Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1703 Scott Adams： Elon Musk Buys 10% of Twitter, Everything Is Going To Get Interesting Now

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and can we take a moment to just delight in the beauty of my shirt?

00:00:09.680 Now, it's just a t-shirt, I know, but sometimes when you get exactly the right color that fits

00:00:15.760 your eyes, well, you know, that just tells you it's all going to work today. And believe it or

00:00:20.760 not, not only is this a peak day for me with my good shirt and everything, but you too. You too

00:00:28.900 will be joining in in a little ceremony called the Simultaneous Sip, and it will signify and kick 0.98

00:00:34.980 off one of the peak experiences of your whole damn life. And it's called Coffee with Scott Adams, 0.92

00:00:41.600 and you begin with a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or sign a canteen jug or a flask.

00:00:47.140 What kind of vessel? Any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

00:00:53.320 for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine hit of the day. Turn on that dopamine faucet.

00:01:00.400 It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now, all over the world. Go.

00:01:04.220 Now, if you're watching this live in a different time zone, just wait an hour. Oh, no, it doesn't work

00:01:17.620 like that. All right. Well, there are some things happening today you might want me to mention.

00:01:27.000 Somebody thinks my cup is empty. Does anybody want to audit my coffee cup? All right. Spot audit.

00:01:38.660 You called for an audit? Here it is. Let's see. We will adjust our cameras for auditing.

00:01:50.100 Wah. Wah. Wah. It's coffee. It's the real stuff. Oh, it's a little watered down.

00:02:03.720 Ah. What you're seeing now is one of my broadcasting tricks. I have to put a towel on my desk. Otherwise,

00:02:13.920 the lavalier things will be clacking around. Yes, that's a little bit behind the scenes.

00:02:22.080 If you're listening to this on a podcast, you're saying, can you please change the subject from

00:02:27.720 your shirt and your desk towel? Because those things I cannot see when I'm listening.

00:02:36.080 Now, I've told you before, the way you should listen to this live stream is not like others.

00:02:40.180 So you're not a you're not a passive participant. You're in a conversation with somebody who won't

00:02:47.540 stop talking. But that's OK, because you have things to think about and do anyway. You're working

00:02:52.240 out. You don't need to be part of the conversation. You can just listen to me babble. Let's talk about

00:02:58.200 Biden and the laptop. Have I ever told you the story about the cat is on the roof? Yes, I have.

00:03:04.820 I'm not going to repeat it. But the idea is that you say the cat is on the roof to soften the blow

00:03:11.180 because, you know, the cat's already dead. So you say, well, it's on the roof. And then the next day you

00:03:16.660 say, well, it fell off the roof. You know, we're seeing how it is. And then you sort of slowly break

00:03:22.840 somebody into bad news. So that's called the cat is on the roof. Let's talk about Biden and the laptop

00:03:28.700 story that started out with laptop. I don't even know what you're talking about.

00:03:35.060 What laptop? I haven't even heard about such a thing. And that turned into, oh, oh, that laptop.

00:03:44.580 Well, you're talking about the laptop that's the Russian disinformation. Oh, yeah. Yeah,

00:03:50.500 there is a laptop. It turns out it's a laptop. It's a disinformation laptop. That's what it is.

00:03:58.160 OK, it's a real laptop. It's not so, maybe it's not so much Russian.

00:04:03.820 Completely real. The laptop is. I don't know about the contents, but that laptop is real. That

00:04:11.720 belonged to Hunter. OK, the emails are real. Yeah, obviously they're real because they can be,

00:04:17.660 lots of them have been validated. So yes, they're real emails. But the thing you have to understand

00:04:23.060 is that there's no kind of, you know, crime, you know, suggested there. Well, OK, there's plenty

00:04:29.460 of crime suggested there in the emails themselves, if you were to read them. Plenty. But the important

00:04:37.320 thing is, as of today, that they only involve potentially Hunter Biden and maybe Joe Biden's

00:04:46.460 brother. But there's, you know, there's nothing on there that would implicate the big guy. Oh,

00:04:53.080 wait, the big guy. The big guy is actually Joe Biden, who is actually implicated on the emails.

00:04:58.460 All right. So the laptop is real and the emails are real and they do implicate President Biden. But

00:05:12.520 I'm sure he's implicated in nothing that's going to matter. And by the way, have I mentioned he

00:05:20.020 hasn't been convicted of anything. That's right. Sure. It's a real laptop and it's real emails

00:05:28.380 and it really does implicate Hunter and it really does implicate Hunter's uncle. But it does mention

00:05:34.120 Joe Biden in the very same plots for which those others are implicated. But it's nothing to worry

00:05:41.300 about because he hasn't been indicted. No court has ruled that Biden has done anything wrong. Am I

00:05:48.300 right? Am I right? I mean, let's be honest. No court has ruled that Biden has done anything wrong.

00:05:55.720 Yet. That's how CNN handles any good news about Trump. Whenever they talk about Trump's, you know,

00:06:05.840 so-called legal problems. And they say, well, Trump hasn't been found guilty of any of those legal

00:06:12.620 problems yet. They always throw in the yet. So Joe Biden is completely clear of all legal problems related

00:06:26.760 to the laptop. And he has not been indicted yet. All right. And there's a great article in The Hill by

00:06:39.880 Jonathan Turley, who is pointing out how the narrative has changed from, you know, that's not a real laptop

00:06:46.900 to, yeah, it's real. But it's not really so much a problem. All right.

00:06:53.460 And even The Washington Post now, you know, everybody's sort of trying to get ahead of the

00:07:00.900 story a little bit. So it does look as if they're going to clip the cord and let Hunter and maybe

00:07:10.440 Joe Biden's brother, let them dangle so they can save Biden long enough to get something good going.

00:07:18.140 Do you have any idea what the hell the Democrats are planning?

00:07:24.160 I mean, seriously, what what are the what are those meetings sound like?

00:07:30.060 I mean, that's the honest question. You know, that whoever is the you know, we imagine to be the big powers

00:07:35.680 in the Democratic Party. What exactly do those meetings look like now? Do they say, I think we can ride

00:07:42.600 this Joe Biden thing out? All right. It looks bad now. But trust me, it's going to be a Putin 0.97

00:07:48.040 situation. Yeah, it looks bad at the moment, but he's going to ride it out. It'll be fine.

