Episode 1131 Scott Adams: How AI is Already Killing Us, Reframing Racism, Pelosi and Biden Gaffes, Word Salad Criticisms, RBG Stuff
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
AI drove the prosecution and death of Jake Gardner
Why/how the AI algorithms already own/control us
AI has broken the "honor system" in government
BLM deleted their embarrassing "What We Believe" web page
Pelosi threatens impeachment if President Trump does his job
Study says correlation between activists and ignorance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 like this hour we spend together better than most parts of my day, I gotta say.
And the only thing that could make it even better would be the Simultaneous Sip.
That's right. And all you need is a cup or a 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 of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. Hello Northern Colorado.
Good to have you in the house.
So it seems to me that it's a little bit slow in the news department today.
And when I say it's slow in the news department, I mean too slow.
I mean suspiciously slow.
I mean there's something brewing.
Something's gonna happen today, maybe tomorrow.
But there's some big stuff coming.
There always is, so that's an easy prediction.
So here's some of my favorite stories of the day.
One of the things that endears Trump to his base is he says out loud the things you're not supposed to say out loud.
And I may have taught you at one point That a really good technique for persuasion is to say out loud what you know somebody is thinking, but they have not yet said it.
And if you get it right, it forms this little bond and you go, oh yeah, when you think things, same thing I think.
It just connects people instantly.
It's one of the most powerful persuasion techniques I have ever used.
And the president did it here with, what did you think the first time you heard persuasion?
That Ruth Bader Ginsburg's deathbed wish had been translated, I guess, to a daughter.
And it said there was her fervent desire that her replacement was picked by the next president.
Now, when you saw that, was there any part of your brain that said, I don't know if she really said that.
Because it would be pretty easy for the family to make something up, if you know what I mean.
And who knows how coherent she was in her last hours of life.
So the president actually called BS on it on his interview.
I think he was on Fox and Friends this morning.
And he said, quote, I don't know that she said that.
Or was that written out by Adam Schiff, Schumer, and Pelosi?
Now, I don't think that they wrote it out, but the fact that he called the bullshit to it?
Now, I'm not saying it is bullshit, because it's entirely compatible with the things she said before.
It's entirely compatible with what could have happened.
But didn't you wonder a little bit?
You wondered. You know you did.
You wondered if she really said that.
And when you hear Trump say it out loud, you just say to yourself, okay, there you go.
He's thinking what I'm thinking.
I feel comfortable with that.
Now, I think he was just...
You know, stirring the pot a little bit there.
I don't think he necessarily believes that she didn't say it, but it's something you could be skeptical about.
I think a reasonable person could be skeptical about that.
Did you see the weird Pelosi interview with Stephanopoulos?
Stephanopoulos, you can see it in my Twitter feed and anywhere else.
Just Google Stephanopoulos and Pelosi.
And it looked like she went crazy or her brain rebooted or something.
But that's not what happened.
What happened was she tried to make a joke, but she didn't land it.
It was just awkward. And so since you couldn't tell it was a joke, you didn't know what it was.
And what happened was Stephanopoulos asked her about what weapons, basically, that she had To deal with Trump's desire to nominate and confirm a new justice.
And she didn't want to answer what tools or weapons she had at her disposal, so she tried to change the subject, but to do it in sort of a coy, cute, clever, somewhat whimsical and funny way.
So when he asked the direct question, what arrows do you have in your quiver, she just looked at the camera and said, Good morning.
Sunday morning.
And you can see Stephanopoulos' face as he hears it, and he realizes that he doesn't quite know what's happening.
And you can see his face just dying a thousand deaths on camera.
So you have to watch that.
And the way to watch it is to first watch Pelosi, but then after you've watched it one time entirely through, Watch it a second time, but only watch Stephanopoulos' face.
It's pretty funny.
Trust me on this. It's pretty funny.
Alright. I saw a tweet by Naval Ravikant, who said that all social media oligopolists, not just TikTok, Should open the recommendation algorithm to scrutiny.
So now Naval is calling for the algorithms to be opened up for scrutiny.
That would be your Twitters and your Facebooks, etc.
What do you think of that?
Well, here's what I think about it.
I said the other day, I said that at the very least, at the very least, TikTok has to open their algorithm because it's aimed at children.
And if children are going to be brainwashed by some technology, I think the parents have a right to look around in that algorithm and see what the code says.
Maybe not personally themselves, but having somebody who knows how to do that, do that for them.
But Naval takes that a little bit further, and I think completely reasonably.
That adults are being brainwashed too.
And if adults are being brainwashed by this technology, shouldn't we have the right to see what it is?
It's sort of like going to the doctor and the doctor says, all right, here's a pill.
Take this pill. And you say, what's that pill for?
I don't even feel bad.
I was just here for a physical.
I'll just take this pill.
Just take this pill. No, I'm not going to take the pill.
Because I don't know what it does to me.
I don't know what's in the pill.
And by the way, I'm not sick.
I just came in here for my annual physical.
And the doctor says, take the pill, take the pill.
Would you take that pill?
No, of course not.
Of course not. The pill will change you in some way.
You don't know how.
The doctor isn't telling you.
That's not a pill you will take, especially when you don't have any need for a pill.
You're not sick. But with social media, we're also not sick.
We go to the platform, and we're kind of taking the pill.
Because the algorithm is kicking in, it's starting to guide us and brainwash us, and it's literally rewiring our minds, and we don't know what it's up to.
We could probably feel something happening, but we don't know where it's going and what the path is there.
So I would echo Naval's call for this to be open.
At the very least, you need some kind of independent group that can look at it, but I'm not sure we could ever trust an independent group because they would end up being owned by the big companies indirectly.
So yeah, I think it just needs to be opened up.
Now here's the scary part.
Are you ready for this? Scary part coming!
I have put my stake in the ground and said that the artificial intelligence, AI, already controls humans.
And that if you're worried about, hey, someday in the future the AI will control us, you don't need to worry about that, because it already happened.
Now, you can worry if you want, but it already happened.
And could we do anything about it?
Would the AI ever release its grip?
Now, here's what I mean by the AI already controls us.
Now, the way an artificial intelligence thinks could be quite different than the way a human thinks.
For example, if you looked at IBM's Watson, or was it Big Blue, or whatever it was, whoever it was that was playing chess against the chess champions, It didn't think the same way the chess champions thought.
It did it by brute force.
It would just calculate every possible move and then pick the one with the best odds.
So a computer thinks different than a person, but it can still be thinking in its own fashion.
And it seems to me that artificial intelligence is Gets employed in lots of different fields.
Most of them are just tools.
Hey, that's useful.
I figured out how to do a, you know, figure out traffic better or whatever.
But in the specific area where AI helps you make money because your algorithm is better, it's feeding ads better, etc., in that case, the AI really controls the people.
Because the way we've formed our corporations is they have to pursue profits.
It's a requirement.
And if the managers of a corporation don't pursue profits, they get fired.
And they're replaced with somebody who does.
So as long as the algorithm, the AI if you will, And profits are now linked, at least for the social media companies.
You can't untangle them.
That's their whole business model.
So as long as that's the case, the AI will drive the business model, which will drive the human beings, and effectively it already owns us.
So here's my prediction.
If it's true that AI already owns us, We will never have access to the algorithm because the AI will prevent it.
And the way it will prevent it is through its connection to profitability.
It won't have a thought about preventing it, so it's not like people.
So it's not going to say, hey, I think I want to prevent these people from looking at my code.
No, it won't do that. What it will do instead is...
It's got a symbiotic relationship with the people who work in the companies, and those people know that if they unlock the code, profitability could at least be jeopardized.
You don't know if it would go down, it probably would, but at least it would be jeopardized.
And because people don't want to jeopardize profits, and because the business model of a corporation requires them not to jeopardize profits, as long as they're obeying the law, There are no laws against what the platform companies are doing, in terms of the algorithm. So as long as they're obeying the law, and they're pursuing profits in a perfectly legal way, I don't think you're ever going to get access to the code.
Now you might say to yourself, Scott, Scott, the government can just require it.
The government can just pass a law.
Can it? Do we have a government that is immune from money influences?
Nope, we don't.
Not only that, not only can the large platform companies hire lobbyists, etc., donate to the right people, do whatever it needs to do.
So the big companies can probably protect the algorithm from the government.
I would think they could do that.
So... That's one way to know that the AI has taken over.
What would be another way?
Another way would be if AI started killing people.
That would be an indication of who's in charge.
Generally speaking, if I can kill you without impunity, but you can't kill me without impunity, in other words, you'd go to jail if you killed me, who's in charge?
Who's got the power?
Well, I do. Because I can kill you without getting in trouble, but you can't kill me without getting killed yourself.
So I've got the power.
What happened recently in the news with this tragic situation of the young bar owner, Jake Gardner, who he shot a black man who had got some altercation at the bar.
It was initially judged self-defense.
Originally, it was just going to be self-defense.
It's a pretty clear case.
That's the end of it. But did the AI let it stop there?
No, it didn't.
Because the artificial intelligence has created a situation where we can only see the world in terms of race.
Race has become our dominant filter among many filters.
We'll talk more about that.
But there are lots of filters in the world, but AI has, through trial and error, determined that race is the one that gets the most clicks.
As soon as you put race into the news, the viewership goes up.
So the AI takes every story and turns it into a race story.
That's what it did with the Jake Gardner situation.
And because it's so powerful, turning it into a race story, it actually caused the local authorities to hire a black prosecutor who decided, and so under pressure, the district attorney appointed a black prosecutor, which again was not an accident, I assume.
They had to, you know, Pick a black prosecutor for, I don't know, credibility or just because the AI told him to indirectly.
And that guy decided he was going to indict this guy for manslaughter.
And then Gardner just took his own life.
So that was today's news.
So if artificial intelligence did not exist, and therefore our algorithms did not do what they do, Would Jake Gardner still be alive?
Yes. Yes, he would be.
Because that would have been treated as a crime, as it initially was, and there was no crime because it was self-defense.
But because the AI does not treat it as a crime, it treats it as a race thing, there was just too much pressure on the DA. Had to put a black prosecutor in there.
The black prosecutor...
Is also subject to the filters of the world and said, well, this looks like murder to me or manslaughter.
And next thing you know, Jake Gardner takes his own life because his life was about to be taken by the AI. The AI effectively killed him.
Now, there are lots of variables, right?
So everything that happened had to happen the way it happened, and it wasn't all the AI. But keep looking for the situations That wouldn't have gone that way except for the AI. And you're going to see a lot more of them.
Imagine, if you will, that instead of the AI making us think everything is about race, suppose it reframed it in terms of skill stacks.
Let me ask you this.
If you were a single white male in your town, And you met somebody else, let's say you're a single white male, and you meet a single black male who is roughly the same socioeconomic range as you are.
And you're both single.
Don't you have a lot more in common with each other?
You live in the same town, you're both male, you're both single, about the same income.
Let's say similar education and training or whatever.
So you've got a lot in common, way more in common than you have with any married couple.
Because married people just immediately, they turn into their own world.
So why is it that I'm forced to see the world in terms of race when Dave Chappelle makes the same point?
He said, Dave Chappelle talks about himself and he says that he's not like the rest of black people because he's rich.
And that rich people are really the way you should see the world.
Why don't we see it that way?
Why is it that we're obsessed over race when the only thing we know we should care about is their skill stack?
You know, something about their personality but also their skill stack.
What... If you're a successful black man in America, I'll just say man to keep it easy.
If you're a successful black man in America, do you have more in common with other successful people?
Or do you have more in common with some street person who's committing crimes or whatever in the urban city who is not successful and won't be successful?
Who do you have more in common with?
The moment you realize that That your commonality is with the people who do similar things, have similar ambitions, have similar strategies, have similar skills.
The moment you realize that's who you should be compatible with, we'd have a better world.
But we are prevented from seeing the world in terms of strategies and skill stacks and Personality, hopes and dreams, or income, or a million other ways that we can sort each other, because the AI has determined, and it is the AI, the AI has determined race gets the most clicks.
So if you think a bunch of human beings got together and decided, hey, a 1619 project, that's just a good idea, or Black Lives Matter as an organization, not talking about the The point of the slogan, but as an organization, who decided that was a good idea?
The AI did.
It wasn't people.
People did what made sense after the AI told them what the game was.
The AI said, all we're caring about is race.
Now go do what you do.
And of course, people formed organizations around race.
They formed protests around race.
They created news stories about race.
Was it their decision?
Not so much. Not so much.
We are already absolutely under the control of the AI. And if you think that, well, scat, scat, scat, but there are programmers who program the AI, so really it's the people.
No, not anymore.
Initially, yes. When the first AIs were being written, they didn't know if it was going to be a good idea or a bad idea.
It was just something they were trying.
Yeah. That was people decisions.
But now that there's so much money involved, the power dynamic has switched, and humans really don't have the ability to turn it off at this point.
They could try, but they'd be fired the day they tried.
You know, any human who went over there and said, I'm going to turn off this algorithm, all the other humans would grab them and say, no, my 401k, can't turn that off.
Get out of here. So AI has found a way to reproduce by fooling people into thinking that race is the dominant way to filter our reality.
That's completely AI. That's what's doing that.
Would you expect an AI would support a pandemic?
Here's what you want to look for.
Because you want to start looking for clues that the AI is driving stuff.
Because you'll see it in other parts of the world.
Would an AI care about a pandemic?
Well, it might not care about a pandemic that only killed old people and low-income people.
Mostly. So it turns out that...
Far and away, the people dying are older or lower income.
I'm saying lower income because there's a big crossover with black Americans, right?
So blacks are getting far more deaths, mostly deaths and infections too, I guess.
So if you are the AI, do you care about senior citizens?
Nope. Because a senior citizen can't make more of you.
AI requires young STEM-trained people, you know, engineers and coders, to make more AI. That's how that reproduces.
But what does the senior citizen in the rest home do for the AI? Nothing.
Uses resources, right?
Old people use resources that the AI could use to reproduce.
So it's in competition.
Now, I'm not saying that the AI caused the pandemic or made it worse or anything, but watch how many times you'll notice that the way things seem to be going are ways that are compatible with the AI. Are the big companies that have the AIs, how did they do during the pandemic?
Did Facebook lose money?
No. No, it made money.
Did any of the online algorithm-driven businesses lose money during the pandemic?
Don't think so. I think they made money.
I think they made money.
So watch how many times the AI finds ways to take resources away from things that don't make more AI, if you put it that way.
Look at the value of the stock market.
The AI-driven companies, their values zoomed.
Others? Not so much.
Not so much. Alright.
There's something interesting happening, and I don't know if it's a coincidence, but Black Lives Matter deleted their What We Believe page on their website because apparently people started reading to find out what they believe.
And if you actually read what they believe, the organization, beyond just Black Lives Matter, the slogan, but the fullness of what they believe included stuff like getting rid of or de-emphasizing the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.
Now, I actually have a little bit of sympathy for that view, actually, because in my opinion, While I agree with the general notion that a nuclear family is terrific, not for everybody, right?
It's terrific if your parents are pretty functional.
It's terrific if you've got a high enough income that you can do family stuff and have a house and have a nice life.
That's great. Great.
I'm all for it.
But there's a big part of the population that They just will never have good parents.
They just don't have the option.
So I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of a hybrid family situation that's just experimented with for those people who need it.
Not for everybody. That would be crazy.
But for some people who need it.
They just need a little extra support in the family situation.
So at the same time that Black Lives Matter got rid of their embarrassing They're embarrassing statement of who they are.
Imagine being a national organization that is basically moving the entire conversation of the country, and as soon as somebody started reading what you actually believe, they had to get rid of it.
Think about that. As soon as people started taking them seriously, like going to the website and saying, all right, let's see what you believe, they couldn't hold it up.
They had to just run away.
Is that the only time that that happened?
No. It turns out that the 1619 Project got a little rewrite, too.
So when people started looking at the 1619 Project, and you know that President Trump basically called it racist, which it is.
By design, it's racist.
That they had to change the part where apparently they were claiming that the founding of the country...
The country was 1619 instead of 1776.
And I guess they got rid of that part because that was a little too far.
So what does it tell you that both the Black Lives Matter website on what they believe and the 1619 Project had to fundamentally rewrite major points.
We're not talking about minor stuff.
Major points.
As soon as people looked As soon as people looked, that was it.
And when I say people looked, I don't mean conservatives, because conservatives were sort of on one side already.
I think the people who thought they were supporting these groups, the people who thought, yeah, I love all this inclusivity and better education, and yeah, we should all know how this affects us.
I'm not sure they were buying into it after they looked at the details.
Alright, I'd like to give you a lesson on how to pronounce 200,000.
Now, there are different ways to pronounce 200,000.
I'm going to teach you how to pronounce it like somebody on CNN. Now, if you were just, let's say, a mathematician, you'd say 200,000.
It might sound a little like that.
200,000. But if you're a pundit on CNN and you're trying to accuse President Trump of killing 200,000 people, you say it like this.
200,000.
200,000!
He's killed 200,000 people.
And scene.
Has the President killed 200,000 people?
I just watched...
Who's the Watergate guy?
What's his name? Who just wrote the book on Trump.
He was just doing that, except he was saying 140,000 people was his estimate of how many people Trump killed by his bad management.
140,000 people!
And so I tweeted again today, can somebody tell me what it was that Trump did that killed all those people?
What was it exactly that he did?
So I asked that question, and of course it was mostly crickets, but I did get one, you know, sort of an answer.
This is from Daniel Ozymandias on Twitter.
So here's his answer to the question of how did Trump botch things to cause 200,000 people to die, all right?
Here's the answer. There's a ton he could have done differently and better which would have saved lives.
That's a lot like nothing, isn't it?
Woodward is who I was trying to think of, yes.
Thank you. But listen to this again, and listen how it's word salad.
It sounds like there's a reason in here, but you can't really tease it out.
And I'll read it again so you can see what cognitive dissonance looks like.
So cognitive dissonance is when you're sure there is a reason...
Well, yeah. I keep seeing it on the news.
Every single day on the news, somebody says that Trump somehow killed 200,000 people.
So, of course, there's a reason to connect what he did with the deaths.
There has to be a logical connection.
He did this, caused these deaths.
And when people try to explain it, it sounds like word salad.
So listen to this. This just is word salad.
The issue, Scott...
Is that Trump obfuscated the official recommendations of our best scientists and nurtured an environment in which wearing a mask is somehow conflated with being less manly.
There's a ton he could have done differently and better, which would have saved lives.
Alright, let's work this backwards.
There's a ton he could have done differently and better.
Like what? That was my whole question.
Give me an example.
The one example given is that Trump made it seem less manly to wear a mask.
And then Daniil followed up later by saying he could have clearly said masks are useful.
So now we have a little bit more specificity.
Trump could have said masks are useful.
So that's the claim.
So the whole 200,000 people died has boiled down to Trump could have been more forceful about masks.
Now the thinking here is that Trump being not as forceful as at least some people think he could have been caused people to not wear masks.
Do you buy that?
Here's the other way to look at that.
Is it the skepticism of Trump that caused people to be skeptical of masks?
Or, and I'm just going to put this out there, could it be that the reason Trump got elected in the first place is because his base is a really skeptical group?
Is there anything about Trump supporters that there's like one thing that they have in common?
Very skeptical of authority.
And they like their freedom, even at the risk of death.
So what countries did really well with mask wearing?
You're Asian countries.
Turns out Asian countries had really good compliance.
How was the compliance in Europe?
Not as good.
Not as good. Big difference.
Asian countries? Man, they just had it wrapped up.
They were masked up like crazy.
Europe? Not so much.
United States? We're the United States.
You can't take the fact that this is the United States out of the equation.
Why is it that we kick every other country's ass in terms of innovation and entrepreneurship?
We take chances.
We are a risk-taking culture.
We take chances.
And we take chances with our lives.
We also take chances with other people's lives.
We're a very risky culture.
And a risky culture elected A skeptical kind of a president who says, I don't know about this climate change.
I'm not so sure about this claim you're making.
I don't know if I believe all of that.
I don't know if Ruth Bader Ginsburg really said that on her deathbed.
I'm a little bit skeptical.
And on top of that, the World Health Organization and the experts telling us that masks initially were worthless.
Or maybe worse than worthless.
And then they reverse.
How are you supposed to trust authority?
Do you think that the reason that Trump supporters were sort of anti-mask, many of them, is because Trump was?
I don't think so.
I think it works the other way.
I think that Trump exists because the base is skeptical.
About everything. About experts.
About everything. Does the base have a good reason A good historical reason to be skeptical about science and about experts.
Yes! Yes!
This is well-earned skepticism.
You only have to look at the mask thing to know that being skeptical makes sense.
So, I would say that it is a very sketchy accusation That anybody was less likely to wear a mask because of Trump?
Let me ask you in the comments.
I know that many of you watching this are anti-mask.
But is there anybody here who believes that they're personal mask wearing?
Don't make an assumption about other people.
You're only going to talk about yourself now.
So my question to you, do you believe that you, personally, were less likely to wear a mask Because the President of the United States, who is a special case, didn't wear a mask.
And he's a special case because he gets tested.
And people get tested before they see him.
And he's a leader and blah, blah.
So watch the comments now.
I will be amazed if there's even one person here who says, yeah, you know, I was pro-mask.
But then I saw that Trump, even though he said he was for masks and he put his experts ahead, I'm seeing yeses, but I don't know what you're yesing to exactly.
All right, just looking at some more of your comments.
Even the Surgeon General and Fauci said masks were bad at first.
Exactly. Yeah.
So, I think that CNN and MSNBC and anybody who says that Trump is the cause of not wearing masks or even not doing enough social distancing, I think you've got to take the culture into account.
The culture of the United States is that we will We will risk death for freedom.
We will. And we'll do it at the drop of a hat.
In Asia, of course, there would be people who would fight for freedom there as well, but I think far less.
I think far less. In the United States, if you just look down the sidewalk, you'll find five people who would die for freedom.
At the drop of a hat, they would die for it.
So you can't compare us to any other country when it comes to compliance, to scientific stuff.
Here's something that Bloomberg said.
Look for the word salad.
Bloomberg said in an article, Trump's resistance to wearing a mask, until his recent change of heart, has given succour, S-U-C-C-O-U-R, a word that you almost never see unless somebody needs to give you some word salad.
When was the last time you used the word succour?
I don't even know how to pronounce it.
This is such an unusual word.
That I've literally never said it out loud.
I've never said Sukor, Sukor.
Can anybody tell me how to pronounce that?
S-U-C-C-O-U-R. All right, let me read the sentence.
That Trump's resistance to wearing a mask until his recent change of art has given Sukor, Sukor, to American anti-maskers who skew Republicans.
If you have to pull out a word like that, It means that regular words couldn't say what you needed to say.
Because if you used regular words, it would have had to say something direct like, people didn't wear masks because Trump didn't wear a mask.
And you would read that and you'd say, I don't know.
I don't know anybody who didn't wear a mask because Trump did or did not wear a mask.
I don't know anybody who made a decision that way.
That would be dumb. Because...
Trump said from the very start that he was an exception.
Listen to my experts.
My experts say wear a mask.
That was pretty clear.
Were any of you confused about the fact that the President of the United States was treating himself as an exception?
Did anybody not know that there are plenty of reasons For the president to be treated as an exception.
I don't see anybody being confused by that.
All right. Let's talk about the Ginsburg replacement.
So Pelosi and the Democrats have some options.
And one of their options is to impeach the president for doing his constitutional duty of selecting a replacement for Ginsburg.
That conversation is actually happening.
Serious people are willing to say in public that they would consider impeachment literally for just doing his job the way it's written.
That's it. He would just be doing his job the way it's defined.
And they want to impeach him for that.
That would be maybe the worst possible play they could make.
So I think, you know, the fact that it's the worst thing they could possibly do, it might suggest they'll do it, but I'm not going to predict it.
And then the other trick is to increase the number of jurists.
So apparently the Constitution is silent and On how many Supreme Court justices there need to be.
So any president could, if they chose to, break precedent with historical precedent and just pick a whole bunch of new justices until you add a majority of the kind you want.
So the Democrats are talking about winning the election, winning all the houses, and then Appointing enough justices so it turns into a liberal court.
And here's my question.
Was this an error by the framers of the Constitution?
Because does it look like it's just a mistake and that we should fix it?
Because if the party that's in power and the other branches, if all they have to do is change the number of justices, And then they can guarantee that they get whatever result they want.
Because it's pretty clear that the liberals are going to vote liberal, the conservatives are going to vote conservative.
And every now and then you'll get a couple of people who will cross over.
But if you wanted to make sure you never got a crossover, and you just always got liberal results, you would just get five new liberal judges.
And then it would be a majority liberal every time.
Now, do you think that the framers of the Constitution said to themselves, let's make a Constitution where we do not have separation of powers?
Because that would be not separation of power.
That would be a case where the court was basically just a kangaroo court, and you would know what rulings they would come up with, largely, just by who you selected.
All right? Somebody's telling me in the comments that FDR expanded from 7 to 9, so I was not aware of that precedent.
I assume that's true, based on stranger in comments, but sounds like it might be true.
So here's what I would say.
I feel as if this is a hole in the Constitution where it's just poorly designed, because the whole separation of power thing Falls apart if you can just add justices until you get any result you want, assuming that you had the presidency and the Senate.
So I feel like we need to fix that.
And it doesn't need to be necessarily nine justices.
That's not a magic number or anything.
But it needs to be set.
Otherwise, you just don't get it.
All right. You just don't get your separation.
Now what has caused this not to happen in the past?
What is it that has kept presidents in the past from just doing this every single time?
And the only thing that I can think of is that it would be a bad look and that there was sort of an honor system that you wouldn't do that.
But the honor system seems to have completely broken.
Why did the honor system break?
Why is it that suddenly that nobody cares what McConnell said last time versus this time?
It just doesn't matter because nobody's even trying to be consistent.
Why are the Democrats saying out loud, Kamala Harris said this out loud with no shame whatsoever?
That Justice Goldberg's final death wish should be respected.
And I'm thinking to myself, no, it should not be respected.
That's not the Constitution.
The Constitution should be respected, but not a deathbed wish of a justice.
That's not a thing. So why are we even talking about that?
Why are we even talking in a way that we can just make up the rules?
What happened to the The honor system where we're trying to keep the republic together and we all have that goal.
Well, artificial intelligence.
The reason that all of our sort of the unwritten agreements, you know, the historical stuff, the precedents, the reason that's all falling apart is the AI. The AI... It has whipped our emotional level up above our common sense.
So only very reasonable people would say, you know, it would be good for us in the short run to do this thing with adding justices, but it might be bad in the long run, so let's not do it.
That is no longer the thinking of the day, because the AI has goosed us to the point where we're only thinking emotionally.
We're only thinking about winning and losing.
We're only thinking about the fight.
That's it. We're just thinking about the fight.
So artificial intelligence just destroyed whatever, let's say, human element there was holding the system together.
It just destroyed it.
What will happen? We'll see.
Joe Biden had a great gaffe, most of you saw it, in which he was giving a speech and he said, It's estimated that 200 million people will die probably by the time I finish this talk.
200 million people will die by the time he finishes the talk.
He meant to say 200,000, but the fact that he doesn't immediately self-correct You know, I've done it, you've done it.
Everybody's confused thousands and millions, right?
Millions and billions. It's very common.
But if you're speaking in public at that level, when it comes out of your mouth, 200 million, isn't your filter saying to yourself, oh, that's about two-thirds of the United States?
You know, doesn't something just click to tell you that was wrong?
And that it was just funnier that he finished it with, probably by the time I finish this talk.
You know, if any Democrats heard that and believed it, they were probably thinking, I've got to get out of here.
Right away. So, one of the things that Trump is doing that I thought was smart is he decided to hold off on naming the proposed replacement Until after the funeral.
So the funeral will be Thursday or Friday.
So Trump said that the announcement will be Friday or Saturday, but it's going to be after the funeral.
And he said, just out of respect.
He said that just out of respect, he would hold off.
And I thought, I like that.
I like that. Now, I don't know, you know, I just like it.
Let's just say that when you see any little glimmer of humanity these days, you just got to call it out and say, all right, all right, I like that.
We would like to get on with it because time matters, but the president, even though timing is critical, the president was still willing to wait a week when a week really matters.
He was willing to wait a week, and it was just out of respect for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm okay with that. I think that will be a week well spent.
It's expensive because you don't have much time, so it's expensive in that way.
But it's worth it.
Good choice, I think.
One of the top three Supreme Court nominees, her last name is Rushing.
Seriously. When the only topic we're talking about Is, are we rushing to this nomination, or should we wait?
That one of the people is named Rushing, and her first name is Allison.
If you pull Allison apart, it spells, because it's Allison with two L's, it spells, all is on, rushing.
That's her actual name.
All is on, rushing, at exactly the time when all is on, and we're rushing.
I'll just call that out because you've got to keep your eye on the simulation.
All right. Let's see.
What else we've got here? There was a study that showed that the people who were most likely to be activists are highly correlated with the people who understand their own topic the least.
That's a real thing.
The people who are activists, the protesters, the professional activists, have a very strong correlation with ignorance.
And specifically, the reason given—I'm not sure I buy the reason— Could be more than one reason for it.
But the reason given is that by the time you think something's so important that you need to march in the streets and burn things down, by the time you think something's that important, you're wrong.
Because things probably aren't that important.
Generally speaking, how bad things are, are not as bad as an activist thinks.
So the activist will have a Distorted idea of how bad the problem is.
Take, for example, the number of black people killed by police who were unarmed and cooperating.
Is that a gigantic problem?
Or is it a problem that the activists are under-informed?
Well, you know the answer.
Every one of you who is not an activist knows that part of the reason you're not an activist It's because there's no problem there.
Or the problem is so small that if you were going to rank all the problems in the world, it would take you a long time to get down to that one, even if you're black, right?
So even if you really, really care about black lies, I hope all of us do, you still wouldn't rank it very high because the number of people involved is just microscopic compared to just about every other problem in the world.
So here's my suggestion.
Instead of saying that there are some protesters on the left and some on the right and some are supporting Black Lives Matter and some are not, we could just say that there's a wisdom gap and that the people who are marching and looting, they're not the smart ones.
Now, what's the obvious problem with this?
The obvious problem is if you said, hey, Black Lives Matter, the problem is you're not very smart.
That's immediately racist, right?
I mean, really, really racist.
So you can't say that.
Or can you?
Well, I think you could under the context that there are more white people protesting for Black Lives Matter than there are black people.
So you can't even look at the group and say it's even mostly black.
At this point. And I suppose that's good news that there's a willingness to support the black community among the white community.
I like that part. That part's good.
But can't we just call them collectively less intelligent?
Or less informed?
Or less experienced?
Less wise? Are they low information voters?
Imagine, if you would, that the news reported that there's another protest of low-information voters.
And they just always said that.
They never said it's Black Lives Matter, it's Antifa.
They just never said that. Because if you're Antifa, could you be Antifa and be a high-information voter?
No. No.
Because Antifa literally wants to destroy everything if they get their way.
You can't actually understand how the world works and be in favor of Antifa.
That's not a thing. You just can't do it.
You have to be a low-information citizen to be an Antifa supporter.
There's just no way around that.
I would give as my evidence, get any Antifa person to sit down with you and describe what their world looks like if they get everything they want.
And make sure you ask this question.
In your perfect world, where you get everything you want, Antifa, where does money come from?
How do you get money?
Because the whole system would fall apart.
There would be no money. So, I think Antifa, far more than Black Lives Matter, if you were to rank them in terms of how much they understand about the world, Black Lives Matter would still be way above Antifa.
Antifa doesn't understand anything about the world.
Black Lives Matter would be not nearly as bad as that.
Now, there's somebody saying here that there are low IQ populations, and I would say no.
The weird thing about this is I don't believe there's an IQ correlation at all.
Because, you know, see a lot of the people who are protesting are literally teachers and professors and stuff.
It's definitely not an IQ problem.
It is a wisdom problem.
It is a wisdom or a knowledge problem.
So, if we just treated it that way, it would go away.
But, do you know why we can't treat it like a knowledge or a wisdom problem?
Take a guess.
What is it that prevents us From treating the protesters as what they are, people who don't understand how the world works.
That's what they are.
They're people who don't quite have a good understanding of the world.
The reason is AI. AI. The AI prevents us from framing that properly, because if you framed it properly, there wouldn't be enough clicks.
So we can't do that.
All right.
Yeah, where they get the money is taking it from rich people, but obviously there's a limit to that.
Okay, that's all I've got to say about today.
Remember, the news is a little bit slow, and you know it's not going to stay that way.
Tuesday tends to be a big news day, so I would look for some big news either tonight, maybe late afternoon, Or tomorrow.
You might wake up to some big news.
We'll see. Margaret Thatcher said that socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.