Episode 1838 Scott Adams: Trump Flushes Lizard Cheney Down The Dynasty Toilet, HOAX List Is Up To 14
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Is She-Hulk woke enough?
The "Rules for Radicals" list
Kamala Harris latest word salad
CNN gaslighting on hacking voting machines
HOAX List now at 14
The Common Center Party
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And if you'd like to enjoy this experience at the maximum rate, well, all you need is a A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chelsea, a canteen jar, a 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 everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Somebody emailed me the other day that they have a co-worker whose actual natural name is Brandon Fell.
It's probably not the only one.
It sounds like it might be a common name.
Brandon Fell. Well, that's his name.
All right, I didn't put this in my notes, so I'm going to say this first.
I just saw a tweet by Corey DeAngelis saying that Arizona, and I think they're the first state, Now has opened up their program that money can follow students so they can do homeschooling and charter schools and whatever.
And it's live.
Apparently the program is live now.
So parents can take the funding that would have gone to the public school and take it with them to a private school.
That's amazing. Now, this is the best of America, in my opinion.
This is a system that's working exactly the way it should be.
The states are the laboratory.
Arizona wanted to go first.
And, I don't know, maybe in a year or two years, we'll have a pretty good idea how it worked out.
Maybe two years is short.
I don't know. But we'll have some indications.
Now, is this the best idea in the world or the worst idea?
We don't know. That's the beauty of it.
I think it's a good idea.
Seems like it would be.
Competition and all that.
But, you know, unintended consequences, so we'll see.
But that is a really, really big moment in the, let's say, the integrity of the Republic.
Because as you know, our school systems are our biggest weakness right now.
If we're miseducating the youth, we're not going to have a good outcome.
And fixing that's the biggest, I think, the biggest challenge we have.
And not that it's hard to do, it's just the most important thing to do.
Because if you get everybody on the same page and they're educated and they're doing a good job, well, everything else seems to work out a little bit better.
So that's all good news.
More good news.
Oh my god, it's just all good news today.
Marvel has now started to stream the She-Hulk.
So this is your Marvel Hulk movie in which the new Hulk is a woman.
You still have the old Hulk.
You know, the obsolete, patriarchal male Hulk.
But we have a new, improved, woke Hulk.
Called She-Hulk. And I think this is starting off a good...
sort of a good pattern.
I'd like to see more of this.
Because here they've got the pronoun for the Hulk right in the title of the movie, so you can't get it wrong.
Don't you think they should do that with all movies going forward?
Like Captain America.
It could be like He-Captain.
I feel like we should just...
What about... What are some other movies?
Like that...
Yeah, we should just put the pronoun in front of all of them.
He, Iron Man? Or maybe they?
Yeah, so instead of Iron Man, it would be Iron They.
Or could it be Iron Woman?
But my problem with this whole thing is that it's not really woke enough.
This is 2022.
Am I wrong?
Did I get the year wrong?
It's 2022. Now, I realize it takes years to actually get a movie made, but I feel like this is already somewhat out of step with the times.
It's not nearly woke enough, is it?
So I'm going to skip She-Hulk.
This will be actually the first Marvel movie that I'm not watching, because just out of principle, I'm going to wait for LGBTQ plus Hulk.
I want a Hulk that's either disabled or has something, a little extra flavor.
Like just being a woman, a little bit boring in 2022.
If somebody said, oh, I invited somebody to the party.
You say, who'd you invite?
A woman. You'd be like, oh, that's a little boring.
But also, she's bringing a man.
You're like... God, that's boring.
A man and a woman.
Give me a little LGBTQ action, a little flavor, please.
I like a little spice in my movies, and She-Hulk is just not getting it done in 2022.
You've got to ramp it up, ramp it up a little bit.
Well, I have a category of humor that I love, which I'm going to share with you.
It's called the shortest dismissive insult.
For some reason, I love it when somebody can get the crispest, the most cutting insult in the smallest number of words.
I'll give you an example.
For example, if you were to say that Brian Stelter of CNN is the poor man's Jeffrey Toobin.
That's good, right? Yeah, Brian Stelter is the poor man's Jeffrey Toobin.
Come on, you love that.
I know you do. I know you love that.
It's a good category of humor.
But here's one from somebody on Twitter named Het Puniza Paradij, which I think I nailed it.
I think I nailed that last name.
But he tweets about the She-Hulk movie, and I just love this.
So this is one, two, three, four, five words.
Are you ready for five words to sum up the She-Hulk movie without ever having watched it?
This is what Het gives us.
This is Green Karen.
Try to forget you ever heard that.
Good luck. You'll never be able to see She-Hulk again without thinking Green Karen.
Is that the funniest thing you've seen in a while?
Green Karen. Oh, God.
We'll get to Liz Cheney and all the fun stuff.
So yesterday I fell for a hoax, which is not the first time.
Because you see stuff...
When you see stuff on Twitter that looks like what you think you expect...
It's real easy to fall for it.
So I fell for one yesterday for, I don't know, about a minute or two before somebody said, hey, that's a hoax.
So I took it down and confessed that I'd fallen for a hoax.
So it was somebody had published the so-called Rules for Radicals.
How many of you heard of the Rules for Radicals?
So this is from the 60s or something.
And allegedly, these Rules for Radicals tell the left, yeah, it's Alinsky's work, tell the left how to manipulate and, I guess, gaslight the public until they can get what they want.
So the eight rules that I saw, that I retweeted, were fake ones.
And the fake ones had stuff like You know, run up the debt and bankrupt the country.
And I thought to myself, now let me make a confession here.
This will be my second confession of error in five minutes.
I've got a lot of them today.
My second confession is that although people talk continuously about the rules for radicals, I believed without doing research, so here's my confession part, and you can judge me unfairly for this, if you like, or even fairly, I never bothered to look into them.
So it's one of these things you hear all the time.
Oh, these rules for radicals.
They're using those rules again.
And for whatever reason, I was so sure that those rules were complete bullshit that I never bothered to look at them.
I just dismissed them as more just political talk.
But I finally had to look at them because I had accidentally tweeted the fake ones.
Because I thought the fake ones were proving my point.
The fake ones looked like bullshit.
And sure enough, they were. They were actually hoax.
They were fake ones. So I looked at the real ones.
What do you think? Are the real ones like really powerful work?
Or are they just bullshit?
What do you think? Are the real rules for radicals powerful plans for taking over countries or just a bunch of bullshit?
Well, I looked at them, and as far as I can tell, it's just generic stuff.
Let me run through them quickly.
I'll do this just quickly.
But this is the most generic stuff I've ever seen.
There's nothing here. To me, it's completely empty.
But it could be That maybe these were groundbreaking ideas when they came out in the 60s?
Is that possible? But in 2022, there's nothing on here that's even interesting.
These are just completely normal things.
Let me give you the idea.
Number one, power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
That's called bluffing.
Did you need the rules for radicals to know that pretending to have more power than you do is a good thing?
Well, what did that add?
Literally every human knows that bluffing can be a good thing.
Number two, never go outside the expertise of your people.
Well, isn't that a little bit commonsensical?
You should stay with what you know instead of talking about things you don't know because that would embarrass you.
Or it's not going to be as effective.
Isn't that the most basic thing you would ever do in any domain is to stay within your expertise of your people, not necessarily your own.
But then three is, whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
In other words, if you have some knowledge or expertise they don't have, use it against them.
Did you need to be told that?
Who wouldn't do that automatically?
If you have some expertise and your opponent does not, wouldn't you take advantage of that?
Did you need to read rules to find out to do that?
These are the most ordinary, basic things anybody would do.
How about make the enemy live up to its own book of rules?
Well, what's the most common thing that politicians do?
They accuse the other of being a hypocrite, making the other one live up to their own rules.
The claim of hypocrisy is the most empty, useless thing that anybody ever used.
There's no power in any of this stuff.
This stuff is all inert, so far.
Then it says, ridicule is man's most potent weapon, so you should use ridicule and mock your opponents.
That's what everybody does.
That's what everybody does and always has.
Both sides mock their opponents.
What insight did we get by having this on the list?
How about a good tactic is one your people enjoy?
Did you need to be told that?
That people will do things they like to do more than things they don't like to do?
Was that like an innovation in the 60s?
How about seven? A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
Well, everybody knows you need to keep your energy high.
Duh! Keep the pressure on.
Duh! That's everybody on every topic all the time.
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
Yes, fear works as persuasion.
Did you need to know that scaring people works?
Who in the world needed to tell you that?
How about the major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
So you should have an organization that keeps the pressure on.
Again, did you need to know that if you're organizing, you need an organization?
There's nothing here.
How about the last one?
If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through.
Into its counter side, which is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.
Alright, so first of all, it's just a bunch of word salad, obvious stuff, about if you push a negative hard enough, it'll make a difference.
Well, everybody knows that.
If you accuse your opponent of something long enough and hard enough, this starts working.
That's both sides all the time.
Number 12, wait, is there two 12s?
No. Number 12, the price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
All right, that doesn't even mean anything.
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
Literally means nothing.
Number 13, pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
So here he's saying, you know, if you have a political policy topic, you should put a person on it so you can attack the person, which is what everybody does.
Every one of these rules for radicals is what every politician does in every situation.
There isn't a single thing here that's even the least bit interesting.
Am I wrong? Did you hear anything on this list that you said, oh, now we're in trouble?
They've seen these rules.
This is completely nonsense.
It's completely useless twaddle.
And I can't believe anybody would need to read these to know to do these things.
Demonize your opponent?
Oh, it's very good that somebody told me to do that.
I never would have thought of that.
This is literally NPC... Programming.
Because every NPC, in other words, somebody who didn't even have a complete brain, would know to do this stuff.
Alright, so I'm going to stick with my it was bullshit.
I'm seeing people compare Kamala Harris to the boss from Dilbert.
I told you eventually every story comes back to me, even if I don't want it to.
I want to see if I can find her latest word salad.
It's a beauty if you haven't heard it.
Pretty sure I can find it.
Oh, here it is. We know that we really are quite behind in terms of maximizing our collective understanding about how we will engage on the technology of today and what we can quickly and easily predict will be the technology over the next decades.
So to maintain our position as the United States of America on this issue, it is critical that we work together to understand where we are, to recognize and have the courage to speak truth about what is obsolete, and then to partner to ensure that we are speaking the same language with the same motivation, inspired by the opportunity of it all, but then doing the work of updating.
How we've been talking and thinking about our exploration in space.
We know that we really are quite...
Now, do you think it's fair to compare her to the pointy-haired boss in the Dilbert comic strip?
Do you feel that maybe that's not too far off, is it?
Wow! You know, it's funny because...
Every time I see one of these clips, I think to myself, well, she's going to tighten up her speaking after that, you know, because she's not going to want to do this word salad again.
But didn't you hear that her speechwriter quit?
Can you do a fact check?
Didn't her, or was it her communications head or a speechwriter?
Like whoever was in charge of helping her speak better quit?
And I'm thinking, how could you ever get another job after that?
Imagine putting on your resume, Kamala Harris's speechwriter.
It sounds like a punchline, doesn't it?
I mean, seriously.
Imagine looking at, you know, you've got a job applicant.
Yeah, let's see, your last job was, let me see, you were Kamala Harris's speechwriter.
I think we're done here.
The door's over there.
All right. Germany has decided to postpone closing its last three nuclear plants.
Now, this is an update on a story.
They had already decided to keep open some other ones, but now I think three more.
So Germany is really getting a lot of religion on nuclear power, as they should.
And Michael Schellenberger and his team did a lot of persuasion on this one, so they get the win.
They get the win. Alright, so Liz Cheney lost her primary to a Trump-endorsed candidate.
I guess she lost about 2-1.
It wasn't even close. So she had won her prior elections by overwhelming majorities.
But she just got slaughtered.
Now, how is the news covering it?
Well, CNN says that it's more a sign that it's Trump's party and that eight of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump ended up losing or having to retire or something.
So that's CNN's thing.
And I'm thinking, is it...
Is it 100% because Liz Cheney wanted to impeach Trump?
Is that the only problem with Liz Cheney?
Is that she went after Trump?
Because to me it looks like there's some Liz Cheney problems here that have to be addressed.
I'm not sure. That she did anything but some kind of weird personal vendetta to self-aggrandize?
I mean, there's nothing about what she did that even seems laudable at all.
She was trying to do the I'm above it all and I'm better than you Republicans and it completely failed because she ended up being a puppet for one of the biggest hoaxes.
So the January 6th thing I'm just going to call a hoax.
Because I think that's fair enough.
At least in terms of it being an organized insurrection.
That part's a hoax.
And so she basically got taken down by the Democrats.
The Democrats basically attached her to their giant hoax, and they guaranteed that she was going to lose her job, which was, I suppose, maybe kind of clever of them in some weird way.
But to me, Liz Cheney, of course, she will keep on the fight.
They always say that.
But I feel like she's Captain Ahab and Moby Dick.
I feel like she's just chasing her own personal white whale that happens to be an orange whale in this case, a great orange whale, God, I want to say a word I don't want to say, but I'm not going to do it.
Let's just say that Liz Cheney may have come across as not a person that you want to support.
That's the best I can do.
Well, CNN did this great gaslighting piece as part of their ongoing hypnotizing of the public.
This seems to only work on their base.
So listen to this. So CNN attended a hackers convention in which part of the hacker convention was they had access to a bunch of voting machine hardware and software.
And then the hackers were going to look for vulnerabilities in the voting machine software.
Now, how do you think CNN would cover a story about hackers looking for vulnerabilities in voting machines?
How would they handle that?
Because it would be counter to their narrative to say that the voting machines have vulnerabilities.
But on the other hand, that is the main context of the story because the hackers did, in fact, find vulnerabilities.
Now, there wasn't much detail about those vulnerabilities, but even CNN reported, yes, we found vulnerabilities.
Here's how CNN reported it.
Hey, hacker guy whose only expertise is hacking, were there any vulnerabilities?
Yes. Did you find any evidence that those vulnerabilities were exploited to change the election?
Hacker guy says, no, no, absolutely not.
No evidence that anything bad happened in the election.
Absolutely not. What's wrong with that?
Here's what's wrong with it.
How are they going to find evidence that the election had been hacked by looking at Unconnected machines sitting on a table.
How is he going to look at a clean voting machine with no data on it and determine that the election had been rigged by looking at a machine that may not have ever been part of the voting process?
Ridiculous. But the way they presented it was that he was talking with some authority that they had told that they could determine through their hacking skills that these were, that had not been hacked.
So they could determine for sure that it was hackable, and that seems to be something nobody's arguing about.
But then they went to the point where they fooled you into thinking this guy could tell that nothing had happened in the actual election by looking at a piece of equipment which in all likelihoods had never been near an election.
It probably was an extra one that the voting company gave them.
Well, let me ask you that. Where do you think they got them?
Do you think they got the spare voting machines from, let's say, counties that use them?
Did they go to a county and say, do you have an extra that we can just use and take apart?
Maybe. I don't know. Or do you think it's more likely they went to the voting machine companies themselves and said, could you give us a blank that we can play with?
And if it came from the voting machine companies themselves, Would it necessarily look exactly like the ones that were in the election?
And let me ask you this.
Do you think there's one version of voting machine out there?
Isn't there all kinds of different software versions?
What software version got tested?
Because I imagine that every voting machine had exactly one version of software on it.
Don't you think that there are dozens of software patches and versions all along the way?
They probably saw the most recent software, wouldn't you say?
I assume that these had software on them, of course.
So, did the hackers see the software?
Did they see the version that was in the election, or did they see the most modern software version, which one assumes might have some patches of it, who knows, updates?
There is absolutely nothing about this that tells you whether or not the election was rigged.
It just tells you that it was totally possible.
And here's the story that makes me crazy.
What is the most likely way an election would be rigged electronically?
What is the most likely way?
Is the most likely way an outside hacker gets into the system?
Is that the most likely way?
It's not. But we keep talking about it like it is.
The most likely way, by a factor of, I don't know, 100 to 1?
20 to 1? I mean, it's not even close.
The most likely way it would happen was an insider.
Now what can they tell us?
Did the hackers test any insiders?
Did the hackers put any devices into the skull of all the employees who have access to the data and say, we checked your brain and we don't see that you did anything?
There's no way to check that.
So the biggest risk we completely ignore because we don't have a way to check.
So we look at the shiny object.
Oh, hackers.
Hackers are trying to break in, but...
Meanwhile, the biggest risk is always just some guy or some woman.
Always. It's always the biggest.
It doesn't mean it happened. It just means that's always the biggest risk.
All right. So that...
It's amazing that that happens right in front of us.
So... I had some vague understanding of that whole Gretchen Whitmer, a governor, might be kidnapped plot by the extremists.
And I didn't know the whole story, but apparently the story is that it was a complete setup by one FBI agent, who probably coerced some others, but primarily one FBI agent who had some outside security business interests.
Seemed to have been trying to create the impression that the extremist risk was higher than it was, probably for his own income, meaning it wasn't some kind of an FBI plot.
It was one guy in the FBI who looked like he could make some money by making it look like there's a threat, and then he could presumably...
Pay to take care of the threat that he had created.
So they did everything they could to convince some regular people who did not want to kidnap anybody to get involved in this plot.
And now, because it's in a court, we have really good evidence, proof, you could say, because it's gone through the court system, that an FBI agent was behind a whole fake hoax kidnap plot.
That really happened.
That's not something made up.
And part of the story which is interesting is that the FBI, one FBI did talk to the local police when the protests happened and asked them to stand aside and let the protesters enter the Capitol building.
So at the same time that we're wondering if the January 6th thing had anything sketchy about it, We see an exact model in the real world of what people suspected was happening with January 6th.
Now, I'm not going to allege that January 6th was an FBI operation.
So I don't have that information.
But when you look at one that was an FBI operation, and you look at the parallels, you have to start asking some questions.
But there is one part that you shouldn't lose sight of, that this Lansing, Michigan, kidnap plot The kidnap plot really seems to be run by one person as opposed to the FBI. So there's no evidence that I've seen that the FBI as an organization was trying to do this.
It seemed more like one person.
So you'd have to take that to the January 6th protest and say to yourself, could it be that one or more persons is all it took to make it look like an FBI plot?
It wouldn't take much if it only takes one or two people to motivate other people to look like a plot.
So, given that that happened, it's hard for me to imagine that you could completely dismiss the possibility that the FBI was involved.
Again, I don't have any information that would suggest they were.
Well, suggest is the wrong word.
I don't have any proof that they were.
But man, it goes right to the top of your possibility list, doesn't it?
It goes right to the top of the possibility list.
Rasmussen did a poll on asking people if they trusted lawyers.
And only 35% of American adults trust lawyers.
But here's the fun part.
Of the people who had actually hired lawyers and had experience with lawyers, the more experience you had with a lawyer, the less you trusted lawyers.
So if you had never hired a lawyer, you were more likely to trust them.
So that tells you something.
But I feel like people trust their own lawyer more than they trust other people's lawyers.
I generally trust my own lawyer, but I always think the other lawyers are...
I can't trust them, but, of course, it's a system where you're not supposed to trust the other side.
All right. Elon Musk made some news by saying that he was basically in the middle, politically.
So he was on the right side of the Democrats and the left side of Republicans, meaning he's in the middle.
And then he also announced he's buying Manchester United, the most famous soccer team in the world, soccer club.
But if somebody would like to take over America, let me tell you how to do it.
If you want to actually take over America, you want to do it Joe Manchin style.
You want to have a situation where the Democrats and the Republicans are so close that a third party would always determine who won.
So you create the third party, and here's what you could...
Now, third parties have existed, but the problem with third parties so far is that they're obviously left or obviously right.
Am I right? So you can always tell who they're taking votes away from.
So if you always know who the third party is going to take votes from, let's say the Green Party takes from the left, then you don't really have power except to be a spoiler.
You want to be like Joe Manchin, where nobody knows which way you're going to go.
So here is what I would call a center party if I were to create one to run the world.
I would call it the common center party.
The common center party.
What does common center remind you of?
Common sense. Your brain just goes to common sense.
And what does the center generally represent?
Common sense. And the center is where most people believe they are.
And they believe it's common.
And they believe that they'd like you to know it's common.
If you belong to the biggest group in America...
And you're being ignored, because the far left and the far right get all the attention, you probably want people to know, hey, we're here, we're common, we're in the middle.
So if you called yourself the common center party and started a political party, and you made sure that sometimes you leaned left and sometimes you leaned a little right, you would have a Joe Manchin situation where you could control politics.
All you need to do...
Is cannibalize one side a little bit harder than the other, and you could determine who the president would be.
So let's say you wanted Trump to lose.
You wanted Trump to lose.
If you're in the center, then you say, okay, the center wants to have stronger immigration.
So suddenly, all the people who think Trump is too extreme, but they like strong immigration policy, they go, oh, the center party, you know, that's for me.
And then that center party could make the left win, because they'd take away too many of the votes from the right.
But it could go the other way.
So you could have somebody from the left, but I'm going to do it with nuclear energy.
Like, ah, huh.
Presumably. No, these are just examples.
But presumably, you could manage your campaign intentionally to take a little more from the left or a little more from the right.
And in so doing, you would become Joe Manchin and you would run the country, effectively.
Because you'd get to decide who the president was.
Am I wrong? Now, it would split the party if you were exactly identical to both sides.
But the whole thing here is to be Joe Manchin and to clearly push one way or clearly push the other way when you want to influence things.
Now, we'll see. My last point I have to save for the locals' platform because it's an idea which would be too dangerous in the public.
Too dangerous. True story.
So after I turn off YouTube this morning, I'll give the locals people a little extra.
I love you too.
I love you too on YouTube.
How many of you saw the clip that was taken out of my recent cast?
It was just a clip about the hoax pattern.
Seems to be getting a lot of uptick.
I saw Jack Posobiec tweeted it, a number of other people.
I feel like it's making a difference.
Do you? Does anybody think that by calling out the hoax pattern, I feel like it could make a difference?
Yeah, there's something powerful about writing it down.
Because I've been, well, lots of people, have been pointing out that the Democrats use the same pattern over and over.
But it's not until you write it down or make a picture of it that it becomes, you know, potent.
So maybe that's the part I did.
I just made a picture, and that made it potent.
All right. You wish I still blogged.
Yeah. I kind of wish I did too.
I do think that maybe my blogging has more impact because it's more portable.
If I say something in a blog post, it gets passed around more easily.
All right. That's all for now.
Oh, the two hoaxes that I added to the...
Oh, and let me ask you this.
Do you think my list of...
Now it's 14. My list of 14 hoaxes, do you think that that's making a dent?
I think it might be.
Now, the trouble is it's not being fully exposed to the other side.
And, yeah.
So my real problem is I don't really break through to the other side.
But on Twitter, you can see that when I paste the hoax, that people immediately just sort of collapse.
And you'll see a number of people say, every one of those things is true.
And I think to myself, really?
Really? There's even one person who thinks everything on the list actually really happened?
And they'll say that in public.
And I think, well, okay.
You can't find one thing on that list, even the things that the court has shown as hoaxes.
Okay. All right.
YouTube, I'm sure this is the finest thing you've seen this morning.
It will stay with you for the rest of your days.
But I got a little talking to do to the locals people, and I'm going to go do that.
And let me just, one technical note.
If you listen to the podcast, and you saw it was all chopped up, Or you listen to the...
I guess it's the podcast that's chopped up.
For reasons that I don't understand yet, some of my content can't be downloaded from YouTube.
On most days, it can be downloaded and then turned into podcasts, you know, the audio part.
But for reasons I don't yet understand, YouTube will block some all day long.
There'll be technical glitches and you can't download it.
I don't know if this affects everybody or just my account.
But those that seem the most, let's say, impactful...
And this is anecdotal.
But the ones that seem most impactful, like the hoax pattern, I feel like those are highly correlated with when I get a technical glitch so that I can't transmit it.
I also had two tweets yesterday that under normal days would have been close to 1,000 retweets, but capped out at like 100 or 200.
And they were both pretty dangerous.
Dangerous in the sense that they questioned the narrative.
And to me, it looks like they were just obviously throttled.
But of course, we're deep into confirmation bias territory, right?
My confirmation bias says, if I do a tweet that I think is good but other people don't, I'm going to think it was throttled instead of thinking it was a bad tweet.
So I have to keep a little bit of honesty on myself.
So I don't know. I'll tell you it looks exactly like it's being throttled.
But I don't know. There's no way to know that.
All right. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have for YouTube.
