Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1390 Scott Adams： Is Critical Race Theory Marxist, How to Know Who is Projecting, Capitol Riot Commission, and More

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody. Come on in. Gather round. It's time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.

00:00:11.040 The very best part of every single day. No exceptions. I don't care what the pollsters

00:00:17.040 tell you. And if you want to make it extra extra special, like a little extra extra extra,

00:00:23.660 all you need is a cup or mug or less, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind,

00:00:30.140 fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure,

00:00:37.060 the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that's better than, well, I'm not even going to say it.

00:00:44.120 You know. You know the thing. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to rock the

00:00:49.260 entire world right now. Go!

00:00:53.660 Hold on. You feel that? Yeah. That was the feeling of the simultaneous sip going all around the world

00:01:03.980 same time. Christian, you're way too nice. You don't even have a comment for me to read.

00:01:11.620 But thank you. So what about the news? There are three words we're going to talk about today. One

00:01:16.940 is ceasefire, the other is Marxist, and the other is peacock. Because persuasion depends quite a bit

00:01:26.460 on the words you use, of course. We want Dale. We want Dale. Dale might appear. You might see Dale.

00:01:36.700 Let's start at the top, and we'll get to all the persuasion tips that are embedded in this

00:01:40.980 as we go. I just saw a tweet from somebody on Twitter named Just Jess, and she reports in her

00:01:51.300 tweet. She says, so, turns out the new friend I went on vacation with doesn't believe there was an

00:01:59.860 insurrection. So, vacation over four days early, friendship way over, mind blown.

00:02:07.220 Now, this tweet suggests some advice I would like to give to all of you. I don't usually give travel

00:02:17.480 advice. Not really my domain, but sometimes. Sometimes I can give you travel advice that's

00:02:24.100 quite good. And here's my travel advice. Number one, don't plan a trip to North Korea. Just don't do it. 0.99

00:02:33.680 I feel like I'm on solid ground there. Don't go to North Korea. Not a good place for a vacation.

00:02:40.460 Number two, never go on vacation with someone who believes you can conquer a superpower

00:02:46.980 by putting on a horned hat and occupying a room at the Capitol. Because if you're going on vacation

00:02:57.400 with someone who thinks you can conquer a superpower with a horned hat and occupying a room,

00:03:06.060 well, then you're not on vacation with somebody who's smart or who has your back or even understands

00:03:14.320 anything about anything. In fact, the odds of you coming back alive, not a hundred percent.

00:03:19.680 Here's a word I would like to introduce into the argument about China and fentanyl. And as I tweeted

00:03:28.120 moments ago, I said, let's not directly negotiate with China on anything until there's a ceasefire

00:03:35.560 on sending fentanyl our way. And then I said, that has to be hello. In other words,

00:03:42.900 I don't think we should talk to them about anything else. In fact, I've suggested strongly that we

00:03:50.740 should remove all of our diplomats. Just talk to them indirectly through some other country or

00:03:57.160 something. Because I don't know if they're going to like that situation, if they're such a bad player

00:04:02.080 that they can't even get diplomatic relations with the United States, but they don't deserve it.

00:04:07.100 China doesn't deserve diplomatic relations with the United States while we're in a hot war.

00:04:15.160 And the reason I would say that we should wait for a ceasefire is that they are killing us with

00:04:20.640 fentanyl. They are doing it intentionally. They are doing it every day. And they could stop it like

00:04:27.260 that because they know exactly who it is who's sending it. We gave them the name. China knows the name

00:04:33.880 and address of the one person who's sending the fentanyl. You know, the head of the whatever

00:04:40.340 drug cartel is doing it in China. So let's call it a ceasefire. Because when you call something a

00:04:47.260 ceasefire, people understand you're in a war and people are dying right now. Like dying right now.

00:04:54.260 So if we say weak ass stuff such as, gosh, China, we'd sure like you to do more about 1.00

00:05:01.820 restricting the fentanyl trade. And then China says, Oh, yeah, absolutely. We're going to get right 0.98

00:05:08.640 on that. Soon as we're done here, I'm going to pick up the phone. Fentanyl trade will be completely

00:05:15.920 done. And then it doesn't happen. Repeat, repeat, repeat. China will just say, Yeah, we'll take care

00:05:24.820 of that and just not do it. So let's call it what it is. It's a hot war. They're sending death,

00:05:31.860 chemical warfare. And unless there's a ceasefire, I don't think we should talk to them about anything.

00:05:36.640 Just anything. All right. So a tweet that got me thinking, maybe it'll get you thinking too.

00:05:47.000 It's just a user on Twitter named Riald, or at least that's the username. And Riald said,

00:05:55.440 I'm telling you, when men get defensive, whatever you accuse them of, you are right.

