Episode 1885 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About All The Racism And Sexism Against White Men
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Russian military on brink of collapse
Policies that China and Democrats want for America
Pell Grant forgiveness?
Democrat victories, conceptual and invisible
Kamala Harris "considerations of equity"
Movie scenes I always fast forward through
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 today is the first day of the rest of your amazing life until tomorrow.
And so far I think it's a real excellent day.
One of the best.
Possibly the highlight of human civilization.
And all you need to make it better is a cupper of a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a 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.
The dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Oh yeah.
So good. Well, should we start with the fake news or the fake racism or the fake war?
It seems like nothing's real anymore.
It just seems like everything's completely unreal.
Well, let's talk about hurricane disinformation.
So every time we get a hurricane, The funny thing is that the climate change side of the world, the ones who want that to be the main narrative, they can't help themselves when there's a hurricane, can they?
I feel on some level they know that blaming climate change for a specific hurricane has no scientific basis whatsoever, but they can't help it.
Have you noticed that? I feel on some level they all know that any one storm or one heat wave or anything, they all know it doesn't mean anything by itself.
But boy, do they insist.
Alex says, wrong, Scott, in all caps.
Yeah. So, as Michael Schellenberger points out, the mainstream news is once again claiming that the latest Hurricane Ian is a sign of climate change, when in fact it is not.
And I love this story about the one community that had basically no serious damage and they didn't lose their electric because it was built to have its own solar power and to have drainage so it didn't even get flooded.
And it worked. So I think the future is building stuff that doesn't get destroyed in natural disasters.
That's what I think is the future.
It's a good future because then we can build better homes that are more suited to normal life.
You know the old saying, be careful what you wish for?
Or what would happen if the dog actually caught the car?
It chases the car, but what if it catches it?
What's it going to do? You should be careful what you ask for.
I think of this when I hear Judd Apatow, a famous producer of very funny movies, who says he can't make a movie anymore because humor doesn't work.
Judd Apatow is notably very much on the left, so his team won.
So congratulations, Judd.
Your team is completely victorious and now you can't make movies.
And I don't know if he's made the connection.
Do you think he's made the connection that it's because his team won that he can't do his job anymore?
He can't make you laugh because his team won.
Am I the first person to point that out?
That when his side got everything they wanted, they didn't want it?
Well, there you go.
Here's the other funny story.
So Rasmussen is reporting, and I'm not too surprised at this, 89% of likely U.S. voters think it's important that public schools inform the parents about what is being taught in the classrooms.
Makes sense, right? Who are the parents who don't want to be informed about what their children are learning?
So there were 11% of parents who were like, I don't care.
I didn't even know I had children.
You can teach them anything you want.
I have children? Wow, that's a surprise.
What are their names?
I mean, seriously. What parent answers that?
I don't care. Teach them whatever you want.
You know, you can get somebody to say anything on any poll.
But here's the funny part.
You know, there's a conversation about what books should be allowed in schools.
Now, you've heard that many of the books that are in the school libraries, and maybe even in some cases assigned, have somewhat explicit sexual scenes in the books.
And so there are a lot of parents who say, no, we don't want our children to be exposed to any descriptions of sex in the book.
Now, is there anybody here who's actually a parent?
Make me a list of all the things you're worried about.
Start at the top.
Make a long list of everything you're worried about, but put the important things at the top.
Where on your list of things to worry about would be, my child read a text description of sexual practices.
Where would that be on your full criteria?
Oh no! He read text.
Some text of some sex.
Do any of your children have one of these?
It's called a telephone.
And it can do more than that.
It can do more than make phone calls.
You can get pictures on this with just about anything you want.
Moving pictures, too.
Actual video. This thing will do video if you want.
Do you know that children have access to this, right?
They have access to every sexual act in video from every angle with every kind of person.
You want midgets and animals?
You got it. You got it.
Horses and people? No problem.
We got it right here.
But you know what I want to worry about?
Is having my children exposed to text descriptions of sexual practices?
And I hear somebody say, no, Scott, parental controls.
How are your parental controls working?
Now, is part of your parental controls, does that include...
Have you found a way that your children can't get messages?
Did you block them from communicating?
Because you know other people send them stuff, right?
It's not just them going to a website.
Their friends will send them anything they want.
Now, does your parental control include not letting your children have any access to other children in person?
Or digitally?
