All Episodes
Sept. 15, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
52:30
Episode 1124 Scott Adams: Fake News, HOAXES, Science Denying, Magic Tricks, and Everything You Thought Was True But Maybe Not

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Whiteboard: Understanding Reality "A Harris administration" CNN new position: mail-in votes are a nightmare HOAXES my smartest liberal friend believes Critical Race Theory is proceeding in government AI produced and fans the flames of all the protests ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, there we are again.
Smoky California.
I hope many of you live in states where you can breathe the air and do all those things, but I don't.
So it looks like it's going to be weeks of breathing, whatever that is out there.
So I'm basically on house arrest.
I've got a little asthma issue, so I can't go outside.
Basically, I'm just locked inside for Weeks.
Weeks and weeks.
But do I mind?
Not what I have all of you here.
No. No.
It's all good when you're here.
And I gotta tell you, I can't quite appreciate...
I don't think I can communicate how much I appreciate the time we spend together in the morning during this coronavirus situation and the wildfires.
I gotta say, it really helps.
It really helps to have this connection with all of you.
And speaking of connections, wouldn't you like to enjoy the simultaneous sip?
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stye, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
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.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Shall we start with the good news?
Everybody? Everybody want some good news?
Alright, we'll start with that.
There's a report that the University of Pittsburgh scientists have discovered a biomolecule.
You know, You should probably practice saying biomolecule before you say it out loud for the first time in your entire life.
I have never said the word biomolecule out loud until just this moment.
It wasn't smooth.
But anyway, this biomolecule may neutralize coronavirus.
So it's not a vaccine.
It would be some kind of biomolecule, if it works.
Apparently it works in animals, which generally is not enough to get excited.
There are a lot of things that work in animals that don't work in people.
But this particular biomolecule, and come on, you've probably just said biomolecule at home just to see if you could do it, didn't you?
You did. Say it out loud, biomolecule.
And Apparently it's in the sort of general category of things that are generally safe.
So it seems to just rapidly, just absolutely whack the coronavirus.
And it looks promising.
So we might have something that's...
I don't know how long it would take to test this, but it seems promising.
My favorite story of the day...
Is internet troll Jacob Wall faked an FBI raid on some guy I think he works with, Jack Berkman.
And so the Washington Post actually picked it up as a real story.
And I have to admit, as fakes go, this was really well done.
Because the videos and the pictures of what looked to be It really looked like an FBI raid.
Somehow they got FBI jackets and I think they hired actors or something.
And he puts on this whole fake FBI raid and the Washington Post reported it like it was real.
Daily Beast was on to him a little bit early.
So that's funny.
Now I don't know why.
You know, I can't figure out the next part.
You know, I understand the part about, okay, internet troll puts on a prank.
It's not his first prank.
And it worked really well.
But was that the only point?
Was he just trying to see if he could get the news to report fake news?
I don't know. I'm not sure what the point of that was.
There will be some interesting news coming out of Rasmussen a little later today.
I got a little heads up.
I won't give you the details.
But let me just give you a little tease.
So Rasmussen, of course, does polling, and you're going to find out some details about this, but it turns out, and this might come as a surprise to you, this might come as a big surprise, so, you know, put your seatbelt on, because you're never going to believe this.
It turns out that anybody who lived in a town that had protests slash riots...
Not happy about it.
They're just not happy about it.
And will it affect their votes?
Well, turns out, yes.
Yes. So the people who live in places affected by the riots, looting, slash protesting, not so much the peaceful protesting, but everything that often comes with it, those people are not happy.
Not happy.
And here's the part you didn't know.
Because there are so many protests, and they concentrated on the population centers, if you said to yourself, well, if you added together the entire real estate that every protest was taken in the United States,
it would be like a pinprick on the big United States in terms of space that they occupied, you know, a few streets in each city, 0.0001% of the real estate was affected by these protests.
But it's not really about real estate, is it?
It's about people.
If you happen to live near or within driving distance of where there was looting, it changed your vote.
Not every time, but man, people are pissed.
So wait until you see the details in that.
But the biggest news is Well, let me put this in another context.
As impossible as this might seem, by November, we might be kind of over the coronavirus.
I don't mean over it medically.
