Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1955 Scott Adams： Fusion Energy, Here At Last？ And Everything Twitter Did Was Illegal Or Not

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.

00:00:07.400 Today's show will be extra special because yesterday I did something that was unprecedented.

00:00:16.420 I'm not sure, but I think I slept almost seven hours last night.

00:00:21.960 The last time I did that, I might have been in my 20s, I think.

00:00:30.100 I don't think I've done it since my 20s.

00:00:32.360 And I feel completely different.

00:00:35.840 I mean, I feel like a whole different person.

00:00:38.960 Weird, I know.

00:00:40.200 But let's take that energy up a little bit.

00:00:42.760 I'll share it with all of you.

00:00:44.480 In case anybody's a little low energy today, I've got some for you.

00:00:49.060 I get extra.

00:00:49.680 And the whiteboard behind me, yes, we will be going into full whiteboard supremacist mode.

00:00:58.240 No, it's not as bad as you think.

00:01:00.000 It's poorly branded.

00:01:01.220 I get that.

00:01:02.100 I get that.

00:01:02.840 I didn't put a lot of work into the branding.

00:01:04.720 Maybe I can work on that later.

00:01:06.500 But for now, it's whiteboard supremacy.

00:01:08.660 Well, yeah, that's really a bad name.

00:01:10.900 All right, we're going to work on that.

00:01:12.620 But while we're doing it, if you'd like to take your experience up a notch,

00:01:16.200 all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen drink or a flask or a vessel of any kind,

00:01:23.580 fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:01:24.840 I like coffee.

00:01:26.260 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

00:01:28.860 It's the dopamine of the day.

00:01:30.000 The thing makes everything better.

00:01:31.980 You wouldn't even need a whiteboard for this day.

00:01:34.540 It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:01:36.960 It happens now.

00:01:38.380 Go.

00:01:42.420 Ah.

00:01:44.220 I'm being told in the comments that there's now a Scott Adams fans discord site.

00:01:52.980 Did I read that right?

00:01:53.840 Or is it about coffee with Scott Adams?

00:01:59.080 Anyway, the link is over on the local site.

00:02:04.000 If anybody wants to put that link on the YouTube site for them, that would be great.

00:02:10.500 Some of you are on both.

00:02:12.920 Is that where all the nudes are uploaded?

00:02:14.840 Yes, you can see all of my nudes.

00:02:18.640 Apparently, we hear that.

00:02:21.080 I heard this yesterday.

00:02:22.040 I didn't realize it.

00:02:22.640 That Hunter Biden had maybe 25,000 pictures of genitalia.

00:02:31.500 Mostly his own.

00:02:33.420 He seemed very, very proud of his own junk.

00:02:38.280 And that's no crime.

00:02:40.320 Because he's probably not the only person who ever stood in the mirror and took a picture.

00:02:46.260 Even 25,000.

00:02:47.580 I might know somebody who took 25,000 pictures of themselves.

00:02:53.780 That would be everybody on Instagram.

00:02:57.280 Anyway, we'll talk about that.

00:03:00.980 Let's talk about it now.

00:03:02.120 So yesterday, I was alerted to a Kim.com spaces event where people can do voice conversation on Twitter.

00:03:12.560 And they had with them an individual, Garrett somebody, whose last name I didn't catch, who was apparently, is it Garrett Ziegler?

00:03:24.520 I'm just looking at the comments and saying goodbye.

00:03:27.300 But I don't have any way to validate or put a credibility ranking on what I heard.

00:03:37.020 So I don't have a good sense of how credible any of this was.

00:03:46.400 But I'll tell you that if you didn't hear the other side of it, and that's always the problem, right?

00:03:53.340 If you're one side of anything, you should discount it a little bit.

00:03:57.560 You've got to hear the other side.

00:03:59.780 And we haven't really heard any kind of defense from the Hunter Biden team.

00:04:05.140 I mean, other than they claimed falsely it was Russian disinformation.

00:04:09.080 But beyond that, I haven't seen anything other than, hey, there's no evidence.

00:04:13.440 I think that's the defense is, no, there's nothing there.

00:04:17.060 Nothing to see.

00:04:20.000 So that's about it.

00:04:21.280 But let me give you my impression of it.

00:04:23.060 If most of what I heard on that, Spaces, was right, the government is a deep criminal organization,

00:04:33.220 and the Biden family have been criminals for decades, like serious criminals, like really serious criminals.

00:04:40.720 Now, that's the claim.

00:04:43.080 And the evidence for that is the laptop itself.

00:04:48.080 So nothing, I don't believe anything was added to the conversation, but the exact stuff on the laptop.

00:04:55.300 So what this individual did, Garrett, was he, let's say, indexed the laptop.

00:05:01.940 I think that's the best way to say it.

00:05:03.720 So if you wanted to see any topic, they've got an index that will point to all the various places within, you know, a zillion documents.

00:05:11.080 They would see some reference to it.

00:05:12.640 So now that it's indexed, and it's also public, so the entire laptop contents with no editing are available through some site that he had published.

00:05:24.800 So you can now go look at every base source yourself, and you can also see it in the most organized way, because it's now indexed.

00:05:33.640 So you can go right to the parts that matter, even if they're in different places.

00:05:36.660 Yeah, so somebody needs to probably post in the comments where the links are.

00:05:44.900 I don't have that myself.

00:05:46.180 I would do it myself, but I don't have them.

00:05:47.940 Now, here's my caution.

00:05:50.220 I don't know how much credibility to put in that.

00:05:54.080 I don't.

00:05:55.240 I mean, these are people I'm not familiar with, at least in terms of their credibility.

00:05:59.860 So I don't know.

00:06:01.300 I don't know.

00:06:01.660 But it's really interesting, because the evidence seems fairly solid, but that's always the case when you only hear one side.

00:06:13.320 Do you remember my story about watching the two competing documentaries on the question of whether Michael Jackson had sexually abused underage kids?

00:06:25.260 So I watched the first one, and it made the claim that there's tons of evidence and witnesses and whistleblowers, no pun intended, who are saying, yes, definitely happened, no doubt about it.

00:06:38.240 So I watched that documentary, and man, it was convincing, totally convincing.

00:06:42.700 When I was done with that, I was like, whoa, that blew my mind.

00:06:45.820 He's so guilty.

00:06:47.400 Then another documentary came out to debunk the first one.

00:06:51.080 So I said to myself, well, there's no way they're going to pull that off, because I just watched something that's so convincing.

00:06:58.800 What could you possibly say about it?

00:07:01.660 And then I watched it, and it was 100% convincing that Michael Jackson was innocent and was framed.

00:07:08.540 100%.

00:07:09.060 Now, which of those two positions do I take?

00:07:13.560 I've seen two documentaries, and they were both 100% convincing.

00:07:16.920 Like, really, really convincing.

00:07:18.280 And the only conclusion I could take is I don't know.

00:07:23.140 Innocent until proven guilty.

00:07:25.680 You know, it's not very comfortable, because if he is guilty, it's pretty horrible.

00:07:30.580 But I don't see it.

00:07:32.360 Unfortunately, what is presented to the public is two completely convincing arguments that are opposites.

00:07:39.540 So I don't know.

00:07:40.040 So when you watch, when you see this presentation, if you follow up in the Kim.com spaces thing, and Garrett's take, it's all very useful.

00:07:51.100 Because he's indexing a real thing, and he's showing his work, it's all transparent.

00:07:55.560 Very useful.

00:07:57.180 But you haven't heard the other side.

00:07:59.480 You just haven't heard the other side.

00:08:00.760 But things that we know are reported are that the Bidens did do the so-called mafia talk.

00:08:09.740 You know, the mafia talk where you don't say the crime directly, but it's pretty obvious.

00:08:13.720 As in 10% for the big guy.

00:08:16.920 That sort of thing.

00:08:17.780 And Joe Biden's brother saying that what they were involved with was, what's the word?

00:08:26.540 Deniability?

00:08:28.480 Feasible deniability.

00:08:29.780 What's that phrase?

00:08:31.780 Feasible deniability.

00:08:33.080 Plausible deniability.

00:08:34.920 They actually used the phrase.

00:08:37.440 Biden's brother actually said they're engaged in plausible deniability.

00:08:41.420 That's like as close as you can get to a mafia talk confession of a crime.

00:08:45.960 But it isn't.

00:08:46.900 It isn't.

00:08:48.320 That's just somebody talking.

00:08:50.080 And, you know, it's hearsay by the time you get it.

00:08:52.720 So I don't know what's true.

00:08:55.260 But I'll tell you, my bias is just screaming that they're a criminal organization.

00:09:02.920 Just screaming it.

00:09:04.800 But I'm trying to use that little tiny remaining critical part of my brain, whatever's left of it,

00:09:11.580 to say, it's not proven.

00:09:15.020 You haven't seen the other side.

00:09:17.240 Wait until you see the other side.

00:09:19.560 Remember the Michael Jackson thing?

00:09:21.060 You got fooled by that.

00:09:22.680 Remember you fell for the Covington kids hoax until you saw the other video that totally debunked it.

00:09:28.540 So, unfortunately, we are a species that can be fooled very easily by circumstantial evidence.

00:09:37.220 So, yeah, even with the Tony Bobulinski information, even with the laptop, you still, it's hard.

00:09:48.640 It's hard.

00:09:49.880 But you still have to hear the other side.

00:09:52.120 You just have to.

00:09:52.900 There's no, there's just no way around that.

00:09:56.060 Because there's so many cases when you thought there couldn't be another side.

00:10:00.540 There just couldn't be another side.

00:10:02.300 And then there was.

00:10:03.820 And then there was.

00:10:04.600 You've all had the experience, right?

00:10:07.620 You've all had the experience of being convinced there could not be another side to the story.

00:10:12.260 And then there was.

00:10:13.380 If you had never had that experience, it would be a very different situation.

00:10:19.220 But we all have.

00:10:20.000 We've all had the same experience.

00:10:22.240 So, I feel like I'm the only person in the whole world who's defending innocent until proven guilty.

00:10:30.420 I mean, and I'm doing it under the cloud of being really, really certain that they look guilty.

00:10:38.600 But still, but still.

00:10:44.400 So, that's sort of my theme for the day, is innocent until proven guilty.

00:10:52.100 Yesterday, some folks on the local subscription service suggested that I suggest to Elon Musk,

00:11:00.400 using my big old Twitter account, that Twitter should host debates.

00:11:06.760 And maybe they should be crowdfunded debates, where any Twitter user could say,

00:11:14.420 hey, I'd like to see these two people debate.

00:11:17.480 And they start a crowdfund.

00:11:19.320 And then if those two people both accept the debate, you share the money.

00:11:24.020 So, Twitter would make its, you know, let's say 30% or whatever.

