Episode 1701 Scott Adams: My Conversation With A Woke Person Did Not Go Well. And Fake News
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Conversation with a young, woke person
Disney goes Woke
Full human genome + AI
Jenn Psaki going to MSNBC
NATO trained terrorists, Operation Gladio
Bill Maher tells the left what nobody else can
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the beautiful, beautiful sound of multiple documents being tapped on my desk.
And that means my printer is online, and everything's working smoothly today.
And this might be the highlight of not only your personal experience, but civilization itself.
And it's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best thing that's ever happened.
And all you need is a cup of mango, a glass of tank or chalice, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Filling with your favorite liquid.
Audio's looking good. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
I think it makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen right now.
Go. It's better every time.
Now, if I haven't told you yet today, you're going to have a wonderful day.
Oh, sure, you'll have your ups and downs, always do.
But today is going to be great.
Because you're better looking and smarter than you were yesterday.
And that's all going to work for you.
Well, I had a conversation yesterday with a young, woke person.
How do you think that went?
Do you think that if you put a young, woke person and me in the same conversation, that...
It'll be fun. Well, it was.
It started out with a conversation about sexism and all the sexism and misogyny and discrimination against girls and boys.
And I said, were you aware that girls do better than boys in a lot of different ways?
And she was not aware of that.
And today, by coincidence, I saw a list of some of the things that are going better for girls than boys.
Now, here we're talking about mostly younger folks, so it includes women and girls.
And so somebody did a little chart, I saw online, I tweeted it earlier this morning, of for every 100 girls or women...
How many boys or men are doing the same thing?
So, for example, for every 100 women who take AP or honors courses in high school, in art or music, how many men do the same thing, honors courses in art and music?
Only 54. So there are almost twice as many women who attain this high level in school.
And then you go right down the line who earns an associate's degree, who takes these AP courses, who graduates, who's got a master's degree, who's in the top 10%.
And every one of these is women or girls.
Every one of them. So on educational attainment, it's not even close.
Women are just smoking men.
Not even close. Did you know that?
How many woke young people are aware that women are just destroying men at least the entry level which predicts the future?
How about health-related stuff and mental health?
Again, an entire list of things that women are way better off than men.
I'll just give you samples.
Basically, it's about dying from suicide and everything from autism to learning disorders.
People are homeless.
Twice as many men and boys are homeless.
Die of homicide, seven times more.
Die in prison, 13 times more.
It's not even close. If you take most of the measures of well-being, women and girls are all at the top.
It's not even close.
Now, what do you think happened when I mentioned that to a young, woke person?
Did the young, woke person say, you know, that's not exactly what I've been hearing, but I'm going to take it under advisement, maybe do a little research myself, and possibly even change my worldview?
Do you think that happened?
No, the conversation very quickly turned to my racism.
And so I said, well, if you think you live in a world in which it's hard to be a woman and it's hard to be black, can you explain to me why black women are getting into college and achieving more scholastically at the moment than white men?
Can you explain to me how black women who have two strikes against them, according to you, you the woke person, they have two strikes against them and they're big ones, according to you.
Black and female?
So can you explain why they're doing so well?
Why is it that they're getting into college at higher rates than white men?
Which also suggests that they'll have higher incomes.
Now, of course, we're not talking about 50 years ago.
That's a whole different situation.
But how many woke young people were aware that if you're both black and a woman, it's one of the best things you'd be?
Do you know what's the only thing that's better than being black and female in terms of educational...
Let's say the educational first step, or even the ultimate step of getting your degree.
The only thing better than being a black woman is being a white woman.
But being a woman is a pretty good deal in 2022 educationally, which should also translate into career, which should translate into income, etc.
All right. Now...
When the question of racism came up, I did the Chappelle reframe.
And the Chappelle reframe goes like this.
Let me ask you, who do you think is suffering more, Tiger Woods or a poor white person in Appalachia?
And, of course, Tiger Woods is doing a little bit better.
He's got his issues too, but he's doing better than the poorest of white people.
How many... Do you think that Michael Jordan gets discriminated against more than, say, an average white person?
And the answer is no.
No, he doesn't. He's discriminated less.
He probably gets more things than the average person.
And so I was explaining to her that it always has been about rich versus poor.
That's what Chappelle explains very well.
And that she has been hypnotized into believing it's a racial problem so that the rich people can cover up the fact that they're in power and that they're suppressing other people to keep their power.
Now, what happens when you hear that for the first time?
Something this person had never heard.
Never heard that if you're rich and black, you're in pretty good shape.
And if you're poor and white, you're in pretty bad shape.
Am I right? There's not much to argue with there.
Now, yeah, head explodes, right?
And it reminded me how little information gets from one bubble to the next...
And I was also thinking, how many times am I discriminated against for race or gender every day?
What do you think? Do you think that I ever go a day without overt, very direct discrimination against me for being either male or white?
I don't think I've ever gone a day.
Not once. Not in my public life.
If you look at my Twitter, you can see almost every day, I think, somebody accusing me of something that you can tell is based on my gender and my race.
And they're usually incorrect.
That is racism, right?
People making direct assumptions about my beliefs based on my gender and my race, and they're usually wrong.
I get that every day.
Most of you know my famous story of being denied promotions in two different corporate worlds because I was white and because I was male, and they told me that directly.
That's not my interpretation.
They said directly.
You're white, you're male, we can't promote you.
Now, how many black people have ever had that happen to them?
Probably some. You know, I'm sure there are black people who have exactly the same experience.
We're not going to hire you because you're black.
Maybe they didn't say it out loud, but you know it's happening somewhere, right?
So definitely it's happening.
But to imagine that it's black people getting all the discrimination and white people getting none of it and that it's about race is missing the big story.
It's also about race.
I'm not denying racism exists, of course.
I'm just saying it's everywhere all the time.
And that rich people do better and poor people do worse.
And that's the whole story. And once I explained it to her, there's not much you can say about it.
Am I right? Unless you just change the topic, there's not any real response to that.
Because the data is pretty clear.
And the facts that I presented are not really in question.
There's not really a question, did you or did you not get discriminated in employment?
I could give you thousands of witnesses to back up my story, because they were there at the same time, and they were also discriminated for the same reasons, also directly.
So yeah, I could produce presumably thousands of...
Actually, I could probably produce a thousand witnesses with one tweet.
To back up, you know, my version of events.
So I wondered what would happen if somebody that woke heard something so counter to their worldview.
And the result was a change of the topic.
A change of the topic.
Because I don't think you can convince anybody of anything anymore.
But you can change the topic.
So that's what happened.
So I know you want me to talk about Disney...
I don't know why I can't care less about this story.
Maybe because I don't care about Disney or something?
I don't know. No, I get the importance of it and how it is related to trends and all that.
But, you know, so Disney's going woke and they're removing their gender greetings so they won't say, welcome, boys and girls.
It'll be, welcome, carbon-based units or something.
I don't know exactly what they're replacing it with, but it doesn't sound quite as friendly.
And, of course, they're opposing the, I guess, the manipulatively named Bill Don't Say Gay, which really isn't about that at all.
And so they're going woke.
So here's my only comment.
From a business perspective, since Disney has to satisfy their shareholders, presumably, they should do what's good for the share price, Within reason, of course, not doing anything illegal.
But what is the argument that they will make more money by doing this?
You could easily make an argument that they'll make less money, because I think you're going to get less or fewer.
I just gave you that lesson.
Don't say less, say fewer.
You're going to get fewer guests of the conservative types going to Disney.
So why would Disney, a corporate entity who has an obligation to the shareholders, why would they do something that feels like it can only reduce their business but it can never increase it?
Why would they do that?
I guess individuals are afraid for their jobs and their reputations.
So it's not for the shareholders, and you could argue whether it's for the good of society, I guess.
I don't know. I just don't care that much about this story.
I guess I should. I don't know why, but I don't.
I guess I don't care because it's too easy to talk about.
You just say, I don't like that, and you're done.
That's about it. All right, you remember that big ivermectin study I talked about a few days ago?
And it was the big gold standard, you know, randomized, controlled, lots of people in it to find out if ivermectin worked or not.
And, of course, that totally settled the question once and for all.
No, it didn't.
And then I was asked today to...
To tweet or comment on the fact that there is criticism of the study, and the criticism is actually kind of hilarious by itself.
I guess the categories don't even add up.
You know, when they say we're testing X number of people of this type, and then you look at the subcategories and you add them up, and it doesn't equal the number of people they're testing.
So it's not even internally consistent.
Meaning you can't even look at their own numbers and say, well, why does this column not match what they said they were doing?
You know, that sort of thing. Now, is the person doing the debunk the correct one?
Or could somebody come along and debunk the debunker and get you right back to, hey, well, maybe this study's good?
Probably. So I just want you to know that there's no such thing...
There's no such thing as a reliable study whenever there's any political or pharma profit thing involved.
There's no such thing as a study you could trust.
So there is an ivermectin study that says it doesn't work.
I would give its credibility, I don't know, 10% or something.
That's about it. So if you think I'm saying that ivermectin definitely doesn't work in any scenario whatsoever, because there's a study that says that, I guess I just can't do that anymore.
I just can't tell you because there's a high-quality study that it's true.
That just doesn't work in 2022.
But let me say this, and this is not based on, I guess, analysis.
It's based on more like sometimes you just have to guess which is right.
If you put a gun to my head and said, you have to pick, does ivermectin work or does it not, and we're actually just going to kill you if you get the wrong answer, I would bet it doesn't work.
Don't know if I'm right, because I don't think that the data can ever answer that question, because we don't live in a world where data is reliable.
But that would be my guess.
And if you guess differently, I'm not even going to argue with you.
Because since my guess is not based on reason.
I have a question for you.
Does evil exist?
Does evil exist?
Lots of yeses on the locals' platform.
Mostly yeses. Now, can somebody define evil outside of mental illness?
Because my frame on life is that some people have mental illness and some people don't.
Or, actually, we all do, but it's a different kind, I guess you could say.
Everybody's got some kind of mental illness, just some less than others.
I don't really buy into the evil explanation because I don't know what it adds.
What does it add? Because thinking in terms of demons and angels and god-like demonic stuff, I don't know what it adds to your understanding.
Or what does it add to your process?
Do you do something differently because of that?
Pray? Something like that?
I don't know. I say evil is just your subjective opinion of stuff you're seeing.
I don't believe that evil exists as any kind of a quantity or a force in the world.
I just think some people are broken.
That's all. And you get exactly the same result.
So I don't think you need to go to the complicated explanation that we've got souls and some of them are corrupted or controlled by Satan or anything.
I think you just go for the easiest explanation that some people have mental problems.
And that's it. That's it.
Because it does explain everything.
If there were something it didn't explain, then I would revise it.
But if it explains everything, it doesn't require you to believe anything that's not obvious and right in front of you.
Mental illness is obvious and true and right in front of you.
But evil? I don't know.
Can you get a handful of evil?
Can you measure it?
This one's 200% the evil of this other one.
I don't know the evil's real.
But it's real in the sense of how we, I guess, process our environment.
So for some of you, it's real.
For me, I've never sensed it, felt it, framed it that way, considered it as even anything important.
Yeah, the Nazi death camps, okay, let's take the extreme example, the Nazi death camps.
That could all be explained in terms of normal human processes.
Because we know that we can get underlings to do literally anything.
Are they evil?
Or are they just underlings who will do anything?
Because they're afraid of whatever happens to them.
I don't know. And then some of the underlings are sadists.
A form of mental illness, you could argue.
Or is it a personality disorder?
I never know. I don't know.
I guess I would say that I don't have a use for that frame, which is different than, say, it doesn't exist.
So the question of does evil exist is unanswerable, because whatever it is, it's not like you can...
There's no measuring device for it.
There's no such thing as a detector for it.
So we'll never agree on whether it exists or not.
But could we agree it doesn't have a use?
Like framing the world that way, does it help?
I feel like it would just be scary...
To live in a world that you framed as full of evil and demons, whereas I just see broken stuff.
Oh, there's somebody with a broken brain, and they might act a certain way.
So, yeah, maybe it's useful within the context of religion.
Scientists have finally completed the human genome.
So we have actually, for the first time, 100% of the human genome has been mapped.
So we're going to learn a lot more about genetic diseases and stuff.
It was only 8% of it or so.
The last 8%, I guess, is all we didn't have already.
But now imagine putting together artificial intelligence with the human genome, with medical records, with DNA. I don't think we fully understand what's about to happen.
You see what I'm saying?
The full human genome, DNA about individuals, access to all kinds of medical records that I think at this point we don't have access to them, but I think we will.
Maybe not everybody's, but enough medical records that you can make decisions about what works and what doesn't.
I don't know. I think there's something coming that will redefine Health care substantially.
I think it's a small company that already can do a test on you to find out which kinds of prescription medicines will work the best.
Isn't that wild? You can now do a test.
I think it's a blood test. You send it away.
Blood test or spit, I forget.
Or urine. I don't know.
There's some kind of a test you do that will come back and tell you what drugs will be effective and which ones don't work for you.
How wild is that?
Does it work? I don't know.
I don't know. But think about all these things coming together.
If you add AI to the amount of data we're going to get about everything from DNA to human genome to health records, we're going to know almost everything pretty soon.
We're probably 10 years away from just not even needing a doctor, meaning that the AI will just be so much better at figuring out what's going on.
That you just don't need it.
Well, Jen Psaki, spokesperson for Biden, is reportedly going to leave for MSNBC. She hasn't finalized a deal there, but the important thing to know is that, according to people who know more than I do, NBC is maybe the closest network to the CIA's control.
Meaning the most reliably CIA messaging entity.
Now, I don't know what their relationship is with the CIA, but people who know more than I do basically say they're in the bag for the CIA. And she's going to go work for them directly from the spokesperson job.
Does that bother you?
Does that bother you at all?
That you worry that the deep state and whatever John Brennan's doing lately and all the former and current intel people are secretly running the government.
And then you see somebody at that level of government go directly to MSNBC, which feels like it's in the bag that the CIA controls it, or at least for the stories they care about, not the whole thing.
And everything about this is icky.
Everything about this is icky.
Now, it's fully disclosed, but I almost have to ask the question, is she really changing jobs, or is she just being transparent that she's always worked for MSNBC and the CIA? Because I don't even know if they change her direct deposit, do they? I'm just kidding.
Of course they do. But it feels like it's the same job, they just changed the title.
Am I right? It feels like it's the same job.
It's not a different job.
It's the same job.
That's the story.
The story is she didn't change jobs.
She changed job titles.
I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.
All right. Here's something that General Omar Bradley once said.
He said an American general...
He was an American general during World War II. And he's...
Quoted as saying, amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics, meaning that wars are won or lost based on whether you can resupply your military.
And CNN is still hammering on this idea that the Russian army is running out of fuel and food and everything.
And there are other voices saying, ah, that's just complete propaganda.
That's just Ukrainian propaganda.
But let me ask you this.
How many big fuel depots does the Russian military have within striking distance of the Ukrainian border?
Because the Ukrainians have apparently taken out one large fuel depot that fueled some percentage of the army on the eastern border, the Russian army.
So here's the question for you.
If it's true that Ukraine took out one large fuel depot, how many are there?
How many are there?
Because, you know, if there are three, Russia is totally fucked.
Am I right? If there are only three, if they took out a third of their fuel, they're in real trouble.
Because remember, you don't have to take out all the fuel.
Or all the food.
If you take out 20-30% of either the fuel or the food, there's chaos, right?
They've got to do all kinds of stuff to adjust to that shortage, and it's not going to be pretty.
So you don't have to take it all away.
You just have to degrade it to the point where they're so ineffective that there's a cascade effect to collapse.
So I've asked you a very specific military question.
Do you think anybody knows, first of all?
Can anybody make that kind of an estimate?
And could anybody ask our military, do we have any idea how many large fuel depots are there, and can they quickly spin up a new one?
In other words, has Russia already just sort of spun up a new fuel depot and it didn't even make a dent?
Because they have plenty of fuel.
They just have to get it to the right place.
So, yeah, define large.
So here's the question.
If there are 50 fuel depots of that size, the size that the Ukrainians allegedly destroyed, if there are 50 of them, well, then Russia wins for sure.
Because they're not going to run out of fuel.
Well, what if there were three?
Right? Isn't that the right question?
If there were only three, the Russian army's already in pretty bad shape because they'd just lost their energy.
You're watching the wrong Ukraine movie, somebody says.
What does not spin up as a fuel depot?
You need pipe welders, pipe fitters.
Yeah. Yeah, it can be easy.
But I don't know. Maybe they just have giant tanks of fuel and they can move them wherever they want.
I don't know if you need a gigantic tank to put the smaller tanks into or temporarily maybe you don't.
All right. So I'm going to say that I am unconvinced That logistics alone will be the decider in Ukraine, but I think it's at least a 50% chance that the big story will be logistics.
By the way, here's a little history lesson that I also learned by the CNN article, that the mistake that Hitler made attacking Russia...
Was that he thought it would be fast and he did not develop his supply lines correctly.
He only developed supply lines and actually clothing, warm weather or cold weather clothing, was not even sufficient for the war.
So huge numbers of German troops just froze to death or got frostbite because they couldn't even supply them with warm jackets.
They never planned for that.
Somebody says they had Napoleon, too.
Well, so it's the winter plus the supply line, although the winter seemed like a bigger factor for Napoleon.
So, well, I suppose it's always supply, because you could survive any winter if you had enough supply.
So, yeah, I guess it's supply.
I don't know. I've been saying since the beginning that the Ukrainians can take out the supply lines.
And we're learning more about their kamikaze drones.
But then I heard they only had 100 of them.
What the hell good are 100 kamikaze drones?
You're not going to win a war with 100.
I feel like you need, I don't know, 5,000?
So how fast can we make these things?
Is somebody cranking out some more?
Yeah, 100 to start maybe.
Yeah, these are the switchblades.
So it's the little drones you can launch from your backpack or carry the backpack.
It's a little drone and it just goes up and hovers for 15 minutes until it finds something and then it dives in and destroys it.
That's a pretty devastating psychological weapon.
Like knowing that there's one hovering around you and it's just picking out which person to kill.
I think I'll kill people in that truck.
Boom. Very psychologically devastating.
So we don't know how many fuel depots that there are, and we don't know how many of these switchblade drones there are, but I would say that those two numbers are the only numbers that will tell you what's going to happen.
So I'm boiling it down.
The only thing that will tell you what's happening is how many drones the Ukrainians have.
We don't know. And how much fuel do the Russians have, we don't know.
The only two things that matter, and we don't know anything about either of them, with the public.
The military probably does.
So for the last several days, somebody has been screaming at me on YouTube in the comments that if I don't understand what Operation Gladio is, then I don't understand anything.
And so I said to myself, well, I'll look into it.
Because, I don't know, I had no reason to dismiss the comment, and whoever was saying it was pretty adamant.
So here's what Operation Gladio reportedly is.
NATO has terrorist forces.
That's the whole story.
NATO has officially trained terrorists Terrorists.
And they use them as leave-behind forces in case your country gets overrun.
So if a NATO country gets overrun, they already have spun up the terrorist forces that remain as part of the resistance, and they're actually terrorists.
Like, actually, literally terrorists.
And apparently there have been a number of discoveries of these various groups in different countries, and apparently it's fairly confirmed.
I mean, Wikipedia treats it like it's a fact, you know, if you want to take that as your source.
But does that change anything for you?
Because Operation Gladio would be terrorists working for your team.
Are you comfortable having terrorists on your team?
Because apparently we do.
If you're on Team NATO, apparently you're pro-terrorist.
Sorry. Now you could call them saboteurs, sure.
So depending on the context of, you know, has your country been invaded?
Well, then they're not terrorists.
Then they're freedom fighters.
But they're basically terrorists.
Now part of what they would do is false flags.
Now it's getting a little creepy, isn't it?
So allegedly what these Gladio people would do, among other things, is kill civilians of their own to make it look like the other side did it.
So how do you like your team now?
How do you like being on Team NATO, knowing that your team are literally terrorists?
I'm okay with it. Are you?
Is there anybody who has a problem with it?
I'm okay with it. I mean, it's part of what makes it a bad idea to try to conquer your neighbor.
If anything that NATO does is making it really, really hard to conquer your neighbor, I'm okay with that.
Now, nobody's in favor of killing civilians.
I mean, not that.
But as soon as you say we're in a war, then the strategy changes to how do you do well.
We'd rather have no war, but if you're in one, well, you're going to fight to win.
So one of the ways to fight to win are these false flag things.
The reason people do it is because it works.
If it didn't work, people wouldn't do it.
So if you want to win, you do what works, as ugly as that is.
So you could be morally outraged, and should be, I guess.
But it's going to happen anyway.
Your moral outrage won't change anything.
So, I don't know if the person asking me to look into that is on here, but are you satisfied or have I missed something about this Operation Gladio?
Was there anything that ties it close?
Because I believe that the point of it was for me to understand that NATO is not all unicorns and roses.
And I take that as, first of all, something that was obvious, in my opinion.
But secondly, okay.
I will accept that little history lesson.
I'm not sure it adds or subtracts anything, because war is dirty business.
So I'm not surprised that CIA-related people are doing awful things.
That's not new news.
All right. Did you see the deepfake video of Zelensky?
So somebody did an AI-generated deepfake in which he was telling his soldiers to surrender to the Russian invasion.
And the deepfake wasn't that good.
But, wow, how far away are we from not knowing who's giving you the commands at all?
Pretty close, right?
We're pretty close to not knowing who's giving the orders.
As soon as the deepfakes get, I don't know, 20% better, you just won't tell the difference.
You won't know if it's your president saying something or somebody else.
So keep an eye on that.
I think this whole deepfake thing is just going to be gigantic.
So I continue to be entertained by Bill Maher's conversion to...
What would I call it? So he's not becoming right-wing.
I don't think that's going to happen.
But he seems to be able to see the whole field.
And so every Friday he's saying stuff that makes news, at least in Fox News, because he's saying stuff that his team doesn't hear.
And I've decided he might be the most dangerous person in America.
Well-meaning. I mean, his intentions are positive, I'm sure.
But... He's the only person I know who consistently penetrates the left bubble and tells them what they don't know and haven't heard.
Think about how dangerous that is.
Because I don't know anybody else who can do it.
I can't do it. Right?
Can you? I can't talk to anybody in the Democrat bubble and have them hear me.
I don't have any channel to them.
But he does. Because he started with them, and audiences tend to stick with you.
So on Friday's show, apparently, Bill Maher said, quote, so the New York Post got a hold of what was in the computer.
Talk about Hunter's laptop.
And you know, because the New York Post is a Republican paper, that's his description, and the New York Times and the Washington Post are the Democrat papers, again, his description, and...
And the Republican paper...
And then he goes, Twitter canceled their account.
Talking about the New York Post.
They can't even report the story.
So he's being amazed that a true story got cancelled from the Internet, and he noticed.
Now, he hasn't noticed all the stuff that's happened, but this one was just too shockingly big, and so he's calling it out.
And... So he's...
Just like the right-leaning media is pointing out, the mainstream media suppressed one of the most important stories of the election cycle.
Now, Bill Maher did not go as far as he could have in saying that it probably influenced the election result.
And therefore, one could say the election was rigged.
And therefore, one could say that Trump was right, although I think he was talking more about vote rigging, which would be different.
And nobody's proven that in any scale.
So, somebody says Bill Maher needs an ego death.
Now, I'm pretty sure I don't know this.
I'm speculating.
But if Bill Maher has not done mushrooms, mushrooms don't exist.
If he hasn't done them, I'd be pretty amazed.
Pretty amazed. And that's based on not only the lifestyle he promotes, but also the fact that he is relatively aware.
And that's one of the ways you get there.
So in my opinion, Bill Maher has figured out maybe 25% of what's happening.
Maybe 50%.
But I tweeted at him, and I included him in the tweet, And I said the most dangerous person in America is Bill Maher because he is capable of penetrating the Democrat bubble and telling them their news sources are fake.
And then I said he's figured out about 25% of what's happening.
He still believes the fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax.
Do you see what I did there?
All right, now here's some context.
I've been on Bill Maher's show once...
And it was before the 2016 election, and I predicted on his show that Trump would win, and I explained why based on his persuasive powers.
Bill Maher listened to everything I said and did not push back at all, which I thought was unusual, because I was saying things clearly supportive of Trump.
He's clearly the opposite.
And not once...
He didn't push back on anything.
Now, maybe he thought the persuasion angle wasn't that important or a little off his sweet spot or something.
But I will say that if he remembers who I am, I'm guessing he does, if he remembers who I am, he would probably remember that on his show I was reasonable and that I sounded like not a crazy right-wing person.
And I feel I established at least a little bit of credibility by saying things on his show that didn't get any pushback and were new.
You know, they were new for his audience and didn't get pushback.
And it was important. It explained what was happening and accurately predicted.
Now, if anything I just said is true, which is that I gained at least a little bit of credibility in my small interaction with him on his show, Then if he were to see this tweet, and that's by no means certain, but usually when the blue checks tweet at each other, I feel like we usually see it.
What do you think? You know, some people are more active on their social media.
I don't think Bill Maher is super active on Twitter, but he's a super user, but I don't know how many minutes he spends there.
And I think he'd probably see it, just because I added it.
So he'd probably see it.
Now, if you were him, and you knew that I'd said incredible, sane things on the show that nobody even argued with, and you heard me say something that would blow your mind, that the fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax are hoaxes, and I'm sure that's the first time he would have heard it in a way that doesn't sound crazy.
He may have heard Fox News say it, which doesn't sound credible.
He may have heard, I don't know, somebody else say it, if he did.
But I feel as though there's some chance that I got that message through.
I may have slipped the puck past the keeper.
And the reason is, first of all, because it's Bill Maher, and he's open to a competing idea.
So if it were not him, this wouldn't work at all.
Secondly, because the blue checks probably check each other's comments.
And thirdly, because of the context.
I waited until he was already primed to believe that the news is hugely manipulated on his side.
Do you see what I did here?
I waited until he was primed while he's talking about his own news sources being illegitimate.
He's talking about it.
Now while he's talking about his new sources being illegitimate, I give him two things that coming from me should just blow the top of his head off.
If he notices, right?
I mean, I'm not going to assume I'm important enough in the scheme of things that he necessarily is going to even notice.
But in theory, so this is sort of an impromptu persuasion lesson.
If you can throw a mind-fucking thought into somebody who's already in the mode, it's a whole different idea than coming at somebody you're both loaded and ready for an argument.
If you're both loaded and ready for an argument, nobody changes their mind.
But if you can catch somebody in a vulnerable moment, when they've already talked themselves into the point of view that you're promoting, and you're just giving them a little extra of where they already are...
Because do you know what people do like?
They love confirmation bias of their own opinion.
They'll accept that in a moment.
That's not changing their mind.
That's hard. Changing anybody's mind is really hard work, which is why persuasion is an important topic.
It's so hard, if you don't do everything right, you don't have a chance.
So, I think there's some chance that I planted a seed that would be productive.
Here's what I love.
In my perfect world...
Bill Maher will see the full videos of the fine people hoax and the full video of the drinking bleach hoax, and he will realize that the two biggest messages about Trump were entirely made up.
The two biggest ones.
And I don't know...
If that's expecting too much of anybody, because it is kind of...
So I have a high opinion of Bill Maher's mental, let's say, openness and flexibility.
Different than most people.
Very different. But this is a stretch.
To get somebody to believe this much of a mindfuck, that something really basic to their reality, just didn't happen.
Just never happened.
And it's easy to prove. That's the weird part.
If it were hard to prove...
And people can hold on to their assumption.
But you just have to play the video.
That's it. The entire debunk is just like, well, let me play the whole video, not the clip that reverses this meaning.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is my prepared marks for today.
No doubt, this peak experience is something that will stay with you forever.
Or for several minutes.
one.
Is there any topic which I have not covered which you'd like to hear me cover?
All right.
How do you debunk the don't say gay thing?
Well, unfortunately, the don't say gay thing is really a masterpiece of persuasion.
Whoever frames something first has a big advantage.
And the don't-say-gay people framed it best.
They framed it with a rhyme, which is really good.
Say and gay rhyme.
That's a good technique. It's short.
It's easy to remember. It's repeatable.
And that becomes true.
So it doesn't even matter.
Dogs in blankets. I like that.
I'm seeing a picture of a dog in a blanket.
On the locals' platform, they can put pictures in the comments.
By the way, last night I did a live stream from the Man Cave.
These are only available for the people who subscribe on Locals.
So what you missed was my story about meeting a psychic and hypnotizing her and some of the predictions she made, which were just insane, a visit with my own spirit guide, Or not.
I can only tell you what seems to have happened.
I'm not sure what really happened.
And tying that in with the simulation and all the evidence for the simulation, that we live in a simulation.
Now, if you think that sounds good, and not only were there simultaneous sips, but let's just say that the man cave is simultaneous whatever.
So you were allowed to do simultaneously whatever you wanted.
Well, I did the same.
And when am I going on Goffield again, somebody asks.
I don't know. It's not up to me.
So, looks like I have answered all of your questions.
Are you saying that Bill Maher has a podcast where he and Quentin Tarantino got stoned on the podcast?
Well, I would like to put out my challenge right now to Snoop Dogg.
Snoop Dogg, number one, I'm a cartoonist.
And I'm guessing you have no idea who I am.
But I do this cartoon called Dilbert.
Some people have heard of it. And I challenge you, Snoop Dogg, to join me in my man cave in California, northern California, and to see who can...
Let's see who can be more of the Snoop Dogg, if you know what I mean.
This is YouTube, so I'm going to keep it generic.
If there are any young kids watching, kids, don't do drugs.
And I mean that. Sounds like a joke, but no.
Kids, don't do drugs.
That said, how much would you like to see me interview Snoop Dogg while we're seeing who can last the longest, if you know what I mean?
Come on, you'd watch that.
You'd watch it.
Now, I don't think that Snoop would know enough about me or that would ever make sense to him, but it would be awesome.
And I think it would be viral as hell.
I don't think I could talk him into it because he just wouldn't be familiar with me, I'm guessing.
I mean, if Kanye somehow knew who I was, it's not impossible.
But unlikely. So that's the ask.
Snoop Dogg in my man cave.
Let's do it. And by the way, I'm a huge fan of Snoop Dogg.
I love the fact that he never changed who he was.
I guess that's what I like best, you know.
I like his music.
I like his whole vibe.
But I like the fact that he changed the world like the world didn't change him.
You know that, right? Like, Snoop just said, I'm just going to be me, and the world is going to have to catch up, and then it did.
Who does that? Who does that?
Well, he did. All right.
That is all for now, and I'm going to go do some work.
I got a lot of it. Oh, I'm hearing from Sonny San Rafael.
Somebody's watching. So if somebody knows Snoop, get to him and make the offer, and we'll go from there.
And for the rest of you, can you have a great day?
