Episode 1784 Scott Adams: The Wokeness Pendulum Is About To Turn Around. That Changes Everything
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
What I learned from the J6 committee
Wokeness vs Title IX
Is Dad doing his job in America today?
Brad Raffensperger thinks numbers don't lie?
DOJ disagrees with Supreme Court ruling?
My talented nemesis, Chen Weihua
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning and welcome to an experience that I think you're going to call later.
I don't know. You'll have a lot of words for it.
You'll say spectacular, hard to describe, orgasmic, perhaps.
But let me tell you, you have stumbled onto, or possibly through your own good work, you have come upon The high point of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Everybody's talking about it.
And it begins with something called the simultaneous sip.
Have you heard of it? Yes.
It's sweeping the live streams.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of really any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like.
Coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that's going to make everything better.
It's called simultaneous hip and abs and alcohol.
Oh, God.
Well, are you in for a treat today?
Because today the news served up...
Little golden nuggets for us.
You know, some days it's just turds.
It's nothing but turds.
But today, nuggets.
Golden. Here's the first one.
Did you think there was any way that the January 6th hearing committee could make themselves look more absurd and less credible?
Were you thinking to yourself, I don't think there's anything they could do?
I mean, really? I'm going to brainstorm a little bit, but like what?
They could wear clown faces?
No, that wouldn't change much.
What could they really, really do to look more ridiculous and less credible than they have already looked?
And then I look at the news today and it turns out that Sean Penn will attend the January 6th hearings.
So, well, I guess fuck me.
Apparently there was a way to be more ridiculous.
Now, let me be fair.
I like Sean Penn.
And I actually like the fact that he's an activist.
He does seem to put his own body and reputation and probably money of some amount into causes.
So I would say he's not like the regular Hollywood people, right?
I like the Hollywood people who are really...
Putting their sleeves up and getting involved.
That's why I like Melissa Milano, even though I disagreed with practically everything she said.
I always had full respect for her, because she was a full participant who also happened to be famous for something else.
Those kind I like, because I think I'm a minor version of that.
So I want to defend myself, I suppose.
But if you're actually trying to help, We should be happy about it.
It doesn't matter that you also were a good actor at one point.
That said, the way the public will view the January 6th thing when you add a professional actor is that it's theater.
Am I wrong? What does your brain say when you say, well, today's...
Today's broadcast will be the January 6th hearings, and this episode will feature Sean Penn.
Sean Penn will be making a celebrity appearance on the January 6th hearings.
Those will be broadcast on all the major networks.
Am I right? It's just the association is the only thing that could have made it look more ridiculous.
Even though, like I said, I respect Sean Penn.
He does the work.
All right. I saw a Clay Travis tweet in which he was tweeting a video.
I'm not sure who made it, but it was 10 minutes of Democrats saying elections had been stolen.
Ten minutes. But each of the clips, you know, the clips are very short, but it's just everybody from, you know, Hillary Clinton to everybody, you know, lots of pundits, saying that the election had been stolen in some election in which a Republican won.
You know, it was more than one election.
And when you see ten minutes of it, solid Democrats saying this election was stolen, It just reminds you who controls the propaganda machine in this country.
It's got to be the left.
Because it is just generally true that whoever loses thinks the election was stolen.
And it's always been that way.
It's just always been that way.
When you lose, you're like, I think that election was stolen.
So maybe it's not a left or right thing.
But they sold it to us as, if you say it and you're on the right, you're supporting the insurrections.
Well, I did a long thread yesterday on an idea that I'd already shared on a live stream here, so you've heard it.
The idea was that Trump, instead of running for president, He starts a media, let's say, debate-centered media entity in which he would host debates on major topics.
It would just be a big event, and it would support Truth Social, and it would allow him to run air cover for somebody like DeSantis, just as an example.
And it's interesting.
If you look at how people responded to the tweet, There were a lot of people who liked it.
You know, they would check the heart.
But very few people would retweet it.
Why is that? I think average people are afraid of Trump or Trump supporters.
I think an average person who is a Trump supporter who sees this idea and says, yeah, actually, Trump would be even better as the person who helps us beat the fake news monopoly.
That would be a higher calling than president, which is sort of a rerun in his case.
So a lot of people responded to the idea by saying, yeah, I like it enough to hit the like button, but I'm a little concerned about retweeting it because it suggests that Trump would have a higher role than even being president.
But it would be different than being president.
I'll tell you one of the things that's sort of emerging in my Understanding of things.
Is that a lot of Trump supporters just want revenge.
Or, as one person put it, vindication.
Basically, just to see Trump win, to say, okay, he probably won the other time, too.
So, here we go.
I told you Biden was a mistake.
Now I'm right.
So, a lot of this is about being right, getting revenge...
You know, vindication, ego.
And I want to contrast that with something that I've said publicly a bunch of times.
That when I supported Trump in 2016, it was because privately, I don't think I said it as much during 2016, but after the fact, I'll tell you, privately I wanted him to break everything.
Because I thought we were just becoming a constipated nation.
I thought the Republic was just constipated.
It just couldn't do anything anymore.
But we're really good at fixing stuff.
Am I right? We're really bad at improving things that have ossified.
But if you break the shit out of everything, we can put things together better Better than maybe anybody, any culture.
All right, I'm going to be a little American-centric here.
But I think America could probably put things back together better than anybody.
We're really good at creating.
But you can't create if your atmosphere is that everything's stuck.
And that was the world that called Trump, basically.
I don't think Trump decided to be the president.
I think the world called him.
Because it said everything's stuck.
We need somebody who will just break the shit out of everything.
And then we'll fix it.
So I think he did that to some extent, right?
And maybe some people would want more of it.
