Episode 1390 Scott Adams: Is Critical Race Theory Marxist, How to Know Who is Projecting, Capitol Riot Commission, and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
No China negotiations till Fentanyl stops
#CreepyJoe is trending again
CNN's Frida Ghitis "political bomb" fears
CRT is racist against low-income white kids
Identifying narcissists by tweets
How does CRT make the future better?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
The very best part of every single day, no exceptions.
I don't care what the pollsters tell you.
And if you want to make it extra, extra special, like a little extra, extra, extra, all you need is a A cup or mug or less?
A tank or chalice, a canteen, a jug, 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's better than...
Well, I'm not even going to say it.
You know. You know the thing.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to rock the entire world right now.
Go! Hold on.
You feel that? Yeah.
That was the feeling of the simultaneous sip going all around the world, same time.
Christian, you're way too nice.
You don't even have a comment for me to read.
But thank you. So, what about the news?
There are three words we're going to talk about today.
One is ceasefire, the other is Marxist, and the other is peacock.
Because persuasion...
Depends quite a bit on the words you use, of course.
We want Dale.
We want Dale. Dale might appear.
You might see Dale.
Let's start at the top, and we'll get to all the persuasion tips that are embedded in this as we go.
I just saw a tweet from somebody on Twitter named Just Jess, and she reports in her tweet that She says, So, turns out the new friend I went on vacation with doesn't believe there was an insurrection.
So, vacation over four days early, friendship way over, mind blown.
Now, this tweet suggests some advice I would like to give to all of you.
I don't usually give travel advice.
Not really my domain, but sometimes, sometimes I can give you travel advice that's quite good.
And here's my travel advice.
Number one, don't plan a trip to North Korea.
Just don't do it.
I feel like I'm on solid ground there.
Don't go to North Korea.
Not a good place for a vacation.
Number two, never go on vacation with someone who believes you can conquer a superpower and By putting on a horned hat and occupying a room at the Capitol.
Because if you're going on vacation with someone who thinks you can conquer a superpower with a horned hat and occupying a room, well, then you're not on vacation with somebody who's smart or who has your back.
Or even understands anything about anything.
In fact, the odds of you coming back alive, not 100%.
Here's a word I would like to introduce into the argument about China and fentanyl.
And as I tweeted moments ago, I said, let's not directly negotiate with China on anything until there's a ceasefire on sending fentanyl our way.
And then I said, that has to be hello.
Hello. In other words, I don't think we should talk to them about anything else.
In fact, I've suggested strongly that we should remove all of our diplomats.
Just talk to them indirectly through some other country or something.
Because I don't know if they're going to like that situation, if they're such a bad player that they can't even get diplomatic relations with the United States, but they don't deserve it.
China doesn't deserve diplomatic relations with the United States while we're in a ha war.
And the reason I would say that we should wait for a ceasefire is that they are killing us with fentanyl, they are doing it intentionally, they are doing it every day, and they could stop it like that because they know exactly who it is who's sending it.
We gave them the name.
China knows the name and address of the one person who's sending the fentanyl.
You know, the head of the whatever drug cartel is doing it in China.
So let's call it a ceasefire, because when you call something a ceasefire, people understand you're in a war, and people are dying right now.
Like, dying right now.
So if we say weak-ass stuff such as, gosh, China, We'd sure like you to do more about restricting the fentanyl trade.
And then China says, oh yeah, absolutely.
We're going to get right on that.
Soon as we're done here, I'm going to pick up the phone.
Fentanyl trade will be completely done.
And then it doesn't happen.
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
China will just say, yeah, we'll take care of that and just not do it.
So let's call it what it is.
It's a hot war.
They're sending death, chemical warfare.
And unless there's a ceasefire, I don't think we should talk to them about anything.
Just anything. All right.
A side tweet that got me thinking.
Maybe it'll get you thinking too.
It's just a user on Twitter named Riald, or at least that's the username.
And Rield said, I'm telling you, when men get defensive, whatever you accuse them of, you are right.
And it makes me wonder, how does Rield think men act when they're falsely accused?
If there are any men here, can you answer this question?
When you are falsely accused of something, and let's say it's something important, important enough for somebody in your life to Bring it up.
When you're falsely accused of something, what's the best play there?
Are you supposed to act offensive?
Or are you supposed to act defensive?
Because I feel like there's a little bit of a trap you've set here, Riald, which is very convenient that when you accuse somebody of something, you can know that they're guilty by them defending themselves.
So, somebody says, I hit back hard.
Well, I'm sure that's worked really well for you.
I know what you're saying, that some people hit back hard because you just feel like you want to or you have to, but you can't tell me it worked.
I'm sure it didn't work.
And so this brings up a larger question, which is when one person accuses another of projecting, Meaning, hey, you're blaming me of the thing you're doing.
How do you know which one is right?
So you've got two people who both think the other one is doing the only crime and is projecting it on the other.
And the other thinks exactly the same thing but in reverse.
No, I think you're doing the only crime.
I'm not doing anything.
But you're projecting on me.
Have you been in that situation where you both think you're projecting and you both think you're innocent but the other one is definitely guilty?
How do you sort it out? How can you tell which one of you...
How do you know which one of you is projecting?
Would you like a way to do it?
Let me give you a way to do it.
Okay? If somebody is innocent of a thing, and you say, hey, I think you're projecting on me because that's actually your crime.
And let's say it's not.
What would somebody say if you falsely accused them of projecting?
Well, I think they'd say something like, well, what do you mean?
Or, make your case.
Or, can you give me an example?
How exactly? What did I do?
Give me some details.
That would be one way a person could react if you say, I think you're projecting.
And you're guilty of that crime.
Here's another way. Go nuts.
They go really nuts and they won't talk to you for the rest of the night.
Which one is projecting?
One of them says, I don't know what you're talking about.
I don't think I'm projecting.
Give me an example of that.
Can you give me some details?
That's one person. And the other one is like, I knew you wouldn't be honest.
You're doing it again.
I'm not going to talk to you for the rest of today.
Which one's projecting?
Yeah, it's easy. Now, You'll never convince the other person they're projecting, but they know it because that's why they exited the conversation.
So when somebody gets too mad to talk to you and exits the conversation, it's because they know they can't prevail based on the facts.
So if you're wondering if you're crazy, that's how you know.
If you're willing to talk about it, you're not the crazy one.
If the other one says, I'm not even going to talk about it.
I'm really mad at you. And by the way, you did something terrible last year.
You know who's projecting.
So use that tip.
The only good it will do you is at least you'll know which one is projecting.
It won't solve the problem because the projector is still mad at you and it's going to be mad at you tomorrow.
But at least you'll know which one is the crazy one and that's worth something.
All right. So Joe Biden has once again crossed the creepy line.
So hashtag CreepyJoe is trending again today.
So this is what he actually said.
If you haven't seen the video, you have to see the video because I'm not going to be able to do it any justice.
Somebody said, I look stoned.
I think maybe I always look stoned, but I'm rarely stoned at this time in the morning.
Later, sure. But at the moment, not.
So this is what Joe Biden said.
He looked at a girl in the audience, and somehow this makes it worse.
It was the daughter of a veteran.
And he said, quote, I love those barrettes in your hair.
Man, I'll tell you what, look at her.
She looks like she's 19 years old, sitting there like a little lady with her legs crossed.
Now, I didn't see a picture of the person in question.
They just showed a close-up on Biden when he was talking.
So I don't know how old she is.
And I think it matters, doesn't it?
It matters a little bit how old she is.
It's bad no matter what, but how you filtered it would depend a little bit on what she looked like.
And it's all bad.
So, you know, how she looks isn't going to make it good, but it's part of the story, and it feels like we should have that information.
And here's the thing.
Has nobody told him not to do this anymore?
Somebody in the comments is saying that maybe she was 9 or 10, she was 11, somebody says.
Okay, I guess we don't know.
But that's not terribly important to my point.
My point is that, you know, this doesn't mean that he's a pervert or something.
I mean, we can't really go all the way there.
But man is creepy.
It's definitely creepy.
And he had to have been warned, don't talk like that in public anymore.
But, but...
He went there.
So, I'm just wondering how Democrats who supported him are feeling about him now.
Are you still feeling good?
Did you get exactly what you wanted there?
I'm glad they don't have Trump with all of his accusations and such, but they've got this instead.
Chuck Schumer is mad at the GOP. That's new.
He says, shame on the GOP. Because they killed a bill, the Senate Republicans did, to create a Capitol riot commission, despite some of the Republicans voting with the Democrats.
Didn't get enough votes to overcome the filibuster, so that's not going to happen.
Now, does it really matter?
Well, I suppose they would have preferred having a commission, but they also get credit for trying to have a commission and then having the Republicans turn it down.
So they get the issue either way.
In terms of persuasion, I would say that the Democrats get the win.
I give the Democrats the win on persuasion because whether they got that commission, which would have been really good persuasion, or it got turned down by Republicans, that's still good persuasion.
You have either the change or the issue.
So it was a win-win scenario for the Democrats.
They took the lesser win, They didn't get the commission, but it's still a win.
So, good play by the Democrats.
Whether you think that's ethical or not, you can decide.
But in terms of technique, it was pretty solid.
Rush says, would you consider reading Super Chats Aloud at the end of the streams, or gather them to...
Well, I don't know if there's an easy way to find them at the end of the streams.
One of the problems with this model is if I'm looking at my notes or trying to keep my thoughts together and a super chat goes by, it's kind of hard to divert.
So I do the best I can.
So all I can promise you on the super chats is they are more noticeable.
That's all I can tell you.
Beyond that, I don't want to commit because it wouldn't be fair to the rest of the listeners.
So there's a new study, and I don't think any of these studies should be considered...
Conclusive? Maybe not even persuasive.
Because science flails around until it narrows in on the truth.
We don't know if it's flailing or narrowing at this point.
But there's a new study that says there's no credible natural ancestor to the COVID virus.
Meaning it just doesn't look like it came from anything natural.
But there's an allegation that the Chinese scientist...
Tried to cover their tracks with what's called retro-engineering to make it look like it evolved or came about naturally.
I don't know how you prove any of that stuff.
And if you could prove this stuff, why didn't anybody say this earlier?
Why was it a year ago that you couldn't even say this in the news?
Was it just because the news was blocking it?
Because in person, I did talk to people who said it all the time.
A year ago, privately, the smartest people I knew were saying, oh yeah, you could totally modify virus and make it look like admin modified.
You could totally do that.
So, now we're just being surprised that maybe it's possible.
We still don't know if it was modified, but certainly, if you're just calculating the odds, if you didn't know anything except what we know at the moment, You'd have to say that the odds are exceedingly strong in favor of the accidental release from the lab.
No evidence of an intentional release.
I think that's still crazy talk.
But certainly coincidentally...
Having a lab exactly where it released would be too much of a stretch, for me anyway.
All right, so here are some things we know about Republicans, according to some recent polls.
I was reading an opinion piece on CNN by Frieda Gietes.
And apparently, a majority of Republicans, 61%, depending on what poll you're looking at, but a majority, believe the election was stolen.
From Trump. And CNN, of course, reports this as, my goodness, how dumb those Republicans are.
How dumb they are.
61% of them think that the election was stolen.
Oh, how dumb they are.
But they didn't ask them, is there proof?
If they had said, is there already proof that the election was stolen, Well, I think you'd get a different answer.
But don't you think that people are saying, in this situation, you should just assume it was stolen?
I figure it's just an assumption.
Because if you have a situation in which something can be stolen, why wouldn't it be?
If it can be, if you leave your door unlocked in the bad neighborhood long enough, can't you assume you're going to get robbed?
You just don't know if it happened already.
Or if it's going to happen when you go home at night and you discover it.
But you don't have to wonder if your home will be robbed, right?
Let's make it more obvious.
You live in a dangerous neighborhood and you leave your car unlocked and the windows down.
And you leave some valuables in your car.
Do you have to see the proof that your stuff got stolen?
No. You could just go to work.
You don't need any proof.
Your stuff got stolen.
Because it's parked in a bad neighborhood with valuables on the seat and all the windows are open and nobody's around watching it.
You don't really need proof.
You just need to know that that was the setup.
And then you know what happened.
If an election involves electronic devices, Have the electronic devices been hacked?
There's no evidence of that.
No evidence. Have they been hacked?
Remember, there's no evidence.
What would you say about could the machines have been hacked given that there's no evidence?
Probably. Either they have been or they will be.
Because it's just like the car with the valuables on the seat and all the windows open.
You don't have to wonder if it will happen.
That's off the table.
If is off the table.
It's only when. When is still a good question.
Has it happened already?
Or is it in our future?
But if is just off the table, if you're a smart person.
Nobody smart thinks that if is the right question.
Nobody. I'll say it again.
Nobody smart. Nobody.
Zero people who are smart Thinks that it's not going to happen eventually or has already happened.
Nobody. You can't find me one smart person who thinks that it won't happen or hasn't happened, one or the other.
It's a pretty big claim, right?
In person, nobody will disagree with that.
Maybe on Twitter somebody will disagree, but in person?
In person, nobody will disagree with that who's smart.
All right. There's a, let's see, another poll.
There's something like 23% of Republicans believe in the QAnon, what CNN calls mythology, that, quote, the government, media, and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles.
Well, what do you mean by controlled?
Maybe that's the key word.
Because you certainly can't say that there are no pedophiles in power.
That's obviously not true.
But we don't know if they have enough power.
We don't really know if they're Satan worshipping.
But certainly there's at least a sprinkling of them.
We don't know if they're in control.
But this is used as part of an argument by Frieda that the Republicans are forming sort of a human bomb, meaning that If 61% believe the election is stolen and 23% believe that these Satan-worshipping pedophiles are running the country, it's just like a time bomb waiting to go off.
And then the third piece of evidence that Frieda gives, and this is the fun part.
Are you ready for the fun part?
I was holding out on you for the fun part.
She's concerned that on top of this QAnon belief and on top of the belief of the big lie, as they call it, that the election was stolen, on top of all that, which is bad enough, it's like a powder keg, there's some suggestion that the Democrats are similar to Nazis.
And she's worried that if Democrats are unfairly being compared to Nazis...
On top of these other two beliefs from Republicans, that that's a time bomb.
That's a time bomb.
Now, has anything made you more happy today than knowing that Democrats are concerned because Republicans are unfairly comparing them to Nazis?
Has anybody ever done that before?
I've heard of it.
Is it a thing? I believe that people have compared people to Nazis before.
I feel as if that may have happened.
Oh, yeah. Four years straight, plus every Republican president ever.
And so now the Democrats don't like this being compared to Nazis business.
Hmm. Hmm.
Now, I will tell you my personal assessment of the risk.
Close to zero.
Close to zero.
If you look at the Capitol protests, riots, whatever you want to call them, if you look at the Capitol situation, that doesn't tell you that things are ready to erupt.
It tells you the opposite.
If that group had gone there heavily armed, well, I would be just as worried as everybody else on the Democratic side.
I'd be really worried about that.
But the fact that they were aggressively unarmed, I mean aggressively unarmed, At least in terms of serious weapons.
Or didn't use them if they had them.
It really tells you what the intention was.
The intention was speech.
Clearly the intention was speech.
To make their feelings known.
And then they did. Now, turning this into an insurrection and trying to put them all in jail, of course, is a Democrat unethical dirty trick.
But it seems to be working for them.
So I tweeted this morning that critical race theory is racist in lots of reasons, but in one particular reason that it marginalizes poor white kids.
Because imagine being a poor white kid and you go to school and learn that you're part of the oppressors.
Not only did you not get any money out of slavery, apparently your family did not make and keep their family fortunes from all that Slavery oppression money that they made because they were white.
And they were born into a poor situation.
But they're being called the oppressor.
Yeah, it's a double FU. It's a double FU. And can somebody do a fact check on this for me?
I need a fact check.
Because I feel like this might be like a racist data point and not real.
But I want somebody to Check this out for me.
Is it true or not true that black women, specifically women, are doing better than white men at the moment?
Just recently in the last few years.
Is that true? Because I think that they're doing better in terms of average pay for starting salary, right?
I believe a black woman Being hired into, let's say, a corporation, on average makes more money than a white man.
I'm seeing truths and I'm seeing false.
It's something I've seen, but I don't have it in front of me as a fact.
Somebody says, I doubt it, look it up.
Those of you who say, I doubt it, look it up.
Now, I think the reason is quite obvious.
Because the corporations get a twofer.
Right? Because the corporations want to hire more women.
They want to hire more minorities.
If you find a qualified woman who is also a minority, her value is going to be pretty high.
She's going to have three job offers.
You're going to have to offer a little bit more to get it and solve two of your problems.
Your misogyny problem and your racist problem.
So it makes sense.
Like everything I know about economics, supply and demand, right?
Right? What is the greatest demand type?
The greatest demand type for labor is a black woman.
Am I wrong? If you're a corporation and you're trying to do the right thing, you're trying to have more diversity in every way, both in gender and in ethnicity, isn't a black woman the highest demand?
Now, I'm not making a joke.
There's no hyperbole here.
Just straight economics.
Straight economics.
And if that woman had been part of the LGBTQ community in any way, well, that's a threefer.
A threefer is rare.
So don't you have to pay more for a threefer?
You do, right? Because that's how economics works.
You pay for rarity.
So do me a fact check on this, but I wondered how critical race theory would explain, if it's true...
Because I'll need the fact check.
But I think it's true that at least for beginning salaries, just recently, last few years, that black women with equal education, etc., are higher paid than white men.
I don't know for sure, but I think that's true.
I did a little narcissism test, and man, is this fun!
Once you know how it works, it takes the most frustrating thing in the world and turns it into just sort of a hobby.
And one of my hobbies is identifying narcissists by their tweets.
And here's how you do it.
So I tweeted this, and I'll tell you the trick.
I started out by saying, I like the idea of accurate history lessons.
That's the part I'll talk about later.
I like the idea of accurate history lessons.
It's the first thing I say.
I like accurate history.
But can someone show me an argument for how critical race theory is supposed to make things better in the future?
I only see generalities such as, quote, helping kids be prepared for racism.
So what do you think I accurately predicted would be the response to that tweet?
The response was, why don't you like accurate history, racist?
My first sentence was, I like the idea of accurate history lessons.
People who are not narcissists will read this and they'll say, oh, okay, I guess we all like accurate history, so we're good so far.
And then they'll look at the rest of the point.
A narcissist won't be able to see the first sentence.
Like, actually, they won't be able to see it.
It's like it wasn't even there. So they won't see the part where I like the idea of accurate history.
And then they attack me.
Oh, you're racist.
Yeah, let's hide history.
Let's not tell anybody about slavery.
So those are the ones that I used to think were just some kind of weird paid troll.
But now that I know that narcissism is an actual constellation of behaviors, once you see this behavior, you go, oh, it's one of those.
Now, it could be cognitive dissonance, but within the narcissist world, that happens regularly.
So the narcissist is triggered into cognitive dissonance just all the time.
It's non-stop. Their whole world is a series of cognitive dissonance.
Maybe it's not true for all of us, but a little extra for that group.
So, when the peacocks come out, and this is the other word I wanted to teach you about...
When I call these people peacocks, it works way better than saying somebody is a vulnerable narcissist.
Because nobody knows what that is.
Well, 2% of you know what it is.
But if you call somebody a narcissist, they just argue that they're not.
And they're not even sure what it is, and maybe your definition isn't the same as theirs.
No value whatsoever.
Compare that to calling somebody a peacock.
See? Have I taught you that visual persuasion is the best?
Yes, I have. Besides fear.
Fear is always the best persuader, but unethical in many cases.
But peacock, you see it, right?
And it's a ridiculous bird, and it's just showing off.
That's what the narcissist is.
The narcissist only comes into comment to make you look worse, So that they'll look better.
It's a low self-esteem play.
And if somebody comes in and says some insult to you generally, without any specifics about why you're wrong, and they say, well, you know, you racist piece of crap, of course you think we shouldn't teach history.
That's a narcissist.
But don't call him a narcissist.
Thank them and call them a peacock.
So I like to say, thank you, peacock.
We all see how amazing you are.
Run along. So the peacock wants to be recognized as amazing.
Somebody who has better thinking skills than you do.
Somebody who has higher ethical consideration than you do.
Somebody who's more generous than you are.
So instead of fighting with them, which just gives them fuel, you just say, thank you, Peacock.
You are quite awesome, and we all know it.
My experience is that they go away immediately.
They just go away immediately.
All right. Here is an explanation that I saw on...
I think it was on CNN, in an opinion piece.
No, it was not on CNN. So it was one of the founders of critical race theory way back in the 80s was explaining its value.
And here is the explanation.
Kids of color need honest information about society as much as white kids do.
So they're prepared to deal with racism, Feigen said.
We are founded on racial oppression...
Where I start with this is concrete history.
I don't even bring in concepts.
So the point of it is that kids of color need honest information about society as much as white kids do.
Was anybody arguing about that?
Do you remember anybody being on the other side of that?
Did somebody argue that, no, no, we want to teach the good history to the white kids, but we don't need any honest history for black kids or people of color?
Whoever said that?
So I don't know who she's arguing with, because I'm pretty sure everybody likes accurate history.
And then the fact that we're founded on racial oppression, I take that as, you know, that's honest enough, sure.
How does it prepare you?
How does it prepare somebody?
Like, what do you do?
So let's say you're a black kid.
And you learn your history according to critical race theory.
So now you understand why everything is the way it is.
Now what? And so you do what?
The obvious implication is what?
History is great, but what's the point of it?
Well, this is where we get into Marxism.
Are you ready? Let me give you my persuasion tip for the day for Republicans.
What do you hear Republicans say when they're criticizing Black Lives Matter or they're criticizing critical race theory?
What do Republicans like to say?
It's Marxist.
Is that good persuasion?
Do you think that anybody's hearing that and saying, oh, I didn't know it was Marxist.
I changed my mind.
No persuasion value.
Calling it Marxist, and here it doesn't matter if it's true or not true or a little true, it doesn't matter, has no, no persuasive value.
It's completely empty.
There's nothing there.
It's just a word. You've actually wasted your time and other people's time by even using it.
There's just no point to it.
So if you wanted to be persuasive without using that word that just doesn't have any persuasive power, primarily because most of the public doesn't know what to do with it.
I actually looked it up this morning because I wanted to see if I was missing something.
Like, is there more in the definition than I'm aware of?
Turns out there wasn't.
And so I was confused too.
Like, why is it Marxist?
Have I ever told you that explaining to somebody a concept doesn't ever persuade anybody?
Concepts just don't persuade.
Unless somebody's sort of already to be persuaded and then they just need a reason, then yes.
But if somebody's on completely the other side, explaining a complicated concept doesn't convince anybody of anything.
You need a fear, you need a picture, You need something simple that you can repeat, something that sticks in the mind.
Those are all the things that persuade people and more.
But a concept with a word you don't understand necessarily?
Nobody. Nobody's ever been persuaded by that.
So, if you wanted to make this persuasive, then you have to connect it.
Where is Marxism connected to critical race theory?
The best I know of, and this is my interpretation, maybe I'm missing something big here, is that critical race theory would make people feel guilty and they would operate on their guilt to try to move resources from the people who have them to the people who have less of them.
Is that what it is?
Is it only about guilt and getting rid of money from rich people?
I don't know. If the point of it is that you're saying, hey, Critical race theory is just a scheme, and the real payoff is socialism.
Marxism, socialism, using them kind of similarly.
If that's what you think the scheme is, and I'm not sure I think that, yeah, I'm not convinced that's a scheme, but you can imagine that it would help.
To build guilt so you could ask for reparations.
To build guilt so you could have some special laws or something.
But I would say that it's based on guilt.
So CRT is specifically a guilt strategy.
And I think we should call it that.
It's a guilt strategy for the purpose of moving resources.
How's that? Would everybody understand the critical race theory...
Its purpose is to make you feel guilty if you have resources, so that you're more likely to put those resources in their direction.
Right? But at least that's easy to explain.
There's no hard concepts there.
Guilt, therefore you better do something for me.
One word, guilt.
Now, how many people, if you were to talk to them privately, just one-on-one, nobody's listening, how many of those people would say, you know, we should build a system That's based on guilt, like feeling bad.
Who would think that would be a good idea?
Versus, let's say, building a system based on competition, based on how hard you work, based on doing the right stuff, going to school.
Wow. Per Anders says, critical race theory is Marxist.
A subgroup of critical thinking.
All right, so far that's just a concept, so let's get to the good stuff.
Check the Frankfurt School.
You're making it worse.
The whole idea is to entice and to destroy the current system, not to make it better.
Okay, I agree with all of that you said, but when you're talking about persuasion, don't tell people to check out the Frankfurt School, because they just won't.
And the few who do are not the ones who are going to be moved by animal spirits and guilt and feelings anyway.
So just in terms of, and by the way, thank you for that.
That was way too generous.
I would have read your tweet for 10% of that, but I appreciate it.
Or would have read your comment.
So let's call it guilt, and it's a system based on guilt, and I don't think there's anybody in the world who thinks that's a good idea, privately.
It's good for the leaders, probably.
Alright, and Ruben Gao on Twitter summarized it this way, said critical race theory is a wealth transfer device that uses guilt and envy to benefit one group over another.
So that's what it is. It's a wealth transfer system based on guilt.
Now we probably have a lot of systems that are based on guilt, but I think we have to, and somebody says power, everything is about power.
Everything. Everything's about power.
So sometimes saying it's about power doesn't get you to any insight.
Because it's all about power.
Everything. Alright.
So I wouldn't use that word Marxist if you can use guilt and envy or real words.
And that will make things fair.
Alright. Same as PETA accusing you of guilt.
So does PETA use guilt as their primary thing?
I don't know. I don't feel like PETA uses guilt.
I think PETA wants to make you feel bad about hurting animals, but is that guilt exactly, or is it just feeling bad?
I don't know. I'm not sure that's exactly guilt, but it's in the neighborhood.
So, do you think that you should ever make decisions based on shame or guilt?
Let's say in your personal life, if somebody says, you did X years ago or whatever, do you think you should make your decisions today based on that bad thing you did years ago?
Well, you could.
Maybe it'd make you feel better.
But it's a bad strategy.
How about a strategy that is you do as well as you can without hurting anybody?
And then, once you've done as well as you can for yourself without hurting anybody, then you get generous.
How about that? Who is that simple?
I don't know what you're talking about.
Yeah, feeling shame or guilt over something you can't control is useless.
What about people insisting on apologies after you've already apologized once?
What do you think of that? I feel as if apologizing has a real use.
I mean, it's a very powerful social tool, so apologizing needs to be a thing.
But suppose somebody has apologized.
How much more do you need to beat them up after they've apologized?
I'd say zero is the right amount.
I think you've got to move on after that.
Laura says, The worst thing the left has done with this is destroying our ability to agree to disagree.
And they've done this through social media and their censorship.
Yeah. I don't know it's just the left who's done that.
I think it's social media in general has just amped us up to the point where you can't even be in the same room with somebody who disagrees with you.
Let me ask you this. What is...
If you were to make a list of things that are sort of crazy, would Republicans or Democrats have a bigger list?
Because, you know, on the right you'd have stuff like QAnon, but on the left you'd have all kinds of stuff, right?
Apologizing just gives your opponents a club.
Apologizing once and doing it sort of in good form, you know, a proper kind of apology.
A proper apology, you say exactly what you did wrong in words that the person you're apologizing to would understand to be accurate.
You've got to do that.
It's not an apology unless you can state it in your own words.
In my opinion, it's not a proper apology.
So you have to restate what you did wrong.
Apologize. But then you need to be done.
If you're being beat up forever over it, and you've already apologized, and you've shown that there's no reason it would happen again, then it's just a power move, and at that point you can stop being guilty.
Marussia says mandatory CRT training would give the right exactly what they'd want.
Access to leftists.
They'd be forced to hear arguments from the outside.
Interesting. But I don't know that critical race theory has any room for other opinions.
My guess is that once you get in that room, you're not allowed to have a varied opinion.
Here's an interesting thought.
Bye.
That means I've got to go.
Apologies are useless.
If you gave a damn, you wouldn't have done it in the first place.
I don't think so. No, I think people can make actually just mistakes.
Your judgment is never always as good.
Sometimes you're drunk and horny and tired.
People make lots of mistakes.
I think there is such a thing as a genuine apology.
I feel like I've given them.
Guilt and shame works for diet plans.
Yeah. I think there's actually a role for guilt and shame.
