But the bump amendment on Bonbon Joanne here you are so fast. As always, the rest of you come on in here, Michael Mustang girl, like a duke had enough. That's your name, Bela Driftwood Rock good, to see you probably gonna, be a lot of traffic this morning, because people like to see me. To see me being wrong. That's always one all! So, let's catch up, everybody you are clearly aware by now the vast majority of you watching this that I, like many people, were fooled by video. That CNN ran up the Covington Catholic School,

Boys and the story. Of course you, although the story was it looked like the boys, were the bad guys, but when you see the full video you can see that However bad the boys were, they were the best people. At that event, everybody else was terrible, but there are also adults, so you're gonna have to put a higher stand. But on the adults. So we all know that I had an original view that was mistaken because of the selective anything of the video. I have apologize unreservedly in public Sarah. Now, here's what's interesting, I being the author of the forty eight hour rule which goes like this- that if somebody says something, that's a mistake or they need to take back

You should always give them forty eight hours to correct or apologize, and if they do and it's a reasonably competent looks sincere, you should accept it and you should move on because as the standard we would all want to be accountable to you. I certainly understand if somebody says I can never forgive you for the rest of my life. I understand emotionally why you think that but as a society should we not agree that if somebody makes a real mistake like we all, do we all do it's a universal trait of humans, we make mistakes and then they they atone for it in the sense that they apologize incorrect shouldn't. We please accept and move on cause, you don't want to live in a world where you don't do that,

want to live in a world where people don't accept. Apologies, you really when it would be a terrible world. So as As these simulation were, fate would determine I As the author of the forty eight hour rule found myself. Right in the middle of needing to use that rule sorry, my cat is getting ready to accost near, say I so blue would like say hi, Alright, I made my apology on social media. Now I got a ton push back from people on the right saying a number of things which I would like to criticise them for right now. Eventually, I had to tweet that I was going to start blocking anyone.

Who could not accept my apology, because I don't want to live in a world with people like that, the worst people in the story of the people who didn't except my apology, seems like a big statement. Right sounds like em, I'm just making it all about me, but whether with me or somebody else, does matter who's. Only apology apologizing. Got a story whether there was a alleged bad behaviour from our right racism, we're forbear to terrible things, but I'll tell you, if you can't live in a world where somebody could make the very understandable mistake, If he can live in that world and then

all guys, you just the whole society breaks down. If you can accept our standard, so I would say that some of the worst behaviour we seen other people could accept. The apologies, here's some things. They said in defence of their opinion that they could not accept. Apologies, one was there, I'm an idiot for believing in the years the important word anything on sea on CNN so and some people said, wait a minute. You criticised in almost every day. True, and therefore how can you be so dumb, though you believe them in everything they say. Here's my answer, I did not believe CNN. I believe my own eyes. If CNN had said, I have a secret source, the says some kids did so bad things, I would say, maybe not better wait up

but if I see a video with, My own eyes really believing CNN, because I think they got fooled by the same video I'd like to see the chain of custody of the video, but I have a suspicion that they may have been fooled as well. In other words, is the video that was the problem. Factor was on CNN. So anybody who tells me that believe, a video you see on any network is believing the network. Well, that's kind of a stretch. I believe, my own eyes, which were wrong right. I believe what was clearly in front of me and obvious, and it was wrong now, the Most people in this argument have said to me, Scott.

You should have known to do your own research and dig deeper into this. That's a dumb opinion. Some of these opinions a matter of opinion in a matter of priority. Matter of philosophy, etc. But there are other opinions that are just plain: dumb We live in a world where we're bombarded with situations. It is not practical to do deep, deep analysis on every situation Another thing you know I'm making hundreds of decisions today, I'm not gonna, do deep analysis alone neither you there's nobody who apply your people trying to apply a stir. To me that literally no human has ever used for their life or ever could is not even possible to do deep analysis

before. You form an opinion on everything and just everything: here's! What does make sense that sometimes the evidence is so clear that you're pretty sure you don't have to do any research Somebody suddenly turn that into research is done. If you think I said, researchers dumb, you're yeah, I gather the Dublin in this conversation in saying that in the real world doing research on every fact that is presented to you is not possible. It's not practical, nobody does it, you don't do it, I don't do it, nobody does it you'd, be you pick your shots. So if somebody says I've got this anonymous source, and they say something that doesn't sell right. You well there's a situation. Maybe you want to wait, wait for a little more information Little did die, but if you see

do something with your own eyes, and it was obvious to you that there could be no other explanation. Jumping to a conclusion could be wrong as as an example, so I jumped to a conclusion that was wrong, but that's not stupid. That's just being fooled right. There's no such thing as somebody who is so clever that they can recognize all fake news. The moment

that's not a thing and to all of you, people who climbed onto my twitter feed today to tell me that you can tell fake news just by looking at it a year, all blocked right, you're, you're, just not part of the productive conversation. Nobody can tell fake news just by looking at it. You think you can, because you ve been right a number of times, but it's easy to be right to calling fake news fake news. Do you know how just call it all fake news? You can be right so often that all feel like your magic, hey. I was right five times when he called out see at an unfair news, because the other news told me it was wrong. You're not me you're, not part of stop apology block anybody who criticise me on the apology, Guess block.

