Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1840 Scott Adams： If Democrats Tell The Truth About Trump, It Makes Them Look Like Monsters

00:00:00.000 Good morning everybody and welcome to

00:00:06.480 Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of

00:00:08.520 your day. Probably the best thing that's

00:00:10.800 ever happened to you. Would you like to

00:00:13.020 take it up a notch? Would you? Yeah, yeah I

00:00:16.680 think you would. And all you need to do

00:00:19.000 that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank

00:00:21.000 or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or

00:00:22.520 flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with

00:00:26.640 your favorite liquid. Have I mentioned I

00:00:29.880 like coffee? And join me now for the

00:00:32.980 unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine the

00:00:35.660 other day, the thing that makes everything

00:00:37.020 better. It's called Simultaneous Sip.

00:00:40.800 Happens now. Go.

00:00:46.600 Ah, so far so good. What do you say? I think

00:00:51.460 we're off to a great start. And what do

00:00:57.540 things happening with the midterms? So it

00:01:02.520 looks like the latest is that according to

00:01:04.740 Rasmussen, the Republicans are up by five

00:01:09.120 points. A generic Republican versus a

00:01:11.520 generic Democrat with 81 days to go. Do you

00:01:16.220 think that will narrow? Do you think that

00:01:19.660 will narrow? I believe it will. By the time we

00:01:23.940 get to the election, there probably won't be

00:01:25.480 much of a gap there at all. Because

00:01:27.980 everybody just retreats to their team. Always

00:01:31.180 does. Yeah. Always does. So it turns out that

00:01:36.120 DeSantis is not going to get away with his

00:01:38.440 Stop Woke Act, which restricts colleges and

00:01:44.520 universities from discussions of race and

00:01:48.000 gender. So do you know what's wrong with 1.00

00:01:51.980 restricting freedom of speech in colleges?

00:01:58.740 Now, why did nobody see this coming? How can the

00:02:04.280 government restrict free speech in college and

00:02:06.660 get away with it? They can't, apparently. Apparently

00:02:09.220 it's the most obvious thing you can't do. So while

00:02:14.120 DeSantis had been on this long winning streak of

00:02:17.220 doing the obvious right thing to do for his

00:02:20.320 base in any situation, this feels like a, this

00:02:25.600 feels like an error, doesn't it? You're saying

00:02:29.900 that colleges, colleges can. Right. Yeah. A

00:02:33.540 private, a private institution can, but the

00:02:36.100 government can't tell a college what to do in

00:02:38.640 terms of freedom of speech. So there's no way

00:02:41.880 that the government can get away with telling

00:02:43.660 you what you can and cannot do, right? In

00:02:45.800 terms of speech. They can certainly change what

00:02:50.140 they fund if there's any funding element to

00:02:53.200 it. Well, we'll see what happens there, but

00:02:56.140 it looks like colleges will get to say whatever

00:02:58.640 they want. Let's talk about the Sam Harris

00:03:03.180 situation again, because there's an update. So as

00:03:08.160 you know, famous rational person, Sam Harris, some

00:03:16.200 people who think he destroyed his career by

00:03:20.000 noting that he was happy that Hunter Biden's

00:03:23.880 laptop was suppressed by the left as a conspiracy

00:03:28.520 basically, and that it probably made a difference in the

00:03:31.920 election. And he thought that that was fine because the, there

00:03:37.500 had been similar, you know, laptop related things. Hillary's, 0.84

00:03:42.400 what's, Wiener's laptop, you know, was a factor in the first

00:03:46.560 election with Trump versus Hillary. And so Sam Harris was

00:03:50.840 saying, well, if Trump lost because of a laptop thing, but maybe he also won

00:03:56.780 because of a laptop thing, it's not the biggest thing in the world. And it's

00:04:01.360 probably fair because, in Sam Harris's view, Trump is so dangerous that

00:04:08.320 gaming the system a little bit was probably appropriate in terms of,

00:04:13.060 specifically in terms of that laptop thing. Now, of course, people got on him

