Episode 2122 Scott Adams: Too-On-The-Nose Rule For Spotting Fake News Would Have Changed Everything
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Too-on-the-nose rule
Media mind control
My Derek Chauvin closing arguments
Our robber baron history
Equinox discrimination lawsuit
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I know it's a Sunday and you like to sleep in, but how in the world are you going to watch this live if you're asleep?
Well, if you'd like to take this experience, which is the best thing that's ever happened to you, up to levels which nobody can even imagine, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
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, and it's going to happen now.
Go.
Ah.
We all feel better now.
Well, I'd like to introduce the theme for today's show.
The theme is you have to learn the two-on-the-nose filter for identifying fake news.
Now, I talk about this all the time, but I'm going to put the current stories into that filter and see what it tells us.
Now, the two-on-the-nose filter works like this.
You hear a story in the news and you say to yourself, my God, my hair is on fire because that thing in the news.
If your first reaction is, that is exactly what I thought the other side was doing, it's almost certainly not true.
Because in the real world, things are messy.
Things are, well, it's a little bit like this, but a little bit like that, and a little bit like the third thing.
Rarely ever Does the news serve up a perfect story that just fits the narrative?
If it fits the narrative and there's no rough edges, that's called too on the nose, too suspiciously perfect.
Now there's an actual theory for why that's true.
It's not just a random observation, you know, anecdotal.
There's a working theory behind why.
And the why is that the thing that makes something news, in other words, the only reason you heard about it, is that it caught your hair on fire.
And when people saw this story, real or not real, they said, ah, my hair's on fire, I can't believe it.
Those stories are almost never real.
Almost never.
Let me give you an example.
What was it?
The Russians having a bounty on American soldiers in Afghanistan?
A little too perfect?
And that Trump didn't do anything to push back against that because he was a Russian colluder?
A little too neat, right?
A nice neat little package.
Don't know who the source is.
So you should have been able to identify that as fake.
From the first moment.
It had all of the tells for a fake story.
Now that we've got a little distance, a little bit of distance from Russia collusion, what do you think about people who believed, from the start they believed, that Donald Trump was literally colluding with Putin?
Just think about that from the distance that we have from the story now.
Just imagine that 40% or half of the country or something like that believed it from the start.
From the start.
And believed it all the way through until it was debunked.
There's no way that was true.
You didn't even have to do any research.
That one was.
Two on the nose.
That had made up fake news all over it from the first minute.
Here's another one.
The President of the United States stood in front of the public, and with advanced planning and full knowledge of what he was doing, called neo-Nazis fine people.
If you ever believe that actually happened in the real world, you don't know the two-on-the-nose rule.
Because they were trying to paint Trump as a racist.
And then, whoa, look!
He did, according to them, he did exactly, exactly the thing that a racist would do.
Except, it didn't actually happen in the real world.
How about the part where Trump doesn't understand science or medicine?
Oh, and then he recommends injecting bleach or some kind of disinfectant into your body.
From the first moment, you should have known that didn't happen.
And it didn't.
Now you say to me, but Scott, I saw the video myself.
I saw him say it.
No, you didn't.
You really did not.
Because it doesn't exist.
There's a fake edit that makes it look like it exists, but it lops off the clarifiers in the front and the back.
So both of those stories are rupars.
Things that look true if you see the Covington Kids edit, but are obviously not true if you see the full story.
All right, how about the Kraken?
How about that story about the Venezuelan general Do you remember I called that bullshit from the first moment?
But keep in mind, I wanted it to be true in a sense.
I kind of wanted it to be true.
Now, if you can call bullshit on something while wanting it to be true, then you're using the two-on-the-nose rule correctly.
The two-on-the-nose rule is not just for things you don't want to be true.
It also applies to your side, right?
The stuff that you think is true.
So here's one.
Target stores is targeting kids with satanic imagery.
True or false?
Well, apparently there's some element of truth to it.
