So, let me say again.
If you like it because it feels good, but you're also aware that that's what you're on about, that's okay.
I mean, that's okay.
If you know exactly what you're in it for, then that's cool.
And let me say again that I think that DeSantis is a superstar.
I could easily support him for president.
Because I think he's just...
He's more commonsensical than anybody else.
I feel like he got bad advice on this one thing.
Unless it's purely political.
And I'd hate to see him...
Of course he's a political animal, and there's no denying that.
But I feel like this is just...
Putting dopamine over winning.
And I just never want to do that.
So let me ask you this.
If we all accept the idea that you should push back on people who are pushing you, would you accept that there could ever be an exception where the strategy is more important than the dopamine hit?
Do you buy that frame?
And if not, what would be...
No, don't just say something bad about me or that DeSantis is good.
These are just generic things.
Give me...
No, stop saying generic things.
Be specific.
What would be wrong with that frame?
I get way too many comments to...
Scott is triggered by a word meant to trigger.
Well, remember, the word came from the entity that likes DeSantis the most.
It was a Fox News word.
If CNN had said that DeSantis had been retaliating, I'm not sure I would have taken it seriously.
Because I would have just said, oh, that's just how they're framing it.
But if his own side is framing it that way, it's probably a little closer to the truth.
I can laugh at your opinion all I want.
Actually, you can. So if you get a dopamine hit by feeling that you're smarter than me on this topic, or that your strategy would be more effective, then I'm in favor of that.
If you can get a dopamine hit any way at all...
Just go ahead and do it.
Anyway, I'd rather win than get a dopamine hit, but that's just me.
Elon Musk wants to start a city.
That I think would be called Starbase.
And of course it would have to get the approval of the people who already live there.
But the idea would be to have some kind of, I don't know, local control and design and engineer an awesome place to live so that he can attract, I guess, high-quality workers for his own companies.
And have I ever told you that that had always been my dream?
To design a city.
Because our cities are all wrong.
I keep hearing, who's got a good idea for fixing crime in our cities and everything?
And I keep saying, why would you fix cities?
You can't really fix the cities.
You can barely put a tourniquet on them.
I think cities are just going to die.
Because unless you start over...
There's nothing about a city that works.
There's just too much population, too transportation, too everything's in the wrong place.
I don't think you could fix a city.
But I've long said that the next phase of human, let's say, civilization will be to start from scratch and design towns and cities and even blocks and even the house itself In a very A-B-tested, human-centric way until you can build an insanely good place to live that doesn't cost much.
Now that might be the thing that Elon Musk could bring to a city design.
Imagine any other way to build a city.
What happens? You bring in private companies whose job it is to build, let's say, homes.
You say, give us the best bid.
To build the cheapest home.
Well, even the best bid is going to try to make the most profit they possibly can.
So they're going to build the house that specifically they know how to build and they can already do it and they can just outbid the other people.
They're not going to build you the city of tomorrow.
You're basically going to get the same houses but somebody's going to give you the cheap one if money is what matters.
But Elon Musk...
And maybe he alone.
Again, we keep running into situations that only a few people could handle.
Maybe Jeff Bezos could do it or something, but Musk could do it.
And imagine starting from scratch and saying, okay, what must a city have?
Like, what are the specifications, starting with a human being...
And even starting with, you know, which human beings?
Are you going to favor, you know, children or single people or all equal?
Do you make different models for each one?
So you start with the very specifics of what a person needs, then you design their house, or at least their living structure, or whatever it looks like.
And then from the house, you figure out what type and kinds of houses should be, like, right next to it.
And should they be up in a building where you never see anybody except in an elevator?
Or should it be arranged in a way that you have some forced but optional, I guess that's, no, let's say, frequent but optional interaction with your neighbors in some way that is good?
And maybe you design types of houses for types of families.
So let's say a blue house is only for someone who has kids.
Because then you'd want to put the blue houses together because then the kids could meet each other and everybody's happy.
And there's always somebody who says, I hate this.
You don't have to live there.
I didn't say it's the one place to live.
You know, everybody thinks, if you describe a product, they just say, well, I'm not going to use it, so screw that product.
It might be good for other people.
Anyway, I think you could take the price of living down by 90%, and I think you could take the quality of life up to the point where both drug addiction and loneliness and mental health would be cut in half.
I think you could do that with a physical design.
I'll say it again. I think a physically engineered city...
Engineered in a way that Elon Musk would do it, I would imagine.
You start with the specifications of the human and then work out what the city looks like to support it.
Nobody's ever done that.
Nobody's ever even come close to doing that.
And I can't even imagine anybody else who could do it.
But he could sort of do it easily.
I don't even think it would be hard.
He'd just pull together the people who know how to do that stuff, throw a few billion at them that he has laying around, do a little...
No, nothing like Levittown.
Let me say, if what you thought of was Levittown, you're really, really far from what I'm talking about.
Levittown was like a two...
Elon Musk could design a 9 or a 10.
They wouldn't be comparable in any way.