00:11:27.180 And the two, maybe the host, plus anybody involved, would get some share.

00:11:34.800 And then it's just the free market.

00:11:37.420 Then the free market just creates whatever you want it to create.

00:11:41.560 I saw somebody say, Scott, you know, me, and Keith Olbermann.

00:11:45.780 I would do that debate if enough money was involved.

00:11:51.720 Sure.

00:11:52.820 I mean, I would do it for fun.

00:11:54.860 But I would also do it because I like money.

00:11:58.820 You know, if I could spend an hour doing something I wanted to do anyway and get money for it,

00:12:03.640 of course I would.

00:12:05.380 Of course I would.

00:12:08.080 Would he?

00:12:09.460 I don't know.

00:12:10.620 Maybe.

00:12:10.900 Maybe.

00:12:13.040 So, I guess the bigger point about that is not whether that debate thing will ever happen.

00:12:18.960 The bigger point is the mechanism.

00:12:22.440 So, there's a small group of people on the Locos platform can communicate to me.

00:12:28.340 And then, since I'm a high visibility kind of person,

00:12:32.040 I can get to whoever they need me to get to with at least a suggestion.

00:12:36.760 Now, did Elon Musk see the suggestion?

00:12:39.360 I don't know.

00:12:39.840 But he's very active and seems to read a lot of stuff that references him.

00:12:44.380 Maybe.

00:12:45.240 I mean, I would think he looks at the bigger accounts and what they say.

00:12:48.740 So, that might have worked.

00:12:50.580 We'll see if anything comes of it.

00:12:56.380 You want to hear the best news ever?

00:13:00.660 That's a big claim, isn't it?

00:13:02.500 The best news ever.

00:13:05.540 That's my claim.

00:13:06.440 My claim is that there will never be news, maybe in the history of the world,

00:13:11.680 that will ever be as good as this following news.

00:13:16.000 Fusion looks economical.

00:13:18.920 We don't know.

00:13:20.500 So, don't get too excited.

00:13:22.280 There's some uncertainty here.

00:13:23.360 But my neighbors down the road, literally e-bike distance from where I live, just down that way.

00:13:31.640 No, actually, down that way.

00:13:35.380 Yeah, down that way.

00:13:36.020 They figured out, they did an experiment with nuclear fusion, and it created more energy than it took to create the effect.

00:13:49.600 It actually was net positive.

00:13:51.000 Now, they have not announced it.

00:13:54.900 This is based on insiders talking to some sources.

00:14:01.000 There are also indications in the same articles that Lawrence Livermore is not confirming it yet.

00:14:08.260 So, it's not confirmed.

00:14:09.260 But the insiders are confirming it.

00:14:13.220 Now, I don't know if the insiders are right.

00:14:15.800 Maybe we'll be disappointed like the last...

00:14:18.000 Oh, have we ever been disappointed by an optimistic fusion energy story?

00:14:24.500 Has that ever happened, oh, 4,000 fucking times?

00:14:30.820 It's like the most repeatable fake news of all fake news.

00:14:35.500 Hey, they got that fusion to work.

00:14:37.100 Tuesday, oh, no, Wednesday, no, it wasn't.

00:14:40.560 Thursday, hey, they got that fusion to work.

00:14:44.220 Oh, no, it turns out not so much.

00:14:46.200 It's basically Charlie Brown kicking the football.

00:14:49.580 However, everything that worked started as something that didn't work, and sometimes for a long time.

00:14:58.500 Are you following quantum computing?

00:15:01.600 How long have they been talking about quantum computing?

00:15:03.880 But it's actually now being used for actual applications.

00:15:09.660 How about flying cars?

00:15:11.740 Talking about it forever, right?

00:15:13.760 But you can now, you can buy one.

00:15:16.420 You know, there are designs that totally work.

00:15:19.220 You know, they're sort of like the hobby drones with the four little helicopter things that are kind of protected.

00:15:26.980 And the only thing that they needed was to have better batteries and better computing so that the computer can keep it stable.

00:15:35.980 And we have those things.

00:15:37.660 Now, it may not be economically viable yet, but you can actually invest in a real thing that could actually be built.

00:15:47.360 And if they built it, it would actually fly.

00:15:49.540 And it would do exactly what they say.

00:15:51.340 So that's all real now.

00:15:52.340 So on one hand, you have to be really skeptical about a claim that's been wrong 4,000 times in a row.

00:16:01.000 We all get that, right?

00:16:03.840 Still, you cannot turn off my optimism because I've had over seven hours of sleep last night.

00:16:10.660 There's nothing you can do to me.

00:16:12.520 I'm invulnerable.

00:16:14.160 Yeah.

00:16:14.540 You can try your negativity on me, but it's just going to bounce right off.

00:16:18.540 It's like it's not even there.

00:16:19.700 Yeah, I'm invulnerable today.

00:16:23.180 That's what a good night of sleep will do for you.

00:16:26.960 So I'm going to say that my neighbors down the road have pulled it off.

00:16:33.140 And we might find out that later.

00:16:35.260 And if I'm wrong, it will be the 4,001th time I was wrong about this time is real.

00:16:43.780 So hold your breath.

00:16:45.220 Hold your breath on that.

00:16:46.140 Well, I got a little pushback on my claim that fusion might finally be here because I said stop making fun of California.

00:16:55.000 My neighbors just saved the world by cracking fusion.

00:16:59.100 But a Twitter account called Christy Land.

00:17:02.540 And Christy said, that's California's tragic flaw.

00:17:07.260 Oh.

00:17:07.500 She said brilliant people.

00:17:10.240 Thank you.

00:17:11.300 But they espouse luxury beliefs that increase their own social status, but also harm the lowest class.

00:17:18.720 Thank you, Rob Henderson, for putting into words something I've been bothered about since the 90s.

00:17:22.860 So the claim is that Californians might do some good things, such as saving the entire world, maybe, with fusion.

00:17:32.920 But they also have a bad habit of espousing so-called luxury beliefs.

00:17:40.340 A luxury belief would be sort of a woke kind of thing you believe because it doesn't hurt you.

00:17:47.960 But it might hurt other people.

00:17:50.360 Might hurt other people.

00:17:52.440 So if you're rich, for example, you might say, let all those immigrants in.

00:17:58.260 Because then you look like an awesome, open-minded person.

00:18:03.060 But you're not the one who's going to suffer.

00:18:05.140 You just get free workers or inexpensive workers.

00:18:08.380 Other people might suffer.

00:18:09.600 So that would be a luxury belief.

00:18:11.800 You know, yeah, it's a luxury that I can say, let all of the immigrants in who want to come.

00:18:16.880 Let them all in.

00:18:18.320 Because if I'm an elite, it's just free gardening.

00:18:22.280 You know, it's all good for me.

00:18:23.880 Luxury belief.

00:18:25.920 So I didn't take that well.

00:18:28.260 And so, I don't know if you've heard it yet, but I had seven hours of sleep last night.

00:18:36.120 Nothing could affect me.

00:18:37.700 No argument can penetrate my armor.

00:18:40.600 And so I said, do you know the last time I had a private conversation with a Californian who embraced wokeness?

00:18:51.480 Never.

00:18:53.860 Not once.

00:18:55.460 Not a single time.

00:18:57.020 There is not one person I've ever, ever spoken to privately when nobody else is there.

00:19:04.880 Not one person has been even a little bit supportive of wokeness.

00:19:09.880 Not a single one in my entire life.

00:19:12.700 Not one.

00:19:13.220 I live in Northern California.

00:19:17.260 I live in the middle of the supposedly bluest place in the world.

00:19:21.880 Never met one.

00:19:23.360 Never met one.

00:19:24.240 Now, I do believe if I, you know, sparked a conversation at a Starbucks, you know, with a barista, I would get a different response, right?

00:19:34.880 So, you know, my filter is people who talk to me.

00:19:38.780 That's a very, you know, limited filter.

00:19:40.620 I suppose I get an argument.

00:19:43.780 There surely are people who do have that feeling.

00:19:47.180 But the people that I tend to associate with are what kind of people?

00:19:51.660 Who is it, do you think, that finds their way to me?

00:19:59.840 High IQ people.

00:20:03.020 I just tweeted before I went live that above a certain IQ, wokeness just doesn't exist.

00:20:09.580 It doesn't.

00:20:10.080 And the people who tend to, you know, seek me out and end up having, you know, private conversations tend to be unusually high IQ people.

00:20:20.640 They're CEOs.

00:20:21.920 They're the most, you know, successful investors.

00:20:25.820 They're literally famous people that you've heard of.

00:20:30.440 They're very smart people.

00:20:31.920 And among the highest IQ people, behind closed doors, there is zero support for any wokeness.

00:20:40.880 None.

00:20:41.760 I've never seen it.

00:20:43.640 Now, if I go down the IQ ladder, do I find people who argue vigorously in favor of wokeness?

00:20:52.560 Yes, I would.

00:20:53.760 Yes, I would.

00:20:55.020 But I have almost no contact with them.

00:20:57.200 If you took a, if you gave my entire neighborhood an SAT test, you'd be really impressed.

00:21:07.600 My neighborhood could just fucking kill an SAT test.

00:21:12.740 Pretty much every house on this block has somebody in it who's probably top 2%.

00:21:18.280 Now, that's, of course, so I live in a strange neighborhood.

00:21:22.120 That's not usual.

00:21:23.560 But that's my claim.

00:21:24.600 My claim is, above a certain IQ, there is no wokeness, behind closed doors.

00:21:31.080 Now, publicly, there are plenty of smart people who speak in woke terms.

00:21:36.180 Plenty.

00:21:36.980 Not behind closed doors.

00:21:39.140 Doesn't happen.

00:21:42.260 All right.

00:21:45.720 Here's a reason to ban TikTok if you didn't already have one.

00:21:49.040 Machiavelli's underbelly account on Twitter tells us he tried to infect TikTok a little with counter-propaganda.

00:21:58.060 In other words, he tried to put something on TikTok that would be counter to TikTok's presumed social wokeness agenda.

00:22:07.140 And it was a deep fake, but not one that was trying to look like the actual character.

00:22:12.660 So it was a CGI, AI kind of version of Trump saying some things like Trump would say them.

00:22:20.320 But it was not created to make you think it was real.

00:22:23.340 It was too cartoonish.

00:22:25.700 And TikTok did not allow it on there because they disallow deep fakes.

00:22:36.180 So their policy is no deep fakes.

00:22:41.200 So when this content went on there, there was obviously a cartoon.

00:22:45.880 It wasn't even close to trying to look like a real person.

00:22:49.220 They stopped it under the policy of deep fakes.

00:22:53.100 Now, do you imagine that there are any deep fakes on TikTok that are supportive of their presumed social preferences

00:23:02.420 that are not banned, despite being deep fakes?