But I think for sure he broke the news, meaning that there was a fake news industry that was really controlling the people, almost like that movie The Matrix.
I mean, I felt like we were in The Matrix Because we believe the news.
And we didn't quite understand how illegitimate it was.
And then Trump comes along and he basically pulled up the cover and said, all right, look what they're doing to me.
You can see it right in front of your eyes.
Look what they're saying about me right now.
And then look with your own eyes.
Here's the transcript. I mean, he never said those words.
But that was the effect.
The effect was he proved to us That everything we knew about everything was wrong.
Because it came from the news.
And the news is just made up propaganda.
So he did break everything in terms of our mental models.
Would you accept that?
He didn't break the systems, which is probably a good thing.
He broke all the ways we think about them.
Right? The way you think about the world is really different.
Because of just the conflict he brought, the mental destruction.
He was like a psychological bulldozer.
And it didn't matter what you were thinking before he got there.
He just bulldozed your thoughts away and then said, hey, how about this idea?
And you might have loved it and you might have hated it.
But all of your other stuff got bulldozed away, and now you were talking about his stuff.
So it was a really fundamental destruction of the American mind, and maybe global, I don't know, but far more than the American mind.
So I got what I wanted.
I wanted destruction. He delivered it.
Now, the second part is, can we fix it?
That's what my idea was about.
My idea is that if we could form some kind of a system or a model in which you could have good information delivered to the public without the propaganda, in other words, a fair debate with experts, but here's the important part.
It has to be interesting.
It has to be provocative.
It has to be entertaining. We've never really had anybody who could do those two things.
You know, Trump could bring the seriousness and the entertainment at the same time.
Name one other person who could do that.
Nobody, all right? I'll shortcut that.
Nobody could do that. He's the only one.
And that's the thing that needs to get fixed.
Because if we don't understand stuff such as, is nuclear energy good for us or bad for us?
Imagine if we'd had...
Let's say, more effective, fair news for the last 20 years.
Do you think we would have an energy problem right now if the news business worked?
I would say no.
Because if the news business worked, it would have been a long time ago that people said, you know, we really should keep these nuclear plans running.
We figured out how to keep the nuclear waste on the site that produced it, because, I mean, that can't be that much worse than...
You know, what was already there.
At least in people's minds, it's not that much worse.
And so it solved the psychology of where does this waste go.
That was solved. How many people knew it?
You don't have to take it to, you know, some Yucatan mountain or something.
Just store it on site.
And how about the danger of the nuclear plants?
We were all 20 years behind in our knowledge of it.
We thought that the version 2, Gen 2, I think Generation 1 is the only one that's had meltdowns, and we're on Generation 3, which has never had a meltdown.
Never. Nowhere.
So the technology that we use for nuclear power now has already solved the big problems, and it's been a while.
It's solved them for a while. So if the news had been telling us that from the start, instead of saying, hey, look at Greta, because this is more interesting, wouldn't we have electricity now?
Oh, shit, I'm looking at the comments.
Roe got overturned.
Well, did that just change my show?
Yeah, I assume you can confirm that over on YouTube.
Over on the Locals platform, the comments are faster.
Row is just overturned.
All right. Well, then you weren't even listening to what I said, were you?
Wow. Live, live streaming.
This is kind of cool.
Now, can somebody tell me in the comments so I don't have to look at it myself...
Was the actual ruling the same as the draft?
The actual and the draft were the same?
Does anybody know yet, or is it too soon?
Alito was a majority opposing...
What? Let's see.
Just looking at your comments.
Too early to know? All right.
Well, that's interesting.
The opinion is on 213 pages.
I guess we'll find out if any of it changed.
Wow. So they pick a Friday.
And when does the Supreme Court session end?
Pretty soon? Or is this it?
And what was it?
5-4. Next week it ends?
Okay. So it happened just as people said it would.
Alright, so, one of the things...
6-3?
It was a 6-3 decision.
Okay. I guess we expected that, right?
So, that's interesting.
So here are some of the things we've learned from that.
Number one, When you see a draft opinion that looks that complete, maybe it's the actual opinion.
Or it will be. The second thing is, did that just guarantee that the Democrats will keep power?
So now the Democrats have...
Now the Democrats have the Supreme Court, two issues, right?
They've got the gun issue, the New York Supreme Court decision about concealed carry in New York, making it okay to do a concealed carry in New York, according to the Supreme Court.
Now, and then this.
So, these are the two things that, of course, you know, conservatives would want a lot, but it's going to be expensive.
Because it might affect the election.
Do you think this will affect the midterms and then 2024?
I think it would affect the midterms more.
I'm seeing yeses and noes.
It's sort of mixed.
So the states still have laws on abortion.
So the states can do what they want now.
That's the point of taking the federal government out of it.
No effect on midterms?
I don't know.
We'll find out.
Scott sounds a tad disappointed.
About what? Do I sound disappointed?
About what? I'm not sure which topic you're on that I allegedly sound disappointed in.
Maybe I just sound disappointed.
Now, I feel like it would be ridiculous to talk about anything else.
Because this is the only thing anybody's going to talk about today.
I have such a good show planned.
But now it's irrelevant, isn't it?
Because you only want to think about that.
Wrong on this, Scott. Only 19%.
I don't know what 19% is.
213-page ruling.
All right. Well, we'll get back to that.
James is saying Scott doesn't care about abortion as an issue.
No, that's not true. Now, let me clarify.
It's always hard to summarize somebody else's opinion if it's even a little bit complex.
Because nobody's going to like your summarization.
My opinion of abortion is not that I don't care.
My opinion is I'm not a person who should be part of the decision.
In other words, I think that I make the decision-making process worse by participating.
Now, if you think that you make it better by participating, then you have every right.
I wouldn't talk you out of it.