So that's coming.
Could be interesting. At the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, I said that Ukraine might be...
Better off than people thought because they would have new tech military equipment that NATO and the United States would make available to them, I speculated, and that it could make a big difference.
Now, I'm not so sure that the new...
What would you call it?
Sort of secret stuff.
What's the word for secret technology?
There's some other word for it that they use.
Anyway... But there are two things that we don't know too much about that are being shipped to Ukraine.
One is called a ghost drone, or Phoenix.
Phoenix ghost drone.
Now, classified, right?
It's classified. I think that's the word.
So I think it's classified, meaning that we don't know what capabilities it has.
Also, there's an unmanned boat.
I guess you'd call that a drone boat, wouldn't you?
An unmanned boat would be a drone boat, wouldn't it?
So both of these things are apparently being delivered.
And I think the ghost drones were supposedly designed especially for Ukraine.
And maybe they're anti-tank and anti-personnel, but I think people are guessing.
Yeah, are the drones submersibles?
That's a really good question.
Really good question.
I don't know. So here's what I had speculated Ukraine would have access to, although maybe it's taken longer than I would have imagined.
But they may have now the good stuff, the phrase I used at the beginning.
That tech-wise, they might have access to the good stuff in a way that no other military has ever had.
Like, actually weapons that no one's ever used.
And Ukraine is going to have access to them.
Because part of my speculation was that the weapons manufacturers would rush the good stuff into the fight to see how it works.
Because that would just be great for them if it did work.
And if it didn't work, maybe nobody would notice.
Better than nothing, right?
They'd be happier that you tried than if you didn't.
So, yeah, it could be just a whole gigantic weapons testing ground, and that's the real reason for the war.
I wouldn't rule it out that defense contractors have created a war just to test stuff.
As crazy as that sounds, you would love to say, well, that's not going to happen.
That's way over the line.
That could never happen.
But I think it could.
I'm not saying it did.
But I think it could.
So here's my question about these classified drones.
Let's take the one that's in the air.
Seems the more important one.
Is the one that's in the air Let's say you had a drone that could just fly longer and was stealthier and could hit whatever it wanted, would return to base and just turn around and do it again.
Something that could just do mission after mission and every time it would get away with it and every time it would hit something.
What if they have something like that?
And how many of those would you need?
Because if you've got little switchblades, like they're all suicide things, but what if these are not suicide things?
And they have enough munitions and it just never gets hit.
And it can just go out and hit anything it wants.
Well, wouldn't it start with whatever is the most important assets that the Russian army has and just take them out?
Seems like it would just take out the most important stuff.
So it would take out then the anti-drone stuff and then the regular drones could get in there.
Sucking more dopamine, fantasizing about a longer war.
You know, there's no doubt about the fact that we are sick people who are looking at the war as an entertainment property.
If you're far enough away, it's actually interesting in a way that makes you feel icky, but it's interesting.
I don't know how to change that, right?
So there probably is a dopamine hit talking about a war.
I wouldn't doubt that at all. But that doesn't mean I should enlist, just to address your comment there.
All right. So that's happening.
So Jonathan Turley had an interesting article in which he thinks that Elon Musk's bid for Twitter is going to put the board in a tough place because his offer is so good, especially if he were to increase it, which is the rumor. It's going to be hard for the board to justify that they're actually working on behalf of the stockholders.
So this is going to get really interesting.
Rasmussen had a poll about masks and the airline decisions to drop mask requirements.
And 51% said it was a good idea to drop the masks on planes, to which I said, what?
What kind of bubble have I been in that only 51% were happy that masks are dropped on flights?
Are you surprised? 34% said it's a bad decision and they would prefer that masks were required on flights.
34%? 34% is exactly the amount of Americans who don't fly.
I don't know if that's true, but I'll bet it's close.
All right. Somebody who can Google really fast.
Find out what percentage of the population actually flies, who would be adults, who would answer a poll.
So percentage of adults who fly.
I have to think that at least 34% don't ever fly, right?
So isn't it the people who don't ever fly who just say, ah, screw them, make them wear masks?
With these polls, I never know exactly what's being measured.
It could be jealousy. We might be seeing a bunch of jealousy where the people who never are going to be on the flight and they know they're never going to fly because it's just too expensive or for whatever reason they're never going to fly.
They're just like, yeah, yeah, they should wear masks on those flights.
Totally. They should totally wear masks on those flights.
All right. This Johnny Depp...
The story is just so horrible.
I can't look away. So Johnny Depp, I guess he's suing Amber Heard because she wrote a story that seemed to suggest that he was physically abusive.
And so he's suing her for saying that.
And so in order for her to win, I guess she would have to show that he was physically abusive.
In order for him to win, I guess he has to show that he wasn't, and maybe that she was.
So he has shown that she was physically abusive.
So apparently his audios do make that case.
But there's one audio in which he...
No, I guess an email message or something, in which he did say something about fantasizing about her burnt body and being dead.
