Episode 450 Scott Adams: Mueller, Beto, Cohen, Media Matters, Insurance Policies

Date: 2019-03-14 | Duration: 49:49

Topics

The only 2 times Fake News is willing to believe President Trump Lisa Page and the “insurance policy” Ordinary explanation: I was just doing my job Pro-Collusion people amusingly squirming, distancing themselves Media Matters working hard to make the world a worse place Head of Media Matters under counterattack from Tucker Can ANYBODY be taken out now, with simple historical research? Rosie O’Donnell book says her father molested her for years President Trump’s character is “strong but fair father” Does Rosie’s bad father impact her opinion of the President? Alyssa Milano asked a fact question, Nick Searcy and I discussed Does anybody believe Dems want to kill live babies? Nobody can point to segment of actual law showing that? Devolves into “read between the lines”, “how they think” Transgender athletes The entire field of sports is based on beating unfair advantages Stephan Curry charges toward the basket, 7’ guy tries to block

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:08]

[Music] hey everybody come on in here we got stuff to talk about there's news there's news today and you know it goes well with news coffee and the best way to enjoy your beverage is with a simultaneous sip grab your mug grab your cup your chalice your Stein your thermos if you will raise it to your lips and join me for the simultaneous
sip I see somebody asking me about Bo um B is going to be far more entertaining than I had hoped because it turns out that he's uh he's sort of mockable by both sides so you're going to see a lot of Democrats trying to take him down because he looks like an entitled uh white male well at the same time the

[1:09]

male well at the same time the Republicans will try to take him down just because he's a Democrat I would say the person who has the smallest chance of winning the presidency is Bo oor but boy is he going to be entertaining so I think people are going to give him the the star the star child treatment where everything he says looks new Agy and you know sort of uh nonserious so it will be interesting but he's not going to win um so the big story today is the sleep well tonight quote so apparently Michael Cohen was in conversation with a lawyer who was at least considering being his lawyer who knew juliani who talked to Giuliani and about the case and assured Michael Cohen that Michael Cohen had friends in high places and he should sleep well tonight and people say oh wait is he promising him uh some kind of

[2:11]

wait is he promising him uh some kind of a pardon to which I say doesn't matter it doesn't matter the the guy who said it wasn't the president wasn't Giuliani didn't say he was talking for the president didn't say he was talking for Giuliani it was just something some guy
guy said now you could suspect that he talked to somebody who told him to talk like that but that's not an Evidence you could suspect that your neighbor murdered somebody but there's no evidence of it so it's it's one of those uh non-story stories that even under the unlikely condition that it's being reported accurately you're still just guessing that some kind of a a crime happened you would actually need real evidence and a guy who doesn't work for the president uh talking to somebody else

[3:12]

president uh talking to somebody else trying to make him feel good definitely does not meet any kind of standard for evidence that the president was in some kind of a crime all right um have you noticed that the only time the Press believed the president there are two conditions in which they believe that the president is telling them the God's honest truth all the other times they believe he's lying or he has his facts wrong but there are two conditions in which the left will absolutely insist president Trump is telling the truth as he believes it condition number one when it's an obvious lie and you know why he's lying he's doing it for the country for example when the president goes easy on Trump on Putin and says well he says he didn't he didn't do it or he says about Kim Jong-un well he says he's going to

[4:13]

Kim Jong-un well he says he's going to denuclearize or he says about uh MBS Saudi Crown Prince and he says well he says he wasn't involved now unless you're 3 years old you should understand that he's saying in the clearest possible possible terms whether or not these things are true or and whether or not they're telling the truth I prefer to frame it this way for Advantage in other words it's a strategic advantage to treat these dictators nice uh and to act as though I'm taking them at their word because that might be good for us but what does what does the Press do they take what is an obvious political lie which is literally presented as a lie in my opinion the president presents it packaged as a lie when he says I take MBS at his word or he says he didn't do

[5:15]

or he says he didn't do it you're not supposed to think he believes it he's signaling as as clearly as possible okay you don't have to believe this is true but we're going to proceed under under this understand and the Press says that's the one time they're going to take him at his word the one time he's obviously signaling don't take me at my word you know don't don't take this literally I'm just saying that he says he didn't do it so that's one condition the other condition that they they take him at his word is when they made it up when they make up what the president said that's the that's the other time that they believe it they don't believe what he said they believe what they made up that he said for example when he called the uh countries whole countries they made up that he meant that the people there were bad people he

[6:17]

that the people there were bad people he didn't say that he was talk about their you know socioeconomic system but they made up that he was calling these people holes and then they decided that it was honest his honest opinion for the first time hey he's being honest about the thing we totally made up there was also the fine people hoax where they reported that he said Nazis are fine people which literally never happened and yet that's the one time they say that he meant it the one time they they just made it up so the two situations that they they act like he's telling the truth or when he's telling you he's not telling the truth but just go with it cuz it's good for the
the country they believe that when he says he's lying in the clearest possible terms and they also believe it yeah in the Tim Apple situation they they believe that he called Tim Cook Tim apple as if he couldn't remember his last name when in fact he was just you

[7:19]

last name when in fact he was just you know uh he was just shortening at you know Tim from Apple just you know Tim Apple so when they make it up they believe he meant it yeah uh so those are the only two cases that they believe him is when they made it up or when he's telling you not to believe him um I'm having another another topic here how how weird and simulation is it you know I always talk about as living in a simulation coincidences are typically usually just coincidences they don't mean anything but there's a weird one happening right now and I only point out because coincidences are fun all right so don't read too much into this coincidences are fun that's it that's the end of the only meaning of what I'm going to say next so the green New Deal comes out and the critics say you are you kidding me you want to ground all the airplanes how how could you how

[8:21]

the airplanes how how could you how could you suggest that we get rid of air travel it's crazy it's crazy now it probably is crazy but that's not my Point what are the odds that we will go from that conversation directly to today's news that the boeings max 8 are
are grounded that's a lot of planes I think that's a lot of grounded planes and secondly this monster storm hits the country and grounded 3,100 flights today so as we're having the conversation about how crazy it is to stop air travel air travel stopped what were the odds of that what are the odds you're having that conversation at the same time the air travel stopped you know I'm exaggerating it didn't didn't completely stop but it's kind of a weird coincidence that those two things were happening at the same time uh let's talk about the Lisa page

[9:21]

time uh let's talk about the Lisa page quote I know you want me to update you on this the insurance policy text message you heard me bragging yesterday that her testimony proves that it had been misinterpreted that the insurance policy did not mean that they were trying to remove a president through illegitimate means but rather the way she explained it was that just in case something came of the uh the investigation into Russian inclusion you wouldn't want to stop it before you know once he becomes president it's even more important it might become irrelevant if he doesn't become president but you need that insurance policy just in case he might get elected and just in case there might be something to the Russia stuff uh but it turns out that the president and ran Paul and uh looks like um May maybe everyone else in the world

[10:22]

um May maybe everyone else in the world disagrees with me or at least everyone else on the right side of the world so the way it's being reported and and maybe maybe they actually believe this I don't know but it's being reported as though the insurance policy is now confirmed to mean that they need they wanted to get rid of trump but that's not in evidence what is an Evidence is that she had a job and that job was somehow involved with this investigation uh or or she was talking about it it doesn't either way it's the same um
um and the insurance policy was that you better do your job well and you better not drop the investigation just in case he gets elected and just in case there's something to the Russia collusion story now how do you rule out the ordinary what was she supposed to do if

[11:25]

ordinary what was she supposed to do if it was her job to investigate this thing and she genuinely didn't know if there was anything to it it was her job to find out how are you supposed to act she should have acted exactly the way she acted even if she was totally biased and even if she wanted to she wanted the president out of office so the fact that she wanted him out of office does not automatically mean that she was going to do illegal or inappropriate things to make it it happen so that's the that's the air gap here there is no evidence that she she wanted to do anything illegal that she wanted to do anything outside of her job description or that she wanted to manufacture uh facts that weren't there so I believe there's nothing in evidence to suggest she intended to do anything illegal or

[12:26]

anything illegal or inappropriate am I wrong I didn't see any evidence in any of that you would have to assume that she secretly meant that she would do inappropriate things to get rid of trump because that was the main the main goal but that's not an evidence that is not an Evidence now the people saying wrong wrong um I I'll give you one warning but those of you who have been watching me for a while know that I blocked people for using the word wrong without a reason you're always welcome to give me a reason I welcome it and in fact I enjoy it when I find out I'm wrong because it's usually interesting and it fits within the context of what I talk about which is how easily people could be wrong about simple stuff and so I don't mind when it happens to me I didn't mind when I was wrong about my first impression to the Covington thing I didn't mind that I was completely wrong

[13:27]

didn't mind that I was completely wrong and I corrected it immediately because I learned something as did we all so if you have a reason feel free to offer it but if you just type in capitals wrong I'm going to assume that you're that you're experiencing cognitive dissonance so just know that when you say wrong to me you are saying I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance I don't have any reasons but I need to lash out that's all I hear all right
um so so let's put it this way it's an open question whether or not uh we have a final answer on what insurance policy means but we do have two versions one completely ordinary um I was doing my job doing my job is the most ordinary explanation of what the insurance policy meant that's it the the insane version

[14:31]

meant that's it the the insane version of it which might actually be true all right so there's nothing to rule out that it really was a deep stay plot and she was part of it and she really would have done anything to get rid of the president whether it was legal whether it was within her job description or whether it was inappropriate but maybe legal there's no evidence she was willing to do anything illegal or inappropriate it wasn't in her statement wasn't in her texts and why would you even assume it that just not an Evidence so I'm not saying that she wasn't biased I'm not saying that the bias that the bias would not influence her decision- making but there's no evidence of evil or illegal intention she just had a bias like 100% of the people in every part of the government people had very strong biases about this election you couldn't find somebody on Earth who a government job at least that kind of government job and didn't have a

[15:33]

kind of government job and didn't have a bias that person doesn't exist all right uh I am having a wonderful time watching the pro collusion people the people have been pushing that for the last two years or whatever watching them uh trying to step back I'm watching them try to step back all right somebody's probably just joking by saying you're wrong Scott in capital letters but I'm going to block them just because that was the rule um now you know the rule okay uh so I just watched a fascinating little clip it was probably from CNN last night in which Don Lemon is talking to Chris Cuomo and they're talking about how the Muller report might be uh a lot of nothing uh and and they both wanted to let the viewers know that they never personally said impeachment was a good

[16:35]

personally said impeachment was a good idea now that's probably true so on a a factchecking level I wouldn't be surprised if that's true that neither of them said impeach because that really wasn't their job to give to give that opinion or was it well maybe it was sort of their job they are opinion people but watching them uh try to distance themselves from the story is is is frankly very entertaining and so watch the clip about the two of them talking about it it's quite hilarious uh and it's even funnier because apparently they're friends in real life Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo and they do things but watching Don Lemon uh humiliate Chris Cuomo In that clip for for being an idiot was frankly great entertainment uh you know you have to put it in context that they're friends in real life but he did totally humiliate him uh on that clip I don't

[17:36]

humiliate him uh on that clip I don't know what was in his mind what he was doing that uh but it was funny so uh tuer Carl had a interesting piece that I just tweeted which he was talking about Chris Hayes had the uh I guess the head of Media Matters on and Media Matters is sort of the Watchdog to make sure that there are no no racist in the Republican party you know they're sort of a Soros funded organization uh that just tracks down and tries to Target Target Republicans for something that they may or may not have ever done or did a long time ago H just to take them out of the game so Media Matters is sort of the the worst the worst people in the world doing the worst thing in the world making the world a worst place uh and Tucker finds these quotes from the guy the head guy who was on Chris Hay's show so the the Media Matters head guy apparently said some really racist things in the

[18:37]

some really racist things in the past so uh things have gotten really interesting so it turns out there's almost nobody who can't be taken out if you can look at all their past comments you know if if you can dig into people's past you could pretty much take out anybody no not David Brock so I don't know if there's some difference between a a founder of Media Matters versus whoever is in charge of it at the moment there may there may be some difference there so it wasn't but it wasn't David Brock um and typically you would expect that Tucker Carlson would not have done that except they dug into his 10-year-old quotes which were made in the context of people on a show about inappropriate things saying inappropriate things so there was a pretty weak attack against Tucker but uh it just opened up for a

[19:38]

Tucker but uh it just opened up for a Counterattack and now I wonder C can you just take out anybody if you can go back in time and we can now because everybody's got a you know a record of their history I think you can take out anybody you can find something that would sound terrible taken out of context or even in context in this case
um so there's a story uh which I will not make light of uh in which Rosie odonnell has a new book out which is probably pretty interesting you know I know you may have some negative feelings about Rosie O'Donnell but I have to think that her new book is probably going to be a interesting read just because her story is interesting and she's an interesting person so even if even if you don't like anything about her or her opinions it's probably an interesting book um so I say that as an author but she's making the claim that's in the book and she's

[20:38]

claim that's in the book and she's talking about it now that her father had molested her for years now that's probably true I I would imagine you why would you lie about that um you know we live in a world where you can't believe anything anymore but I believe that um and it made me wonder this Trump represents in sort of a what's the best word uh in a sort of a collective way we view the world um archetype maybe that's it Trump feels like your father who's tough but
but fair right so yeah so and and for a long time people have been calling Trump Daddy right so that was that was a thing during the election I think Milo yopos probably started that or at least he said it a lot in which people like literally refer

[21:38]

lot in which people like literally refer to him as a father figure and it makes me wonder and this is not a claim just so when you take this out of context if whoever is watching who's going to take this out a context let me let me say clearly this is not a claim it's a hypothesis in other words is something I think would be worth studying and what is worth studying is do people who have a bad experience with their own father have a bad feeling about President Trump wouldn't you imagine that you could find that correlation now not any kind of onetoone correlation of course but don't you imag don't you imagine that given that people on both sides sort of in the subconscious and maybe even conscious way they see him as a father figure but they also have feelings about their own father I imagine if you did a some kind

[22:40]

father I imagine if you did a some kind of a controlled study you would find that people who had good feelings about their father and maybe Trump you know mirror some of those qualities which is he's not a perfect person by any means but he's tough he loves you and he's fair or he tries to be so I would not be surprised if uh a scientific study could be done in which you would you would find that um it either biases people one way or the other toward him or against him based on their their father experience and by the way this would be a completely normal hypothesis that there's nothing weird about this that this would be a pretty reasonable thing to hypothesize because people are influenced by things that look alike feel alike seem alike remind you of you know that's well established that that people can flate things and then the the

[23:42]

people can flate things and then the the goodness or Badness of one thing you know spills over to the other thing that that that's um it's really what's behind endorsements and advertising it's it's the most well-established uh wellestablished concept uh you could have about people so it' be worth seeing and I also wonder if the especially the women um the women who have been victimized by their own fathers I wonder if they're the ones who are most likely to
to go um go hard at Trump in other words the ones who are who are willing to really just put themselves out there and to say that he's he's a Monster who must be stopped um so that's a study I would love to see all right now let me give you an update on how many of you have followed my back and forth with uh actor

[24:43]

forth with uh actor filmmaker um Nick cersi who is a noted noted conservative type who has a big presence on on Twitter Etc and we're we're discussing the factual claim and not the political opinion all right so what you're going to hear now is not my opinion and not a suggestion of my opinion and not a hint of what my opinion is all right so it's nothing that here is about my opinion uh it was a discussion of fact because Alyssa Milano asked a perfectly reasonable question and just because I disagree with her on 99% of her opinions that does not in any way make it inappropriate to ask a fact question and so she asked a fact question is there anybody out there who believes literally believes that Democrats are in favor of killing a baby after it's been born

[25:44]

killing a baby after it's been born that's viable and and could be revived so it's just a fact question does such a person exist because there's a belief that such a person exists but there's no evidence of it and so so we had some back and forth and I I and I have to tell you how this went so you you get an insight into the world so I said well I as I Amplified it on Twitter and I said I also have the same question because I've never met such a person I've never you know I've never seen that um put forth I'll talk about Peter sner in in a minute and and so um I in asking for evidence um
um Nick cersi first forwarded his movie gnell in which apparently I haven't seen the movie but apparently there's a doctor who did exactly that he was killing killing babies after they had been taken out of the mother I don't

[26:44]

been taken out of the mother I don't know the details but he's in jail for it so that's sort of a special case of somebody who committed terrible crimes now he's in jail for it so I dismiss that as a special case which doesn't tell you the general thing you know I understand the serial killers exist but it would not be true that you could find people in favor of murder right so the fact that serial killers exist is not evidence that ordinary people are in favor of murder it just means that people do murder so I said but can you show me the law that somebody is proposing because that would be you know more factual show me a La that somebody proposes that would allow a baby that could survive and is alive after birth that there's any law that would allow you to um kill it directly or to allow it to die through neglect if it could

[27:45]

survive and Nick sends me a link to a New York Post article now the New York Post is not your probably most reliable source for uh
uh medical opinion so I read the article and it says very clearly that the that there are some laws considered that would that would make it legal to kill a baby born alive so the New York Post had an article which it says directly exactly what Nick cersi says that the law would allow you to kill a baby after it was born that that could have otherwise survived so I say to myself well let's look where he's linking to because if he's making such a claim obviously there's a link to the the law or at least the text of the law so you can see it for yourself but the article didn't have that it was literally just and uh an opinion person talking without any

[28:48]

an opinion person talking without any reference to the facts which that is based on so I said okay well let's we let's see the law it's a claim of fact and so um somebody who is uh on the pro-abortion side weighed in who happened to be a researcher so a researcher who actually could find things and was was helping out in the conversation says all right here's a copy of the actual law for New York and you read the actual law and there's nothing like that in there the actual law and the person who um you know the chief of staff who is putting it through for whichever politician was talking about it and clarified that if if a baby is born and it still has a heartbeat it's illegal to kill it it's murder because once you're born you're you have all the rights of a born person so the law which was the subject of the New

[29:49]

law which was the subject of the New York Post article was opposite of what the author said it was and you can tell that just by looking at it's quite obvious and then you talk to the politician who was pushing the law and that politician says in the clearest possible sense no there's no condition in which you can kill a live baby that's just murder everybody agrees um so we had this interesting and then the other evidence that was offered was the northr video in which he uh says in direct language that there could be a case where you could let a baby die after after the abortion of course the context is left out the context is that the baby was going to die no matter what that it's a hospice decision and it's it's question whether you keep it comfortable or you try anyway even though it's obvious it cannot survive um and obvious means well maybe you're wrong but it's still obvious that it would be a bad idea so that would be

[30:50]

it would be a bad idea so that would be the decision and likewise there's some politician named Tran who also was anac context Etc so the evidence that xers he offers is a New York Post article that talks about a law the opposite of the actual law because you can look at the law and you can look at the article you can see that what he says about it has no correlation the other evidence were two pieces of video which are completely out of context and so when when these were pointed out to Nick Cersei what do you think his answer was did he say well let me give you a better source did he say I have interpreted those two situations wrong what he said was you're you have to read between the lines and I thought read between the lines and other people said you have to know how these people think meaning the Democrats and other people said you have

[31:50]

Democrats and other people said you have to understand that they wouldn't say it directly it's just their weasel way to to get into baby killing through the side door and so it became clear somebody says show us the law Scott um I've tweeted that a few times I've tweeted connections to it um so so it turns out that Nick cersi's entire um opinion on this topic appears to be based on a hoax and the hoax is supported by two videos and a context one of Northam one of Tran and then a New York Post article that is the opposite of reality in other words somebody says something but then you check the reality and it's obviously the opposite
so uh now most of you are trying to change the conversation as I'm seeing here and so people are saying well wait

[32:52]

here and so people are saying well wait a minute what about you know abortion isn't that killing a baby and I'm not talking about that that's a perfectly good line of conversation but that's not what we're talking about I'm only factchecking Alysa Milano's claim that there's anybody in the world or any law that allows you that anybody thinks it's a good idea to kill a baby that could otherwise survive it's just it's just a hoax doesn't exist all right so um so I I've also watched some people uh question me on my uh comments about uh transgender athletes and some people have seen my opinion and said to me in effect your opinion is so puzzling meaning doesn't make sense that you must be doing it for some kind of clever trick or effect or there there's some kind of long long

[33:53]

or there there's some kind of long long range strategy to it but you couldn't clear You couldn't possibly believe what you're saying I do believe exactly what I'm saying about transgender athletes and here and let me say it as clearly as possible sports are mostly about unfairness unfair advantages the entire field of sports is mostly people losing best case scenario if there are only two people competing best case scenario 50% of the them are losers right so most people lose most of the time and most people can never no matter how hard they exercise can become as good as an elite athlete so the entire field of sports is people trying to deal with unfairness so when when um when Stephen Curry is driving toward a basket and the

[34:55]

Curry is driving toward a basket and the person guarding him is 7 feet tall that's what's fun because it's a complete mismatch because Stephen Curry is six feet whatever six feet around one or two or three or something and so it's an unfair advantage and then he he succeeds anyway Sports the thing that makes it fun is watching people beat unfair advantages so the entire context is people trying to trying to get an advantage and trying to overcome an advantage the only thing that's fair about sports is that you have one set of rules but those rules are not intended to remove the fact that the entire Endeavor of sports is about people trying to take advantage of their advantages trying to overcome other people's advantages it's a completely unfair by Design By Design it's unfair if they were trying to make Sports fair you

[35:57]

were trying to make Sports fair you could only have basketball teams with people the same height and the same age we don't do that we like all that unfairness because that's the fun part watching people overcome it and then every now and then you get a freak like Michael phel Phelps and I say freak in a in a loving way not a bad way he's a freak in the sense that he's so good now that's fun to watch because he's so dominant likewise uh any any top star or fun to watch because they're so dominant but the existence of that dominant athlete necessarily kicks somebody off the team if they didn't exist um anyway so let me let me put this in context my comments about transgender are trying to um illustrate that there's an illusion that people are operating under and what I talk about with all of the topics in the news is the illusion

[36:59]

the topics in the news is the illusion so I'm being consistent and it doesn't matter which side of the PO political Spectrum you're on if I see something that looks like an illusion and that people are acting on the illusion I call it out I believe that um people's feelings about transgender are primarily bigotry primarily bigotry which they have rationalized into something about fairness and reason Etc but that since Sports is not fair by Design those comments about fairness are really just rationalizations um here somebody says wrong ball handling is not equated with
height um that's the sort of rationalization that I've been watching

[37:59]

it's never fun watching a dominant athlete beat the hell and of aess one um I
I disagree and I think you will disagree if I you you'll realize that when I give you an example if you watch Stephen Curry the best guard who ever played some might say maybe it's Michael Jordan but if you watch uh him on a fast break against a second string player on the other team who's 7 feet tall and you see him overcome that lesser player and that that player's advantage and make him look like he doesn't blowing on the basketball court that's fun to watch that's really fun to watch so watching a top player humiliate a lesser player is really fun um in fact there's there's there are lots of uh highlight Clips which are just that the better player absolutely humiliating a lesser

[39:03]

player if it is completely unab balance women will not play why would they that's correct yeah the the free market should take care of MMA and boxing so people like to argue that in their in their attempt to rationalize their bigotry this is just my speculation I'm not mind reading um speculating that people trying to rationalize their bigotry against transgender athletes are bringing up the extreme case which is boxing and MMA in which the advantage of the transgender athlete would be not only a lot but there would be an actual safety concern like a real safety concern to which I say who cares about safety in boxing and MMA people don't watch those Sports to watch somebody not get hurt you watch them to watch somebody get hurt so from the perspective of the uh of the

[40:06]

the perspective of the uh of the spectators somebody getting hurt is sort of why you watch right but from the spe from the perspective of the athletes who would have to compete against let's say a transgender man who was six foot no let's say it that's the wrong term a transgender athlete who was born a man but is now a woman and let's say is 6'6 and ripped and you're you're a female competitor in the MMA and you're in good shape but you know you could actually literally be killed like this would be such a mismatch why would you fight you just wouldn't fight and if you did you'd be dumb so if you had somebody uh in that situation a transgender athlete who clearly should not be in the same cage with a female athlete a biologically born female athlete um both of them are women so the the the rules would say

[41:07]

women so the the the rules would say it's okay but in the real sense that person would just forfeit or not not accept the the match and if they did accept they would know that they would get killed and if they want to do that for a Payday it's a free world apparently that's legal and they can do it so yeah and then and then the other rationalizations people say is but Scott if we use your standard you might as well just say there's no such thing as women's teams and men's teams to which I say nobody's arguing for that that's an interesting question but in the real world there's literally nobody who says we should have only one team and not men or women teams since nobody wants it let's just not talk about it um and then people say but why you know was wouldn't your wouldn't your thinking allow uh people to use um illegal

[42:08]

allow uh people to use um illegal chemistry you know to to get an advantage and to which I say that's the current situation the current situation is
is people use all kinds of steroids and stuff to get advantages in sports you everything from high school to professional sports is the current situation um it's just not
legal um it's not about fairness a man has a financial incentive correct so the way capitalism works is that whenever you have a temporary dislocation another in other words something gets out of whack capitalism will fix it over time so I do accept that having allowing transgender athletes to join teams could create some situations in which nobody wants to play that team the

[43:09]

which nobody wants to play that team the most common situation I would imagine is that a team has one transgender athlete at most because you know there just aren't that many in the world they might have one that person might make the starting team they might win some extra games no big deal no big deal the the thought that men men will massively become transgender because they can dominate women's sports might actually happen but as soon as that happened those SP Sports would fall apart in other words the transgender athletes who were trying to take advantage of the system would make the sport go away so they you know they're in the end it would just become ridiculous and nobody would watch it and nobody would pay pay them to be on the team and nobody would compete against them and it would just fall apart but it would take a
while people get banned for using steroids but probably not your top

[44:12]

steroids but probably not your top athletes in in all likelihood the top athletes are getting a free pass if you don't believe me look at the muscle development of the top athletes
somebody says so do away with the rules so that's when you know you're in complete cognitive dissonance if you listen to everything I said and you say to me so Scott are you saying you might as well do away with all the rules that is so far away from anything that anybody is wants to do that that's an indication you're having cognitive dissonance you're you're not even part of the rational conversation anymore um
then some of you trying to go science on me and saying there's no such thing as a transgender uh to which I say legally there is if if the law says that you're female

[45:15]

is if if the law says that you're female under a certain set of conditions that's the
law all right uh guys don't get satisfied by dominating a women's league uh most guys don't I would say it's I would say it's a problem that is possible you know all you would massively have male athletes turning into uh becoming transgender when they wouldn't have otherwise just to win at sports it's possible I don't think it's a big problem but gender is a rule and you're suggesting doing away with it all right so somebody said this gender is a rule and I'm suggesting doing away with it no I'm suggesting playing by the rules the rule is that if you're transgender you're a woman and therefore you can play on the woman's team I'm

[46:15]

you can play on the woman's team I'm saying follow the rules so if you're saying why don't you get rid of all the rules that's the opposite of what I'm saying I'm saying follow the rules
average male golfers yes it's true that if somebody wanted to pretend to be transgender to win money they could do that in a temporary situation until it ruined the sport so you're absolutely right that one of the risks is that one of the risks is that there might be some man somewhere who wants to pretend he's transgender to try to win a sporting event that will definitely happen it will definitely happen it's not the biggest problem in the
world so let me be let me be clear I'm not saying that allowing transgender uh athletes to compete on women's teams I'm not saying that that's without problems I'm not saying it wouldn't

[47:17]

problems I'm not saying it wouldn't cause people to be unhappy I'm not saying there wouldn't be you know any other type of problem there definitely would cause problems if would cause people to be unhappy it would cause some people to not watch it might have a financial effect it would cause some people who could have made the team to not make the team it has all kinds of problems of that nature you know what else had all those problems integrating the military so you want to check your thinking and say you know just because there are these problems which you can identify is that the reason the bigotry is okay you know you can there are there are reasons for every kind of bigotry we just as a society collectively agree that they're not good enough let me give you a reason for racism all right here's a
a reason um I don't want to let's not make

[48:19]

reason um I don't want to let's not make it about me let's say somebody says they don't want to um hire a black employee to have a a a public facing image because they believe that their customers are racists right wouldn't that be a perfectly legitimate business reason to be a racist because you're saying well I'm just doing this for business my customers are racist not me so if I have a black employee I'll lose my customers that's a perfectly good reason isn't it and it's one that we collectively as a society have chosen to accept because bigotry is a bigger problem so bigotry is this big the problems you mention are this big but they're not zero nobody nobody is arguing that you wouldn't have abuse with transgenders you know somebody gaming the system nobody is saying that

[49:19]

gaming the system nobody is saying that somebody doesn't lose their spot on the team nobody is saying that all the women will love it on day one nobody is saying that that the the uh the viewership would be the same nobody saying the economics would be the same nobody saying that it would be trouble-free the only argument is bigotry is a bigger problem all right that's all for now and I will talk to you tomorrow