00:23:06.780 Of course there are.

00:23:08.060 Of course there are.

00:23:09.480 Yeah.

00:23:10.200 So their enforcement is quite unambiguously, you know, non-even-handed.

00:23:16.220 Now, if an American company did this, I wouldn't like it.

00:23:21.900 I wouldn't like it at all.

00:23:23.380 Because, you know, their finger would be on the scale.

00:23:25.720 We don't like that.

00:23:26.680 But if a Chinese company proves to you that they can change the narrative, and then they

00:23:33.500 do it right in front of you, this would be an example of them using their own rules to

00:23:41.040 accomplish that.

00:23:42.560 That's a weapon of mass destruction.

00:23:46.480 Right?

00:23:46.720 The level of influence that TikTok has is already enough to destroy a country.

00:23:52.880 You can bring down a government with what TikTok already can do.

00:23:58.580 Now, I haven't seen them weaponize it to the point where they would, you know, it's obvious

00:24:02.400 they're trying to do that, because I think that would be a little showing their hand a little

00:24:06.700 bit too much.

00:24:07.540 But they do have, already, the power to completely change our system.

00:24:15.640 And we still allow that.

00:24:17.660 Yet, there's no member of Congress who wants to keep TikTok, and they won't get rid of it.

00:24:24.400 Do you need any evidence of Biden corruption?

00:24:31.540 See, here's a perfect example where you have to assume corruption because governments are

00:24:36.680 guilty until proven innocent.

00:24:38.720 It's not the other way around.

00:24:39.840 So if you look at a situation where everybody in the government seems to be on the same side

00:24:44.800 of banning TikTok, and yet it doesn't happen because the Biden administration's slow-walking

00:24:51.420 it, because that's what's happening, they're slow-walking it, what are you supposed to conclude?

00:24:58.280 There's only one conclusion, is there not?

00:25:02.340 Well, I guess incompetence would be another conclusion.

00:25:04.920 But you have either incompetence, or you have the Bidens are beholden to the Chinese government

00:25:11.020 in a way that may have something to do with Hunter's business dealings.

00:25:15.400 Maybe.

00:25:16.880 Now, we don't know.

00:25:18.760 Maybe it's something ordinary in the bureaucratic process.

00:25:22.280 But, without transparency, so we can see if it's the bureaucracy, or is it some kind of

00:25:29.480 a Biden corruption thing, if you don't have that, what is the fair assumption?

00:25:34.060 Corruption.

00:25:34.920 Right.

00:25:35.760 Right.

00:25:36.200 Yeah, as a good citizen, you should assume, publicly and privately, that you're seeing

00:25:41.020 corruption in an overt, non-disguised form.

00:25:46.160 Because if they wanted to debunk it, they could just say, oh, let me explain why it's

00:25:51.720 delayed.

00:25:52.840 And you can check it yourself.

00:25:54.460 It's delayed because, let's say, this committee is working on it or something, and you could

00:25:59.660 talk to the committee, find out for yourself, and they will confirm.

00:26:02.320 The only reason it's delayed is they have this process, and it takes a long time.

00:26:06.420 Something like that.

00:26:07.960 Wouldn't it be easy, super easy, for somebody in the Biden administration to say, oh, yes,

00:26:14.260 yes, everybody wants this ban, but it just takes longer than you think, because, you know,

00:26:18.760 that's the way government works.

00:26:19.900 I might even accept that, you know, I mean, as an indication of incompetence over corruption.

00:26:27.220 But when you have no explanation, your default has to be, as a good citizen who's just trying

00:26:34.160 to, you know, call balls and strikes, you have to assume guilt.

00:26:40.640 It's not proven, but it has to be your active assumption.

00:26:44.400 You should vote on that basis.

00:26:46.740 Vote on that basis.

00:26:48.340 Now, that's a little different than the accusations against Trump, right?

00:26:51.040 Because the accusations about Trump, they kind of need to work in a court of law, and so far

00:27:00.600 they haven't.

00:27:02.020 That's really all you know about that.

00:27:06.180 Well, what else is going on?

00:27:10.960 Quite a bit, actually.

00:27:11.960 I saw that some Democrats are canceling their Tesla orders, because they're so angry at Elon

00:27:23.740 Musk, because yesterday he tweeted that his pronouns are prosecute and Fauci.

00:27:33.320 Elon Musk actually tweeted, prosecute and Fauci.

00:27:38.400 Now, I have a problem with that.

00:27:40.620 I have a problem with that.

00:27:43.000 I do love the transparency.

00:27:47.280 I do love that we see Elon Musk unfiltered.

00:27:51.420 It's just so entertaining and probably useful, too, because you do feel like you're getting

00:27:56.460 the real story because of the lack of filtering.

00:27:59.960 But when you see the richest person in the world who also owns Twitter suggest that an individual

00:28:06.020 American should be prosecuted should be prosecuted, that feels uncomfortable to me.

00:28:13.760 Does anybody else have the same feeling?

00:28:16.040 You know, it shouldn't be illegal, because he's got freedom of speech, but it feels uncomfortable

00:28:20.220 to me.

00:28:21.520 Like, that's not exactly where I think his best service to the country lives.

00:28:27.480 But at the same time, it's freedom of speech, and it's an honest opinion.

00:28:31.820 It's an important topic.

00:28:33.640 You know, I can see it both ways.

00:28:35.820 You can see it both ways.

00:28:37.300 I would just, I guess, it's dumb to try to give advice to Elon Musk, right?

00:28:42.620 Because it kind of puts you in, like, you're some superior brain or something, which is

00:28:47.100 sort of an absurd assumption.

00:28:51.480 So I could say that if it were me, I would be pulling back on accusations about individuals.

00:29:01.060 But accusations about entities, totally fair.

00:29:04.980 And certainly accusations about past Twitter employees, that's right in his strike zone,

00:29:11.780 so that's okay, too.

00:29:15.560 You say you disagree because he's speaking for a conservative majority.

00:29:21.640 I'm not opposed to his freedom of speech.

00:29:25.320 I'm not opposed to, I don't say it should be illegal.

00:29:29.040 I just think as a citizen of the country, there probably are plenty of people who are making

00:29:34.340 the case, and there are.

00:29:36.260 I mean, social media is full of calls for prosecuting Fauci.

00:29:38.840 It's just, I don't like to see somebody with that much power use it against an individual

00:29:45.220 citizen.

00:29:46.860 It was bad enough when we saw the Yoel Roth, Noth, or whatever it is, when we saw his college

00:29:55.400 PhD paper, which apparently has been removed.

00:29:58.400 I don't think he gets access anymore.

00:30:00.080 That was uncomfortable to me, but at least it was right on target with what everybody

00:30:07.780 cared about, and he had promised us transparency.

00:30:10.920 So I think that was acceptable, even if uncomfortable.

00:30:16.680 Uncomfortable doesn't mean you need to ban it.

00:30:18.800 We live in a world that is routinely uncomfortable in lots of ways.

00:30:22.640 We just have to deal with that.

00:30:23.820 All right, the other thing that Elon Musk said is that the woke mind virus is either defeated

00:30:31.520 or nothing else matters.

00:30:34.100 And, you know, Democrats see this sort of talk, and one of them, I didn't care who it

00:30:39.940 was, said he is going to cancel his Tesla order.

00:30:43.840 He said he already did.

00:30:44.640 He just canceled his Tesla order because of Elon Musk hating wokeness.

00:30:50.100 Now, this creates an interesting situation, very interesting.

00:30:56.880 It turns out that in about two to three years, we will be able to identify Democrats because

00:31:04.340 they're driving shitty electric cars.

00:31:08.680 Because everybody who was going to get a Tesla, who decided to get a competing electric car,

00:31:14.320 is going to be driving around in a shitty electric car.

00:31:20.100 So we're about three years away from, you know, conservatives driving down the street

00:31:24.940 in their new Tesla and looking over at the non-Tesla electric car, you know, the Chevy Volt

00:31:32.420 or whatever it is, like, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, Democrat.

00:31:39.240 The Nissan LEAF.

00:31:45.180 All right.

00:31:45.580 Now, let me be fair.

00:31:48.080 I have no reason to believe that the Rivian models are anything but good cars.

00:31:54.360 I don't know.

00:31:55.220 I mean, I don't have any information one way or the other.

00:31:57.440 I'm just saying that Tesla has a pretty commanding, technical, reputational sort of system advantage

00:32:06.440 that's hard to compete with at Marcus here, et cetera.

00:32:11.360 All right.

00:32:12.100 What do you think?

00:32:12.900 Do you think the woke mind virus is either defeated or nothing else matters?

00:32:16.740 Will the woke mind virus defeat us?

00:32:19.320 Will it make us so ineffective that the whole country is doomed and maybe the world?

00:32:25.980 Maybe, maybe.

00:32:29.360 But the counter to that is the Adam's Law of Slow-Moving Disasters.

00:32:33.740 The Adam's Law of Slow-Moving Disasters says if everybody can see the problem coming

00:32:39.020 and you've got lots of time to get ready and it's a big, scary problem, we always solve it.

00:32:46.460 That's why we still exist.

00:32:48.420 Humans would already be extinct if we couldn't solve that kind of problem fairly often.

00:32:53.340 Fairly often.

00:32:54.240 We're pretty good at it.

00:32:55.120 So what would that look like?

00:32:57.760 What would it look like if the woke mind virus is being defeated or the beginning of it is

00:33:03.300 happening?

00:33:04.160 Well, it would look like ESG is dying, right?

00:33:07.940 So ESG is taking a hit from critics everywhere.

00:33:11.420 Looks like Vanguard pulled out and some other entities are pulling out.

00:33:17.080 The top minds in business are mocking it.

00:33:19.880 You know, Musk mocked it.

00:33:21.220 Dilbert comic mocked it.

00:33:22.760 So that's just the beginning of what I think is the pendulum shift.

00:33:29.840 Now, here's my argument for the golden age.

00:33:34.360 The golden age does not happen when one side has all the power.

00:33:41.440 It happens when you're moving from one side to the other and you're sort of in the middle.

00:33:46.980 So the pendulum, I think, went with full wokeness.

00:33:50.040 And now it's starting, just starting, it's pulled back.

00:33:54.640 And when we hit somewhere in the middle of the pendulum swing, you know, before it goes full

00:33:59.960 conservative point of view, because it won't, somewhere in that middle, everybody's going

00:34:05.820 to be the happiest compared to either side of the pendulum.

00:34:09.740 At either side of the pendulum, you satisfy half of the people.

00:34:12.420 In the middle, maybe 65%.

00:34:16.060 The difference between half of the people being happy and two-thirds is really big.

00:34:22.620 That's golden age versus a bad day.

00:34:26.340 So we may be heading towards something good.

00:34:29.080 Here's the weirdest story that will break your head.

