Episode 1792 Scott Adams: Dismantling The Gaslight Operation Called The January 6 Hearings
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The 5 Languages of Love
AOC models acts of resistance
J6 Committee's gaslighting operation
Andrew Sullivan's J6 conclusions
Daniel Dale states as fact, the unknowable
Global grain shortage disappeared?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Hey, good morning. And welcome to, sorry, the highlight of civilization.
And if you think it can't get any better than this, well, that would be a reasonable thing to think, because, I mean, look how good it is already.
But believe it or not, believe it or not, it can go up another level.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid...
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes you tingle with anticipation.
It's going to make your whole day better.
You just watch. Go.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah. Well...
I was just thinking of this before I came on, and so I'm just going to throw this in here.
Have you ever heard of the, is it the five or four languages of love?
Which is it? Is it four or five?
I can't remember. It was a big book.
Was it Gary Chapman, maybe?
Languages of Love. And the idea was that everybody has a preferred way, it's five, everybody has a preferred way to be loved.
So for example, some people like words of affirmations.
You say good things about them.
Some people like acts of service.
You do something for them that's kind or nice.
Others like touch.
Touch. What are the other ones?
So I'm forgetting two.
So we've got touch, acts of kindness, time spent, time spent.
BJ's, no, that wasn't one of them.
It was a very good guess, BJ's, but no.
Quality time, right?
Acts of service, quality time.
Gifts, that's what it was, gifts.
So gifts, acts of service, time spent, touch.
That's the idea. Now, that sounds like a pretty good framework, doesn't it?
Wouldn't you love...
Wouldn't you love to be able to break people down that easily?
It's like, oh... It looks like I'm dating one of these, so I'll give them some stuff.
But let me tell you what a scam this is.
Biggest scam in the world.
Aw, thank you, Eric.
Appreciate that.
Here's why it's a scam.
What do men say when you say what's your language of love?
Anybody? What do men say?
Touch. It's just touch.
Basically, if you're willing to touch a man, then we feel, oh, you must like me if you're willing to touch me.
But pretty much nothing else works.
Pretty much nothing else.
Now, imagine if you got food without the touch, though.
You're saying, oh, food works.
But suppose you only got food.
That wouldn't work, would it?
It's just touch. Now, what do women say when you say, what is your language of love?
What do they say? What do women say?
Have you ever asked a woman?
Somebody says everything. Acts of service and gifts.
Acts of service and gifts.
Usually they'll have one or two.
It'll be one of those or the other one.
Now, do you see the scam yet?
It's a total scam.
Because if you ask somebody what their language of love is, if you don't see how big of a scam this is, if you ask a woman what her language of love is, why would she say touch when that's the part she gets all the time?
Too much of it. No woman is going to answer the question, touch.
It's not on the option set.
Because if they answer, touch, all they get is what they already had.
Yeah, your husband wants to touch you.
Your boyfriend wants to touch you.
If they answer, uh, gifts, then they get all of the touch and gifts.
Right? What if they say, um, You know, my language of love is acts of service.
Well, then they get their husband to do more of the housework, and they still get the same amount of touch.
The whole thing is a fucking con.
It's a total con.
And I actually fell for it for years.
For years, I thought, you know, that's amazing how well that breaks that down.
But then you actually start trying it out, and every time I ask anybody female...
What their language of love was.
I was waiting for touch.
Like, well, if she says touch, it's go time.
Just say touch. Say touch.
Acts of service.
But also gifts.
Yeah. What about touch?
No, not really.
No, not really. Doesn't mean much to me.
Because you got it for free.
Of course you don't mention that one.
Now, suppose I'm going to show you the stand-up comedian's method.
You've seen this before, right?
It's so standard that I hate to do it, but it'll teach you that it's a standard thing.
You say, what if somebody else acted that way?
So now that you've established how women quite logically act, they're not going to ask for something they already have.
They're going to ask for something they don't have.
Duh. So then you do the trick where you say, well, what if men acted like that?
Imagine your wife comes up to you and you say, honey, what is your language of love?
And you say, you know, I'm glad you asked that.
I'm glad we're communicating.
My language of love is acts of service.
Acts of service.
What? Yeah, acts of service.
Because I don't feel you're doing enough work You could call them chores or maybe tasks.
But I don't think you're doing enough projects for my benefit.
And if you did, oh my God, I'd love you.
For example, you see that fence over there?
Badly indeed a painting.
And you know how much I complain about it.
If I came home one day and I saw you in your overalls and you were painting that fence for me, honey, I would love you so hard.
I would love you so hard.
I like the touching too, but really I like when I come home and I see stuff got done.
That would make me love you so hard.
How'd that go over, ladies?
So when I told you my language of love, ladies?
Anybody? Did you say to yourself when you were listening to me, there's a guy I want.
There's a guy who's not afraid to make me do some work.
Yeah. He knows that I put the dishes in the dishwasher, but he's saying he'd love me more if I also took them out and put them away, like before we were sharing that.
But I feel like I need to step up and show my love by doing a little extra work.
So to everybody who tried to scam me with the language of love con, fuck you!
I caught on. I finally caught on.
No, I'm not going to give you fucking gifts, and I'm not going to be your goddamn butler.
Please. If you want to be with me, touch me, or get the fuck away from me.
I'm not your fucking butler.
I'm not your fucking Amazon.com.
You work that stuff out yourself.
All right? And don't con me with your stupid fucking book about how I'm supposed to act, because it's just a con.
Can we move on? AOC had a video in which she said she's sort of modeling for her constituents acts of resistance because, as you know, we live in a time in which...
You really have to push back against the evil forces that are forming against us.
And so AOC has shown how she models her resistance, and specifically as a woman.
Now, I do assume she identifies as a woman.
I have not checked that.
So... If I'm assuming too much, I apologize.
But I believe that was the context.
And so her active resistance in this world where bodily autonomy is being challenged for women, especially, she showed on her video that she was going to get her nails done.
And the context was when she was young, she was a religious household, and it was frowned on to get your nails done.
And so as an act of defiance, now as a member of Congress, she's going to show you that she can get her nails done anytime she wants, just because she wants.
Now, that's the kind of leadership that I think this country needs, right?
Nothing about...
You know, Russia trade deals or things like that.
But this is sort of the small public act of defiance that I think every woman should get behind.
In fact, I think you should do less of everything else you're doing and more of this.
Because it's a twofer.
Not only do you look more lovely, if you do it right, you know, get your nails done, maybe have a hair appointment, possibly buy a new outfit.
That is the type of resistance that I support.
And I would even go so far as to say that's my language of love.
So I did fall in love with AOC when she said she was getting her nails done, because as she's making herself more attractive to my lustful intentions, I think that is exactly the kind of wooing that I want.
I believe she's trying to seduce me.
I mean, it looks like she's talking to the public, but I feel like it's really to me.
Does anybody else get that feeling?
It's just a me. Yeah, it's heroic.
That's the word I've been searching for.
Thank you, Alpha. That was exactly the right word.
She's not just telling us what to do.
She's modeling it.
She's modeling it.
And she didn't make a big deal about this, but it looked like she was on foot, walking to get her nails done.
And if you've seen how worn out her shoes are, You know that she's taken some sacrifice for this resistance.
Well, let's talk about January 6 hearings and the three things that they've taught us regarding the miracle of mind reading.
The miracle of mind reading.
So here's what we've learned from the January 6 committee.
Number one, Trump's inner thoughts about the validity of the vote count are things you can know.
You can actually know what his inner thoughts are.
Interesting. Now, before the January 6th committee, I actually thought there wasn't any way to do that.
I thought, okay, brain scan, you know, you're just guessing.
But no, it turns out you can actually know what somebody was thinking.
So we know his inner thoughts about the validity of the vote count, but we also know his inner thoughts about just how the protests would unfold and exactly what he was thinking.
About the dangers to the various people and the risk-reward.
It's not stated anywhere, but this is what we've learned, that we can know that anyway, the private inner thoughts of what he was thinking.
And importantly, and this is also highly related, we can tell what Trump really meant even when his words are the opposite of that.
So let me give you an example.
That doesn't sound reasonable, right?
That you can tell what he really meant on the inside by looking at his words, which actually say the opposite of what we now know is on the inside of his head because of psychic abilities.
So, for example, when he was talking to, was it Rafsenberger or whatever, the Secretary of State of Georgia, and on the phone call he allegedly said, all we need to do is, you know, find X number of votes.
Find. Find. Now, if you're using Find in the normal way, let's say you were an automobile manufacturer.
Let's say you're Tesla.
And you've run out of cars because you've already sold all you have.
What would you do if you ran out of cars...
And you needed more cars.
Would you find them?
Would you find the cars?
Or would you manufacture them because they don't exist in the first place?
Which would you do?
Well, according to Democrats, you don't want to go the hard way, which is manufacture them.
Because that's going to cost something, right?
You've got to buy materials, there's time and labor, put it all together, make sure it works, quality control, that's a lot of work.
But the alternative, which we've learned, is that you can just find things.
So when things don't exist, the two words that mean the same thing, according to Democrats, and I didn't know this until now, but manufacturing something that doesn't exist and finding something...
Those actually mean the same thing.
Now, you would say it's opposite, probably before I explained it to you, right?
You would say, well, that's opposite.
Finding it means it already exists.
Manufacturing it means it doesn't exist.
Are those not opposites?
Finding something that exists...
Versus creating something that doesn't exist.
Kind of opposites, aren't they?
But that's what we learned, is that when Trump says we only need to find the votes, which some people mistakenly thought was a reference to some irregularities, and if there was an audit, they might discover That the vote count was different than they originally thought.
And that would be sort of a standard way, old days, how they used the word find, F-I-N-D. That's what it meant.
But now it doesn't mean that.
Now it means the same as manufacture.
So when Elon Musk needs more cars to sell, he no longer needs his manufacturing plants.
Completely waste of money.
He could have done what Trump suggests and just find the cars.
Just find them. It's just cheaper.
It's common sense.
Why would you build something when you could just find it?
And it's exactly the same thing according to Democrats.
All right. I'm going to keep on this point, and I'm trying...
I'm A-B testing a bunch of messaging.
So you can see the same story through a bunch of filters, and then you tell me which one works, okay?
Here's the next take on the same thing.
I call this, what are the fucking odds?
And it's from a tweet today.
I said, the most shameless, yet effective...
Part of the January 6th gaslighting operation is that it depends on convincing the public Trump privately believed he lost the election.
Now, I'm no mind reader.
I'm no mind reader.
But let's just think about what are the odds that Trump didn't literally believe that he won and something was wrong.
What are the fucking odds?
And if I were asked to testify, I won't be.
Or I were interviewed on CNN, I won't be.
And they said, well, you know, we believe that Trump knew that he lost the election, and therefore that's why it's an insurrection and not a request for an audit.
If he didn't know, then he was just requesting an audit, so he did know.
That would be a completely different situation.
So the entire January 6th thing depends on one fact, what he knew.
Am I wrong? If you change your assumption of what Trump knew, it's all different.
And let me ask you, what would be the more reasonable assumption of why he knew?
Think of Trump's personality, Think of the fact that it looked in every way, his rally size, you know, the enthusiasm, and then the vote count was going his way until about bedtime.
Given all those facts, do you think that Trump privately, in his own mind, the unspoken thoughts, do you think he actually thought he lost?
Or let me put it in other words, What are the fucking odds that he really believed he lost?
And this is where you use the really thing?
Really? Imagine sitting next to a Democrat and they say, well, he knew he lost.
You just look at him, and there's nobody else around, and you just say, really?
Have you been watching this president for even one second?
Do you know anything about him?
Like, even the first thing that everybody knows about Trump, do you know anything about him?
Because if he did...
The last thing you would think is that he believed he lost.
Now, this is independent from, you know, whether the vote was rigged or not.
I'm not even talking about that.
I'm just saying what he believed.
There isn't really any chance, not reasonably, that he really believed he lost.
Right? Does anybody believe that?
And could you get a Democrat to actually look you in the face...
And not joke and actually make direct contact and say to you, see if you can do this.
This would actually be a good test. See if you can get somebody to look you in the face and tell you seriously, I believe that legitimately Trump knew.
Not suspected, because suspected isn't enough.
We're not going for suspected.
Knew. Get somebody to look you in the eye And tell you, really?
Yeah, I believe Trump knew he lost.
Because that would be compatible with his personality.
Would it? Really?
Really? Believing he lost would be compatible with his personality.
Really? No.
Not when there's ambiguity about, you know, the outcome.
Now, you could argue at this point no shenanigans have been proven by any court, and I agree with that.
So I've always accepted the election from the day it was called.
You know, until something changes my mind, and I don't have that in front of me.
Lots of sketchy-looking things, but nothing that would change my mind yet.
But there's no way in hell...
He believed he lost that election.
I'm not a mind reader, but remember, in order to be guilty of something, you've got to be sure.
You can't be guessing.
And even if you say, well, Sky, you're just guessing what he thought, too.
Exactly. Exactly.
I'm just guessing what he thought.
Now, it's a good guess, but you don't put people in jail because you guessed what they thought.
Do you? And the Democrats are literally talking about putting Trump in jail based on guessing what he thought.
That's really happening.
You don't think Republicans are being hunted?
In public, right in front of you, with nothing being hidden, it's right in front of you.
You can look at all of it yourself.
There's nothing I say that you can't just observe directly.
They have shown no evidence of a crime.
And Lawrence Tribe just said he believes that Merrick Garland will indict Trump.
He says he believes he will indict him based on what has already been shown in the January 6th hearings.
And CNN also reported that there are people who think he'll get indicted.
Do you know what's missing? What's missing from that story?
For what? For what?
I haven't even heard a crime be alleged.
Have you? I have not even heard a crime alleged.
The gaslighting operation is so extensive that they've caused reasonable people to say they think he'll be indicted when no crime has even been alleged.
He'll be indicted for the crime of which nobody has a name for, a description of, Or any evidence for.
That's happening right in front of you.
It's the most amazing gaslighting operation of all time.
Now, of course, it depends on having one side show the information and the other side not responding, which is what we have.
So I'll tell you, and I tweeted this.
Well, the first thing I ask is, why don't we have any professional psychics at the hearings?
Because if the entire...
And I think you would agree with this.
The entire case depends on what Trump was thinking, right?
Have I established that as an assumption you'd agree with yet?
The entire case depends what he was thinking.
Because my assumption...
Again, I can't prove what he was thinking, but so it's an assumption.
My assumption... Based on what I would have been thinking if I'd been in that situation, is that the protesters on large, not every single one, and that Trump and his people on large, may have been some exceptions, but generally speaking, they thought that they were trying to fix an election that was broken.
And if he believed it was really a broken election, his intentions matter to everything.
He was either trying to fix something that was broken and the country would want fixed, or he was trying to overthrow the country.
And the only way you know which one it was, because the facts and evidence support both hypotheses completely, the facts and evidence completely support those two hypotheses.
One, that he thought it was wrong, and he was trying to fix it for the good of everybody.
And the other is that he didn't believe it was true, but he was going to try to take over the country anyway.
So if the entire case depends on knowing what he was thinking, and Democrats are very big on trust the experts, why have no professional psychics been invited to testify?
Because in this case, they would be the experts.
Am I wrong? Now, you have to believe that mind reading is actually real, which it isn't.
But if you believed it was real, and that's been demonstrated to be true, So we know that the Democrats believe mind-reading is real based on how they act, right?
So all of their actions are consistent with that.
Again, I'm not mind-reading.
But all of their actions are consistent with they believe they can see his inner thoughts.
Well, if you believe that that's a thing, if you believe people can know people's inner thoughts, why would you depend on amateurs?
You should actually have the psychics.
And if I were a Republican and trying to, you know, make a scene, I would actually have an event in which I invited psychics to read Trump's mind during January 6th because it's the only thing that matters.
And here's the devastating kill shot.
Here's the kill shot for January 16th.
Make them admit only one thing matters, what Trump was thinking.
That's it. All that matters is what he was thinking.
Make them admit that everything depends on that.
That's it. As soon as they admit it all depends on what he was thinking, then you have to say, all right, let's get serious about determining what he was thinking.
We have some testimony from people who are familiar with his thinking.
Is that a thing? Have you ever had people who are familiar with your thinking get your thinking wrong?
You know who would be really familiar with your thinking in your life?
Your spouse. Right?
I mean, who would be more familiar with your thinking than your spouse?
And your spouse never is wrong about what you're thinking, right?
I mean, really?
Really? The people who know you best don't have a fucking idea what you're thinking.
Almost never. The people closest to you don't know what you're thinking.
So when I hear about some advisor familiar with the president's thinking, that is so gaslighting.
The fact that you would even entertain that as like a real thing.
You should be embarrassed if you do.
You should be embarrassed.
All right. So here's also what is missing.
And if I were Republicans, I would have this event too.
I would invite astrologers.
To tell us what Trump was probably thinking on January 6th.
Now, like Trump, I'm a Gemini.
And I would put myself forward as an expert.
Because a Gemini knows what a Gemini is thinking.
Am I right? Astrology tells us that's true.
And that's science. That is science, people.
The science of astrology.
So I think they should bring in more psychics.
Bring in more astrologists, because if you're not even trying to get expert testimony on what Trump was thinking, you're just guessing.
You're just guessing.
And why would you guess when you have experts in the very field that matters most, which is mind reading?
Get your expert mind readers, please.
Put them on the list. And astrologers.
Andrew Sullivan had an interesting article today.
In which he basically says it's now obvious that Trump knew of the plans, knew about the weapons there, and the risk of the weapons, and was totally behind the move on the Capitol.
That's what Andrew Sullivan got out of the hearings so far.
Did anybody watch the same hearings he watched?
Did you see any of that?
Now, what's interesting about it is that Andrew Sullivan is smart.
And he has a history of being able to see both sides of the political aisle.
But I've seen a lot of the hearings and clips and stuff, and I didn't see anything like this, nor have I seen any reporting on it.
But he tells us, like, it's a fact that it's now obvious that Trump knew of the plans.
What plans exactly did he know of?
Did he know that they were going to physically threaten Pence?
And if he knew that, did he think that was actually a real risk, or did he think, ah, the Secret Service has this, that's not a real risk?
Because remember, the president gets threatened to be killed basically every day.
What does the president do when he gets a death threat?
Nothing. Because he gets one every day.
If you're the president, what do you think of death threats?
He's gone through four years of death threats himself, Trump.
And he had not been killed yet.
Do you know why? He had Secret Service protection.
And he thinks they're pretty good at it.
Now, Pence had Secret Service protection.
So did Trump necessarily believe that he was in danger when death threats to a president or a vice president, probably, are so routine and the Secret Service is so qualified?
Probably they were fine.
Now, we all mourn the tragedy of Ashley Babbitt being shot that day.
But the fact is, the Secret Service, or whoever was guarding Trump, they were pretty strapped, weren't they?
I mean, I'm pretty sure they were armed, and I'm pretty sure they could have just started blazing if things got tough, and it would have been, you know, tragedy on top of tragedy on top of tragedy.
But I'm pretty sure they could have protected Pence.
Am I wrong? Do you think the crowd could have actually gotten to Pence?
Let's say they breached the final door wherever Pence was.
There would be so many bullets flying through that door, the crowd would just be mowed down.
And I don't think the crowd had enough firepower that they would have responded in any way except medical emergency.
So now, if you were Trump, did you actually think Pence was in danger?
Probably not. Because I'm not sure I would have processed it at the time as a real danger because it's such a background danger that a president deals with every day.
Well, we've got another bomb threat at the White House.
Should we evacuate?
Nah. Didn't look serious.
Don't you think that happens literally every day?
Don't you think the White House gets some kind of terrorist threat to the White House basically every day?
And they don't, you know, evacuate every day.
So I've got a feeling that you get used to that kind of thing when you're president and probably didn't process it as an actual threat.
Now again, am I reading Trump's mind?
No. I couldn't possibly know what he was thinking.
I'm just giving you some context and saying what would you think if you were in that situation?
Who knows? But you also don't know what Trump was thinking.
Well, we've learned that CNN has learned to prove a negative.
And here's an example.
Daniel Dale, their fact checker, wrote this.
He said, a leading Republican candidate for governor of Arizona, Carrie Lake, continues to put lies about the 2020 presidential election at the center of her campaign.
This week, calling it, quote, disqualifying and sickening for a rival candidate not to say that the election was stolen, and then comma, and this is Daniel Dale's statement, though it wasn't stolen.
Though it wasn't stolen.
Now, he's the fact-check guy.
So you should take that as a fact.
How is the fact demonstrated?
How is it proved?
How do you prove something didn't happen?
You can't. But they did.
So until I read this, I thought, well, if you haven't checked everything that can be checked, you haven't looked at the technology, the database, you haven't looked at any logs about data going across, how would you know it wasn't stolen?
Now, let me be clear. I'm not saying it was stolen.
I have no evidence of that.
But you know what I also don't have evidence of?
That it wasn't stolen.
There are two things that are unknown.
Was it stolen? I don't know.
Was it not stolen? I don't know.
Nobody knows. Those are two things that are unknowable that CNN has now...
One of them has been presented to you as a fact.
And unknowable...
Has been presented as a fact.
Let me say it again. Right in front of you, the gaslighting is so extreme that right in front of you, right where you can see it, nothing's being hidden, they're telling you that a thing that you know is unknowable has been proven.
And they can write that right on their page with no shame.
That's how extensive the gaslighting is.
The people will accept that the thing they know can't be known.
They all know it can't be known, don't they?
Well, that would be mind-reading. One assumes that most people know if you haven't audited it all, you can't know, right?
But no. Here's my favorite auto accident story.
There was a truck, semi-truck accident in Utah that released some bees.
So some bees were in the back of the truck and they got released.
And that didn't sound too bad.
A bunch of bees got released.
You think, well, you know, they weren't African killer bees.
I mean, how bad could it be?
There were 10 million bees in the truck.
Ten million bees were released in the same place at the same time.
Ten million bees.
Now, I don't know how fast I can run, but I feel like I would have discovered it had I been anywhere near that truck.
I think you would have seen this dark cloud of bees darkening the sky, and I'd be there.
Uh-huh. Now I'm going to see how fast I can run.
Before, it was just playing around.
But right now, you're going to see literally how fast I can run.
Bees in a truck. Ten million.
All right. Interestingly, CNN, when it gave a rundown of what we've learned so far about January 6th, here's one of the things that CNN pointed out with a full paragraph.
That I think we have to give them credit for.
Because, you know, we're looking for their move toward the middle to see if that's real or if that's a fake out.
But one of the titled paragraphs, of many titled paragraphs here, is that the hearings are only showing you one side of the story.
And they go on to show that the two Republicans, you know, are not exactly Republican Republicans.
That's pretty good. Actually, I was surprised.
Are you surprised? Because calling out to their audience that it's one-sided, even though it's obviously one-sided, I don't know that their audience was sophisticated enough to notice.
Because if you're just dipping in and out, you don't notice what's missing, you just notice what you saw.
So for them to call it out and say, you know, you should keep in mind that you're only seeing one side of the story, they're basically telling you that you should expect it to be a biased presentation.
How about that? Can we give them credit for that?
Now, I think, you know, elsewhere in their reporting, they kind of, let's say they walk on this point a little bit, because you should sort of mention this point in every element of the story, but you only heard of one side.
Every part of the story should be the same.
Here's what we think has been shown, but you're not hearing the other side.
But I'll take it. I'll give them some credit for it.
Here's what else they said, though, so we can take away their credit.
This is CNN's reporting. That Trump's effort to influence vote counting was widespread.
His effort to influence vote counting.
Is that what happened? Is that a straight reporting?
Or is that mind reading?
Because we know what he did.
We know what phone calls he made.
We know what the words he said.
But do we know his intention?
Because if his intention was to, quote, influence the vote count, do you mean influence it as in rig it?
Because that's not an evidence.
Or was he trying to influence it toward more accuracy?
Because what I see, at least the overt, you know, the words that are actually in evidence, I see him trying to influence the vote, counting, not the vote, but the counting of the vote, toward accuracy.
Now, who else was trying to do that?
Who else involved in the story You know, from the state level to the Congress to everybody, literally everybody.
What was every single person in the story from Trump to, you know, Adam Schiff to everybody?
What were they all trying to do?
They were trying to influence the vote counting.
Were they not? Wasn't every person in the story who was involved in any way trying to influence the vote counting?
And they were trying specifically to influence it toward making it more reliable.
Am I wrong? Now, maybe, hypothetically, there was somebody behind the scenes trying to do the opposite.
We don't have that evidence.
But why are we blaming Trump for trying to influence the vote counting when literally every fucking person was doing that?
Including me. Do you know what I was doing around January 6th?
I was trying really hard to influence the vote counting.
Do you know what everybody in Congress was doing?
Trying pretty hard to influence the vote counting.
Do you know what Trump was doing?
Presumably. Trying to influence the vote counting.
Everybody was trying to do it.
We were all trying to get it right, but we had different ideas of what that would look like once it was right.
Right? But the massive balls it takes to run this kind of a gaslighting campaign, where you use words like, Trump was trying to influence the vote counting, when every fucking person was doing that.
Every fucking person, including me, was trying to influence the vote counting to make it better.
We were saying stuff like, why don't you do a full audit?
Why don't you pause a little until we check?
Why don't we see if we can get into those voting machines and see if those could be audited?
Everybody who said anything like that, including me, we were all trying to influence the vote campaign.
So why would Trump be indicted for it, for doing everything that the entire country was doing at the same time?
But he'll get indicted for it, right?
Sure. Here's the other thing that CNN calls out, because this is an important part of that January 6th story, that Trump was very angry, and there's some reporting that he may have thrown some ketchup against a wall, or maybe thrown some dishes.
Now, let me put you in the scene.
Is there a president who is not famous for getting angry?
Name the president who is not famous for getting, like, angry enough to at least throw things and swear and stuff like that.
Probably Jimmy Carter. Yeah, Jimmy Carter.
That's probably the only one.
But basically, reporting that a president was angry, that's not really telling you anything.
That's not... Yeah, Hillary Clinton.
Yeah, I'm sure Obama had some angry words behind things.
So anybody who's saying that a president who...
We can speculate, believed an election had been stolen from him.
How was he supposed to feel?
How would you like Trump if he was not angry about that?
Who would have voted for him if he didn't get at least that angry about stuff?
They're confusing the feature with a bug.
Nobody would have voted for a Trump...
Who was not capable of getting that angry about that situation?
Now again, he may have mistaken the situation.
Don't know. But do you want a president who can't get at least that angry about that situation?
I wouldn't. I'd want to know my president is just fucking crazy about it.
And I'd want to know that he would fight just as hard for other stuff.
Right? I'd want to know he had some passion...
About doing the right thing.
Now, you could argue about whether that was the right thing.
But you always want a president with some fight in him, don't you?
Did you want a wimp for a president?
And the same would apply for the Democrats.
Do you want the Democrat who doesn't get mad?
Were there not stories of Bill Clinton getting angry in office?
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
I feel like I have this vague memory of Bill Clinton...
Like, getting pretty heated behind the scenes.
Can somebody confirm that?
He would erupt in office, right?
That was actual reporting.
Now, that's a Democrat.
Now, what would be my reaction to that if I heard that Bill Clinton got so mad he threw dishes?
What would you say about that?
Would you say, oh, he's unstable?
Or would you say, yeah, there's a guy who's showing up.
Like, there's a guy who showed up for work.
Like, you want the guy who throws some dishes?
Democrat or Republican?
So, to put this on the list of things you should maybe be concerned about is to, I think, take it out of context a little bit.
I think you want people who are at least that mad.
Now, if they'd said he'd punched a human or kicked a dog, well, different story.
Different story. But if he's throwing a dish, that's just about where I'd want him.
That's just about the level of anger that I think is the productive level.
All right. And that, ladies and gentlemen...
Is everything I wanted to say.
I believe it's another triumph of the thing we call coffee with Scott Adams.
Another highlight of civilization.
Keeps getting better. And do you all have exciting plans for the weekend and for the 4th of July?
Are you celebrating?
Did I curse too much today?
We've got a small audience today.
That's because you're all out there holidaying, and you should be.
Trump has a complicated relationship with ketchup.
All right. Let me ask you another question.
You know the aide to Trump who testified, Hutchinson is her name?
Try to look at Hutchinson's face and then imagine her blonde.
Who is she? Just take a look at her face and then just imagine her blonde.
Who is she? She looks exactly like Amber Heard, doesn't she?
She looks like a blonde Amber Heard.
There's something about the face that's kind of...
Yeah, like Susan Sarandon's face, right?
It's sort of suggestive, interestingly.
Do you put ketchup on eggs?
I don't eat eggs that way.
Jordan Peterson, Twitter banned?
Did that happen? Did Jordan Peterson get Twitter banned?
I'm going to guess it's something about trans.
How did I do? Something about trans?
Pronouns, right? Bingo.
Surprise. Surprise.
You know, I... I'll tell you my view on it.
Maybe I'm just reiterating this.
I feel like the Jordan Petersons, who are...
I'll just put them in a category, which is unfair, I know, to put anybody in a category.
But let's say the people who are publicly fighting against, let's say, trans options, especially for children...
There's a problem with that.
And the problem is, I just don't think the trans thing is special.
We act like it's special because we're talking about it.
But I don't know if it is.
What I see is kids, and with the help of their adult keepers or not, making horrible decisions all the time.
Life-destroying decisions all the time.
And we don't stop them from doing it.
Like, we don't interfere with it, as long as it's legal.
Like, we don't say to them, you know, you've decided that you're going to work hard at figure skating.
But just look at you. You're never going to be in the Olympics.
I mean, seriously, just look at you.
But you're going to make the decision, at seven years old or whatever, that that's going to be your thing, and you put all your attention into ice skating, knowing you're never going to be in the Olympics.
How's that? Is that a good decision?
I don't think so. I think that's a really bad, bad decision.
But we let people make it, because it's their life, not ours, right?
People get to make mistakes.
So I guess that's what it is.
Okay, here's what it is.
I finally, just at this very moment, I just realized what was bothering me about it.
Because there's something that wasn't connecting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jordan Peterson would also be quite famous for saying we shouldn't live in a nanny state, right?
Is that a fair characterization?
That the government should not be micromanaging our choices and our language and our decisions?
Is that a fair characterization?
Because I really hate to mischaracterize him of all people.
I feel like he would be the easiest person to mischaracterize because he's smarter than me.
It's easy to...
It's easier to characterize someone else's opinion if they're less smart than you are.
But if somebody's smarter than you, you always have to wonder if you're missing an angle on this.
Like, well, he's smarter than I am, so maybe he's got something.
So here's the inconsistency.
If one believes the government should stay under your life for your private decisions, why is that different for parents and their child?
Now, it's the children...
Who you think are making the decision to transition.
And then you think the parents...
Some of you are thinking the parents are bad parents because they're letting little kids make decisions that kids should not be able to make.
That would be a common thing.
But what about the idea of just letting people live their lives and make their mistakes?
The fact that you think it's a mistake...
And by the way, I don't disagree.
I don't disagree with that. Some percentage of people who make the transition will regret it.
I think the trans community would agree with that.
Am I wrong? Wouldn't that be a universally agreed statement?
Maybe you disagree on the percentage, but that's not the point.
We all agree that that's a decision that has really, really big consequences, and there's no way to know for sure that you got it right.
Now, for those of you who are saying, but this is different because this is child abuse, I don't know.
I think there's a lot of stuff that could go in that category if you wanted it to.
So I'm not disagreeing with what's good for people.
I'm only asking you if you're being consistent and could you support it.
So I'm not sure you're seeing my opinion here.
If you think you're seeing my opinion in this conversation, Then remove that from your thoughts.
You're not seeing my opinion come through what I'm talking about.
I'm just making statements that I think you would all agree with.
That it's inconsistent to say the government should stay out of your business, except for this thing.
But you might have a reason for that exception.
Just make sure you have a reason for it.
And just be aware that it would be an exception.
I'm always in favor of exceptions, by the way.
I'm not the person who says, oh, never make an exception.
I think you have to. I live in the real world.
You do make exceptions. And I think there are plenty of things you could say about the schools.
Could we all agree that the school isn't who should be determining your kids' gender and sex?
I think we could agree there.
But if you agree that the parents should be in control, and part of the parent decision-making is listening to the kid and deciding if that should be important or not, what they say at five years old.
But I really sort of think the government needs to stay out of it.
Now, if you said to me, Scott, I agree with you, the government needs to stand a bit, but how about this?
How about putting a lot more resources into making sure people wait, or they're at least persuaded to wait, to make sure that they're really making the right decision?
I'd say fine. I'd say that would be fine.
Clitorectomy, somebody says.
Would I support?
A clitorectomy? Excellent question.
Because that will test my consistency.
Nicely done. Nicely done.
I'll give you an A-plus for that.
I would not. I would not be in favor of parents being able to decide that for their kids.
So, good example.
Good example. But I don't think the analogy is equivalent.
See, this is a problem with analogies.
Could we agree that nobody is better off with a clitorectomy?
Everybody on the same page?
There's no such thing as somebody who says, well, I'm glad I got that.
So in that case, there's not much dispute, at least within our culture.
Within our culture, there's no dispute.
But the trans situation, the driving force of it is that sometimes, or even most of the time, how would I know, they're right.
Would you prevent five people from making a right decision if it allowed five completely different people to con them into making the wrong decision?
Which is better?
Where is your sense of freedom land?
You could take it out of the trance.
Just take it into a general situation.
A general situation.
If you knew that a law or set of laws would allow five people to be way better off, but you were pretty sure that five other people would be worse off because they would be influenced in the wrong way by the five who got it right.
Should that be legal?
Because you're really talking about people being influenced And I don't know how you regulate that.
It's not about trans, it's about minors.
Correct. That is correct.
Yes. When you're talking about the five-year-olds, it's barely about trans.
I'm totally with you.
That's primarily a question of children.
And then, you know, that's the canvas.
And then the paint on it is the trans topic.
Yes. Control versus brainwashing.
I don't like to use those words.
M. Ball says you're not very good with logic, Scott.
Not very good with logic.
Well, M. Ball, and your last name is Ball, could indicate you're nuts, possibly.
But what would be an example of that, of which I'm not good at logic?
Hmm? Hmm? Huh?
Huh? Somebody's saying that Jordan Peterson is a psychologist, so his opinion on the trans situation should hold a little bit more weight, maybe.
And I would agree with that.
I would agree he would know more about it.
But it really comes down to, can you let people make catastrophic mistakes if you know it's a mistake?
Let me give you an example.
Recently, somebody I know, a young woman, moved in with her boyfriend and got a dog.
What do you think of that?
Somebody very young, very young, legal age, but very young, moved in with a boyfriend, and the two of them got a dog together.
Now, you give them advice.
Do you think they should have been able to make that decision?
In my opinion, That decision largely will ruin their lives.
Now, am I right?
I don't know. I've just seen the pattern before.
Young woman gets a dog with boyfriend and moves in together.
You're just guaranteed a disaster there, right?
So should they be allowed to do that?
Should you be allowed to do that when you know it's going to completely destroy your options for careers, future relationships, you know there's going to be a problem when you break up, because you probably are, who gets the dog?
It's going to be a disaster, right?
Now, that's just my opinion.
Am I right? How would I know?
How would I know?
I just have an opinion.
So, should my opinion...
Let's say a lot of you have the same opinion.
Should our opinion stop that young woman from getting a dog, knowing it's a terrible, terrible idea?
Absolutely not. No.
No, my opinion and the law should have nothing to say about that.
We should be completely silent, and the person involved should make the worst decision in the world and just figure it out.
Because, unfortunately, you can't have any kind of a system...
That says that other people get to decide what your decisions are, because they're better than you at making them.
And that's what we're looking at.
We're basically saying other people can make your decisions better than you can.
So that's why it should be a law, because you're bad at making decisions.
It's true. People are bad at making decisions.
It's true that if you had some kind of a system where dumb people couldn't make decisions, and by the way, we're not talking about dumb people in this context.
None of the people involved are dumb, which is the interesting part.
None of the people are dumb.
Whatever's going on doesn't seem to be related to logic or brain power, whatever it is.
All right. That is your opinion.
Reframe as a mental health issue.
That's a definition problem, and I'm not going to go there.
So I'm being asked, you know, suggested, that I should look at the trans issue, especially for the super young kids, as a mental health issue.
I'm not going to go there.
And the reason is that defining mental health is really murky.
Because the perfect example would be the type of narcissist who just likes to get credit for doing good work.
Is that a mental illness?
Because the person who's doing it isn't having any problem at all.
They're doing good work, they're getting credit for it, everybody's happy.
So it's just a definition, right?
So if you say it's a mental illness to think you're the wrong gender...
I say, well, we're in pretty sketchy territory.
If you can tell me what my mental illness is and you're not an expert, and by the way, it doesn't seem to be hurting me, it might even help me.
So is it a mental illness if it helps you?
What would you make of the people who transition and then their whole life they're glad they did?
Do they have a mental problem?
Actually, let me ask this question, because I'm not sure how you would answer it.
So take the example of somebody who transitions at five against your better advice.
Let's say it happens. And they grow up and they go through their whole life after transitioning.
And every time they talk about it or think about it, they say, you know, pretty glad I did it.
Does that person have a mental illness, in your opinion?
Or did they have a medical problem that they solved perfectly?
What's your opinion? Some people say yes.
So your definition of a mental problem would include people who improve their lives.
Would it? So in your view of the world, there could be such a thing as a mental problem that just makes you better off.
And it would still be called a mental problem.
Is that, definitionally, you'd be comfortable with that?
So this is where words become a problem.
You know what else I've decided?
That there are a whole bunch of things...
This is sort of current thinking, so this might come out not coherent.
But I've decided that maybe what I most want is to be an unlabeled adult.
If I could have one thing that would make me feel free, it's to be an unlabeled adult.
Here's why. If you call me a Democrat or Republican, then I feel like I have to act a certain way or defend a certain thing.
So I don't. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
And I don't even vote.
So I don't want to be labeled.
Likewise, I make sure that it's hard for you to know if I lean right or left, because I seem to go either way depending on the topic.
And I like that. I want to be unlabeled as left or right.
But I'm taking it further.
I think I would want to be unlabeled as married, boyfriend, engaged, single, or any of the other categories.
Why do I have to be labeled?
Because the moment you put a label on any of those things, you have to conform to the label.
As soon as you say you're married, well, you've got to do what married people do.
That's the whole deal.
As soon as you say you're anything, then you've got to do what that category does.
But what if you just say, I'm unlabeled?
Every single situation, I can just do what makes sense to me in that situation.
And I will never have to conform to what my label is.
And if you just told everybody that, say, well, you should have done, well, why?
Why should I have done that?
Why can't I just look at every situation individually and do what I want?
Why can't I be an unlabeled adult?
So that's my goal, to be unlabeled.
Yes, good point over on the Locals platform.
I'm being asked, what happened to the grain shortage because of the Ukraine war?
It got really quiet, didn't it?
We have been told that there is a looming global famine coming.
Is there a conspiracy to not talk about it so we don't hoard?
Or has it already been solved?
Because what I expected to happen was that given that we see the famine coming...
Six months in advance, right?
Can't you grow an entire crop in six months?
Am I wrong about that?
Are there not available lands and facilities that would not be economical under normal times, but suddenly everybody who has an extra acre says, shit, I can sell anything I grow on this.
There's going to be a famine. I wonder if the market already adjusted.
Somebody says no fertilizer available, but that has to do with the size and yield.
And again, if you simply grew more, you grew indoors for an example, you could compensate for some but not all of the fertilizer loss.
So here's the question.
There are one of two things that are happening here, maybe three.
One thing that's happening could be that it's getting solved and you might not notice it.
The other possibility is that we're going to lose 100 million poor people to starvation.
We didn't need to starve in other circumstances.
And that there's nothing we can do about it.
So we're just not talking about it because we're not part of the 100 million.
You know, I've had the worst selfish thoughts about this global famine conversation.
And it goes like this.
It won't affect me because I'm rich.
Does that make you want to, like, kill me?
It makes me want to kill myself.
It's an ugly thought, but it's also true.
And I'm going to pile on.
I'm going to make it worse. By weird coincidence, I live in the town that's the headquarters for the biggest supermarket for this part of the country, Safeway.
Do you think that the people who own and run Safeway are going to let their own local grocery store be the one that doesn't have product?
No, I will be the last grocery store on the fucking planet that still has stuff in it.
Because the people who work at the grocery, the ones who run the grocery store, you know, the CEOs and stuff, they live in my town.
They're not going to run out of food in their town.
They're not going to let their own family starve.
So at least I think I'll have food.
But I keep thinking that there's something that's going to activate me.
To make me think I need to talk more about this or do something or be productive or help or, you know, advise you to stock up or something.
But there's nothing activating me.
And to the point from the Locals platform, why not?
Where did this story go?
Was it always true that we could have expanded the global food supply, just maybe not with the exact same foods, just a different mix of foods?
Was it always there? We just always could have done it and we just didn't have to?
And now we are. Is that what's happening?
Who knows? Food will not make it to your area if it got bad.
That's true. California at least makes a good amount of food, depending on the season.
Aren't we risking nuclear war with Russia?
It doesn't look like it. You know, the reason that we're not risking nuclear war with Russia at the moment is, why are we not risking nuclear war with Russia?
Because they're winning. They're winning.
The winning side doesn't really need to unleash the nuke.
That wouldn't turn out well. So, as long as Putin thinks he's winning, I'm not really too worried about the nukes.
It appears we've reached the Afghanistan phase of the Ukraine war, where we got ourselves into something we can't get out of, and it's looking like it's a 20-year war.
And it's going to be trillions of dollars.
And we were so dumb that we walked right into it again.
Now, you could say, but at least we saved Ukraine.
Did we? Did we?
Did we? Did we save Ukraine?
Because to me it looks like it's destroyed.
And that it will be that way for a long time.
So I don't think we saved Ukraine.
But maybe we showed Putin a lesson and bolstered NATO. Did we?
Is NATO a better fighting force because we've got Sweden in there?
Thank goodness. We didn't know if we could push Russia back, but now Sweden's in the fight.
Did we gain anything? Anything?
I don't know. I don't think we gained anything, did we?
But we felt like we were on the moral side of things.
Now, if what we did...
Ukraine war pushes Somalia toward famine.
Yeah, the Washington Post had that story.
But... Pushes toward is still not, you know, reached there.
I mean, I don't doubt there will be some places that will have severe problems.
But there's something going on that the news is not telling us, which is, did we solve the problem, or just what the hell's going on?
Psychologically, we gained.
You think we gained, psychologically?
All right. Yeah, what happened to Al-Qaeda?
There's another question. What happened to Al-Qaeda?
I guess they weren't the perpetual force, we thought.
