« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 314 Scott Adams: The New and Hilarious Climate Change Report, Schumer’s SCOTUS tweet

2018-11-24 | 🔗

Topics: 

  • Dire report from Government on climate change…isn’t
    • Financially and science challenged CNN
  • “80 years from now” projections for economy and climate change
  • Remediating hurricanes by reforesting the Sahara
  • President Trump vs. Chief Justice Roberts
    • President says judges are politically influenced left or right
    • Justice Roberts says judges are neutral
    • Schumer tweets about partisan decisions by Justice Roberts
    • Schumer’s “cognitive blindness”, as he agrees with Trump
  • 3 components of government?
    • Reality: Supreme Court is now a component of Presidency
    • Left/Right tally pre-determines outcomes
  • Rate of 9th circuit court decisions overturned by Supreme Court 
    • Is that misleading because of “selection bias”?
    • What’s the influence of “court shopping”?
  • Hillary’s take on European immigration handling
    • Did she agree with Trump on European immigration…
    • …so she doesn’t have to agree with him on US immigration?
    • What RATE of immigration causes social unrest?
  • Chinese Muslim population (the Uyghur) internment camps
    • They’re treating Islam like a virus needing isolation
    • Are thoughts and ideas dangerous, like a virus?
  • Assimilating immigrants into your society without social unrest

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

The post Episode 314 Scott Adams: The New and Hilarious Climate Change Report, Schumer’s SCOTUS tweet appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
bump bump bump bump bump bump bump on hey everybody peter given here i'll be all of your beverages because if you ever came to watch coffee was got atoms are you did not have your beverage with you
it would be like trying to fly without an airplane it would be like being naked in public you would be completely ill equipped but luckily most of you are smart and inexplicably inexplicably sexy as well you know you are so join me for the simultaneous up it's time to grab your mother your cup your glass yours tinier you're jealous fill it with your favorite liquids i like coffee and join me for the simultaneous good stuff so i told you that the news was gonna start getting silly because we reached the holiday season and the serious people who make serious news not me
i'm not making much newsy others no new legislation from there was much happening internationally things they give a slow but the new still has to produce news so others still lose is just there will get more excited about things that are less and less important but there are some really fascinating things happening in some of them are not reported that's why you have me and the first thing i will note is the vehicle it's about the president being a bigger racist sorted just sort of stopped and it happened about
time he was he was saying gray things about the number of african american leaders it's bad same time he was doing prison reform and promoting it and that's that same time at the economy was doing great etc so that synergy it's a pretty big change but did you all see the sea it ends reporting about the the big climate change whose is funny to call this news service the syrians headline climate change will shrink u s economy and kills thousands government report warns so it is a government report sets the best stuff right so the fact that it comes from the government and they made a big deal about or somebody did
about the fact that was released during the holiday so the people would notice that you said that the environment was gonna kill people but once you dig into it a little it turns out like many things you care we tell the difference between good news and bad news so let me tell you what the headline here is in terms of the bottom line it says that new yours government report delivers a dire a warning so now cnn is molly was a dire a warning dire warning would mean that what follows that description should be something that's bad for the world let's see if what follows dire warning is something bad for the world is is about climate change and its devastating impacts and so the impact will be devastating and its dire
it says the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars while ass a lot of money it's dire its devastating his hundreds of billions of dollars we can lose its bad stuff let's keep going or in the worst case scenario oh my god it's worse here comes here's the word case scenario you can lose more than ten percent of its gdp lord ten percent of the gdp that's like depression or at least a recession by the end of the century wait what by the end of the century that's over eighty years weight seven hundred eighty years we might lose ten percent of the gdp what the gdp will do and eighty years
do you know how many times i will double about seven times by the end of the century the gdp it was egg let's say as increases at three point five percent a year the gdp will roughly go up seven hundred percent so if we do nothing about climate change over eighty years will lose ten percent of seven hundred percent game or something like that i don't know where they take this the ten percent exactly do they start a year the beginning of the end but i say let's say you were thus it heavily enclosed in climate unless they took your gdp from three point five percent a year down to three percent
because you're spending money on stuff to clean up the environment what would that due to the gdp well it would be the law more than three point five percent so you have this interesting situation where's cnn because they are largely financially illiterate and science illiterate like the rest of them so what i said to is financially illiterate and science i dont mean they're worth enable else i mean they're exactly average if you're a journalist and other scientists and you're not a finance person in all likelihood i suppose some people cross over but for the most part you're not really the right person to the report on the sort of stuff now i read this news and to me this is the best
whose i've ever seen never let me let me be as clear as possible that this is not high purposely what i say next for the world so not talking about me personally before the world i think this is the best whose i've ever heard because i wasn't around when world war two ended that would abandon may be the best thing and everything else sorted trickles along gets better over time a little bit but i've never heard better news then that the worst with a worst case scenario for the climate is that it would only take ten percent of their gdp by the end of the century in eighty years if we do am i wrong that's the best news that the that the civilization has ever heard the is right now what are the odds that a projection over
eighty years is correct zero now some people said know those guys you don't understand what this projections for the rejection is not telling you what it will actually be the projections telling you what it could be if nothing changes what are the odds that nothing important will change in eighty years zero zero there are very few things you can say or zero chance but the odds of nothing important changing and eighty years well that my friends is zero so it could be much worse right it could be the end of the world because something could change they would be very bad maybe
but far more likely they'll be technological change is it likely that is it likely that and say forty years china will still be polluting at the same rate it's possible but i think the technology will be a lot better and they're not gonna wanna choke themselves and have to live underground or or live in a bubble or somethin cause they're pretty polluted over there so it seems that the normal march of technology would get you to a point where people are driving electric cars and ride sharing telecommuting morons everything is greener and better and we found ten new sources of energy and in eighteen years the odds of fusion being implemented economically are really high now he said what are the odds and ten years as i
ten years as probably probably a toss up twenty years starting to look like fusion maybe you might have a fusion reactor but in forty years you're gonna have fusion reactors seems to me not a hundred percent but more likely not you see there are a number of technologies i think i've seen half a dozen technologies for directly dealing with your two meaning that there there scrubbers it will circumvent the air there are ways to sequestered in time but there is an idea about putting an heiress all in the air the cools off the planet which says scary to all of us i know i'm not sure that one will ever be used but the other the other thing that we don't we don't seem to count is how good we are every mediating against danger
for example the severity of hurricanes let's say for example that climate continues warm and we don't even have to talk about why doesn't matter of its humans doesn't matter if its nationalist say the climate continues to warm one of the things that we have a pretty good idea would happen is that the hurricanes would be bigger and more frequent perhaps and if you didn't know this and please fact check me if anybody knows more than i do about this topic that would be easy to do what business that the hurricanes develop the way they do in the atlantic anyway is because the sahara desert does so hot so the sarah doesn't really hot creates high high temperatures owns i guess and i guess the hurricanes going so there there's a reason that there's a hurricane season is because africa's heating up now we also have the technology to
reforest deserts so apparently we already know how to reforest things and one of the ways as you just put animals there he put the right kind of animals there apparently they they poop on the land and over time it actually fairly quickly you can reforest a dozen area now i don't know if you can reforest tyre sahara but i'll bet there's a lot of stuff you could do if you wanted to just re mediate the hurricanes so they're probably stuff you could do to change the temperature and just then one place that would make the hurricanes softer
now look at the number of people who die in major catastrophes these days i sat in the parish of recently that i think in the last hundred years there was a major flooding in china so it's a hundred years ago arrogantly technologies bad there's no communication and the flood killed between one in four million people it killed so many people that they can have a narrow down between one in four million in china now when we have a major disaster here what is the decimal well the worst one i think recently was for rico rights and that work as two thousand now what will happen after porter rico guess rebuilt what will be the risk of the next hurricane to port rico well could still be bad
but whenever they build is likely to be a little more hurricane proof so every time we have any kind of a disaster we get smarter better and more protected against an excellent take the fight we just added in my state in california eighty some people died few hundred are missing but what is the real out of that we have a pretty good idea of how to make sure that the risk that is lessened because of them because of the disaster we learned a bunch unfortunately we learned the heart is way you can learn something but we now have a better idea about how to protect the forest there's more energy about doing it people certainly have a better system for getting out of town so you should exact expect that people have a buddy system that the elderly will not be abandoned to the fire as apparently was a case here so
