Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1254 Scott Adams： I Unveil a Wokeness Linguistic Kill Shot, Election Security Insights, and Apophenia

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in, come on in. It's going to be a good one. You're going to learn

00:00:12.720 things today. And I'm going to unveil my linguistic kill shot for wokeness. Yeah,

00:00:20.700 you've been waiting for that. Took me a while. But to make this day extra special,

00:00:27.220 here's what we're going to do. We're going to maximize it by grabbing your closest

00:00:32.780 cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind,

00:00:36.480 fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

00:00:41.320 the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. I'm doing that just

00:00:44.860 to mess with people who are listening to this at 1.5 speed. I sound like a chipmunk, don't I? 0.79

00:00:51.320 This is called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to make everything better.

00:00:54.380 If you don't believe it, well, I feel sorry for you. Go.

00:01:04.220 Have you heard of how mushrooms are actually connected to each other under the ground?

00:01:11.840 And this great sort of psilocybin mushroom connection, they can all talk and connect under

00:01:18.840 the ground. Well, that's exactly like the simultaneous sip. There's your analogy for the day.

00:01:24.380 All right, let's talk about some things. Representative Eric Swalwell. He's been put

00:01:33.520 back on the Homeland Security Committee, which is exactly what you want to do with your representatives

00:01:40.360 that you are concerned may have been influenced by China. You put them right on the Homeland Security 1.00

00:01:46.400 Committee. Now, I rush to tell you that there is no proof that Representative Swalwell is influenced in

00:01:57.960 any way by China. There is no proof of that that I am aware of whatsoever. In other news, Swalwell compared

00:02:07.780 Trump to Bin Laden and said that he is likewise radicalizing his followers. So I tell you again,

00:02:16.920 that there is no proof that I'm aware of that Representative Swalwell is in any way influenced by China.

00:02:24.860 It is simply a coincidence that he acts exactly like he is. You get that, right? It's not causation,

00:02:34.000 just coincidence. So in other news, Julian Assange is, I don't know if she's current or ex-girlfriend,

00:02:47.080 Pamela Anderson is making a big push to get Assange pardoned. And when I was looking at the story

00:02:56.820 about Pamela Anderson, I said to myself, she has two good points. Moving on. There's a, you may have

00:03:07.880 seen on the internet, there's an anti-lockdown study. It's a study that says that maybe the lockdowns were

00:03:15.820 not effective. You like that, don't you? Don't you love the fact that there's a study that says the

00:03:22.800 lockdowns were not effective? Don't you love that? Well, I loved it too until I read that the study was

00:03:31.820 bullshit. So I'm going to start a new thing. I guess in a way I've already started it, but I'm going to be 0.98

00:03:39.400 a little bit more dedicated to it, which is I'm going to recommend people to you who are unusually

00:03:46.780 unbiased and also unusually good at sorting things out for you. Now, one of them I talk about all the time

00:03:54.540 is Andres Backhaus, probably the best, the best on Twitter that I've seen in terms of looking at papers

00:04:01.620 and studies and data and telling you what's obviously wrong with them. So if you don't have his voice in

00:04:08.440 the back of your head telling you that everything you're seeing on the internet is bullshit and why, 0.95

00:04:14.040 you know, with high credibility, you don't really know what's going on. I feel like you need at least 0.99

00:04:21.060 that protection of that little voice in your head. The other person I, that I recommended, I'll talk

00:04:28.680 about in a little bit, but so two recommendations today. Andres Backhaus is one. So the study about the

00:04:35.160 lockdowns not being, you know, not being effective, you should treat that with a credibility of zero,

00:04:44.760 zero. You should treat it like it didn't even happen. That's the amount of credibility to give

00:04:49.420 it. All right. I made the mistake yesterday in the car because some commercials came on on whatever I was

00:04:59.620 listening to. And I thought to myself, I'm just going to sample some other stuff. Now, usually when I'm

00:05:06.220 sampling the ideas on the left, I go to CNN because I feel like they're a good, they capture, you know,

00:05:13.820 that left-leaning kind of bias quite well. But every now and then I go a little bit further

00:05:20.300 and I go all the way to MSNBC and I turned on MSNBC and my God, it's just frightening.

00:05:30.040 Now, to be fair, it's probably exactly how their audience feels when they log on to Fox News

00:05:39.200 accidentally or they visit their uncle and it's on the TV. They probably stand there going,

00:05:44.160 what? What the hell am I seeing? Well, that was my experience watching MSNBC. So there was a serious

00:05:53.000 conversation, and this is the part that's mind-blowing, that this was serious, about how to punish all of

00:06:01.780 the Trump supporters after he's out of office. That's actually being discussed like it's totally normal,

00:06:09.140 totally routine. It's just something you talk about on the news. Yeah, let's talk about punishing one

00:06:15.960 of the political parties for who they supported. That is, that's a type of evil that's so palpable

00:06:26.860 and so, like you can feel the evil, but they don't. They don't. To them, it's just talking and it's just

00:06:36.780 mind-blowing to actually go over there. It's like you've, you've entered another reality or you're

00:06:41.220 on another planet or something where you can talk about that like it's just a normal conversation,

00:06:46.800 punishing your political enemies. It's mind-blowing, really. But the question I wonder is,

00:06:57.040 how do they think that ends? Like what? What's the end point of making it a precedent or making it a

00:07:06.760 big thing to go after and punish the political party that you feel really, really was bad?

00:07:13.100 And I'm not even talking about the leaders. I'm talking about the voters and the people who just

00:07:17.640 took jobs in the administration. Did you want a President Trump with nobody taking jobs?

00:07:23.920 Did you want that? Was that your better, your better solution is that Trump gets elected and then he

00:07:30.180 can't hire anybody? Because if he does, their lives will be ruined in the future? Is that what you want?

00:07:39.260 It's sort of like the dog chasing the car. So MSNBC, suppose you get your way. Suppose you get

00:07:47.280 everything you want and every Trump supporter is punished in a way that they can really feel.

00:07:52.400 What did he get? What did he get out of that? Revenge? Justice? Did he make it a better world?

