Episode 1933 Scott Adams： Twitter Brings Back Trump And Lots Of Stories From The Simulation
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 5 minutes
Words per Minute
144.67218
Summary
A man wakes up in the year 2027 and discovers he's in a world where there are no other people on the planet, and no one else in the same place he is in the world. Is this a simulation, or is it real?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good morning, everybody. And wow. Wow. What a day. Are you ready for today? I'm going to blow
00:00:09.900
your head clean off because you've come to the highlight of civilization and civilization is
00:00:17.740
serving up a good time today. So if you'd like to join in the best experience of the whole
00:00:24.700
human civilization, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice, a canteen jug or
00:00:30.680
flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now
00:00:37.860
for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything
00:00:40.680
better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.
00:00:46.480
Yeah. Yeah. That was just as good as promised. Well, I will, of course, get to Trump being
00:01:00.480
brought back on Twitter. We'll get to that. But some fun stories first. Here's more evidence
00:01:09.260
of the simulation. I'm not sure how old this story is, but it was sort of new to me. There's
00:01:15.540
a professional major league pitcher whose name is Brady Feigl, F-E-I-G-L. And he's six foot
00:01:27.280
four. And he was, you know, born on a certain date and he got a sports injury. And he needed
00:01:37.820
surgery on his elbow because he was a pitcher. So he goes into the doctor and the doctor's,
00:01:44.420
you know, prepping. And at one point, the doctor's assistant needed to call Brady Feigl,
00:01:51.280
the major league pitcher who had a problem. He needed surgery or a specific problem on his elbow.
00:01:58.440
And she called the wrong one. Somebody else with the same name. The other person with the same name
00:02:04.660
had the same birthday, five years apart, same name, same birthday, same job. They look identical.
00:02:14.300
They're both six foot four redheads with glasses. They look identical. Not to each other. They look
00:02:20.640
different to each other. But to you and I, they look the same. And they have the same sports injury,
00:02:25.900
not a genetic injury, a sports injury at the same time. And they chose the same doctor. Had the doctor's
00:02:37.040
assistant not accidentally called the wrong one, they never would have known. So naturally,
00:02:46.640
they had their DNA checked, right? No relation. They were both 53% German. You know, so there was a,
00:02:56.920
you know, at least a genetic, I guess, correlation there. But if they don't have, if they don't have
00:03:06.000
family DNA, have I told you that the simulation, if we're a simulation, the most likely thing you would
00:03:14.820
find is code reuse. The same program used over and over, but placed in separate places so you don't
00:03:23.420
notice it. So in other words, somewhere there's a dog that's exactly your dog, but you'll never meet
00:03:31.020
that dog so they can reuse the code. Here were two people. It was just the same code. And by weird
00:03:38.960
coincidence, they met each other. But in any normal situation, they would not have. Now, it's not
00:03:45.020
proof of the simulation, is it? It's not proof. Of course not. But every time you see code reuse,
00:03:53.600
you've got to ask the question. All right, there's going to be another one. You want to see the weirdest
00:04:01.080
one? All right, this is a current story that is driving the internet crazy. There is a Instagram user
00:04:08.940
named Javier, who tweets in Spanish, who alleges that he is living in the year 2027,
00:04:16.940
and he's posting from there. And people say, of course, no, you're not. If you're in 2027 and
00:04:26.900
you're posting photos from 2027, show us a photo of 2027, you know, that's obviously not the same as
00:04:34.620
this. So then he does. And specifically, his story is this. His story is that he woke up in a hospital
00:04:46.480
in 2027. And that there was nobody else in the hospital. But also, there was nobody else anywhere
00:04:55.960
on the planet. And that he's on our planet, but there are no other people. And the way he proves it
00:05:03.000
is people ask him to go someplace where there's definitely going to be people, such as a police,
00:05:09.640
a police, a police, what do you call it, police depot, a fire depot in the middle of the day,
00:05:18.520
an airport, an airport. He went to an airport, this precinct, I guess. He went to an airport
00:05:27.020
and filmed in video walking through the airport with no other people, zero people. He drove down
00:05:34.820
highways for miles, no people. He went to a top of a hill, there were no planes, no cars, no people.
00:05:43.760
Everywhere they challenged him to go, there's no people. Now, of course, people are saying,
00:05:50.420
Scott, Scott, Scott. He just takes the videos and he removes the people, because you've seen the
00:05:55.580
technology that does that, right? That's the technology. But the people who know how to do
00:06:00.000
that say, there's no way you'd be able to remove all those people unless it took, you know, weeks or
00:06:05.580
months. To which I say, no, probably somebody invented a technology that just removes people
00:06:12.920
from video. Wouldn't you guess? Wouldn't you guess that if you can do it manually, and I guess the way
00:06:20.240
you do it manually is you forward each frame, and then you circle the little person you want to
00:06:26.380
disappear, and then you do the next frame, and the next frame. So the people debunking it are saying,
00:06:31.680
well, you know, you could never do that fast enough. What? Are you telling me you couldn't automate that?
00:06:39.880
Yeah, or remove anything that moves. Yeah, remove anything that moves. Exactly. It's just a program.
00:06:45.940
So I'm pretty sure it's just a program. But God, it's so fun. I don't think there's any chances real.
00:06:52.020
But it's a really good prank. So some are saying it's evidence of the simulation. I think it's
00:07:00.540
evidence that technology can do things we didn't know it could do. All right. Did you see the photo
00:07:07.040
that's on Twitter today? It shows a before and after group photo of Twitter employees before Musk
00:07:14.660
and after Musk? Now, this is also fake news. But the before picture is a whole room of young white
00:07:22.760
women with one black woman. The only diversity, this is part of what's funny, the only diversity
00:07:29.580
was one black woman, maybe 25 white women. And then that was before Musk. And then the after Musk picture
00:07:39.240
is entirely men and Musk. And you know, they're all smiling and they're multi, multi ethnic, but
00:07:47.260
they're all men. And now I assume, I assume that one of the pictures might have been one department
00:07:54.140
at Twitter that had a lot of women in it. Somebody said it was the HR department. And I assume
00:07:59.780
that the picture with Musk was with the engineers. And as you know, there's a difference in, you know,
00:08:07.160
who goes to what professions for whatever reason. So I don't think it's real. But it's very funny.
