Episode 1329 Scott Adams: Wokeness Kills 200K People, Vaccine Passports From Hell, CNN Stokes Riots
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Vice President Giggles
Politics determined by your fears
Governor DeSantis, no vaccine passports
Did CDC kill people due to fear of fat-shaming?
USSOCOM Head of Diversity and Inclusion
News industry priming the public for major riots
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
If you didn't know it already, Periscope is going to go away.
Doesn't mean anything to you people watching on YouTube, but if you're watching on Periscope, I think tomorrow is the last day, and then Twitter is going to incorporate the function somehow, but I don't know the details.
So, on April 1st, Not a joke.
You'll only be able to watch me on YouTube.
I might look to a live stream from at least one other platform.
Once I free up my device.
So, how would you like to enjoy today to the maximum?
Yeah. Yeah, you would.
And all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or a chalice of time, a canteen jug of glass, 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, yeah, everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and watch what it does.
Yeah, get ready.
Go.
Speaking of platforms, meanwhile, over on the subscription service called Locals, you will find yet more of my micro lessons on how to be less judgmental, how to deal you will find yet more of my micro lessons on how to be less judgmental, how to These are some of the new ones. Lots and lots of content there if you'd like to figure out how to improve your life.
All right, let's talk about the news.
Lots of interesting stuff.
There's yet another video of Vice President Harris giggling uncontrollably at the wrong time.
Now, people are interpreting it as, you know, she's being mean, but the topic was parents having to homeschool their kids because they're not in school.
Now, I think Harris was doing the, I recognize your situation laugh.
You know, oh, we're all in this together.
It's hard. Ha, ha, ha.
We all know how hard it is.
But the trouble is, not everybody thinks that's funny.
Not everybody is hiring a nanny and sending kids to private schools and all that.
So I would say that a lot of the country didn't think that was very funny.
And I don't see how you can be a leader with this giggling laugh.
She just has to get control of that.
I don't know if there's anybody who's a Democrat who says, yeah, that's good.
I like more of that maniacal laugh.
That's really a problem.
I had to look up the definition of a cult this morning, because I thought I knew it, but it turns out everybody just defines the word differently.
So from now on, if anybody says, so-and-so is a cult, here's what you should translate that into your mind.
Nothing just happened.
That's it. That's how you should translate it.
If somebody says, that person's in a cult cult, The correct interpretation is nobody said anything.
Because it doesn't mean anything.
It turns out that the cult definition is so broad that it just captures basically any organization.
So here's a practical definition, a common one.
A religious or sect, so it doesn't have to be a religion, it could be a sect, whatever that is, generally considered to be extremist or false.
That kind of depends who you are, right?
Is your extremism the same as my extremism?
And what is false?
Isn't that kind of an opinion?
Which religion is the false one?
Who gets to say that?
Under the guidance of an authoritarian charismatic leader.
So in order to be a cult, you need a charismatic authoritarian leader.
Now authoritarian is kind of subjective, isn't it?
Because people called Trump authoritarian, whereas his supporters said, well, he's the opposite.
He's unambiguously in favor of personal freedom.
So we can't even agree what authoritarian means.
And who is one?
You know, people can see the same person as extreme opposites on that scale.
How about charismatic leader?
That shouldn't even be there.
What does a charismatic leader have to do with anything?
I don't know. And for whom members exhibit fixed, even religious, veneration.
Veneration. Again, rather subjective, isn't it?
Would you say that you are venerating me right now?
Because the people watching this are, for the most part, people who watch me regularly and find some value in it.
So where is the line between...
Just watching some content you like and associating with people you like and venerating somebody.
You see how subjective this is?
It's completely subjective.
Now, I thought the cult would include the definitions of you're kept from the outside world and they take all your possessions and stuff like that, but I can't find a definition, at least with a quick search, I can't find a common definition of the word cult that includes that stuff.
But we all expect that to be there.
Anyway, the point is, this is all because an online conversation about whether NXIVM and the DOS subgroup were a cult.
To which I say, they're a cult in the same way that any organization is a cult.
If you want to say anybody with a leader that people like and they trust or have some respect or they're likely to be influenced by the leader...
That's sort of most groups.
So it kind of doesn't mean anything.
And in the NXIVM case, there was no coercion about being in or out, or who you listened to, or where you went, or any of that.
So it didn't really fit the extreme definition of a cult.
All right. I've come to the conclusion that your politics is mostly defined by what scares you the most.
I don't know if somebody smart has already said this.
But one way to understand, or just another filter on life, is that the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is largely what they're scared of.
If you think of it in terms of what they're in favor of, it gets all complicated.
But if you think of it in terms of what they're afraid of, it gets really simple.
Let me give you an example.
Democrats are afraid that Hitler is under every bed.
Now, you know what I mean by that, right?
The Democrats just think Everything's Hitler.
Hitler's under every bed.
That's what they're afraid of. The white supremacists are going to round people up.
And that's their biggest fear.
So that informs everything else.
But the Republicans have their own fears.
The fear of an elite conspiracy, George Soros kind of a monster under the bed.
And also that there's some kind of coordinated effort to control you in really, really A tight way.
Now, I don't know exactly who's in control.
Like, who's in control of this vast effort?
But the GOP believes there's a monster under the bed in terms of some governmental group that we don't know their names necessarily.
They're trying to control everything.
Here's my take.
Probably none of that's real.
None of it. And generally speaking, all of these sort of...
Abstract conceptual fears are almost always overblown.
Almost always overblown.
So, because I don't identify strongly with either political party, although I can often agree with topics on either side, I look at these both as irrational fears.
So the vaccine passport stuff that we talked about, I know what you're saying.
I mean, I understand the argument that, you know, it could turn into something worse than its original intention, but that's kind of true of just about everything.
Just about everything could turn into something bad if you let it.
You know, driver's license, like I said yesterday, if you have a driver's license, you're already in a database.
What else can you add to a database?
All kinds of stuff, right?
So it's a slippery slope to have a driver's license.
Now, I just can't find a way to worry about this stuff.
There's an article in Real Clear Politics talking about my argument versus Dr.
Naomi Wolf's argument on vaccination passports.
But here's the punchline.
Doesn't matter. So it turns out that you and I may not have to worry about arguing about vaccination passports because luckily we have some adults, at least a few, adults in charge.
So apparently Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just said, He'll be taking executive action against vaccine passports.
So if you don't mind, I'm going to curse a little bit during this livestream.
You're all warned. There will be cursing.
Governor Ron DeSantis just said about these vaccination passports, well, fuck that.
How about no? Just fuck that.
You're just not going to do it in our state.
Now that just solves the problem, right?
Problem solved. If the people of Florida like that, they probably do.
I can see that that would be popular.
So as much as I'm not afraid of vaccine passports, and I can see their utility, I love the fact that the governor just said, well, why don't you go argue about the utility of passports?
Have fun arguing about it, but also, they're not going to be in our state.
He just wiped the issue off the table.
Now let me tell you, We're all watching the, let's call it the baseball minor leagues, to see which politician rises before 2024.
We're looking for the next president.
And a very strong week for Ron DeSantis.
This decision is one where you just say to yourself, oh, oh, okay, problem solved.
We don't have to talk about it anymore.
You just won't let it happen. And His principle for preventing this, you know, he does a little bit of the fear of you don't want the fox to guard the henhouse.
But I think on personal freedom level, it's going to be a popular move.
So I think today he popped a little bit in the, if you're in the betting pools for 2024 presidential candidates, I think this decision specifically You know, he did give credit for opening up and keeping the economy relatively strong compared to other states.
So that's all good.
But this is kind of inspired because it's just so simple.
And why didn't I even know this was coming?
That's what's funny about it.
He just said, how about no?
Not my state. I'm like, oh, okay.
Problem solved. And by the way, even though I argued that the vaccine passports could have a positive utility...
I'm not even a little bit opposed to DeSantis banning it.
Not even a little bit.
I figure that's a principled stand.
It's based on reasons. He showed his reasons.
He showed his work. It's popular.
Good move. Canada has apparently joined some other European countries in pausing the AstraZeneca vaccines.
Because there's concern that especially women under 50, 55 I guess, are having more deadly blood clots where they're actually dying.
Now here's my question.
They don't know that it's true yet.
There's still a little data uncertainty.
So it may not be true that there's any problem.
So that's the first thing you need to know.
We don't know for sure that there's any problem.
For sure. There's enough data to make reasonable people say, oh, hold on, all right?
But we're not sure, sure.
But here's my question.
How many medical things target women who are young?
Unless it has something to do with their, let's say, biological difference, maybe it had something to do with the reproduction organs or something.
But how often is it That the only people who have the worst outcomes are young women.
Are there other examples of that?
Because here's why I'm asking.
Well, you know, sure, the pill and stuff, because those are specific to women.
But I'm talking about a general problem.
Let's say another kind of flu or something that affects the general population.
Yeah, HPV and stuff.
So not counting the stuff that's specific to the reproductive function, just the general health stuff.
How often do young women are the ones that are overwhelmingly affected?
Because I don't believe that, do you?
I'm going to put myself at maximum skepticism that it's true that young women are having blood clots when old men are not.
Now, certainly I'm not a doctor, and certainly if a medical professional says, Scott, Scott, Scott, this is not even uncommon.
Let me list you five different things that affect younger women more than adult, old, obese men.
I mean, seriously.
Are you telling me that obese, old men are not having problems with the shot But young women are dying from it?
I just don't believe it.
Do you? Now, I can see why they might have to pause it.
If there's enough data at some point, the politics of it just require it.
But if I had to guess, if I had to bet against something being true, I would place a fairly sizable bet that this data won't hold up, just based on the fact that young women...
I just don't see them being a target for something that's a general problem as opposed to a reproductive problem.
Now, somebody says hormones.
But do you think the hormones are the answer?
Somebody says, yes, that is exactly how side effects work.
That they can target a certain group.
Could be. So I'm not ruling it out.
So if what you're hearing is, Scott says, it's not true, you're hearing it wrong.
Scott is saying, I'd bet against it.
Meaning the odds of it being true, I just don't think it's going to hold.
But it could. So there's nothing physically impossible about that being true.
I just don't think it's true.
I'll just put that out there.
All right. So we heard the other day that at least one group of Amish are apparently at 90% herd immunity.
And so I asked this question on social media, and boy did I get some interesting cognitive dissonance.
Like really interesting ones where you read them and you're like, what?
Like people actually, their brains just broke.
Because I asked this question.
If the Amish, who apparently dropped the masks and the social distancing pretty early, if they're at 90% herd immunity and they're kind of the only ones, and they're also kind of the only ones that we know of that dropped masks, have we not shown for sure,
let's say not in a randomized, controlled, gold standard way, but don't you feel pretty confident that That if the ones who dropped social distancing and masks also got overwhelmingly the most infections, does that not tell you that the masks and the social distancing have some effect?
Now again, it's not a randomized, controlled trial.
You'd love to have your control group of Amish who used their masks.
But really, do you need that?
90%? 90% infections, if it's true.
90% of infection, because that's not anywhere else where they use masks and social distancing.
I feel as if you're arguing against masks, and also, to be fair, that doesn't mean that masks work.
It could be that the social distancing is the only thing that worked, but the masks were in the mix, so you can't tell.
So, watching people who were positive that none of the public measures made any difference, watching them respond to this fact just spins people's brains into just complete irrationality.
And when you read the comments, you can see it yourself.
Now, so I'm going to claim some preliminary unconfirmed Rightness for saying that whether you like social distancing or masks or not, they almost certainly reduce infections.
I feel that that would be safe.
Somebody says, will Dominion sue you next, Scott?
Well, I doubt it.
I doubt it. Can you imagine Dominion suing me?
Oh my God, that would be fun.
It would be the end of their business.
Can you imagine putting me on trial and letting me testify?
Just think about that.
That would be the end.
I would take out not only Dominion, but I would take out all electronic voting.
I would destroy the entire industry in 45 minutes of testimony.
And it would be easy.
You don't want to put people like me on trial in any kind of a public situation.
You want people a little less trained if you want a good result.
Here's a question for you.
Do we yet know why Asian countries did so well?
Oh, it's because of all their crackdowns and their social distancing is better and they're totalitarian in some cases.
But we have this problem that they didn't all do the same thing.
But they all got good results.
How do you explain that?
Why did Japan get a good result when it didn't do anything even close to what China did?
If you're not doing the same stuff, you're doing all kinds of different policies with different resources, but getting the same results.
What's up with that? Well, I would say that there are two possible explanations.
Number one is weight. Wait, right?
Yeah. It could be the BMI is...
It could be, you know, most of the story.
But here's the other thing I would wonder about, especially because there's some concern that it's a weaponized virus.
Aren't you a little bit more concerned now than even at the beginning that this virus was weaponized to spare Asian ethnicities?
Now, that's not a statement of fact.
I'm just saying, isn't your concern about that sort of at an all-time high?
And let me tell you the data that I'd like to hear to make me feel better or worse about that speculation, for which there's no evidence, by the way.
So let me say this clearly.
I'm aware of no evidence that would suggest it was a weaponized virus against any kind of ethnic groups in particular, or would spare any particular...
But here's the data I would like to see.
I would like to see the data of Asian Americans, people who are fully ethnically, let's say, Chinese, Japanese, Asian, etc., but are American citizens living an American lifestyle.
But here's the key. To only study the people who have, on average, the same amount of weight as their actually living in Asia counterparts.
So I wouldn't want to see Asian Americans as a whole group compared to, let's say, Chinese or Japanese citizens.
I would want to see only the ones who have similar BMI get rid of the outliers.
And once you've normalized for weight, just see if they're having the same amount of problem.
Because I don't know the answer to that.
We've heard that old people are having problems, obese people.
We've heard that African Americans have more problems.
But have you heard whether Asian Americans, who have good BMI, are they having good outcomes or bad outcomes?
Because I would be really, really worried, in a positive way, I guess it would be good news, if they were having great outcomes.
Because then I start to worry that the virus has a little bit of an ethnic preference, at which point you start worrying about the weaponization at a whole different level.
So I'll just put that out there, that there are pieces of information we'd sure like to know.
All right. I asked the question this morning before finding out the answer myself on Twitter.
Did you know that in terms of the super spreaders, the people responsible for most of the spreading, that 80% of the spread comes from fewer than 20% of the infected people?
So by a 5 to 1 or 4 to 1 ratio, the super spreaders are doing most of the spreading.
Now, so that's fact number one.
It's the super spreaders who are doing most of the spreading.
Now, let me ask you this. If you could get rid of just the super spreaders, just the super spreaders, would we already be at a point where we could kill the pandemic?
Because that would reduce its spread by, you know, do the math for me, but, you know, work it out in your head.
If 80% of the spread is coming from, you know, 10 or 20% of the people...
Don't you reduce the spread by, you know, like five times or four times or something like that?
I mean, I'm not doing the math right, but in terms of that degree, it's sort of in that neighborhood, right?
Now, there's more.
So what causes somebody to be a super spreader?
So not everybody is a super spreader, and apparently there have been studies, and they can tell you who.
Number one, somebody with large lung capacity.
Large lung capacity.
So in other words, just physically, they're just expelling more air.
Makes sense that that would be more dangerous.
Number two, people whose immune response is not so good, meaning that their body doesn't fight it off so well.
Who would that be?
Overweight people, for example, and people who had maybe other immune problems.
And people with comorbidities in general, I guess.
So we know those two things.
And then the third thing is how much social contact those people had.
So it wasn't just enough that you were a super spreader.
You had to be the kindest super spreader who was also spending time with a lot of people.
Now, let me ask you this.
The CDC gave us the following guidelines, early on and still, that we would protect the vulnerable and also socially distance everybody else in pretty much the same way, with the exception of maybe the young, the very young. But generally speaking, the whole population has similar restrictions, and then we're going to protect extra the vulnerable people.
Now compare that, so our current system.
Imagine if the CDC had said, instead of that, don't go in a closed room with anybody over 50 who's overweight.
What if they'd said that?
And what if that had been the only guidance?
Do whatever you want, just don't go in a closed space with overweight people.
That's it. Now, could the CDC say that?
No. No, they could not.
Do you know why they can't say that?
Because that would be fat-shaming, it would be calling out a segment, etc.
Because it would be only a short leap before somebody said, hey, Scott, that sounds like a good idea, but, you know, black people are having worse outcomes.
Maybe the guidance should be that you should stay away from black people.
Ugh! Now you've got a problem, right?
Now you're a freaking racist.
It's the worst thing you could possibly...
I can't even imagine anything worse than that, right?
It was like maybe the most...
Seriously, it's hard to think of anything that would be more destructive to civilization than calling out an ethnicity and saying, you know, stay away from them, don't go in the same room.
But... When it comes to weight, it's a little bit safer, but it still gets you into that wokeness territory, doesn't it?
I'll tell you, my guess is that the CDC knew that the super spreaders were largely overweight people over 50, but they couldn't say to you, whatever you do, stay out of the room with anybody who is overweight and over 50.
Because that's what they could have said.
They could have said, Just don't go near anybody who's overweight and over 50 and you'll be fine.
Because it would still be spread, but if it's coming 4 to 1 or 5 to 1 from this one category of people, just stay away from them.
Now, is that too simplistic?
Or would the pandemic already be over?
I feel as if the CDC probably killed 200,000 people because they couldn't say what I just said out loud.
The CDC can't tell you Don't go in a room with an overweight person over 50.
And by the way, I remind you, we don't do fat shaming.
We don't do fat shaming here.
And I'll tell you a good reason I don't do fat shaming, and it happened this week.
For the past three days, I haven't wanted to eat anything.
I haven't had any hunger, and I've had no desire, just for the taste of it or whatever, to eat anything.
Now, I have eaten because, you know, I just make myself eat because I've got to put some food in my body.
But I can't imagine that people who have weight problems will ever go three days and never be hungry.
I mean, seriously.
Right? Somebody says, shove your mask up your ass, Scott.
Well, Rhino Lavacio, let me talk to you for a moment.
What point do you think you're making there?
What point do you think you're making?
I feel as if your all-capitals letter exclamation to shove my mask up my ass is maybe not as helpful as it could be.
Maybe not as helpful.
So anyway, my point is people like me just don't have the same level of hunger.
So how hard is it for me to stay at a reasonable weight?
It's not hard. So I don't judge people who are overweight because they don't have the same situation.
If they also were not hungry, they would be my weight.
And I think that's the whole story, basically.
So, there's that.
I would say the CDC probably killed 200,000 people just by not being able to tell us the truth.
That's a pretty strong statement.
I'm going to stand by it. I think the CDC probably killed 200,000 people because they couldn't tell us to stay out of the room with overweight people over the age of 50.
And that's what they knew would work.
That's what I think. Just speculation.
Another example of the left eating their own.
I'm just going to read this sentence from CNN. Sometimes you don't have to add much to a story.
The funny part is just in the story itself.
I'm just going to read this just the way it appears on CNN. The newly hired head of diversity and inclusion at U.S. Special Operations Command...
Okay, now the first thing is, did you know there was a head of diversity and inclusion...
In the US Special Operations Command.
I should point out that the military is the one place where discrimination is not just allowed, it's required.
It's required. If you want to have a good military.
The military is the one place you can, if you have a reason, I mean you have to have a reason, but you can discriminate.
Can I join the military?
No. No, they discriminate against me.
The military discriminates against me because I'm a certain age.
They discriminate against the people who have disabilities.
They discriminate against people who have a certain IQ. Below that, they won't take you.
A certain height. A certain weight.
The military discriminates like crazy.
And the only value that they have to us is that they discriminate like crazy.
The moment they stop discriminating, they're no good.
Now the problem is if they discriminate for the wrong reason.
So if they're discriminating by ethnicity, well, they're not helping readiness, they're just being racist.
Because we know now that in the old days people were Let's say simpler, and they thought maybe integrating the forces would ruin them.
Obviously that didn't happen.
So today if they were discriminating on ethnicity, that wouldn't be cool because it doesn't have a reason, right?
They can't come up with a justification.
But if they're discriminating on, I'll just pick one category.
Let's say transgender folks in the military.
If the reason they're doing it Is that they suspect there would be a readiness problem, or an extra expense, or any kind of inconvenience.
Discrimination is perfectly acceptable.
They don't need a reason.
I mean, they need a reason, but if they have a reason, that's all they need.
And you know me, I'm as pro-transgender as possible, but the military doesn't play by any of those rules and shouldn't.
So the fact that there's some kind of diversity and inclusion job raises a question.
If all they're doing is making sure that women and different ethnicities are represented, that's great.
But if they're making the decisions based on that, that might have some impact on readiness that would worry me.
I'd worry that they...
You know, you have to worry that politics would...
Cause them to, let's say, favor wokeness over readiness.
Wouldn't you worry about that?
I would worry about that.
Anyway, so this, let me read on here.
So this newly hired head of diversity for special operations, he has been reassigned...
Because of his controversial social media posts.
Apparently he posted something comparing President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.
Now, if you're going to pick a head of diversity and inclusion for the military, maybe you should check the Twitter feed first.
Just putting that out there.
Now, they say we don't have a social, what is it called, a...
What does China have? The social credit thing?
So in this country, we don't have a social credit score, except we do.
We just call it Twitter.
So this poor bastard, he had his social credit score checked, and he failed.
Because on Twitter, he said some inappropriate things.
So yeah, we do have a social credit score here.
It's just called Twitter and social media in general.
So there's another example of the left trying to live by their own rules and finding that they can't.
It's just too hard.
Can't live by their own rules.
All right. Do we need to have an ID to have a credit score?
Yeah. Well, let's talk about Van Jones here for a second.
So Van Jones said, quote, if Derek, is it Shaven or Chauvin?
I always say Chauvin, but I've heard it pronounced Shaven, so I don't know.
If Derek Chauvin is not convicted, it will look like, quote, open season for cops to, quote, get away with murder.
So Van Jones is saying that if there's no conviction, it's going to look really, really bad.
Now, as you know, I'm a big fan of Van Jones.
I think that for somebody who's more associated with the left, I would say he's more open-minded and more useful to the world than most people, right or left.
He's just an unusually useful, productive member of society.
So I'm a big fan. But here's my problem.
If you work... For CNN, don't you know that riots will be good for business?
Riots will be good for business, right?
By the way, I'm not saying that I agree with all of Ann Jones' opinions.
In the comments, I'm saying, oh, he's a Marxist, he's a socialist.
We're not talking about that.
I'm talking about him as a human being.
With good intentions.
Anytime you find a smart, capable person with good intentions, I'm way less concerned if I agree with them on all their policies.
I just like smart, well-intentioned people who are trying to make the world better.
So even if they disagree with me.
Here's my problem. We have a news business which knows it will be wildly more popular if the riots happen.
Are they making the riots happen?
Is CNN making the riots happen?
And I'll just use them as a proxy for news on the left, right?
And maybe even news on the right, because in this case it might be the same.
But it looks to me that the news business is setting the country up for riots just so they can cover them and it'll be profitable.
That's happening, right?
Now, ask me if...
Do I think they had a meeting in which they talked about it?
Do you think CNN said, hey, if we can prime the country for a riot, profits are going to look good?
No. I don't believe anybody had a conscious thought, let's cause some riots so we can make some money.
Lots of people might have thought, if there are riots, we will make money.
But that's different from saying, let's cause them.
But here's the thing.
Do you know how many brains you have?
We used to think you had one brain, and that one brain was you, and your one brain would make your decisions, and that's you, you making a decision.
More recently, science has told us it would be more productive and just maybe more accurate to think of you as several brains, and they compete to see who wins on any topic.
For example, Your sort of executive brain that's at least a little bit logical, that takes charge for all the boring little logical stuff until something exciting happens and then that one just shuts off.
As soon as you get excited, mad, emotional, the little executive one just turns off.
And then you've got a different brain.
I mean, it's all in your head and it's just a region or regions of your brain, but they act like a new brain.
In my opinion, everything I know about economics, everything I know about psychology, everything I know about hypnosis, and everything I know about how the brain operates and is constructed, tells me the following.
That the news business is killing people for business.
Now, in the 90s, I wrote a book called The Dilbert Future, in which I made a bunch of long-term predictions.
One of my long-term predictions is that the news industry would start killing people to generate ratings.
You're watching it.
The news business is creating the Floyd riots right in front of you.
They haven't happened yet, but it's the news that's creating them.
It's not the public. The public is reacting to the coverage.
The public didn't have an opinion.
The public was assigned an opinion.
And they're still being assigned an opinion.
And Van Jones is priming the pump.
And again, I think he has only good intentions, but that's maybe not every part of his brain, right?
There's a part of his brain, just like everybody else, that can process good intentions and act on them.
But there's another part of the brain that says, Wouldn't it be nice to work for a network that was making more money?
Wouldn't that be good for me, directly or indirectly?
Right? So, you always have this, you could call it subconscious, but I don't like that word.
It has too much baggage with it.
There's a part of everybody's brain that makes them follow economics.
Because we're evolved that way.
Biologically, biologically, we are drawn to power and money and resources, just like a magnet.
So your conscious brain could be saying, oh, ethically or logically, I should be doing this.
But at the same time, all of your biological urges are saying, there's money over there.
I'm being drawn toward the money.
I know where the money is.
No, no.
We don't want any riots.
But it would be really, really economical.
No. No.
I don't want to see anybody get hurt, but it would be really good for me.
I'd probably increase my mating options if I made more money.
I was on a network that made more money.
Ah! So I just described every human.
Every human is absolutely drawn toward money.
They won't tell you they are.
Now, there's some people who genuinely don't care about money and it doesn't apply to them.
But anybody who owns a suit, let's just put it that way.
If you own a suit, meaning that you bought into society on some level, and whatever the female equivalent of a suit is, if you're at least bought into society that much, you are drawn to money, whether you know it or not, whether you like it or not.
So we have somehow built a news industry that right in front of us, this is happening right in front of us as obvious, it couldn't be more obvious, they are priming the public for major riots.
And the news industry is doing this.
This is not anybody else.
This is the news industry priming us for riots that don't need to happen.
These riots don't need to happen.
Nothing good will come from them.
Nothing will move forward.
Nothing will be better.
It's just for the news business.
Now imagine, if you're not sold yet, let me tell you how the news could be covering this.
Here's what Van Jones could have said instead of...
If Chauvin is not convicted, it'll look like open season for cops to get away with murder.
A very provocative sentence.
Let me suggest other kinds of sentences he could have said.
It's very likely that the burden of proof will not be met, because even though the video looks very damning to everybody, the medical information contradicts it.
And under that case, we would likely expect to see him not get convicted of whatever the worst charges are, the murder-related ones.
And I'd like to urge everybody to stay calm, because we're better off if the legal system works than we would be blowing off steam.
So just remember, you black Americans are better off whenever the legal system gets the right answer.
The last thing you want is for the legal system to give the wrong answer.
And in this case, although you're not going to like it, the right answer might be that we can't tell if this was a murder.
It looked like it. We all think it looked like it.
But the medical exam contradicts it, and that's pretty good evidence too.
So our system doesn't allow you to send somebody to jail forever, well, for let's say a murder conviction of some site.
We don't support that.
And I don't think you'd want that in the black community.
I don't think you'd want it in any community.
So support the system when it gets the right answer.
That's the right thing to do.
When the system gets the wrong answer, And let's say, if you're still concerned about police treatment of black citizens who are stopped, and why wouldn't you be?
Seems worthy of being concerned, right?
You can deal with that.
I mean, that's a separate problem.
But you don't need to throw a cop in jail for something that the system wouldn't support.
So there are many ways that CNN could be reducing the odds of violence, but you won't see them do any of that.
My prediction is you will not see CNN or MSNBC doing a full-throated call for calm.
Now, they will call for President Trump to say, why don't you call for calm with these protesters in the Capitol.
They'll put that standard on other people.
But you will not see the CNN paid commentators calling for calm.
You won't see it.
In fact, I predict...
That you'll see them supporting the riots.
I think you'll see...
Because we saw Chris Cuomo, for example, was supporting violence in riots because he said out loud on CNN, you know, who said that protests need to be peaceful?
He actually said that out loud.
So CNN is likely to be supporting the violence...
They'll do it by saying they support the protests.
But, of course, the protests are going to bring with them lots of violence.
All right. That is all I have today.
I've got to go off and spend another four hours recording my book that I'm re-recording for audio, How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
And I'll let you know when that is available.
Why don't you read Super Chats?
Only because I have two sets of comments going by and I'm not always looking at the screen.
If I were always looking at the screen, you wouldn't enjoy this.
But I try to read them if I don't read them out loud.
All right. Now remember, Periscope people, When Periscope turns off, just Google real coffee with Scott Adams.
Add the real part there.
Google real coffee with Scott Adams on YouTube, and you can watch me on YouTube as soon as Periscope goes away.
All right? Thanks for that, and I'll talk to you.
Well, I guess I'll talk to you one more day on Periscope.
See you then. All right.
YouTube. Why don't you just stop Periscope now?
Well, people are expecting it, that's why.
So it's easy just to turn it on for one more day.
Twitter has live video, yes.
So I may integrate it with the Twitter product, but I don't know about that yet.
So as soon as I find out about that, I'll make a decision.
But I don't think I could...
Well, we'll see.
What does effective riot prevention look like?
Well, effective riot prevention would be the news business reassigning people's opinions.
And they would just give you the opinion that rioting would be counterproductive.
and then people would do less of it.
There's something about a Hillary server story.
I don't know about that. Yeah, somebody's saying that Rumble live streams.
So right now the locals platform does not yet have that.
I think it'll have it in the coming months.
But I'll look into live streaming on Rumble.
I'm already on Rumble, by the way.
You're leaving Periscope? Periscope's leaving me, so the Periscope service is discontinuing after tomorrow.
If you were the president, would you direct the CDC to tell people to stay away from overweight people?
Probably. Well, I'd at least have a conversation with them to find out if that would work.
So the first thing you need to know is, is my intuition that it would work accurate?
