Episode 510 Scott Adams: All the HOAXES Pretending to be News

Date: 2019-04-28 | Duration: 45:56

Topics

NYT interviewed a non-racist statue supporter at Charlottesville There was a DIVERSE group of people at the event PolitiFact “pulled a Mueller”, refuses to state Charlottesville was hoax PolitiFact provides full context, lets the reader decide Judging true or false is what PolitiFact does…and they can’t? Left-leaning PolitiFact can’t or won’t state it was a hoax Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales (Founder), retweets Breitbart Wikipedia beat all other left-leaning outlets to report truth Does a law exist, that allows the murder of babies after birth? A life and death decision, who gets to make it? Synagogue shooter and copycat shooters Media coverage provides a how-to tutorial Tragedy increases media profits Does the media unintentionally promote copycat horrors? NYT International edition’s anti-semitic trope…WTF? NYT removed the comic, said it was an error in judgement Don’t judge by the mistakes people make Judge by their response to making the mistake “I made a mistake, I’m owning it and here’s how I’ll correct it” Isn’t that a better filter for life, and the world you want to live in? 48-Hour Rule: Allow people 48 hours to retract or explain things Charlottesville event poster wasn’t obviously racist to everyone A Jewish person went, thought it was a free speech rally

Please donate to support my YouTube channel:
https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays
I also 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 i hope you're done with church because it's time for the next form of worship in this case it's coffee i worship my coffee it's not an actual religion but it could be
be and if you'd like to give it a try grab your cup your bug your glass your tanker your stein your chalice your thermos fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the simultaneous sip
hmm that could have been warmer well so msnbc was in full propaganda mode this morning somebody says so update on the find people hoax many of you have been watching me debunk that for the last several months lots of people joined in steve cortez

[1:09]

lots of people joined in steve cortez joel pollock is all over it carpe dunctum
and tremendous progress i just tweeted around joel pollock's article in breitbart uh detailing how jake tapper now gives the second part of the quote and says in clear terms the president wasn't talking about the neo-nazis and the uh white nationalists when he referred to the fine people now the hoax is sort of transformed into well who was he talking about which actually doesn't matter because the worst case scenario is that he thought other people were there they were not racists well that's either true or not true but completely irrelevant because first of all no one knows who was there no no complete accounting was ever done and if he was wrong on the fact

[2:10]

and if he was wrong on the fact well he was wrong on the fact that a reasonable person would assume was true also it's the same thing i assumed i assume a big gathering has a diverse group and even if it's dominated by one group or organized by one group a lot of other people show up if you give it enough attention i just saw there was some kind of audit by the city in which they did identify people who were there not affiliated with any of the named groups so even the city has confirmed that it was a diverse group but we don't know exactly what they were thinking anyway so now we've seen in the past week uh new york of course the new york times actually interviewed one of the people who was not with the racists and uh just was there about the statue and was not racist uh so it's hard to refute that and even politifact has included it with the full quote now but they refuse to actually

[3:11]

to actually they refuse to actually call the uh the fine people thing a lie so they've they've gone full uh mueller you know everybody criticized mueller for not making a decision on obstruction well politifact just went full mueller on this fine people hoax and they said well why don't we just show it to you in context you decide this one their very point the the entire thing that politifact does is they give you their opinion of whether something's a fact or not but this one time this one time they've decided not to give an opinion they've they've gone full muller why well it's obvious why because giving that opinion would be the second biggest hoax in political history after the russia collusion and i'm not sure that i'm not sure that the mental health of the anti-trumpers can handle all that

[4:12]

the anti-trumpers can handle all that all that revealing of reality in the same time zone so your time frame i guess so this morning uh jimmy wales uh founder of wikipedia retweeted joel pollock's article from breitbart now that article article talked about jake tapper giving now the full context where before it was typical for cnn to give just the first part of the quote which was misleading about the fine people and so so the founder of wikipedia retweets that article now of course somebody jumps on him and says jimmy wales why are you retweeting break art and of course the answer is that breitbart is talking about cnn and it's talking about both of them agreeing so you've got a an outlet identified with the right and

[5:14]

an outlet identified with the right and outlet identified with the left cnn and breitbart and they were on the same page on the fact who was the first major outlet to get get the fine people hoax correct who was not
not identified with the right answer wikipedia wikipedia beat every news outlet on the left associated with the left to get this right and now all the other outlets are starting to report it in its full context so i love the fact that wikipedia is continually is continually attacked for
for you know bias or whatever but let's let's call it out let's call it out when when they beat the back wikipedia was the most reliable outlet that wasn't clearly associated

[6:15]

outlet that wasn't clearly associated with politics on the right they got it first and they got it right all right so that was interesting um
so i guess trump said in his rally speech last night he said quote now we're sending he's talking about the illegal immigrants they get rounded up he said now we're sending many of them to sanctuary cities thank you very much he told the crowd in green bay uh they ain't so happy about it i'm proud to tell you that was actually my sick idea so trump is actually calling it his own sick idea to send them to sanctuary cities now the question is is that true now the claim is that we're sending many of them to sanctuary
cities that's probably true isn't it it may not be
be any more than they were ever sending to sanctuary cities before it might be it might not be but the claim is that they're sending people to sanctuary cities and i would

[7:17]

people to sanctuary cities and i would guess that's probably true meaning that if they just do business as usual some of those immigrants are going to end up in sanctuary cities right so his claim might be technically true but it's going to be interpreted a little bit differently than the strictly technically true part
president also talked about executing babies after they're born now people on social media came up to me after i was debunking the charlottesville hoax and they said to me and i quote scott why aren't you also spending all your time in your whiteboard trying to debunk this this abortion claim about executing babies to which i say i have without the whiteboard i didn't really need the whiteboard but how often if you heard me debunk that hoax often right

[8:19]

that hoax often right so every time somebody comes after me and says aha you are being a hypocrite because you debunk this but you don't debunk that almost always they're wrong almost always now so i tweeted this morning cnn's take on the fact checking of that comment and cnn was weirdly ambiguous uh in their fact check they did fact check that the the law he was talking about the specific law they say already has a penalty built into it for if anybody kills a live viable baby it's just murder so so they fact checked the president's claim as not true but then they referenced the northam quote without fact checking it so the northern quote was about a different law in a different state but for some reason cnn's fact-check

[9:22]

but for some reason cnn's fact-check did not go so far as to say and it was also untrue when people misinterpreted northam they didn't say that they simply showed it for context
now i had been saying that the northam thing was a hoax but i really did expect cnn to back me up on that and maybe they have in other places i haven't looked that hard but it it just tripped a little flag it's like wait a minute they're being so clear about this other state and this other law and then they only mention northam without saying that he also got it wrong in the same way if that's the case now i think he was taken out of context and there were some assumptions he was making that are not clear in the video and so if you only look at the video it looks exactly as bad as everybody's saying but remember if you only looked at the first part of the charlottesville fine people quote you would go away thinking that you'd seen it with your

[10:22]

thinking that you'd seen it with your own eyes and you couldn't possibly be wrong and the president clearly you heard it you saw it called neo-nazis fine people and then you see the rest of the quote and he clarifies i'm totally not talking about neo-nazis and white nationalists so if you don't see the second part you don't see it in context you would go away saying scott are you are you freaking crazy i saw it with my own eyes i heard it with my own ears everybody's reporting it how are you saying that didn't happen so just remember it's common it's ordinary it's universal that people on both sides on a regular basis believe they are seeing and hearing things with their own senses and therefore cannot be wrong unfortunately we no longer live in that era
era because videos can and and even transcripts can be so easily taken out

[11:24]

transcripts can be so easily taken out of context to turn them into their opposites so so if you see something that you say i'm looking at it with my own eyes and my own ears and i know that i'm seeing it here's how you check to see if you've been duped i suggest this rule not for this case but for all cases and it goes like this if the facts not the opinions if the facts are reported the same on left leading organizations and right-leaning news organizations it's almost certainly a fact if you only see it on one it doesn't matter which one just the right or just the left and again i'm not talking about opinion i'm talking about a point of fact if you only see a point of fact reported on one side it's a hoax it's a hoax so ask yourself and i don't know the answer to this have you ever seen

[12:25]

answer to this have you ever seen a left-leaning news organization say anything that was similar to there is a law in any state that allows a doctor and the mother to decide to let a baby die that would otherwise be viable and has already been born is there any left-leaning site that has ever said that that's true as far as i know that's never happened and i want you to and i want you to i want you to hold that rule and keep that in mind every time you see one of these situations now remember you're going to see opinions all over the place but on the on the point of fact whether such a law exists that would allow the mother and the doctor to literally kill a baby that would not have otherwise died if they'd given a care
just ask yourself why nobody reports that as fact

[13:26]

that as fact on on one entire side now to be fair the fine people hoax you know it looked like only the right-leaning organizations were reporting it as a hoax and it looked like only the left-leaning organizations were reporting it as completely true but if you crawl through the you know all of the the links and the articles you'll find that the new york times interviewed somebody who was a fine person who did not come there for racism came there about statues and it's a real person who has a name and they talked to her and she's part of a group that were that felt the same so there was a left-leaning organization that reported the fact and there there were times when left-leaning organizations at least once printed the entirety of trump's transcript so there was in fact a very obvious footprint

[14:26]

footprint on both the left and the right the right was shouting it a little louder the left was underplaying it but they both reported the fact the fact that there were other fine people there confirmed and the fact that the president specifically excluded the racist so when you apply this rule takes a little skill to know what actually has been talked about and what hasn't but you can suss it down all right uh so i will leave you that rule instead of giving you my opinion on whether the executing the baby claim is true or a hoax just use that rule if you don't like how it comes out for you on this topic see how often um see how often the rule works for other topics and if you note that that rule works for other topics then i would say um you know give it more credibility all

[15:27]

you know give it more credibility all right
can you be for human rights and be for abortion yes you can the way everybody makes their decisions on abortion is by pretending that the words make the decision so abortion is not a logic argument it's not really a fact-based argument people try to make it that way but the entire argument for or against abortion is that um
i forgot where i was going that the abortion debate depends on people uh inserting their own definition of when life begins which is an unsolvable problem in other words there's no objective way where we can do an experiment and say well here's life and you know here's not life so the pro-life people say it begins at

[16:28]

so the pro-life people say it begins at conception and i would say that's a perfectly moral position that is a hundred percent morally appropriate position that if there's any ambiguity about when life begins it's life that's less the most morally clean position because it allows that you might even be wrong about where life begins but as long as there's ambiguity morally clean opinion is that you don't take a chance maybe it's life maybe it's not now the people who are on the other side are not really arguing the the morality of it they're arguing sort of a freedom question so they're saying that the real question is who gets to decide now they don't say it the way i'm saying it but in essence this is argument so the the pro-abortion argument is who gets to decide because we live in a world where it's a

[17:28]

because we live in a world where it's a decision somebody has to make a life and death decision especially if there's any uh competition between will the mother have a risk to her life versus the child somebody has to make the decision so the pro-abortion is not so much we think we want to kill babies they they try to they try to define it away from being life to make the argument easier but that's not really the argument the argument is who makes the decision and the pro-abortion people are saying the only reasonable way to do this is that the mother who clearly has the most skin in the game other than the unborn child the mother can make a decision but a fetus or an unborn child can't make a decision the government can make a decision or the mother can make a decision working with the doctor so the pro-abortion people are weirdly saying that the government should stay

[18:29]

saying that the government should stay out of their their business on this case so if you're on the anti-abortion side you have a weird situation in which you're promoting the government making decisions over the individual which is a weird place to be if you're conservative i'm not saying that's right or wrong i'm not giving you an opinion in any of this i'm just describing the situation so there's a there's an incongruity on the left in which it they favor a little bit of government intervention when normally they would run away from that but to be fair murder is already illegal so i'm sure the people on the right don't say this is a little extra extra government involvement they would say this isn't extra this is freaking exactly what we do for adult people doesn't matter when you became a person we're just saying murder is murder in our opinion so the right interestingly does a terrible

[19:31]

the right interestingly does a terrible job
job of promoting their opinion because theirs is based on this is a terrible terrible decision to make and somebody has to make it who is it the only decision you get is who makes the decision because if you're saying to yourself if we let the mother make the decision under these circumstances if we let the doctor do it if you don't let them do it you're saying that somebody else could do it better
can they i don't know so this is why i recuse myself from an opinion on abortion i recuse myself because as a man if i weigh in i'm somewhat in a small way i'm decreasing the weight of women's opinion on this topic and my philosophical preference is that since this is basically an impossible in a possible situation the way people see the world you know

[20:32]

the way people see the world you know it's impossible that everybody's going to be on the same side
the most credible outcome is when women have a stronger voice in this just this topic not every topic in the world but just this topic the most credible outcome is when women have a bigger voice than men and so i recuse myself so in my small way i can let that happen all right
uh yeah you know people are are throwing their arguments at me do do fathers have skin in the game and you can argue yes obviously less than the mother does do they have financial interests yes can the financial interest be a separate decision from the life or death abortion decision yes you know the if you're asking me about the financial part then i think men certainly have to have a role in that lawmaking and opinion making but not on the life and death decision i

[21:33]

but not on the life and death decision i think and by the way i'm not telling any of the men listening to this that you should recuse that's your own decision you live in a free country you don't have to recuse from anything i'm just telling you that my ethical and moral stand is that i need to recuse because i just think that's a more credible outcome all right i guess we have to talk about this latest uh synagogue shooter uh clearly at this point we're seeing copycats now the news is going to report that the copycats are coming from i don't know president trump's rhetoric or something and it's going to be crazy because of course israel loves trump etc and and the the only people painting trump as a white supremacist is the media you know the the fine people hoax being the

[22:33]

people hoax being the the alpha hoax supporting all the other hoaxes and so the media really has to take the hit
hit for this latest shooting in my opinion if you you know for anything to happen in this world all of the variables that supported that thing happening had to be present so i always argue that it's never this one thing that caused the bad thing it's it's everything you have to have everything for the bad thing to happen but one of the everything's is that the media makes heroes and makes makes famous these people and gives them the idea gives them the idea and if and they also at the same time that the media is giving all these nuts the idea that hey shooting up a place of worship i guess i'll get a lot of attention and they'll all be there and i'll make a big statement because it's you know there's more energy to it because it's a place of worship that will get everybody

[23:35]

place of worship that will get everybody you know twice as excited as if it weren't so who who gets who gets the nuts thinking about doing that it's the media they choose to cover these stories in a way
way that's guaranteed to make more of these stories i predicted back in [Music] 1997 or something in my book the dilbert future i said that the the probable place that these press would end up is killing people to create news and that's actually what's happening so the the news industry because of the business model the mo the news there are certain topics that they can get more attention to which gives them more money and if they run out of things that are happening naturally if there are not enough disasters not enough tragedies i predicted that they would start

[24:36]

i predicted that they would start manufacturing their own strategies or their own tragedies so that the news business would have fodder now it may not be a decision to do that they may not sit around the boardroom and say hey who can we kill but by their collective actions and what they care about and don't care about they've created a clear situation in which they've guaranteed there will be a continuous string of more of these copy calculators because it's all the headlines if they had decided if if the media had collectively decided to um here's how i would suggest covering these we should not ignore them we should run the story that says there was a tragedy at this place maybe the basic facts for injury is too dead and then i would recommend that everybody have

[25:37]

i would recommend that everybody have some website that is completely sanitized of anything interesting such as the shooter's name and they just link to it and then every if you're on the right or the left you're on social media no matter who you are
are you just link to the same one page that has nothing but the barest of facts there was a shooting x people got killed the shooter is in custody boom nothing else because when as soon as you go beyond that and you give it this extra importance because and let's be i hate to be sound cold about this it was a terrible tragedy it's like the last thing that we would ever want but the the truth is that while we were talking about these four victims of this tragedy probably a hundred people died in automobile

[26:37]

a hundred people died in automobile accidents you know they're probably way more people than that were shot in chicago but because they were onesies you know and they they were acts of passion or crimes or whatever and we're just used to them they're not really news they need to be they need to be packaged the way this latest synagogue shooting was sort of packaged hey it's got multiple victims it connects to the headlines and racism and you know it connects to israel it's it just connects to all of our other things we're thinking about so it's the news industry that decides whether or not there will be copycats and
and by their actions the news industry has made the decision they've decided that there will be more of this that's a conscious decision now that's probably not the way they process it the way they process it is this is the news of course we cover the news where the news

[27:38]

where the news you know if the other if the other side is going to cover it we have to we have to cover the news imagine how we'd look if this thing happened and then we didn't talk about it we would look like the people who didn't care about you know jews because like why are you downplaying this when there are some victims so you can imagine that the news industry has their reasons their rationalizations for why they have to cover it but let me ask you
you as as a public service did it make you safer or less safe you as a citizen watching this periscope because the news covered it as thoroughly as they have is that making you safer or less safe i don't think there's any question about it it didn't make you safer it definitely made you less safe because it's giving another another crop of idiots and mentally insane people a bunch of ideas they're all getting the ideas like okay it's an ar

[28:38]

it's an ar place of worship got it yeah they're basically giving the recipe for more of these so i don't know maybe maybe the news industry could get together and instead of patting themselves up on the back at the correspondence dinner which by the way i watched a little of that correspondence dinner and also uh cnn before that don lemon actually said on live television so i guess he had to borrow some clothes from jake tapper to go on air because of the tragedy he was he was in town to do the correspondence dinner but you know they they put him on the air because of the tragedy and he actually complained that the tragedy happened on his his big night that he had it that they had this event the correspondence dinner you know like like that was the problem yeah the problem is it ruined don lemon's night he had to

[29:39]

it ruined don lemon's night he had to work on the night that he wanted to go enjoy himself at this event and i thought my god that might be one of the worst things i've ever heard on television now i'm not the outrage monster so i don't think that's worthy of outrage people people who talk on television for a living are going to say
say things imperfectly trump does it don lemon did it but it was jarring to hear it that's i'll just stop there i'll just say it was jarring to hear it no apologies are needed uh speaking of apologies the new york times has apologized for their international edition now the international edition would have different editors and you know different management but apparently the international not apparently the international edition ran a comic of trump wearing a little yamaka and walking at a wiener dog with netanyahu's face on it that was supposed to represent israel and

[30:41]

supposed to represent israel and the moment you see it if you've lived in the world for very long especially in this country the moment you see that cartoon you go what the and i think wtf was probably the most common response to it people looked at it and said i don't know what i'm seeing here are they really running a gigantic anti-semitic comic in the new york times international edition now to their credit the you know the parent company new york times when they saw the blowback they removed the comic they said it was an error in judgment and the the entity that provided them that comic um they uh they deleted it now of course people piled on and said where's my apology yeah that's not an apology you're just saying it's an error an error of judgment and then that you corrected it

[31:41]

corrected it now i'm not the person who was offended personally i i feel like the only people who could accept the apology if you even want to call it that because it wasn't quite framed as an apology but the only the only people who could or should consider accepting that as a good response would be the jewish community
but i would have to say if i were looking at the situation that the new york times has met my personal standard for good citizenship if we judge the new york times by the mistake instead of the capable adjustment and you know correction to the mistake i think that's not the world you want to live in i think you have to let people correct their mistakes and then say okay you know i i see you understand the mistake the moment you understood it you fixed it
it and you said what you did you were

[32:43]

and you said what you did you were transparent you were quick you did the only thing that could be done i i'm going to say the new york times gets um gets an a for the correction now if you are a member of the jewish community and you feel that more is needed in the way of an apology i would say that that would be up to you but as just an observer from the outside if anybody can meet that standard in this world i made a mistake bam i realize it now i corrected it and i just told people who care what i did about it if you can do that i'm gonna be okay with you about this yeah i called the 48 hour rule for correction and they were well within the 48 hours they were well within 24 hours i think so i love to make fun of my new york times as some of you do but i'm not going to make fun of them for making a mistake which they capably

[33:46]

for making a mistake which they capably and quickly corrected that's just not a standard i want to live with um
yeah so somebody's saying what were the tropes uh in other words what was it about the cartoon that made it anti-semitic it's an interesting question because i don't know i don't know i mean i looked at it and i could feel the anti-semitism i could feel it it you know from just a perceptual sense it looked obviously offensive i never would have you know green lit that kind of comic but if you ask me what's the exact element that makes this anti-semitic i'd say i'm not really the expert on that but it is true that a lot of people took it that way it must also be true it must also be true that the people who originally

[34:46]

originally gave the green light to run that probably didn't see it it wasn't obvious to them i i think that people can be blind to things that other people don't let me give you one rule that really helps you in life one of the biggest problems we all make and we all do is that we assume that other people are starting with the same set of knowledge and have the same filter on life that we do so when they make a decision that's not the one we make we just we start imagining all kinds of reasons why they're making it oh they're lying they're they're stupid and all those things but indeed people have different starting places let me give you my best example do you remember when ron desantis who was governor now of florida when he was running he referred to his opponent who was african-american gentleman he referred to him as articulate when he did that um social media and the

[35:46]

when he did that um social media and the regular news blew up and said my god it's a it's a racist dog whistle because everyone knows that you don't call a black person articulate because that's a historically that's a well-known backwards insult right it's a backwards insult everybody knows that so if ron desantis uses this term that everybody knows is an insult to black people well must be intentional now somebody in the comments is getting ahead of me it is also true that joe biden is on record referring to i don't know who he was referring to oh obama i think and he called them uh he called them articulate right he called obama articulate now one of the things i would say about obama if i did not already know that this word has
has has this double meaning if i didn't know the double meaning i would say that's actually a pretty good description of

[36:47]

good description of obama he's in one articulate mofo right now if you never knew that saying articulate was considered an insult by the vast majority of people you could easily fall into that because it does fit and if you don't know the second meaning it's just a compliment so biden did it desantis did it they both did it in public they weren't hiding anything in public now what is the more likely explanation of why both of those experienced politicians did that in public the most likely explanation is that they didn't realize it would sound that way that the second meaning just didn't occur to them by far that's the most likely explanation it really stretches imagination that they were cleverly using a a dog whistle that literally everybody in the the news media

[37:47]

everybody in the the news media recognizes as a dog whistle you don't use a secret racist dog whistle that everyone can see let me let me show you the difference if you wanted to send a secret dog racist dog whistle it would look like this
see that's secret i'm i'm not trying to make you see it here's what it looks like if you're not trying to send it as a secret tweet tweet look at me over here tweet tweet everybody you got the camera get the camera on here tweet tweet okay that's not a secret so the very minimum requirement for sending a clever secret racist dog whistle if such things exist is you don't do it in a way that literally everybody's gonna see so it's the least likely explanation that it was a clever trick i'm gonna use these words and only the special people that i'm trying to get

[38:48]

special people that i'm trying to get will understand it all the rest of the media they'll never know they'll never know they can't see this it's invisible it's invisible okay maybe now you can't rule things out right because we're not mind readers maybe that's exactly what both biden and desantis did maybe they are so dumb that they don't know that their secret racist dog whistle is the most famous obvious unambiguously racist sounding thing that anybody ever said i mean it's right up there with the n-word as far as you should know you know if you've lived in the world you should know that's an insult so anyway my main point is that we are so often amazed that educated experienced people have a blind spot but it's the most universal thing in the world people do have a blind spot now somebody's saying that it's subconscious

[39:50]

subconscious i'm not buying the idea of subconscious uh bigotry not that it doesn't exist because of course it does so when i say i'm not buying it i'm not doubting its existence of course it exists we all we're all subconscious monsters and we're doing the best we can to fight it but as a standard for society we really need to judge people by how our executive brain manages our monsters right if we judged each other by what our inner thoughts are if we judge them each other by what we believe are other people's subconscious feelings you don't want to live in that world you do not want to live in a world where it
it makes sense and people say yeah let's yeah i could tell by the choice of words that he's got terrible thoughts so i'm going to judge him by

[40:51]

going to judge him by the terrible thoughts that i believe he has
has even though i can't tell when people have legitimate you know they're giving a tell for their subconscious thoughts versus they just don't know it sounds wrong because that would look exactly alike so don't let yourself live in a world where you imagine you can judge people's inner thoughts you have to judge people by what they do and even by what they say you you've got to give them a chance to clarify if it sounded wrong the first time so the 48-hour rule works well with this the 48-hour rule is that i give everybody 48 hours to either apologize or clarify if they've said something accidentally provocative and uh i think that's a good rule and you should you should ignore what you imagine people are thinking it's just not the it's just not the world you want to live in
in all right um

[41:54]

all right um has biden apologized for his hoax video yet
yet now so what we what we see is that for last several days i think most of you have seen this you've seen that the people who believed the original hoax that the president called the neo-nazis and the white nationalists fine people as soon as it's proven to be a hoax because you can look at the transcript and you can see he said we i condemn totally those groups uh they usually retreat to a weaker position it's like well it was organized by nazis so you know there's no ambiguity it was organized by racists but nobody's really saying the organizers were the only ones who showed up it was a well-publicized event and it turns out we have evidence um you know from the new york times interviewing etc eyewitnesses i've even talked to somebody who was there who was not a racist

[42:55]

racist and so we have plenty of reason to believe that there were people besides the nazis who came even though it was organized by nazis now you can say to yourself why in the world would anybody go to an event after seeing that poster and it gets to the the articulate question i i convinced myself after a long conversation with somebody who did not see that poster as being as evil as it is i convince myself that not everybody sees it's the same it's a it's a yawning and laurel thing and specifically the way that they saw it differently is they didn't really recognize that the design as being something that would you should have raised a flag you know just by its design elements but also didn't recognize all the names so there were names of speakers speakers and if you only recognize one of them as a racist you might have said to yourself as this person did oh i thought it was one of

[43:56]

person did oh i thought it was one of these free speech things where it doesn't matter how bad you are you still get to speak and then the assumption being that not everybody is a racist but there was one in in the mix now i don't agree with that assumption at all and i didn't have anything like that kind of impression when i looked at the poster but i do understand i live in a world of you know yani and laurel where people can literally look at the same thing right in front of them and see two different worlds so we know that to be true and we know that people make decisions for all kinds of crazy reasons that we can't even imagine in fact i would go so far as to say the the most likely explanation for anything you see in terms of a decision to make some somebody makes the most likely explanation is always the thing you didn't imagine now the thing you didn't imagine is you know the grab bag for all of the things you don't imagine but how many times have you had a

[44:58]

but how many times have you had a situation where you said well there's only one thing that can explain this set of events and then you find out that the the reality is just completely different from the one thing you thought was the only thing that could explain it because you hadn't imagined there was could be this weird other explanation you just couldn't imagine it so sometimes we confuse our inability to imagine alternative explanations with the fact that this must be true sometimes it's just a lack of imagination i would guess that any group of 100 americans gathered in any place for any reason another or any event without any reason but if you put any group of 100 americans you will have a lot of different opinions even if they came for the same event you're gonna get a lot of nuance that's just guaranteed so that's all i got for now i will talk to you more tomorrow