Because if your children have any access to other children, they have access to everything.
Full video of every sexual practice.
What do you think they're looking at on sleepovers?
Do you think they do the sleepovers and they're not sharing videos of gross, incredible things that they found on the internet?
How would you not?
Remember yourself in seventh grade.
Remember yourself in seventh grade and then somebody hands you a device That can find every disgusting, horrible, inappropriate picture in the world.
And you're in seventh grade and you're with your friends and nobody's looking.
Now, tell me where on the list is your concern about the text descriptions in a book.
It's just funny that we even talk about that.
Give up. You know, I can't give you good advice on what to do if you have kids, because there isn't any way to stop any of it.
None of it. You just have to sort of accept that your kids have full access to everything, and they will look at it.
Now, I don't know that that's hurting anybody.
I wouldn't choose it.
Short of having any kind of scientific information one way or the other, I would definitely not choose to expose young people to all kinds of, let's say, things above their grade.
I wouldn't do it. But there isn't any way to stop it.
You know that, right? There's literally no way to stop it.
There's not even a little bit of a way.
Nothing. You could try your little parental controls, but that's not going to make any difference.
So I don't know what to do. I don't have a good answer for that.
Amazingly, something I don't have a good answer for.
Yeah. Surprising.
How many people laughed when I said that the Russian military might be on the brink of collapse?
How many of you said, Scott, Scott, Scott.
Oh, Scott.
Oh. Cartoonist, maybe you should listen to the military experts and maybe not be spouting off about your cartooning stupidity when you could be listening to actual military experts.
Retired General H.R. McMasters said yesterday the Russian army is on the verge of a moral collapse.
Well, now it sounds a lot smarter.
Now that it came from H.R. McMasters, I mean, first of all, Listen to his name.
How could he be wrong with a name like that?
H.R. McMaster.
When you get a name like that, everything you say is correct.
You know who you shouldn't listen to?
P.L. McSlave.
Don't listen to that guy.
I don't know. There's no guy named that.
But if somebody was named P.L. McSlave, nobody would pay attention.
But when H.R. McMaster talks to you, Stop everything.
H.R. McMaster says, the Russian army might be on the verge of a moral collapse.
If there's a moral collapse, the army collapses, right?
I don't think the...
Oh, yeah, maybe he said morale collapse.
Yeah, maybe morale.
But I think it could be moral, too.
I think it could be both.
I feel like both of them work in this context, but he probably meant morale.
I did copy and paste it, so there was a typo in what I copied and pasted, from the news.
But anyway, what do you think?
Do you think the Russian army is on the verge of a morale collapse?
Because that really means the whole army.
Still some no's.
Well, here's what we know.
It's been a while since the Russians did anything that looked like a success.
Am I wrong? In the beginning there was like Russia did this, Ukraine did this, but there was plenty of stories of both of them having alleged successes.
Now there are no stories.
There are no stories of Russian success, not even from Russia.
Even Russia doesn't have a story to tell, except, you know, annexation, which is just bullshit.
But on the ground, they have nothing.
100% of the reporting is pro-Ukrainian now.
Now, I warn you all the time that everything that comes out of that area is sketchy and can't be relied on.
But I think it does mean something when 100% of the news flips one way, and one of the sides that makes up fake news just gave up making up fake news.
There wasn't even anything they could fake anymore.
I think Russia's done.
I think the military is collapsing.
I don't even think it's on the verge of.
I think it's actively collapsing right now.
And it's because there's just no positive anything anywhere.
And Putin's talking about desperate measures, you know, do something political, threaten with the nukes and maybe get some negotiating.
Do you know what we should not do?
We meaning everybody but Russia, I guess.
Do you know what Ukraine should not do?
They should definitely not negotiate.
You don't negotiate when you're winning, do you?
Nobody negotiates when they're winning.
So, the side that's asking for negotiations is usually the one that's not confident.
The side that says, not yet, I would say that this would not be a good time to negotiate.
How about no? That's the side that's winning.
So, We'll keep an eye on that, but it looks like it's just complete collapse at this point.
If you were to make a list of what American policies China would like America to have for China's benefit, what would that list look like?
You know, if China could have its way and influence America, what would they influence them to do?
And would that list that China wants to look exactly like what the Democrats want?
Well, let's check.
Here are some things I would think that China would want America to be influenced to do.
To have a bad energy policy.
Correct? All right.
The Democrats would like us to have a bad energy policy.
I'm not even going to pretend that it's just a different policy.
In something, you know, I think you've noticed that I try to be objective and not call one policy bad and one policy good.
Just say, you know, some prefer this one.
There's pluses and minuses.
But as far as energy policy, I think we're way beyond there being a difference of opinion.
We have a bad energy policy.
That's just a fact.
I don't think you can...
You can't really shade that in any other way.
So, of course, China would want us to have a bad energy policy, so we got that.
Soft on crime, Democrats want that.
China would want that for us.
They'd want us to have uncompetitive schools.
The Democrats favor the teachers' unions, which is the cause of uncompetitive schools.
Let's see, what else would the Chinese want that the Democrats would want?
Porous borders. They would want our borders to not be secure.
China would want that. Democrats want it too.
China would want us to have ineffective fentanyl policies.
We do. Now, you could argue that the Republicans haven't done better, and I do.
At least they talk tougher on it.
China would want the U.S. to have relatively less military spending.
That sounds like a Democrat policy.
China would want to stop Trump, I think.
Don't you think? I don't think China wants Trump to be president.
And Democrats agree.
And, of course, China would like the U.S. to be super-woke, because that's the one thing that could destroy the diversity superpower.
And I've said this before, I think I'll say it a lot of times, because it's one of those things that's worth saying a lot of times.
I never used to think that diversity was an advantage, because it just gave you reasons to fight with each other.
But in the world scenario, where people can leave a country and go to another country, I think it is an advantage.
Because basically we've created a brand in the United States where everybody has a reasonable shot.
So if you're the best of the best in some other country, where are you going to go?
I mean, there aren't that many places you could go where you have a good, you know, good civilization, but also we're more likely to welcome you no matter who you are.
That's a real superpower.
And we don't want to lose that.
The one way you could lose that is by increasing your wokeness to the point where nobody can talk to each other.
And then your diversity ends up being a fight.
So China would want more wokeness because that's what gets us fighting internally.
Am I right that there's a disturbing correlation between the Democrat preferences and China?
It's very similar.
Very similar. Do you think China wants us to be super-capitalist or more socialist?
Well, China would want us to be more socialist, because that means our money would be going internally to things that don't bother them, and maybe less of it would be focused internationally.
So it's pretty startling when you look at it that something like 80% of the Democrat platform is the same thing that China would want for us if they could design our system to make us less competitive.
Now, it is true that people like Schumer are saying directly we should decouple from China militarily.
So, you know, everybody's on the same page about that.
But yet, the Democrats are much closer to what China would want for America.
Hard to avoid seeing that.
So Biden says, he said yesterday, I guess, I'm being banged up by the Republicans, but bring it on.
We can afford to cancel 10,000 in student debts.
And they went on to say that 70% of black college students receive a Pell Grant.
For many black students, this loan forgiveness will wipe out student debt completely.
Can somebody answer this question?
I thought a Pell Grant was a grant.
Is that a loan?
Isn't a grant already free?
So does he actually not know the difference between a grant and a loan?
I'm a little confused.
So if he really doesn't know the difference between a grant and a loan, we've got more problems than I thought.
Although I have to confess, I didn't even notice when I first read it.
Somebody had to point that out to me.
I actually read that and it didn't even register to me that he wants to pay off a grant.
That'd be funny. To give them a grant and then give them some money to pay off the grant.
That would be the dumbest thing.
All right. So I think we should at least think about calling any direct payments or grants part of reparations.
Just because it causes a fight.
Alright, there's a new study that says, I tweeted this today, that women are 3 to 15 times more likely to be selected as members of the American Academy of Arts and Science and National Academy of Science than men with similar publication and citation records.
So did you know that?
If you're a man, you're much, much less likely to be selected for this, must be a prestigious scientific organization.
What is left out is, what are your odds if you're a black man?
Because that would be interesting too, wouldn't it?
If you're a black man, do you think you have just as much trouble being accepted in this academy?
Or would it be as easy as if you were a woman?
I feel like it would be similar.
So really this is not so much a story about women having a current temporary advantage, because again, historically, obviously it was different.
But I think they're leaving out the fact that it's really white males who are discriminated directly, I would assume.
Now, when I said that, did that sound like I was saying that white men are victims?
problems.
Because I'm having a number of black racists are coming after me on Twitter.
A whole bunch of black racists just saying terrible anti-white male stuff, as usual.
But, of course, that's okay.
You can do that on Twitter.
You can be racist against white guys.
Totally permitted. Totally permitted.
Yeah. Anyway, I think I had a point I was going to make, but never mind.
I'll get back to that. I would pay for this Twitter feature, and I mean this completely seriously.
My entire Twitter experience, 90% of the negativity comes from writers, artists, and editors.
Now, I wonder if that's common to other people.
Or is that just something about me?
I'm going to start blocking all the people making Shelley comments only because it's the NPC thing to do.
YouTube, if there are anybody there who's an NPC, what you want to do is, no matter what else I'm talking about, yell something about Shelley.
Right? Because it's the most common and obvious thing to say.
It has no use to the world, so it's like perfect NPC stuff.
And it's annoying to everybody.
So just keep saying that name over and over again.
Shelly, what about Shelly?
Because that's funny. It's so funny.
So thank you for doing that.
NPCs? So yeah, if I could simply not see, not see, if I could simply N-O-T space S-E-E, all tweets from writers, artists, editors, anybody who has anything political in their profile, I don't want to see a Ukraine flag or rainbow BLM. You know, I don't want to see that little blue wave thing.
None of that stuff. I just don't want to see any of their comments.
And I'm not saying I have something against rainbow people.
I love my rainbow people.
I just don't want to see their comments on Twitter.
You can put them anywhere else.
Or you can just get rid of that stuff.
Because all of these things signal a lack of seriousness.
I guess that's what it is.
They signal that I'm not here to find something that works.
I'm here to cause trouble.
I feel that's what the signal is.
Don't you? Yeah, I support the current thing.
So there's really no point in even having any kind of attempted constructive dialogue with somebody who's signaling to you that's not why they're here.
They're here for the play.
All right. Have you noticed that Democrats are going to have a tough time selling their accomplishments?
Because there's something about their accomplishments that maybe you've noticed.
There's a pattern. The things that Democrats have, quote, accomplished.
What is it that they...
There's a weird thing that it all has in common.
It's all sort of conceptual and invisible.
For example, Biden passed some legislation for infrastructure.
Do you see any?
Have you driven over any of his infrastructure?
It's invisible. Either it hasn't started yet or it's happening somewhere where I don't live or I wouldn't recognize it if I saw it.
And I'm not saying it wasn't good to do.
That's a separate argument. I'm saying that the thing he would call his accomplishment, you can't see it.
Now, how about inflation?
Can you see it?
Uh-huh. It's like a number right there on your gas pump.
What about immigration and migration?
You can see it.
There are pictures of people coming across all the time.
What about homelessness?
You can see it.
It's right there. What about the war in Ukraine?
There it is. You can see it.
I feel like everything that they're doing wrong, you can see, and everything that they would claim as a victory would be something like, well, we talked about relieving student debt.
We talked about it. I don't think it'll get approved.
We released something from the reserves, the oil reserves, and the number on the pump went down for a while, but then it went back up.
It was like, was that even real?
I never even saw a picture of the reserve.
It was like a concept.
Again, I heard some talk, and then something happened in the pump, but it didn't last.
So the Democrats, I believe, are going to go full negative in their campaigning because it's all they have that you can see.
If they say we added some wokeness to the system, can you see it?
We improved the ratio of diversity somewhere.
Did you notice?
It's all invisible stuff.
So the best argument that they have is they're going to try to paint a Trump world as a fascist dystopia where everything's falling apart.
It's actually all they have is to lie about the other side.
Which is amazing if you think about it.
Now, if I were the Republicans, I would make the list of what China's priorities are, and then I would match it up to the priorities of the Democrats, and I would say, well, it's the same.
It's the same. You could actually say that you're running against China and the Democrats, because you are.
Right? The Democrats are so close to the Chinese preferences that it's like you're running against China.
Makes you wonder how good China is at influencing things over here.
Because it's sort of a big coincidence, isn't it?
That it's sort of a big coincidence that things are going the way China would want them to go?
Well, that feels like a coincidence.
So here's the latest outrage.
So Kamala Harris said that the hurricane relief in Florida should be based on considerations of equity.
What's that mean? So the money, the recovery should be based on considerations of equity.
The only thing that means is less for white men, right?
Am I right? Equity only means less for white men.
Why not just call it that?
We're used to it.
You don't have to sugarcoat it.
Call it what it is. You want white men to get less relative to what other people would get.
Now, she has an argument for it.
Just say it.
White men have a lot.
Other people have less.
She'd like to balance it out.
Just say it. Just say it right out loud.
White men have a lot of stuff compared to other people, so we'd like to help the people who are in a bigger hole.
To me, that doesn't even sound bad.
Not really. I think it makes me mad that when you try to take my money and lie to me, it's worse than if you just say, look, I'd like to take your money, and we're going to help these other people.
Because you're doing fine, but these other people are not doing so well, so we're going to take some of your money and give it to these other people.
Well, I wouldn't like it, but at least it would be honest.
At least it's honest.
I could deal with that.
I mean, I could have a conversation about that.
But if you're trying to fool me into thinking that you're using some other word, equity, just say what it is.
Less for white males...
So that there will be more for other people.
And you think that that's a better world.
Make your case.
Just make your case.
You don't have to hide it.
All right. Yeah, equity means the actual outcomes, right?
I don't think she's trying to make everything the same outcome, but moving things in that direction.
You know, and again, did it sound like I was being a victim?
So here's where you're coming from changes your filter on everything.
When I talk about this, I don't feel like a victim.
Do you know why? Why is it that I don't feel like a victim when I say directly, people want to take things from people like me and give it to people less like me?
The reason I don't feel like a victim, well, part of it is because I'm rich.
But even when I wasn't, I didn't feel so much like a victim.
Do you know why? Because I had plenty of options.
So I just go from, if I'm somewhere where there's a disadvantage, I just leave there.
And I go where I have an advantage.
I grew up in a small town in upstate New York.
I didn't stay. If I stayed, I would have no opportunity.
So I left. When I worked at a company that said, you know, for a while, and we can't tell you how long, we're not going to promote white people, or white men, only white men, really.
So I left. And I went where I didn't have that kind of pressure.
And then I succeeded.
We have a weird situation in the economy right now where anybody qualified can get a job.
Anybody. Literally anybody qualified can get a job.
It's a weird time in history.
So if you can leave where you are, Your cousin was in NXIVM. That's interesting.
If you can leave where you are and go to someplace great, it's not the biggest problem in the world.
It really isn't. So I don't feel like a victim because I have mobility and I have an education.
If I didn't have an education and I didn't have mobility, I would feel like a victim for sure.
Very much so. Do you know what?
There's an excellent Instagram account I wish I remembered its name.
It's something like American Incomes, where there's a young man who just stops people on the street and asks them what they do for a living and what their income is and how long they've done it and what kind of job.
It's actually the most fascinating thing.
First of all, it's fascinating that people would answer the question, but I actually learned quite a bit.
Listening to people say what their income was.
Here's the big shocker.
You know, they go to the software developer.
They go, what's your income?
He's like, $125,000 a year.
Somewhere like $200,000 a year.
And I'm thinking to myself, pretty good.
Not bad. Software developers, pretty good job.
$125,000 to $190,200.
Not bad. And then they talk to a truck driver.
$300,000. Truck driver.
And I think it's because he owns his own company.
Now, I don't know what that means.
Maybe he has more than one truck?
Or that owning a truck is the company, I'm not sure.
And then they talk to a concrete guy.
So the concrete guy comes out.
They go, what do you do? He goes, I'm in concrete.
What did you make last year?
$300,000 or $400,000. Then they talk to the real estate guys.
And the real estate guys are like, I made a million dollars.
A million dollars.
It's also interesting to see the composition of the people.
You see the The bedraggled looking people just killing it.
And some people are really put together not killing it at all.
And it just is a real eye-opener about how many types of people there are and how many opportunities there are.
And if you chose a job that doesn't have much of an upside, well, well, there you go.
All right. So we got science discriminating against men.
We got... Everybody discriminating against everybody?
All right, is there anything else going on?
Talent and desire.
This needs to be the next theme in Dilbert.
What does? How much do they spend after taxes?
That's a good question. So I guess the Jeffrey Dahmer movie was getting some criticism by the LGBTQ community because he was a little too gay.
He's gay and a cannibal.
We don't like that. That's bad for the brand.
Let's get rid of this troll.
Put the user in timeout.
Anybody else? Is VP Harris protecting herself by trying to be the equity czar?
No, I don't think that really protects her.
I see what you're saying, but that's not much protection.
I don't even think the Democrats want her.
Do they? Yeah, I wasn't really interested in the Dahmer movie.
Do you watch movies where just bad things happen to people?
You should really take my rule.
That if you watch a movie, as soon as somebody is tied to a chair, you should turn it off.
Is anybody on board?
If you see a movie and anybody is tied to a chair, as soon as you see it, just turn it off and never go back to it.
Because if that's the best you can do, is yet another thing about somebody tied to a chair, you do not deserve to be making movies.
If that's the best you can do.
I also don't watch car chase scenes.
I fast forward through them.
Because you know what a car chase scene looks like?
My face! My face!
How many times do you want to go back and forth between somebody's face and something happening really quickly that's hard to see?
And then fight scenes!
Do you fast-forward through the fight scenes?
I started fast-forwarding through all group fight scenes.
If it's one-on-one, I might watch it because there might be something interesting dialogue.
But if it's the one hero against the 25 people in the bar, fast-forward.
Yep, yep, yep, yep. He wins again.
Fast-forward. How about the scenes where they're establishing that the two people are very much in love because they're going to kill the woman pretty soon?
How about that one? Because you know the wife is going to be dead.
Or kidnapped or something.
As soon as the movie people start acting fake sexy, I'm like...
Is there some kind of acting school where they teach you how not to be attractive to another person?
Yeah, I can't even do an impression of how bad it is to watch movie people pretend they're in love.
Oh my god, it's so bad!
Fast forward. So I won't watch any romantic scene, and if they try to put sex in it to try to turn me on, I'll be like, you're an R-rated movie, good luck, boom, fast forward.
Right? So I don't want to see any chase scene, I don't want to see any fight scene.
I don't want to see any torture scene.
I don't want to see any romance scene.
I still do kind of like the dialogue scenes among bad guys and good guys, and good guys who are rogues and their bosses.
Like, sometimes the dialogue is good, and everything else is just filler.
When I watch a Marvel movie, I fast-forward through the action scenes.
I mean, think about that.
These are movies that are made entirely for the action scenes, pretty much.
I fast-forwarded through that stuff.
There's nothing interesting in those.
They all look the same now.
How many Spider-Man movies are there?
It's just all the same movie, isn't it?
Every Spiderman is exactly the same as the last Spider-Man.
But the worst one of all is Doctor Strange.
I do like Doctor Strange because I like the actor and some of the dialogue and stuff.
But you can't really make a movie about magic.
Because the ending is always the same.
Well, somebody used some magic.
And then in between there was like some fight.
But one of the things that all the magicians have to do is not use their good spells right away.
Have you noticed that? Super, super bad villain.
I'll use my little spell where I'll send a little bit of a fireball your way.
And then the other wizard will be like, stop the fireball.
Shoot it back. And I'm thinking to myself, well, was that like your best magic there?
And then later they'll be like, bringing down skyscrapers on the other one.
And I'm thinking to myself, well, start with a skyscraper.
What's a little ball of fire going to do to another wizard?
So they have to write the thing where the wizards are all stupid until the end.
Then the wizards use their magic or something to win.
As soon as you've introduced magic, you can't really write a story about it.
Because you have to take their magic away with stupid magic reasons.
Right, we should just watch Happy Gilmore and be done with everything else.
So we can't have any comedies because everything's woke.
And the action movies are literally all just the same movie.
There's no point in watching them at all.
No, not a fan of Lord of the Rings.
I have tried to watch the Lord of the Rings.
But the Lord of the Rings is all just the same scene over again.
Strange characters are in danger.
I guess some orcs are coming.
You better fight them. It's just the same scene repeated over and over with different orcs and different creatures.
That's it. How about The Matrix?
The Matrix was innovative.
Yeah. The Matrix was innovative.
Even the fight scenes in The Matrix were not boring.
Another one that satisfied me was Crouching Tiger.
What's the rest of that?
Something something. Crouching Tiger.
Hidden Dragon. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
Because the fight scenes were fantastic.
I mean, as in fantasy.
where they could sort of fly a little bit and they had some cool powers and stuff.
All right.
All right, anything else happening today?
All right.
Oh, the trolls.
You are hidden.
You know, I would love to interview trolls.
So, for example, there's somebody on YouTube right now who just now wants to create new accounts and say, Shelly, Shelly, Shelly.
So he's spending his time trying to make my live stream less interesting for other people.
And I wonder, how many people are actually wired where their main operating system is just to make things worse for other people?
Like, who has that as their go-to?
Well, I woke up today.
I made something a little harder for somebody I don't know.
I mean, somebody says their wife.
And I feel it's like there's some people who need that friction in their life to feel complete.
Are they abused people?
They're people who are abused and they feel they're abusing you back.
Maybe. I feel like I remind people of their abuser or something.
Because there are definitely people who come after me who have some kind of mental problem they're working through.
As in they've been damaged somehow and they have to hurt me to feel better somehow.
I'm not really following the Brazilian elections.
But I would love to have an actual conversation with one of my worst trolls and see what would happen if I talked to them in person.
And say, can you explain to me what you're trying to accomplish?
And I think they would say something like, you know, you deserve it or...
It's because of all the bad things you do.
And then I would say, could you name one?
And they won't have any example.
There'll be literally no example.
But they'll be pretty sure that I'm on some team they don't like so that they have to hurt me.
Yeah. But I'd love to know what's behind that.
I don't think it's exactly envy.
It's like there is a, and it's mostly a male thing, right?
It's mostly a male thing.
So men like to hurt successful things.
It's sort of an impulse we have.
You have an opinion on climate change?
Is there somebody here so new you don't know my opinion on climate change?
Let me state it clearly in case somebody doesn't know.
I do believe the basic science of climate change.
Which is if you add certain stuff to the atmosphere, if everything else stayed the same, it would make it warmer.
So I think that's true.
Because I think you can demonstrate that in too many ways, including in a laboratory and a test.
So I think that part is probably true.
I think that the evidence that it's the sun has been debunked sufficiently, that I ignore that.
I do think that, like all science, we could be really surprised.
Maybe tomorrow we find out that the debunks about the sun were not so debunking after all.
Maybe we find out that the people who think it's the sun and somehow have never bothered to Google the debunk, you should take five minutes and just Google whatever you think is true and then the word debunk.
It's quite an eye-opener.
Take anything you think is true, and then Google it with the word debunk.
And there it will be.
So, I'm just not a believer that we can predict catastrophe.
Because I think the innovation is the part that will save us, because it always does.
And I think we're getting closer and closer to technologies that will completely solve it.
So, it does make sense that if you change the chemistry of the atmosphere, it should make some difference.
I don't think that's in question.
You're surprised to learn that we receive no heat from the sun.
What? You mean, well, we receive energy from the sun, which converts it to heat.
I guess that's what you mean.
All right. The correlation of solar activity to global temperature is solid, some people say.
So that's a very common belief on the right, that if you looked at solar patterns, it would map to warming.
But I would ask you again just to Google that and the word debunk, and you'll find it thoroughly debunked.
Now, if you've never seen the debunks, You need to do it and stop talking about it.
If you've read all the debunks and you believe that you can tell what is true, you know, the solar flare idea or the debunk, then I would argue that you're fooling yourself because you can't tell.
You can't tell. Somebody says, kleiboscience is bunk because they've made so many bad predictions in the past.
You know that's bad, bad thinking, right?
Because everything that works went through a period, sometimes a long period, where it didn't.
So nothing could fly until something did.
So we had hundreds of years of people trying to fly and crashing and dying until we did.
So is it possible that we were idiots about climate change for a hundred years and then science finally caught up and then we got smarter?
You rule that out like that would be a crazy thing.
That would be the most normal thing in the world, is that science was wrong for 100 years, and then finally got smarter.
Now, it is not my opinion that that's what happened.
I'm not telling you that's my opinion.
I'm saying that you ruled out the most common thing, as if the most common thing doesn't happen.
No, the most common thing happens.
The most common thing is that you're bad at it until you're good at it.
It's like everything is like that.
So it shouldn't mean anything to you that we were bad at it for 100 years.
Because science has changed a lot in 100 years.
100 years ago, we couldn't go to the moon.
But now we can. Now we can.
All right. We're going to hide all the Shelly people who just can't stop being assholes.
You know, you're all just assholes.
Really. I really can't tell how many of you are even serious.
Okay. Now I know.
I was waiting for somebody who's definitely a troll to say the Shelly thing, so now I know you're all trolls.
