All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
57:51
Episode 342 Scott Adams: Flynn, The Wence, Trump Charity, Sargon and Patreon, Climate
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Annemarie, hello.
Get on in here.
Nice of you to join.
And the rest of you, where are you?
Jeremy, okay, you're in there.
Getting in there quickly.
Oh, I love it when the first few people are insulting my looks.
It is Amazing to see all of you.
You're some of my favorite people in the world.
Did you know that? Yes, you are.
And now it's time to demonstrate that with a simultaneous sip.
Grab your mug, your cup, your coffee, your stein, your chalice, and bring it to your lips.
It's time for the simultaneous sip.
So I watched a YouTube video the other day of a climate debate.
So it was a debate between Michael Mann, who is the author of the famous hockey stick graph that shows temperatures going up steeply with CO2, and Judith Curry was there on the other side, and there were two other people, one on each side.
And because I had said that I've never seen a debate with the skeptics and the climate alarmists in the same place, somebody pointed me to that fairly recent video.
I think it was the last few months.
And I thought to myself, well, this will be good.
This is the first time I will see the skeptics and the climate scientists on the same stage, and they'll talk about what they disagree with each other, and man, I'm going to really move ahead.
And then I saw the format.
So the format was, they each get a few minutes to talk.
And that's it.
And then there were a few questions that were sort of off point.
But here's the big takeaway.
The primary claim of Michael Mann is that the temperature is not just going up, but going up at a super fast rate that coincides exactly, he would say, with CO2 created by humans.
So the central claim is not that it's getting warmer.
That's not the claim.
The claim is that the rate of warming has increased.
So Michael Mann gets up there.
He has his five minutes. He shows his graphs and he says the world is getting warmer and it matches CO2. And then he says the odds of this graph, the actual heat matching the CO2 rise, the odds of that being a coincidence are astronomically small.
Therefore it must be meaningful.
And then the skeptics get up.
And they don't talk about the central claim of climate science.
The skeptics don't even mention the central claim.
And I thought to myself, what the hell?
How could they completely ignore the central claim that the rate is going up fast and there's no other explanation?
Now, I'm not going to say I'm siding with the climate alarmists because I'm not a scientist.
How would I know? But I'm a little bit worried when the skeptics ignore the central claim.
You know, they talked about, you know, it doesn't look like it's getting so warm and some other stuff.
They were actually really good points.
Now, there's sort of a related point here, which is...
Yeah, the related point is that both sides were persuasive.
So when you listen to Michael Mann before any of the skeptics have talked, you look at that and you say, man, that looks totally persuasive.
Totally. And then the skeptics talk, Judith Curry talks, and I listen to that and I think...
That is completely persuasive.
And it really was.
So both the pro and the anti sides are completely persuasive.
But the way that they stay that way is they don't talk about the arguments of the other.
The only way that those two sides can remain persuasive is by ignoring the argument on the other side.
And until I saw it myself, I didn't think that was true.
That somebody would say, A is true, and then the skeptics would say, no, let's talk about A. A is not true, and here are my reasons.
And then the scientist would say, well, your reasons are outdated, or we have a reason, we don't think your reasons are true.
That would look like a debate.
What I saw was definitely not a debate.
It was two people talking about whatever they wanted to talk about, sort of never really connecting.
Now the best argument that I've heard for why the skeptics do not address the rate of change, Michael Mann's central claim, not addressed, is that when you look at the historical record, we don't have the fine detail to know if it ever did that before.
So I'm kind of open to that argument, but it wasn't made by any of the skeptics on the stage.
Instead, one of the most persuasive skeptics was the guy who had been a founder of Greenpeace who's turned into a climate skeptic.
And he points out through the historical record that CO2 and temperature have been moving in a non-aligned way for eons, and therefore it's not the lever that's moving the world.
It's a very persuasive argument, except that it doesn't address the primary claim of climate science, that the rate is high.
So that's all I'm going to say about that.
I will say again that what is needed is an actual debate about climate science.
If it's the biggest problem in the world, talk me into it, please.
Please convince me it's really the biggest problem in the world by being on the same stage and interacting with somebody who will disagree with you, because those people exist.
People saying it's not the biggest thing in the world.
Let me suggest, if you think you have a settled opinion on climate change, what would that be based on, given that nobody's ever debated it, as far as I can tell?
At least in public.
So from the perspective of the public, you and I, you and I have never seen this debated.
You have never seen this debated.
You've only seen people talking.
Completely different. So until it's debated, I'm going to say I don't think you should have a firm opinion on any of this.
Now, yeah, so there's the separate question of whether the worst-case scenario is a big deal, and the evidence we have suggests it's not, even the worst-case scenario.
And that has been debated, by the way.
So I would say that's a case where Bjorn Lomborg did directly address something specific coming out of the climate science world, specifically the economic part of it.
So he said, you're saying this about the economics, I'm talking about exactly your point, and I'm showing you how you've exaggerated its importance.
Is what a debate looks like.
But what's missing is where do the climate people get to address what Bjorn Lomborg said.
It's not quite a debate until you get a little counterpoint going on, right?
Saying something and then hearing somebody's objection to it gets you halfway there.
Then you have to hear the original person's objection to the objection.
Like a court. Separately, it seems that there's a project that Bill Gates is funding through Harvard, I guess, in which they're going to put some kind of particles in the air with a big blimp.
They're going to launch a blimp and seed the atmosphere with some particles that are similar to what volcanoes spew to see if it will cool the world.
Now, as you might imagine, There are people saying, my God, my God, don't do that, because if you do that, if you do that, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, you might over-cool the world, etc. Well, maybe, maybe, but here's what seems far more likely.
What seems far more likely is that since Bill Gates and Harvard are behind it, there are smart people doing this.
And there's probably little to no risk of putting some of that stuff into the air to just see if it works.
So I would not object to a test, if it's possible to test it, where they could do a little bit of a test in, let's say, one county.
And then maybe it only lasts for a month.
Because, you know, they're not going to put that many particles in the air, eventually it dissolves.
So you do one little area, you do it for about a month, you see if it makes any difference.
Just in case!
Because what happens if Let's say 20 years from now.
It's a super critical problem.
It's worse than we thought, etc.
I keep seeing people talk about chemtrails in the comments.
Chemtrails are not real.
That's tinfoil hat time.
There's nothing about chemtrails that's real.
You're just reading down some conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
It's not real. Not real.
So anyway, I'm not so afraid of the Bill Gates test, well, the thing he's funding, because I'm sure that if it's just the same chemistry that a volcano puts in the air, there's lots of it here already.
They can test it small.
What's the main thing I tell you?
If you can test something small, you don't have to ask if it's a good idea.
This apparently can be tested small.
So they are. That's exactly the way you'd want to do it.
This is one of the reasons that I think Bill Gates is one of the most important characters in the history of the planet.
Not just for Microsoft, but because he's bringing a logical, scientific kind of a mindset to charity and to fixing these big problems.
And it's good stuff.
Let's talk about Flynn.
All right, this whole Flynn trial stuff is the sketchiest looking situation you've ever seen in your life.
And the entire conversation uses the word but a lot.
And it goes like this.
General Flynn is a patriot who served the country for 30 years.
But he may have lied to the FBI. But, he may not have known he lied.
But, if he did lie, we don't know why he would do it.
But, that's not really the big problem.
Because the larger crime seemed to be this foreign agent registration thing that he was working for Turkey, the government of Turkey, prior to the election, but right up to it.
So that's bad, right?
But Turkey is actually a NATO ally.
But he should have told somebody.
But the guy he was advocating about probably wasn't anybody who was our friend either.
But he shouldn't have been doing it.
But it was legal-ish.
But if it was illegal...
Had he registered, why didn't they charge him with that?
And so the whole story is all of these buts.
It's like, well, but.
It's terrible, but.
And then you've got the judge.
The judge is apparently a moron.
Now, normally you wouldn't say that about a judge because you'd say, well, maybe he knows something I don't know.
But it's pretty clear that this judge was not prepared for this case.
He didn't even know that Flynn had stopped advocating on behalf of Turkey by election time.
So the most critical point in that whole situation caused the judge to call a defendant Possibly treasonous or a traitor to the country in public on incorrect facts.
Now how in the world do you not get that judge kicked off the case?
Isn't that lawyer 101?
If your judge has accused your client incorrectly of a major traitorous behavior, You kind of have to get rid of that judge, don't you?
And what's up with the three-month delay?
Who needed three months to do what?
Can you tell me there's any good reason for a three-month delay?
What we needed was a one-week delay to get a new judge, because that judge does not have what it takes.
Now, as Mike Curevich I'm sure accurately pointed out on Twitter.
I'm watching the news and all the lawyers and everything, and they act like they're surprised about why it is that Flynn may have pleaded guilty to something he doesn't necessarily think he did, even though he says he did, in court and otherwise.
At the same time, there's this more serious charge, the foreign agent registration thing, about Turkey.
And it seems to me the obvious answer, and the one that Mike surmises as well, is that Flynn worked on a deal with prosecutors, with the government, to plead guilty to the lesser charge.
Now that doesn't necessarily mean he thinks he's guilty or that he wasn't entrapped.
So you have this weird situation where he may have to wait for it, Flynn may have been forced to lie in court by the government as the only way to avoid jail time.
Do you see that?
The government may have created a situation where the only way he can avoid jail is to lie the way they want him to.
Because if he doesn't lie, they've made it pretty clear that they're going to untap this foreign agent registration thing and get him on a far more serious crime.
So the judge was saying, are you sure you want to plead guilty?
Because even the judge, who is apparently a moron, even that moron thinks that maybe Flynn should not have been pleading guilty.
Because they were sort of hinting that he had been entrapped, etc.
So, Flynn is in this weird situation where he's trying to get it both ways.
He wants to plead guilty to the lesser charge, Which is the only way he can get no jail time.
But he also wants that lesser charge not to be necessarily binding.
Wouldn't it be great if they just threw it out?
But if they throw it out, isn't the government going to come after him for the greater charge?
So they can't really throw it out.
He can't really say he didn't lie, because apparently there was some lying going on, even if it just depends.
But we don't know why he would lie.
We're all still confused about that.
So none of this story makes any sense.
So everybody in the story is sketchy.
The judge is sketchy.
We don't have a real understanding of why Flynn was doing what he was doing, but the turkey consulting is problematic.
And the government The government looks pretty sketchy in this deal.
It's like, I'm not sure who to root for anymore.
Everybody looks a little bit dirty in this situation.
That said, if Flynn gets any jail time, I believe he will be pardoned just automatically.
There's a big story today about The Trump charity that got closed down, apparently.
And lots of accusations of irregularities and Trump using it as his personal piggy bank, etc.
I'm not going to defend anything with anybody's charity.
I'm not going to defend the Clinton charity.
I'm not going to defend the Trump charity.
I'm not going to defend anybody's charity.
If rich people have charities, I'm not going to defend that.
If a rich person has a charity and it's anything except their own money, somebody wants something.
And maybe it should just be illegal.
Maybe it should just be illegal to have a charity if you have any influence in the world.
Because it becomes just a way to...
Well, it's just this huge opportunity for all kinds of shenanigans.
So... So I'm watching this Trump charity thing, and I can't judge whether that's a big problem or a small problem.
Is it his problem, or is it somebody else's problem?
Is it whoever ran it?
Is it a civil problem?
Is it a federal problem?
Is it a state problem? I don't know what that is.
I can't wrap my head around how big a problem that is.
But it's out there. Let's talk about...
I'm going to talk about the wall funding in a minute.
Let's talk about Sargon of Akan.
Again. So he's the guy who got kicked off of Patreon, the funding platform, for saying some things.
He used the N-word, but he used it in the sense of insulting people who use the N-word.
So the context was...
I believe his interpretation is he was insulting alt-right racist type people by using the n-word In an ironic way, the way they use the N-word.
And so really it was the opposite of racism, but because he used the language of racism, he was unfairly kicked off the platform.
Something like that? I think that's close to what happened.
And here's why I was trying to figure out why I'm not quite on board with the free speech part of this.
And I think it comes down to this.
And you've heard me say this a lot, that you are not what you think.
So your inner thoughts are not who you are.
Who you are in this world is what you do.
So your actions are what define you.
And if your actions are bad, but your intentions are good, you're still the actions.
If your actions are good, but maybe you're evil on the inside, you're still the actions.
You're not the evil on the inside.
Because if you do the evil, then you're the evil person.
And what Sargon did was he used the N-word a number of times in public, in an insulting fashion.
Now, again, the technical reason he used it had to do with his inner thoughts.
So his inner thoughts seemed to be allegedly pure, meaning that he was against racism.
Everybody's happy about that, right?
But those were his inner thoughts.
We're not judging him on his inner thoughts.
He's being judged for doing something, for actions.
In other words, the things he said.
Using the N-word, Anybody should have known would get you kicked off a platform, no matter what context you use it in.
So if somebody uses the N-word several times as an insult, even if that insult is not directed at a black person, that is sort of hate speech.
The defense that his internal thinking was non-racist Seems to be true, as far as I can tell.
I'm not a mind reader, but let's say it is true.
It kind of doesn't matter.
Because what he did was unambiguously hate speech.
In other words, the words were.
His internal intentions, and even the way you internally processed it, many of you, were not bad.
But it probably doesn't matter.
It's hard to give an analogy of how this would be a good thing, but if you steal food because you're hungry, it's still a crime.
If you steal food because you're hungry, it's still a crime.
He did a bad thing.
In other words, he used words that everybody in society knows are bad words.
And it doesn't matter that his internal process was pure.
So, that's probably why I'm differing with you, because I don't think you can judge him by his internal process.
You can only judge him by what he did, and those are generally universally considered hate words.
So, I've got a little bit of, let's see, I've got disavowal fatigue because I feel like I need to disavow people all the time.
I gotta disavow this person for this.
I gotta disavow people for that.
And I'm a little disavowed out because there's just so much of it.
But in any event, it doesn't matter what his internal thoughts were.
We can't judge him for that.
Let's talk about the wall.
So we're seeing reports in the news, the highly non-credible fake news, that President Trump is backing down on wall funding.
Backing down, they say.
And that he's giving up.
He's surrendering.
He's capitulating.
And it looks like the anti-Trumpers are going to have a good time with that.
But somebody says, come on, LOL. So whoever just said, come on, LOL. Someday they will come after you.
Well, if they come after me, wouldn't they have to come after me for something I did?
Let me put it this way.
If I said what Sargon said, No matter what I meant, would I expect to be kicked off platforms?
And the answer is yes.
I would expect to be kicked off social media platforms if I used the words he said, even if my thoughts were the opposite, even if I was thinking in pure ways.
I would definitely expect to be kicked off.
So, making an analogy between what he did or anybody else did and what might come back to affect me, that's a stretch.
Alright, let's talk about the wall. So, what we don't know about this wall situation is what the President's strategy is.
What the President's strategy is.
Now, if his strategy is to get as much wall as he can and turn it over to the engineers, I would say that he's sort of ahead of the curve in the sense that there was only one way this wall was ever going to happen.
The only way the wall was ever going to happen was if we hand it over to the engineers and the engineers decide how much is wall, how much is fence, how much is other.
That's the only way this ever could have gone.
There was no situation in which the politicians were going to decide every inch of the wall.
So it looks like the president is, if I had to guess, it's just a guess, but it looks like he's prepping to go the only way this ever was going to go.
To kind of climb down for a moment from it's a wall, wall, wall, all I want is a wall, to I'm not an engineer.
Neither is Nancy Pelosi.
So why are the two of us discussing how much is wall and how much is fence?
Because we don't know.
Why don't we let the experts do it?
We'll have a pile of money and we'll try to negotiate something.
Maybe we test a little bit wall.
Maybe we build a little wall, a little fence to see which one works best.
Because it turns out you can't spend $25 billion in one year anyway, so you don't really need to make that decision.
Just make a decision about what you're going to test and then just get on it and then make another decision after you see how that goes.
So I would say we might be very close to something that looks like a creative funding plan for border security That will get you better border security.
Now, it would be interesting to see if the engineers could come up with an estimate such as if you take a section and we put a wall there, or if we put a fence, you should assume that there's probably a different degree of violation of a fence than there would be for a wall.
Fewer people will get over the wall than will get over the fence, if it's a good wall.
And you should be able to measure that.
So you should be able to make an estimate that says, okay, if we have a wall, it stops 90% of the people who try to get through.
If we have a fence, it stops 75% of the people.
Something like that. Something you could measure.
Measure. You could measure it.
And then you could take that further and you could say, all right, with this amount of extra people getting in with a fence, we estimate that 25 legal American citizens will be murdered in the next five years.
So just put your estimates in terms of money and then murder.
So what is the cost-benefit analysis of letting that many extra people get over a fence versus a wall?
And then, you know, do the different costs of a wall versus a fence.
So figure out how many extra people get murdered, you know, on estimates.
Implying that is racist, it is, but it's also based on statistics.
And how much it would cost.
And then agree to build a little of each and measure it.
Measure it. You all say measure wrong.
How can you measure the effectiveness if they can go around a small wall?
Well, You would only put the wall in the places where people have already, for whatever reason, decided it's easy to get there and it's a good place for crossing.
So people might leave there and go to where there are more coyotes, where it's more dangerous, where it's a desert, and if they cross, there's no human facilities for miles and they die in the desert.
So it's not that easy to go around a wall.
If the wall is big enough.
So you would definitely have to pick your parts.
But let's say there is no way to ever know if a fence or a wall works better.
Let's say you put up a little of both and you just can't tell.
Because as somebody said, people just go to other places and you never really know what's happening.
Well, I think that tells you that all you need is a fence.
So you found out everything you needed to know.
Ask the Israelis. Now a lot of people don't know this, and I didn't know this until recently.
Did you know that Israel's wall is actually mostly a fence?
How many of you knew that?
How many of you know that Israel's wall is mostly a fence?
Because the only things you ever see a picture of are the wall, right?
You see pictures of the sections that are walls.
Most of it's offense. So why would we do something different from what Israel did?
Yeah, they have censors, they have blah, blah, blah.
I also heard on, I guess it was Tucker Carlton's show, that where Israel does have a solid wall, I believe, is on the border with Egypt.
And I believe that they've taken down the illegal crossings to basically zero.
So, at least in the case of the Egypt-Israeli wall, the wall worked 100%.
And where they have the longer stretch there, they have a lot of fence and that seems to be working too.
So I don't think we have to wonder if walls and fences work.
Now the other news, which is very damning of course for the president, politically damning, is that the government approved, what, $10.6 billion for Central America and Mexico to build up their economies. $10.6 billion for Central America and Mexico to build up I guess, so that fewer people will want to come here in a caravan.
Well, not just the caravan, but will want to illegally immigrate.
And I think to myself, that is a very inconvenient number for a president who doesn't have a wall.
If you had a wall, You might be able to justify that, because you'd say, well, we got our priorities straight, we got the wall, but we're also working on developing things so they don't want to come across.
That would sound strong, but without the wall, it sounds like we're just giving money to the people who are abusing us, and they're going to come over anyway.
Because I don't know how much money it takes to stop immigration, but I'm feeling like 10.6 billion spread across several countries.
Probably not enough.
Yeah, it feels like a drop in the bucket.
So, the optics of it are horrible for Trump's base, I would think.
Which is different from saying it won't work.
Because I'd like to see an argument for it, but it just doesn't feel like a lot of money.
It doesn't seem like it's...
Clearly it's not the whole solution.
But maybe we're just testing to see if any of it makes a difference.
Sounds like bribes to politicians.
That might be. It might be partly bribes.
The wall is immediate, somebody says.
That's not true. It would take 10 years to build the wall.
At least. Yeah.
So, let me ask you this.
Let's say you're President Trump and you're looking at endless investigations once the new Congress gets in place.
What would you do If you were President Trump and you had nothing to look forward to but endless being picked to death by the other side, I would at least consider resigning.
Yeah, I would consider resigning.
And I mean that seriously, by the way.
So this is not a mental game.
Because here's what would happen.
If he resigned, he would be replaced with Pence, and that would activate sort of a mutually assured destruction, meaning that it would look like a bad idea to force out a president, because you would get something you liked less.
It probably wouldn't hurt Republicans that much, because they'd still get their judges, Right?
So they still get their judges.
And here's the weird part.
President Trump may have already solved all the hard parts.
You know, North Korea is going pretty well.
Probably would keep going that way.
The economy and jobs are looking good.
The stock market, you know, is going to do its thing one way or the other.
But as long as jobs are good, we're probably in pretty good shape.
It might be the best thing for him and for the country is to just resign.
And suppose he doesn't.
Suppose that they just hound him into ineffectiveness, which there's a good chance that that would happen.
What's going to happen to the next Democrat who becomes president?
Is there any doubt that the next president will be hounded out of office?
The only thing that stops people from hounding anybody out of office is that they don't want to.
It's the only thing that stops it.
Because if you have unlimited money to initiate unlimited investigations about anybody who makes it to the presidency, you can pretty much take out any president.
You just have to be willing to do it.
And until now, nobody's been willing to do it.
So we see the Democrats absolutely willing to take out the president.
And I would argue...
That if we don't see some good bipartisan stuff happening in the next few months, and by the way, the prison bill is good.
Looks like the prison bill may be a positive step.
But if all that happens is we're just bombarded with more Cohen-Russia stuff, I don't know.
I'd be tempted to quit.
He would be the most successful president of all time in two years.
And then he wouldn't have to put up with it.
But he'd have to make some kind of a deal for, I don't know, for Pence to pardon him for all actual and future crimes or something.
He will need to do some pardons first.
Yeah, maybe so. Pardon everybody and then leave.
It would be even funnier if he pardoned, I've said this before, the best way that...
That Trump could pardon himself or pardon anybody on his team, is if he thought he had all the pardons that he's ever going to need, is to pardon Hillary Clinton at the same time.
Just pardon her. Because if he throws her in the mix, it's just going to complicate the whole thing.
It would be hard to disagree with it.
Somebody reminded me that apparently there's going to be a ban on bump stocks, and that feels like a fair thing to do.
Bump stocks were not really useful for self-defense.
Bump stocks were not useful for hunting.
They didn't really have much of a value, so might as well get rid of them.
Um... That is no legacy.
We should all keep in mind that we're in the crazy holiday season when all of this legal jeopardy stuff for the president is all we have to talk about because there's not much happening.
So if the only thing we have to talk about is this legal jeopardy stuff, it looks like it's more than it is.
But it could be that when we hit the new Congress, it will be ten times bigger than it is now.
And if that's the case, well, maybe it's just time to quit and give you President Pence.
Mm-mm-mm.
You need another cup of coffee, Scott?
I probably do. You know, there's the thing they say about dogs that chase cars.
You know, what if the dog catches the car?
If the dog catches the car, the dog doesn't know what to do with it.
It's all about the chasing.
If Trump were to resign, I'm not recommending this, by the way.
This is not a recommendation. But if he were to resign, what would the Democrats do?
They would have effectively ruined the government by forcing a president out of office over bullshit.
They would have effectively ruined the government of the United States.
They would have to live with that. But they would also have to figure out how to govern.
And Trump would be leaving them with the biggest federal debt, the biggest federal deficit and debt in the history of humanity.
Maybe not as a percentage.
He would never resign.
How about this?
What if the president said, if you give me 25 billion for a wall, I'll quit.
He's not going to say that, but wouldn't that be interesting?
Suppose the president said, for $25 billion, if you believe what you're saying, suppose he made this offer, hey Democrats, if you believe what you're saying about me, that all these bad things are my fault, I'm ruining the world, if you believe those things, $25 billion is cheap to get rid of me.
Build the wall, and I'll quit today.
What would they say? Think about it.
Would they take the deal? Because if they don't take the deal, it shows that they don't think he's that much of a problem and it's just political.
If they do take the deal, he gets his wall.
He has the most successful presidency of any president in two years.
In two years, he will have done more than any president.
Pence will keep the momentum going without maybe changing much, because everything's kind of going in the right direction right now.
Maybe get China wrapped up, that sort of thing.
They'll rescind after he's gone.
Yeah, maybe so. How about Trump switch his parties?
No, I don't think so. Scott, you are a leaf?
Somebody says I'm a leaf.
I don't know what that means.
All right. Now, I saw somebody who's trying to raise money to show that the government has brainwashed us all with trigger words, and now we're getting all excited about words.
And we've become emotional robots.
That's all true, except I don't think it's the government planning it.
it.
I think it's just the effect of the business model of the press.
Yeah.
You know, I think the greatest magic trick of the past couple years is that the anti-Trump media has created the problem and then they complain about the problem they created.
Let me put it in some context.
Roughly, I don't know, 15 years ago or so, I wrote a book called The Dilbert of Future.
And in that book, I said that the news media's business model would cause them to kill people, actually murder people, to create news.
So that was my prediction 15 years ago.
The news media would start killing people to create news because it would be good for business.
Now, you could argue that they killed Princess Di because they chased her into a dangerous situation and she died in a car accident.
But look at this situation with Trump.
It seems to me that everything the press is chasing could have just as easily been minimized or largely ignored.
Likewise, obviously the Democrats are behind it.
But the Democrats' power depends entirely on the media.
If the Democrats were just complaining about Trump, no matter what they complained about, and the press ignored them, it just wouldn't mean anything.
They need the press to do the heavy lifting.
And so the press, because of their business model, is effectively assassinating the president in slow motion.
And we're all watching it.
And there's no question about it, is it?
Because I think any objective person who watched CNN, if there is such a thing as an objective person, An objective person, looking at CNN and MSNBC, would say, oh, it's clear that you're just making news about things that your viewers want to watch, and they like Russia porn.
They like Trump legal jeopardy porn.
So they're giving it to him.
The net effect of that is that Trump is essentially assassinated by the media because it's good for business.
So this is what I predicted 15 years ago, that the press would assassinate famous people for news.
And how many times have you seen the news drag somebody out and assassinate them in public, ruining their career in public by talking about whatever thing they said, the outrage that they did, etc.
It's the press.
Yeah, the press is literally taking American citizens out one at a time and assassinating them in front of the other citizens because it's good for business.
Stop saying resigning and assassinating, somebody says.
Why? Because I'm giving people ideas?
In my view, there's no real chance that President Trump will resign.
The odds of that are really, really small.
As far as I can tell, he's not in any serious legal jeopardy.
It's just what the news is talking about.
But they are ruining him.
And they're trying as hard as they can to assassinate him.
And they're trying to take out his family.
And if Pence becomes president, they'll just take him out.
Because they need to assassinate famous people.
Four ratings. I'm a little surprised they haven't come after me yet.
Are you surprised about that?
Have you noticed that the At least the top level of the news hasn't really come after me.
Bloomberg did. Bloomberg came after me with a hit piece during, was it during the election or after the election?
So I guess Bloomberg has, Salon has, these are, I think Buzzfeed has, Gawker did before they went out of business.
Yeah, there have been quite a few second-tier media companies that have tried to assassinate me with fake news, of course.
But the top-tier has not.
Yeah, Jezebel, the lower-level people.
Why hasn't your press assassination idea picked up?
I don't know. Yeah, Bloomberg interviewed me before the election and then released after the election.
I think that's right. Who made that photo of a uniformed Scott?
Yeah. Oh, that's true.
Yeah. Well, do you count Google as the press?
They sort of are, aren't they?
I think you could count Google as the press.
Alright, good point. So Google's image search shows photoshopped pictures of me in a Nazi uniform.
So that would be an example of the media, because Google really is the media.
That would be an example of the media trying to assassinate me.
And in that case, actually, literally death.
So I would say that Google is actually trying to kill me.
At least that's the indication right now.
It could be accidental.
It could be. But since it's been called to their attention and the picture is still up there, the pictures did disappear from the first search page, but they're still in the top 10 on the images page.
But that may be a fake out because since I called attention to it, people are clicking on those images, so it's probably keeping them up there artificially.
So I've said let's wait a little while.
And stop clicking on those pictures, which I guess I have to wait a few more weeks now because I mentioned it again.
Google can't delete it.
they certainly can.
They can do anything they want.
There's a health insurance plan in India.
Send me that link if you have one.
Yeah, the Nazi picture is the...
Well, let me look. I'll look right now while you're here.
I'll do...
Google myself.
Alright, top page. Doesn't have that image.
But if I click images, it is the top image.
Oops. Yeah, so it's the fourth one and it's right on the top.
So, let me ask you this.
And it's right after it says Scott Adams dissecting Donald Trump.
So they make sure that it's clear that I'm associated with Trump and then the picture next to it is me in a Nazi uniform that's been photoshopped on.
Now, Now, don't you think that's trying to literally kill me?
You know, that would be an interesting lawsuit.
I wish I liked lawsuits.
I try to avoid them at all costs.
But isn't it obviously true that Google is putting me in danger of death by branding me a Nazi intentionally, intentionally in the sense that they could stop it but don't, Obviously they know about it by now.
And now I suppose they could argue free speech.
But this is hate speech.
Let me ask you this.
How is this not hate speech?
In what world is branding a white guy as a Nazi not hate speech?
This is absolutely hate speech.
It's hate speech that gets people killed.
In this case it may be me.
And by the way, if I ever get killed, which I think is a pretty high likelihood, I'd put the odds at maybe 30%.
I'd say the odds of me being killed by a citizen for something that was in the fake news before I would die naturally are roughly 30%, I would say.
And it's stuff like this.
So, how does Google get away with hate speech?
You know, I've decided to go harder at this.
I was kind of letting this whole Google trying to kill me situation, I was trying to not let it get to me.
You know, just let it run a little bit, see if it peters out.
But the more I think about it, and the more I look at, let's say, Sargon of Akan being kicked off of Patreon, For hate speech, which I think we agree probably was not what he had in his mind.
He wasn't actually hating on anybody.
In fact, he was the opposite.
But this Google example is unambiguous.
You don't have to wonder if it's hate speech.
Drawing somebody in a Nazi outfit is clearly hate speech.
And Google is running this on their platform.
Now, How does Google get away with racism?
Because that's what it is, right?
When was the last time you saw a woman or a black guy photoshopped into a Nazi outfit?
You don't see that.
It's white adult males.
It's racism. There's no other name for it.
So, let's just call it out.
I'm going to start a new hashtag.
What's a good hashtag?
Racist Google? How about racist Google?
Let's see if that one's on there yet.
I think I'll tweet this out while you're watching.
I'll take a picture of it.
Here, you can be part of history.
We'll make a hashtag right now.
I'm going to tweet out a hashtag.
Racist Google won't take down the photoshopped Image of me in a Nazi uniform.
Why not?
Why not? What's the name of their CEO? Pichet?
How do you pronounce that? Sundar.
There he is. I'll put him in there.
Alright, hashtag racist Google.
Won't take down the photoshopped image of me in Nazi uniform.
Why not? Now, I'm pretty sure people have complained about it, so it's not a question of whether they know about it or not.
So, let me include that.
So people can see the picture.
There we go. Yeah, so I'm including Sundar Pichet.
Is that how you pronounce it?
I don't know how to pronounce it. Racist Google won't take down the photoshopped image of me in Nazi uniform.
Why not?
This marks me for death.
Tweet.
All right.
So why don't you do me a favor and retweet racist Google.
Let's see, where is that tweet?
I want to make sure it got posted.
And by the way, I like to be fair.
When I reported this to Twitter, it was down in less than a day.
So Twitter actually understands what his speech looks like, you know, in this context.
And they did their job.
So I have no complaint with Twitter on this topic.
But Google, it's still there.
Still there. So we've got 11 retweets.
Let's see how big we can make this.
Now, I do think the odds of me being assassinated because of stuff like this are about 30% between now and the time I would have naturally died.
All right.
That's all I have for now.
I'm going to go do something else and let's see if racist Google fixes this hate speech.
▲
Export Selection