Episode 1775 Scott Adams: Today I Will Settle The Gun Control Debate In A Way You Didn't See Coming

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to not only the highlight of civilization, coffee with Scott Adams, but I think you can tell already if you're watching this as opposed to listening to it, that it's special for another reason. It's laundry day. That's why I'm wearing this green T shirt, which I think you'll agree does not accentuate my eyes in a way that really should. But other than that, and one other special thing, tomorrow, I'm looking at humorous memes going by on the locals platform at the same time. Tomorrow is a very special live stream. It is number 1776, also known as 1776, also known as freedom. So should we do something special for that? Well, you think about that and so will I. But in the meantime, let's take it up a notch with a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker. Jealous. Dine. A canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite freedom loving beverage. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that's going to make everything feel better. Better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Watch this. Set your body into an electric, pulsating, gyrating, throbbing pleasure zone that you've never experienced before. Go. You were already there. Somebody says they were already there, and I think that's the way it should be. The moment it's even approaching, you should feel yourself starting to get into the mood. Well, Elon Musk made news today by tweeting. I guess I should just start every live stream with that. Elon Musk made some news today by tweeting and then fill in the blank. Today's fill in the blank is he voted for Republican, I guess, in a special election in Texas, the Republican one. And that's supposed to mean something. And the news is that Trump still has influence on the Republican Party. But Musk also tweeted that he's leaning toward DeSantis for his presidential preference. Leaning toward DeSantis, to which I say, did he just end Trump's presidential chances for running again? So I think it all comes down to, does DeSantis run? I think at this point, if, if Elon Musk says he would vote for DeSantis, and if DeSantis ran, I think he'd run. I think he'd win. What do you think? Now, don't, don't tell me what you think should happen. You might have a preference of what happens, but what do you think would happen? Trump, let's say a primary. Trump versus DeSantis, straight up. Because I'm wondering who DeSantis could sell himself as the younger, less controversial version of a Trump, like Republican. How isn't that a good package? I guess he's just not as interesting. But he's getting good at that, too, you have to admit. I would say one of my complaints, if you could call it that, maybe a criticism of earlier Desantis, he wasn't interesting. When I heard him talk, it was like standard stuff by standard looking guy, so he just didn't jump out. But as governor, he's done a whole bunch of stuff and had a bunch of quotable lines, and he does now he's getting the whole provocation thing a little bit better, you know, getting attention. All right, so if Desantis and Trump ran straight up in a primary, nobody else does that, so you seem. You seem a little bit split. I'm looking at the audience coming in, the comments, and there's not a clear opinion of who would win that. Huh. And I think that's. That's the right opinion. I think the right opinion is. There's no way to call that one, is there? But I will stand by this. Here's my prediction. If Desantis runs, probably will only be because Trump didn't. Because it would feel like a suicide mission to some extent, running against Trump as opposed to waiting four years and running without Trump, you know, in the mix. I would wait four years. I'd get out of the way of the Buzzsaw because you might. I mean, Trump would just savage to set us in a primary. It would be. But it would be quite of a divisive thing, I don't think. I don't know. I think my take on Desantis is that he's a smart risk taker. Would you say that's a fair assessment? He seems to be real good on the risk management. Like, what's the risk? What's the benefit? Because he's done some things that look closer to the risk line than you're used to. Like, he feeds the base better than other people. And as close as he's been flying to the sun, he has not touched the sun yet. Could we say that? I think we could say that. And actually, that's the most impressive thing about him so far is he has the best ratio of close to the sun without actually touching the sun. So, you know, who knows if that means it's more dangerous or he's just better at it? So that's subjective. All right. Yeah. He doesn't have the Trump dance moves. That's true. I will keep an eye on that. So there's some news that might be fake news about fake news. This could be a double fake news. So I only saw it from one source. I would want to see this from another source. So I'm going to put the big question mark on this one. And allegedly, there's some insider reports that the Biden administration would be disciplining the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol agents who are on horses who are accused of whipping the immigrants coming across the border. Now, the photographic evidence completely exonerates them as they were whipping their horses in a way that you control these specific kind of horses. Right. So they have this big. Is it even a whip? I'm not even sure if you call it a whip. Right. Or is it just the reins? It's the reins. Right? Yes. They have the extra long reins that they can sort of, you know, control the horse with. So I believe the real story is they were controlling the horse, but if you saw it from the wrong angle, it would look like they were aiming at the. The immigrants. So the, the base of fake news is that they were whipping the immigrants. So that's where the fake news started. But now there's a report that the people who did not whip any immigrants at all are going to be disciplined, or at least they'll be part of an investigation or something. And I thought to myself, I'm not sure if that story is true. This might be fake news about the fake news. So you know what you should think about this? Nothing. Because there's not enough substance to any of this. It's literally fake news about fake news. Let's just forget that one. Like it didn't even happen. Or that's just like an appetizer or something. All right, here's a interesting story. And it's going to cause me to be able to completely solve gun control debate in this country. Would you like me to do that? Who would like me to reframe the gun debate in this country and just completely solve it? And by solve it, I mean come up with an answer that both Democrats and Republicans would say, you know, well, that's not perfect, but, you know, I think you're onto something that's something we could agree on. Do you think I could do it? Challenge me? Can I come up with a solution that would be loved by both Democrats and Republicans? It's impossible. It's impossible. Can't be done. All right, so I was looking at a tweet by Claire Lehman. And it showed a graph where it showed the number of gun. The gun ownership per capita of a number of major countries. And then on one. So on one axis was the number of guns per thousand people. The other axis was the number of murders per thousand people. So everything's per capita adjusted for population. And it showed that there was a big clump of countries. The majority of them were all down there in the lower area where they had the fewest guns and the fewest murders. And then way up in the right, completely an outlier from all this other civilized countries was the United States. Far and away the most guns, far and away the most murders. And so, Michael. And the point of it was to show that the more guns you have, the more murderers you have. I presume that was the point of it. I'm not a mind reader, but I would think that would be the point of publishing that right now. First of all, do you believe that that's true? Do you believe the data is true? I think it's true, isn't it, On a per capita basis? Now, remember, we're not. We weren't. We weren't comparing to every country in the world. It was sort of the, you know, closer to the peer group. All right, well, murders, yeah. Murder is not equal to guns. But maybe I misstated what the. One of the axis axes was. But the point is that we have the most guns and the murder rate is high, and most of that's guns. So. All right, so that's the starting point. And then I saw that retweeted by Michael Shermer, and he noted that he's been arguing that, you know, how could you argue against the point that I guess Michael Shermer has made before a number of times. I take that in context that his case is that the more gun ownership there is, the more murderer there is. So he was sort of boosting this by saying, here you go. What other explanation is there? So what other explanation is there? Has he made his case? Does the data speak for itself? I mean, if that data were true, would you accept the fact that even though you might. Now, hold on for a second before we go any further, let me tell you, don't try to anticipate what my opinion is yet. Don't try to anticipate what my opinion is yet, because you'll just get all twisted up? So just go with me, okay? Just take the trip. It's just a journey. Enjoy the journey. All right. So what's interesting about Michael Shermer is I've read his stuff for a long time and he is, I would say, uniquely data and logic oriented, which is different from saying, I always agree with his takes, but he's always very, look at the data, look at the logic, you know, escape from the politics of it. So he's very good in terms of trying to be reasonable. I would put him in the, you know, the serious people category, people you should pay attention to. And he says, he just looks at this and says, you know, duh. Basically the most gun ownership, the most murders by far. How in the world does he. Has he not made his case? And he said, what else could it be? And he listed some other possibilities. Is it racism? Is it something else? To which I answered and accidentally realized that it solved the gun debate. And I responded to his tweet this way and said, it's obviously systemic racism. That chart is literally showing you systemic racism, which is caused by the school, school system, which is caused by the teachers unions. That chart shows that. Let me prove it to you in if you don't, if you don't follow that chain, let me make the case. And 10 seconds. Here's a 10 second argument to make the case that that chart is showing you Systemic racism. 10 seconds. I think I can do it. 10, maybe 15. Imagine if for the last 30 years the school system had produced just as good black students as every other group. In other words, everybody had a good education, which is very much not the case for the past however many decades. You want to go 50 years, whatever, just imagine. It's just a thought experiment. I'm done. I'm done. I just proved that that graph is from systemic racism. Because here's what you just did in your own mind. You just connected all the dots. You just said, okay, wait a minute. If the teachers unions had not prevented competition for decades, wouldn't we have better education for everybody? Because the free market system and competition would have helped us along. The answer is yes. Now, we may not have reached something that you would call equality, but imagine if just everybody got a better education. Now, don't you think that there's a pretty direct correlation between your level of education and your economics and your likelihood to murder somebody? Yes, of course. And so I asked, what would that gun chart look like if you separated it by race in the United States? Suppose you said the United States is two countries, it's the black population. Just look at it separately, as if the United States is just the black population of the United States. Then say, what is the gun violence rate in that community? It'd be off the chart. Then say, all right, let's look at the everything but black community, just to simplify, right? And you say, what is the gun rate there? And it's way lower. So really, the United States is not one, one average. It's basically, it operates like two countries in this specific example. Now, why is it the United States would have off the chart black gun violence? Well, if you were a racist, you would say, well, there's something wrong with black people, right, because you're a racist. You'd say that, right? But isn't it a little bit more likely that if everybody had a good education, you wouldn't see anything like that? Seriously, even if there are some racists watching, even if there are some racists watching this, you know who you are, you would admit that if everybody had a good education, everybody, the gun violence wouldn't look anything like it looks in the United States. Who disagrees with that? Now, there's no quick fix to that. But here's the thing. Where could the left and the right completely come together on gun violence? If you improved education, it would go away, right? And let's just agree that systemic racism exists and, and that its primary foundational source, the thing that fuels it more than anything, is the lack of good educational paths to success for everybody. So how in the world does the left and right not agree that if you fix everybody's education, all of these other problems get better? What does the left think is the problem with the right? Let's say climate change. Pick any topic, the left would say, well, the problem with the right is that they're not educated enough about the risks of climate change. That's what the left would say about the right. So wouldn't the left want better education? Because by their view, that would get them more of what they want. There'd be more citizens who believe what they believe. Now, you might say it could go the opposite way, but you still want more education. So no matter where you think the education takes you, everybody believes it's good. So it's like the one thing, the one thing everybody agrees on also solves all the other problems. You just have to sort of think it through why that is the case. So imagine you had a candidate running for president who just said, half of what Joe Biden says and half of what Trump says. I'm imagining an imaginary president. What Joe Biden says, sort of laughably, is, you know, these big problems, there's nothing we can do about it. What am I going to do about inflation? I'M not Putin. So the half that's Joe Biden is, you know, what can you do about it? Somebody else caused this. Wasn't my fault. And then the half that's Trump is that he can do things that even are not doable. It's like, I'll make the economy zoom and everything will be great. So you've got the ridiculous optimist in Trump and you've got the can't do it in Biden. Suppose you put them together and you created the following candidate. You know, there's almost nothing you can do about systemic racism today. Gotta be honest with you. There's almost nothing you can do about what's already here. And you can try really hard, and I think we should, but you're not gonna move it very hard very much, because once somebody's 45 and, you know, their life has been sort of carved pretty hard into the rocks, you can't change it much. But, but here's where we could all agree. How about we just put all of our combined left and right disagreeing energy into fixing schools for everybody? Whatever it takes. Let's just make it a national conversation. If it's something about the teachers unions, then that's on the table. If it's something about something else, that's on the table too. So why don't we just take all of our disagreements and say, you know, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it today, but I bet we could fix it for the next generation and just make it a next generation effort. Say, you know, sorry, sorry about your generation. If we could fix it easily, we'd be willing to do it, but nobody has really a good idea how to like, fix some things easily. But could you fix the schools? That feels like the most doable thing for an advanced civilization, you know, a successful country, give or take. Our debt, it seems like that that's well within our ability to fix education for everybody. And then, you know, then at least you have an argument that you're doing something about violence. It's not going to help this generation as much. At least you could say you're doing something and you found some way to come together. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where you fix everything at the same time. You're welcome. I saw a little video and it looked like it came from TikTok. It was up, but it was on Twitter. And I didn't. I didn't see who to credit exactly. But there was this sort of a man on the street interview in which someone I took to be probably associated with the right based on the context, was asking people who appeared to be associated with the left based on context if they supported bodily autonomy. And I think it was being asked at some kind of an abortion rally, pro abortion rally. And so the people on the left were saying, yes, bodily autonomy, my body. Keep your government away from my body. It's my body. And then the second question was what they thought about vaccine mandates, and would they say that it's the same argument that, you know, stay away from my body would apply to abortion, but would they take their argument and say, stay away from my body with your vaccinations? And you have to watch the looks on the faces of the people being asked the question. Their facial expression is almost better than what they say, which ends up being closer to nonsense than it should be. And I've told you before that there's a cognitive dissonance look. And until you've seen it a number of times, you can't recognize it. But once you have seen it a number of times, you spot it right away. And it's when you see somebody's brain just reboot, it's like for a moment they go blank and their brain just stops. It's almost like. And then whatever comes out next after the. Is just nonsense. It's just. I think I retweeted it so you can see it in my Twitter feed today, but it's sort of hilarious. And you can even. You can even abstract this from politics, right? I'm. I'm only, like, marginally interested in the fact that the content here is politics. What's really interesting is legitimately they're triggered into cognitive dissonance. And I think there was one of them that almost slithered out by saying, well, one was an emergency. But no, no, that's not really an argument against not having bodily autonomy right now. My take on this, the whole bodily autonomy, is that nobody's ever had it. It's just an illusion. If you think you have any bodily autonomy because the government can make your body do anything it wants because they have guns, you don't have any bodily autonomy. You can't go do a crime with your body. I can't go rub my body against your body just because I want to. I don't have any bodily autonomy. Now, that said, I would still like to have as much as I. I could get. Like, if it's. If it's only about me, I want as much as I can get. But sometimes it's not about just me. Unfortunately, Jason Riley Writing for the Wall Street Journal, I think, I guess it would be an opinion piece, but it was so factual that it's hard to say, suggests that we should raise the immigration caps because there's going to be a massive already is massive worker shortage. Now he's talking about the more qualified workers, the immigrants who often become entrepreneurs in STEM areas, et cetera. So he's saying we should do more of that and that the two year pause or so from the pandemic where we were not bringing in these highly qualified immigrants probably is going to show up in the economy. That we had a two year pause where probably our most qualified group of entrepreneurs, the ones who come in already qualified from another country, they didn't get to do their thing for two years. That might actually have a big impact on our economy down the road. He suggested we do more of it. Now, I would go back to my argument and this would be so easy for somebody like DeSantis to take an argument like this, because one of the big things that Trump got completely wrong with the border argument is that once he won the nomination, he should have said what I say, which is, let's have an economic opinion about who to let in and have the ability to control it so that when there's an opinion about who to let in and how many and it changes, we can just change it. That argument would be so easy to win. Imagine being on stage and trying to argue against that. Well, my opinion is that we should let the economist tell us how many people to come in for the best interest of the country and then have enough control to make that happen. What the hell are you going to say to that? Well, really, that's a racist idea. To which I'd say, well, can you explain which race in the United States is not in favor of a better economy in the United States that would include them. It's really just a killer end of discussion argument. All you have to do is frame it right and you're done. It was almost the easiest. It's probably the easiest argument you could ever win in politics, in my opinion. You just take the emotion out of it. You know, you want a Republican to say, you know what? We've really gotten, you know, great benefits from immigration. Let's have some more of that. But we really want to do it the Republican way. And the Republican way is to control the parts that we need to control and let the free market do the rest. It's just so easy to sell. It's just so frustrating watching nobody make the most obvious argument there. All right, so what else is happening? Kimberly Guilfoyle reportedly got $60,000 for basically just introducing Don Jr. At, I think, a January 6th rally or something. I don't know what it was. It was a while ago, and people are suggesting that she was overpaid. What do you think? Do you think she was overpaid $60,000 just to introduce Don Jr. Nope. No. Nobody who understands the speaker's market would say she was overpaid. Here's the thing that the news and I saw. David Axelrod said something like, you know, I wonder what that is per word. Do you think when they hired her or agreed to pay this, do you think that what they thought they were buying were her words? That's not what they're buying. Let me explain how this market works. It's funny, because David Axelrod knows how this market works, So I guess it was a clever way to frame it for political points or something. But David Axelrod knows that on the speaker circuit, they pay for the personality, the name recognition. You are more likely to go someplace where Kimberly Guilfoyle will be in person no matter what she does. You're more likely to want to go there if she's going to be there. And if Don Jr. Is going to be there, you're more likely to go. And if they're both going to be there, you're a little bit more than twice as likely to go, because then you might see the interaction, and that would be even more interesting. So if you are the organizers, what are you really paying Kimberly Guilfoyle for? Well, you're sort of paying her for, you know, the name recognition so that you can say, hey, she'll be here, so bring the crowds. But you're kind of paying her an inconvenience fee, meaning that she almost certainly has somewhere else to be that day. And it's not easy to, you know, pack up and, you know, probably you got hair and makeup and, you know, outfit, and what are you going to say? You got to get there. It's a pretty big commitment to get your ass somewhere and stand in front of a big crowd and do a thing. And in my opinion, under those circumstances, the specific circumstances that she was like, exactly the right person to be doing the exactly right thing at that time, $60,000, I'd say. She did a good job in negotiating, that's all. She just did a good job in negotiating. So Don Lemon was talking to Biden's spokesperson, Karine Jean Pierre, and Don Lemon was actually giving her a Hard time, which I guess is the first part of the big story. So CNN's new chief reportedly wants them to start reporting the news straight without the bias. Now, I don't know how Don Lemon is going to pull that off, but he did, to his credit. To his credit. So I'll give him credit where due. He did push her a bit, and he asked this question directly, and he wasn't smiling when he said it. He said, does the president. Does the president have the stamina physically and mentally, do you think, to Continue on After 2024? Now, what is the. If you're the spokesperson for the president and CNN asks you, does your boss have the stamina physically and mentally, what is the only right answer to that question? Yes. What does it mean if you say anything else? How would you interpret any other words that did not include Y? E? Yes. Well, I would interpret it as no. Here's what she said. The first thing out of her mouth was, that is not a question that we should even be asking. Oh, God. Oh, God. Oh, it makes me laugh. Look at it. The question is so silly. Can you look at this sincere smile on my face? I mean, look at me. It's to laugh. It's to laugh. It's so funny. Because look at the sincerity. I mean, I've got sincerity all over my face with this smile. I think this puts it in context, doesn't it? You know, would I be smiling like this all sincerely unless I honestly believe what I was saying? He is so physically and mentally fit. Let me tell you another thing. Let me tell you another thing. Let me tell you another thing. He's the president. The president's schedule. I got spittle. I'm so excited about the president's schedule. It's so much more than mine, let me tell you. Compared to the president, it's like I sleep under my desk. It's like I don't even show up. I do so little work. Compared to Biden, you should be asking me why I even get paid. Because. Because he's like this energy ball. He's like the sun. He's like the sun. And, you know, compared to me, I'd be like, I don't know, mosquito or something. Like, I'm nothing compared to him, to his greatness and his energy. He's the greatest man of all time. And really. And see. So why can't we just report that the president's spokesperson just confirmed that she does not believe he has the stamina, physically and mentally, to continue on after 2024? Because that's what she said. I don't care what you tell me you think she said. I don't know what you're hallucinating, she said, but she just confirmed that he's not up to the job. And to her credit, do you know why she confirmed it? Because even though she's being paid to lie, she couldn't pull this one off. It made me like her, honestly. Like, when I saw that she couldn't answer the question, like it was so ridiculously painful, hard, I realized that it's because she's probably honest. I'm just guessing. I mean, I don't know her, but I worry that her natural personality might be honest. Like, maybe she doesn't lie to her friends, you know, doesn't lie to her romantic partners or whatever. She might be honest. Imagine being an honest person and being put in that job. That would be like a living hell. And she looked like she was being tortured. Well, she answered that question anyway. So according to economist Julia Pollock in a tweet, the Fed is finally beginning to do quantitative tightening today. So that 9 trillion balance sheet is going to start coming down and dragging inflation down with it. Here's the way I like to summarize all stories about inflation and about the Fed, because sometimes when the economists talk a little complicated, hard to follow. So let me, let me just break this down. There's something called the Fed that you don't understand that does something with money you don't understand that causes the quantitativeness of the supply of the inflation trend to mitigate over. I don't know, they just do things and then things happen. I'm pretty sure nobody even understands economics. It does feel a little like astrology. And I remember, I won't name names, but there was someone I knew who went to school to be a chiropractor and learned that there were a number of things that chiropractors could do that would make a difference and help people. But the chiropractic school went a little bit beyond the things that seem to have good data backing them up. You know, things like curing the common cold and your cancer, every other damn thing. And eventually, when he had been completely trained as a chiropractor, he said to himself, I can't do this for a living. It's too bogus. So he actually completed the training and said, I can't even do this. Even though, and let me be clear, there do appear to be parts of chiropractic that are valuable and medically supported and all that. But you do hear stories of chiropractors with claims that are just so obviously not true. Anyway, so when I studied economics in college, I got to the point where I learned enough about economics to think that most of what I saw was guessing because things are too complicated to really predict. Well, the more you know about your own field, the less credibility it has. Have you ever noticed that everything looks good until you learn about it? And then you're like, that Russian army sure looks good. Well, let's take a closer look. Although, to their credit, they did win. So it does look like Russians, Russia is just solidly winning. And what would you say of the US Strategy? Can we be pleased with our strategy? Could it be said that Russia won and NATO won, but Ukraine lost? Could that be said because NATO sort of had to push back a little bit? Right. Even. Even if it's this indirect way, by supporting them. No. You don't think NATO needed to show that it had a little bit of backbone to make it harder for Russia to expand. But I suppose you could say that Russia always thought that Ukraine was part of it. So it's not. It's not an expansion. Except, depending on your point of view, NATO lost, too. Yeah, maybe so. Although NATO is gaining members. Yeah. It's an interesting argument. I heard the argument that we made a mistake. We, the west, made a mistake challenging Putin because we should have understood history and understood that Russia is an imperialist country. And they would never. They would never accept anybody, you know, moving into their sort of territory that maybe they thought they should influence. To which I said to myself, well, by that standard, you should let everybody who has bad behavior do it, because if you don't, they'll be mad. I don't know. Maybe. It depends how many nukes you have. That changes the calculation. By the way, I saw a meme of showing, I think it was Hiroshima after it had been nuked, and then showing it today. So you see in one picture it's rubble, and then today it's a gleaming city. And then it showed Detroit the same year as Hiroshima, you know, a bustling city. And then it shows Detroit today not looking so good. And I'm thinking, that's in one lifetime. That's in one lifetime. Yeah. So I see some people saying their chiropractors have helped them. That is certainly true. All right, I believe that's all that's happening today. Were there any stories I forgot about? Now, there's one other way that the left and the right can come together. I forgot this one. Now, it's a smaller way. But I think every little way that the left and right can come together is useful. So one of the things that the left wants is they want less gun violence. They also want, in many cases young people to be able to transition from. Do you say transition their gender or is it. I'm not sure. I'm never sure if I'm using the right words, but. So the people on the left are more favorable toward younger people transitioning. And here's the question I ask. How many mass murders have been committed by someone who was trans? I think it's zero. So correct me if I'm wrong on the math. The more people who are trans, the fewer murders per capita. Follow that logic. No, that doesn't make sense at all. I'm not serious. How many people thought I was serious? Don't get serious on me, okay? You're talking about suicides. That's serious. All right. Yeah. Isn't it? It is remarkable that a community that small percentage wise is having such a big impact on our, on our psyche. And did you see the controversy of. I guess, I think Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh were mad at Fox News for running a piece that was. If I would characterize it, it would be pro trans, I guess, and pro trans for young kids. So it was a story about a young kid who, at five years old or even before. So the kid is now identifying as male and has transitioned. So we'll say he. But allegedly knew he was the wrong gender before he could speak or something like that because the parents said yes, he was obviously uncomfortable in girls clothing and stuff like that. Now, as some people have pointed out, there are quite a few boys who are kind of fluid at that age and then it gets sorted out later. So can you really tell what somebody's gender identity is at that age? Here's where I'm going to really make you mad. I think you can sometimes. But here's the problem. How do you know you're right? You don't have a way to know you're right. So let me say it again. If it's true, if you accept the notion that people are born in the wrong, they're misgendered or whatever the word is, if you buy that notion, that is something that an adult can later understand and make their own decision. If you buy that as a legitimate path, which I do, because once you're an adult, make your own decisions. But that doesn't mean that it's not always there. So by. By my way of thinking, sometimes at five, you know, but sometimes you think you know and you're wrong. And then they just, you know, they're just normal, fluid kids who settle on, you know, the gender that they look. So would you disagree with my assessment that if it's true, that they will always be. Let's say there's a five year old and if you could see the future, if you didn't do anything, you know, if you just ignored it, they would grow up to be somebody who as an adult says, you know, I'm going to have this transition. You know, it's. It's always been with me. Nothing ever changed. I'm gonna. I'm gonna see if I can solve my problem with this transition. Don't you think it was there when there were five? Because I do. I think it was there when there were five. I just think you can't accurately identify it. I'm really interested in the people saying I saw a. No. Are there people on here who think that's not biological? Are there some people who think that's 100% social construct, really? Because I don't think there's any chance of that. You know, here's the sort of thing that influences me on this. Did you ever see the show about the two twins who were separated at birth? It was two guys who both grew up and without knowing anything about each other, literally separated at birth. They learned that they had a twin and then they decided to get together and they had both grown up to become firemen. Now, that would be quite a coincidence, right? They both grew up to be firemen in different places, raised by different parents, didn't know each other. I think they both showed up in suspenders. I think they bought the same gift for each other. And there were a whole bunch of other things that they did that looked like lifestyle choices that were identical and they were raised completely differently without knowing each other. Now, does that suggest that even really things that look like lifestyle choices are baked in when you're born? I think it does. I think it does. There are things about me now that clearly were obvious when I was five years old. When I was five years old, I wanted to be a cartoonist. There's just some things that just don't change. It's just baked into you. And I mean, I wanted to be a creative person. I think that's the part that was baked in, not the cartoonist specifically, but doesn't mean biological. Well, what I'm saying is that there does seem to be people who have a physical sex situation that differs from their internal view. Would you agree that that's true. Would everybody agree that there are real people who, without society causing it, their brain feels one gender, but their body looks another? Do you agree that they exist? I think they exist, yeah. I mean, there are plenty of people who say they are those people. I have no reason to doubt it. So I think they exist. But a lot of you say no. Interesting. And on YouTube, a lot of people are saying now that they think that that doesn't exist. Interesting. I think you're completely wrong, but I don't completely dismiss it because it's in the category of things that. Well, maybe. I mean, I think you're wrong. I do think that. I do think that that's the sort of difference that could be baked in. Well, let me tell you how easily that could be true. Would you agree that the chemistry, when you're being formed, the specific chemistry, would influence whether you're male or female? Or maybe that's too strong because that's just the sperm and the egg. But if you were to change the chemistry in which the sperm and the egg were incubating, you could cause them to be more masculine and more feminine, right? I think that's true. So even though their chromosomes are what the chromosomes are, you can influence how masculine or how feminine they are within their. Within their sex. Right. So if that's true, could you imagine a situation in which the chemistry was not the same all the way through? In other words, could you imagine a case where the brain was forming after the genitals or the other way around, that the brain part that influences your sexuality gets formed first, and then maybe your body chemistry changes before your. I don't know. Or something like that. So I'm just speculating that one could imagine that there are people who don't have the same body chemistry all the way through pregnancy, and that there might be some kind of a radical change that would cause you to start developing one way and then finish developing another way and be sort of a blended situation and then have to choose which one makes you happier, you know, to. Or not choose. I suppose that's a choice as well. All right, so enough about that. Enough about that. Can you imagine a person with impulsive violence that is unaffected by education? Yes, but they're. They're the exception. All right, that's enough for now. I'll Talk to you YouTube tomorrow. Clearly, one of the best live streams you've ever seen. Not as good as yesterday, but one of the best. One of the best. And tomorrow. Wow. It's gonna be great. Bye for now.