00:04:18.860 and said to him, does that mean that you would justify the election being

00:04:25.360 rigged? Which is the obvious next question, right? And so he wanted to, to

00:04:32.400 tell us that he did not think that. So here's, here's his full answer. He said,

00:04:38.660 there's a podcast clip. Now, here's what you should listen for. I want you to

00:04:43.880 listen for the specificity of his answer. It's a little too specific, all

00:04:50.940 right? But wait for it, see if you catch it. So it's a, it's a

00:04:54.780 multi-part tweet. He said, this, there's a podcast clip circulating that

00:05:00.760 seems to be confusing many people about my views on Trump, which is

00:05:05.620 understandable because I wasn't speaking very clearly. So for what it's

00:05:10.180 worth, here's what I was trying to say. All right. So now I, I'm a proponent of

00:05:17.260 forgetting what he said before if a clarification is being offered. So forget

00:05:23.860 about what he did say. He's got 48 hours, according to my 48 hour rule that I've

00:05:29.180 made up to clarify. And if he does try to clarify, you should just take the

00:05:33.860 clarification. Don't, don't try to beat somebody up about what they said if they've

00:05:39.340 already clarified. All right. So I'm on board with him so far. Let's look at the

00:05:44.020 clarification and sort of ignore what he said before. I like that as a standard,

00:05:48.940 even if you think maybe it causes people to lie or backtrack or weasel or

00:05:54.120 whatever. But I think we should just keep that as a social standard. If somebody

00:05:58.880 clarifies, just take the clarification. All right. So he goes on. He said, I was

00:06:05.900 essentially arguing for a principle of self-defense. Interesting. So the idea here

00:06:11.080 is that Trump is dangerous and therefore our citizens would have a right of

00:06:15.320 self-defense. And then he goes on where there's a continuum of proportionate force

00:06:21.640 that is appropriate and necessary to use. So again, I think he's going back to if the

00:06:27.440 Wiener laptop made a difference in one election, maybe the Biden laptop makes a

00:06:32.740 difference in the other direction and that those would be roughly equivalent. I think

00:06:36.580 that's the argument. I've always viewed Trump as a very dangerous person to elect

00:06:40.900 as president of a fake university, talking about Trump University, let alone the U.S.

00:06:47.420 And when he became a sitting president who would not commit to a peaceful transfer of

00:06:52.040 power, I viewed him as more dangerous still. However, I've never been under any

00:06:58.940 illusion that he is Orange Hitler. What? 0.78

00:07:01.980 So here he's saying that he's not under the illusion that he's Orange Hitler, which is 0.90

00:07:09.740 interesting because when I talked to him on his show, he did, he did allude, he did make

00:07:14.900 a Hitler, Hitler analogy with Trump. So I guess the Hitler analogies are not to be taken

00:07:21.200 seriously. Okay. So he doesn't compare Trump to Orange Hitler. And then on the podcast,

00:07:31.980 he goes on, I was speaking narrowly about the wisdom and propriety of ignoring the Hunter

00:07:37.480 Biden laptop story until the election. I've always thought that was a very hard call,

00:07:43.220 ethically and journalistically. But given what happened with the Anthony Wiener laptop in

00:07:48.620 the previous election, I think it was probably the right call. Now here's the part you want

00:07:54.020 to look for the specificity. All right. Look what he says. And then what he doesn't say.

00:08:01.260 All right. So watch for what he doesn't say. This is the important part. He goes on. Nothing I said

00:08:07.820 on that podcast was meant to suggest that the Democrats would have been right to commit election

00:08:14.200 fraud. All right. So what he's saying is that he didn't mean to suggest that Democrats would have

00:08:32.140 been right to commit fraud. He didn't mean to suggest it. Does that mean he doesn't think it?

