Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and a former hypnotist, argues humans make only 10% rational decisions, using Trump’s "pacing and leading" tactics—like "build a wall"—to exploit irrational fears. Rogan questions Trump’s consistency but acknowledges his ability to bypass traditional persuasion methods, now amplified by viral social media testing. Adams compares modern politics to Game of Thrones, while Rogan critiques Clinton’s email scandal response as desperate and her wage gap claims as misleading. They debate whether symbols like the Confederate flag or climate models are overanalyzed, with Adams suggesting tech (e.g., solar panels) may outpace projections faster than economic incentives allow. Ultimately, their discussion reveals how identity-driven beliefs override facts, reshaping public discourse through emotional manipulation rather than evidence. [Automatically generated summary]
So for those of you who weren't with us on that set, I had a small line, just one line, on news radio because it was an episode that mentioned Dilbert.
So I was invited as a guest.
And you were giving the line before my line.
So I just came in and they said, Joe's going to say this.
Joe, say your line.
And you turned to me and you said your line.
And they said, when he says that, you say your line.
And of course I'm panicked because I don't do this, right?
Well, NewsRadio was a very unusual show in that there was a lot of changing stuff on the fly.
Like, the writers would come in and then rewrite a line, like, on the fly.
Like, they would do one line, they would do one take, and then Paul Sims, Josh Lieb, and all these guys would get together, and they'd go, okay, that's...
Let's try this.
Let's try this.
We'll go back.
But then when Scott turns to you, now say this.
And then we'd have a totally new line for the next scene.
And so we'd have to be standing over by the elevator going, no, that's not going to work.
No, that's not going to work.
We'd come up with a bunch of different ways to say it and then just run with it on the fly.
Well, if you think about how many, just think about language itself, how many words you can access just instantaneously, just pull them up from your memory.
So there's nothing scarier than getting together with your siblings after you haven't seen them for years and you start talking about your childhood.
And one of you will be telling a story like, do you remember the time I, you know, it doesn't matter what it is, I jumped on a zebra and I ran it across the zoo and they yelled at me.
And the other sibling will say, that wasn't you.
That was me.
I was the one on the zebra.
It would be such like a memory that you couldn't forget.
What has life been like for Scott Adams during this election?
You came into the—well, you're obviously always well-known for being the creator of Dilbert, but along this election cycle, all of a sudden, I had people that I was in contact with that were saying, you know, Scott Adams is a Trump supporter.
But 10% of the time we just go nuts and we do stupid things and it's because something happened that sparked it, right?
That's the normal view of the world.
The hypnotist's view of the world is opposite.
The hypnotist says that 90% of the time we're completely irrational, and we're just making rationalizations for why we did things after the fact.
10% of the time we're rational, but that's only when there's no emotional content to the decision.
You know, you're balancing a checkbook or something, trying to pick up the best route to someplace.
Yeah.
And so that's how I see the world.
And so when I look at either the Trump supporters or the Clinton supporters, to me, from the hypnotist perspective, and someone who's studied persuasion for decades, I use it in my writing, I see both sides as completely ridiculous.
Both of them are grounded in complete absurdities.
So Steven Seagal can be standing in a grocery store next to, let's say, a Muslim who believes that his prophet literally flew to heaven on a winged horse.
Those two people don't live the same reality.
But they both buy groceries, they both go, they cook it, they live, they survive.
So it turns out that understanding your reality at an actual, you know, I really know what is objectively happening and I get it and I've got a mental model that's quite accurate.
We don't need any of that.
So it would be deeply unlikely that we evolved such a specific skill that's completely unnecessary as far as we can tell.
We do need to know that if you run into this wall, your head is going to hurt.
So there's some basic stuff.
But we're probably all even interpreting that experience differently.
So there's no reason to think that the way I think of it is the way you think of it.
So I see the world as this big irrational ball, and I use the hypnotist persuader skills to back up and try to deduce, you know, what's really driving things.
And when people said I was a Trump supporter, what they meant was, they may have only seen part of what I was talking about, I was writing about his skill as a persuader.
And what I mean is that I noticed in him the skills that I've developed over decades for persuasion.
But at a higher level than I've ever seen, meaning that he's the most persuasive living human I've ever experienced.
And I mean that in terms of actual technique.
You know, he's full of technique and it's all the time.
I'll give you some examples of that.
First time I noticed it was the very first debate when Megyn Kelly was asking him the question about the insults he had allegedly said to women.
Not allegedly, he said them.
And this is a setup that any other politician with this setup is totally trapped.
Because they can either try to, like, deny they said it, and then somebody has a videotape and that doesn't work.
Or they can say, oh, I didn't mean it.
There's almost nothing you can say.
You're just trapped.
And that would have been the end of his campaign.
The first debate should have been over.
And if you remember, do you remember what he said?
She said, you said this, this, and this about women.
And he smiled.
He sort of looked at the audience it looked like or the camera.
And he said, only Rosie O'Donnell.
And the audience erupted in laughter, completely unexpected and a place inappropriate, provocative.
And what I noticed was that Rosie O'Donnell is a visual image that everybody shares, right?
You've got a picture of her since I say the name.
And for his base that he was catering to, it was an unpopular image and one that would just suck all the energy away from the question, which was toxic.
And really, you know, you can't touch the question.
You just have to suck all the energy into another part of the room and wait for the time to run out.
And that's what he did.
And it became the headline, blah, blah, blah.
And he, you know...
Certainly it highlighted the things he said about women maybe more than it would have.
But the way he escaped that got my attention.
And I thought, that doesn't look normal.
That's operating at another level.
And so I looked for more examples of it.
And you could see it everywhere.
And it was especially clear by the time he started saying...
Well, the other visual things he does is he says, build a wall.
And you can just imagine a wall.
When he says, we're paying too much ransom to Iran for those soldiers, he says, we paid, you know, 400 million or whatever the number is.
He goes, imagine that money piled up.
It'd be so much money, you know, it'd fill this room.
You can't even imagine that big pile of money.
He always goes for the visual.
Because we know that the visual part of our brain is the dominant part.
And if you can get its attention and get it on your message, it talks the rest of your brain into anything you want it to.
When he talks about ISIS, he goes visual also.
He doesn't say, they are bad people whose religions, you know, has been distorted, you know, to the type of thing you might hear from Hillary Clinton.
He says, they put you in cages and they drown you in the cage.
They chop your head off.
I mean, you can see that.
You're playing the movie in your head.
So everything he does gets more attention than everything everybody else does because he puts it into a provocative picture.
So that was the first thing I noticed.
Then when he got to Jeb Bush...
And he needed to defeat Jeb because he was the strongest competitor, so if he couldn't get past him, there was no point.
And he went after him strong, and he went after him fast, and he went after him with a low-energy kill shot.
That's why I call these linguistic kill shots.
It's not just an insult.
It's not just a clever nickname.
And we saw Clinton try to come up with clever nicknames that had no purchase whatsoever, like Dangerous Donald.
You know, it just didn't work.
But look at low energy Jeb.
Here's how it's engineered.
It's engineered for confirmation bias, meaning that you want the future to make this look like a better nickname every day, and you want it to match his physicality.
So before I ever heard low energy Jeb, I had a good impression of Jeb Bush.
I thought, when you looked at Jeb Bush, didn't you say to yourself, this guy looks like a cool character?
No.
No, but he looked like he was an in-control, calm, reasonable, exactly the person you'd want if the nuclear question came up, if there was some big decision.
Jeb Bush isn't going to get excited about it.
unidentified
He seemed like a competent CEO. Competent CEO, exactly.
Lion Ted, because you knew that because he's a politician, sometime in the next several months, he's going to say stuff that you can say is a lie, whether it is or not.
Doesn't have to.
Right.
Ted has a physicality about him.
Unfortunately, he's got beady eyes.
And I've said this before, that if you're going to cast a movie, say, oh, we need a guy who looks dishonest.
You know, like guys in the hood In the inner cities, this started out as a black term, but it's essentially like a version of your mama contest.
Like, some guys are way better at your mama jokes.
They're way better at playing the dozens.
They're way better at shitting on other people around them, and it's for the entertainment of each other.
It's a huge thing amongst comedians.
We shit on each other constantly, left and right, but it's generally encouraged, and we all enjoy it, you know?
But when a guy has decades and decades and decades of this, like Donald Trump at a very high level, Because he's known to be a billionaire investor who puts his name on everything.
Well, I think that absolutely one thing you could say is he knows how to do the Donald Trump thing.