There's a company that makes that kind of stuff and there's some clothing in the store.
But today I saw a compilation video Of allegedly the clothing that they're selling to children.
Now, I don't know the fact check, but when I saw the examples, they seemed obviously not real to me.
To me, they looked obviously too on the nose.
It's an actual satanic image in the child's clothing in the store.
No.
I do not doubt that satanic imagery has worked its way into the mainstream.
Because that wouldn't even be unusual, would it?
I mean, you know, there was a long period when Nazi imagery was on stuff.
I mean, you know, Che Guevara is on clothing.
So it's not unusual that clothing styles would promote some horrible element of society.
So that's not the two on the nose.
You have to see the pictures themselves.
So just to be clear, I'm not saying that there's no satanic imagery in Target.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that the compilation video that went around couldn't possibly be true.
It's just way too on the nose.
But if I'm wrong about that, you will let me know.
I see in the comments you keep telling me there's a simulation There's a simulation coincidence that is a funny one.
Now remember, I'm pro-LGBTQ.
I know my audience may disagree with me on some of those issues, but this is just a weird coincidence that it's Pride Month coming up in June.
Pride Month.
And somebody pointed out on a meme that if you connect pride and month together as one word, The middle of it would spell demon because pride ends with D-E and month ends with M-O-N or month starts with M-O-N.
Now, that's just a coincidence, right?
It's not telling you anything, but that's kind of weird.
That's a little too on-the-nose too.
Yeah, that's a little Bible Cody.
If you think that means something, like it's really a hidden message that something demonic is happening, that would be a little too on-the-nose.
That would be too on-the-nose.
Yeah.
I think it's a coincidence.
Pretty sure it's a coincidence.
Well, here's another indication of how much the media can control your minds.
There was a Russian survey of Russian public, and Putin still has, you know, support there, but he has a lot more male support than female.
I don't know what that means.
Why do you think Putin would have more male support than female?
Is that just because he's doing manly things and they like it?
Because he's strong?
And the women are fearing for their sons but the men are like, oh, let's take off our shirts and fight bears?
Something like that?
That probably explains it, the machismo part.
All right, but here's the interesting part about that.
Among those Russian public people who receive information from television, They were the most supportive of Putin.
39%.
Or was it the war?
Putin.
And the people who supported him the least are the ones who read the telegram channels.
So the telegram channels would be messages that are not from Putin's control.
And television in Russia would be under Putin's control.
So you can see the difference. 39% He can control 39% of the people if they're watching television, but he can only control 23% if they're not watching television and they're using a different source.
Now, have I told you a million times that people don't make up their own decisions?
They don't decide on politics, their opinions are assigned to them.
Your opinion is assigned to you not from necessarily a person, Or some, you know, cabal.
But by the channel you choose to watch.
So if you chose to only look at the Telegram channels, you would end up assigning yourself an opinion that matched that.
And if you only watch television, and you never watch Telegram, you would end up being assigned an opinion that came from television.
It's very clear that our opinions are assigned.
And it's just based on what channel you decide to look at.
Although there's a little causation maybe backwards.
It could be that because you believe a certain truth, you spend more time looking at a channel that agrees with you.
So it can work both ways.
All right.
Let's see what else is going on here.
We now know that the money collected by Black Lives Matter, only one third of it went to Organizations that make the world worse and two-thirds of it was either spent by the people who collected it or disappeared or just didn't get spent or something.
Now, how many of you from the beginning thought that Black Lives Matter was a totally legitimate organization dedicated to the betterment of black Americans?
What?
You didn't believe her from the start?
Did it seem a little opportunistic?
Yeah.
Yeah, I can tell you that I heard early on from a good source that it was not legitimate.
I heard it from an insider early on.
So I guess I was there a long time before everybody else.
I couldn't say it in public.
Before I was cancelled, I couldn't actually say it out loud because it was too dangerous.
But now I can say it.
From the beginning, I was informed that it was a fake money-making organisation and was not dedicated to fixing anything.