00:08:18.780
So climate activists have ruined some famous automobile that Andy Warhol painted. So they did
00:08:26.540
the thing where they put flour on it or some liquid or something. And that was part of their
00:08:32.400
climate activism. And I thought, has it always been the case that you could match your mental
00:08:39.900
illness to a story in the news? Or is that like a new thing? Because it's like perfectly matching.
00:08:47.460
These are clearly mentally ill people. I mean, am I wrong? They just seem mentally ill to me.
00:08:53.960
Now, they would say, oh, we're brave protesters saving the world. But I don't know, it just looks
00:09:02.100
like mental illness to me. And it's great that now we have a news narrative that you can match
00:09:08.220
to every mental illness. Suppose you had a bad case of Trump derangement syndrome. Could you match
00:09:15.540
your mental illness, your TDS, to something in the news? Yes. January 6th. Perfect. Right? And I feel
00:09:24.940
like we have a news story that matches every form of mental illness. Are you paranoid? I got something
00:09:31.560
for you. It's in the news. How about that, Trump? That'll set you on edge. And I don't know if it's true,
00:09:40.480
but it just feels like every mental problem now has a story that goes with it. Just something
00:09:45.460
I noticed. Anyway. You know, what's weird is, you know, even though I'm allegedly an artist,
00:09:54.560
I probably have less respect for art than any of you. Maybe it's because I do it. You know,
00:10:01.520
I create art, sort of. But I'm not sure I care that an Andy Warhol piece of art got destroyed.
00:10:07.800
I mean, I don't want anybody destroying anybody's property. So on a property level,
00:10:15.180
on a crime level, of course, it's disreputable completely. But is the world worse off because
00:10:22.200
of that Andy Warhol car? I don't know. I'd miss the Mona Lisa, but I didn't even know there
00:10:29.580
was an Andy Warhol painted car. You know, I suppose if they got his soup can, you know,
00:10:36.340
his famous Andy Warhol soup can. At least I've heard of it. I'm not really, I don't care too much
00:10:44.020
if art I've never even heard of gets destroyed. Again, on a property level, it's completely
00:10:50.840
disreputable and the law should do what it needs to do. But on an art level, that art wasn't affecting
00:10:58.180
me. Now, if my art got destroyed, I'd say, so you don't have to call me a hypocrite. I know I am.
00:11:07.160
Let's talk relationship advice. I am so fascinated by all the good and bad relationship advice on
00:11:13.140
Instagram. I'm completely hooked on it. Like every time I see new, like, relationship advice,
00:11:18.800
I'm like, ah, this is going to be good. And some of it is so bad that I wonder, like,
00:11:24.000
how damaging it is to the rest of us. Now, this is not an example of bad relationship advice,
00:11:29.720
but just an exchange I had on Twitter this morning with a woman named the Lady Samantha,
00:11:37.840
a very thoughtful and fun user. We had an interesting exchange. Now, I don't want to make it sound like
00:11:44.740
I'm mocking her. Because she seems very nice. So I only have positive thoughts about her.
00:11:52.820
But she was describing the thing she's looking for in a man. And it's, you know, a list like you
00:11:59.880
might expect, you know, from somebody who leans to the right. So she wanted a man who could be,
00:12:05.840
you know, a partner, active partner, and, you know, loved her, and somebody that she respected
00:12:12.820
and honored. And, you know, vice versa, presumably. And also, she preferred traditional relationship
00:12:21.800
arrangements. Very normal stuff. And here's what I noted. Other relationship experts say that the
00:12:32.140
number one thing a man wants is, can you film the bank? The number one thing a man wants, besides sex,
00:12:40.060
of course, after sex, what's the number one thing a man wants? After sex. Well, that's interesting.
00:12:54.920
Literally, almost none of you have the right answer. How is this happening?
00:13:02.140
Okay, this ruins my whole approach here. The number one answer is appreciation.
00:13:11.500
Appreciation. Now, I asked the lady, Samantha, after she put her list of what she was looking
00:13:17.480
for in a man. I challenged her, as I'm seeing a lot of people challenging women on Instagram.
00:13:24.400
I said, what is it you offer? That's a pretty good list of what you're looking for.
00:13:29.060
Nothing to complain about that. It was a good list. But what are you offering?
00:13:34.260
So then she listed the things she was offering. And it was a good list.
00:13:38.900
Right? It was sort of things you would very much be looking for in a wife.
00:13:46.360
I said the number one thing, which wasn't on her list, was appreciation.
00:13:51.420
So I said, the number one thing guys want is appreciation. This is based on other experts
00:13:58.420
telling me this, right? And she said, and again, I'm not ragging on her, because she's
00:14:04.780
a very nice person who was, I think, very brave. And I appreciated that she did an exchange.
00:14:11.040
So this isn't about this one person. I'm making a general point.
00:14:14.140
So I said, would you be willing to offer appreciation? And she said that she had offered, I believe
00:14:25.920
she said that she had already said in her tweet that she wanted somebody that she could honor
00:14:30.620
and respect, and that that's basically synonymous. Do you accept that? So she said I would honor
00:14:39.280
and respect the man. So that's one of the things she's offering. And she says that's, you know,
00:14:44.640
basically the same as appreciation. So good, right? So we're all set. All right, let me give
00:14:54.180
you some relationship advice. And this would work male to female or female to male. So there's
00:15:00.100
not a, there's no gender assumption here, right? Your partner says, there's only one thing I care
00:15:07.900
about. The number one thing. Of course, you want all the other stuff. You want to get along
00:15:13.140
and have some laughs. You want to be physically compatible. Those are pretty much baseline getting
00:15:17.640
married stuff. But my number one thing is appreciation. What is the worst thing you can do if your partner
00:15:27.900
tells you exactly what they want? And forget about whether it's appreciation or something else.
00:15:32.160
What's the worst thing you can do? Lawyer it. It's the worst thing you can do. Don't lawyer
00:15:44.220
it. And again, this is not about one person. This is advice for everybody. If your partner
00:15:52.240
says, I want appreciation. Appreciation is my number one thing. And then your partner, again,
00:15:58.940
doesn't matter male or female. And then your partner says, well, I'm giving you honor and
00:16:05.220
respect. That is the wrong answer. Do you know what I want to hear if I say I have one thing
00:16:14.120
that really matters to me? Yes. Yes. As soon as you lawyer it and say, oh, yes, you're getting
00:16:22.860
that, but you're getting it with these other words. It just sounds like you didn't even hear
00:16:27.820
it. It sounds like nothing I said made any difference to you. It was like I was talking
00:16:33.420
to a wall. If I say the word I want back is appreciation and you give me back some other
00:16:40.140
words you think I should accept, I'm gone. I am so gone from that relationship. That's over.
