Episode 1604 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About All the Dumb People and Have Some Laughs
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
COVID deaths aren't being reported?
Edward Snowden on Julian Assange
Assange will go free at end of process
Hunting influential people on the right
How to know you won an internet debate
Kim Potter verdict...racism against White people
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 the best thing that's ever happened.
Better than Christmas?
Yeah. Yeah.
And Christmas was pretty good for a lot of you.
Not for everybody.
That's funnier to the people who saw me a minute ago on Locals.
I always give the locals people a little extra time.
So they always have a little more backstory than you do on YouTube.
But anyway, if you'd like to take your peak experience up to a new level, and I think you do.
Yeah, I think you do. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or 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.
I'm trying to ignore a meme that's playing on the locals' platform because they can plug memes into their comments.
I'm trying not to see that Santa Claus.
But it is funny.
Anyway, 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 it happens now.
Go! Jack, you finally made it for the live sip.
It's about damn time.
Everybody say hi to Jack Posobiec over on YouTube.
Jack, you saved me yesterday.
I was in the middle of a pitched troll battle.
And Jack sent me some information that helped me in my struggle.
So we'll talk about that in a minute.
So you're all following, I know, the story of the dad who said, let's go Brandon.
On the phone call to Biden, right?
Everybody knows that story. I don't have to give any more background on it.
And now the man who said it, Jared Schmeck, which is just the best name.
If there had to be somebody in this story, you know, who's basically just an ordinary guy.
So it's a story about an ordinary guy doing something that made national attention.
And if you're going to do a story about an ordinary guy, his name should be Jared Schmeck.
That's the most ordinary guy name I've ever heard.
Anyway, he said that although he believes Biden could be doing a better job, he did not intend any disrespect.
He did not intend any disrespect.
Have we reached a point where it doesn't matter what you see with your own eyes, people could just say anything.
No, I'm not sitting here talking to you right now.
I know it seems like it, but I'm not.
I know, I know.
You hear me, you see me.
It's a live stream.
You would naturally think that I'm here talking to you.
But no, I'm actually elsewhere.
You can literally say anything now.
There is no limitation to what you can say in public with a straight face.
I'm actually a lizard man from the planet.
Sure. Can't prove it isn't true.
So yes, he actually said, F you, Joe Biden, in the clever, let's go Brandon way, on a phone call that was publicized, and I didn't intend any disrespect.
There was no disrespect intended there at all.
Well, as other people have noted, this is the least important story in the world, but there's not much else going on.
So we might as well talk about this.
I don't think there's any importance to this story whatsoever.
It was a prank.
To me, it would be boring if other people did it in the future.
The fact that one guy did it once in this rather clever way, that's a good story.
It doesn't mean anything, you know, and it was disrespectful, but, you know, in a funny way it was disrespectful, but it was disrespectful.
Anyway, there's nothing to say about it.
So there's, you've heard about these 3D printed homes where they bring in a Big 3D printer that's got a big arm.
The arm will go around and print you up a home.
Apparently you can make a home in 12 hours compared to months for construction.
And now there's a 1200 square foot home that was just built.
Two full baths.
And it was built from concrete with a 3D printer.
And it's a habitat for humanity.
I think it's the first one that they've done with 3D printing.
Now, I guess they 3D print it, but then they have to run in and add a few things.
But I'm not so sure that this is a story about 3D printing.
Because the 3D printing is really a simplifier, right?
What it does is simplify.
But what happens when you want to change a wall?
How do you do that when it's concrete?
Can you do that? Chuck Haney over on YouTube is yelling at me in caps.
There's a lot to say about that phone call!
That's how you pronounce caps.
Either they keep Biden in the dark or his memory is really bad.
Stop shilling, Scott!
Stop shilling! So now there's somebody on YouTube who thinks I'm shilling for Biden.
Really?
Does anybody else think that?
And Chuck says, in all caps, You saw it, didn't you?
Is it news that President Biden sometimes says confusing things in public?
Is that what I missed?
Brand new? It's like first time we've been exposed to this concept that the president sometimes will be confused in public.
Is that why you're shouting at me, Chuck, in all caps?
Mike Cervich. Wake up, bro.
All right.
Yes, we all know, I think everybody knows that Biden is a bit degraded.
I'm not sure that that's a real story.
Anyway, these 3D printed houses, here's what houses should be.
Are you ready for this? All of your parts should be one square foot or something that is divisible evenly into one foot components.
Why? Because if you could build a house without having to cut anything, you could probably build it in 12 hours.
Don't you think you could build a house in 12 hours if you didn't have to cut anything?
You just snapped it together?
The reason that modern homes are so expensive is that everything's made, like, even when they're building a bunch of models, each model still requires a lot of cutting for no particular reason.
I don't know, to make work for carpenters or something.
If you just shipped the components the size that they ought to be, you know, one square foot, you want to build a wall, put up one square foot tiles until you've got a wall that's exactly 9 or 10 feet tall.
So you shouldn't ever have to cut anything.
And you also shouldn't have to worry about your building codes If you build to a kit specification.
So I think the real story here is that if you make homes that can be built quickly, then you will build them quickly.
If you make them so that they can't be built quickly, meaning you have to cut every piece of wood, and you've got to...
Also, anything that requires you to add a liquid, such as a concrete, you're already harder than it needs to be.
Anyway... So I think homes will be customized and turned into kits that people can make their own home in 12 hours without a 3D printer.
It'll be much more flexible because then you can unassemble it and move a wall if you need to because it's just a kit.
Someday. Do this.
Here's an experiment. Click on the first story about COVID you see.
Just do a search engine.
Doesn't matter which search engine.
And search for COVID. And then look at the stories that come up on the front page.
And then read them and see if they mention death rates.
They don't. The stories about COVID completely ignore death rates now.
They might mention them like they're going up or down, but they don't report it anymore.
What was the current death rate per day of COVID deaths in the United States yesterday?
It used to be on the...
You're right on CNN's page there all the time, right?
Yeah.
So here's the related story of...
Apparently South Africa has dropped quarantine for people who have tested positive.
I need to say that again because that's such a big statement that you're going to think you misheard it.
South Africa, which has already gone through its Omicron wave, South Africa just officially dropped quarantines for people who even test positive.
You can go to work tested positive in South Africa.
It's over.
It's over.
In South Africa. And, you know, we're probably three weeks away from being at a place where we can make that decision.
What would three weeks put us?
Pretty close to February 1st.
February 1st is actually...
I don't know if you realize that that's a well-chosen date, as in Feb 1 the public is done, done with the limitations and the quarantines and stuff.
And I feel like that date is well-chosen, don't you?
And I feel like we could be helpful, we the public.
I believe that we could be helpful in helping our government just focus on a time specific.
Because if you don't focus on a time specific, you just don't ever do anything.
The most well-known management concept is if you don't have a specific direction that everybody knows, you're not going to go there.
Everybody has to know where you're going or you don't get there.
So if we're not picking a date and trying to manage to it, now it's okay if you change the date, if you have reasons.
Then you just change to a new date, but then you're always managing to a date.
The government's a terrible tool for this stuff because if they get embarrassed once, they can't do it that way again.
So if the government ever picks a date for anything, like two weeks to slow the spread, and they become embarrassed by it, They can't do it again.
But a corporation is just going to do what made sense.
They're not going to worry that it was embarrassing last time.
It either makes sense or it doesn't.
So in a corporation, it would get done.
All right.
So sort of a weird low news day here today, so we'll talk about a few things.
So South Africa is not doing quarantines, not doing contact tracing.
And they're not even doing COVID tests for asymptomatic people.
In other words, if you don't have obvious symptoms, you don't even get a test.
So they're not preemptively testing people just in case.
It's over. Now, for those of you who believe that we're entering some kind of a permanent, I don't know what, authoritarian control situation, I've always predicted that when it was over, it would be over.
It just isn't over yet.
In South Africa, it looks like it's over.
And I think they're three weeks ahead of us.
I think we're in really good shape.
Really good shape. What about Australia, you say?
Well, Australia will have to deal with the same Omicron situation.
If Omicron sweeps through Australia, they're going to be just like South Africa, I would think.
So everybody who thought that these things were permanent, I've always thought that was...
Just a fear-based opinion.
I don't think there's any history of anything that would suggest this stuff would be permanent.
Now, there may be permanent elements of policy, I suppose, but you're not going to be wearing a mask forever, or you're not going to be quarantining because you have a virus.
So all that stuff's going to go away.
We just don't know the exact date yet.
So Edward Snowden tweeted that this Christmas may well be the last that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange...
We'll spend outside the pit of an American dungeon.
How many of you agree with that?
So now that Assange is being...
What's the legal word?
Whatever he is. He's being brought to America to face charges.
Do you think this is the beginning of the end of Assange?
Extradition. Is it rendition or extradition?
Extradition is the word I was looking for.
Yeah, so it was extradited. I don't know if this is the genetic optimist in me.
There's something about this story that we don't know.
Well, first of all, would you agree with that?
Would you agree with the statement there's something big about the Julian Assange story that the public doesn't know?
Right? There's some other variable here that's making this hard to understand from the outside.
We might find that out when he gets on American soil.
In other words, it might change incentives and focus and how people are thinking about it.
So we might learn about it.
But I'm going to give you a surprising prediction.
I think Assange is going to go free.
And I can't give you a reason for it.
And I'm aware of that.
There's something in my intuition that is just kicking me in the brain that says this is the beginning of a process in which he ends up free.
I'll try to explain maybe why I'm thinking it, but this sounds like a rationalization even when it comes out of my mind.
It may be just that I'm an optimist and So I tend to lean in that direction.
But I feel as if when Assange gets to America, what's the best way to say it?
When Assange was in another country, it felt like that other country's responsibility.
Right? Because he was literally in the embrace of a foreign country.
So that didn't feel like my problem so much, even though it is all of our problems.
It didn't feel like it.
But when you bring Assange onto American soil, suddenly all of my instincts about what it is to be American just gets triggered in a way that him being in another country didn't.
Because he's from another country, and he was in yet another country.
It just felt like somebody else's problem.
But you bring it into my house, which is what's happening, right?
Assange is being brought into your house now.
And in my house, the rules are different.
Do you feel it?
If he's in somebody else's house, then maybe somebody else has some responsibilities and some rights, etc.
But you bring him into my house...
You're bringing them into my house now, at your house, if you're American.
If you're bringing them into my house, my rules apply.
Right? Or at least I'm going to try to make them apply.
And my rules say, I'm not so sure this guy needs to be in jail.
Those are my rules.
And I feel like Americans are going to get activated.
Right? In a way that they weren't when it was a foreigner in some other country's prison.
There's going to be some activation going on here.
There's also going to be a lot of attention that wasn't the case before.
So this could go from a B story, because it was in another country, to an A story very quickly.
Now, how much do you want to see a trial?
Do you want to see a trial?
You do, don't you? What would happen if they closed the trial to the public?
Is that going to happen?
Feels like you could, because you've got all this secret stuff going on.
I feel like the American public is maybe less willing to listen to corrupt officials than at any time in our history.
America is kind of fed up.
With being told what we must do that is against our, let's say, our sense of freedom and our sense of who we are.
Right? One of the things about living in America is it makes you American.
It sort of turns you into a creature.
Same for other countries, I'm sure.
But part of the American experience is it brainwashes us.
Or persuades us or puts us in a frame of mind.
And we're in a frame of mind right now.
America is definitely in a frame of mind.
And that frame of mind is we don't trust our politicians, we don't trust our experts, we don't trust our intelligence agencies, but we do trust each other a little bit.
More than we trust the people in charge.
And Assange is a special case.
Because you could certainly make the argument that what he was doing was for the benefit of the American public.
With or without some crime involved, that's the question for the courts.
But was he acting in what was clearly in the best interest of the American public?
Certainly not in the best interest of the intelligence agencies, who presumably are behind a tough stance on him.
But... You put this guy on trial in America, and he tells his story about what he did for the American people and for the people of the world, and my intuition says he doesn't go to jail at the end of the process.
How do you feel? Am I being irrational?
Because I feel irrational.
It doesn't feel like it's any kind of a logical opinion.
It just feels like you get him in the American embrace, and our rules start to apply.
And that's going to change everything.
Might not change the final outcome, but it's going to change everything about how we feel about it, I think.
So let me say that again.
Once Julian Assange is in our house, our rules apply.
And remember, your government doesn't own you.
This is America, for those of you who are American.
I know there are a lot of people watching from other countries.
But Americans, we run this country.
And if we decide that the legal system is not doing what we want it to do with Julian Assange, I feel like the people will have to have an opinion on this.
And the system doesn't want to go against the people too far or too long.
It can't handle that.
All right, so we'll keep an eye on that.
I see a lot of people say that belief in science is like a religion.
How many of you would agree with that?
That faith in science is basically like a religion?
I'm hearing this opinion.
See some yeses, some not-at-alls?
Yeah, I would say it's the opposite, if you do it right.
If you do it wrong, it's exactly like a religion.
Here's how to do it wrong.
Dr. Fauci told me it's true.
Is that doing it right?
No, that's doing it wrong.
That would be like a religion.
That would be Fauci is Jesus kind of thing.
So if you're doing it wrong, yeah, it's exactly like a religion.
If you're doing it right, the only thing you would ever trust is what?
What's the only thing you would trust if you were doing it right?
Right? The third randomized controlled trial on the same topic.
Maybe not even the first one.
Second one, well, you're a little bit reasonably feeling certain.
But by the third one, you can get some confidence that maybe the system itself has taken the bias out.
But certainly, if you're not waiting for the randomized controlled trial, and you're making a positive decision based on something less than that, You might be closer to a religion than you want to be.
All right. I saw a good framing here from Dr.
Interracial, who is a real good follow on Twitter.
Just Google Dr.
as in DR, period, interracial, and you'll get a lot of good political commentary from that account.
So Dr. Interracial, it's a couple, I believe, an interracial couple.
Said about me, you all know that Politico did a little minor hit piece on me as part of the worst predictions of 2021.
So they had me on the list of worst predictions, but of course they misinterpret the prediction to make it look bad.
Now, Dr.
Interracial notes this in the tweet.
Politico and leftist media is trying to QAnon Scott Adams.
Because they know he's right about Republicans being hunted and need to make Scott look like a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Scott is now being hunted.
So do you remember I told you that as we approached the election cycle, 2022 and 2024, you could guarantee that I will be targeted by the media...
And the reason that they would need to target me is so that from now on, everybody can look at that article and say, oh, oh, your new opinion is useless because you once said, and then they'll fill it in with something I never said.
But Politico reported I said it.
So they'll say, well, Politico said you said it.
It's right there. But of course it was misinterpreted, like most stories.
So... Watch this develop.
This won't be the end of it.
Because there's a weird thing happening on the Republican side.
If you were to make a list of all the sort of unprofessional pundit social media voices in 2016 for Trump, how many of the voices for Trump in 2016 still exist, have not been cancelled, or have not become more anti-Trump?
The number of people has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk, right?
Now, I'm not all in on Trump for 2024.
He's got to make his case just like everybody else, right?
I would not automatically say, oh, if Trump comes back, I'm on the Trump train and everything he does is good.
Nothing like that. I live in a country where it's a competitive process.
And so I'm going to wait for the competitive process to play out a little bit.
And I'll tell you directly, if DeSantis runs in the primaries, it would be really hard not to pick him over Trump, because you get a lot of the goodness, what the hell...
Oh, I got a Russian comment.
I thought it was dollars, but it's rubles.
So somebody gave me 4,690 rubles.
At first I thought it was dollar denominations.
I was like, what the hell?
But I'll read your comments, since you gave me that many rubles.
Thanks for the Amazing Loser to Think book from Russia.
Your perception of Russia's interests are good, but our government and our people often look differently on the U.S. Best wishes in your new projects?
Blah, blah. Simulation is winking.
So from Russia, interesting.
He says, my perceptions of Russia's interests are good, meaning that Russia and the United States, I think this is what he means, that Russia and the United States need to be allies in the long run.
It's just inevitable.
Russia and the United States will be allies.
It's just going to happen.
And you can put it off as long as you want, but it's just going to happen.
At least military allies.
Anyway, so I think Dr.
Interracial is right.
I will be targeted to decrease the number of voices that could make a difference.
Let me ask you this.
Forget who the Republican is.
A Republican runs for office.
It could be Trump, could be DeSantis, could be Tom Cotton, whoever it is.
Who are the influential...
The key word is influential.
Who are the influential public voices on social media for the next Republican?
Name names. Somebody says Mike Cernovich.
But is he going to support Trump?
At the moment, he says no.
Glenn Beck. You know, Glenn Beck seems to stay within a universe.
I don't see much Glenn Beck content if you're not, you know, watching his content.
Tucker. Jack Posobiec.
Dave Rubin.
Yeah, Dave...
Dave Rubin, he's a special case, because he talks...
I mean, that's his job, is to be in the middle of all that stuff.
Larry Elder...
Tim Poole's technically independent, right?
Dan Bongino. Yeah, so there are still people on the media.
So I'm not talking about people who have a show, right?
So it's not so much about somebody who has, I mean, a network show.
I'm talking about people who might have a live stream or are on social media.
And then, all right, so who is the most influential person on the right right now?
It's got to be Tucker, right?
Tucker Carlson. Some people are saying Joe Rogan, but I think that's unfair for us to classify him as being on the right.
Wouldn't you say? Because he's got some opinions that don't map to the parties that well, but does that mean you can call him on the right?
I don't think so.
I think he's just following what makes sense, and some people think that puts him on the right.
Candace Owens? Yes.
Yeah. But, you know, Candace also has a show.
So, I guess I have a show.
So, I guess I'm in the same category.
But I see the people who are only doing their own thing.
They're not part of any entity.
So, I'm not part of a larger entity.
Anybody who's part of a larger entity is going to be influenced by their boss, right?
Everybody's getting a paycheck or at least is getting access to something.
But I don't get a paycheck from a person.
The only money I would make is from having a big audience.
The Babylon Bee, yeah.
Goffeld, yes.
Yeah, I mean, it's easy to pick out the Fox News stars and, you know, the Blaze stars and say that they'll be the most effective.
But you notice who's missing, right?
Thank you so much.
I wish I could pronounce your name.
I'm getting some more rubles from Russia there.
Thank you. Yeah, so Alex Jones is sort of, you know, Ben Shapiro, yeah.
He's a special case too, because his platform is at least partly or largely owned by him.
Yeah, Rush Limbaugh's off it.
So there's an interesting situation.
Everybody's trying to neutralize the effective voices on the other side to sort of prime the field for the actual contest.
And you should expect there will be more fake news about me.
So watch for the additional fake news about me.
It's coming. And so specifically the fake news about me is this...
A tweet by Bernie Belvedere.
He says that I did this, which, of course, I did not.
But it's in a tweet.
So now lots of people with blue checks liked it.
So all those blue check people think I actually said this.
So Bernie says that I prophesied that Biden would pursue the mass extermination of Republicans.
Now, do you think that I ever prophesied that Biden would pursue the mass extermination of Republicans?
Nobody ever said that.
The way that you can know that that never happened is just by reading it.
Karina's saying, how do you manage that?
Well, the way I manage it is I try to put as much counterfactual stuff into the tweets and comments as I can.
But that's all you can do.
The truth is that the very next time I say something smart in public, the left will say, oh, why should we believe you?
Because you thought there would be a mass extermination of Republicans.
Which, of course, I never said.
Because that would be dumb.
But I did say that Republicans would be hunted.
And I did a poll, and 80% of the people who answered the poll, very unscientific poll, 80% of them said that Republicans are indeed being hunted.
So... Am I right?
Was I right that Republicans are being hunted?
80% of people who answered the poll said yes.
So they see it too.
And yet, I was on a list of worst predictions...
Do you think it would be fair to do a list of best predictions and put me on that list?
Because when I said that you would be hunted, or Republicans would be, I think that's one of the best predictions that was made.
So why can't I be on somebody's list of best predictions for the year?
Somebody's going to make a best predictions list, and you better put me on it.
If you do that. Alright.
And then a lot of people thought that good chance means a high chance, which it doesn't.
So a lot of people didn't know what words mean, but they got pretty mad.
Alright. Here is my newest list, which I will make available to you as I build it.
It's still a work in progress.
And it's called, How to Know You Won an Internet Debate.
So it's a list of items, numbered items, so that when you're in an internet debate and if anybody triggers one of these items, you can just say, aha, that's number four, I claim victory.
And then you're done. So here are the things which if you see your troll who's arguing with you on the other side, if they do any of these things, just say, ah, that's number two, I win.
All right, so the title is How to Know You Won an Internet Debate.
Number one, the, quote, so you're saying.
All right, these are all ones I got yesterday.
So every one of these literally happened to me yesterday.
Somebody saying, so you're saying, and then they fill it in with something you didn't say and nobody would say.
It would be ridiculous. So if you see that, you just say, well, there's number one, the so you're saying tell.
Number two, escaping to an irrelevant analogy.
Analogies can have a limited use, explaining a new concept.
But the way people use them on the Internet...
If they can't defend their point, they will make up an imaginary point, which they call an analogy, and they'll try to get you to argue the imaginary one that's different.
And the reason they do that is that the actual situation can't be defended.
So they have to come up with an imaginary situation that they'll call an analogy and say, well, defend this analogy.
But it'll always be different.
It won't relate to the original thing.
So if they escape to an irrelevant analogy, that's number two.
Number three, changing the argument to something else.
You could call that moving, the goalposts.
But you'll see the people say, well, what I really meant was...
And then you can just leave.
Because that's a whole new argument.
The other one is acting as if a tiny minority defines the majority.
So that would be, on the right, it would be people saying that the left are all Antifa or the left are all AOC, which, of course, they're not.
But the other way would be imagining that everybody who protested at the Capitol on January 6th was a criminal.
It might be technically criminals because they were unaware that they were trespassing, if you've read the background.
A lot of people didn't know that there was even a perimeter that had been set.
They didn't know they were even trespassing.
They thought they were protesting. But anyway, if you act as if the tiny minority defines the majority, Just say, oh, okay, we're done.
I didn't realize you were doing a number four.
Number five, telling me what I think.
The mind-reading thing. But you think, anybody who tells me what I think and is wrong, that's the end of the conversation.
How about the one-variable thinking where they talk about the costs of something but not the benefits or not the trade-off?
If somebody can't mention both the costs and the benefits...
That's a one-variable thinking, number six.
Number seven, if they turn it into a personal insult, it's like, oh, cartoon boy says, whatever.
Just say, ah, there you go.
There's number eight, I'm out.
And number nine, word thinking.
If they try to make the debate about the definition of a word, there's nothing to talk about there.
So just get out.
John says, you're being antisemitic.
Oh, as one of the tells?
Maybe so. So now whenever somebody is doing one of these things, I'm just going to be pasting this into my response.
A similar thing would be if somebody says, here's another tell for cognitive dissonance.
People who say the vaccination doesn't work.
That's cognitive dissonance.
Anybody want to fight with me?
Anybody who says the vaccinations don't work with no explainer to that, just the vaccinations don't work.
That is cognitive dissonance.
Yeah, they don't last, they don't give you immunity, that's true.
But it's not true they don't work.
I mean, if you want to change the definition of work to something specific, you can.
But... In the normal world where we talk about things, if it makes a difference, it works.
And 100% of all data says it makes a difference.
We don't know if long-term you'll grow a second head, but we can say that it's doing what it was meant to do, which is keep you from dying.
I mean, that's the primary thing it was meant to do.
The ultimate thing it's meant to do is keep you from dying.
It would be great if it kept you from getting infected, too.
But it doesn't, so we have to just deal with that.
Tom says, in all caps, it's not a vaccine.
That is cognitive dissonance.
Is there anybody else who wants to shout at me that I'm using the word wrong?
Because if I'm using the word wrong, that would be number nine.
Word thinking. Replacing debate with definition.
If we know that it keeps you from dying, and all the evidence says that, all of it, 100% of it says that, and every expert would agree that it keeps you from dying in the short term, maybe long term, who knows?
Why doesn't anyone prove how well they work?
Well, they have, and 100% of the data.
So that's just cognitive distance.
So there are a lot of people who, I think, made a public stand that vaccinations wouldn't work or would be a disaster.
And you can certainly say that they don't keep you from spreading.
That's true, unfortunately.
But is there anybody else who wants to say that the vaccines don't work?
Are you willing to say it in public?
Define work. Well, the goal of a vaccine should be to keep you alive.
I'd say that works.
In the short term. If you want to argue that we don't know about the long term, that is true.
Why would you trust the data?
I didn't say I trusted the data.
I said 100% of it is in the same direction.
Where do you get your info?
Everywhere. Just Google it.
I'm telling you, it's 100%.
If it were 99, I'd tell you where I got the 99.
But I'm telling you, you can look anywhere.
Any search engine, any article.
There's no article that says the opposite.
That vaccines do keep you from dying.
There's no argument about that by any expert.
So by that definition, ivermectin is a vaccine.
Okay, that's a stupid argument.
Because again, it's just word thinking.
You're not wrong.
It just doesn't add anything.
You should be skeptical of the experts.
I'll message Scott later about the J6 pressure campaign.
Okay. Words do matter.
They do. You're word thinking too, buddy.
Am I? If I said that something...
If the goal of something is to keep you alive, and that it does that, is it irrelevant that I say it works?
That seems like just exactly the definition everybody uses for that word.
If I were using my own, like, weird special definition, then I would be word-thinking.
But if I use it the way everyone uses it, that's the opposite.
You don't know it does that.
Did I say I know? I said 100% of the data says it does that.
You are missing the word vaccine.
I feel like I'm not getting through.
I don't want to do this with swearing, but sometimes that's the only time you can make a thing.
Does everybody understand...
That I understand that they're calling the things vaccines, but everybody understands, including the people using the words, that it doesn't immunize you from getting infected.
We wish it had.
It didn't. But here's what you don't need to tell me.
That they called them vaccines, but they don't do what you expect a vaccine to do.
We all know that.
Why did you think that telling me that would be additive?
What do you think is going on?
You think I didn't know that the word vaccine implies very strongly that it'll keep you from getting something and that that's not the case?
You changed the definition of work?
No, I didn't.
I didn't change the definition of work.
There's no other definition.
It either does what it was intended to do, keep you alive, or it didn't.
Now, as a subtask to keeping you alive, it was intended to keep you from getting infected, but it doesn't.
How can we not get past that?
How are you still living in the past?
The past, it mattered that they said it would immunize you, but it doesn't.
But we're not in the past.
We're now in the present where everybody knows that fact.
You don't need to keep saying it.
It doesn't add anything.
Israel showed that it worked less than anticipated.
Yes. We're all not happy that it's not 100% effective.
The reduction in death rate is less than the margin of error, somebody says.
Absolutely not. There's not any data that shows that.
None. You changed the definition of the.
Now you're talking.
Takes 14 days from shot to immunization.
All right. Yeah.
Next topic. All right.
Well, it turns out that that was my last topic.
How many people have you seen today telling you about their one experience and how that one experience should tell you something?
How many people did that today?
It's all over the internet today.
I had this one experience, and so my one experience should tell you something.
No. No.
No, your one experience doesn't tell me anything.
If it did, we wouldn't need science.
So I know that we all think the world sort of is informed by our own experience, but it really isn't.
Why lower the bar for vaccines?
scenes.
I don't know what that means.
Rude dude.
All right.
AIDS and the Fauci history.
Well, my understanding of the AIDS strategy was to make it seem scarier than it was for non-gay people.
Because if you really wanted attention and funding, you had to get the non-gay public on board.
So my understanding is that that was a well-known intentional strategy to make it look riskier to non-gay people than it was.
Now, do we also see the government scaring us in the same way to try to get us to do what maybe somebody thinks is a good idea?
I'd say so. I'd say so.
All right. You are the all-COVID channel.
You know, the problem is that there's nothing else interesting going on.
And the interesting thing about the COVID is why people can't think about it correctly.
It would be one thing if you had a different opinion.
That's fine. People have lots of different opinions.
But our inability to think about it clearly is continually fascinating to me.
So to me, I'm going to...
I'll delete you for saying all COVID channel over and over again.
Let's see if we can get somebody who's not an NPC to make some comments.
All right. I have this problem all the time.
I use a word that is 90% accurate for my point.
Everyone knows what I mean.
But because it is not 100% the right word, I'm wrong.
Yeah. Well, just remember that the word thinkers are not engaging in anything that's a rational process.
And so that's why I came up with the term word thinking.
Because once you have a word for it, then you can dismiss it more easily.
The imprisoned J6 Americans, I don't feel like I know enough about that, which is a big enough problem in itself.
Yeah, I mean, I did spend a lot of yesterday defending the fact that it's clear that Republicans are being put in jail with, in a circumstance that doesn't look normal to me.
It looks like they got hunted.
Yeah, and where is Ray Epps?
I keep seeing that question.
Mail-in ballots are boring.
Mail-in ballots are boring.
Publish your list in a micro-lesson.
Oh yeah, maybe I should. The executive order on fentanyl trafficking.
I've never seen that. Somebody says there's an executive order on fentanyl trafficking.
What does the executive order say?
Oh, okay. Somebody sent me a link.
Let's see what that says about fentanyl.
Opposing sanctions on foreign persons involved in the global illicit drug trade.
Oh, December 15th.
So they're going to sanction people who are involved in it.
Well, how is that different?
I thought we were always doing that.
Authorized to impose sanctions, blah, blah, blah.
Anybody engaged in activities for illicit drugs?
So it looks like financial and maybe trade sanctions.
I don't know.
Is that even... I guess I'm open to the question of whether that'll make a difference.
We told China who their main dealer was and it didn't make any difference.
So as long as China is producing the precursors and they don't care about policing themselves, as long as they're sending it to the cartels, and the cartels, of course, don't care about policing themselves, why would it make a difference if Biden was sanctioning People for illicit drugs.
Like, I don't know exactly who would even be there.
Can you sanction the politicians?
Do you believe anything Liz Warren says?
That's an interesting question.
That's too, the question's too absolute.
Why not go hard on Mexico?
Because Mexico doesn't have any control over the cartels.
And the reality is the cartels control the government.
it doesn't work the other way around.
If I...
Well, I'm done with that topic.
Did Trump ditch Rudy?
I haven't heard about Rudy lately.
How do we know the Ruble guy isn't a state actor?
Well, he probably wouldn't say he's Russian and pay me a tip in rubles.
I think if he were...
I mean, I don't know that, but...
Here it says, Adam Curry and John Dvorak are right.
Shark jump. Let me tell you about John Dvorak and Adam Curry.
I talked to John Dvorak after hearing what they said about me, and John admitted he didn't know what I'd said and is aware that his comments had nothing to do with my actual opinions.
So you, being the fucking idiot that you are, listened to one podcast without hearing the other side and came to a decision.
Do you know why you came to a decision hearing one side?
Do you know why you did that?
Because you're a fucking idiot.
That's why. You should have at least said to yourself, if these people are saying that Scott said something ridiculous, maybe I should check that.
Because maybe people say people said things that are ridiculous, and then it turns out they didn't say that at all.
They actually were misinterpreted.
So if you really think that I jumped the shark...
Which is a sign that you're an NPC. You're a fucking idiot.
Go listen to it again.
And then you tell me one thing that they said that you think is true and challenge me on it.
I'll tell you it didn't happen.
Oh, Kim Potter? Yeah, Kim Potter was racism against white people.
So if you watch the Kim Potter, or if you know about the outcome, she's the one who thought she had a taser, but she had her gun, and she shot the guy that she thought she was tasing.
Now, apparently she could have shot him if she had intended to shoot him, and there would be no charges, because he was reaching for a weapon.
And there was enough reason to believe he would use it.
So... So Kim Potter...
Goes to jail for what was obviously a mistake.
Now, you can go to jail for making a mistake.
Manslaughter is, you know, you should have known better.
Anybody would have known this was a problem.
Any realistic sense of taking care of other people would have made this not a problem, right?
That sort of thing. But when you see what she did, the sheer...
Let's say that it looks like it's stupid, but it wasn't.
It looks like the excitement of the moment scrambled her brain.
Now, I'll go further than that.
It's obviously that's what happened.
It's obvious that the emotions of the moment scrambled her brain.
And she didn't have the ability in that moment to discern what she was doing.
And that's obvious. Now, how she got convicted for something that was an obvious error that ended in the shooting of somebody who deserved to get shot at that very moment.
Somebody says poor training, but I don't think so.
I mean, it could be.
But I don't think you can train somebody for a specific situation.
You can train people for lots of things, but this was so specific.
Do you think that they trained people?
Well, remember that she said, she was reported to, said, taser, taser, taser, which means that at that moment she thought she was holding a taser.
To me, that would be the end of the trial.
If you knew that she yelled, taser, taser, taser, then the only thing you know for sure is that she believed she had that in her hand.
Because she probably thought to herself, gun or taser, gun or taser, gun or taser.
Right? Before she pulled her taser, don't you think she was thinking to herself, gun or taser, gun or taser, gun or taser.
And she picked up something that had a handle and a trigger just like a gun.
But also just like a taser.
And then yelled, taser, taser, taser, because her brain was still in taser, but she had picked the wrong thing.
So to me, that was an obvious case of white people throwing a white person under the bus so they did not look like racists and didn't have to deal with it.
So I would say that there's a good chance it'll be overturned Because to me, I don't think there could be a more obvious case of injustice.
That one was pretty obvious.
But the public would not allow a white cop to shoot a black person who wasn't actually pointing a weapon right at them.
So the public can't handle that.
So I think the jurors just said, well, I'm not going to make this my problem.
The public can't handle this.
We'll throw this cop under the bus.
So I believe that it was a massive injustice, and obviously so.
But white people always throw white people under the bus to protect themselves.
It's the most common thing you'll see.
It's the reason I lost two careers.
I lost two careers for being white and male because the white male people in senior management...
Didn't want to look like they were a bunch of racists.
So they just stopped promoting white males for a while.
That's when I left. Twice.
Two different careers. So in both cases, it's white people throwing white people under the bus.
So when white people are discriminated against for race, it's often from white people.
We're just saying, I'm going to throw this white person under a bus to protect myself.
We do it all the time.
Not proud of it. All right, let's see your comments here.
What do I predict will happen with Alec Baldwin?
I think probably there will be private cases against him that might succeed, but I don't think he has a legal risk.
Yeah, because Alec Baldwin shot a white person.
Shooting a white person isn't especially illegal in this country.
If it looked accidental.
If it was accidental and he had shot a black person, I think he'd go to jail.
If the situation were exactly the same, I think he'd go to jail.
Is Jump the Shark an example of name-calling or a bad analogy?
Well, it's definitely a tell for cognitive dissonance if there's not also an argument.
What's the most interesting way a simulation could go in 2022?
Let's see. What's the most interesting thing?
Well, Trump running for president would be pretty interesting.
Well, that's 2024.
The most interesting thing this simulation could bring us.
Look at what it's brought us so far.
We can build a house in 12 hours.
3D printing. We may have developed platforms that can cure cancer because of the pandemic stuff.
I think we're good to go.
So this year alone, we probably are on our way to solve climate change, housing, employment's good, cancer may be near treatment for everything.
A Trump Speaker of the House would be fun, but I don't think the Republicans would go for that.
Cure cancer by inducing heart attacks, maybe.
But I think the question is that the platform could be used more generally, that mRNA platform, if it doesn't kill us.
Sounds like a golden age.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Was Jesus a programmer that entered the simulation?
