Episode 1386 Scott Adams: LeBron Kills His Fans With Leadership, CNN Psychics Know How Audits Turn Out, Musk on Crypto
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Role model LeBron James vaccinated?
George Floyd anniversary
Teach life strategies, not victimhood
CNN psychics know AZ audit results!
Fake News Alert? BLM support for Hamas
Daily Beast hit piece on Patrick Byrne & Locals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 made a list of all your times, this would be right at the top.
Everything else, way less important.
If you get this part right the rest of your day, Perfect.
I guarantee it.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or a chels or a canteen jug or a 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 hit of the day, the thing that goes like this.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go! Now, if you've tried the simultaneous sip without going ah at the end, you're missing the best part.
When you have sex, scream.
When you have the simultaneous sip, go ah.
Makes it all better.
You think I'm kidding?
But I'm not. It does make it better.
Now, how about this?
Turns out that Moderna's vaccination is At least in a test, was shown to be 100% effective in adolescents aged 12 to 17.
100%. That is very close, very close to the exact number of people who don't get the virus between the age of 12 and 17, or don't get any serious problem with it.
Now, that doesn't mean you shouldn't get vaccinated, but this is a Pretty close to what you would expect, isn't it?
You'd kind of expect that if the vaccine works and children are unlikely to get it in the first place, you put the two together and it looks pretty good.
So that's all good news.
So LeBron James was asked in an interview if he got vaccinated.
Now you know LeBron is a role model.
He has spoken out on A number of topics, the George Floyd stuff, notably.
But LeBron is sort of, I don't know if he's reluctant, but he's a role model whether he likes it or not.
He's a role model.
So what do you make of somebody who's a role model and certainly could influence people?
There are small role models and then there are big role models.
I would think LeBron is a big role model.
And he could actually make a difference.
So he decided to not say in public whether he had been vaccinated.
Now, do you think he said he would...
Do you think that he didn't answer the question because he is vaccinated or because he's not?
What's your guess?
I feel like he is.
I saw a CNN... Host, I guess.
Guessing that if he wouldn't say that he was vaccinated, it probably means he isn't.
But I don't think that his team would let him play unless he were.
That's what I think.
I think that he is vaccinated and he doesn't want to say it.
So that's my guess.
Someday we might find out.
Here's another one of these cases.
Where you can...
We'll probably know.
I think at some point we'll probably know if he got the vaccination.
And compare your prediction to mine.
So my prediction is he doesn't want to tell people he did get it.
And if your prediction is that he doesn't want to say it because he didn't get it...
I don't know.
I would check that prediction.
Because I feel as if the organization that pays him...
Would probably require it.
Or at least push really hard.
And we might have heard about that if there was some pushing going on.
So I'm guessing he got it.
However, I feel it's cowardly and despicable not to tell the public what he did.
Now, I get that he's not a doctor.
So you shouldn't be taking medical advice from LeBron, or from me.
But he does know his...
His actions influence people.
So if he has any confidence whatsoever in his own decision, I feel as if he should tell the public.
That was the decision I made.
Because with the people who choose to watch me and follow me here, I probably have a little bit more influence than just some random person, right?
Let me ask this in the comments.
Is there anybody here...
Who was influenced to either get the vaccination or not get it by anything I did?
Let's see if influence makes a difference.
How many people in the comments made a decision to say a yes?
Now, most of you should be no, right?
Most of you are just, of course, not influenced by that sort of thing.
But see if you see any yeses go by.
So far, 95%, 99% no's.
But it's not the number of nos that we're looking for.
We're seeing if there are any yeses.
Because persuasion is more like a, you know, you move 2%.
Maybe if you're really good, you move 5%.
I see two yeses.
So three yeses so far.
Let's see if I see any more.
Yes. Another one.
Mostly nos. Mostly nos.
99% nos. Framed helpfully, so maybe a little bit.
There's a yes. Alright, so about what I thought.
So somewhere in another yes.
So we're seeing that somewhere in maybe the 2%, 5% range, 5% at the most.
But, so you can see for yourself, alright, I don't have to guess.
Rick says I influenced him on marrying hot women.
Well, I'm glad I could do that for you.
Oh, seeing some more yeses coming in.
All right, so you can see for yourself, if you're watching the comments, that there are real human beings who really made life decisions based in part on what I did.
That's a pretty heady responsibility.
And if LeBron said to himself, you know, I don't want to be the one who killed anybody, so I'm just not going to say...
Oh, I don't know if that's crazy.
It's not crazy to want to be not a doctor and don't influence people on medical stuff.
But at the same time, LeBron has the same problem, an ethical problem, I would say.
Moral or ethical, whichever one you want to use.
I think that everybody who's a public figure, and I am on a smaller scale than LeBron, of course, but I feel like we have a responsibility to tell you what we decided.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
Do you think it would have been better if I'd just been quiet about it?
Because I don't.
I feel like you should see what public figures did and then listen to our argument.
Now, I don't think you should look at one public figure and make a decision based on one person, but we're all trying to do our best here, right?
We've got our medical advice.
Sometimes you trust it.
Sometimes you don't. But...
Doesn't it help to talk to a friend?
Doesn't it help to see a public figure go through the thinking?
I feel like it does.
It's definitely a double-edged sword, but I feel that LeBron took more of a cowardly approach.
I feel like he should step up.
But it could be that, like other people think, maybe he didn't get the vaccination and doesn't want to discourage others.
Feeling it's just a personal decision?
Maybe. So I'm not going to say I should condemn him for this.
I chose differently.
I feel there was a risk he's avoiding.
And if he wants to avoid that risk, that's not dumb.
Might be a little cowardly, but it's not dumb.
I choose to take the risk.
And if anybody dies because of anything I did...
Well, I'm sorry about that.
I really am.
And I'm doing my best.
Well, that's all I can do, right?
I'm doing my honest best to not get anybody killed because they heard any advice from me.
But, you know, there's a risk there.
Well, the George Floyd anniversary, you hate to call it that, don't you?
Anniversary? There should be a different word for something that happens on an annual basis that's just purely bad.
Anniversary sounds like, oh, it's your wedding anniversary.
It's a good thing. But this is the bad kind of anniversary.
And Politico reports that Biden wanted to use the anniversary as sort of a deadline for Congress to pass a police reform bill.
And here's the part that just blew my head apart.
Politico goes on and says, but with no bill in sight, he has instead blah, blah, blah.
Are you kidding me?
One year after the George Floyd event and the tragedy, and there's not even a bill in sight?
Meaning that there's nobody even working on a police reform anything?
Now, could it be that it's just because the federal government maybe isn't the right body to do that?
Maybe it's a state thing? I don't know.
Biden was expecting something.
So apparently the president of the United States thinks it's the federal government's job, and he got nothing?
Are you telling me that all the people in Congress, all the Republicans and all the Democrats, they couldn't come up with one idea, just one idea, for making things better in this domain?
Nothing. Are you fucking kidding me?
This whole thing is just a fake, fake, fake fucking story.
It's a fake fucking story, because if this problem were even a little bit real, there would be all kinds of suggestions for fucking fixing it.
This is the tell.
The tell is that a year later, there's not a good fucking idea.
It wasn't a real problem to begin with.
Now, it's a real tragedy.
Anybody getting killed, it's a tragedy.
And that's the problem, per se.
But... If nobody had a better idea, I mean, I feel like that's important to know, right?
Nobody had a better idea. Now, I'm seeing in the comments, and thank you for reminding me, that Tim Scott did have at one point what looked like very productive suggestions.
He got shot down, ironically, shouldn't use that phrase, but it didn't go anywhere because he's a Republican, is my understanding.
Is that your understanding?
That the Tim Scott police reform bill didn't go anywhere because Tim Scott is not a Democrat?
That's probably the only reason, right?
So, if Congress isn't even serious about this, should you be?
Really? I mean, I feel like if Congress doesn't even treat it like it's a real problem, they are treating it like it's not real.
Like it doesn't even exist.
Because if it were real and it existed, there would at least be suggestions for what to do.
Just some suggestions.
All right. Here's my suggestion, which of course will never be implemented because it might work, which is teaching life strategy in school.
Life strategy.
Schools teach you skills, like how to read, blah, blah, blah, although they don't do it very well, apparently, in the inner cities.
But there should be a federal required course on life strategies.
Life strategies. Now, it should be bigger than just what do you do if the police stop you, but it should be in there, right?
If you're going to have like a, let's say a semester-long class on how to have a strategy for a good life, depending where you live, and depending on your ethnicity especially, you should have a little bit of a module about how to not get your ass killed by the police.
Because I don't think it's that hard.
I really don't. I'm sorry.
If it seems like it's hard to you, you know, I'm sorry that you feel that way.
But it's not hard.
It's just not hard to not get killed by the police.
You have to really try to get killed by the police.
And I think we know exactly how to do it, which is resisting arrest.
So I think that's something the federal government can do, and who would object to that?
Who would object to that?
They would. If Democrats came up with a plan to teach life strategy, which would include stay off drugs, go to school, get good grades, and by the way, if you're young and black and poor, and you do those things, get good grades, stay out of jail, and stay off drugs, you do those three things, and you're black, what does your future look like?
Golden. It's golden.
It's like a freeway to success.
There's nothing in the way if you do those three things.
And also, don't resist arrest, so you'll get yourself killed.
So, if the federal government came up with a plan that says, hey, we can't fix the police directly, maybe the states need to do what they need to do there, but we can certainly make sure that the students are not just...
Crushed by bad teaching and useless instruction.
You can make sure of that.
Just make sure that there's a module there.
You know, if you can put 1619 training in there, and you can put critical race theory in things, and those things are what I would call anti-strategy.
And anti-strategy is something they teach you in school that will make your life worse.
It'll just make your life worse.
And I think looking at the rearview mirror does that.
I'll say more about that.
Actually, let me say more about that right now.
If you wanted to destroy black America, how would you do it?
Let's say you were China, or you were some nemesis of the United States, and you wanted to destroy...
Black America, because that would largely take a big bite out of destroying America in general.
If you were evil and you wanted to do that, one good way would be to advocate teaching critical race theory and the 1619 Project.
Now, the point of the 1619 Project, the point of critical race theory, well, the 1619 Project in particular, is...
To make sure that people understand the true brutality of our history without whitewashing it, basically.
Ironically. Now, I don't have any objection whatsoever with an honest accounting of history.
I feel like that's a good idea, to have the clearest, most accurate view of history, brutal though it may be.
And I do think that it's perfectly valid to make a really big deal about the role of racism and slavery in the country.
Good to know. Good to teach.
But there's a difference between being honest and being accurate and being strategic.
They're different. If you're doing one, it might hurt your ability to do the other.
And if your top priority is to make sure people really get it drilled into their head, how slavery and systemic racism are the main variables of success in this country, that becomes your strategy by default.
If you fill your head with one thing, whatever that one thing is, you're going to be motivated by that one thing.
It doesn't matter what the thing is.
If you take as your main strategy for success dwelling on the past, has that ever worked?
Can you think of examples where somebody was successful because they dwelled on the past?
Just one example.
Oh yeah, there was that That successful entrepreneur whose success is entirely based on dwelling on how bad things were.
Well, definitely there are entrepreneurs who use their pain to succeed, but I don't see anything like that happening with the 1619 Project.
What's missing is the part where they say, we're going to teach you this, and then the actions that you'll take because of this are now these productive ones.
Because that's what you want to do, right?
You're trying to create students that are productive members of society.
So what do they do differently because of the 1619 Project?
What? Complain?
Feel that they're victims?
What productive thing do you do because of it?
Now compare that with strategy, where somebody says, here's the deal.
White people have a bunch of advantages.
Black people Have a bunch of their own advantages which are different.
Among them, every Fortune 500 company wants to hire you.
Just stay in school and stay in a jail and stay off drugs.
Just do those three things.
Every Fortune 500 company wants you and they want you bad because they need diversity.
They need it. It's not even what they want.
They frickin' need it.
It's a requirement to hire you.
You will be so mentored that you'll be sick of it.
If you're black, you just have to do those three things.
Now, if they had a life class that taught that, what would you do differently because of that?
Well, those three things.
stay off drugs, stay in school, stay out of jail.
Yeah, science, there's a comment on science here that I won't read.
Yeah.
All right. Now, here's the persuasion that I think BLM and the critical race theory in 1619 should do instead of what they're doing.
Now, the genius of what they are doing, Black Lives Matter, etc., is that to criticize any of it makes you a racist.
Even if you said to yourself, well, I like the general thrust of all these things.
I like Black Lives Matter.
I like critical race theory.
I like the 1619 Project for just informing people.
I like all that, but what's it persuading?
I'll tell you what it would persuade me if I were black.
Now, I'm not black, but Well, I identify as black.
But if somebody told me that my group mattered, how would you take that?
Let's just turn this on you.
Whatever you are.
Let's say, for those of you who are not black, let's say you have an Irish background.
Suppose I said to you, Irish people matter.
How do you take that?
I take that as the most losing strategy I've ever heard.
Do you know what is the lowest thing you should shoot for?
To matter.
That's the lowest bar you can aim for.
I'd like to matter.
Yes, David says we should give politicians a bonus based on lifting the black communities, if you could measure that.
Right.
That wouldn't be a bad idea, although it might be racist.
It might actually work out, but I don't think he could get past the racist part of that.
So here's my persuasion advice to Black Lives Matter.
If you say that Black Lives Matter, you have taken the very lowest standard.
Oh, you just matter.
Does that inspire you?
Do you feel like, ah, I'm going to go out there.
I'm going to matter.
That's nothing. You should be shooting for thriving.
You should be shooting for killing it.
You should be shooting for exceeding expectations, beating the average, beating everybody else you're competing on, reaching for the stars.
You're reaching for mattering.
Mattering. The lowest level of success is that you just exist and matter.
That's it. So, number one, shoot higher.
Much higher.
Way higher. You should be inspirational.
The whole approach is that it's a bunch of losers who are wallowing in their loserhood and And they're trying to achieve the minimum level of a human being that you don't want to kill them.
That's it. Like the minimum value that people don't want to kill you just for existing.
Good lord. It could not be worse in terms of persuasion.
Here's a persuasive counter to that.
And this is a variant of the high ground maneuver.
Now, the high ground maneuver, I talk about it a lot, but the more examples you see, the more useful it will be for you.
The high ground is when you say something that, in the context of people debating and being on different sides, you can find something that both sides just have to agree with.
It's just the one thought that's above them all.
And here's my suggestion for that.
The high ground is that looking backwards rarely leads anyone forward.
Looking backwards rarely leads anyone forward.
Do you feel that?
That's the high ground. The moment I said it, you said to yourself, shit, that's true.
I can't think of an example where that's not true.
Is that always true?
I think it is.
I think it's always true.
Because the cards that you have to play, let's say you're playing poker.
Does it matter what your old cards were?
I mean, the old cards might have been a story about you being very unlucky and you lost a lot of poker hands before that, but it's your current hand that matters.
It's only your current hand that will win the pot.
You can't win a pot with a hand you used to have.
So looking at it obsessively in your rearview mirror doesn't make you a better poker player.
What does make you a good poker player is learning the rules, learning the odds, learning essentially what would be a life strategy applied to poker.
Just learning how stuff works.
That would be really useful.
So looking backwards rarely leads anyone forward.
Everybody would agree with that the moment they hear it, and they're like, oh, shoot, that's true.
And I would say to thrive in the future, teach success strategies, not victimhood.
Now, victimhood has advantages.
It's not like it doesn't have any advantages.
Here's one of the advantages of victimhood.
It's good for the leaders.
Because that's how they get to be leaders.
They talk about all the victimhood, and then they get to be the leaders.
It's not good for the people they're leading.
It's not even a little bit good.
Now, I suppose if the leaders could use all this victimhood to get some special laws or something, that'd be pretty good.
But here's the problem.
Where are we on the long arc toward justice and equality?
That arc, you have to look at what place you are on it to decide what your strategy is in any given place.
If this were the 60s, complaining about victimhood, very good strategy.
Because the victimhood is just so gigantic and so everywhere that you need to complain about it.
Nobody's going to fix it unless you complain, right?
But once you get to this phase of the arc toward equality, and the difference between everybody is a little bit smaller, The strategy has to change.
And once you get to the smaller differences, and really where the individual differences overwhelm, the individual differences between any two people completely overwhelm any racial disparities.
These two are not even close.
I don't know. Have you even ever in your life seen a qualified black person turned down for a job in favor of a less qualified white person?
Have you ever seen that?
I've been in a lot of hiring and corporate situations.
I've never even seen it once.
I've never seen it once.
Individual quality has just overwhelmed any racial stuff in 2021.
I mean, by a mile. It's not even close.
So, complaining and victimhood as a frame made complete sense in the 60s.
It was a good strategy.
It's just it's a terrible strategy now, except for the leaders.
So the leaders no longer represent the people they're leading, and that's a big problem right now.
All right. Let's see what else is going on.
CNN has apparently hired some psychics, and they're reading the news from the future.
Here's a headline on an opinion piece in CNN today.
It says, Arizona and Georgia audits move forward as Republicans continue to push election fraud lies.
Wait a minute. Do I not understand what an audit is?
Because in my simplistic view of the world, I thought an audit was where you find out things that you didn't know already.
Am I wrong?
Because CNN seems to indicate that an audit is a thing you do to find out what you already knew before the audit.
And... I'm not sure that makes sense.
And I wonder, how many viewers of CNN say to themselves, yeah, we don't need to wait for the result of the audit because it's being reported there on CNN that there's nothing to see.
Now, I'm not predicting that we will find anything that's some massive fraud.
I don't know that anything will be found in these audits.
And I don't really have a prediction about it.
You know, my prediction about election integrity...
Is that our system has to get hacked.
We just don't know when it happens.
It's either already happened, or it will definitely happen in the future, but we don't know where we are in the timeline.
Maybe the audit will kick that up.
Who knows? But here are some words they could have used that I feel would have been fair enough.
Instead of calling it election fraud lies, the part we don't know about until the audit's over, could have said it was unfounded, You could argue whether it was founded or unfounded, but I think unfounded would be a good opinion word.
You could say it's unproven.
It's unproven. I think even people who think it's there would say that's true.
You could say it's baseless.
You could argue whether it's baseless or not enough base to prove it, but at least that would be within the opinion realm, right?
Unfounded, unproven, baseless, all good opinion words.
I would accept any of them.
But election fraud lies?
How do they know how it's going to turn out?
And we just accept this uncritically, as if CNN knows how an audit will turn out.
The whole point of the audit is that you don't know how it turns out.
All right. Elon Musk had the funniest...
Tweet I've seen on cryptocurrencies, and there have been a lot of funny tweets in that category.
A Twitter user named David Lee tweeted at Musk and said, Now, if you're not in the cryptocurrency world, the only thing you need to know to understand this Is that cryptocurrency is really complicated.
Meaning that there's a whole bunch of different cryptocurrencies.
They all have their own characteristics and rules, etc.
And so understanding all of the different ones and what makes one maybe a better choice for the future, which one is extendable, which one can scale better, all those things make it an incredibly complicated thing that crypto geeks like to argue about forever.
So, what does the biggest geek in the world, Elon Musk, and I say that with affection, so what does he say when David Lee mentions all these cryptos and then asks this question?
He goes, what makes you choose Doge over them?
Now, Doge is a cryptocurrency that was started as a joke, as I understand it, and has a little dog As its, you know, character.
And there were memes involving the crypto.
Until so many people bought it that it's become sort of a serious thing that started as a joke.
So David Lee says, you know, what about all these cryptos, blah, blah, blah.
What makes you choose Doge over them?
And here's Elon Musk, one of the smartest people in the world, who's going to tell you everything you need about cryptocurrency.
Are you ready? I will now teach you Courtesy of Elon Musk.
All the important things you need to know about which cryptocurrency to buy.
Here it is.
He said, Doge has dogs and memes, whereas the others do not.
That is the best answer you'll ever hear on cryptocurrencies.
Now the point of it is that it's all irrational.
Right? The moment you try to act as if any of this is rational, like, oh, the reasons Bitcoin will go up are X, Y, and Z. The reasons Ethereum is good is because, you know, you can have dApps and whatever.
And Elon Musk just rips a hole in all of that bullshit.
Just says, no, Doge has dogs and memes, whereas the others do not.
That is literally all you need to know about cryptocurrency.
Everything else is a detail that you didn't need to know.
So, there's that.
There's still some questions about Trump obstructing justice in the Russia investigation.
I can't believe this story is still out there.
It's obvious that Biden is starting to struggle a little bit, as new presidents do after a few months of honeymoon.
Not quite getting his legislation through, etc.
And I guess the news just needs to kick Trump around a little bit more.
So there's calls for unredacting some parts of Bill Barr's memo about obstruction of justice, blah, blah.
And it's a boring story, and if nothing else gets unredacted, we'll never hear about it again.
All right, here's a fake news alert.
Or is it? Apparently Black Lives Matter, one of the organization's Twitter feeds, tweeted that they indicated support for the Palestinians during the mix-up between Hamas and Israel.
Now, apparently Fox News and the Daily Wire reported that as Black Lives Matter was supporting Hamas.
But Hamas, of course, is the political, military, terrorist part that is just a component of the Palestinians.
It's just one component.
And so the fake news part of it is it was not Hamas that Black Lives Matter mentioned, but rather the Palestinian people.
And they had some solidarity with them, said the tweet.
The news today is that Fox News and the Daily Wire, I guess, are being accused of fake news because what they should have reported is that Black Lives Matter supports the Palestinian people in sort of a general human-to-human kind of a way, and not Hamas.
So, does that sound about right to you?
Everything good there?
That clarification?
Yeah. Hey, Richard.
Richard Thomas has a comment.
He says, Scott's a Trump shill at heart.
Well, Richard, can I call you Dick?
I think I can call you a Dick.
Am I a Trump shill at heart?
Is that what I want for myself?
In my heart of hearts, is shilling for the ex-president the thing I really want to do?
Well, I'm going to put you in timeout.
Dick. Try to make a comment that has some, oh, I don't know, content or entertainment.
Otherwise, you're just a narcissist and you are condemned.
All right. So here's my take on the Black Lives Matter tweet supporting the Palestinians.
Where is the part of the tweet where they were supporting the Israeli citizens?
Because if I understand correctly, Black Lives Matter is trying to avoid the political part and just support the people.
But were there not missiles and or bombs heading in both directions?
Were not the Palestinian people definitely in danger and under attack?
They were. But were not the Israeli public also under attack at the exact same time?
Yes, they were.
So when Black Lives Matter says we support some of those people, but not these other people, who are all very much joined as part of one story, what is the reasonable interpretation of that?
The reasonable interpretation of that Is they're either anti-Semitic or they were supporting Hamas?
Can you come up with another interpretation?
I can't think of another interpretation.
It's either anti-Semitic or they are actually supporting Hamas because they're not mentioning the Israeli victims.
And I don't know how you ignore that, right?
It was missiles and bombs...
At both people's public at the same time.
How do you have empathy for only half of them?
Ridiculous. So, this is a rare case of a news story that got fact-checked as fake news, but you can also fact-check the fact-check as a fake fact-check, which reverses the fake news back to real news.
And that's as clear as cryptocurrency.
All right. Here was an interesting exchange of tweets.
Ed Markey in Congress, he was putting some shade on Republicans.
He's a Democrat. And he said by a tweet, you cannot negotiate a climate bill with climate deniers.
Representative Dan Crenshaw objected to that and tweeted, you aren't, you liar.
Now, I like this.
I love that Crenshaw starts with, you liar.
Because that's all this is.
This is literally a public lie.
And I just like that a politician says it's just a lie.
You know, no beating around the bush.
And he says, we aren't denying climate change.
We're just pointing out that your solutions will hurt people and do nothing to prevent climate change.
Now, some of you are already saying at this point, is that true?
Is it true what Dan Crenshaw says, that Republicans are not denying climate change being human caused?
Michael Schellenberger weighed in.
And said, Michael says, Now, Michael followed up with another tweet saying that he's not saying there are no deniers in Congress, but he's pointing out if they are there, they're kind of quiet.
Because he's been deeply involved in direct conversations and just nobody brought it up.
Nobody brought it up.
Did you know that?
I'm getting tipped for blocking a dick.
And that's the way it should be.
So I have some curiosity about this myself.
Now, I do believe that there are climate change deniers in the Republican Party.
But Is it true that they are so few of them that they're sort of irrelevant?
You know, does that check out?
Because I'm trying to think who in the Republican Party, at least lately, let's say in the last, I don't know, two years, can you think of a Republican, I think Representative Green might have said something, Marjorie Taylor Greene, but can you think of other Republicans who are saying out loud That there's no human-caused climate change.
Are there people doing that still?
Now, I know a lot of you are climate deniers, or climate change deniers, specifically the human part of it being dangerous.
Just to reinforce, my view is that humans are changing the climate.
And that it probably is a really big problem, but not one that we're incapable of fixing.
So I believe we're capable of fixing the problems, but I think it's real.
I just don't know how big it is or how well we can predict it, but it looks real enough to me.
And I could be wrong about that, right?
So I'll leave open the possibility that when I interpret science, that there's a whole lot of guessing going on, so I could be totally wrong.
In a humorous little bit of news, there was a hit piece in The Daily Beast by a, quote, journalist named Will Sommer.
And in The Daily Beast, he talks about how Patrick Byrne, founder of Overstock.com, How Patrick Byrne got kicked off of Twitter for talking about election irregularities but found a home on the Locals platform.
Full disclosure, I am a small investor in the Locals platform and I also have a community there, a subscription service community where I put my stuff that I can't put on Twitter.
And Patrick Byrne went there as well.
And he got criticized for going there and having the place where he could have free speech.
About his topic, which is the election.
And Dave Rubin responded to this hit piece by noting that Patrick Byrne is already making over a million dollars a year on Locals.
So he has enough subscriptions at five dollars a pop that his current run rate is over a million dollars a year.
So Patrick Byrne got cancelled by Twitter.
Goes and does exactly the same thing on Locals, and he's going to make over a million dollars this year.
Now, he's pretty rich, I understand, so I'm not sure a million dollars makes a difference to him.
But how much do you love that?
How much do you love the fact he got cancelled into making a million dollars?
Full disclosure again, my community on Locals is quite robust.
And I'm actually shocked at how well this is working.
In terms of if you're worried about your content not being appropriate for the general public, because you're going to get cancelled.
You could make a shit ton of money either on Substack, which is another place people are going, or Locals, subscription service.
So you can see why Twitter is working so hard to come up with a subscription service.
I'm not sure why they haven't yet.
But you can see that the future is this kind of model.
Because the public is willing to pay for content that they like.
What the public doesn't like is somebody else telling them what they can see.
The public does not like to be told what they can see and what they can't see.
But they don't mind paying for it.
At least enough of them to make it a...
It's not just a good business model, it's freaking amazing.
It's the best thing I've ever seen.
To give you an idea of how well the subscription service works, compare to YouTube.
So I have, at this point, over 100,000 subscribers on YouTube, and it's monetized.
There's ads on it and everything.
But the YouTube revenue is just a fraction of what you can do on a subscription service.
It's not even close. How much is locals?
My community, I charge $7 per month, or there's a special going on now that you can get...
Two free months if you buy a year subscription.
So that's a new offer.
Each of the locals' communities charges whatever they want.
So that's the beauty of that.
They can just charge what they want.
I picked seven because it's a lucky number.
There's no other reason.
I just thought, oh, seven.
I think Patrick Byrne is $5 a month.
And that worked out. If you went to college, you paid to hear somebody speak.
Yeah, I guess you did.
The locals coin.
Yes, the locals coin is another way that people get compensated on locals.
So they have their own coin, token sort of thing.
But will I do it in a hot tub?
I might. Yes, you get to choose your price.
That is correct, somebody asked me.
It's $7 a month for one person.
That's correct. Yeah, we might look at some models where you can buy a group of people.
But you do find that...
Well, let me make the case for why $7 a month is not as bad as you think.
I have a subscription service to HBO Max.
I've watched no content on it this month that I cared about.
I have a subscription to Disney Plus, or whatever it is, a streaming service.
After I watched all of the Mandalorian series, there wasn't a single thing on there that I wanted to watch ever again.
I'm still paying for it.
I have Netflix.
About once every three or four months, I find something on Netflix that's worth watching.
I have a subscription to Hulu that I've watched one thing on ever.
It has lots of stuff, I'm just not interested in it or I've already seen it.
So with my content, you get new content, 45 minutes to an hour or so, plus a lot of postings and a lot of micro-lessons.
So the proposition that I offer for my subscribers Is that for $7 a month, I will deliver to you thousands of dollars worth of value.
Meaning that if I had offered it for thousands of dollars, people would buy it.
Maybe you wouldn't. But people would.
It would be worth thousands of dollars.
So I'm teaching...
Success strategies. And so far, the people who follow me on Locals would say, and if there are any of them here, you can weigh in.
Actually, let's do that. I think there are enough people here who follow me on Locals that also are on this live stream right now.
How many of you who follow me on Locals are getting $7 worth of value per month?
In terms of your total, your life value.
So I'm not just giving you some entertainment for an hour.
I'm trying to change people's lives.
Look at the comments. Look at all the yeses.
It's just a solid wall of yes right there.
So that's what I'm offering.
I'm offering that if you don't get thousands of dollars worth of value every month, every single month for $7, then it wasn't worth it to you.
But look at the number of people who are getting thousands of dollars of value for $7 every month.
And one comment says, wish you interacted more with people's locals' posts.
Well, you know, I do read most of them, and I do a lot of liking on them, but it's hard to comment on hundreds and hundreds of stuff.
Yeah, I mean, look at the comments.
It's overwhelming. It's just a solid wall of yes.
And so that's the point.
Now, how many of you would say that you got thousands of dollars of value and of watching CNN this year?
Or watching whatever your favorite news channel is.
Did you get thousands of dollars worth of value every month from any other streaming service?
Probably not. The people who were watching Patrick Byrne, Are getting information about the election from Patrick that they're not seeing on any other source.
If you could find out something you really cared about, in this case the election, and you can see things that you weren't seeing anywhere else and you really care about it, is it worth $5 a month?
Yeah. For a lot of people it is.
I think he has over 19,000 people who want exactly that.
So Locals is just terrific for these specific cases where people just want more of something specific.
Thank you, Derek.
All right. That's all for now.
I also run my Robots Read News comic, which is my extra naughty comic.
You may have seen a few of them on Twitter, but most of them are behind the subscription wall because they're A little bit too edgy to allow it to the public.
And by the way, you want to know something cool?
This is the coolest thing.
And you would only get this in a subscription service, right?
Because people want to be there.
They subscribed. But I'll often post something, and I'll ask people not to share it outside of locals, because they could.
You know, just screenshot it and tweet it.
It would be easy. I don't think anybody has.
I don't think even on one occasion, I've asked people not to share something, I don't think it ever left locals, not once.
And I didn't even expect that.
I figured I was taking a risk.
And I'm sure at some point it'll happen.
But I could not be more amazed that there are, I don't know, 6,600 people looking at my edgy stuff that would get me cancelled in the real world And they're not tweeting it.
Just because I asked them.
That's all. I just asked them to, and they didn't do it.
I'm blown away by that, by the way.
I'm just blown away that that's even a possibility that that could be happening.
Challenge accepted. I'm sure some trolls will come in and do just all of that.
But if you want to pay $7 a month to do that, go ahead.