I don't mean over it in terms of the economy being back to normal.
We won't be over it in terms of what it's doing to us.
But, quoting my late mother, who taught me one of the most valuable things you'll ever know about people, And it goes like this.
If you want to understand humans, here's the thing.
We can get used to anything, including hanging.
That was her little saying.
You can get used to anything.
So the problem with the coronavirus, from the Democrats' point of view, is that they have this complaint about the president not handling it the way they wish it had been handled.
But it's really going to seem like old news by November, even while we're still experiencing it.
Because whatever happened in April, it just feels like a hundred years ago already.
And we'll talk a little bit more about that, but don't discount the fact that you simply get used to the coronavirus.
You just get used to it.
And then whatever's happening at the moment, Artificially takes a bigger role because you just got used to the other thing.
So if the protests are still happening and there's still new news about it and there's new video every day, which seems to be the case, people are going to vote on the protests way more than they're going to vote on coronavirus.
It'll have only to do with the fact that you just got used to one and you haven't yet got used to the other one.
All right. Let's see.
I want to give you a little context about what makes me look at the world a little differently than other people.
I get asked about this a lot.
People say to me, Scott, Scott, what happened to you that makes you see the world differently?
And I've noticed that there are people who took what I would call my journey.
People who coincidentally were doing similar things and had similar experiences often think the same way I do.
And I thought it would be useful to show you what that looks like.
Here is my path to understanding reality.
When I was a little kid, I loved optical illusions.
And I loved the fact that your brain had this blind spot.
You could be looking at an illusion, and even though you know it's really not that, it looks like it.
And so I was always fascinated by how easily the brain could be fooled by an optical illusion, something you're looking right at.
Then I started noticing that people had different religions.
I was learning one religion, but people had different ones.
And even at the young age of 11, I'd be saying to myself, okay, I don't know what's going on here because these religions are completely different.
So even if I imagine I got lucky and I got the right one, luckily I was born into the family that had the right religion, And all the other people were getting the wrong religion.
But, or maybe everybody had the wrong religion, so there were possibilities.
But the one thing I can say for sure is that everybody who had a different religion, you could tell that we were not basing our decisions on religion, on facts so much, or at least not all of the world.
So we could see that people would believe just about anything.
Didn't know who was right and who was wrong, but it was pretty obvious that billions of humans who are otherwise normal can believe just about anything.
Then I got interested in magic when I was a little kid doing magic tricks.
And you start learning that there are predictable, let's say, blocks in your brain.
There are predictable gaps and blind spots.
So that you can craft a variety of different magic tricks that take advantage of weaknesses and perception.
Now, once you start doing enough magic tricks and you start seeing all the weaknesses and perception, it changes how you see the world.
And you start saying, well, if magic tricks can fool people so easily, maybe I should look into this a little more.
And I started looking into hypnosis and then persuasion.
And by the time I started analyzing fake news, I've got to tell you, it was easier.
It was easier to analyze fake news.
And let me give you an example of what learning magic tricks does.
If you can see this, here's a penny.
It's just a penny.
You can see it. There's nothing in this hand.
Watch this. I'm going to take this penny, and I'm just going to put my finger on it, and I'm going to squeeze it.
Until it becomes a quarter.
Now... Shh!
You didn't hear that. So, learning how easily people could get fooled primed me for looking at the fake news.
There is a little clip that went around Twitter today that I recognized immediately as fake news.
And it was a clip of Biden on The View from 2019.
And the clip was, it felt to me like it was obviously edited to take out all of his coherent statements and kind of string together a whole bunch of hesitant, you know, incoherent things.
Now, he is a little bit hesitant and incoherent, but it was clearly edited to get rid of all the coherent parts.
Now, I point that out because it's the same trick done by the fine people hoax.
And what did people say when they saw the fine people hoax?
And I said, hey, that's a hoax.
They all said the same thing, the ones who had been fooled by the hoax.
To a person, they said, Scott, it's not a hoax.
I watched it.
I saw it with my own eyes.
Heard it with my own ears.
It's real. But then what about this Biden video?
You watched it with your own eyes.
You heard it with your own ears.
But it's not real. Somebody helpfully showed the full video so you can see that it was doctored.
It's just like the magic trick, right?