00:16:48.860
Let me give you another example. Analogies don't work, but hey, spouse, do you still love
00:16:57.020
me? What's the proper answer? Anybody? What's the proper answer? Do you still love me? Okay,
00:17:05.200
here's the wrong answer. Well, it depends how you define love. I appreciate you and I honor
00:17:13.460
and respect you and we're very compatible. And then you say, I asked if you loved me.
00:17:21.540
And you say, I just answered your question. Every part of love is in that answer. You know,
00:17:26.680
I've got the togetherness. I like spending time with you. I've got an emotional connection.
00:17:31.120
I've got, you know, physically we're good. We have common goals where, you know, spend good
00:17:36.180
together. I go, stop. I only want to hear one word out of your fucking mouth. Yes. Everything
00:17:46.660
that's not yes is no. All right. So if somebody says the number one thing I want is appreciation,
00:17:55.660
everything you say that isn't the word appreciation or yes is no. That's how it feels. So don't lawyer
00:18:05.100
all right. And again, much respect and appreciation to the lady, Samantha for, you know, interacting
00:18:13.020
on this topic. I think it was useful. Don't you? Do you think we can, we can thank her for
00:18:20.560
like a meaty, sort of a meaty conversation? And I appreciate her for that. All right. Follow up
00:18:30.360
from yesterday. So I had made the claim. Is it a claim? I said that Ray Epps is probably,
00:18:42.720
this is my speculation, in a category with a lot of other people who were there at January
00:18:48.640
6th who also did not get arrested. So the point was that he wasn't necessarily being treated
00:18:55.360
as special because in my opinion, there must have been plenty of people who were doing roughly what
00:19:01.940
he was doing who also did not get arrested. And my speculation was that he had to do something more
00:19:08.940
than that. Whatever Ray Epps did, you'd have to do more than that to get arrested. Now, some of you
00:19:15.720
pointed out that Brandon Straka, a specific person that many of you are familiar with from Twitter
00:19:22.180
and elsewhere, was one of those people who did get arrested and he did not break any laws. This
00:19:30.520
was what you told me. So I guess a number of people got to Brandon and said that I was talking
00:19:38.380
about this topic. So he DM'd me and we had some exchanges. I was just trying to figure out if he
00:19:44.100
was doing something different from what Ray Epps was doing. And unfortunately, it gets complicated
00:19:49.560
because, as Brandon points out, he says he was accused of things that he actually didn't do.
00:19:57.640
You know, there's a claim that his voice is on a video inciting people, but he says that's not his
00:20:03.800
voice. So he did go to jail. And I guess the charges were, this is not the official words, but
00:20:10.320
roughly speaking, his charges were, I hope I got this right, something like trespassing.
00:20:17.780
You know, but they used different words for it. So something like trespassing. Something
00:20:23.780
like interfering with Congress. Now, don't you think there were thousands of people who were
00:20:31.000
trespassing and interfering with Congress in the same sense who did not get arrested? Would
00:20:37.320
you agree? Were there not probably hundreds of people who trespassed a little bit, interfered
00:20:45.200
with Congress a little bit and did not get arrested? There must have been, because there were so many
00:20:50.140
people there. But then the third charge, which is the one disputed, was interfering with law
00:20:55.300
enforcement. Now, the problem is, so I don't have an opinion about what did or did not happen
00:21:02.520
with Brandon Strzok. So his claim is that he didn't interfere with any law enforcement and
00:21:11.420
that the evidence, including his voice, is not his voice. Now, I hope he prevails. I hope
00:21:18.420
that, you know, there's probably a way to check a voice print, isn't there? So it seems like
00:21:25.240
he could probably prevail in this, but what a horrible situation. Actually jailed, you know,
00:21:31.180
reputation ruin, maybe a criminal record, grotesque, a grotesque American experience. So, but the
00:21:43.260
point is that we can't use any other specific person to compare to REIPS because they'll never
00:21:48.980
be quite in the same situation, right? So, you know, could it be, and I also understand that
00:21:57.760
it wasn't so much about people arrested that day as people who were rounded up because they
00:22:02.860
were on video. Is that your understanding, too? That the people arrested were mostly arrested
00:22:08.140
after the fact because they were on video? Yeah. Now, REIPS is on video, but I'm not aware
00:22:15.020
that the video shows anything beyond talking about what people should do, and he moved a fence,
00:22:22.880
and maybe it wasn't enough. Just maybe it wasn't enough. There wasn't enough of a claim. Because
00:22:28.880
I have a feeling that if Brandon had not been accused of interfering with law enforcement,
00:22:36.420
that maybe the other two things wouldn't have been enough of a thing to arrest him. But I
00:22:40.880
don't know. Just speculate. Yeah. Moving the fence is trespass, you say. Yeah, but I, but here's
00:22:48.020
the point. I see what you're saying. It's not that he did nothing bad. I'm just saying that
00:22:54.300
an accusation of interfering with the police that day would have to be seen as more serious.
00:23:00.700
And if he was one of the trespassers, but not one of the ones who was in the building,
00:23:05.120
not one of the ones who said anything violent, not one of the ones who allegedly interfered with
00:23:11.100
police, maybe he was in a larger group of people who were not that important to the process.
00:23:16.480
So here's the only thing I want to say. We all have a right to know what is the situation
00:23:25.620
with Ray Epps. So like you, I definitely want to get more information on that. But here's
00:23:32.360
the thing that I think that some of you have gone too far on. At the moment, he is just a
00:23:39.580
citizen of the United States. And he is right leaning, must have been a Trump supporter.
00:23:46.460
And he is not accused of any serious crime that I'm aware of. So I feel like I need to
00:23:54.780
defend Ray Epps. Because if it were me, I'd be pretty fucking pissed if I were innocent.
00:23:59.720
Just hold in your head for a moment the possibility that he didn't do anything except what you saw
00:24:06.560
on the video. You know, no connection with the feds, whatever. But suppose he's innocent.