00:08:03.240 I don't think so. And when I listen to it, I just think, is there some inability to think things

00:08:10.220 through to what kind of effect that would have on the whole system to make it somehow normalized that

00:08:16.120 you punish the voters? The voters who voted wrong get punished? The people who just took jobs in the

00:08:24.240 administration? Because you still have to run the government. You still have to have a secretary of

00:08:30.680 this and that, right? It's shocking. And of course, you know, Don Lemon said some similar things in the

00:08:41.140 sense that he was saying the other day, that there are too many members of the Klan support Trump. So

00:08:47.300 if you also support Trump, you're basically in the Klan, you know, by association. Now, I would like to 0.59

00:08:54.600 see if we had an actual news industry, you know, people who work in this thing called the news, who

00:09:01.260 would ask important questions and stuff like that. If we had anything like that, here's what I'd like to

00:09:06.400 see. And we don't, unfortunately. I'd like the news industry to ask every prominent Democratic politician

00:09:13.420 if they agree with Don Lemon. Just get them on record. Don Lemon says that if there's some bad people in the

00:09:20.940 group, and let's say they're in the Klan, and there are members of the Republican Party, that the Republican

00:09:28.420 Party is now basically associated with, and therefore can be considered almost as bad as the Klan by association.

00:09:36.780 That's the Don Lemon belief. I would like to see every Democratic leader ask that question for the

00:09:43.020 record. Do you disavow this, or do you embrace that opinion? Don't you? Oh, that's interesting.

00:09:53.600 Somebody says there's no Twitter simulcast. There is a, there might be a setting that I didn't hear

00:10:00.260 hit. I had some system trouble. Anyway, just go over to, go over to YouTube if you want to,

00:10:09.220 if you want to see it. All right. So, given that the, the Don Lemon thing, which is the idea that if

00:10:22.380 you're, if you're, if you're in a group and you're a bad person, then the entire group is defined by that,

00:10:31.980 the bad people in the group. So, that's what the mainstream narrative is selling us, that all

00:10:37.480 Republicans are bad because some are bad. All Republicans are bad because some of them attacked

00:10:43.500 the Capitol. Now, what do you do about that? Because the wokeness idea has gone from, hey,

00:10:53.960 you individual, you did some bad things, you individual. It's now spread all the way to,

00:10:59.820 if any individuals do something, you're all the same individual. That's what it's become.

00:11:07.540 And so, I came up with a linguistic kill shot. A linguistic kill shot is something that, 0.73

00:11:14.220 once you hear it, it's kind of the end of the conversation. The first one that you might have

00:11:20.060 been aware of was when then-candidate Trump referred to Bush as low energy. That was a linguistic

00:11:29.640 kill shot. As soon as Bush was seen as low energy, you couldn't ever see it any other way. That's it.

00:11:36.340 It was the end of it. So, that's what makes it a kill shot, is that once you've heard it, you don't

00:11:41.160 have anything else to say. You just have to walk away at that point. So, in our wokeness situation where

00:11:48.820 an entire group is being branded by the reputations of the few in the group, here is my linguistic kill

00:11:55.160 shot. And I'll tell you why it works after I tell you. And it goes like this. I tweeted this this

00:12:01.160 morning. If you think a group, if you think a group of people can be fairly defined by the worst person

00:12:08.460 in the group, the worst person in your group is you. I'll read it again, then I'll tell you why it's

00:12:17.180 a kill shot. If you think a group of people can be fairly defined by the worst person in the group,

00:12:24.820 the worst person in your group is you. That's the end of the conversation. Now, you can't do that with

00:12:33.060 a lot of topics. I think there are a lot of topics for which there is no linguistic kill shot. But now,

00:12:40.140 use your imagination, and you're watching, let's say, a CNN segment in which somebody's saying

00:12:45.280 something similar to what Don Lemon says, which is all Republicans or all voters for Trump have to

00:12:52.020 answer to the worst people in the group. And then you imagine that the person, let's say it's a Trump

00:12:58.460 supporter, just says this one bumper sticker saying that if you think a group can be defined by its worst

00:13:05.760 member, the worst member of your group is you. Would there be any more conversation?

00:13:13.020 There wouldn't be anything left to say. Because when you hear that, it sounds really true,

00:13:21.540 doesn't it? Doesn't it? It sounds true. It's like, oh yeah, somebody who would tar an entire group by the

00:13:30.200 reputation of the few, what do we call them? Is there any name for that? What's a name for somebody who

00:13:39.020 thinks that a few people in a group define the whole? Would it be racist? Oh yeah, racist. Would it be

00:13:50.840 sexist? Yeah, yeah. Would it be bigot? It would be. Would it be worthless piece of shit? It would be.

00:14:02.460 And so I recommend this linguistic kill shot to you. Every time you hear somebody saying that 0.99

00:14:09.880 they're defining the group by a small number of bad people, just break this out. Now, why does it work?

00:14:18.500 What is the engineering of it that makes this work? Whereas any number of a million different

00:14:24.440 things you could say do not work? Number one, calling somebody a hypocrite has no persuasive

00:14:32.160 value. In the history of the world, nobody's ever won an argument or changed anything because they

00:14:41.460 pointed out correctly that some hypocrisy was happening. It's just useless. Now, it's useful for 0.98

00:14:49.080 entertainment. It's useful for context. It's useful for educating yourself. So the accusations of

00:14:56.480 hypocrisy, they have some value in terms of rounding out the picture, but they're not going to change

00:15:02.980 anything. Do you know what can change the world? A good bumper sticker. I hate to say it, but it's true.

00:15:13.180 If you tell somebody a complicated argument, that's excellent. You say, hey, Bob, here's a

00:15:20.340 complicated argument, but it's really solid. It's complicated, but it's solid. Why don't you take

00:15:26.680 this solid, complicated argument and see if you can change the world with it? Good luck, Bob, because

00:15:32.880 solid, complicated arguments don't change anything. They don't. Because nobody understands them. They

00:15:39.680 can't repeat them. They don't feel them. You know, they don't feel it in their body. But you turn

00:15:47.320 something into a sentence, or, yeah, in this case, it's exactly one sentence. You make it one sentence,

00:15:56.260 you make one point, and you make that point a good one. And it has the same power as a rhyme.