And the Donald Trump thing is very different than the rest of the politicians think.
The Donald Trump thing is not humble.
The Donald Trump thing will tell you about his past successes and use them to tell you how he's going to be successful in the future.
The Donald Trump thing, when confronted with certain things, like the thing about him saying something about Hillary lacking stamina, and then he goes off about having a winning temperament.
I have a winning temperament.
There's not a lot of people who could do that in that sort of a political form.
Like, if, say, Mitt Romney was running for president and he started saying, I have a winning temperament, they'd be like, oh, Mitt's gone fucking crazy, right?
I mean, you remember how Howard Dean got knocked out of the race just for screaming?
Well, the problem was, it was contrary to what he was selling.
You know, he was selling this buttoned-up, packaged deal, and in the middle of that package deal is a fucking pro wrestling fan screaming from a suplex, you know?
You know, like Hulk Hogan suplexes the Iron Sheik and...
I mean, that's what it was like.
I mean, that's not the guy where you want to have the button.
So if you heard of these studies, and I think this has been replicated and fairly reliable, that if you want to addict somebody to something, let's say this, you know, your show, if you gave them a really good product every time, it actually wouldn't be as addictive as if once in a while it wasn't good and they had to sort of like wait and anticipate, oh, there's that good one again.
So unpredictable rewards are far more addicting than predictable.
So Hillary Clinton, who rewards you every time, but is just about the same, is not going to be nearly as addicting as Donald Trump, who disappoints the fuck out of you.
You're like, God, I was just starting to like you.
Once all that grab-the-pussy stuff got out of the way, he was doing a lot of speeches in the rundown the last few days.
And I watched a few of them on television because I almost felt like, even though I knew I was going to vote, I almost felt like some sort of a spectator.
Like, this cannot possibly be real, to speak to your software simulation idea in the beginning, that a lot of people share, by the way.
It's not just Crazy Scott Adams and me, but there's a lot of folks out there that think that we're living in a simulation, right?
But as he would give these speeches, and there were some of the speeches he gave where there was these moments, and you're like, if someone could tell that guy to keep it at seven, like where he's at right there, and talk like that always, and avoid all the crazy shit, But man, the crazy shit is what you get.
That's the thing about people like Trump or any powerful super dominator type character like that.
Well, there was one issue, though, that was real, and that was amongst feminists.
There was amongst women who were willing to exonerate Hillary on all the weird shit that she had ever done involving women, all the stuff that she had done involving deleted emails.
And I had heard people even say that people were giving her a hard time because she's a woman on her health.
And I was like, you are out of your fucking mind if you believe that.
She's falling asleep when she's standing up.
That is bad.
That is so bad.
If that was anyone close to me, anyone close to me, I'd be like, you're not going to be president.
We've got to get you healthy.
You're fucking blacking out while you're standing up.
And it's not just once.
She fell down once in 2012, got a serious concussion, and was fucked up for six months.
Me as a person who's terrified of brain trauma, that freaks me the fuck out because I know the repercussions I know the impulsiveness that it bestows upon people.
It's a horrible curse that's happened to a lot of people I know.
So I knew there was this weird delusional thing where people didn't want to address the fact that her health is poor.
And then it was revealed in one of the WikiLeaks emails that she had suffered from some sort of a, not a stroke, but a seizure in 2015. Like, that's a fucking year ago!
What is happening?
But nobody wanted to talk about that.
And there was this strange air that she's not being treated fairly.
I'm like, here's treated fairly.
She is a person who deleted 30,000 emails after she got a subpoena.
She's an older, rich, white woman.
If she was a 40-year-old black guy and she deleted 30,000 emails after a subpoena, they would just shoot you.
How weird is it that we went through that entire election cycle and so many people, like you and like me, were saying, I'm not sure she looks healthy enough.
Now, she, of course, met all the standards of past presidents, but what person ever interviewed her and said, look, there are a lot of questions about your health, and asked the question this way, can you look the American public in the eye and tell us there's no major health problems that you haven't disclosed?
My point was in saying that is that if you just if you anyway described her health issues that you would somehow be a sexist and That the idea of her gender and being the first female president which obviously would be very historic right huge issue huge huge honor That that that was a part of what they were voting for It became a part her gender became a part of what they were voting for and so that was an issue let me give you the The positive spin on the same topic.
Not in the top 24. So if we may pause for a moment from piling on Ms. Clinton, I gotta say that the whole breaking the glass ceiling thing, she fucking did that.
That's toast.
There's no six-year-old born today who says a woman can't be president.
I mean, there's a lot of people that actually believe that.
And you know what, man?
There's a whole spectrum of variables.
And if someone's thinking about, if they're hovering over, you know, if they're looking at Gary Johnson and Hillary Clinton, maybe they're like, never Trump.
Maybe they're one of those people.
They're like, one of these motherfuckers is going to get my vote.
They might start thinking, man, I don't know if I want a woman president.
But, you know, they always converge toward the end.
You know, they start out wildly ridiculous.
And then when it's clear that it's going to be one way or the other, all the polls start coming toward the end because they want to say, well, at the end, I was only 2% off.
Jamie and I were watching this video clip of the Young Turks calling down the election yesterday, and at the beginning of it, they were 100% convinced that Hillary could not lose.
You know, there was one guy who was saying, you know, Hillary can't lose.
Like, literally, it's mathematically impossible.
And then by the end, they were fucking screaming and swearing.
It was like, wow, these numbers that people, like, count on.
So back then when I predicted it, you can imagine the heat I took because it was such an unlikely pick and how many people just wanted to dance on my grave for being wrong.
Going over to Amazon, giving me bad book reviews because they didn't like what I said about Donald Trump.
So, that moment...
When I find out that I haven't wasted my whole year, because it would have been a terrible year to be so wrong for a year, and then there's like no payoff whatsoever.
It was like the worst gamble ever, bad risk management.
But then to have it come through just the way I predicted it was this amazing, amazing moment.
Here's the thing that I think is important to make a distinction, and this is what I recognized on you when I watched some of your periscopes.
You just weren't making a moral judgment of him as a person, and that's what people expected.
People expected a line in the sand to be drawn morally.
What you were doing was talking about all of his traits.
You were compounding all of his positive traits and what he does well.
And then people got mad at you for bringing, like you're analyzing it, like say if you're a scientist and you take a plant that you find in the Amazon, you're like, well what does this plant consist of?
Let's break down the parts.
You were kind of breaking down the parts of what he does and what he's effective.
And it didn't seem to me...
I'm like, this doesn't seem like a guy who's like...
There's a few guys out there that are like rabid, rah-rah Trump supporters, and some of them where it's super transparent.
There's a few guys out there that I'm watching them and I know what they're doing.
What they're doing is they're latching onto the Trump train.
They're latching on, like, really shamelessly, where they tweet about Trump all the time now, where they never give a fuck about him a while ago.
Like, over the last six months, they've jumped on this because they recognize there's a tremendous amount of loyalty and momentum behind being a Trump supporter and a fan, because it's a tough stance to take.
So guys that are already marginalized, they're already kind of, like, fringe, and people think they're kind of maybe creepy, they're like, fuck this, I'm going full creep.
And they jump right in, and it's, God, it's real transparent.
It's interesting.
You know, obviously that's just my take on it.
They might actually be really Trump supporters, and they're super excited, but I sense some disingenuous behavior out there.
You know, I think what's different about this election and about Trump in particular is that it used to be we were electing a leader, right?
Someone who would be a role model and all that.
I think he threw that all out the door.
And social media throws even more out the door.
And what I mean is, I think the public is the leader now.
I mean, I think no laws get passed unless the majority of the public wants it to get passed.
Anything that gets a little out of line, social media just throws it back in line.
And more than ever, I think we hired an employee rather than a leader.
I feel like I hired a plumber, you know, someone who's just really good at a specific set of skills, negotiating, you know, maybe doing something with the budget, whatever needs to be done, secure the borders.
But it's sort of like picking a lawyer.
I don't care what he's doing in his personal life.
He's not my role model.
And by the way, which of our kids are looking to 70-year-old men as their role models anyway?
I mean, I don't know if that happens a lot anyway.
But I think he really is going to be the first sort of people's president.
You see his policies changing in real time.
The example we talked about earlier when he misspoke and he said women should be It turns out that the law and both Republicans and Democrats think that's crazy because it would discourage, you know, encourage the wrong behavior and so only the doctor is punished.
But you saw him change his opinion in 24 hours just by being a little more informed and hearing that the public was all on the same side.