00:24:12.020
It's possible, right? I would argue it's probable if I had to bet on it. By the way, let me say
00:24:19.700
this. If I had to place money on it, I would bet that he's not, he wasn't an instigator for
00:24:25.640
the feds. If I had to put money on it. But I wouldn't rule it out. Because you can't rule out
00:24:32.520
anything, can you? It's just one of those times when nothing can get ruled out. But I want to
00:24:38.300
defend him. Because there's a really high chance that we are screwing this guy, and he doesn't
00:24:45.260
deserve it. Do you agree with me that there's a good chance that's happening? You're saying no.
00:24:53.640
Most of you are so convinced. I'm seeing some yeses. But a lot of people are saying no, no.
00:25:00.520
No. There's no way that he is legit. Well, let me ask you this. For those of you who say
00:25:05.940
there's just no way he's legit, I realize he allegedly was an informant at one time. But
00:25:12.720
that doesn't mean he was now. Those of you who believe that you know, has there been any
00:25:21.180
other story in the past few years that you believed was true, and you were sure of it,
00:25:27.340
only to later find out it wasn't true? Has that happened to you at all? Has anybody had
00:25:32.460
that experience yet in the last few years? Something you were pretty sure was true, and
00:25:36.420
then, oh, the news just took it back. Said no, that didn't really happen. Of course you
00:25:42.220
have. You all have. Those of you saying, no, I don't believe you for a second. Of course
00:25:48.620
you have. Because the news has changed its own stories. It's not like you knew the story
00:25:54.000
before it got changed. Sometimes maybe you did. But I would ask you to be a little bit
00:25:59.860
humble about how certain you could be about anything. I will give you, I will give you
00:26:07.540
that the Rayab stuff looks super sketchy. And we need to know what was real and what wasn't.
00:26:14.100
But I'm going to demand, I'm going to demand that you treat him like innocent until I'm proven guilty.
00:26:20.740
I demand it. Not like my demanding has any impact on you. But I demand it as a citizen of the United
00:26:29.220
States. Because if I were him, I would want him to demand it for me. That's my standard. Right?
00:26:37.140
So Ray Epps is allegedly a patriot. I mean, if he did something else, that's a separate question.
00:26:44.260
But he seems to have been a right-leaning, patriot kind of guy. So am I. Without the right-leaning part.
00:26:53.300
But I'm a patriot. If I were a patriot and I did not do any serious crime and I had been accused,
00:27:00.100
who would I want to defend me? Ray Epps. He'd be one person. Because he apparently is politically
00:27:08.500
active. And he would probably disagree with me being accused or guilty without trial.
00:27:18.340
All right. But can I say this? If it turns out there is something to his story that we don't
00:27:25.380
know about and it sounds bad, you can't blame me for being wrong. Okay? You can't say I was wrong.
00:27:31.940
Because I'm saying anything's possible. All right. The most interesting story of the day is that
00:27:40.260
Elon Musk ran a Twitter poll about bringing Trump back. Last I saw it, he was ahead by 52 to 48%.
00:27:54.740
as his justification for bringing back Trump. Now, on one hand,
00:28:00.180
the absurdity of using a Twitter poll to decide whether Trump comes back is like peak absurdity
00:28:08.900
because a Twitter poll is the least scientific poll you could ever have. On the other hand,
00:28:14.500
it was perfect. It was perfect. Because the people who cared the most and were also on Twitter were the
00:28:23.220
ones who voted. So it's not just measuring the number of people who have an opinion. It's also
00:28:30.580
measuring the strength of the opinion because people acted on it, right? And so it gives them
00:28:37.140
this little bit of fake because, you know, this little bit of cover to do what maybe he was inclined to
00:28:43.700
do anyway. We don't know. But Trump is allowed back. Now, do you think Trump is going to tweet?
00:28:50.980
I don't see how he can. Because if he does, if he tweets regularly, it's the end of Truth Social.
00:28:57.540
And he's got, you know, he's got a billion dollars riding on that probably, assuming it went up.
00:29:02.820
So I don't think he can. You know, maybe he'll tweet once and say, come see me on Truth Social.
00:29:12.900
Just one tweet. Hey, come join me on Truth Social. Nobody gets kicked off or something like that.
00:29:20.900
But on the other hand, on the other hand, Trump is probably very favorably disposed to Elon Musk at
00:29:28.420
the moment. You know, even if they had any prior disagreements at the moment, he's probably kind of
00:29:35.940
pro-Musk. So you never know. And the beauty of Trump is that he knows the moment. So he's probably asking
00:29:43.860
himself, how much publicity can I get with one tweet? It would just be through the roof, right? It'd be
00:29:50.340
insane. So he's probably really trying to judge, you know, what's the first thing that he does,
00:29:58.180
does he talk about it? Or does he just tweet? One tweet from Trump would set the world on fire,
00:30:06.100
right? Heads would explode. So you know, you know, Trump knows that. And it would be sort of a,
00:30:11.940
it would sort of be deflating if he said, let's say, let's say he does a press release.
00:30:18.500
I appreciate being let back on Twitter, but you know, I'm going to be over here on Truth Social.
00:30:22.820
It would be just so boring, wouldn't it? But if he tweets it? All right. Now, to make your heads explode.
00:30:34.420
Thanks to Viva. Can somebody fix my stupid head? How the hell do you pronounce his name correctly?
00:30:45.460
F-R-E-I. Fry or Frey? Like, I get this wrong every frickin' time. Fry, right?
00:30:54.260
Okay, now you're not helping me at all because you're giving me both answers. Well, how in the world
00:31:01.940
have I never, I feel like I've never heard it pronounced out loud, like I read it all the time.
00:31:08.180
All right, most people are saying fry. But Viva, you have my sincere apology for first of all,
00:31:15.540
forgetting your name, pronunciation of your name. I didn't forget your name. And forgetting,
00:31:20.900
forgetting every time I'm corrected on it. So I can't promise I'll do better. I wish I could.
00:31:29.780
So I apologize for that. All right. So Viva pointed to Twitter's own blog post. I guess this was written
00:31:36.980
on January 8th, 2021. So two days after the infamous January 6th stuff. And this was their explanation of
00:31:45.460
why Trump was suspended. Have any of you heard this before today? How many of you heard the detailed
00:31:53.540
explanation from Twitter of why Trump was suspended? Because it existed. It existed. It was on this blog
00:32:00.820
post. And none of us, I never, I didn't even know it existed. Why did I find out this today?
