Episode 559 Scott Adams: Google’s Brainwashing Technology Successes, Andrew Yang on Women
Date: 2019-06-09 | Duration: 42:16
Topics
If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays
Rough Transcript
This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.
Transcript
[0:08]
mm that was not my best version of the theme song right there not my best but that means everything today is gonna be straight uphill oh good news today man got a lot to talk about and it’s all fun it’s all good stuff would you please grab your Stein your chalice your tankard possibly your glass your copper your mug maybe sir mr. flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for this simultaneous sip Oh sublime well if you haven’t noticed the the Krypto news world is getting all excited because because millionaire genius Eric fitmin who I believe is
[1:10]
genius Eric fitmin who I believe is watching right now hi Eric did a shout-out to the web token my startups crypto and now there’s Chinese websites talking about it it’s on Yahoo News it’s on a bunch of sites and one word from Eric makes the world go crazy so we had one of our biggest days I think our biggest day in terms of trading was the moment that Eric mentioned it so lots of stuff happening there if you want yours go to when hub comm to buy it directly or you could leave maybe get a get a bargain if you go too hot bit dot IO and trade it there all right it’s not that I I’m running a poll right now on Twitter and which I’m asking people is the fact that Democrats are favoring Joe Biden and saying that he has the best chance to win because that’s the reason they’re favoring him they say he has the best
[2:11]
favoring him they say he has the best chance to win is that not a racist dog whistle it’s sort of a sexist dog whistle but is it not a racist dog whistle I mean according to the rules I don’t make the rules the rules are created by the people I’m talking about not by me but by their definition what could it possibly mean to say thee has the best chance of winning do they know that Cory Booker is running do they know that caramel heiress is running do they know that Elizabeth Warren is running here’s my question is there anybody who thinks that Joe Biden would do a better job in the office than any of the three people I just mentioned okay can anybody say that he would do a better job than one of those three people I don’t think so so what is it that makes him the person who could win
[3:14]
that makes him the person who could win is it because he speaks better in public well that’s not true is it because he’s younger and more energetic no is it because of his experience well unfortunately his experience is sort of negative because he’s got things in his past there were opposite of current democratic thinking is it because he’s so nimble as a politician well no he’s the gaffe machine if you were to look at any one of his qualities is it because he’s the smartest no is it because he has the best policies doesn’t seem that way so if he doesn’t have any individual quality that’s better than the individual qualities of the people who are lower in the polls what can we determine about Democrats I think is racist and by the way I’m not
[4:16]
think is racist and by the way I’m not joking can you see it any other way because once I say it you can sort of see it like it’s invisible until the first time you hear it but the fact the fact that he doesn’t have any quality that’s better than the other pack and yeah he’s clearly the favored the only one who can win I don’t know what else he has except he’s an old white guy now I know people are gonna say name recognition but name recognition is irrelevant in terms of who’s going to be you know running against Trump because by the time you get to the you know the final the final run run everybody has name recognition whoever Trump runs against is going to be really really really well known so it doesn’t matter at this point I can see why people would you know maybe vote for him because they haven’t heard of the others at this point but it’s one thing to say that he’s getting the most votes because
[5:17]
that he’s getting the most votes because he has name recognition that’s not racist would you agree it’s not racist to say somebody has more name recognition that’s just you can do a poll you can determine that that’s just the fact there’s no racism as part of that but to take that to the next level and say he has the best chance of winning based on what based on the fact that a lot of Democrats are also racist and sexist is that what makes him better than all the people who are smarter younger and more nimble and have had policies that are more compatible I don’t know feels like racism to me so I just put that out there because it’s fun so there’s a New York Times article in which they have acknowledged that Google can brainwash citizens at will have you seen that you know I I floated the idea the other day was a yesterday in which you could have
[6:19]
was a yesterday in which you could have the social media platforms identify people who are starting to get radicalized by what they’re watching and what they’re typing what they’re saying and what they’re responding to and if you identified them sort of in a digital way if the system identified them you could if you chose to start feeding them content that would deprogram any bad impulses and I said I’m pretty sure that we already have the technology that could do that and it’s confirmed so the New York Times confirmed it that Google does have the technology to identify what you’re watching and reprogram your brain any way they want it’s it’s a yeah it’s big article about it now the context was not the way I just described it but it says that pretty clearly what it says is that there was some I guess some liberal who got who got radicalized
[7:21]
some liberal who got who got radicalized by watching a bunch of YouTube by people who were will say associated with the right but they’re more edgy and that once once this person the subject of the article once that person was exposed to things that are from the right sort of the Steven Stefan Molyneux kind of stuff that YouTube started suggesting things that were even further to the right so YouTube actually reprogrammed this guy from watching fairly innocuous content you know the steven crowder is stefan molyneux ‘he’s they’re provocative but they’re certainly not you know racist and any in any way that i would recognize that word but youtube was feeding this poor guy edgy reg year racist stuff until he started watching it so youtube actually turned a non racist into a racist and they and they
[8:23]
racist into a racist and they and they essentially admit that they have that technology think about it youtube through their algorithm and according to the new york times reporting and according to the person they were talking about actually brainwashed a liberal into a racist that actually is what the reporting happened now you could ask yourself you know would that have happened anyway was he leaving that way and it wasn’t really what he watched on YouTube maybe maybe internally he was already gonna go that way and it didn’t matter but I don’t think so I mean that might be true for this individual but I’m fairly certain that if they can cause you to watch different things based on the recommendation algorithm they can reprogram you because why you watch is what you become did you hear that what you absorb in terms of information and content is what you become it does turn
[9:23]
content is what you become it does turn you into a different person so think about that should it be legal for a platform to brainwash you well let me put it in the starkest terms it is now it is now I would say demonstrated beyond any doubt that I have and I think it would be easily demonstrated beyond any doubt that Congress would have if they looked into it in fact there’s a a a critic Tristen you’ll you’ll probably remind me of his last name tryst and whoever who’s worked on this kind of stuff and says directly that is brainwashing people now somebody says isn’t advertising brainwashing the answer is it’s a hybrid when you watch an advertisement you know what their intention is Tristan Harris yes that was
[10:25]
intention is Tristan Harris yes that was the name I looking for when you see an advertisement you know it’s an advertisement you know that somebody is trying to persuade you to buy a product and you can feel it working or not working you know in real time that is brainwashing it’s influences persuasion you could put ever whatever word you want on it but what’s different is its above board they’re saying here’s an advertisement if you watch this we’re going to try to talk you into our product we all get that we understand it it’s ubiquitous that doesn’t seem evil simply because you have an option of turning away and they’re telling you exactly what there’s no no deception whatsoever but if YouTube is giving you a recommendation algorithm that’s taking you down a channel that you would not have gone and the result of that is brainwashing that’s not full disclosure that is them brainwashing you for profit because that’s why they do it they do it
[11:27]
because that’s why they do it they do it to measure to measure how long you stay in the video how many of you click that sort of thing that is pure brainwashing now why is that legal ask yourself why that’s legal let me ask you this if somebody had a brainwashing website in which they said okay I’m a hypnotist and I’m gonna brainwash people coming here and let’s say it was aboveboard they said I’m gonna brainwash you would it be legal I don’t think you would now I don’t know what specific law that violates but I think of an actual hypnotist at a site and said I’m just brainwashing people I’m reprogramming you people I’ll even tell you I’m doing it because it’s still gonna work and it would would that be legal I’ve seen a number of cases where I thought I was going to find a site like that and they seemed to be banned in some way there’s
[12:29]
seemed to be banned in some way there’s some kind of ban against actually intentionally brainwashing people think about the internet if you do a search for somebody who says okay I’m gonna brainwash you now I don’t think you’ll find it and you can find anything on the Internet so I think there’s something illegal about it but I don’t know the details so if Congress if Congress were presented with this proposition how would they act the proposition is that Google is intentionally brainwashing citizens without their consent what would Congress do about that well I don’t know if that’s even illegal is it illegal should it be illegal feels like you should be illegal but I don’t know there’s so much other influ in the world yet where do you draw the line see the problem is the influence used to be something that not too many people were good at as long as people were not good at advertising and you didn’t noticed that that much if people
[13:30]
didn’t noticed that that much if people weren’t good at manipulating you yeah doesn’t really matter because they weren’t good at it anyway but now we have the science Google in particular has literally brain scientists looking at all this stuff to ridicu which will cause you to be brainwashed by those things you’re addicted to now so we’ve taken a skill persuasion that was just sort of hit or miss wasn’t that powerful and raised it to a professional you know military level literally so at that point that’s just brainwashing and I don’t know how that remains legal except maybe the Congress doesn’t understand it or the public doesn’t understand it all right so certainly we have I think we have strong evidence that Google could brainwash people against violence if they chose to set their algorithms to do that but we don’t know if they will
[14:32]
that but we don’t know if they will here’s the question for you I’m gonna give you a oh and also in that same article I watched the continued conflation of the people on the far right or I don’t even like to call them far-right but it’s the people who are literally the KKK it’s races and stuff and they get conflated with YouTube stars that are just concerned yeah so the the Crowder’s and Molyneux they’re you know they they inhabit kind of their own space but New York Times likes to throw them in with the you know the worst people in the world just to make it all sound like it’s the same thing but but the worst part about this is they’re talking about this kid who got a young guy who got radicalized by looking at YouTube videos and they throw Joe Rogan into the bus Joe Rogan what has he got to do with anything and here’s the problem and I saw this coming a mile away do you remember when you first heard the term intellectual darkweb and I guess was it
[15:36]
darkweb and I guess was it Brett Weinstein who came up with it I’m not sure who came up with it but but there was there was a notion for a while that there was a certain group of people that they would put in this category so Weinstein Oh Erik I’m sorry not not very Erik when see that you know Erik would be in and Weinstein and I guess Jordan Peterson and they threw Joe Rogan in there and I don’t know who else was there but but for a while people were asking me you know do i blog in that group and i yeah and saya Maris and I resisted it with all of my power well the last thing I wanted to do Dave Rubin yeah he would be in the group usually considered that group the last thing that I would ever want is to be associated with a group doesn’t matter what the group is unless I’ve intentionally joined because I didn’t
[16:39]
intentionally joined because I didn’t want to get the treatment that Joe Rogan just got Joe Rogan is as far as you can get from whatever these you know bad ideas are that that are being associated with the far right I’m pretty sure he doesn’t embrace any of that but because he got lumped in here’s here’s how it works he got lumped in with the intellectual dark dark web which people have illegitimately conflated with being right-wing which then people continued to conflate illegitimately with being neo-nazis see how this works I can see this coming from a mile away just so when I first came up I was like no no no I’m not in that group support poor Joe Rogan who has done nothing but talk to some people literally that’s all he’s done he’s talked to a few people who were in this intellectual dark web and that gets him associated in an article
[17:41]
that gets him associated in an article with somebody who got radicalized into a neo neo I see is that fair is that fair to Joe Rogan no that’s about as unfreakin fair as you could possibly get it’s like it my head almost exploded when i when i read that the New York Times was throwing Joe under the bus I mean there’s the that’s despicable there’s no way there’s no other way to say that you know you want to call it news maybe it’s news ish but it’s despicable to do that sort of thing it’s just despicable all right let’s look at something else have you noticed that the Democrat candidates all look extra boring somebody says I’m next I actually looked through the article to see my if my name was there and it wasn’t so I had to read the whole damn article just to be sure I had not been sucked into that intellectual dark web continuum until I
[18:44]
intellectual dark web continuum until I was you know the horrible most horrible person in the world anyway so Trump has made all the Democrats look boring and this is a bigger problem than do you think because if you’re boring it’s just hard to get elected you know when was the last time that the more boring candidate won the election that’s a that’s anonymous question I don’t even I don’t know the answer to my own question which I should if I if I ask it you know in that kind of a way can you think of an example where the more boring candidate one Carter who do you Carter run against anyway so in our current media obsessed world I don’t think the boring candidate can win unless they have some other gigantic advantage I don’t know what that was or whatever that is and I think I think that that’s what’s happening because wouldn’t you say that both the
[19:44]
because wouldn’t you say that both the left and the right are looking at the Democrats and it’s this gigantic group of them and they’re all saying they’re boring that’s true right every but everybody agrees that there’s not a single person and how many are there twenty there’s not a single person who isn’t boring what are the odds that you would have that many people running for president and they’re all boring and the answer is they’re not the answer is they’re not boring at all they’re only boring because President Trump exists if President Trump had never exists would anybody be calling him boring right if there had never been a candidate and then a president Trump you would never hear that this group of Democrats were boring because they wouldn’t seem that way to you they would seem kind of interesting Hey look there’s Andrew you hang in there at cetera all right so I’ve got a I have a thought experiment for you but it goes like this so I was talking about YouTube
[20:45]
like this so I was talking about YouTube and apparently YouTube is now banning the the most racist KKK neo-nazi material on YouTube and so that’s all that material that’s associated with being over the line is being banned and apparently that’s legal they can ban it because it’s a speech and whatnot but let me ask you this what would happen if all of those you know the the super racist people whether they’re white supremacist or whether the KKK some group neo-nazis what would happen what would happen if they formed a religion what if they formed a religion around their most obnoxious beliefs and then they went further and said we don’t believe in violence suppose they renounced violence as part of their religious platform and said yes we renounce violence but we still want to believe all these things and talk about all these horrible racist things
[21:48]
about all these horrible racist things would they be protected because it was a religion I think so right and let’s let’s make it more interesting as a thought experiment let’s say there was a country called elbonia and the elbonian had a religion that was super racist but not violent super racist but they issued issued violence would they be allowed to immigrate to this country would we say well it’s a religion we don’t like it oh you know it’s a religion would we allow them to the country I don’t know I don’t know the answer that but it’s it it’s a brain bender my favorite story is there there are some comedians who are putting on a so-called straight Pride Parade in Boston and we heard about this now forget about the politics of it because
[22:51]
forget about the politics of it because I don’t I don’t think it’s terribly important but the just the the fact that they would do it at all is hilarious so I thought that I thought just the fact that somebody was trying to get away with this I don’t see us so much as a political act as a political theater you know large-scale prank sense of humor kind of a thing so I don’t take it too seriously but it does have a serious message it’s just that I don’t take that part too seriously but here’s the fun part they just they just named their grand marshal well they did two things that are funny the first thing they did was they used Brad Pitt’s picture and part of their promotion until Brad Pitt Brad Pitt’s management called them and told him stop doing it and that gave them some extra press so the first so they’ve done two smarter things so far smart in terms of pranks first of all having a straight Pride Parade and embosses is funny just
[23:51]
Pride Parade and embosses is funny just also right off the bat because you know so wrong that it’s funny then having Brad Pitt you know illegally using his face as as some kind of an image for the thing is even more hilarious and it’s better because they got in trouble for it and then that became part of the story so it was great for publicity and by the way I think Brad Pitt probably thought it was funny but you know you have to take care of your image you have to take care of business but I can’t imagine the Brad Pitt did but laughs when he heard it he probably laughed and said okay I got to stop this but it’s kind of funny I’m just guessing and I’m just guessing from public public perception of Brad Pitt that he looks like he has a sense of humor that’s all I’m saying but then they wouldn’t and step further and they named their grand marshal for the straight Pride Parade and they named Milo Annapolis who accepted so Milo you doubtless the gayest man in America
[24:53]
doubtless the gayest man in America I spent selected as the Grand Marshal of the straight Pride Parade I gotta hand it to him I gotta hand it to him whoever is doing this parade thing it’s clearly for the laughs they’re they’re doing everything that you would do to get the right kind of sort of humorous attention and I I don’t I don’t have any thoughts about the politics of it but the humor of it and the the prank of it all it’s well done that’s all I’m saying let’s talk about Andrew yang so Andrew yang tweeted something that i retweeted I think probably people thought I was you know maybe agreeing with his message but that wasn’t why I retweeted it so I’m gonna read what he said and then I think you’ll know I had to read it so this is Democratic candidate Andrew yang talking about abortion and he says the
[25:53]
talking about abortion and he says the following in his tweet Andrew yang says I respect the different feelings that Americans have on this issue meaning abortion but I would personally defer to women when it comes to protecting women’s reproductive rights and will act to protect their rights you will defer to women now the way I read it I think it’s the correct way you say he’s not talking about the individual woman who’s having the baby that would be I would defer to you know that would be one thing I believe he’s talking about women as a group being the primary decision-makers for it now some of you were saying it’s a cop-out maybe but it matches very well with my opinion it’s it’s compatible because I’ve said something similar but Andrew yang leaves out the important part that makes my opinion brilliant and his opinion lacking a component are you
[26:56]
his opinion lacking a component are you ready for it I’m gonna tell you my opinion and then you can watch in the comments then nobody can understand what I’m saying in fact I might even take some calls to prove this because it’ll be far I’m going to say something super clear but watch how you can’t understand it now maybe my best estimate is a third of you will understand exactly what I’m saying because it’s gonna be simple it’ll be very clear but 2/3 of you won’t be able to hear it because you’re gonna think I’m saying something else and then you’re gonna get mad at me in comments for something I didn’t say here it goes my view on abortion is that no matter what rules you have half of the country is going to think it’s the worst thing in the world we’re agreed with that right doesn’t matter if you’re pro-abortion the anti abortion would you agree then no matter what happens rule wise half the country will think it’s the worst thing in the world that’s not going to change do you agree with
[27:56]
not going to change do you agree with that there’s nothing you can do with the law that will change the fact that half the countries on different sides okay point that’s the first point now what do you do in a situation where your best-case scenario is that half of the country thinks it’s an abomination what’s your best strategy is your best strategy oh well we should get the best law we can have no that doesn’t solve it it doesn’t solve it because you’re still going to end up with half of the country thinking it’s an abomination so in that specific situation and only that situation where you’re never going to have a satisfying result the answer will never be under the answer will never be satisfying you can’t get there it’s not to be had under those conditions what’s the best solution well half the people would say the best solution is you go my way half would say the best solution let’s go my
[28:57]
would say the best solution let’s go my way but if you go and level up and you’re looking down and saying a leader at the two sides who can never agree what it would the leader do that would be the best thing for these two groups they can’t decide of course they know what’s best it’s their side I don’t smash my side but you’re a leader you don’t get to take sides per se you got to be a leader I would say that when it’s a life-and-death decision you want the most credible law because half of the country is gonna hate it no matter what the law is if half the country hates a law to the point of revolution you need to do what you can to make sure that that law is credible credible even if you don’t like it the best you can do your best you can do for abortion is the law that half the people think is an abomination but but here’s my point but they respect
[29:59]
but but here’s my point but they respect the process the process is credible they don’t like where it went but they they can live with it because they respect the process so if it was constitutional that’s a good process if it went through the court systems that’s a good process the reason that there’s somewhat of an acceptance of laws that half the country feel are an hour an aberration or or a horror is that it went through the Supreme Court and because we give some respect to the Supreme Court people are willing to say our I hate this with every fiber of my being but the way we got there is at least credible ish now of course people say that the Supreme Court was making up the Constitution and adding things to it and I think that was true but at least the process looks credible ish now what yang is saying is is a weaker version of what I’m saying what I’m saying is you can’t get
[31:00]
what I’m saying is you can’t get - happy forget it happy can’t be had because half the country is gonna hate it no matter what but you can get to a stable situation and stability is the best you can do and if you want stability you want a set of laws that people are not going to think are not credible the most credible laws you could have are the ones that women as a strong majority if you can guess such a thing prefer and their men have recused themselves from now some of you are going to jump in to your sake but but but Scott women when you poll them have the same opinion as men so that has nothing to do with my point it doesn’t matter what the woman’s opinion is it only matters that it was favored or had a bigger say than the men who also had the right to be part of it men have a right to vote and have a right to speak
[32:00]
right to vote and have a right to speak but if we recuse ourselves it amplifies the voices of women and if the voices of women become the ones where the will say that the strongest voices on the topic and that leads us to whatever it leads us to doesn’t matter which side it leads us to that’s going to be more credible than if I had weighed in and changed people’s minds because think about it I can change people’s minds I could change minds on the topic of abortion you know I have that ability should I I don’t think so if I did change anybody’s mind and it doesn’t matter which way I changed it I would be a man who had a little bit too much say on this topic not because it’s illegal for me to have a say not because it’s unethical it’s not illegal it’s not unethical for me to have a big influence but if I did the result would not be as credible it would come from a weaker
[33:02]
credible it would come from a weaker source which is me now I’m watching the comments to see how many people [Music] you helped make the babies doesn’t matter I’m saying watch how many of your comments are sort of the not relative relevant to my point why wouldn’t you be a person who has been allowed to be born have a say I do not that means somebody says it’s done because we don’t defer to a certain groups to make decisions that doesn’t address my point the law is clear it’s murder that doesn’t address my point women what would put financial responsibility doesn’t address my point because I do think men should have a say in the finances so I’m excluding the
[34:05]
in the finances so I’m excluding the financial part of it so you’re not disagreeing with mayor there I’m just leave your comments to see if you can understand this point do female fetuses get a right to vote how does that have anything to do with a we would would the law be more credible if a fetus could vote some people would not feel the law was credible true doesn’t address my point because some people are going to be unhappy no matter what your point is about autonomy not really no it isn’t that’s not on my point all right I’m just looking at your comments didn’t you merely describe laws in general no nothing like that I was describing a very special case somebody says my
[35:09]
very special case somebody says my girlfriend killed my child it was as much my child as it was first doesn’t doesn’t address my point you’re avoiding processed comments I didn’t see any that were on point somebody says they understand my point but they disagree with it okay but you’re not arguing with it somebody says how does a woman get pregnant if now for a male doesn’t address my point right so you’re saying lots most of the people are all pretty much everyone who’s disagreeing is simply saying a statement that’s a fact hey men are part of the process of having babies that’s not an argument that’s just a fact you giving facts without reasons there’s nothing so that’s not nothing somebody says my girlfriend killed my child is not fair for her to have more say I didn’t say it
[36:09]
for her to have more say I didn’t say it was fair so you’re on a different point have you seen an ultrasound you’re relevant to my point and yes somebody says I don’t care about your point well that’s fair you know you don’t have to care Scott you said nothing concrete yes I did I said that if you can’t get a solution that society likes your best solution this is the most credible law even if half the people don’t like it that’s pretty specific and there’s somebody here who says you didn’t say anything because you can’t hear this point my I think so what I’m going getting at is that no matter how clearly I state that I’m talking about credibility this is the best you could do people can’t hear it because they’re locked into their their two sides stuff
[37:11]
somebody says now I’m confused what’s your point again that well that my point was that you couldn’t hear my point the point is that nobody will agree there will always be two sides and you can never make them happy your best solution is a law that’s credible and the most credible law about abortion would be one that women as a majority feel comfortable with whichever way it goes pretty clear right somebody says but what would you take this to other issues would you take this to men all the issues every case is different but yes as a general statement there could be many only issues that I would rather men’s opinion be the dominant opinion just this isn’t one of them all right somebody says I could change the minds of society but I won’t because so somebody’s asked me why I wouldn’t change people’s minds on abortion okay that was somebody who
[38:14]
abortion okay that was somebody who doesn’t understand my point right if you’re asking that question you’ve missed the simplest point in the world and that was really what I wanted to demonstrate I wanted to see how many of you couldn’t understand it life is the only point yeah that’s that doesn’t address my point yeah suddenly say this is the fascinating it’s fascinating to watch people not be able to hear it it’s one thing to disagree with it but see how hard it is for people to even hear it I’m just leave your comments because they’re pretty fascinating so somebody said I should clarify by saying that women should have the dominant say in women and men certainly
[39:15]
dominant say in women and men certainly have the right to speak and have the right to vote but they could help the process most by letting women have the dominant vote or the dominant influence the same somebody says it’s not clear because who decides what’s credible who decides is Society on average and let me ask you this would you disagree with the statement that abortion laws whether they’re tight or loose doesn’t matter that if women as a majority favor them that’s the most credible situation for society even if men let’s say slightly disagreed or something I think that statement stands by itself somebody says what if the decision is only women and it’s still 50/50 well it’s gonna go one way it’s it’s not gonna be 50/50 it’s gonna be fifty one forty nine eventually because you have to you have to decide
[40:23]
all right it looks like I’ve beaten you down and I’ve said it enough is that all I wanted to say today I think so believe so oh of course the New York Times is reporting that the the president’s tariff deal with Mexico are they the terror threat to get Mexico to do a better job with controlling illegal immigration so the president says Mexico agreed you know the tariffs worked essentially or the terror threat worked and the New York Times is reporting that unnamed people will say that it was already going to happen so it’s no big deal didn’t I tell you that was going to happen do you remember I told you yesterday just wait for somebody to say it was already going to happen anyway there was sort of the obvious fake news but then the fake news comes out and it’s unnamed sources so I would I would relegate that story to the fake news bin because it’s the category of fake news which is unnamed
[41:23]
category of fake news which is unnamed sources said something happened in a meeting and it’s not confirmed it’s not news it’s fake news now it could I suppose someday one of those will be true but you should treat it as fake news just like you would treat a Bigfoot sighting if CNN said guy gets a picture of Bigfoot your first thought should be well that’s not true but if later you know provides a DNA sample and you a dead body if a Bigfoot you can change your mind but when you first hear it unnamed sources say something happened in a meeting and Bigfoot spotted those are the same story you should give them the same credibility all right that’s all I got for now now I will talk to you later