00:07:52.560 Does anybody say that? Is there anybody on the side of let's just ride this out? I think we can get

00:07:58.760 through four years and and maybe even get another Democrat elected? Probably not. Right. So if

00:08:04.900 they're talking about not that, what are they talking about? Is there anybody who said, you know,

00:08:11.780 I think what would really work is why don't we replace Biden with the least capable and least

00:08:19.080 popular vice president of all time? Well, I don't know if that's true, but let's just say she's not

00:08:25.080 among the top. I don't know. Maybe Dan Quayle was worse. Somebody would have to give me a fact check on

00:08:31.200 that. Speaking of Kamala Harris, Rasmussen has a poll about Kamala Harris's popularity and 56% say

00:08:42.200 they have an unfavorable view of some kind. Only 40% have a favorable view. And 54% of the voting

00:08:51.940 public in the United States believes that the vice president of the United States is unqualified to

00:08:57.040 be president. Wait, isn't that the one thing we should all feel fairly comfortable with? Now, I completely

00:09:06.680 get the idea that you wouldn't like the politics of the vice president. So you might say, oh, that's that's

00:09:14.080 not the politics I would want in office. But did we really, really, really, did we just elect a president

00:09:23.760 who is a thousand years old with a package with a vice president that 54% don't even think she can

00:09:30.940 handle the basics of the job? Like she'd get lost commuting or something? They'd have to remind her

00:09:39.220 what her job is every day or something? I don't know. You're right, commenter. I do look good in

00:09:45.640 this color blue shirt. See? It wasn't just me. It's a fact. So seriously, what the hell are the

00:09:54.600 Democrats saying? I mean, honestly, this is just a completely legitimate question. What do they say

00:10:02.000 privately to each other? Do they just say, well, we're just screwed? We're going to have to shake 0.97

00:10:07.740 the box and live with some Republicans for four to six years? Or are they saying, we can't change

00:10:16.940 our minds in public, but we need the Republicans to save the country? Like, are there any Democrats

00:10:22.480 who don't want to publicly change their opinion of anything, but privately they're thinking,

00:10:29.840 I really hope we lose this time because the winning isn't working out.

00:10:34.200 Do you remember when Trump said that we'd get tired of winning? I'll bet you thought he was

00:10:44.600 talking about Republicans, didn't you? Do you know who's tired of winning? I'll bet the Democrats

00:10:52.440 are pretty tired of winning right now because they won that whole presidential thing. They got the

00:10:58.860 Congress winning. Winning. Winning. It's looking good. Everybody? Do you think they're tired of all

00:11:06.960 the winning? I think they're tired of winning and they'd like to lose one for a change. Am I right?

00:11:14.400 Honest to God, I think Democrats are hoping to lose. Some of them. I mean, everybody's individual,

00:11:21.160 but don't you think there are some Democrats saying, I hope we lose this next one? Some? All right.

00:11:32.860 And then the news is also about the news, as it often is. The news is about the news.

00:11:40.620 Oh, and let me ask you this. I did a little poll on Twitter and I said, which of these two incidents

00:11:46.760 seem more indicative of a crime committed by a president? So which situation involves the most

00:11:54.560 evidence? So it's the most evidence of a U.S. president involved in a crime. Is there more

00:12:00.880 evidence about Joe Biden and the laptop situation? Or is there more evidence that President Trump did

00:12:08.500 something illegal relative to January 6th? Which one has currently, so we're not talking about

00:12:16.520 where it might go, because anything might happen. But at the moment, is there more solid

00:12:24.160 public information of crime on the laptop or the January 6th event?

00:12:33.540 Can anybody correct me if I'm wrong? So far, there's zero evidence of a Trump crime.

00:12:38.040 Am I wrong? Because, you know, you always worry that you're in your own news bubble. But if there's

00:12:45.680 anybody who's seen outside the bubble, I'm not sure if I do, I read CNN every day. And I

00:12:54.260 haven't seen anybody. I do sample MSNBC and CNN. I sample Axios all the time. I don't remember

00:13:03.400 seeing any of them saying there's a specific crime, even alleged. Am I right? Is there even

00:13:10.560 an allegation of a crime? Well, there's an allegation that something happened, but not based on any

00:13:17.080 specific fact pattern, right? I don't believe there's an allegation of a fact that would support

00:13:24.300 the idea that Trump committed a crime. Am I wrong? And I'm making a weird distinction between an

00:13:33.700 allegation of a crime, which does exist because every side, every side, you know, blames the other

00:13:39.920 of a crime, which means nothing in politics, right? So it doesn't mean anything that you say the other

00:13:44.960 side is a criminal. But if you have a specific fact that if it were true, would pretty much, you know,

00:13:53.980 say that somebody did something bad. I don't know. All right. Now, so a lot of you were pretty confident

00:14:01.920 in my poll. You know, this reflects my audience. It doesn't really reflect reality. But 94% said that

00:14:09.640 wait, I think I may have this backwards. I think most people said the laptop was the one that looked

00:14:18.920 like a serious crime. And let me ask you this. What crime does the laptop suggest?

00:14:26.840 Can you name one? What would be the crime, the actual crime, that Joe Biden would be guilty of

00:14:36.480 if all of it were true? Let's say the worst allegations based, you know, based on your

00:14:42.280 really speculation at this point. I don't think we have enough from the emails to

00:14:47.780 to know 100% of anything. But yeah, it looks like a 95% likelihood.

00:14:57.560 Yeah, I mean, I'm seeing lots of suggested possible crimes, but I'm not sure that there really

00:15:02.820 is one. Because I think it's completely legal, isn't it? Isn't influence peddling completely

00:15:10.240 legal? Now, there's the furrer thing, right? But nobody ever gets, nobody ever gets

00:15:17.720 convicted of that. I don't know. It seems to me that you've got this like slight lobbying

00:15:26.680 problem, you know, the foreign lobbying thing. But almost nobody goes to jail for that, because

00:15:32.000 it's so common. Is that the worst? Is that it? That's the worst? Yeah. I don't know. So

00:15:40.420 you have to be careful of the fact that you think your team didn't commit any crimes, but

00:15:45.100 the other team did. The most likely outcome is that nobody did. Because everybody accuses

00:15:51.520 everybody of a crime in the political context. Have you heard the phone calls yet? Phone calls

00:15:59.840 of who to what? So probably no, because I don't know what that question is. All right.

