Episode 1882 Scott Adams: Can Republicans And Incels Join The LGBTQ? Why Not? Let's Discuss
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Thomas Massie vs Amtrak CEO
Jordan Peterson's critics
My best and worst predications
Republicans and Incels...LGBTQRI?
Amazon Studio's inclusivity statement
Putin and possibility of nuclear war
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 what many will consider the finest day of all the days that have ever happened.
Today is awesome.
Not for any particular reason, but we're going to take it up a notch anyway, and all you need to do that Is the right tools.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, 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, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
And if you didn't know, the official Coffee with Scott Adams mug, that's not this one, but it's going to be cooler than this one, is available for pre-order.
See my Twitter feed at the top, my pinned post, and you can get yours too.
Yes. Yeah.
You can get a mug.
It's true. All right.
Well, good job, Florida.
Am I right? So DeSantis continues to show competence in all realms.
It's kind of impressive, I've got to admit.
And I feel like I'd say the same thing if he were a Democrat.
I feel like I would.
I mean, he would have different policies.
But there's something that's just simply capable about him that is jumping off the page.
Now, some of it is because Is because, you know, it's pure politics and he's doing things that look good.
But it also seems like he's not making errors.
Am I right? So we're looking at the things he's doing in the positive sense, but I can't think of like a giant error he's made.
Which is also notable, given how much scrutiny is under.
So Florida looks like maybe they mounted the most capable and competent disaster response of all time.
Oh yeah, he's military, somebody said.
Yeah, that might make a difference.
You're right. Because when you think military, you think logistics.
And this was a logistics success so far.
Now, Florida's got a lot of recovery, but it's the most capable place around, so there we go.
And as I tweeted yesterday, and I'm sure I know I wasn't the first person to tweet this, but did you notice that yesterday there weren't any Democrats or Republicans in Florida?
I mean, there were plenty of Democrats and Republicans talking about Florida, you know, sitting outside of Florida.
But the people who were up to their knees in water, they were not Democrats or Republicans.
They were just Floridians, just people, just citizens.
And there are a lot of photos of people being, let's say, pulled down of danger and taken to Safety.
And do you know what a lot of those pictures had in common?
You couldn't really tell for sure just by looking at a picture.
But let me just say this.
The Republicans didn't stay home.
I mean, they were out pulling people out of cars.
So... And the Democrats too, of course, right?
I'm not showing favorites.
I'm just saying that maybe this is one of those times where you can just look at the good stuff and maybe focus on that for a while.
Thomas Massey had a wonderful moment in Congress here.
He was talking to the CEO of Amtrak.
And Amtrak still has a COVID vaccination mandate for its employees.
And Thomas Massey said, would they qualify if they got their two vaccinations 20 months ago?
And the CEO said, yes, that would qualify.
That would be vaccinated.
And then Thomas Massey walked through the CDC's scientific data, or opinion, I guess, that basically there would be no point in having vaccinations 20 months old.
Because the current variance plus the fact that the vaccination wears off takes it down to basically zero effectiveness for all practical purposes.
And the CEO, when presented with what you're doing doesn't make any sense according to the government of the United States and the most, at least on paper, the most qualified to answer the question.
And the CEO, bless his heart, Instead of doing what he should have done, do you know what he should have done?
At the very moment he got called out, he was just dead.
I mean, because Massey's actually reading the CDC's guidelines.
He says, after eight months, you're down to less than 20% effectiveness.
Where do you think you are at 20 months?
At 20 months!
It's ridiculous to have a mandate for a vaccination.
But the CEO, instead of doing what he should have done, Here's what he should have done.
There was only one way out and he didn't take it.
Here's what he should have done.
You know, I think you make a good point, and I'm going to look at that as soon as I get back.
If he had done that, Hero.
I mean, you could have walked out of there completely unscathed.
Yeah, you make a good point.
I'll take a look at that.
Because we would love to get rid of the mandates as soon as possible.
Love to get rid of the mandates, but only when it's scientifically solid.
And what you're saying makes sense to me, but I haven't looked into it at that detail.
Let me look into that.
And if a change is necessary, we'll make a change.
Now imagine if the CEO had said that.
You would even accept that he had been wrong up to that point, wouldn't you?
You would completely forgive that CEO for having been wrong up to that very moment.
You know, that's a good point.
I'll look into that, and if that makes sense, we'll make that change right away.
You would completely forgive it.
But instead, the CEO went with generics.
He went with, well, we really care about our people and we want to do everything we can.
Then Massey would point out, but this wouldn't make any difference.
It's just basically annoying your employees with no benefit whatsoever.
Well, you know, but the important thing is we've done a good job.
We like to protect people.
And Massey's like, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Like, these generic statements about awesomeness don't really get to the question.
What do you make of Jordan Peterson's critics?
And I think critic is too strong a word for most of them.
I guess there are two kinds.
So Jordan Peterson has some critics who are actually smart people who have good opinions and just have some philosophical differences.
But mostly it's just people who want to tear him down.
Have you noticed that?
It doesn't, yeah, it seems entirely based on jealousy or the need to hurt anybody who succeeded.
Right? Because, you know, I feel like I get that.
I feel like anybody who's in the public eye gets the, I want to hurt you because you're successful.
That's it. And I so wonder what it would be like to talk to somebody in person, because you only see these people on Twitter.
People don't act the same in person, exactly.
But I'd love to just have a conversation and say, how did Jordan Peterson hurt you?
How are you damaged by the fact that Jordan Peterson has millions and millions of fans and that he says things that people find value in?
How does that hurt you?
Why are people so butthurt about somebody they don't know who's doing a valuable service to other people they don't know?
It has nothing to do with them.
They're completely unrelated to it in any way.
Anyway, so that's sort of the worst of humanity.
But I feel like calling them critics when what they're doing has nothing to do with criticism, does it?
And haters is too simplistic.
I think you need some kind of new word for somebody who's just angry at your success.
And I'm thinking dingleberries.
Because you can't take them seriously, right?
Just dingleberries. They're just dingleberries.
But what about that thing they said?
Who cares? I'm not going to answer a dingleberry.
If your dingleberries could talk, would you have a conversation with them?
Even if they could talk?
No. No, you would not.
So, I'm just going to call them dingleberries.
Speaking of dingleberries, here's news from my mascot, Keith Olbermann.
Now, as you know, I convert all the people who are my dingleberries into mascots.
If they become notable enough, they get promoted to mascot.
So Keith Olbermann has come after me enough times that he's promoted to mascot.
And I learned in a tweet of his, he was complaining about Kirsten Sinema.
And in his complaint about her, he mentioned that he dated her.
So Keith Olbermann actually dated Kyrsten Sinema back in, I don't know, a while ago.
And immediately I wondered, was that, did he date her before or after she became bisexual?
Because she's the first person in Congress who's openly bisexual, right?
And I thought, I'll bet she was totally into men until she dated Keith Olbermann.
And then when she was done, she was like, I'm not completely done with men, but I think I could give women a try for a while.
Just see what that's all about.
Because whatever this was, it didn't work out.
So I'll try some of that other stuff for a little while.
I can see it. I can see it.
I once dated somebody when I was young who...
Well, never mind.
You don't care about that story.
So Trevor Noah decided he's going to leave The Daily Show.
And I think he decided to leave The Daily Show before the ratings went to completely zero.
So I guess under Jon Stewart, The Daily Show ratings were like 1.5 million per show.
And Trevor Noah was down into the 300,000s.
So he lost 80% of Jon Stewart's audience.
80%. And now he's leaving after his seven successful years of reducing the show by 80%.
So, there's that.
But I saw a tweet that noted that James Corden has also quit his late night show.
Samantha Bee, she's out.
And Brian Williams is out.
And Don Lemon's moved on.
And now Noah, Trevor Noah, is moving on.
And it all coincides with, coincidentally, the rise of Gottfeld.
So, Gottfeld, exclamation, Hit that time slot, became the number one show in the time slot, and then basically just took out all the low performers.
So basically, he just wiped out the whole swath of the low-hanging fruit there.
Yeah, so quite a powerhouse, exactly, quite a powerhouse.
I had this conversation with a Democrat on Twitter who said that Who believes that conservatives dominate the media.
And the argument was that the number one entities are conservative.
You know, Fox News, number one entity.
And that any conservative can get on TV and have a giant audience.
Yeah, Garfield, number one show.
And I have these conversations with people who can't do math.
And you can't win a conversation with somebody who can't do math.
And I'm trying to explain.
All right, right. You understand, have you ever heard the word plurality compared to majority?
You know, do you understand this concept?
That you could be the biggest one and still weigh less than half.
You get that if there are a lot of people in the field, the biggest one could have 20%.
You know, Trump had 13% support when he was in the primaries in the beginning.
13%. But that was more than the other people at.
So that was enough. So, yeah, I can't even believe I have that argument.
It was like, and it didn't end in one or two tweets.
It just kept going.
And I kept thinking, I don't know, I feel like I've made this point.
My worst prediction I've ever made, and I've had some real clunkers, won't you agree?
I've had some bad, bad predictions.
But here's the worst one. Can't believe it.
Before the election, this last election, I actually said, predicted, if Biden gets elected, there's a good chance he'll be dead in a year.
It took two years, so I missed it by 100%.
So I basically said there's a good chance to be dead in one year.
But it took two years to get to the point where crime is out of control.
We're talking about mass starvation, excess mortality that we don't understand.
And maybe nuclear Armageddon.
Maybe nuclear Armageddon.
But I'm going to say that's my worst prediction because I missed it by a year.
Like I said, in a year...
But it's been two years, and now that's a 100% miss.
So I apologize for being so off on that crazy, crazy prediction.
So I asked on Twitter for people to tell me my best and worst predictions.
And what I noted is that people don't remember either my best or worst predictions.
Apparently you don't spend all of your time memorizing what I do.
But people remember...
Maybe one or two of them.
So the people who remember the ones that were wrong believe I'm always wrong.
And the people who remember the two that I got right, but don't remember anything else, they believe that I'm right all the time, or most of the time.
Now, it's amazing how quickly people can form opinions.
If I said, make a total list of all the things I predicted and how I did, most of you could not do more than five items.
Would I be right? If I said, tell me all the things I've predicted, and then tell me if I got them right or wrong, probably about five items, wouldn't you say?
About five. Would you like to hear a list of the actual correct predictions?
Or would that be too self-referential?
Because I know too much about myself is not what you came here to hear.
I'm going to just read them fast, okay?
I'll just do it fast.
I predicted Trump would win in 2015, before just about anybody.
I predicted that Trump would not change just politics, but he would change reality itself.
The most awesome...
The most awesome prediction anyone ever made that was correct.
That he would change reality.
I mean, just think about the enormity of that.
Just the enormity of that to prediction.
And it was right. Alright.
I predicted that Trump's policies would look better and better the further we got away from his presidency.
Correct? Correct.
I predicted the shy Trump voter phenomenon.
Now, other people predicted some of these things, so I'm not claiming I'm the only person who predicted them.
I'm just saying that they were unusual predictions and correct.
So I got this shy voter, shy Trump voter thing.
Everybody, all the experts said, no, that's not real.
But at the moment, everybody accepts that it was real.
I predicted that Jeb Bush was done the same day I heard low energy as his kill shot.
The same day I predicted he was done.
And he was. Nobody predicted that but me.
I'm the only one in the world.
I predicted Carly Fiorini's peak popularity the day that her polls were the highest and would never be that high again.
I hit it like, I think, to the weak.
I predicted the Las Vegas shooter was not ISIS even after ISIS claimed credit.
Even after they claimed credit, I said it wasn't ISIS. And it wasn't.
I predicted that vaccinations would not work.
You remember that, right?
I predicted that the vaccinations would not work.
And they didn't. But I did predict that therapeutics would probably save us.
And they probably did.
That plus the virus attenuating.
I predicted that Fauci was lying when he said that the N95s wouldn't protect you.
And I said specifically he was lying because he's protecting the supply.
And I was right.
Now, I'm not arguing about whether masks work.
That's a different conversation. I'm arguing whether Fauci lied and he admitted he lied.
I predicted the secret sonic weapon at the embassies would never be confirmed as a weapon.
Certainly not a sonic weapon.
And so far, no sign of a weapon.
I said that Ukraine would be too hard to conquer because of the modern military stuff that they had.
I believe I'm the only person in the world who got that right.
Prove me wrong. The only person in the world who got that right.
And that was a pretty bold prediction, since everyone in the world was on the other side.
I'll tell you the ones I got wrong in a minute, too.
I know what you're thinking.
I said Republicans would be hunted.
People mocked me. How does that one look?
Does it look like they're looking for Republicans?
It looks like that to me.
Alright, I talked about good chance you'd be dead in the air.
In 2018, I started saying that the US needed to decouple its economy from China.
What did everybody say in 2018 when I said, we have to decouple our industry from China?
Everybody said, you're fucking crazy.
That's never going to happen.
Here we are, decoupling from China.
Probably the craziest thing I ever predicted.
And it's happening. I predicted in 2018 that there was a good chance of a Middle East peace deal when most people, almost everybody, thought that was impossible.
But I predicted a Middle East peace deal not counting Iran.
And then the Abraham Accords happened.
And that was based on a prediction that there were so many dealmakers in office at the same time.
So it was just sort of a coincidence of timing that I thought that could be possible.
I predicted that Trump alone could calm tensions with North Korea by befriending Kim Jong-un, and he did.
I'm the only one.
I'm pretty sure nobody else predicted that, you know, when I did.
I predicted that Russia collusion was a hoax.
You all predicted that too, but that was correct.
I predicted probably a dozen other legal charges against Trump would evaporate.
They all did. So far, nothing.
I predicted that alcohol, we someday find out that the whole thing, that moderate drinking is good for your health.
I predicted that someday that would be debunked.
Now, I'm not sure that's totally debunked, but the science is now more mixed on that.
Here are the wrong predictions.
Right?
So you can see the people who are damaged.
You can see them in the comments.
So one of them is commenting that this is an exercise in the ego.
There's something wrong with you, isn't there?
Like, do you have an issue?
Because if you're watching somebody who predicts for a living...
And then that person who predicts for a living, this is what I do.
I tell you what I think is going to happen.
If I don't check my work, I'm not really doing a good job of predicting, and I haven't done a good job of keeping my list.
So now I'm going to tell you the ones I got wrong.
Will you have just as much of a discomfort when I tell you what I did wrong as when I told you what was right?
Everybody who thinks that what's happening now is me talking about my ego, you have something wrong with you.
You really do. You should be saying to yourself, is the record good or not, and therefore your credibility that you apply to me should be adjusted based on my record.
So I'm talking about you.
Right? Right? I'm talking about how you can have a better idea of what the future would look like by judging whether I'm good at predicting it.
So here's the ones I got wrong.
I predicted that Trump would win in 2020.
The reason it was wrong is I did not see that the pandemic changes would have as much change as they did, and maybe some other reasons, but it was wrong.
Whatever reason, it was wrong.
And, let's see, what else?
I was wrong about that. I was wrong about Russia not invading, because I thought that Putin would be at least as smart as I was.
But it wasn't. So I was 100% wrong about Putin not invading.
I said that Kamala Harris would be the toughest Democrat opponent, so I thought she would get the nomination instead of Biden.
And Kamala instead was the first one that got dropped down for being terrible.
So that's as wrong as you can be.
Although she did become president for two hours.
But that doesn't make me right.
I was wrong about Trump's VP choice.
He picked Pence.
I forget who I imagined it would be.
And then I asked on Twitter for people to tell me what I got wrong.
And most of the answers were that I was wrong about everything I predicted about the pandemic.
But there aren't any examples of that.
So there's a widespread belief that I got everything wrong about the pandemic.
There's no example of that.
I got everything right about the pandemic.
I was the most right about the pandemic by far.
And you can see, I put the full description in my bio.
So look at my profile on...
I know, you don't believe it.
But look at my profile, and there's a link there where there's a full description of what I said was, you know, what I believed, and what happened.
You can see for yourself.
So all the people who are talking about my ego, you really do have some kind of mental disorder.
And I'm going to talk more about that because there's a group of people who simply hate anybody who is right or anybody who is successful at anything.
And what is it about it that makes that so distasteful to you?
Those of you who are concerned about my ego right now, What is it that makes this such an unpleasant experience for you?
I think you probably need to think about some therapy or something.
Because if somebody telling you what they got right and what they got wrong is a problem, you really need to look into that.
Because I would think that that's really holding you back.
If you think that my success is offensive...
How the fuck are you ever going to succeed?
Seriously. You must think that if you became successful like me, you'd be an asshole too, right?
Is that what you think? Wouldn't it be dangerous for you to do a bunch of successful things?
It would be dangerous, wouldn't it?
Because that would be a blow to what you think is good.
Because then you'd be like me.
Oh, my God, you got some things right.
You got some things wrong too, but I can't deal with the fact that you got some things right, even if you got a bunch of things wrong.
Even if you got 10 times things more wrong than right, which is approximately my actual record, 10 times more wrong than right.
If you count businesses and romance and everything else, if you count everything I've ever done, I fail about 10 times for every one time I succeed.
And I've always said that.
I wrote a book about it. About failing 10 times.
And if that's threatening to you, it's threatening to you that somebody could fail 10 times, succeed once, and you're like, fuck an asshole.
Oh my God. The ego in that guy.
The ego in that guy, he succeeded one out of 10 times.
I can't believe it. Seriously, check yourself.
All right. What do you think is happening to the matchup between the generic Republican and the generic Democrat for the midterms?
You remember, it was only a few short months ago that the GOP had a pretty big lead in the generic contest, which is a generic Democrat against a generic Republican.
Where do you think it is now, according to the Rasmussen polling organization?
It's a tie. Yeah, there's a one-point difference, basically a tie.
So is anybody surprised?
This is exactly what it was supposed to do, right?
It always says this. Yeah, we're not surprised.
So every poll you saw six months ago that said there was a big gap, you knew that gap was going to disappear.
And also, you knew that gap was going to disappear.
And here's the real mind spinner.
You knew it wouldn't matter what happened, right?
You knew it didn't matter what happened with COVID, didn't matter what happened in Ukraine, didn't matter what happened in the economy, didn't matter what happened with abortion.
It didn't matter. Nothing in the policy or the outcomes mattered.
What mattered was people just went to their team.
That's it. Yeah, they just voted for their team.
But why they didn't vote for their team earlier, probably because it wasn't serious.
When it gets serious, and you actually can visualize, oh god, maybe the other team could win.
I don't want that. Then suddenly your team starts looking good again.
Somebody's saying, this is about me, notice every time I get owned that I move on quickly, or I get angry and switch the topic.
Who exactly was owning me back then?
Did somebody see me get owned?
What kind of weird hallucination are you having now?
Somebody's asking me to explain the tennis ball incident.
So there's a story on Twitter...
And I don't know anything about it.
But there's a story on Twitter that I once claimed that a tennis ball disappeared and I had my ex-wife, I don't know which one according to this story, had to drive me to the emergency room because I thought a tennis ball disappeared.
That's the story I saw on Twitter about myself today.
Now, I'm pretty sure that didn't happen.
Pretty sure. That's actually true.
There's somebody here who is telling me that I don't know my own life well enough that I believe that there was a tennis ball that disappeared and that I went to the emergency room because of it.
What? SB says, name one thing you got right about the pandemic.
I'll do better than that.
Go to my profile and look at the document.
There's an entire document of all of my opinions.
And you can see both what I got right and what I got wrong.
And after you read that, I'd like you to come back and say, oh, I didn't realize that you were so right.
I was the most right about the pandemic period.
Now, is that ego?
I don't know. If I win a contest because I have a higher score, I don't think it's ego to say I won the contest.
Here's my score. You can score it yourself.
If you find anybody who did better, let me know.
So let's talk about Lizzo and the flute.
The only comment I have about Lizzo and the flute is that It makes me wonder if Republicans should be added to the LGBTQ. So I decided I'm going to add the R there.
So for me, it's going to be LGBTQR. Because I know there were a lot of Republicans who probably watched Lizzo playing the flute, James Madison's flute, and said to themselves...
Because of how you are.
I'm not a Republican, by the way.
So just so you know, I'm not a Republican.
But I bet a lot of Republicans watched that and they saw Lizzo and they said to themselves, I do not want to have sex with her.
Which would be sort of a minority weird opinion.
And so I think that any time that you have a non-standard sexual opinion, that that...
Kind of puts you into the non-standard group.
Now, when I say non-standard, I'm not insulting.
Because I prefer non-standard people.
That's why I love my LGBTQ people.
Because anybody who's just, you know, completely out and non-standard, love them.
Be as non-standard as you want.
As long as it doesn't hurt me.
I mean, I don't want to be disadvantaged by it.
But be yourself.
Go wild. Be as LGBTQ as you could possibly be.
I love it all. But I would like to add to it.
I like it so much.
I love it so much.
That I think we should add Republicans to it, and probably incels as well.
Because if incels are not a distinct sexual group, I don't know who is.
Now some of you are going to say, Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott.
You fucking bigot.
You're going to say that, some of you.
You're going to say the big difference is, being a Republican is a choice, whereas being gay is, you know, genetic.
So you can't compare a choice To genetic.
You know what I'd say to you, if you were to say that?
I'd say, you fucking bigot.
There is plenty of science to suggest that whether you're conservative or liberal is baked in, it is in fact genetically at least influenced.
I don't know to what extent.
So yes, it's very much genetically influenced, your political stuff.
And so, I would suggest that all of the things that are genetically, and I think the incels are in a situation where their genetic situation probably has a lot to do with their outcomes.
So I think if your genetics are the primary driver of it, and it puts you into a sexual preference category that's non-majority, Then I think you belong on the LGBTQRI train, and not with the regular people who would obviously be attracted to Lizzo.
Now, and I want to be clear, I'm not saying that most people in the world would want to have sex with Lizzo.
The largest group of Americans would look at Lizzo and say, I want to get that.
It would be the smaller groups individually that you'd lump together in the LGBTQRI category.
Now, if you're fighting against these special privileges that you think are given to some categories but not you, then why you're not joining those categories, I don't know.
You know, we've speculated that the teacher who has the wig and the gigantic prosthetic breasts may in fact be playing a prank and not actually identifying as a woman.
We've all said that.
If I worked in corporate America tomorrow, like let's say I lost everything and had to go get a real job, if I got a job in corporate America, I would identify as black and I would never change my mind.
And I would make them have to deal with that.
I would be my character Dave in my Dilbert comic, except the reverse of that.
And I would never change my mind.
Because if you're not joining the team that gets the advantages, why not?
So I've got two teams.
Scott, you can join this team or this team.
I go, what's the difference?
Well, if you join this team, you get advantages.
Okay, well, why do people join the other team?
I don't know, but they do.
Well, let me understand.
I think I'm missing something. You've got two teams.
One has disadvantages and one has advantages.
You can join either team.
There's no rule that says you can't join the other team.
And yet people will stay on the team with the disadvantages.
Yes, they will. Because they identify with that team.
To which I say, screw that.
I identify with the team that's winning.
I don't care who it is.
If you told me tomorrow that the, I don't know, the radical gay Hispanics had all the power in society, but there was nothing to stop you from identifying as a radical gay Hispanic, I would identify as a radical gay Hispanic in one minute, if there were no rule prevented.
If society says, here's the rules, and there's complete fluidity, there's no friction to move from one to the other, there's nothing that would keep me from identifying as black in corporate America.
And if you think that's a joke, does anybody think I'm kidding?
Do you think that that's hyperbole?
That's not hyperbole.
I would literally, physically identify as black in corporate America.
And I would never look back And I would say it with a straight face to anybody who asked.
And I would never, ever back off of that.
I would never back off. And in fact, if you don't like your situation because you feel like you're being discriminated against, and you haven't joined the winning team, I can't explain that.
I honestly can't.
Like, what are you doing?
What are you doing? Why in the world would you identify as the group that gets less stuff?
I'd like to identify with the people who are going to be discriminated against overtly.
It's not even maybe.
It's overtly.
I mean, seriously, grow up.
Join the winning team.
There's nothing to stop you.
And if you want all the nonsense to stop, that's how you do it.
Just all join the same team.
Because they can't discriminate against you when you join their team.
Can they? You know, this seems related, but it's not.
This is a completely unrelated thought.
Have you ever noted that Democrat women believe that Republican men...
Discriminate against women or have some, I don't know, sexist beliefs about women.
And that's probably true because everybody has sexist beliefs, men and women.
But have you ever noticed that when there's a powerful female Republican candidate that no Republican ever criticizes them for being a woman?
Have you noticed that?
I've never heard it once.
And I'm like immersed in Republican-y conservative conversation.
Never once have I heard anybody say something like, oh, Carrie Lake, we can't have her because what if she's on her period?
Nobody. Like zero.
Zero people. Or how about, we can't have Kristi Noem because of, you know, girls make bad...
I don't know. What the hell is somebody going to say?
I don't even know what anybody says anymore.
Like, what is the stereotype that anybody would even use?
Oh, she'll be late and, you know, she'll have to do her makeup and she'll miss the meeting.
Like, what would anybody say?
Yeah, and even Marjorie Taylor Greene, you know, you can have your opinions about her.
But there's no Republican, not once, not once have I ever heard a Republican disparage a Republican woman.
Not once. And I guess that's only useful if you are a woman and you're wondering.
I can tell you that when the men are alone, they might say that one of them is hot, right?
Right? They might say that, actually, usually every time.
But they'll never say anything bad.
They don't say anything bad because she's a woman.
It just doesn't happen. And it's hard to explain that, isn't it?
See, this is why the Republicans have a complete winning argument if they just say, we'll let the Republican women take the abortion argument on for us.
You don't understand how brilliant that idea is, do you?
Because everybody wants their opinion.
I get that. Men want to have their opinion, and it's a free country, you get to have your opinion.
But if Republicans wanted to just sweep the field, if they just wanted to sweep the field, the Republican men should say in unison, you know what, why would we think we could do better than the Republican women?
The only reason that a man should be involved In the decision is because you think that your man decision improves the decision over what women would have decided themselves.
And that's sort of what you're thinking.
Maybe not expressly.
But there's no argument for why men have to be in this at all.
Unless you believe that women couldn't make the right decision.
Is there anybody here who thinks that women couldn't make the right decision?
Anybody? If you believe that women can make the right decision, and especially Republican women, very capable, very fully powerful to take the argument forward, why would men do something that hurts men and doesn't help women?
When Republican men become the face of the abortion argument, which they are, which they are, men are the face of the abortion argument for the Republicans, when they do that, they're hurting men, right?
That hurts men. Because we get all this criticism for being men in the wrong topic.
I don't need that. Like, I get criticized and I have nothing to do with it.
I'm literally not in the conversation.
And I still get criticized because I'm a man.
So men get into this.
So if the Republican men just said, you know, the one thing we're confident of is that Republican women have this.
Now, some of you just have a reflexive problem with men letting go of any kind of power.
I get that. But understand, and this has nothing to do with the child support or the money part of it.
But for the money part, men need to be part of that conversation, for sure.
I can't tell from the comments.
But while I don't think it's possible for it to happen, would you agree that if Republican men said, you know, we have our opinions, you've heard our opinions, but now we're going to let the Republican women carry the ball?
You don't think that would work?
You don't think the Democrats would say, whoa, that actually looks pretty good.
Why aren't we doing that?
Because the Republican men are all over the conversation, aren't they?
I'm sorry, the Democrat men.
Democrat men are definitely in this conversation.
If the Republican men said, why are you in this conversation?
We're out. Talk to our women.
I mean, that sounds sexist.
Talk to our women. It's not our women.
Talk to the women.
Let's say talk to the women.
All right. That's what I think.
Jonathan Haidt.
Quit the social psychologists, some kind of academic association, because they had a forced diversity statement that you have to sign for your research.
So you have to sign a statement that describes how your research will help diversity, or whether or not it does.
And he just said, I fucking quit.
Now, it's not like he quit his job.
He didn't quit his job.
And he's giving them a year to reassess, so he's not immediately quitting.
But he's announced that that's an untenable thing to force him to...
And his point is that once you put the political into the scientific, you're just getting something that nobody wants.
And I think that's a good point.
So he's not saying that he disagrees with the politics of it.
It's not even relevant. It's just, why did you put your politics in my science?
And why did you put your politics in my science?
That's a strong statement.
So I'm totally with them.
Now, how would you like to have some fun?
Would you like to have some fun?
Amazon Studios came out with their inclusion policy.
So Amazon Studios makes content for Amazon.
And I want to read to you from there.
It's very extensive.
But imagine that you're a creator and you're trying to get something made at Amazon Studios.
They've got some new inclusivity rules.
I'd like to read some of the rules.
And they're very long. It's just a sample of them.
A lot of rules. I just picked out some of them.
So this will just be like a taste.
Now I'll just read it fast so you just sort of get the flavor of it.
They said... Most productions have a multitude of speaking roles from leads to smaller roles where it doesn't compromise the authenticity of the story.
So they're acknowledging that if the nature of the story is about one kind of person, there's going to be mostly that kind of person in it.
So they get that the story might dominate.
But if you can do it, They say they have aspiration goals.
The minimum is for 30%, this is the ratio they want.
Unless the story requires a certain mix, the mix that they want to see is 30% white men, 30% white women, And non-binary people.
20% men from underrepresented races and ethnicities.
20% women and non-binary people from underrepresented races and ethnicities.
And where we can have more people from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, we'll seek to do that.
We also aspire to cast at least 10% of our roles with people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and non-binder, etc.
And then 10% with people who self-identify as a person with a disability.
But you can have one person could be, you know, could represent more than one category.
Now, do you think I'm done?
I'm just getting started.
I'm just starting.
It goes on. Let's see.
What else? When the storylines of the top billing characters involve underrepresented communities, and that would include women, underrepresented ethnic, racial groups, sexual orientations, blah, blah, disabilities, we aim to have a minimum of 30% of above the line staff hires.
I think an above-the-line staff means directors, writers, producers, and creators.
So you want 30% of them to be in those categories.
And this aspirational goal will increase to 50% by 2024.
I read the whole thing, and I didn't see anything about Republicans.
So apparently Amazon Studio has no...
Their inclusion policy does not include...
One of the dominant, you know, philosophies of the country, which is Republicanism.
And it also doesn't include Democrat, specifically.
So inclusivity is kind of interesting.
Here's what I think Republicans should do.
They should buy into DEI, the Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion, and they should demand that they be included in it.
So the problem is that Republicans are a minority in this country, 30%, and they're treated quite disgustingly.
And I believe that they should demand equal rights under DEI. And they should fight for it.
No, I'm not kidding. So some of you think I'm joking, right?
No. No, I mean actually, legally, physically, practically, and for good purpose.
That it would actually be good for the country.
Not a prank. I'm not talking about a prank.
I'm talking about something good for the country that everybody who feels discriminated against should have their say.
Just as everybody with disabilities or racial, ethnic, sexuality difference, they should all have their say.
Every one of them.
Every one of them.
But let's just be complete.
See, embrace and amplify.
If embracing and amplifying a position strengthens it, then that was a good thing.
If embracing it completely destroys it, well, it wasn't a good thing.
If embracing it destroys it, so let's embrace it.
Let's say, you know, if you can...
Well, I guess I've made the point.
Just embrace it. Yeah, I guess Christians would be the same point.
I saw a Republican say that he was against gay marriage.
There's a Republican candidate for state office in Arizona who says on Twitter that he was opposed to gay marriage because he thinks it opened up a path to these other things that he doesn't like.
And I wonder this.
Is there anybody who thinks that they lost something because gay marriage is legal?
Like, what did you lose?
Now, before something happens, it's perfectly reasonable to worry that something could go wrong.
You know, change is always...
Change is always difficult.
But does anybody feel they lost something?
Somebody's told me to F off, I think.
You lost interest.
You lost God's respect.
Did you? The concept of marriage, but it didn't affect your marriage.
Did your marriage get worse because gays got married?
Yeah. Now, it seems to me that this should be one of those cases Where I think Republicans could say, give me a fact check on this, because most of you may have had a different opinion than I did from the start.
So I've always been in favor of everybody doing whatever they want if it doesn't hurt me.
So I'm happy with everything.
But would you say that maybe it was something you worried about, but then it happened and you found out it didn't bother you at all?
Is there anybody here who would say they were opposed to gay marriage, but now that they can see it, the gay marriage itself, no slippery slope stuff.
That's not fair. You cannot say that gays can't have equal rights, or that would be the argument.
You can't say that gays don't get what they get because somebody else might slippery slope later.
That's not fair. You have to look at gay marriage by itself, yes or no.
You can't throw in other things that might happen.
That's not fair. Yeah.
I don't know. Interesting.
I just wondered if anybody checks their thinking and says, well, I guess I could be wrong sometimes.
No? Because that's how case law works?
Oh, I understand that. No, I understand that it's a real thing.
I'm just saying that you can't treat rights like that.
Because rights are not...
You know what I mean, right?
That would be like saying, well...
You know, we'll end slavery, but we have this good argument for why maybe we should keep a little...
I mean, no. No, there's some things that just have to be absolutes.
All right. Absolutely.
Is there anything that I forgot to mention?
Let's talk about Putin.
Putin. I don't believe that nuclear war is likely.
And I think it's very unlikely.
Here's why. Everybody who says that Putin doesn't have an exit ramp, I don't know what they're talking about.
Because his exit ramp is just right in front of you.
It's obvious. Putin's exit ramp is he says, I succeeded in denazifying these areas because he said that was what he was there to do.
And then what's Ukraine going to say?
Is Ukraine going to say, no, you failed, we still have plenty of Nazis?
So it's one of those claims that they could make, and the other side's going to be like, whatever.
Like, they're not going to even debate it.
Whatever. So he's going to say, I got rid of all the Nazis.
And then he's going to say, and then we held these referendums.
And then these people got what they wanted, which was to be part of Russia.
Now, I don't know the actual percentages...
That would have happened. Let's say you had polled those people fairly instead of this, obviously it was a rigged election.
But I suppose you had asked them fairly.
Would the people in Crimea have actually voted by majority?
Maybe just 55% or something.
But would Crimea have said we'd like to be part of Russia?
Does anybody even know the answer to that?
And would all four of those areas...
Because I've got a feeling that if you could find at least one of those areas of the four, if you could find one of them where an honest poll of the public would find that they would rather be Ukrainian, there's your exit.
You just say, hey, hey, hey, would you agree, Putin, that we will re-poll the people?
Because he had that fake vote.
We'll re-poll the people, and we'll actually go with the majority.
And if three out of the four areas say they want to be Russian, you got it.
And if one of the four says we'd rather be Ukrainian, Then that's your deal.
You get to say you won.
You got to keep these Russian-speaking places that didn't want to be Russian.
There was one that was contended.
That's why there's a little pain both ways.
You know, Russia gets a little pain.
They give something back. Ukraine gets a little pain.
They give away three regions that wanted to be Russian in a hypothetical.
And then Russia claims success.
NATO claims success because they, you know, they were a bulwark.
How is that not obvious?
I mean, to me, the exit ramp is right there.
Now, here's why I don't think...
Now, I'm not saying it would be easy, or that people are just going to take that path and go.
What I'm saying is that you're never going to get to nuclear war until that thing has been completely talked about.
And it hasn't yet.
So there's a whole phase that you would have to go through before you'd even start thinking about nuclear war.
And that phase is, let's talk about these four regions, and let's talk about making a deal about the four regions.
Now, of course, Zelensky says, no deal.
And Putin says, no deal, no way, right?
And so the people who are not good at negotiating look at it and say, well, I guess there's no deal.
So I guess it's going to be nuclear war.
But everybody should know at this point that both of them are supposed to take the extreme.
That's your opening position.
Your opening position is the extreme.
So if you have to give up anything, it looks like an actual sacrifice.
So all they're doing is making sure that if they give something up, it actually feels like pain.
Because if they don't both feel like pain, then there's no deal.
They have to both paint themselves in a corner That they can only get out of at great pain.
That's how you get to a peace deal.
And they've done that. They both painted themselves in a corner.
There is a way out.
It requires both of them to take a little pain.
But it's right there.
I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what it looks like.
It looks like some of the territory goes back to Ukraine.
And some kind of security guarantees and economic guarantees and blah, blah, blah.
So, it's one thing to say that any negotiations would be successful.
All I'm saying is that I'm not even going to think about nuclear war.
I'm not even going to think...
Moral equivalency?
What kind of idiot are you?
I have a chapter in one of my books about the moral equivalency idiots.
Have you ever had the people who come in and they think they're making the smart comment?
Well, you're making a moral equivalency between two things.
And you never are. Have you noticed you never are?
You're just talking about things.
There's this thing and there's this thing.
This might cause this thing.
This is a variable.
And then some fucking idiot comes in and goes, well, you're making a moral equivalency between Satan and ice cream.
There's no moral equivalency between Satan and ice cream.
And I'll be like, I didn't say there was.
Why are you even imagining that I would say that?
In fact, I can't even think of somebody who would be less likely to make a moral equivalence.
I'm probably the least likely person to do that.
Ukraine's always been a vassal state.
Why treat them anyway differently?
That's not thinking.
They've always been a vassal state, so why not treat them that way?
Like, you're missing all the logic and the reasons and the facts and all that stuff.
How do you handle a constant misunderstanding?
You know, it's the most annoying part of my life, is that close to 98% of everything that people criticize me about never happened.
Do most of you know that?
You know, some of you are here just to be my critics, but you do know that 98% of all the criticism about me literally never happened.
You know, like I'm a Holocaust denier?
Nope. Or that I think rape is natural and therefore it's okay?
No. Just crazy shit.
The strangest one is that I was pro-mask.
Literally, I organized a boycott against masks.
I literally was trying to organize a national boycott against masks.
And so people think, oh, he's so pro-mask.
Like, most of it's not even close, to my opinion.
Um... The part of Ukraine that Putin holds makes up 80% of their GDP. Yeah, are you talking about Crimea, specifically?
I mean, Crimea's a big part of it, because that's not going anywhere, is it?
You defended masks.
I will never... Fuck you!
Fuck you! All right, I'm just going to get rid of you.
You defended masks.
Never happened. Milk Chaser, fuck you.
I don't care that you're on the subscription service.
You should just leave here.
Really, you're not welcome.
Defended masks. Fuck you.
I mean, seriously, fuck you.
Like, I'm actually angry at you.
This is not a joke. Fuck you.
Right? Seriously, fuck you.
And I don't want to see you again.
You should leave locals.
You should leave. Just get off.
Because that's not productive.
You know very well that I talked about the science of them, but I never promoted them as something you should wear.
Not once did I say I wanted to wear a mask.
You know that. You fucking know that.
So, I don't want your money.
Fuck off. Alright.
I suppose that's not the best way to end this live stream.
It's not Friday.
Is it? Wait a minute.
Is today Friday?
Oh shit.
Today's Friday.
I had no idea.
I thought it was Thursday.
All right. Well, thanks for that.
One more sip of simultaneity, and we shall go.
All right. Everybody ready for the closing sip?
Go. Would you like a good news prediction?
This time next year, Ukraine war will be over.
Okay? Inflation will have topped and will be heading down.
The supply chain will be better.
The energy situation will be way better, especially because of the Ukraine war winding down.
We will be heading into a golden age like you have never seen before.
Because our biggest problems look like they're winding down.
The pandemic is winding down.
The Ukraine war is winding down.
China seems to be on the ropes.
We seem to be bringing our stuff home.
And I think that even nuclear is likely to start to look good.
By the way, plume theory probably was not...
I'm thinking that plume theory was a bad scientific hypothesis.
But that's another discussion.
Now, I'm not predicting a second term for Biden.
I don't have a prediction about that yet.
But in my opinion, everything looks good.
And I think in order to get there...
The winter's going to be rugged.
So I am going to predict that the winter will be tough.
But here's what's going to happen.
Because we have to pull together, and Europe especially, people are going to be just moving in with other people's homes.
People are going to be checking on grandma.
There will be more people helping out people than any time since maybe World War II. So you're going to find more cohesion just because we have to.
You know, we have a common enemy now, which is lack of energy.
So our...
No, Thomas, just fuck off with that, okay?
And fuck you, too. Just fuck off with that.
All right. So I think everything's going to be great next year.
We've got a tough winter, but we will pull together and get through it.