I'm just talking about my own moral, ethical decision.
Now, somebody's saying that I'm being a coward.
No, I'm being consistent.
Let me explain it in the simplest way.
The reason I don't participate in that question is the same reason I wouldn't want a woman to tell me if boys should get vasectomies or if boys should be circumcised.
So let me explain it.
If there's a question that is specific to men's bodies, I don't fucking want to hear a woman talk to me about it.
At all. Stay away from my body.
How about the men will decide what we do with our bodies?
Because we have more appreciation.
This is some kind of hypothetical situation.
How about you stay the fuck away from our bodies with both of your opinions and your tools, and I, in turn, will stay the fuck away from your body?
Is that not fair?
How's that not fair?
So if somebody says that, you know, like I'm afraid to get into the issue...
Seriously? You think that's bothering me?
Not at all. I'm just trying to be consistent for the first time that you've ever seen it in your life.
Maybe that's why it throws you.
When people are consistent, people are like, oh, I don't know what I'm seeing here.
What if the baby is male?
That's an interesting debate point, but I'm not really sure worth focusing on.
Somebody says, as a father, I don't agree.
My wife should be able to abort my child.
Okay. Then jump right in there with your opinion.
And by the way, if I were in that situation that was described, then maybe I would think I had something to say about it.
Maybe. I don't know. I'm not in that situation.
So at the moment, I'm not, and I don't plan to be, so...
Take myself out.
Alright. Here was an article in the Wall Street Journal, and Brit Hume summarized it this way, and I was going to say this in public too, and I have to chastise myself because the only reason I didn't is that I thought I would be mocked.
Now, I'm not really driven by embarrassment.
But I just didn't want to bother.
You know, the trolls come in, and I'm like, eh, I don't know, it's like extra work.
So I'm chastising myself for not doing something that was worth doing.
I just didn't want the extra work.
But Brett Hume did.
And he tweeted about the Wall Street Journal article.
He said, and this is about January 6th.
He said, far from proving Trump nearly blew up our democracy, the testimony has shown his effort collapsed because Republican officials who voted for him refused to go along.
Now that's pretty close to what I've been thinking.
And it goes like this.
What did you learn from the hearings so far?
I learned something that I didn't know.
And let me ask you, did you know this?
What I learned from the hearings is that Trump had no fucking support for keeping office if the system, even if it were flawed, even if flawed, Every Republican in the room, his own family, he didn't have support from his own family.
You know, as soon as you saw that Don Jr.
was saying, shut this shit down, that should have been the end of the conversation.
Right? You know, as soon as you saw Ivanka said, well, I thought Bill Barr was probably right about that.
We should have been done talking about this completely.
Trump... Didn't even have the support of his children.
And you know why?
Because his children are smart.
And they agreed with every other Republican, apparently, who was close to him and had any power.
Nobody wanted any part of it.
Now, that's what I learned.
Now, you did learn that there were lawyers...
Lawyers, keyword, lawyers...
Who were providing him an argument for keeping power.
That's what lawyers are.
They're the people who give you the argument that will allow you to get what you want.
It's their job to tell you how to weasel the system.
It's not their job to not weasel.
They're paid weasels.
And I say this with complete respect.
Because if they do a good job of it, that's why you hired them.
You know, you could hate what Mark Goliath and his folks did, changing some election rules before the election.
But it was legal, and it was kind of awesome.
You can hate how it turned out if you're on the other side.
But if it made a difference...
That's why you pay lawyers, because they can get some stuff done.
So what I got out of it that I literally didn't know is that the base of support for Trump keeping power was so weak, it was basically non-existent.
And we spent four years listening to Democrats say that it was sort of a fact that That Trump had the support that was sort of fanatical, and it was Republicans who would suddenly violate the Constitution to keep their hero worship guy in power.
And the Democrats sold that primarily to each other, because I feel like Democrats believed it because they were telling each other.
But let me ask you this.
How many of you who are Republican, so you have to be Republican to answer this question, right?
How many of you who are Republican would have ever supported throwing the Constitution away to keep Trump in power?
Now, I get that you wanted more visibility on the election.
Separate issue. Demanding visibility on election, demanding audits, demanding a delay to make sure who won.
How many of you, if let's say there had been a delay, and let's say that somehow the election had been audited, and let's say you were satisfied that the audit actually did prove that Trump lost.
And let's say you knew it.
You're like, oh, well, I was pretty sure he won, but...
This is a very credible audit.
People even audited the audit and now I'm sure he lost.
Hypothetically, let's say that happened.
And you're a Republican.
Do you really want him to keep power anyway?
Because you like his policies?
I feel like that's not one Republican anywhere ever.
Like none have ever been born who would ever have that feeling.
And yet the Democrats sold that Like that was just obvious and observable.
I mean, just look at it, they would say.
Look at those big crowds.
They're chanting, they're wearing his hat.
They'll do anything he wants.
Not even close to true.
Not only was it not close to true, but didn't you all know that?
I'm not the only one who knew that, right?
You all knew that.
You all knew...
That zero Republicans would support a man over the Constitution.
You knew that.
Because that is almost the definition of what a Republican is.
A Republican is somebody who's going to favor the Constitution over just about everything.
Like, that's the whole frickin' point, right?
So, it's amazing that they sold that.
And it's equally amazing, and I credit Brett Hume for pointing this out, having more guts than I did, that that's actually the only thing I got out of it.
The only thing I got out of it is how right I was that there was never any risk of an insurrection.
Because what if, you know, now that we know, even if these insurrectionists had, what, taken control of a room?
A room in a building with no weapons.
Like, even if they succeeded and said, this is our room.
We take over the country.
You need every one of those advisors to Trump, or at least most of them, to at least say, yeah, yeah.