00:06:01.540 And it makes me wonder, how does Riald think men act when they're falsely accused?

00:06:12.340 If there are any men here, can you answer this question? When you are falsely accused of

00:06:17.520 something, and let's say it's something important, important enough for somebody in your life to

00:06:22.700 bring it up. When you're falsely accused of something, what's the best play there?

00:06:28.460 Are you supposed to act offensive? Or are you supposed to act defensive?

00:06:35.420 Because I feel like there's a little bit of a trap you've set here, Riald, 0.93

00:06:40.040 which is, it's very convenient that when you accuse somebody of something,

00:06:45.540 you can know that they're guilty by them defending themselves.

00:06:50.800 So somebody says, I hit back hard. Well, I'm sure that's worked really well for you.

00:06:58.460 I know what you're saying, that some people hit back hard because you just feel like you want to

00:07:04.020 or you have to, but you can't tell me it worked. I'm sure it didn't work.

00:07:08.200 And so this brings up a larger question, which is when one person accuses another of projecting,

00:07:18.280 meaning, hey, you're blaming me of the thing you're doing. How do you know which one is right?

00:07:24.280 So you got two people who both think the other one is doing the only crime and is projecting it on the

00:07:31.040 other. And the other thinks exactly the same thing, but in reverse. No, I think you're doing the only

00:07:36.760 crime. I'm not doing anything, but you're projecting on me. Have you been in that situation

00:07:42.140 where you both think you're projecting and you both think you're innocent, but the other one is

00:07:46.840 definitely guilty? How do you sort it out? How can you tell which one of you, how do you know which

00:07:56.560 one of you is projecting? Would you like a way to do it? Let me give you a way to do it. Okay.

00:08:05.680 If somebody is innocent of a thing and you say, hey, I think you're projecting on me because that's

00:08:12.960 actually your crime. And let's say it's not. What would somebody say if you falsely accuse them of

00:08:21.180 projecting? Well, I think they'd say something like, well, what do you mean? Or make your case.

00:08:29.000 Or can you give me an example? How exactly? What did I do? Give me some details. That would be one

00:08:36.520 way person could react if you say, I think you're projecting, but you're guilty of that crime. Here's

00:08:42.180 another way. Go nuts. They go really nuts and they won't talk to you for the rest of the night. 0.99

00:08:47.660 Which one is projecting? One of them says, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't think

00:08:53.940 I'm projecting. Give me an example of that. Can you give me some details? That's one person. And

00:09:00.260 the other one is like, I knew you wouldn't be honest. You're doing it again. I'm not going to

00:09:05.980 talk to you for the rest of today. Which one's projecting? Yeah, it's easy. Now, you'll never

00:09:12.780 convince the other person they're projecting, but they know it because that's why they exited the

00:09:18.060 conversation. So when somebody gets too mad to talk to you and exits the conversation,

00:09:23.780 it's because they know they can't prevail based on the facts. So if you're wondering if you're crazy,

00:09:31.460 that's how you know. If you're willing to talk about it, you're not the crazy one. If the other 0.64

00:09:37.320 one says, I'm not even going to talk about it. I'm really mad at you. And by the way, you did

00:09:41.740 something terrible last year. You know who's projecting. So use that tip. The only good it

00:09:49.340 will do you is at least you'll know which one is projecting. It won't solve the problem. Because

00:09:55.100 the projector is still mad at you. And it's going to be mad at you tomorrow. But at least you'll know

00:10:00.180 which one is the crazy one. And that's worth something. All right. So Joe Biden has once again

00:10:08.520 crossed the creepy line. So hashtag creepy Joe is is is is trending again today. So this is what he

00:10:17.860 actually said. If you haven't seen the video, you have to see the video because I'm not going to be

00:10:22.660 able to to do it any any justice. Somebody said I look stoned. I think maybe I always look stoned,

00:10:31.380 but I'm rarely stoned at this time in the morning. Later. Sure. But at the moment, not.

00:10:39.020 So this is what Joe Biden said. He was he looked at a girl in the audience. And somehow this makes it

00:10:46.800 worse. It was a daughter of a veteran. And he said, quote, I love those barrettes in your hair. Man,

00:10:54.760 I'll tell you what, look at her. She looks like she's 19 years old, sitting there like a little 0.97

00:11:00.380 lady with her legs crossed. Now, I didn't see a picture of the person in question. They just showed

00:11:08.860 a, you know, close up on Biden when he was talking. So I don't know how old she is. And I think it

00:11:14.780 matters, doesn't it? It matters a little bit how old she is. It's bad no matter what, but how you

00:11:21.520 how you filtered it would depend a little bit on what she looked like. And it's all bad. So, 0.84

00:11:28.520 you know, how she looks isn't going to make it good. But it's part of the story. And it feels like

00:11:33.660 feels like we should have that information. And here's the thing.

