Episode 1370 Scott Adams: Elon on SNL, CNN as a Narcissist, Climate Data Versus Headlines, and More
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Aspergers versus narcissism
CNN's narcissist personality checklist
Reframing climate emergency
The China pollution problem
Steven Koonin, climate skeptic
Arizona audit transparency
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Oh, let me take my pieces of paper, which I don't have, and do this.
Oh yes, I only have two printers in this house, so that's not enough to actually print things.
You need, I don't know, five to seven printers before you can be sure that one of them will actually have paper and ink and work and all that.
So, I'll be working off a digital device today.
And I think it will be the best live stream ever of Coffee with Scott Adams.
And I know, I've said it before, but it's true every time.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it happens now.
Go. Ah.
Well, well, well, well.
Well, bad news about the Chinese rocket that was going to hurl into the Earth out of orbit.
I was really, really hoping that rocket would fall on my head and kill me because there is no better way to die.
And I'm ready. But apparently I will have to die in one of the million other ways you can die that are not anywhere as fast or as painless or as cool as being killed by the debris of a Chinese rocket falling to Earth.
I guess that was my one chance and I missed that.
So I'm a little disappointed about that.
Did you know that Starbucks is considering removing a Starbucks page from Facebook?
Do you know why? Why would Starbucks want to remove its page from Facebook?
If you don't know this story, just try to guess.
Like, what possible thing could Facebook have done, or Starbucks have done, if you don't know the story?
What would cause them to want to leave Facebook, maybe?
They haven't decided, but they might do it.
Well, it turns out that Facebook isn't woke enough.
Not woke enough. Apparently people say mean things about Starbucks in the comments.
And Starbucks is just trying to be a good citizen.
And people say bad things about them on Facebook.
And so Facebook isn't woke enough for Starbucks and they might leave.
Now, have I told you that the left is eating itself?
Oh yeah. Now that they've gotten rid of all the easy targets on the right, if you're on the left and you're trying to pick off targets on the right, when you get down to people like me, like I'm not even on the right, I just talk to the right a lot, you've kind of run out of easy targets.
I'm a little bit more uncancellable than most people.
So I think they just turn on each other.
Because I don't think you can turn the wokeness off.
There's no off switch on wokeness.
So once you've opened up the wokeness Pandora's box, it's going to get you.
So here's another example of that.
Well, how many of you watch Elon Musk hosting Saturday Night Live?
I have lots of comments about that.
I just watched it this morning, recorded it.
And the following comments.
Miley Cyrus, who is the musical guest.
Miley Cyrus is one of the most underrated musical artists around, in my opinion.
I think she's just insanely talented, and I could not enjoy watching her more.
But I think she got sort of, you know, she was sort of shaded by the fact that Elon was the host.
But man, is she talented.
Alright, anyway. I thought Elon's monologue was the best I've seen.
The best I've seen.
Now, how funny is it that the...
I mean, how long have I watched Saturday Night Live?
My whole life that it was on, right?
30 years-ish?
How many years has Saturday Night Live been on?
In my opinion, Elon was the most interesting and funny host that they've ever had, that I can remember.
I can't remember anybody who was funnier or more capable in that job.
And the funny thing was he didn't even look nervous.
45 years, somebody says, for Saturday Night Live.
Wow. 45 years.
Yeah, Elon didn't even look nervous.
He looked like he was handling it pretty easily.
And I thought his jokes were great.
And I thought his delivery was great.
And I think he made Saturday Night Live relevant again.
So by getting outside their box and getting somebody who's way more interesting but not in the entertainment field, I think they did themselves a favor.
And I think he did a lot for the show.
Now remember I told you it was probably fake news that the staff of Saturday Night Live was going to rebel.
Did you see any rebelling?
No. No.
It was always fake news.
Probably nobody had any problem with him whatsoever, and I'll bet they all enjoyed it, the experience.
That was never even close to real news.
If you didn't know that from moment one, that that was fake news, you need to tune your filter.
And the other big news is he dropped...
I don't know, is this a surprise that Elon Musk said on TV, and I don't know that he's ever said it before in public, that he is Asperger's?
Now, in the comments, how many of you didn't already know that?
Is there anybody who didn't know that Elon Musk, just by watching him operate, didn't you know he was a little bit Asperger's?
You knew, right? I'm looking at your comments.
Somebody said, I knew, I assumed, I knew it, called it, knew, I knew.
Some of you are saying, no, no, no, no.
Yeah. So here's the thing.
If you've been around enough Asperger's people, and nobody's been around more than I have, I make the following claim.
My claim is that I have interacted with more Asperger's people than anybody on earth.
It's because I'm the Dilber guy.
So some gigantic portion of my total audience is Asperger's.
So I probably know that population better than anybody who's not a professional, I guess.
I have just an amazing amount of interaction with that group.
And I'm very fond of that group in particular.
So it's good to hear.
And the funny thing is that's just a little thing that Elon Musk did, right?
If you looked at the whole Saturday Night Live thing, you'd say, well, you know, he did a lot of stuff we can talk about.
But that one thing he did, just that one thing where he said he was Asperger's, how many people with Asperger's around the world just said, yes, one of our people is the richest guy in the world and, you know, arguably one of the most successful of all time.
And that's got to feel pretty good.
Somebody says, I cheer.
Did you cheer because you're Asperger's?
How many of you right now are Aspie's?
In the comments, tell me how many of you are, consider yourself, or have been diagnosed as Asperger's.
I'll be interested to see.
I'm not sure if it's the same in the live stream as it is for following the comic.
All right, here is a hypothesis that I want to run by you.
And partly inspired by the fact that Asperger's is often confused with other things.
So the Asperger's diagnosis can sometimes be confused with narcissists.
Did you know that? Now, I would like to start with a correction slash, I don't know, apology maybe?
Clarification? Whatever it is that says I used to be wrong but now I'm correcting myself.
So whatever words you want to put on that.
Now, I don't do this often.
I think you would agree.
I don't often say I was totally wrong about something.
I'm just going to correct it now.
So note this, please.
I do do it fairly, I would say, regularly, but not a lot.
I mean, it happens every month or so.
And here's my correction slash apology, whatever you want to call it.
I've said for a while that narcissism isn't real.
Meaning that when people are accusing people of being narcissists, they don't know what it is, and really it's just people who have an inflated sense of their abilities, but that that's probably a good thing to have.
Having an inflated sense of your ability, to some extent, if it's not too much, is actually an advantage.
And in fact, you see lots of CEOs and famous people who seem to have some narcissism succeed.
So my argument was, That if your only problem is that you think you're special, that that's not really a disease.
That probably could be just good strategy, or it's just lucky because it works.
But I have recently learned that my knowledge about what narcissism is was very lacking.
Very, very lacking.
Like, completely lacking.
In fact, I don't know if I've ever been more wrong about anything.
I can't think of anything I've been more wrong about.
So let me be as clear as I can.
Everything I said about this topic of narcissism, totally wrong.
Here's what I think is right.
The part about thinking that you're, you know, better than other people, or you're a little arrogant, that is one small part of it.
Right? If that's the part you're focusing on, you're missing the whole show, which is what I was.
So I spent some time yesterday doing a deep dive on the topic, and I found out one of the reasons that Asperger's is confused with narcissism sometimes is that they have a few things in common.
One is that they lie a lot.
Did you know that? Apparently Asperger's people lie a lot, and so do narcissists.
But they lie for different reasons in different ways.
An Asperger's person would lie to avoid a social situation that they don't know how to navigate.
So if you said, for example, hey, did you eat my food that was in the refrigerator?
And this might be a bad example, but just work with it for a moment.
An Asperger's person might say, no, because they don't know how to explain the fact that they did something socially inappropriate, eating somebody's food.
Now, If you're not Asperger's, you might say, yeah, I was just hungry.
I'm sorry. I know you were saving that.
I'll buy you another one. I'll order it for you on DoorDash.
I was weak.
Sorry about that. So the Asperger's just might not know how to handle it, so might just do a little convenience lie.
Whereas the narcissist will lie for manipulation and gain.
So if you're looking for the lies, and they're manipulation lies, and they're kind of clever, that's a narcissist.
And if it's just trying to avoid a conversation, that's probably Asperger's, or more likely.
And then the...
The other part that can be confusing is that the Asperger's people may not have an appreciation for other people's thoughts.
So an Asperger's person could hurt you unintentionally because they just didn't know that what they were doing might cause you some grief.
So they just don't know.
Whereas the narcissists, they know they're hurting you and they like it.
That's a pretty big difference.
The Asperger's people don't want to hurt you, and they don't want to fool you, but sometimes they might lie just to avoid a thing.
Whereas the narcissist, they do want to hurt you.
They enjoy it.
And it's a big manipulative thing.
Those are just a few examples, and I was Googling, and interestingly, you can find a list of 15 signs that somebody is narcissistic, but also another list where there are nine symptoms.
So if somebody has 15 symptoms of narcissism, but another expert has nine, What are the other six?
Why does one expert have six extra symptoms?
Well, part of it is that narcissism is not one thing.
There are families of different types of narcissisms.
They're the vulnerable ones and the grandiose ones or something like that.
So it's not even one thing.
It's like a constellation of things.
So here are some aspects of narcissism.
And I want you to, just for fun, I want you to check this hypothesis.
Here's my hypothesis.
Fox News is like your crazy uncle who means well.
Now, my hypothesis is that each news organization takes on a personality, if you will.
Fox News is your crazy uncle, might believe in a few conspiracy theories...
He might, but he means well.
He wants the country to do well.
He wants his family to do well.
So that's Fox News' personality, I would say.
What is CNN's personality?
I would propose to you that CNN is a narcissist.
I'm going to read you some of the traits of a narcissist, and I want you to tell me if CNN as a network has these traits.
Okay? Number one, only pretends to care about others.
Does CNN care about you, or are you just their product, and they're just sort of pretending to care about the audience?
Well, it looks like it's pretending, doesn't it?
Because they don't seem to be interested in telling you the truth.
It looks like they're pretending that they care.
Let's do another one.
They enjoy hurting you.
Now, would you say that CNN enjoys hurting anybody?
Probably not, right?
Your first thought would be, no, they don't enjoy hurting anybody.
Or do they enjoy hurting Fox News?
Do they enjoy hurting President Trump?
Do they enjoy hurting QAnon believers?
Do they enjoy hurting climate deniers, as they would call them?
Do they enjoy hurting who they think would be bigots and racists?
No. They enjoy it.
It's obvious they enjoy it.
Now, they would say that they're criticizing bad people.
But I think you can tell they enjoy it.
Right? Again, this is all subjective.
But it looks like they enjoy it to me.
So yes, I think they do enjoy hurting people, as long as those people are conservatives.
Do they gaslight you?
Now, gaslighting is not just fooling you, but making you doubt your understanding of reality.
Like actually thinking you must be crazy.
Yes, yes they do.
They totally gaslight you.
And apparently that's a big indicator of being a narcissist.
How about exaggerated need for attention and validation, but at the same time having low self-esteem?
When you watch CNN, does it feel like they have low self-esteem and they do a lot of saying that Fox News is really the bad one?
Because projection is part of being a narcissist.
Narcissists are famous projectors.
Whatever flaws they have, they say their enemy has.
You watch CNN do that every day.
They just blame Fox News of having whatever problem they have.
Fake news, etc.
And do they have an exaggerated need for attention?
Well, they're in the business where attention is their product.
So that's just automatic.
How about perfectionism for themselves and others?
Would they feel miserable because they have not achieved it?
Well, I do think they have perfectionism for others, wouldn't you say?
Wouldn't you say that most of the news is criticizing other people for their imperfections?
That's most of CNN. They're mostly criticizing people for their imperfections.
Yeah, narcissism.
How about... Lack of responsibility in blaming others.
Well, that's their entire business model.
CNN creates racist animosity and then blames it on other people, like Trump and Tucker Carlson and God knows what.
That's exactly what they do.
They create the problem and they assign it to somebody else as the blame.
How about a lack of empathy?
For Republicans, yes.
How about a lack of empathy for white males?
Now, you could argue they don't deserve any empathy.
That's probably what CNN would argue.
Yeah, they have a complete lack of empathy for some groups.
Now, you could argue that it's not universal lack of empathy.
They have lots of empathy for other groups.
But they certainly have a lack of empathy for a substantial part of the country.
How about are they defensive?
Yes. A lot of their programming is people on CNN defending how they're not so bad compared to Fox News.
Right? They are defensive.
How about emotional reason instead of logical?
Do the hosts and pundits on CNN, do they ever reason emotionally instead of logically?
Yes. Like every night.
It's the basic to their programming.
How about fear of rejection?
Does CNN have a fear of rejection?
Yes, they do.
It's called losing ratings.
Do you think CNN worries about losing ratings?
In other words, fear of rejection?
It's probably all they think about.
And when Trump rejected them, basically Trump became sort of the voice of conservatives, if you will, and then as their spokesperson, if you will, rejected CNN. How did they feel about it?
Not so good.
Turns out their rejection is CNN's biggest problem, because it turns into ratings.
How about anxiety?
Apparently narcissists have a lot of anxiety.
Does CNN strike you as, let's just take their hosts and pundits too, do their hosts and pundits present themselves as having a lot of anxiety?
Yeah, they do. Yeah, it's almost all you see.
It seems like it's the anxiety network.
They're all full of anxiety.
How about do they have a deep shame about themselves but not guilt about their actions?
Well, we don't know if anybody has a deep shame about themselves because that would be hard to measure.
We do know that Project Veritas found one technical director at CNN and filmed him undercover expressing deep shame about himself for being part of CNN. So the only window into it we have did,
in fact, Show a technical director expressing, you know, you could argue that he was expressing shame about working for CNN. But does CNN not show any guilt for their own actions?
That is correct.
CNN destroys reputations, makes up the news in various situations, promotes hoaxes.
But do they show guilt about it?
I've never seen any guilt.
Have you? No.
But... Project Veritas showed at least one technical director who did have private shame.
So that seems to fit.
How about inability to work as a team?
So I guess narcissists are bad team players.
Well, we don't know how that works in the news context.
Let's skip that one. Are they exploitive in their relationships?
Do you think CNN has a mutual relationship with its audience or an exploitive relationship with its audience?
Right? It's exploitive.
Yeah, it's completely exploitive.
Because CNN is basically promoting hoaxes and bullshit and bias, and they're trying to get their audience to think it's fact.
It's pretty exploitive.
How about fragile sense of self?
CNN literally ran a campaign defending itself with that apple and orange thing.
No, the apple and banana thing.
Where they had to run ads explaining that they were actually real news.
That's a pretty fragile sense of self if you have to advertise you're actually a real news station when you're CNN. I mean, just think about this.
They're CNN, and they had to run an advertising campaign to convince you that their news was actually real news compared to other people.
That's a pretty weak feeling of sense, if you've got to explain that in public.
How about a feeling of emptiness when you're not getting enough attention?
Well, if the ratings are low, that's probably a pretty empty feeling.
How about envy?
Does CNN display envy?
Yeah, all over the place.
They envy the rich.
Because the rich are getting everything.
They envy Fox News for its high ratings.
Yeah, I believe that they have plenty of envy.
And how about this? The narcissist would have an arrogant, haughty behavior and attitude.
Have you seen anybody on CNN that you would describe as arrogant or haughty?
Have you seen anybody who wasn't?
Everybody on CNN is arrogant and haughty.
That's basically their whole act.
And if you're wondering what I would say about MSNBC, they're basically just a worse version of CNN. So whatever you could say of CNN, just crank it up about 37% of worseness, and then that's just MSNBC. All right.
So what do you think?
Did I make my case?
Is CNN a narcissist?
I mean, it fits almost all of these categories.
And apparently you can be a narcissist with only a few of these.
So if you had, I don't know, 6 out of 20 of these, you would be diagnosed as a narcissist.
Whereas CNN has something like 18 out of 20.
Looks pretty clear to me.
Well, it looks like I've made my case.
And by the way, what do you think of the hypothesis that news organizations evolve to a personality?
They do have personalities, don't they?
And if you have a personality, you can have a personality problem, like narcissism.
Now, of course, part of why I was looking at narcissism is to find out if I am one.
Wouldn't you like to know if you are one?
But it turns out that one of the problems with being a narcissist is you're the only one who can't tell.
Now, obviously, there must be exceptions to that.
But part of being a narcissist is that other people can see it clearly, but you think, no, I'm just being me.
I'm just being honest.
So you have to actually look at the checklist.
So if I look down the list and say to myself, am I ever defensive?
I think, yeah, of course I'm defensive.
Who isn't? And why would you not be defensive?
If you're attacked, shouldn't you defend yourself?
Is that wrong? So there are a lot of these that seem almost universally true for people in general.
Am I ever arrogant or haughty?
What do you think?
If you've watched me enough, am I ever arrogant or haughty?
I'm pretty sure people will say yes to that.
But keep in mind that while you see the public version of me, whether it's in written form or live, The public version of me is that you know this, right? You see a sort of attenuated version of the real person.
So whatever I am in person would be, you know, dialed down a little bit from whatever you see in public.
So yeah, I think that anybody who thinks they're right...
It bleeds into arrogance.
It's hard not to, really.
It's the easiest mistake to make, if you want to call it a mistake.
How about this?
Am I exploitive in my relationships?
To which I say, it's not really a relationship unless you're both getting something out of it.
So in some way, everybody's exploiting their relationships.
That's what humans do.
But where's the line when it's just exploitation?
Do I have a lack of responsibility where I blame others?
Nope. I'm far more likely to take responsibility than blame others.
Lack of boundaries, I don't know.
You can make an argument that everybody's a little bit of these.
Alright, here's a reframing for you.
If you think that climate change is a big ol' emergency, and most of the experts do, how could you get conservatives to agree with you?
Let's say you're on the left and you really want the conservatives to agree with you.
Well, Let me make it easy.
Just reframe it into the China pollution problem.
If you say, hey everybody on the left and the right, can we get together on this China pollution problem?
Is there anybody on the right who doesn't want China to pollute less in the oceans, the air, etc.?
No. Everybody in the world Would like, including China, everybody in the world would like China to pollute less because it looks like a global problem.
So if you said, you know, what are we going to do about climate emergency?
Everybody just fights about whether there is one or not.
But if you say, what do we do about the China pollution problem?
Everybody's on the same page.
There's nobody who wants China to be belching smoke into the atmosphere, and there's nobody who wants them dumping garbage into the ocean, and they're doing both of those things.
So there's certainly a way to get on the same page on this.
And then the other way is nuclear energy.
Because if the climate people just said one thing, they said, look, just give us one thing, Let's all agree to go hard on nuclear energy, because we both agree it's necessary, maybe for different reasons.
You say it's necessary for cheap energy, we say it's necessary for climate change, but we both say it's necessary, so let's just do the thing we agree on, which is Nuclear energy and do it as fast and hard as we can.
And especially Generation 4, the new stuff that's safer and will be more economical when we work out the kinks.
So yeah, let's call it the China pollution problem.
I think it was the Hodges twins or somebody...
Pointed out, they're calling that rocket that's falling down a Chinese rocket.
That sounds a little racist, except it came from China.
So there's that.
There's an interesting climate change skeptic who has emerged, and it's interesting because it's Steve Koonin, former Obama Department of Energy scientist.
So this is somebody who was a significant scientist under Obama in the Department of Energy.
And he makes claims that basically the news exaggerates threats so the politicians can stay in power.
In other words, the politicians exaggerate the threats.
But he makes the following claim.
That the most official climate change data...
So this is the data that everybody agrees is the official stuff, right?
So this is not somebody who went out and found his own data.
He's looking at the official data...
That the people who would call this a climate emergency, it's their data.
So he didn't introduce any data.
He's just looking at the data that already exists.
And he says, there's no data that shows that hurricanes or fires are worse.
In fact, they're probably not as bad as they used to be.
And he says, there's something about economics, but I think that got clipped off.
And I think he was making the case that the economics wouldn't be as bad.
Now, his statement of how we get to the point where the data says things don't look that bad, and yet the headline says it's an emergency.
How do you explain that?
How do you explain that the data says it's not so bad, but the headline says it's really, really bad?
And he explains it this way.
This is a good explanation. You start with the data that not too many people can understand.
They're not qualified.
And then, of course, that has to be turned into a summary.
As soon as you change it from the raw data to the summary, you've left science.
There's no science there.
Basically, the summary is going to be politically determined.
The data was done by the scientists, but when you get to the point where you're summarizing it for the public...
Politics gets in.
So by the time it's summarized, you don't see science anymore.
It's watered down with politics.
And then the summary goes to the news organizations.
And the news organizations put their own spin on it.
Now you're two levels away from science.
First level is politics, and the second level is the fake news, who have their own incentives, etc.
So... According to that model, you would never expect that the news reporting on science would be accurate, unless by coincidence or just something nobody cared about.
Anyway, so this expert, if you had not heard this argument before, that the data doesn't match the outcome, you didn't listen to me.
Because I've been saying it since the last official report came out.
I've been saying if you look at their own numbers, they say the economic impact in 80 years would be about a 10% hit on GDP. Who was the first person who told you that you wouldn't even notice that much of a hit?
Probably me. I'm probably the first person who told you, wait a minute, the headline doesn't match the data.
The data says a 10% hit in 80 years.
You wouldn't know that. You would never even know what happened.
There would be no signal in your life, in the world, in economics.
If you think you would notice, let me give you an example.
The economy right now is 5% less than it could have been.
Did you notice? Now, you notice the pandemic stuff, of course.
But if you don't get the pandemic, and I just say, you know, it could have been 5% better.
You never noticed.
Because everything could have been 5% better.
Do you know what else could have been 5% or 10% better?
Everything you do today.
And you won't notice. You'll just notice it's good or bad, but you'll never notice what it could have been in a hypothetical world.
So I think I was the first one to tell you that the data and the headlines don't match, at least on the economic stuff.
And apparently on the science stuff, this gentleman who is qualified to say so, I guess he has a book out, is saying that the headlines and the data don't match.
Now, I'm not telling you that climate change is not a problem.
If you're new to me, here's my summary opinion on climate change.
Probably humans are making a difference.
I think there are enough scientists saying that that it seems likely.
I think the total amount of risk is lower than most people think, but I like the fact that we're panicked.
Because the more panicked we are, the more resources we'll put into it.
And therefore we'll make sure that it doesn't become a problem.
So I'm not worried in the long run.
But I think it's real.
I just think we can handle it.
So there's an interesting thing happening with the Arizona audit recount.
The The opponents of the recount, I guess that would be the way to say it, because a lot of the Democrats are complaining that the recount, or the audit if you will, is so poorly done and it's not transparent that we won't get a credible audit out of this.
We'll just get garbage.
But here's the thing.
There's only an audit because the election itself wasn't transparent.
Can you really tell me that the problem is the audit is not transparent?
That's the problem. You wouldn't need an audit if the election itself were transparent, would you?
And if the audit is going to be a problem, just compare it to the totally transparent election that you think exists.
And then you could say, oh, the audit is wrong, because the election was so transparent, you could just see it's wrong.
Just look at the real election.
See, none of it makes any sense.
So you're being totally gaslighted into believing that the problem here is the audit.
Now, I'm going to make a claim that I think is true, but I'll open this to your fact-checking.
I believe there could be no outcome of the audit that shows a problem without us being able to verify that that problem is real.
So in other words, if the audit came up with nothing and said, okay, we didn't find anything, would you believe that is credible?
Probably. I mean, you might say to yourself, well, I think it's still hidden somewhere, but they didn't find it.
At least they looked.
At least it's way more transparent than it was.
So one possibility is they don't find anything.
But suppose they do find something.
Suppose, and I'm predicting this will not happen, but one of the more, let's say, exotic claims is that some of the ballots were printed in China, and they're fake ballots, and that you could tell because they would have bamboo in them.
It doesn't even sound like it's a real theory, but apparently they do make paper out of bamboo products over there.
So, suppose the Arizona recount said, look, We found this big stack of ballots and we found that it has bamboo in it.
That wouldn't be the end of the story, right?
You'd have to show that to somebody and some independent source or sources would have to check it and they would either say, yes, there is or is not bamboo in this paper.
But I don't know that there's any situation in which the audit could come up with a problem, say, here's the problem, and then you couldn't check it.
So all of this stuff about the audit being non-transparent and done by people who don't know how to do things, etc., is this real?
Because what possible thing could they find that you couldn't just check?
It's the finding that's the hard problem.
The checking whether it's real, once you've found it, is trivial, right?
If they found, for example, that a machine was connected to the Internet, Well, they'd have to have evidence, right?
You could just check it.
So I don't think that this claim about the audit being done poorly...
I think it's all just fake news.
Because no matter how poorly it's done, if they find something, you're just going to be able to check it.
And probably won't even take long.
I don't know. But check me on that.
Do you think... Now, the risk, of course, is that they'll make a claim...
The claim is checked and debunked, but nobody remembers the debunk.
That's a real risk.
Because we know that the claims always have more precedence over any corrections that come later.
They're like, oh, correction. So, I mean, I suppose that's one possibility is that the audit could come up with some big claim that doesn't stand up, but it's too late because then it gets out.
You know the story about the Israel ethnic cleansing, in which they were allegedly taking Islamic people out of their apartments and moving in Jewish residence in part of Jerusalem.
And of course, when you hear a story like that, The first thing you should say to yourself is, I think I'm missing some context.
And of course the news is pretty sketchy.
So there was some context missing.
So some of the context that's missing is that it's a property dispute.
So it was not a case of just removing people of one ethnicity and replacing them with another, which would be some kind of a You know, ethnic cleansing.
So the claim is that there was just a dispute about who actually owned those apartments and etc.
But I ask you this.
Isn't that the same way you talk about the Native Americans being displaced in the United States?
If I said to you, well, describe the Europeans displacing Native Americans in America when the settlers came over.
Was that a case of ethnic cleansing?
Or was it a case of property dispute?
Because I think if you asked the people who were doing all the abusing of the Native Americans, at the time they probably would have said, well, it's not their land.
They don't have a deed to the land.
We think it's up for grabs, so we're grabbing it.
So it's really a land dispute.
We say it's ours, they say it's theirs.
We got the power, we took it.
Looks the same to me.
So it turns out you can turn any, well, not any, but you can turn a real estate dispute into ethnic cleansing without much effort.
And it's going to look like one or the other with the same set of facts.
So put whatever facts on that you want.
I would say that when over in that part of the land, if there's a court involved, I wouldn't trust it.
So allegedly there's a court involved and the court...
Seems to have ruled in favor of the people who are replacing the people who are in there.
And I don't want to use replace.
Did that sound dog-whistly?
If you use the word replace in a generic sense, but this is the topic, then you sound like you're a white supremacist.
So instead of that, let's just say the people who moved in and not the people who moved out.
I have to choose my language carefully.
Anyway, it seems to me that the Israeli courts would probably side with the Israelis.
You know, it just feels like that would be the case.
So we don't know the details in that, but I don't trust anything about this story, is the bottom line.
And that is my show for the day.
CTT says, Scott is so pathetic now.
And that's a person who spent their time watching me.
Let's say we'll hide you on this channel.
I'm just looking at your...
Buy Christine in an airplane with your Ethereum windfall money.
Well, remember, I told you that the Ethereum windfall was around $300,000.
But remember, you have to cut that in half, right?
When you're talking about that kind of money, half of it is just paid in taxes.
Did you know that, by the way? When I told you that I found $300,000, because I had a crypto wallet I'd forgotten about.
I had some Ethereum in there.
And... Anyway. I don't need to finish that.
Oh, and Happy Mother's Day, by the way.
Yeah, so there'd be... Oh, it's true.
It'd be a capital gains tax.
But if Biden changes...
Well, no. If I cash it in now, it's 15%.
But Biden's going to raise that to closer to 50%, I think.
Or I could just keep the Ethereum.
All right.
Any tips for improving speaking?
Do you mean speaking in front of people or just your voice speaking?
I do have lots of tips for that, but the Dale Carnegie course would be the best thing for that.
Alright, I'll be putting some more micro-lessons on my Locals platform.
So the people there will be getting the things that will change their lives.