00:08:38.760 Because that's different, right? It's one thing to say I didn't mean to suggest it,

00:08:46.300 which is an interesting way to say it. How about I didn't mean to say it? But, you know,

00:08:54.620 what I do say is this. If it was confusing, I change it. But interesting. He didn't mean to suggest it

00:09:01.760 doesn't really give his opinion about it, does it? I didn't mean to suggest it is very different from

00:09:08.760 that wasn't my opinion. Am I wrong? I feel like when you say I didn't mean to suggest it,

00:09:17.100 it means I didn't mean to say it. It doesn't mean he doesn't think it. And we don't know what he

00:09:23.560 thinks, right? I'm not putting a thought into his mind there with my imagination. I'm just saying

00:09:30.200 that he didn't specify that it wasn't his opinion. He simply specified he didn't mean

00:09:38.580 to suggest it. Slightly different. You can imagine them being the same, or you can imagine

00:09:45.800 that he meant them to be the same. But they don't sound exactly the same, do they? Sound a little

00:09:51.320 different. And he says, nor do I think that they did that. Now, whether he thinks they did that or not

00:09:59.320 is irrelevant to whether they did that or not. But didn't mean to suggest that it would have been

00:10:07.060 right to commit election fraud or other illegal means. Didn't mean to suggest it. It feels like

00:10:14.180 we still don't know if he thinks it would have been a good idea. Like, why not tell us directly?

00:10:21.980 Because here's the thing. If it's not a good idea to rig an election to keep Trump out of office,

00:10:27.720 why isn't it? Why isn't it a good idea? If you believe what you say about his danger,

00:10:34.800 it would definitely be a good idea. I would do it. If I believed what they believe,

00:10:39.700 I would rig the election. Would you? Would you? If you were keeping a monster out of the office,

00:10:50.500 or yeah, I think he actually compared Trump to an asteroid barreling toward the earth. Because if

00:10:56.700 you imagine, let's say you imagine from the left point of view, if climate change is going to, you

00:11:04.120 know, destroy the world in some some fashion, and you think Trump's going to make climate change

00:11:11.460 worse, it's kind of like an asteroid coming toward earth. All right. And somebody says that if you

00:11:20.300 break the law, they'll do it to you. What about that argument? If you cheated on the election,

00:11:26.580 they'll do it to you. How does that deal with the fact that everybody who can get away with it does

00:11:35.480 it already? I mean, we live in a world where everybody who can get away with stuff does it.

00:11:41.200 It's just whether they think they can get away with it. That's the only thing that limits people.

00:11:46.100 In the real world, that's it. If they thought they could get away with it, pretty much everybody

00:11:51.740 would do it. Pretty much. Now, you think you're the exception. Okay, I get it. You're the exception.

00:11:57.840 And people in your family are awesome. No, people do what they can get away with. That's the world

00:12:03.880 you live in. Now, getting away with it includes God watching you, right? If you're a religious person,

00:12:13.000 you believe God will judge you. So that might not be getting away with it. In your own point of view,

00:12:19.120 that would not be getting away with it because you're being watched by God. But if you didn't

00:12:23.600 believe God was watching, and you didn't believe anybody else was watching, and you didn't think

00:12:27.260 there was any chance of getting caught, you would all rig the election. I know you think I'm wrong,

00:12:34.000 but I'll give you my opinion. It's just an opinion. I can't prove it. So it's just my view of the

00:12:41.080 world. 100% of the world would rig the election if they thought they were saving the world.

00:12:46.100 If they thought they were saving the world, 100% would rig the election. If they thought

00:12:52.720 they could get away with it, nobody was watching. No God was watching. Your conscience, well,

00:12:58.920 your conscience, I guess you still have that. Yeah. Now, I accept that you don't agree with

00:13:05.160 me. I accept that you don't agree. But I'm positive. I'm positive in my opinion.

00:13:15.180 Very rarely am I this sure about an opinion, but I'm positive about this one. Now, you could say

00:13:20.920 there would be some exception, right? If you took a million people, yeah, you could get somebody to

00:13:26.420 not do it, definitely. But the ordinary person would save the world if there was no risk.