00:16:03.780 You remember when OJ was on trial, and one of the defense tricks, which is a real good hypnosis

00:16:11.940 trick, is to rhyme the defense. If the glove does not fit, you must acquit. If the glove does not fit,

00:16:19.460 you must acquit. Years later, do you all remember that saying? If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

00:16:26.620 It's the one thing you remember. That's how good Johnny Cochran was. If you're wondering, like, you know,

00:16:32.680 who are the, like, best hypnotists in the world, or persuaders, let's say? Johnny Cochran. Johnny

00:16:40.740 Cochran. Really, really good. So just understand that if you can simplify it to a sentence, and the

00:16:49.400 sentence has some power, that the bumper sticker version is way more persuasive. Way more persuasive

00:16:56.280 than any complicated, excellent argument. So there is your kill shot. You should be able to, 0.99

00:17:03.240 if this were repeated as the normal response over and over every time somebody goes all Don Lemon on

00:17:09.800 you, you would eventually be able to wipe it out. This is a kill shot. It would end that problem. 0.87

00:17:15.720 All right. Here's something I shouldn't say out loud, but watch me do it anyway. You know,

00:17:27.300 the weird thing about, let's say, any pressure on freedom of speech, no matter where that pressure

00:17:34.340 comes from, either the government pressure, which is the, you know, the official freedom of speech

00:17:38.620 thing. Or private industry, with their censoring that's good for the private industry, maybe not so

00:17:46.160 good, in your opinion, for you. And then, of course, individuals and social media and what they say about

00:17:51.540 you. So there are a lot of pressures on freedom of speech. And I've never felt them more strongly than

00:17:57.500 I feel them today. I feel that the field of things I can even say out loud is just sort of shrinking

00:18:07.260 every day. So I'm going to say something out loud that could get me canceled. So this might be the

00:18:18.220 last time you see me. And I don't know if that's true or not. Like I couldn't put a, I couldn't put

00:18:23.880 some odds on this. What are the odds that the next thing I say will be the last thing you ever hear from

00:18:29.180 me? It's pretty good. If I had to put a, let me put an odds on it. 20%. Probably there's a 20% chance

00:18:38.300 that after today, you'll never hear from me again. Just think about that. I'm going to tell you something

00:18:43.180 that is honest and useful, good context. Nothing about it is wrong. I mean, in the sense that opinions

00:18:54.700 can't be wrong, I'll show you my work, there won't be any facts that are in question. And I'm just going

00:19:00.480 to say this thing out loud. And I feel as if I don't you, there's no way to calculate it, of course,

00:19:06.560 but I feel as if there's about a 20% chance that you'll, I'll never be able to speak in public again

00:19:12.480 after I say this. Well, think about that. Think about what that does to the conversation. And believe me,

00:19:19.520 the thing I'm not, I'm going to say, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I'm not aware

00:19:25.020 there's no hate involved in it. I'm not inciting anything. It's going to sound like I am though.

00:19:32.680 So I'm going to, so I'm going to be in Trump territory where I'm going to tell you directly,

00:19:37.300 I don't want any violence. That's as direct as you can be. I don't want any violence. Don't want

00:19:44.480 anybody to act on anything I'm going to say. So nothing should be construed as inciting.

00:19:50.300 But you know, it doesn't work that way, right? If anybody says, but you are inciting,

00:19:54.980 it doesn't matter that I told you I'm not. All right? It won't matter that my intentions are

00:20:01.400 different from what I'm being accused of, because the accusation will be the important thing.

00:20:06.680 You ready for it? Is that enough of a buildup? All right, here we go.

00:20:11.740 While I completely disavow the capital assault, I disavow the violence. I disavow 100%

00:20:22.560 entering that building. I disavow everything about the bad parts of that. Everything. Complete 100%

00:20:32.880 disavowal. That's the first part. Here's the second part. I think it helped.

00:20:41.740 I think it made us safer.

00:20:47.580 Here's why. We watched for a year, and it appeared that the left was willing to get violent and get

00:20:55.900 to the streets and actually control territory, literally conquer territory. And there was no

00:21:02.840 response. No response from the police, at least not enough to stop it. Not enough response for the

00:21:10.420 politicians. I didn't see the politicians doing enough to stop it. In fact, they encouraged it,

00:21:17.100 at least the Democrats. So what was going to happen if that situation continued? What would have been the

00:21:26.360 most predictable outcome of people on the left being able to get away with rioting and violence and

00:21:33.760 breaking things on a massive scale? Well, people on the right did not. And whatever happened to them,

00:21:44.360 however bad they thought it was, they just stayed home. What happens if that just keeps going?

00:21:50.780 Now, I don't believe in a lot of slippery slopes that don't have a logical connection to them,

00:21:55.520 but some things have logical connections. And in those cases, you can predict they'll go.

00:22:00.540 And one logical connection in this case is that anything that works, people are going to do more

00:22:07.260 of it, right? And if something doesn't work, you expect they do less of it. If there's more friction

00:22:13.180 on something, they'll probably do less of it. If you remove friction from something, probably be more

00:22:18.480 of it. You don't need the slippery slope to describe what's obvious. People follow incentives

00:22:24.120 every time. Incentives always work. So what would have been our world if the left could do violence 0.78

00:22:32.080 without any pushback? Because the police gave up. Let's just be honest. The police kind of gave up.

00:22:42.000 Now, it wasn't their fault. I'm pro-police completely. But I don't think they had the support

00:22:47.860 that it made even sense that they could do much about what it was that was their job. You know,

00:22:53.420 it was their job to stop this stuff, but I don't think they had the support. So you can't blame the

00:22:57.500 police, right? You blame the leadership. So what is the logical outcome that I would not have asked

00:23:09.380 for? I certainly would not have asked anybody to go to the Capitol and get in that building.

00:23:13.920 Absolutely not. But it happened. So once it happened, you can talk about it. And I think

00:23:22.800 that we came out ahead. Now, when I say we came out ahead, I have to be really careful about this.

00:23:31.220 Five people got killed. A whole bunch of people got injured. There are lots of bad,

00:23:37.720 bad, bad, bad, bad, bad things that came out of this. People's lives will be destroyed.

00:23:44.160 The Trump supporters are being vilified. A lot of bad stuff, right? So if you're adult enough

00:23:51.180 to work with me on this, we can accept that the bad stuff is just as bad as everybody thinks it is

00:23:56.960 and don't minimize it. Nobody's minimizing it. Still, I think we came out ahead, even with five dead

00:24:06.360 and many injured and all the trouble it caused. Here's why. This is the first time that the left

00:24:14.320 realized there was a counterforce. That's it. That's the whole argument. It's the first time

00:24:23.660 that the left realized they can't go much further without risking a counterforce. And the counterforce was

00:24:33.380 pretty impressive. I disavow it. No violence. No way. I'm 100% opposed. And so I'm not even opposed to

00:24:47.000 the trespassing, you know, much less the breaking of windows and stuff. Of course, I'm opposed to all of

00:24:51.660 that. But it's just a fact that what the left watched scared the fuck out of them.