Because I don't want to live in a world with people like you and I want to have any I don't want to have any interaction with somebody who can accept a legitimate apology, there are certainly illegitimate, apologies, but mine clearly is not that nobody is. Nobody has suggested that insincere about it. Now some people have said that I must report I should do more. I've gotta, you fund the lawyers for the children, because I was part of getting it wrong. I need to hunt down the actual people in the video and apologize to them and their families in person. Now I don't that's not a standard it, you want anybody to adhere to people say

stuff in public, on social media all day long and the best they should do is to correct that one is wrong. Now, in my case, let me check the traffic on this site pins my apology and get a lot of air traffic will see how many people saw the apology versus the original incorrect opinion came. So the the replay of the apology- and this is just the periscope, because I also add- I think I got something like ten thousand re tweets on the tweet. Without the video ten thousand retreats, We, as my record, I think it's the most retweeted I've been mental one other, but so the most,

tension, I've ever gotten for a tweet or maybe second most all time was the correction apology. So it's the ten to one impact compared to the error and then the replay, the pinned replay of the appeal. She has a hundred and eighty one thousand views typically ogier closer to two eighteen thousand views for a typical video. Down the one from yesterday that I don't remember what the numbers were, but is pretty close to that. So I've got a ten to one impact of the apology correction compared to the rest where nobody in the story,

more than I am to correct. Nobody is doing more than I am at least in terms of ratio attend to one apology to error. You can't be that tend to one I would say at some point. You have to say you ve done love, I'm not gonna track these people down, I'm not gonna, go to their house ensured in their life and say I made a mistake. I fixed it on social media, but I have to talk to you in person. They don't give up. I don't give a damn about my opinion. They probably do care about social media which I've done. Why can do to fix an what is reasonable to do? You think the story is over. Now you got some surprises coming. I happened to be privy to some information there. Perhaps you have not yet see,

and I would love to tell you where I got this, but because it was a private conversation I'm not going to. I will tell you that I had a aside conversation with a prominent anti jumper who showed me, let's say another side of the story, that is shocking right! So there's more to the story, there's absolutely jawdropping shock. I'll bet. None of you have seen it. Yeah you're gonna, probably see it today. I assume you're gonna, see some stuff that you didn't know was covered I'll. Give you a preview One is that the the sure whether these kids did something bad at the event will probably may be minimized in favour of other bad things. They ve done

Let me give you a sample of some of the other bad things they ve done as, told to me by someone who watching one or the other movies right, and it's a prominent person number one this again is not my opinions on presenting someone else's opinion number one. The hats are known racist symbol. So wearing the hats. If nothing else happened, where Megahertz was a known racist symbol might as well there than wearing KKK robes again now I believe and tell you the other movies building now I thought about that. My thought this I have not given enough credit to the Democrats four persuasion our know how I miss this exactly, but have you ever seen a situation where a political party successfully?

Successfully refrained someone else's political, although, as a racist symbol, let me think about one of the great persuasion plays of all time is to take the super, successful hat logo thing, which I think. I'm pretty sure. I'm society will look at one of the greatest political persuasion. Place of all time was the red, the red hats for our trump just a huge success, but the left has successfully started to identify it as a racist symbol Now in Lhasa is races, symbol and say that they have actually succeeded in this. So what our side is so obviously to them, erases symbol,

so you can't even wear the half, and I was thinking man. Imagine if could Republicans ever do that to the other side. That is some seriously powerful persuasion, so forget about what's going to ride or what should happen. Just tell me about the skill of it Very impressive? You after you have to admit that if the other team can make you not even use your own logo, they ve done a good job of persuasion, not a good job of being good people but the job of persuasion. So you'll see that argument that the hassle owner bad here's another one and here's one you're not going to like cuz, I'm going to agree with the critic here all right now. This is not different from those things. I've been telling you forever here's a criticism. Actually a pretty good one. Why are minors because of the boys role, minors or under eighteen?

why are minor boy, is giving us? other opinion about about what adult women should do with their bodies, because it was in the context of the the right to life March. Now now I'll be careful, I'm not taking size on the debate, I'm not taking you sires pro abortion. Pro life, I'm not taking site, I'm making a simple statement about who should be talking about the issue and one of the criticisms is: why is a bus load of sixteen year old, less guiche boy Why is telling adult women what to do with their bodies? And I heard that I thought? Ok, ok, I'm taken an arm again except that criticism. That's a pretty good criticism

pretty good criticism, no matter which side you are on on the other thing now. My personal opinion on abortion- which I think most of you have heard, is that my personal opinion, okay, this isn't what you should do, I'm not so sure. What any of you should do. I'm saying my personal opinion is that I personally should I have an opinion on abortion rights because I'm a man and I think that we get a more credible outcome if we were obviously completely capable and more skin in the game. Make the decision then just tell us what you want right if you're in back it if you're, not in as majority, should be majority decision, if you got in I'll just stay out of it.

So my version, my version of how an adult male should should play this. Personally, I think I dont add anything to the conversation and if all I'm gonna do is interfere with a conversation I say stay up now. If you tell me that a minor I dont care of them there is male or female. If you, We then a minor should be telling adult women what to do with their bodies. I say: that's a foul we don't have minors informing adults what to do other bodies period. I think that's something all of us should agree on, even if you agree with that, we agree with the the miners who were marching if he even if you're totally on their side. Minors should not be influencing adults on what to do.

Their bodies, that's a red line right there. That is a solid, that's a wall, that's a red line, so When I heard this, what I heard that criticism I said to myself. Ok, I mean I mean on that. That's one thing and I would go further and say that the adults who allowed children to protest or what adult women should do with their bodies had had a bunch of men. Young men do that this just wrong. It's the wrong look, so that was where there are before those they're, probably you haven't seen yet that are about the same school and these sports teams of these same schools. That, to me, are clearly take photos. So when I look at them, I say those are real right

and I'm not even going to describe what they are, because they are so obviously not real, but there will certainly be persuasive to the people who say that these kids are bad didn't general independent of whatever happened that day, there are two photos of them allegedly involved in the worst behavior you you can ever imagine they do. Appear to be fake. Now you may start seeing them on social media. I doubt you ever see them I'd be amazed if you see them on, unlike regular news, because her so obviously fake, but in the two movie world. Other people are seeing some pictures there would make the school, but not necessarily these specific kids and nothing about that day, but would like to make the kids at their school.

Boys. Look like a really bad human beings, I'm not having say what's. Pictures are because one of them is so fake. It is laughable I'll tell you that one of the pictures is clearly vague, shows an adult in the scene as if he wouldn't Matt. As if you wouldn't mind, the behaviour is a sort of stamina again, and that then really happen. There's no way there. Everett ever was happy. That picture is the way it's being described because the adult the adult there wouldn't just be standing like it was no big deal and the second one is a type of picture together, not explain, what's in the picture because its it it seems more obviously fake than possibly real. It's a type of picture we ve seen faked before so there are other sakes that are just like this. Now, I'm not going to say

that is impossible, the Sunday there will be a nigerian prince whose June email and says, hey I've, you know you could make a lot. Money. If you help me, get my money out of Nigeria. So for ever Single nigerian prince has been a scam you, I think, you'll know what I'm talking about the famous nigerian emails, but Ass, not to say that Sunday there won't be a real nigerian email. I'm just saying really really unlikely, and likewise with these pictures that focuses on the left are probably going to see today true, but is really really unlikely because it falls into a category of things which are almost always fake. So here's the bottom line, if you think The people who are Doug into a position are just going to change their minds. You don't really live in the real world.

Unusual for people to change their minds. You saw me correct my opinion, but there's no big deal because I corrected in a direction that the corrected I wanted them not to be guilty, so you know I was. I was spring loaded to want the kids not to be monsters, but my first impression was that they did bad stuff. The corrected impression was: I saw that the contacts that wasn't what I thought, That's the hence the apology, but people are gonna kind to see what they want to see. I saw what I wanted to see and corrected to that position

that doesn't make me a hero, because I corrected to where I can one to be. Somebody just said: where's the simultaneous up, excellent question. Simultaneous coming up grab mug your cup you're jealous your container, you thermos your glass, your shot, glass fill it with a favorite liquid. I like coffee, enjoy me from the simultaneous, are

let's talk about Kemal heiress, who announced now before I do. I'm gonna give you some context, served while airs and now she's running for president no big surprise, but now the fun begins. So yesterday I tweeted rounder Jake Tapir, a clip from Jake Tapir interviewing Kirsten Gila brand hope on pronouncing. I write so she is also a Kennedy for present. I think she's announced. But in any event we all know she's running and Yes, she was more conservative in the past and J Cover said to her. You ve got The president's border wall plan racist and then he said,

why? Wouldn't your own opinions be racist? Since in two thousand and six, I believe you, you agreed with the funding border security. So why is it racist when the president does it, but it's not racist when you did exactly the same thing, and that was CNN and Jake Tapir asking exactly the right question now and it was shocking to see actually cushy, sputtered and finance written, and you watched her presidential ambitions just sizzle in front of you. So CNN clearly is not backing Kirsten Gill around and what I predicted was that you would watch CNN and Nancy Ellen alone, everybody on the Anti Cheapside that you'd watch them start picking off the weak candidates.

The left, because they don't wanna have real messy situation. They need to get their top candidate, whoever they want up to the top and clear out the weak field as quickly as possible, so they're, not cannibalize each other. I have predicted sense for at least the last six months have been predicting that Cabal Harris would be the likely eventual candidate. It seems to me the CNN agrees, because if you, if you watch the coverage of Kemal a watch, how is more positive and watch how all the candidates, who are not Kemal Harris get criticized by the pundits- and I think you, you see a very clear pattern- start to develop. So this is a prediction see we haven't gone far enough for me to say that is already happening, but I will say it

I'm not already wrong, meaning that they have, go on while Harris they ve been nice to her in their coverage and they have definitely been not nice to other competitors, so tells he gathered and Kirsten Jellyband have gotten the tougher treatment. So yourself you need to understand about the world and about how candidates are selected. This is the actual way happens. People don't I understand this. There are some: U handful of influential mostly billionaires media mogul types who decide who the candidates you're gonna be typically trump. Was the total exe

to the rule because he was the billionaire there's. Only one tromp any broke all the rules and Sarah, but the typical whether the world works is that a small group of people decide who is who they can fund. Basically, who is it that would be worthy of their money in their attention they decide and then the the media, that they control gets on board. And then they brainwash the voters. And then the voters have the illusion that they have been selected a candidate. But the voters, the only information the voters have comes from the their chosen media And their chosen media is pretty much following you're, not necessarily a specific memo. What is it starts to become clear to everybody in a variety of ways who their their team was right. So

I can say that there is a meeting where there's a memo that comes out and they all read the memo ago. Ok, we're all getting behind this is that what I am saying is that in essence, very few people decide who the candidate There will be. The media will cement that view in the public, and then the public will have the illusion, the illusion that they chose the candidate. None that's true and the way you can know that this is the case? Is that if you imagine all the different ways that story could be told in, and then you talk to Any of the candle was there any the voters were, let's say on the left, those voting. Well all mimic exactly what they heard in their preferred media?

if you just grab, somebody on the street was let's say three months before election day or let or even three months before the primaries. If you talk to any voter and say why do you like acts they will tell you something they heard and help me or something there. In their friendly media? They will not tell you something. You ve never heard right. There just doesn't happen, and that's your tell that they're getting their story from from essentially brainwashing I just want a circle back to this thought for the people who are our chastising me for being wrong my initial view about the kids, because the video that I saw,

It is not wrong to believe your own eyes most of the time, most of the time it's the best. He have you know if you actually directly or even on video observe an event. It could be wrong and often is- and this is the perfect example of that- but you don't have. A more direct way to know reality. There is no better way to do. It then see it. That would be wrong to as we saw so. Don't don't be the people who say: why would you believe your own eyes now? That's what we do so I will commit to you as well as a number of people have said. Got it just make sure you never make this mistake again the mistake being watching a video.

Believing what I saw the video I wanna guarantee to you. I will make that mistake again. I guarantee every one of you wash in this will make that mistake. I believe, What you see over and over again in your life, you don't have the option of not there's no option of not believing what you see you, You can just leave a story about somebody to talk to somebody you can just believe somebody spend. You can just leave a document. The document could be for you can just believe a lot, but the one you're going to probably give food by every time is a picture or a video. Those are just two influential. It's really hard for this really hard for anybody not to be fooled by that, and I am certainly not going to commit to you that I will never be fooled by

Video of an event, that's not a thing I will be fooled will be followed by a video of events in the future. I will be guaranteed, No, when I find out I'll try to correct it. That's all I can comment. That's it. Somebody says, get the facts right, let's follow your brilliant. Your brilliant believe that you should do your research and get the facts. Let's, let's just show you how brilliant you are saying that turns around this later. There's, nothing on there. I thought So all of you geniuses who piled on today and said I should follow this. Let me show you what that looks like so here's the initial story, and then there is the smart people, the smart

over giving comments and they do their own research and they get to the truth so these brilliant people are saying. Why did you stop? with the original story, when all smart people know you need to do a little deeper dive. You must get more facts. You must research to get to the truth, people say that are the dumbest people in the story. These are the dumb people and there's no other way to save unfortunately, when I you, but these dumb people, here's why how do you know when you done. Half of the people who researched and got to the truth. How do they know their done with the research? How many times have you

people go down the research well and they say. Ok, I guess I'm done. I've got everything I've done all the research on. How do you know you're done if you will, old here? How do you know this was in full you, you have no way to know. You have no way to know what say you're looking into climate science, clover science, I'm calling like a well here's a little bucket on your well. If, if you get the story on climate science, that's the surface, people say? I'm not gonna believe all the scientists say. I'll go down. Look at the sceptics, arrive sceptic tells me the story is wrong. Now I've done my research on brilliant. No, you haven't, because if you show the sceptics argument to the scientists, the scientists will tell you why this

So now you dont right. You saw the story, you listen to the sceptics than does the scientists told you why the original story was right. You're done right now, because the sceptics will look at what the scientists said. The sceptical say now: scientist and then he showed that the scientists and the scientists will say now. I was right the first time you hear the things you ve forgotten to infinity, That's turtles all the way down, I'm sure you will reach a place right about here where there's something you don't understand, cause you're, not a climber science eventually this argument will be an infinite perpetual falling into things. You don't understand until you get to appoint. I tell you. I'm saying comments that are making my head spam.

Eventually. You get away where you can check it or you don't even understand so. The dumbest opinion is that you should have researched it. Ok, that's always the opinion anybody who says you got it wrong because you didn't research enough. That's the dumbest opinion, because you can't research these things you never know when you're done, there's no way to know you're done can be done. So don't ask me to do the impossible, especially when you especially when you ve never done it yourself. I obviously here So how did you learn to think that way? Also good question and it is

answered in my new book, loser think, which I just handed in my first draft you're, comparing science to self explanatory video. No, I have a chapter on people say stuff like that, though I'm not comparing them. They are two examples that is different than comparing. There are. The other problem is what I call the failure of imagination. So when will I, the original video the day that I incorrectly assumptions about. The reason that I got fooled was a fair. Here of imagination. I failed to imagine that was in any other way, to interpret it

Then, when the new information came out, I said oh ok. This is the new information, but I'm making the same mistake again with the clarification. Am I not because, having seen the clarification I said to myself? Well, imagine anything that would change my opinion now that I've seen the clarification. That's exactly what I said when I saw the first story exactly the same mental problem. I said I care how this could be wrong and then, when it was wrong, I said I can't imagine how this new thing would be wrong, but I could And if anything that I heard from my source on the left today is true, it would

We changed the story, but I wouldn't know if it was true service turtles all the way down soon. Somebody says the video did not show the kids doing anything wrong, but I saw that I saw them doing something wrong. It was an interpretation that was incorrect. So when you say the video doesn't show it you're failing to understand the basic, the basic nature of human beings, that we can look at exactly the same thing and have done. Opinions, and it doesn't necessarily been one of us is done. It doesn't, is not down to look at the same situation and have different internal. Patients, that's just a normal way of all mines, so you can say that the north!

why humans are, as is done. That would make sense. You should always look for multiple sources. That's done here is why not the fact that you should look for multiple sources? The problem is there will always be maybe more sources. You never know when you're done it's impossible to know when you have researched enough either maybe exceptions that for sometimes now and Elsie stories about allegations about the native American, veteran and people are doing math and saying well. He couldn't have really been in Vietnam when he said because it is his age, etc. Say I would not only asking us for them: You who say we

do your own research and keep looking down. Do you believe the people who say that the native American is not the veteran he claims today Do you believe that? Because you first learn to use a veteran and then people did a bunch of research and they have evidence, they believe shows that he lied about being a veteran. Are you dont? Have you done research are you done because don't you think there's a little more research after that cause I'll think you're but about a lot of people. Think you're done. That's the illusion, the illusion, is the? U only do your research until you find something you already were likely to believe this is the best ok. This is the best way to set in reality? People will do the research only deeply as they have you the interest in the talent.

Better wait until they reach the point that they already agreed to. Another words are looking for a confirmation of their opinion, they're not looking for research. It feels like we do research, but you're. Not About having a twenty four hour, rule of law- company, here's so I agree with the twenty four hour rule, except when You can see it with your own eyes. If you see with your own eyes, do you really need to wait? You don T We need to wait a week if you video illicit use, video of was it now Gibson say you some video, no Gibson being stopped by police and saying a bunch of aunties. Other things I think he was accused of that. So I wasn't there policies over the aren't we

You need to wait. What would you need to do your research to find out their somebody's video, let's say if you saw on video something that clearly was somebody saying a bunch of racist stuff. Do you need to wait now? You don't you don't need a resource that he saw with your own eyes now? I thought that I saw one of those situations with my own eyes and it was clear and obvious, and I was wrong. That's why I apologise, but it is not wise to always wait twenty four hours. If you There's nothing to wait for so you have to use a little judgment. We now live in such a case. The world their wedding, twenty four hours always makes sense. Now I think this was a good cautionary tale because a sort of the sort of gives you a sense. Of how wrong you can be about things you think you're right. So I think my

own opinion about what is you're, an obvious and incontrovertible. Has been now permanently adjusted. So one of the questions people ask me is: what are you going to do different differently next time and I would say it's not so much what I'm going to do differently next time and what have I learned from this? But rather my filter has been perm Will you reset so as skeptical as I have always been, and I'm deeply on the skeptical side? Even I wasn't skeptical enough so so I took my skepticism, which was probably an eight point, five out of ten- and I just said. That's not enough being skeptical at a level of eight point, five and a ten still wasn't enough. I need to dial that up a little more, maybe nine hundred and forty five, so

Here's my answer. I will never commit that you should wait on every story for twenty four hours khazars some stories that just are so obvious that you can convince yourself that waiting excited efforts, but I'm definitely gonna be a lot more discriminating about how often I say you don't have to wait and that just shown to a very small number there was a small member before, but now it's now ass can be minuscule. So I have changed. That's the change I can commit to so the change I commit to is that I will adjust my own sense of how certain can be even what I've seen it with my own eyes. That's the Newport, even when I've seen it with my own eyes, I won't. I will automatically,

I believe that now, but that doesn't mean there are still things that are just so clear, there's nothing to say about them. Some who says you think you are a god. You're meet like all of us. Did I just say something that made me sound like I thought I was God. Failure. You watching it's an entire video talking about my mistakes and my inability to see the future and somebody said well, you call yourself, God like feels like exactly the opposite of what was going on here. Somebody said, I made the mistake of thinking there. Trumps enemies were acting in good faith. No, no! I did not make that mistake. There was no point that I trusted CNN in the least as a mental process.

I believe my own eyes, I look the video and it didn't matter where it came from Why wouldn't matter where it came from We my own eyes, and I was deceived. That's not me believing CNN Giving CNN is when they have a secret source. I believe that, but. I'm looking at the video. I don't care who gave it to me if it's, if as if it seems that clear, I'm going to be fooled again in the future. Probably, but I'll definitely try to tighten my shelter all right. If you were on the sanctimonious side today, what does sanctimonious mean.

Let me see if I make sure I know what does sanctimonious means. I mean, I know what it means and contacts, but I want to make sure I the rights definition, because I don't want to say I'm not being sick until I know exactly what is it make you shall be morally superior to other people. Oh now, I'm not doing it has I've done spoken to my moral superiority, I don't think so I don't you think, that's a topic as it As I have. I talked about morality. It'll work, I think everything I've talked about, is a practical, a practical thing, meaning when do you believe things when you don't what's a good system for society, including excepting mistakes in accepting

something accepting employees, that's not a moral opinion. It's, not a moral opinion that you should accept. Apologies, it's a practical up in it. What it's it's a system that makes society work more efficiently. So if you interpret anything I said as being a moral superiority. I've not even talking about morality in any way at all, I pretty Pretty maybe in tone, but certainly I'm telling you systems that I think work better than others

systems, and one of them is don't believe that research does what you think it does. I definitely impression that you scolded the teens parents, in which context I think there are two different context she must be talking about. I would not take scold necessarily has as a description when I did do due to the world. You, like somebody, says I'm claiming superiority, because I apologized what was what was the alternative?

so that is the alternative that I'd be a better person. If I didn't apologize, people are really strong opinions on this whole topic about the kids. I think I think it was sort of a perfect storm in which it took every. If you think about it, the the story with the kids took every emotional thing and put it into one story. First of all, it was about minors. I swear anything about. Children has more more impact. Second of all, racism had had different raises its head, something about antigay stuff and we had it had every

Every interesting thing you could ever have of somebody wanted me to. Let me give you an update on my hot water heater if it's only make sense for those of you who have heard the whole story so I'll, just zip through it. I had this long sequence of bad coincidences, where everything kept breaking as soon as one thing was fix. Another broken, so I did get my water heater fixed after it seemed impossible. I am so took an entire day knows is finished at night. The moment it was fixed and those of you heard my story about the simulation will understand this. The moment my water fleet filter was fixed, something unrelated, which is the warm floors manifold which

Puts warm water under the floor to warn the house completely unrelated different piece of equipment not physically attached to the water heater, except by a hoses, a completely different piece of equipment, popped league as the plumber was standing there fixing the other thing. So the simulation part of it was the weird set of coincidences that when one thing was fixed at the exact moment it was fixed. Another thing: on and on and on, and that that trend has continued and after the water heater was vexed completely unrelated a leak popped with

known cause on an unrelated piece of equipment, ten feet away because simulation. I can't explain it, but it's been weird. Somebody says you ve been that I've been seeming different lately. I don't know about that. I think I think I'm different depending on the story. Wouldn't you say there are some stories Adam. I am more skin in the game, so yesterday, for example, You have to understand that weird, my life is, my life is a sort of not like not like other people. And one of them is that most of you just watch the news about the other Covington.

And you may be made some comments on social media and that was wrongly involvement. I made comments about the same story. All of you were commenting on except I became part of the story, so I think the daily collar and bright Barton at least one other major blog. Ran stories about me because of this story in the story was that some people were apologizing for getting wrong the first time. So when I comment on stuff, I'm not just commenting, I actually become the story simply by the commenting yet depending on what to come, and so there are. There are stories which I have skin in the game, and I'm sure that shows differently. Then, when I'm just talk.

About something that I'm not really a part of? Did the repairman lie? Not nothing worth think. The plumbers actually did everything that I wanted them to do they just head. And the same number of bad coincidences that could not have been anything they were doing. This was a bit personal. It was personal, it was personal because I was part of the story. That's what I'm saying I was my girlfriend Christina she's, great

we're great rebar yelled at me, no bright bar was just telling the story about some people apologizing there. There were descriptive, they were not putting an opinion on it and, in my case your mistake help turn it around Well, let me ask you: do you think they're my apology and my my clean reversal of opinions? Do you think it changed the story?

the important way I mean everything, everything's part of the story, but do you think that my involvement actually change the nature of the story and some national way? Because I don't see that I dont see? Might I dont see my involvement being part of really changing the story? I think I'm just part of it could be you analyze the future better than now. That's a great question, so somebody said and my better at predicting

future. Then I am at interpreting what I'm looking at in the moment, such as that video never thought about that question. I would just say that everybody is bad at interpreting the presents and it work we're sort of universally all bad at that, but sometimes people are better at predicting the future. Your apology,

Simple, I dont know, there's no way to know that. My guess is that the other people, Poligized, probably would have ended up there. The the fact that maybe I was really in that process. I don't think it was really influential, maybe, but I don't see clear evidence that somebody's asking, if Ruth better against Burg is deceased, the answer is now. The answer is no people use me to analyze the now.

Well, you should use as many sources as you can stand, but remember you can ever researches enough with all respect. You should listen to your audience more really here. Here's the thing, the bothered me the most, maybe I haven't said this- is clearly the people who said they were positive. It was a fake from the moment they sought. Not credible voices in this, because if all you did is disbelieve everything, the other side says that doesn't make you a genius. Let me say it again: if use if you reflexively, disbelieve everything, the other team is saying that doesn't make you the smart one in the conversation that that makes you the day.

One in the conversation the if you're, not looking at every situation as freshly as you can and as objectively as you can you dont you not really in a strong position to criticise me if- and I can't tell you how people criticise me yesterday and today for not believing that the other team is a rope is wrong. A hundred percent of the time, they're not wrong on two percent of the time, and you do know that they think your team is wrong hundred percent of the time. So, if your belief is that the other team all their facts wrong, all the reporting is wrong on a per cent of the time. You're, not part of the thinking, the thinking population, you you're you're, just a bumper sticker with the spine,

media bumper sticker, where the central nervous system, if all yours, a bumper sticker and you're coming to criticise me for having an independent opinion, you don't have much you now standing on solid ground. I am somebody says it's a patter: it's not a hundred percent pattern. If you were to actually take the news, let's see then reports and actually make it. What's true and what isn't most of it would be true. I know you don't want to hear that now. Their interpretation of the news often would be indifferent from what you would call true, but if they report the somebody quit if their report that there's a war, if they report the something blew up, the report,

The president, as you said, he's gonna run if they report that Kemal Harris says she's going to run for president most of was here then says is true. There. Interpretations of it, of course, on the up and how they are. They put a spent on it of courses opinion. But if your opinion is that a hundred percent was CNN says is untrue. You you're not smart enough to talk on social media me you, you ve, missed the bar right you're. Honestly, I hate to say you just not bright enough to say opinions and public you're, just a euro bumper sticker with a central nervous system, and he probably should join the smart people talking that sound arrogant and what was either word. What

Somebody call me earlier sanctimonious. No second moaning ask us is not a moral opinion is an opinion about what works and what what what doesn't work as assuming that one of the new sources is a hundred percent wrong on presenting time. That's not thinking which side is the site of love. Both It's definitely not true that one side is in favor of love and the other side is evil. I'm pretty sure. That's not the case. Somebody said I didn't say: patterns were one hundred percent, then why would you treat them like they're one hundred percent.

Patterns, can you tell you maybe the odds, but they certainly can't tell you what is your adding to the body of evidence the way people are held to a different standard? Should I care about that? Should I care that way? People are held to a different standard. I think it depends on the situation because, for example, adults are held to a different standard than minors.

For example, if there is a fight that breaks down, the bar men are held to a different standard than when the Alyssa, a man and a woman got into a fist light. I don't think they should be treated with the same standard, because, assuming that the man is larger creature in the story, there are lots of situations where you should not old people to the same standard. I think you have to look at each one. You have to look at each situation, distrust any sensational story. We, the little guy. I think that's the lesson here. I think we should narrowed the lesson. I would narrow the lesson from the Covington situation. If, if people are saying the lesson, is you should distrust everything CNN says I feel like us. The re lesson.

I think, the right less it video lies for more than you could imagine that's that's a good lesson. Does. It wouldn't have mattered. I'm pretty sure that if I had seen the same video on Fox NEWS or any other source, my opinion would have been the same. It wasn't it earns. Foxes will correct me if I'm wrong can. Can somebody inform me did the video that played on CNN. There was just a small video of the interaction with the. The native american Guy and again have was that video. Also on Fox NEWS, can somebody clarify that did Fox news play this? were similar video, a scene and played there was just a tight clip of the interaction. Can somebody answer that cause out? I assume they did

Because it was the it was, the video most people were poor talking about new a short, so I dont think is it. I don't think I would have had a different opinion if I'd seen than the different network I was basing them on being, will be over the US, that's lessen. The lesson is video. Lies video will lie more aggressively every year, because the technology will allow that to happen and will be more videos. So. Whatever you thought of CNN, that probably should stay the same, but whatever you think of the power of videos.

Whether you see the video? Let me ask you this: if use video on your favorite NEWS Fox NEWS, would you believe it if use of video on a new source you trusted? Let's say many of you might like Drudge or Fox NEWS, or something would you trusted because it because if you would because it was other sources, you trust you have learned the lesson. I don't think the less it is the independence of who As the video, the video itself can be the lie and the people who publish it may not be aware of it because they might have been lied to buy the video just like you were, so I wouldn't put the trust in the publishing platform. I would I would say that the video is what you should question, no matter who was presented.

Talk about how we can be doped up on emotions. Well, I think everybody knows that story right which we can get such a rush from our opinions and emotions that actually just feels good and we're just chasing the high, because, wouldn't it be didn't. Didn't you feel a high when the story was very anti transport on day one, but then you saw reverse in your opinion anyway, a reverse completely didn't you feel a high. Most of you were transporters. Didn't do that feel like an actual like a good, that's good! That's what striving your decisions! It's, not your great brain! This that's done a bunch of reasoning and came up to a union It's your emotions. How can you see the race relations are hurt by CNN, and yet they love, because you,

we're making mind reading the assumption that the evidence does not support the mind reading assumption is. The CNN is intentionally slanting the news to be racist because their evil people- I don't think that's in evidence. The evidence is that it we. What they're saying in believing what you're saying and trying to fight against what you believe is racism. You could be writer, you could be wrong, but should not evil if you're fighting against evil. As you see it and it's an evil that a lot of people would agree with. You can be wrong, but it would be hard to be evil. In that case,. Some people are making the Duke lacrosse comparison, I would say there is no comparison. Duke lacrosse was based on human testimony. Am I wrong?

Believing human testimony we already knew was a daisy proposition, but believing video that you're watching with your own eyes a Didn't know how lying video could be, and now we ve been informed or filters and changed. I did Q lie. I can talk about you, we'll talk you later life