But I couldn't say it, but I can say it now.
I would like to give my I'd like to suggest that if I were the lawyer for Derek Chauvin, the cop who was convicted for allegedly killing George Floyd, I was trying to figure out how I would have done a better job.
And here's how I would have done a better job.
I think this would work.
I'd have to test it first.
All right.
So, Officer Chauvin was around 5 foot 8 and 140 pounds-ish.
And George Floyd was probably over 200 pounds and well over 6 foot, however big he was.
So, let's say that, roughly speaking, let's say that George Floyd was 50% bigger.
Let's say he was 50% bigger than Chauvin.
Just round it off.
So I would say, if I were the attorney, in my closing statements, here's how I would deliver my closing statements.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, so this might not be allowed.
If I couldn't do this in my closing statements, I'd work it into the trial somehow.
But I would say, all right, let's do a demonstration.
I don't have anybody here who's over 6 foot tall and weighs over 200 pounds.
So I'm going to use myself just for safety.
I'll use myself as George Floyd.
But I'm only 5 foot 8.
And I only weigh 150 pounds.
And I only weigh 150 pounds.
So I'm going to give you my closing arguments with somebody kneeling on my back who is roughly the same ratio of weight as Chauvin was to Floyd.
So in my case, that would be, let's say, a 10-year-old girl.
So I'd have, let's say, a 10-year-old boy or girl, who weighed 70 pounds-ish, leaning with one knee on my back.
And then I would have my fellow judges, who usually have some assistance, I'd have them hold my arms and legs, So that I couldn't move.
And then, laying on my stomach with the 10-year-old boy or girl's knee on my back, just one knee, not both knees, just one knee, I would deliver my closing argument.
And I would make it last 30 minutes.
And I would speak clearly and fluently for 30 minutes while under the deadly attack that killed George Floyd.
And then I would say, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.
And then the little boy would be trained to ask me immediately after I rested my case, should I get off your back now?
And then I would say, after I've rested my case, but they're still listening, I'd say, yeah, but take your time.
Take your time.
Do you think I couldn't have won that?
Do you think that I could not have won that case?
Of course I could.
That was the most winnable case.
I feel like whoever was his lawyer maybe wasn't trying as hard as they could have.
No way to know, but based on the result, I have to think maybe somebody didn't try as hard as they could have.
Because I'm pretty sure I could have won that one.
And I'm not even a lawyer.
All right.
So I guess the Attorney General in Texas got impeached, or is being impeached, Ken Paxton.
And here's the interesting thing.
The Republicans, he's a Republican, and he was a well-known Republican, you know, for an Attorney General.
He's somebody's name I've heard for a while.
So he was prominent, and the Republicans just took him out.
Good for you.
Republicans just took him out.
They just voted to impeach him.
Now, not all the Republicans, right?
I think Trump is still backing him, for example.
But his offenses were bad enough.
Essentially, he's being accused of special favors to a donor, and the special favors look pretty bad.
If the allegations are true, He really did need to be impeached.
No doubt about it.
So here's what I like about the story.
Republicans have sort of made a brand for themselves that if needed they will impeach their own president.
Because they, correct me if I'm wrong, but Nixon got impeached with Republican votes.
Not all of them, but.
Republicans will, Republicans will clean out their own closet.
And there is, you know, some belief that the Democrats won't.
That there's nothing a Democrat could do that would ever get Democrats to break rank and impeach them.
Now, I'd like to think that's not true.
I'd like to think that if the case were as clear as this Ken Paxton situation looks, that they would also act.
But it does kind of look like the Joe Biden, Hunter Biden situation is just as clear as the Ken Paxton situation.
And if you are a Republican, this is a good day for you.
It feels like a bad day, doesn't it?
Because a prominent Republican is being impeached.
That's bad.
But honestly, I've never respected Republicans more than today.
That's actually true.
That's like a literal statement.
Sounds like hyperbole.
