Episode 690 Scott Adams: Ukraine, China, Iran, California, and Where is Hunter?

Hey, everybody. Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams. And as luck would have it, that's me. So you came to the right place. So far, your day is perfect. Perfect. You wanted to watch Coffee with Scott Adams? You are watching Coffee with Scott Adams. Nailed it. And now it's time for the simultaneous sip. It's not very hard to do. All you need is a cup or mug or glasses, dyed Nutellis, a tank or a thermos, a plastic, a canteen, a grail, a goblet, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I am partial to coffee. And join me now for the simultaneous sip. The dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip. Go. Oh. One of the best. Just keeps getting better. So there's a story in the news that a couple of people associated with Giuliani got arrested for campaign violations. Something like that. And here's how CNN puts it. But the question of whether that relationship overlaps with criminal conduct is a mystery for now. So they're saying that Giuliani has some relationship with these guys, the guys who are not. Giuliani did some crimes. But the question remains, is there any overlap with the people who did crimes and Giuliani? Doesn't everybody in Washington know everybody else? It feels like. It feels like every time somebody commits a crime, they have friends who did not commit crimes, people they worked with, business people. Isn't the most normal thing in the world that if anybody at that level gets convicted of a crime, that they also are closely associated with hundreds of people who have committed no crimes at all? Why is it that sometimes somebody's association matters and sometimes it doesn't? That's an interesting little game that the Democrats like to play. Sometimes it matters who you're associated with. Unless it's us, in which case that's just different people doing other stuff. Different people doing other stuff. All right. Did you see that? The Trump campaign is now offering T shirts that say where's Hunter? And they advertise that the T shirts are not made in Ukraine and not made in China. Okay? There's never been a funnier campaign or a funnier president or a funnier administration. Just the fact that they have wares Hunter shirts. How do you not love that? Come on. How do you not love that? President Trump at his rally last night. That man knows how to own the news cycle. So think of all the ways that he could have said boring things, but instead, the president, very intentionally and obviously, this was not a spontaneous Thing very intentionally. The president said during his big rally last night, Biden was only a good VP because he understood how to kiss Barack Obama's ass. So what do you think the headlines were? Do you think the headlines were about other things? Well, not so much. He knew how to focus all of his attention on his little naughty sentence. And the naughty sentence, in addition to being provocative and naughty, reminds you that Biden was a good vice president only because of his association. Oh, there it is again. Sometimes associations matter, and sometimes they don't. Could we just agree sometimes, either they matter all the time or they don't tell you anything. Maybe we should agree. But you see Trump using the same concept that basically Biden's only a good VP because he was so nice to Obama. Did you see. Did you see the counter programming? So last night, Fox News was carrying the president's rally speech. At the same time, CNN was doing an LGBTQ town hall, and a lot of people were flipping back and forth who won the night. The most famous bit that came out of the CNN town hall, the part they're talking about. Of course, the news focuses on what's unusual or what doesn't go as planned. So CNN's own news, or was it on Fox? But anyway, this happened. I'm not sure if CNN reported it or just Fox News. Probably Fox News. So Chris Cuomo introduces. If you didn't see this, it's just classic Kamala Harris. Now, you know Kamala Harris, she's famous as being the worst campaigner in the history of campaigners. Honestly, I've never seen worse. And she's so consistent at it. She's bad yesterday, she's bad today, she's terrible. So she gets on the stage, and of course, she's playing to the audience. And the first. First thing she says is, my pronouns are he, she, and her. And Chris Cuomo tragically quipped mine, too. Now, the joke that Chris Cuomo was trying to say is that, well, I don't even need to explain it. He thought it would be funny to mock her for getting up there in front of the LGBTQ crowd. She says, he, she, and her, and he decides to make a joke out of it. Now, granted, the attempted joke was sort of on himself. He wasn't making a joke about other people. But Harris knew enough, at least to know that her crowd wanted to hear this. The he, she, her. What she maybe miscalculated is that nearly 100% of the audience watching it didn't like that at all, because they're perfectly happy with the pronouns the way they are, no matter how much they support the LGBT community, that's just a separate conversation. So I imagine most, most viewers of CNN are fully supportive of the LGBTQ community, but they may be less supportive of changing pronouns. That's the, I would imagine that's a little less popular with the general public. So Harris played well to the crowd that was there, but at the expense of probably the larger audience that was watching. So was that a good move? Probably not. Probably not, because I don't think the LGBTQ community was going to necessarily like her more or less because of her early statement on pronouns. But there certainly would be people watching who, who thought it was unnecessary or they're fully supportive of lgbtq. But just the pronoun thing is like, you know, you're taking it too far. So there's differences of opinion on that. Anyway, social media didn't was not pleased with Chris Cuomo. So in some ways CNN's town hall backfired a little bit because one of the most news worthy things was Chris Cuomo accidentally insulting the community they were serving. So not ideal. So speaking of associations, let's talk about Ukraine. So I didn't even talk about it yesterday. I think you would agree with me. There's a, something like an almost total blackout of reliable reporting about what's happening over in Syria with the Turks coming in and attacking the Kurds. We don't really know what's happening, do we? But here's the thing that I keep obsessing on. We've learned that there are two groups of Kurds, roughly speaking, at least in terms of this conversation. There's a Kurdish group who both the United States and Turkey consider terrorists. So some Kurds are considered terrorists. There are other Kurds that fought with U.S. troops against ISIS and are considered more allies, but the allies are closely associated, or so the reporting tells me. Who knows what to believe are associated with the other Kurds, who are literally terrorists. So let me ask you this. How much responsibility do we have to a group that closely associates with terrorists? Does that make you feel different about the Kurds that we do like? Well, we like them, but they're mighty chummy with terrorists, even people that the United States has officially labeled as terrorists. So that's a little nuance. And remember I was just talking about how. Why is it that sometimes you are painted by your associations and other times it doesn't matter? It's because we choose whichever of those versions of reality fits the thing we wanted to say anyway. So if you wanted to be pro Kurd, which would be anti President Trump. In this context, you would say, well, I'm talking about the good Kurds, not the bad Kurds, not the terrorist Kurds. And if you wanted to support the president, you're more likely to say, well, you know, how good could those other Kurds be? Sure, they helped us in the fight, but that was also for their own self interest. Were those Kurds fighting for us or were they fighting for their own self interest? And we were helping them because, remember, ISIS wasn't in our backyard. ISIS was in the Kurds backyard and killing Kurds. So of course they're going to fight isis. ISIS is fighting them. So the fact that we were also fighting ISIS was just us helping the Kurds. Was it the Kurds helping us? Well, yes, because we also want ISIS dead. But they weren't doing us a favor. The Kurds were not doing us a favor by fighting isis. They didn't have any choice. ISIS was in their backyard. They needed to defeat isis. So how much responsibility does the United States have to a 400 year conflict between Kurds and Turkey when even the good Kurds were simply pursuing their own self interest by fighting ISIS with us and are closely associated with terrorists? Now, remember, there's still a fog of war. And when you hear me simplistically explain it, you have to say to yourself, well, is there a whole bunch of nuance and detail that would change everything if you knew it? Yes. Yes. If there's one thing that you can guarantee is true, that my simple explanation of good Kurds and bad Kurds and, you know, and the way I very simply laid it out probably is completely misleading. If you actually had, you know, the full knowledge of what's happening there, the history of the players, probably would completely change your mind. So it feels to me like President Trump's decision is again, what I'll call an adult decision. It's an adult decision, meaning that somebody was going to get killed and the President decided who. That's an adult decision. That's a decision you don't want to make. You want to be the person who criticizes him because being the criticizer is safe. Hey, President Trump, you made a decision which absolutely guaranteed the death of some Kurdish people that we didn't want dead. And some of them were civilians and minding their own business. That's bad. But what was the other path? Well, the other path was Turkey was going to do it anyway. That's the one thing you don't see in the reporting. The reporting consistently says that the US Moved its troops and gave a green light to Turkey to attack the Kurds. Is that exactly what's happening? Because I've seen other reporting that said Turkey was just going to do it anyway. Our people would have been in the way, but they were going to do it anyway. I'm sure they would have given us a heads up, as in, hey, we're going into this area, maybe pull your U.S. troops, you know, 50ish people, something like that, maybe pull them out of the way. But I heard reporting that says they were going to do it anyway because they couldn't tolerate the current situation and nobody else was doing anything to change it. So I think Turkey just said, damn the torpedoes. I don't even know what that that phrase means, but I think Turkey just said, we're going in. You can leave your people there or you can take them out. They those are your two choices. We're going in because it's a national security concern. And here's the thing. If you heard Turkey say that to you, let's say you're the United States, you're Mike Pompeo, you're President Trump, and Turkey says to you, here's what's never going to be allowed. We're never going to allow groups that we think are terrorists to have a sanctuary right on our border. So you can kick us out of NATO, you can sanction our economy, you can complain all you want, but if you're Turkey, are you going to just sit there while your enemy groups on your border? Not in any world are you going to do that. There's no world in which Turkey was going to let the current situation stand. Now, is that the way it's reported? Now? I may be getting ahead of myself a little bit because I'm imagining what Turkey, the leadership is thinking. But would you think anything differently? You're Turkey. You're a NATO ally. This is important. You're a NATO ally and you're watching your mortal enemy massing troops on your border who has allied with the terrorists. You let that stand. In no world do you let that stand. United States says, don't do it, Turkey. We're going to be bad to you economically or whatever. We will do something bad to you. If you attack the Kurds, is that a reason not to do it? Only if you're dumb. Are the Turks really, really stupid? I see no evidence of that. I see no evidence that Turkey is a country filled with stupid people. Indeed. They seem to be a very educated country, relatively speaking. They have a educated population, and they seem to be making rational decisions. What was the rational decision for Turkey? You got to get rid of your mortal enemy that's massing on your border. There's no way you let that stand. In no world do you let that stand. So every time you see the reporting that says that moving our small number of troops is what allowed Turkey to attack, I think you're ignoring the fact that Turkey was going to attack under every condition. They were just getting ready. So I think the President just said, I have two choices. Turkey attacks and I leave my people in danger, or Turkey attacks and I take my people out of danger. Which one was the smart decision? There's no question. I don't think there's any question whatsoever. Removing our troops was the only smart decision. It was an adult decision. And now he's, of course, put some pressure on Turkey to not cross the line. But where's the line? Where is the line? If Turkey, a NATO ally, is attacking a group closely associated with terrorists who are on their border and it's a situation they can't allow to stand, where's the line? Can you describe where the line is? I don't see any way that you could realistically decide where the line is. Is it killing civilians? Well, if that's your line, then they can't do anything because, of course civilians are going to be killed because they're in the area. Is it attacking the good Kurds instead of the bad Kurds? Well, if you're Turkey, there's probably not much difference. The good Kurds, who are allied with and supportive of the terrorists, bad Kurds. If you're Turkey, they all look like terrorists to you. That's the way we would see it. If the shoe were on the other foot, we would do what Turkey is doing. No question about it. All right, but I emphasize that it's still fog of war, and we still don't really know everything that's going on over there. And maybe we never will, and maybe that's good. Let's talk about California. Let me say this as clearly as I can. If your governor can't keep the lights on, you need a new governor. I don't know who's going to run against Gavin Newsom in the next election. But how do you lose? How could you run against Gavin Newsom and lose? All you have to do is you say, I'm running for governor. I'll keep the lights on. I'll keep your lights on. That's it. That's the whole race. You don't even have to say what your other policies are. I could run for governor. I could run for governor tomorrow. I'll just say one thing. Look, I'll keep your lice on. What about all the other stuff, Scott? What are you going to do for the other stuff? Well, I'll do the best I can, but mostly going to keep your lights on. I'll just make you that one promise. I'll keep your lights on. How do I lose? Do I lose the governorship if I can promise to keep the lights on? Because that's better than the other guy. I don't see how he could possibly get reelected at this point, but stranger things have happened. Let's see what else we got going on here. So the president in his speech singled out the Somalian refugees. Now that's the way it's being reported by some pundits that he singled out the Somalian refugees for special condemnation or something. And in a way he did. That's not untrue. It just lacks context. The context was that the president thought it was not the it should not be the federal government's job to decide whether there's a massive refugee resettlement in your town. The president would prefer that your town decides if they can handle the infrastructure, the, you know, the expense of a large number of refugees. Now, does that sound the same? Here's the anti Trump media. The president singled out Somalian refugees for special condemnation kind of a little bit. I mean, if you ignored all the context, that's roughly true. But it's more true that the president said, well, while you're in Minneapolis, the Somalian refugees had a big impact on your community. This is how I would handle it. I would not have the federal government make those decisions. I would rather your town make that decision. And if you decide you can't handle it, your infrastructure, your tax base, your whatever, can't handle it, you get to decide. That sounds pretty different. Sounds pretty different. Here's. I'm seeing more and more that the anti Trumpers are using this word as an insult to the president. And this is a quote from a tweet this morning. This is not the behavior of a normal person. Have you heard that a lot on cnn, especially the pundits. They run out of bad things to say and they say this is not normal. Everything Trump does like this is not normal. This is not a normal situation. To which I say that feels very surrendery to me. If you're saying that the other candidate is not normal, that's all you have. That is why he Got elected because he's not normal. Do you know what? 100% of Trump voters didn't want normal because normal wasn't working. Who wants a leader who's normal? If you get a normal leader, let me sell the stock in your company right away. Was Steve Jobs normal? Nope. Is Bill Gates normal? Nope. Not even close. None of them are normal. Name somebody. How about Elon Musk? Is Elon Musk normal? Nope. Not even close. So what does it mean when that's the biggest complaint lately is that he's not normal. You're just out of ammo, right? Throw the gun at the monster, you're out of ammo. You're not normal like the bad people who used to be normal. Okay, So here's a little update on nuclear power. So this is sort of a public, I don't know, experiment or demonstration, and I was calling my shots before I did it, just so you could play along. So part of it is that this is audience participation. And it goes like this. I told you that I saw the Netflix special called Inside Bill's Brain about Bill Gates. And one part of that, it's a multi part series, but one part of that focused on one of his bigger investments in nuclear energy. It's one of his bigger investments, it happens to be a nuclear energy in a company called TerraPower. And they have designed with their supercomputers and geniuses a new type of nuclear power plant that they're looking to build. Now what's special about it is that it eats old nuclear waste that already exists as fuel. That's good. It will be economical as far as they can tell. That's good. And here's the best part. It's designed so it can't melt down even if, even if things go wrong. It can't. It's designed so that's not even an option in the design. So they were looking to build it in China and then the trade war started and then they couldn't do it in China. But they, they also can't get it built in the United States easily because the licensing and approval process can take decades. There's something wrong with the licensing approval process. And, and so I made this offer. I said, I'm going to try to reach somebody at TerraPower and see if we can help, see if there's some amount of public attention or persuasion that can get the right amount of energy to the right place to fix whatever the bottleneck is. And in the last 24 hours, Mark Schneider, who you know as famous nuclear power advocate reached out to TerraPower and got a hold of their CEO, had a conversation with the CEO, and now we're talking with another member of the staff to see how we can be helpful. Now I'm talking about possibly having. So the CEO of TerraPower is Chris Levesque. And Chris Levesque is the one who reached out and actually talked to Mark. And maybe we can get them on the periscope now. So far, that's the easy part. The easy part is finding out who to talk to. That part is complete. Now remember, the plan that I'm pursuing is not my plan. This is the fun part. What I'm pursuing is Bill Gates plan. Bill Gates plan involves people like me seeing the special and activating. It's pretty obvious to me that the real intention of the Bill Gates special because Bill Gates was very involved and he was very generous with his time. So obviously he had a motivation for it that was beyond just getting some attention for himself, which he doesn't seem to care about too much. So it's obvious that the reason that Bill Gates participated in that special about Bill Gates is that he wanted to activate the public opinion on a number of his projects. But this one seems to be the one that public opinion would make the most difference. And so his plan is working. So Bill Gates plan of exposing people to this nuclear power plant and telling us that it's kind of stalled because really the government is working perfectly. So now I'm involved and some of you are involved. And I got an email from somebody else who had also contacted somebody at TerraPower who was more directly involved in the government interaction part. But now we have three contacts at TerraPower. We don't know if any of this will lead to something good, but here's where I'd like to take it. So I'd like to continue my conversation with them, or at least have a conversation with them in which I can understand in their words as specifically as possible, what's holding them up from doing their first build here in the United States. Is it that there's a person or an entity that needs more resources? We can fix that? Is there some approval entity? This simply needs more manpower or human power. Let's desexize it. Is there somebody who's afraid, somebody who's in charge of approving things, but they're just too cautious? Is there somebody who needs more information? Would it require just the President of the United States saying, hey, you guys need to change what you're doing and I'll help you do it, but you need, you know, is it the public that needs to be persuaded? Where exactly is that bottleneck? Because we're pretty close to finding it. And I think that when we find it, with your help, remember, this is a public project. This isn't just something I'm doing with Mark. This is, you know, you're all involved. Because remember, the world is at stake. Civilization is literally on the line. Whether you believe in climate change being a big risk or not, there is no scenario in which we don't need lots of clean power. We need a lot of it. Even if all you think it does is clean the air and clean the water, that's great. We need that. Because, remember, we need a lot more power. And if we use the dirty kind, you're not going to be happy about it. So we're on the verge of changing the world here, or at least trying to help. Somebody tweeted today, and I thought it was provocative, so I'll mention it. Somebody tweeted that. Have you noticed that the zeitgeist, which is a fancy word for the way people feel about things. At the same time, have you noticed that the zeitgeist has turned sharply against China in the year since I started moving against them? In other words, about a year ago, my stepson died from an overdose. Fentanyl was part of that. And fentanyl, China is almost certainly the supplier of that drug. So that's about a year ago is when I started going hard against China. And one of my followers on Twitter noted that the attitude, the public attitude in this country anyway, about China has completely changed in. In one year. Now, that's not all me. There's a trade war going on, but I'm certainly going to do my part. And you haven't seen anything yet. Somebody asked me if there would be a trade deal today. No. No, there will not. There will not be a trade deal today with China, nor will there be a trade deal tomorrow. There isn't any chance of having a trade deal because they don't want a fair one and we don't want an unfair one. You can't solve that. That's not a problem you should even try to solve. Can't be solved. We have to decouple. It's already happening now. You don't have to make a decision to decouple. All you have to do is keep going the way we're going to, because I can't imagine any major US Company deciding today to move into China, you know, to do manufacturing there. Can you. Can you see any major corporation who would take that risk today? I don't see that. I don't see that. Now, are you going to be watching as much NBA this year as you did last year, now that the NBA has bowed to China? I'm not. I will watch less NBA basketball than ever before because I have a bad feeling about the NBA now. I feel like they sided with my mortal enemy, so maybe a little less of them would be good for my life. I don't expect most of you to watch any less basketball, but I will. All right, I keep getting in trouble about this transgender question, and I'm going to give you a whiteboard. Talk on it. Those of you who are tired of the transgender in sports conversation, feel free to bail out. I might want to cut this part out later and put it as a separate video. I keep saying that transgender athletes should be allowed to play sports, but we should. We should simply get rid of, you know, men's sports and women's sports and just let everybody play at whatever level they're capable. Now, what do people say when I say that? They say lots of things that don't have to do with that. So I wanted to do a better job of explaining my point of view, and I need a whiteboard to do it because all of the people who think they're disagreeing with me are actually disagreeing with a misinterpretation of me. So so far, zero people have disagreed with me. But a lot of people have disagreed with what they imagine I think, not with what I actually think. So this will be the first time that I've explained it completely. So if you think you have an opinion about my opinion of transgender in sports, you. You don't, because you haven't heard it until you hear it now. Okay, here it is. Let me give you two views of the world. This is what I call the dumbest effing idea in the world. The dumbest idea in the world would be allowed to allow any athlete for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if they're a transgender athlete or any other reason. It doesn't matter why there are big athletes and there are small ones. But the dumbest effing idea in the world is to let a really powerful athlete play against someone who's smaller and less powerful and has no chance of winning. Would you all agree so far that this is the dumbest effing idea in the world? Are we on the same page? Because so far, everybody who's disagreed with me believes that I think this person and this person should Play in the same team in the same sport. I don't believe that. It's the dumbest effing idea in the world. So can we agree on that? Now I'll tell you my actual preference. All right, here's my actual preference. Whoops. On my double sided whiteboard. Oh yeah, I got the technology. Here it comes. Wait for it, wait for it. So what I suggested was this, that the days of having gender separated leagues may be antiquated. And suppose you just ranked all your sports by capability. If you did well, most of the top NFL, NBA would be mostly men, maybe all men, but you know, you might have a kicker or something. So you might have a woman or two, that would be fine. If they could play in that league, that's fine. Then if you went down the capability list, you would find some band where there would be some men and some women. And then you might find at the bottom of this continuum some leagues that are mostly women. Now this would be the way that would make sense to get rid of gender as a consideration. Just do capability. It doesn't matter what your gender is. Now you have to work out things like locker. That's a separate question. So under this you would separate by capability and then you would use your technology. Here's the key. In the old days we didn't have the technology and the capability to watch anybody we wanted, whenever we wanted. With our current technology. If you want to watch women play women, you go to your device and you say, give me women playing women. And then it takes you here and you can watch the best woman in the world. Let's say it's Serena Williams playing tennis. You can watch her playing another woman. Just like today. No difference. It's just like today. What changed? Is Serena still a star? Yes. She doesn't become less of a star because she can't beat the number one male player in the world. Just like today. There's no difference. Today Serena can't beat the number one best male player in the world under this system. She also can't beat the best male player in the world. Nor do you want to watch it. So you don't. So you go to your search engine, you say, I'd like to see the best female players play. And up pops Serena Williams and whatever is the number two player. And you watch them play and you're happy and you paid money and you buy products, etc. Suppose you said, and this would be me, suppose you said you'd love to see a really high level female player play a male Player, but that would be a low ranked male player because you're only allowing people who are roughly capable to play each other. I would love watching this. I would love watching Serena play a low ranked male player who was roughly equivalent to her. That would be very interesting to me. Now, you don't have to watch that. You simply don't watch it. You want to watch women play women and you want to watch men play men. So you do. No problem. All right. Gender equality in 2019 is a whole different thing than it was when originally women leagues were set up. When. When we originally said, hey, we should have separate leagues for women. The world was a different place in those days. It was a radical idea that women play sports. It was actually something that society wasn't entirely ready for. Are you kidding me? Girls playing sports? What kind of a world is this? But that's not the world we're in now. There's nobody, nobody in modern society anyway. Nobody in the United States who thinks women couldn't or shouldn't play sports. That's not a thing. So we're at a point where you can just let your technology match the audience with the games and the sports they want to see and everybody gets what they want. Now what exactly is the problem with this? Well, one of the problems that people say is. Let me give you the worst criticism I heard. The worst criticism is that when you went to the event and you're watching the players, it would take you forever. You'd be there for like months and months watching the same event until you saw the first woman play. To which I say, no. You would just only go where you wanted to to watch women play because you would know what the schedule is. Nobody would watch anything except what they wanted to watch because it'd be a schedule. You would just watch what you want to watch. Would the market reward Serena Williams as much as it would reward the top man? I don't care. Do you care? Because the market is the market. It's just going to adjust to whatever. My assumption is. My assumption is that the top female athlete in every sport would still be the top athlete. Female athlete in every sport. Would NBC want to broadcast Serena Williams if she was in some sort of long continuum where she played people of equal capability? Of course they would. Why wouldn't they want to broadcast one of the most entertaining athletes of all time? Why wouldn't they? The market would guarantee. Somebody's saying, this is hilarious. All right, you might be new here, so I'm going to give you one pass. You are Allowed to criticize. But if you're just saying I'm stupid with no reasons, then you get blocked. Okay? You're allowed to have any different opinion. I like that. All right. Serena said she won't play men. She already said that. Well, Serena actually also said that she would like to play men. I literally just read a quote from her in which she was saying it would be fun, but she wouldn't win if she played Andy Murray. So she said she'd be up for it because it'd be fun, the audience would love it, but she doesn't think she'd win a point. That seems fair to me. All right, now here's how to know if you're dumb. If you just watch this and you're saying to yourself, but, Scott, don't you know that a low ranked man could still beat Serena? That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. So if you're saying that, you're not paying attention. All right, does every. Now, does anybody have a complaint with my actual opinion? Because I want to reiterate what my opinion is not. I think I need better technology here. If you're joining. Now, this is what my opinion is not. A huge dominant player would not play against a smaller, less capable player, regardless of gender. Forget about gender. Under my situation, where everybody plays in the capability that their talents allow, everybody plays the same size. What's wrong with that? All right, now that you've heard my actual argument, tell me your objections. Somebody here saying you finally, finally make sense? Wow. I'm actually not seeing any disagreements. Somebody says, I'm thinking we'll exclude women from scholarships. Why? Why would it. Why would a college stop giving scholarships to women? Why would they do that? There's no reason. There's. If they're doing it now, there's nothing that would stop it. Lots of boys would dread and be bullied. Why would a boy be bullied? I don't. I don't see that point. No one wants to watch men play in the wnba. That's a stupid comment. All right, so whoever said nobody wants to watch women play in the NBA, right? No one wants to watch men play in the wnba. Either you joined late or you're stupid so you can decide which it is. Because I just said my system says there's no time that the big person, you know, the big talented person is playing in the same league as the small one. You just said, scott, nobody wants to watch men play in the wnba. Under my scenario, there would be no wnba. There would just be People playing the level they can play and there would be no case where the man plays the woman if there's a big difference in size. If they were roughly the same capability, then there would be some cases in which they play and I would watch it. Personally, I would find that interesting. You would never see upsets. Yes, you would. Sports would always have upsets. A boy who gets beat by a girl would be made fun of. Have you ever seen what happens to a boy who's not good at sports against other boys? You know, people lose in sports. They have to get used to that. And losing to a girl, if you're a boy, I'm talking about young kids, you should just get used to it. You're going to have to toughen up. If losing to a girl is what's going to make you cry, you need to toughen up. Women would be too low on the totem pole. No, they wouldn't. All right, you weren't paying attention. If you said women would be too low on the totem pole. You weren't paying attention because nothing in my, my suggested plan would make women less important as subjects of sports. Because you would search for women if you wanted to watch them and then you would watch them. Just like today. Serena Williams would still get all the sponsorships because she would be the best female playing who was, who was born, you know, born with her equipment, however you want to say it. That's not offensive. And by the way, I don't know exactly the right way to say these things in non offensive ways, but I promise you, I'm not trying to offend anybody. So if I did it accidentally, that's not intended. If it's not separated by gender, women will look inferior. Does that comment make sense? Somebody says if you don't separate sports by gender, women will look inferior as sports. Is there anybody who doesn't know that the best female athlete can't beat the best male athlete? Who, who exactly is going to have a new understanding of human beings? That doesn't make sense. The transition time to Your system is 10 years. Yeah, it would probably take a while. I'm very fascinated in your comments. Solve title 9 problem or you aren't serious? Well, again, Title IX is part of a current system and I'm not entirely sure anything would change. Would it? Why would anything with Title IX change? Because women would have every opportunity as men. So if you're thinking that my idea suggests that the only money goes to the people who are at the top of the list, I'm not saying that I'm not saying that at all. You could have title nine with this idea. The women would get just as much support. People who wanted to watch women only sports would know when they're playing and they would show up and just watch that. Somebody says women are physically inferior. What the hell does that mean? What the hell has nothing to do with this conversation. You are eliminating choice. Women might want to watch only women play. Are you even paying attention? Under my proposed theory, everybody watches whoever they want to watch. If you want to watch only women play, it's easy. You go to your device, watch women playing women, and then you watch it. Okay, all right. So one of the things I wanted to demonstrate with this is, as you know, I have a book coming out called Loser Think. And this, this topic surfaces a lot of loser think accidentally. And one of the things that it surfaces is, and I talk about in the book, failure of imagination. So failure of imagination is one of our biggest traps. In the case of the transgender athletes, when I argue that we should allow everybody to play at the level that they can compete, what do people criticize me for? In almost every case? Maybe every case, they criticize me because they can't imagine how that could work. Which is different from saying it couldn't work. Your inability to imagine how something could work is not the same as it can't work. And so you saw a fairly graphic example where when I would quickly say, well, just let people play at the level they can and the market will adjust, that's the summary of it. People couldn't quite imagine how that would work. And then I explained it. And so I give this caution to help you get out of your bubble or to find out if you're in a bubble. Sometimes the problem is your own imagination. And the problem with your imagination might be that you don't have experience across different realms. So if you had experience with lots of sports and co ed sports in particular, as I have, I've played every sport a lot. Not every sport, but most sports a lot a lot. I mean, I, I was just immersed in sports for most of my younger years and older years too, and played a lot of co ed sports. If you've never played a co ed sport, you probably have a little less appreciation for how much fun that is. It's really fun. It's really fun. Yeah. I don't think it gives up anything. And that's my experience. And if you have not had experience in economics, in creating business models and marketing and technology, it might be less obvious to you that we could simply use our technology, change the business model a little bit, and everybody guess what they want. All right? So if you didn't have at least a little bit of experience across those broad categories, it would be invisible to you. You would not be able to imagine that there would be a way to fix the system, and you would be in your little bubble. And so this book teaches you little tricks to get out of your bubble. And you can see an excerpt of it pinned to my Twitter. If you'd like to read a free chapter of the book, go to my pinned tweet, and you can see a link to it there. And that's all for now, and I will talk to you later.