And so his fantasizing about her being dead is being used as an indication that maybe he's an abuser too.
But having heard what Amber Heard did, this seems well confirmed because she's admitting it on audio, don't you think it would be not entirely out of reason to at least have the fantasy...
Of some bad thing happening to her in return.
But there's no indication that he acted on it or planned to act on it.
So the best defense that Amber Heard could come up with is that Amber Heard was such a monster that in his private thoughts he wished that she would just burn to death.
And I'm thinking, I don't know that that's an indictment of Johnny Depp.
That sounds like that even though Johnny Depp had imbibed a lot of alcohol, he still knew what he was dealing with.
And maybe his private thoughts as opposed to his actions, which apparently there's no indication that he did anything abusive that I've seen.
I feel as if that wasn't an entirely uncalled-for opinion of his.
So I'm not sure it worked exactly the way the Heard defense hoped it would.
Because I think a lot of people heard the things that she did and said and how she treated him, and when he said something like he would F her burnt corpse just to make sure she was dead, I think a lot of people thought to themselves, well, you've got to do that just to make sure she's dead.
But not in real life.
We're not talking about real actions.
We do not approve of violence.
Ever. All right.
She put down a cigarette on his face?
Has that been proven?
Yowzer. I don't know if that's been proven.
All right. So what else is going on?
Have I completed my mission of the most important live stream in the world?
It made some of you mad, but that's why you come back.
I had a philosophy teacher who used to talk about when you have a loose tooth.
Have you ever had this thing back when you were a kid, and you would be losing a tooth, and so you start playing with it with your tongue, and it would hurt?
Like, you'd push it, and it'd hurt, and you'd just keep pushing it, and it'd just keep hurting.
And you'd just keep hurting yourself until it came out.
And you talk about that being, you know, like an analogy for life.
You know, we're always hurting ourselves, but we're pushing through.
Oh, the Mike Tyson...
How many of you saw the video of the drunk guy...
Mocking Mike Tyson just mercilessly on a flight until, apparently, Mike Tyson turned around and punched him in the head several times.
Now, unfortunately, the video only shows the mocking part, but I only saw a still picture of Mike Tyson leaning over the...
It looks like he's leaning over his seat to punch the other guy.
How much I wish I'd seen the video of that, not the still picture?
Because, oh my God, did that guy have it coming?
There is video? Oh, there is video.
Okay. Well, I've only seen the still picture.
Maybe they didn't want to show the video because it was two.
Which reminds me of...
I just watched a clip of Joe Rogan.
I guess he was recently interviewing MMA fighter Jake Shields.
And Jake Shields was at some event where there was Antifa, and apparently, as he tells the story, he was pulling some Antifa people off of somebody.
So Antifa was attacking somebody, and he was pulling them off, which caused Antifa to turn on him and call him a Nazi.
So they're like, you know, get the Nazi!
So they attack him, but unfortunately he's a...
Professional MMA fighter.
So, as he subtly put it, he dropped two of them.
I would love to know what that meant.
I think that was the word he used.
I think he said he dropped two of them or something like that.
Whatever the exact word was.
He was very unspecific.
But I always thought to myself, how much fun would it be to be a professional fighter and to find yourself in a fight that's like a legitimate fight?
Just an actual, okay, this is actually a street fight, and I have a complete right to fight back.
And I suppose you've got the legal problem that if you hurt somebody, you're a lethal weapon and they're not or something.
So there has to be some limits there.
But it had to be fun.
Well, it had to be like a good day for him.
It's like, oh my God, I got to knock out two Antifa guys.
And I'm thinking, if you knock down people for a living, that's your sport, that must have been just such a fun day.
Talk about dopamine.
Yeah, just don't kill them.
You don't want to hurt them too badly.
And I feel like Mike Tyson knew just how hard enough to punch.
Like he's an expert puncher.
Maybe not. Maybe he just punched him because he was mad.
Who knows? Tyson retaliated.
Yeah. Now, just to be clear, I'm not opposed to retaliation.
You just have to do it when it's your best strategy.
If it's not your best strategy, well, then I'm not going to pay somebody to do it.
Why would I pay somebody to do a suboptimal strategy?
But no, retaliation has its places in the right place.
Yeah, he's been in trouble for assault before, so...
But I don't think any...
Can you imagine a jury seeing that video?
If you were on the jury, would you convict Mike Tyson?
Let's say the guy recovered.
He just had some... Bad bruising, but he wasn't badly injured.
Can you imagine?
I can't imagine convicting Mike Tyson for that.
I would laugh that off.
I would say, nope, nope.
Saw the video. Nope.
But he technically broke the law.
Yeah, I know. It's your job as a sworn juror to follow the law, not how you feel about the case.
I know, I know. So what do you vote?
Not guilty. I don't know.
I don't think you can slip that one past the keeper.
That guy will sue? Eh, I don't know.
Maybe. Alright, that's all I've got for now.
I'll let you go early, get some work done, and thank you for joining the most provocative live stream of all time.