00:13:34.960 That's what I'm saying. Now, the ordinary person might not destroy the world for their own benefit.

00:13:44.700 That's true. I can see that they wouldn't destroy the world just to get a little extra gain. Some would,

00:13:51.120 some wouldn't. But everyone would break the rule to save the world if they thought that's what was

00:13:59.700 happening. Everybody would. The exceptions would be so rare that you wouldn't even discuss them.

00:14:05.980 It would be crazy people, stuff like that. And so I want to see if I can get somebody to say,

00:14:12.820 say right here in the comments, under this scenario, that you wouldn't break the rule,

00:14:19.160 because, you know, the rules are the rules, and we're a rules-based people. But you wouldn't break,

00:14:24.900 tell me you wouldn't break the rule even if you thought it was the end of the world.

00:14:30.040 It's the end of the world if, unless you break the rule. Would you break the rule?

00:14:35.940 How many would break the rule to prevent the end of the world? You would not. So there are people

00:14:42.700 on here who would not, who would not break a rule made by humans, and they would let all the humans die.

00:14:50.460 You would let all the, there are people actually saying that on the locals platform. Yeah. And,

00:14:58.880 and people are confirming, yep. People are saying yes. They would let the entire world die,

00:15:04.620 because following the rule is more important. You're actually saying that, right? I'm not

00:15:11.260 misinterpreting you, right? Yeah. Yeah, there's, so there are actually a number of people

00:15:19.860 who would destroy the world to, to protect themselves, because that's what that is. Yeah,

00:15:28.800 if what you're doing is, is not breaking the rule, because you can't break the rule,

00:15:32.920 that's really protecting yourself at the expense of the entire planet. And there are people saying

00:15:38.760 they would do that. They would protect their own feeling about, you know, being a protector of rules.

00:15:44.820 More importantly, that all of the people who have ever, who are alive, all 7 billion of them.

00:15:53.300 Yeah. Now, am I supposed to take you seriously?

00:15:59.220 How can I take that seriously? Because you're, you're either lying or you're so stupid that you 1.00

00:16:06.140 wouldn't be able to log on and have an account. I mean, are you lying? No, nobody would do that. 1.00

00:16:13.500 Unless you were like mentally ill or something. Yeah. Now, remember, my, my situation is that, 0.99

00:16:23.240 you know, the world is going to be destroyed. It's, there's no question about it. And you would

00:16:26.780 still do it. Now, if you were uncertain whether you were right, that would make sense. If you said,

00:16:33.100 well, I don't know if Trump's, you know, the, the end of the world, but I worry about it. In that

00:16:38.900 case, I wouldn't break a rule. Would you? Suppose you just had a suspicion that things would go wrong

00:16:46.060 with some candidate. I wouldn't, I wouldn't throw an election in that case. I'm not even close. I'm

00:16:53.480 talking about, you're sure that this candidate is just going to destroy the world. You're sure of it.

00:16:59.020 In that case, sure. I would break any rule there was. All right. So the people who were saying that

00:17:08.300 they would not break the rule, even at the risk of the entire planet, now I'm seeing the real

00:17:14.200 thinking is being revealed here. They don't believe this set up. So in other words, they rejected the

00:17:19.320 hypothetical that there could ever be a case when there would be any danger because of who got elected.

00:17:25.640 Right. If that's what you're saying, then you're not good at answering questions. So that's the

00:17:31.380 problem. Right. The reason that I ask hypotheticals is to force you to clarify your thinking. If you

00:17:39.820 refuse to clarify your thinking, that's a message too. That says something. All right. But here's the

00:17:49.320 problem with the Sam Harris opinion. And again, I guess I would be speculating and reading some minds

00:17:57.920 a little bit here. It's a little bit unfair, but it's hard to avoid. How can you be honest

00:18:05.220 in this situation? And Sam Harris, I don't think he has the capability of just lying.