00:25:01.440 Right? If you're on the left and you watched that, that was the first time you realized there was a

00:25:08.500 counterforce. Because the right doesn't act the same way. I have this personality quirk, which I think

00:25:19.500 may be somewhat common on the right, may be less common on the left. And I always warn people about

00:25:26.540 it in my personal life. I tell people that there's an aspect of my personality that I'm not proud of,

00:25:34.700 but I need to warn you about it. Which is that I'm perfectly flexible until I'm not.

00:25:41.280 That is just a personality quirk. I am so flexible. I'm okay with that. Yeah, that's not good for me.

00:25:50.260 That's fine. I'm flexible. I'll bend over. I'll take a little extra. You don't have to meet me halfway.

00:25:56.740 I'll go 75. You go 25. I'm cool with that. I'm the most flexible guy you'll ever find in your life.

00:26:03.180 Until I'm not. And one of the trade-offs for being the most flexible guy in the world

00:26:13.960 is that when I'm not, I'm really not. I don't take not flexible as hyperbole.

00:26:25.400 When I decide to be not flexible, I'm going all the way. All right. To, you know, to the wall.

00:26:34.300 No, no deviation. No hesitation. Nothing will stop me. There's a brick wall in the way. I will tear

00:26:42.340 it apart with my teeth. But until I'm ready to do that, I'm flexible. Now I say this with like getting 0.84

00:26:50.880 into any kind of a physical altercation. If you, if you live life as a male person, you know that

00:26:58.880 you're, it's just in the environment. If you're male, you're often getting into situations that

00:27:04.360 could turn violent because you're with other men and things can escalate and it's just a normal part

00:27:09.640 of life. You know, women have their own dangerous situations with men. But if you're a man,

00:27:15.580 you're somewhat continuously getting into this, am I going to have a fight now? Or is this traffic

00:27:23.580 situation going to turn into bloodshed? Right? It's a male life. If you're a woman, you have no idea 0.88

00:27:30.220 what I'm talking about right now. Could the men who are on here give me a confirmation so that the

00:27:36.880 women who are watching see that I'm not making something up that's crazy. If you're male, you are

00:27:42.380 continuously in a potentially violent situation. Yeah, see the yeses. So the men are, the men are

00:27:50.240 confirming this. Men are dangerous. Duh. You know, we do the wars, we do the crimes for the most part.

00:27:58.480 Men are dangerous. We are really dangerous. But you haven't seen dangerous until you've seen me

00:28:05.960 stop being flexible. And I feel as though the Republican Party has a little bit of that quality

00:28:13.480 to it. Wouldn't you say? Pretty flexible. Pretty flexible. Until they're not. And I feel as though

00:28:23.260 the Capitol assault, which I disavow completely, no violence, no way. I do not approve of any of that.

00:28:31.240 But there was an education involved in it. Wasn't there? The left just learned something they didn't

00:28:39.520 know. Which is, if you turn this thing on again, we don't know what the fuck is going to happen. 0.99

00:28:47.920 So maybe you shouldn't turn that on again. Now, the way it's going to go is that the people who did the 0.92

00:28:53.820 Capitol assault will be the ones who are blamed. Trump will take his share of blame. And I agree with

00:28:59.960 that, by the way, because I think he could have stopped it. He should have done more. I think his

00:29:04.420 supporters will take some blame. Should we? Sure. Sure. If somebody wants to say, Scott, you're a little

00:29:11.380 bit to blame for Trump existing as president and therefore his decisions. If you'd like to make that

00:29:19.800 case, I'll say, okay. As long as we're consistent. You know, you're also to blame for Biden.

00:29:25.820 But I don't think he should be punished. Right? You could be blamed for voting for the wrong person,

00:29:33.800 supporting the wrong person. That's fair. But could you also give me credit for, let's say,

00:29:39.480 more peace in the Middle East? I'll take the blame for the things he did wrong, in your opinion,

00:29:46.820 if you'll let me accept that I thought he would do some big things that would be lasting. And he did,

00:29:52.120 in my opinion. So here's my bottom line on that. I disavow violence in all of its forms. But I think

00:30:02.060 the left just learned that the right can summon a lot of people with guns really quickly.

00:30:11.760 And if you're telling me that doesn't change the balance of power in this country, I think you're

00:30:16.000 wrong. I think the left now has an understanding that they don't have a free pass forever. What they

00:30:24.280 do have is a Republican Party that's really flexible. Really, really flexible. Until it isn't.

00:30:33.920 So, next topic. You're probably watching, as I am, the story of this fellow, John Sullivan,

00:30:40.840 who's been associated with Black Lives Matter, but he was also part of the Capitol Assault. And he

00:30:48.620 is, I guess he was doing a documentary, he was filming it, but he was also caught on tape,

00:30:55.080 actively involved in, you know, incitement while he was there. Now, the interesting part about this

00:31:01.320 is that there's some pushback, because apparently the local Black Lives Matter

00:31:07.520 people didn't like him either. So there, he was sort of kicked out of Black Lives Matter,

00:31:14.540 which I don't really understand, because there's no actual formal way to be in it,

00:31:21.460 versus out of it. I think to be a member of Black Lives Matter, don't you just say,

00:31:26.620 have to say you are? How do you get kicked out of your belief? Because Black Lives Matter is more

00:31:32.300 of a belief, right? The people marching on the street don't have, you know, their names in a book

00:31:37.720 as I'm a member of this organization with a name tag or anything. It's just, you just have to say

00:31:42.680 you're in it, and you're in it. So apparently, that wasn't good enough for John Sullivan, because he,

00:31:49.780 apparently he said he was in it. But Black Lives Matter said, no, you're not. Get out of here, 0.99

00:31:55.180 you troublemaker, they said. But what does Don Lemon say about this? What's the Don Lemon take?

00:32:01.600 If he was a member of Black Lives Matter, but Black Lives Matter, at least some number of them 0.99

00:32:08.160 didn't want him in there, does that matter? Because he's in there. If he thinks he's in Black Lives 0.98

00:32:15.880 Matter, then he's in it. That's all it requires. You just have to think you're in it. So wouldn't the

00:32:24.020 Don Lemon theory apply that, therefore, Black Lives Matter has to take responsibility for 0.97

00:32:31.600 the assault on the Capitol? That's stupid, right? It would be completely stupid to say that 1.00

00:32:40.120 Black Lives Matter is responsible for the assault on the Capitol, because a few members in this one 0.99

00:32:47.940 group were also Black Lives Matter. It would be stupid. But that's the Don Lemon theory, that we're 1.00

00:32:55.220 all tainted by our associations. Speaking of tainted by associations, you know, the Lincoln Project is

00:33:04.420 having a good old time, because they believe they succeeded. One of their members has been accused of

00:33:10.660 sexual improprieties, and I think they took his name off of their co-founding website. So here's the

00:33:18.820 thing. Again, applying the same standard. I have no proof or evidence that this one individual who

00:33:27.020 was the founder of Lincoln Project, I won't even say his name, because they're allegations, right?