You saw a penny in my hand, so it was a penny.
Had to be a penny.
You saw it. Saw it with your own eyes.
But it was just a magic trick.
Once your brain is primed for looking for the magic trick, you can see it a lot easier.
So here's the correlation.
People who were Interested in magic tricks when they were kids, watch for this correlation.
They're less easily fooled by fake news, because they're just primed for it.
All right. The best Freudian slip of the day was Kamala Harris, referring to, quote, a Harris administration, and then she corrected it together with Joe Biden.
So here's what she'll do with a Harris administration together with Joe Biden.
Now, what did I teach you before this happened?
All right, if you've been watching my periscopes, you know, one of the things you learn in hypnosis class is that these are not accidents.
Now the first, I don't know, a hundred times you see somebody misspeak, you say to yourself, okay, that's like a funny coincidence.
Because when they misspoke, they said something that felt like they were revealing some inner truth, but they just used the wrong word.
Nope. Nope.
Once you start paying attention, you'll see it's not an accident.
Now, I'm not going to say it's never an accident.
My claim will be that, in general, it's actually meaningful.
Not 100% of the time.
But it is more meaningful than not.
Do you think it's an accident?
That Kamala Harris referred to a Harris administration?
You don't say that out loud unless you've been thinking it.
Unless it's been part of a conversation.
So I think she has revealed that at the very least there's a conversation going about getting rid of Biden or how long he'll last or something along those lines.
There's a story Which didn't get big news.
I don't know if the major news covered it.
But there's a research institute and a researcher who's making a claim that the coronavirus that allegedly came out of the Wuhan lab had to be artificial.
That's pretty big news, right?
There's a researcher who seems to know this field who has a claim that it could not have been a naturally occurring virus.
And that she can tell you exactly how they made it.
Now, that's a pretty big claim.
Not only is she saying that it's man-made, but she's claiming she could make it herself.
In other words, she already knows the components.
If you take this, you take this.
I think she said in six months you could make this thing.
Is that true? Well, I don't know if it's true, but there's a claim today that the Research Institute had some connection with Steve Bannon.
Steve Bannon It has been hammering on China for the Wuhan coronavirus.
So that's a little flag.
You have to ask yourself, why is this not the headline news?
And the answer is, I guess the news business has decided it's not entirely credible.
That doesn't mean it's false.
Remember, whenever I use the word credible, that doesn't mean true or false.
It just means that the nature of it tells you to be cautious about believing it.
That's all. So we'll keep an eye on that.
So here's another magic trick, and something that people who study magic would say.
The Antifa are using a magic trick.
Now most of you know this.
And the magic trick is that they name themselves Antifa, and then they say, don't you get it?
We're anti-fascists.
So therefore, if you're against us, you must be a fascist.
Now that's a magic trick to force you into thinking a certain way.
The real trick is that capitalism and fascism are the same thing.
That's the magic trick.
So instead of saying, hey, we're going to destroy all capitalism, which you might say to yourself, um, that sounds pretty bad, because I'm pretty sure if you destroy capitalism, we all die, or we're conquered by China, etc. But the Antifa gets to say, oh, capitalism?
Who said capitalism?
I said anti-fascist.
I didn't even mention capitalism.
What's capitalism got to do with it?
But here's how you know that's the magic trick.
Have you ever seen the regular news interview somebody from Antifa and ask them this question?
Can you tell us, is there such a thing as a capitalist system that you would not consider fascist?
There isn't.
Bernie Sanders' vision of a socialist version of capitalism would still be fascist.
And this is the thing that the news, if they did their job, if we had a real news business, they would be calling Antifa leaders or representatives, just somebody who could...
I realize they don't have leaders in the traditional sense.
They're public and identified.
They do have some kind of coordination.
But they don't seem to have anybody who's the spokesperson.
But still, you could find people who would be willing to talk about it.
So if we had a real news business, they would call them on and they'd say, trying to understand anti-fascist.
So I have one question.
Could there ever be a capitalist system that is not fascist?
And the answer is, not really.
Now they might try to finesse it by saying, sure, sure, if you did everything right, but you really can't build that system because it would remove incentives, human incentives, so it would fall apart.
So the fact that this dog is not barking, meaning that the news business is not giving you Any look, not an approximate one, not a glance, not anything about what does that mean to be anti-fascist.
Nothing. It's just not a topic.
That tells you that the magic trick is working.
Because as soon as they focused on it, it would fall apart.
All right. Do you remember some of the things that I said in the beginning of the coronavirus?
I told you I thought vitamin D would be important, and now studies seem to be validating that vitamin D might be not just important, but like really, really important.
It's unconfirmed, but it's looking that way.
And now there's a forthcoming study from 23andMe showing that your genetic code could work Affect how much the coronavirus affects you.
So remember I told you early on, you know, I've got a feeling there's a genetic correlation here.
And that if we knew what that genetic correlation was, we could do way better in protecting ourselves because we'd know who needs to be protected.
And now, sure enough.
So I say this because I always tell you that you should watch who is predicting well.
So on day one, practically, I was saying, look at genetics, look at vitamin D, and correct.
Correct. So you have to give me those check marks.
That doesn't mean I'm right on everything.
And when I'm wrong, you should point it out.
And yeah, obesity and Being African American, there are a whole bunch of things that increase your risk.
All right, Trump was in California yesterday talking to Gavin Newsom and people about the forest fires, etc.
Now here's a little fact that you may not have processed when you're watching that.
It's kind of interesting that Trump and Gavin Newsom treat each other with an unusual amount of respect, wouldn't you say?
They differ, no doubt about that.
But there's a level of respect there that you don't really...
It fools you a little bit.
Because he doesn't seem to be as nice to every other governor, but he's really nice to Gavin Newsom and vice versa.
But you might not know that Gavin Newsom's ex-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, has of course been with Don Jr.
in a relationship for some time now.
And I'm pretty sure...
Fact check me on this.
I think that Gavin Newsom and Kimberly Guilfoyle have children, right?
Or one child. I don't know what the situation is, but at least one.
Which would mean that President Trump basically has a, in effect, you know, who knows what the relationship will be in the future.
But in effect, it's like he has a grandchild in law.
What would you call it? You know, a virtual grandchild, a stepson, a step-grandchildren or something.
So Gavin Newsom and President Trump share family.
They actually share family.
And I think that you have to really have that filter on when you see how they interact with each other.
I'm getting confirmation that they have a son.
And you can't discount how important that is, the personal relationship.
And the President...
Has been always good with the personal relationships.
Anyway, what's interesting here is that Gavin Newsom was very diplomatic by saying, yes, forest management is a thing that needs to be done better.
I think we'd all agree.
But he asked the president to be open-minded to the difference of opinion about the importance of climate change.
And the way he worded it was just really good, I have to admit.
Really good in the sense that he needed to be super diplomatic, but still get his point across.
I think he did. I'd say that communication-wise, he did a good job.
And then the president, because he can't go five minutes without controversy.
I listened to this, and I was thinking to myself, don't say it.
Don't say it.
I'm talking about Trump.
I'm waiting for him to respond about the climate change stuff, and the whole time I'm just...
No, don't do it.
Don't do it. And then the president smiles and he goes, it will get cooler.
And I'm like, oh no, oh no, oh no, it will get cooler.
He didn't have to say that.
But I think we're all used to it by now, that whatever is the provocative thing, he's going to say it.
If there's a provocative way to say something in a non-provocative way, you might get the provocative one.
Now here's what's interesting.
My criticism of that is only in the way it's going to make people feel and the politics of it.
My criticism of that is not that he's wrong because my guess is that temperature will probably modulate up and down.
I happen to be on the On the side that says, in all likelihood, temperatures are going up on average.
I don't think it's the end of the world.
I think we'll figure out how to mitigate.
The disasters have gone down every year because we're better at managing everything from hurricanes to floods to you name it.
Forest fires even, we're better at managing in a weird way.
There's more to that story, but the point is that we would figure out how to deal with it Even if it's getting warm, which it probably is.
The president goes for the provocative statement that, eh, it'll get cooler.
You just watch. Now, is that true?
Well, it might. We might have a few years where it's a little cooler, on average.
But I don't think in the long term it's going to stay cool.
I could be wrong. You know, science can surprise you, but at this point I would say the weight of science suggests that the temperatures will probably go up.
We just don't know what that looks like.
All right, so I wouldn't have said that if I were the president, but I doubt it changes anything at this point.
And I would say this is another example where, and I say this often, If you think there's such a thing as a good president and a bad president, I think you're wrong.
There's no such thing as a good president and a bad president.
There are presidents who are well suited to certain tasks and maybe not well suited for others.
The president is just absolutely not suited for anything but optimism.
He just doesn't have a non-optimism mode.
He doesn't give bad news.
Now, does that mean he's a bad president?
No. It means for some things where maybe we should be a little more worried, people would like to hear him give a little more negativity.
But if you want to get your economy back, who do you want?
It's like Ghostbusters.
It's like, okay, if you want some fake optimism about something, he's just not always the right guy because sometimes things need to be treated more seriously.
But if you want to goose the economy, if you want to get a peace deal with another country, if you want to win three or four Nobel Prizes, he's your guy.
Nobody does what he does well better than he does it.
Let me put it Let me frame it in a way you haven't already said before.
In my opinion, the president is bad at easy stuff.
The president, President Trump, in my opinion, is bad, does a bad job at easy things.
Now, an easy thing would be telling the country, oh, things are going to be bad.
I have great empathy for you.
Let me say things to end divisiveness, etc.
All of the stuff that Biden says every day is the easy stuff.
This president waves his hand at the easy stuff, but I don't think he's good at it.
I don't think he's good at it.
But here's the thing. The president...
And the reason that I've supported him from the start, he can do things that are impossible.
So here's the frame.
The president can do things that are literally just impossible.
He's just not good at things that are easy.
Now the good news is, the easy stuff doesn't seem to matter as much.
Does it matter that he turned the entire psychology of North Korea around so that they're not really our enemy anymore?
Yeah. Who thought he could do that?
It seemed impossible.
And then he did it. Did you think that there would be two peace deals in the Middle East?
Nope. It seemed impossible.
And then he did it.
Did you think that when he pulled the forces out of the area that the Kurds were in, in Syria, and all the smart people said, no, no, no, they will be slaughtered, that'll be the worst thing in the world.
And then it didn't happen.
It was impossible to pull our troops out without a slaughter.
And then he did it.
It was fine. It was impossible to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
He did it. It was impossible to recognize the Golan Heights.
And then he just did it. It was impossible to get unemployment down to what it was before the coronavirus.
And then he did it.
How about... Telehealth.
Just a tiny little example from a mountain of things that he changed with executive orders.
Did you think it was possible that we would have telehealth that's now legal across state lines where it had been banned before?
I didn't think so.
I mean, technically, anything's possible.
But I didn't think it was going to happen.
And he just signed a piece of paper.
And it happened. And that was like the law of the land, essentially.
So, that's the frame.
Not so good on little, unimportant stuff where you have to say things just the right way.
But when it comes to things that are literally, literally considered impossible, he does it routinely.
How do you not notice that, right?
How do you not notice that?
Somebody says, where is Kim Jong-un?
I haven't thought about that.
The other day, I need a fact check on this, but I think I saw the President the other day, out of the blue, with no prompting, I don't think anybody had even asked the question, he tweeted that Kim Jong-un was completely healthy.
That happened, right?
Did we not see President Trump tweet that Kim Jong-un is healthy just the other day, when nobody was questioning it?
What's that mean? Well, I think it means that Kim Jong-un either asked for a favor, because maybe he wanted that reported, or the president is just clever enough that he knows that treating Kim Jong-un with even more respect than you'd expect,
giving him a little extra respect in public, and basically having his back, because that would be a case of having his back, the president just stepped up.
And he just had Kim Jong-un's back.
Now, do you think that Kim Jong-un is healthy?
I don't. I think that his sister maybe is getting groomed to take over.
We hear the reports of that.
There's probably something going on, and it might be a pretty big deal.
But the president played it perfectly.
He just has Kim Jong-un's back, and that will be good for the country.
Alright, the thing that I wish Trump had said about the forest fires is that we need nuclear energy, but I think that's just sort of a...
people can't quite understand the topic yet.
Probably 80% of the country still thinks you can't deal with the nuclear waste.
You can. It's not that big a deal.
A lot of the country thinks it's dangerous.
It's not. They just are not up to date.
And I think the president maybe just doesn't want that fight.
Again, I'm not a mind reader.
I would be only speculating.
But it would be the obvious thing to say.
And it would be provocative.
So you would expect him to go there.
But not. Here's something that somebody noticed when Gavin Newsom was blaming climate change for the fires.
If you see the map, the fires go from the bottom of California to the top of the country, and then the fires, of which there are dozens or hundreds, and like the whole state of California looks like it's in fire in different places, and you go right up to the border of Canada, and there's no fires.
So after the Canadian border, no fires.
Now, is the climate that different A mile on the other side of the border versus a mile on our side.
I don't think so.
I don't think it's that different.
So you have to ask yourself, is it management of the forests or not?
Now, the thing that I would like to see is that our forests that have the biggest risk, we should be cutting these 50-yard paths, crisscrossing them, So that there will be a natural firebreak should something start.
But I would also like to see those 50-yard firebreaks through the forest turned into what?
What am I going to say?
What should all those firebreaks that we need to build across all these forests, what should they be in addition to firebreaks?
That's right. They should be bicycle paths.
You should be able to go anywhere in California on a bicycle without reaching traffic.
Bicycle paths that are also, coincidentally, good for the forest.
Could you charge people a toll to use the bicycle paths and use that money to help pay for the forest fire remediation?
I would say yes.
If I could ride 100 miles on a bicycle path through cool woods and stuff, you know, as long as I had a paved path, yeah, I'd pay for that.
Absolutely. I'd pay for that.
A little bit of a toll. Here's an update.
CNN, after reporting for months and months and months-ish, CNN's been reporting that every expert will tell you that mail-in votes are fine They're fine.
There's no problem with mail-in votes.
The president's a big old liar.
There's no problem.
Mail-in votes, they've worked in other states.
They've been working for years.
Nobody's finding a problem.
Therefore, the president is completely wrong about the risk of mail-in votes.
Well, until yesterday, when CNN, here's the important part, CNN is reporting That mail-in votes are a total nightmare and that they're completely inaccurate and there's plenty of evidence that they don't work.
What? Did you see that?
CNN just did a complete 180.
A complete 180.
And they act like they had never said the other thing.
They just pretended that months of reporting about how safe it was just doesn't exist anymore.
And now the report is, wait for it, it gets better.
This isn't the whole story.
It gets better. Part of the report on CNN said that one of the reasons that mail-in votes are so inaccurate is, and I quote, one University of Florida study found black and Hispanic voters in the state were twice as likely to have their ballots rejected as white voters.
Ah. Who could have seen that coming?
Right. Now, this doesn't have anything to do with being black or Hispanic.
Let me be clear about this.
This difference almost certainly has to do with economics, almost certainly has to do with education, which is related.
So if you're in a low socioeconomic group, what are the odds that you're good at filling out paperwork?
I have a terrible time filling out any paperwork.
Even the simplest form, I fill in the wrong blocks, and I got the wrong date, and I signed my name in the wrong place.
So you would expect, it's completely predictable, that the higher educated you are, regardless of ethnicity, has nothing to do with that, but the higher educated you are, you would expect you're more likely to fill out a form correctly.
Is that even controversial?
The more educated, the more likely you can fill out a form.
The more likely you can do anything that requires a little bit of thinking.
So I wouldn't make this a black and white or Hispanic thing.
It has more to do with education.
But the practical impact of it is that it's racist.
Massive mail-in votes are, according to CNN, this isn't me.
According to CNN, mail-in votes, the thing that they've been promoting for months, are racist.
Because that would be the outcome.
The black voters would be disenfranchised without knowing it because their votes would be rejected and they wouldn't know they were rejected.
Alright, here's an update on who I call my smartest Democrat friend who is suffering from TDS. Here's a list of things he believed a few weeks ago.
These are all the things he believed to be true.
He believed that the president suggested drinking bleach to cure coronavirus.
Not. He believed the fine people hoax.
He believed that Biden doesn't lie.
Trump does. He believed that mail-in voting was dependable, because CNN told them that last week, before this week.
He believed that the protests were probably about Trump.
Trump was the cause of the protests.
He believed the Russian bounties on American soldiers, which a report today says they don't have evidence of that yet.
Don't know if we ever will, but they don't have evidence of it.
And he still believes, as of this morning, that hydroxychloroquine was proven dangerous.
So, not so much that it doesn't work against coronavirus, but he still believes, as of today, that hydroxychloroquine was shown to be dangerous by science.
None of it's true.
Absolutely none of it.
So I've been chipping away at him.
So I sent him the reports about the UVC light in a ventilator that's injecting a disinfectant.
So now he understands that the drinking bleach thing was a hoax.
I also sent him the CNN update about the mail-in votes.
So now he believes that mail-in votes are in fact racist and undependable.
So once you take somebody's firm belief and you completely obliterate it, what do they do?
Do they say, you know, I was quite fooled by that fake news.
Now that you've informed me, I changed my opinion.
And I acknowledge that you were right and, man, was I completely wrong up until now.
Thank you for correcting me.
Did that happen?
No. No.
But here's the fun part.
What didn't happen is cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is when somebody finds their worldview is wrong and then they just spout word salad.
Instead, he simply softly redirected the conversation.
And here was his answer.
He talked about voting rights as a partisan issue.
He talked about vote suppression and how not enough people vote.
So his answer to everything you believe from the news about mail-in voting being dependable, from the same sources that told you it was dependable, they now say unambiguously it's a mess.
He didn't say, oh gosh, I was wrong.
He said there are other problems with voting.
Unrelated. Now, what that means is, and if you study persuasion, you can kind of see where this is going, that is somebody who's been persuaded.
Someone who has not been persuaded would say something still on the topic, but it just wouldn't make sense.
Here he's saying things that make complete sense, but he's quite intentionally changed the conversation without reasoning.
Without mentioning it.
That means bullseye.
That he understands that he has been fooled.
And I gave him some other debunks.
We'll see if that makes any difference. I still think the biggest issue about the coronavirus is the question of whether the president did enough testing.
And when I found out more about other countries and how they did, allegedly, superior testing, I say to myself, Let's dig into that a little bit.
Why is it that some other country did better testing?
Then you hear South Korea.
The reason that South Korea did so well in testing, there was a private company who, when the news first came out about the coronavirus, they realized that they had the capability to quickly and ahead of time, I think they started in January, maybe even sooner. I think they started in January.
But they quickly ramped up because they were a private company, and apparently there was nothing stopping them from doing it.
So they ramped up.
Now, would you say then that South Korea, their leadership did better than the United States?
To which I say, well, okay, you're not analyzing this right.
If that private company that did so well and did a really good job in South Korea, what if that was just an American company?
What if an American company had been as clever as this private company?
Would an American company have said, you know, they haven't asked for it yet, but I'm going to get busy on this because I think there could be a billion dollar opportunity.
So we're just going to start making test kits.
Nobody asked us to.
It's not approved by the FDA or the CDC, but we're going to do it.
Is that a leadership thing?
Because I'm not sure that leadership is even part of the question.
If South Korea got their solution because a private company acted both aggressively and early and wisely, it took a good risk management approach that was probably good for their profits as well, that has nothing to do with leadership.
They just had a company that was pretty smart.
I think Germany had a similar situation in which they just had...
I think Germany had a private company that was also big in this space...
So the private company was able to do something quickly with testing.
Now in the United States, I don't know the full detail, but I guess the CDC's kits were incomplete.
It didn't have all the parts.
So there was a part where the CDC fell apart.
But where were our private companies?
I think our private companies were probably limited by maybe FDA and CDC red tape.
So if there's a criticism about the president, and there could be, by the way, I just don't quite understand this issue yet.
If there's an issue with President Trump's performance, I would think it would be in the area of not getting rid of red tape, maybe.
Maybe there was something our private companies couldn't do fast enough because maybe they were barred from doing it.
Is that a thing? There are a lot of people who will base their decision on what they believe about the president's leadership on testing, and they won't know anything about what actually happened.
They won't know that it was probably just private companies making good decisions in other countries.
That might be it.
That could be the whole story.
We don't know. Christopher Ruffo is reporting that we thought that the president did a Executive order banning critical race theory training, but apparently the CDC is just going to move ahead and do it anyway.
So the CDC is going to have training classes on critical race theory.
I think they tried to finesse it by not calling it that, but it is.
And I have to wonder, at what point does this go to the Supreme Court?
At what point does the Supreme Court say you can't teach this critical race theory stuff because it's just racist?
Because it is racist.
It's obviously racist.
It's gigantically racist.
So when is that going to happen?
Alright. Would you like to be scared about the future of humankind?
I can deliver that.
And it goes like this. In my opinion, the protests and riots that you're seeing around the country...
Could not happen without artificial intelligence.
Now, there could have been some protests, there might have been some things, but in terms of the extent of what we're seeing and the way it's affecting the country, we would not have this if not for AI. Here's what I mean.
Now, you're going to tell me, but Scott, the kind of AI we have now and our algorithms, etc., is still controlled by people.
People program them.
People tweak them.
It's people. People making decisions.
They're just using AI as a convenient tool.
That, I believe, is a mistake in perception.
While it is true that the humans are tweaking them in a variety of ways, what's also true is the algorithm forces the humans to do what the humans do.
Once the algorithm, through trial and error, has determined what gets you the most profit, The human doesn't have a choice of not following it because the human will be fired if they don't pursue profit.
So you say to yourself, but the human has a choice.
They don't have to do what the AI says just because the AI says, let's feed these ads or this news to people because it'll get them all worked up and they'll be angry and then they'll click more.
The human, you could say in some technical sense, they could decide not to do it.
But then they would be fired.
And then the next person would do it.
So you don't really, in a practical sense, have any way to fight the artificial intelligence.
Once it decides that this is how you make money, you're going to do it.
That's the way humans are wired.
So we are already at the point where AI controls humanity.
A lot of people are worried, like, what happens someday when the AI gets smart enough that it's sentient and then it's making our decisions?
Well, I don't think you could argue it's sentient, but it's already making the decisions.
That is literally true.
AI is determining how mad you are, what news you saw, and what you clicked on.
And that will determine the government.
Because our government has to react to what the news and the public collectively want.
The government, in some cases, in limited cases, can do something the public isn't demanding.
But for the most part, they have to do what the public demands.
And the public is only demanding what the news and social media tells them to think.
And it only does that because the AI is telling them what to think.
So for all practical purposes, Artificial intelligence is running the United States.
It is. It's already done.
So there's that.
Mike Bloomberg is going to spend $100 million in Florida trying to make sure that the Democrats win Florida.
And I thought to myself, Alright, I believe in free speech and people should be able to use the money the way they want.
But when the founders of this country were designing a system, at what point did they understand that one person could spend $100 million in a swing state and determine the election?
Would that be legal, do you think, if the founders knew that could have happened?
I don't think they could have conceived Of somebody with so much money.
That would have been hard to imagine.
Although you could argue that George Washington was one of the richest people in the world, if you normalize it.
But why is that legal?
I understand that it is legal, but shouldn't we look into that a little bit?
I feel like there should be some kind of limit on what one person can do.
You know, if you said to me, well...
Mike Bloomberg can put in up to $10 million.
That's still a ton of money.
But I'd say, all right, all right, because there'll be other billionaires that put $10 million the other way.
But to have one person put $100 million into one swing state, or one that could be a swing state, that's a big risk to the republic.
I'm surprised that that's legal.
All right. That is all I wanted to talk about.
Somebody says, you don't even vote.
So? This year I am going to vote.
I registered to vote this year.
The only reason I'm registering to vote this year is for self-defense.
Because I do think that this year is unusual.
And I think that anybody who supported Trump would be in a lot of trouble if he doesn't win.
There could be violence.
There could be discrimination. There could be any Any number of things that could be bad.
So just for self-defense, I'll be voting for Trump.
There you go. All right.
What does he get in return?
What does Bloomberg get in return?
Yeah, it's a good question, isn't it?
Somebody says Kimberly's son was from a prior marriage.
You mean before Gavin Newsom?
We'll do a fact check on that because I might be wrong about her.
Her son, but there's still a connection with Gavin Newsom, even if it's indirect.
All right. The slaughter meter is at about 200% at the moment.
Almost every day that goes by, it looks better for Trump and worse for Biden.
Until that changes, the slaughter meter is at about 200%.
Export Selection