00:11:40.460 Has nobody told him not to do this anymore?

00:11:45.360 Somebody in the comments is saying that maybe she was nine or 10. She was 11. Somebody says,

00:11:51.520 okay, I guess we don't know. But that's not terribly important to my point. My point is that,

00:11:57.520 you know, this doesn't mean that he's a pervert or something. I mean, we can't really go all the

00:12:04.680 way there. But man is creepy. It's definitely creepy. And he had to have been warned, don't talk like

00:12:12.980 that in public anymore. But, but he went there. So I'm just wondering how, I'm wondering how Democrats

00:12:24.660 who supported him are feeling about him now. You still feeling good? Did you get exactly what you

00:12:32.640 wanted there? I'm glad they don't have Trump with all of his accusations and such. But they've got

00:12:39.600 this instead. Chuck Schumer is mad at the GOP. That's new. He says, shame on the GOP. Because

00:12:49.340 they, they killed a bill, the Senate Republicans did, to create a Capitol riot commission.

00:12:57.420 Despite some of the Republicans voting with the Democrats didn't get enough votes to overcome the

00:13:03.080 filibuster. So that's not going to happen. Now, does it really matter? Well, I suppose they would

00:13:09.680 have preferred having a commission. But they also get credit for trying to have a commission and then

00:13:15.640 having the Republicans turn it down. So they get the issue either way. In terms of persuasion,

00:13:21.300 I would say that the Democrats get the win. I give the Democrats the win on persuasion. Because

00:13:28.100 whether they got that commission, which would have been really good persuasion, or it got turned down

00:13:33.020 by Republicans, that's still good persuasion. You have, you have either the change or the issue.

00:13:39.760 So it was a win-win scenario for the Democrats. They took the lesser win. They didn't get the

00:13:45.620 commission. But it's still a win. So good play by the Democrats. Whether you think that's ethical

00:13:53.960 or not, you can decide. But in terms of technique, it was pretty solid.

00:14:00.940 Brouche says, would you consider reading super chats aloud at the end of the streams or gather

00:14:06.120 them to, well, I don't know that there's an easy way to find them at the end of the streams.

00:14:10.040 One of the problems with this model is if I'm looking at my notes or trying to keep my thoughts

00:14:17.300 together, and a super chat goes by, it's kind of hard to divert. So I do the best I can. So all I

00:14:24.680 can promise you on the super chats is they are more noticeable. That's all I can tell you. Beyond that,

00:14:30.280 I don't want to commit because it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the listeners.

00:14:33.320 So there's a new study, and I don't think any of these studies should be considered

00:14:40.460 conclusive, maybe not even persuasive, because science flails around until it narrows in on

00:14:50.280 the truth. We don't know if it's flailing or narrowing at this point. But there's a new study

00:14:55.520 that says there's no credible natural ancestor to the COVID virus, meaning it just doesn't look like

00:15:01.600 it came from anything natural. But there's an allegation that the Chinese scientists tried to

00:15:08.820 cover their tracks with what's called retroengineering to make it look like it evolved or

00:15:14.840 came about naturally. I don't know how you prove any of that stuff. And if you could prove this stuff,

00:15:23.000 why didn't anybody say this earlier? You know, why was it a year ago that you couldn't even say this

00:15:29.460 in the news? Was it just because the news was blocking it? Because in person, I did talk to

00:15:35.880 people who said it all the time. A year ago, privately, the smartest people I knew were saying,

00:15:43.320 oh yeah, you could totally modify virus and make it look like admin modified. You could totally do that.

00:15:48.300 So now we're just being surprised that maybe it's possible. We still don't know if it was

00:15:56.600 modified. But certainly, if you're just calculating the odds, if you didn't know anything except what

00:16:03.900 we know at the moment, you'd have to say that the odds are exceedingly strong in favor of the

00:16:11.580 accidental release from the lab. No evidence of an intentional release. I think that's still crazy talk.

00:16:18.300 But certainly, coincidentally, having a lab exactly where it released would be too much of a stretch

00:16:26.340 for me anyway. All right. So here are some things we know about Republicans, according to some recent

00:16:35.780 polls. I was reading an opinion piece on CNN by Frida Guitas. And apparently, a majority of Republicans,

00:16:45.080 61 percent, depending on what poll you're looking at, but a majority, believe the election was stolen

00:16:51.500 from Trump. And CNN, of course, reports this as, my goodness, how dumb those Republicans are. 1.00

00:17:00.740 How dumb they are. 61 percent of them think that the election was stolen. Oh, how dumb they are. 1.00

00:17:10.540 But they didn't ask them, is there proof? If they had said, is there already proof 1.00

00:17:19.400 that the election was stolen? Well, I think you'd get a different answer. But don't you think that

00:17:25.680 people are saying, in this situation, you should just assume it was stolen? I figure it's just an

00:17:32.460 assumption. Because if you have a situation in which something can be stolen, why wouldn't it be

00:17:40.460 if it can be? If you leave your door unlocked in a bad neighborhood long enough, can't you assume

00:17:47.700 you're going to get robbed? You just don't know if it happened already, or if it's going to happen

00:17:52.720 when you go home at night and you discover it. But you don't have to wonder if your home will be robbed,

00:18:00.400 right? Let's make it more obvious. You live in a dangerous neighborhood and you leave your car

00:18:06.200 unlocked and the windows down. And you leave some valuables in your car. Do you have to see the proof

00:18:13.840 that your stuff got stolen? No. You could just go to work. You don't need any proof. Your stuff got

00:18:21.400 stolen. Because it's parked in a bad neighborhood with valuables on the seat and all the windows are

00:18:28.760 open. And nobody's around watching it. You don't really need proof. You just need to know that that

00:18:35.440 was the setup. And then you know what happened. If an election involves electronic devices, have the

00:18:43.320 electronic devices been hacked? There's no evidence of that. No evidence. Have they been hacked? Remember,

00:18:50.840 there's no evidence. What would you say about could the machines have been hacked given that

00:18:57.520 there's no evidence? Probably. Either they have been or they will be. Because it's just like the car with

00:19:06.120 the valuables on the seat and all the windows open. You don't have to wonder if it will happen. That's off the

00:19:13.540 table. If is off the table. It's only when. When is still a good question. Has it happened already? Or is it in our

00:19:23.560 future? But if is just off the table. If you're a smart person. Nobody smart thinks that if is the right

00:19:33.100 question. Nobody. I'll say it again. Nobody smart. Nobody. Zero people who are smart thinks that it's

00:19:42.940 not going to happen eventually or has already happened. Nobody. You can't find me one smart

00:19:48.060 person who thinks that it won't happen or hasn't happened. One or the other. It's a pretty big claim,

00:19:56.060 right? In person, nobody will disagree with that. Maybe on Twitter, somebody will disagree. But in

00:20:04.180 person? In person, nobody will disagree with that. Who's smart? All right. There's a, let's see,

00:20:12.080 another poll. There's something like 23% of Republicans believe in the QAnon, what CNN calls

00:20:19.820 mythology. That, quote, the government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a

00:20:25.640 group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. Well, what do you mean by controlled? Maybe that's the key 0.92

00:20:39.440 word. Because you can't, you certainly can't say that there are no pedophiles in power. That's

00:20:47.120 obviously not true. But we don't know if they have enough power. We don't really know if they're Satan

00:20:52.160 worshipping. But certainly there's at least a sprinkling of them. We don't know if they're in

00:20:56.760 control. But this is used as part of an argument by Frieda that the Republicans are forming sort of a

00:21:04.700 human bomb, meaning that if 61% believe the election is stolen and, you know, 23% believe that the Satan

00:21:14.680 worshipping pedophiles are running the country. And, you know, it's just like a time bomb waiting to go 0.91

00:21:23.260 off. And then the third piece of evidence that Frieda gives, and this is the fun part. Are you ready for

00:21:29.480 the fun part? I was holding out on you for the fun part. She's concerned that on top of this QAnon

00:21:36.760 belief and on top of the belief of the big lie, as they call it, that the election was stolen,

00:21:41.360 on top of all that, which is bad enough, it's like a powder keg. There's some suggestion that

00:21:48.780 the Democrats are similar to Nazis. And she's worried that if Democrats are unfairly being

00:21:57.500 compared to Nazis, on top of these other two beliefs from Republicans, that that's a time bomb.

00:22:04.260 Now, has anything made you more happy today than knowing that Democrats are concerned because

00:22:13.320 Republicans are unfairly comparing them to Nazis? Has anybody ever done that before? I've heard of it.

00:22:23.560 Is it a thing? I believe that people have compared people to Nazis before. I feel as if that may have

00:22:31.780 happened. Oh, yeah. Four years straight, plus every Republican president ever. And so now the Democrats

00:22:40.640 don't like this being compared to Nazis business. Hmm. Hmm. Now, I would tell you my personal assessment

00:22:48.880 of the risk. Close to zero. Close to zero. If you look at the Capitol protests, riots, whatever you want

00:22:59.200 to call them. If you look at the Capitol situation, that doesn't tell you that things are ready to

00:23:05.400 erupt. Tells you the opposite. If that group had gone there heavily armed, well, I would be just as

00:23:13.500 worried as everybody else on the Democratic side. I'd be really worried about that. But the fact that

00:23:18.840 they were aggressively unarmed, I mean, aggressively unarmed, at least in terms of, you know, serious

00:23:26.240 weapons, or didn't use them if they had them, it really tells you what the intention was. The

00:23:32.700 intention was speech. Clearly, the intention was speech to make their feelings known. And then they

00:23:41.360 did. Now, turning this into, you know, an insurrection and trying to put them all in jail, of course,

00:23:47.000 is a Democrat unethical dirty trick, but seems to be working for them. So I tweeted this morning that

00:23:55.600 critical race theory is racist, because in lots of reasons, but in one particular reason that it

00:24:02.260 marginalizes poor white kids. Because imagine being a poor white kid, and you go to school and learn that

00:24:09.940 you're part of the oppressors. Not only did you not get any money out of slavery, apparently your

00:24:17.280 family did not make and keep their family fortunes from all that slavery oppression money that they

00:24:23.580 made, because they were white. And they were born into a poor situation, but they're being called the 0.54

00:24:30.800 oppressor. Yeah, it's a double FU. It's a double FU. And

00:24:37.440 can somebody do a fact check on this for me? I need a fact check. Because I feel like this might

00:24:44.880 be like a racist data point, and not real. But I want somebody to check this out for me. Is it true

00:24:52.680 or not true that black women, specifically women, are doing better than white men at the moment? Just

00:25:02.600 recently in the last few years. Is that true? Because I think that they're doing better in

00:25:07.960 terms of average pay for starting salary, right? I believe a black woman being hired into, let's say, 1.00

00:25:16.200 a corporation, on average makes more money than a white man. I'm seeing the truths, and I'm seeing 0.70

00:25:24.160 false. It's something I've seen, but I don't have it in front of me as a fact. Somebody says,

00:25:29.380 I doubt it, look it up. Those of you who say, I doubt it, look it up. Now, I think the reason is

00:25:39.580 quite obvious. Because the corporations get a twofer, right? Because the corporations want to hire more

00:25:47.340 women. They want to hire more minorities. If you find a qualified woman who is also a minority, 0.95

00:25:53.720 her value is going to be pretty high. She's going to have three job offers. You're going to have to

00:26:00.500 offer a little bit more to get it and solve two of your problems, your misogyny problem and your racist 0.95

00:26:06.220 problem. So it makes sense, like everything I know about economics, supply and demand, right?

00:26:13.720 What is the greatest demand type? The greatest demand type for labor is a black woman. 1.00

00:26:21.420 Am I wrong? If you're a corporation, and you're trying to do the right thing, you're trying to have 0.96

00:26:28.820 more diversity in every way, both in gender and in ethnicity, isn't a black woman the highest demand? 1.00

00:26:37.400 Now, I'm not making a joke. There's no hyperbole here. Just straight economics. Straight economics.

00:26:43.560 And yeah, and if that woman had been part of the LGBTQ community in any way, well, that's a threefer. 0.86

00:26:54.400 A threefer is rare. So don't you have to pay more for a threefer? You do, right? Because that's how

00:27:00.580 economics works. You pay for rarity. So do me a fact check on this, but I wondered how critical race

00:27:09.040 theory would explain if it's true, because I'll need the fact check. But I think it's true that at

00:27:14.920 least for beginning salaries, just recently, last few years, that black women with equal education, 1.00

00:27:23.380 et cetera, are higher paid than white men. I don't know for sure, but I think that's true. 1.00

00:27:28.980 I did a little narcissism test. And man, is this fun. Once you know how it works, it takes the most

00:27:39.160 frustrating thing in the world and turns it into just sort of a hobby. And one of my hobbies is

00:27:47.540 identifying narcissists by their tweets. And here's how you do it. So I tweeted this, and I'll tell you

00:27:55.060 the trick. I started out by saying, I like the idea of accurate history lessons. All right, that's the

00:28:00.640 part I'll talk about later. I like the idea of accurate history lessons. It's the first thing I

00:28:05.540 say. I like accurate history. But can someone show me an argument for how critical race theory

00:28:13.560 is supposed to make things better in the future? I only see generalities such as, quote,

00:28:21.060 helping kids be prepared for racism. So what do you think I accurately predicted would be the response

00:28:30.620 to that tweet? The response was, why don't you like accurate history, racist? My first sentence was,

00:28:40.300 I like the idea of accurate history lessons. People who are not narcissists will read this and they'll say,

00:28:48.280 okay, yeah, I guess we all like accurate history. So we're good so far. And then they'll look at the

00:28:54.080 rest of the point. A narcissist won't be able to see the first sentence. Like actually, they won't be

00:29:01.860 able to see it. It's like it wasn't even there. So they won't see the part where I like the idea of

00:29:06.680 accurate history. And then they attack me. Oh, you're racist. Yeah, let's hide history. Let's not tell

00:29:12.600 anybody about slavery. So those are the ones that I used to think were just some kind of weird paid

00:29:19.320 troll. But now that I know that narcissism is an actual constellation of behaviors, once you see

00:29:26.540 this behavior, you go, oh, it's one of those. Now, it could be cognitive dissonance. But within the

00:29:33.760 narcissist world, that happens regularly. So the narcissist is triggered into cognitive dissonance

00:29:40.320 just all the time. It's nonstop. That their whole world is a series of cognitive dissonance.

00:29:46.480 Maybe it's not true for all of us, but a little extra for that group. So when the peacocks come out,

00:29:55.820 and this is the other word I wanted to teach you about, when I call these people peacocks,

00:30:02.080 it works way better than saying somebody is a vulnerable narcissist. Because nobody knows what

00:30:10.520 that is. Well, 2% of you know what it is. But if you call somebody a narcissist, they just argue that

00:30:18.400 they're not. And they're not even sure what it is. And maybe your definition isn't the same as theirs.

00:30:22.980 No value whatsoever. Compare that to calling somebody a peacock. See? Have I taught you that

00:30:32.260 visual persuasion is the best? Yes, I have. Besides fear. Fear is always the best persuader,

00:30:39.400 but unethical in many cases. But peacock, you see it, right? And it's a ridiculous bird,

00:30:45.940 and it's just showing off. That's what the narcissist is. The narcissist only comes into 1.00

00:30:53.060 comment to make you look worse so that they'll look better. It's a low self-esteem play. And if

00:31:00.380 somebody comes in and says some insult to you generally, without any specifics about why you're 0.99

00:31:07.860 wrong, and they say, well, you know, you racist piece of crap, of course you'd think we shouldn't 1.00

00:31:13.200 teach history, that's a narcissist. But don't call them a narcissist. Thank them and call them a 1.00

00:31:21.000 peacock. So I like to say, thank you, peacock. We all see how amazing you are. Run along.

00:31:29.620 So the peacock wants to be recognized as amazing. Somebody who has better thinking skills than you

00:31:36.360 do. Somebody who has higher ethical consideration than you do. Somebody who is more generous than you

00:31:42.380 are. So instead of fighting with them, which just gives them fuel, you just say, thank you, peacock.

00:31:49.340 You are quite awesome, and we all know it. My experience is that they go away immediately.

00:31:58.180 They just go away immediately. All right. Here is an explanation that I saw on, I think it was on

00:32:06.780 CNN in an opinion piece. No, it was not on CNN. So it was one of the founders of critical race theory

00:32:13.800 way back in the 80s, was explaining its value. And here is the explanation. Kids of color need honest

00:32:21.460 information about society as much as white kids do. So they're prepared to deal with racism,

00:32:27.540 Feigen said. We are founded on racial oppression. Where I start with this is concrete history. I don't

00:32:35.640 even bring in concepts. So the point of it is that kids of color need honest information about society

00:32:44.120 as much as white kids do. Was anybody arguing about that? Do you remember anybody being on the other 0.72

00:32:50.440 side of that? Did somebody argue that, no, no, we want to teach the good history to the white kids, 0.60

00:32:55.580 but we don't need any honest history for black kids or people of color? Whoever said that. So I don't 0.97

00:33:03.280 know who she's arguing with, because I'm pretty sure everybody likes accurate history. And then the

00:33:11.260 fact that we are founded on racial oppression, I take that as, you know, that's honest enough. Sure. 0.98

00:33:16.960 Thank you. How does it prepare you? How does it prepare somebody?

00:33:25.240 Like, what do you do? So let's say you're a black kid, and you learn your history according to

00:33:32.180 critical race theory. You know, so now you understand why everything is the way it is.

00:33:37.780 Now what? And so you do what? The obvious implication is what?

00:33:50.600 History is great, but what's the point of it? Well, this is where we get into Marxism. Are you ready?

00:33:58.900 Let me give you my persuasion tip for the day for Republicans. What do you hear Republicans say

00:34:05.640 when they're criticizing Black Lives Matter, or they're criticizing critical race theory?

00:34:11.420 What do Republicans like to say? It's Marxist. It's Marxist. It's Marxist. Is that good persuasion?

00:34:23.060 Do you think that anybody's hearing that and saying, oh, I didn't know it was Marxist. I changed my mind.

00:34:28.360 No persuasion value. Calling it Marxist, and here it doesn't matter if it's true or not true or a

00:34:37.860 little true. It doesn't matter. It has no, no persuasive value. It's completely empty. There's

00:34:45.040 nothing there. It's just a word. You've actually wasted your time and other people's time by even

00:34:51.140 using it. There's just no point to it. So if you wanted to be persuasive without using that word that

00:34:59.440 just doesn't have any persuasive power, primarily because most of the public doesn't know what to do

00:35:04.700 with it. Like, I actually looked it up this morning because I wanted to see if I was missing something.

00:35:11.880 Like, is there more in the definition than I'm aware of? It turns out there wasn't. And so I was

00:35:17.560 confused too. Like, why is it Marxist? Have I ever told you that explaining to somebody a concept

00:35:26.360 doesn't ever persuade anybody? Concepts just don't persuade. Unless somebody is sort of already to

00:35:35.600 be persuaded and then they just need a reason, and then yes. But if somebody's on completely the other

00:35:41.260 side, explaining a complicated concept doesn't convince anybody of anything. You need a fear,

00:35:50.040 you need a picture, you need something simple that you can repeat, something that sticks in the mind.

00:35:55.940 Those are all the things that persuade people and more. But a concept with a word you don't understand

00:36:01.840 necessarily? Nobody. Nobody's ever been persuaded by that. So if you wanted to make this persuasive,

00:36:09.540 then you have to connect it. Where is Marxism connected to critical race theory? The best I

00:36:16.680 know of, and this is my interpretation, maybe I'm missing something big here, is that critical race

00:36:22.640 theory would make people feel guilty. And they would operate on their guilt to try to move resources from

00:36:30.760 the people who have them to the people who have less of them. Is that what it is? Is it only about guilt

00:36:37.100 and getting rid of money from rich people? I don't know. If the point of it is that you're saying,

00:36:45.200 hey, critical race theory is just a scheme, and the real payoff is socialism, and Marxism,

00:36:53.120 socialism, using them kind of similarly. If that's what you think the scheme is, and I'm not sure I think

00:37:01.480 that, yeah, I'm not convinced that's a scheme, but you could imagine that it would help to build guilt

00:37:08.980 so you could ask for reparations, to build guilt so you could have some special laws or something.

00:37:16.000 But I would say that it's based on guilt. So CRT is specifically a guilt strategy, and I think we

00:37:24.440 should call it that. It's a guilt strategy for the purpose of moving resources. How's that? Would

00:37:34.300 everybody understand the CRT critical race theory? Its purpose is to make you feel guilty if you have

00:37:41.320 resources, so that you're more likely to put those resources in their direction. Right? But at least

00:37:49.040 that's easy to explain. There's no hard concepts there. Guilt, therefore you better do something

00:37:54.720 for me. One word, guilt. Now, how many people, if you were to talk to them privately, just one-on-one,

00:38:02.900 nobody's listening, how many of those people would say, you know, we should build a system that's based

00:38:08.500 on guilt, like feeling bad? Who would think that would be a good idea? Versus, let's say, building a

00:38:15.800 system based on competition, based on how hard you work, based on doing the right stuff, going to

00:38:23.060 school. Wow. Per Anders says, critical race theory is Marxist, a subgroup of critical thinking. All right,

00:38:32.680 so far that's just a concept, so let's get to the good stuff. Check the Frankfurt School, you're making 0.90

00:38:38.060 it worse. The whole idea is to entice and to destroy the current system, not to make it better. Okay, I agree

00:38:43.880 with all of that you said, but when you're talking about persuasion, don't tell people to check out

00:38:49.880 the Frankfurt School, because they just won't. And the few who do are not the ones who are going to

00:38:56.120 be moved by animal spirits and guilt and feelings anyway. So just in terms of, and by the way, thank

00:39:03.780 you for that. That was way too generous. I would have read your tweet for 10% of that, but I appreciate

00:39:10.200 it. Or would have read your comment. So let's call it guilt. And it's a system based on guilt. And I

00:39:18.940 don't think there's anybody in the world who thinks that's a good idea, privately. It's good for the

00:39:24.900 leaders, probably. All right. And Ruben Gao on Twitter summarized it this way, said, critical race

00:39:36.940 theory is a wealth transfer device that uses guilt and envy to benefit one group over another. So

00:39:43.360 that's what it is. It's a wealth transfer system based on guilt. Now, we probably have a lot of

00:39:50.940 systems that are based on guilt. But I think we have to, and somebody says power, everything is about

00:39:57.600 power. Everything. Everything's about power. So sometimes saying it's about power doesn't get you to

00:40:05.040 any insight. Because it's about power. Everything. All right. So I wouldn't use that word Marxist if you

00:40:12.700 can use guilt and envy or real words. And that will make things fair. All right. Same as PETA accusing

00:40:26.740 you of guilt. So does PETA use guilt as their primary thing? I don't know. I don't feel like PETA

00:40:35.840 uses guilt. I think PETA wants to make you feel bad about hurting animals. But is that guilt exactly?

00:40:47.340 Or is it just feeling bad? I don't know. I'm not sure that's exactly guilt. But it's in the neighborhood.

00:40:53.340 Good. So do you think that you should ever make decisions based on shame or guilt?

00:41:03.060 Let's say in your personal life, if somebody says you did X, you know, years ago or whatever,

00:41:10.080 do you think you should make your decisions today based on that bad thing you did years ago?

00:41:15.120 Well, you could. Maybe it'd make you feel better. But it's a bad strategy. How about a strategy that is

00:41:23.880 you do as well as you can without hurting anybody? And then once you've done as well as you can for

00:41:29.720 yourself without hurting anybody, then you get generous. How about that?

00:41:34.920 Um, who is that simple? I don't know what you're talking about. Um, yeah, feeling shame or guilt over

00:41:49.120 something you can't control is useless. What about people insisting on apologies after you've already

00:41:56.920 apologized once? What do you think of that? I feel as if, uh, apologizing has a real use. I mean,

00:42:04.440 it's a very powerful social tool. So apologizing needs to be a thing. But suppose somebody has

00:42:12.020 apologized. How much more do you need to beat them up after they've apologized? I'd say zero is the

00:42:19.040 right amount. I think you got to move on after that. Um, Laura says the worst thing the left has

00:42:30.300 done with this is destroying our ability to agree to disagree. And they've done this through social

00:42:35.520 media and their censorship. Yeah. Um, I don't know. It's just the left who's done that. I think it's

00:42:41.560 social media in general has just amped us up to the point where you can't even be in the same room

00:42:46.900 with somebody who, who disagrees with you. Let me ask you this, which, what is, if you were to make

00:42:54.200 a list of things that are, uh, sort of crazy, would Republicans or Democrats have a bigger list?

00:43:03.460 Because, you know, on the right, you'd have stuff like QAnon, but on the left, you'd have all kinds of

00:43:12.160 stuff, right? Um, apologizing just, just gives your opponents a club.

00:43:22.760 Apologizing once and doing it sort of in good form, you know, or a proper kind of apology,

00:43:29.220 a proper apology. Um, you say exactly what you did wrong in words that the person you're apologizing

00:43:38.580 to would understand to be accurate. You got to do that. It's not an apology unless you can state

00:43:44.420 it in your own words. In my opinion, it's not a proper apology. So you have to restate what you

00:43:49.000 did wrong, apologize, but then you need to be done. If, if you're being beat up forever over it,

00:43:58.240 and you've already apologized, and you've shown that there's no reason it would happen again,

00:44:02.080 uh, then it's just a power move. And at that point, you can stop being guilty.

00:44:11.560 Marusha says, mandatory CR training would give, the CRT training would give the right exactly what

00:44:16.320 they'd want, access to leftists. They'd be forced to hear arguments from the outside. Interesting.

00:44:23.560 So, but I don't know that critical race theory has any room for other opinions. My guess is that

00:44:30.200 once you get in that room, uh, you're not allowed to have a varied opinion.

00:44:42.200 Here's an interesting thought. That means I've got to go. Um, apologies are useless. If you gave a

00:44:49.020 damn, you wouldn't have done it in the first place. I don't think so. No, I think people can make

00:44:53.460 actually just mistakes. You know, your judgment is never always as good. Sometimes you're drunk

00:45:00.280 and horny and tired. People make lots of mistakes. You know, you, you, I think there is such a thing

00:45:06.360 as a genuine apology. I feel like I've given them. Uh, guilt and shame works for diet plans.

00:45:12.840 Uh, yeah, I think there's actually a role for guilt and shame. You just don't want to overdo it. All

00:45:23.420 right. I've got to go run and do something else and I will talk to you tomorrow.

00:45:27.580 Uh, yeah, I've got to go run and do something else. All right. We'll shut it down and do it.

00:45:44.980 Bye.

00:45:46.720 Bye.

00:45:47.540 Bye.

00:45:48.440 Bye.

00:45:48.700 Bye.

00:45:48.800 Bye.

00:45:49.500 Bye.

00:45:50.600 Bye.

00:45:53.540 Bye.

00:45:56.340 Bye.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - May 29, 2021

Episode 1390 Scott Adams： Is Critical Race Theory Marxist, How to Know Who is Projecting, Capitol Riot Commission, and More

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript