Episode 1572 Scott Adams: Let's Put Every Story Through the Race Filter, Because We're Idiots
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Christmas Massacre reporting
MSNBC brand ambassador, Joy Reid
Was Kyle Rittenhouse setup for Proud Boys picture?
Jeffrey Morris takedown of statistically challenged
Brit Hume on "clearly senile" President Biden
Flash mobs robbing stores
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
But, you know, sometimes good things are worth waiting for.
This isn't one of those cases.
But I hear good things are worth waiting for.
That's my volume today.
Let's see if I can call up the comments here.
Yeah, I can call up the comments here.
There we go. How's everybody doing this morning?
Is this the best thing that ever happened to you ever?
Come on, you know it is.
Coffee with Scott Adams cannot be better.
And if you'd like to take it up to the next level, pretty sure you do.
What do you need? Well, you need a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like.
Coffee. Join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and watch it boost your antibodies.
Go! Mmm, yeah, yeah.
Well, what's new?
Rasmussen did a poll, and it first asked people who they voted for in 2020.
45% said Biden and 48% Trump.
But don't do what I did and say, wait a minute.
If this is a survey of the people who voted, doesn't that mean Trump won?
Because the survey of people who voted shows Trump won.
But... Hold on, hold on, hold on.
So I checked with Rasmussen before I got out here.
And this has more to do with how they change the weightings.
So, you know, the polls do a weighting of how many people they assume are Democrats in the general public, etc.
And they tweak that.
So this has more to do with the tweak of the weightings than it does with who actually won.
But more interestingly, Rasmussen asked likely voters who were representative of the public at large, who would you vote for today?
So if Trump and Biden both ran, which seems deeply unlikely to me, but if they ran against each other in 2024, or actually today, so maybe it would change by 2024.
But as of today, Biden would get 32% of the votes...
Trump would get 45.
Start the local stream.
So the local stream is started, and I'm on it live right now.
But I did have a technical difficulty, and it's possible that it shows up as two posts.
So skip the one that's not active and go to the one that is, if it looks like it's not working.
But, so this looks like good for Trump, right?
45% would vote for him compared to 32% for Biden.
But number one, he's not going to be running against Biden, right?
He's not going to be running against Biden.
But 56% of those polled in the Rasmussen poll here said it would be a bad idea for Trump to run.
Even though, according to the poll, he would beat Biden, in the unlikely event that Biden were the other candidate.
He'd cream him, and people still don't want him to run.
Is that rational?
That they would vote for Trump over Biden, but they still don't want Trump to run?
It's a little bit rational because they would also vote for some other Republican over Biden and then they wouldn't have the controversy that they might have with Trump.
Jobless claims are the lowest since 1969 when the population was far less.
That's a pretty big deal.
So one of the things that keeps surprising me Is that our ability to hire people is pretty strong.
Like, really strong.
Let me give you my economics lesson of the day.
If you could only measure one economic statistic, and that was all you had to know if the economy was going in the right direction or the wrong direction, what one measure would you look at?
So if you're having trouble on locals, just restart the app.
I'm seeing some people are getting some trouble.
The app is working, it's just getting a little rickety right now.
I would say the most important economic indicator, and I do have a degree in economics, so I'm not just spitballing here, is employment.
Generally speaking, when your employment looks good, everything else works.
That's a pretty good general statement.
Now, of course, there could be other shocks and surprises in your economy.
You know, inflation could be high and all that stuff.
But if you could just measure one thing, it would be the employment, and that's really good.
It's looking really good.
All right. So you think M3 would be the...
Well, that would be an interesting conversation.
Wage push? Okay.
Well, there's obviously lots more to the economy than employment, but that's the big one.
So, here's a question that I think a lot of you wonder about, but maybe don't ask directly.
What's it like to be rich?
Does anybody ever ask that question to yourself, if you're not rich?
Some of you are. How many of you wonder what it's like?
Do you ever think, is that as good as it looks?
Alright, well, some of you do.
So I thought I'd give you a little flavor for what it's like.
You know, because I've had a successful career, so I've got a good deal of money right now.
And let me tell you what it's like.
Number one, you can, if you're a couple, you can both have a nice car, which is pretty good.
So, Christine and I both have nice automobiles.
Both of them were damaged this week, so both of them are in insurance and in the shop, which is normal.
When you have nice things, you've got to take care of them.
So, Christine's car was damaged and my car was damaged this week.
Interestingly, neither of us were driving those cars.
Both cars were damaged.
Neither she nor I were driving either car.
That's the way it goes.
So we have two nice cars.
We can't use them because they're damaged.
I do have a very nice house.
And that's something that a lot of people would wish they had.
So my very nice house at the moment just had its, I think, the 11th major water leak this week.
The 11th. There were two this week.
One with a sprinkler system, one with the indoor what are called warm floors.
They run warm water piping through the floors.
If you get a leak in one of those, it's a bad thing.
So I've had about 11 major water leaks.
So I spend part of almost every day Trying to fix a water leak.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, is there some kind of construction problem?
No. They're all completely randomly different, and they have nothing to do with anything.
They're completely random.
Now, again, I also get to live in a nice neighborhood.
So that's something you don't all get to do.
And I'm quite aware of the benefits of that.
For example, one of the benefits of living in my neighborhood is that both of my adjacent neighbors have both been burglarized by bands of people who broke through the windows at night and in a small gang took everything that they could take that looked valuable.
Now, that's happened to both of my neighbors, so I assume that I'm next on the list.
In case any potential robbers are watching, my home will be a little bit harder than the neighbors.
That's all I'm saying. You just better make sure I'm not home.
If you break into my house, be pretty fucking sure I'm not home.
That's my only advice.
Because otherwise, it's going to get wet.
All right, here's some other advantages of...
You know, being well off.
A lot of people don't have enough money even to pay for heat.
But I do. And I wish I had heat today.
Because if my warm floors had not leaked, it would feel great right here instead of cold like I am right now.
But in theory, in theory would be good.
Now, I can also buy nice computers.
My computer wasn't working this morning, which is why I was late.
I also have a number of cool systems in the house.
For example, there's a system called an Elon system where you can control the lighting everywhere.
Now that doesn't work, obviously.
So it's really just an expensive system that puts things on the wall that tease me.
Wow, if that worked.
Imagine if you could push those buttons and like the lighting would do different things.
That would be cool. So I have that and you don't have that.
I mean, you turn on lights exactly the same way I do.
But in theory, I have a very complicated system that would do that for me.
Now I also have, and I'm actually a little embarrassed to say this, I have 14 televisions.
I know. It's kind of a douchebaggy thing to tell you, isn't it?
I have 14 televisions.
None of them work.
I have zero televisions that work because they all go through a central processor which doesn't work and it's hard to replace.
So I have no televisions that work.
Now, all those televisions have their own remote controls.
And unlike a lot of people who are struggling, my remote controls, and again, I know what a douchebag this sounds like, each one of them cost $1,000.
That's how good the remote controls were.
Each one was $1,000.
Because it did a lot of stuff.
It wasn't like a regular TV remote.
Now, 100% of them broke.
It turns out that if you drop one of the remotes, the little thing that allows the charger to charge falls off.
And then, because it was a kid who dropped it, they see that thing on the ground and then they throw it away.
So all of the $1,000 remotes became useless in about two weeks.
Because somebody dropped them every time and then threw away the piece that you need to charge it.
So I have no televisions and no remote controls.
In theory, I have 14 televisions, but none that actually work.
Now, another advantage that you have with money is that you can take nice vacations.
And that's a really big deal.
And I'm always conscious of the fact that not everybody can do that.
So when I get to take a nice vacation, I'm very, very thankful for it.
For example, just this week, Christine and my wife found out that she'd forgotten.
We'd booked a luxury trip to a very high-end hotel.
And we forgot that I actually forgot we booked it.
I mean, I didn't know about it at all, but she had forgot she booked it.
And so it was too late for me to go, so Christina went on her own and enjoyed a really nice luxury vacation while I was working seven days a week.
But here's another good thing that you can do if you're well off.
And this is like the ultimate luxury.
And again, it's embarrassing even to say, because if you can't afford this, it's going to make you feel bad.
But you wonder what it's like to have money, so I'll tell you.
We sometimes do these things called a couple's massage, where you'll have two massage therapists come over and do a couple's massage.
Well, Christine ordered one of those last night.
And I got to tell you, it was great.
Not for me. I didn't have a massage.
But Christine and her sister had a massage, and I helped set up the tables for those.
So that was great. I had some other things to do that night.
I had to do some driving, which I couldn't do because the massage therapist parked in front of the garage door.
So, while Christina and her sister were getting excellent massages, I heard they were terrific, I was swearing at my driveway and eventually drove my car over a curb, damaging it a little bit, just to be able to get out of my own fucking driveway.
Now, today, in about 10 minutes, I'll have a worker here to look at the warm floors and maybe fix that.
And then for the rest of the day, I'll be listening to jackhammers.
So jackhammers all day, and all week, actually.
And the jackhammers kick up so much dust that pretty much everything else I've ever purchased has been ruined with dust this week.
So if you're wondering what it's like to have money, it's probably not nearly as good as you think.
It's way better than not having money.
So let me be clear on that.
If you ever have a choice, take the money.
But it is not nearly as good as you think.
I promise you, it is not nearly as good as you think it is.
Now, that's just a weird week.
I thought it was funny that that week turned out this way.
All right. Here's something that I fear.
Are you watching the Kim Kardashian who's dating Pete Davidson from Saturday Night Live?
And they're doing it kind of, you know, publicly, and you wonder how Kanye, who now goes by Ye, you wonder how he feels about that.
And I have to admit, I do live in continuous fear that my wife will someday leave me and date Pete Davidson.
Now, I don't know if you've ever had this fear, but every day I look at this and think, well, that could have been me.
That could have been me.
And it's somebody on Twitter, I forget who, gave me this joke, so this is not original.
Somebody said of Pete Davidson, why would you date someone who has more pathogens than the Wuhan lab?
That's pretty funny. Anyway.
Pete Buttigieg is working on putting in all those electric car charging stations as part of the infrastructure bill.
And he said that you need these charging stations in two places that don't get mentioned much, which is in urban areas.
Makes sense. But also where there's dense housing and people don't have a garage.
They're in an apartment or whatever.
And I'm right on board with Pete Buttigieg because if there's one thing that poor people in dense neighborhood housing need, it's a way to charge their Teslas.
Because... I don't know if you know what the priorities are for the country.
I used to think it was stuff like feeding the poor and health care and stuff like that.
But the poor also don't have places to charge their Teslas, and I don't think we can ignore that.
So maybe by the end of the Biden administration, the poor will be able to charge their Teslas, and that's good news.
All right, I'm just kidding.
It's not just the poor, and it's not just Teslas.
I get it. I get it.
But it's funny to imagine that they're so out of touch that they're giving Tesla charging stations to the poor.
Here's a simulation update.
One of the things I like to call the fake news industry is a rotting house.
It's like a house that's rotting, isn't it?
And what are the odds that the Rotting House would make up a bunch of false claims about Kyle Rittenhouse?
So it's the Rotting House versus the Rittenhouse, and...
Do you think that the left is finally figuring out, because I'm seeing anecdotally a number of people on Twitter saying, well, I used to lean left and I voted for Biden, but this Rittenhouse thing has taught me that all the news is fake and now I'm going to vote for Trump.
Well, I don't think there are actually that many people in that camp.
But, maybe.
I mean, I believe that in 2016, everybody in the right learned that the news was completely made up.
Now, some say they learned it earlier, weapons of mass destruction, Bush, etc.
And I think that maybe that was...
I'll tell you my own view.
When the weapons of mass destruction thing happened, I thought it was an anomaly.
Did you? When we were bamboozled by the press into thinking that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, how many of you thought that was sort of a one-off...
Versus the way everything works all the time.
Because I'm trying to remember if I believed there were weapons of mass destruction.
I think I did. I don't remember exactly, but I probably did, because why wouldn't I? Yeah, and at the time I thought to myself, well, you know...
Thank you, James.
At the time I thought to myself...
Well, you know, I guess something happened here, but this is not the way it normally is, right?
It's not normally that the press just makes up a story.
But it is. It's completely normal.
And it took a while to figure that out, and the Trump administration proved to anybody who supported Trump that the news was completely fake.
But now the left is at least getting a taste of it.
They're just getting a little taste of it.
And I think that they're also understanding that everything has been run through a race filter, and it shouldn't be.
Because we're seeing so many cases now that don't look like race at all that are being called race.
The Rittenhouse situation was being called a race thing.
It wasn't. It wasn't.
So over at the Daily Beast, which is, they pretend to be journalists, but it's basically a gathering place for trolls who think they could write.
So the house of trolls, called the Daily Beast, Was getting on two people, Tim Poole and Andy Ngo, because they were identifying the Waukesha attacker, the one who was in the car and drove over all the people in the parade.
They correctly identified that his social media showed him he was a BLM supporter, and they reported on that.
And what happens when And also that he was anti-white, explicitly.
He wasn't just pro-BLM, which many people could be.
He was actually just anti-white.
And he said so, and white people should be hurt.
He basically said that directly.
And of course, that is part of the story, right?
Because he ran down a bunch of white people.
So if your social media says he's recommending hurting people, white people, and then he hurts a bunch of white people, that feels related, doesn't it?
Doesn't that feel at least it should be part of the story?
Well, that's what Tim Pool and Andy Ngo said, but the Daily Beast decided that they were trying to make it racial.
What? You know who tried to make it racial?
The guy who posted those social media attacks against white people.
That kind of made it racial.
Now, how about this one? This is CNN trying to make the defense...
For the Arbery case, they're trying to turn that racist too.
So here's the report on CNN. Here's how CNN says it.
On Monday, defense attorney Laura Hogue went as far as to say during her closing arguments in the case, quote, turning Ahmoud Arbery into a victim after the choices he made does not reflect the reality of what brought Ahmoud Arbery to Satilla Shores in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long,
dirty toenails. And so, she is being accused of being racist for suggesting that this individual, Ahmaud Arbery, had khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails.
And so I said to myself, wait a minute, what's the race part of that?
Like, there's a claim that that's racial, but I'm looking right at it.
I don't even see race mentioned.
And so I said to myself...
I said to myself...
Oh, he says he isn't a jogger?
Well, that wasn't the point they were trying to make on this statement, but yes, I don't think you jog in khakis and no socks and wearing, what, sandals?
No socks to cover his long...
Yeah, I must add sandals. Anyway, that's a pretty good point, that he wasn't there as a jogger in any traditional way that joggers jog.
But I asked on Twitter, suppose I were to describe somebody, out of context, and just said that it was a person with, let's say a man, with khaki shorts and no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails.
If that's the only thing you knew, what ethnicity would you assume was wearing the khakis?
With the long, dirty toenails.
You would think, white.
Yeah. I think 71% of the people who answered it said, uh, white.
Because khaki shorts and sandals.
So this is CNN trying to make literally anything a racial thing.
I saw a comment from Twitter user SierraNoregale, I don't know how to pronounce his name, who is claiming that CNN is not nearly as bad as Fox.
If you're talking about fake news, oh my god, says this user.
CNN is not as bad as Fox.
And then he went on to say...
And it's so obviously, probably not the same.
He said, who's, you know, and he asked this rhetorically, who's the Tucker, Ingram, Judge Neen, or Guffield on CNN, right?
Like, where on CNN are you going to find somebody like a Tucker Carlson or a Laura Ingram or Judge Neen or a Guffield?
Yeah, show them. Where on Fox are you going to find somebody like that?
To which I said, look for the ones that still believe the fine people hoax was real, and the people who still think that Trump suggested drinking bleach.
Find them. That's what we're talking about.
But the trouble is that Ciaran probably doesn't know those are hoaxes.
So if you are so bamboozled by your press that you think that the ridiculous hoaxes that they're showing you are news are real, you would come to the belief that CNN was giving you real news.
Because how would you know?
Everybody else says it's real on the news that you watch.
You'd have to watch other news to find out it's not real.
All right.
So it's amazing how bubblicious some people can be.
So apparently there's some serious talk at Comcast about Joy Reid's future at MSNBC.
So the executors are saying, should we keep Joy Reid in her current job at MSNBC?
And I have some advice for them in my capacity as the creator of the Dilbert comic.
Now, sometimes I comment just as an observer of politics, but in this case, I'm going to comment as someone who has a long history of observing corporations and how they work.
And here's my recommendation for a Comcast as a corporation.
And I'll just put this out there.
They can do with it what they want.
Based on my experience living in the world, I think it's a bad idea to have an over-racist As part of your brand.
Now I know, I know.
It's shocking. But if somebody is clearly and obviously, and is not even trying to hide it, says it right out front, is a full-on racist, I'm saying my advice would be don't use them as your brand ambassador.
Is that too far?
Does that advice seem...
Seem pretty solid to you?
Or no? I'm basing it on all of my business experience.
That using a racist as your brand ambassador probably doesn't help you sell product, does it?
No. Well, it's good that they're talking about it.
Anyway, as you know, Kyle Rittenhouse was famously photographed at one point with the Proud Boys.
Apparently the story is his lawyer that he eventually fired, who was the worst lawyer in the world except for his other lawyer, the other first one that was fired, not his eventual lawyers who got him off on all charges, who apparently was a good lawyer.
And so the bad lawyer tried to get him a meeting with the Proud Boys at some bar when Kyle didn't exactly know who the Proud Boys were.
Actually, he didn't even know they were the Proud Boys.
He just thought it was a bunch of guys who work construction.
And so he posed with them.
He did the okay sign.
Didn't know it meant anything.
And then he blamed his attorney for that.
Now, does that sound convincing?
Does that sound convincing?
That that was his entire association?
And by the way, he condemns the Proud Boys.
He condemns them in direct language.
Yeah, it does sound real. Because he was 17, and he had a really, really bad lawyer, apparently.
Like, as bad as the baddest lawyer could ever be.
All right. Have I told you that I'm connected to every story, even when I don't want to be?
And it's just weird? Like, I have weird connections to stories, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.
Several years ago, when...
Anybody who supported Trump was getting...
Got a TV recommendation there.
Sorry about that. So anyway, I was doing some speaking during that time, and I wound it down because it was just too dangerous to speak in public during the Trump administration, because I just didn't feel safe.
And I was contacted by a member of the Proud Boys.
And this member of the Proud Boys, who sounded like he could reasonably speak for other Proud Boys, at least locally, said that they would be happy to provide security for me.
They didn't say anything about charging me, but they said they could provide security for me if I wanted to go to Berkeley and give a speech.
Now I said to myself, well, that would be one way to make things worse.
So because I'm not 17, I said to myself, thank you.
And I actually appreciated the offer, and I respectfully declined his respectful offer.
But that's because I'm my age, right?
If I were 17, do you think I would have known enough to, you know, smell trouble?
No. No.
I would have probably gone, just like Kyle did.
So, you know, it takes a long time before you can see around corners, but I could kind of see around the corner on that one.
I was like, yeah, I don't have a personal problem with it, but this just looks like it's going to attract trouble.
And sure enough, it would have, I'm sure.
Yeah, Ann Coulter used them, and by the way, I think that they would do a good job.
And I would also like to say that as far as I know, as far as I know, Either most of the Proud Boys, or all of them, maybe, are not racist, as far as I know.
Now, if somebody else has different information, or if they're actually members of the group who are actually racist, maybe.
Every group seems to have some.
But as far as I know, they're not.
But if other people think they are, obviously it's a red flag.
It was originally a drinking club that just sort of got a momentum of its own.
Anyway, so that's all I know about them.
There is a lovely takedown of people who are bad at statistics, especially in the COVID reference, by a professor, Jeffrey Morris, who is very, very qualified at this stuff.
He's listed as a data scientist, biostatistician, quantitative scientist, biomedical researcher, and a cancer researcher.
So... If you want somebody to look at your COVID graphs and tell you if they're good, he'd be one, right?
He has exactly the right qualifications.
So what did he think when he saw some of these graphs that would show that more people are dying vaccinated than not and stuff like that?
What did he say?
Well, he did a long thread, a takedown of Alex Berenson and his ignorance of statistics.
He named him in particular, but he was talking about people and bad statistics.
Let me give you an example.
Just one example.
The one that he talked about was there's a famous graph going around that seems to show that vaccinated people are dying more or getting infected more than other people.
And he explains why you're wrong about all of that.
Now, I won't give his argument because it's better if you hear it from him.
It's more credible. But he does do a good job of showing that the Alex Berenson kind of things he tweets are based on ridiculously bad interpretation of data.
Like, ridiculously bad.
Ridiculously bad. Let me give you an example.
This is just something else I saw in his thread.
This was not even the topic he was taking Berenson down on.
You've heard of the VAERS database and it has lots of reports, an alarming number of reports, of people who died or had reactions after getting vaccinated.
Does anybody know how many of them there are?
How many adverse reports are in the VAERS database?
Can somebody give me that number?
I'll bet somebody knows it off the top of their head.
It's a low tens of thousands or something?
Is it under 20,000?
Something like that? 8,000?
10,000? Somewhere in that range?
6,000-ish?
So it's under 10,000, right?
But that's a lot. Oh yeah, I guess I didn't qualify deaths versus bad reactions.
19K? 20K? Alright.
But here's where I'm going with this.
We don't know that exact number.
But let me ask you this.
How many people in the United States do you think die every month?
How many people in the United States die every month, just of anything?
Give me your number. How many die every month of any cause?
I'm seeing numbers from 8,000 to 400,000.
Some say a million.
Now, wouldn't your opinion of how many adverse reactions are in the VAERS database, wouldn't that be highly influenced by how many people you think die normally?
So it turns out that 250,000 people die every month.
And you would expect, if the vaccinations were perfectly safe and affected no one negatively, you would expect a quarter of a million people to die within a month of taking it.
Did you know that?
If the vaccines were perfectly safe, a quarter million people would die within four weeks of taking it.
And how about within a week of taking it?
50,000 people would have died just by coincidence within a week of taking the vaccination.
If you know somebody who died within a week of taking a vaccination, they might have been one of 50,000 people who had that experience.
It doesn't mean anything. It literally means nothing.
Now, I'm not saying the vaccinations are safe or that the numbers are accurate.
I'm saying that if that's what you're looking at to determine, that's not the place.
All right? How about this?
So he goes on.
This is Professor Jeffrey Morris.
He says, if vaccines were given at a random time, no matter when you gave them, you would expect about 7,000 people to die the same day.
That they got the vaccination.
You would expect 7,000 people to die the same day that they just got vaccinated by chance.
That would be how many would happen by chance.
You see where this is going, right?
The VAERS database is not telling you anything at all.
And, yeah.
So, anyway, I would say that nearly everything you see from Alex Berenson has the same flaw, which is that Alex is not as good as somebody like Professor Morris at looking at data, and so to the layperson, it looks pretty convincing.
But to somebody who knows how statistics work, nothing like that's happening.
Nothing like that is happening at all.
All right. But again, all of that could be a lie, too, because everything's a lie, and we don't trust anything anymore.
How many of you know what a DAO is?
D-A-O. Not the Dow Jones.
How many of you would know what a D-A-O is?
Which stands for a Decentralized Autonomous Organization.
I like to make my viewers smarter than the average.
The Dow, D-A-O, is something coming toward you maybe fast and maybe really big.
Like, really big.
How big? Transform the entire economy big?
That's how big. Let me tell you what it is.
It could turn out to be a blip and nothing, right?
But let me tell you what it is. It's people using the blockchain, which is the basis for crypto, but it doesn't have to be just crypto.
You could use it for other reasons.
Well, actually, I guess there's always a token involved, isn't there?
If you have a blockchain, there's always some kind of a token, isn't there?
Necessarily? I think so.
But anyway, it's people who self-organize for a project, much the way Hollywood self-organizes for a movie.
Now, there's not a bunch of people who go from movie to movie and make movies so much.
There might be a director and a producer, and then they hire the people they need just for the project.
Well, the decentralized autonomous organization is a way to do that, but without a leader.
So there's no leader. So people buy tokens.
They buy in to have influence.
If they buy more tokens, they could get more influence.
But the rules of who can vote and what they're voting on and what the rules are for how things work are all determined by the group.
So they work it out based on voting, based on how many tokens they own.
And it's a way to self-organize a project Where people have complete visibility of everything.
They can see other people's work.
They can see the rules.
They can contribute. They can get paid for it in some cases.
And so the thinking is...
That if this works in a few settings, it might go big and might even be better than corporate governance.
Depending on the project, maybe a corporation is the worst place to do it.
It could be that a self-organized entity like this that organizes just to do a specific thing might be exactly the way to do it.
So there was a DAO, a DAO, that tried to buy the Constitution.
There was a copy of the Constitution that went up for sale.
At, was it Sotheby's, I think?
And so one of these sprung up, and there was no leader.
It was just a bunch of people who had a common interest.
And they self-organized, created rules for what was what, and they bid.
Now, it turns out they didn't win the bid, because that's, you know, a separate issue.
But if they had won the bid, it would be the most successful DAO, I think, and could have really made things...
Different. So keep an eye on this.
This is one of those things that this is like hearing about Bitcoin before everybody heard of Bitcoin.
Right? This is like hearing about the internet before most people had ever heard the word.
You're now way ahead of the public because you know what a DAO is.
It's a self-organized thing where all the rules are on the blockchain so everybody can see it and you buy into it and your influence depends on how many tokens you buy, typically.
So now you know that.
Here's something Britt Hume said about Biden.
And the reason this is important is because it's Britt Hume.
Not everybody has the same level of credibility.
Will you agree with me?
If you're listening to one of the worst than Watergate guys, they have zero credibility.
The news hosts, not so much.
But Britt Hume is...
I think would be, both the left and the right would say, oh yeah, he does play it down the middle.
Like he's actually just a reasonable person.
Here's what the most, you could argue, he's the most reasonable and balanced voice for decades.
And here's what he said about Biden.
He said, quote, in fact, I think the thing we have to watch is this question of whether he serves on his first term.
He's clearly deteriorating.
He's clearly senile.
Imagine the most reasonable person in the news business just says it directly.
This is different.
We're now at a level where people who are not, like, you know, screaming partisans are just saying, well, that's obvious.
He's obviously senile.
So Angela says, Hume is credible, LOL. I could be wrong.
Well, you are wrong. Look into it.
So if you're saying because there's an association with Fox News, well, I think you're wrong.
Just look into his background.
And much like I say the same thing about Smirkanish on CNN. Also, Sanjay Gupta.
There would be two people who appear on CNN that, as far as I can tell, try to actually just look at the facts and are not, like, screaming partisans.
And Fox News has the same.
They have a number of people who are absolutely not partisan in the way that, you know, you typically think of it.
So, certainly the opinion people are partisan, but...
To me, this feels like an important...
You know, notable thing in the Biden story, that somebody can say this just directly.
And guess what? It's not even big news.
Think about that.
You know how the left likes to...
they like to boost anything the right says that's crazy?
So if anybody says anything that's a little crazy-sounding on the right, that's going to be on CNN, right?
Here was a top...
Top reputation news person who just called the President of the United States clearly senile and he wasn't speaking hyperbolically.
Nobody would have taken it that way.
Nobody would have said, yeah, I know you're being partisan, you're just saying that.
Nope. Nope.
That wasn't what happened.
That was a matter-of-fact statement.
He made a matter-of-fact statement about the President of the United States being senile and And it wasn't even reported as an anomaly.
It was reported as normal.
We actually normalized senility in our president.
I guess you can normalize anything.
I'm seeing some pushback here because of the Sanjay Gupta talk with Joe Rogan.
Keep in mind that Sanjay did not back his network.
You saw it, right?
When he was asked to defend what CNN said about the ivermectin, He didn't.
He said, I don't know why they said that.
He didn't say it.
So he didn't defend it either.
If you don't defend it, I think you're criticizing it, right?
I mean, you do have to make some allowance for the fact that people have a paycheck coming, right?
So if Sanjay doesn't want to savage his own network...
But he makes it clear that that wasn't his opinion.
I'm okay with that.
I don't need him to go barbarian on his own employer.
As long as he says it clearly, and he did, I don't know why they did that.
It's very clear he wouldn't have done it.
And didn't. So yes, Sanjay Gupta is a credible voice on CNN. If you don't like it, go look at it yourself.
Gupta defended his investment.
I don't know what that story is.
Does he have an investment in some kind of medical thing that he reports on?
I don't know. You're in California and wearing a jacket.
This is not a jacket. This is a shirt.
It's a shirt. It's an excellent shirt.
But yes, I have no heat today in my house.
I am double-shirted.
It is a cool shirt, so to speak.
What's that? You're more reasonable than your fangirls, Scott.
Gupta, plus a few days later, he agreed with Don Lemon, saying it was Horsty Murmur, but not in the same context.
So I don't have to look into that to know that you're lying to me.
Sanjay Gupta did not say...
That ivermectin is only horse medicine.
And don't tell me he did.
If you believe that, just go back and look at it.
that didn't happen.
I don't have to research that to know it didn't happen.
Well, it is also that...
You're lying to yourself?
Am I? Am I lying to myself?
Are you reading my mind? All right.
Yeah, it's colder in Northern California.
It's probably 52-ounce.
He didn't correct...
Oh, he didn't correct... Well, I mean, that's a separate issue, isn't it?
Yeah, how much does Sanjay Gupta have to correct his employer or his co-workers?
I don't know. As long as his opinion is clear, I don't think he has that requirement.
I honestly don't.
Well, let me give you an example.
I've appeared on Fox News a number of times.
Is it my job to criticize everything else Fox News has ever said because I've worked with them in a compatible way?
I don't think so.
I don't really feel that responsibility.
If I see something, I'll mention it, but I don't feel like it's my job to explain the context of everybody I've ever talked to.
You know, I think I told you early on, especially in the Trump administration, I told you I have one, well, I probably have other, but one of my absolutes is I won't be told who I can associate with.
I just won't. So I will talk to Black Lives Matter, I'll talk to a pedophile, I'll talk to Jeffrey Epstein, I'll talk to Don Lemon.
No restrictions. No restrictions.
And by the way, I'm really firm on this one.
Really firm. You steal Gutfeld's jokes often, says John.
Well, he has good jokes.
Why wouldn't I steal them? If you're stealing from people who have bad jokes, you're doing it wrong.
There's no such thing as anybody who deals with humor who doesn't steal jokes.
You know that's not a thing, right?
And usually it's not intentional.
Sometimes you just see a good joke and you want to repeat it.
But, I mean, it's not really...
It's not a reasonable comment that people steal jokes.
Everybody steals everybody's jokes.
There's nothing wrong with that.
And Greg and I are friends, so we generally agree on stuff.
Often what you think is we're saying the same things.
Sometimes we've actually talked about it, the topic beforehand, and we're just on the same page.
Should we start a DAO?
If you had a reason.
How to open kitty friskies with your bare hands.
sigh Alright. There are only nine plots in literature.
Seems like fewer.
Alright, I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to go figure out what's going on right now.
Greg just texted me.
What do you think of Foundation?
Oh, if you want a good sci-fi show on Apple TV, I think that's the only place you can get it.
If you want a good show, Foundation.
I'm really enjoying it.
And the thing I like about it is the concept level.
At the concept level, it's just mind-blowingly good.
And there's one scene in there, I won't describe it, where they, let's say the bad guy, just so it's not a spoiler, where the bad guy does something so bad that I've never even seen anything like that even in literature.
Like a level of bad that I don't know could ever be topped by any book or...
It was so bad.
It's just the baddest thing I've ever heard of.
And anyway, if you read it, you know what I mean.
If Rittenhouse hadn't shot and was subsequently beaten or killed, would the killers be charged?
I don't know.
Don't know.
Will the mob robbers go for...
So you know what's happening with these flash mobs robbing stores, right?
So in the Bay Area, it's happened a number of times already, the big group will go in all at once and then rob the store and run away.
How in the world is retail going to survive, the upscale stuff?
Because I can't see a Chanel store surviving from this point on, can you?
Wouldn't every Chanel store get robbed?
I don't think that it'll even be a...
I don't know, it just seems like such a good odds for a crime.
Because if they come in with, you know, 50 people, the odds of, you know, more than 48 of them being caught, or the odds of many of them being caught are so low, it's actually a pretty good business model.
And guns are being taken away as quickly as stores are opening.
I don't know that guns are going to solve it.
You could almost imagine that Amazon was behind the flash mobs.
They're not. If you wanted to take it to full conspiracy, you'd say, maybe Amazon's behind this because it sure is good for their business.
I certainly, if I had a high-end store...
I'd probably just close it at this point.
Because I don't see anything that would change the trend, do you?
Because the people doing the stealing wear masks, so the video doesn't matter.
The police are being defunded and probably don't care how many Chanel bags get caught or grabbed.
Office space had the whole hypnosis thing.
I don't know about that. Watch the money heist.
There's an Amazon leak?
I haven't heard about that yet. Hire the Proud Boys to guard your Chanel store?
Now that would be interesting.
Except, you know, any guard would be overwhelmed.
So I think it would be very dangerous to be an armed guard if 50 looters decided to descend on your store.
Because they're not going to leave you alone.
The first thing they're going to do is take out the guard, and it's not going to be nice.