00:18:14.280 I think it's sort of beyond his framework. Because first of all, I don't think I've seen an example

00:18:22.180 of it ever. I don't think he's even been accused of lying, has he? Like ever? I mean, it's pretty

00:18:32.120 amazing when there's a public figure that we can all sort of have some familiarity with. And as far

00:18:39.200 as you know, that person has never tried to lie to you. You could disagree with them all day long,

00:18:44.720 but they haven't tried to lie to you. Right. So I don't think that Sam Harris is lying. Do you?

00:18:52.700 No evidence of that. But what do you do if your honest opinion is that somebody is so dangerous

00:18:59.660 that bending some rules might make some sense, if that's his opinion? You really couldn't express

00:19:05.560 that, couldn't you? Because it would be so damaging. Suppose you were a person who only

00:19:11.820 tells the truth, and it's really important to your, I don't know, your psychological makeup,

00:19:16.840 your brand, your legacy. It's just real important that you tell the truth all the time. And I think

00:19:21.940 Sam Harris is probably the best example of that. His entire, you know, being is wrapped around

00:19:30.100 rationality and being honest. So how does he deal with the fact that if he believes

00:19:37.500 what he says about Trump, it does make perfect moral sense to rig an election. But I think that

00:19:46.440 it's so dangerous to say that, because that gets taken out of context, of course. Of course,

00:19:54.060 it would be taken out of context. And of course, it would be used as evidence that it was rigged

00:19:59.920 when we don't have proof of that. So wouldn't it be really dangerous for Sam Harris to be honest

00:20:07.440 about the hypothetical? That if you believe that Trump was as bad as he believes, and you have the

00:20:14.960 ability to rig the election, then maybe it wouldn't be the dumbest thing in the world. 0.98

00:20:19.260 I don't think that they can say out loud what they're actually thinking. Imagine having a point 0.81

00:20:27.700 of view that you're afraid to say out loud. It's common to all of us, I think. But I think the

00:20:37.220 problem is that they actually can't say their actual opinion, because it would be, it would sound

00:20:44.920 disgusting, even to themselves when they said it out loud. So if you have an opinion that you

00:20:50.620 can't, a political opinion that you can't express in public, that's a problem.

00:21:00.860 He's afraid of being canceled? I suppose we all are. But anyway, this is more interesting than any of

00:21:08.180 the other people in the news, because you know, well, you don't know, but a strong assumption

00:21:15.800 he's not lying. So think about how interesting this is. The reason he's such a good discussion

00:21:22.800 case. Not lying, not stupid, not under-informed. When do you ever see that? In all of politics, 0.99

00:21:34.640 when do you ever see not lying, not stupid, and not misinformed? And then he has a different 0.99

00:21:45.240 opinion than I do. Now, you don't know it, but I can know it of myself. I'm not lying. I think

00:21:54.280 I'm smart enough to be in the conversation, and I think I'm well-informed enough to be in

00:22:01.000 the conversation, too. So how do you explain, of course, this is me complimenting myself here,

00:22:07.720 but how do you explain two people who are not lying, they're both smart, they're both well-informed,

00:22:13.860 and have completely different views on Trump? How do you explain that?

00:22:21.760 Well, the explanation I would give is that one of us is experiencing cognitive dissonance.

00:22:27.300 And then how do you tell which one it is? Do you remember my trick for doing that?

00:22:34.220 What's the trick for seeing who has the cognitive dissonance? The trick is if you can take the other

00:22:41.520 side of the argument and give a full-throated argument for it to show that you understand it.

00:22:48.140 But if you can't do that, you're probably in some other kind of a mental situation.

00:22:52.680 Now, I believe I could take Sam Harris's argument and completely explain it. I don't know if he could

00:23:00.300 do that with mine. Probably could, but I don't know it. And that would be interesting, wouldn't it?

00:23:07.260 How would you like to see the two of us, you know, say, talk, split screen, and we just do that

00:23:14.040 exercise, where I try to take his point of view and explain it as well as I can, and then he tries to

00:23:19.540 take my point of view and explain it as well as he can. Do you think we could do it?

00:23:25.740 Here's the interesting thing. I'll bet we could. Probably could. I don't think I've ever seen it

00:23:31.060 before. I've never, actually, I've never seen it. I've never seen anybody do that before. It would be

00:23:35.960 fascinating. But I suspect also maybe we might think the other one hadn't quite nailed it, you know, maybe

00:23:42.820 left something out. But we'd probably end up pretty close on that. All right, here's my theory. I think

00:23:51.040 that, in my opinion, it looks obvious that he's experiencing cognitive dissonance. To me, it looks

00:24:00.940 obvious. But it might look obvious to him that I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance. And how would

00:24:09.620 you know who's right? You wouldn't, really, unless you do that exercise. And we might both pass that

00:24:14.860 as well. So here's what I would say about that. Before Trump was elected the first time, I think it

00:24:29.540 was a reasonable fear that maybe he was as bad as the worst, the worst impressions. Right? You

00:24:38.260 didn't know. I didn't know. In the first election, it wasn't impossible that he could have turned

00:24:44.600 into some kind of monster once he got in office. It wasn't impossible. I didn't think it would

00:24:49.240 happen. But it wasn't impossible. So four years go by, and it doesn't happen. The one thing

00:24:56.700 that many of us would disagree with Trump is how he handled the losing. If handling the losing is the

00:25:05.420 only, you know, major thing that justifies their opinion, I feel like that's clearly cognitive

00:25:13.100 dissonance. So here's the part that I would like to see Sam Harris respond to. What would be his

00:25:20.620 response to the fact that a Harvard study showed that two-thirds, at least two-thirds of the people

00:25:26.560 who were at the protest believed that they were saving the republic? They honestly believed the

00:25:32.600 election had been rigged, and not necessarily because Trump told them. They felt that from the

00:25:39.040 moment they saw the result. It wasn't because Trump told them. Everybody saw it. So how does he explain

00:25:45.900 that two-thirds of the people there, genuinely, in their deepest feelings, felt something had gone

00:25:54.060 wrong and they were there to fix it, to actually repair the republic? Not to overthrow it, to repair it.

00:26:00.440 Why would two-thirds of the people there who believed they were there to repair the public, or more,

00:26:05.980 I think? Why would you imagine that Trump was not one of those? Because the majority opinion was that

00:26:14.520 something was wrong and they need to fix it. It was the minority opinion that nothing was wrong and we

00:26:21.760 need to overthrow the country anyway. Yeah. Well, why would you imagine that Trump would be signing on to

00:26:30.140 the dumbest of the opinion when the smartest one is just right there? It's right there. People thought 0.98

00:26:36.320 they were saving the republic. How do you rule that out? You can't. Now, today's live stream will be a

00:26:47.960 little truncated because my Dilbert career is in great jeopardy at the moment, so I'm spending all my

00:26:54.740 time trying to fix that. Problem is, I've been drawing for, I don't know, 15 years or something on a

00:27:02.820 Wacom tablet in Photoshop, and I think Photoshop either changed how the program works, or there's some

00:27:12.280 setting, or I've got a bug, I don't know, but I can no longer paste something and then draw on top of it. I mean, I

00:27:21.620 can manipulate some things so I can get it done, but the manipulation would take too long. I just

00:27:26.420 couldn't use the tool if I had to do that. So I've published my problem on Twitter for everybody to

00:27:36.320 give me advice. What do you think happens when you ask for a technical advice? Let me tell you.

