Episode 1314 Scott Adams: Biden to Raise Taxes to Pay for the Destruction of America, Science Versus Guessing, China is Doomed, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Goldman Sachs economist raises 2021 GDP expectation to 8%?
President Trump disses Meghan Markle
California's "hybrid learning environment"
Catholic priests won't bless "intrinsically disordered"?
The concept Democrats consistently miss
1st draft: My future groveling apology when cancelled
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yeah, because you made it to Coffee with Scott Adams.
A lot of people didn't make it.
There are people who are working instead of watching this.
Do you feel sorry for them?
Well, you should. Because the people here are going to have a great time.
And all they need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug of flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens all over the world.
At the same time, it doesn't matter your time zone.
Really amazing how that works.
And it's happening right now.
Go! Now my day can start perfectly.
Deep breath.
Exhale. All right.
You ready for some fun?
Well, I did a comic in February, I think it was, that was based on a real-life suggestion.
And the suggestion was that Zoom calls should have closing credits.
And the reason that somebody suggested they should have closing credits is so you know when they're done.
Because people don't know how to end a Zoom call.
It's like, well, okay. So there's no polite way to do it.
So somebody said, why don't you just run the closing credits?
And everybody will just say, oh, I guess it's over.
Well, it turns out somebody actually added closing credits.
So that's a real thing now.
I mean, it's still just a joke thing, but sure enough, there's a video of somebody who added funny closing credits to a Zoom call.
So that's art imitating life, and then life imitating art, and then I'll make a comic about it again, and then art will imitate life again.
So here's a little coincidence for you.
Economist at Goldman Sachs Sacks.
They have multiple sacks.
I said Goldman Sachs, but that would just be one sack.
But there are multiple sacks over there.
At Goldman Sachs, they raised their GDP growth expectations for the U.S. economy to 8% for 2021.
Now, if you don't follow economics, that's a shockingly big number.
That's such a big number that I'm not sure I believe it.
I think it's, you know, other economists are down like, you know, under 5%.
So to think that we would have an 8% GDP when, you know, 2 or 3 is pretty good.
3 is pretty good.
Coming off the pandemic, though, you've got a little bit more of a natural bump.
So here's the first part of the news.
Goldman Sachs is saying that the economy is going to be great today.
Under Biden. Okay?
So that's the first unrelated fact.
It's just floating out there.
It's not connected to any other news.
Okay? It's just by itself.
Just floating.
Now, unrelated to this in every way, completely separate from this story, we hear leaks today that Biden is planning to raise taxes quite a bit.
But that's a separate story floating all by itself, not connected in any way, to this coincidentally timed story from Goldman Sachs, who some people might say is in the Democrats' pocket or vice versa.
And so if you were a skeptical kind of person and you were looking at the media, would you say to yourself, huh, That's a pretty big coincidence that this highly respected firm, Goldman Sachs, multiple Sachs, would be giving cover for the Biden tax increase.
What are the odds that those two things happened at the same time by accident?
Do you think that happened by accident?
Because if you say to somebody like me, and I'm actually a good example for this, If you're a poor person and your government says, we're going to raise taxes on rich people, what do you say?
Oh, good. Raise taxes on the rich people.
Maybe there'll be more money for me from that.
If you're a rich person, what do you say to the prospect of higher taxes?
Well, here it gets tricky.
It depends. Because if you're the kind of rich person who has enormous wealth already, And the economy is better than usual.
That enormous pile will grow in value faster than maybe anything that would happen with your annual income.
So if you have a giant amount of wealth compared to how much you make every year, and they raise the taxes on that smaller part, the part you make every year, but let's say the bigger part can just grow with the economy, you still come out ahead.
But if you're the kind of rich person who hasn't accumulated much wealth, but your annual income is really high at the moment, but let's say you're young, you haven't accumulated that much yet, well then you're just never going to accumulate as much, because they'll get it as soon as it's made.
So there are two kinds of rich people.
One kind of rich person is better off.
If you have both higher taxes, so long as this Goldman Sachs kind of optimistic look at the economy is anywhere near good, then the rich people actually do the best in any kind of a good economy, so they could pay a little more taxes and wouldn't know the difference.
But the other kind of rich person who is mostly income is not going to like it.
Not going to like it.
All right. You knew this was going to happen.
There's a Pennsylvania woman who created a deepfake video to embarrass the rivals of her daughter's cheerleading team.
And I guess the deepfakes of the teenage cheerleader girls were showing them in embarrassing situations.
I think there was some nudity or drugs or something like that.
But somebody actually created a real deepfake To basically perpetuate a crime of sorts.
I don't know if it's technically illegal.
But there you go.
There's the first one. Now, of course, the people who do this first are going to get caught because the deep fakes are not that good.
And the people in them are going to say, ah, that wasn't me.
So it's not exactly a perfect crime, but you can see where this is all heading pretty quickly.
Here's another story that makes me miss, let's say, the The energy and the entertainment of President Trump.
You've heard everything that can be said about Meghan Markle and Harry, right?
Is there anything else anybody could say that would feel fresh or new or interesting at this point?
Right? Because everything's just been said.
What else is there to say?
And then we hear that President Trump had weighed in on this question privately.
I guess this is being reported by Jason Miller or somebody who said that he talked to him.
And this is what Miller says the President said about Meghan Markle.
And I'm going to quote it.
She's no good. I said it and now everybody is seeing it.
Now, Just think of this first three words.
She's no good. As soon as I read that, I just laughed.
Because you don't realize how...
I don't even know the right word for it.
You don't realize how crisp...
Trump's communication is until he's gone for a while and then you see it again.
And then you're not used to it after a while and you go, oh, that's the thing he does.
I don't know why, but if you sat down and thought for a year about what would be three words to say about Meghan Markle...
They would sort of sum it up and be quotable and would stick in your head and would make you laugh after everybody said so much already.
And then you just picture Trump saying it, right?
Because when it's a Trump quote, you see the picture of him and you just see him saying, she's no good.
And you say to yourself, I think we're done here.
What else is there to say?
She's no good. Now, I'm not saying I agree with that statement.
I'm just saying that the president's communication style really is inimitable.
I don't know why he can find just the right words that just does something to your brain.
I don't know how he does it exactly, but it's consistent.
So, in California here, some children, at least in my area, are going back to school in the hybrid learning environment.
You know what that is, right?
So I guess here they have a choice.
If they want, they can just stay home and continue learning from Zoom as they have.
Or they can go two days a week, I guess locally, and do severe social distancing.
Few kids showing up in the classroom with their own little stations and distance and masks all day long and stuff.
What do you think the local kids say about that?
What do you think is the opinion of the local kids now that the school has opened up at least a little bit?
Screw that. Now, I can't say that I've done a poll, but I have overheard a variety of kids talking about it.
And they're saying, we might as well just Zoom until the end of the year.
Because we're not going to be able to see our friends.
You're going to be six feet away from them.
You have to wear a mask all day.
And it's duplicative of what you're doing on the computer.
And so the kids just said, thank you.
But no thanks.
It's just not even worth it.
And when you hear that they have to wear a mask all day and can't even get within six feet of their friends...
It doesn't look worth it to me.
It doesn't look worth it to me at all.
So we need to get to the next level.
China is experiencing or did experience this gigantic sandstorm in Beijing.
Did you see the pictures of that?
Did you know that Beijing has gigantic annual sandstorms?
How many people knew that was even a thing?
So apparently between deforestation and their proximity to the Gobi Desert, when the conditions get just right, this enormous storm of sand piles up.
Now, do you know what the normal pollution level is in Beijing?
Okay, the normal pollution level is unhealthy.
So they added on top of the normal pollution a sandstorm.
And between the two of them, Basically, it was an unlivable city for a while.
I mean, people did, but it was essentially unlivable.
Now, when people talk about China is going to eat our lunch and their economy is zooming and they're going to take over the world and all that stuff, it does seem inevitable just because of population and they're moving in that direction.
So if you were to just straight line, okay, if everything just keeps going the way it's been going, China dominates the world eventually.
And I would just add this.
Straight line projections, projections, they never work.
Ever. In fact, the only thing you can be sure won't happen in the future is whatever the trend is today.
If you just straight line any trend and you take it long enough, the short run trends will continue.
But if you take it long enough, they never do.
It's almost impossible.
So we don't know what will happen, but I remember, I'm old enough to remember when we thought the same thing about Japan.
So when I was younger, You youngsters won't be aware of this, but everybody who's in my age group will now be nodding their heads at home and saying, oh yeah, we thought Japan was going to run the world because their manufacturing was so dominant for a while that it just looked like they would suck up all the business from the United States and the future was going to be Japan.
Well, what happened? It turns out that Japan's system couldn't grow.
So they had a little bit too much maybe social or cultural friction.
I'm no expert, but maybe some of it might have been cultural.
Some of it might have been the way their systems and their banking and everything is set up, that there's just a little bit too much bloat.
Maybe a little corruption.
I don't know exactly what's going on over there.
But it didn't straight line.
They sort of hit a wall, and then things were sort of stagnant for years.
China has this gigantic demographic problem, but on top of it, the only way they can survive is by destroying their own environment.
So if they want energy, they have to put in coal plants.
If they want to build as many homes as they need, they might need to cut down their trees.
So there's a whole bunch of ways in which China is essentially destroying itself to grow.
And the Chinese system doesn't strike me as flexible.
They do have some advantages because it's a dictatorship.
So if the whole country needs to do something like clamp down on the coronavirus, they have some advantages there.
But they don't really have flexibility within the system.
They have flexibility at the top so that the bosses can make you do anything they want.
But they don't have flexibility within the entrepreneurial system, is what I'm imagining is the problem.
And I compare that to the general statement that's always been true, that every empire fails.
Through history, we don't have any example of an empire that lasted forever.
The Roman Empire was great for a long time, but...
There it goes. Genghis Khan and the Mongols, they took over a quarter of the earth or whatever it was, but then they disappeared.
So every time there's some major power, Great Britain, for example, colonizing all over the world, but then every year since then sort of shrinking in territory at least, So the thinking is that the United States can't possibly dominate forever because nothing ever does.
Every system collapses under its own weight.
It's just the way everything works.
But I would like to add one bit of optimism.
I believe, and I don't know that this is confirmed, but I believe that the geniuses who built our system Capitalism plus the Constitution, etc.
I feel like they built a self-renewing system.
Meaning that what our system is today won't be exactly what it looks like or how it operates tomorrow because it can self-correct.
And there's just a whole bunch of self-correcting stuff in our system that doesn't seem to be the case everywhere else.
And so I would put this Optimistic thought out there, which is the United States might be the first system that could last forever.
And the way it would do it is that it's never the same system.
In other words, it's evolving with events.
So as long as the system is evolving with events, I think it can renew itself, it can cannibalize itself, you know, it can...
It can basically just reinvent itself as it goes.
Whereas I don't know if the Chinese system can do that.
There might be a little bit too much ossification there.
So I think that the United States, because of our system, maybe even a little bit because of the culture, I'm not sure, but does have some kind of enduring advantage.
We'll see if that is enough, because China has some big advantages too.
So... Tom Cotton continues to be one of the only interesting people saying things in the news.
And, you know, we're talking about immigration being whether it's a tremendous challenge or it's a crisis.
Now, of course, the Republicans want the Democrats to use that word.
Use the word. Say crisis.
Say crisis, damn it.
Don't keep saying it's a challenge.
It's a crisis. So then once it's a crisis, you know, they can make more political hay about it.
So Tom Cotton notes this.
He says, and now the Biden administration is sending FEMA to the border.
They are, by their own declaration, admitting it's a disaster.
That's what it is when you deploy FEMA. A disaster.
And I thought, how come he's the first person to point this out?
It's like one of those things where you hear it and you say, oh yeah, that should be the end of the conversation.
Once you've deployed FEMA... You can't argue it's not a disaster, right?
Because FEMA is literally the group you send to fix a disaster.
That's what they are.
It's pretty hard to argue you're sending FEMA at the same time you're saying it's not a disaster.
So, of course, this is word thinking because what you call it doesn't change its nature.
It's a bad situation no matter what you call it.
But I thought that was an interesting observation.
There's an article in the New York Times, Alan Feuer.
How would you pronounce Feuer?
Feuer? Maybe?
Okay, we'll go with that. He's asking and trying to answer the question of why the Proud Boys, despite their long history of promoting and committing violence, according to Alan, How were they able to skirt law enforcement scrutiny prior to the storming of the Capitol?
So what is it about the Proud Boys that law enforcement would be completely aware of them?
They're not hiding.
So law enforcement knows who they are.
They know their whole deal. But yet they were not really leaned on before the storming of the Capitol.
I guess they were visited. So law enforcement did visit some of the leaders and talk to them.
But there wasn't any strong enforcement or suppression or anything like that.
And the question is asked, why did they get a pass?
Why is it that the Proud Boys were given sort of a pat on the back and, you know, okay, go ahead.
And here's my answer to that.
The Proud Boys don't have a larger ambition.
The Proud Boys sort of like their club, and they like being in it.
They like drinking.
That's actually literally a big part of their philosophy, is they like to get together and drink.
And they like provoking fights so that they can have fights.
They try not to start them in the sense of punching first, but they like being in a situation where maybe they can get somebody to take a punch at them first.
And then they can finish it.
And I think to myself, there's nothing about that that looks like a coup attempt.
There's nothing about it that looks like a national movement.
They don't seem to be organizing to change the world.
They don't seem to be trying to elect officials.
They're not donating money to a candidate.
It just seems like a...
A club of knuckleheads, and I say that lovingly, you know, a bunch of knuckleheads who like using their knuckles, right?
They like punching stuff. They like drinking.
And, you know, they have something like a philosophy.
So, in my view, law enforcement not coming down hard on them is because it's not Antifa.
Antifa actually wants to destroy the country.
That's different. This will sound like a defense of the Proud Boys, and then somebody's going to say, why are you a Proud Boy apologist?
I'm not an apologist for anything.
You can say that things have good parts and bad parts, and that's just talking about them.
That's not being an apologist.
Almost everything has some good parts and some bad parts.
So if you can be an adult, we can talk about that.
Alright, so I don't see the Proud Boys as any kind of an existential threat to the country.
Not the way Antifa would be, or even neo-Nazis, I suppose.
So the Vatican, causing trouble?
By being completely consistent to everything they've said before.
So, I don't know why it's news, but it is.
So, the Vatican decreed Monday that the Catholic Church cannot bless same-sex unions since God, quote, cannot bless sin.
What? Let's go on.
The Vatican's Orthodoxy office, the Congregation for Blah Blah Blah...
They were asked about whether they can bless gay unions.
Now, they do go on and say that they want full respect and everything for the LGBTQ population.
So they're saying, no, no, no, we're not saying anything bad about gay people.
They're saying we're only talking about the institution of marriage.
And they go on...
Let's see. And they said they distinguished between the Church's welcoming and blessing of gay people, which it upheld, but not their unions, since any such sacramental recognition could be confused with marriage.
So I guess they're opposed to any kind of a union that could be somewhat similar to marriage.
And it says the Vatican holds that gay people must be treated with dignity and respect, And then they go ahead and don't treat them with dignity and respect.
But I suppose that's subjective.
But they say that gay sex is, and here's the money quote here, intrinsically disordered.
Intrinsically disordered.
How long did they have to think before they came up with those two words?
That gay sex is intrinsically disordered.
Like, you'd have to work pretty hard for that, wouldn't you?
To come up with those two words that maybe nobody's ever used before about this topic.
And it says, Catholic teaching holds that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman.
It's part of God's plan as intended for...
Here's the important part.
It's intended for the sake of creating new life.
Oh. Interesting.
Interesting. So if you take their argument, I'll do a better job than they do of their own argument, okay?
So here's how the Catholic Church could have done maybe a better job on this.
So I'm not going to be backing their opinion.
I'm just going to say they could have made a better argument.
It would have gone like this. That God is all about creation, and God is...
Apparently concerned or loves people and wants them to reproduce.
And so God is more about blessing.
Again, this is not me saying this.
I'm just making an argument that would be a better argument.
So God would be sort of more pro-anything that was conforming to the mating process.
And he would maybe think it's a sin to do something that works against, let's say, the procreation and the The growth of humanity.
So, for example, God would be against murder because murder reduces the number of people who he loves.
But God would be in favor of reproduction because reproduction keeps more people.
Now, I'd never heard this philosophy before where the God view was being married philosophically to the mating instinct.
Had you ever heard that before?
And yeah, I'm seeing somebody in the comments saying that life is sacred, being part of the Catholic belief system.
So yeah, the life is sacred.
It's about mating.
It's about reproduction. It's about the biology of the species.
So here's the part that I'd never heard before.
I'd never heard anybody marry the philosophy of Catholicism With the biology of the mating process.
Is that common? Have you heard that framing before?
Because I thought it was actually a productive framing.
Except abortion being another example.
So the Catholic Church would be in favor of everything that promotes making more people and keeping more people alive.
So far, it sounds pretty good, right?
Even if you disagree with some of the policies that come out of that, it's hard to argue against the general idea that Catholicism wants to keep everybody alive and have more of us.
That sounds good on the surface.
But unfortunately, the side effect of that is that it, I think, unintentionally demonizes gay unions.
To which I say...
What does the Catholic Church think about people who can't have children?
Physically, biologically, they just can't have children.
Are they defective?
Are they sinning?
Or are they in some condition of, it's not their fault, but are they in some kind of perpetual sin situation because they're outside of the mating process?
Through no fault of their own.
How about people who have aged out of the mating process?
You're a certain age, you can't have children anymore.
You're a woman, let's say. If that woman who can't have children, but has never been married, gets married, what does the Catholic Church say about that?
Because that woman is getting married in an institution which is designed for the reproduction of people, but she would not in any way be part of the reproduction because she's already aged down.
Let's say she's 60, not 40, just to keep it easy.
So how does the Catholic Church reconcile that some people can get married and it's just fine, even though they have nothing to do with reproduction and nothing to do with mating, because they can't.
But there's other group of people, according to the Catholic Church, they're gay, and they also want to have some kind of marriage situation.
Which has nothing to do with reproduction, except that they can adopt, right?
So I'm just pushing the question, right?
So far I've not given you an opinion.
So if you're looking for my opinion, it's not here yet, right?
So suppose the Catholic Church is looking at the following two situations.
Number one, a gay couple get married and And now they're in a better situation economically and stability-wise to adopt or to artificially inseminate and have a child.
Now compare the gay couple who can find a way to either support a child who already is here or to create a new one with science.
Aren't they part of the baiting process?
Doesn't that put the gay couple right in the middle of The whole reproduction thing, except they may be taking care of a kid who's already born.
That seems very Catholic to me.
Compare that, again, to the two 70-year-olds who get married.
The Catholic Church says, ah, this is fine, but don't plan to adopt, because they're 70, and they don't plan to have children, because they're 70.
Why is that okay? Why is one a sin...
When the gay couple, hypothetically, is taking care of children, maybe creating children with a little science involved, and the others are doing nothing for reproduction, but yet the gay people are the ones who are outside of the mating process?
It feels there's an inconsistency here.
Now again, I'm not Catholic, so is it up to me what the Catholic dogma is?
No! No.
So Catholicism shouldn't listen to me.
My opinion should have no weight, and I would hope it would have no weight.
But I simply point that out.
I feel like the Catholic Church needs a little bit more work.
Needs to do the work, as they like to say.
All right. I guess Dr.
Fauci is now open to the idea.
There's some new studies showing that, at least for schools, maybe three feet of distance is enough.
So six feet might be too much, and Fauci says he's open to that, and they're still collecting data.
But preliminarily, it looks like the six-foot thing is less important, and maybe three feet would be enough, maybe just in schools, don't know yet.
But here's my thing.
How in the world could three feet be good?
If you're just breathing, and I'm just sort of using my non-scientific brain here, Doesn't it seem like if you're talking to somebody who's three feet away, can't they actually feel your breath?
Like, if you're only three feet away, let's see, three feet, three feet like this, if you're this far, you can feel somebody's spittle.
Like, you can feel like the spray hitting you in the face, whereas six feet away, you can't.
And I'm thinking to myself, if the data confirms...
That three feet is good enough?
I've got questions.
Because if three feet is good enough, there's something that we've been told that doesn't quite track, if you know what I mean.
Right? So I'll tell you, if this three feet holds, I want it to hold, of course, because that would be better than six feet.
But if it does hold, and the data supports it, there's something else that we don't understand about how this thing gets spread.
I asked on Twitter yesterday if there were a private company that could offer to deprogram your child from whatever occult programming they're getting in school, would you pay for it if it were reasonably priced?
And overwhelmingly people said yes.
Now of course that reflects my audience as much as anything.
But I feel as if this is like a legitimate market opportunity for somebody to be something like a tutor and But to be a tutor on how to avoid cult wokeness.
And I don't think it would take forever.
I think you could hire that tutor to come in twice a year and just give your kids a little tune-up.
Say, hey kids, it's just 45 minutes.
I'd like you to listen to Mr.
Johnson twice a year, and he's going to just go over what you've been told, and then he's going to give you another view of it so you can see what filter to look through, and you can tell what's real and what's not.
Twice a year, just a little bit of a tune-up.
Really useful, I think.
The other thing I've been promoting forever is teaching strategy to kids.
Life strategy. The sort of things you can get from my book, Had It Failed Almost Everything and Still Went Big.
There are others. But schools don't really teach strategy.
Like, you know, should you have a system versus a goal?
How to build a skill stack, etc.
And I feel like that's a consulting business, too.
Imagine if you could, again, just twice a year, have a tutor come in, put your kids in front of them, it could be different ages, because it wouldn't matter that much, and just have them teach you, all right, Here's the stuff you learn in school.
Here's the stuff they don't tell you.
But if you use these strategies, you're really going to do well.
Priceless. It would be priceless.
All right. Have you noticed how often the Democrats get the same thing, I'm going to say wrong, but you might say different, than Republicans?
And it's so consistent.
And I don't hear people talk about it Even though this would be the way to describe everything that's happening, is that Democrats don't understand or don't appreciate or don't recognize human motivation as being a necessary, maybe the most necessary part of any system.
And Republicans consistently get that right.
It's the biggest difference.
It's like there's a blind spot.
Now, the Democrats think the blind spot is that Republicans have no heart.
Or they're racist or something.
Whereas the Republicans say, you're ignoring the biggest variable every time.
It doesn't even matter what topic you're looking at.
Every time you get the same thing wrong, which is human motivation.
You act like it's not a thing.
Like it doesn't even exist.
Let me give you some examples.
Immigration. Trump got the human motivation right, because he made it difficult and unpleasant to come across the border, and so fewer people did.
The Democrats say, hey, we want to be kind, so we're going to let any kids come in, and of course the human motivation was too many kids, and the system looks like it's already broken.
It's collapsing. So how about socialism?
Socialism is, again, getting the human motivation part wrong, because if you let people make more money and be greedy, they will build amazing businesses, and if you give them no reward whatsoever...
For doing extra hard work, they won't do it.
Again, Democrats get that wrong.
The teachers' unions. The motivation is for them to protect the union, and that means that the children, who are our most valuable asset, even if you don't love children, economically they're the most valuable asset for the future, unambiguously. But the Democrats create a situation where there's no competition in schools because of the teachers' unions.
So they squash the competition.
As soon as you don't have competition, what is the human motivation of the people working there?
To not do a good job.
Because the pay is the same.
If you do a good job or a bad job.
There's no competition, so you're not going to lose out that way.
What about the minimum wage?
Same thing. The minimum wage, the Republicans say, hold on, if you make this change, you can predict very easily what people will do.
Companies will hire fewer people.
You know, just the human motivation will work through it, and it'll be a problem.
Now, I don't agree with the Republican position on this, just to be clear.
I'm just describing them.
I do think that the country could handle a higher minimum wage if you do it smart and you do it differently in different places, etc.
But I think we could probably handle it.
Anyway, so in every case, even foreign affairs, even trusting Iran to do the right thing, okay, Iran will do the right thing, so you will too, right?
Again, they get the human motivation wrong, because Iran says, you're going to let us do whatever we want and not check?
We're going to do some bad stuff.
I feel as if this label between Republican and Democrat could be scrapped, and there are just some people who believe human motivation is real.
And that could describe everything.
Instead of saying, are you Democrat or are you Republican, just say, Hey, do you believe that human motivation should be a big factor when you design a system for society?
And if somebody says no, they're a Democrat.
I guess Bill Burr was one of the hosts for the Grammys, did part of the presentation, and a bunch of people are complaining.
And when I say a bunch of people, I mean artists.
Artists are consistently the humorless group.
Now, if you hire Bill Burr to be part of your program, and then Bill Burr mocks something about your program, which I guess he did, because he wasn't turned on by the piano music section, That's sort of on you, right?
If you hire Bill Burr and he says something that offends somebody, you can't say you didn't see it coming.
Well, I didn't see that coming.
By the way, there's nothing funnier than watching people call Bill Burr racist, because everything he does is a little edgy, so it's right on the edge of being sexist, but not quite.
And he's right on the edge of, you think it's going to be a little racist, But it's not quite, which is where he gets all of his energy by walking right up to the line.
But I love this fact about him, which is he's married to a black woman.
And so he's got this situation where he just silently does his thing, and everybody complains about, you know, hey, are you being a racist?
And he just sits there, married to a black woman, And that's it.
That's the defense.
Now, I don't think he has ever said that directly.
Like, hey, I can't be racist because I'm married to a black woman.
Which is not even a thing.
Because, of course, you could be the biggest racist in the world and be married to a black woman.
There's nothing that would stop that.
But as an argument, it's like the most elegant argument you could make.
Because you don't even have to say anything.
Here's my argument. Nothing.
How about my counter-argument is?
Nothing. I'm not even going to counter-argument.
I'll just be me. And that's my argument.
Have you noticed that all of the stories turn out to be continuation stories?
Remember when Trump would create new news?
You'd wake up and he's like, oh, what do you do now?
It'd be like this whole new story about a new thing.
But today, all of the stories are just more.
So we have Biden continues not to give press conferences, 54 days.
We continue to talk about his declining mental state.
There's no news, per se, but there's more of it.
Immigration is just getting worse.
Cuomo gets a new accuser every few days, and More people have been asked about commenting on it.
But it's the same story.
There's just more of it.
How about the vaccination rollout?
It's not really new.
There's just more of it.
How about the comedians say something offensive?
Well, is that new?
Not really. There's just another one.
So the Biden administration has turned into No news.
Isn't that weird? That the idea of news just stopped.
Sharon Osbourne got in trouble for, I guess, supporting Piers Morgan and his comments about Meghan Markle, and that turned into, you must be a racist, and blah blah blah blah.
And then she had to, of course, do her statement In which she said, so here's Sharon Osbourne, there are very few things that hurt my heart more than racism.
So to feel associated with that spun me fast.
I am not perfect.
I am still learning like the rest of us, and will continue to learn, listen, and do better.
And I was comparing that to Chris Harrison's public statement of apology, and I thought to myself, I'm going to need to write one of these.
Sooner or later, I'm going to be doing one of these public apologies.
I don't know for what.
But it feels likely, right?
Oh, by the way, YouTube just took down two of my videos.
They were both from January.
But they took them off, and the reason given is that the videos, they say, promoted false election claims.
Now, if you've been watching me, do you think that I made any false election claims?
You've been watching me for a while, right?
And you know how carefully I word everything.
Do you believe that there were any false claims about the election in those videos?
Two of them, and they were taken down.
No, they weren't. No.
Because I don't make those claims, nor do I think anybody should.
Indeed, I could not agree with YouTube anymore.
I don't think people should be promoting false claims of elections.
And so, I've never done it.
You'd agree. You've all watched it.
You've never seen me even promote anything that was even sketchy.
Right? In fact, I do the opposite more than anything.
I tell you that the claims are bullshit.
Pretty much exclusively, I tell you that the claims don't have substance.
I've probably mentioned that the statistics need to be explained, but that there's no direct evidence of fraud.
So, and what YouTube said in a statement.
Oh, let me read it to you.
I'll tell you how YouTube described this to me, and then I'll tie it back to Sharon Osbourne in a moment.
So, here's their actual statement.
It says, you know, hi, Scott Adams.
We want to let you know that our team reviewed your content.
And we think it violates our spam, deceptive practices, and scams policy.
We know you may not have realized this was a violation of our policies.
Here's the important part.
We know you may not have realized it.
Now, that's true. And the reason I did not realize it is because it didn't happen.
In no reality did this happen, in any reality.
Now, do they point...
Do they point to the thing I said so that I could know next time, oh, don't say that, because whatever it was that I said, that's the thing they're keying on, so I'd like to avoid.
They don't tell me what it is.
It's just somewhere in a video that had lots of different topics.
And it says, so we're not applying a strike to your channel.
So they're not going to put it on my permanent record, Because they think I might not have realized that I had violated their policy.
That seems pretty good, right?
If they admit they don't know I did it intentionally, so they're not putting a strike on my record, they're just getting rid of the videos.
Does that seem reasonable? Pretty fair, right?
If this were the only thing in the world...
Even I would say, oh, I would disagree with that opinion, but that's reasonable.
I'm not getting any kind of a permanent strike.
They're just doing a little editing.
Eh, no big deal. And they're older videos anyway.
But here's the question.
If I got these taken down, and even they know I couldn't tell that I had violated the policy, what happens when I do it again?
Right? Because now I've been warned.
Have I not been warned? This is exactly what this is.
It's a warning. And they're saying, we're not going to give you a strike because you probably didn't know you did anything wrong.
But what happens the next time?
The next time, can they not say, we warned you?
I feel like they could.
Because they did warn me, but they didn't tell me what it was that I did.
So I don't have the option of avoiding it because I don't know what it was.
Now, Do you see what's happening?
Now, add this to the fact that the algorithm has obviously tightened up on me as well, so the monetization and everything from the channel just plunged.
So, doesn't that look like a setup to you?
Like an obvious setup?
I feel as if they're pushing me in a situation where I will accidentally cancel myself and I'll never know I did it.
I'll just be cancelled.
And then they'll say, well, this is your third strike.
To which I'll say, about what?
You didn't even tell me what the other strikes were about.
I mean, you gave me a category, but you didn't tell me what I said that violated that category.
I have no idea.
And honestly, I don't even have a guess.
I have no guess why I got censored.
Think about that. Think about being censored, and you don't even know why.
Except for a category.
I just don't know what I said about it.
Yeah, and they went back two months to find it.
What's that tell you? So every time one of my videos goes up, it gets a down vote the moment it comes on.
Meaning that there are people who spend their full time just trying to demonetize my channel.
Now, I don't know that they're anybody except trolls.
But there's somebody whose job it is trying to make my voice less.
They're spending time every single day working on decreasing my voice.
Think about that. So I would say the odds of me eventually getting cancelled from YouTube are 100% unless I stop saying the kinds of stuff I say, which I don't plan to do.
So we'll see. If I get cancelled, I'll be on the Locals platform, subscription platform, where I am now with the stuff you don't get to see.
By the way, I keep saying I'm going to do a thing on Locals about reframing.
It's going to be the best thing I've ever done.
And I think that's actually true.
Because I've just been, you know, sort of working on the outline for it.
And when I looked at it together, it's really going to be life-changing.
Not some, probably a lot of people who watch that content, it's just going to completely change your life.
It's actually that powerful.
Anyway, back to Sharon Osbourne.
So she did her little statement of contrition and how she's going to listen and do better.
I thought, I better write mine in advance.
So I wrote up a little first draft.
So I'd like to read to you my statement.
I will be reading when I get cancelled, because that seems inevitable.
I don't know for what.
So please help me on the first draft.
So this is when I get caught or cancelled for whatever bad thing I'm sure I'll do in the future.
I will say the following, and it doesn't matter what it is.
Here's my statement.
I'm a deeply flawed human, really just a pile of organic crap that is barely sentient.
I must learn to listen and do better.
I am committed to doing the hard work of examining all of my flaws, as described by my critics, and I will force myself to be unhappy until my brain is free of all bias and I can clearly see myself I beg my critics,
who are already operating at a higher level of moral standards, to pity me for my wretchedness and evil, and to help me improve by spitting on me in public whenever they see me.
I am committed to a path of self-improvement that will, with lots of hard work, make me barely acceptable to proper thinking people.
I dedicate my entire life to the mission of pleasing my critics, who are justifiably uncomfortable with my very existence.
In summary, I am a shitty person and I will spend my days thinking of nothing else, but my unworthiness, which I now understand, extends to the molecular level of my being.
Please adjust your opinion of me to be as low as my opinion of myself.
I plan to issue public statements of apology for being me until the end of my days, which I think we all agree should come sooner than later.
Now, this is just the first draft.
I need to tighten it up a little bit.
I don't feel that I insulted myself enough.
I need to add a little bit more begging.
Right? Gotta add a little more begging.
But that's a start.
And I would suggest that all of you start working on your statements of contrition and apology, because it's coming for you.
You don't want to be caught off guard.
In fact, when I get cancelled, I think I'll just have this in my back pocket, and I'll be like, Mr.
Adams, You've said some terrible things.
Do you have any comments?
Do I? Yeah.
Here I do.
Thank God I did all this work, and I'm glad.
Yeah, I have a statement for that.
Statement begins...
I'm a deeply flawed human, and I'll just read my statement.
And then people say, whoa, you carry that with you?
Carry it with me, yes.
I memorize this every day.
I read it, I chant it.
I actually go outside and I chant my apology.
That's how serious I am to doing the work.
A lot of you, you're not serious about doing the work.
I do the work.
And that's why I'm a better person than all of you, because I hate myself more.
Now you understand that, right?
I hate myself more than you hate yourself, which makes me a better person.
And if you add to that that I'm white and male and of a certain age, That self-hatred is really the key to moral acceptability.
So if you can find a way to deeply, deeply despise yourself, that will give you some moral clarity.
All right. That is my show for today.
I think you'll agree it's the best one ever.
Until tomorrow.
And... I'm glad you like that.
Some people are laughing. Can I get a copy?
Somebody wants a copy. Yeah, maybe I'll post that.
I may post that.
All right, that's all for now, and I'll talk to you a little bit later.