00:32:06.900
Now, when I tell you what the reasons they gave are, could you make sure there's nobody near you to
00:32:17.060
punch? Because you're going to start punching stuff. Like your hands, you'll be like this.
00:32:25.540
You're going to be so worked up when I read you what the reason was that he was knocked off of Twitter.
00:32:31.620
So make sure there's nobody within punching range, just for safety. Okay? Read it, damn it.
00:32:42.340
Here you go. So this is from the body of the document. President Trump's statement that he will
00:32:50.020
not be attending the inauguration because he tweeted that he would not attend Biden's inauguration.
00:32:55.460
So Twitter's reason for suspending him, among others, is that he tweeted he would not attend the
00:33:08.180
That's pretty good, right? That's a reason to kick somebody off of Twitter. Well, you can see the
00:33:13.940
reason, right? Like the obvious connection of why that... Oh, you don't see it? Oh, let me explain it to
00:33:21.620
you. Because Twitter explained it. You see, his supporters would see that as a reason to do a
00:33:30.500
terrorist attack on the people who did attend, because Trump is saying he won't be there. So
00:33:39.620
since Trump himself wouldn't be at the inauguration, it's really a secret terrorist whistle to his supporters
00:33:48.340
to attack it because he won't be there. And that's probably what he meant when he said he won't be
00:33:54.420
there. A secret message to attack. I'm not done. It gets worse. It gets worse. That's just one reason.
00:34:05.860
It wasn't the only reason. Second, referring to a second tweet, may also serve as encouragement to
00:34:14.180
those potentially considering violent acts that the inauguration would be a safe target
00:34:27.140
But, yeah. Let's see, what else is that? It's being received by a number of his supporters as
00:34:34.660
further confirmation that the election was not legitimate. Oh, so not attending the inauguration
00:34:40.420
is a message that it wasn't legitimate. So that's a mark against it. And it's seen as him by disavowing
00:34:48.980
his previous claim made via two tweets, which I think were tweeting people to be safe. So he does have
00:34:57.780
two tweets that look to be about, you know, some of his last tweets telling the January 6th people to
00:35:05.620
not do violent stuff. So it was the opposite of inciting. So the things he said directly were,
00:35:13.620
don't do anything violent or illegal. The things they believed they heard when he said he wouldn't
00:35:19.700
attend the inauguration was activating a terrorist attack on the inauguration.
00:35:24.660
All right. There's more. He also used the words, and damn him for this, quote, American patriots.
00:35:44.340
So I might be on some kind of a terrorist watch list now. So apparently American patriots,
00:35:51.620
to describe some of his supporters, according to this Twitter blog, is also being interpreted as
00:35:56.980
support for those committing violent acts at the U.S. Capitol. So if you refer to your people as patriots,
00:36:03.940
you're condoning violence. It's obvious, right? Direct connection.
00:36:12.020
All right. The mention of his supporters having a, quote,
00:36:16.500
giant voice long into the future, and that they will not be respected or treated unfairly
00:36:23.380
in any way, shape, or form, according to Twitter, is being interpreted as further indication that
00:36:29.300
President Trump does not plan to facilitate an orderly transition.
00:36:41.700
Like you're punching, right? Are your arms just doing this? God damn it! God damn it!
00:36:53.140
as such, our determination is that the two tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate
00:36:58.020
the violence that took place on January 6th. It was our determination. So it was actually based
00:37:04.900
on mind reading. And they just admit it. They actually, they read his mind, and they could see that he was
00:37:14.580
sending secret messages. And then they read the minds of the recipients to know that the secret messages
00:37:21.300
that they read in Trump's mind were received in the other minds. So they not only read Trump's mind,
00:37:29.700
but they read the minds of his supporters to figure this all out. Because none of it was in evidence in
00:37:35.780
any other way. It was only once you read between the lines, or read their minds, then, well, then you've got him.
00:37:48.420
Now, how many of you had heard those reasons for Trump being kicked off of social media? Because
00:37:55.700
honestly, I never heard a reason. Like, I thought it was something about January 6th, but not, you know,
00:38:04.900
anything specific that says, here's our terms of service, here's what you did.
00:38:13.620
Try not to use the Lord's name in vain. I can't promise that.
00:38:17.940
All right. By the way, since I'm not a member of that religion, I have free speech. So I can say
00:38:32.580
anything I want. But I respect the religion and the people in it. All right.
00:38:38.820
So here's what's going to happen. So the January 6th people shot their shot, right? And Liz Cheney
00:38:51.620
tried to protect herself by stupidly tweeting the entire January 6th videos. How many of you are
00:39:00.980
going to go watch the entire January 6th Liz Cheney videos to debunk whatever people are saying today
00:39:07.540
on social media? None. None. How many people are going to read the thing that Viva tweeted around,
00:39:15.860
which is Twitter's own explanation of why Trump got kicked off?
00:39:21.300
Probably everybody who watches conservative-leaning news today. Might not be on CNN. Maybe. I mean,
00:39:29.380
CNN might actually run this, which would be fascinating. And boy, would I give them some props if they do.
00:39:37.540
Here's a good test. If CNN runs Twitter's explanation of why Trump got kicked off,
00:39:45.860
as part of the context for today's story of him being put back on, would you agree that that is
00:39:51.460
an important part of the story? That a legitimate news organization would include the actual text of
00:39:57.940
why he was kicked off to give you context as he comes back on? Here's your test for CNN. If CNN never
00:40:07.060
mentions the context for which he got kicked off in the specifics, then they have not made their turn
00:40:12.740
toward legitimate news. Would you agree? Would you agree that that's a very clean test? Because there's
00:40:20.500
no way they wouldn't think of it, right? There's no way that nobody at CNN would think maybe we should
00:40:27.140
revisit the reasons they gave. There's no way that could happen unless they would have to choose
00:40:34.980
to not tell you the context. Will they? Let's watch. Now, I'm not going to give MSNBC
00:40:44.020
the same challenge because they're not a legitimate news organization. They're not even trying to be.
00:40:49.220
So that wouldn't work for them. Of course they're not going to mention it. Of course not.
00:40:55.140
But in my opinion, what this has done, quite accidentally, has made Trump look like
00:41:02.660
he was unfairly kicked off of social media and unfairly treated in general. And I don't think,
00:41:12.100
I'm not even sure the conservatives thought that until now. You know, honestly, if you had asked me
00:41:21.220
should Trump have been kicked off of social media, I would have said, I don't know. Because I didn't
00:41:27.060
know what he did to get kicked off. I had never heard of the argument. So I don't think I ever said
00:41:34.100
he should or should not get kicked off because I hadn't heard why he got kicked off. But now I've heard.
00:41:38.500
And now it's fucking ridiculous. Am I right? It's fucking ridiculous. Now, those of you who say that
00:41:46.740
because he was a sitting president or an ex-president, he should not be kicked off, I don't agree with that.
00:41:53.780
I don't agree with that at all. I think his standards shouldn't be that different. Maybe a little bit different
00:42:00.020
because he's a public figure. But it shouldn't be that different from our standard. You know, if he did something
00:42:05.060
that was truly, you know, horrible, maybe it deserves to be in the news and not on social media.
00:42:12.100
I could see that. You know, if it violated the terms of service. Same as us. But that didn't happen.
00:42:22.100
He did not violate the terms of service in the least. Not even close, did he? Not even close.
00:42:29.060
I'm applying my principles equally. Yeah. Does it look like I'm applying my principles unequally?
00:42:38.900
I'm trying to do the opposite. I'm saying that I should not be kicked off of Twitter unless I violate
00:42:46.180
the terms of service. Same thing with him. But if I said something that was, you know, truly dangerous,
00:42:55.060
probably I should get kicked off. Same with him. I just think you should be treated like the rest of us.
00:43:02.020
Scott is incorrect, but you still should have been kicked. Okay.
00:43:11.380
What? What are the terms exactly? Well, the terms that matter would be if you hate speech or inciting
00:43:19.140
violence or something like that. But Trump didn't do anything close to that. They just imagined it so
00:43:23.860
they could get rid of him. All right. He was actually tweeting on January 6th. Please support
00:43:32.580
our Capitol Police and law enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful.
00:43:38.740
Now, that's the tweet that everybody's going to see when his account becomes active again. I think he
00:43:45.380
deleted some tweets. But the ones you're going to see are completely like clear him. And if you see the
00:43:53.140
blog post, it totally clears him. And people are going to really wonder what was the real story of this.
00:44:03.460
Apparently, Twitter, according to one human trafficking activist named Eliza, Eliza Blue, I guess,
00:44:18.820
noted today that, quote, the popular hashtags used to sell child sexual abuse material
00:44:27.140
on Twitter is almost completely cleaned out. So here's another thing that's going to make your head
00:44:33.940
explode. There were well-known hashtags for human traffickers on Twitter. Well-known,
00:44:43.380
often used hashtags just for human traffickers. And it took Musk to get rid of them.
00:44:50.180
Was that hard? Was that hard to get rid of a hashtag? Because I can't think of anything that would be
00:45:03.460
programmatically easier than suppressing a hashtag. Can you? Like, you don't have to be a programmer to
00:45:10.420
know that's the easiest thing you can do. That literally nothing would be easier than that. I could do it
00:45:16.340
myself. Just show me the code. And I'll say, all right, just, you know, I don't even know the language it's written,
00:45:24.340
and I could do that. I could figure it out in about an hour. So how do you explain that? How in the world do you
00:45:35.380
explain that it was a huge problem, it was easy to fix, and so Musk just fixed it, apparently? I mean, there may be more
00:45:45.460
to the story here. So like everything, wait two days or more. But I don't know what to make of that.
00:45:54.660
Like, I don't want to make that, you know, somebody was on the side of the bad guys, because I think
00:46:00.260
that would be going too far. But how do you explain it? Like, don't you want to know? I think we need answers.
00:46:09.460
All right. So when I said the other day that we need more immigration, not less, because we are not
00:46:18.660
producing enough babies in America, I got some pushback that I wanted to talk about.
00:46:23.060
One gentleman said that, let's see, you know, he didn't want to let all the brown people in because
00:46:34.820
of replacement theory. You've heard of replacement theory? Sort of the Charlottesville Nazis saying Jews
00:46:43.860
will not replace us. So it's the idea that immigrants of every type will replace Americans. So we're
00:46:51.380
bringing them in to replace us instead of having our own babies. And after I looked at his ugly
00:46:57.780
tweet, I tweeted back that, yes, I would like to replace him, because you could pretty much throw
00:47:04.180
a dart anywhere in the world and hit an immigrant who would be a better American than that asshole.
00:47:10.500
So yes, I do want to replace him, but not like in general, like I'm not looking to replace people in
00:47:16.180
general. But him, like that one person, I would replace him. Yeah, he wasn't adding much.
00:47:22.740
But here's something I'd like to add to you. And this is a reframe that will be in my upcoming book.
00:47:31.300
So I guess I'll test it down in live. And it applies to this situation, but another situation,
00:47:37.300
which is decision not to have children, such as I've made. I've made the decision not to have
00:47:43.300
children. I was never really in a situation where it was an option. But, you know, I wasn't really
00:47:47.700
pushing for it either. So what's the reason to have children?
00:47:52.740
Tell me, what is your reason to have children? Do you crave something to love you? Or to love back?
00:48:04.100
Okay. Oxytocin? Well, you're going scientific. I like that.
00:48:11.780
It's just instinct. It's nature. Legacy. Legacy. A lot of people that I hear want their DNA to be
00:48:19.780
sort of special and preserved. How many of you are on that team? The ones who think that their DNA,
00:48:28.660
you know, they want to have their own children as opposed to adopting, let's say, or having stepkids.
00:48:36.100
So here's my argument against the DNA argument. If you think you want to have your own children,
00:48:42.420
versus just supporting children in general, because there's something about your children that will be
00:48:47.860
like a little special and make you live forever, do you know that your DNA will be basically diluted
00:48:53.860
to nothing in about three generations? Roughly three generations and you won't even exist anymore.
00:49:01.460
There's not a hell of a lot of your great-grandparents and your kids, right? Because every time it gets cut
00:49:07.140
in half, right? Because you're adding the spouse, so your DNA gets cut in half. Next generation cuts in
00:49:13.780
half. Next one cuts in half. You know, it only takes a few generations before you're erased.