00:34:32.020 Over in Japan, they have a population bomb problem.

00:34:37.080 They have too many old people, not enough young people to fill important jobs.

00:34:41.540 So they're trying to use immigration to fill the necessary jobs because they basically can't

00:34:47.600 survive.

00:34:48.740 They don't have a plan to survive as a country, really, unless they bring in young people from

00:34:54.200 someplace else.

00:34:55.600 They just don't have enough time or social structure to create enough babies to fix it.

00:35:00.200 So it's either going to be robots or immigration.

00:35:04.080 Now, Japan has a problem because immigration doesn't work as easily there as it does in

00:35:10.040 the United States.

00:35:11.380 The United States is a designed, immigration-friendly country.

00:35:16.880 You could argue that.

00:35:17.940 But we're more immigration-friendly than, let's say, Japan.

00:35:21.200 More than China.

00:35:22.520 More than a lot of other places.

00:35:23.740 So we have a design flaw, which is we don't have a system to keep out people we want to

00:35:31.620 keep out.

00:35:32.280 That's a flaw.

00:35:33.680 But our design was always meant to be permissive about letting at least large numbers of people

00:35:39.780 in.

00:35:41.140 Now, here's the weird thing.

00:35:42.660 America has the same problem.

00:35:44.820 We also have, maybe not as bad, but it's a big problem.

00:35:47.660 We have a big old-age bomb and not enough young people in the pipeline.

00:35:52.820 There's not enough babies to replace the people who are dying.

00:35:57.200 So America has the same solution, and there's no way around it.

00:36:00.640 We're going to need massive input of young people, younger, from other places, and we hope

00:36:07.980 that there are people who have high birth rates.

00:36:10.680 Now, what are we getting?

00:36:11.740 So we're getting mostly Central Americans, right?

00:36:16.520 We're getting mostly Central Americans.

00:36:18.420 What do Central Americans bring to the United States that we most need besides young workers?

00:36:28.160 There's something else they bring that we need to...

00:36:32.580 They bring crime, a little bit, as do all populations.

00:36:35.760 They have crime.

00:36:37.000 But, again, drugs.

00:36:38.580 All populations bring crime and drugs, so that would be common to any group.

00:36:42.620 But what else do they bring?

00:36:45.100 Yeah, some of you got the right answer.

00:36:48.020 Is there more traditional values currently in America or in Central America?

00:36:55.700 It's in Central America.

00:36:57.240 The Central Americans are all family, religion, let's have lots of babies, family, religion,

00:37:03.740 hard work, stay out of trouble.

00:37:06.040 Now, I'm not talking about the criminals and the drug dealers.

00:37:09.720 The vast bulk of them are as conservative as you could possibly get.

00:37:14.240 There isn't a woke person in Central America, I don't think.

00:37:19.080 Like, actually, none.

00:37:20.820 There probably is no woke person in Central America.

00:37:23.720 Now, in my opinion, we are bringing in people who are superior culturally to the average of the people here.

00:37:32.320 Superior culturally, meaning that if we simply adopted their culture, that won't happen.

00:37:39.080 But if we did, if we just said, all right, we're just going to take your culture, we'll just adopt it.

00:37:43.340 We would all be religious, family-oriented, hard-working people.

00:37:47.080 And we would kick Japan's ass competitively.

00:37:53.760 We would kick their ass.

00:37:55.640 Now, it's much harder, I believe.

00:37:57.600 I could be wrong about this.

00:37:59.000 But I would imagine if you're an Indian worker, and that's where Japan is getting a lot of Indian workers.

00:38:06.040 If an Indian worker goes to work in Japan, probably the language problem is pretty big.

00:38:13.340 And probably they don't want to stay there because there's a cultural difference, etc.

00:38:17.480 When a Central American comes to the United States, quite often they also don't speak the language.

00:38:24.520 But where I live, there's always somebody around who speaks Spanish.

00:38:29.380 Always.

00:38:30.420 There's always somebody around who speaks Spanish.

00:38:32.280 And the Spanish people are quite incentivized to learn English.

00:38:37.720 They try really hard to learn English.

00:38:40.300 So we can absorb Central Americans with nothing but upside.

00:38:48.700 Now, that's a lie.

00:38:49.740 We have extra crime and extra drugs, but it's more upside than downside.

00:38:54.160 And it actually can renew that cultural thing that made America special.

00:38:59.240 Right now, we don't have a source.

00:39:02.340 Let me ask it a different way.

00:39:04.660 Where did America's traditional culture come from?

00:39:08.440 Did it grow from the dirt in America, like corn?

00:39:13.020 Or did it come to us from all the people who came here who brought their culture with them?

00:39:18.660 They brought their culture with them.

00:39:20.540 There's no such thing as an American culture.

00:39:22.360 There's a culture that ended up American, but it didn't grow out of the corn that was coming out of the ground.

00:39:28.560 It came with the people.

00:39:30.120 And we're doing the same thing now, but I don't think you're appreciating how positive this is.

00:39:35.940 The Central Americans are bringing you more positive culture than we've seen since maybe the 40s or 50s or something.

00:39:45.700 About the planet-destroying asteroids.

00:39:52.800 I don't know about that.

00:39:55.460 Somebody's asking about planet-destroying asteroids.

00:39:57.940 That's sort of a different topic.

00:40:01.100 All right.

00:40:01.700 I'll look into that.

00:40:02.460 So there's a, I guess there's some legislation brewing that would give amnesty to some number of the illegal, what should I say, undocumented.

00:40:17.100 Let's be a little bit woke.

00:40:18.620 I like a little bit of wokeness, by the way, more than you do.

00:40:22.200 I like a little bit.

00:40:23.140 I do like calling the people who have come in here without the benefit of a legal umbrella.

00:40:29.600 I do prefer calling them undocumented.

00:40:33.880 I do.

00:40:34.880 I get that it's illegal.

00:40:38.080 I get that.

00:40:39.040 I mean, I get the argument on the other side.

00:40:40.800 It's just a human thing.

00:40:42.640 And I think it's a human thing because I spend more time around that population than a lot of you.

00:40:48.440 So to me, it's such a positive population of people that I just reflexively want to use whatever is the most polite term because I respect them.

00:40:58.260 And it's not because they told me I had to.

00:41:01.380 No, no central American has ever said, Scott, stop calling us illegal, calling us undocumented.

00:41:07.940 Not once.

00:41:09.320 I don't think they ever talk like that.

00:41:11.600 I'm just saying that I show some respect to people who want to be Americans so badly that they'll break the law to be one.

00:41:18.240 Like, I can't dislike that.

00:41:21.460 There's nothing in me that can dislike that.

00:41:24.580 Yeah, and I'll admit that in Southern California, and if you're closer to the, you know, the crime and danger areas, you'd have a different opinion.

00:41:33.960 And I will allow that.

00:41:35.980 So I'm telling you that my opinion is based on bias.

00:41:38.720 Yes, I'm not defending it on logical terms.

00:41:43.080 All right.

00:41:44.360 Rasmussen did a poll, see what people think about the idea of giving amnesty to some people.

00:41:51.000 And, you know, I hate to stroke your egos this much, but this just can't be avoided.

00:41:58.540 I do have the smartest live stream audience in the world, and no matter how many times I demonstrate how brilliant they are, how psychic, it's always impressive.

00:42:10.800 So I give you another public demonstration.

00:42:14.580 What percentage of the U.S. voting public believes amnesty would make the problem better, would improve the situation?

00:42:22.360 What?

00:42:24.740 How are you doing this again?

00:42:27.420 How are you doing this?

00:42:30.700 You're right.

00:42:32.080 It's 23%.

00:42:33.640 It's within the margin of error of one quarter.

00:42:36.740 How do you do this?

00:42:39.320 Every time I ask you a poll question, you nail it.

00:42:44.180 I'm starting to think we don't need Rasmussen and, you know, Gallup polls.

00:42:49.240 I mean, they're just telling us what you already know.

00:42:51.420 They could just ask you.

00:42:52.940 You don't even need to do a poll, do you?

00:42:55.080 How about that?

00:42:57.420 What else is going on?

00:42:59.260 Ivermectin is making a big comeback on Twitter because Twitter apparently is no longer blocking Ivermectin stories.

00:43:11.740 So Ivermectin trends almost every day on Twitter.

00:43:14.520 And I think a lot of it is people need to get it out of their system.

00:43:17.200 If you tell somebody they can't talk about Ivermectin on Twitter for two years and then suddenly they think they can, they just want to talk about it.

00:43:26.100 So I think a lot of it is the pent-up conversation that they just need to get out.

00:43:31.740 But let me piss off everybody.

00:43:36.340 That's going to be my theme for the day.

00:43:38.760 I'll disagree with everybody today.

00:43:40.300 Both sides.

00:43:41.760 The Ivermectin conversation on Twitter goes like this.

00:43:47.740 My anecdotal information beats your flawed studies.

00:43:51.420 No, it doesn't.

00:43:52.580 My flawed studies beat your anecdotal information.

00:43:54.980 And that's the whole fucking argument.

00:44:00.460 Nothing else.

00:44:02.520 Now, seriously, people, can you advise me?

00:44:08.420 How can I take sides?

00:44:10.340 Can I take sides with that?

00:44:12.440 Which side am I going to be on?

00:44:13.700 Am I going to be on the my anecdotal information beats your flawed studies side?

00:44:18.340 Does that sound good?

00:44:19.620 Or do I want to be on the my flawed studies beat your anecdote side?

00:44:24.340 Which of those is the smart side?

00:44:28.500 Yeah.

00:44:29.420 Let me give you another.

00:44:30.820 This is a callback.

00:44:32.760 If I have a private conversation with somebody in California, somebody really smart, what do they say about Ivermectin?

00:44:41.940 If I talk to the smartest people I know, what do they say behind closed doors about Ivermectin?

00:44:48.140 Guess.

00:44:49.120 Guess.

00:44:49.620 They say there's no way to know.

00:44:55.580 They say there's no way to know.

00:44:57.700 Because there's only one smart opinion on Ivermectin.

00:45:00.980 That the information has been so denied to us or delivered in such a non-credible form that you don't know anything.

00:45:09.200 You don't know anything.

00:45:10.820 And above a certain IQ, that is the universal opinion that you can't tell.

00:45:15.700 Now, there would be people who have a best guess.

00:45:19.580 So there could be very smart people who say, I don't know, but I'm leaning toward X.

00:45:25.580 And certainly every one of them would say, it should have been legal to try.

00:45:30.660 Every one of them would have said, well, it should have been legal for the doctors to prescribe it.

00:45:35.520 Like, that should have been okay.

00:45:37.940 They'll all say that.

00:45:39.160 No exceptions.

00:45:39.800 All right.

00:45:41.800 All right.

00:45:42.360 What about all that highly, highly credible information that the reason that Africa did so well, relatively speaking, with COVID, is because the Africans take Ivermectin?

00:45:55.420 Is that a good argument?

00:45:58.820 Africans take Ivermectin, and therefore, that's the reason they did so well with COVID.

00:46:07.440 Everybody convinced?

00:46:10.060 Have you ever heard the numbers of how many take Ivermectin compared to how many people live there?

00:46:16.460 What percentage do you imagine of all Africans take Ivermectin?

00:46:21.700 What percentage?

00:46:23.560 Just guess.

00:46:24.440 Just guess.

00:46:29.780 Correct.

00:46:31.840 You're correct.

00:46:33.500 Okay, I'm joking.

00:46:34.320 That's based on a, there's an account on Instagram where there's a young man who goes on the street and asks people, like, common knowledge questions.

00:46:44.340 Like, really easy ones.

00:46:45.780 Like, where is, what country is the Panama Canal in?

00:46:49.620 He asks those kinds of questions.

00:46:50.820 And then no matter what the person says, he goes, right.

00:46:54.560 So, he'll say, what country is the Panama Canal in?

00:46:59.060 And somebody will say, I really don't know.

00:47:01.500 I think, he'll say, just guess.

00:47:03.440 He goes, okay.

00:47:04.700 Japan?

00:47:05.020 And then he'll say, right.

00:47:08.240 And then he just walks away.

00:47:09.400 He just walks away.

00:47:13.240 Right.

00:47:14.240 All right.

00:47:18.460 Here's the answer.

00:47:20.280 There are 1.3 billion people in the continent of Africa.

00:47:25.560 The number who are treated annually with Ivermectin is about 112 million.

00:47:31.120 So, less than 10%.

00:47:33.660 So, somewhere around 8 point something percent.

00:47:38.040 So, do you think that if 8 point some percent of Africans took Ivermectin, that gives us our answer for why Africa did so well?

00:47:46.740 Yes or no?

00:47:48.160 8% took Ivermectin, and that's why they did so well.

00:47:51.920 No, clearly not.

00:47:53.660 Clearly not.

00:47:56.120 All right.

00:47:56.740 Now let me fuck you up a little bit more.

00:47:58.960 Oh, stop beating me to it.

00:48:01.720 Damn you, Sean Michael.

00:48:04.440 Who said, next to hydroxychloroquine.

00:48:09.580 I didn't study that, but surely there are some hydroxychloroquine users in Africa, right?

00:48:17.380 And then somebody says the dose is too low.

00:48:20.060 Right.

00:48:20.380 The dose is too low or given too late.

00:48:22.660 That's why we can say the studies are all flawed.

00:48:25.340 Because the dose is too low or it's not in combination or they did something wrong.

00:48:29.740 So, you can always say the studies are flawed.

00:48:33.020 But all of the country comparisons are ridiculous.

00:48:36.660 They're all ridiculous.

00:48:38.200 Now, I would like to sprain my arm by patting myself on the back in front of all of you.

00:48:43.880 Because that's what we narcissists do.

00:48:47.080 Nobody else told you at the beginning of the pandemic that you would never be able to compare country outcomes with each other and know why they were different.

00:48:59.000 Who else told you that?

00:49:01.580 Nobody.

00:49:01.980 I'm the only person in the world who said that when we got to where we are now, you would not know which countries did the best job of managing it.

00:49:13.140 How many thought that was crazy shit?

00:49:16.000 Right?

00:49:16.200 How many thought that was just totally crazy?

00:49:18.760 But it's true.

00:49:19.980 Now, I know some of you are saying, but Scott, what about Sweden?

00:49:23.220 Don't get me started.

00:49:24.100 Everything about Sweden is different from every place else.

00:49:28.580 Like, Sweden is, I think, younger, skinnier, and have more natural social distancing than anybody.

00:49:36.880 Plus, their voluntary social distancing wasn't that far away from other people's mandatory distancing.

00:49:45.100 So, everything you think about Sweden, if you dig in a little bit deeper, you find out, you know, that none of your assumptions hold.

00:49:54.460 They just don't hold.

00:49:56.200 Now, the other thing that Sweden does is they almost all supplement with vitamin D.

00:50:02.580 Did you know that?

00:50:03.840 How many of you knew that Sweden, it's a sort of a national habit because they don't have enough sunlight,

00:50:09.880 it's normal for the Swedes to supplement with vitamin D.

00:50:15.000 Did that matter to the outcome?

00:50:17.140 I don't know.

00:50:17.680 Could have.

00:50:18.640 Could have.

00:50:19.140 We keep getting more studies saying that it mattered.

00:50:25.800 All right.

00:50:26.820 Jay Bhattacharya.

00:50:30.960 Bhattacharya.

00:50:31.560 I think I'm saying that right.

00:50:34.020 He's getting a lot of attention lately because, among other things,

00:50:37.120 he was one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration.

00:50:41.920 Now, correct me if I'm wrong, that basically said it was more about letting the virus give us natural immunity

00:50:49.220 and less about being aggressive with vaccines.

00:50:52.800 Was that the essence of it?

00:50:54.980 Am I characterizing that correctly, right?

00:50:58.480 And the official word was, no, vaccines are the way to go.

00:51:01.960 So, Jay was invited in by Elon Musk to Twitter headquarters to actually learn about his own shadow banning,

00:51:11.080 which is fascinating to me.

00:51:13.000 So, he was indeed shadow banned.

00:51:16.220 All right.

00:51:16.440 So, that's a confirmed fact.

00:51:20.320 And he was blacklisted for, quote, unspecified complaints.

00:51:25.080 And he says, each time the reasoning, parenthetically, never conveyed to us.

00:51:31.620 So, I guess he found through either documents or conversations with people that there were internal conversations.

00:51:38.220 And those conversations was that we were not, oh, this was a conversation about whether they should have a blue check.

00:51:44.940 And within Twitter, the reasoning was that they were not notable enough.

00:51:50.800 Does that sound real to you?

00:51:52.200 Is Jay Bhattacharya not notable enough to be a blue check?

00:52:00.300 It's a pretty subjective standard, isn't it?

00:52:03.840 You know, I would...

00:52:05.180 Does anybody remember how long I was on Twitter without being verified?

00:52:10.480 I was on Twitter for a long time without being verified.

00:52:13.160 Do you know, on Instagram, I'm still not verified.

00:52:15.840 I've been on Instagram for years.

00:52:18.120 I've always been famous cartoonist guy, Scott Adams.

00:52:21.400 I'm not verified.

00:52:23.560 Not verified.

00:52:25.200 So, there's certainly a lot of...

00:52:29.380 I think it was about seven years.

00:52:31.040 No, to be verified, I think, was maybe two or three years.

00:52:36.520 But I don't recall if I ever applied for it.

00:52:39.180 So, I may not have applied for it.

00:52:40.520 So, that may be part of it.

00:52:43.700 But it is a subjective standard.

00:52:45.320 I do think that Twitter was probably putting their finger on the scales here, because I imagine that they thought the Great Barrington Declaration was dangerous, and I believe that they acted on what they thought was safe.

00:53:00.280 We want to get rid of this dangerous information in favor of safe information, which is kind of their job.

00:53:09.360 So, it's another gray area where it looks sketchy as hell.

00:53:12.500 So, if you say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, you can't excuse that.

00:53:17.120 That's sketchy as hell.

00:53:18.340 To which I say, I'm not excusing it.

00:53:20.920 It looks sketchy as hell.

00:53:22.940 But, I don't know if it's a law that's broken, which is a separate conversation.

00:53:28.460 All right.

00:53:32.900 And then, people on Twitter are calling Musk Space Karen for being too sensitive to criticism, because they say he blocked Kathy Griffin right after he tweeted something bad about him.

00:53:48.180 And there was some other notable person, I forget, who was blocked right after tweeting something negative about Musk.

00:53:54.180 And so, the critics are saying, oh, he's Space Karen.

00:53:58.180 He's too sensitive.

00:54:00.340 You know, I don't think it's optimal that somebody gets kicked off of Twitter if their last tweet was an insult to the CEO of Twitter, or the owner of Twitter.

00:54:15.140 I feel like that's suboptimal.

00:54:17.700 But, again, was it illegal?

00:54:21.140 Well, we learned that Fauci's daughter has been working on Twitter for years in engineering.

00:54:30.940 Now, I don't think there's necessarily anything to that fact that's important, except indirectly.

00:54:41.000 Imagine, if you will, that you're a Twitter employee, and you know Fauci's daughter is one of your coworkers.

00:54:46.920 Would you want information on Twitter that made your coworkers' father look like a chimp?

00:54:58.280 Well, you might say to yourself, yeah, that's our job.

00:55:01.860 We're not managing people's opinions.

00:55:06.800 So, you know, it's there.

00:55:08.560 Well, I would think that there would be, like, a subtle peer pressure to not throw your coworker under the bus.

00:55:18.160 I don't know if it made any difference at all.

00:55:20.440 But it's an interesting side thing.

00:55:24.840 No matter what, Fauci's daughter is not implicated in anything, any wrongdoing.

00:55:29.460 So, leave her alone.

00:55:34.340 All right.

00:55:35.600 Let's see.

00:55:37.980 So, Twitter has this whistleblower who is making a lot of claims.

00:55:43.880 And I was sort of semi-unaware of this whistleblower, but I saw a long tweet thread today.

00:55:49.180 And one of the things claimed by the whistleblower that, in my opinion, makes everything else they claim not credible.

00:55:59.340 And here's a claim by the whistleblower.

00:56:02.080 Now, there are a bunch of other claims about poor engineering of the network and major vulnerabilities.

00:56:09.160 Might be true, might not be.

00:56:10.760 But I don't believe anything this person says because they started with this.

00:56:15.500 This person claims, this whistleblower, that it was not uncommon.

00:56:21.120 And this is a key phrase.

00:56:22.860 Keep in your mind, not uncommon.

00:56:25.100 So, it wasn't common, but it happened enough that it was, let's say, ordinary.

00:56:31.460 And here's what he says was ordinary.

00:56:35.400 That employees would install on their own computers, intentionally, spyware that allowed outside entities

00:56:44.040 to control their computer within Twitter.

00:56:47.020 And that it was not uncommon to do it.

00:56:49.900 So, it wasn't one person.

00:56:51.840 It was something that people were doing.

00:56:54.780 Now, I read that as Twitter was giving outsiders control of Twitter.

00:57:00.180 How do you read it?

00:57:02.420 Because that couldn't have happened.

00:57:04.760 Yeah, really?

00:57:06.080 That's what I tweeted, was, really?

00:57:08.280 Really, really, it is not uncommon for people to open up the security of Twitter, not only

00:57:15.440 on their personal laptop, which, you know, their work and personal are probably kind of

00:57:18.960 mixed, but also, they would just, like, walk away and let these outsiders just manage,

00:57:25.520 not only their careers, because the outsiders would be managing their careers.

00:57:30.480 They would have full control of the person's career.

00:57:32.720 They can do anything to them.

00:57:33.740 And that people were doing that, like, commonly.

00:57:38.900 Now, the only way that would make sense is if there were so many foreign spies within Twitter

00:57:47.000 that there were more, you know, there was like one-third spies or something.

00:57:52.140 Possible.

00:57:53.700 I suppose anything's possible.

00:57:57.000 But do any of you see that as credible?

00:57:59.400 Does anybody believe that they put spyware on their own computers?

00:58:07.480 Somebody does.

00:58:09.400 All right, here's how it might be true.

00:58:11.960 It could be that the word spyware is being used to, let's say, flexibly.

00:58:20.880 Here's what I think.

00:58:23.400 I think they were telecommuting.

00:58:24.900 And the telecommuting software is spyware.

00:58:30.660 Because if somebody else had it, they could get into your computer.

00:58:35.960 So it's only who's using that, who's using the software.

00:58:39.460 If the employees were using it themselves, well, then maybe you have a security issue.

00:58:44.740 That's possible.

00:58:45.860 Because remote work gives you more security problems.

00:58:48.220 But if they had, let's say, airtight security, let's say they had one of those, you know, two-factor authentications.

00:58:57.100 Let's say they had two-factor authentication or something better.

00:59:00.140 You know, one of those little counters that, you know, the super-secured places use.

00:59:04.760 So if they were using something that was sufficiently secure, this is just somebody calling it a spyware,

00:59:11.640 but it was probably just telecommuters who wanted access to their system.

00:59:14.980 They wanted their own files plus, you know, Twitter files, so they go in through their own computer and they get both.

00:59:23.240 That's what I think.

00:59:24.660 Now, could they have handed over the control of that to malign forces?

00:59:30.780 Of course.

00:59:31.760 But it's not in evidence.

00:59:33.520 That is not in evidence.

00:59:35.160 So given the grotesqueness of the way it was communicated that there's some kind of remote software thing,

00:59:42.740 I don't believe anything else that comes out of this whistleblower.

00:59:47.220 Fair?

00:59:48.320 Is that fair?

00:59:49.500 Doesn't mean he's wrong.

00:59:51.560 Doesn't mean he's wrong.

00:59:52.860 I'm just saying that there's no credibility here that I can get my fingers on.

00:59:58.180 All right.

00:59:58.520 What else is happening?

01:00:07.580 Well, that was close to everything I wanted to talk about except the whiteboard.

01:00:16.680 Are you ready for the whiteboard?

01:00:18.920 This may be more excitement than some of you can take,

01:00:21.740 and so this would be a good time for you to, you know, close your ears and eyes.

01:00:27.420 This could hurt.

01:00:28.620 It could hurt.

01:00:34.360 Here's how the world works.

01:00:39.300 Step one.

01:00:41.020 The Democratic National Committee creates a narrative, which is a spin on the news.

01:00:48.240 Hey, tell the news this way.

01:00:49.700 They go to their lackeys in the major media, and they say,

01:00:55.540 hey, let's harden this narrative.

01:00:58.760 Let's make sure everybody hears our narrative.

01:01:01.200 And so the news hardens the narrative.

01:01:04.040 Twitter employees, do they create the narrative?

01:01:07.980 Not at all.

01:01:09.580 No.

01:01:10.240 They are suffering from narrative poisoning,

01:01:13.160 which comes from the hardening of the narrative that comes from the DNC.

01:01:16.520 We observe the Twitter staff believing the narrative and then acting as though they're saving the world by suppressing conservatives.

01:01:26.560 And this is how Jack Dorsey can tell you the truth,

01:01:35.240 and it's also a lie.

01:01:38.080 And there's no conflict between those two things.

01:01:41.140 Here's how the truth and the lie are the same thing.

01:01:44.180 Because the result of this system is that there was de facto shadow banning.

01:01:51.220 De facto being the fancy word for saying, well, in effect, no matter what anybody intended, there was shadow banning.

01:02:00.760 Like any reasonable person would look at this system, and if you look at the whole system, they'd say,

01:02:05.800 well, the net obvious effect is that conservatives were suppressed, and that is shadow banning.

01:02:13.500 Everybody on the same page so far?

01:02:16.200 If the net effective outcome is suppression of the conservatives, that's exactly what we see.

01:02:25.460 And a reasonable person would call that shadow banning, wouldn't they?

01:02:28.940 Wouldn't they?

01:02:29.300 A totally reasonable person would say, well, that is shadow banning.

01:02:33.780 So that's how it's true that shadow banning was happening.

01:02:38.300 And most of you will be on this.

01:02:39.900 Here's how it's not true.

01:02:42.000 It was de facto.

01:02:43.980 It wasn't the intention.

01:02:45.760 It wasn't the policy.

01:02:47.500 It wasn't a written policy.

01:02:49.320 And it was not an informal policy.

01:02:51.900 There's no document that suggests they even talked about it in a political sense.

01:02:56.900 It's clear that they had preferences.

01:02:59.760 That's unambiguous.

01:03:01.340 It's clear that they thought conservatives were insurrectionist, crazy, dangerous people.

01:03:08.880 So what they acted on was their own narrative poisoning.

01:03:14.780 They acted on what they believed was good for the country, but they weren't shadow banning.

01:03:22.380 What they thought they were doing is getting rid of bad people.

01:03:24.920 And they thought that the bad people, well, yes, it's true that they seem to be mostly in one party, but how is that our fault?

01:03:33.180 Right?

01:03:34.280 Yes, we observe that all the bad people, according to them, are all conservatives, but would they think that's their fault?

01:03:41.640 It's not to fix.

01:03:43.420 Suppose the Nazis were active on Twitter.

01:03:46.800 I suppose they are.

01:03:47.480 But I suppose Nazis are active on Twitter, and Twitter decides to suppress all of the Nazis, and none of the people who are criticizing the Nazis.

01:03:56.680 None of them.

01:03:57.800 All the people criticizing the Nazis are untouched, but all the Nazis are suppressed.

01:04:02.820 Is that evil?

01:04:05.620 Is that evil?

01:04:09.940 Is it?

01:04:11.400 Is that evil?

01:04:13.980 No.

01:04:14.920 No, that would be people doing exactly what you wanted them to do, because they're citizens of the country, and they have your well-being in mind.

01:04:21.320 They're protecting you from the Nazi effect, and they're doing it for all the right reasons.

01:04:27.460 Now, because of narrative poisoning, who did the Democrats think were the Nazis?

01:04:37.760 The conservatives.

01:04:39.820 So they were just acting on their illusions.

01:04:44.100 Acting on your illusion is not good, but it's not necessarily illegal.

01:04:50.620 So my argument that nothing illegal has happened, and probably even Jack Dorsey did not lie to Congress,

01:04:57.460 you probably said we don't have any policy like that.

01:05:00.880 We simply act on things that come to our attention, no matter where they come from.

01:05:07.960 Now, I pasted, on Twitter, I pasted my worst Twitter-related arguments.

01:05:16.160 I'll just hit them really quickly.

01:05:17.680 You've heard them before, but I just want you to see them in context.

01:05:21.760 All right, here are the worst arguments.

01:05:23.360 And these are the worst arguments for people who agree with me.

01:05:26.100 So these are people I like with the worst arguments.

01:05:30.180 So I'm not biased against the speakers, because I agree with them sort of in principle.

01:05:36.100 It's just their argument is so weak that it's embarrassing me.

01:05:38.540 I don't want to be on the same team with a bad argument.

01:05:41.080 Here's the first one.

01:05:42.660 Twitter colluded with the FBI to ban or throw out all things.

01:05:46.800 We know that they met.

01:05:48.020 But we know that the FBI gave them wrong information, and we know that they acted on it.

01:05:55.420 Is that a crime?

01:05:57.120 No.

01:05:58.580 Anybody could bring Twitter information, and then Twitter would act on it.

01:06:02.240 If they had acted on all of the things that the FBI brought to them, well, that's different, isn't it?

01:06:07.760 That's the case of the FBI being in control.

01:06:09.640 But they only accepted half of what the FBI said were factual problems or whatever.

01:06:16.720 Only half.

01:06:18.080 So that indicates that they did not feel coerced.

01:06:21.780 Also, all of their conversations about either the Democrats or the FBI was that they were all on the same team.

01:06:30.500 What's it mean to be coerced by people who agree with you?

01:06:33.880 There's no coercion there.

01:06:35.800 It's just two people agree, and they're in the same room.

01:06:37.800 So, now, I'll get to your other arguments, because I know you have more.

01:06:45.780 What about the idea that Twitter should be a common carrier and not censoring anything?

01:06:50.540 It's a good argument.

01:06:51.700 It's just that's a different argument than the did they break the law.

01:06:55.720 The question of whether in the future they should be regulated is a good conversation.

01:07:01.660 The question of whether they broke the law already is unrelated to that.

01:07:05.660 So that's just a different conversation.

01:07:06.960 Bad argument.

01:07:08.800 Did Jack Dorsey lie to Congress that they shadow banned for political reasons?

01:07:13.620 I don't think so.

01:07:15.160 There's no evidence that it was a policy, and there's no evidence that they even talked about it like an informal policy.

01:07:22.380 It might be true, but we have no evidence of that.

01:07:26.360 And there would be evidence.

01:07:28.060 There would be by now, I think.

01:07:29.760 There might not be any direct evidence of Twitter policy of shadow banning, but what about all their mafia talk?

01:07:42.160 What about all the mafia talk?

01:07:45.160 If you look at the full context, and who they banned, and how they talked about it, and clearly they had some attitude about Trump in particular, and maybe Bongino too.

01:07:55.160 If you put that all together, it's kind of like mafia talk, where they all understand what they're doing, but they don't have to say it out loud.

01:08:04.420 Maybe.

01:08:04.720 Let me tell you what actual mafia talk sounds like.

01:08:08.560 How about Joe Biden's brother telling Bobulinski we're operating under plausible denial, meaning keeping Joe Biden out of the bad business?

01:08:26.640 That's mafia talk.

01:08:28.120 That's what it looks like, right?

01:08:30.940 Mafia talk is not so subtle that you can't tell it's happening.

01:08:36.320 The criticism of Trump is that he was always using this mafia talk.

01:08:44.240 Now, I think it would be harder to defend Trump, because Trump's pretty, you know, he's a clever, persuasive player, and maybe he's got a little extra that he's intending there.

01:08:56.080 All right.

01:09:02.540 Do you think some people said, Scott, Scott, Scott, it doesn't matter that the Twitter employees had good intentions, and that they thought they were simply correcting dangerous information.

01:09:17.300 It doesn't matter what they thought, because why does it not matter?

01:09:23.100 Because Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, too.

01:09:26.080 And the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing, and Pol Pot thought he was doing the right thing, and Stalin thought he was doing the right thing for the greater good.

01:09:32.520 And I'm sure Mao thought he was doing the right thing, and I'm sure Mao thought he was doing the greater good.

01:09:35.860 So you really can't, you can't give people a break for thinking they were doing the greater good, right?

01:09:44.720 Except that we only have evidence of content moderation.

01:09:52.360 That's all we have.

01:09:53.720 We have evidence of content moderation of the normal kind they do, when somebody from the outside says, hey, this is dangerous, and then they look at it.

01:10:02.720 And in the case of the FBI, they only took their recommendations half of the time.

01:10:06.640 If you only take FBI's recommendations half of the time, are you worried about them?

01:10:12.700 Does that sound like somebody who's worried?

01:10:15.920 Who worried would be 90% of the time.

01:10:18.780 50% says we're in control.

01:10:22.580 That's what it sounds like to me.

01:10:24.920 Now, but what if there really was some coercion there?

01:10:29.060 It's just not obvious.

01:10:29.980 But what if there was?

01:10:31.280 Like they just felt coerced.

01:10:33.320 Is that a crime?

01:10:33.960 Well, how would the FBI inform Twitter of something that's important and dangerous without influencing?

01:10:43.060 Is there some way to do that?

01:10:45.320 And should the FBI not tell them?

01:10:48.160 Because to tell them would be to influence them.

01:10:52.820 You can't make it illegal for somebody to tell you stuff.

01:10:56.460 You can't make that illegal.

01:10:58.640 Now, maybe in the case of insider trading or some special case.

01:11:02.180 But the FBI have freedom of speech.

01:11:05.420 They can talk to anybody about anything.

01:11:07.520 Twitter has freedom of speech.

01:11:08.560 They can talk to anybody about anything.

01:11:10.460 And if Twitter were complaining about the pressure, I would take that really seriously.

01:11:15.620 And maybe that will be a defense.

01:11:17.900 Maybe they'll say, yes, we did feel pressure.

01:11:19.720 And I would take that seriously.

01:11:21.620 But it's not an evidence.

01:11:23.680 There's no evidence at the moment that Twitter was doing anything except what they wanted to do.

01:11:28.480 And the FBI made it easier.

01:11:31.300 Because the FBI was doing the fact-checking that happened to agree with their bias.

01:11:35.480 So if you do something that agrees with your bias and you want it to do anyway, is that because you were coerced?

01:11:41.520 It's the opposite.

01:11:43.580 It's just somebody helping you do the thing you wanted to do.

01:11:45.800 So, how about this?

01:11:50.800 Is Twitter's work on behalf of the Democrats an in-kind donation?

01:11:54.500 So it would be a violation of election law.

01:11:56.620 A lot of people are telling me that.

01:11:58.440 Does that make sense?

01:11:59.360 It's an in-kind donation.

01:12:01.260 So even if maybe they didn't have any intention, the net effect was they were so biased, there was like a gift to the Democrats.

01:12:09.480 And therefore, since they did not report that gift and it has a monetary value, that's against election laws, right?

01:12:19.180 So why is MSNB still in business?

01:12:24.560 Can you explain that?

01:12:26.280 How about the New York Times, the Washington Post?

01:12:29.160 How about Breitbart?

01:12:30.480 How about Fox News?

01:12:31.880 How about CNN?

01:12:33.240 Why are they still in business?

01:12:34.380 They are all in-kind donations to a political party.

01:12:43.220 Unambiguously, each of those networks, the only one that doesn't is Axios.

01:12:47.860 Axios is the only independent network.

01:12:50.080 The rest are just working for a party.

01:12:52.780 Why would you pick out Twitter as being different than CNN or Fox News?

01:13:01.380 Are they not all making in-kind donations?

01:13:03.620 You think Fox News is not helping the Republicans?

01:13:06.760 Come on.

01:13:08.180 Right?

01:13:08.720 Yeah.

01:13:09.740 I don't know if it's technically illegal, but I can guarantee it won't be prosecuted unless you prosecuted everybody, and that's not going to happen.

01:13:19.480 So being biased and being a public communicator, that's not an in-kind donation.

01:13:29.000 How about me?

01:13:30.160 Should I be prosecuted?

01:13:31.480 How many people voted for Trump in 2016 because of my activities?

01:13:38.980 Thousands.

01:13:40.500 I know because I asked in a Twitter poll, and 1,500 people said yes, that they voted for Trump because of me.

01:13:47.520 Is that not an in-kind donation to the Trump campaign?

01:13:51.540 How is it not?

01:13:53.080 How is that not an in-kind donation?

01:13:55.080 I literally helped the campaign in public, and there was real monetary value to it.

01:14:03.460 How is that different?

01:14:06.260 Yeah, it's a terrible argument.

01:14:08.320 It's a terrible argument.

01:14:09.540 I get the argument.

01:14:10.480 The argument makes sense.

01:14:11.880 There's a logic to the argument.

01:14:13.100 But as soon as you look at the context, you can see that nobody's ever been prosecuted for that.

01:14:18.160 It's just not a thing.

01:14:20.080 So at the moment, I don't see any legal jeopardy for Twitter whatsoever.

01:14:29.460 So that's my view.

01:14:30.500 And I'm going to further distress you by saying this.

01:14:36.480 This is your January 6th.

01:14:39.840 You know how the left all believed that January 6th was an insurrection?

01:14:45.180 And you looked at it and you said, Republicans don't do insurrections and leave their weapons home.

01:14:52.280 Or at least not brandish them.

01:14:53.840 So to you, it's obvious that January 6th is some kind of mass hallucination affecting the other side, right?

01:15:02.040 It's obvious to the Democrats that all of this Twitter stuff is a mass hallucination that's affecting the right.

01:15:10.020 They're the same story.

01:15:11.780 It's the same story.

01:15:13.060 It's just the reverse of it, right?

01:15:14.960 The conservatives are pouncing on every little piece, everything that comes out of the Twitter files as if some law has been broken.

01:15:26.740 But there are none.

01:15:28.280 It's probably just exactly what it looks like.

01:15:30.940 It's probably just this.

01:15:33.020 The most obvious explanation is the one that's right in front of you.

01:15:37.640 The biased people act like biased people all the time.

01:15:41.360 That's it.

01:15:42.180 And we know where the bias comes from.

01:15:43.800 There's no question about that.

01:15:46.440 It's all plain and obvious and right in front of you.

01:15:49.880 There's somebody spitting up people's bias, and then they acted on their bias.

01:15:53.960 And that's the whole story.

01:15:57.260 And the January 6ers, the reason that the left can't see them as people who are on their side, because they were.

01:16:06.180 The protesters were on the side of the people who hate them, because they were trying to protect everybody's republic.

01:16:11.360 They weren't trying to protect their own personal republic.

01:16:15.200 They were trying to protect your republic, too.

01:16:17.480 Now, you could argue that Twitter does the same thing.

01:16:20.040 They're not just protecting themselves.

01:16:22.080 They're trying to protect you.

01:16:23.220 All right.

01:16:27.220 So just be aware that the January 6th thing and the Twitter files are just the mirror image of each other.

01:16:33.540 It would be hard to have an opinion on one that is conflicting with the other.

01:16:36.940 Now, let's talk about cognitive dissonance tells, and I'll count them out as they come by.

01:16:44.840 So Patrick L. says, wow, in caps, Scott is flailing.

01:16:49.900 Is that a personal attack, or is that a comment about my point?

01:16:54.480 It's a personal attack.

01:16:55.760 So that's cognitive dissonance.

01:16:58.040 That's someone who knows that their argument fell apart.

01:17:00.740 How do you know?

01:17:01.440 Because if I'd said something that would be easily debunked, you have plenty of space to say it.

01:17:08.360 You would just say, oh, you got that fact wrong.

01:17:10.880 Check the source.

01:17:12.420 It would be easy to argue against me if you had a reason.

01:17:16.160 But if you're arguing out of cognitive dissonance, you'll go after me.

01:17:21.520 Here's Kamikaze.

01:17:22.620 Kami says, your argument fell apart, mate.

01:17:24.860 That's cognitive dissonance.

01:17:26.180 You made a personal attack on J. Bhattacharya.

01:17:29.920 No, I didn't.

01:17:31.020 What?

01:17:32.520 You saw me make a personal attack on J. Bhattacharya?

01:17:37.200 I don't think so.

01:17:38.940 I think you hallucinated that.

01:17:41.420 How about...

01:17:45.020 John says in all caps,

01:17:50.920 Scott, Charles Manson is innocent.

01:17:52.960 We have no evidence, and he denies involvement.

01:17:56.180 Does that sound like a good factual comment, or maybe cognitive dissonance?

01:18:02.400 No, that's cognitive dissonance.

01:18:05.140 January 6th is resulting in felonies.

01:18:08.960 So?

01:18:10.340 Cognitive dissonance.

01:18:17.420 J6ers are still in jail.

01:18:19.340 Irrelevant, irrelevant to the point.

01:18:21.320 True, but irrelevant.

01:18:22.000 So, Scottie is ignoring FBI involvement.

01:18:27.380 Am I ignoring FBI involvement?

01:18:29.860 Let me be clear.

01:18:32.460 The FBI, it looks like they committed a crime.

01:18:36.540 As far as I can tell.

01:18:38.100 Because it looks like they knowingly interfered with the election as a government entity by spreading false information.

01:18:46.160 So I think the FBI should be in jail.

01:18:50.060 You all agree with that, right?

01:18:52.540 I think the evidence against the FBI is...

01:18:56.680 That's pretty clear.

01:18:59.860 Now, again, I'd have to hear their counter-argument.

01:19:04.340 I'd have to hear their counter-argument.

01:19:05.800 Maybe they have a defense.

01:19:07.060 I don't know.

01:19:07.680 But to me, that looks like a grotesque crime of some sort.

01:19:13.100 I mean, I don't know.

01:19:14.260 Maybe I'm being biased, and there's no crime there either.

01:19:17.220 Now, if the FBI claims that they were also mistaken, it might be hard to prove.

01:19:22.800 But it looks obviously like a crime to me.

01:19:25.060 Scott, you shouldn't silence all cap commenters.

01:19:30.760 I don't.

01:19:31.500 Only the bad ones.

01:19:33.940 All right.

01:19:34.600 Now you want to hear the weirdest thing that's happening at the moment.

01:19:39.060 I'm going to do a callback, and I'm going to look at the biggest context you can imagine,

01:19:44.280 and I'm going to pull together some things that will blow your fucking mind.