But that's also like one of the criticisms of him is that he talks off the cuff without really having researched or thought deeply about these subjects.
And when you're talking about a guy who's supposed to be the leader of the greatest country the world's ever known, like that guy should probably not do that.
From the persuasion filter, Since facts and logic and policies and stuff don't matter as much as you want, when you see him ignoring things that you just think, man, a reasonable person would not say that, a reasonable person would not ignore that, he ignores things because they don't matter.
You think he's ignoring something very important and he would perform better if he did what you imagine is the right way to act.
What he does is he agrees with people emotionally first.
He gets you on your side emotionally.
So if you're really concerned about immigration, for example, he doesn't just say, yeah, yeah, I'm concerned about that too.
That would be sort of a Hillary Clinton approach.
Being less concerned than you are, but, you know, I got other priorities.
He's way more concerned than you are.
If you're a little bit worried about immigration, he's worried about, you know, ISIS coming over here and putting people in cages and cutting off heads and, my God, there's a hordes coming over the border.
So he's so on your side.
That when he changes toward the middle, and you knew he had to, because you have to do that when you get in the general election, that his side was not feeling betrayed because they're saying, well, if he's changing the specifics of his policy, it must be because he looked into it, and that's what's practical.
So every year there's going to be this conversation anytime the vote is close.
But what you see is that Trump doesn't care about, let's say, the consistency or what somebody would say is being a hypocrite.
I've tweeted this recently that the least persuasive thing you could ever say in politics if you're trying to change somebody's mind is, that person's a hypocrite.
In all of history, that's never changed anybody's mind.
It's both impossible and the easiest job in the sense that the office of the president and all the advisors and all the public opinion is going to force you down to just a few possible options.
And those two options, you will not have enough information to know which one's better.
So anybody guessing among the last two options that they've narrowed it down to...
There's a little bit of luck involved, I've got to say.
Well, you have to match the personality and the time, right?
So you could have a president who was just terrific in wartime.
But weren't much good in anything else.
So they'd be, next thing you know, they're on Mount Rushmore.
But you have Obama, whose primary job was winding down two wars and basically cleaning up another mess and keeping us from a larger problem, the economy melting down.
So Obama is really the presidency of things he prevented that could have been worse.
Well, I would put him in the top 20% of presidents.
So my view of him is very positive.
And I think even Obamacare is a genius, persuasive move, even in its failure, because he set it up that way.
And he said that publicly.
He said, I'm going to launch it ugly.
I'm paraphrasing.
Didn't get exactly what I wanted in this law.
But once it's out there, It'll be impossible for politicians to pull back coverage.
They'll just have to fix it.
So where are we today?
Everybody's saying, Obama, total failure without Obamacare, because we're going to keep the good parts, keywords, keep the good parts, exactly as he fucking planned and said so publicly.
He said it.
He said it publicly.
He said, I'm going to do this ugly, wrong, and you're going to have to fix it because it's going to be the only choice you have.
Well, there's this weird thing that we've done now with Trump that I've never seen before where we've narrowed him down to chants and slogans.
I talked in this podcast about I was in New York City at the time of the protests because I was there for the UFC and we were walking from the gym to the hotel and we just got caught in this wave of people screaming with really fucking crazy signs, man.
There wasn't a whole lot of love and compassion on their signs.
We were talking about this before the podcast started.
The left has become something very different.
It's like this really aggressive, insulting, shaming, and even the call for violence.
So the big question is, since I have one foot in the, you know, the alt-right world, because I sample everything over there, but I'm also watching CNN and regular media, and these folks live in completely different realities because they have...
Different information because they're looking at different sources.
So within the conservative side of things, it is universally understood that the protesters are professional and they're paid by Soros.
And by the way, I'm not saying this.
I'm saying what their view is.
On the other side, people think it's a true grassroots movement.
And so the view is completely two different worlds.
Well there may very well be some people that have been paid to protest, but there is absolutely a bunch of people that are protesting because they're upset.
I mean, they might be fluffed up a little bit.
I don't know.
But there's definitely people that are just young people that are pissed off.
So in the beginning of the election, Trump had the best persuasion because he was saying, the terrorists are coming in.
You know, I'll stop him.
There's criminals coming across the border.
Clinton was talking boring policies and, hey, I'm experienced.
So she didn't have a chance against, you know, you're going to die tomorrow.
By summer, she obviously had some professional help, meaning somebody who's a cognitive scientist or a professional persuader.
And she started using the term dark all the time, and all the surrogates used it at the same time.
It's dark, dark, dark.
And she started coloring him as a huge racist, you know, dictator, dangerous to the world, and the most dangerous thing in the world.
Because if you're worried about terrorism, you're really worried about somebody else getting killed.
Because you're not really thinking you get killed by terrorists.
You know, even if it's pretty bad, somebody else is getting killed.
But Clinton painted a picture to make you afraid of the nuclear holocaust created by Trump tweeting something at 3 a.m.
and hitting the button accidentally.
And so that was the ultimate fear.
So she really had that going.
And when she lost...
She had all these people activated who would have been instantly deactivated if Trump had lost.
But there's no deactivation on the bomb now.
She created this societal bomb that is these protests and the way people feel.
These people literally believe that Hitler was just elected.
You know, a version of Hitler who will...
And I actually saw today a journalist talking about, you know, concentration camps and that sort of thing.
I believe nothing even remotely like that's going to happen or, you know, I would obviously be on the side of the protesters.
So it's not their view of the world is that the Trump supporters know he's a racist and they installed him because they want him to go do racist things.
Trump supporters know that even within their ranks, it's like, I don't know, 2% of people are actual racists.
Most Trump supporters, just like, hey, less taxes, you know, they're thinking they like his personality.
They'll just like something about him.
And the Clinton supporters think that Hitler actually got elected.
So they're acting on that.
So what's happened is that Clinton has, somewhat accidentally, because she thought she was going to win, at which point this whole problem goes away, somewhat accidentally created this gigantic societal bomb that there's no way to defuse.
But a number of people, including me, are trying to figure out how to literally dehypnotize people who are in this illusion that World War III just started.
One of the big ones was when she was confronted about the DNC hack and her emails and all that stuff, the hacked emails from her server, where she diverted attention by saying that it was Russia that did this and that there would be repercussions, and then she said, even possibly militarily, Like, that's the worst diffusion of responsibility ever.
Like, we're talking about you deleting emails after a subpoena, and your argument is that the Russians got those emails and we should bomb them.
I mean, that's literally what she's saying.
That was crazy when she said there would be repercussions militarily.
To fucking Russia!
Like, Russia!
We're not talking about invading Puerto Rico.
It's fucking Russia.
Like, you're saying there's going to be military invasions because someone stole your email that wasn't secure.
The way it was set up, if somebody pitched that around the joke writer's table, it was Tony Hinchcliffe and Jeff Rosser, they'd be like, no, no, no, that one's not going to make it.
That's a terrible joke.
It's just not a good joke.
And she didn't know how to deliver it either, and it was just a clunky, Extra attempt to connect Putin and Trump because people are scared of Russia.
But it was so shitty and ham-handed that it just didn't work.
And everybody knows there's no fucking evidence.
I mean, there's no evidence that Russia's doing anything.
I think the Russia thing took her from, you know, serious states person, you know, the most experienced person who ever ran for president, to a little bit ridiculous.
She started making things up back and connecting him to...
Look, it was just...
The whole thing was so sordid to me.
That was the most unfortunate thing about it.
When you do see all this stuff on TV, one thing that you can't deny, it might not affect you, and it might not affect me, but there are certain people that follow the tone of the leaders of this country.
And when you have a guy who's the president who, you know...
Is gonna say insulting shit, call Jon Stewart a pussy in a tweet at 1.30 in the morning.
Like, that sets the tone for the country.
And it's gonna make some people very happy.
There's some people that love to talk shit, they love to insult people, and they're like, fuck yeah, open season.
The way I described it, I said political correctness took a missile to the dick.
Because that's what it was like.
This is the guy at the top of the totem pole, and we can relax our standards now on all the things that have been annoying you about people nitpicking about behaviors and insults and safe words and safe spaces.
Yeah, well, you know, I think that we go one way and we go the other.
And I think that people get tired of too much left and they want some right.
And I think that's why we went from Carter to Reagan.
That's why we went from Bush to Clinton.
I just think that's what we do.
I think it's what we've always done.
And I think people are...
I also believe, and I've said this publicly, I think the whole Caitlyn Jenner thing had a big effect.
Because people were like, what in the fuck are we doing?
That's the athlete of the year.
This is woman of the year for Glamour magazine.
And...
And then you see her on the Ellen show and she doesn't believe in gay marriage.
And you're like, this is madness!
We're accepting madness as being okay!
And I think because of that, we're so accepting and so sensitive that anything involving gender gets a fucking free pass on all of its ludicrous aspects.
Like, she's a ludicrous person, but we gave her a free pass because she used to be a man and then she became a woman.
She fucking doesn't believe in gay marriage!
It's so crazy.
When Ellen asked her about it, she was like, well, I'm kind of a traditionalist.
Like, what?
What the fuck did you even just say?
You're a traditional girl?
Holy shit, this is crazy.
But we're not supposed to say anything.
We're supposed to just accept it.
Well, there's people at home all across the country throwing their fucking beer cans in the kitchen.
Just, what the fuck are we doing?
What are we doing?
And I think there's this reaction when things go way too far left, when there's, you know, 78 different gender pronouns that you have to learn, when, you know, political correctness takes some crazy path where you're removing the General Lee's Confederate flag from the roof and pulling it off a TV land.
We gotta get this fucking...
It's like things go so far left that there's an automatic slingshot effect and they start going right again.
So you have this Confederate flag, a bunch of people like it because it's like, oh, it's the past, it's the South.
So, you know, you want to respect that people like what they like.
But another big part of the public is just really, really offended by it.
Like, not in a normal offensive way, like, you know, oh, you said a bad word, but like, you know, the deepest, you know, pain the country has ever experienced, you know, the slavery.
So if you can't allow your fellow citizen that little bit of respect, it's like, yeah, this is really inconvenient.
I wish I could keep my Confederate flag, whatever.
I've been mad at Caitlin since she was Bruce, because I happened to be on a flight one time across country, and Bruce at the time was in the seat in front of me and leaned his seat all the way back, and I couldn't use my laptop for five hours.
It's just like, when this gets paraded out as being this very important point...
Well, as soon as it gets paraded out and you make a big deal and you want to go on all these talk shows, you want to talk about yourself, well, they have to examine you as an actual person and not just stop at gender.
You know what I'm saying?
There's a lot of representatives.
For instance, the woman who created Sirius Satellite Radio and also I believe she invented GPS. She was born a man and had a sex change.
And I met with her and had an interview with her about her...
She made a robot.
She's super fucking smart.
Like crazy smart.
And is working on artificial intelligence and programming this woman...
Like it's a head of her wife, Bina.
Like she married her when she was a man and then became a woman.
They stayed together.
And Bina is like this artificial intelligence thing that she's consistently updating.
As technology gets better, she updates it and gets it more and more intense.
If you want to focus on someone who's a transgender person, maybe that would be a good example.
Instead of just concentrating on a guy who used to be really good at running and now lived with a bunch of materialists on a reality show.
You're a wealthy successful man and For some people there's not a whole lot to look forward to and this is not obviously I'm not using a broad blanket to paint all sports fans But I think that there's a lot of people out there that look to the success of their team and they get happiness or sadness from that and if you're in a team like if you're in Cleveland and And they kick ass and win the world title.
Yeah, but it was all created because I mean all sports teams in this country essentially were a response to war being over and people thinking with real good reason that men at least Need war.
They need some form of war to develop character and to build strong, definitive nations.
Almost need to unite and bond with war.
And the concept was, well, if we can't do that, let's figure out some sort of a game that they can play.
Like, it's been discussed, and there's been a lot of historians that have concentrated on leaders that have talked about the importance of conflict, the importance of war, and the bringing the country together, and the support of nationalism, the support of loyalty and honor and pride.
Like, all that, a lot of it has to be connected with consequence and loss.
It was made in the Carlisle Indian School, formed in 1879 to assimilate children and the grandchildren of Native Americans who fought in the Plains Wars.
Fields the most American team of all.
Yeah, this was about these American Indians that were fucking kicking ass playing football.
It might be the worst thing you could do to some people.
Just tuck them away on this little patch of land, isolate them from everybody else, and they're watching the rest of the world change around them in some sort of a strange way.
And they're Americans, but they're not.
They're in some sort of a weird territory that they have ultimate control over and they start having gambling there and doing whatever the fuck they want.
Very strange.
But in some ways, what were the other options at the time other than giving them territory?
You really stop and think about the genocide of the Native Americans in this country and how rarely that comes up.
And there's no flag, which is really interesting when you, you know, obviously there are some flags for some nations, but I mean, there's no one thing that represents our war with them.
That's no offensive symbol other than like a few sports teams, right?
Well, it depends also upon what a person becomes, because I have a feeling they're going to come up with legs that are artificial that work way better than your real legs.
Like, I have a bunch of friends that have, like, fake hips or fake knees or, you know, they've had surgery and they've had a bunch of stuff fixed.
I know a lot of people that have had hip replacements, like maybe a dozen.
So I've figured out that if I create enough public information about me, you know, there are enough times I'm recorded, like I'm being right now, Enough of my writing is in the public.
There's no video of me that after I die I could be recreated in software almost in full because you would have my Everything from my personality my sense of humor my choice of words So some future program could just go to the internet Google my name and take all those sources and bring together an actual physical hologram that walks and talks like me 100 years after I'm dead and Well,
Jamie, you were just telling me about some software that they've developed that you can take someone's...
Someone can say, like, I could make a statement.
Scott Adams is a really cool guy, and I always love hanging out with him.
And they can move the words all over the place, where it's a jumbled sentence and it doesn't make any sense, and then change the inflection, and it sounds perfect.
So the point being, if you could automate this, if you could put this inside some sort of an artificial intelligence structure that knew when to inflect, when to have a question, when to...
Or maybe you would be a tech guy and you're talking upspeak.
You know what upspeak is?
I love upspeak because it's so fucking...
It's this weird thing that these tech dorks do, where they sort of talk in this really weird and predictable way, and they all do it, and basically it makes you seem like you're sensitive and intelligent and on the ball, and it's a weird fucking little sneaky thing that some of these tech guys do, where it takes you a while to go, oh, you're not smart at all.
You're fucking crazy, but you talk in upspeak.
You know, they've decided to take on the persona of a tech person.
I think it's more prevalent in Northern California than it is in Southern California.
It's almost like they're halfway like an NPR sort of radio personality, halfway that, and halfway a strip club DJ. It's like they have this thing going on where it's a fake voice and they're talking about technology.
You know like there's a almost a woman up speak that you'll see occasionally on daytime talk shows Where like a bunch of women will sit around and they'll be on a show and the woman or it's all audience the women's The audience is all women and there's all women on the panel and then they're cooking or they're talking about clothes and what the women's up speak is Sentences don't end.
I'm having a real tough time with what's proven because lots of people are sending me my own stuff and saying, here's proof that you have been shadow banned because look at this page compared to this page.
And I always look at them and I go, I'm not really a lawyer.
I like the thought that I might be so dangerous to the minds of America that there's a major corporation who's actually making a conscious decision, saying, whew, America has had a little bit too much of this guy.
Not even compared to things that Leslie Jones wrote.
I mean, the person that he was supposedly attacking and what he was doing was he was targeting a piece of art and he critiqued it very harshly.
But that's what he does.
He's very wise with his choice of words.
He's very snippy and bitchy.
And that's his persona.
That's what he's put together.
He's a lovely guy.
Like, I've had him on the podcast a couple times.
I enjoy his company.
He's a fun guy.
But goddamn, do people get pissed off at him.
It's kind of hilarious.
And so when that whole thing went down with the Leslie Jones thing, I absolutely didn't agree with all the people that were being mean and insulting to Leslie, but that's kind of what happens if you put yourself out there with a piece of art, right, that people don't like.
And all he did was say that they were all ugly.
You know, he was saying that it's a bad feminist film because all the men are buffoons and all the women are saving the world.
Well, I mean, the fact that he was saying they were unattractive, he was saying that not just to be bitchy, but also in a point.
He made a point.
He's like, they've decidedly picked people that were unattractive to make this sort of feminist point, that these overweight women can save the world.
That they're the ones who are going to, like, they're targeting, and that's why all the men are buffoons.
It's sort of revenge.
Like, the idea being, if you wanted to look at it broadly, the idea being that these are the type of women that the guy like the Thor dude, what's his name?
And of course, in this movie, he's a fucking moron.
I mean, he is the dumbest guy that's ever walked the face of the planet.
He's preposterously dumb.
And then becomes the villain at the end.
So he represents this unattainable goal of having this gigantic, beautiful man be attracted to you.
So they've turned him into this complete retard.
Like if this was a woman in a movie It would be one of the most offensive portrayals of a woman ever and I'm sure it's been done I'm sure it's been done right especially like in the old days like I mean there was how many fucking dopey secretary roles were there in the world, right?
So he was that the male caricature of that But there's not a single other male in the movie that wasn't a complete buffoon Every male is a failure and ultimately gets killed and dies Every woman saves the day and this was Milo's point So in most forms of entertainment, you need the dumb one and the smart one.
I mean, any couple's sort of comedy, the man is a buffoon.
Married with children, Peg's always wanting sex, Al's just all fucked up, he's trying to get away from her, he hates his life, everything falls apart on him, his daughter's acting like a little hussy, right?
This is the problem with censoring people, is that if you don't like what they stand for.
You know, you're not really...
Like, they were looking for the reason to pull the plug on him.
It left people like, what?
That?
Like that.
Him saying that.
And then when you pull up things that she has said about white people, that she has said about other ethnicities, and some of the – she's like literally said get someone.
And the idea that she's doing it in revenge for someone coming after her, I understand.
But in the position that she's at, like, she's a huge celebrity for her to actively say, go get this person.
Like, that is the clearest example you're ever going to see of targeted harassment.
So if that doesn't get punished in any way, shape or form, like, you got to say, well, why?
Is it because she's female?
Is it because she's black?
Is it a combination of those things?
Is it because she represents what you think is, like, liberal, progressive mindset?
And then he represents this alt-right that people are terrified of and hate.
He represents the Gamergate, which gave birth to the alt-right.
Like, Gamergate allowed people to realize, like, hey, there's actually some intelligent people that are tired of all this bullshit that these feminists are trying to push down our throats.
And intelligent people that are coming together and go, no, Laura Croft is not the fucking bane of civilization.
It's fun to watch her run around with her tits jiggling, shoot guns at things.
It doesn't mean you hate women.
It just doesn't.
You know, and women were playing that game, too, and saying the same thing.
And this portrayal of these people as being these ugly, misogynist monsters, the backlash of that is what gave birth to Gamergate.
And a lot of Gamergate was harassment, targeted harassment of women, horrible stuff, right?
But I think, as you were saying, when you're talking about Trump supporters, there's a certain percentage of these Trump supporters that probably are racist.
Doesn't mean they all are.
Like, what is the number?
Is it 2%, is it 4%?
There's a certain percent that are probably absolute misogynist.
What's that number?
I don't know what that number is.
But there's also some other people in there, that has to be, that are reasonable.
Because if you look at the number of people that voted for Obama, and you look at the number of people that voted for Trump, a lot of those people are the same people.
The thing about Mormons though, they're really nice people.
I like a lot of Mormons.
I'm friends with quite a few Mormons.
I know a bunch of them and like in general they promote A lot of camaraderie, a lot of community.
They're very friendly.
The people in the Mormon church, like the friends that I know that are Mormons, they go to church on a regular basis, and it's almost like this community gathering of super polite people that agree to be super polite.
Yeah, I mean, it can easily just be they enjoy the community aspect of it and the bonding of it, and they believe in God, and maybe they just let all that other stuff slide.
Well, imagine if we go back to your original idea that this is some sort of a software simulation and that's why your memories are so wacky and nothing sticks and Imagine if you literally are choosing, by virtue of your decision to join a certain religion, what your afterlife will be.
Like, if you're in a video game and there's like a bunch of different doors, you have to figure out which one's the right door to go through, and you go through that door, it's a totally different adventure.
If we're software, that would be totally practical.
And that simulation theory thing is a mindfuck.
Because if you don't know what we're talking about, here's the rub.
The rub is, one day, without a doubt, if we continue, if we don't get hit by an asteroid, if we don't get swallowed up in a supervolcano or a tsunami or an earthquake or something crazy...
Human beings will reach a point where if you look at the exponential growth of technology, we are going to be able to create an artificial reality that is indistinguishable from regular reality.
If that's the case, how will we know if we're in it?
Well, there's also the very slippery aspect of consciousness where we shut it off every night and then turn it back on in the morning.
And we assume that our memories when we wake up in the morning are all accurate.
We assume that we really did, you know, wake up November 17th, 2016 in our bed, put our clothes on with this database of life experiences leading up to that point.
But how the fuck do you know it didn't just start?
You just woke up and you might have been installed with this goofy life memory that you might have started this life this morning.
Yeah, if you look into physics, we know, and when I say we, I mean people much smarter who are physicists, know that things don't really exist until you observe them.
The way it's been explained to me by a friend of mine who's actually a physicist, he said it's often there's a lot of woo-woo that's tacked onto this.
But when you're talking about these measurements that people say like that in the act of measuring something and looking at something, you change the result.
He's like, that is much better interpreted by the measurement itself.
The actual act of seeing something or recording something or interfacing with it in some way to get a reading changes the result.
He's like, that's much more likely what's going on.
There's no real evidence that looking at something changes it because if you weren't looking at it before, how do you know if it was different?
Because really smart people will tell you women make 79 cents for every dollar a man makes.
And that gives you the impression that they're working side by side in the same factory and the woman's making 79 cents and the man's making a dollar.
That's not what it means.
What it means is, overall, men make a dollar to 79 cents that women make because of career choices, because of jobs, the different jobs that they choose.
If you're going to make the argument that it's more difficult for women to get those jobs, that's a different argument.
And you might be right.
But, that's not when you're saying the wage discrimination gap, like when Obama says, we have to change wage discrimination, like, whoa, what are you talking about?
Do you think that an engineer should get the same as a person who works, you know, whatever, fill in the blank, some typical female job.
But like when it comes to science and engineering and a lot of those STEM sort of subjects, men sort of gravitate towards them.
Men gravitate towards riskier jobs.
Men are more likely to die on the job.
Men choose different paths because of testosterone and their gender.
And to deny that seems kind of silly.
But so when they start talking about this gender gap, which everybody throws around all willy-nilly with no research whatsoever, they really believe that you're talking about two lawyers working in the same firm side by side.
How many times have you been in a conversation with somebody who believed in the 79-cent figure, and then you explained it to them, and they said, oh, no, I don't think that's the case.
Then you showed them a link.
You proved it beyond any doubt, and it still didn't change their minds.
Well, they won't accept the fact they could have been wrong about something because they've attached their identity to being correct.
Right.
It's a huge problem with anything gender related.
The gender thing is that the idea is that women have been suppressed and they have for sure.
I mean, women didn't get the right to vote until the 20th century.
Right.
That's kind of crazy.
You know, I mean, we went through a long time in this country where women couldn't even vote.
So absolutely.
They've been suppressed.
And absolutely.
There's a lot of things that brought them out of that.
First of all, birth control, like the ability to choose whether or not they're going to be pregnant.
The laws changing, discrimination laws changing, people's perceptions of what women are changing.
All those things are absolutely real.
You can't lie about numbers.
As soon as you bullshit people, then they have reason to disbelieve you about everything.
So if you start bullshitting about the wage gap, and this is not saying that it's not more difficult to be a woman.
I think it is.
I think it's more difficult because I think men are pieces of shit.
I think there's a lot of violent, dangerous, creepy men that probably want to rape you.
And I would hate to be a woman in that sort of a scenario.
So I'm not denying that it's probably more difficult in our society because of a lot of shitty men It's more difficult to be a woman.
But you can't lie about numbers.
As soon as you start pretending that women get paid less for the same job across the board, you ruin the whole argument because now we're not dealing in reality.
Now we're doing the same thing where we're not looking at Caitlyn Jenner as a human.
We're looking at it as a gender identity hero.
What about as a human?
We're supposed to celebrate someone or not as a human being, as a total package.
We're not doing that.
We're treating the whole subject with blinders because it pertains to gender.
But, you know, there's a broad spectrum of people in the world, right?
When you're talking about people that you respect, your peers, colleagues, fellow cartoonists, I mean, are you talking about them or are you talking about...
Because I think it, like we were talking about with the Hillary Clinton thing about lying about Russia, as soon as you lie about that, as soon as you lie about something, well, I'm going, what the fuck?
You know, when you see, I'm sure you've seen it, the director Comey video where it compares what Comey said versus what Hillary is saying he said.
Like, this is a crazy moment where you're seeing this because it didn't exist until recently where you had this YouTube phenomenon where you can watch and get millions of hits on these videos where it shows the reality versus what you're saying.
And as soon as you throw a non-reality into it, I know that you're dealing with it from a team perspective.
Like, you're just trying...
To manipulate whatever the facts are or whatever the argument is to get your team in.
You don't really care what's true.
Women get paid less, period, you fucking piece of shit.
I think there was one movie that's well known in the history that this one movie, I don't know what it was, showed somebody using a watch to hypnotize and then it just became a thing.
But it was never a thing within the hypnotist world.
Was there ever a moment during this whole campaign where, you know, it was getting really crazy and people were angry about so many different things?
Like, how about when all those women came out en masse, right?
There was this, en masse?
How do you say that?
En masse?
There was that one time where all these women were coming out saying, Donald Trump tried to grab my tits and Donald Trump, and some of them were, like, pretty innocuous.
But it was all together, like a coordinated effort.
Was there ever a moment where you're like, what the fuck did I do?
But was there ever a time where you thought, I should probably make a moral distinction because I'm getting caught up You get caught up in this wave of angry alt-white people and their misogyny and racism and all the- I mean, the worst aspects, right?
The 2% that we already discussed.
And you get caught up in this association game that people are doing when they have this us versus them little battle going on.
Not in those words, but I'm fortunately in a situation where I have what I call fuck you money, and I can kind of take some risks that you wouldn't take earlier in your career.
And one of them is the risk to say whatever I think is useful and necessary and I want to say.
And so that is a huge risk to be associated with anybody unpleasant.
But at the same time, I self-identify with being ultra-liberal.
Like, liberal people seem a little too conservative for me.
Like, you could always write in a presidential candidate if you want to do that, but, like, voting on things like legalizing marijuana, things that are really important, I mean, that's...
You notice I go right to that.
Forget, fuck the death penalty.
But there's a lot of important issues you could vote on, right?
It won by a landslide, but I thought it was important.
I felt like if I was going to vote, I mean, the voting for freedom, wherever it is, wherever it's possible, especially freedom, you're not hurting anybody, and you're removing the possibility of being locked up for something that's not hurting anybody.
Across the board, whether it's pot or whether it's wearing dresses, I'm for that.
I would be just as enthusiastic about a transgender law.
If someone made it a law where a man couldn't become a woman, and we were fighting against that, I would be as enthusiastic as I am about almost.
Almost.
The pot thing, to me, it's a freedom issue as much as it is anything else.
Because that means in the 49 other states, you leave open the possibility that people are going to be locked up in jail for non-violent crimes that don't hurt anyone.
It's not optimal, and the consequences are too grave.
You're taking away people's freedom.
So to me, it becomes primarily a freedom issue, the same way it would be if men wanted to wear dresses, or if women wanted to wear combat boots, and all of a sudden we said, we can't have that anymore.
And it was like the future, not a long time, five or ten years.
And it can do everything from tell you when you should take a sip of water because you're dehydrated and knows what kind of food you should eat and when.
It knows when you should sleep and it tells you how.
In the beginning, you're going to say, oh, good suggestion.
I'll either do that or not.
But eventually, you're going to see that their suggestion is better than whatever the hell you would have done on your own.
And you're just going to start following the app.
And eventually, that app is going to be completely controlling your life while you have the sensation that you're deciding.
When you have less stuff to talk about or think about, you know, and as soon as you get in your car and your car drives itself, well, now I don't have to think about that anymore, you know?
I think of only the people who are non-citizens coming into the country.
Which raises, you know, every kind of Nazi concentration camp alarm and should.
But do you think we don't already have that list?
Good question.
Don't you think that somewhere in our big data, which they can't tell the citizens, and in fact they can't even tell the politicians, because there are probably only a few people who know – probably a few people in the government who know what we know about citizens.
But the idea that there's anybody coming into the country, and we don't have a really good idea of where they are at any time.
I mean, if they have back doors into everything from the credit card processing companies to all the other big cell phone companies, they have a working profile on everybody if they want to.
In other words, they have to push the button to run the program.
But if they wanted to know your religion, they wouldn't need to have you fill it out on a form because they could check your credit card and say, hey, he buys gas next to the synagogue or the mosque or whatever, and his friends are these because they do the same things at the same time.
Well, it was both that and complete arrogance and not having an alarm system on, not having more than one person guarding the lawn, not having more than one person at the door, having a woman at the door by herself with this fucking...
Giant soldier comes running through and knocks her to the ground and runs around the White House.
Like, we've only tested the bomb and we've tested the missile, but we haven't tested the missile on the bomb and the chain of command and who puts the codes in.
So the explanation was the woman who I guess was the hostess says, oh yeah, it does mean those other things, but we've sort of, you know, cutely just generalized it to whatever we're doing.
I didn't look into the explanation, because to me, it's one of those things that I don't want to know any further, because it's too fun to think these wacky fucks are out there jizzing in a bucket of blood and drinking it and throwing it on themselves.
This is totally unrelated, but did you see the real sports from this week with the Bikram yoga guy?
Did you see Brian Gumbel?
Thank you.
He did this Real Sports, you know, one of his episodes, he had this woman go and investigate Bikram Chudnoy, I think his name is.
He's the guy that's the lead of Bikram Yoga.
And apparently, like, he's...
Allegedly banged a bunch of chicks that work there and you know sexually harassed him allegedly allegedly allegedly keep saying that um But he was they were saying he was like why would I do that when women will pay one dollar for one drop of my sperm?
He was saying he was saying they pay yeah He was saying there's thousands of women signing up to fuck him and that four of them committed suicide because he wouldn't fuck them and that people are willing to pay a million dollars for a drop of his sperm Well, they're out there, folks.
But I think within the next four years, by the time Trump is on a second term, if he decides to run again and if he wins, right?
Which would be crazy, right?
Two-term Trump.
Whoo!
That's a shirt.
I see it.
I see a bumper sticker now.
Two-term Trump.
Two-term Trump!
Two-term Trump!
Look, if you guys start chanting that shit, I want credit.
Okay?
I came up with it.
But I really could see that by that time, it would be way more difficult to just...
First of all, we're going to have to acknowledge that you can't just edit little pieces of someone's life and make some sort of an absolute definitive statement on who they are based on out-of-context statements and things.
And also this idea that something you did in 2001 is somehow...
It defines you in 2016, that you're the same person.
I just think we have a completely unrealistic expectation as far as someone who would put it...
Like JFK, right?
Perfect example that everyone always uses.
If he was running today, he'd be picked apart.
Clinton, another perfect example.
If you look at him on paper, as far as policy, take out the Monica Lewinsky scandal and just look at, like, what he's done, what the economy was like during his time, and make your arguments plus or minus that he, you know, how much of it was because of him, how much of it was he was in a lucky spot as far as being a president, right?
There's those arguments.
But you look at him like that, and you go, well, oh, there's this guy who was a great guy.
But then either Jennifer Flowers and Apollo Jones and this and that and all these different...
Then you have a totally different idea of who this guy really is.
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, right?
Yeah, and the technology for forming opinions that are incorrect about your opponent is just better than it's ever been.
Because now they can test that stuff in real time.
They can put down several ads, see who clicks on what.
Test the persuasion.
So the best persuader of 25 years ago was an amateur compared to the best persuader in 2016. I wonder about that because I think that JFK was a fucking magnificent persuader.
Well, he had an incredible speech about secret societies and the importance of not having secret societies in government.
And it was really like, to this day, it's one of those ones that conspiracy theorists love to bring out and go, this is why they killed him, bro.
This is why they killed him.
Because, I mean, it may very well be that.
But, you know, he was talking about the importance of transparency amongst the government and amongst the people and how dangerous it is to hide secrets and have secret societies.
And it's incredibly brilliant and it's amazing because you couldn't imagine a president saying that today.
It's like, do you remember, I believe it was Eisenhower that had the speech about the military industrial complex before he left office?
Yeah, it was Eisenhower.
It's an amazing speech, but it was a speech that he gave one night that no one ever saw again until the internet came around.
Like, it wasn't something you were played in school.
It wasn't something you were even aware about, probably, until YouTube came along.
And then you watch that thing on YouTube where Eisenhower's saying, we must be fearful of the military-industrial complex.
You know, he was basically saying, there's a whole machine that wants to go to war, and they're looking for excuses to go to war.
And he named it.
You know, he called it this thing.
You would never fucking see that today.
You would never see that.
What Kennedy did and what Eisenhower did, it's almost like they've buttoned down those holes.
They found out where those issues were in the difference in what the people that are actually running the government want.
To direct and to project versus these mouthpieces, these guys like Eisenhower or Kennedy.
Yeah, there's two completely different views of reality.
Also, I've gone to some liberal sites, websites that are urging people to contact the Electoral College and block Trump's rise to power.
Like, what?
Is that even possible?
And how, isn't that anti-democratic?
Like, to have a few people contact the Electoral College, which is like, you're talking about, like, the representatives.
Like, every state picks a representative, that representative is supposed to represent the state.
They almost always do.
But they have this sort of weird hidden power where they could kind of change the, like, if California voted for Clinton, but they said, fuck that, Trump!
Like, if someone actually did decide to do that, some crazy delegate.
Or is it that the people that are willing to take that $35 an hour, they hated Trump anyway, and this gives them an excuse to make some cash while they're hating Trump?
What is this here?
No, someone wasn't paid $3,500 to protest Donald Trump.
It's fake news.
Created by Paul Horner, who posts fake news in a variety of websites.
Oh, how dare you?
He took credit for the fake news.
Well, that makes sense.
His followers don't fact check anything.
They'll post everything and believe anything, Horner said.
Referring to then-Trump campaign manager Corey Lindowski.
Horner said his campaign manager posted my story about a protest getting paid $3,500 as a fact.
He has some stuff that I tweeted the other day that Rachel Maddow was highlighting that he was saying that instead of giving money to AIDS research, you should give money to educate gay people about the risks of their behavior.
Well, I think it's step one in this complete and total assimilation.
I think losing privacy, I agree with you 100%.
I think it's inevitable.
Whether it's 30 years from now or 50 years from now, I think essentially everything you do from then on is going to...
I think there's going to come some form of technology that is a leap very much like the Internet is this crazy leap, right?
The Internet provides us with this instantaneous access to all the answers to all the questions you've ever had, which is just unprecedented in history.
There's never been a time where you say, Well, what did happen on the Native American Trail of Tears?
Why is it called that?
You can just fucking open your phone and sit down for a few hours, and then I came back to you.
Well, what do you got for me, Scott?
You could tell me exactly what the fuck went down.
This is unprecedented stuff.
I think in that leap, which I think we're in the middle of, so it seems like it's not as big of a deal as it really is, there's going to be another leap that's even more spectacular than that.
And that leap is going to integrate all of our minds together.
It's going to integrate our memories.
It's going to integrate our ability to communicate.
And we literally are going to become a technologically created hive mind.
Yeah, and of the thousands of people who are live at that moment, and it's the live part that's interesting, because, you know, the Internet is kind of like one person's alive and the other's, you know, looking, it's just data on the other side.
But when it's live people who are contributing to a thought and you're watching a forum in real time on Periscope, it is like a new intelligence has been created by this technology that's temporal.
You know, as soon as I turn it off, it turns off.
But it is a large frickin' mind that multiplies whatever I have going on by the power of all the people watching.
The reason why I ask is because we did something similar yesterday.
We have this TriCaster that runs the video stream on YouTube, that multicolored keyboard lit up Christmas light looking thing.
That fucking thing has crashed two days in a row on us in the middle of broadcast where it never crashed before.
Now Jamie updated all the software and we're hoping it doesn't do it again and this show has been fine.
But I said, well, if anybody knows a better solution, please let us know.
And so...
The comments were just filled on Instagram with all these, like, really good solutions.
And a few of them, a few of the machines look pretty badass.
So, I mean, who knows what's...
You know, we'll have to research to find out what's the best.
But that...
When have you ever been able to do that before?
And, you know, some...
There's a bunch of dumb answers.
But somewhere in there is probably the right answer.
You know, and some person who's an expert.
Like if somebody had a question and it was on an Instagram forum or an Instagram picture and it had something to do with being a cartoonist, well, who better to ask than the guy who created Dilbert?
You would be able to answer and give your expert opinion on how this works or that works?
I think also our government is going to run that way, at least if Trump is a transparent sort of public president like I think he will be.
I think there's going to be a lot of policies that get created in this sort of collective brain that is Trump leading the discussion and the entire public weighing in through social media and.
you know, mainstream media and every other way.
I think he can do that and probably will.
And it's going to be like this thrilling experience of watching good thoughts turn into better thoughts.
Boy, that is the rose-colored glasses view of the Trump presidency if I've ever heard one.
That would be the best case scenario.
And also that he wants now that he's in office, once he's no longer in contention, now he's the president.
So now he's not fighting with anybody the same way anymore.
What people are worried about is people that write things about him.
Like if people write poor reviews of his presidency, they're going to be attacked.
They're worried about getting sued.
They're worried about being targeted.
They're worried about the fact that he's in control of the NSA and he can hire some Edward Snowden type character to fuck up your life if you write an article about him for the Wall Street Journal or something.
Well, there's a different thing, though, once you're the president versus once you're just some billionaire, you know, Real estate tycoon because there was there was one guy that was writing about it where he had been sued by Trump and When because he wrote an article and when they started examining the actual data it got like pretty ugly pretty quick and then they abandoned the lawsuit and This guy Trump wound up getting him a seat for the fights Like,
he got him a ticket, and I think he flew him out to Atlantic City and maybe someone with him as well for the fights, and that became like an issue.
Well, just, you know, that he's just a master manipulator.
Like, in the middle of this, he has this lawsuit thing with this guy, you know, and the guy calls him a shithead or whatever he called him and writes this article about him.
Trump gets him tickets to some fight, sues him, Loses in court, you know, or loses the, you know, when they're going through all the data.
Look, it says, Joe, then I said, Hillary, now you and Monica have something else in common.
You blew it.
And then Obama, and he's laughing, throwing his head back laughing, and Obama's looking at him with his eyebrows raised, and it says, you know she kills people, right?
That kid that got shot outside of his apartment at 4 o'clock in the morning, where they didn't take his cell phone, they didn't take his wallet, they didn't take his money, and he, according to WikiLeaks, is the one that leaked all those documents about the DNC and the DNC favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
Who knows what else that guy knew, if that was the guy, if that is the case.
All right, so I don't want to drone him because I think he's done a great service.
I love buts.
But from the context of a government looking at this situation, if government secrets have been stolen and it's your job to make sure this doesn't happen and to get justice, that's actually kind of a fair question.
Very irrational to think that way and very impulsive to say that out loud because you're dealing with the dissolving of a nation.
Libya is in complete total turmoil and has become a breeding ground for ISIS. And a lot of that can be attributed to it being completely destabilized by the United States Helping out all the people that wound up killing Gaddafi it doesn't mean Gaddafi wasn't a huge piece of shit and the world isn't better because he's dead Probably is but Libya is not better right now like Libya became completely unstable after that so that He came we came we saw he died ha ha ha ha ha That's
like laughing in the face of these poor unfortunate people who just got a shit roll of the dice and grew up in Libya and now they're stuck there and they're And you're right.
But I've seen it, you know, I have as well I've seen it many many many times because I'm in the head trauma business in a lot of ways because of my experience with the UFC But I know people that have been hit in the head outside of the UFC and have never been the same That is one of the the things that I've always said about Sam Kinison Sam Kinison had a great book written about him by his brother.
It's called my brother Sam Or Brother Sam.
It's a great book, especially for me.
I'm a huge Kinison fan.
But he basically says, Sam was one person, and then he got hit by a truck when he was a little kid and became a completely different person.
Became reckless and wild, and it came out of a head injury.
Yeah, especially if you're saying that this same day is maybe that's amazing why she's giddy, but if that is the case Well, why don't you?
Find out because this is just one this is 1 million 542,000 CBS News interview with Hillary Clinton There it goes laughed about killing Gaddafi go to that that's for 2016 and let's see when it says it says flashback Maybe it was like right after and she was so giddy, but if that's the case This is a link to that video I just pulled up.
Okay.
But what does it say in that article?
In that article that you're reading before you click on it?
You know, I was saying that no matter how much she drinks, if she is a social drinker, and you know people who are just social drinkers who've had two drinks, let's say, you don't want them driving.
So why isn't that disqualifying for somebody who's going to be in control of the nuclear arsenal, who admits, yes, I'm a social drinker?
Now, in the past, you never had to ask that question, because it was two social drinkers running against each other, so you were going to get a social drinker no matter who got elected.
I thought when this whole thing started developing, the Trump candidacy, that it would open a crack in the universe where I could talk about this persuasion stuff and be believed.
And in order to be believed, my technique for that was last year I predicted so that when the day came when I was right, I would have enough credibility to say, okay, so the other things I said, maybe you should pay attention to them too.
So it was sort of a long game I was playing for credibility, and I thought that persuasion would be the most important variable.
It's certainly a huge variable in this world, as is what we discussed earlier, the ability to speak publicly with confidence.
Not just persuasion, but just to not look rattled.
You know, even if you're not persuaded, like, he's not getting defeated, even when he's losing.
And I would see, like, these debates, and I would say, well, she made some salient points, she seemed more articulate, she seemed smoother with her words, she seemed more stately, but he never felt like he lost.
One of my great moments when I started to understand the world better is the first time I smoked pot in college, and for most of my college experience, I found this weird pattern that people were nicer to me if I had just gotten high.
And it was years before I realized that I was causing them to be nice.
Well, definitely we control how people react to us based on what kind of...
And I've given off the wrong energy before and you see it in people and you're like, ah, fuck.
Maybe you're too caught up in what you're doing, you don't want to be bothered, or whatever it is.
We've all been there before, and then we've all been on the opposite, where maybe someone's like, this guy's a dick, and you're like, really?
I just had a wonderful, pleasant conversation with him.
Because you interfaced with him in the perfect way, at the right time, with respect, and the guy lowered his guard and gave a little back to you, and you gave more to him, and then everybody's good.
I think we've all experienced both of those things.
And I think that's one of the problems with one-person accounts of any bad thing that went on.
And I've looked at some of this Trump stuff, and I'm like, man, what really did happen?
What really did happen with the Clinton accusations?
What was really going down between these two people?
Because one of them is talking about it, and the other one isn't, and we don't know what the fuck the answer is.
And I think that that's often the case.
It's like the actual reaction that people have, they want to think that the other person was being a dick, but maybe you were being something negative, too, and they reacted to that, and then it compounded.
But maybe if Scott Adams was talking to the guy and used the exact same words, none of the disagreement would have taken place in the first place.
Well, we are more than one thing, and when human beings are interacting with each other, it's almost like we're putting on a combined effort, and we're piecing together a conversation, and this conversation is a joint effort.
It's like we're both contributing to it, and it might come out terrible, but it might not be your fault.
It might be 100% my fault, or it might be 100% your fault.
But the way it comes out is because the two of us together didn't sync up.
But it might be the way this person talked to you.
They might have started out right off the bat trying to joke around and said something rude or said something they thought was funny and you didn't or caught you at a bad time or...
Well, I also got to think that being the president has got to be...
I mean, you want to look at yourself the way the world looks at you, the harshness of the view of the people on the outside looking in.
There's no better way than to be the president.
I mean, he's got people walking down Wilshire, blocking traffic, screaming they fucking hate him.
If anything's going to cause you a narcissist, clearly, obviously, the guy has a great love for himself, which is part of his success, part of why he puts his name on the buildings.
He has a great love for himself.
That takes a hit when you see thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands, in fact, wandering down the street with signs saying they hate you.
But you're talking about a guy that if someone tweets something negative about it, he's got to tweet back.
You're talking about a guy, if somebody writes an article about him in the Wall Street Journal, he'll go on his Twitter page and call that magazine or that newspaper a piece of shit.
The failed New York Times still won't stop lying about me.
This is not a guy who's immune to the impact of criticism against him.
So if that criticism is coming in the form of hundreds of thousands of people protesting, the idea that he's going to suddenly become enlightened enough to ignore that totally...
I think what he said is kind of interesting because I think what he did say is that it's great that they have these rights to protest and he likes the fact that they're all getting together and voice their opinion, but we're all going to work this out together.
You make a very convincing argument for this all being a positive event.
And I think one of the best arguments for it being a positive event is this is the first time ever we've had someone who has no political background or aspirations, and they're already famous and successful, and they become the president.
So we're going to get to see.
And there's a guy who wants to dismantle a system.
Like one of the things he said about passing bills, when you pass a new bill, you've got to get rid of two old ones.
His opinion is that we don't need to actively work on climate change.
Rather, he would rather work actively on cleaning the air and the water.
And I think he thinks that gets us to the same place.
And it might.
Here's my argument.
I believe, and again, I'm going to speculate a little bit here, so I don't want to put too many words into the president's mouth, but I think that he's separating the data collection part of the science, which is you've measured things, and sure enough, temperatures seem to be changing in historically significant ways, and sure enough, humans seem to be behind some part of that change.
I think Trump accepts that.
The second part of it is not the data collection.
It's the complicated models that predict what happens with all this data.
I think that Trump thinks that those models are unreliable and not credible and probably bullshit, just like he thought the polls were inaccurate.
Remember, you just watched him defy every expert in the world.
100% of pollsters said, no, Donald Trump, look at our numbers.
This could not be more clear.
It's independent people.
These are legitimate professionals.
There's no freaking way that you win with these numbers.
I think that here's where the analogy to the polling is similar.
We all thought the polling was reliable because it's sort of math and the science seems to work.
What you realize later is that there was a whole bunch of judgment that went into which variable to include and, you know, assumptions about who's going to show up on polling day.
And nobody could have any good idea what was going to happen.
So the most important part of the models was literally just people sitting in the room saying, I don't know, I think it'll be like last time.
I think that it seems likely, and again, this would be subject to smarter people correcting me, and I could easily be corrected on this.
I think that when you have big, complicated models and lots of people working on it, there are probably places in which people are using judgment.
For example, and this would just be a, you know, just to make the point, there may be two sets of data And you could say, well, this one seems more reliable than that one because of whatever.
So I would think that probably different scientists could get wildly different projections, and all of them tapping the same source of data, just like the pollsters got the wrong answers, but they're all looking at the same data.
I see what you're saying, kind of, but I really don't see the connection between that and the polls, because everybody knows the polls is based on a very small group of people, whereas the vast majority of the population is largely uncounted.
Like, we really weren't, we were guessing and gauging their opinion.
I'm agreeing with you that the data collection is probably pretty solid because there isn't enough So the interpretation of the data is what you're disagreeing with?
By the time you put it into an economic model, there's almost certainly a judgment call that somebody doesn't think is a judgment call.
That's almost guaranteed to be part of the model-building procedure.
Now, I would love for somebody to educate me on this, because I've never talked to somebody whose job it is to build a climate model.
Like, I'd love to sit in a room and say, is there any part of this Where two people who are both experts could have picked a different variable.
And I'm almost certain that's the case because it's a lot of variables and it's complicated and it's always going to be the case.
Right, but when you have a mass consensus when it comes to scientists, you're not talking about politicians, you're not talking about CNN versus Fox News, you're talking about scientists, right?
We have a vast consensus that believe that we have a real issue with our carbon footprint and that we really need to slow down the amount of pollutants and the particulates that we put into the air.
Because I knew, and this is what happened, the cost of solar cells dropped so quickly that if I had simply waited three years and bought it then, I would have only lost three years of savings.
What I would have gotten at such a lower price that I would pay it back much faster, and then it'd be gravy from there on.
If you only wanted to look at it that way, if you didn't take into consideration the variable of you affecting the carbon footprint of the Earth by gathering up your electricity for three years due to conventional means.
Chances are, and again, you might not want to take this risk.
I'm not even saying you should.
But chances are, if you waited five or ten years and then got serious about it, you'd probably be in a better position because we'd have better technology.
And starting from that point, we'd just be in a better place.
Now, I'm not saying we should do that.
I'm just saying that you can't know that starting now is the smart thing.
Because like my solar panels, the technology is changing so fast that waiting a little bit until you really can get some purchase with some good technology and just go balls to the wall and say, all right, fucking $500 billion we're going to spend now because we got the solution.
It totally makes sense that if we can clean air in your house, like, you know, we have that right behind you right there for when people smoke cigarettes.
We have that air filter.
It's pretty powerful.
Like, someone can sit in your seat and smoke a cigarette, and this room will be bearable.
So the point is, if you started now and spent $500 billion, you might get a billion dollars worth of benefit because you don't have the right technology.
If you waited...
If you had the right technology and then put your effort into it, you might get it for cheap.
That would be really fascinating if we figured out a way someday to get to a zero-emission state, you know, where everything we use gets recycled, we keep the air pure, and we just figured out a way to be completely efficient.
And how we burn things, or how we make things, or how we recycle things, and that we all...
I mean, it just seems like...
I think what you're saying economically.
If it becomes economically feasible, it becomes like this big financial boom in taking whatever the particulates and the carbon or whatever it is out of the atmosphere, and you make mass amounts of money from doing that.
People figure out a way to get really rich doing it.