00:16:11.280 What do you think about slippery slopes? I'm going to see if I can add something to this. I

00:16:16.560 always talk about it, and you're sick of it. But do you think that you can identify a slippery

00:16:22.220 slope and then use that idea to predict the future? It's like, oh, this just started. It's

00:16:30.800 a slippery slope. So it's just going to slide in that direction. How many think that slippery slopes

00:16:36.960 predict? All right. Now, as far as I know, there's no science to back your opinion or anybody else's

00:16:47.220 about whether they predict. But let's walk through this a little bit. Now, would you say that a

00:16:52.760 straight line prediction is a slippery slope? In other words, let's say climate change says that

00:17:00.420 we're going to keep going in the direction of more and more CO2 and the climate will warm. How often

00:17:07.920 is a prediction that says things will keep going the way they're going? How often is that right?

00:17:14.320 Well, it depends how what your time frame is, right? If your time frame is really short,

00:17:21.160 then it's usually right. Things usually go tomorrow, literally tomorrow, like 24 hours from

00:17:27.620 today. Things usually are the same as they were yesterday, ish. But if you go out 100 years,

00:17:34.520 it's almost never the same. So it has to do with your timeline. So when you say there's a slippery

00:17:40.400 slope, what are you leaving out? For how long? Right? If it's a slippery slope between today

00:17:48.980 and tomorrow, I'm going to say, yeah, you know, probably if somebody did something today and it

00:17:55.420 worked out, they might do a little more tomorrow. That is correct. But if you said, is this a slippery

00:18:01.360 slope for 10 years? I'd say, well, first of all, it depends on the topic, I suppose. You know,

00:18:07.920 is this something that changes quickly or doesn't? But probably 10 years, you can't predict anything.

00:18:15.380 Do you know who says that? Everybody. Nobody disagrees with that. There's nobody in the world who

00:18:23.320 predicts anything about anything, who believes that anybody can predict 10 years in the future.

00:18:28.040 That's not a thing. So if there's no predicting of 10 years, the slippery slope probably has at least

00:18:38.280 a, you know, a limit in terms of time, would you not say? So my view is even more harsh on the slippery

00:18:47.800 slope. I believe that people start with a conclusion and they reason backwards. And the reason I think

00:18:54.500 that is because that's the only way we think. It's not special to this topic. And unfortunately, it's

00:19:02.920 something that hypnotists learn on day one, that people think backwards. We decide and then we reason

00:19:09.680 backwards to why we decided. We don't think of reasons and then decide. That's purely an illusion.

00:19:16.040 There are probably some exceptions, like in the scientific process, for example. But the way you

00:19:23.340 normally just navigate your life is you make decisions and then you come up with some bullshit 0.99

00:19:28.420 idea of why you did it. Yeah, it's totally against my philosophy for my entire life. But the reason I 0.94

00:19:35.480 did it this time is because I had a bed cold and I wasn't thinking straight. Yeah, we just have dumb 0.99

00:19:41.300 reasons for everything we do. So here's what I think the slippery slope is. It's a backwards 0.89

00:19:47.160 rationalization. We just say to ourselves, uh-oh, I'm afraid that X will happen. And now I need a

00:19:54.640 reason to support why I'm afraid of something irrationally. Uh-oh, there's a slippery slope.

00:20:00.740 There we go. I've reasoned backwards that the thing I'm irrationally afraid of has some kind of logical

00:20:06.800 path to it. And I'll call it a slippery slope.

00:20:13.240 Isn't slippery slope the thing he passed the sail? Let me think about that.

00:20:18.660 Yeah, I guess it is. Good point. If you say something's a slippery slope, you're making people

00:20:25.880 argue about how slippery it is and not whether it's going to happen at all. Yeah, in a sense,

00:20:32.160 I guess it is. Not as direct as most things. Um, I'm being asked, will Russians continue to love 0.81

00:20:44.200 Putin? Let's change the topic. And I say, um, the Putin situation is a perfect example of the

00:20:54.920 difference between wanting something and deciding. And I talk about that distinction in terms of,

00:21:02.480 you know, personal growth and success. Wanting success doesn't give you much of anything.

00:21:10.040 But deciding to get it probably gives you everything. And until you learn that distinction,

00:21:17.560 it's hard to get off the couch, right? Sitting around wanting things buys you just about nothing.

00:21:23.540 But deciding you're going to do it means that you're going to eat whatever garbage you have to. You're 0.99

00:21:30.700 going to take as little sleep, endure as much pain. You've just decided, right? For example,

00:21:38.980 I didn't want to go to college. I didn't want to go. I freaking decided. And, you know, sure,

00:21:46.660 there were obstacles and reasons to drop out at different points. And, but I decided. So once you

00:21:54.900 decide, it just simplifies everything. This is going to hurt. This is really going to hurt if you keep

00:22:00.160 doing this. Yup. Yes, it is. Yeah. If you do this, there's a risk you'll die. Yes, there is.

00:22:07.940 All right. A decision just simplifies everything. And the question about Russia comes down to has Putin

00:22:15.060 decided or does he just want whatever, you know, whatever it is he wants that we're not exactly sure

00:22:22.800 about? Does he want it or has he decided? Because if he's decided, well, then he'll get it because he'll

00:22:31.140 get it at any cost. And he certainly seems to be in the realm of somebody who could absorb large costs

00:22:39.840 and make it work for him at least. And maybe even make it work for Russia. I hate to say it, but he

00:22:47.060 may be sacrificing a lot in the short run for what could turn out to be like the, you know, like some

00:22:54.520 kind of Thomas Jefferson land deal, you know, Louisiana purchase, you know, and when we look at

00:23:00.960 it a hundred years from now, you might be looking at this big prosperous Russia that Putin built and

00:23:08.960 you forget about how brutal he was and you say, well, he sure was successful. Sort of like you do with

00:23:14.300 Genghis Khan. Like when we talk about, you know, is it Genghis or Genghis? Genghis Khan. We, we, we sort of

00:23:22.620 talk about how awesome he was, right? How much territory he conquered and how many children he

00:23:28.040 sired through his many concubines and whatever. We don't really talk about how amazingly awful he

00:23:34.500 was, like beyond probably anything we can imagine. And Putin could have the same thing. So if Putin

00:23:41.220 has decided, I'm pretty sure he'll survive and he'll end up with more territory. And somebody

00:23:52.440 says it's a Genghis or Genghis. I don't know, maybe. Yeah. So if I had to guess, and let's do the,

00:24:04.820 the armchair thing where we, we try to imagine that we know what's in Putin's head, you know,

00:24:10.180 good luck with that. If I had to guess, I think he's decided. What do you think? Has, has Putin decided

00:24:20.200 to take Ukraine or does he just want it, which would suggest he'll take something or, or less

00:24:27.260 than what he wants? Looking at your, I think it's going to be mostly yeses. All right. Looping back

00:24:37.020 to the slippery slope. I mean, the slippery slope isn't everything, right? If Putin takes Ukraine,

00:24:42.660 it's a slippery slope until he takes the Balkans. Am I right? I mean, that's the argument is that if

00:24:51.500 he can get away with it, why wouldn't he keep going? So here's my counter to the slippery slope,

00:24:58.180 besides the fact that it's backwards thinking. There's a better frame. If, even if you imagine

00:25:04.980 that the slippery slope is telling you something and it is predictive, and let's say for the moment

00:25:10.760 that I'll acknowledge that. I think in some cases it's kind of predictive, just not all

00:25:17.220 of them. And so, so let me just say, yeah, there's sort of a, there could be a domino effect

00:25:24.100 or a follow the leader or, you know, it gets into people's minds, et cetera. But here's the

00:25:30.560 better frame. Follow the money. That's it. If you have two frames that both predict, but one

00:25:39.240 does a 60% of the time good prediction, which would be very useful. If you had, if you had

00:25:45.400 a way to predict the future that was right 60% of the time, I think you'd become a billionaire,

00:25:51.460 right? I mean, if you could do that, I don't know that anybody could do that. Has anybody

00:25:56.320 ever predicted the future 60% of the time accurately? I don't know. That'd be a lot. But if you have

00:26:04.020 a different frame that could do way better than that, which is follow the money, I assert

00:26:10.440 that follow the money works 80% of the time. And that the 20% you don't know about usually

00:26:17.540 is because there's a time lag. So, so follow the, follow the money is still going to work.

00:26:23.560 It just hasn't worked yet, right? Like there might be an intermediate step that looks like

00:26:28.540 it's not working, but it's going to work. If you just wait, follow the money works basically

00:26:34.640 80% of the time, maybe all the time. So that's my argument against the slippery slope. It's

00:26:39.980 just not as good as other arguments, even if it kind of works or other frames. All right.

00:26:50.580 What do you think about the question of whether Russia is winning or losing or Ukraine is winning

00:26:56.820 or losing? Based on the propaganda that you've seen, is Russia winning or, tell me who's winning

00:27:05.420 Russia or Ukraine? Who's winning? Now this is just based on what you see in the news because

00:27:13.160 you're not there. All right. So there, there are two frames while you, while you're watching

00:27:19.900 your answers there. One frame is that the plucky Ukrainians have driven the Russians away from 1.00

00:27:26.600 Kiev, which certainly had to be their main objective. And, uh, since the main objective

00:27:32.920 of taking over the capital and getting Zelensky seems to be, uh, pushed away, that would suggest

00:27:41.320 that Russia is, is losing and maybe they're trying to just hold on to the territories that

00:27:46.420 they, they already have. So that's one, one narrative. The other narrative is that, uh, military

00:27:54.620 always tries to quote, shape the battlefield. This is sort of the Scott Ritter, um, narrative.

00:28:01.220 And, uh, and an army that shapes the battlefield would do things such as try to distract the

00:28:10.220 other army, try to make them think that your, your motive is over here, but it's really over

00:28:15.320 there. Trying to bog down their military, trying to basically change the landscape by inserting

00:28:23.080 variables that just make things difficult for the other team. Um, and yeah, I'm seeing in

00:28:29.460 the comments, the shaping is military doctrine. It's pretty, apparently it's just ordinary military

00:28:34.400 way. So the more ordinary way to look at what Russia is doing is that by threatening Kiev,

00:28:43.680 which would have been too expensive to take, which we all thought was the case, right? Or

00:28:51.200 at least a lot of us did, that taking Kiev would be such a bloodbath that there's no way

00:28:56.860 that Putin could do it and, and make everything work. I mean, it would just be too much. So

00:29:02.740 instead it looks like what they may have done and we don't know, but it looks like what they

00:29:08.840 may have done. Okay. Kiev, Kiev, whatever you want to call it. Uh, what they may have done

00:29:14.900 is surround Kiev, um, in order to keep the Ukrainians busy there so that they could consolidate things 0.73

00:29:25.120 in the, in the, uh, the South and the East. And then once they were done there, they would

00:29:30.940 consolidate their armies and then, you know, really completely own the parts that they already

00:29:36.820 control and then move toward taking whatever else they need. So they could basically force

00:29:43.260 Kiev to submit without directly attacking it, which would be the best way to, to do it. Now,

00:29:51.420 suppose you said to yourself, all these military experts in Russia, they, they've heard of this,

00:29:57.860 right? It's not like you and I are making up, making up military doctrine. Seems like it's

00:30:04.200 fairly standard stuff. Um, so, so this would be supportive of the theory that if Putin has decided

00:30:15.880 to take Ukraine, he, he always had a long-term, um, that he, that he always had a long-term view

00:30:26.200 of it. And that the idea that he could take, uh, Kiev or Kiev, the capital, the idea that he could

00:30:34.300 take that in 48 hours might've been Russian disinformation. Maybe, maybe, maybe Russia is

00:30:40.080 the one who started the idea that they could take over in two days so that everybody was looking for

00:30:44.740 the blitzkrieg that wasn't going to work, but they never planned to do that in any way. They

00:30:48.760 always planned to do it the, the slow, slow way. Now, I saw an estimate on Twitter that I don't

00:30:56.040 believe that, that only a thousand, uh, um, non-military people have died in Ukraine. Is that, you know,

00:31:07.840 I'm talking about just the citizens, uh, the population. That's not right, is it? Only a thousand

00:31:14.520 casualties, uh, among non-military people in Ukraine. We're not talking about the Russian

00:31:20.040 side. Yeah, that doesn't sound right. But what if it is? What if it is right?

00:31:29.340 Are you sure? I don't know if there's any way to, to know at this point, right? Yeah, a thousand,

00:31:38.520 yeah. I mean, let's, let's put in the obligatory, a thousand is too many. You know, it's a tragedy.

00:31:45.320 All right. Now let's talk about the, uh, how many of you saw the clips of what looked like, uh,

00:31:51.480 massive war crimes in, uh, what was it? Buka or Bucha or something. That one town that the Russians 1.00

00:31:59.800 have left. And you saw video that we have not verified. We meaning anybody. Uh, unverified video

00:32:07.640 of what looked like handcuffed prisoners who had been executed and dumped all over the road.

00:32:14.200 All right. How many of you believe that that was a real video and not propaganda?

00:32:23.720 And, and how many of you had a initial reaction which morphed a little bit as you heard other people

00:32:32.120 weigh in?