00:49:19.940
So your whole legacy, you know, I will live forever through my descendants. Well, yeah, I mean,
00:49:28.580
in a way, I guess Genghis Khan has lots of descendants. Is that helping him in some way? Is Genghis Khan
00:49:35.700
dead and happier because there are trace elements of his DNA all over the place? I don't think he really
00:49:43.860
came out ahead in any way that I can see. So the whole idea that you can take something of yourself
00:49:50.740
in a DNA sense and put it into the future forever kind of doesn't pass scientific muster. But let me
00:49:58.180
tell you what you can put into the future that would be more, let's say, impactful than that.
00:50:05.220
And that's what you do. Your life, your example, the accomplishments you make. In my opinion,
00:50:12.420
we all have an immortal soul. Because every, as I like to say, every act of kindness
00:50:20.100
can never be small. Because everything you do has a ripple effect forever. Everything. Everything you do
00:50:26.740
is forever. It's just you don't notice it because the effect, you know, moderates over time. But
00:50:32.980
if you live a life that makes people better off, makes them healthier, happier,
00:50:38.580
causes them to do more successful things, maybe they remember those things and pass them on to
00:50:43.220
their kids as well, that's a pretty big effect. And I would argue that Steve Jobs, just to pick one
00:50:50.660
example. Steve Jobs had more effect on everybody's kids than his own kids. How many did you have? One
00:50:58.180
or two? So Steve Jobs didn't really do much in terms of his DNA. He did have a natural kid or two.
00:51:05.700
But his DNA will get, you know, diluted out in a few generations. But what he did with Apple,
00:51:12.820
you could never erase that. It's like just this major thing that ripples through civilization.
00:51:17.940
Maybe it's not all positive. You could argue that. But his impact is big. All right, here's a,
00:51:26.740
here's the other argument. I don't believe, oh, the other argument is you should not do immigration.
00:51:35.060
You should encourage Americans to have more babies. To which I say, I don't know if there's any way to do
00:51:40.820
that. And the reason is, I said, and I probably wish I hadn't said this, on social media, I said,
00:51:48.180
you can't fix that because people are too selfish. What I should have said is that normal people are
00:51:55.300
selfish, but our system is basically optimized for not having kids. Would you agree that the system is
00:52:04.020
currently optimized for not having kids? The incentive system is to not have kids because you can't afford
00:52:12.020
them. You can't afford them and society is serving up all these alternative entertainment options.
00:52:21.060
If you had kids in the 1800s, were you worried about who would watch them when you traveled to Europe?
00:52:26.900
No, because you weren't traveling to Europe. All right. So in the 1800s, kids were an economic asset.
00:52:38.900
They are not now. Would you say kids are an economic asset or an economic cost in 2022?
00:52:45.860
Follow the money. It's an economic cost. College is expensive. Raising kids is expensive.
00:52:51.380
Now, if you had a kid in the 1800s, is there a good chance that kid would grow up and take care of
00:52:57.780
you in your old age? Yes. Pretty good chance. How about today? Well, also today. Children also take
00:53:06.180
care of old people today by putting them in the nursing home, signing the paperwork.
00:53:13.060
So the value of a child who is benefiting your old age is to put you in the nursing home.
00:53:22.580
Take me, for example. At my current income, do you think if I had a natural kid who, let's say,
00:53:28.420
was in charge of me when I started losing my mind, do you think that kid's going to leave me in the
00:53:33.380
house and take care of me 24 hours a day? Or, since I have resources, would that kid just say,
00:53:39.940
okay, use your resources to get some professional care? Which, of course, I would do. Yeah. So,
00:53:46.980
our system is set up so it doesn't make sense to have kids. Working against that is our natural
00:53:53.940
urge to have kids. So we have a system which strongly discourages it. Accidentally, I think.
00:54:00.580
You know, nobody designed it that way, but that's just how it worked out. So,
00:54:04.100
what do you expect? Follow the money. Now, if you say, but Scott, you've told me now it's easy
00:54:13.140
to fix. Because if you were to change the incentive system, then you're back to normal, right? Then
00:54:19.060
people have a natural ability, natural desire to have kids. You make the system support it. Boom,
00:54:25.140
fixed, right? How are you going to do that? Now, how to say, oh, we were just kidding. Women should
00:54:34.340
not have careers. Just kidding. Women shouldn't have careers, but we'll double the pay for the man
00:54:42.340
so that the women can stay home and raise kids in the old-fashioned way that everybody liked back in
00:54:49.140
the 50s. It's just not going to happen. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. We have
00:54:58.900
created a system that you really can't move backwards on. The only way I can see it working
00:55:04.980
is if the government offered huge financial incentives for having children. And those incentives
00:55:12.900
would have to last like 18 years, or maybe more for college. So basically, the government would
00:55:19.220
have to just take the financial burden of your kids away from you. And then you might say, oh, well,
00:55:25.540
if it doesn't cost me anything, and I can still, you know, I can afford a babysitter so I can get away
00:55:32.260
from them once in a while, okay, I'll have some kids. But I don't see that happening. Do you see the
00:55:38.340
government deciding to pay for your kids? I don't. I don't. So, has any, so here's a, give me a fact check.
00:55:50.420
Has any modern industrialized country reversed their, somebody says Hungary, but what did Hungary do to
00:56:01.940
reverse their, what did they do? How did they reverse their decline?
00:56:12.340
Somebody's saying Israel. Tax system. So you're saying that the Hungarians just changed the financial
00:56:19.700
incentives via the tax system, and that was enough. All right, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna call
00:56:26.580
bullshit on this. I'm gonna call bullshit. I do believe incentives work, because remember,
00:56:33.780
friction always works, incentives always works. But how much is always the question.
00:56:39.860
And Israel as well. They said it was patriotic to have kids. That was enough, because I think
00:56:46.900
the money is gonna have to be the thing. All right, well, let's do a fact check. I'm gonna say I,
00:56:55.300
I, I don't disagree that Hungary tried to increase its birth rate. I do disagree
00:57:03.060
that they were successful in a big way. So that's without doing any research. I'm gonna tell you that
00:57:10.660
I don't think they could add enough financial incentive to make that make sense. Now, in Hungary,
00:57:17.300
maybe you don't assume that your kid is gonna go to a half a million dollar college, right? So it could be
00:57:24.180
that Hungary has a whole different, you know, cost structure on top of whatever they changed to
00:57:34.420
Eric says, I see the demographic issue with China, but do you see an issue with Japan?
