Episode 1580 Scott Adams: The News Is Full of Wonderful Craziness Today. Come Enjoy it
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Fake News: Trump's COVID timeline
Making decisions with incomplete data
Tulsi Gabbard's solid strategy
Abortion debate and politics
Germany's extreme COVID restrictions
Terrorism charges for being a White male?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to just about the best time you've ever had in your life, and it's just going to get better.
I hate to say this is the highlight of your whole life, but it's the highlight so far.
It could get better. I think it might.
Audio is good. Video is good.
My goodness, what a wonderful start to the day.
Is anybody exercising?
Because exercising to the news is the best thing ever.
In fact, I like to exercise in the afternoon when I'm watching a show called The Five on Fox.
I call it exer-fiving.
That's right. I don't know if there's a clever way to exercise to this, but if you can come up with a clever name like exer-fiving, let me know.
Alright, if you'd like to take it up a level, and I know you do, you're that kind of people, would you settle?
Would you settle for a mildly interesting live stream?
No. No, you're not that kind of people.
You are smarter and sexier than the average person, and you want to have it all.
And if you want to have it all, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice or a stein, 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, unparalleled, unparalleled pleasure.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's famous around the world.
It's going to happen to you right now if you're prepared.
Get ready. Go.
That was good because it was totally the first simultaneous sip I've taken today.
All right. Fake news.
Let's do the fake news first.
Fake news.
Alert. There's some fake news about the order of the timeline of Trump getting COVID. And the fake news is saying that he tested positive and then went and interacted with a bunch of people.
I'm summarizing a detailed, boring story.
Do you think that's true? Did he test positive and then go interact with a bunch of people?
Sort of true. Here's the part that they left out.
The first test that was positive was a low-grade test, so they used a higher-quality test, and he tested negative.
And then he interacted with people.
So is it true that he tested positive and then soon after went and interacted with people?
It's true. It's also true that he immediately tested negative right after he tested positive.
So it's just fake news.
Well, it's fake news in the sense that they left out a really important point that he had tested negative.
Now, I'm not going to defend anything he did or didn't do.
I'll just make that very specific point that the news is fake about this story.
Well, Alec Baldwin interestingly claims that he did not pull the trigger on the set of Rust in the round that killed his cinematographer.
And wounded the director.
Apparently the trigger pulled itself, or the gun just fired itself.
Now, huh.
I'm no public relations expert.
But here's how I would have played that.
The moment Alec Baldwin said, you know, I didn't even pull the trigger, I feel like I would have told the public that little tidbit right away.
Right away. Doesn't that feel important?
I didn't pull the trigger?
Now, who knows if that's true or false?
But it's pretty important to note it.
Why are we just finding that out now?
Really? You don't think there was one other person who already knew that he said he didn't pull the trigger?
There was nobody on the set who was a witness to him saying, my God, I didn't even pull the trigger?
There's something a little bit wrong with this story, isn't there?
Who waits? How long have we waited since the event itself?
How many weeks has it been?
Has it been a month?
A month? So there's something wrong with that story, and I believe it might be yet another sign of a poltergeist invasion.
So, so far, according to CNN, the following things have happened recently.
An SUV drove itself into a crowd of people.
A rock hurled itself and hurt somebody, and now, quite alarmingly, a trigger of a gun has pulled itself.
So that's not the worst of it.
It's possible that a portal to hell has been opened, and poltergeists are running the show right now, but it's even worse than that.
We're actually having crimes now featuring criminals And I know this is weird, but featuring criminals who don't have an ethnicity.
Now that's new.
In the past, people always had an ethnicity.
So I assume this is more of the portal from hell situation where maybe some demons are coming through who have no ethnicity because the reporting is now making sure it doesn't tell us.
So just keep an eye out for the poltergeist.
Had an interesting back and forth with a professional statistician, I believe, Joe Shipman.
And we were talking about making decisions in the face of incomplete data.
And I was calling that guessing.
That if you're making a decision with incomplete data, that you're guessing.
And he pushed back on that and said, no, you know, in the real world...
I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but in the real world...
You never have perfect data, but you can still make pretty good decisions if you do the right kind of analysis.
And I'll give you his argument and then I'm going to counter it.
He said, some of us need to make the best of the information we have using as scientific a process as we can.
Because decisions can't be avoided.
I agree, you have to make a decision sometimes.
Part of the process is identifying one's assumptions and biases to the extent possible.
It's not a perfect process, but it merits recognition.
Okay, so far. And he said it's imprecise to call it guessing, because that's what I did.
I called it guessing. Specifically, the topic was guessing if you made the right decision about the vaccination.
But he's talking more generically here.
Because there is a whole science of decision-making under uncertainty.
Correct. There is a process for decision-making under uncertainty where you take into account multiple possible outcomes.
Correct. Monte Carlo simulation, etc.
One of the good ways to do that is you run all the possibilities and you see if there's any possibility that's bad.
Because it could be that every combination of variables, you end up either positive or very positive, or negative or very negative.
So it would be good to know if no matter what you do, you end up positive or negative.
So, yeah, that's definitely a process.
I've used that process professionally.
And he says, Well, no.
I mean, I don't accept that definition of guessing, but that's not important.
And he says, He says, and then he makes a good case for his own track record of using his own technique.
He said, with COVID, Russiagate, and many other recent controversies, not only have I been shown to be right, I have been right for the right reasons, which is actually a good comment.
If you're right for the right reasons, as opposed to coincidentally right, that does mean something.
And if your arguments hold up, you get credit.
I agree with that.
But here's my counter to it, okay?
Let's take Russiagate.
How hard was it to know that that was bullshit?
I think a lot of people just said, oh, Democrats in the news, they're all liars all the time, so it's not real.
And then it turned out you were right.
How many people did that?
They just said, well, it's coming from people who lie all the time about everything.
So I'll say this is a lie, too.
And then it turned out you were right.
Was it because you did a Monte Carlo simulation with all of the variables?
Nope. Nope.
Sometimes you just need one variable.
But I give you this caution.
There is nothing more dangerous than being right about something big.
If you want to completely destroy a human brain, one way to do it is to be coincidentally right about something big.
Because you know what happens, right?
You get cocky.
And then you're pretty sure you can peer into the complex soup of variables and get the right answer next time.
Because you did it the last time.
You can do it again. You were right on that Russiagate thing, so you're going to be right on this vaccination thing, right?
You've got a track record now.
Now, if it were just one thing, that would be less convincing.
And as Joe Shipman points out, he's been right on a number of things.
And by the way, this is exactly the process I recommend.
You should look at the things that you predicted, Write them down or say them in public so you can be held to it.
And then see how well he did.
Now, Joe says that he's been tracking his own predictions.
And they've been more right than wrong.
That's my interpretation.
And so he thinks that his process is good.
What do you think? Well, he might just be a smart person who knows BS when he sees it.
Could be that. And it's also pretty easy to just guess that people are lying about stuff, because it seems like lately they almost always are.
It's just a pretty easy guess.
Now, take my situation with predicting that Trump would win in 2016.
By my own description, should I now be ruined because I got one right?
Well, it depends if it was a guess.
In my case, I thought I could see something that other people couldn't see, which is he had the most incredible persuasion talent stack I'd ever seen.
And I just happened to have a skill set that allowed me to see that before other people could see it.
Now, I would say that at this point, even the Democrats say he's the most persuasive person in politics.
They just don't like which way he's persuading.
And I think the Republicans would agree he's the most persuasive person that's happened lately.
So that was a case where I could simply see a variable that was invisible to other people, and it was the biggest variable, in my opinion.
It was the biggest one. So that was really a very, very special case.
And I tell myself that so I don't get cocky.
I tell myself that I only got that right because of the weird, weird coincidence that my talent stack was exactly the right stack to see a thing that was invisible to other people.
How often does that happen?
I can't think of another time.
Not really. Well, actually, I can think one other time.
If it turns out I'm right about there's no sonic weapon that's causing this Havana thing, there might be something causing it, but I don't think it's a sonic weapon.
I would say that, too, is exactly in my skill stack.
So I can simply see things that people can't see because of a specific kind of training.
Now, I would say if I get those right, those probably don't break my brain.
Because, as Joe said, I would have gotten them right for the right reasons.
But I will say this.
If you're saying to yourself, I'm looking into a complicated situation where I don't have a special insight, which is most things, right?
Most things you don't have a special insight.
If you're looking at all these variables swimming around and then you say to yourself, all right, I believe this one, not this one, I feel that's closer to guessing.
To me, I'm going to stick with my characterization of that as guessing.
Because I think that unless you have a special insight, like I just described, you don't know which variables you've made correct assumptions about.
So your assumptions will determine your outcome.
It's not really the analysis itself.
All right, so it's easy to imagine that the analysis gave you the answer when really it was just your assumptions, and that was guessing.
So you have guesses in your analysis, and I don't know how anything but a guess could come out the other end.
But I will take where I usually go hard at my critics, or even just people who disagree with me, I'm going to say that Joe Shipman has some really good points here about how there are times that you can do better than, I think, chance. If you've got some special skills on analysis, which he does.
So I would guess he probably does do better than chance.
But if you get one right, by pure luck, you're broken from that point on.
You'll always think that you can do that, and you just can't.
It was luck. And it's especially bad with elections.
Because if you get an election and there are two people in the running...
About half of the country is going to think they guessed right.
And then they'll think they can do it again.
If all they're doing is looking at all the variables again, which is different from my specific case where I had an extra vision on something, which is rare.
Yeah. All right, I'm going to call out Tulsi Gabbard for having a good strategy for becoming president without looking like she's trying.
And it goes like this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, so check my assumptions as I go.
Would you agree that Tulsi Gabbard stands out as someone who is willing to say that the people on the other side of the political aisle do not necessarily suck?
Is anybody else saying that?
Give me the name of one other person who is willing to say, not in direct words, but in lots of different ways, that the people on the other side might not be pieces of shit.
There's nobody else, right?
Manchin. Okay, Manchin.
But I think Manchin is really talking about himself when he does that.
I think Manchin is maybe a little bit talking about himself because he agrees with them.
It's different if you agree with them.
But saying that somebody's not a piece of shit if you completely disagree with them is actually kind of rare.
Now, so far, in our highly, highly divided world, is Tulsi Gabbard getting any traction?
Not much.
Not much.
Because we're not ready for it, are we?
We're kind of committed to the divisiveness at this point because it gives us a dopamine hit.
But... Just like Bernie Sanders turned out to be somewhat brilliant by being consistent for decades, until his time came.
So the world changed until it matched Bernie, or very close, and although he didn't win the presidency, he made a big impact.
So sometimes just hanging around with a strategy that nobody else has, at least at a high level, Suddenly, you know, the situation in the world could change to people saying, you know, I'm just so done with the divisiveness.
Is there anybody who won't give me that?
And she'll be the only one.
There won't be any other choice.
There's no other choice.
Let me tell you how a smart Democrat could become president easily.
Easily. Now, I've told you that I think Republicans will sweep things if they stay the same.
But they won't.
And the Mississippi abortion case that the Supreme Court is looking at, that would, in my opinion, would change the entire calculation.
So if abortion gets banned or cut back in any major way by the Supreme Court, Democrats are going to come out like crazy.
Let me ask you in the comments, and no cheating, Don't do any cheating.
Don't look this up.
This has to be off the top of your head.
No Googling, okay? First, just first thought.
What percentage of Americans want the abortion question to be just a personal decision between them and their doctor?
What percentage of Americans want Want it to be a legal abortion between them and their doctor.
I'm going to read off your numbers.
45, 65, 65, 80, 80, 90, 75, 51, 25, 53.
Over here, you've got 70s, 40s, 25s, 275s.
Look how different your numbers are.
There are people saying 25% and people saying 90%.
You're not in the same world.
It's like you don't live in the same planet.
I could see if the number was 70, but you guessed 80 or 60, you're in the ballpark.
But the real number is 75.
I didn't even know that until this morning.
I thought it was closer to like 60% if I would have guessed.
But 75% of people in a recent poll...
Said that they want to keep it between their doctor and the woman.
Can you trust the polling?
Well, at 75% you can, yes.
Because that means that no matter what, it's well over 50%.
Yeah, at 75%, I would say, yeah, a clear majority wants this.
Now, we don't live in a country where the majority necessarily gets what they want on every single question.
Our system doesn't always give them what they want.
But I would think that if the Supreme Court goes the other way, the Republicans will have found a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
As it stands now, I think a generic Republican could destroy any generic Democrat.
Would you agree? How many would agree with that basic statement?
I mean, I say it as an absolute, but you know I don't mean it that way.
At the moment, there's a gigantic...
Advantage to be a Republican in any upcoming election, I would say.
Right? But the Republicans, at least in Mississippi, found a way to maybe reverse all of that.
Because the abortion thing will get people on the streets if it goes the way it looks like it's going to go.
So I think the Republicans may have given up almost their entire advantage.
If the Supreme Court guts Roe v.
Wade. I don't know that they will.
Good chance of it.
Anyway, getting back to the Tulsi Gabbard strategy.
Let me tell you how a Democrat could become president easily.
I'll just give you the strategy.
I'll tell you the strategy, and they'll say, just easily, they could become president.
It goes like this. All you have to do...
Say you really like the people who disagree with you, the Republicans, the conservatives, and spend some time with them so that it's real.
You're actually laughing with them.
You're spending some time. You're inviting them into the White House if you're there.
Even on your campaign, you're meeting with bunches of people on the other side.
Who's done that? Nobody.
Like, nobody's done that.
And it would be easy. How hard would it be to say that you like citizens of the United States if you're running for president?
The easiest thing in the world.
I've never seen it done.
It would be the easiest thing.
So first, say that you respect them and you genuinely like the other side.
Big deal. Easiest thing in the world.
Nobody's ever done it. Number two...
On every topic, fully explain the other side's view.
Who does that?
Absolutely nobody.
Absolutely nobody.
Nobody's ever done that.
And it's easy.
And it's useful.
And nobody would be opposed to it.
Nobody would be opposed to that.
No, actually, that's an exaggeration, too, because trolls are opposed to everything.
But if you just said, I really like...
Let me just say, imagine you're a Democrat, you're running for president, and I'll just model what I would say.
You know, on this abortion question, it's really divisive.
But I've got to say, the Republican view...
Now, I'm just modelling a Democrat.
This is not my personal view.
There are no personal views in what I'm going to say.
I'm just telling you how you would win.
I say, you know, I really, really respect the Republican view about banning abortion.
Because their instinct is exactly right.
Their instinct is to protect life...
In the extreme. To really make that a top priority.
And you know, I have to admit, from a moral perspective, that is a very, very strong and respectable opinion.
However, we also live in a world where we have to make tough, tough choices.
And sometimes the question is not what the choice is, but who makes it.
Who makes the choice? And freedom is a pretty big deal in this country, and sometimes you're going to be comparing freedom to life itself.
These are the biggest questions that anybody could ever make.
And so, as president, your president, I'll give you this promise that I will be as uninvolved in your personal decisions as I possibly can be, because I think That our system does favor personal freedom, even over life.
We do it when we go to war.
We value freedom over life itself.
It's a consistent thing we've done in this country.
And let me tell you, I fully appreciate the Republican view, and I think it's important.
There should be somebody fighting for life in this country all the time.
Somebody should be fighting for life.
But it would be a very useful, useful conversation...
To be adults and know that sometimes freedom itself is the alternative.
Sometimes life is the most important variable, sometimes freedom.
And as your president, I'm not going to make that decision for you.
I'm going to support the majority of the country, and I'm going to support the Supreme Court when they make that decision.
But you need to decide about freedom versus possibly life itself.
And I will respect both sides of this, but I'm not going to get into it, because I think this is best served at the lowest, most local level.
So, now, I picked the most controversial topic, Because, you know, it's the hardest one, right?
So if I could make that work, then you could see how this would work for everything.
You could take every topic and do the same thing.
You could say, here's your argument.
Here's the other side.
They're both pretty good arguments.
They're both pretty good arguments from people who really care about the country.
But somebody has to make a decision.
Somebody has to make a decision between two...
Absolutely honest, good arguments.
And I'm going to do that for you.
I know that half of you are going to hate me.
But I think you'll appreciate the process.
Sometimes we have to hold the process up, the system, the republic.
The Constitution. Sometimes that has to just be the winner.
And we don't always get our way.
But we've bought into a system in which we agree that sometimes we don't get our way.
We do trust the system.
So I'm going to make sure that the system works for you.
I can't guarantee you're going to get what you want, every one of you.
And don't ask me for that.
That's not practical. Take that answer and compare it to everything that any politician has ever said.
It's easy to be president.
It's easy.
The steps for just walking into the office are just trivial.
I just did it.
I just modeled it. Now, if I wanted to be president and didn't have a background that would make it impossible for me to ever run for public office, I could easily be president.
I just modeled it.
I could walk into the job.
And anybody could. Anybody would just have to use the technique.
It's not about me.
It's about whether you understand how to persuade.
Now, I would say that that's Trump's biggest weakness.
In some ways, he was the perfect candidate for a highly divisive world because, you know, he was sort of a champion for a team and he was good at it.
But I think if he came back for a second term and said, you know, I'm just going to show more respect to the other side.
I'm not going to change any of my opinions.
But I'd like you to know that I respect your opinions.
And just do that.
Is there anything that would keep him out of the office?
Nope. Imagine if Trump had said about kids in cages...
My God, kids in cages is terrible.
It was terrible when Obama did it.
It's terrible when we did it.
Can somebody help me fix this?
I call on the people of the United States...
To help.
If somebody's got an idea how to make this go away, while still keeping our national priorities.
Because we have to keep a national priority, which is a good border.
And then I would say, you're arguing about the wrong thing with the border.
You're arguing whether it should be open or closed.
That's the wrong question.
You should be talking about having a system that you could open it and close it on demand based on some logical or reasonable criterion.
And that's what I'll give you. We'll have a strong border, but how much is open or closed is a completely separate decision.
And I'll tell you how we make it.
I'll show you the whole process.
We'll weigh the risks of crime or maybe COVID at the moment against the economic benefits.
I'll tell you what the economists say.
I'll lay it out for you.
I'll even tell you if it's good for your income.
It might be good for rich people to let in more immigrants because they get cheap labor.
I'll just say that. If you're rich, this is pretty good to let in lots of immigrants.
If you're in the lower income level, it might be bad for you because now you're competing against more people.
So I'm just going to tell you exactly what's good for you and what's bad, and then I'm going to tell you what the decision is, and some of you won't like it.
All right. It would be easy to be president.
And I think Tulsi Gabbard is the closest to what I just described.
Maybe, you know, naturally, by temperament, I would just be guessing on that.
But strategy-wise, she's a real dark horse because she could just sort of wait because she's young.
Just sort of wait.
And maybe in, you know, 15 years...
It's exactly what we need.
We just might be so sick of the two teams that we just say, let's just try something else.
Can we all just try something else?
And she would be the only alternative.
There you go. Germany's putting restrictions on the unvaccinated, so if you're unvaccinated, you can't go places.
And again, I would like to point out that Well, you know, let me back up a little bit.
You've heard a lot of Republicans especially talk about American exceptionalism.
How many of you buy into that?
American exceptionalism.
Like there's something magical or special about America?
Most of you, right? Most of the people watching this do, because a lot of you are leaning right.
Yeah, a lot of you. What does it mean to you?
Can you define it?
Exceptional in what specific way?
If you're just saying we're better, blah, blah, blah, that's bullshit.
But freedom of speech?
Well, other places have some freedom of speech.
Absolutely. What makes us better?
Guns? I don't know.
Rule of law?
But those are systems.
Does that make us exceptional?
Or just the system is exceptional?
I don't know. I never bought into the American exceptionalism.
That seemed a little bit...
I don't know. It seemed going a little bit too far.
Definitely we were successful.
If you said America is one of the most or the most successful country of all time, I don't know.
Could you back that up? Maybe.
I'd be okay with that.
But there's something about the exceptionalism part that bothers me.
Until I saw this story about Germany...
Putting restrictions on the unvaccinated.
That shit isn't going to happen here.
Let me tell you.
I never felt like we were exceptional until I saw this.
Germany? Seriously, Germany?
Now, maybe we are exceptional because of our gun ownership.
It does change things.
Absolutely changes things.
Because one of the things it does is it tells the public that they know they're in charge.
If the public didn't know they were in charge of the country, they would act like they weren't, and then the government would be in charge.
But because of gun ownership, there's a very large population, or percentage of the population, that knows for sure that the citizens run the country.
Do they know that in Germany?
Do the German citizens think they run the country?
Because we do. I sure do.
I think we run the country.
And I think our politicians will do whatever the fuck we tell them to.
Right? Now, the problem is the people themselves haven't decided, right?
When they decide by large enough numbers, then they tell the government what to do, and pretty much the government does it.
The Supreme Court thing with abortion is sort of a weird exception, because it could be one of those things that goes way against the will of the majority.
It's possible. But we do allow that there could be special cases like that.
That's why we have a republic, right?
For exactly that reason.
I've never felt more exceptional than watching Germany lock down the unvaccinated and watching Australia do the same thing.
That's just not going to happen here.
It just isn't. And by the way, if you're leaning left and you're wondering why it's not going to happen here, it's because of the right.
And you should actually be quite happy about that.
You might be against gun ownership for lots of reasons, and they might even sound pretty good.
But you have to appreciate there are some advantages.
And, you know, the people who used to say...
I know the people on the left argue this.
They say, what are your little handguns and even your ARs?
What are they going to do against the entire military of the United States?
To which I say, we're not going to be fighting any militaries...
The military is going to join the people.
Since when is the military going to fight the citizens of the United States?
No. No, they're on our side.
Again, it would depend on the topic, right?
If it's a topic where 80% of the country is on the same side, the military will be on that side too.
Because it's a military of the people.
So no, we're not going to be fighting the military.
The military will be extra guns on our side.
You don't think so? Depends on the topic, right?
You could imagine a topic where it would be the reverse.
But in this lockdown stuff, no, no.
The American military isn't going to make you stay in your house.
Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can.
The American military, any form of it, will never make you stay in your house if you're unvaccinated.
That's not going to happen.
And if they try...
You better be pretty happy that there are a lot of armed Americans.
All right. Here's something to scare the hell out of you.
How many of you own Bitcoin?
Show me in the comments.
Bitcoin owners weigh in.
Probably quite a few of you.
Yeah, I've seen lots of yeses, some nopes.
But mostly the yeses are the ones who answer this question.
Lots of Bitcoin. All right.
Now I will scare you to death.
As you know, anything can be hacked, but the blockchain and Bitcoin, it would be difficult.
Very difficult to hack it, would you agree?
Very, very difficult to hack it.
Unless you had a quantum computer.
Now, the quantum computers have not yet reached the point where they can hack your Bitcoin and simply take it from you, which, by the way, is perfectly legal.
That's right. If somebody can hack your Bitcoin and take it from you, they can do it.
There's no law against it.
I don't know why, but there isn't.
And China is warning a professor, Jintao Ding, of Tsinghua...
That might be close to how you pronounce it.
University explained...
And he said it isn't against the law.
But, of course, he's Chinese, so maybe he's talking about it's not against the law in China.
Is it against the law in America?
Maybe it's against the law somewhere.
All right. I would imagine it's against the law somewhere.
But it doesn't matter if it's not against the law in China.
Well, there goes your money.
Actually, it doesn't matter if it's against the law.
It's going to happen anyway. So here are two things you need to know about that.
One... Maybe.
I'd want to get a second opinion, though.
Why would I want a second opinion on this?
Anybody? Anybody?
Why would I want a second opinion on this?
Because it's coming from China.
Duh. And China doesn't love Bitcoin, do they?
Can you fact check me on that?
China's anti-Bitcoin, am I right?
Yeah, they hate it. So here's a person from a university who is not afraid to say in public that Bitcoin might be a big, big mistake to own it.
Which happens to coincide with exactly the opinion of the government of China.
Because they don't like Bitcoin.
So... Scott, stop being silly.
The blockchain would be forked, the code would be upgraded, and we would move forward on the new chain.
Are you saying that a forked and new chain would then be invulnerable from a quantum computer attack?
Is that what you're saying? Clarify, please.
Now, I do understand the basic concept that the good guys can stay ahead of the bad guys.
Apparently, there's already algorithms that can defend against a quantum attack, or there's already newer encryptions that can do that.
So, I'm not sure I believe this Chinese professor.
Who's with me? How much credibility would you give a Chinese professor who says this in public, and coincidentally, it's good for the Chinese government?
Low. But if I hear it from an American source who's also an expert, I'd be pretty, pretty worried.
Hearing it from a Chinese expert?
50% worried.
Hearing it from an American expert?
Let me tell you, if Naval tells me this is real...
I'm getting rid of all my Bitcoin the same day.
I hate to put the pressure on you, Naval, but...
I can't imagine there's anything he would hate to hear more than that.
Because it would sound like giving investment advice.
So I apologize, Naval, to use your name in vain there.
But honestly, if Naval told me that quantum computers are going to hack my Bitcoin, I would cash that shit out so fast.
Anyway, somebody mentioned that Pete Buttigieg looks like the Grinch when he smiles.
The Grinch has that smile.
I can't do an impression of it.
And then somebody else mentioned that Kamala Harris reminds him of a hyena, which I get.
And I'm just going to add, I've said this before, but it's funny every time.
Once you see somebody's animal, like Mitch McConnell looks like a turtle, The first time you see it, that's it.
That's all you'll ever see.
Once you see their animal, you're going to see their animal every time.
All right, my critics have been so beaten down by me lately that they're starting to criticize me for imaginary future offenses.
Seriously. The most frequent criticism I'm getting lately is that in the future, I'm going to do something bad.
In the future, I'm going to lie about something.
In the future, I'm going to have to do something to cover up something.
To which I say, have we totally run out of problems in the present?
You've completely given up on things I'm actually doing and have done?
And really? All you have left is things that you literally imagine I'll do in the future?
That's not even a thought crime.
That's a future thought crime.
Talk about giving up.
Let me ask you something for those of you who follow me on Twitter, which is a lot of you watching this.
How many times have you seen me in a back and forth with one of my...
Critics. And then the last thing they say is word salad.
How many of you have seen me do that repeatedly?
I was doing it again this morning, producing some word salad.
Now, you see in the comments, if those of you who haven't seen it, I can tell you on the locals' platform, it's just a string of yeses.
People have seen it. On probably YouTube, there are fewer people who follow me on Twitter.
Yeah, so people see it every day.
And the reason I point it out is that that's a tell for cognitive dissonance.
So when I trigger people into cognitive dissonance, which is essentially just showing them that what they believed to be true was completely wrong, the word salad response is just the tell.
That's how you know that they're in it.
And the reason I bring it up is that the more often you see it, the easier it is to spot.
It's a pattern recognition thing.
You just have to train yourself.
And once you see your critic devolve into word salad, and usually the word salad is even not exactly the same topic.
It's like a related cousin point that they're trying to sell as their original point sort of thing.
Yeah. Get good at recognizing word salad because it's a good tell for cognitive dissonance.
And at that point, you know, there's no point in arguing.
All right, I saw a new standard for mental health today.
Do you ever wonder if you have good mental health?
Because what if you were crazy and you were the only one who didn't know it, right?
Because that's the problem with being crazy.
Other people can see it, but maybe you don't know it.
Well, here's a new standard from Twitter user OhTheFreemanity.
He tweeted this. He said, Rachel Maddow just did a master class on the ethos of the Republican Party.
In advance of tomorrow's SCOTUS oral arguments on abortion law in Mississippi, she just broke down their entire raison d'etre, that's my French pronunciation there, in like 10 minutes.
And then he gives us his standard.
He says, I appreciate that she helps remind me I'm not crazy.
So his standard is that he, if his opinion matches up with...
A woman who's a known liar, that he must be sane.
So if his opinions agree with a known liar, he's still good.
So you might want to adopt that standard.
If you know somebody who's pretty well documented to be full of shit, if your opinions agree with that person who's a known liar and full of shit, then you're good.
Your mental health?
Perfect. Well, Simone Sanders, senior advisor and chief spokesperson for Vice President Harris, she's resigning.
Cat? Roof?
Huh. Well, why did that take her so long?
Because if you are the senior advisor to Kamala Harris, you're not looking good.
I don't think your resume is benefited by being the advisor to the worst advised person on the planet Earth.
Name one person that you would say...
Now, we're not there, so we don't know exactly who's saying what to whom.
But can you think of any candidate who would have worse advice, as far as you can tell...
Than Kamala Harris.
I literally would call her out as the worst advised politician of all time.
Dan Quayle, maybe.
But in recent times.
All right. Well, I think that's telling us that something's going to happen there with Kamala Harris.
And it's probably not good for Kamala Harris.
Well, this school shooter, I won't say his name or even the school, but he's being charged with terrorism as well as the normal murderous type charges.
And I said to myself, terrorism.
What would justify a terrorism?
Now, the claim is that he terrorized the students who were not shot, that everybody will have PTSD and they will be damaged for life.
And I think that's true.
They will have PTSD, they will be damaged for life, even if they were not shot, just by being there.
But I looked at the law for what terrorism is in the state.
Their state. And here's the part of the law that they're trying to apply.
See if you think this fits this school shooter who apparently had no political motives that we know of because apparently he talked about his intentions.
So as far as we know, no political motives of the shooter.
Let's see if you think this applies.
Quote, an act that is intended to intimidate or coerce A civilian population or influence or affect the conduct of government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion.
So part of this is about intimidating the government, and there's no evidence of that that we're aware of.
So that probably doesn't apply.
But the first part is an act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.
While we don't see them trying to coerce anybody, So we'd have to back up all the way to intimidate.
So as an act that is intended to intimidate a civilian population, is there any evidence that that was his intention?
I'm not aware of any.
So can we just say that he's being charged with terrorism because he's a white and male?
Is that fair? Do you think he'd be charged with terrorism if he were black?
No. No, he would not.
No, he would not.
But I think it's also fair to say most of these mass shooters are white.
Most of them. Not all of them.
Not all of them. But haven't been a ton of black mass shooters, have they, relatively speaking?
Now, if it were by population, you know, it would be 13% of them.
So you wouldn't expect a lot.
Well, I think we should just call this racism, because it is, in my opinion.
In my opinion, the only reason for this terrorism charge is that he's a white male.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Given that there's nothing about the terrorism law that seems to apply to any information we've heard anyway.
Calls for speculation.
and What about gang shootings?
Yeah, okay, that's a mass shooting, you're right.
Yeah, yeah, if you count gang shootings, good point.
But those tend to be a little more spontaneous.
No, actually they're not. I guess a lot of them are planned as well.
They're just being race conscious, not racist.
All right. Greg Kelly on Twitter tweeted this.
He complimented me first, and he said, is the normally brilliant Scott Adams still enthralled with Secretary Pete, meaning Buttigieg, the lazy media whore fake veteran who's shelling out, blah, blah, blah, and then he says some bad things about Secretary Pete Buttigieg.
Now, would you say that I'm enthralled with Pete Buttigieg?
Does anybody think that's a good characterization?
Nope. No.
I've simply said that his talent stack for evaluating infrastructure decisions is exactly the right one.
I don't say that he'll use those talents correctly.
I don't say that he won't politicize it.
I don't say that he won't make any other mistake.
How would I know? But his talent stack is exactly on point for that very specific thing, because he was a consultant for years, and that's what they did, make that kind of priority decision-making stuff.
So here's my response.
I'm not exactly enthralled.
I think enthralled would be the wrong...
So, not enthralled.
But that's an example of binary thinking.
So the binaries, that I call them now, the binaries, can only see that there's a left opinion and a right opinion.
And any other opinion is invisible.
It's actually invisible.
You know, I said something before that I know none of you exactly understood, unless you're actually a hypnotist yourself.
That a hypnotist can do something that's invisible to you.
It's because your framework or your mental framework doesn't include it.
So if you just do things that are outside of people's mental framework, it's actually just invisible.
They think it's something else.
So the binary is that I'm either all left or all right, and I vigorously try to make sure that that's not the case.
And you seem to really like him during the primaries.
Yeah, I did.
That is true. But enthralled?
Am I hypnotized?
I can't see any negative things?
I've certainly also criticized him.
I'm pretty much not enthralled by anybody.
People have pluses and minuses.
Somebody says, I was raised by hypnotists.
My skills are untamed.
I've known people who were raised by hypnotists.
And they do pick up the skill.
Scott, you do understand if they crack Bitcoin, your real money in your bank is also in trouble.
Well, Probably so. Pete must thank God for Kamala Harris's existence every day.
All right. We see your false paradigms in Stroman arguments.
We just let you slide to avoid the ban hammer.
Really? Well, I'll ban that guy.
I'll hide you. You are hidden.
Anybody who watches me who doesn't know that I'm going to ban you for generic criticism?
Generic criticism will get you banned every time.
Specific criticism?
All good. All good.
You have a real point? I'd like to hear it.
Alright. Fiji has reopened its borders, really.
I've been to Fiji.
It's pretty awesome. And the Fed, yeah.
Tulsi is a...
She's a gun grabber, somebody says.
Is Tulsi anti-gun?
I don't think she's a...
My guess, without looking into it, is that she's in favor of some restrictions, but...
Yeah, she's ex-military.
I can't believe she's anti-gun.
Scott doesn't understand the bird which is the bald eagle Tulsi fixed her second amendment AR15 statement I would imagine she did.
All right.
Oh, somebody's predicting that Kamala Harris will be bought off.
What is the word?
What is a German supposed to do now?
The public is completely brainwashed.
Well, good luck, Germany.
A lot of people believe that we're in the beginning of some kind of a permanent state, and I completely disagree.
There may be some things that linger and become permanent, but we're not going to be in COVID lockdown forever.
Alright. Has anybody heard about the COVID pill?
Did that get approved by the FDA? I haven't heard.
What is my animal?
You tell me. Oh, a question on the abortion question.
Again, I'm not going to give you my opinion on it because I just don't think it's useful to hear my opinion on abortion.
My opinion is that women should take care of it collectively and individually.
But... So 15 weeks.
How many people would not know they're pregnant by 15 weeks?
In the comments? This is a serious question.
How common would it be to not know you're pregnant in 15 weeks?
Because I'm wondering how unreasonable it is To ask somebody to make a decision within 15 weeks.
Really, maybe within a month, because then that's the time you're sure.
You saw your daughter kick at 13 weeks?
You've seen a few people who didn't know until they went into labor.
But those people are missing periods at the very least, right?
You know, somebody's going to have to inform me better about female biology, but how often do you not know you're pregnant?
Because you're missing your period more than once in a row, right?
You wouldn't test? Would you not test for the women here?
Question for the women.
If you missed your period, would you test yourself for pregnancy?
And if you missed it twice in a row, would you test yourself for pregnancy?
You would, right? So I'm wondering how unreasonable it is to have a 15-week ban.
Is that unreasonable?
I'm not even sure who suffers by that.
Yeah. And the other thing I question is...
What is the age that a baby can survive now?
What's the youngest surviving baby?
Let's say that one was delivered...
Somebody says 22 weeks is the youngest surviving baby.
Somebody said 19, 20, 20 weeks.
Somewhere in that range, about 20 weeks.
So if the abortion limit were set below the level that any baby has ever survived, at least there's some sense to the thing.
So again, I'm not going to give you my opinion.
So let me ask you this question.
Roe v. Wade went into effect when technology was different.
Agreed? Agreed. When Roe vs Wade became law, could you get a home pregnancy test kit, like a little test strip?
They didn't exist, right?
Then? I don't think.
So we did not have the technology to know for sure, but we also didn't have the technology that would keep a smaller baby alive for longer.
So... In general, should we review our decisions when fundamental things change, such as our ability to know and our ability to keep a baby alive?
I mean, it could change in either direction, right?
But is it reasonable to review your decisions when the context changes?
I think it is.
I think it's reasonable to review the decision.
It doesn't mean you change it, but totally reasonable to review it as the context has changed.
So I'm in favor of the process so far.
I'm quite interested to see what the Supreme Court comes up with.
Certainly not my...
What about aborting the baby after it's born?
Yeah. I think that's fake news, by the way.
I know all of you believe that that happened, that babies are aborted after they're born.
I'm still on the side that says that that was always fake news.
In terms of a law, it was fake news.
A lot of you think it's true.
Trust me, I understand that a lot of you think it was true.
You're not going to convince me.
And I'm not saying it didn't happen in one case.
I'm not talking about an individual case.
I'm talking about the law.
There's no law that says a baby born live can be aborted after it's been born.
So I think that that was a little bit of truth fixed, you know, that got conflated with a little bit of not-truth.