Good on you for violently, or in some cases, getting into our Capitol.
I don't think any of them said that.
Has there been one person who's not a lawyer who was really trying to literally do an insurrection?
There's zero evidence of that, right?
So if you ask me, the January 6th thing has proven to the country that not only was there no insurrection attempt, but it was never even possible.
And everyone knew it.
That's what I'm getting. Now, of course, it's my biased lens on this, but that's not that bad, is it?
I mean, is that unbiased or is that closer to...
Closer to neutral. I feel like it's neutral, but I'm also aware of the fact that I would have a bias there.
It's hard to judge myself, and I don't think you're necessarily a better judge either.
But it's hard to know if that's an objective opinion, isn't it?
What do you think? I don't know.
This is one of those situations where I'm completely aware that I would not be able to judge my own opinion.
I think that the January 6th proved that there was no risk.
But I could be wrong.
All right. There's big news about, you know...
People making fun of Biden and his little cheat sheet.
Did you see that item? So he had a little cheat sheet for some event, and on it was one bullet point at a time, saying what was going to happen, and then also what parts he was supposed to do.
And he was being mocked because the sentences, some of them, started with uppercase emphasized you.
You introduced the speaker.
You go to your seat and sit down.
Now, he's being mocked for that.
I have to defend him on this.
I have to defend him.
If you've spent any time doing public events, this is what you want.
He's just well prepared.
I'm just going to give an A-plus to his staff.
You know, this story is completely backwards.
This story should have been, Biden has a good staff.
This is exactly what I want you to give to me if I'm running for president or I'm president.
I want my staff to give me this.
Let me tell you why. Prior to Biden walking into that room, how much thought did he give to the event?
He should have given none.
That would be the right amount.
Because if he's just going to go in and say some words and leave, it's not a debate.
He should put the least amount of effort into that as possible.
And his staff has done literally everything, you can tell by this cheat sheet, to make his thinking zero.
Now, the way you've interpreted this is...
The way you've interpreted it is that he's so incompetent and his staff knows it that they have to, like, treat him like a baby.
Possible? Possible.
But let me tell you that when any time any famous person or a public figure has lots of events, do you know what the support people will try to do?
And they'll really try hard.
They'll try to remove all of your other thinking.
It's a service. They try to remove all of your thinking so that you can only think on things that your brain is important for.
So, the part where it says, you take your seat, here's why that's important.
If you saw on there, take your seat, would you interpret it as, oh, I'm supposed to tell everybody to take your seat?
Or would you interpret it as, you just go take your seat and somebody else will take care of the opening remarks?
You actually do need to be that clear.
It's very important that his notes said, you take your seat.
That really does help.
So this story is completely backwards.
And the reason I defend Biden every now and then is because you have to understand it's both sides doing this nonsense.
Now, here's the defense.
The defense could be this.
Trump wouldn't need that.
Right? Trump didn't need it.
I'll bet Obama didn't need it.
But it would be useful. I would need it.
I wouldn't say I would need it, but I would find it useful.
If somebody gave it to me, I'd say, oh, good job.
But Trump was a different character.
Trump could go into any room without preparation and somehow make it work, right?
And that was his specific skill.
You could throw Trump into any room, any room.
It doesn't matter what's happening.
And he makes it work.
So he wouldn't need to have the perfection.
He could just say, who says this?
You're up here next.
And then he would just, you know, orchestrate it and everything would be fine.
And if he didn't like the way other people were orchestrating it, Trump would have said, no, you do this over here.
All right, well, I'll read this, you do that.
And he would have just, he would have turned it into what he wanted to do.
So you never had to tell him what to do because he is, you know, such a micromanager.
He would just do what he wanted to do anyway.
So I defend Biden on that.
All right. I'm watching the collision, I guess, of wokeness versus Title IX. Now, Title IX is what gave young female athletes the same resources for sports as boys have.
And so it's been hugely successful.
So female sports are way up since before Title IX. And it's been an entirely positive thing.
So could we all agree?
I'm not sure if you do, actually.
I guess I'll find out.
Do we all agree that Title IX did what it was trying to do?
It promoted female sportsmanship and stuff, and that it worked.
Yes? Yeah, say yes.
I mean, I'm sure that probably conservatives or somebody else argued against it back in its day, but it worked, right?
So here's another thing I'm in favour of.
Wokeness. You don't like it so much.
My complaint with wokeness is it just goes too far.
It's sort of unforgiving.
But I don't have a problem with referring to people in the way they would like to be referred.
I consider that just good manners.
But wokeness, which I like, not the extreme version, and Title IX, which I like, have a little bit of a problem, don't they?
Because it's hard to be in favor of both of them.
Here's why. Athletes are the opposite of wokeness.
When you say, hey, let's have a system that really supports worshipping the best athletes, because that's what sports do.
It ends up being about the good athletes, right?
It's really, reward goes to the good athletes.
Here's the problem. What makes somebody a good athlete?
It's kind of how you were born.
Now you're going to say, no, it's not just how you were born.
It's also hard work and practice and all that.
To which I say, do you know what makes a person work hard?
It's probably the way they were born.
Sorry, it's probably all the way you were born.
I have a good work ethic.
Meaning that I'm willing to work hard to get what I want, and always have been.
I was born that way. I worked hard in first grade.
I mean, just always.
There's no way in hell I learned that.
I was just born into it.
And there's no way in hell people who just don't have that learn to be lazy or something.
It's just part of what you're born with.
It's just true chemistry. My chemistry makes me stand up.
Some other people's chemistry says, stay on the couch a little bit longer.
Mine won't let me.
It's not like I thought it through and decided that standing up was better.
I just have different chemistry.
So, it says, Scott is jealous of athletes.
To which I say, of course.
Of course. I would be jealous of anybody who had any gift that I didn't have.
I mean, it's not going to change my life, but in the conceptual way, I wish I'd have those things as well.
So that would be a fair statement.
But here's my problem.
Wokeness is about treating everybody with the same level of respect.
Here's my own definition.
Treating everybody with the same level of respect, no matter what their situation is.
Is that fair? That wokeness is about treating everybody with the same level of respect and access, of course, no matter how they were born, what their situation is.
So that captures everything from LGBTQ to any racial stuff, religious stuff, handicaps, or different ableness, whatever is the better term.
So here we have some people supporting a system which worships people's genetic superiority, which is Title IX, and really anything involved with sports, not just Title IX, and then at the same time supporting the thing that's the opposite of that, which is, no, no, no, it's not how you're born, like we're all equal value.
They are opposites.
And what I like about this is that if you can hold the opinion that we should be worshipping athletes but also we should be woke, you don't make any sense at all, I don't think.
To me. So here's my point of view.
I feel that I'm consistent.
And the consistent thing is I think everybody's the same value.
People are suited for different functions.
Some people can lift heavy objects.
Some people can write Supreme Court decisions.
So definitely people are suited for certain functions.
But my own view is everybody has the same worth, and if you had any other view, it just makes everything not work.
So it's just a practical view.
And I take that to athletes.
They're fun to watch, but worshipping him is like worshipping luck.
Because they didn't ask to be born that way.
They were just born with a certain set of gifts, including the opportunity to use them, luck, including the hard work that's probably genetic.
I saw a video in which some doctor was saying that the triple-vaxxed are the most likely to die from COVID. What do you think of that?
Do you think that's true, first of all, that the triple-vaxxed are the most likely to die from COVID? So that's pretty scary, right?
And there's a related story, that the people who get cancer treatments, I don't know if you know this, this might be breaking news for some of you, but the people who get cancer treatments are the most likely to die from cancer.
Did you know that?
The people who get cancer treatments are the most likely to die from cancer.
Do you know why? It's because people who don't have cancer don't get cancer treatments.
I don't know if you didn't see that coming.
With vaccinations, here's the question one must ask.
And maybe it's been answered, but I didn't see it.
Who is most likely?
Not in every case. Not in every case.
We're only talking statistics.
We're not talking individuals.
As soon as you tell me about the individual who made an individual decision, we're on a different topic.
You're talking about individuals, I'm talking about the average.
Only the average. Completely, selectively, exclusively the average.
And when you try to...
I know you're gonna. I know you're gonna say, but I know a person.
No. No, no, no.
Different topic. On average, who's likely to get triple vaxxed?
Would it be somebody who's at high risk?
Yes. Old people.
Overweight people. People with five comorbidities.
They're vaxxing the piss out of themselves because they think their odds are better that way.
Now, who is most likely to die from COVID? Whether they're vaxxed or not, it's got to be the old people and the fat people and all the same people who have been dying before.
So should you be alarmed that the people who are triple vaxxed are also the ones dying at the highest rate?
I think that's just what you'd expect.
If the vaccinations worked really well, but not 100%, So let's not call them vaccinations.
Let's call them shots.
So if the COVID shots were 100% effective, you know, that'd be terrific, but they're not.
All right. Enough about that.
So just beware your statistics because it's entirely possible that the shots are helping people, but they're still dying more than they should.
Okay. Maybe.
I don't know. I mean, how would I know?
All right. Here's a provocative tweet that I tweeted today that got way less pushback than I was expecting, but I think it hasn't broken out of my bubble yet.
You know, there's some tweets that get a positive response because your followers see them.
And then you get one non-follower who sees it and says, I take that a little differently.
And then it leaves your bubble.
And then the trolls come in.
That's sort of the pattern.
But the trolls hadn't come in yet when I tweeted this.
I said, if things get much worse in the U.S., men will take back leadership of the country.
Now, I'll explain myself so you know the context of that in a moment.
But it was meant to be provocative, right?
Obviously. It was meant to provoke.
But it's also a real point.
And I'll tell you the real point in a moment.
But here's the thing that surprised me.
The number of women who agreed with it, and the number of women who said that it was a big mistake to give women the right to vote...
Now, I think they're half kidding, but maybe half not.
I don't know. I can't tell.
You know, I can see some of the comments, some women are saying I agree.
Now, I'm not going to go that far, of course.
But here's what I meant when I said if things get much worse in the U.S., men will take back leadership of the country.
Number one, because I'm very woke...
Let me specify that when I say men, I don't mean their genitalia.
When I say men, I mean there's a male way of being that encompasses a certain set of traits, but you could be a woman who has those traits, you could be identified as anything you want, and also have those traits.
So it's the traits I'm talking about, but I hope you'll appreciate that I made every topic about trans.
Can you give me a hand at home?
I made this about trans, and I promised I would.
And there's one thing that the January 6th, if I hadn't mentioned this before, one thing that the January 6th hearings is missing, not enough trans angles on that.
In fact, I don't think it's even been mentioned once in the whole January 6th.
And I would like to point out that the committee, the Congressional Committee, has no trans members.
Zero. So that's a little bit on that.
The Democrats. All right.
But what I was saying was, when I'm talking about if things get much worse in the U.S., men will take back leadership.
When I say men...
Just put that into sort of mom and dad traditional stereotypes.
It's just a way to shorthand it.
So it doesn't really mean gender.
But here's what I mean.
Traditionally, Would you say that it's often true that in a household, mom seems to be in charge?
Like, mom is making the calls, you know?
What are the kids eating?
Who's doing what when?
Fairly typical, right?
Now, I'm not saying it should be that way.
That's not the point. I'm just saying, on average, it seems like mom is mostly in charge in the house.
But, will you go with me the extra mile and agree with the following?
The reason mom can be in charge is because dad already did his job.
Dad kept you safe enough that you could go about your business.
Dad's job is to keep the Mongol hordes from coming and raping and killing you.
And if mom is making decisions about what you're having for dinner, dad did his job.
And again... Dad doesn't mean male or female.
I'm just saying, you know, relationships tend to have a protector and then, you know, maybe an operator.
You know, the operator seems to be in charge, but they can't do shit.
The operator is dead unless dad kept you safe.
So what's happening in the United States right now?
What's happening in America?
Is dad doing his job?
Is dad keeping you safe?
Fuck no. Fuck no.
Dad is gone. We're like a single mom country now, are we?
It's like the country turned into a single mother situation.
Dad is just fucking gone.
Do you know why Dad is gone?
He got insulted out of the house.
Wasn't appreciated. Said, fuck it.
I don't need this.
I think I'll just go do some drugs.
Not appreciated.
Here's a related trend that I see in California.
I don't know if you've seen it there.
Do you know anybody who's an American-born person, male or female, who won't even date somebody who was born and raised in America?
Have you seen that?
No. I've seen it.
And it feels like it's...
I've seen some yeses.
And there's a reason, isn't there?
Do you know what the reason is?
Men are appreciated.
That's it. Every other culture appreciates men.
It's only an American culture that demonizes men.
So do you know what men did?
They went on strike.
You just didn't know it.
The men let you take over.
Again, that sounded sexist, but remember, I'm not talking about gender here.
I'm just using a shorthand for a vibe.
Yeah. Dad said, fuck you.
Dad said, we had a deal.
Dad said, we had a deal.
You just broke the deal. So, you're on your own.
So, Dad's missing.
Now, all I'm saying is that if you don't get Dad back, the whole thing falls apart.
Or somebody who's willing to be Dad.
What was Trump?
Trump was Dad.
And what happened when Dad tried to come back and Dad actually fixed a few things?
Dad made things better in North Korea.
Dad made energy work.
Dad made the economy work.
Dad was helping on the border.
Some say he didn't do enough, but obviously better than Biden.
Right? So what happened when Dad came back and Dad did his job and Dad made you safer?
What the fuck happened to Dad?
Well, you fucked Dad.
You fucked Dad again.
You disrespected Dad.
Now, he brought a lot of it on himself.
Let's be honest.
He made it easy.
You can't support Trump whatsoever In any honest way without saying, well, he did make the attacks on him a little bit easy, too.
Okay. So, you know, there's no perfection going on with anybody here.
Let's be honest. But he did bring the dad energy.
And it did the dad thing in many areas.
But he was drummed out.
He was drummed out.
Can you imagine there might be a, you know, a Trump-like figure in a different culture?
Imagine somebody who had, let's say, Trump's characteristics, but was maybe running for election in a Central or South American country.
Do you think he would have been drummed out for just being him?
Probably not.
Probably not.
So it feels to me that...
There may be a pendulum move here, and that even, maybe even especially, women are seeing it.
That they drove dad out, they made it a bad deal to be a dad, basically.
Made it a bad deal to even protect you.
So, if you don't get it back, We're in trouble.
But I think the pendulum will just naturally swing back.
And I do think that you're going to see something that sexist people would describe as more of a male approach to things.
I mean, if you take any topic, don't you feel like you can sense the male versus the female approach?
I think the Democrats are basically the party of women.
Well, let me test this with you.
I've said this before, but I don't know if you agree with it.
I say the Democrats are the party of women who are trying to be a bigger tent than that, including a lot of minority rights in general.
But it's basically women.
And then the women tell everybody else what's going to happen.
Right? Even Black Lives Matter was primarily a woman-run organization.
And... All right.
I'm sure I had some point there that I was going to make.
So, Rafsenberger, what was he in Georgia?
What was his title?
Rafsenberger was Secretary of State?
What was he? Secretary of State, right.
So he was in charge of elections there, and then the January 6th people were talking to him, and here's a quote from him that I saw in the Wall Street Journal.
And so he was in Georgia.
So he said, in Testimony Tuesday, Mr.
Rasenberger, a Republican, said, audits of the state's election results showed no evidence of widespread fraud.
And then Rasenberger said, the numbers are the numbers, he said, the numbers don't lie.
The numbers don't lie.
What planet is he on?
The numbers is how you lie.
That's like saying words don't lie.
No, words are the things you used to lie.
Numbers are the other thing you used to lie.
You know, hammers don't...
Anyway, you don't need any analogies.
But let me clarify.
So here's somebody who was elected and was responsible for a major, fundamental part of our republic, the election, in a key place.
And he would tell us in public, the numbers don't lie.
Well, you motherfucking idiot.
Video lies. Video lies.
Photographs lie.
Data is the biggest fucking liar we've ever met.
Politicians lie.
We don't have anything that doesn't lie.
Alright? If you can fucking find something in this culture that doesn't lie, trot it out.
I'll take a look at it.
I'm willing to be amazed.
But don't stand in front of the public and tell me that numbers don't lie.
It used to be my job To do financial analysis, to decide on business cases for investing in things within the corporate world.
Should we upgrade our systems or what?
I was never under the impression that my job was to tell the truth.
I can't remember ever conceptualizing of my job as to find out what was real.
It never even occurred to me.
Like, that wasn't even my mindset.
My mindset was my boss would tell me what we were going to do, and then I would make some numbers that supported it.
Like, the numbers are how you fucking lie!
The numbers don't lie.
Now, he might be saying, let's say I imagine he were defending himself, he might say, no, I'm saying the data, the data is accurate.
Is it? How would I know?
Because a guy said so.
So, a politician who lies for a living, because that's sort of what they do, so a guy who lies for a living told me the data is good, Oh, I feel better now.
The guy who lies for a living, politician, he's telling me that the numbers are good.
But I wonder if there are also any lawyers who think the numbers are good.
Because they don't lie for a living.
Oh, they do. Damn it.
That's right. Lawyers lie for a living, too.
So yes, we should totally believe that all data is reliable.
And in fact, all the data for every scientific study, every political event in every other realm has been wrong.
I mean, all of our corona numbers were bullshit.
But one thing we are assured by a professional liar is that the one area, the one area where the data can be accurate Is our elections.
So feel pretty good about that.
All right. Michael Malice on Twitter asks provocatively.
He says, not one person who claimed that striking down the airline mask mandate would lead to mass deaths has acknowledged they were wrong or suffered any consequences for their bullshit.
Now, I like that point because there were some people with strong opinions about that.
And I think at this point, we can say conclusively they were 100% wrong.
We can also say that if you believed it was definitely a good idea to keep masks on on airlines, you're a fucking idiot.
Anybody? At some point, right?
Early on, there was some fog of war.
But at some point... If you were positive that people needed masks on airplanes to keep us safe, well, you're a fucking idiot.
But, if I'm going to be fair, if you were sure that taking them off would make a difference, would not make a difference, well, I don't think you were on such solid ground yourself.
And I'll say it for the millionth time.
You could have easily tested this.
With one flight, like one regular flight.
Let's just say you said, all right, we don't know if taking off masks is a good or bad idea.
So what we're going to do is we're going to watch one flight.
Let's say it just goes back and forth between two cities, any two cities.
Maybe something that has a few hours involved.
And we're just going to watch it for one month.
And if that one airline, and we'll follow up with the passengers, we'll call them and say, did you get COVID? And if there's a higher rate of people who flew that airline, we'll say, whoa, whoa, whoa, at least it's a good thing we tested it.
We didn't let too much COVID into the world with this one test, but now we know what we need to do.
Why wouldn't you do that?
It's like we keep running away from something that's so obvious, which is, can you test it?
Well, if you can test it, why are we guessing?
That wouldn't be that hard to test, would it?
I don't know. It seems like it's very testable, and you could do it at such a small risk relative to the whole pandemic that it would be certainly good to know.
I mean, the entire flight business and travel and everything just got shut down for something that could have been tested in 30 days.
With pretty high reliability, I think.
Because if you didn't find any difference between the passengers on the no-mask flight, well, aren't you done?
All right. Rasmussen had a poll, asked the American public, who we think is winning, Ukraine or Russia?
14% say Ukraine is winning, which is interesting.
I thought it would be higher, actually.
I'm not saying that Ukraine is winning.
I think it's a hybrid situation going on there.
45% said stalemate.
And 24% said Russia is winning.
24%. It's like close to a quarter.
That's about 25%.
Anyway, here's what's wrong with the poll.
I think people interpret the question too differently in this case.
In my opinion, who's winning or losing depends on what time frame you're looking at and what you thought was the goal.
If you say the time frame is right now and Russia's goal was to take all of Ukraine, well, they didn't get it.
If you say they had strategic objectives to take over part of Ukraine and degrade the rest and maybe take it over later, then they totally are winning.
So I feel like it's a weird hybrid situation where they're winning and losing at the same time.
I'm not sure that there's any smart way to answer that question.
How many people thought Biden...
This is also Rasmussen. How many people thought Biden is handling that situation well, the Ukraine situation?
31% said either excellent or good.
But 44% said poor.
That is a stubborn 31%.
Do you remember people used to say that Trump...
Am I remembering this wrong?
That Trump could always get like 31%.
There was some like solid base that no matter what, he'd have that 30% or so.
It looks like Biden just has that too.
So something like 30% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans are going to back their candidate no matter what's happening.
Does that sound about right?
That about a third of partisans will back their own candidate, no matter how obviously that candidate is failing.
I thought it'd be higher, actually.
But that's not bad, 30%.
At least it's not the majority.
The Department of Justice actually issued a statement...
Saying it respectfully disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling on concealed guns in New York.
To which I say, what does that mean?
What does it mean when the Department of Justice respectfully disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling?
Is it just talk?
Or does it mean they're not going to enforce it?
Or they're going to enforce something that the Supreme Court says can't be enforced?
What does it mean? It's sort of like the foreshadowing of it doesn't feel so good.
I don't know. I saw a tweet from somebody called Natural Redhead, Danielle Caniel, and she was talking about younger people feeling doomed.
Do you feel that? This is what her tweet said.
She said, I said this to my mom the other day, but I don't think older adults realize how outright depressing it is for millennials and Gen Z to keep investing in our future when everything is headed toward a future that doesn't seem even remotely bearable.
So if you're a young person in America, is that why you've learned that our future doesn't look remotely bearable?
What? So I had to tweet back my helpful context.
I'm pretty sure every generation says that, don't they?
Give me a fact check just from your own experience.
Doesn't every generation say the new generation is shit?
And doesn't every generation think that the older generation ruined it for them so that it'll be worse?
And isn't every generation better off?
You know, maybe I'm biased.
I don't know. I think so.
You know, there are definitely things such as home ownership is worse in some cases, stuff like that.
So is it true or not true that we're better off?
See, here's the true, not true part of it, because it's true and not true at the same time.
It's true that health care is better, right?
We have, you know, more pills and treatments and things.
So if you were born today, you have way better health care.
And that's a giant thing.
Right? If you were born today, if you don't have a car, well, you can Uber if you need to.
You've got, like, more options.
So we're probably, you know, safer from a lot of disasters than we ever have been, et cetera, et cetera.
So I have a feeling that things actually improve Just consistently.
But we always think this is the last generation and it's going to be ruined.
Maybe we'll be right one of these days.
Here's a story that surprised me a little bit.
Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the governorship in Georgia, but is sort of a rising star in the Democrat Party.
She's very vocal about being pro-funding police.
And when someone asked her about it, she said, I was never not pro-police.
And so she's putting forth some beefy proposals to raise the pay of the police locally where she is.
And basically it's just full-throated support to police.
Now, surprising, right?
Democrat. Do you think it's a presidential play?
Because if it is, it's a pretty good one.
I mean, you know, in terms of finding some kind of middle that she could peel off a few Republican votes?
Maybe. Doesn't look like a terrible idea.
I don't know if it'll work. But it's also possible, let me give her credit, it's also possible it's just her opinion.
So she's just telling you her honest opinion, which would be awesome.
Now, I have an opinion about Stacey Abrams that I want to see if anybody else has this.
She creeps me out, which has nothing to do with her capability.
It's not because she's a woman, it's not racial, it's not any of that.
There's just something about her smile, maybe.
I think it's her smile, something.
There's something, yeah, it's just off.
It's like there's an uncanny valley sort of thing there.
And... I don't know.
I just wondered if anybody else saw it.
Because I wouldn't say that about too many other people.
It's a weird thing.
Some of you know that I have a nemesis named Chen on Twitter.
And his tweets are always tagged by Twitter automatically as being affiliated with state-run media.
Meaning a Chinese agent.
I mean, that's how your brain should interpret it.
Now, I should say that Chen says there's no truth to this.
That he is, although he is associated with a Chinese state-affiliated media property, that his opinions are his own.
So you can judge for yourself.
So he's my nemesis.
He tweets things, and we disagree on Twitter a lot.
But he's also super talented.
If you ever get to have a nemesis, you won't want as good as him.
He's really good at it. Like, really good at trolling the American opinion and saying, me too, have you considered this context?
America is not so great.
And even though I hate it, Because I hate it when he's ragging on America, just sort of naturally have an opposition to it.
The things he says are actually, oh, that's actually a pretty good point.
It's actually useful.
But he's pointing this out.
In a tweet, he said, Twitter's discriminatory policy laid bare here since the U.S. government propaganda Voice of America doesn't even receive such abuse.
He's talking about himself being labeled as state-run media.
And he says, Elon Musk must act to remove such McCarthyist censorship.
You can see why I love him.
He's such a good nemesis.
But he's also right, which is Twitter is not just an American company, right?
It's an international property.
And if Twitter is going to label one country's people and affiliated people as propaganda, what would be the argument for not labeling Voice of America as propaganda?
If it is propaganda, because that's why we make it, right?
I don't think we even pretend it's not propaganda.
Am I wrong? Voice of America is explicitly, publicly, a propaganda entity.
Is it not? Am I overstating that?
I don't think I am. I feel like it's designed overtly for that purpose, and we use it, and we're happy with it.
So why wouldn't Twitter label it?
I mean, we're not even hiding it.
Just in the way that Chen doesn't hide that he's affiliated with a China state-affiliated company, he's just not making a big deal about it, so Twitter does.
But maybe Voice of America should be labeled.
But here's the problem.
First of all, I'm not making a real practical point.
I doubt it will ever be labeled, and I wouldn't care either way.
But you wouldn't be able to do that because then everything looks like propaganda, because it is.
So you'd end up labeling MSNBC as propaganda, and then the whole thing just falls apart.
So Twitter has an impossible task of labeling propaganda.
Now, Twitter doesn't call it propaganda.
They just tell you it's somebody associated with a state-affiliated media.
You're supposed to interpret it as...
They're trying to sell you a story.
But everybody is.
Like, everybody's selling us a narrative.
So either label everybody or label nobody, because I'm not entirely sure if it matters that he's a spy, does it?
It matters if he's right, but usually you can check.
So everybody else on Twitter is just saying stuff that often they can't support.
Outright lies.
I mean, it's the nature of the beast.
But only the Chinese troll, alleged troll, but only the alleged Chinese troll gets labeled, and everybody else can just spew bullshit about everything all the time.
It's a perfectly interesting question.
It's either all propaganda or none of it.
I don't know why you'd label some of it.
All right. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of the livestream.
Have I offended any of you today?
Did anybody get angry at any of my opinions today?
Got a few. Yes.
I'm over at the target. Oh, I hate that saying.
I can't believe that came out of my mouth.
Do you ever say something that's such a cliché that you want to slap yourself in the face?
Give me a minute. There.
Okay. I just deserve that.
The things I never want to say are it's talk around the water cooler.
Ugh! Ugh!
Oh, I so hate that.
And he must be over the target because he's taking a lot of heat.
Like, I get it. It's a good analogy and stuff, but it's just a little too used.
Touch base and to piggyback on that.
By the way, if you have any of those jargon lists that people say in meetings all the time, send those to me because that's going to be part of the Dave character in the comic strip Dilbert.
So Dave is an African-American character whose defining characteristic is you can't tell when he's kidding.
Because he uses the buzzwords that people do, but he uses them so much that he's not entirely sure if he's kidding.
So much so that even though he was hired by the boss, because the boss wanted more diversity, and he wanted to get credit for more diversity, but Dave came in and told them that he was identifying as white.
Which ruined everything.
So Dave, the new character, would just be the guy you can't tell if he's joking or not.
And I think I could just do those jokes all day long.
So if you just sat in the meeting and said, well, we're circling back with the synergy, the teamwork is operating at full scale, that sort of thing.
Yeah, lots of excellence.
Aww. Thank you.
I love you back. Now, YouTube, I'm going to turn you off now, after I turned you on.