00:32:32.760 Now what I've been doing recently, and I'm not sure that I'm doing a good service here is that when I

00:32:40.520 see one of these videos that looks to be like it's, you know, at least possible or even probable

00:32:45.960 propaganda, if it's being promoted by any kind of legitimate source, I'll usually start out by just

00:32:53.160 tweeting it or retweeting it because it's news, which is not, you know, endorsing it necessarily. But

00:33:00.600 after sort of digesting things for a few hours, sometimes maybe the next day, uh, I'll, I'll tell

00:33:07.960 myself, you know, I'm not sure that we have sources for any of that. And that, that would be easy to fake

00:33:14.280 and everything else is fake. So why would you believe this? And so slowly I kind of talk myself out of

00:33:19.720 everything. That's my first reaction. So my first reaction was probably like everybody else's, which was,

00:33:26.120 oh my God, it's, that looks like the worst war crime we've seen since World War II. I doubt it's 0.79

00:33:33.160 the worst one, but you know, in terms of our consciousness, it feels like that. And then what

00:33:40.200 happened was a number of voices on Twitter in particular started doubting the accuracy of that

00:33:48.520 video. And a number of people pointed out, uh, income incongruencies. I don't know if those were

00:33:57.880 true. I'm not even sure if the, I don't know if the critics were accurate in their, what they pointed

00:34:02.360 out either. But, um, um, you saw the narrative sort to give up, didn't you? I feel as if the,

00:34:14.440 the media, um, did say they couldn't verify it, but they still ran it and made you think it was real,

00:34:23.000 uh, as war propaganda probably worked really well. So whether it was real or not, I mean,

00:34:30.040 it, it was packaged as propaganda by the Ukrainians. So here's what is interesting. 0.72

00:34:38.920 So the, the, the narrative comes out in the fog of war that there's this gigantic war crime.

00:34:45.240 It's very suspicious because of the source and, and, you know, the situation.

00:34:50.040 I believe that the, the, the wave of belief was turned back by what I call the internet dads.

00:35:00.120 Now, uh, to be a little less sexist, I'm not saying it's all male. Okay. And I'm not saying

00:35:07.840 it's people who have, you know, children. I'm using just a general phrase here. So the internet dads

00:35:14.280 to include internet moms and, and, you know, everybody else. But, but there are, yeah,

00:35:19.560 you could call it the adults in the room, but people have been calling it the dads. So I'll just use

00:35:24.440 that. And yeah, Mike Cernovich, uh, I would say chief among that group. And that group has enough

00:35:34.360 influence now that I feel that the major media had to pay attention that the internet dads, people with 0.97

00:35:42.760 credibility and big followings were saying it would look like bullshit to them. Now, 0.95

00:35:50.280 as that, have any of you watched it closely enough to feel like that's what happened or was it going

00:35:55.480 to happen anyway? Because, because I feel like, um, I feel as though the balance of power is really

00:36:04.680 starting to change. And at the same time that this other force is sort of developing that, you know,

00:36:13.240 the, I'll call them independent voices, you know, they're podcasters, they're, they're tweeters or

00:36:19.480 people with big audiences. I feel like the counterbalance was really productive this time.

00:36:24.760 Don't you? Did you see the same thing I saw? Now, in the context of the, um, the internet dads

00:36:35.400 balancing out the major media, what's the biggest obstacle that the internet dads have working

00:36:41.720 against them? Uh, in the comments, see if you can get ahead of me here. What's the biggest limiter

00:36:48.760 or limitation that the internet dads have? Possibly the algorithm, right? I don't want to say

00:36:56.600 censorship, censorship, because, uh, if you say censorship, that's, it reads intention into

00:37:05.480 something that's not demonstrated to have intention yet. It has effect. I mean, we can see what we think

00:37:12.440 is the effect as alleged effect, I guess. Um, so in the context where we worry that the only thing

00:37:19.400 limiting the, the, the sensible counter voices to the unsensible news,

00:37:27.640 Elon Musk just bought the biggest share of Twitter that anybody owns, including Jack Dorsey.

00:37:33.960 It's like several times more shares than Jack Dorsey currently owns.

00:37:42.360 Elon Musk, who was asking about censorship and about, you know, the, the big platforms and asked

00:37:47.800 if he should start one, uh, put his money where his mouth is, bought 9.2% of Twitter this morning

00:37:54.440 ish. And now he's the largest shareholder.

00:37:58.680 I should, uh, give you a disclosure here. Uh, I do own Twitter stock and I do own Tesla stock.

00:38:09.720 And I tried to sign up for Truth Social, but I couldn't get in. And there's a, uh, like a related

00:38:15.640 story to all of these stories that Truth Social, I think they lost one of their people who was, uh,

00:38:22.680 managing that thing. And it doesn't look as though, um, the launch was successful.

00:38:28.680 So far. All right. It looks like it's late and it's not on Android and it's not on a web browser

00:38:34.840 yet. So it doesn't look like it's successful. And it's not going to help one bit that, uh,

00:38:40.760 Elon Musk just bought into Twitter because Truth Social should be a solution to what people believe

00:38:49.640 is censorship. But if Elon Musk becomes the most influential voice, and I don't know that that can

00:38:56.680 happen, but we'll see. But if Elon Musk becomes the most influential insider at Twitter, what's the

00:39:03.640 first thing he's likely to do? Like what, what's the first change he's likely to promote if you had to

00:39:11.800 guess? And here's the weird part. Here's my guess. I think the first change that Elon Musk is going to,

00:39:19.800 uh, to, uh, make just a guess is Jack Dorsey's plan. How weird is that? Because Jack Dorsey's been saying for

00:39:30.520 how many years? That he thinks the platform should have, uh, your choice of algorithms. So if you just

00:39:37.240 want to see everything, that would just be your choice. And if you wanted to see it filtered by somebody else's

00:39:42.840 filter, you'd see how they filter and you just choose it. Now, I always wondered, why is Jack Dorsey

00:39:51.480 saying that, uh, the platform should be like that, but I saw nothing coming in on Twitter

00:39:57.160 that was going to do that thing? Did I miss something? Like why, why was the most important

00:40:03.960 voice at Twitter saying we should do this, but it wasn't happening? And for years or did it happen?

00:40:09.560 And then it was in some small way that I didn't notice. All right. So then Jack Dorsey leaves.

00:40:18.120 Who knows, who knows what the story was behind that, right? Shareholders, blah, blah, blah, blah,

00:40:23.480 personal reasons. Who knows? But then Elon Musk comes in. I can't think of anybody more likely to

00:40:33.720 implement Jack Dorsey's plan. Maybe Jack Dorsey didn't own enough stock to get it done.