01:19:47.180 Are you ready for this?

01:19:51.840 How long will it be before a yay?

01:19:55.060 Brings Yoel Roth onto his campaign team.

01:20:06.300 You realize that he's forming a campaign of the canceled, right?

01:20:11.740 Have you spotted the pattern yet?

01:20:14.480 He's scooping up all the canceled.

01:20:17.940 All the canceled people.

01:20:19.420 And he's making, and he's also making a free speech absolutist claim.

01:20:28.980 And the free speech absolutist claim is that he can say ugly things.

01:20:34.740 And he doesn't want to get canceled for it.

01:20:36.800 Now, when yay says ugly things, they're not like a Nazi says ugly things.

01:20:45.880 They're things which you can interpret as being ugly, but if he explained it to you in the room,

01:20:52.660 you'd say, oh, okay, that doesn't sound so bad.

01:20:54.840 So being canceled because somebody else thinks that you've crossed the line,

01:21:00.380 that's different than actually crossing the line and getting canceled.

01:21:04.680 Just somebody thinks you did.

01:21:07.200 So yay is going to make a bigger impact, potentially,

01:21:12.260 on our entire wokeness situation than maybe anybody.

01:21:16.840 He might actually break the model by being so extremely counter-socially acceptable, I guess,

01:21:27.860 that, I don't know, he might actually expand our thinking to the point where we say,

01:21:32.600 all right, screw all this wokeness.

01:21:33.940 Let's just ignore it.

01:21:36.640 There could be.

01:21:38.600 It's too early to say.

01:21:39.840 But there is a possibility that yay is the, what do you call it, the Rosetta Stone that fixes everything.

01:21:51.280 Yay might be the Rosetta Stone.

01:21:53.640 Because he's so damaging our standard way of thinking

01:21:57.620 that he's just shaking the box at the very time the box needs to be shaken.

01:22:03.560 So I'm not saying that we'll all agree with yay or that he'll be president.

01:22:07.160 I'm saying that the way he's shaking the box and putting everything in question

01:22:11.700 by the fact that he's teaming up with, you know, Fuentes,

01:22:15.920 like, what does that do to your head?

01:22:17.980 Like, I still can't wrap my head around that.

01:22:20.680 But if he keeps pushing this box-shaking counter-expectations thing,

01:22:29.540 it does actually put your brains in a more productive place

01:22:33.460 where it just shakes you out of your bias a little bit

01:22:36.440 because you've just got too much to think about.

01:22:38.780 You know, yay is just scrambling your brain intentionally.

01:22:41.980 So I'll just put it out there that yay might be, possibly,

01:22:46.420 and it would be a complete stealth situation you wouldn't see coming.

01:22:50.400 He could be the one who fixes it all.

01:22:53.400 He might be the one who fixes everything.

01:22:55.780 Because one of the things that he does is he forgives everybody.

01:23:00.480 Right?

01:23:00.840 He just forgives everybody.

01:23:03.240 But then he says what he believes.

01:23:05.640 And he'd like to say that if a particular group coincidentally seems to be thwarting him,

01:23:12.220 that he can refer to them as a group.

01:23:14.820 That's all he asks, I think.

01:23:17.800 It seems like a pretty small ask, but he gave up everything for that point.

01:23:22.140 All right.

01:23:26.060 Saudi Arabia aligning with Russia and China.

01:23:28.540 Saudi is just being smart.

01:23:30.840 Saudi is just aligning with everybody they can align with who wants to align back.

01:23:35.020 That's just smart.

01:23:35.720 Did you see the poll I ran about who is the most discriminated person in America?

01:23:51.400 Anybody see my poll?

01:23:56.080 I'll give you the updated poll results.

01:23:59.060 So, you'll probably have it pasted in the comments before I can find it myself.

01:24:07.580 But I asked this yesterday.

01:24:09.580 So, and the categories I gave for who is most discriminated against were black men, black male in America,

01:24:19.440 a woman in America, LGBTQ in America, or a short white man.

01:24:30.060 Last I checked, it was 83% thought that the most discriminated person in America would be a short white man.

01:24:37.800 Not a black man, not even close.

01:24:40.940 83%.

01:24:41.420 Not LGBTQ.

01:24:44.780 And not women.

01:24:46.780 Does that sound right to you?

01:24:48.960 That there's far more discrimination against short white men than any of the target groups?

01:24:56.100 Yeah, of course.

01:24:56.860 Because you've been completely brainwashed for decades that the groups that have power are the ones that are suffering.

01:25:04.580 You've been brainwashed for decades.

01:25:06.860 So, you know, up looks like it's down, and yes looks like no, and zero looks like one.

01:25:11.960 So, you look at the short white men and you say, well, that guy's in charge.

01:25:16.900 I would sure like to be him, so he won't have any discrimination.

01:25:19.820 Now, clearly, people of all types can succeed.

01:25:26.680 I'm not saying that being in any category makes it impossible to succeed.

01:25:31.920 Now, do ugly women.

01:25:34.120 All right?

01:25:34.460 Do ugly women and then do ugly men.

01:25:38.320 Yeah.

01:25:38.520 So, short is in the, you know, and bald are in the category of unattractive, unfortunately, since I'm in that category.

01:25:46.540 But you have to compensate by making something about you better than average.

01:25:55.000 All right.

01:25:55.560 So, here's my reframe on that.

01:25:57.680 If you frame yourself as either, as any one of these things, if you say, I'm black, or I'm male, or I'm female, or I'm LGBTQ, et cetera, you're sort of giving yourself a reason to fail.

01:26:15.680 And my observation is every group has people who succeed, and they do it all the same way.

01:26:23.160 They do something good that blinds you to whatever you didn't like about them, right?

01:26:29.680 So, I'm 5'8", and I can blind you to that by having gigantic muscles and lots of money.

01:26:41.100 Right?

01:26:42.240 It just sort of blinds you to whatever you might have been focusing on otherwise.

01:26:47.440 Now, what about Prince?

01:26:51.620 Remember when Prince was alive?

01:26:53.820 I think Prince was, like, 5'6".

01:26:56.620 Well, you mostly don't think of Prince as 5'6".

01:27:00.100 You think of him as 5'8".

01:27:02.380 You think of him as one of the best musicians of all time.

01:27:06.960 And incredibly sexy, you say, the women.

01:27:10.420 Bruno Mars, yeah.

01:27:12.640 Right.

01:27:13.060 So, there's a pretty big history, especially, you know, Tom Cruise, et cetera.

01:27:17.980 There's a big history of people of every kind who made whatever their disadvantage was disappear.

01:27:26.140 And I always tell this story, but it's my favorite story, where there was a suit salesman.

01:27:32.180 I was buying a suit, and we were chatting as I was trying on my suit.

01:27:35.680 And I made some self-deprecating comment about being bald.

01:27:39.980 And he said, well, you can make that baldness disappear by being really fit.

01:27:47.560 Because when you're really fit, people see your body, and they just sort of don't see your head.

01:27:51.780 Like, they don't see it in the same way.

01:27:53.840 And I thought, that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

01:27:57.500 Who's not going to notice somebody's bald?

01:27:59.380 And then I noticed that he was bald for the first time.

01:28:06.720 Because he was really ripped.

01:28:09.460 He was really ripped.

01:28:10.900 And I noticed that.

01:28:12.520 I walked in and said, shit, that guy's ripped.

01:28:14.920 I wouldn't mind looking like that.

01:28:17.320 And later, I realized, oh yeah, he's also bald.

01:28:19.500 And the moment I had that realization that you can make any of your flaws disappear by misdirection,

01:28:29.780 basically a magic trick.

01:28:31.300 Don't look at this hand.

01:28:32.400 Look at this hand.

01:28:33.520 No, not this one.

01:28:34.180 Look at this one.

01:28:34.820 Look at this one.

01:28:35.640 So you just misdirect.

01:28:37.740 So the positive part of this, Joe Rogan, another good example.

01:28:43.700 The positive part of this is that people all over the world are redirecting people from

01:28:50.740 their, whatever they would call their shortcomings, to whatever they do well.

01:28:55.620 And it works every time.

01:28:57.500 Yeah, Bezos.

01:28:59.700 How many people call Bezos that bald guy?

01:29:05.040 No.

01:29:05.960 He's not only rich, but he's ripped.

01:29:09.080 Why did he get ripped?

01:29:10.820 Probably the same reason I do it.

01:29:12.340 Because you want to, you know, you want to distract from whatever, whatever people are

01:29:18.180 going to criticize you for.

01:29:20.640 So that is your encouraging thought for the day.

01:29:26.140 Just an update on my upcoming book on reframes.

01:29:29.940 I am at 60,000 words.

01:29:33.120 And by Wednesday, I've got to be done.

01:29:37.280 So I'll be working real hard this week.

01:29:39.820 But then there's a whole other level of hardness that comes after that with the editing and

01:29:46.380 everything else.

01:29:47.360 But more about that.

01:29:48.800 I'll probably be testing some of the chapters with my locals crowd.

01:29:52.480 So I think I'll read you some chapters and some reframes as part of our micro lessons.

01:29:58.380 You won't get to see that unless you're a subscriber.

01:30:00.540 But the book will be out next September, I believe.

01:30:11.280 All right.

01:30:15.000 That's all for now.

01:30:16.100 I'll see you later, YouTube and Spotify and Rumble.

01:30:19.680 Bye.

01:30:20.180 Bye.

01:30:20.480 Bye.

01:30:21.000 Bye.

01:30:22.040 Bye.

01:30:22.320 Bye.

01:30:24.440 Bye.

01:30:26.200 Bye.

01:30:26.300 Bye.

01:30:28.160 Bye.

01:30:28.360 Bye.

01:30:28.680 Bye.

01:30:29.200 Bye.

01:30:29.300 Bye.

01:30:30.720 Bye.

01:30:32.320 Bye.

01:30:33.480 Bye.

01:30:34.440 Bye.

01:30:35.480 Bye.

01:30:36.940 Bye.

01:30:37.340 Bye.

01:30:38.020 Bye.

01:30:38.520 Bye.

01:30:38.720 Bye.

01:30:39.520 Bye.

01:30:39.580 Bye.

01:30:40.000 Bye.

01:30:40.540 Bye.

01:30:40.960 Bye.

01:30:41.340 Bye.

01:30:41.580 Bye.

01:30:42.080 Bye.

01:30:42.460 Bye.

01:30:43.020 Bye.

01:30:43.340 Bye.

01:30:44.000 Bye.

01:30:45.100 Bye.

01:30:45.320 Bye.

01:30:45.400 Bye.

01:30:45.560 Bye.

01:30:46.420 Bye.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 12, 2022

Episode 1955 Scott Adams： Fusion Energy, Here At Last？ And Everything Twitter Did Was Illegal Or Not

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript