Episode 1788 Scott Adams: January 6 Hearings Continue To Validate Protesters' Instincts About Our Systems
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
52% are Pro-Choice in America
CNN race-baiting on inflation impact
J6 Committee mischaracterizing Republicans
John Eastman's phone data warrant
Marijuana and ER visits
Males are designed for risky behavior
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's really nothing better in the world, and if anybody tells you there is, well, they're lying.
You should distance yourself from them immediately.
How would you like to take it up to a new level?
A new level of awareness.
I call it the caffeine level.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine of the day thing makes everything better.
Everything. It's called the simultaneous sip.
And watch it set your corpuscles on fire.
In a good way, in a good way.
Go.
Oh, so good.
That's so good. Well, today we can play our normal guessing game on top of the content that you're about to hear.
The guessing game is, how high is Scott right now?
So you can deal with that on your own while I talk about the news.
All right? Talk among yourselves.
Number one, why is Twitter slandering me?
And by that, I don't mean people on Twitter.
I mean Twitter the company.
I actually got slandered by Twitter today.
Now, I think it's just an automatic program.
But what happens is I block the guy for mischaracterizing my opinion in public.
That's my first blocking criteria.
If you scream that my opinion is something crazy that it's not my opinion, and then you criticize me, I'm not going to stop to correct you in your wrong thinking.
I'm just going to block you.
Because have you ever experienced somebody who mischaracterizes your opinion, and then argues about it, and then you say, oh, hold on, that's actually not my opinion?
You're mischaracterizing it.
So now when I've presented my opinion in its accurate form, I would expect you now to modify your opinion to respond to my actual opinion, not something that you're hallucinating.
What happens when you do that?
What happens when you correct somebody and say, no, no, no, that's actually not my opinion?
What do they do? Do they say this?
They say, oh, wow.
Yeah, I guess I was wrong.
No. Do you know what they do?
They tell you your fucking opinion.
Yes. I'll say, you know, I think gas prices are too high.
And then somebody on Twitter will say, well, why did you say yesterday they're too low?
And I'll say, that never happened.
That never happened at all.
I've always thought they're too high.
And then what does the troll do?
Oh, yeah, you did. Yeah, you did.
Oh, yeah, you did. They'll actually tell you your opinion.
And they'll tell you you're wrong about your own opinion.
Meaning that you don't know your own opinion, but they do.
Not only do they know it, but it's stupid, and they're going to show you why.
So, no, you can't really fix somebody who's misstating your opinion.
You just have to get them out of your life as quickly as possible.
But when you do that, there's some kind of weird Twitter bug that presents a notice so if people want to see, because I blocked him and then I retweeted, so that the rest of you could see why I blocked him.
The only person who wouldn't be able to see it, in my view of how things should work, should have been the person I blocked.
But the rest of you should have been able to see it fine.
But Twitter puts up a notice that says that I, it names me, limits who can see his tweets.
Do I? Do I limit who can see my tweets?
I mean, other than blocking, which of course is built into the system.
I'm not really limiting who can see my tweets.
But the notice goes up there, and doesn't that make me look like an asshole?
Because when I've seen that notice on other people's accounts, which I have seen, do you know what's the first thing I think?
You asshole. It's a public forum.
Why would you pre-block some big group of people you've never even interacted with?
Why would you do that? And the answer is they didn't.
They didn't. It looks like it because Twitter puts that notice on it.
So now there's going to be a whole bunch of people Who think that I limit who can see my tweets and what will be their first reaction about me?
What an asshole. What an asshole.
What's the point of going on Twitter if you're going to limit who sees your tweets?
Right? So I believe I've been slandered by Twitter.
I mean, accidentally. By a bug.
But they need to fix that.
Elon Musk? Put that on your list, please.
When you're not, you know, conquering other planets and stuff like that.
Um... Sometimes there's a story in the news that's so perfect and delicious that you just want to read it twice.
So I might just repeat myself, because sometimes it's just too delicious.
You have to say it twice. And the story is about Green Day, the band.
The front man named Billy Joe Armstrong...
And he told fans at a concert that because of the Roe vs Wade decision, he's going to renounce his American citizenship and move, I guess.
Now, here's the part that people pointed out, and the Babylon Bee was the first one to make this observation, which is great, by the way.
You should follow the Babylon Bee.
If they were on Twitter, you could do it.
But they're still on Instagram, I guess.
Here's what's beautiful. Green Day is famous for one song more than others, and that song is American Idiot.
It's about how Americans basically were idiots and, you know, don't understand what's going on.
Now, here's my problem.
If you wrote the song and you're famous for writing the song American Idiot, and you find that your situation here in the United States is no longer bearable, Which part should you change?
The American part or the idiot part?
Well, he's decided to change the American part.
If you don't want to be an American idiot, change the American part.
Be a Canadian idiot, I guess.
And so, you know, obviously that's not a characterization of his thinking, but it is pretty funny.
It was pretty funny. It reminded me of a joke that I saw again.
So this is a little inside tip on humor writing.
You probably didn't know this.
There are only 100 jokes.
Maybe fewer. I don't know.
But there are no more than 100 jokes ever.
Everything is just a repeat of the same hundred jokes.
Or fewer. It might be a few dozen jokes, actually.
But all you do is you change the names and the situations.
So this American idiot joke is where the reason this works, you know, where I joke, well, if your problem is you're an American idiot, why did you change the American part, right?
Because the joke is that there are two things that are possible, but your attention was driven to one of them.
That's how the joke works. So that's one of the joke forms.
Now here's Norm Macdonald's joke, and I want to see if you can find that it's part of that joke class, all right?
I may have ruined it by tipping you off about how it works.
So Norm tells this joke, or he told it on Conan O'Brien.
He said, my wife, she went in a coma.
Now, I assume that wasn't true, just a story.
But Norm goes, yeah, my wife was in a coma.
Doctors couldn't figure out what to do, but they had a theory.
Doctor comes to me and says, you know, I think there might be some amount of stimulation that would maybe take her out of the coma.
And doctor says, you know, I think you should try oral sex.
And Norm says, oral sex?
He goes, yeah, I might take her out of the coma.
So Norm says, alright.
So Norm goes in the room with his wife who's in a coma.
Comes out a few minutes later and he says, Doctor, I tried.
I don't think it's working.
She's choking. I'm just waiting here for a response.
Because, you know, you should be laughing at home.
You should be laughing at home.
That's what should be happening.
Now, you see it's the same joke.
Because your mind is automatically taken to the more obvious that he would be performing it.
But the joke is that he didn't take the obvious.
He took the non-obvious solution.
Same with American Idiot.
The joke is, well, if you're an idiot, change the American part.
It's making you not see where the joke is going until that last moment.
That's what makes it work. All right.
There was a study that was reproduced, which I guess is noteworthy because studies are often not reproducible.
But apparently there was a landmark psychology experiment from years ago, which they've now reproduced, and they got the same result, so maybe it was valid.
And it was that you could easily induce people to believe that when they were young, they once got lost in a shopping mall as a child.
So I think what they do is they have them talk about it or write about it or basically deal with the issue of being lost in a shopping mall.
And simply making people sort of deal with the topic causes 25% of them to have a false memory that they themselves were lost in a shopping mall.
Now, do you believe it's that easy?
Do you believe that you could give 25% of the public a false memory just by having them interact on a topic?
If you were a hypnotist, you would.
If you're a hypnotist, you'd say, yeah, that's just sort of normal business.
If you're not a hypnotist, it probably blows your mind.
It's like, what? Okay, you're getting ahead of me.
Yeah, a hypnotist could probably give you 100% false memories.
Yeah, not 100%, but it'd be closer to 100%.
Yeah, a hypnotist could give you all the false memories you want.
You want some false memories?
I can give you some.
I mean, I literally have that skill.
I could give you a false memory.
Is that weird? To know that I have that ability, I can give you a false memory, like intentionally.
Yeah, I could do that.
In fact, I've done it. I've actually done it extensively, intentionally giving people false memories.
Yep, I've done that.
It was in the context of hypnosis when I was reverting somebody to their prior life.
Prior lives aren't real, but they remembered them.
Thanks to me, thanks to me, I caused them a bunch of false memories about lives they never lent.
So yeah, it's real easy to give somebody a false memory.
But I was interested in the percentage of people who were easily triggered into the false memory.
It was exactly 25.
So 25% of people have such little control over their own mind That they can be triggered into believing something isn't true just by talking about it.
Just by talking about it.
That's all it takes. 25%.
That's exactly a quarter.
25%. That's an inside joke for those of you who are new.
All right. Rasmussen has a poll.
It says 52% of people who answer the poll in America are pro-choice.
Is that about what you thought?
I'm not sure I knew what the number was.
I thought it was roughly kind of even.
But did you know 52% are pro-choice?
There's slightly more people who are opposed to the Roe v.
Wade decision, I guess. Somebody says people think it's bigger.
Well, and then further, Rasmussen poll says that 50% of those polled approve of the Supreme Court decision.
So that... Sounds about right, right?
Half of the people are pro-choice.
That means half of the people are the opposite.
And so half of the people agreed with the Supreme Court.
So it's good to know what those numbers are.
Now, have you been somewhat puzzled by the fact that I'm not...
Let's see. I'm not trying to persuade you which is the right way to go on abortion.
I've told you why. It's because I have a penis, and I think women should just handle this and let us know what they did.
Handle it both personally, but also handle it in terms of what the law should be, the law of the land.
I just think women should take the lead on that.
And while I retain all of my constitutional rights, I mean, I still can vote, still can speak in public anytime I want about it, if I want.
I just choose to be, you know, less important on this topic.
But part of the reason that I choose that is that it's a jump ball.
The United States is 50-50-ish.
And... I don't know.
We live in sort of a republic with democratic processes.
And it's hard for me to get worked up over something that half of the country wants.
Like, even if I'm on the other side.
Do you ever feel that?
You could have a strong feeling about it, but you say, you know, I live in a country where half of the people, half, Want the other thing.
And it really is subjective.
We like to argue about it like it's science.
Life starts here, so I'm right.
Or life doesn't start here, so I'm right.
But it really is subjective.
It's how you feel about it.
And if half of the country feels strongly the other way, I don't know if ethically or morally you really have a strong impulse to argue that.
Because either way, half the people get what they want.
So I realize this is more life and death, so it's a little different, but I just generally am not too worked up over things that the public is mixed about.
The stuff that gets me mad is if 80% of the public wants something that they understand, and the government won't give it to them.
Now that makes me crazy, right?
So, you know, a lot of the mask mandate stuff, that was where the government was not giving the people what they wanted, and that makes me crazy.
All right, here's some race-baiting from CNN in an opinion piece by Nicole Terry Ellis.
And the title for the piece was, As Inflation Soars, Black Americans Bear the Brunt of Rising Grocery, Gas, and Housing Prices.
Now, why is it that black people are bearing the brunt of inflation?
Why do black people get hit by inflation extra bad?
The reason given is because they start, on average, at a lower income level, and the lower income levels are the people getting hit.
But isn't this only a story about low income?
There was nothing that sort of tied it back to race, except if you want to say that systemic racism caused black people to have lower incomes on average, which is true.
And especially because of the school systems.
But you really have to try pretty hard to make this a race story, don't you?
If you start with the assumption that there are more black people as a percentage who have low economic situation, you've kind of already agreed that everything that happens bad to poor people is going to get them worse.
I'm not sure that's a story.
Shouldn't the story be inflation is really bad for poor people?
Like, why do white poor people just get left out of the mix?
Because I'm pretty sure they're bearing the brunt of rising prices the same as everybody else.
To me, this is like, this is just CNN, in my opinion, and this is sort of my advice, feedback to their new leader who wants them to be less provocative and more neutral about the news.
I think this is a failure.
This is a failure, I think, for CNN to be on their mission to be more objective.
This is just propaganda narrative.
And I understand its opinion.
But when CNN chooses an opinion to put on their site, they're saying it has merit.
And this doesn't. It doesn't have merit.
It's a true fact. It's a true fact that it's hitting black people harder.
But it's the wrong frame.
The frame is that it hits poor people harder.
I just don't get how this is about black people.
You just have to really push pretty hard to make this racial.
All right. Do you think it's consistent that you can say you don't like the January 6th protests, the violent part of it, you don't like it, and at the same time you don't like the January 6th hearings?
Could that be consistent?
It is, right? You can hate both of them.
Why not? I had a few observations about this.
Number one, the protesters on January 6th, I characterize them this way.
They smelled something fishy, and they wanted the government to pause just long enough to check out the fishy part before certifying it.
Now, of course, there were lots of people there, so not every person wanted the same thing.
Some people were just bad people who wanted violence and probably did want to hurt people, some of them.
But they weren't the majority.
The majority was there because their instincts, and I'm going to call it instincts, were that the election looked obviously rigged.
Like, obviously. Now, I'm not saying it was rigged, because I haven't seen evidence to support that.
But my instinct had some of the same, you know, inklings.
Meaning I thought, I don't know.
There's something about this that isn't quite registering as copacetic.
Which doesn't mean it isn't.
It just means that what I expected didn't happen.
So anytime your expectations are violated, the first thing you do is, who's up to something?
Doesn't mean somebody's up to something.
It just means it could be.
So, here's what I think happened ironically.
I believe that the January 6th protesters were reacting to the fact that it feels like our systems are rigged.
Does that sound like a fair characterization?
I'll say it again. As an average.
Now, we're accepting that some members were just violent...
Crazy people. I'm not discounting that.
They have to be dealt with. But the general protesters, wouldn't you say that they had an instinct that something was wrong and that they were there to protect the republic?
Don't you think that was their mindset?
Their instinct was something wrong and they went there to protect the republic.
Now, I've said this before, but I will die on this hill.
I will fucking die on this hill.
There's no Republican who would protest a fair election.
I would die on the hill.
You can shoot me a thousand times and torture me.
I'm not going to change that opinion.
No fucking Republican protests a fair election.
It's not who they are.
Right? It's not who they are.
It's literally the fucking opposite of who they are.
And it makes me mad to watch the Democrats paint the Republicans as the opposite of who they are.
The opposite. Now, it would be one thing to say, oh, you robbed a bank or something, like some crazy allegation.
But to say somebody's the opposite of who they are, that gets right down to your DNA-level insult, doesn't it?
Like, it's one thing to say, oh, I think you stole an apple from the store.
It's like, no, I didn't. I mean, that'd be bad to be accused of that.
But it's really bad, let's say, if you were a...
Let's say you'd worked all your life to solve some problem, and then somebody says you're the cause of the problem.
And that would really hurt, wouldn't it?
It's like the worst thing you could say to somebody is that you're the opposite of who you are.
Why did the trans community get all worked up when people mischaracterize them?
Because when you're talking about mischaracterizing somebody's gender, I don't know, what words you want to put on it, you're talking about their basic being, right?
So do you understand why the trans community is, let's say, famously reactive if they get mocked or in any way disrespected?
You can see it, right? Because what you're talking about is really just the most basic part of who they think they are.
Now, you could argue that they shouldn't think that, but it's not up to you.
So when you tell a Republican that they're not a Republican, and you put them in jail for not being Republican enough, or, you know, that's an exaggeration, but you demonize them for not being Republican enough, Republicans would protect the system and bolster it.
That's what they were trying to do.
And they got characterized as people destroying the system they were trying to protect.
That's just...
That's like psychological...
I don't know. It's almost like a psychological crime to define somebody as the opposite of who they are.
Just like trans. I usually don't like analogies, but I just fell in love with this one as I was doing it.
You can understand why the trans community is so active.
Don't doubt... And by the way, I'm not saying who's right or wrong.
I'm just saying that if you're trans, it's your fucking decision who you are.
It's your decision, right?
It's your decision.
And yes, yes, we on the sidelines can say, I think you made the wrong decision.
Because everybody gets an opinion, right?
But it's not my decision.
It's their decision.
And let me divert for a while.
I've seen some critics say that, especially with children making decisions early on, that they're making the wrong decisions and it's destroying their lives.
I would agree that there must be cases where people made the wrong decision.
Everybody on the same page?
There must be. There must be cases where people made the wrong decision.
And wouldn't we, as good people, wish that that had not happened?
Probably. And also, wouldn't we, as good people, if we saw it developing, wouldn't we want to nip it in the bud so that somebody doesn't hurt themselves unnecessarily?
Of course we would, because we're good people.
Unfortunately, that whole thing about us being good people isn't the ruling ethical, moral principle in this country.
The higher principle is, it's not up to you.
It's not up to you.
That's the higher principle. And I appreciate that higher principle.
And I'm going to give you some extra context.
Forget about the trans stuff.
Every kid is making decisions that are destroying their lives.
They're all doing it.
And the adults do.
And to identify the trans community as like the special ones making bad decisions, to me that doesn't feel right.
Because what I see is everybody making bad decisions all the time.
All the time. Every time some kid does drugs, any time some parent manages wrong.
There are just tons and tons of entirely life-destroying decisions that people are making.
Let me give you an example.
There was once a young person...
Who was trying to decide whether to take French or Spanish in school.
I said, well, one of them is really, really useful.
Spanish. One of them is a complete waste of time.
French. What did the young person choose?
French. French.
And did the young person regret it greatly later?
Yes! Because Spanish would have been really useful.
French? Complete waste of time.
So yeah, every single day I'm watching people, young people, children, making decisions that are majorly impacting their future.
Some people are, well, I'll take it out of the analogy phase, and that's a good point.
Somebody said analogies are useless.
I can do this without the analogy.
If people make bad decisions, you have to let them.
That's our system. And the trans issue, those are, if you made it wrong, like, if you made it wrong, would be really bad.
But there's a lot of wrong decision-making that we don't go after because we appreciate the freedom over that.
So I just put it in context.
And somehow I completely missed the point I was going to make.
Let me get back to the point.
In my opinion, the January 6th hearings validate the instincts of the protesters.
The protesters believed that the system was rigged, and that it was rigged right in front of them, right in an obvious way, and that the system said to them, let's see what you do about that.
Let's see you do anything about it.
We're going to do this right to you, right in front of you.
And then there's nothing you can do about it.
Now again, I'm not saying the election was rigged.
I'm also not saying it was fair.
How would I know? How would I know?
I mean, it would be ridiculous for me to have an opinion.
I couldn't know either way.
But I do know that the January 6th hearings are so illegitimate...
And they're being presented to us as the primary mechanism of Congress.
So Congress is saying, this is the system that we choose to use to address this topic.
And we're watching, right in front of us, a non-creditable bullshit propaganda system Largely with one side presented and the other not.
Now, of course, the left has been so brainwashed that they say, well, there could be two sides if the Republicans would just nominate some reasonable people to be on the committee.
No, it doesn't work that way.
The Democrats don't get to decide.
Who is on the team for the Republicans?
But they decided they would decide that, because that's the system.
And so the Republicans said, all right, we're basically not going to play, except for the two rhinos that don't count.
And so we have a system that is completely corrupt, completely propaganda, completely bad for the country, completely bullshit, and they're doing it right in front of us.
Right in front of you. They're not even hiding it.
They're not hiding any of it.
This is clearly a political process, complete bullshit.
Now, when I say it's complete bullshit, somebody later will say, Scott is defending the violent people who tried to overthrow the country.
No, I'm not.
No, I'm not. And fuck you for saying that, whoever you are, because you'll say it later.
I'm not. Every single Republican I've ever talked to said, prosecute the lawbreakers.
Every one. To a person.
Privately, publicly, whispered, shouted, in every form, every Republican, everyone, every Republican disavows the violence that happened that day.
Every one. Every one that I've talked to.
Have you met any that had a different opinion?
So, to me, the January 6 hearings have proven that the protesters have good instincts, that they can identify a corrupt process and call it out, because the corrupt processes are no longer hidden from our senses.
They do it right in front of us now.
And so the January 6 people thought, well, here's another example.
If we live in a world where they do it right in front of you, the Russia collusion thing, they did it right in front of us.
That wasn't some hidden thing behind the screen.
That was right in front of you.
And you knew it was bullshit from the start.
So if you live in a world where you get used to the system lying to you, being corrupt, and not trying to hide it, That's critical.
Not trying to hide it.
The January 6th hearings are not hidden.
It's public by design, and it's propaganda by design.
Anybody can see it.
So I think that the January 6th hearings have just proven that the protesters' instincts were good.
Different from saying that they were right about the election being rigged.
There's no evidence that I've seen of that.
But their instinct...
When they saw something that looked to them to be wrong, I think their instincts were accurate.
Not correct, perhaps.
They might have been wrong. But their instincts were at least tuned to recognize bullshit.
They saw bullshit.
Maybe they were wrong.
Maybe. And they acted on it.
Like patriots, trying to protect the system.
The protesters were more like white blood cells trying to attack a cancer.
So, you know, we've all fell into the narrative that it was, you know, violent, bad people trying to overthrow the government, or at least much of the country fell into that.
But I think it would be more accurate to say it was more like white blood cells recognize some cancer, and they just surrounded it, and there was some other stuff that got hurt in the process, which we all regret.
That's the whole point of the hearings, to make sure it doesn't get bigger next time.
Really? You think that's the whole point?
I don't think so.
I think the whole point of the hearings was to prevent Trump from getting elected.
I was having a little Twitter exchange with Barry Rittenholz on Twitter.
Now, what's interesting about this is that, first of all, I like Barry.
He's interviewed me, so I've got to talk to him in public.
And when you talk to people in public, often they're completely reasonable.
And he was a very nice, very generous, nice guy.
So I have only good things to say about him personally.
But we disagree on this January 6th thing.
And here's an exchange picked out of several that sums it up.
So I tweeted this.
I said, you can hate the January 6th protest violence And also hate the January 6th hearings.
They are approximately equally fucked up.
So that was my tweet. Barry, he says, that's where we clearly disagree.
Now he was referring to a larger conversation we had, if you want to see it in context.
It'll be on my Twitter feed today.
He says, I despise those who try to prevent the peaceful transition of power through violence, and I applaud those who are investigating them.
What persuasion principle is Barry using, either intentionally or unintentionally?
It's hard to know. I'll read it again.
Tell me what persuasion principle is in this.
I despise those who try to prevent the peaceful transition of power through violence, and I applaud those who are investigating them.
Right. Thinking past the sale.
Neither of these things are in question.
There's no Republican who's questioning whether violent criminals should be investigated and prosecuted.
Nobody. There's no conversation about that.
How about the conversation of whether there should be a peaceful transition of power if everything works well?
There's no argument about that.
That's not even what we're talking about.
How about should you investigate any crimes or bad behavior?
Yes. Nobody's talking about that.
So Barry wants you to think that he's trying to make you think past the sale.
Again, I don't know if it's intentional or not.
But I don't see anybody trying to prevent a peaceful transition of power, and I don't see anything like a valid investigation.
I see a one-sided hearing that's meant to be a political event, And I see some protesters who tried to make sure that the transfer of power was done correctly.
That's what I see. So he's made you think past the most important questions of why they were there and what's going on and how is this committee formed.
And trying to make you think that you're talking about the principle of should you be against crime.
Is there anybody here who thinks...
That maybe we should be letting criminals go?
And I look at this and I think...
And here's the part that's throwing me.
Because I've met Barry Ritholtz, I can tell you for sure that he's smart...
And he wouldn't say something in public if he didn't think it was a valid thing to say.
So when you see things like this, you wonder, is this cognitive dissonance?
Because generally speaking, if somebody's smart, but what they're saying sounds a little absurd, that's usually what it is.
You can't know for sure.
Let's not play that game, there was definitely violence.
Oh, man. Oh, man.
I'm trying not to snap, but I feel like this is going to be a losing battle.
Okay, I'm going to snap.
We all fucking know there was violence.
We all fucking know there was violence.
Nobody's in favor of it.
Is that unclear?
Yeah. Is there somebody here who thinks that we're excusing the violence?
Anybody? Does anybody want to come up and just admit you're so fucking thick that you think somebody's excusing the violence and that we think the government should be overthrown or something?
What is wrong with you?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Really, seriously. How's the side game going?
Have you decided how high I am today?
What's the over-under on that?
Quite high.
A little high.
A little high.
Well, you can't tell, can you?
Can't tell, huh?
What's that mean? What's it mean if you can't tell?
All right. On the positive side...
Well, no, let's not get to the positive side yet.
So Hillary Clinton says that...
She was talking about Justice Thomas.
And she says, I went to law school with Justice Thomas.
He's been a person of grievance for as long as I have known him.
Resentment, grievance, anger, blah, blah, blah.
And I thought to myself...
And, you know, somebody said this on Twitter that I retweeted, that if you don't understand what narcissistic projection is, you don't understand the last several years.
And narcissistic projection is something that you almost can't understand until it happens to you.
Has anybody had it happen to them where there was a narcissist who had accused them of a weird crime That you had never done, but they had.
So I'm seeing lots of yeses.
Now, it does seem to me, and I'd love to see if there's any kind of actual...
Because I'll bet there is.
I'll bet you could actually find some science to show that at least the most progressive, crazy parts of the left are narcissists.
What do you think? Because Hilary clearly is...
Well, I'm no expert, so I can't give her a diagnosis.
But I would say that the things you would look for in a narcissist would be that you're doing things and then blaming other people for those things.
And she does that.
So we can at least observe directly some of the qualities of a narcissist she's presenting.
And if you don't understand that, I don't think you understand anything about the last several years.
Now let me give a compliment today.
There's a ProPublica.
There's a... Would you call it an online magazine or publication?
They took a whole bunch of videos.
Somehow they got access. There was a programmer who had stored a bunch of videos from the Parler...
Social media system.
Before they were deleted.
And he put them together in the best interface I've ever seen for the news.
And I'm going to recommend that you look at it just to see how good news could be.
Just how well you could do it if you combined good user interface design with the news.
Now, I have a hypothesis that the people who know how to do good interface design have nothing in common with and never talk to the people who do journalism and news.
They're just such different businesses that there's a reason the news is so poorly done, whereas Apple's interfaces are well done.
Because one uses user interface experts and one does not.
But here's what they did.
They took all the videos from the January 6th protests.
They put them in chronological order.
And then there's a timeline where you can move the timeline and you can see what video and where it was.
You can see which part of the Capitol they were.
And you can see what the energy was and who was saying what.
Now, part of that shows that Alex Jones and Ellie Alexander were quite aggressively trying to get people to not go into the dangerous place and not do anything violent.
It's on video. There's Alex Jones and there's Ali Alexander strongly, strongly encouraging people not to do anything bad.
Interesting. So congratulations to ProPublica for doing the best job I've seen so far of combining a user interface with the news.
Now, here's my big idea.
Do you want to totally control the world?
Let me tell you how.
Build a better user interface that can work as a dashboard for the news.
And then you'll run the world.
So here's what the dashboard would look like.
So it's one page, and let's say the top important economic and political topics are in, like, blogs.
So every day you come on, and it's the same blogs.
So the front page is always the same.
The only difference is that if there's an update on that area of the world, let's say the economy, you see a little indicator there that there are six new stories.
So you click on it, and there'd be, at the top level, you'd see some kind of a graph.
So it might show inflation is going up, or it might show, you know, coronavirus going down or up or whatever.
So basically the front view of everything would be the long-term trend.
And then if there's an indication, you click on it and you say, oh, there's an update here.
But here's the important part.
Show both sides. So your article should show to the best pro and the best con.
Not to every article in the world, but just to the best one pro and the best one con.
And then also have some kind of a mechanism where people commenting on those two articles, you could promote the best comments because the commenters themselves would promote the argument that they think agrees with them but is best expressed.
So you could have a system that bubbles up the best comments for both sides.
For and against. Now, Twitter kind of almost does that because you can like a comment, but you'd still have to go look for it, right?
Am I right? To find out who got the most likes on a comment, you sort of have to go look for it.
But that should go to the top.
The one that people say, and maybe it's a different button.
Instead of like, maybe the button is best argument.
How about that? Instead of like, it's just a best argument button.
So if it agrees with you, you say, yeah, that's the best argument.
Boom. And then yours goes up, and it matches the other best argument on the other side.
Now, if you built that interface, you would basically run the world.
Because you could subtly bias it any way you wanted to.
As long as people liked it, they would keep using it.
All right. But you'd have to do a real good job on the interface.
That's the key. Did you notice that on any of the videos of the January 6th protesters, did you notice what they were chanting?
Did you hear the chants? They were chanting, USA, USA, USA. Do you know what they weren't chanting?
Trump, Trump, Trump.
Again, this is something that the January 6th hearings have, you know, kicked up to my attention through the related conversations about it.
But if you're going to a protest...
And you're saying, USA, isn't that sort of a tip-off that you're there for the United States?
You're not there to overthrow the country?
Do people who overthrow countries chant the name of the country when they're doing it?
That feels like a non-intuitive thing to do.
If you hate your country so much you're literally risking your life to overthrow it, I don't think you're chanting its name.
I think that's the point where you're thinking, I think we're going to change the damn name after we overthrow it, because I hate this place.
But they were chanting the name of the country.
Now, I've said for the longest time that the vast majority of the protesters were there to save the republic, not to destroy it.
And they thought it was at risk.
They thought the election was rigged.
May have been wrong.
I don't know. How would I know?
But they thought so. And I think it was an honest belief based on their instincts, which actually have been shown to be pretty good.
Because the protesters didn't believe that a system run by the government was credible.
And then the government proved they were right by putting together another system, the January 6th hearings, which are completely non-credible, because they're one-sided.
So you can't tell people that they're wrong about their instincts and then prove their instincts are right, right in front of them.
Or can you? Apparently you can.
You can do bad things right in front of people now, like Hunter's laptop.
So the news that you can see in some places, but it's not being carried by the major news, is that Joe Biden had said he didn't know about Hunter Biden's dealings with China.
And now there's an audio recording showing that he definitely knew about the dealings with China.
Biggest story in the country.
Not being reported.
And if you're a Republican, you're watching this right in front of you.
Nothing's being hidden. You're looking at the news as sort of right-leaning.
You're saying, wait a minute, I'm listening to Hunter Biden talk.
Like, I'm hearing it with my own eyes.
There's no doubt about what's happening here.
It's very clear that Hunter and his father talked about his Chinese business.
You can tell by the recording.
And yet, you're watching as 90% of the news is pretending it didn't happen.
So, do you think the January 6th protesters' instincts that the system would do something obviously corrupt right in front of them and just act like they hadn't?
Nope. Nope.
No. The protesters had the correct instinct.
Doesn't mean they're right, but their instinct that wherever weasels are in charge, you get a weasel outcome, has never been wrong in the history of the whole fucking world.
Let me say that again.
In every case where weasels are in charge of building a system, whatever the system is, could be the hearings, could be anything, wherever weasels are in charge, the system will be corrupted.
So, do you think that the Republican protesters accurately understood that weasels were in charge of the elections in various states?
Yes, they did. Yes, they did.
They did understand that.
And so their instinct that wherever there are weasels, there's trouble, was right on.
The only thing we don't know is how much.
Right? I've not seen any evidence that there was enough trouble...
You know, to change the election result.
Not personally. Doesn't mean it isn't there.
By the way, just an update on 2000 mules.
Can you give me a fact check on this?
Somebody tweeted today that...
Oh, why am I blanking?
So Ben Shapiro was one...
What is the name of the famous...
Right-wing, blonde pundit who writes best-selling books.
Ann Coulter, I'm sorry.
Just weird blanking on the name.
So is it true that both Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro have called bullshit on 2,000 mules?
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
Yes? Shapiro did?
Okay, I saw Ian Coulter do it, so then that's a yes.
So, what do you make of that?
For those of you who are believers in...
This is actually really interesting.
I'm going to divert here for a minute.
What do you do if you're a Republican, you're a conservative, and you saw that two of the smartest people on your team, who are pretty much always on your team, two of the smartest people on your team...
Disagree with you about the credibility of that, the allegations in 2000 Mules.
What do you make of that? Their argument seems light on facts.
Well, their argument is that the other side doesn't have facts.
So, they don't need facts.
They just need to say the other facts are not bad.
They don't need facts. Ask their opinions on Trump.
Yeah, we know that everybody has different opinions on Trump.
I think we're just, that's baked in.
You don't trust them. But let's dig into that a little bit.
So, in theory, this should trigger cognitive dissonance in a lot of people.
In theory. Because it's the right setup.
Because you would have to understand why you believe that the film is convincing.
You'd have to hold that in your head.
At the same time, two of the smartest people...
Who have looked at it and really thought about it are saying, no, there's nothing there.
How do you explain that?
Now, I saw somebody say that you can't trust them, meaning that maybe they believe it's real, but for reasons that I don't understand, they would lie about it in public.
Do either of them have a history of lying in public that I don't know about?
You know, let me give Ben Shapiro a compliment, if I may.
Has he ever been even accused of lying?
Actually, that's a serious question, because I don't know.
That would be kind of rare, wouldn't it?
Obviously accused of having opinions people don't like.
But I don't believe anybody's ever accused Ben Shapiro of lying.
I mean, it seems like that would be about as deeply against his worldview of morality and ethics as anything could possibly be.
Now, Ann Coulter, I don't know if I followed her enough to know, you know, she may be hyperbolic and she may be wrong, but has anybody ever accused her of lying?
Like, intentionally lying?
Now, I'm not counting hyperbole.
Everybody does that. So if somebody says yes...
Twisting. I don't know.
I feel like you could have all kinds of opinions about both of those characters, but I think you have to treat them as credible, don't you?
I do. I treat them both as credible even when I don't agree with their opinions on something specific.
But they're very, very credible, in my opinion, and very smart.
Now, I'm going to add my opinion to that.
You know, the reason you're watching is you must think there's some value, in my opinion.
I don't yet see the 2,000 mule thing as persuasive.
Doesn't mean it's not there.
Like, maybe you'd have to dig deeper to get something.
But it didn't convince me.
It's a persuasive content, if you watch it by itself.
But it's just short of the fire.
It's like there's smoke, but maybe it's steam.
You know, you can't tell.
It's definitely smoke, or maybe it's steam.
But I'm looking for the fire, and I haven't found it.
Now, I did see a clip that there's some, you know, truth to vote claims they've got some big bombshell coming, unless that was an old video.
Give me a fact check on that.
Is it current news, or old news, that truth to vote has some kind of bombshell election thing about Arizona coming?
So far, none of the bombshells have been bombshells, right?
Everything's been a dud. I don't know if that's going to change.
Why don't they just debate?
I don't know. Good question.
Scott still thinks there's no early treatment.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, about COVID? That's such old news.
John Eastman, the attorney who was central to the January 6th stuff, worked with Trump.
And there's a video of...
So he was stopped by law enforcement, and they took his phone before they showed him the warrant.
And apparently that's illegal.
And because he's a lawyer, he's going to press that point.
But then I saw the video.
If you heard that somebody took your phone...
Before showing you the legal warrant that said they could do it, you'd think that was pretty bad, wouldn't you?
Right? So when I heard that, I thought, oh, shoot.
That's, like, really bad.
Especially for, you're going to take a lawyer's property and not show a warrant?
Like, that's got to be trouble.
And then I saw the video.
Okay, this is such bullshit news.
Now, I'm not going to argue what is legal versus not legal, because Eastman might be completely right about the technicalities.
But here's what I saw. John Eastman.
Hey, you're taking my phone.
Where's the warrant? Show me the warrant.
Where's the warrant? You're taking my phone.
Don't take my property. Where's the warrant?
I don't see any warrant. Where's the warrant?
Now, here's the warrant. Okay, I'm reading the warrant.
But everybody saw that they took my phone before you handed me the warrant.
And yes, that's exactly what happened.
They took his property.
They could not look at it because they didn't have the passwords.
So no information was gone.
But they physically took possession of his phone before they handed him the piece of paper.
Is that a crime? Do you think the court is going to say that literally, literally, that these two things are different?
All right, I took your phone and then I handed you the paper.
So that's illegal.
But if I had handed you the paper and then taken your phone, that would be legal.
Seriously? Is the court going to say that one of those was illegal and the other one wasn't, if they both happened within 60 seconds?
They happened within a minute.
Within a minute! And they didn't have access to anything in his phone.
They just had it in their hand.
That's it. Somebody says no affidavit.
Oh, there wasn't something attached to it that makes it legal or something.
Who knows? He may have some technical argument.
And I actually hope he wins it.
I hope Eastman wins his legal battle there.
But what do you think about the fact that law enforcement can get access to your entire phone?
I think if that goes on much longer, we have to overthrow the government.
If law enforcement can do a general warrant and get all the information on your phone, not just specific information, that I think would be worth overthrowing the government of the United States.
Now, apparently that's happening.
I don't know if it's widespread.
I mean, it would have to be widespread to get me that angry.
But what happens when political enemies just have their phone grabbed for general searching just because somebody came up with a warrant?
How hard is it to get a warrant?
You can get a warrant pretty easily, can't you?
So wouldn't this just be a way to just destroy people?
Just get their phone and find out what's on there and destroy them?
To me, this is a big enough issue that if the government allowed it on an ongoing basis, like if it became not an exception but like a way of doing business, I think we should actually overthrow the government.
If the government can't stop it from happening, I think that would be hypothetically reason to march on the Capitol and actually overthrow the government.
Who disagrees?
Anybody disagree?
I think I saw one person disagreed.
Okay.
Somebody says, I'm afraid this will get you cancelled.
No, you don't get cancelled for hypotheticals.
You can't get cancelled for a hypothetical.
If I called for a violent insurrection, that would be something they could cancel before.
But I'm not. I'm saying that there is a condition upon which a revolution would make sense, and that they are teasing us that this condition is going to become our norm.
And maybe it is.
But that's when you would die on that hill.
Tell me about your other illegal activities.
Have I ever bought any fertilizer?
Oh, I got truckloads.
No, not kidding. I'm just kidding.
Alright, well here's another comment about the January 6th trial.
I tweeted that, so far you've only seen the Muggles version.
And that's the part that will be our history.
Let me just say this.
I don't...
I've been observing the big stories in politics, both the way you have, publicly, but also I've had sort of special access to a lot of stories behind the curtain.
And there's one thing that you could say about every story behind the curtain.
It's different. It's different.
Like, really different. The stories that you hear about everything are leaving out with such important stuff.
And if you're behind the curtain, you often can hear that stuff, and you know, oh, okay, that story's completely different than the way the public understands it.
Now, I first understood this when I saw stories about myself.
I'd read stories about me, and I would know they were fake.
But you think the other ones are true.
So yes, the January 6th thing, I can guarantee you that whatever comes out of it, whatever narrative becomes the official one, whatever becomes our history, it won't be true.
I guarantee it.
Just like every other story.
The political stories are never true.
Because they always leave out, well, the whole point of this was a billionaire was mad at another billionaire because the guy stole his girlfriend.
A lot of the stories have that kind of...
I made that one up. That's not real.
But a lot of them are a billionaire was mad at another billionaire.
And you never get that part reported.
But then that billionaire funded somebody who funded something that caused the thing that you saw.
Yeah, the real root cause of most things will never be known.
But if you see them, you're like, oh, God, this January 6th thing has written all over it In really bright letters, you'll never know the real story.
You'll never know. There's no investigation that'll tell you that.
Because the investigation will turn into a narrative.
Nobody really has the incentive to tell you the truth about any of this stuff.
So you won't see it. So you're getting the Muggles version.
That's a Harry Potter reference.
So here's some interesting news.
So there's a Mark Meadows aide who's going to testify, I guess, or maybe she did.
And CNN reported that during one of her interviews, so she's already done interviews, she said that Trump had suggested to Meadows that he approved of the Hang Mike Pence chant.
Suggested. Suggested.
What do you think were the actual words that happened and the actual true events that caused this observer, who is now a part of it, to say that Trump had suggested the hang Mike Pence was an okay chant from his point of view?
That word suggested is a tip-off.
Suggested means he didn't say it.
Do you know what she would have said if she heard Trump say...
I like that they're saying, hang my buttons.
She would have said, he said he liked it.
But instead, she said, Trump had suggested to Meadows that he approved.
Suggested that he approved.
How about just saying, I like this?
Sounds like an interpretation, doesn't it?
Yeah, it's a little weaselly.
Let's see if there's any more weaselling here.
Oh, yeah. Yeah. She also testified that Trump had complained about his vice president being a hustle to safety when the Capitol got breached.
Complained? Do you really think he complained that Mike Pence was protected?
Do you think that's real?
Do you really think he did that?
Now, I'm sure he was thinking something more complicated than Mike Pence being protected or not.
Like, I'm sure, yeah, it could have been sarcasm, it could have been hyperbole, it could have been anything.
So, he complained, but what were his words?
If you don't know what his words were, you're looking at somebody's interpretation.
If somebody says you complained, does that mean you complained?
No, it means they said you complained.
If somebody suggested, somebody says you suggested something, does that mean you said it?
Maybe not. This is just some bullshit written all over it.
There's a new study about marijuana risks that marijuana users, recreational marijuana users, have more emergency room visits.
What do you think of that?
True or not? Marijuana users have more emergency room visits for recreational activities.
Well, are there any other activities Which would cause more emergency room visits?
Let's think of anything else that would cause more emergency room visits.
Sports. Sports.
Dirt bikes.
Yeah. Taking your medicines, but maybe doing it wrong.
Pretty much every activity.
Drinking. Yeah.
Pretty much every activity that we do for fun, Increases the risk that you'll end up in the emergency room.
Doesn't it? So wouldn't you expect that marijuana users, like any other activity, would have more visits to the emergency room?
Do you know what is a great thing to do when you're high?
Go do an activity.
So there are people who wouldn't do the activity if they weren't high in the first place.
You know what I mean? You'd have to be a smoker to actually understand that.
There's some things you just wouldn't do.
You're just like, eh, I'm happy sitting here.
I'll take a walk. But then you smoke some marijuana and you're like, I think I can play tennis even though I've never had a lesson.
And you go out there and you sprain an ankle because you're not a tennis player.
But you had fun, right?
So I've got a feeling that this is...
Well, let me go through this for the other tells that you shouldn't believe it.
Here's another tell.
Who paid for the study?
Who funded the study?
If it's a marijuana-is-bad-for-you outcome of a study, who do you think funded it?
Probably the alcohol industry.
Probably. Probably.
I don't know. But if it doesn't state who funded it, why would you believe it?
You shouldn't believe anything if you don't know who paid for it.
Period. Let's say, apparently there's some kind of intestinal problems some people get from it that all my life I've never heard of.
Let's say I've smoked marijuana for 50 years.
I've never heard of anybody going to the emergency room with a marijuana stomachache.
Have you? Well, apparently this is a thing.
I don't know.
Never heard of it. But that's a problem.
And then heavy users of marijuana by teens and young adults with mood disorders, such as depression and bipolar, have been linked to an increased risk of self-harm.
But there again, you've got the cause and effect problem backwards.
Seems to me that sad people would be more likely to do a drug than happy people.
Do you know who doesn't need a drug?
Somebody who's already happy.
Do you know who needs a drug?
Somebody who feels depressed.
So I feel like they've got cause and effect backwards, or at least it's unclear.
They've got no information about who funded the study.
And then the biggest thing that's missing...
Do you know what the biggest thing that's missing is?
So the idea is that marijuana users end up in the emergency room more often.
What's missing, like really, really missing, from the analysis?
Mortality rates.
Kind of obviously missing, isn't it?
Because if people who smoke marijuana were more likely to die, Then you probably, you know, at least once you've corrected for other comorbidities and stuff, well, that would tell you something, wouldn't it?
But what if the mortality rate of marijuana users, even heavy users, is exactly the same as the mortality rate for everybody else?
What if that's true?
Wouldn't you want to know that?
Because that would say that even though there might be emergency room visits, on the whole, people are getting something out of it.
There's a risk, but it's like everything else.
But suppose the mortality rate of marijuana smokers was much higher.
Well, that would be important to put in this story, wouldn't it?
Because that would support everything the story says.
Why is it missing from the story?
There was a study on mortality rates, so they could have referenced it.
Don't you think a story about the risks of marijuana should reference the one study that was ever done about mortality rate of chronic smokers of marijuana?
That's the most important thing.
It's not there. Do you know why it's not there?
Because the mortality rate of chronic marijuana smokers and everybody else is the same.
The one study that looked at it.
How about the lung capacity of chronic marijuana smokers versus people who've never smoked anything?
Well, there was one study on that that says that the chronic marijuana smokers had better lung capacity.
Why don't they mention that?
Why don't they mention that marijuana effectively treats depression?
So if you have fewer people who are depressed, that's almost like saving their lives.
I mean, there's hardly any difference, except technically.
If somebody is depressed and can't figure a way out of it, and you fix it, you've saved their life.
I mean, not technically, but basically, you've saved their life.
So how many people had their life saved by marijuana?
And that's not really like other recreation, right?
How many people had their life saved by riding bicycles?
Maybe somebody, I don't know.
But it's not really a thing. But probably a lot of people had their lives actually saved by marijuana.
People are saying mine. I'm going to add myself to the list.
I would have committed suicide in my youth without marijuana.
It was actually my plan.
Because I was desperately in pain.
In massive pain every single day of my early life.
So from my earliest memory to about the age of 18, I had a massive...
Intestinal, stomach problems every day.
I was in shrieking pain every day of my life.
And I was planning to just kill myself.
Because I didn't know a way out.
But I discovered marijuana in college.
First day of college, actually.
And it solved it.
Completely. Just solved it.
Completely the biggest problem I'd ever had in my life.
Just went away. Never came back.
Did you ever discover the cause of the pain?
Probably meat and grease and bad diet.
Something like that. I mean, there were some compounding things that I won't get into.
And then later when I changed my diet, then I didn't need marijuana.
So when I went to a vegetarian and then pescatarian diet, I don't get any stomach aches.
Does it come back if you don't smoke?
No, it doesn't. Yeah, that's what I was just saying.
I changed my diet.
So what my actual problem was was my diet, but I didn't know it at the time.
So I didn't have a solution because I was eating the same food everybody else was eating.
I just had no reason to think that it was bad for me and not bad for other people.
Bad bacteria in your gut?
I don't know. Maybe. So...
Many problems with that study.
There's an article in Fatherly, that's a publication, and it said that in general, being an American male is hazardous to your health.
The men in the U.S.A. die an average of five years before women do.
And I guess men in other countries do better.
Life expectancy wins.
So here's an article that men are dying from a whole bunch of stuff.
A lot of it is lifestyle.
They overeat, they drink, they do dangerous things.
Here's my overall comment about the life expectancy of men.
Nobody cares. Nobody cares about that.
Do they? I'm a man and even I don't care about it.
Do you know why? Because almost everything on this list that kills men We choose.
We choose. If drinking is dangerous and I choose to drink, well, what's the problem?
If riding a bicycle is dangerous, as it was yesterday when I rode over some glass and popped my tires on a busy highway, I had a bad day.
I had a real bad night last night.
I won't get into it.
I won't get into it.
But it was supposed to be a terrific night on my e-bike.
It turned into a clusterfuck.
When I ran over some glass.
Anyway, that's about me.
You don't care about that. The point is that if men are making riskier choices, fully aware of the risk, if they don't care, why do you care?
Why do I care? So it's sort of an interesting factoid that we're supposed to get excited about.
But if men are dying faster because they do things knowingly, you know, completely knowingly about what the risks are, well, I don't know.
That's not going to be my top problem.
All right. And the article in Fatherly suggested that one of the reasons that men do riskier things is because of masculine stereotypes.
Men? Let's speak to this, because there are women watching, and we can educate them now.
Is the reason that men do riskier things because of our masculine stereotype?
No. No.
I can see why that would have an effect.
I can see that a masculine stereotype might encourage you to act a certain way.
There's some of that. I'm not going to discount that entirely.
But far and away, far and away is our chemical composition.
It's our chemical composition that makes us do risky stuff.
We're literally designed for it.
We're designed for risky behavior.
We don't even hate it.
You know, I often talk about the violent world of men, but the reason it's not like a huge topic that men walk around in a continuous state of implied violence is because we like it.
We're born to it. We're designed to be in dangerous situations.
We're kind of drawn to it.
Not every person, right?
Like, everybody's different. So men are different.
I'll give you all of that.
You don't have to argue the specifics.
But on average, we're designed to go kill shit.
That's what we were built for.
So if you see it happening, don't be too surprised.
You know, if you design a killer, you get a killer.
Yeah, we evolved to do exactly the risky stuff.
And it makes sense, because there are too many men for reproduction.
But if men are out there doing risky things, some of it will pay off.
You know, start a startup, use all of your money to try to find a new medicine, but maybe sometimes you succeed.
So that risky behavior is purely positive, not for the people taking the risk always, but for the rest of us.
I have three sons.
This is my observation about danger.
I'm not raising killers.
Yes, you are. So there's a mom here on Locals who's saying that she has three sons and she's not raising killers.
I think you are.
I think you are.
Now, on average, if there are three of them, I'm not going to say all three are going to be killers.
But if you think that not one of three sons...
Would kill somebody if the situation called for it?
I think you're probably wrong.
Pretty much most men would kill somebody under the right conditions.
I mean, you'd have to have a reason.
But when I play through my mind killing somebody who has it coming, I never imagine it has lasting negative impact on me.
Do you? You ever think that way?
I do think if I accidentally killed somebody, that would haunt me forever.
For sure. But if somebody was a home invader, they were in the process of a violent crime and you took them out, I can't imagine that I would ever lose a little sleep about that.
I don't even think I'd think about it much.
I think men can kill when the reason is good enough.
somewhat effortlessly.
As they say in Texas, some people deserve a killing.
All right, so let me give you the answer now.
How high am I? Go.
In the comments? How high am I? I'm seeing very, slightly, not, 4 out of 10.
You're all over the place. 7 out of 10, 3 out of 10, not.
So you're all over the place.
Some people say 9 out of 10.
Are you ready for the answer?
Not. The answer is zero.
So is that interesting to you?
Is it interesting that you couldn't tell?
Because I've been pretty high when I've done these live streams, and, you know, unless I told you, you didn't know the difference.
Or just guess right.
I noticed you're talking faster.
You were correct. Oh, somebody got the tell.
The tell is that I talk faster.
Yeah. Now, that's also a sativa versus indica difference.
The indica makes me talk slower.
I was quite aware of it when I accidentally did the indica.
The sativa can make me a little closer to my current speed.
I don't think you'd notice as much.
Am I sick? No.
Oh, let me ask you this.
I'm not sure I don't have long COVID. I told you I didn't, because I haven't had the brain fog.
But the afternoons, I've experienced a type of fatigue that I've never experienced before.
Like a completely unnatural kind.
And it's getting me pretty much every afternoon.
So my mornings are still okay.
Although it's really hard to get my body working in the morning.
It sort of aches like it never used to.
But it seems to me that in the afternoon I have a kind of fatigue...
That I didn't have a year ago.
Now, people are saying age, and that's the obvious hypothesis.
But does it change in one year?
That's a pretty big change.
I mean, it's really profound.
And I know what fatigue feels like.
I know what fatigue feels like.
It doesn't feel like this. So whatever this is.
Now, somebody's saying it's marijuana.
But remember, I'm a lifetime chronic marijuana sleeper.
Sleeper. I'm a lifetime chronic marijuana user.
So I know exactly what my energy should be like at any time of the day in every situation.
And this is completely out of pattern.
Completely. This is so far out of pattern that I don't know if I should be hospitalized for it or go to the doctor.
I'm going to wait it out. No, it's not depression because I don't have a mental problem that's associated with it.
Can you nap? Yes.
Yes. But in order to get past this fatigue, I would have to nap two to three hours an afternoon.
Roughly. But if I do, I feel pretty good.
And I've done that a few times.
But it's hard. My current problem is that I itch when I lay down.
I don't know how much of that is psychological.
Maybe all of it. As soon as I lay down to sleep, my body itches.
And the itch is on the parts I'm laying on that I can't reach, so I have to move.
So if I lay on my left side, the left side where I'm laying on, I get an incredible itch on the part I can't reach.
And then I get an itch right in the middle of my back where I can't reach.
Bed bugs. No, it's not bed bugs.
Shall I sleep eating in an easy chair?
Well, I do have a massage chair that I can sleep in fine.
I may go get blood work because this is crazy.
Would I try TRT? Yeah, maybe.
You know, I looked into it years ago.
Years ago, I was, you know, having some physical...
It turns out to be exhaustion.
But I thought maybe I was low on testosterone.
This was probably in my 40s.
And so I went and had a check, and it was just normal.
So it was just fatigue.
You are of a certain age, get checked.
Yeah, I mean, I would assume my testosterone is lower.
But the fatigue happened directly after the COVID and was never there like that before.
So, I don't know.
Now, I don't have any post-divorce depression.
Because remember, by the time you hear about something in my personal life, It's already a year old.
Because you don't hear it when it's fresh, right?
So the divorce is in my rearview mirror.
That's not affecting me right now.
Am I turning into a trans?
Good question. Dehydration.
You know, I thought maybe dehydration, but I... So I've been hydrating a lot.
It's inflation. That's the problem.
All right. Nobody wants to talk about my problems anymore, but Dr.
Drew, yeah, he had long COVID, for sure.
But I think I have it.
That would be my best hypothesis.
Somebody says see a doctor, but there's nothing you can do about long COVID, is there?
I don't think there is. Anyway, I'll talk to you tomorrow on YouTube.