00:40:42.200 Maybe. I mean, if you stay anywhere long enough, you're going to develop, you know,

00:40:46.680 competing interests and other shareholders and stuff like that. So Elon Musk comes in with

00:40:52.680 probably nothing except a social agenda.

00:40:57.160 Twitter. I doubt he bought this as a pure investment, right? Can we all agree with that?

00:41:03.880 I think we would agree that, uh, Elon Musk did not buy Twitter as a pure investment. Do you know why?

00:41:12.360 I don't think he invested stuff like that. It's not really, I don't think it's his wheelhouse, really.

00:41:19.240 I think he did it for purely social reasons and he broadcast it. He broadcast it as cleanly as you

00:41:24.920 could broadcast any message. He asked in public, should I start a social, you know, media network?

00:41:31.640 Um, do you think that censorship is being handled right or however he asked it? So he's being as

00:41:38.920 transparent as anything could ever be. And then he's probably going to take that same level of

00:41:44.280 transparency that he's taking into this transaction. I think he'll take it into the product itself.

00:41:51.960 Because remember what Elon Musk is more than anything? He's a product guy. He's the ultimate

00:41:59.560 product guy. In fact, maybe Steve Jobs, you could say, but it's hard to think of somebody who's more

00:42:07.720 product oriented versus marketing, let's say. In fact, Elon Musk does the product so well that he

00:42:15.480 doesn't need marketing. He just does it himself, tweeting from the toilet, as I like to say. And

00:42:24.040 so the only explanation is that he's doing it to make Twitter more transparent and it would be kind

00:42:30.760 of embarrassing if it works, meaning it would be embarrassing to the other, any other platform that

00:42:36.760 doesn't. But I would not want to be owning Getter or any competitor to Twitter. Because the only

00:42:46.920 problem Twitter has, in my opinion, is the one thing that Jack Dorsey said it should do and hasn't

00:42:53.640 done yet. But Elon Musk knows how to make a product work. And there's one thing that's wrong with Twitter.

00:43:02.440 It's just broken. Am I right? It's a product that just has a glaring flaw. And the guy who fixes glaring

00:43:12.440 flaws, it probably makes him crazy. Can you imagine being somebody who has the engineering, physics,

00:43:23.800 product design, knowledge of an Elon Musk, and then looking at this product, Twitter,

00:43:29.640 and seeing it's just massively broken in this most critical way, the transparency of the algorithm

00:43:36.520 and the censorship element? And knowing you could just fix it. Just buy the damn thing. Just fix it.

00:43:44.040 Now, my guess is that he's tiptoeing in and seeing what he can get done with 9.2%.

00:43:49.880 Probably a lot. But that's not full control, right? Now, I would also guess that there will be some large

00:43:59.000 number of other Twitter shareholders likely to throw in, in a proxy sense, behind Elon.

00:44:09.480 Well, I'm one. Okay, I'll use myself as an example. So I own stock in Twitter. And if Elon Musk said,

00:44:17.000 hey, we're going to have this, I don't know, vote, I'm going to push for a vote,

00:44:24.040 can you make sure that you sign your proxy vote? If Elon Musk asked me to sign it because he said

00:44:31.160 this is how you fix censorship, I'd sign the fucking thing. All right? And I never sign those. I never do 0.99

00:44:39.240 that. Because I always think, ah, somebody else will sign it. You know, they'll get enough people

00:44:44.440 signing their proxy, then, you know, I don't have to do it. I never do it. But if, you know, given

00:44:50.840 Elon Musk's credibility, especially in this, you know, specific domain, censorship, I mean,

00:44:56.840 he's very consistent. And I think most people, almost everybody, would think he's on the right track if he

00:45:03.400 opens up the transparency. So I think Elon Musk is correct in his first assumption. And again,

00:45:13.800 this is all just speculation. I can't see inside his mind. As I often say, if I could see inside

00:45:19.320 Elon Musk's mind, I would have started Tesla. Why would I wait for him to do it? I would have built

00:45:27.560 myself a rocket ship to Mars if I could do what he could do. But I can't see inside his mind, and

00:45:32.760 neither can you. But it seems to me from an outsider's perspective, if you wanted to limit

00:45:37.880 your risk while getting the most leverage, you would buy 9.2% of Twitter. That's enough to get

00:45:44.200 everybody's attention and say, okay, I'm the lion king of shareholders. And then just organize the

00:45:50.120 other shareholders. It's easier to organize the others than to buy their shares. Because I think he

00:45:56.280 could. Uniquely, he could. Not many people could do that. Or who else could, really? It'd be hard to

00:46:03.240 think of somebody else who could. All right. So Twitter stock was up like 21% last time I looked.

00:46:13.160 And as I said, I own both Tesla stock and Twitter stock. So discount everything I say by my bias.

00:46:21.640 How many of you think that truth social is going to work? Because it will attract basically nobody

00:46:32.040 on the left who disagrees, right? And what would be the point of it? The reason I'm on Twitter is

00:46:43.880 because that's where the mainstream media is. That's where all the energy is. If the mainstream media

00:46:50.280 decides to choke truth social, and they will. I'm not even sure that the right wing, or I like to say

00:46:59.320 right-leaning, I don't even think the right-leaning press is likely to go big on truth. Do you know why?

00:47:05.560 It's competition. Truth social is just a news network, just packaged as a social media network.

00:47:13.880 So if you're in the news business, I'm not so sure you want them to succeed, do you?

00:47:21.240 So I don't know how truth will solve the problem of not having enough energy because there's not enough

00:47:30.440 conflict. You know, if you take out the thing that makes it work, the conflict, why would it work?

00:47:42.600 All right.

00:47:47.880 Okay. We have 30 times the followers on truth social. So you think shadow banning is real?

00:47:55.480 Well, it could have to do with the fact that there's nobody except people who agree with you on there.

00:48:02.520 Yeah, right. The problem is everyone agrees. Okay.

00:48:09.000 All right. Ladies and gentlemen, that is the amazing, amazing meat of the show. We are now in bonus

00:48:18.360 territory, right? It's bonus territory. This is part where you tell me what I forgot to mention.

00:48:26.280 Um, yeah, it's the best show ever. You're right. Stop it. I'm embarrassed now.

00:48:31.720 Um,

00:48:32.920 you know, locals, somebody's making a comparison between truth and locals. So locals, as I'm on the

00:48:45.240 subscription network, uh, that's different because I don't think people are there for the fight

00:48:51.000 on locals. I think people are there because there's a, usually the central person has a point of view

00:48:59.880 that they, you know, enjoy. It's more, more of an entertainment, I think. So when I put,

00:49:06.200 when I put material on locals, I think of it as just entertainment. Uh, and also it's the edgy stuff.

00:49:15.560 So I can, I can put the stuff there that, uh, now, um, does anybody know, uh, Snoop Dogg?

00:49:22.840 Uh, and I'm going to do a Kevin Bacon thing here. Anybody, does anybody know Snoop Dogg? Uh,

00:49:30.600 didn't Carmen Diaz, uh, go to high school with him? And here's why. Uh, I want to invite Snoop Dogg to my, uh,

00:49:38.840 man cave. And I want to interview him and see, uh, which of us will, uh, last the longest.

00:49:47.720 If you know what I mean. Perfect example of something that I can say more clearly on the locals platform.

00:49:56.440 Wink, wink. But, uh, here on, here on YouTube, it's a more, uh, family friendly, uh, environment.

00:50:03.080 And let me just say the Snoop Dogg and I could, uh, have a conversation and maybe compete.

00:50:09.640 Possibly fix all the problems in the world. And, uh, and you might say to yourself,

00:50:16.360 what are the odds that Snoop Dogg would come to my garage? I would say the odds are really,

00:50:22.920 really small, but it would be amazing. Wouldn't it? Come on. It would be amazing.

00:50:29.960 So one of the things I'm thinking of doing is, uh, doing man cave, uh, interviews,

00:50:36.840 but I only want to do it if somebody can come to the man cave. I don't want to do it remotely.

00:50:43.560 Um, so there you go.

00:50:52.600 Yeah, you'd watch. You know, you'd watch. All right. Let me ask you this question. Uh, aside from

00:50:59.480 Snoop Dogg, um, aside from him, who would be the most interesting thing I could interview and think

00:51:09.160 about not just that it's an interesting person, but somebody that you think I uniquely would be the

00:51:15.080 right person to interview either because of it's entertaining or I'd ask the right questions or

00:51:20.440 something. So who would be, you think Trump? All right. Let me tell you something that I could guarantee

00:51:30.440 you. Here's something I guarantee you that me interviewing Trump would be the best Trump

00:51:38.120 interview you ever saw. I guarantee it. I guarantee it. I don't know how it could miss. I really don't

00:51:47.480 because I think everybody does it wrong. Do you know what they do wrong? Let's see if you know.

00:51:52.520 How does everybody do it wrong? And by the way, I'm going to make one exception. There's that I've seen

00:52:00.360 one person do it exactly right. And I think I could, I could do something in that vein as well. Yeah. Greg

00:52:06.840 Goffeld. I think Goffeld does, did the best job because he humanized him. Like you could tell that

00:52:13.400 they just liked each other. And so like he got, he got like a little human look out of him. So I think

00:52:21.000 that's the thing I could do better than, better than somebody who does interviews for a living.

00:52:26.840 Because I think when you do interviews for a living, especially depending on what platform you're on,

00:52:33.400 you're sort of driven toward a certain level of professionalism that I think distracts from a good,

00:52:40.680 good entertainment. And that's what the, that's what Greg Goffeld gets right. He never lets the

00:52:47.400 professionalism ruin the job. You know what I mean? As soon as the professionalism is more important

00:52:55.320 than the product, then the product suffers. But he does product first, professionalism second. So you

00:53:01.800 get, and that's why he has two shows. Interview Ben Shapiro. Yeah, I don't know that me interviewing Ben

00:53:11.240 Shapiro would produce like any headlines. I think I would just agree with what he said. And then there

00:53:19.480 would be no spark there. Yeah, Jordan Peterson. That would be interesting.

00:53:28.920 And I'm especially interested in his religious interpretations of recent, which I want to look

00:53:39.240 into a little bit. I want to hear it in his own words, because I'm considering that one of the most,

00:53:46.840 let's say, unpredictable

00:53:48.280 evolutions that I've seen. I would not have predicted Jordan Peterson's, is it a change? I don't even know

00:54:00.040 if it's a change, really. Maybe it's just something we're hearing more about. But I think it's an

00:54:04.680 evolution, right? To a more religious frame. And I'm going to say frame, because I think he puts it in,

00:54:13.320 I think he puts it in terms of, you know, living as if it's real. Is that true? I hate to try to

00:54:21.080 paraphrase other people. He says he doesn't believe it literally, just has, he likes the utility of it.

00:54:30.680 Is that it? Because that wouldn't be far from my own view. My own view is, if you don't know my view

00:54:38.040 in religion, is that I'm not, personally, I'm not a believer, but I'm very pro-religion. Because it's just so

00:54:44.520 obvious it works. I mean, why would I be against something that works? Now, I don't know that there's

00:54:52.040 any science behind that. But the only studies I've seen are that people have a faith-based

00:54:59.160 view of the world seem to be happier, seem to be more prosperous, seem to do fewer drugs. You know,

00:55:07.320 there's something about thinking that somebody's watching you all the time, and, you know, loves

00:55:11.560 you and is judging you, I guess, that probably has some, you know, some guardrail effect on your

00:55:20.040 behavior. And if, as long as people have a choice, you know, they can, they can enter a religion,

00:55:27.000 they can leave it, which is the beauty of America. As long as they have a choice, if they're picking a

00:55:33.320 frame that works, that works for me. Now, in the old days, when I was younger and dumber, 0.68

00:55:40.680 I used to say, whatever it is I'm thinking today is right, and all those other people, 1.00

00:55:47.560 how dumb could they be? And the older you get, if you do it right, if you do it right, 0.98

00:55:56.920 your humility should increase, not decrease. So I started out with no humility, meaning I was

00:56:05.160 pretty, pretty sure I had the whole God situation figured out, and other people didn't, and there

00:56:11.960 was something wrong with them. And, but the longer you live, you realize that more and more things you

00:56:17.720 thought were clearly true, they just, like, evaporate. If I could tell you how many things

00:56:26.600 I believed were absolutely true five years ago, that, and I'm talking about a lifetime of having

00:56:34.520 truths evaporate, like every year something that was true disappears again. I mean, like really big stuff.

00:56:41.720 I'm talking about really basic things about even who you are, like a belief about, like,

00:56:50.360 what happened to you in the last five years. Just really basic stuff. And so the longer I live,

00:56:58.520 the more humility I get. Because everything I think I believe, now I have a little message that says,

00:57:05.000 yeah, yeah, you're pretty sure this time, aren't you? Do you know how many times you've been sure before?

00:57:10.280 Yes, you do. Yes, you do. You do know. You do know. Don't change the subject, Scott.

00:57:16.520 You know how many times you were sure before, and then found out you were totally wrong.

00:57:22.360 Do you remember that? I'm not trying to think about it. Think about it. Think about it, Scott.

00:57:27.960 Don't, no, don't not think about it. That's how you get cognitive dissonance. Think about it.

00:57:33.480 So that's something you can do as you get older, like you're in, if you do it right, right?

00:57:38.600 If you do it right, you will remember how many times you were wrong. And that was one of the

00:57:44.440 motivations behind that book behind you, behind me, where I'm pointing, that had failed almost

00:57:51.240 everything and still went big. By cataloging all the things that I'd failed at, it was both a reminder

00:57:58.920 to myself how many things I was sure about that didn't work out, but also a way to tell other

00:58:05.320 people that even people who, you know, for whom life worked out fairly well, that were wrong all the

00:58:13.400 time. I mean, the number of times we're certain and wrong is just shocking, no matter how successful

00:58:21.640 you end up. So, and that helps people understand that their own certainty is worth questioning.

00:58:28.280 How sad to take the substance of God out and just embrace the utilitarian aspect.

00:58:44.840 Well, I don't know, is it sad or is it just a frame that works for some people and not for others?

00:58:49.720 Now, for me, the simulation hypothesis is the most predictive, right? So here's another prediction.

00:59:00.120 There will never be anything true about our reality, whatever you call this thing, that is not

00:59:06.040 also true for a simulated world. Meaning that a simulated world would have resource constraints,

00:59:14.360 it wouldn't have infinite memory, you know, it would be a bunch of things that would be true,

00:59:19.080 true for software. So my prediction is there will never be anything true in our so-called real world

00:59:26.040 that isn't just as true for software, because we can never get out of that model. Very specific prediction.

00:59:34.920 So we'll see.

00:59:35.640 Somebody says, somebody says, God is utilitarian.

00:59:43.400 Interview Sam Harris again.

00:59:47.080 Yeah, you know, I'd love to. That'd be good.

00:59:52.760 Kanye would be good.

00:59:56.360 Maybe Kanye would actually do it. I mean, it'd be more of a resource question. He can't be

01:00:02.120 everywhere and do everything. All right, that's all I got for today. Oh, Bill Maher. Oh, wow.

01:00:10.920 That would be interesting. Imagine me having Bill Maher on and having a video prepared to debunk the

01:00:20.440 fine people hoax and the leech drinking hoax and just say, just two things I want to talk to you about.

01:00:28.280 And that's it. I just want to show you the full video and then show you what you saw.

01:00:37.080 And then I'll tell you, I literally personally interviewed people who attended the Charlottesville

01:00:42.120 thing and found several of them who claimed that they disavow all racism. And they were just there

01:00:48.360 about the statues and the historical element of it.

01:00:51.240 And just see what he says. Because here's the thing. The thing that I keep saying to Bill Maher

01:00:59.480 about why he's so dangerous is that he's a shapeshifter. Well, that sounds negative. I mean

01:01:08.120 this to be positive. He is capable of entering your bubble and looking around.

01:01:13.480 Who can do that? I mean, really, who can do that? Not many people. It's a really small

01:01:22.040 list of people who can just walk outside their bubble if they choose to, right? It's the choosing

01:01:27.640 to that is where that little challenge is. But if they want to and they have a reason to,

01:01:33.000 and somebody alerts them to a good reason to do it, they have the ability to open their little

01:01:38.200 door and walk out of their little bubble and knock on the other bubble and go inside and see what's

01:01:43.880 happening. There's only a few people who can do that. And he's one. So a conversation with him,

01:01:51.640 if I could, you know, invite him into the other bubble, just to look around, you know, just to

01:01:57.880 check out the furniture, it would be pretty interesting, wouldn't it? That would be really

01:02:02.040 interesting. All right. And if there were anybody I thought I had a shot of getting to

01:02:10.040 the man cave, I would think the odds would be pretty good in his case.

01:02:17.960 Russell Brand will become more productive with your persuasion frame. Yeah. You know,

01:02:23.240 Russell Brand is fun, isn't he? Is it my imagination or is he also able to, I think that's the context

01:02:31.240 you're mentioning. He does seem to be able to check everybody's bubble, doesn't he? Am I right

01:02:36.280 about that? Those of you who have been watching before? Yeah. Joe Rogan, same thing. Joe Rogan

01:02:43.400 is bubble free. People will try to characterize him in one bubble or the other, but I don't think

01:02:51.720 he sticks. I think he's bubble free. Yeah. I think Russell Brand found his exact

01:03:04.200 place. Don't you? You know, I like, like him as a standup. I've liked him as an actor.

01:03:12.760 But when you look at his talent stack, you know, if you look at his verbal skills,

01:03:17.240 see, see the point of, what's the point of being, um, doing scripted material when you have his,

01:03:25.480 his capacity? Like that's a complete waste. And he should be in an unscripted, you know,

01:03:31.720 semi-scripted, um, bounded, but unscripted scenario. And that's what he's doing. So,

01:03:38.440 and then he also doesn't have like constraints, right? There's nobody writing lines for him and

01:03:43.320 telling him, do this, more of that. So, he's really the, um, yeah, he's, somebody says, uh,

01:03:52.360 Carl says, Brand's awareness, uh, as an MDT mushrooms is off the chart. Uh, that is correct. He is off the

01:04:00.740 chart. So, um, now he'd be an example of somebody that I don't know if he and I would have any reason

01:04:11.000 to talk because we'd end up just agreeing, I think. Chris Rock. Yeah. He'd be the hardest interview

01:04:20.280 in the world. Matt Damon. Why Matt Damon? He'd be, I like Matt Damon, but why? Dave Chappelle. Oh,

01:04:28.440 that'd be interesting. I don't think I could get him to come. Well, I probably couldn't get anybody to

01:04:34.600 come, but, uh, all right. That's all for now. And I will talk to you on, uh, YouTube tomorrow. Oh,

01:04:42.720 and before I go, I don't know if anybody's noticed this, but, uh, Madonna has slowly evolved into Jar Jar Binks

01:04:51.440 and I didn't want to be the first one to mention it, but it's important. See you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - April 04, 2022

Episode 1703 Scott Adams： Elon Musk Buys 10% of Twitter, Everything Is Going To Get Interesting Now

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript