Episode 1037 Scott Adams: Talking About Bubba's Garage Door Pull, Free Speech Fighting Back, Facebook Bad Behavior, Biden's Brain
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Some Advice for Bubba Wallace
CarpeDonktum permanent Twitter ban
Matt Gaetz and freedom of speech
DeAnna Lorraine's joke list technique
Stephen Colbert's cog-dis expression
Red Pill list
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I tried to recreate from memory the simultaneous sip preamble.
I think I got most of it right, but we're going to try it in a moment.
I hope you're prepared.
You know what you need.
I think you do. All you need is a cup of mug or a glass, a canteen jug or a flask, a goblet chalice, or a stein, a vessel of any kind.
It's not the same as the usual.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including systemic racism.
It's called The Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. Don't you feel better already?
I know I do.
So let's talk about all the fun news.
Alright? There's lots of it.
Here's a little news bit that you probably completely missed because the news likes to focus on the important stuff such as what is the exact shape of the handle you use on your garage?
Important news like that.
But one of the things you might have missed is that the Trump administration won a big court victory about hospital price transparency.
Meaning that the hospital has to tell you what stuff costs before you go in.
So you can do a little shopping.
Oh, I forgot Tankard.
Yes, Tankard, Chalice, or Stein?
Yeah, I think that's right.
So, put these three things together.
You've got this victory in hospital price transparency.
So the Trump administration is going to allow you to shop better, or at least we hope that's where it's going, shop better for price for hospitals.
That should lower prices over time.
We also saw the change for telehealth, where doctors can practice across state lines.
In theory, if that becomes permanent, and they think it will, There's more chance that it will than it won't.
That should lower the cost of a doctor visit, both for the doctor and for the patient as well.
Now, I think there's something going on also with pharmaceutical costs.
I'm not up on that.
But imagine, if you will, that November comes and Trump can say the following.
We got you telehealth.
We got you Hospital price transparency, and we're doing something on drug pricing.
I don't know what that would be. That's a pretty good story.
That's very different from, I didn't do anything about healthcare.
It's very different.
So, that's good news.
Let's talk about Bubba Wallace, of course.
Of course. So we learned yesterday that the FBI looked into the issue of the noose hanging in African-American driver Bubba Wallace's garage bay.
And the initial story was that some racist put that noose there as a racist sign to the most famous, I think, African-American NASCAR driver.
But here's the thing we just learned.
First of all, the noose had been there for months before any of the garage bays had been assigned.
So the FBI has concluded with certainty that it was not any kind of a racist act against Bubba Wallace.
It is a noose, or at least it's shaped like a noose, but it's the rope that hangs down that you pull the garage door closed with.
So, yeah, it's a noose, but it was put there for a purpose.
Now, I have something to tell my black audience today.
Here's something you might not know about white people.
When we see a noose We don't think race.
When I see a noose, I think of Clint Eastwood and hang him high.
I almost always think of some kind of old western where bad white people are being hung.
So, if you would say, and I think maybe Bubba Wallace might be wondering this, because as he said after he learned that it wasn't directed to him and he agrees, He said, but it's still a noose.
I mean, it's still straight up, it's a noose.
And I would only add to this, that's probably exactly what it was.
Meaning that whoever tied it thought, oh, I could tie it in a variety of ways, I'll tie it in a noose.
But the thing you have to know is that I don't think any white person tying a rope into a noose, it even crosses their mind that there's a Any kind of a racial element to that act.
It just doesn't seem racial.
It literally seems like an old western where old white guys are getting hung.
We just don't connect the dots the way the African American community would.
Now maybe we should.
You know, that's a different question.
I'm just saying we don't.
Have I personally ever tied ropes into nooses?
Yes! Yes I have.
I've spent quite a bit of my time as a young kid, teenager, when I was tying ropes and you'd just be practicing different knots and stuff, and you're a 12-year-old kid, of course you're going to try to make a noose.
Of course I learned how to do it properly.
Because it was just something we saw on TV all the time.
Again, having nothing to do with race, because it was always bad criminal white people or Being hung on TV. So, here's what I'd say.
First of all, Bubba Wallace is completely cleared, in my opinion, from having done anything wrong, or even being wrong.
Because it turns out he never saw the news.
It was reported to him by Steve Phelps, who's the NASCAR president, who came to him crying, and I assume...
I'm just going to assume that the president of NASCAR is a white guy.
So the white guy comes to Bubba and says, I've got to talk to you in person.
And he's the president of NASCAR and he's crying.
He's so disturbed.
Like genuinely disturbed.
And he tells him about this rope that looked like a noose, etc.
So Bubba Wallace never saw it.
He was taking it from somebody who thought he had interpreted it correctly.
So I see nothing in this story which we should hold against Bubba Wallace.
Everybody on board with that?
Bubba Wallace gets a free, absolute free pass because he was acting on what he was told by a very credible source that just turned out to be wrong.
But it was a credible source.
Can't hold it against him for believing a credible source.
You can't hold it against them for buying into, let's say, a narrative that is suggested by current events because you know everybody is thinking in race terms.
It wouldn't be a surprise.
Would you be surprised one bit if some racist somewhere did a racist thing in public or to some public figure?
No. It wouldn't surprise you at all.
Because the temperature of the country has been turned up so much.
So Bubba Wallace, you get an A-plus for having nothing wrong.
You didn't do anything wrong in this case.
In fact, but I'll give him one piece of advice.
The way Bubba seems to be treating this is that he knows he's going to be mocked for a hoax.
Although the hoax was not his doing and certainly not his intention.
But he knows he'll be mocked for it.
And his approach, at least his initial approach, was to act like it doesn't bother him and channel that energy into his competitiveness.
Now that's a good TV answer.
I'm not going to let it bother me.
I'll put it into my sport.
Sounds good. I mean, you like your athletes to say stuff like that.
But let me give him some advice.
This is the way I'd go with this.
I would say, totally my bad.
So that's the first thing you should do.
You should do, you know, it was my bad, even though I had information that led me to this conclusion.
I accept full responsibility.
That's number one.
And then here's what I would recommend if I were advising him for public relations.
I'd say, let's look on the positive side.
Look what happened.
Seriously. Look what happened.
He had immediate, complete support from everybody in NASCAR, and I would say that the country was completely behind him, and I don't think there was much in the way of racial division.
There were lots of people who thought the story was fake from the jump, including me, but we didn't really hold it.
We didn't have a racial opinion about that exactly.
faculty were sort of waiting for the information to come out.
We knew there was something wrong, but it didn't feel necessarily like a racist thing, maybe more like a mistake.
Like the Oakland alleged nooses turned out to be just exercise equipment put there by an African-American man.
So, somebody says he saw a picture of it.
He did see a picture of it eventually, but I don't know if he saw a picture of it at the time.
And I know we didn't get a picture of it, so there's that.
Anyway, so here's the point. I think you should look at the positive, which is that the way people reacted was the way you would want people to react if it had been real.
So I think his response was...
You know, it could have been better, but he wasn't being advised by a public relations person, so he was just being a real person?
Do not hold that against him.
You think he or they will apologize?
No, I don't. No, no, no, no.
I'm not saying that I think they will apologize.
I'm telling you the way I would handle it, if I wanted to come out of this with the best reputation...
I would go right at it directly.
Totally wrong. I was totally wrong.
But look at the reaction.
I mean, you're missing... You're bearing the lead.
You know, the small part of the story is that I was wrong.
That's the small part of the story.
The big part of the story? Look how well people reacted to that.
That's how I would have played it.
All right. And by the way, I do think it was a noose, and I do think it was tied to resemble a noose.
But like I say, it was probably just done by somebody who was just tying knots.
Did I hear that one of the three presidential debates has been canceled already because of coronavirus?
And I ask you, is there any chance there will be any presidential debates?
What do you think? Because the first one's cancelled, and sure, that could be actually just legitimate health concerns.
I mean, why wouldn't there be?
You know, it'd be weird if you didn't have health concerns about that.
But don't you think all three are going to get cancelled because the Biden team really needs them to get cancelled?
Am I wrong that if Joe Biden goes into a debate, it's going to be a bad situation for him?
I think they have to at least extend the scare long enough to make the debates not happen.
That's got to be the key trajectory or at least the key strategy for victory for Biden.
Did you happen to see the god-awful campaign ad that Biden just put out in which he's sitting in this Looks like he's behind some kind of business in like an alley-like place where maybe there's some tables that perhaps the employees smoke cigarettes at when they're not working.
It didn't even look like it was a commercial place.
It looked like he was in a back alley with like six people with masks and he had his mask on wrong and he's falling asleep in his chair and saying a few generic things.
And I thought to myself...
Compare that, because you know there were advisors, right?
This is a video that they chose to release.
They filmed this.
The Biden campaign itself filmed it, and they chose to release it.
Now, when you see it, you're going to say to yourself, are you telling me that professional campaign advisors are Thought it was a good idea to do it there, the way it was done, with just this sparse crowd and this dingy, terrible optics.
Somebody thought it was a good idea in the first place.
Then they filmed it, and then after they saw it, they still thought it was a good idea to make a commercial out of it?
Is that feeling not right?
Now compare that, if you will, to what I told you in the past month or so.
Kamala Harris... Seems to have improved her messaging and communication game extraordinarily, which is a strong tell for some kind of a world-class advisor or more working with her.
Because you can see the transformation, and you don't get that from your sister giving you advice.
Whatever happened with Kamala Harris, that's not from, you know, your friend gave you some tips.
That's from somebody operating at the highest level who's helping her transform and she's succeeding.
Now, I had predicted years ago when people said, no, she's not good enough.
I said, just watch.
Watch what happens when you get close to election time and watch her transform.
Because I believe that she could learn skills quickly.
That seems to be an indication that she can.
And I think she did. So here's what we have.
We have, allegedly, the world-class advisers for Biden doing the worst job I've ever seen of campaign advisers.
So bad that it almost looks intentional.
At the same time, his presumed but not confirmed could change.
But presumably, the vice presidential pick, who many of us believe would be the real shadow president, is getting the best advice you've ever seen.
Is that a coincidence?
That all the good advice is going to the number two spot?
Now, it's possible that Biden just doesn't take advice.
You see, we don't know what's happening behind the scenes.
But if you are looking for a scenario in which the number two pick, which I'm still guessing will be Kamala Harris, becomes in voters' minds the real number one pick, this is maybe what it would look like.
It would look like the number two pick is getting all the good advice.
The number one pick is just sort of being pushed out there.
So that's a little foreshadowing.
There's something happening with free speech, which is a fair statement which you would all agree with, but you might not be seeing what I'm seeing.
So first there's the surface obvious thing that free speech is being diminished because, well, let me give you an example.
So Carpe Donctum got permanently banned from Twitter yesterday.
Permanently banned.
Now, Carpe Dunctum does the memes that President Trump likes to tweet, so he's very strong in terms of messaging for the Republican side, and he just got taken off the board a few months before the election.
Now, is that a coincidence?
Is it a coincidence that he's been operating for years, but when we get close, you know, the summer before the election, that he gets taken off the board?
Because he's not the only person being taken off the board, right?
You're seeing some other people getting picked off.
Probably not a coincidence.
Now, I don't know about the details of why.
I think it had to do with the racist baby meme that got taken down.
The president tweeted it.
It alleged to show a racist white baby chasing a black one.
But then you see it in its fullness, and you can see that they're best friends and hugging each other.
So there was something like a DMCA violation.
In other words, the original video was copyrighted.
But it's a parody.
It's an obvious parody.
And with an obvious parody, usually the worst you'd expect is maybe the tweet would have to be taken down.
Maybe the tweet would have to be taken down and that's it.
So it seems like there's something a little extreme Also, Slate Star Codex got taken out by the New York Times.
So Slate Star Codex is a very influential blog.
Not political, but it may have had some content that somebody didn't like, possibly.
I don't know, maybe he talked about TDS or something.
So that got taken down.
He got doxed, and he took it down himself, basically.
So he deleted the pseudonymous, what's the word?
The blogger who does not use his real name took down his own blog when the New York Times decided to dox him for no good reason.
Alright, so that's happening.
So you know that if you say anything that somebody thinks is a racist dog whistle, even if it isn't, that you'll be cancelled.
So that's the part you know.
You know that people are being cancelled and muffled and muted in a variety of ways.
But here's the part that I'm seeing.
It has something to do with that.
It has something to do with the Black Lives Matter stuff.
For some people, And I seem to be one of them.
I have increased my free speech.
And I don't think you saw that coming.
For example, I'm going to give you an example of my newly increased free speech.
Black Lives Matter is a racist movement.
White privilege is a racist statement.
And reparations is completely racist.
Now, could I have said that a month ago?
Maybe. If I really couched it just carefully and said it just right and all that.
But for some reason I can say that now.
And I feel like I couldn't say it a few weeks ago.
The president keeps calling the coronavirus Kung Flu.
Now he of course knows that he's being called a racist for calling it Kung Flu because that's, you know, He's suggestive of Asian culture, and therefore, it's racist.
Now, even after he's told that, he keeps doing it.
It feels to me that the president is very consciously making sure that the field of what free speech allows doesn't diminish.
Now, I know his critics are going to say, no, no, no, he's just riling up the crowd with racist dog whistles, that's all there is to it.
We'll get rid of the give it a rest dude fellow.
There you go. Put you in your misery.
Blocked. And so, it makes me wonder if the Republicans are about to discover a new form of free speech, or at least simply just take it.
Just take free speech.
And just do it. I watched a speech by Matt Gaetz.
I guess he was probably either speaking before or after the president at the same event last night.
And Matt Gaetz said directly that white privilege is a racist strategy to make white people shut up and do what they're told.
And I thought to myself, I don't know if he could have said that a month ago.
Could he? And did you know, I looked at the home pages of CNN and Fox News, and I don't even think it's a headline.
Can you imagine that?
There was a prominent national politician who said in public, in a prepared speech, that white privilege is a racist term that's just being used to manipulate white people, basically. I don't think he could have said that a month ago.
Am I wrong? I'd like to see in the comments whether you think something is changing, and it's changing in both directions at the same time.
Which is that some people are getting less free speech and being cancelled, while there are other people who are saying, alright fuckers, game on.
Which is what I'm saying.
I'm saying, okay bastards, game on.
If you want to bring more attention to me, Just bring it on.
Now, I think that part of the divide is that, if you've been watching Matt Gaetz for a while, what is it that Matt Gaetz and I would have in common?
I want to see if you can pick out what is different about the two of us from other situations.
Now, mostly we have things not in common, I would guess.
Like if you were to make a list, you know, here's the list of all things about Matt Gaetz.
Here's the list about all things me.
It'd be mostly different.
But there's one thing on that list that we're very similar on that would tell you why we have a little bit more free speech, I think, than other people.
And I'm waiting for the delay in the comments to see if anybody gets it.
Um... Here's what we have in common.
We're unusually good communicators.
Now, if you are the side who's trying to silence the other side, you don't want to give attention to their best communicators.
In other words, if somebody goes after Matt Gaetz and says, hey, Matt Gaetz, you said, and I can't believe you said this, that white privilege is actually a racist statement, explain yourself.
And then you know what he would do?
On national television, he would explain himself so well that whoever thought they were trying to trap him would say, oh, damn, that didn't work.
That did not work.
He would take that accusation, ball it up, and shove it so far back up their asses that they would never want to talk to him again.
Am I right? If you've watched him enough in public, you know that he's basically untrappable on camera.
His camera skills are just unworldly.
I mean, I've never seen...
I can't say I've never seen anything like it, but who would you compare his on-camera verbal skills to?
I don't know. I don't know.
It'd be tough. He's kind of all by himself at the moment.
Now, for different reasons, I don't have the same type of oratorical skills that he does, but I'm also unusually persuasive.
And if I get mad, I'm not going to back down.
It's sort of baked into my personality.
I can't change that. So I would be the worst person to give attention to.
And I think that that might be Why I have a little extra free speech.
Maybe they'll come back and bite me in the ass later.
So I think you're going to see some kind of a bounce back effect where the president and other prominent people are going to say, hey, how about this?
How about we say whatever the fuck we want and you just shut up about it and just listen?
Because we gave you free speech.
We listened to you.
And let me say, if I had to speculate about why this is, it would be this.
What would President Trump, Matt Gaetz, and I all have in common, specifically on the topic of George Floyd's tragic death?
The one thing we all have in common, and pretty much most of the world, Is that we all have the same reaction to it.
Like, this is horrible. This looks like a crime.
You know, we can't have this in our country.
So, I think it helped that so many people were, at least mentally, on the same side with the people who would normally be our critics, if you imagined it as a political take sides.
Why is everybody saying Flynn?
Flynn got the writ of mandamus.
Well, I don't know what that is, but it sounds like something I need to look up right now.
Fox News would have this, right?
Not yet. I guess it takes them a while to write that up.
Let's say Flynn News.
Let's see some Flynn News.
Dismiss criminal case against Michael Flynn.
Appeals court...
Really? Appeals court orders judge to dismiss criminal case against Michael Flynn.
The decision blocks U.S. Sullivan from holding a hearing to scrutinize the Justice Department's decision.
Well, thank you! Why in the world was Justice Sullivan forming a new form of government to look at his own decisions?
That never made sense.
So the judge has blocked that.
Alright, do I understand what this means though?
It blocks you from to dismiss the criminal case.
Does dismiss the criminal case mean it's all gone?
Is that what's happening?
Is the case completely dismissed now?
Well, let's say it is.
Let's say it is.
Let's say that the General Flynn case is dismissed.
Does that call for a simultaneous sip?
Do any of you have any beverage left in your vessel?
Grab it. Grab it.
Get your cup, your mug, your vessel.
This will be a rare secondary simultaneous sip.
This one to General Flynn and all the people who fought for him, all the people who advocated for him.
Justice. Drink.
Damn, that feels good.
That feels good.
Somebody says Carpe Donctum, who got banned from Twitter, should join Locals.
He is on Locals.
So I'm on the Locals platform, which also helps me to be a little bit less cancelable because I have a second place to go.
It's a subscription service.
I hope to be talking to Carpe soon about his account on Locals.
And we'll make a little bit more noise about that.
So, you can see the importance of having a platform for people who get deplatformed other places.
Alright, well, gosh, that General Flynn stuff...
How do the Democrats process that?
If you're a Democrat and you're looking at General Flynn...
The case just got dropped for being a complete fabrication, and it's obvious it's all part of the coup.
How do Democrats process that?
I just don't know. All right.
Here's some other things going on.
Did you watch the Project Veritas undercover tape of Facebook employees admitting perfectly candidly and freely that they do illegally, meaning not compatible with company standards, that they violate their own company standards to block Trump-supporting messages?
They actually said it directly.
They bragged about it. They laughed about it.
It's lots of people.
It's widespread.
And it's so acceptable that the employees who were involved saw no trouble at all speaking freely about it in front of other people.
It wasn't even something like a dirty little secret that they kept to themselves.
They happily talked about suppressing conservative voices on Facebook.
That should be the end of Facebook in terms of an unregulated entity, shouldn't it?
We'll see if that happens.
Somebody's asking me if Locals is app or web-based.
The app just came out a couple weeks ago, so it is both app and web-based.
Anyway, so enough on that.
Facebook, I think, is going to get regulated.
I think that Twitter...
You know how brains work?
We associate things even if they should not be associated.
I talk about this all the time.
The fact that there's undercover video of a social media platform in which the employees are saying straight up, you know, we screw the Republicans on our platform...
People will assume it's true at Twitter.
Is that fair to say?
So we do not have an undercover tape showing Twitter people saying exactly what the Facebook people are saying.
But your common sense says, okay, if it's happening in one place and it's so widespread, it's got to be happening in other places.
It's just got to be. So I think the possibility of the social media platforms not being regulated is I don't know.
I think it went to zero.
Alas, Congress is controlled by the Democrats.
So, free speech will end.
Actually, officially.
Free speech will end on November 3rd.
And by the way, that's a really powerful statement, isn't it?
Free speech will actually end on November 3rd if Democrats control Congress and the White House.
Because, now that we know with no doubt, any uncertainty has been removed, that Facebook is suppressing speech on the right, well, you know that Democrats are not going to change that, because that works for them.
So, if Democrats are not going to change the social media from suppressing voices on the right, is it not fair to say that free speech will die on November 3rd?
Under the condition that Democrats have enough control after that.
That's a fair statement, isn't it?
But it's also very persuasive.
Because it's true, if it weren't true, it wouldn't be persuasive.
There's a Rasmussen poll that says that black Americans are the demographic group most concerned about a shortage of police officers.
So of all the demographic groups, the black population of this country is the most concerned about, wait, wait, wait, we're not going to have enough police?
Is that a surprise?
Shouldn't be.
Should that be a surprise?
No.
Nope.
It should not be a surprise.
I have a question for you.
Why is it that only Republicans worry about mail-in votes being rigged?
I haven't tried to weigh in on that question Too much, because there are some system details that I don't know, and it would be easy to imagine that I understood this mail-in ballot issue, and I don't, and I'm not sure anybody does.
Let me state that more emphatically.
Nobody understands the mail-in ballot issue.
It's a whole bunch of confused stuff that we conflate together and we treat one thing like a different thing.
And so I don't think there's anybody who actually understands the real risk.
But the thing I don't understand is why only Republicans are worried about it.
Because are Republicans under the impression that there are no local voting precincts in which Republican operatives would also try to cheat with ballots?
I mean, it feels like the cheating could be about equal.
Why would one cheat more effectively than another?
I don't know. So there's something about the whole issue I don't understand.
So let me say as clearly as possible that I'm not agreeing with the Republican position on this.
But I'm also not disagreeing.
I think if you have certainty on this issue, either direction, if you're positive that mail ballots are safe, you're not a credible person.
If you're positive that there are So, when I say credible, I don't mean wrong.
I always make that distinction.
I'm saying if you're trying to be an informed citizen, and you're just looking at what you know, And that's all you know is what you're being told.
I wouldn't believe either side, Republicans or Democrats, on the topic of mail-in ballots.
One of them is right.
There's no doubt about that.
One of those two sides is right.
They're either a big problem, at least a risk, or they're not.
I don't know which one it is.
I honestly don't. If you sample both sides of the media, you will hear arguments that, you know, if you don't have your own knowledge about the field, and I don't, I hear the arguments and I go, huh, that sounds pretty strong.
And then I'll hear the argument from the other side and they'll say, huh, sounds pretty strong.
Somebody says, don't play dumb.
Don't you play dumb with me.
Well, no, I'll tell you what I do know.
I do know that there should be a million ways that you could cheat with mail-in ballots.
We'd all agree with that, right?
There must be a million ways you could try.
But, here's the argument on the other side.
You could audit them to know if there was any cheating.
So you could, for example, now I don't know if anybody will do this, but let's say that they suspected some cheating in some area.
They could say, we're not going to check every ballot.
It's too hard. But we can check every hundred or whatever is the right number to get a sample.
We'll check every hundred.
We'll go to the actual voter and say, is this you?
Show me your license. Did you really cast a vote this way?
And if the person says yes, say, okay, well, we sampled a lot and everything we sampled looked good.
Now, if you sample...
And it doesn't look good, you would have determined that there's voter fraud?
Absolutely. So here's the question.
Could voter fraud happen?
I think obviously yes.
Would it be detected if it happened?
I would say obviously it could be.
Obviously it could be.
Now that doesn't mean that they'll have a process in place to do that.
And that's the part where, you know, very quickly I get into the areas where I don't understand.
It's like, well, how many people are involved?
And haven't we always had mail-in ballots?
I thought we always had them.
What's really different about it?
Is it the fact there are so many, but they do have a...
They've got an identifier in each one.
Can China print up a bunch of extra ones?
And if they did, how would China print up extra ones if they need a unique identifier for each person they're mailed to?
How could they do that? So, if you think you have a good, firm opinion on this, I would suggest you probably shouldn't.
You know, if I had to...
Now, part of your intuition...
Is that it's very cheatable, and I agree with that.
My intuition is also that it's cheatable, and you could get away with it.
But I don't know enough to confirm that.
But if your instinct is probably a bad idea, you might not be wrong.
All right. Here is, sometimes I try to teach you joke techniques, you know, how to do humor better.
And I'm going to read a really funny tweet, but it's only because I want you to understand the technique.
So the technique here, and I've told you this before, is putting things together that don't quite fit.
So here's a list of things by Deanna Lorraine.
I guess she ran against Pelosi at one point and lost.
So I don't know anything about her except that she's a Republican and she tweeted this.
And I'm not saying I agree with anything on the list, okay?
This is somebody else's tweet.
I'm just reading it. Bubba Wallace isn't a victim.
Sean King isn't black.
Joe Biden isn't winning.
CNN isn't news.
Elizabeth Warren isn't Indian.
Colin Kaepernick isn't a hero.
Beto O'Rourke isn't Latino.
Don Lemon isn't a journalist.
Greta Thunberg isn't a scientist.
Meghan Markle isn't a princess.
Now, I laughed for five minutes over that.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with her points, but the way they're organized is hilarious, especially with Meghan Markle isn't a princess at the end, because that was such a throwaway, just nothing but an insult.
That the whole thing makes sense, but it doesn't make sense.
There are too many things that individually you'd have to think about a little bit, but because they don't fit together in a list, it just makes you giggle.
And I can't stop giggling when I look at it.
Not because I agree with it.
It's simply the organization of the thoughts.
So this technique of putting a bunch of things together is hilarious.
Now, There's also a persuasion technique baked into this, and it's a little different from the laundry list persuasion.
Laundry list persuasion is where you don't have a strong reason for your argument.
So instead of a strong argument, you just list lots of weak ones.
That's the laundry list persuasion.
Now, lots of weak arguments should add up to nothing.
Because individually, they're all nothing.
So if you add a bunch of nothings together, it should still be nothing.
But our brains don't hear it that way.
If you hear a laundry list of reasons, you think to yourself, well, you know, I recognize that one of those things on that list isn't true, but there's so many things on the list, there must be something on that list that's true.
What Deanna Lorraine did in her tweet, which was funny, it's a different kind of list.
I'll call it a Sean Hannity list.
Alright? Here's what a Sean Hannity list is.
For example, there'll be five things on the list.
Four of them are things that you know to be true.
Or, let's say you're politically aligned with Sean Hannity, so you're sure they're true, even if they're not.
So there'll be four things you're pretty sure are true.
And the fifth thing is sort of an opinion-y thing.
And so if he gives you four things that you know are true, or you believe are true, and then the fifth thing, you're undecided, but it's in the list with all those other things you believe, it's very persuasive.
All right? So if you wanted to persuade somebody that some of these things were true, let's say, you know, some of them you'd agree with, right?
We know now that Bubba Wallace isn't a victim.
But then she throws in, Sean King isn't black.
You know what she's talking about, because he's criticized by the black community for that as well.
But is that exactly true?
I mean, I haven't checked his DNA. So it feels like, well, I don't know.
Joe Biden isn't winning?
Well, if you're Republican, maybe you think that.
CNN isn't news?
You agree. Elizabeth Warren isn't Native American?
You agree. Colin Kaepernick isn't a hero.
If you're Republican, you agree.
And then it gets to that last one.
Meghan Markle isn't a princess?
By the time you get there, it's just silly, but it's funny.
Anyway, I just wanted to call out the technique.
You don't have to agree with any of the points.
Did you see the Stephen Colbert interview with John Bolton?
If you saw it, there's a very interesting phenomena that I can't determine yes or no.
If this is true. But I will assert it as my strong professional opinion.
Alright? So this is professional opinion.
It would be hard to know if it's a fact.
And it's this.
You should look at my tweet in which I showed the picture of Colbert and Bolton side by side.
And it's hard to show you things on the screen here.
So, well, maybe I could do it.
Let's see. And what I wanted you to see is Colbert's expression...
Compared to Bolton's.
Now, it's a still photograph, and those can be really misleading, because if they catch you at a bad moment, the still photograph doesn't look anything like the way you were if you were moving.
But in this case, the still photograph captured exactly what I did see when I watched the live video.
And that is, there's a look on Colbert's face, which if you're a trained hypnotist, and you've seen, if you've Triggered lots of people into cognitive dissonance.
There is a physical look.
And Colbert has it the whole way through the interview.
I'm going to try to teach you what the look is like.
Let's do...
Maybe I can show it to you.
Because if I don't show it to you, it won't be nearly as powerful.
So I'm going to call it up on the screen here.
We'll do our best.
Let's see if this screen looks good on your screen.
Let me make sure I don't have anything else on my screen that's embarrassing.
I don't think I do.
So, look at these two faces.
Now, one of them is a disgruntled, fired employee, and one of them is experiencing cognitive dissonance.
Bolton looks like a guy who's just, you know, a disgruntled employee.
That is a completely normal look for a guy who just isn't too happy and he's expressing it.
Colbert, look at his eyes and look at the smile.
Do you see they don't fit?
The look of the eyes is crazy and the smile doesn't fit the eyes.
That's cognitive dissonance.
That's cognitive dissonance.
So, and let me see if I can do an impression for you on here.
Sorry for the people listening to this.
You're going to miss it. I'll try to explain it.
I'll give you two looks.
One is me concentrating on something that's right in front of me.
And then the second one will be, it looks like I'm in the room, but my mind will be in a hallucination.
So the first one is, An ordinary person who's not hallucinating who's just looking at something in front of him.
So look at my expression.
You can tell from my expression that I'm present.
I'm just looking at you.
Nothing going on.
Now imagine that I'm recounting to you a story of President Trump who in your mind has created this imaginary monster Now, of course, we took a hit with the coronavirus, etc.
But nobody would argue that Trump did not No one would argue that the stock market is low.
No one would argue that ISIS still exists in terms of holding territory.
Nobody would argue that we haven't pulled down our troop numbers.
I mean, you could just keep going.
And the only thing they'd have is maybe he ran up the national debt, which is not the strongest argument for Democrats, because they would too.
So imagine you're living in a world in which everything you believe about the world, four years has disproven.
It's disproven after four years.
Nothing went wrong. Everything that you could measure went right.
So you have to actually hallucinate something wrong, which they do.
They imagine that the president's inner thoughts are wrong.
So let me now do an impression of somebody who's in cognitive dissonance.
I'll take off my glasses. And they're having a hallucination while they're talking to you.
It looks a little like this. And then the president...
The president...
See the eyes. When the eyes are in imagination mode, and I'm imagining the president as this crazy clown.
He's running around. He's trying to kill everybody.
There's a look.
And the smile...
Why am I smiling?
Because I've got a sociopath look.
Do you notice my eyes are not smiling right?
But I've got a smile.
It looks like a sociopath.
But the sociopath look is very close to the cognitive dissonance look.
Because I don't know what the sociopath is thinking, but the cognitive dissonance is you're having a hallucination, and it's coming through your face, and your face is distorted because it doesn't know how to deal with the hallucination.
Now, you want the test?
Here's the test. CNN's, let's say, think about all their hosts.
I'm going to name names.
Now you've seen the look, right?
So you saw it on Colbert, and you saw it on me.
And I'll go further and say that when they're not talking about these topics, they don't have that look.
It's about the topic that gives them the look.
I'm going to name some hosts from CNN, and you tell me which one seems to have a normal look.
I'm just talking about the news.
This is on the news. This is what happened on the news.
And which one seems to have something wrong with the eyes?
Alright? I'll just name some.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Just imagine him. Chris Cuomo.
Don Lemon.
Anderson Cooper. Jake Tapper.
Brooke Baldwin.
Alright? Now of those, go.
Which one of those people exhibits You're all getting it right.
Yeah, Anderson Cooper.
Anderson Cooper has the Colbert face.
Chris Cuomo, ish.
I can see why you're guessing, but ish.
Stelter, no.
Jake Tapper, no. Don Lemon, no.
Believe it or not, Don Lemon does not exhibit the cognitive dissonance face, which might mean that he believes what he's saying and it seems consistent with what he sees.
Could be. Well, this is going to freak you out.
Because now that you've seen it...
And by the way, you'd have to be a trained hypnotist to recognize this.
Or at least be experienced.
But now that I taught it to you, you're going to start seeing it.
And watch how easily you spot it.
Now that you can see it.
It's going to freak you out how easily you can spot it.
Alright, let's see if I talked about everything I want to talk about.
Did I miss anything? Anything else happening?
And let me...
Let me reiterate the fact that cognitive dissonance does not measure your intelligence.
It doesn't measure your knowledge.
It doesn't even measure your intentions.
So there's nothing about Anderson Cooper that I think is anything but smart and well-intentioned and well-informed.
I would say all of those things about him.
But... It is nonetheless true that when he talks about Trump, he gets a look on his face that is not common to any other reporting.
And I think you've seen it.
Somebody says AOC. You know, the ones that are hard to tell are the ones who open their eyes wide when they talk sometimes.
So you'll get a photograph that looks strange because he caught it right at that moment.
So Cory Booker and AOC sometimes have photos that are wide-eyed.
It's not exactly what I'm talking about.
It's not just your eyes are wide.
There's like a glassy stare like you're not in the room that is the tell.
Alright. Does anybody think that Bolton is laying a glove on Trump?
Because it doesn't feel like it, does it?
Doesn't the Bolton book feel like it's just Groundhog Day?
And it's another guy saying stuff happened in a room and nobody else heard it in a month.
In a month, you won't even remember that book.
Somebody says, no fair teaching NLP to the uninitiated.
So somebody's a hypnosis trainer on here.
What's the next big red pill?
Well, if you were on the locals platform...
You would already know the answer to that question.
But, because you answered, if you're going to stick around for a moment, I will read to you the parts of the red pill.
Because I documented them on Locals.
So if you wanted it in writing, that would be the place to go.
But I'm going to read it to you.
So here's a list of things that have changed.
People have asked me if Adam Schiff has the look.
See, Adam Schiff has the same problem.
He has wide-eye look, and that one can throw you off.
So just having wide eyes doesn't necessarily mean cognitive dissonance.
It's a little different than that.
All right. So I told you that the big red pill coming was not going to be one event or one thing.
It would be a bunch of things.
Here's the bunch of things in my list.
Number one, experts are far less reliable than we thought.
And that changed a lot in 2020.
Yes or no, the public's opinion of what experts know and how much you should trust them is completely different in 2020.
Are you with me? That's part of the red pill.
Just a small part. But all of these collectively will make you doubt your ability to understand your reality the way you used to understand it.
Number one, we trust experts far less.
That's a fairly new change.
Number two, Project Veritas showed us that Facebook literally is doing everything that conservatives thought they were doing.
It's real. Yes, I will add this.
Flynn has been, all the charges are dropped, so the Flynn thing is another part of the red pill.
On number three, we know that individual scientific studies are no more reliable than horoscopes.
In fact, half of published studies turn out not to be true.
Now, it is true that studies collectively and over time work science toward knowledge.
But if you're looking at one study, it doesn't matter what.
But usually in the social sciences area is what we're talking.
But if you looked at one study, it's useless.
Now you used to think, well, it's a study, right?
Even just a few years ago you said, well, it's in the news and it's a study.
I know sometimes they're not real, but probably 80% chance it's real.
And now you don't think that, do you?
What do you think is the odds of any study that's in the news, just an individual study that's not backed up by other studies, And it's a shocking new claim.
What's your first thought about how likely it is true?
Well, it used to be about 80%.
Right now, a little closer to 20%, isn't it?
Big difference. Now we know that, of course, defund the police will never work.
You already knew that, but I think other people are just learning.
That the slogans like defund the police don't translate into anything you can actually do.
You can, of course, improve the way they do their job.
You've learned that stories about nooses and hate crimes are more likely fake than real.
In fact, the Wall Street Journal did a study on...
talked about a study in which they looked at all the hate crimes reported and two-thirds of them were fake.
Two-thirds of hate crimes are fake.
Do you think it's two-thirds or higher?
You think it's higher, don't you?
That's different. If you had said to me two years ago, there's a hate crime reported, this or that, is it true or false, I would say, well, I don't know.
I have no way to know, but 75, 80% chance is probably right.
What do you think today?
10%. Today, if you see a hate crime reported, and you haven't heard the details yet, you just heard somebody's reporting a hate crime, What's the first thing you think?
Maybe. It would be horrible if it were true.
10% chance it's true.
That's part of your red pill.
How about this? We're starting to understand that if you calculated reparations correctly, there'd be a negative number.
Because if you do the right calculation, You would study black people who came to America against their will as slaves compared to the income of the people who were not taken as slaves.
What's the average of the people from the country or continent where they came from?
And how are the children of the people who are taken as slaves doing income-wise now?
As soon as people realize that, and a few people already are, Reparation starts to go away.
Because even if you think there is a different way to calculate it, and of course people will, people are not going to automatically agree that I described it right.
But the fact that that conversation is guaranteed to happen, that it should be a negative number, pretty much takes it off the table.
How about the fact that we're very close, we're not there.
To realizing that there's no such thing as racists.
What? What?
Did I just say that?
There's no such thing as racists?
What I mean is everybody's racist.
So there's no such thing as, oh, that guy's a racist, but you're not?
No. No, that's not a thing.
Because you can't be not racist.
In fact, you can't be not biased on any topic.
Because your brain is a pattern recognition machine, but it's not good at it.
It's not good at recognizing patterns.
It sees confirmation bias as a fact, just as easily as it sees a fact as a fact.
So you can't turn off the basic working of a brain.
You can just find ways to overcome it and ways to do better and use your higher powers of reasoning to recognize it and build a system that tries to squeeze out the bias.
But it borders on stupid at this point.
You know, 2020, it borders on stupid to imagine that they're racist and non-racist.
That's not a thing. Everybody is racially biased in one way or another.
It's universal. And I think it's important that we understand that, because then you can work on the right solution.
The wrong solution is trying to fix the way people's brains are wired.
You can't fix the basic wiring of a brain.
You can just fix what you do.
Which is fixable. We now understand, or we're coming to understand, that the news business isn't even trying to be news.
It's just being naked advocacy.
I don't think people knew that five years ago.
People didn't know five years ago that the news wasn't even attempting to be news.
I mean, it wasn't even in their first choice.
We're learning that conservatives see the news on both the left and the right, and so anybody who is only sampling the news on one side is a low-information voter.
And because the news on the left is sort of more universal, it always bleeds over into the reporting on the right, the people on the right see the news on the left and the news on the right.
It's a fuller context, even if they choose to think one is more right.
So I think the left is about ready to realize that they are low-information voters, because their own news sources are completely corrupt, and they're just starting to figure that out.
You know, the Flynn thing, the Russia collusion thing, these little hints are starting to come together.
The New York Times is doxing that anonymous blogger I told you, so that removes all doubt about the press being on the side of the people.
Didn't you used to think that the press was on the side of the people?
Maybe you never thought that, but people did.
People thought that the press was on the side of the people.
The New York Times has removed all doubt by doxing a person that they were going to write a positive article on, and they were still going to ruin his life just because it's his story.
And they were completely transparent about that.
We know that Black Lives Matter is a racist movement that is creating a preferred victim class.
Now, you probably thought that from the beginning.
Some of you did. And not everybody's there yet, but that's what's forming.
It's very clear that a poor white kid who became a poor white kid for no fault of his own should not be put in the lower class of victim.
There's just no argument for it, and I think that red pill's emerging.
We saw the Russia collusion hoax, the Charlotteville find people hoax and other hoaxes.
You've learned that much of the news is speculating and mind reading.
Once you understand that the news is mostly mind reading but poorly, you recognize it everywhere.
It's like, wait a minute, that's not news.
That's you imagining you know what somebody's thinking.
That's not a thing. And now you see it.
Some of you have learned, but not all of you, that hiring the best people isn't really something you can do.
Except by luck.
If you're the president and you happen to be a very provocative president who even the people on your own team don't necessarily want to work for you because it's too much heat, you don't have a big pool to pick from.
If you don't have a big pool of candidates, the best you can do, and this was true with Trump, the best you can do is take your best shot And then fire aggressively.
So if he fires aggressively and he's picking from a limited pool because just people don't want to be associated, that's the best you can do.
People are understanding that.
Slowly. People are understanding that if you hear a book or a report about one person who was in the room and heard something shocking but the other people in the room didn't hear it, Didn't happen.
Right? You used to think, well, maybe it happened.
But now you know that anonymous report, or even the non-anonymous report like Bolton, nobody else heard it.
Huh. Isn't that funny?
Nobody else heard of that. It means it's not true.
You're learning that disgruntled employees always talk the same way.
Doesn't matter if Trump fires them or the CEO of a company fires them.
That CEO has no strategy.
It's all chaos.
Everything, he doesn't look into the details.
He doesn't understand the finer points of all of the smart things I tell him.
Every employee. There's nothing political.
There's nothing about Trump. Every disgruntled employee is that same broken record.
Alright? We've learned that China is not our friend.
It never wants to be. It's not even close.
So decoupling is coming.
We're learning that the technologies we thought were the greenest might be the worst.
In other words, nuclear power might be the greenest of all.
So that's a switch.
We're learning slowly that the planet is probably warming.
Even skeptics say the planet is warming.
But there's a growing body of smart people.
Michael Schellenberger, for one, I'll be talking about him a little bit more.
His great new book is out, Apocalypse Never.
About three quarters through it, it's terrific.
It's the best.
So let me recommend this.
It's Michael Schellenberger's brand new book, Apocalypse Never.
And he goes through all of the environmental arguments.
But here's what's different.
He gives you both sides.
I don't think I've ever seen that before.
Quite objectively, he actually gives you both sides.
And when you're done, you'll have a completely different understanding of all of this stuff.
You really will. It'll blow your mind.
Then there's, just for a funny one, I said socialism only works if your mom pays for your cell phone.
So the experiment in the autonomous zone, I think, has been very successful for everyone except the people in the autonomous zone.
Because it told the world that what they're asking for isn't a real thing.
It's not something that can work.
Oh, somebody's telling me that Michael Schellenberger's book, It's not out until June 30th.
I got a preview copy, but I'm sure you can pre-order it, and I think he would appreciate that.
All right. The Lincoln Project Twitter account.
Yeah, it's tweeting all the hoaxes.
Let's see. I'm just looking at your...
At your... Chaz was sort of a mini Stanford prison experiment.
Well, that's a funny and terrible thing to say.
Can I offer one month free on locals?
I think I have that option.
I was thinking about doing that.
You should link to Amazon so you can get a kickback.
You know, those are not very big kickbacks.
What about Parler, somebody says.
So Parler is one of the competitors to Twitter, but it's tiny.
So if you do what I do for a living, and you try to sell books and stuff, you have to be on the big platform.
So that's not really an option. So it would be very expensive for me to get kicked off of Twitter.
But here's what I'd like to see.
Can somebody build this for me?
If you'd like an idea for a project, there is already something called HootSuite, where you can schedule your tweets and your posts to social media.
But I'm pretty sure that does not include the alternate sites, such as Parler, such as Locals, such as Rockfin competitor, such as BitChute.
I don't think it includes all those.
So here's the product that needs to be built.
It's a product where you can write your content, and then you can just select all the platforms, the big ones, the small ones, the alternate ones, which is more than anything does right now, and it just sends it to all of them.
Because until you have the one software that sends it to all of them, it'll be too hard for people like me to have a Twitter, let's say, presence, but also have some kind of a presence on an alternative site.
So right now, there's not a practical way for somebody in my position to just say, I'm done with Twitter.
I'll go to this tiny platform that none of you are seeing.
The president doesn't use, etc.
But if I could publish to all of them, I would be sending all of my same traffic to every source.
Maybe the software has to adjust it if it's being posted in a different place.
Maybe Twitter has a limitation on characters, but Facebook doesn't.
So you'd have to have your software tell you where your content will fit so you can adjust it so it fits at all.
But once you have that, somebody says it has been done, I doubt it.
Whenever I say that something needs to be built, somebody always says it has been done.
But if you looked at that thing that somebody says has been done, it's just never.
It's never the thing.
It's just something that reminded you of it.
I would know about it by now.
All right. Hootsuite is, first of all, the user interface I found impossible.
Actually, I don't know if it's improved since then, but years ago I tried to use Hootsuite, and I found it so frustrating that it was basically unusable, in my opinion.
Other people have had the same opinion.
And Hootsuite does not, I think, Does not connect to the alternative platforms.
Probably only does the big ones.
Yeah, if it's been done, tweet it at me and I'll take a look.
But I will say with the confidence of 99% that if it's been done, it's not done to a commercial level or it doesn't have all the platforms or something.
Somebody says you can, it's just not as simple like you want.
Right. It's the simplicity which makes it a product.
Yeah, other people are saying the same about the user interface for Hootsuite.
Pineapple on pizza, I'm being asked.
I say whatever you want.
Social B? I don't know what that is.
Somebody joined Parler and likes it.
Oh, somebody's asking me about tests, coronavirus tests versus hospitalization.
So right now the hospitalizations, or at least the coronavirus, people who have it is going up while the rate of death is going down, and I don't think we quite know why, do we?
It could be that the testing is finding more people who have low symptoms, but that wouldn't tell you why the death rate's going down.
It could be that the old people are hiding better.
It could be We know more about ventilators.
It could be...
Who knows?
I don't know. It could be that some of the meds they're using are more effective than we know.
It could be the zinc.
Who knows? But one possibility is that the rest of the cases from this day forward will be a lower version of death.
It's possible. Slaughter meter right now is at 100%.
The slaughter meter is not a prediction.
Because I always add this following caveat.
If nothing changes, something always changes.
So there will be lots of surprises between now and November 3rd.
Do you have any idea how many big things are going to drop between now and November 3rd?
A lot! Somebody says the fragile ones are already dead.
They can't die again.
I think it's probably a whole bunch of little things that are adding up to it.
We're smarter at all those things.
All right. Yeah, Biden obviously has some cognitive problems.
Somebody says there's no zinc in the vitamin aisle at Walmart.
Well, I know I ordered some by mail.
It sure took a long time to get here.
Alright, did any celebrity die from coronavirus?
Yeah, that's the test I've been using to know how scared I should be.
Because the odds of me being the first household name that dies from coronavirus is very small.
So it's just this weird little trick I'm playing with myself to say, alright, if there's no other celebrity, person you've heard of who died of it, I know there have been a few, but they were ones I was not familiar with, then I'm not going to worry.