it is the normal way of civilization that we figure stuff out we figure out how to remediate we figure out how to harden against earthquakes we figure out how to build things are don't fall apart we figure out how to communicate better so we can get out of trouble we figure out how to probably probably in eighty years figure out how to reduce hurricanes by changing the temperature on the land that's causing the hurricanes before so if you're looking at an eighty year projection economic projection how do you factor in how good we will become a just avoiding death and destruction take a look at the impact on the cap so there are some some thought that a lot of the economic loss would be real estate near the coast because they see sea level rise
you have that conversation without talking about how good it will be for reducing the income inequality can you think of anything that would reduce income inequality faster that arising ocean because as the nice real estate on the ocean it's not the poor people poor people don't really have beach houses poor people did not build a skyscraper in manhattan poor people do not own al gore's beach house if all of the real state on the coasts guess threaten they're gonna rebuild remediation build walls tear down build another house in land who does all that were who would do all the work of moving people from the coast where they're getting destroyed by larger higher water if that happens we don't even know for sure if that'll happen but if a day
the low income people are gonna get jobs you can be a lot of activity who's gonna pay for that construction not poor people it's gonna be rich people suddenly corporations it's gonna be maybe maybe the government but again they'll be taxing the people have money won't be taxing the people do have money so how are you figured out into your economic projections you doubt how did you fit how do you figure the technologically technological solutions into your forecast over eighty years you don't guess you don't know they'll be so when cnn reports that this is a catastrophe of its dire i'm looking at the same number and i'm saying are you kidding me we're are we gonna lose ten percent of our gdp over eighty years
during a time when if things when normally it would go up by seven hundred percent because remember three and a half per cent compounds pretty quickly you got three and a half percent per year
you're really grown so services as false rich people pay lesson taxes you must watched him see around if you think rich people pay lesson taxes that varies very not true in fact only the people who have money paid actions that i had to tell you but the people who don't have money actually dont pay taxes the emotions axes are paid by the top ten percent rate one percent pay forty percent of taxes and probably the top ten percent pay eighty percent of taxes i'd say federal taxes anyway state taxes and others
russian forget so that's a funny thing said the funny thing is that we can tell the difference between good news and bad news this dire report about the climate to my mind i'm looking at the same numbers that they presented i'm looking at their report and i've saved myself we're doing the right thing by pulling out of the paris accords to me that's what the report tells me ten percent by the end of eighty years now they also say that thousands of people will die but remember remember there not tell you the thousands of people will die that's not what they're doing there saying if nothing changed thousands of people were die but they everybody acknowledges things will change so for example
by earlier statements if we'd never learn how to help people who might die from the extra heat well then maybe thousands would die does not the case we will learn how to protect them we will learn how to harden against hurricane we will learn how to protect them we will learn how to clean the forests that they dont burn up as easily we will learn how to get people to air conditioning if they're just maybe they're poor we will figure these things out so that thousands is likely to be just an imaginary number now the other funny thing maybe the funniest thing you ll see in a long time is the chuck humor tweet so if you didn't see this as a grace the background here is that
with president trump had said that the supreme court was politicized meaning that there were obama appointed judges that were likely to be obama judges meaning they would agree with stuff from the left and there were a bush judges were more likely to vote right so the president was saying that the supreme court is politicized now it is exactly what he said about judge curio during the trump tromp was called the universally anyway during that trial so what the president said is that the judge might be politicized by his association with his cultural heritage had nothing to do with his dna right the president's didn't say anything like
or dna from mexico makes you better your job nothing like that he made a political comment which was good politics which is to say that somebody has an association with any kind of group there are likely to be influenced by in this case george cereals association was with his entire family which had mexican heritage and since the president was the biggest critic of that community politically speaking not racism politically speaking the judges membership in that class of politically minded people might make him biased in political way now here's the fun part just hold this is your mind how much the president was criticised at the time for saying that
it could be political again to hold that thought first war to the present where the president is once again saying this same thing you said before by his he's taking the arguments of the supreme court some of them are obama appointees likely to vote the left summer a bush appointees and trumpet point is likely to vote right judge roberts pushes back by then there are no such things as obama judges and bush judges we are just judges we are judges who just use the evidence to reach decisions here's where it is interesting chuck humor jumps in with sweet he get talking about the judge rob roberts response to president trumps tweets so shimmer says about those
people talking he says i don't don't agree very often with chief justice roberts especially has partisan decisions which seem highly political and citizens united generous and shelby so the humorous starting areas tweet by saying that chief justice roberts makes partisan decisions so far that's exactly what trump said about judge curio politically biased it's exactly the same thing he saying about the supreme court so now humor has just agreed completely with what trump tweeted mine she wears tweet is a criticism of the president in which he starts it by agreeing with him a hundred percent that roberts is politicized and not judging and then he goes on to say but i m thankful today the he leaning judge robber
almost alone among republicans stood up first all he's galling judge roberts or republican so he's calling the is calling the supreme court just a republican wall argue that there are not political he says almost alone among republican stood up to president trump for end for an independent judiciary oh my reckoning god it's the dumbest we'd everybody's ever sent and of course a number of people and not the one i'm not the one who noticed this right so that the political the political class is all over him for agreeing with president trump harder than anybody ever agreed with him while acting like you wasn't now i don't even know what to make of that
we know how to interpret that if i interpret it through the persuasion filter am i might go to filter from the world it would indicate the humor actually doesn't oh he did this meaning that he wrote it no awareness whatsoever that he had contradicted himself as violently as you can contradict yourself in a tweet there was just a few characters long i believe he doesn't know now those of the usa has low i q that he's senile almost certainly that's not the problem because and what you will about you know the your adversaries on the other side bob while they're all dead remember their say that about yours i above all other all done it's never too well might be true sometimes
it will be the rarest thing for somebody to achieve what trucks humor has achieved and to be actually low iq that would be pretty unusual so i have no reason to believe that juncture is anything but a really smart guy who succeeded through his talents and hard work now that doesn't mean i agree with him on this is rising i'm just saying that he is almost certainly a fully functional adult with lots of experience lots of brains less disgrace marks lots of political smarts and all that and yet he did this how do we lane there is only one filter that explains us cognitive dissonance
i don't know that there is any other way to explain it yeah drummed arrangements syndrome is this kind of the same thing so i believe that he actually is i like to use this phrase cognitive lee blind another word is his mindset has rendered him in a sense the blind to the obvious because it does not agree with his preconceived idea his preconceived ideas of the president's wrong and if he's criticising the supreme court god is the end of the world remember we keep saying that the president is criticising the supreme court is all that so we had to stick with that but the old
couldn't he couldn't i agree with the guy who disagrees with him on rulings which is roberts so he had to he was holding two thoughts that they hold he held as solidly true the trouble was there were opposites so he he may have actually cognitive we blind and his brain just turned one of them into something else so they fit together most likely so i'm not a mind reader we can never know for sure there's no test you can do to find out but if you compare my my description of what is likely to have happened a cognitive blindness caused by a trump derangement syndrome is such a centrally compare that too he's just so damn that he can tell the difference i think the the high part
since that is so dumb or senile that he can tell the difference is very weak again can rule it out you may have gone crazy over the weekend and i haven't heard about the right environment and drinking so it's possible that was something else but cognitive dissonance is so common that you have to if you if you playing the odds you say it's a cognitive blindness caused by cognitive dissonance that's that's by far the most likely i'd say it's a sixty to eighty percent likely explanation whereas all of the other explanations put together or maybe twenty percent forty percent most i hear and lobby gloomy put a cap on this discussion by saying this he now we always talk about the three branches of government you know you ve got the judiciary you ve got the year the presidency and then you ve got
congress and every vote were all happy about the fact that we ve got these three three branches so they have some some balance and checks imbalance there's nothing like that there are not three thirty three branches a government it was designed that way it was designed with the intention that there would be three three chambers unless it was designed with the intention that it would be the three components or chambers or components but the reality which i think jump chuck tumor agreed with is that the the supreme court is really just a captive of the presidency now
now it's not one to one near whoever's president owns a supreme court but because the appointees dont do judging anymore let me say as clearly as possible the supreme court is not in the business of making legal and constitutional rule it was designed to do that but i don't know whether start but it doesn't do that now all it does is it do you just count of the number of conservatives account up the number of of liberals and you say ok who has more right right now there are more conservatives how hard would be to predict which way they're gonna vote not really hard at all they are going to do
praise you once in a while but now really and it if you're talking about something that happened in the past i would say is now really relevant because were far more partisan today than than may be ever so i don't think it's fair to speak of the supreme court as a separate branch of government gazette really isn't it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the of the party that nominated them either the really a party apparatus more than a judge's group now have you seen the i saw a list of how many rulings were overturned by the supreme court based on which circuit court they came from so the knife apparently the knife is in the tub for forgetting overturned
but apparently the knife is not the most overturned i guess is the fourth than afore forgetting overturned it's like eighty seven percent of the time it gives overturn now if you see that percentage new say yourself my god eighty percent of the the rulings that the supreme court takes they overturned something from the lower court the knife but is it that misleading i dont know a lot about the court system so suddenly fact checking on this but doesn't the court only take cases they think they have a really high chance of overturning as a natural and don't the most controversial decisions give funneled into those ports where they think they'll get the right decision so seems to me that when you look at a weighty some percent are overturned that's theirs it there's a selection bias there there
the supreme court doesn't take every case they decide what they're going to rule on and i would imagine they look at all the things that spring the ninth does and they say this one this instead that'll stay we're not going to change our we're not can achieve zone oh here's one this one by its nature is something that we think my change that's what it that's what makes him supreme court case that it may be could go either way so i think there's a selection by us and there is no i'm not sure they're so there are two selection biases one is that lawyers might take him to those lawyers might buy us where they take a case too
i swear they think i'll get a friendly result and then also the supreme court is only picking the ones they think they have a good chance of getting overruled otherwise why pick it doesnt try to correct every decision yeah ok so am i would plead ignorance on the other the finer details of how their courses are working this is not an area that you should take my word for it but it seems to me it seems to me that that number is probably greatly exaggerated just by the way things are selected i would assume if europe
that eighty percent of the ninth circus stuff gets overturned by the supreme court means that the ninth circuit does a bad job eighty six percent of the time i think that's completely wrong but somebody needs to correct me and they use because it just looks that way is the things they select are the ones that are likely to overturn what about the other circuits well in theory
they would get fewer controversial cases so that the courts the circuit course it don't have things overturned never ruled on anything there was likely to be overturned that's my guess but again putting that out there as my very unreliable understanding of what's going on somebody says i'm correct but i'm sure there's somebody out there who sang i'm incorrect so is still means are under underpinnings are weak it means that but it doesn't mean that eighty percent of them are weak it only means that the few they decide to rule on are weak and that's why they pick them so that the eighty some present number strikes me as being completely misleading but i could be wrong
directly accurate somebody says so what's let's put together some of the things that have happened recently we saw both hillary clinton and john kerry in the last week say that that europe was mishandling its immigration and that hilary take on it was hilarious anyway so her take on it was that the problem with immigration in europe is that it was sparking nationalism and in racism and sort of creating conflict where they need to be and therefore they were handling immigration wrong but that sounds a lot to my ears like you don't know how to handle immigration and is ruining your country but no
but we really does know how to handle immigration do they it's not like everybody knows the answer because we keep acting like immigration is a yes no problem yes immigration or no immigration but has never been a yes no question it's always been at a rate crush question if you said to me when we give you all thought experiment if you said to the citizens of the united states hey we're gonna let in a hundred million shariah loving muslims and we're going to do it in the next two years what do you think americans probably something like eighty five percent of amerika i would say no no no that's too many some of them would be racist and some of them would not operate
everybody would say that's too many it's too much was shocked at the system it's too much of a different opinions coming in to try to mingle with our opinions and cause social unrest so that's if you said we're going to bring in a hundred million people into our country of three hundred whatever emily but suppose you said i'd like to bring in one muslim per year just one how many americans would object to one well vetted muslim who believes in korea but otherwise has a completely peaceful point of view one per year what percentage americans was in no way no way we can't let that president almost zero sum but what a right rewrite deserves always somebody on the other side but one we pretend that it's about muslim
migration or not or mexican immigration or not is never about that it's always about what is the rate that keeps year society whole what is it what is it that hilary was complaining about with european migration policy that the rate was high enough that it was causing social rest it's the same frickin point it's the same point is as tromp so we act we saw the biggest most i guess the divisive divisive issue in the country you just watch the biggest critic of the president and and john kerry would be up in the top of the list essentially agree with him but there are agreeing with them over in europe so that they dont have to specifically agree with him on exactly the same concept here so
as long as you're leaders are talking the dome argument you should just ignore all of it is equally done to say we should have open borders as it is to say we should lead nobody in europe and in a feels like both sides even though they do lip service to some proper rid of immigration it feels like we ve characterize the to size for the two stupidest positions the too stupid position are no immigration and as much as immigration as you want those are bull stupid and somewhere in the mill is the right amount that's good for the country and good for the immigrants as well
really knows what that amount is we don't know what that amount is that we do know that our systems nor support as much immigration as may be many of us would like so now let's talk about china and their discrimination against the iron and pronounce the name of this ethnic minority group eiger worthy winger you i e g h yours unlike that anyway it's a small ethnic
muslim community small in terms of always weaker wiggers ok thank you the weaker community in china so apparently china is putting them in re education camps and locking him up and doing horrible things to them now i'm going to try to discuss this without putting a judgment on so before i get taken out of context we know i will wait i'll say at the beginning and then if i remember i said at the end not pulling a judgment or an opinion on it i'm just gonna try to describe it seems me the china is treating the religion of islam as a medical problem
now not saying it is a medical problem and i'm not gonna give you my opinion i'm just gonna try to describe it and then contrast it causes really interesting china's treating it like a medical problem meaning that it needs quarantine and treatment so another medical problem like that would be an addiction for example somebody was addicted to drugs you will quarantine them keep them away from their sources of bad influences and bad drugs and then you will treat them now what's different is that you a belief in a particular religion whether its islam or any other
is you can think of it like an idea virus now again i'm not gonna say it's a bad virus less for you to decide i'm just gonna say that in terms of how it spreads it spreads by human contact and once you get it it's hard to get rid of it and what is different from islam from other religions is you can't leave you can't but your risky life it's more dangerous in some places and others so christianity has an escape health if you get into it you don't like it you can leave but you can also as we ve seen you can modify it over the years it can become a sort of whatever you wanted to be people have all kinds of flavors of it but mostly it's it's a peaceful
coexisting kind of an idea islam has a bit of a conquest mentality built into it as well as you can't leave or will kill you and you can't marry somebody outside the faith so again forgive me if i give you the details wrong but you get the general idea so that's dip from other other ideas so other ideas you can reject or accept and you can see it in public i reject that idea accepted but with islam it's a different idea it's almost like i want to characterize it in any way that acts like opinion but its sticky meaning that once you have it you're gonna keep it in your your kids are gonna happen too in all likelihood so you get all the details wrong but tell me if i do anything wrong
so of course there are moderate muslims and lots of them but you don't need that many to be the kind you wanna take over the world and spread the religion and etc before it becomes a social conflict with the people who don't want that
so i'm watching this and i am thinking here if you gonna judged by our standard metrics of how we treat people in the west you say my god china is treating the wiggers like a medical problem and in were deeply offended by that costs are our sense of religion is it is one of our most basic ideas is freedom of religion freedom of thought you can think whatever you think go to the church you want it's very basic to the to the west but china's treating it like a medical problem now suppose they didn't suppose i suppose they encouraged it let it grow
would it become a social problem in china where there's a hundred percent chance of that right if if the people who wanted a muslim shariah kind of a life grew to a large enough number china would have to either accommodate them or what or what if they didn't accommodate em they're not going to change their mind gazettes the nature of the religion right that the islamic world in china are not going to say oh china doesn't like us to have this religion our why didn't you tell me i'll just changed my religion that's not good at seeking deport them can't kill them can put them in concentrate games so china's making this cold calculation that we in the west would call evil but nay below here that more as a system problem like a machine this broken like ok
we'd better take the pay now because if we take it later it'll be worse so their description living in a way that we in the west with concern the worst thing that ever happened but there also treated like a medical problem which is a very different approach we in the united states would almost certainly not do that but we kind of our and a little way by limiting how many people can come into the country the fact that we don't allow in and we would never allow a hundred million people to come in with such a radically different view of how things should run is because the idea is dangerous like like a virus but we don't think about that so scott stop telling lies somebody says what
one lie were incorrect thing i've said you have plenty of characters tell me what i have said it is not true i'm waiting china persecutes christianity and flew gum to yeah so they treat they treat religion in general as a negative but i do think that they probably have a harder and this is just speculation probably a different opinion about some religions and others so some people are saying that i agree with it and is an interesting is an interesting way to think of an idea let me let me give you another thought experiment and
when i do this somebody's gonna say hey did you just did you just compare islam to nazism and the answer is no i am not saying that islam as he is and what are the same but i'm gonna give you a thought experiment what if there was a country lasalle bona in which the albanians had decided to follow hitler and become nazis how many how many old bony hands is the right number to allow to emigrate unless say that they have these of noxious these horrible views there literally nazis they dress like nazis they'll tell you there nazis they're not tried to hide it so there's there's no guessing about what their thinking they're saying with its albania and they just half of them decided to be nazis what would be our immigration policy
suppose that they were not permitting any crimes in albania and we're not intending to commit any crimes here can you would you keep them out of the country because of their belief system because it is not compatible with our own but but think about that that's a serious question would we let any albanians into the country if they were overt racists but they said look we were did we don't act on it work we will take your oath to be good americans will will act like
that's just our belief system you have different beliefs but will will follow the law we promise will follow the law but will bring our belief system with us how many of them would we led into the country i dont know the answer that actually because maybe some but i suspect that we would draw the line there are the trouble is somebody says were you born yesterday that's not your comment now the problem is that islam is not one thing you others there's mostly people just tryin to mind your own business and take care of themselves and there's some some number that are you have bad intentions so you can treat it as one big ball of the same thing and that's where it gets complicated but what percentage let's say let's say you knew albanians were ten percent others pick a number
if you knew albanians were ten percent actual nazis but you couldn't tell which ones they were how many albanians would you let into the country if you knew that one in ten in all likelihood worth just flat out nazis but you couldn't tell which ones i do know is ten percent too much of a risk lead in that because you wouldn't want to punish the nine there and binding their own business and have no bad no bad intentions whatsoever so that's the practical kind of question one must ask when running a country i'm glad i don't have to make those decisions i'll say again i am not not not comparing islam or any other relations on the other religion too
that's not what i'm doing it was just a thought experiment that if people were coming in with views that you would be destructive to your society even if iran if you thought it was true what do you do but our thoughts dangerous our ideas dangerous the same way of viruses date i would say they could spread the way by response they spread by contact some of them are dangerous and some of them are not it's a lot like a virus you just have to decide who is the virus and whose secure that's where we go wrong does for everybody says this is a virus there's some people will say this is the cure or not the virus
if you are in charge what would you do i would change the question to how many and i would turn it into a systems map in which i would say the more the more different your worldview from the current world view the lower the rate should be and so i would i would make some general statements about if we say would be a good example i want to pick a country once a country where the people are not white but they all speak english and they know they have a reasonable education system i don't know what that would be can you name a non white country where these were the primary ok india i don't know what the percentage of english and indeed is but the
of the educated class it would be high singapore ok go simple so so i would say the rate of the rate that you would love someone from singapore or india into the country should be based on how different their ideas are from the ones that are here and i would say if you're in india your ability to what's the right word what's the word when you fit in with the culture to assimilate the average educated indian
immigrant assimilation the united states really really well so you would say has nothing to do with a race and it doesn't really have to do with the country per se but the culture assimilates very well i have argued that mexicans actually assimilate very well as well
i know that that's some of you don't want to hear that but before the average mexican immigrant or south of the border magritte general once these second generation learns english there just americans mexico is a is a one hop assimilation the generation that goes to school here they're just americans the the indians who come over are sort of a zero hop situation as they come over speaking english they're pretty much americans you your day one that thereby
and into the system before they get here they speak english they ve got an education they can get a job that's you don't you take a closer to being an american then an indian national emigrating to get a job because again where a country of immigrants so that somebody immigration this country speaks english buys into the constitution and all of its police that's pretty american right right from the jump and has nothing to do with the color your skin
vietnamese assembly welter of good example the vietnamese who can speak english assimilate right away the ones who the children after are the ones were learning english originally totally isolated in in a generation half right it's not even a full generation us enough for today i'm gonna go to some else and i will say have a great day document
Transcript generated on 2020-04-01.