Episode 2086 Scott Adams: SCOTUS Rules On Abortion Pill, Trans "Regret" Is Way Lower Than You Think
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
60 Minutes supports Ray Epps
NBC reports on Hunter Biden
BLM loser mindset
Trans "regret" is way lower than you think?
SCOTUS rules on abortion pill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
So I just noticed something when I went into my little drawer I always go into.
I don't know why, but there was still a mask in that drawer.
I don't even keep them in there.
I don't know why it was in there.
But are you finding masks, like old masks, sort of in pockets and closets and drawers everywhere?
And every time you see one, doesn't your heart just, like, drop?
It's like, oh, God, no.
Garbage.
Alright, well, welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
It's Cold Coffee with Scott Adams and aren't you glad you're here?
Well, you will be.
In a minute.
And all you need to take this experience up to levels that nobody's ever seen before is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a cellosestine, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Well, summer's here, whether you like it or not.
At least where I live, it's all warm weather from now on for the rest of time.
All right, let's talk about the news.
It's funny when you associate with people who have become experts at interpreting the news versus before I started talking about politics and being on Twitter.
I thought the news was sort of the news.
You know, silly me.
I thought that if it was on the news it was probably important.
And they looked into it and then they told me the facts.
Now, now when I see a story on that 60 Minutes is going to do a big piece on Ray Epps and how innocent he is and unfairly accused of being a Fed, do you feel the same?
Do you look at that story and say to yourself, well there's a useful story in which 60 Minutes will give us the accurate details as they have researched it.
Is that how you?
Not anymore, huh?
Yeah, it seems like those days are over.
Yes, now when we see that 60 Minutes is covering the Ray Epps story, it looks like nothing but a Democrat op.
It's an op.
It doesn't even look like the news.
I can't even force my brain to see it as a legitimate news story.
It's purely narrative manipulation.
Now, let me say as clearly as possible.
I don't know what's going on with Ray Epps.
I do think he's innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I'm going to stick with that standard as long as I can.
So, I don't assume he's guilty of anything.
I just know that the story is very anti-Democrats winning the presidency.
And if Biden can't sell this January 6th thing, he doesn't have much to sell.
Because otherwise he's just not looking good compared to, you know, Trump's performance on a lot of stuff.
So they got to do something.
So to me it looks like 60 Minutes is just being a good Democrat and trying to take the steam out of the Ray Epps accusations.
Be they true or be they not.
I wouldn't know.
But innocent till proven guilty.
Innocent till proven guilty.
All right, likewise, here's another story that I'm not seeing as just news.
So NBC is covering the charges against Hunter, and I guess Ken Delaney is one of the people in the story, one of four people in the story.
And if you don't know, the Glenn Greenwalds, etc., like to accuse NBC of being part of a CIA operation, basically.
So it's curious.
Why are they covering the Hunter is being considered for four different charges?
And the investigation was done over a year ago.
So even NBC is reporting that people are frustrated that charges have not been brought because the investigation has been over for a long time.
Now what's going on here?
What's going on?
Are they really just covering the news?
Because it is the story.
As far as I know, the story, it looks accurately told compared to other news entities.
So why would NBC, that we suspect is not just a news organization, why would they report this this way?
Because it looks like it's useful, fair, and bad for Democrats.
Why would they do that?
Well, one of the things you need to do is catch up with stories after they've passed you.
So in order to remain a news entity, or for people to even think they're a news entity, they... I have to laugh at this comment.
In all caps, Mahat is saying, Scott, you are still talking about Hunter Biden's laptop, LOL.
Do you think Hunter Biden's laptop is not newsworthy?
Because NBC thinks it is.
You know who else thinks it's newsworthy today?
Every major news organization.
All of them.
All right.
That was a good try there.
Here's how I interpret NBC covering it.
They have to cover it because the cat's already so far out of the bag, that if they don't cover it at all, you won't ever listen to any bullshit they have in the future.
So basically, they have to catch up to the truth once the truth is thoroughly understood, because then they can lie to you more effectively in the future, because you'll think to yourself, well, they covered the news up till now, so probably this next thing they say is in the news too, instead of just an operation.
So that's what it looks like.
So the two big news stories today, neither of them look like real news.
Even though they might be accurate.
I'm not saying that the news is inaccurate.
I'm saying that the reason they're covering it and why they're doing it now and the way they're doing it has everything to do with manipulating the voters and nothing to do with the news.
That's what it looks like.
But that would be speculation because I'm not a mind reader.
I'm not a mind reader.
I'm just telling you what it looks like.
Alright, Wall Street editorial board is taking a big ol' crap on Randi Weingarten's head.
So she's head of the big teachers union.
And she has been opposed to collate locating charter schools in public schools.
Did you know that was a thing?
I just learned about this today.
Apparently there are a number of public school facilities that have plenty of extra room.
And charter schools are also publicly sanctioned schools.
They're not private.
I don't know if they can be.
But a charter school would be something the government is supporting, as opposed to something that's a purely private school.
So the charter schools say, hey, why can't we use some of that publicly funded Excess public school building.
And other people say, yeah, why not?
Perfectly good idea.
You know, it's already public.
It's already public.
It's already paid for.
It's empty.
And all of this is public, too.
So put the two public things in the public facility.
Do you know who opposes that idea?
Randy Weingarten.
Because anything that's good for black people, she seems to oppose.
I don't know if that's a coincidence, but there's a pattern that seems pretty clear.
That anything that's good for school choice, she seems to oppose.
Now it turns out, the story that got the Wall Street Journal editorial board on her, is that there is one exception.
And the one exception is, apparently there's one charter school that the teachers union have some control over.
And they want that one to be co-located.
So she can't even be consistent with her own preference.
As long as it's good for Randy Weingarten, she's for it.
That seems to be the only rule.
Now, how in the world does she keep her job?
I guess she must do a good job for the members, according to their opinion.
Because she has to be voted in, right?
Doesn't she have to be voted in?
There must be some ballot stuffing going on or something.
No, she's probably doing a good job for the members.
But unfortunately, that seems to be at the expense of children and especially at the expense of black kids, more so than others, I think.
So in terms of if you're looking for the source of systemic racism, well, it's everywhere, but the school system is the worst and the teachers union is the biggest cause of that.
All right.
You know, there's a thing that the Democrats do consistently, that every time you see it, you just shake your head, you go, seriously?
Seriously?
That's your idea?
Here's another one.
There's this new rule going into effect May 1st, that home buyers with good credit will pay $40 more for their good credit.
To help fund the people with bad credit so that people with bad credit can get houses just like people with good credit.
So, I don't even have to tell you what's wrong with that, right?
If you reverse rewards so that you get rewarded for bad credit and penalized for good credit, that would be more of what the Democrats do everywhere.
Which is ignore the human incentive and motivation variable, which is the big one.
Right?
It would be, you know, it would be understandable if there were some small variables that got ignored.
But not the big one.
Why would you ignore the biggest variable?
Which is how people are motivated.
That's how they're gonna act.
They're gonna act on motivation.
And money works every time.
So you could say to me, well, these are small amounts, but it's all part of the same system of penalizing the successful and giving rewards to the people who didn't do the right stuff.
Right stuff according to getting better credit.
What's that?
So, would you also say that the rule is racist?
Is that rule racist?
Who do you think are the people with the high credit?
On average, it's going to be white Americans and Asian Americans, Asian Americans, right?
So the white Americans and the Asian Americans will pay more for their good credit.
And who do you think will be the beneficiaries?
Largely black people and people of color with low credit, lower credit.
So why is it not racist?
It's not racist?
Here's the problem.
100% of the things that the government does are racist.
Do you know why?
Because it can't not be.
There's not an option to be non-racist.
Everything the government does has a disproportionate effect on somebody.
I'm not saying it's all bad.
It might be exactly what you wanted.
But there's nothing they can do that doesn't disproportionately affect people.
Because, you know, well it's obvious, right?
Anything you do is going to affect the rich people or the poor people in a different way.
They're more of one type in each category, so therefore there's a racial component to literally everything.
I'm going to tell you about my fascinating conversation with a member of Black Lives Matter next, because it fits perfectly into this theme.
All right, so this was a user who just calls himself Huey P's student.
10.pg, that's his name on Twitter.
And he looks to be identifying as black.
And he's got BLM in his, he seems to be a Black Lives Matter supporter.
So there's a, A little battle going on among some various black, I guess activists would be the right, just people who are active in trying to make things better.
I don't know if activist is a fair word.
Because sometimes people are just active, trying to make things better.
So he would be one of these people who's active, trying to make things better in the way he thinks will work.
He got into a debate with, I think it was King Randall, which is actually his name.
I think his first name is actually King.
Do you follow King Randall on Twitter?
You should.
You should, because he's a contrarian in the sense that his major theme is you work on the individuals and the education and the parents, and you really work on the people specifically.
And if you can get the people to be more effective, then they can blast through whatever racism there is, because there will always be racism.
You can work on racism, but it's still going to be there.
King Randall has more of a personal responsibility kind of a take on it and he's apparently he's got a school that's privately funded that's primarily for I think it's primarily or only for black kids I don't know but it seems to be working and he's working with the parents of the black kids and I can only tell from what he tweets so I don't have personal information on the ground but it looks really strong
As in, it looks like exactly the right mindset to be promoting, and it looks like he's getting some traction on that.
So there's a debate between some of the black factions who say, you know, work on education and just make everybody as effective as they can, and that's your best play, and the others who think it's more of a systemic problem and you should be putting your emphasis on the system more than, you know.
Now, everybody thinks both are important.
Just to be clear, everybody thinks you should work on individuals to make them successful.
Everybody thinks there's systemic racism of some kind.
But there is a difference in what you emphasize.
Do you emphasize one versus the other?
So, Huey P. Student, that's his Twitter name, Got into a little back and forth with me on this stuff.
I'm backing King Randall.
His view of making individuals as super-powered as possible.
And that's your best play in the long run.
Even for getting rid of systemic racism.
Imagine if tomorrow, every black student started over-performing every other student.
Just, you know, as a mental exercise.
Don't you think systemic racism would be a lot less in a generation?
It would kind of take care of itself.
Success and money are the two things that solve almost everything.
Did O.J.
Simpson, before he got in legal troubles, did he have a big problem with being black?
No.
As O.J.
used to say, I'm not black, I'm O.J.
Because once you're successful, then you're just seen as the successful person.
Your race just becomes a secondary thing.
So that's a reasonable way to play it.
It's just to make yourself successful.
So, I got into this conversation with this Black Lives Matter activist type of guy, and he said, don't you think you should, he said this in a tweet to me, don't you think eradicating racism is a good place to start to make everything better?
What do you think of that statement?
Don't you think eradicating racism is a good place to start?
My answer to that was, that's the dumbest place to start.
That's the dumbest place to start.
That's the worst thing you could do.
Do you know why?
How do you ever get to the second step?
Where's the second step?
If your first step is literally impossible, How do you get rid of racism?
That's not going to happen.
You could reduce it, and we all agree to do that.
I think 100% of us say, well yeah, if there's something you could do to reduce racism, of course.
Why wouldn't you?
But as a first step, that's the worst advice of all time.
And I've heard some bad advice.
I said no, that's actually the dumbest place to start.
That is the dumbest place to start.
The first place to start is making individuals more successful.
making sure education is working for everybody, making sure people have a strategy.
And so this is what I get back.
So you're saying that black people should just accept unfair treatment and not speak out?
What's that?
What's that called?
So you're saying that black people should just accept unfair treatment and not speak out?
Yeah, it's the so tell.
It means he's already lost the argument and he's starting to have cognitive dissonance.
Because nobody can disagree with the statement that working on racism first is a bad idea, compared to working on yourself first.
And also working on racism, but that's got to be the background, you know, effort for society, not for you necessarily as an individual.
So, yeah, so he's already off the rails.
Should not affect... So, what do I say about fairness?
Let's say your goal is fairness.
And he's used the word fair a few times.
What do I say about fairness?
I've said this forever.
Fairness was invented as a concept.
The concept of fairness.
So that children and idiots would have something to argue about.
Because smart people don't argue about fairness.
They just don't.
It's only a dumb person arguing.
Because the dumb people don't have anything else to say.
So they're like, well, it's not, well, what do you think?
It's not fair.
It's not fair.
Right?
Because you can make fair mean anything you want.
So it's sort of how dumb people and children argue.
It's not fair.
Now, in the real world, there are plenty of things that we would all agree are not fair.
And sure, try to do something about it.
But again, It's not where you start, right?
Where you start is with the individual.
You also try to get something that feels fair over time, but that can't be your focus, if you want to be successful.
All right, so what do you think he did then?
So then I think I said something about using strategy instead, and I said that, for example, A black person who is qualified has a big advantage in a Fortune 500 company getting hired.
Now what do you think the Black Lives Matter advocate said when I stated this, what I believe is a fact, that a black applicant with good credentials would have a big advantage in a Fortune 500 company?
What do you think his response was?
He said, I'm lying.
I'm lying.
And it's a lie that white people tell all the time.
And then he showed some research to show that there's plenty of racism in hiring in corporate America.
Do you see what he did?
That wasn't my argument.
When did I argue that racism doesn't exist?
I never said that.
When did I say it doesn't exist in hiring and when did I say that there are no black people being discriminated against?
Never said that.
I assume there's massive discrimination in hiring.
I would assume that if you're a black applicant and you go to a Korean grocery store, I'll just pick one random example, you probably have less chance of getting hired than if you were a Korean.
Just guessing.
I mean, I'm not blaming anybody in particular.
I'm not blaming the Koreans or anything like that.
I'm just saying, in general, a small family business is going to be a little bit more discriminating than what I said.
Did I say every big and small company prefers black people?
No.
I said a Fortune 500 company, specifically, the ones everybody's watching carefully, are starving.
For more diversity, because they have to answer to that master, right?
They can't not do it.
The big companies have to try hard to get, you know, black and female and LGBTQ.
They have to.
So, and by the way, I call this the, you know, the Black Lives Matter well.
I've showed you this before, that if you defeat an argument that's just a terrible argument, they always retreat to the next obvious level of defense, then the next obvious one, the next obvious one, and you just keep mowing the lawn until you get down to the last argument and then it's just an insult, right?
What's the last argument?
The last argument is a personal insult.
Do you think you went for the personal insult?
Of course he did.
He decided that the real problem is that I said a racist thing and he wants to talk about that now.
Well, what about my argument?
So I pointed out that I had four instances of losing careers for being a white male.
Now you know all four, right?
Two corporate careers where my bosses told me in direct words, we can't promote you because you're white and male.
Direct.
Nothing beating around the bush.
Told me to my face directly.
Can't promote you.
You're white and you're male.
Now my debate partner here says that that was anecdotal.
It was anecdotal that I lost four careers in a row for being a white guy.
Four!
The other one was my animated cartoon, which I wasn't fired for being white, but it was a comic about a white guy, and they decided that Monday night was going to be the African American comedy night.
So it didn't fit in its time slot.
And once you lose your time slot, you're kind of screwed.
That's what happened to us.
So it wasn't direct, but had I been African American, I would have still had a TV show.
And likewise, when I got cancelled from cartooning, 100% of people agree that had I been black, I could have said anything I wanted.
Everybody agrees with that.
You know I wouldn't have been cancelled if I'd been black.
Those are four examples.
Just with one person.
Just one person.
Now, his response was that was anecdotal.
And my response to that was, I also agree that anecdotal evidence is not persuasive.
Here would be the one exception.
If it's 100% of the anecdotes.
If it's 100%.
And I said, just talk to any white male who works in a Fortune 500 company.
Anyone.
100%.
You will get 100% common experience for the last 30 years.
Nobody will have a different opinion.
Everybody will have the same observation and the same lived experience.
Now, only the white males.
Other people are not going to be, you know, up on what their experience is.
But I do believe in anecdotal evidence when it's every piece of evidence.
Every single piece.
Right?
You know, you don't think that oxygen is poison?
Because 100% of humans seem to be okay breathing oxygen.
Nobody's ever died from breathing oxygen.
So do I need a study to find that oxygen is good for people?
Not really, because 100% of every human being ever needs oxygen.
I don't have to study that one.
All right.
But so, as is often the case, once I clarified that I meant Fortune 500 companies, it didn't make any difference.
It just turned into a personal insult.
But I'd like to introduce a new form of insulting narrative wordplay.
I call it black words of thinking.
Black words thinking.
And there's a tendency for the, let's say the Black Lives Matter types with that mindset, to be looking backwards in a black context.
And that black words thinking will never compete against forward thinking.
So if you think you're gonna compete against the Asian Americans by looking backwards, Or black words?
It's not going to work.
If you think you're going to compete with white Americans by looking black words and complaining, good luck.
Good luck.
You're not going to be competitive.
You don't have a chance.
Now, did I say anything about racism not existing?
No.
Systemic racism is real.
We should definitely take a look at doing whatever we can, wherever we can, to minimize it.
Absolutely.
I'm 100% on board.
But you should worry about your own future as your primary concern.
And there's plenty of people who help you.
Plenty of people who help.
If you're a serious person who wants to seriously succeed, find any other successful people and they will all help you.
There's a little trick for you.
There's one you didn't know.
Successful people love to help people who are not yet successful.
With this one caution, only if you look like a good bet.
Do you know what makes you look like a good bet?
Mindset and character.
You get that right, you get your mindset and your character right, search out a successful person and say, I want to be like you.
Can you teach me how to do this?
And the answer is going to be yes.
Yeah, I can teach you that.
How about a job?
You look awesome.
Yeah.
Being successful is strategy, it's knowing what works and what doesn't, and then putting together the things that work, and then executing.
It works basically 100% of the time.
Right?
Nothing's 100%, but you know what I mean.
Basically 100% of the time.
Good character, Learning how to succeed or showing the mindset that you're trying to learn how to learn how to succeed.
All those things are just gold.
Right?
Those things will be good.
But looking at your past injustices and then talking continuously about how they're holding you back, don't want to be around you.
Now, my conversation with Huey P's student here Turned to him saying, but then I saw in the news that you said you should move away from all black people.
To which I responded, you still believe the news?
That's really the best response.
Do you think you heard the context of that?
Do you think you understand what I said and why?
Of course not.
Anybody who still says they believe the news about a story about a public figure, you have some explaining to do, not the public figure.
You have to explain why you're so fucking dumb that you think the news about public figures has a good chance of being accurate and in context and complete.
You've got some explaining to do if you believe in the news.
Yeah, I know who Huey P is.
So then he said, blah, blah, blah, you think white people should move away from black people?
And I corrected him, and I said, I said that white people and black people should move away from you.
Because you have a corrosive mindset.
I'm paraphrasing, I didn't, you didn't use those exact words.
But the point was, yeah, black people should move away from you, Black Lives Matter supporter, because you're bad for them.
You're taking them down the wrong path.
Yes, absolutely, white people and black people should move away from this guy.
And anybody who has this mindset, be they white or black, get the hell away from that.
If you can't fix them, and it's pretty hard to do, just get some distance.
You don't want to be around anybody who thinks you're the problem.
All right.
Um, so I'm sure that my last tweet will just make him hate me for some reason.
Okay, the abortion pill, let's talk about that.
So the Supreme Court, in a mysterious ruling, uh, let's see, they Granted the request by the blah blah blah to intervene.
So the earlier judge had stopped the abortion pill from or tried to stop it from being available.
Supreme Court took it up and they said no you can't stop it from being you can't stop it from being available.
So that means it is available.
So the Supreme Court has ruled somewhat confusingly that you can have access to your abortion pill.
Now, let's do a little speculating here because we can't read their minds.
Are you surprised that a conservative majority came up with that ruling?
Are you surprised?
No?
Not surprised, okay.
Now is that because you believe that the conservatives are more literal and therefore it's not political?
Rather it is really just Yes?
Okay.
So, I'm not sure I completely buy into that, but I see where you're going with that.
I get your point.
You know, the people who are trying to be literalists, in theory, you should trust them over someone who doesn't say they want to be literal.
Or, what do they call it?
Originalists, right?
The originalists, as in interpret the Constitution the way it was originally meant to be interpreted.
So I can see why you'd trust them a little bit more.
I have the same feeling, by the way.
Although I don't identify as being a conservative, I would buy the argument that the people who say, let's not make up our own laws, let's just interpret the Constitution by its original intent.
That feels reasonable.
You know, I've always respected that point of view.
So, here's what I think.
Here's the weirdest part of the story.
Let's see, there was a... Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented.
The votes of the other justices were not disclosed.
Huh.
Does that mean that the argument will not be disclosed as well?
Can somebody give me a fact check?
Are we going to see not written arguments from the majority as well as the minority?
Or does that come later?
Yeah, since when do you not disclose who voted for what?
This is really sketchy to me.
I'm going to speculate.
You ready?
Speculation coming.
I believe that the Supreme Court has two competing, let's say, objectives.
Objective number one is to properly interpret the law according to the Constitution.
We all agree with that one, right?
The other one, well, maybe three.
Credibility is related to the second thing I'm going to say.
The second thing is to keep the country from being destroyed.
Now, nowhere does it say that's your job.
Right?
There's nothing that says, as part of the Supreme Court, make sure that your decisions do not rip the country apart.
It doesn't say that anywhere.
But, they are humans.
They are humans.
They are citizens.
They're people who presumably care about their country.
Do you think they're going to ignore the impact of their decisions on the whole country?
I don't think so.
And I think that, you know, as I said yesterday, if the Supreme Court had said that this abortion pill would not be available, you could just cancel the elections.
Just cancel the elections.
Just give it to the Democrats.
Because I think that this would be like the abortion Roe vs. Wade decision.
This one would just make the women say, all right, we're done.
We're done with Republicans.
This just is too far.
So it almost feels as if the Supreme Court was acting maybe in the best interest of the integrity of the country.
Now, I don't know that.
And I don't know if anybody would ever say that out loud.
You know, nobody would write it down.
But it feels like, you know, if you had that job, I'd put myself in that situation.
All right?
Put myself in that situation.
There's this argument, and it's a technical one, about whether the FDA has some responsibility over the pill or something.
So it's sort of a technical thing.
And the reason it got to the Supreme Court is it could go either way, right?
It doesn't get to the Supreme Court unless, legitimately, you could imagine, well, that could go either way.
Like, there's an argument either way.
Otherwise, they don't even pick it up.
So if there's an argument either way, And you think that one ruling would rip the country apart and just change the nature of civilization, and the other way would just be business as usual.
Because remember, it was legal before, and that wasn't ripping the country apart.
So they're like, one thing will rip the country apart, one will just be business as usual, and people were already sort of used to having this pill available, like society had adjusted to it.
I don't know.
Yeah, systems versus goals.
That's exactly it.
It could be that the Supreme Court valued the integrity of the system over the decision.
Now, I don't think anybody would ever say that out loud, even if in their minds they were thinking that.
And maybe they didn't think it consciously.
It could also be a subconscious instinct to protect the system.
Because that would be a good instinct.
You should all have that instinct.
So I'm going to give a tentative thumbs up to the decision.
And not because it has anything to do with the pill.
That's a separate conversation whether that should be available.
But did the Supreme Court Make what I call the football decision.
Did they make a hard decision because that was their job and there was no, there's no yard, you know, there's no guide to tell you how to handle that specific situation in this specific case.
It feels like, it feels like they decided to keep the public calm.
That's what it feels like.
What do you think?
Do you think that was a legitimate, just-by-the-book decision?
Or do you think they were looking at the bigger picture of civilization?
And, you know, the integrity of the system?
And I don't have any problem if they consider the integrity of the system.
Because the reason we have humans as judges, the reason we have humans as DAs, and humans as jury trials, Is because you want the people to be able to make the exceptions when it makes sense.
If they made an exception, and just sort of if, and this is speculative, if they decided to ignore for a while, you know, the constitutional specifics and just say, well, I think we just have to go this way.
It just makes more sense.
I'd be okay with that.
That's why we have humans.
All right, here's one that's gonna break your brain.
So I asked this question, and I'll tell you why in a minute.
Let's see your opinion before I give you the answer.
In your opinion, what percentage of trans people end up regretting their transition?
Look at the numbers.
I'll just read off some of the numbers.
Now remember, none of us are in the know, right?
We're just sort of ignorantly looking into unless you are actually trans.
If you're not trans, you don't know a lot about this category, right?
So I'm seeing numbers from 90 to 25%.
You want to know the real number?
Way under 1%.
number?
Way under 1%.
Like way under 1%.
What percentage of people regret just a regular surgery?
Just a normal surgery?
What percent of regret?
Maybe 5%?
Depends on the surgery, right?
Don't you think a lot of people say, I wish I hadn't gotten that surgery?
There are a lot of surgeries where you can't be sure it's going to work.
So a lot of people just end up regretting it.
But according to...
I know.
I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking my way less than 1% number is complete bullshit, right?
Is that what you're thinking?
Say it.
Say it.
You think that number is complete bullshit.
Now, all I know is the source.
Right?
All I know is the source.
The source is Google.
Google's where Google summarizes, you know, the most asked questions when you search.
That's one of the most asked questions.
And their answer, authoritatively, with no waffling, is that there was some study and it came up with way less than 1%.
Now, I'm going to fool you by agreeing with that number.
Bet you didn't see that coming, did you?
I agree with that number.
Do you know why?
Everything I know about everything suggests it should be about that.
Should be under 1%.
Ask me why.
You know why?
Because it's not like other surgeries.
When you're getting a knee surgery, it's just, you're just looking at costs and benefits, and you're taking the gas, and if it doesn't go well, you're going to complain forever.
Right?
But if you make a decision so fundamental to yourself, like your identity, it's not your knee, Is you, it's like your very existence on this planet is being redefined.
It's not a bad knee.
If you define your entire existence, so much so that you've done some medical procedure to achieve it, the odds are that your brain will tell you you made the right decision.
Why?
Because that's how brains work.
That's how brains work.
If you do something that radical, You do not imagine you made a mistake later.
Even if you did.
And I'm not saying they did.
I don't know.
One way or the other.
I'm just saying that I would expect a very, very low rate of regret.
And I would expect that, because the decision is so big, that's what causes cognitive dissonance.
A small, trivial decision that you get wrong, you'll easily say, oh, I fucked that up.
Right?
If you take a wrong route to a destination, and it makes you late, you usually blame yourself.
Because it's like a trivial decision, I'm an idiot, why'd I do that?
But if you make a big decision, like a really big decision, You'll end up telling yourself it was the right decision.
No matter what.
Now here's the real question.
Are some of you saying, yes, but you're wrong.
Like really, it was a bad decision.
But in your mind, you think it's right.
So you're wrong about that.
No, you're not.
If you think you're happy, you're happy.
End of story.
It's not up to me to tell you you're not happy.
If you think you're happy, if you think you made the right choice, that has nothing to do with me.
I'm out.
I have nothing to do with that.
If you think it's the right choice, that's the right choice.
That made you happy.
Now, I'd like to add one other thing to support the trans community, because I'm a big supporter.
It goes like this.
I think we all necessarily look at the trans situation through our own filter of our own experience.
If you have never experienced whatever this gender dysmorphia thing is, I've never experienced it.
I've never had a whiff of it.
I have no idea what that's about.
If you've never experienced it, you have no idea.
And I'm not sure you should ever have an opinion on it.
That was somebody else's transition.
Now we're talking adults.
Remember, just adults.
Kids are a different topic.
But for adults, do you really think you can understand how it feels?
These are people who are physically altering ...themselves, you know, permanently, I guess, or semi-permanently, depending on what they're doing.
And that's a big, big, big decision.
You don't think that there's something going on in their head that is so brutal that such a, I'd call it a fairly radical decision, makes sense.
You cannot understand how they feel.
You cannot.
And if you don't understand how they feel, then you can't be a participant, even to judge, if they made the right decision.
Let me give you an example.
Have you ever done something in your life that you knew was the wrong decision, and you were going to do it anyway because it's just how you felt?
Yeah.
Sometimes you just feel so strongly about something that I don't want to hear anybody's argument.
I don't care how good it is.
Don't tell me how good your argument is.
Sometimes you just need to punch somebody.
Yeah, I know I'm going to go to jail.
I'm going to do it anyway.
So the feelings that people have are part of the decision.
If you don't know how people feel, and that's the biggest part of the decision, then don't second guess whether they'd be happy about it.
Because that would be kind of crazy.
So that's my, I wanted you to hear this.
So I heard this yesterday on CNN.
Jake Tapper was interviewing, I think a man, Montana legislation, or a legislator from Montana, where there was some anti-trans law going on.
And the trans The trans government person, I forget what job she has, explained that their regret level was less than 1%, and then did what I did, which was I borrowed this, compared it to surgeries in general.
People have, like back surgery was a good example.
People who have back surgery, sometimes, afterwards they go, well that was a bad idea, just made it worse.
And probably more often than trans.
If you believe that surgery.
Now that I've gone hard in one direction, let me give a little bit of support to some of you who are thinking this right now.
Doesn't it seem like there's a lot more transitioning recently?
Wouldn't you assume that any major increase in the number of people who are transitioning would necessarily pick up people who are a little closer to being on the fence?
Presumably.
I mean, just the math would suggest that you're picking up more people who would not have, maybe wouldn't have made the change.
Now, I can't say for sure that that's bad or good.
In other words, maybe those extra people are also happy in the end.
They might say, well, I'm glad I did this.
I don't know.
I mean, I was surprised at the under 1%.
If you were surprised at the under 1%, Then you should at least, here's all I'll ask you.
I'll just ask you this.
Just acknowledge that if you didn't know that the official number, whether it's true or not, whether it's true or not, we'll talk about.
But if you didn't know that the official number is way less than 1% regret, does it feel weird that you were, you had a strong opinion?
Now again, not about kids.
Kids are a different topic.
But for adults.
A lot of people say no.
All right, so let's talk the counter-argument.
The counter-argument goes like this.
We believe that your real problem is psychological or mental, and so we should work as hard as we can to fix that part, and if we can, if that's fixable, and I hate to use fixable, because that's insulting to trans.
If you say that the trans can be fixed, I legitimately feel that's an insult.
That's like saying gay people can be fixed.
That genuinely feels like just an insult to me.
So be careful about how you word these things because there's sort of some traps here.
But I would agree with you that there has to be at this point some percent, I don't know how big or small it is, probably small, of people who are just being caught up in the persuasion of it.
And that those people are far more likely to regret it than the people who have genuinely something deep inside their minds that needs to be addressed.
You know, in terms of their dysmorphia or whatever.
So, I would guess that the way under 1% number will increase.
Would you agree with that?
That the trend, just because it's more accepted, you're going to get more people who are not as committed to the change, but still do it.
They're just not as committed to it.
In theory, the ones who are not as committed are going to maybe have more regret, but what if it doubles?
If it doubles, it only goes to 2%.
Actually, way less than 2%.
It'd be like one point.
Three or something.
If it doubled.
So there's plenty of room for it to get worse before it would change the fact that it needs to be an option for some people.
Yeah.
And then the more basic question is the less than 1% Accurate.
And then somebody asked this terrible question.
This is a horrible question, all right?
I hate myself for asking the question, but it feels relevant.
Did they count the people who killed themselves?
Because they would maybe, maybe be in the category of people who regretted it.
But I would say, I would think more likely, more likely if they took their lives is because there was something Something in general that was bothering them even before they transitioned.
So probably the self-harm is related to the person overall and maybe not just the gender part.
No way to know.
But I'll give you this.
I don't believe the under 1% number is accurate.
Do you feel more comfortable with that?
I don't believe that number is accurate.
I think it's more, because data is really hard to get.
Almost every study we look at is sketchy.
50% of all studies end up not being reproducible.
So I wouldn't be surprised if it's higher, but your estimates of 25% and 40%, those seem crazy to me.
and 40%, those seem crazy to me.
If it were 25%, it's all you'd hear about.
I mean, I do see some reporters have found like a few dozen people who are trying to detransition, but I don't know how many.
If 25%, If 25% of trans regretted it, it's all you'd see.
It would just be all over the news.
That's a lot, a lot of people who would be self-harming, and I don't see it.
So, if something tells me it's under 10%, I could easily believe it's under five.
And if it's under five, that looks to me like personal choice.
I did a surgery for my voice.
I told you this story.
So when I had the option of fixing my voice, I couldn't speak for three and a half years, at least intelligibly.
And I had to have a surgery.
It was a new surgery.
Now, I got these odds.
There was a 75% chance I'd be happy I got the surgery, and a 25% chance, maybe lower, that it would make it worse, and it would make it impossible to fix in the future, if ever there was a way to fix it in the future.
That was a big risk.
If my voice had not returned, I would have a lot of regret about that surgery.
A lot of regret.
And likewise for people who got the vaccination and they have regrets.
It's very common to get a medical procedure and have a regret.
So I'm a little amazed that trans would be so much less than people's regret for just almost any other medical procedure.
All right.
So I just thought I'd give the trans community a little support there by making sure you heard their best arguments.
Is that useful?
Is that useful to you?
Because I feel like I was not hearing the best argument from the trans community.
Because I didn't know about that 1% thing.
And again, you can doubt it, but it's certainly in the area of personal choice.
It doesn't look like it's so big that the law should be against it or something.
All right.
Who did the study?
Yeah, we can question the study.
That would be fair.
We question all data.
All right.
I just thought I'd add that little bit of positivity to the world.
I know sometimes it's hard to tell if I'm trying to help.
I actually am trying to help the BLM people.
I actually am trying to help black America.
If it doesn't look like it, well, I got your attention.
It was supposed to look like I was getting your attention.
So if you give me that, that I got your attention, that's what I was trying to do.
Yeah.
All right.
Increased transitioning is part of a PSYOP, you say?
Yeah, I don't know about that.
I'll tell you what I never believe.
I don't believe anybody who says they in politics.
As soon as you hear that word, they, just take yourself out of the conversation.
It goes like this.
They want us to They want us to do this, or they want us to eat bugs.
They want us to not have privacy.
There is no they.
There is no they.
There are lots of individuals with different agendas, but there's no they.
The elitists.
There's no the elitists.
There's no Illuminati.
There's no elites.
Elites exist, but they don't exist with one opinion.
You think the elites have one opinion?
I've met the elites.
They don't have the same opinions.
There's nobody getting in a room and making these decisions behind closed doors.
It's not happening.
Bilderberg.
I've told you this before but it's worth repeating, that the World Economic Forum, if you see it as this global elites who are forming sort of a second government, that's how people see it.
I saw an article that took the opposite approach.
That literally none of the elites take it seriously, but they have to go bow to it because it looks good.
And they get a nice vacation in a nice place.
It's basically just a look, it's just a performance.
And the people who attend are not terribly serious about any of it.
And I think that that makes far more sense in my Dilbert filter of the world.
That people are just trying to look good, they're not really.
In the corporate world, Signaling and looking good is the whole game.
That's the whole game.
You don't get promoted because you did good work.
You know that, right?
Nobody ever got promoted for doing good work.
That's not even a thing.
No, you got promoted because your boss thought you did good work, or your boss was related, or your boss was sleeping with you, or your boss wanted to sleep with you, or they thought you would do good work in the future.
No, you don't get promoted for doing good work.
However, doing good work is your very best strategy.
It's still your best strategy to do good work, but it's not why you get promoted.
There's lots of reasons for that.
It does help, though.
Why are there so many high-ranking government officials and members of the WF?
I just told you.
People are joining to Signal that there are good people who believe in the environment and equality.
And that became the badge that you wear.
Why do people wear little pins on their lapel that support a cause?
It's because it's the least they could do.
It's the least they could do.
Hey, if you put on this little pin that says Black Lives Matter, would you do that?
And then the Elise says, yeah, it's the least I could do.
Literally, it's the least you could do.
How about we'll take an all-expense-paid trip to Davos, an awesome place.
You'll have five-star luxury.
You'll get to meet all these other famous people.
How about that?
That's the least I could do.
Yes, it's literally the least you could do.
Attend a meeting so that you look good in a luxury resort.
That is the least you could do for black people.
There's nothing less you could do.
I can't think of anything less important than that.
So if you think the WEF is a big important entity, who told you that?
You know who told you that?
The guy who puts the WEF together.
And then you saw the video of him saying he's got all kinds of power.
Because that's his marketing.
He's marketing.
I'm pretty sure all of those young economic forum leaders, they were all going to have the same opinion whether they flew to Davos or not.
Going to a luxury vacation in Davos doesn't change your opinion of anything.
It just exposes you to more rich people.
That's all it does.
And Klaus gets to feel important, and he meets a bunch of rich people, and he's 80-something years old.
The last thing I'd worry about is a World Economic Forum.
I really think that's just for show.
But we'll see.
All right, anything else in the news that I'm missing?
I think we've done it all.
All right.
That's all for now.
Let me ask you one question before I sign off on YouTube.
What do you think of the phrase, black words thinking?
Insulting or gets to the point?
Trouble.
What do you think?
Racial?
It's racial, of course.
I mean, the topic is racial.
No, love it, LOL.
Looking blackwards, yes.
Yeah, well, as long as white people engage in it as well.
Okay, that's a good comment.
So I wouldn't say that it's black words thinking is something that only black people do.
That would be racist.
Yeah, that would be racist.
So I'll try to avoid that.
It's about mindset and that would be common to just humans.
So yes, I would say black words thinking could be a white person who's analyzing, you know, the black situation.
Same thing.
Yeah, I would say the CRT, DEI, ESG, a lot of them have the same component of black words thinking.
But it's not limited to black people, that's the co-audacity.
Yeah, that's right, there's a word, co-audacity.
Caucasian audacity is co-audacity.
So I guess there's a little precedent for this kind of wordplay.
The woke won't like black words.
What's the point?
See, if you can get the woke to argue the word, you win.
That would be winning.
Get people to argue that the word is the wrong word.
That would be winning.
Yeah, I wouldn't, by the way, I wouldn't use this at work.
You would totally get fired.
Oh, just to be clear.
There's something that I can say that you can't say, because I have something closer to free speech.
Has anybody marveled at the fact that I have free speech now and I'm using it?
If you haven't seen the Dilbert comic lately, Dilbert Reborn, it's only on the subscription site now, you wouldn't fully appreciate it.
But I tell you, yeah, you're jealous.
It's fun.
It really is an amazing feeling.
I didn't think I'd ever feel it.
That I could actually just say what I think is true.
I can just say it.
Other people can't do it.
Yeah, I paid for it.
It was very expensive.
But I think I got my money's worth.
Thoughts on good credit punishment?
We talked about that.
What?
Wait a minute.
Did you just make that?
Because I'm seeing a meme that says black words.
Did that already exist?
Or did you just make that up on the fly?
You have to tell me.
That's a book title.
Oh, it's a book title.
Apparently it's a book title.
Well, now you have to tell me, is the author black?
Because if the author is black, I'm in good shape.
Is the author black?
He was assassinated to one.
What?
It would not have been published otherwise.
Well, yeah.
By Ron Christie.
No, that doesn't sound as black as it could sound.
Yeah, can't tell by the name, but... Alright, well, so I'll have to watch out for that, because if it turns out that the guy who wrote that book has any sketchy accusations, I'd better stay away from it.
Yeah, Ron... Have you ever met a black guy named Ronnie?
Oh yeah, Ronnie Lott.
Ronnie Lott.
Yeah, Ronnie Lott.
So that could be, yeah, that could easily be a black name.
So, uh, curious to hear your thoughts on this.
Oh, it's on Urban Dictionary already.
But, and it's used the same way, right?
In the Urban Dictionary, is it defined as sort of looking backwards instead of forwards?
I assume it is.
Oh, he is black, somebody says.
He's a black Republican strategist.
Ron Christie is a black man.
Oh, we have confirmation.
So somebody looked it up.
Ron Christie is a black man.
And he wrote a book called Black Words.
We'll have to take a look at that.
I do think it's a strong play.
All right. - All right.
Alright, I guess lots of people had black friends named Ronnie.
So Ronnie's more common than I thought.
All right, I just love the fact that I can just talk about this topic without worry. - Okay.
It's such a freeing thing.
Like if I could find just a few more people to talk to.
Ideally, I'd love to talk to black guys who are also completely free and can just use free speech.