00:57:40.100
Hungary and France have tried unsuccessfully to subsidize.
00:57:42.820
Oh, so Eric is saying that Hungary tried it unsuccessfully.
00:57:49.140
It wasn't just taxes, it was direct benefit, and both nowhere near target. All right, that's what I thought.
00:57:55.220
So we have to fact check Eric. So Eric spent $34.56 to get his message to the top of the list, which was,
00:58:04.100
money well spent, Eric. But let's check on that. My assumption is that you could not incentivize
00:58:12.660
enough. It might make some difference, but I don't think you could incentivize enough in America.
00:58:19.620
If Hungary has a whole different cost structure, then that's a new question.
00:58:23.620
Mortgage forgiveness, really? So it's really just, and Russia is trying to? All right. Well,
00:58:34.740
maybe we should all do a little more digging on this and we'll figure out what's going on. But I would
00:58:39.860
like to say this, that I don't believe there is any economist who would say that keeping your
00:58:47.780
population stable is good for the country. How about that? Is there any economist here
00:58:54.980
who would disagree with that statement? That a growing population is a stronger economy than a
00:59:01.780
stable population. Right. I think all economists agree with that. Now, you know, a weird exception would
00:59:10.340
be if 100% of the new people came in, we're just a drag on the economy. But remember that the
00:59:17.460
thing about, if you were going to remember one thing about immigration from below the border,
00:59:25.940
here it is. Like the one thing that will tell you everything about economics and everything
00:59:32.420
about the people coming over the border. You ready? The one fact, none of them are homeless.
00:59:37.380
I don't know how they do it. Somehow, millions of people crossed our border, but they were all the
00:59:47.860
type who didn't become homeless. Why? Why? Well, obviously, they were high enough character that somebody
00:59:58.420
was willing to let them stay with them. Think about it. Millions of people from south of the border
01:00:06.340
came in. Millions. I think two million. And all of them were a high enough quality character
01:00:19.780
Those are the people you're worried about. Five million? Was it five million? And, but, you know,
01:00:26.580
here we have our own people who are, you know, homeless and on the streets, or a real problem.
01:00:30.820
But the people who are not homeless are probably not a drag on the system. They're probably eating.
01:00:39.300
They have shelter. And they're looking for jobs as hard as they can in an economy that needs workers.
01:00:46.820
I don't know. That's about as positive as you can get. Now, to put a negative on that, you've got to go
01:00:52.980
full replacement theory, you know, and you just don't like brown people, and you think they're going to
01:00:58.740
dilute your awesomeness. I want more of these, not less of them. You know, at some point there's
01:01:05.940
such a thing as too many of anything. You know, you could drink too much water and die. So there's too
01:01:10.980
much immigration could be too much. But we're not there. And if you had told me a year ago
01:01:18.180
that I would say we could let five million, or whatever, immigrants in, and it wouldn't even
01:01:24.100
cause like an economic strain, I would have said that's crazy. Because that feels like too much,
01:01:30.820
doesn't it? It just feels like way too much. But again, they're not homeless.
01:01:37.940
And until you see homeless immigrants, I don't know that there are too many.
01:01:42.500
Right? I mean, if you had one, just one thing you were going to track, that's a pretty meaningful,
01:01:50.260
pretty meaningful data point. If you see them on the street, sleeping on the street,
01:01:56.100
you're going to have to shut the border tight. So let me say to you, the day you see immigrants
01:02:03.140
sleeping on the street, you need to close that border, like really fast, like today, right? Because
01:02:10.340
every person who comes across after that point is probably more likely going to be a negative than
01:02:15.300
a plus. But as long as they all have somebody who's willing to take them in, there's something
01:02:20.660
about them that's worthy. And somebody's judged them worthy, took them into their home.
01:02:28.580
Now, that doesn't mean there won't be some MS-13 people slipping through the cracks. Of course there
01:02:32.820
will. And we should, just to be clear, in case there's anybody new to my live stream,
01:02:38.420
my opinion is we should have the tightest, best border security we could possibly afford.
01:02:44.900
All the time. And then separately, we should decide who gets in and how many.
01:02:50.420
And we just don't do that right. And by the way, Trump could win the election on that alone.
01:02:56.020
All he'd have to do is just say what I did. Let's separate the decision of how many people get in
01:03:01.060
from whether or not we have border security. And then he's fine. And then he's fine. He could make
01:03:07.460
the whole problem go away. The problem is he put border security, he tied it to people. As soon as you
01:03:13.860
tie border security to people, you lose the argument. You just got to say it doesn't matter if anybody's
01:03:19.700
coming in. We need total border security. And then we need our economists to tell us how many of
01:03:25.540
what types of people to let in. And then we'll let them in. Obama did. That's why Obama got elected
01:03:32.580
twice. Obama, whatever you want to say about Obama, he knew how to say, he knew how to describe
01:03:40.980
something in a way that didn't make your head catch on fire necessarily. So he was good at that.
01:03:47.380
He had the big beautiful gate. But you know, Trump didn't, he didn't say it as cleanly as I did.
01:03:53.220
And he needs to. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that might have been, let's see if I had anything
01:04:04.180
else. Oh, Musk tweeted after, soon after he let Trump back on Twitter, should Trump decide to go back
01:04:12.500
on, Elon Musk tweeted this, the most entertaining outcome is the most likely, my variant on Occam's razor.
01:04:20.660
The most entertaining outcome is the most likely. He tweeted that after putting Trump back on
01:04:27.780
on Twitter. Is that, like, how much do you love that? I mean, I just love that.
01:04:38.180
Yeah, he said that, he's been saying that for a while now. Some people believe he got it from me.
01:04:45.540
Um, but it could be, uh, we were thinking the same in this. All right. Um,
01:04:57.460
what else we got going on here? Yeah, I think that's about it. Ladies and gentlemen, the best live
01:05:04.420
stream you've ever seen. I'm going to lock off the, uh, locals users from the outside. We're going to
01:05:12.180
subscribers only over on locals. YouTube, I will see you later. Um, if anybody's on YouTube because
01:05:19.460
they couldn't find the locals feed yesterday, that was my fault. There's a button that I push
01:05:24.580
that puts it to the top of the feed, and I probably didn't push it yesterday. So it was there,
01:05:30.100
you just couldn't find it. And bye YouTube and Spotify.