No, that's actually literally true.
The fact that the Republicans took him out, that gives me respect.
I respect that.
Because that's why you hired him, right?
So, yes, you can be unhappy that the Republicans essentially hired a guy by voting for him that turns out to be a problem.
That's not good.
But I've told you before that you should judge people by how they correct their mistakes.
Not by whether they make them.
If you judge people by making mistakes, then we all suck.
Because everybody makes mistakes.
But we don't all handle our mistakes the same way.
That's where you really find out who you are.
And the Republicans have handled their mistake.
It looks like.
So good for them.
If things go the way it looks like it'll go.
I'd also hasten to say that Paxton is innocent until proven guilty.
He's innocent until proven guilty.
But there are some pretty bad allegations.
Well, here is a big surprise.
I don't know who saw this coming.
But can you believe that at the last minute, the Congress made a debt ceiling deal?
I mean, who saw that coming?
Everybody who's ever paid attention saw that coming, right?
Yeah.
So, you know, I've been explaining to you or really explaining myself for a few weeks.
You know, why am I not talking about the debt ceiling negotiation?
It's the end of the world.
And I kept saying, there's nothing to talk about until the last 10 minutes.
The entire story is the last 10 minutes.
There's no story until the last 10 minutes.
So everybody was saying, talk about the story, and I kept saying, there is no story.
There's nothing to talk about until the last 10 minutes.
Because the last 10 minutes, not literally 10 minutes, but the last 10 minutes or so, is when both sides look at their most recent polling, and they know who's in the weaker position.
And then the weaker position has to give something up, and then you get a deal.
Because the last thing anybody wants is to not have a deal.
So, just as it should have gone, it's the last minute.
We don't know all the details.
There's something in there about student loans, but I don't think we know the details of that.
We'll wait to judge whether it's a good or bad deal.
Well, no, I take it back.
We don't have to wait to know if it's a good or bad deal.
Am I right?
It's a bad deal.
The reason that you can reach a deal at all is because both sides accepted less than they wanted, right?
So, somebody says no deal?
They haven't turned it down since I started talking, have they?
I think it's looking like a deal, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a last one minute twist, right?
So the last 10 minutes is when you get the verbal agreement.
But then the last one minute, somebody like Matt Gaetz might emerge and say, oh, now you only got one minute.
And it looks like the polling would be bad for Democrats.
One minute to go.
Oh, well, you know, I'd sure like you to give me this thing.
No, we don't want to give you this thing.
We already negotiated.
The negotiation's over.
Oh, is it?
Is it?
Well, let's wait for a minute and see how you feel.
No, damn it.
All right, you can have it.
It might be that there's still that last minute, one minute flurry, but it's still going to get done.
It still will get done.
All right.
Are you following this drama with the Babylon Bee?
Of all things to have a drama.
So the founder, I guess would be the CEO, Seth Dillon, he fired one of his writers on Twitter.
So the guy tweeted a profanity at Some, was it Christina Bouchard or somebody?
So some Republican person, I guess.
So one of the people who writes for the Bee, and had that in his bio, tweeted a profanity which Seth Dillon saw and basically fired him in public on Twitter.
Now, you might say to yourself, well, good for him.
He's got a standard and he's keeping up his standard.
But the embarrassing part is that Seth Dillon, who fired his guy for saying what he said, in 2020 had tweeted, if you're afraid you might get fired for speaking your mind, the solution is to speak your mind anyway.
If no one is willing to take that risk, nothing is going to change.
So that his own writer spoke his mind and he got fired.
Now, to support Seth Dillon, you know, I want to make sure his side is represented, he didn't say that that person shouldn't be fired.
He said the opposite.
He said, you're going to get fired.
If you use free speech, you're going to get fired, but do it anyway.
So his writer did it anyway.
He got fired.
Now, I'm not even sure if there's any You know, any big crime here.
Because the reason he got fired is that he wasn't representing the company the way they wanted to be represented.
Everybody has that right, right?
That's the employer's choice.
So, I don't know.
There's not much of a story there.
I guess the big story is that it happened on Twitter instead of happening privately.
But either way, it got a lot of publicity for the B. We'll see what happens there.
All right, I saw, so now that the, I think all of the Republican candidates for president are in favor of using the U.S.
military to go after the cartels.
Now, the pushback I see in this isn't good, meaning that it's not well thought out.
So let's give you a little detail.
When people say they will use the military to attack the cartels, you have to understand that nobody's in favor of attacking The military of Mexico.
You all know that, right?
Nobody's going to try to take over their capital building.
The only way we would use the military in Mexico is if we told them to get out of the way.
We'd say, look, we've identified these operations.
Just make sure you don't have any civilians or military people there, and we'll take care of it.
And then Mexico will say, hey, we're a sovereign country.
That would be an act of war.
You can't.
You can't use any military in our country because we would have to treat that as an act of war.
Then what would we do?
Well, in the past we would say, oh, I guess we can't do that.
But there are six Republicans who have said, we're going to do it anyway.
We're not asking for permission.
We're warning you to get out of the way.
And to me, that's the only way to play it.
Because you'd want the Mexican government to have the cover that they didn't have a choice.
Because I think the Mexican public would understand.
I think they would totally understand.
Oh, our government was not given the option and we understand why it happened.
I feel like we wouldn't even have much of a public problem in Mexico.
Now, would innocent people get killed?
Probably.
Probably.
But we could give warning on any locations and people.
I mean, we could say, we could give them plenty of warnings.
Here's our target list.
If you're anywhere within 100 yards of these people, there's going to be some blowing up happening.
Right?
I wouldn't be within 100 yards of any of the people on this list.
And I wouldn't be within one mile of any of these facilities.
And just give them the hit list.
Then you negotiate with the cartels.
I wouldn't fire a single bullet until I gave them their target list, told them exactly what's going to happen, told Mexico it doesn't matter what they think about this idea, and then I would ask for the heads of the cartels to contact me and I would start talking to them.
Because there might be a way to work something out.
I'll tell you my rose-colored glasses perfect world.
I don't think it's possible, but I like to think about it.
Make a deal to the heads of the cartels, or even maybe just one, the strongest one.
And you say, we are desirous of moving a lot of manufacturing out of China and into something closer, like Mexico.
If you give up the drug trade, And, you know, help us close it down.
We'll give you equity in some of the buildup, but you have to be a contributing partner.
In other words, you have to, let's say, turn your military into a security force.
Or somehow you have to contribute in some legal way.
And it might be just to reduce the amount of crime so that the people who want to work at these companies are safe.
And I would say this will be your one and only chance to allow your children to have a good life with money and with reputation going forward.
If you say no to this offer where we'll try to turn you into some legal entity, We will kill all of you.
And you'll never get this offer again.
I'd try it.
Now, like you say, if you put the cartel in charge of security, the security people will be the ones robbing stuff.
I get it.
I get it.
I just think there might be some way, there might be some way to give them some sense of ownership without giving them control of doing anything illegal.
Maybe.
Remember, every action you do down there is going to be suboptimal.
There's nothing you can do where it just works and there's no downside.
So everything you do has got a big risk.
No exceptions.
Okay, that's a good example.
The Hells Angels were sometimes hired to do security at rock shows.
But that can go bad really quickly.
That can go bad really quickly, like Altamont.
However, imagine this.
Imagine if the cartels were part of the security force, but there was somebody, some non-cartel, well, everybody becomes the cartel eventually.
I don't know.
I'll have to think about it a little more.
But I think there's probably some long shot way to turn the cartels into a positive force.
Now the reason I say that is, you remember that early America was dominated by robber barons.
They were the cartel of their time.
America had its own cartel.
The billionaire, well, millionaire robber barons, you know, that built the transcontinental railroad and all that.
They were bad dudes.
They were bad, bad people.
Really bad people.
Do you think they killed people?
Probably.
Probably.
Or worked them to death?
Had slaves working on the railroad?
Yeah, yep, all that.
But, if you looked at those family names today, they all made so much money that they had the luxury of doing legal things eventually.
So, yeah, they became legitimate philanthropists and stuff like that.
Alright, I know that stuff because I used to work at Crocker National Bank, and Crocker was one of the robber barons.
And whenever I worked for the bank, it was just the weirdest thing.
Because the bank itself was really, really honest.
It was a bank.
Wells Fargo bought them eventually.
Now, banks do some sketchy stuff, but we're not talking cartel, robber baron level stuff.
It's more administrative, weaselly stuff.
But we have an example of Effectively, the American cartel was legalized and brought into the fold.
All right, here's a... I don't know if this is a trend.
There's something called sologamy.
The first part is solo, meaning women marrying themselves, literally having a wedding, and having a wedding ceremony in which they celebrate their self-love.
You can use your imagination of what that honeymoon looks like.
I think I'll take a moment to imagine it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right, I'm done.
And this looks like more of just a funny story as opposed to a big old trend, but CNN found several people to talk to who had done just this.
Now, what you would think is an unrelated story, but maybe not.
There's that big question of what has caused a continuous drop in testosterone and also sperm levels in men over recent years.
Well, it's been happening for a long time, but it just gets worse every year.
And here's the thing that nobody mentions.
Now, in my opinion, the most logical culprit is either diet.
Diet, big pharma, Lifestyle, you know, everything from not getting enough sleep to looking at screens.
I see somebody saying plastic, but I'll generalize plastic to environmental pollution.
So I don't know about plastic in particular, but I will say that pollution almost certainly has some effect.
You know, because you can imagine it would degrade your overall health.
Yeah, maybe it's soy, I don't know, something about the food quality.
But the one thing that nobody says out loud because they're not as cancelled as I am, I'm cancelled enough to say this.
We know for sure that men's testosterone drops when they're around children.
You know that, right?
Unless they're pedos, I guess.
If you're like an average person, average male, and you spend time around children, your testosterone just drops immediately.
Probably your sperm production.
Probably.
Right?
Makes sense.
So we know that men are very influenced by the environment.
Now, if a man wins a competition, Science says their testosterone goes up, because they won.
If they lose, it goes down.
Now, what do you think happens to a man's sperm production and testosterone when he's around a woman who he's attracted to?
Do you imagine it goes up?
I mean, if it goes down when he's around kids, because that's sort of a damper on all that, I would imagine that if he's around an attractive woman who shows interest in him, I would imagine that would go up.
Now look at feminism.
Feminism, and I'm not going to say that it's bad or good, I'm just going to describe it.
So this is not a criticism, just an observation.
The point of feminism, see if this framing is wrong, the point of feminism is that women in general wanted to move from a place where they were presenting themselves as men wanted them to present themselves, To presenting themselves as women wanted to present themselves.
Is that wrong?
Would you say that frame is accurate?
That it was less about giving men what they wanted, and I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's a free world, and more about what women wanted, which is a little different.
Now what would be the logical outcome of that?
The logical outcome of women putting less effort into making men Want them.
And more effort into making men irrelevant.
How would men respond biologically and physically?
Well, it should knock the hell out of your testosterone.
And I would imagine your sperm production follows along with that.
Because if you see somebody you don't want to mate with, does your sperm production go up?
And, yeah.
So it's one of the things that nobody can mention, right?
Now what about birth control?
I think women's birth control is one of the reasons that men's sperm production went down.
Just a hypothesis.
But it's a pretty good one.
Because I believe that birth control makes women less attractive to men.
I think the science supports that.
And then it would have the same impact.
Now everybody's different, so that doesn't mean any individual is having any of these effects, but just an average.
Now, like I said, I still think the most, the biggest impact is probably the food supply, and we're getting fat and unhealthy.
But I don't know why we can't say that out loud.
Why can't we say it out loud?
I'm perfectly in favor of women pursuing their own happiness.
They can call it feminism or anything else.
It's a free country and adults can do what they want.
Be they hetero or be they not.
Right?
So... I don't know.
I think we ought to be able to talk about it.
All right.
There's a health club chain called Equinox.
And there's a story about them firing, they fired a black woman who had been late 47 times in 10 months.
She sued them for racial discrimination and she won $11.25 million in damages.
million in damages.
But Twitter context notes added some context.
And it said that-- hold on, hold on.
There's context to this.
The reason she won is because there were lots of examples of white employees who were also late a lot and did not get the same treatment.
So therefore she won.
Now, since we were not on the trial and we were not privy to all of the evidence of the trial, I don't think we can second guess it.
Because if you ask me, that's a pretty good defense.
If it turned out that there were comparable late white employees and no repercussions, it's a pretty good case.
However, I would like to point out the following.
Let's say Equinox hired ten employees, and all ten of them were late all the time.
Nine of them were white, just for a mental experiment here.
One of them is black.
Which one gives them the most risk?
Ten people, they're all late the same amount.
Nine of them are white, one of them's black.
Well, if you chose to fire first any one of the white people, do you think you would be fired for racial discrimination?
If the first one you fired was white?
No.
No, nobody would even think of it.
But if the first one you decided to fire was black, What are your odds of being sued for and losing $11.25 million?
Very high.
Very high.
So the company loses the ability, if they thought that the one employee was really worse than the others, and that's where they wanted to start, you know, perhaps they were going to fire some of those other people too.
Maybe they were going to make an example out of one of them and hope that that caused the rest of them to be more on time.
Don't know what they were thinking.
But you cannot look at these situations as equal risk.
This is not equal risk.
That company had a much bigger risk with that one black employee than they did with all of the white employees who apparently were terrible as well.
They hired a lot of terrible employees apparently.
Which is not that strange for that kind of business.
Now, here's my provocative question.
Do you think Equinox will get more sign-ups or fewer?
Because we saw Bud Light, we saw Target, they lost $30 billion collectively in equity, because conservatives said, we're going to act on that.
Do you think conservatives are going to read this story and say, I'm going to join Equinox?
Just as an FU to the system?
Not necessarily because I think it's going to be a bastion of white people or something like that.
But rather just to support them.
Because it doesn't look like, on the surface, that this was necessarily a fair result.
Because somebody had to get fired first.
And I do understand it's a little bit sketchy, it's a little bit suspicious that the black employee got fired first, but that's how coincidence works.
Whichever one of them got fired first, if somebody was going to get fired, it was going to be somebody.
We don't know exactly what happened, but the real question is, will conservatives interpret this situation as a reason to sign up for Equinox?
What was your feeling as I told you about the story?
Did you have any feeling like, oh shoot, I think I want to support that company?
Or is it just, no, it's just a story about a company?
All right, so it looks like the story produces no energy, right?
Yeah.
None of you are interested in supporting Equinox, I see.
All right.
Good to know.
Good to know.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my prepared comments on this Sunday, that's going to be a kind of a sleepy Sunday.
If you're wondering what topics are in the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can't see unless you're a subscriber to Locals, or you can subscribe to it now on Twitter, and for a lower cost you get just the Dilbert comic only.
So Dilbert, of course, is dealing with his, he got an AI sex bot, but he ordered the Karen 3000, that didn't work out.
We also have the character Dave, Dave the Engineer.
Now Dave the Engineer is a new character.
He's black and he's an engineer who works at Dilbert's company.
And his character is that he's a prankster.
So whenever he's talking about the woke stuff, he's usually joking to make people uncomfortable.
But the pointy-haired boss will put Dave in charge of their DEI program.
So if you want to see Dave the Engineer in charge of Dilbert's DEI.
And let's just say that Dave, being a prankster, his idea of how to increase diversity is not what that boss had in mind.
So that's your teaser.
Also in Dilbert, upcoming, Dilbert's CEO will be asked to testify about the dangers of AI.
So, they're going to be testifying about the dangers of AI to Congress.
It doesn't go well.
It doesn't go well.
So, Euro Digital Services Act.
Threatening Twitter.
I need to know more about that.
Yeah, Europe seems to be a little difficult to navigate.
Boy, I didn't realize that Twitter would become such a target.
Four are trying to be balanced.
But it doesn't look balanced if you were left-wing.
Talk more about AI?
I think you don't really want that, do you?
What's up with the price of gas?
Is the price of gas up or down?
It looks like you've been slowly, slowly reducing.
Oh, it's up?
Did it go up today?
All right.
NVIDIA stock.
Boy, do I wish I had some NVIDIA stock.
So NVIDIA stock, because I guess they have a chip that works well with AI, that stock is through the roof.
It's like one of the most valuable companies in the country now.
It's gigantic now.
Did I get my shirt at Walmart?
I don't know.
I did not.
It's a Fresh Clean Tea.
That's the name of the company.
Yeah, so Katie Hobbs vetoed some Republican-led election reform stuff.
But I read her arguments.
They weren't terrible.
But it did look still like it was a Democrat versus Republican thing.
Yeah.
I mean, obviously, she was voting for her team.
I don't think she was looking out for the state.
Do you wash your t-shirts before you wear them the first time?
Let me put that question to you.
Do you wash your clothes before you wear them the first time?
Let's say it was in a package, so nobody tried it out in the store.
It's in the package.
Well, you're quite mixed on this.
Lots of no's and yes's.
My guess is that it's probably cleaner coming out of the package than it is coming out of your washing machine.
Your wife does over your objections.
Yeah.
My answer to the question is, it depends.
So I would wash it first if it were wrinkly, and I would wash it first if I bought it a little large because I expected it to shrink.
But if it were exactly the right size and had no wrinkles, let's say a t-shirt that you're taking out of a package for the first time, I would wear it without washing it.
Special case.
I wouldn't wear a pair of pants.
You know, that I bought at a store.
Because you wonder how many people have had those pants on.
Wash it all.
Alright, here's another one.
How many of you would wash, let's say, spinach or lettuce that came in a package that said it was pre-washed?
How many of you wash pre-washed salad?
A lot of people wash pre-washed salad.
But a lot of people don't.
I used to.
What if it doesn't say it's pre-washed, but it's obvious that it was?
Suppose it's not labeled pre-washed, but you can just look at it, and it's obvious that it was.
Do you wash it then?
Keep in mind, when you wash it, you're probably just doing it with cold water, right?
It's not like you're washing it with soap.
I'm not sure how much that cold water makes a difference.
You put vinegar in it to crisp it?
I've never heard of that.
Is that a thing?
You put vinegar in your cold water to crisp up your salad?
I'll be damned.
White vinegar, huh?
Well, I learned something there.
Look at me learning stuff.
All right, I've probably told you this before, but I once dated a chef.
So it was a woman who knew what she was talking about, food-wise.
Actually, I've dated two chefs.
That's weird.
I've dated two professional chefs.
Never realized that before until just now.
But neither of them washed anything that came in the package.
If it came in the package, it was clean.
That was their standard.
I have a type.
No, it wasn't when I owned the restaurant.
It was actually unrelated to my restaurant.
We never had a female chef at my restaurants.
Not that we didn't want one, just unapplied.
Washing adds to labor costs.
Yes, that is correct.
Was salad after eating with hydroxychloroquine?
I had two restaurants for a while.
Do you wash chicken with soap?
I stopped eating chicken, so I solved that problem.
So I'm going to tell you something else about Equinox, but I can't tell you on YouTube.
So, after I turn off YouTube, I'll tell the locals people a little behind-the-curtains information.