00:27:42.940 They will tell you to reboot, which I've already done. They'll tell you to make sure you have the new

00:27:48.140 version of the software, which I've already done. They will also look at the screen that you give

00:27:53.400 them, and they'll say, oh, your problem is that you have that icon pressed, even though the picture

00:27:59.700 shows it's clearly not indicated. So some will hallucinate that there's a lock that's set when

00:28:06.060 it's not. You can see it clearly. Others will tell you, Scott, why don't you Google it? Now, you could

00:28:12.600 Google all day long. You'll never find a technical solution by Googling. Have you ever found a technical

00:28:18.940 solution by Googling it? I've tried. I've tried about a billion times. When you do it with consumer

00:28:28.060 software, it might be different if you're programming. You know, a developer probably does find answers,

00:28:33.500 but if you're just using a commercial piece of software, what happens when you look for your

00:28:37.480 answer online? It's all different versions. What happened when I asked people, they sent me

00:28:44.100 screenshots of exactly what menu I should select. Do you think there's any chance that the screenshots

00:28:51.020 that people sent me actually exist on my software? Of course not. It's a different version that they

00:28:56.800 solved. It's either for Windows or it's an old one or something. Then somebody will say, well,

00:29:02.760 have you tried the Framajan blah, blah menu? And I'll say, I would try that if it existed,

00:29:11.180 but mine does not have a Framajan menu. I don't know what you're looking at. So basically,

00:29:17.500 all of your technical help is going to be read the manual, what doesn't help, Google it that

00:29:23.120 doesn't help, reboot that doesn't help, update the software that doesn't help. And then there's

00:29:28.360 always this one bastard. There's always one bastard who says the only thing you can do 1.00

00:29:34.680 is delete all of your software and reload it. I'm not going to do that. I will sell my computer 0.96

00:29:42.940 before I do that. Because you know it's just going to be problems. Yeah. So the problem is that when

00:29:48.880 I paste a layer, I can't draw on the layer unless I send it to background. And I didn't ever have to

00:29:56.160 send it to background before. You should be able to write on the layer you just pasted. That's just

00:30:01.760 basic. Yeah. So if I have to change to a new software, there's going to be a big learning curve.

00:30:08.940 I've got a deadline I'm up against. So here's the problem. I don't know that I can solve this

00:30:14.360 problem before my deadline. And I don't know that it's solvable because the solution might be to stop

00:30:21.020 using Photoshop and use something else. Now, some people said, why don't you contact Adobe

00:30:27.120 technical support? I would never even try. I'd never even try. Do you think there's any chance

00:30:37.000 that's going to work? Yeah, it's not a welcome problem. It's definitely not a welcome problem.

00:30:42.360 It's definitely a Photoshop problem. No, it's not going to work. Have you ever tried to get

00:30:48.940 technical support on the phone? That's not a thing. No, you'll just be sent through the phone

00:30:55.560 trees and then it'll disconnect. And then you get somebody who started yesterday. Yeah. And it would

00:31:03.520 take me probably two hours even to find a contact number. I mean, I'd Google it. It'd be the wrong

00:31:09.720 number. I'd try this. They'd tell me that I got to use the other number. Yeah. Customer service isn't

00:31:16.340 really a thing that happens anymore. So there's not really any customer service from a tech company.

00:31:23.500 Right? I mean, you could try, but it's just going to be a waste of half a day sitting on hold and then

00:31:30.260 getting nothing. What would Dilbert do? I don't know, but I know what Dogbert would do.

00:31:40.280 Dogbert would make it a huge public problem. So the Adobe has to fix it for me. Because it's

00:31:50.040 probably, here's what I think. I think they did it intentionally. I think it's an intentional

00:31:56.820 change to the software. I think. I don't think it's a bug. I think it's intentional. Now it could be

00:32:03.420 that somebody requested it because there's some advantage about the way they're doing it.

00:32:07.060 So I think somebody benefits from this change, but it makes it useless to me. It would make my job

00:32:14.640 so hard. I don't know if I could even bother doing it with the software anyway.

00:32:25.420 Yeah, you can't really reinstall the old version because it's a subscription service.

00:32:29.900 Yeah. If I tried to do that, it would take longer than I have. So I'm either going to have to miss

00:32:37.940 my deadline or a miracle has to happen. Brush mode behind. The culprit is brush mode and behind.

00:32:52.460 Well, I don't know what that means. So most of the people would give me, all right, so here's a good

00:32:59.040 example. The culprit is brush mode and behind. What do I do with that? I don't know what to do with

00:33:04.560 that. Those are just words. Brush mode and behind. What's that mean? I know the layer needs to be

00:33:12.940 unmoved, but I don't want to move the layer. That's the problem.

00:33:19.860 It's a consumer version.

00:33:23.120 Right click. I don't have a right click.

00:33:26.480 I'm on a Mac.

00:33:27.760 But most of your advice is going to be for a Windows. That's the problem.

00:33:33.820 Compress layers and draw. No, it doesn't work.

00:33:36.040 Even compressing, even flattening the layers, you can't draw on it.

00:33:44.660 Now, there's lots of things I can do to hack it, but it doesn't just work.

00:33:50.640 It needs to work.

00:33:54.680 You can't debug it, pick up the pen, draw, debug it, pick up the pen.

00:34:01.260 You can't get closer to drawing or you can't even use it.

00:34:06.800 Reset the flux capacitor. I need to do that.

00:34:10.520 Yeah.

00:34:10.900 So what happened was when I paste a layer, I can't draw on the new layer.

00:34:15.060 And there's no reason for that that I can see.

00:34:17.620 And don't say that I got something locked because nothing's locked.

00:34:26.000 Okay, now you're getting closer.

00:34:27.720 Now you're saying a two-finger click on the trackpad.

00:34:30.780 That I can do.

00:34:31.500 But when you tell me Windows commands for my Mac, I don't know what to do with that.

00:34:48.140 Procreate.

00:34:48.860 Save the project.

00:34:50.120 No, I've saved it and reopened it.

00:34:52.080 I've done all the obvious stuff.

00:34:54.840 Make a backup of the coot, erasing install over.

00:34:57.900 I'm not going to do that.

00:35:00.520 I'm not going to erase my whole hard disk and reinstall all my software for this one bug,

00:35:05.600 which is not a bug.

00:35:07.600 I don't believe it's a bug.

00:35:09.460 That's the problem.

00:35:10.720 If you think it's a bug, that's a whole different problem.

00:35:15.480 This appears to be a software change, which maybe I can unchange with some kind of a setting,

00:35:22.980 but I don't know where it would be.

00:35:34.180 Let me fix it.

00:35:35.500 Scott is waking up.

00:35:36.580 Now, the problem with this is that I'll get so many suggestions that I won't know which ones are right,

00:35:45.580 and I could pour through the wrong ones all day long.

00:35:52.940 I don't think there's any kid that could solve this, honestly.

00:35:56.480 I think that maybe Adobe just made a change and there's nothing I can do about it.

00:36:04.980 Release notes.

00:36:07.140 Yeah, I'm not going to do that.

00:36:12.560 Previous version.

00:36:13.700 I don't have access to a previous version.

00:36:15.800 It's a subscription.

00:36:21.860 Stop answering if you're not an artist.

00:36:27.700 All right.

00:36:30.120 Google, how to revert to previous software versions.

00:36:32.660 No, I'm not going to revert to a previous software version.

00:36:37.620 I'm never going to do that.

00:36:40.080 I'm going to fix it with this version or some future one, but I'm not going to revert.

00:36:45.620 I'm not going to revert to any...

00:36:47.140 Because that's just asking for a whole bunch of new problems.

00:36:55.240 All right.

00:36:55.800 Let me bail out.

00:37:02.860 I've got to...

00:37:03.380 So there's nothing else I can do today except work on this one problem until it's fixed.

00:37:08.680 So that will be all I'm going to do until that's fixed.

00:37:11.560 I don't have an option.

00:37:12.400 So I'm going to go do that.

00:37:14.640 Sorry, today will be short.

00:37:16.700 But I'll talk to you tomorrow, YouTube.

00:37:21.560 Thank you.

00:37:22.380 Thank you.

00:37:32.860 Thank you.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - August 19, 2022

Episode 1840 Scott Adams： If Democrats Tell The Truth About Trump, It Makes Them Look Like Monsters

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript