Episode 1801 Scott Adams: More Bad News For Biden. But I Think He Reached His Floor For Disapproval
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Door Dash guy stole my Amazon package
AP says public trust of news has eroded
J6 Committee scored "critical win"?
NYT Poll: Biden at 33% approval
Polite courtesy vs being told how to talk
Elon Musk and the Twitter bot issue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's the other way around, but I have a little technical problem.
So you're gonna watch me turn on the locals platform.
Usually they're on first watching it the other way.
Hold on. This is me adding a title with voice texting.
Coffee with Scott Adams, July 11th, 2022.
Come join me to celebrate 7-Eleven.
Period. And we're live.
So this morning I woke up extra, extra early to make sure I wouldn't be late.
Didn't really work. Didn't work out at all.
Turns out. But how would you like to reset and make this turn out just right?
There's a part that I have to go back to and redo.
It goes like this.
Bum-bum-bum. Bum-bum-bum.
Bum-bum-bum. Da-da-da-da.
There we go. There we go.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
The finest thing that's ever happened to you in your entire life.
Highlight of civilization itself, and we're going to take it up a level.
And all you need is a cup of mugger, a glass of tanker, chalice, a steiner, canteen, jug, glass, vessel of any kind, filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the top of the meeting at the end of the day that makes everything better.
Go. Ah, yeah, yeah.
That's good. That's good.
Well, how many of you saw my doorbell video of my DoorDash delivery guy stealing a package from my front door?
I posted it on Twitter.
And It's interesting.
So it's a package from Amazon, but it's a DoorDash guy stealing it.
Now, the value of the package, I can tell you since I figured out what was in it, was maybe $10.
Approximately a $10 value.
In fact, it was just a female product for some cosmetic beauty purpose.
Completely useless. Now...
How much work am I going to put into correcting this $10 loss?
So I've already invested like a couple hours looking through the video cameras and, you know, I've got redundant video.
But I'll tell you my favorite part of the video that you haven't seen, because the video I posted is a view from behind, so you don't see the face of the perpetrator.
But I have one from the other angle that's a complete video, so I can see the whole thing.
So here's the funniest part.
Do you think that somebody who walks up to a house like mine expects there to be a security, a video security there?
They should. There are probably zero houses like mine, you know, sort of in a certain neighborhood, that don't have video security.
I mean, they all do.
My neighborhood has so many cameras.
We're all organized on a WhatsApp chat.
So if there's even the least suspicious car or person in the neighborhood, all of our phones light up and then everybody goes to their video cameras and all of a sudden you've got video of like every angle of this guy, you know, this person walking through the neighborhood.
We've got so much video footage of anybody who comes within, you know, a mile of our community.
But here's the funny part.
He had to know, the guy who stole my package, he had to know I had a video camera there.
And the funny part is he's looking for it.
So you don't see that in the video I posted, but he backs up.
He's got the package in his hand, and then he realizes that he still has a chance to put it down if he sees a video camera, right?
Then it's not quite a crime yet.
So you see him holding the package, and he has that thought, and then he does this.
And then he leaves because he doesn't see the cameras.
Let's just say he missed more than one.
I'm not going to have one video camera on my front door.
I got cameras.
Even I don't know where they are.
I can see anything on my house.
So anyway, I sent it to AP, and they asked for some stuff that's hard for me to find, and I probably won't follow up, but we'll see.
And by the way, Have you ever had trouble with customer support?
You try to get them on the phone or the chat thing and it just takes forever and doesn't work?
I find that if you have a certain amount of followers on Twitter, you don't need to use customer support anymore.
You just tweet it.
Honestly, I feel bad when I do it, because I know not everybody can do it.
It's just sort of a special situation.
But when I tweet something like this, it takes about five minutes for the corporate office to stop what they're doing.
So, I always laugh.
There's somebody who stopped what they're doing today at DoorDash.
Somebody's schedule is a little bit different today.
All right. AP has a story out.
They say that public trust has eroded.
Public trust, especially the news.
And what do you think that's...
What's that about? Here's what the AP said.
They said, for experts who study misinformation...
It's good to know that there are experts who study misinformation.
Experts. Huh. Where does misinformation come from?
Well, that's another story. But the experts who study misinformation and human cognition, they say the fraying of trust...
This is the AP tweet.
The fraying of trust is in part tied to the rise of the Internet and the way it can be exploited on contentious issues of social and economic change.
So there you have it.
So the reason for the change in trust is something about the Internet and the way it can be exploited.
I guess that's one way to frame it.
That's one way. Let's brainstorm a little bit.
Can anybody think of another reason the public would not have trust in the news?
What would it be?
Would it be because the news stopped even trying to report news and just started making up bullshit?
I'm just going to throw that out as a hypothesis.
Could it be that the public noticed that the news is not true?
But not only did we notice that it's not true, because I think we could have been okay with that, because that would just look like a mistake.
We all understand that the news gets updated, so I don't think people would have a problem with it just being a mistake.
Am I right? I mean, we'd complain about it, but we'd get over that.
Mistake's a mistake. Everybody makes it.
But when you realize that the news is intentionally fake, then the correct response is to not trust it.
Now, shouldn't this story be the public has finally wised up that the news is intentionally fake, And now they're reacting completely rationally and appropriately.
And it's good news that they don't believe this anymore.
Isn't it good news?
Why are they reporting it like there's something wrong with the public and there's something wrong with some bad characters and maybe something about the internet when really it's just people like the AP? Isn't it?
Isn't it just the news literally and obviously making up shit that is the problem?
Am I wrong about that?
Now imagine if you will, I would imagine the AP and their experts would argue something like this.
I'm just speculating because I don't know what they would say.
But I think they would argue something like this.
They would say...
But we're not talking about the news reports.
We're talking about the crap that you see on the internet.
Yeah, no, this isn't the topic.
We're not talking about the news.
You know, that has its problems.
But we're talking about rumors on the internet that people believe.
That's really the topic we're talking about.
To which I say, do you think people would believe rumors on the internet if they had a reliable news source that could tell them if that stuff was true or not?
Don't you think it matters that they can't check if it's true?
They don't have anybody they trust, like a news organization, to say, you know that stuff from Q? I'm not sure that's all real.
Okay, I guess they did say that.
But imagine if the news were still credible.
Imagine if the news was credible, or were credible.
If the news told you that Q is all made up and it's not real, But everything else that the news told you sounded pretty credible, except when it was a legitimate mistake.
Wouldn't you be inclined to believe them if they had a track record of telling you the truth and doing a pretty good job?
But they don't. They don't have any track record.
In fact, as I was tweeting this morning, do you remember when you were so innocent that if the news didn't cover a story, What did you assume was true?
If the news just ignored a story that you thought was a story, but they don't touch it, what did you assume was true about that?
That it wasn't really a story.
That they had looked into it and there was nothing there.
So they didn't even need to report that it was false.
It just wasn't there.
So they just ignored it.
But do you believe that now?
In 2022, do you believe that if the news doesn't cover a story, the reason is they looked into it and there's nothing there?
No. You are just as likely to believe they looked into it and found something there, and that's why it's not being reported.
So, here's another example of why we don't trust the press.
CNN is now going full-throated.
Generation 4 nuclear is a good idea.
And there's a story on there about how Bill Gates and his TerraPower is building a plant in Wyoming, There will be one of these next-generation, cheaper, smaller, safer kinds of nuclear energy.
And CNN is treating it like it's just all good news and that the problems of the past may be solved by this new technology.
Now, did you expect that?
Did you expect that CNN would just go full-throated, hey, this is looking good.
We're going to need some of this nuclear energy to solve climate change.
It's green. It's all green.
Now, some of this may be the change in management leadership at CNN, because I've been tracking that, sort of calling it out when they...
Whenever they do something that doesn't look like it's just complete bullshit, I call it out because I'd like to see...
You!
That's funny, but bigoted.
Cut it out. But funny.
But funny. So...
I want to tell you the joke on YouTube, but I'll get kicked off, so we'll keep that on Locals.
The reason I have a Locals community, they pay a subscription fee, is because we don't worry about getting offended over there.
You can offend me all you want.
Nobody gets offended over there.
And it's all good people, so there's not much to worry about.
All right. So...
That's a big deal. Now, if you're trying to wonder why the public doesn't trust you, what was it that CNN learned about nuclear energy this month, let's say, that causes them to do a positive story about nuclear energy?
What did CNN learn that's new?
Compared to, let's say, two years ago or three years ago.
What's new? Well, they've got a story about this power plant, but I think it's been at least five years since this company existed.
Longer, I think. TerraPower.
So it's been a story in the news for, I don't know, five years.
And the whole time the story was it's going to be newer, cheaper, safer, and we're pretty sure we know how to do it.
But now it's news. Now, this is why people don't trust the news.
Because three years ago, they were reporting this story as the opposite of what they're reporting now.
The opposite. Ooh, nuclear energy, it's kind of scary stuff.
It's never going to help us.
Too slow, too expensive.
And now it's just the opposite.
And nothing changed, except some years went by and there was a whole lot of persuading in between.
So, that's why people don't trust it.
Here's some new, maybe fake news, I don't know.
But Democrats in some PAC are accusing Republican Representative Lauren Boebert of having had an abortion, which her spokesperson denies, and also having been a sugar baby escort, which her people deny.
So these are two things that Democrats are saying about her that have no basis in truth according to her side, according to her spokesperson.
Now, I was trying to ignore this story, but I realized I couldn't.
I tend to reflexively defend anything that has Bert in its name, whether it's Dilbert, Dogbert, Ratbert, Catbert, or in this case, Bobert.
Bobert. So Lauren Bobert is now...
I'm putting her under the umbrella of my protection.
Just sort of a random thing.
It's just because she has that last name of Bert.
No other reason.
Do I need another reason? But I believe her when she says that she was never on a sugar baby website.
I'm not going to finish this.
Damn it, I had a pretty good joke.
But, I don't know.
I'm going to bail out on that.
Because I just realized there were some implications to that joke that I hadn't thought through.
I hadn't entirely thought it through.
I'll tell you on Locals.
I'll tell you on Locals after we turn off YouTube, okay?
It's worth it. All right.
I love watching CNN try to spin the fact that not only is Biden's approval at its lowest level, we'll talk about that, but the January 6th hearings, in my opinion, are failing.
Now, I think that's purely a point of view.
You know, the Democrats are saying, succeeding!
And the Republicans are saying, it looks like just a big clusterfuck there.
It looks like a failure.
So, of course, we're all looking at it through our own eyes.
But Stephen Collinson, who is CNN's official attack dog for Trump, he does regular opinion columns in which he just mocks Trump with big sarcastic words and sometimes reasons.
But here's how Stephen Collinson is trying to take a win from the January 6th stuff.
Because I think at this point it's obvious Trump's not going to jail.
Is everybody on the same page there?
At this point it's sort of obvious there's no crime that Trump will be accused of, right?
Because we would sort of know by now if they had anything in that area, and it doesn't seem to be.
So Stephen Collinson is trying to create a win out of this, and here's the first sentence of his piece.
He goes, Whether or not Donald Trump ends up facing criminal charges, the House committee probing the U.S. Capitol insurrection, so of course he has to use the word insurrection, has scored a critical win.
What do you think he's going to say?
So the January 6th committee has scored a critical win.
What do you think it is?
What would be the critical win that they have so far?
Well, the way he puts it is the critical win over the ex-president, over Trump, is that it's thwarting his effort to cover up the true horror of that day of infamy.
But why do we care about that?
Does anybody really care about thwarting his effort to cover up a true horror on that day of infamy?
No, I agree. It would be better to know the accurate story.
And so, therefore, it would be bad to cover up anything that the public has an interest in.
But I'm not so sure that he isn't just saying...
It worked politically.
Because I feel like what he wanted to say, Stephen Colson, and I can't read his mind, so this would just be speculation.
I feel like he wanted to say something different.
I think he wanted to say that something horrible happened to Trump, and that from a political perspective, it's a disaster and will keep Trump from...
You're regaining the presidency.
But you can't say that, because that would be admitting this is just a political process.
So you can't admit it's just a political process.
So the way he words it is that it's a critical win.
It's not a political win.
Because if you called it a political win, the entire public would say, you mean you wasted all of our time and our money over something that's just politics?
Because that's what happened.
If there had been any kind of a criminal indictment, or even anything close to it, for Trump himself, then people would say, oh, I see why we did this.
Now it makes sense.
There was either a crime or a potential crime.
Yeah, you've got to look into that stuff.
If it's president, of course.
But nothing like that happened.
So now they're going to try to turn it into a critical win.
Do you know why they call it a critical win as opposed to a political win or a legal win?
Do you know how they use the term? Critical win, not a political win, and not a legal win.
It's because it's an undefined term.
Here he is trying to score a win, but the only way he can describe the win is with an undefined term.
Critical. Now, he tries to define it by saying, you know, thwarting his effort to cover up the true horror, but is that critical?
What is critical about having a little more clarity over something I think we all understood the basic idea, right?
Was there anybody who thought all of the protesters were bad?
No. Was there anybody who thought that none of the protesters were bad?
No. Everybody said some bad people, most of them not.
We're all on the same page.
But to call it a critical win is clearly signaling that they didn't get what they wanted.
Because if you got what you wanted, do you know what you say?
Here's what we won. Here it is.
We won an election.
We moved the poll numbers one way or the other.
We made money. We lost money.
We changed the opinion of the public.
Anything. They didn't do anything.
There was literally nothing that happened.
Nobody's opinion got changed.
I don't think so. All right.
So Biden's now polling, according to the New York Times poll, a 33% approval.
Have we ever seen a president at 33%?
Is there anybody who's got access to Carter or...
I'm sorry, I read the name Carter going by in the comments.
Does anybody have access to Google?
Was somebody at 28%?
I don't know. But there's another poll, even lower...
An interactive poll, it's called.
The IA polls.
And on that, Biden hit an all-time low of 29%.
29%.
Have we ever seen a president in the 20s?
Now, that's not an official 20s because the other pollsters are going to be higher.
But we've never seen that, right?
Now, I saw the tweet by Adam M.D., That he notes that if 29% is the right number of approval for Biden, there are only 4% from the floor.
It's an inside joke.
The inside joke is, I've noted that 25% of people, well, it might be a different 25%, but we'll get every question wrong.
You can guarantee that 25% of the public will get any question wrong, no matter how simple.
And here's another one.
So Biden's going to be hitting the theoretical lowest number of approval that our society can produce.
Because I don't think you can produce lower than 25.
And the reason is that 25% will get every question wrong, just reliably.
I mean, it's just a joke, but it seems true.
Is 81 million votes really 25% of the United States?
It's kind of close.
Hey, somebody do the math for me.
Is 81 million...
How many people are in the United States?
How many people are in the United States?
380. Or 350, somebody says.
He got approximately 25% of the public.
Now, not everybody votes, right?
That's a funny coincidence.
All right, so now that Biden's down in the 20s or maybe the low 30s in approval, I want to revisit something.
So, like many of you, I lost a good friend over politics, over Trump, specifically.
And I'm wondering if this is the time to maybe reach out to him.
A number of people said, well, he can't really be a friend if he unfriended you because of politics.
And I think I was misleading.
He didn't unfriend me over politics.
That didn't happen. I unfriended him over politics.
Because he couldn't leave me alone.
It seemed like every day I'd get some lengthy message telling me that I was a monster for supporting Trump.
And, you know, I get the point.
I caught on to his opinion fairly early on, but hearing it every day, it was more than I could handle, so I had to just basically ghost him.
So I'm wondering, should I reach out?
Because now that he's seen Biden as the alternative to Trump, I'm wondering if he would say, Well, I'm sure glad we don't have Trump in there.
Or would he say, well, okay, it's better than having Trump.
He has a disaster. I don't know what he would say.
I don't know what he would say.
I don't think I would do a told-you-so victory dance.
I think that would be a little over the top.
But I think he should have developed some humility about his opinion by now.
And I'm wondering if that would help us have a productive conversation.
But I'm just thinking about it. If you're thinking about reaching out to any of your friends you lost, this might be a good time.
I think the timing is good to make your friends back.
Do any of you live in a fake news personal life that's as bad as the fake news politics?
I'm just wondering. Have any of you had an experience Where your actual life turned down to be a fake life.
I'd say yes. I wouldn't expect many of you to say that.
Yes. Explain.
Yes. That your actual life turned down to be a fake life.
Well, I don't like to get too deeply into my personal life.
But I'll just tell you one thing that happened to me that just reminded me that we don't live in the same reality.
So most of you know, because I'm a public figure, that I'm going through completing a divorce.
Now, it's newer news for you, but it's older news for me, so it's like a year in the process, so I'm kind of beyond all the ugly part.
I'm in the reflection part, right?
No, stop saying you're sorry.
My point is, That it's old news to me.
So we've both moved on very much.
So we've moved on about as much as you can move on.
So everything's good. We've worked out the details and stuff.
So everything's good. And I saw her the other day, and I thought to ask this question.
Did she know why we were getting divorced?
And she wasn't sure...
And then she described a specific situation in which she thought I had been reacting to a story about us.
And she thought that maybe that story that had been on the internet had influenced me to want a divorce.
And I said, what?
I'd never even heard of it. I didn't even know what the story was.
In fact, when she told me, it was the first time I'd ever heard it.
So a year into a divorce, she didn't know why.
It wasn't even close.
Isn't that weird? Because I didn't even know, like, even in the general ballpark of the reason.
And I'm thinking to myself, I'm pretty sure we discussed it.
But, now, I don't want to get into, you know, my situation, because that's not really the point.
The point is, do you have any situations like that in which somebody who's actually that close to you in your personal life is living, at least in their mind, a completely different life?
Yeah, it's fairly common.
I You know, and I think that once you see it, you can't unsee it, right?
Once you start tuning yourself to the fact that we're living in different worlds...
Because you used to think that people were only temporarily living in different worlds.
That if you informed them and you talked to them, you'd end up in the same world.
Maybe you had different information.
It's not that. It's not that.
I think we've gone to a higher level of awareness when we realize that we're all just living in different worlds, and it's not because we're stupid.
It's not because we're under-informed.
We might be those things too, but that's not what's causing us to live in different worlds.
It's just that we all make up our own world.
That is really important to understand.
We just make up our own world.
It doesn't matter how smart or well-informed you are.
Once you get that, everything is easier.
Your whole life will be more stress-free when you realize that we're not creatures of reason and thought and data.
We try to be, but we're not close.
We're nowhere in the neighborhood of being those people.
But we'd like to be. All right.
I saw a good...
So a good joke from a user on Twitter, Den Lesks.
And he says, now listen to this carefully.
It's a clever joke.
You have to listen to all the words.
He says, at this point, I'd rather Hunter Biden be our president than Joe.
Hunter lines his blow and screws prostitutes.
Joe blows his lines and screws us.
So Hunter lines his blow and screws prostitutes, but Joe blows his lines and screws us.
Pretty good. Pretty good.
Alright. Let's talk about wokeness.
So you've heard my opinion that I think calling people what they would like to be called is just good manners.
And then I also resist people forcing me to do anything.
Because I'm willing to do it.
It's good manners. But I'm not willing to do crazy things, and I'm not willing to get punished if I get one wrong, right?
If I use the wrong term.
I'm not willing to take any punishment for it.
Because I think manners have to work both ways, right?
A little bit of forgiveness both ways.
So I saw this criticism of me.
It was in response to a Matt Walsh comment.
But the comment was about me.
It was from RealCamDog, Twitter user.
And he says, write on, write on to Matt Walsh about whatever Matt Walsh was saying.
And then he refers to me.
He goes, Scott Adams says, Scott Adams could learn something from you, meaning Matt Walsh.
And then this user says, he has gone full woke now, meaning me.
In his show last week, he accepted and used the left's way of using language.
I can't even take him serious now.
That should be seriously.
And it should be I can't take him seriously.
And you should get rid of the even.
Even doesn't add anything.
I can't even take him seriously.
Take away the even. And then serious should be seriously.
And then you can get rid of the now because that's the context.
I just had to take a pause to fix your horrible sentence.
But he says, I can't even take him seriously now.
And then he says to me, he said at one point, quote, I don't want a dead name, so I'll be clear, blah, blah.
So he says that he's sickened by me, basically, because I've bought into the left's requirement.
To which I said to him, The part I don't like is when I said I like the part of wokeness in which people inform me how they prefer to be addressed.
That's good manners.
For example, if a woman wanted me to address her as Ms.
or Miss or Mrs., would you object to that?
Would you object to any of those words?
I wouldn't. Suppose somebody asked me, and this happens all the time because I'm a famous person, when people talk to famous people and they've gotten familiar, they'll sometimes say, may I call you Scott?
To which I say, of course, that being my name and everything.
So it's a normal custom that we ask people how they'd like to be addressed, and then we do our best to use it.
Now, the problem is if you do it wrong, Maybe you have good intentions, but you do it wrong.
So here's what I said in my tweet.
I said, I like the part of wokeness in which people inform me how they prefer to be addressed.
That's just good manners. And then I added, the part I don't like is when people such as this guy, the guy tweeting at me, or the LGBT community, tell me there would be penalties if I used the wrong word.
Then I ended with, you can all go fuck yourself.
So in my opinion, this guy who's criticizing me for being too woke is the LGBT community.
He and the LGBT community are the same fucking people.
Because both of them are telling me what to say.
And I am happy to use polite terms that people feel comfortable with, always.
And I'm completely on board with that.
You tell me what you would like to be called, and I will call you that, as best I can.
But to the LGBT community, and I've said this many times, if I get it wrong, and you give me a hard time, fuck you.
Fuck you hard. Go fuck yourself with a blunt instrument.
Just get out of my face.
Because if you can't give me a little bit of manners in return, well then you don't deserve any.
That's how it works. We're polite to polite people.
If somebody's not polite to you, you get to shoot back.
That's how it works. So, would I go any harder on the LGBT community if they came after me for making a mistake?
Which is what it would be, because I wouldn't do it intentionally.
It would just be a mistake. Would I be as hard as him as this guy who thinks I shouldn't use their word?
These are two fucking groups telling me how to talk.
There's no difference. One of them is telling me that he's going to punish me in public by calling me out and never watching me because I don't use the right fucking words that he wants me to use.
Well, asshole, let me be clear.
You are your enemy.
You are your enemy.
If you're telling me how to talk, you're your fucking enemy.
Because they're the ones who you don't like.
Because they're telling you how to talk.
No. Don't tell me how to fucking talk.
Not the LGBT community.
Not this fucking asshole who's apparently not on board with everything the LGBT community wants.
Do not fucking tell me how I should talk.
Unless you expect this response.
It's free speech, so you can say anything you want.
But you know you're going to get a response.
All right, we'll get rid of you.
All right. So...
And then...
Here's what a comment back to me on my comment was.
If you're using preferred pronouns instead of reality...
This is somebody else's opinion.
That's idiocy. Not good manners.
Not playing pretend with these psychos.
So he doesn't want me to, like, depart reality for the purpose of manners.
What do you think of that? Do you think that people should depart reality just to be polite?
Is that a good idea or a bad idea, to depart reality to be polite?
Do you know what manners even are?
What do manners have to do with reality?
When I go to dinner and the woman I'm with is served first, what's the reason for that?
What would be the functional purpose of the woman gets served first at dinner?
I don't know. What is the purpose for me opening a door for another person who is perfectly able-bodied?
I don't know. None of these are really based on Reality.
Just some shit bothers you and some stuff doesn't.
That's it. So, women eat slower.
Somebody says there's a reason. Because women eat slower so they have to get their food first.
Well, nice try. That was a nicer try than I would have imagined.
All right. Aaron Rupar got a little public conversation on Twitter.
There's a clip of Governor Youngkin being in Virginia, being interviewed, and Aaron Rupar tweeted it, and his own words that he put on the tweet, Aaron Rupar was, Governor Glenn Runkin on CBS indicates he'd support a full abortion ban in Virginia, with exceptions for rape, incest, and health.
And then I saw other people...
Tweeting at him and saying, I just listened to it.
He didn't say that. And so I thought, what?
Why would you send a clip around and say it says A when the other people looking at her say, I'm listening to it too.
He didn't say that.
So I listened to it and he didn't say that.
He did not say it.
So what's going on?
I mean, it's very clearly he didn't say it.
This isn't one of those Yanni and Laurel things.
I just looked at it and go, okay.
He didn't even actually even answer a question like that.
He just sort of did his political answer that was sort of a dodge, but he didn't answer it one way or the other.
And so I said to myself, my God, what's happening?
And then I thought, I don't know, it feels like he must really believe what he's saying.
Because sometimes you think maybe they're just taken aside and they know it's not true, but if they retweet it, maybe you'll think it's true.
But that doesn't look like what's happening.
I see what you're saying in the comments.
I'll get to that. I don't think that's what's happening.
It looked to me like he believed what he said because he said it publicly and he doubled down and he didn't delete it and said it's right there, blah, blah.
And even made fun of people for reading comprehension if they didn't hear it too.
And I didn't hear it. And then I re-read his tweet.
It says he indicates.
And I thought, oh wait, I was listening to see if he said it.
He didn't say it.
But if you say he indicates, that does say that it's an opinion, right?
So the word indicates suggests that Aaron Rupar's opinion is Is that he's revealed his inner thoughts.
And on that, I actually agree.
I agree with that.
As an opinion. Meaning that you don't know.
We don't know his inner thoughts.
But I think it's a perfectly reasonable opinion, once you heard the video, that you would say that the governor was avoiding a direct answer to the question, but he was so obviously avoiding the direct answer that it did indicate that That maybe he would go there.
However, I will add this caveat.
There are two reasons he might not want to answer the question.
One is that he's signaling that he would, in fact, be in favor of a total ban.
But he doesn't want to say it on TV because it'll hurt him.
The other is that he doesn't want to say he wouldn't support it.
Because you would lose votes either way.
So the politician thing is just to not answer a question you don't need to answer.
Because if you do answer it, somebody's not going to like it.
But if you don't need to answer it at all, You don't give people reason to vote against you.
So I think the way he answered it was clever, but it opens up two possibilities.
One is that he wasn't answering the question because he doesn't want to say yes, but also because he didn't want to say no.
They both would be bad for him politically.
So Aaron Rupar's, I guess I'll call it an opinion, that good reading comprehension would suggest that his avoiding of the question is a pretty strong signal of which way he would go.
And on that, I would say, that's a fair opinion.
But it needs to be clearly an opinion.
Because I'm not quite there, but I can see how he'd say it.
So had Aaron presented this as purely his opinion of what the other guy's opinion was, I'd be okay with that.
So, I'm trying to be fair here because I have criticized Aaron Ruppar for editing, or for tweeting videos that were edited to be misleading.
This is not one of those.
This is one in which he said exactly what he thought, and if you really take the time to, you know, deal with it with the exact words he used, I'm okay with it.
I disagreed with it on first exposure, but I think I would allow that his opinion is within the bounds of reasonable opinions, even if wrong.
Well, have you all wondered if Elon Musk had a secret plan that was not really revealed to you about Twitter?
Has that ever occurred to you as like, I feel like there's something missing, right?
Right? And I think we just found out what it was.
So Elon Musk retweeted a meme, or tweeted it.
And the meme was four pictures of Elon Musk with four fake quotes, right?
So it's not what he actually said.
It was like, you know, lining up with...
On the Locals platform, you can see the meme because they can paste it in the comments, so it's going by right now.
But the... So I'll just read what the meme said.
The first panel said, they said I couldn't buy Twitter.
The second one says, now they wouldn't disclose the bot information.
Then they wouldn't disclose it.
He goes, now they want to force me to buy Twitter in court.
So, so far that's what's happened, right?
That just describes what happened.
And the fourth one says, now they have to disclose bot info in court.
What? Wait, what?
Seriously? If they sue him to complete the deal, will that give him enough, let's say, purchase?
Well, that's a misleading word in this case.
Will that give him enough traction that legally he can get their bot information?
Through discovery? But the question is, the discovery has to be relevant to the question, right?
I don't know if the discovery would be relevant enough to the question, would it?
Because I think you could argue that that's not the point.
If Twitter were to argue that it doesn't matter what the reality is, it only matters what contract you signed, and I think they would, then I don't know if they would have to give them that information, would they?
His claim is that they didn't provide it, but what if they just don't provide it again?
Because what if they give the court the same thing they gave Elon Musk?
Because they say that's all they have.
Now, the court could put people on, you know, they could put them under oath and say, is that really all you have?
You know, really? You know, find an actual programmer who would be in charge of, like, collecting that data, and just put the programmer on the stage, or on the stand, stage.
Put him on the stand and say, all right, you're the programmer.
Is this really all the information we could get?
Are you seriously saying, seriously, that you can't tell how many bots there are with internal information?
Now, if the engineer says that we really can't, then I don't know if any discovery is necessary, is it?
Because if the person who could give us this information says it's not obtainable, it doesn't matter if you want it, it's not obtainable, well then nothing happens and maybe Elon Musk loses.
But do you think this is a real thing?
That he could actually force them to give him accurate information and they have it?
What if they have it?
Because I'm not so sure that they have it.
If you've ever worked in a big corporation and you were in charge of data, like I was, I worked for a big corporation, two of them.
In both cases, I was one of the data guys.
If somebody wanted to know what was true, data-wise, they came to me.
They asked me, and I would tell them what was true, because I had the data, usually financial data.
And how often was my data wrong?
What do you think? How often was my data so wrong that it wouldn't help you with a decision?
25%. Yeah, all the time.
All the time. The data's always wrong.
In one way or another.
There's always some context missing, timing differences, that sort of thing.
So I don't know. But if it turned out that that's what Elon Musk had in mind all along, and I won't say that he had one path all along, because I can't imagine him being a one-path guy.
Again, this is mind-reading, right?
But I can't imagine that Elon Musk thinks of his strategies in terms of there's one thing I'm going to do and only that and I'm going to get it done.
I feel like he's intellectually flexible so that he has several paths that could work and he's monitoring them at all times and, oh, this one just opened up so we'll take this path.
So maybe he thought of this the whole time and that was the track.
Or maybe not. I don't know.
And then my last line of notes seems to be something that was left on the printer that has no application to anything we're talking about whatsoever.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, even though I was late today, super late, I think I delivered the best live stream you've ever seen in your whole damn life.
What's the matter? Oh, okay.
All right, so I'm seeing lots of memes go by.
The SIP was a bit rushed.
You're right. Printers are my worst enemies.
The Dutch farmers. I don't know.
Is there much to that story?
They're protesting. They're not happy.
Oh, tell us the joke.
Remind me. What was the joke I wasn't going to tell you?
Oh, I know. It was the offensive joke over here.
All right. All right.
That's all for now. Oh, about Boebert.
All right. Well, I'm going to tell the locals people what I was going to say.
And that's all. Who is Peto Pete?
I don't know. The Uganda gold story.
I don't know. What's that? So there are farmers revolting in more places?
Dutch farmers are trying to avoid a Sri Lanka situation.
Is that what they're doing? All right.
Uganda found as much gold underground as there is in the entire world.
Well, that's a good story.
I'm going to go catch up on that. I didn't see that in the headlines today.
Not true. All right.
So here's another story that I somehow skipped over.
This is older data.
It's like seven years old, but it probably hasn't changed that much.
29% of adult women are taking drugs to help with mental illness or mental health.
29%. That was seven years ago.
So, do you believe that number?
But here's the problem.
If 29% are taking a drug for their mental health, how many of them should be taking a drug And are not.
Because there's no way that 100% of the people who have mental health problems are taking drugs, right?
It might be half.
And the other half don't know that a drug could help, or they're too degraded to get their own help, or they think they're fine, or they don't have health insurance, or they don't have time.
But I feel like it's close to 50% would either have a mental health problem or need it.
Now... Actually, let me ask this.
I'm going to ask you the two most sexist questions you've ever seen in your life.
And this will show me how much of a terrible, terrible person you are.
I'm going to ask you first for women and then for men.
Now forget about what drugs people are taking.
So the following questions are not about drugs.
They're about what percentage of men and what percentage of women Are actually having mental health issues that are substantial.
What percentage of women in 2022, adult women, do you think have substantial mental health issues?
Adult women. It has nothing to do with medical treatment, just how many?
I'm going to read. I'm seeing half, 40%, 35%, 90%, 90%, 90%, 75%, all over the place.
High numbers, though. A lot of numbers over 50%, some of them the lowest 20%.
Over on YouTube, numbers are really high.
Two-thirds, something like that.
All right. Now, you sexists, stop your answers for a moment, because I want to get the same for men.
All right. Adult men, what percentage do you think have a mental health issue?
Everything from zero to 100%, I'm seeing.
But I'm seeing lower numbers across the board, which is compatible with the study I just told you.
The men at least are reporting less.
I don't know if they have less, but they report less.
All right. I feel it's closer to...
80% both male and women.
80%. My definition of substantial mental illness is something that really is affecting your life every day.
Not something that's just a fleeting thought, but something that just really affects your life every day.
I think 80% of both.
And the reason is that society has changed to the point where it's not meeting our basic needs.
And when society doesn't meet your basic needs, you have a mental situation that is not healthy.
So I think that 80% of us are in a mental health crisis of one way or another.
So now that you've made assumptions about other people, We're going to talk about you.
Now, this might have more to do with my audience.
Now, here's what I expect.
My audience is more male than female by quite a bit, and more conservative than Democrat by quite a bit.
I would guess that if I asked the men if you have mental health issues, that most of you would say no.
So I'm going to ask that.
So because most of you are men, and most of you lean right, how many of you, for yourself, you're only going to talk about yourself, do you have mental health issues?
Some yeses, nos, a lot of yeses.
Yep, yep, yep, nos, nos, yes, nos.
A lot more yeses than I expected.
But I'm not sure we can know what percentage that is, because people would be more likely to say yes if it is yes.
A lot of yeses. A lot of yeses.
Yeah, and so here's my take.
Even the people who say they don't, they actually do.
It's just they have not chosen to define it as a problem yet.
They just think it's something else.
And, yeah, so the question is, what percentage of men who are watching right now believe that they themselves have a mental health issue that's substantial?
Now... Of course, I generalize everything for myself, as the rest of us do.
And I feel like I'm probably more mentally strong than just about anybody.
And I don't know if it's because I'm awesome or just because I'm old or I've been shit on more times than other people, so I got hardened by it.
I don't know. But it just happens to be my situation.
I feel I have more mental health than most people.
And yet, I feel like I'm always on the edge.
Let me think about that.
I mean, in a way, I guess I'm the exception that could prove a point.
In order to be the exception and to feel that you have basic, solid mental health, in 2022, you still feel like you're on the edge.
I still feel like I'm standing on a ledge, and the ledge is nice and solid.
Like my mental health, I'm on a good ledge.
But I feel like insanity is just like one step.
Anybody feel that?
That even if you feel like you're in good shape right now, you're just one step away from falling off the ledge into total mental torment and complete dissolving of yourself.
Somebody says move out of California?
Yeah, maybe. Maybe.
Now, here's my take on it.
I think that society has changed with smartphones and social media and stuff, so it's just unpleasant to be alive.
That's what I think. I think it is simply unpleasant to be alive.
If you haven't noticed what's happened in the dating situation, there's a dating holocaust going on that is awful.
You don't see it if you're out of the dating game.
You don't see it. It goes like this.
Everybody who's above a certain level of attractiveness is pretty high.
Let's say we're going to be cold and callous and say if you're an 8 or better out of 10.
The people who are an 8 or better, first of all, what percentage of the population is an 8 or better?
Not much. Not much.
10%? 15 tops?
Yeah, 10%, something like that.
The top 10% are absolute whores.
Now, you might not notice that if you don't know anybody single.
But male or female, absolute whores, complete total sluts.
Above a certain level of attractiveness.
Now, because I'm not above that level, I only get to hear about it.
From both men and women.
From both men and women.
And they're all with multiple partners above a certain attractiveness.
Now, here's what the problem is.
The people who just want to get on a dating app and just meet somebody nice, everybody's trying to find somebody who's a little better than they are.
But they're not on dating apps.
If you just go to Match.com, I'm going to tell you something.