00:33:33.700 He's only alleged to have had these sexual improprieties. Just allegations. I have no proof.

00:33:40.260 You know, how would I? How would I have any proof? But could we say, would it be fair to say that one of

00:33:49.280 the co-founders of the Lincoln Project was a sexual offender, allegedly, allegedly a sexual offender?

00:33:56.560 Would it be fair to say that all the rest of them are also alleged sexual offenders? Because if one

00:34:04.080 prominent member is, and remember, he was a co-founder. He wasn't just somebody who says,

00:34:08.360 hey, I'm associated with you. Co-founder. If a co-founder is a sexual offender, allegedly,

00:34:15.500 doesn't that mean they all are? Now, of course, the answer is no. No, it doesn't work like that.

00:34:21.780 The fact that every member of the Lincoln Project looks like a sex offender doesn't mean they are. 1.00

00:34:29.900 The fact that their stupid little beards make them look exactly like sex offenders, 1.00

00:34:34.640 that is not indication that they are. And I don't want you to think that they are. Looking exactly 1.00

00:34:41.860 like one, and having one of your prominent members be accused of being one, doesn't make you one.

00:34:49.960 It just makes you somebody who looks exactly like one. I don't know, they have that vibe. But I don't 0.95

00:34:55.940 think you should take that to mean more than it does. Because, you know, people can look guilty and be

00:35:02.580 innocent. People can look innocent and be guilty. You're not really good at telling. So the fact that

00:35:08.060 the Lincoln Project people look exactly like sex offenders, that doesn't mean anything. There's no

00:35:14.980 evidence that any of them are involved in any of that. Well, no proof. Yeah, there's no proof. Let me be

00:35:22.240 more specific. No court. No court has ever confirmed that the Lincoln Project are mostly made up of sex

00:35:30.000 offenders. And therefore, I think you can conclude that they're not. Are we clear? Okay. So there's a

00:35:41.240 great piece of writing by a guy named Reed Berkowitz that I tweeted this morning, and I recommend it.

00:35:47.680 And what he's talking about is Q. And he's a game designer by trade. So somebody who's a game

00:35:58.100 designer, and I'm not talking about just a programmer, but a game designer, somebody who

00:36:03.880 understands the psychology of a game and the rewards and why some games work and some don't,

00:36:10.220 the x factor of what makes it sticky, all that stuff. So he's an expert on all that stuff.

00:36:15.160 And he writes about Q as if it were a designed game. Because Q has all of the elements, as he

00:36:24.380 describes it as a great piece of writing, of a well-designed game. So a poorly designed game might

00:36:32.400 just tell you something is true. But a well-designed game will keep your curiosity and your independent

00:36:38.820 thinking intact and say, here's a hint, figure out what it means. And if you give people hints and tell

00:36:46.460 them to figure out what it means, it really engages them. So you'll see a better job of explaining

00:36:52.220 the gaming, the game psychology that is either coincidentally or intentionally, we don't know,

00:37:00.720 but at least it exists in the Q and on situation. And if you're trying to understand why it is that

00:37:08.500 so many people could buy into something that perhaps some of you are saying, I don't believe any of that's

00:37:14.180 true. If you're wondering how people could buy into it, this explains it. It's explained because the

00:37:21.020 psychology of how Q evolved, either coincidentally, maybe intentionally, I don't know, maybe intentionally,

00:37:30.720 mimics the exact psychological hooks that a good game would have. Now, it's worth reading the whole

00:37:41.240 piece for a couple of reasons. Number one, read Berkowitz. I don't know who he is except a game

00:37:47.100 designer. He's an extraordinarily good writer. So the second reason to read this is just to read

00:37:54.600 his sentences. Read how short and clear his sentences are. And you can absorb a fairly long

00:38:03.740 piece like it wasn't long. It's, wait till you check it out. Because the way he writes in such

00:38:11.620 bite-sized, clear, direct sentences is just a pleasure. You actually feel good as you're reading

00:38:18.960 it because he takes all the friction out of the writing. I've been looking at a number of things

00:38:24.300 this week where the writers were terrible. They were smart. They knew what they were talking about,

00:38:29.380 but they were terrible writers. And you could feel your brain overheat just trying to read the

00:38:35.240 sentences because they're too complicated. But then you read Berkowitz's sentence and you go,

00:38:41.300 ah, this is what writing is supposed to be. Where I'm just feeling the ideas and I don't feel any

00:38:48.640 friction in the way they're described. It's really good. Yeah, I see my cat behind me. All right.

00:38:59.080 Let's see what else is going on here. The Justice Department walked back their claim that the

00:39:05.920 Capitol rioters wanted to, quote, capture and assassinate elected officials. Now, there was

00:39:10.980 chanting to that effect, but my guess is that had more to do with crowds getting worked up and

00:39:17.240 somebody says it and then they chant it. I would be, I'm inclined to agree with the Justice Department

00:39:23.820 based on just what we've seen, that there doesn't seem to be that intention. There definitely were a

00:39:30.600 few people chanting it and talking that way. But if you're looking at the crowd in general,

00:39:35.520 I'm trying to imagine a situation where let's say somebody in the crowd got a hold of, let's just

00:39:44.920 say Mike Pence, like physically got a hold of him during the Capitol assault. What would the other

00:39:51.800 protesters have done? Would they have said, yeah, we got Mike Pence? I don't think so. I feel as if a

00:39:59.580 fight would have broken out within the assaulter group with the people who said, that's crazy,

00:40:06.040 let Mike Pence go. We're just here for our free speech. I think it would have been a slaughter.

00:40:12.400 I think the people who said, let Mike Pence go, even though we're mad at him, would have outnumbered

00:40:17.840 anybody who was chanting, let's get him. I don't think it would have been close. No way to know. And

00:40:23.380 remember, it's a mob, so you can't predict anything, right? A mob is unpredictable. But my feeling of it

00:40:30.320 is that the claim that the crowd was there to do that, that case is not made. I think there's a far

00:40:39.040 stronger case that most people did not intend that. And if they'd seen that going down, I think they

00:40:45.260 would have stopped it. I think they would have stopped it. Just my belief. All right. Here are

00:40:54.040 some questions that I have on the election integrity. And I put these on Twitter in a thread

00:41:00.360 so that people could respond. Now, these are the questions that if they were answered to my

00:41:05.500 satisfaction, and I think they could be, by the way, that's the beauty of them. I ask questions that I

00:41:10.180 think can be answered by people who have the right information. So there are questions remaining on

00:41:16.640 the integrity of the election system. But I'm not going to get into any allegations. You know,

00:41:22.340 there are a long list of allegations. But separate from the specific allegations, I have general questions

00:41:27.960 about how good the integrity of the security is for a system. And here they are. And if these were

00:41:35.480 answered, I would walk away and say, all right, I'm happy. I feel as though my questions have been

00:41:41.100 answered. Question number one, has there ever been a large scale, and each of these, just hear the word

00:41:47.540 large scale with each of these. I'm not concerned with the onesies and twosies and somebody's dead

00:41:54.360 uncle voted. I'm talking about large scale things that could change a national election.

00:42:00.020 Has there ever been a large scale election fraud that was discovered by chance?

00:42:06.180 Here's why this is important. Somebody says, this guy has a big ego. Well, welcome, new person.

00:42:16.540 There's a lot of context to that that you don't have, but I'll accept that comment.

00:42:21.500 So the reason this question is important is, has there ever been a large scale election fraud that was

00:42:26.800 discovered by chance? It would indicate that you could do a large scale fraud, and you might have

00:42:34.880 gotten away with it, but it was discovered by chance. Wouldn't you like to know that? And if so,

00:42:44.020 is the type of fraud that got discovered by chance, if it exists, does that opportunity still exist?

00:42:50.600 So wouldn't you like to know just as context? Have there ever been, and let's say recent-ish, because

00:42:58.320 the, you know, how the voting is done has changed over time, but are there any recent examples where

00:43:04.140 somebody did try a large scale fraud and only by luck it was discovered? Wouldn't you like to know

00:43:11.700 that? Because suppose the answer is no. Wouldn't that mean a lot? If you told me that nobody's ever

00:43:19.180 gotten away with a large scale fraud, that would mean something to me. Now, it's not the whole story,

00:43:26.800 but it begins to put a bigger, better picture together. All right, here's the next question.

00:43:33.240 Could a hacker who had God access, meaning they got into your software and they can change anything,

00:43:39.420 that would be like an administrator access type, could a hacker with God access change a national

00:43:44.960 election result in a big way that would be undetectable via recount or audit? In other words,

00:43:54.020 is it even a thing? Is the system designed in a way that as long as you do a recount and you do an

00:44:02.320 audit, you'll catch everything? Do you know the answer to that? Because I don't. I don't know the answer to that.

00:44:10.100 And one of the people who responded to this is one of the ones I'm going to recommend that you follow,

00:44:17.060 Christopher Hill. You'll see him in my Twitter feed toward the top. He's a co-owner of Three Guys Game

00:44:23.420 Studio. And when it comes to software development type questions, he's a really clear thinker. So I

00:44:32.220 recommend that you follow him. The reason I'm recommending these people who are independent and clear

00:44:37.220 thinkers is because you need something to protect you from the news. The news is not trying to be news

00:44:45.460 the way it used to, if it ever did. You need some independent people who have a long track record of

00:44:53.260 not being on a side, just looking at the logic of a situation. So Andreas Backhaus is one for looking

00:45:01.200 a data. For looking at software related questions, I would recommend Christopher Hill. And here's what

00:45:07.640 he said. If I didn't expect precincts to compare the cumulative totals amongst one another, in other

00:45:16.900 words, my precinct can't check with yours and yours can't check with mine, but everybody can check their

00:45:22.920 own. So as long as the only thing you could check is your own numbers, could you come up with a way

00:45:30.180 with software with a godlike hack in which nobody would know that you cheated? And here is a software

00:45:37.940 developer's answer to that. And this one scared me. Because there are so many ways to cheat anything

00:45:47.780 that when you hear a new way that you'd never heard before, you're like, I actually have goosebumps,

00:45:53.820 goosebumps, like literally goosebumps now, from just even this thought. So let's say you're one of the

00:46:00.920 precincts and you want to check the system to see if your votes were recorded correctly. So you know

00:46:07.060 that you have exactly, let's say, 100,003 votes. So you want to check the final tally to see if those

00:46:14.860 votes were recorded correctly. So you go in, and it says yes, it matches. And then you log off.

00:46:24.680 And then the number changes back to the wrong one. But then you want to double check. So you log back

00:46:31.080 on. And when your log on is detected, the system knows you're from that precinct. And it changes the

00:46:37.460 number back to what you wanted to see. And then you log off and it changes it back to the fake number.

00:46:42.800 How would you know? How would you know? Now, has something like this ever been done?

00:46:50.920 Yup. I've done it. When I had a problem with a stalker. So on my website, Dilber.com,

00:47:01.640 once there's a stalker that I get every few years, she comes off her meds. And she'll write

00:47:07.100 hundreds of comments on, at the time it was on my blog post. And she would write so many,

00:47:14.600 just hundreds and hundreds of comments every day. Hundreds every day. And they're long ones.

00:47:20.340 And they're crazy. And they accuse me of things. They accuse me of sex crimes and stuff. And keep 0.52

00:47:26.240 in mind, it's somebody I've never met, doesn't even live in this country. So we tried to discourage

00:47:33.400 it. And we just couldn't, we, I tried blocking, but she would just sign up with a new account every 0.98

00:47:39.860 day. And finally, the tech people came up with this idea. They said, we know her IP address. I guess

00:47:48.340 it's always the same in her case. So we'll make it look when she signs on that all of her comments are

00:47:54.080 showing up. But anybody else who logs on won't be able to see them. So we created a situation where

00:48:00.940 this stalker would log onto my website every day, write hundreds of comments that she believed 1.00

00:48:07.240 everybody could see, but they couldn't. She was the only one who could see her own comments. And the

00:48:12.080 problem went away. So that's precedent of the only person who doesn't see the system right is the

00:48:20.680 person that you've designated who can't see it right. When they log on, the system changes to just

00:48:26.640 show them what they show. Now you could still catch this problem. If there were two, two precincts

00:48:32.620 who said, Hey, let's get together, you know, and, and compare notes and add them up. And you know,

00:48:38.360 there would be a way to catch it, but would the normal system catch it? It's not enough that it could

00:48:44.580 be caught. You also have to know that the system does that thing that catches it. And I don't know

00:48:51.100 that that's the case. Is there a part of the process where somebody looks at each precinct and

00:48:55.580 checks their numbers to the end point? And I don't know, maybe, maybe there is. But these are the

00:49:01.980 questions I ask. All right. So, so that is one suggestion of how, if you had got access to the

00:49:08.860 software, you could have changed it, but probably other people would have to be in on it, I think.

00:49:14.060 So I'm not even sure you could get away with that. How about this? Here's another question. Would

00:49:18.920 selective recounts and audits, the type that are requested by the losing side, be sufficient

00:49:24.640 to detect fraud that could be spread across multiple precincts. So let's say you had a fraud

00:49:32.040 that was a little bit here, a little bit there, a little bit there, so that if you were, if you

00:49:36.160 found it in any one precinct, you wouldn't find enough to change the election. In that situation,

00:49:43.100 would you be able to detect that if you said, hey, let's do a recount or an audit in this place

00:49:50.120 and this place? What are your odds? What are your odds that an audit and a recount can find

00:49:57.080 all of the problems? Or could they only find some kinds of problems? Do you know?

00:50:04.860 I don't know. Why is it that we've gotten to this point, and I can't answer the question,

00:50:10.780 would an audit plus a recount find all of the problems? Why don't I know the answer to that

00:50:21.480 question? It's like the most basic thing. If our experts had told us from the beginning,

00:50:28.800 oh, I know you have these fraud allegations, but let me assure you that every type of fraud that could

00:50:35.900 happen would always be caught with these two simple methods. You do a recount, and then you

00:50:42.920 selectively, you know, you pick things to look at just to make sure that the votes are real too.

00:50:51.560 Do you know the answer to that question? Would those two simple steps, recounting plus auditing,

00:50:58.200 which goes further than recounting, would those find all the problems? Is there any kind of a problem

00:51:05.320 that wouldn't be detected by that? Now, I think that there's two sets of problems that you should

00:51:11.440 think of. One is the any kind of irregularity that might happen at the point of voting, right? Things

00:51:18.220 that happen around the voting machines, and around the local counting machines, and the local ballots.

00:51:24.320 But then all of that stuff gets summed up and sent electronically to some larger database,

00:51:30.760 obviously, so that they can get the total. Is there a difference in how secure we are at that first

00:51:39.920 part, the counting, the ballots, the local stuff? Are we just as secure after it leaves the local area

00:51:46.080 and becomes part of a larger database in the sky somewhere? I don't know. Do you know? Or is that

00:51:54.040 second part of the system designed so well that even if you hacked it, it would be immediately

00:51:59.480 discoverable? Beats me. Do you know? I have no idea. I couldn't tell you if it's zero percent

00:52:11.640 hackable or a hundred percent. No idea. And why don't I know that? That's the problem, right? It's

00:52:19.040 because we don't have a useful news organization. Because everything I'm going to ask are things you

00:52:23.920 should know already. But you don't. Here's another one. On a scale of one to a hundred percent,

00:52:32.080 if you were to talk to, let's say, an expert, somebody who really understood the election

00:52:36.080 systems state to state, you'd have to know more than one state. If you ask somebody like that,

00:52:42.440 on a scale of one to a hundred percent, how secure are our state election systems? At least secure in

00:52:48.960 terms of the big frauds, not small stuff. What do you think an expert would say? And why don't I know

00:52:55.560 the answer to that question? Would somebody who really, really understands the systems say, you know,

00:53:02.000 Scott, I got to tell you, you know, forget about this specific election. There's no way anybody could

00:53:08.620 cheat. It's like 99 percent secure. Is that what they would say? Or would they say, yeah, I think we're

00:53:17.820 90 percent secure. Is 90 percent secure? If somebody said, uh, your, your bank account is 90 percent

00:53:29.160 secure, would you put your money in a bank that only said it's 90 percent secure?

00:53:36.320 I'd love to know what an expert would say about that. Um,

00:53:39.880 here's another one. Have elections ever been rigged? And when I say ever, let's say last 20 years,

00:53:48.620 keep it local. Have elections ever been rigged in ways that election officials had never contemplated

00:53:55.080 until they discovered it? Has that ever happened? Has anybody ever rigged an election

00:54:02.440 using a technique that nobody even thought was a technique until it was discovered? Because if

00:54:09.400 that's ever happened, what would stop it from happening again? Right? If it's ever happened,

00:54:18.360 you can't, there's not a logical way that you can rule it out from happening again. It would make you

00:54:23.920 say, I feel like it could happen again. Take a, let's take any Microsoft software that's released.

00:54:32.260 We'll just use Microsoft as an example. When, when Microsoft puts out a new operating system,

00:54:38.080 new version of Windows, do you think that, uh, it is a hundred percent unhackable

00:54:44.260 or some other percentage? Well, I think if you've lived in the real world, you know that even

00:54:51.100 Microsoft attracting the best, you know, the best minds and programmers in the world

00:54:56.700 continually are surprised that somebody found a new way to hack them, even though they didn't

00:55:03.840 think there was any way. How often does that happen? Isn't it a hundred percent? Has there ever

00:55:10.280 been a new version of Windows? I don't know the answer to this actually. Has there ever been a new

00:55:14.880 version of Windows that didn't get hacked pretty soon one way or another? I don't know that it's

00:55:22.000 ever happened. So if the best programmers in the world can't foresee what a hacker might come up with,

00:55:30.880 why would that be the case with the election systems? Why would the election system be better,

00:55:37.140 uh, architected than Windows? I mean, I realize there might be a complexity difference too,

00:55:44.300 but I don't know the answer to this question either about, uh, has it ever happened? All right.

00:55:52.660 And here's another one. Um, have election experts, and I'm talking only about experts,

00:55:58.980 seen any red flags for widespread fraud in this election? Now a red flag doesn't mean

00:56:04.980 that they can prove it happened, but if you were an election expert and you're just sort of taking the

00:56:11.020 big picture and you're just looking down at it and seeing, uh, the claimed anomalies, the vote count,

00:56:18.120 anything really, if you were an expert looking at it, did it look like a fair election? And would all

00:56:25.000 the experts agree? If you had a hundred experts and they all looked at it, would they all say,

00:56:29.580 yeah, that was fair. Given what I know about how easy it is to detect fraud, you can assume that's

00:56:36.240 fair. Would they all say that every expert or would some of the experts say, yeah, you can't tell

00:56:43.600 probably fair, might be fair, but there's no way you can tell. And I have to admit there are a few

00:56:51.280 red flags there that I'd look into a little bit closer. I don't know. So these are some big questions

00:56:57.780 that don't depend on any specific allegations. These are things that American voters should

00:57:03.180 understand about their voting system. We should understand is invulnerable. And I don't know that

00:57:10.220 we've seen enough opinions on that. All right. So that is what we've done today. We have created a

00:57:21.040 linguistic kill shot to destroy at least part of creeping wokeness, not all of it, but it might help.

00:57:27.820 We have designed a new system to give us some second, let's say a second opinion to the fake news.

00:57:37.140 And that new system is the independent thinkers, some of whom I mentioned today. And if you compile

00:57:43.940 on your Twitter feed, you just keep adding the independent thinkers, you're going to get a different

00:57:50.400 view of the world. So I feel as if the independent thinkers are the key to making things work.

00:57:59.160 All right. That's all I've got today. Yeah, I hear a lot about blockchain for voting, and I don't

00:58:08.700 disagree with that. But I think I'd have to be much more of an expert to know if that creates any new

00:58:13.220 problems as opposed to solving the old ones. All right. I'm just looking at your comments for a

00:58:22.380 moment. Oh, how about apophenia? Yeah. Apophenia is, I'm sorry, I put that in the title of the

00:58:30.360 live stream and then I didn't talk about it. When I talked about the game designer, Reed Berkowitz,

00:58:36.620 his article, he mentions a word apophenia, and it's the seeing patterns where they don't exist.

00:58:43.220 So the QAnon people would see, they thought they would see patterns, but it's just because your

00:58:49.440 brain sees patterns where they don't exist. That's all. So there's a word for it. Apophenia, I guess.

00:58:58.080 Did I read Peter Navarro's election fraud report? Yeah, I read Peter Navarro's fraud report

00:59:03.980 on the same document as the debunks for them. So if you haven't seen the debunk

00:59:11.360 for the Peter Navarro specific stuff, you should see them together. Now, suppose you've seen Peter

00:59:18.960 Navarro's claims and you've seen somebody saying that they're debunking them. What do you know?

00:59:25.560 What have you learned? Nothing. Nothing. Those two things by themselves don't have any,

00:59:31.520 any value at all, except to tell you where to look into more, I guess. But if anybody brings you an

00:59:39.420 argument and says, here's my claim, and then here's the counterclaim, you don't know anything.

00:59:45.480 Because you need to hear the response to the counterclaim, and then another response to that,

00:59:50.880 and another response to that. Let me put it this way. Each iteration gives you more comfort if you're

00:59:58.920 smart and you're looking at something. So the first event would be a claim of anything, whatever the

01:00:03.760 claim is. Credibility of a claim in our world should be zero. Doesn't even matter who says it. Could be

01:00:10.640 the Pope. The credibility of any claim is zero, even if it's true. You don't know, so it's zero

01:00:19.540 credibility. A counterclaim to the claim gives you no more comfort than the claim itself, right? You might

01:00:28.180 think it does. But until you've heard the response to the counterclaim, you don't really know if the

01:00:34.100 counterclaim is true either. So what if you hear the response to the response to the response to the

01:00:40.200 response? Well, if they're staying on topic, instead of doing like in the real world where one of them

01:00:45.360 goes off onto another point or moves the goalpost or something, but if they stayed on topic, then each

01:00:51.560 iteration of challenging a point or a counterpoint would get you closer to some kind of knowledge.

01:00:56.660 But the first claim and the first counterclaim, zero value. And you should look at it that way.

01:01:05.580 All right. Should there be a death sentence for the Q guy? Well, I don't know that... It's a good 1.00

01:01:17.460 question. I don't think there should be the death sentence for the Q guy. But the larger question is, 1.00

01:01:26.180 did Q directly cause the violence? There were lots of causes. If you took any of them away,

01:01:35.020 it probably wouldn't have happened. If Q didn't exist, would there have been the assault on the 0.94

01:01:40.820 Capitol? Probably not. If Trump didn't exist, probably not. Lots of things had to exist for

01:01:47.340 that to happen. If the fake news had not been who they were, would the assault on the Capitol have

01:01:53.500 happened? Probably not. Because the news would have said the election was fair, and people would

01:01:58.700 have said, oh, that news is dependable. I guess it was fair. So you would have to remove a lot of

01:02:05.500 stuff. Let me put it this way. A lot of things had to be just the way they were for this situation to

01:02:12.420 happen. But the fake news is at the top of the list. If you didn't have fake news, you wouldn't

01:02:17.460 have had the Capitol assault. And the great thing about the fake news, great thing, which is a terrible

01:02:22.580 thing, is that the fake news can cause an insurrection, which they call it. I don't call it that.

01:02:29.640 They can cause this problem, and then they can assign the blame to somebody else. And that's

01:02:38.360 what happened. So the fake news caused riots, and then the fake news assigned the blame to the riots

01:02:44.500 to Trump, and they're going to use it to impeach him. That's happening right in front of you. It's

01:02:50.020 shocking. Not to say that Trump doesn't have responsibility, because they think he does.

01:02:55.340 All right. Yeah, you know, all the references to the Reichstag fire, I just find ridiculous. 0.68

01:03:08.080 And I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Here are the things that you should compare to the

01:03:13.440 Holocaust. Nothing. Here are things that you should compare to Hitler. Nothing. Here's what you should 0.88

01:03:23.840 compare to, you know, the whole Nazi experience. Nothing. The whole reason that that's in our minds as 0.77

01:03:33.700 the biggest sort of thing is because it was different. If it was like everything else and sort

01:03:42.000 of predicted how things go, you'd see a lot more of it. But the reason that it exists sort of in its

01:03:48.840 special place in evil history is because it's not likely. It's very unlikely to happen.

01:03:58.020 Yeah, and even if you take the other Holocaust, the Pol Potts, the Stalins, the Maos, 0.99

01:04:03.880 they are their own situations. The things in common is lots of people died, but they are

01:04:09.020 different situations. All right, that's all for now. I'll talk to you later.

01:04:12.080 Bye.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 16, 2021

Episode 1254 Scott Adams： I Unveil a Wokeness Linguistic Kill Shot, Election Security Insights, and Apophenia

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript