Episode 1342 Scott Adams: The War on Imaginary People, Microchips in Your Body, More Police Problems
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Photoacoustic imaging
Microchip that senses COVID in your body
Version 1: Daunte Wright shooting
Afghanistan meth production
All major news stories make somebody rich
Staying safe during traffic stops
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
My goodness. My natural sense of timing is off by a full minute, and I don't think that's acceptable.
So I apologize for keeping you waiting.
Whatever happened again.
And if you'd like to enjoy this, I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous soap.
And it happens now.
Go. Well, while that coffee is making you healthier, let me talk about the other things that will make you healthier.
Would you like to hear some good news?
Why not? Because good news makes the day better.
So here's some good news.
While we were sleeping, people who were smart were working hard to make healthcare better and cheaper.
There's a new device called a photoacoustic imaging.
And it's still in the laboratory.
They're developing it.
But apparently the technology works.
And what it is is a really cheap, non-invasive way to get an image like an x-ray, like an MRI, except that you could build it so it's sort of a portable, almost used-at-home kind of device.
And apparently you can tune it to see all kinds of different things.
You can tune it to see your veins and arteries.
You can tune it to see your bones.
And apparently it's just kind of amazing.
And it's probably not too far away, a few years away.
So imagine this world.
So here are the things that are sort of coming together in different ways to make healthcare cheaper.
One is this device.
Let's say if you could just go to a central place and just rent it.
And just, you know, rent it from the library.
And say, hey, I want to borrow this imaging device.
Ten bucks. Rent it from the library.
Look at your thing.
Send it to your doctor who is a telehealth doctor.
Might be a doctor in some other part of the world.
So you've got your doctor on your phone.
That's cheap. You've got your portable imaging.
That's cheap. You've got your phone apps that are monitoring your heart.
I saw a device that seemed to indicate it could check your blood sugar without sticking you.
Is that real? I don't think it's integrated necessarily with your phone yet, but it's a handheld device that you just put on you and it can tell your blood sugar?
I mean, that doesn't even feel like that could even be real, but if it is, how cool.
So you've got your blood pressure, your blood sugar...
I think they already have a mobile blood drawing service someplace, but you'll see more of it.
So imagine you could just use your app and dial up a mobile blood-taking person who just shows up and takes your blood, gives it to the lab, and next thing you know, you've got all kinds of information.
Then imagine also you have mobile nurses, because there's a whole bunch of stuff you don't need a proper doctor for.
Sometimes you need a bandage, you need something checked that just requires a physical manipulation.
So maybe you just dial up a mobile nurse, just like you'd get an Uber.
And then if there's more drug competition, we could maybe get drugs down.
That's a tougher one.
But all of these things put together, they're all happening sort of in their own domain, but you can sort of see them starting to come together in what would be I would call the poor person's health care.
A health care that would be so inexpensive, you wouldn't even necessarily need insurance for the basic stuff.
You still need insurance for the catastrophic stuff.
Anyway, there's good news there.
Here's the scary news of the day.
Pentagon scientists invent a microchip which can be inserted in your body.
No problems yet, right?
Yeah. And it senses COVID-19 in the body.
And when I tweeted about this story, you would not be surprised that a lot of people said, you're not turning me into any cyborg.
I told you this was coming.
I could see this a mile away.
The government wants to put a chip in you.
Pretty soon they'll be reading your thoughts, maybe controlling your body directly through the microchip.
Privacy gone. So pretty bad, right?
Because the last thing you'd want is for the government to turn you into a cyborg where you're part machine, part human.
You certainly wouldn't want a microchip running your body and your life, would you?
Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to be Connected to any kind of microchip-like device in a way that it would be very, very hard to disconnect me from it, because what if that device could have the power,
hypothetically, and this is a strange, dangerous future, I barely want to talk about it, it's so scary, but what if the microchip and the device that was now part of your body permanently, for all practical purposes, What if it could control your thoughts?
What if it could erase your privacy?
Because it can listen to you.
It can know where you are.
It can know what you're buying, what you're doing, what you're interested in.
It can know what you're afraid of.
It can know what you say.
It can know how you speak.
Boy, you wouldn't want any kind of a device like that anywhere near you, would you?
Ha ha ha ha! Yeah, that would be a scary future.
So I think we could all agree we'd like to stay away from any kind of a future that would pair a microchip with your body.
If you're listening to this on audio only, you missed a hilarious component in which I had my Smartphone held up to my face the entire time.
Now, if you audio-only people, put it all together.
Put it all together, okay?
I'll wait. Yes, the point is, you're already a cyborg.
That's not your future.
That already happened.
So, you know, you can decide if it's good or bad, but it already happened.
So, do you like being controlled by private industry?
Because that's the current situation.
Is the government going to be worse?
You know, whose chip will win?
Will the government's chip?
Hypothetically. Will that win?
Or will Elon Musk's Neuralink, will that win?
Or will it be your phone?
Will Apple win? You're going to have a lot of microchips in your body.
Some of them will be sort of Adjacent to your body but working with you, such as your phone, some of them will actually be embedded in your bones and your skin.
Maybe like this Pentagon one, maybe like Elon Musk's Neuralink in the future.
But here's what I say about all of this.
I'm not really afraid of it.
I guess I should be, right?
Because everybody else is afraid of it.
Why am I not afraid of it?
I don't know the answer to that question, but none of it sounds scary to me.
To me, it just seems like a continuation of the obvious.
There's nothing we can do about it.
We will use products that make us happier, and we will give up privacy to do it, and we will give up control, and we will give up free will because it wasn't real anyway.
So we're going to be there.
It doesn't mean that you're going to be turned into a zombie slave.
But we are going to be there.
I mean, you will be.
You are. Part machine already.
And it hasn't killed you so far.
So we have to watch out for this, of course, because there's a dark way it could go, and it could easily go the dark way.
But not necessarily.
If I had to predict, far more likely the technology integrated in our body will be positive, just like up till now.
Now, Are you a cyborg if you're part chemically altered?
You're a cyborg if part of your body is a microchip or any mechanical device, by definition.
But what if you were born as a regular human, but now you're a human plus whatever vaccinations and chemical alterations have been added to you?
Aren't you always that new modified thing after a vaccination?
I feel like we're already chemical cyborgs too.
So just being a chemical cyborg in the future doesn't mean that it will be worse, because we're already chemical cyborgs.
Now, I'm not going to tell you that I know whenever I talk about a topic and I don't act critical enough, somebody's going to say, why are you supporting putting chips in people?
Nothing like that happened.
If you imagined I just supported putting a chip in a person, that didn't happen.
I simply didn't criticize it.
I'm simply talking about it.
I don't know if this will be bad.
Easily could be. It would be pretty easy to imagine it becoming bad, right?
But that would be true of everything.
Almost everything that we enjoy today, you could have easily imagined it would turn bad.
Right? What about China?
Boiling the frog.
Well, what is not a slippery slope?
Isn't that the issue?
See, my problem with the slippery slope is that there's nothing that's not a slippery slope.
And if everything is a slippery slope, it just becomes sort of meaningless.
Alright, well, we don't want the dictators to control us through our microchips, but I'm less worried about that than you are.
Maybe irrationally.
I don't know. The Floyd trial is going to enter the new phase.
I guess maybe today or tomorrow the defense will be Presenting its case.
Now did you know that the defense hasn't really done its full case yet?
So if you were to look at what you believe about the Floyd and Chauvin situation today, it's based on mostly seeing the prosecutor's best evidence.
We think it's the best.
What happens when the defense really digs in?
Probably in the next 48 hours, if you're following it, you're going to say to yourself, whoa, there were some surprises.
I really thought that prosecution had a good case.
But now that I've listened to the defense, it changes everything.
Now, there's nothing more humbling than thinking you understand the law and then listening to an actual lawyer set you straight.
So yesterday I was listening to...
Alan Dershowitz's podcast about the trial.
And I was also listening to Viva Frey and Robert Barnes.
And by the way, you should follow them on Locals and on YouTube, for anything legal especially.
They do some of the best easy descriptions of what's going on with new stuff you didn't understand before.
But here's one of the things that both of them told me yesterday that I hadn't heard in the news.
So here's something that mainstream news is, as far as I know, not even reported.
But it seems like an important fact that goes like this.
That if the moment of death of George Floyd is sort of indicated by the prosecution, and it has been, that there's testimony that you can tell the moment of his death.
The problem with that, according to legal experts, and I didn't see this one at all, this was invisible to me, is that you can't be guilty of killing somebody after they're dead.
Now that makes sense, right?
You can't murder a dead person.
But here's where it gets technical in the Floyd Chauvin case.
Because there's some of the evidence, a good deal of it, that makes Chauvin look the worst...
Happened after the prosecution has told the jury that he was already dead.
Now you say to yourself, yeah, but that would tell you a lot.
The way he's acting after Floyd is dead, if he didn't know he was dead, your common sense says, well, it doesn't matter if he knew he was dead, you're still learning a lot about who he is and what his intentions were by what he's doing.
Because he didn't know, right?
But apparently the law sees it differently.
The law says that whatever brutality he did or did not inflict after somebody's dead can't be against the law.
At least it's not murder.
It might be some other law.
And so, all of the video evidence, the video evidence that happened after that presumed moment of death, which might be like three minutes, It could be a pretty big amount of the nine minutes that Floyd was on the ground controlled.
And it turns out that that last three minutes might be some of the worst part of it, so that legally it could be tossed out.
But does that matter?
Like, that's a technical thing I didn't know.
And I was kind of surprised, actually.
Kind of surprised to find out that that would be meaningful in this case.
However, both Robert Barnes and Alan Dershowitz make the following point.
And I think Barnes did it the best.
He said that in his experience, and probably research too, I don't know, That only 10-20% of juries look at the facts to make their decisions.
Now, of course, they all look at the facts, and they think they're using the facts, and they'll tell you they're using the facts, but there's a real difference between a fact-based jury, where they're really going to just follow the law, they're really going to make sure the facts are the facts, and they're only going to stick to that.
10-20%.
How are the rest of the trials decided, if not on the facts?
How do they feel?
So it doesn't matter if you think that the defense has destroyed the factual part of the case.
There's only a 10-20% chance it will make any difference.
How scary is that?
10-20% chance that the facts of the case...
We'll determine the outcome.
That's based on an experienced, you know, well, two experienced people in this case, Dershowitz and Barnes.
I didn't know it was that bad.
You know, I certainly knew that people are making decisions based on emotion, not facts.
But I didn't think it was that bad in the context of a trial where somebody's life isn't.
At stake. That's scary.
And Ellen Dershowitz had said a few weeks ago that there is no way that Chauvin could get a fair trial where they're holding it.
So no matter what happens, isn't it an immediate appeal?
I mean, it feels like the appeal is just guaranteed.
So you're going to have some kind of result, but if that result is a prosecution or a guilty on any of those counts, I feel like it's going to be appealed.
Now, I was also thinking, somewhat incorrectly, that the odds of a hung jury were high.
Now, hung jury, which would result in a mistrial, means that at least one person just won't go with the rest of them, because whether it's an acquittal or a guilty, you've got to have all 12 people on the same side.
And I thought to myself, how in the world do you get 12 people to agree on anything, really, in this world, but especially this?
Because it so puts you into your team corner.
How could you ever get any 12 people to agree?
And it doesn't even matter what evidence they see, right?
Because we already know that that's not going to matter.
But when I was listening to Robert Barnes talking about it, or was it Dershowitz, but I think they would agree on this point, that if you got, let's say, one holdout, That they don't just send you home.
The judge says, go back.
And then you deliberate for hours and hours and hours and you come back and you say, we can't get there.
We still have a holdout.
And the judge says, go back.
So basically the judge will create a situation in which the other jurors can put pressure on the loan holdout such that usually they'll break.
Now sometimes, and this is scary too, that lone holdout will negotiate.
Ugh, I hate this, but apparently it's a thing.
The lone holdout will say, look, I can't go along with your larger charges.
You want to get them for, let's say, just hypothetically, let's say 11 people wanted second-degree murder.
The holdout says, I can't give you second-degree murder.
I also don't think it's manslaughter.
But I'll give you manslaughter.
If the rest of you will come down, I'll meet you halfway.
What a messed up system that is.
But apparently that can happen, right?
And it's not, it wouldn't even be illegal.
It would just be what the jurors decided was the best fairness they could produce, right?
So the system is a hot mess, and it's amazing that we respect it at all.
But it seems to work because society marches forward.
So let's keep an eye on that.
I think everything we know about that trial will change.
In my opinion, the facts strongly suggest acquittal.
But as anybody who understands persuasion knows, the facts won't necessarily have much to do with anything.
All right. Remember I tell you often, too often maybe, that we're all watching different movies on the same screen.
We think we're looking at the same thing, but we're interpreting it as completely different movies.
And you see it in all kinds of contexts.
But one of the ways you know if your movie is the right one, and I hesitate to even say right, let me adjust that.
Not the right one. Some movies predict better.
That doesn't mean you're right.
It just means you predict better for some reason.
And every now and then, I like to say, okay, how did your movie do?
Did it predict? So, there are two movies on this question of the gigantic problem in this country with white supremacy.
And one movie says it's a giant problem, white supremacists under every bed, and they're more active than ever, and maybe something about Trump stirred them up, and now it's the biggest problem in the country.
So that's one movie. The other movie is, I don't think that's true.
I don't know where they are.
Because could you imagine, just imagine all the things I've been accused of.
Imagine all the things that people have said about me.
Imagine all the people I've had contact with during this political thing.
Many of them would be considered, you know, the The most scurrilous of the deplorables, right?
Imagine all the people I've had detailed conversations with.
I don't know where these white supremacists are.
Definitely racism exists everywhere.
It's just pervasive everywhere.
And I definitely agree that there's structural systemic racism.
You can see it. I mean, the way it's defined, defined as some sort of a semi-permanent disadvantage for one group, yeah, you can see that.
That's subjective. But when you say there's a whole bunch of white supremacists, I haven't met one.
Now, I can't say they don't exist.
I'm just telling you that my movie, I don't know where the hell they are.
So, when I heard...
Really, after the fact, I heard, but I would have predicted.
There was this White Lives Matter event that was being organized for nationwide, various places around the country, in which the white supremacists were going to show up and protest for White Lives Matter.
If you had asked me, how do you think that's going to go?
I would have said, I don't know if anybody's going to show up.
Because in my movie, those people don't exist.
Now, people who would want to just sort of push back on Black Lives Matter with White Lives Matter, they exist, right?
But they're just more, you know, people in the political realm who want to push their point, etc.
No more or less racist than the average person, in my opinion.
But what happened? Basically, nobody showed up.
A handful of people. Now, that matches my movie.
Doesn't mean mine's right.
Right? This is very important.
One bit of evidence doesn't mean you got the right movie.
But it's compatible with my movie.
So if it's not compatible with your movie, how do you explain it?
What's your explanation about why all these people didn't show up?
I don't know. Maybe they didn't want to get caught.
Maybe. Maybe. But if these people are afraid to even be in public, I don't know that it's the biggest problem in the world.
It doesn't feel like a big old trend that's going to sweep the country if all you can get is a handful of people in the whole frickin' country.
Other examples of this would be my movie is that whenever there's an anonymous source, it's bullshit.
That's my movie. So every time I see an anonymous source, I say in public, nope.
You're never going to see any evidence to support that anonymous source.
How often am I right?
Well, every time that I can think of.
I mean, I'm sure I've been wrong, but it feels like just about every time.
They were afraid of being attacked by Antifa.
Were they? Do you think these...
These armies of white supremacists which we're told exist, you think that they were afraid of these 90-pound Antifa folks?
Maybe. Maybe.
You can't rule it out, but it doesn't seem like it's right.
Now, in our big old simulation here, have I told you that There's something weird about how problems come in immediately behind the last problem, or things look a little too much like other things.
There's just something about our reality, especially lately, and I'm aware that this is a perceptual thing, right?
But does it not look like the coincidence of stories just doesn't look coincidental anymore?
It just feels like you knew this was going to happen.
What am I talking about? Well, first of all, we have the story of the Windsor police officer in which one pepper sprayed the service member who was afraid to get out of his car.
He didn't want to reach down to take his seatbelt off because he thought he'd get shot.
He was afraid of the police. And I said when I saw the video that, well, somebody's got to get fired.
I mean, one of those police officers needs to be fired, like, immediately.
And he was. So in my movie, I saw somebody acting badly, and I said, well, that person should get fired.
And they were. But here's what's wrong with the story.
It's not quite perfect.
Because the guy who got fired is Joe Gutierrez.
It's not the whitest name, is it?
Joe Gutierrez.
So the guy who got pepper sprayed was part black, part Hispanic, But it got pepper sprayed by the Hispanic guy.
So just when you thought you were going to get this perfect little George Floyd, let's say, companion story, just coincidentally, just sort of perfectly matching the headline, but it didn't.
Darn it. The guy who acted the worst was named Gutierrez.
So it kind of ruins that narrative.
Oh, but don't worry.
Don't worry. It was backfilled immediately.
Because that's what the simulation does.
And tragically, there is yet another shooting of yet another young black man.
And nothing I say about this should be construed as a joke, okay?
Can we agree on that? Nothing I say.
Even if you feel like it was, that's not my intention.
Tragedy is a tragedy.
But, honest to God, when I saw this story, that somebody named, is it Duante or Dante?
D-A-U-N-T-E. Right.
When I saw that a man with that name had been shot by police, I thought this was an old story.
Because I swear to God, there's something about his name that makes it exactly like the name of somebody who should be in this story.
Am I wrong? Doesn't this feel like a little too on the nose?
Just his name.
It feels...
I'm being helped here in the comments.
Dante. Dante?
Doesn't Dante Wright sound exactly like somebody you heard of in the news...
Who was shot by police in a sketchy situation.
It just feels like a made-for-the-news name, which is weird.
Again, that's probably just psychological priming on my part.
But I swear to God, when I saw the news, I thought they were talking about something that happened some years ago.
But unfortunately, it's new.
What's the first thing we heard about it?
The first thing we heard is that the police shot him or they stopped him because he had some kind of issue with his air freshener.
And then he got killed for having an air freshener.
So that's the first version of the story.
Does that sound like it's real?
No. The first version of the story in this kind of situation, whatever is the first version, no.
That version is never real.
It doesn't matter if it's exculpatory or damning to the police.
The first version is never real.
Now we're learning that maybe he had a warrant for his arrest.
We're hearing that he tried to get back in the car when he wasn't supposed to.
If you're a police officer and you have somebody that you think is resisting arrest, we don't have that in evidence, right?
So I'm speaking hypothetically.
We don't know anything about this case, really.
But it's reported that the person who allegedly was resisting arrest turned to get back into his car when he wasn't supposed to.
Now, if you're a police officer and you think somebody's dangerous, let's say there's a warrant for the arrest, who knows if a weapon was involved and whatever the warrant was from, who knows if even the warrant part is real, but if somebody turns their They're back to a police officer in the context of resisting arrest, and their back is turned, and they're leaning into their car.
We just heard of somebody getting shot for doing exactly that.
And the person who did exactly that was reaching for a knife, we heard.
Who knows if that's true.
But if somebody is resisting arrest and they turn to get something and you can't see their hands, you're creating a very dangerous situation.
Do I think he should have been shot?
Probably not. Probably not.
My first reaction is the police should have done something different or better.
But we certainly don't know the details of this situation, and so it's like there's, you know, we're just guessing at this point.
But how perfect is this that it happened in Minnesota, right?
And it happened during the George Floyd trial.
It's a little too perfect.
Now, does this sort of thing happen so often that That, of course, it was going to happen in Minnesota, of course, during the Floyd trial?
because it happens so often?
Yeah, I'm just confused about whether it's the simulation just giving this to us because it wants some riots.
I don't know. It's weird.
Here's another scary story.
It turns out that Afghanistan is becoming a hot spot for making meth.
Because there's a plant that grows there wild and plentiful, which they've recently learned they can turn into meth.
Now, the way you make meth in the United States is you might illegally get over-the-counter Sudafed or whatever it is and you boil it down and you add chemicals and you cook it until you've created meth.
But it turns out there's a simple way that uses household chemicals and you don't need any kind of special meth lab and you just take this plant and you can chemically turn it into meth fairly easily.
And apparently there's reports that maybe Iran or China was helpful in teaching the locals how to do this.
Thank you, China. Thank you, Iran.
Don't know if that's true, but who knows.
But now there's going to be an enormous meth wave that will hit this country.
And... It's coming.
I don't see anything that would stop it.
Because apparently the plant just grows wild, so you couldn't even bomb the farms where it grows because it's just growing in the mountains everywhere.
So this is bad.
We'll see what happens there.
Have you noticed that most of our major news stories have a weird element to them, which is that it makes somebody rich?
Start looking for this pattern and see how often you see it.
For example, in the news would be the George Floyd situation.
Who does that make money for?
Especially if it goes in the direction of a riot, which seems guaranteed at this point.
Who is that good for?
The news business. The news industry will make way more money if there's a riot.
And does their news coverage Does the news seem exactly, let's say, designed to create exactly the situation that would be profitable for the news?
Yes. How about the virus?
Is there anybody who will get rich off the news that there are new variants of the virus and you might have to take vaccinations forever?
It's not the beginning or the end of the vaccinations.
Vaccinations just forever.
Does anybody make any money from that?
Yeah. Pharma, right?
So there's somebody making billions on the virus.
That's a big story.
What about all the stories about China ramping up in the South China Sea and Iran building nukes and everything?
Well, the entire military-industrial complex makes money from that.
What about climate change?
Well, you've got all the green businesses who would make money on that.
Now, here's something you need to know about the news business.
As the profits for the news business shrink, they go from being investigative units, because they can afford it, they've got a lot of money, they can send out long-term investigative units and stuff.
As their profits shrink, they have fewer and fewer investigative stories, those are expensive, and more and more Let's just say writing down what somebody told you.
Sort of just a scribe for somebody else.
And in this kind of a world where profits are low and the writers need to produce a story to get paid, they will take a story from anywhere.
In other words, if the PR people for any one of these industries comes up with a little package story, they can bring it to a member of the press who is lazy, Like all people, right?
Not especially lazy.
But they're lazy like all people.
If somebody hands them a story, look, here's your source.
Here's the angle. Here's what turns it into something interesting.
Here you go. And here are six people who we already know will talk to you about the story.
That story gets published.
Right? Because it's easy.
It's just packaged up for you.
And once you realize that what makes it into the news...
Is what has been packaged by industry people and presented to the news, then you understand there are no coincidences.
Of course our major news stories, coincidentally, will make somebody rich.
Where do you think the story came from?
Same people. It's the people who get rich.
They're the ones who create the news, they package it, and they hand it to a reporter.
And the reporter says, well, I could work really hard, or I could do this one.
That's your system. Now, I'm not going to say that every one of these things is because of money, but when you see the pattern that there's always somebody making money, and that's how the news business works, it takes packaged stories and turns them into what you think are their stories, you've got to wonder.
There's the weirdest war happening in the Middle East right now between Iran and Israel.
And I would say that they're at war.
But it's a weird little war, and I'll call it the Not Me War.
And it goes like this.
Iran will fire a missile, or their proxies will fire a missile, and some Israeli asset or American asset We'll be destroyed.
And we'll say, Iran, damn you for funding them or making that happen.
And Iran will say, what does Iran say?
Not me. What are you talking about?
That wasn't me.
Not me. And then today we hear a story that at the Nance, I guess it's the Iranian nuclear facility, the biggest one, that something blew up That turned off the power to the entire facility that could set them back nine months.
Natanz. Natanz, is that how you pronounce it?
Natanz. And when anybody asks Israel, hey Israel, were you behind this?
Were you behind blowing up this power plant?
Israel says, what?
Not me. Not me.
So, it's like the not me war.
Where they're just, it's an active hot war, but they just both say it's not happening.
Not me. Something blew up?
Oh, so sad.
I saw a tweet by Tom Cotton, you know, just saying it was so sad that something blew up in Iran there.
And I think everybody's just winking at Iran, and Iran knows it was an operation.
But it's weird that we just pretend it's not happening.
So I would like to offer you a vaccination to keep you healthy at traffic stops.
Now, it's very offensive, isn't it?
I think we'd all agree.
It's offensive to be talking about how you could keep yourself safe at a traffic stop the same day that a young black man was killed by police at a traffic stop.
Probably shouldn't pair these together because it accidentally makes you think that I'm saying, well, it's his fault, the person who stopped.
I'm not saying that. We don't know the details of that situation, so I'm not going to suggest that if the person who had stopped had acted differently, it would be a different outcome.
So we won't be talking about those specifics.
I'm going to give you a sentence which, in my belief, is that this sentence would vaccinate you from death.
If you got stopped. It's the first thing you say to the police officers when they approach you in the car.
Now, I know what you're going to say.
You know, hey, Whitey, you don't know what it's really like on the streets, and it's really racism and all that, but I would propose the following experiment, which will never happen.
I believe that nobody who uses this sentence will ever be killed by the police.
So that's my challenge.
Nobody who uses this sentence in the way that I'm going to explain will ever be killed by the police.
Nobody's ever going to use it, except maybe three of you someday.
But nobody will ever be killed by the police after this vaccinating sentence, which you would say to the police officer first upon being stopped.
Are you ready? This is the sentence.
Officer, how can I keep you safe today and me too?
While showing your hands.
So your hands have to be visible.
You say, officer, how can I keep you safe today and me too?
If that person gets killed, I'll be amazed.
Now, of course, you'd also have to comply, right?
But here's what makes this a vaccination.
And you're going to say to yourself, I think, well, Scott, look at that stop that just happened where the guy got fired for, the policeman got fired for using the pepper spray.
A perfect example of a person fully complying.
His hands were out the window, and he was saying that he didn't want to reach down for his seatbelt because he didn't want his hands to be concealed and get shot.
So wasn't he complying, Scott?
Obviously that doesn't work.
No. He was not complying.
He was very much not complying.
That was the problem.
He was complying the way he wanted to comply.
He didn't comply the way the police wanted him to comply.
That's different, right?
So I'm suggesting that if you say this first sentence, officer, calling him officer suggests that you have respect for the situation, right?
So the very first word is officer, or, you know, good afternoon, officer, if you wanted to spice it up.
And then you say a question, not a statement.
A question always goes down better than a statement.
You can ask a police officer a question that's not going to make them mad.
If it's a good question, you're not just being a jerk.
But asking a question does not escalate.
And asking this question, how can I keep you safe, is a pretty good question to ask somebody.
To reframe their opinion of what's going on.
And then you say, and me too.
So you're making it perfectly clear you're not being manipulative.
You're trying to stay alive.
But you'd also like the officer to stay alive.
Alright, so win-win. Then, what about the situation where you're being asked to reach for something and you don't want to reach for it?
How would you handle that?
Here's how I would have handled it.
I would have said, you know, when they say, take off your seatbelt and get out of the car, I say, officer, from your angle, I'm concerned that you can't see my hands.
So if you wouldn't mind, could you take a better viewing angle so that you can see both of my hands when I take off my seatbelt?
What's the police officer going to do?
Say, no. You're just offering him a better view.
Of course he'd say yes.
So I say, okay, if you stand over there, taking off the seatbelt, getting out of the car.
Now, am I saying that it is the fault of the person who gets stopped No.
Don't misinterpret.
I'm not saying it's the fault of the person who gets stopped.
Because the police officers are more experienced.
It's sort of more on them to make sure that the situation is handled right.
So I feel like the police...
I have something to answer for here in all these situations.
But in my opinion, those two things, asking the police officer to observe your hands and asking how you can keep him safe, or her safe, would guarantee that you're safe.
Guarantee, 100%.
Not one person will ever be killed if they do this.
All right. CNN is reporting that...
Trump turned down Matt Gaetz for a meeting.
Matt Gaetz is reporting that that's fake news.
What do you think? Is that fake news?
Who knows? Probably.
But Gladden Greenwald has waded into this situation and done a better job than I have.
And one of the things he points out is that you can't talk about the system...
Without some idiot saying that you're supporting a sex trafficker.
Now, first of all, we've seen no evidence that Matt Gaetz is guilty of anything.
You know that, right?
Do you know that the public has not even seen a whiff of evidence, like a victim, a specific...
We've only heard this rumor stuff, and we live in a world where that's not reliable.
So, as Glenn points out, quite bravely, you can't even talk about the system of how he's being treated without it looking like you're in favor of God knows what crimes, which may not have ever happened anyway.
And I just like that he weighed in, because I've been feeling a little bit alone in this, because whenever I try to defend the system, the system being, shouldn't we show evidence before we convict somebody?
So the system would be, I'd like to see some evidence, and I'd like you to treat him fairly, and I'd like to know what he has to say, and I'd like to know the data before we make a decision.
Is that supporting a terrible criminal?
No. First of all, we don't know he's done anything wrong.
And secondly, you can support the system without supporting the person.
And... So when I, or I guess Glenn probably too, are accused of supporting Gates, it's actually two levels away from reality.
Because first of all, neither of us are supporting him specifically.
We're talking about the system.
And secondly, there's no evidence of a crime.
So it's a thing with no evidence, which people like me are being blamed of being in favor of it.
It's like two levels away from reality.
It's just the weirdest situation.
And have you noticed how many of the stories in the news involve people who don't actually exist?
Have you noticed that?
Let me give you some examples.
A lot of this happened just this morning to me.
Have you noticed how often someone will say, well, you Republicans, or Democrats, doesn't matter, you Republicans, you think that you like X, but then you don't like Y. How could that be true?
How could you say X is good, but Y is not good?
And the answer is, there's nobody like that.
There isn't anybody.
That's an imaginary person.
The imaginary person is complaining about Y but not X. Not a real person.
A real person is complaining about both of them or not complaining about both of them.
So most of the debate on Twitter is literally imaginary people.
I was trying to think today, when is the last time I saw somebody disagree with my opinion while also understanding it?
And it's pretty rare.
It can happen if you have different priorities or different data or something.
But mostly, 95% of the time at least, when people think they're disagreeing with me, they're disagreeing with some imaginary person that they think is me.
And that imaginary person...
Either doesn't know the real information or is trying to get one over or is trying to make money some way.
But it's not me. It's an imaginary person.
So most of the news and most of the conversation involves completely imaginary people.
How about the Matt Gaetz story?
The Matt Gaetz story says that there's a 17-year-old girl.
Is there? We haven't heard any Specifics about that?
I don't know if that person exists.
How about any story about an anonymous source?
Does the anonymous source really exist?
And really said that?
Probably not. How about the big white supremacist rally?
Which nobody showed up.
Or a handful in the whole country, I guess.
Turns out, that's a lot about imaginary people.
A lot about imaginary people.
What about all the cops who are killing people just because they're black?
Do they exist?
There's certainly this belief that it's happening, but have you seen one where you could say to yourself, oh yeah, that's just killing because of being racist?
They always have this other quality, which is there was some actual police reason something happened.
It's all imaginary people.
All the way down. Even here, somebody's saying Joe Biden is imaginary.
In a way. In a way.
All right. Let's see.
What else we got going on here?
Got imaginary people.
Meth in Afghanistan.
And that is just about what's happening today.
Somebody says, you clearly didn't watch Tucker.
He didn't admit, girl, you are fake.
Huh. You know what would have been better?
To write a sentence that made sense.
Try that. Try that next time you comment.
Let's say...
I hate the trolls.
Let me see this comment.
Oh, this is the nicest thing.
So SL Lobb says, I often listen to you with headsets because your voice is so smooth and clear, I sometimes fall asleep.
Do you know how much that means to me?
Since I literally couldn't speak for three and a half years.
And when you hear my new audiobook, I just, this last week I finished recording How to Failed Almost Everything and And it's still Winbeg, so that you'll have a choice of hearing it in my voice.
The original was done by a voice artist.
But I talk about my voice issues on that, and you might like it.
Oh, somebody says, Gates admitted the girl existed to Tucker.
But if the girl exists, but does a girl exist...
Who is a victim of this crime?
So that part does not exist.
I assume that Matt Gaetz did not say, there's a victim that exists.
I assume he said, there's a person who's 17 who exists.
That's not the story.
The story is that there's a victim.
So that part's not in evidence.
Now, I'm not saying that none of these stories will turn out a real person.
I'm saying that when you hear the story, it's all about imaginary people until a real person appears.
Oh, about the...
Yeah, some people wanted me to talk about the island and the volcano.
What I've said about passports is that passports will not survive any competitive environment.
In other words, restaurants are going to have a hard time because if you're a foursome and one of you You know, maybe has antibodies because you were infected but you never got the vaccination.
You can't eat at the restaurant because you're not vaccinated.
It's just not going to work if somebody can go to the restaurant next door because that restaurant will say, hey, I'll take it.
I need some money. Where passports could be a problem is in a non-competitive situation.
And this St. Vincent's Island with the volcano is exactly that.
It is a completely non-competitive environment.
It's an emergency, and the people who owned the boats got to do whatever they wanted.
Like, there weren't the other boats that said, oh yeah, just come over here.
So in a non-competitive environment, passports are a big problem.
But if you're worried about your gym or your restaurants, I just can't get worried about that.
I think it'll work itself out.
It's only when the government requires it, for some government function, they have a monopoly, or in this emergency, I think it was just handled wrong.
So if you say to yourself the problem was the passports, I can see why you'd say that.
Or the vaccinations in that case.
But keep in mind that those vaccinated people I don't think had passports, do they?
I mean, they didn't have vaccination passports.
So the very situation that you're using of the boats wouldn't take somebody unless they're vaccinated, there were no passports.
And the problem still existed.
So is it the passport that's the problem?
No. Or was it that there were some people who made some decisions that you don't think they should have made?
Now, my belief is that, and first of all, it wasn't the boat captains who made the decisions.
They were just going to transport them to other islands, and it was the islands who didn't want to take them.
So, the islands not wanting to take them was the larger problem.
It wasn't vaccinated or unvaccinated, right?
Because if those islands could have kept them, you know, in a quarantine, I don't think they would have had an issue.
They just couldn't. Alright.
What else you've got?
No friend would not help because of passport...
See, you've got to use sentences that actually mean something.
Idiots are posting their passports online where other people can just copy down their number.
That's funny. Yeah, you know, there's this weird story about...
How do you say the name of the guy who's writing these stories?
Somebody say his name in the comments.
Tahisi Coates or something.
I don't want to say it wrong. It'll sound like I'm being inconsiderate, but I just don't know his proper name.
But anyway, there's a story about somebody using Jordan Peterson as the personality for an evil character.
Ta-Nahisi.
It's pronounced Ta-Nahisi, but isn't there a last name?
Ta-Nahisi Coates.
Okay, I hope I got that right.
Talk about Jake Novak.
There's nothing really to talk about there.
Everything you know about that is all there is to know.
Anyway, I think it was an interesting choice, and...
Does Jordan Peterson try to do anything except make people's lives better?
It's the damnedest thing watching the trouble that he attracts.
Because I'm pretty sure if there's somebody who has no bad intentions, it's got to be him.
Has anybody ever suggested he has any bad intentions anywhere?
Or that people are not benefiting from the things he's saying?
It's just the damnedest thing that he would be the subject of attack.
All right. Have you noticed that a lot of our stories are kind of small?
Yeah. Without Trump, we don't have these big stories anymore.
Or at least the news doesn't treat them like they're big.
When will Kamala become president?
My prediction is that Joe Biden has to serve at least one year.
And I think that would just be out of respect for Biden.
Less than a year doesn't feel like you should have run for president.
But one year feels like, okay, you did your job.
You handed off.
It was a clean job.
You did a year. I feel like it's got to be a year.
The brain is the battlefield of the future.
That is correct.
I don't need to watch that to know that's true.
Yeah, persuasion is everything now.
Do you remember in 2016, 2015, when I was talking about persuasion being the sort of dominant variable in our world?
And that felt a little weird, didn't it?
When you first heard me talking about how important persuasion is.
But now...
It's kind of everything, isn't it?
It's really pretty much what I told you was the cleaner way to look at the world, is as a persuasion machine.
And once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Of walking people to the door of Nazism.
Who are they accusing of that?
Would you host a Red Pillow show?
What's that? RSD pillow show?
I don't know what that means. A lot of your questions, I don't understand at all.
Oh, is somebody saying that Kamala needs to...
If she goes more than two years, she can't run twice.
So it'd have to be between one year and two years that she took over.
No, she can't be president as a replacement for more than two years.
So she'd have to wait two years.
That's a reasonable assumption.
Any update on dual Twitter broadcasts?
I don't think I'm going to broadcast on Twitter per se because it's non-monetized.
Let me talk about monetization for a moment.
There may be something that's confusing you.
Number one, I've told you that I have F you money and I don't have to do this for money.
Now that's true, but money influences everything.
And so the more my message is monetized, in whatever way anybody wants to do it, the more powerful my voice becomes.
In other words, the more people who follow me on YouTube, the more influence my way of thinking will have on the world.
So if you want the stuff I say to have more influence on the world, the way to do that is to join locals, where it's a subscription service, or to watch it on YouTube, where it can be monetized.
Right now the Twitter feed doesn't have a monetization model, and so while more people might see it, the monetization is what allows me to Pay my assistant so the production quality is better.
We can put it on more platforms.
So basically there's a certain amount of money that becomes like a vote, but also allows me to do a better job and present it in more places.
And it also keeps me interested.
Because honestly, the fact that it's monetized...
How many times have I told you...
That people can quite honestly say they're not doing something for the money, but it's just never true?
This is one of the most important concepts of economics.
People can literally tell you, and be not lying, no, I'm not doing this because of the money.
And they're still sort of doing it for the money, right?
There's no such thing as not being influenced by money.
And even when I tell you, just to be fully transparent, if I tell you that I don't need the money...
It doesn't mean it doesn't influence me.
It completely influences me.
In fact, if people were not interested enough to, you know, go along with monetizing models, I probably wouldn't be here.
So yeah, it makes a big difference, even though intellectually, if you ask me what's the main reason I'm doing it, I wouldn't say that.
And I wouldn't be lying.
It's just, you know, you always have to be careful.
Money's always there. Actually, here's the perfect example.
Rush Limbaugh, because he had so much reach, part of that is monetization allows his reach to be so big, he was more powerful.
Now, by the way, I'd like to back up to something I said a long time ago.
It's my understanding that Dan Bongino is going to be getting the The Rush Limbaugh radio spot.
That's true, right?
Fact check me on this.
And do you remember that long before that happened, I had taken some time on my live stream, To point out that Dan Bongino is one of the great examples of a talent stack guy.
Somebody who, if you looked at any one of his talents, you'd say, well, that one talent is not like the best in the world compared to other people who do this work.
But man, does he have a lot of them.
It's the lot of talents that makes him get the Rush Limbaugh job, right?
He doesn't have one talent.
He has a whole bunch of them that you can see that he has methodically...
You can just watch his career forming right in front of your eyes.
It's kind of fun to watch. You watch him just adding layers to his stack.
And as he added layers, right in front of you, you watched his career develop while we all watched.
And then he got all the way to the Rush Limbaugh qualification.
And he just did everything right.
And every time you see somebody who simply succeeds by doing everything exactly the way it should be done, and then it works, That's always good to see, because that's very inspiring for anybody who is saying, how do I succeed?
Well, do it that way.
Figure out what set of talents you need to put together, and then methodically just add them and add them and add them until you've got something special, which he did.
Somebody said, but he could not win a congressional seat.
Boy, that's the loser way to look at it.
How much did he learn running for Congress and losing?
Right? That's the big part of the system, too, is they don't all win.
I mean, I don't imagine every job he tried to get he got.
But somebody says Bungie is not getting Rush's show.
But I'm talking about the radio spot, not the show.
Somebody says it would be lonely to not have grandchildren in my big house.
Well, what makes you think I won't?
I would expect to see some grandchildren running around in this house eventually.
What's your take on the Variety hit piece on Gottfeld?
One of the fascinating things about Greg Gottfeld's new show, so now he's competing at that 11pm slot, at least on the East Coast.
It runs at 8pm every night on the West Coast.
But what's great about it is that because the conservative-leaning world doesn't have as many options as the democratic-leaning world, The Goffeld show immediately went to the top of the ratings.
They gotta hate that.
Now, one of the things that Greg does better than just about anybody is he understands his audience.
You rarely see somebody who understands his audience as well as he does.
And so it's no surprise that his show is successful because he knows his audience and he's been serving them for a long time.
And watching the hit pieces is just funny because you know that what's behind them is not so much, hey, let us do a public service because the public would really like to see our criticism of the Greg Gutfeld show.
They're just hit pieces.
They're just jealous people who are not as successful.
So when you see somebody who's sort of in that same entertainment relative business, you know, they're artists or writers, and they're complaining about somebody who's succeeding at the highest level in that same sort of general domain, it doesn't mean anything.
It just means there's some losers who are jealous of his success.
That's all it is. I wouldn't take any of it too seriously.
Yes, in the comments somebody said, this is going on about nothing, and you are right.
