Episode 1887 Scott Adams: Kanye Says White Lives Matter And Elon Musk Is Buying Twitter. Fun News
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Tony Bobulinski's Hunter Biden story
Bill Gates criticizes ESG
NY Daily News hit piece on me
Why I'm left of Bernie
Elon Musk to proceed with Twitter purchase
Fetterman wants to release 1/3 of prison population
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 welcome to another peak experience of human existence.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There is nothing finer in the entire galaxy and known universe.
You know that rover that's up there on Mars that's digging for dirt?
No matter how far it digs, it's not going to find anything better.
Thank you, Paul. Appreciate that.
Now, would you like to take your experience up to the highest levels ever known to humanity?
Yes, you would. And all you need is a cupper mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stine, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Hold on, wait a minute. Don over on YouTube says he does not want to take it up to the highest level of awesomeness.
Don? Don?
I need you all on board.
This is the simultaneous sip.
This is not the simultaneous minus Don sip.
Don, you have to get on board.
Don? Get on board.
Get on board. It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better, including for Don.
Alright, I think he's on board.
He's on board. You're on board.
Go. That's for you, Don.
See, I'm going to get you in one at a time.
So this just reminded me of a weird little thing that happened when I was a kid.
My parents had these friends, Don and Ann.
We always heard about them.
Well, we're going to hang out with Don and Ann.
They had two names that went together really well.
Don and Ann. And Don was, I think he worked construction, but he had been in World War II. And he had been stationed on an island in the Pacific, and his job was to load ordnance on bombers.
And one of the things he once loaded on a bomber was an atomic bomb.
So he was on the island of Tinian and he literally loaded the atomic bomb onto the plane that bombed Japan.
I think it was the first one.
It was the first one I think.
And I always thought, how in the world, like, what are the odds that I would literally, yeah, the Enola Gay, he actually loaded the Enola Gay.
And I thought, what are the odds I would actually know him personally?
Like, you'd personally know somebody that loaded the atomic bomb on the Enola Gay.
It's just so weird.
Well, in the news, very important news, Tom Brady and Giselle Bunchen looks like they're living separately and maybe talking to a divorce lawyer.
Similarly, Brad and Angelina are divorcing and having a bad time in the courts over it.
I have a theory that goes like this.
What if nobody is happily married?
What if nobody is happily married?
And I actually mean that.
And I think that it has something to do with our times.
Yeah, I know you are.
Sure you are. Let me stipulate.
I will stipulate that 100% of the people who are married and want to stay that way, totally happily married, as far as your spouse knows.
All right? As far as your spouse knows, happily married.
I have a theory that all happily married people are lying.
Just my theory. And it's part of the process.
And I don't mind that.
That's not even a criticism.
Because I am very much a believer in, I'm going to call it the Jordan Peterson view of marriage.
I probably mischaracterized him, so I apologize in advance.
But his view is that it's not about being happy.
It's not about being happy.
It's more about a commitment.
So if you got married to get happy, you probably did it wrong.
So I think that when people say they're happy, what they mean is they'd rather be married than not married.
Which I totally get.
I totally get that.
You'd rather be married than not married, right?
So would you say that you're happily married equates to I'd rather be married than not married?
That makes perfect sense.
I just don't think anybody's happy about it.
Here's why. No, I'm not sure you should be.
Because maybe we just have a miserable world where people are struggling for scraps of happiness no matter what they're doing.
Because I'm not saying that being single is good.
Let me be clear. Being single is no good.
I don't like it. I don't like it at all.
But I just don't think that we've developed in society options that work.
And here's why. I'm going to give you a scientific reason why.
You ready? This is based on a conversation I had yesterday, electronically.
So somebody was telling me that they had had over 100 lovers, and it wasn't until reaching lover approximately 150...
That a great lover was found and finally the search showed that you have to go through a lot of people before you find the one who's an amazing lover.
And unfortunately that didn't work out.
So the relationship with number 150 didn't work out for whatever reasons.
So now what happens when this person goes to number 151?
When they go to 151, they're going to say, ah, I really like this person, but now I know what good sex feels like.
I can't really be with number 151, because everything's good, but the sex is just average.
So you're done. So you go to number 152.
How is number 152?
Pretty good. Pretty good.
Except that the sex isn't like it was with 150.
You see where I'm going?
In the old days, people married whoever was next door and had a cow.
My entire criteria are, do you have a vagina and a cow?
Well, I have a vagina.
I'm looking for somebody who has a vagina and a cow.
Because I need a cow, too.
And then if you got your wife that way, you'd be like, I got everything I wanted.
Cow, vagina, boom!
Happiness. Am I wrong?
Cow, vagina, happiness.
That's 1942 right there.
Now, you can go on the internet and see every manner of desirable thing, and you can compare it to your own life, and it doesn't look so good.
So here's what's happened.
Your comparison set has expanded to the point where everything sucks.
Do you get that? This is based on science.
This is not even an opinion.
What I'm saying to you now is not opinion.
It's just the way people work.
If you give me lots of choices, every time I look at one of those choices, I'm going to say, hmm, I kind of wish I didn't know about all those other options that I'm not getting, because I think I may want to hold on a little bit longer until I get one of these.
And then I age out, I'm too old to get married, and that sort of thing.
So I believe that humans are destroyed by options.
And that we've reached an option set where we can't handle it.
And that marriage is simply one of the many things that suffers from it, but maybe not especially.
So, yeah.
So I think, do you know why TV's no good?
I saw somebody prompt me for that.
Do you know why television is no good at all?
Because there are too many channels.
Too many channels.
Do you know that I spend now 90% of my time looking for something and maybe 10% of my time consuming?
What did you used to do?
You used to have three channels.
I mean, if you're a certain age, you had three channels.
And you would just watch one of them, whichever was the good one.
You'd say, well, I've got three choices.
I'll watch the best of the three.
Right? You sat through the commercials.
You used it to go to the bathroom.
It was fine. Yeah.
Too many choices. Well, here's another, so that's your first persuasion trick is that people with too many choices are not happier.
Did you ever take a date to the Cheesecake Factory?
Oh my god, it's a shit show.
The Cheesecake Factory has a menu that's like 700 choices.
Here's me going to the Cheesecake Factory.
And again, this doesn't matter who I'm going with.
Now, I'm a vegetarian.
Pescatarian, actually. And decisive.
So here's me with the cheesecake menu.
One page of stuff I could eat.
I'll go with that one. I'll have the whatever.
Evelyn's pasta.
Here's my date.
Here's me.
Here's me.
Oh, shit, I don't have a watch.
I can't look at my phone.
If I pick up my phone, I'm going to get...
I'm just going to look at it.
It looks like I'm going to be here a while.
This could be 20 minutes.
I just want to check one message.
Put your phone down! No, I've never been with anybody who told me to put my phone down.
But I've been with people who didn't like it when I picked it up.
Now, let me ask you this question.
If your date is looking at the menu, Can you look at your phone?
Yes or no? If your date is looking at the menu and you're done, can you look at your phone?
Oh, look at the answers. Yeses and nos.
Big disagreement here, huh?
Yeah, this one's not settled.
See, we need a whole set of manners that are constructed for our unique times.
Because we don't really have phone manners totally worked out.
So I told you I've been going to Starbucks to do some writing.
It's just easier to do my writing when I'm there.
In Starbucks, people started taking video calls.
Seriously. They sit at Starbucks and they take video calls for work.
And I'm thinking, seriously?
Like, in what fucking world is that okay?
In no world is that okay.
And it's now common.
It's actually common in Starbucks now.
People taking video calls for extended periods.
Amazing. Without headphones.
Without headphones, yeah.
I mean, they're talking, too.
Some of them are on headphones, but others are just talking and listening.
So I guess Tucker had Tony Bobulinski on again, and he's Hunter's ex-business partner.
Now here's the most amazing thing about the Hunter-Biden story.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what happened.
Now I'm going to make up a different story, not about Hunter.
And it went like this.
Do you hear about that Hunter?
He went to Elbonia.
Really? Yeah.
So what? Well, you know, Elbonia is our enemy.
Yeah, well, a lot of people go there.
You know, he talked to somebody important in the government.
Really? That's kind of sketchy.
But, you know, probably people do that.
It's no big deal. You know, he talked to people in the government and they talked about making a deal.
And I thought, oh, huh, my eyebrow goes up a little bit.
But talking about a deal is, you know, people talk.
It's not illegal to talk.
But they actually made a deal.
Oh, they made a deal.
He's in Albania, he's talking to important people, he talked about a deal, he made a deal.
Well, that does sound a little bit bad.
And the deal would have...
Involved, you know, maybe something bad involving our government.
Really. By the time you hear the whole story, you've been so indoctrinated into it that you've lost your outrage.
And you can't get enough outrage going.
The Hunter Biden story, if you had heard the entire story like in one big bite on day one, Your head would have exploded.
Biden would have been driven out of office or never been elected.
Hunter would be under investigation.
But the way they dribbled it out, we just got used to it.
When I hear that Hunter Biden was illegally, presumably, trying to make deals with the Chinese government to make money by using his father's name in the worst possible way, I don't even have outrage about it.
I have intellectual outrage.
Yeah, okay. That sounds very bad on paper.
If you gave me a choice, I would make it go away.
I think maybe the Department of Justice should look into it.
That was my entire emotional investment.
None. I have no emotional investment in Hunter because of the way they just dribbled it out and I just kept getting used to it.
Yeah, they were just boiling that frog and I was like, oh, sure it's getting warm in here.
It's only one degree warmer than yesterday.
It's only a little bit worse than what we heard.
And now we have his actual business partner confirming the entire illegality of the entire thing in the most credible way.
I mean, completely credible.
We know that the intelligence agencies intentionally got 50 people to lie and that they changed the nature of the election by this lie, probably.
Now, how outraged should you be by this story?
It's a 10 out of 10.
It is a solid 10 out of 10.
How outraged do I actually feel about it?
One. One.
Yeah. And I'm completely aware that it should be ten.
It should be ten.
Today, when I'm done talking about this, I won't even think about it once.
I will not think about it once after I'm done talking today.
They did that to you.
That's what they did to you.
They made you get used to that.
And you did. Amazing!
I didn't think it was possible.
You know, I've said this a million times.
My mother always taught me that you can get used to anything if you do it long enough, including hanging.
And there was always, you know, a joke around the house.
But we got used to it.
We actually got used to Hunter Biden working deals with China while his dad was vice president at the time.
Bill Gates is criticizing ESG. Directly.
And he basically says that it's ridiculous for these fund managers, people who manage financial funds, to be influencing people who make steel.
Because his, I'm paraphrasing now Bill Gates' criticism, but he's saying, do the finance people have another way to make steel?
Like, what's the other way to make steel without polluting?
It's like, what is your idea?
Do you have something in your desk drawer at your finance department that'll tell them how to make steel without polluting?
You either have to not make steel, or you better invent something that nobody's figured out how to make steel, or just do without it.
So Bill Gates is going right at him.
Now, why does Bill Gates think that ESG is bullshit?
Not the goals. He's not criticizing the goals of having a good environment, of course.
Because he was the owner of a company.
He was the owner of a company, and he's at an age where he can just speak freely.
Of course it's bad for business.
Every CEO will tell you, you don't want another layer of management on top of your layers of management.
There's nobody in the world who thinks extra layers of regulations gives you a better outcome.
I mean, at some point.
I mean, some regulations you need, of course.
But when you get to some point, they're counterproductive.
So, Bill Gates is saying it's bullshit.
Here are some numbers I hadn't heard before.
So BlackRock is one of, I guess, the biggest voice for the ESG stuff.
And it's making the socially responsible funds, as the Wall Street Journal says, the centerpiece of its $8.5 trillion business.
So you've got finance companies who figured out how to get you to churn.
Because that's their business.
I don't know if you knew this, but finance companies...
They're not in the business of making money for you.
Did you know that? That's not their business model.
That's what they promise you.
That's why you put your money there, to make money.
But that's not their business model.
Their business model is to get as much of your money away from you and into their pockets as they can.
So they want you to not put your money in one place and have it sit there.
Although they could make money on just managing it.
So they can get your money two different ways.
One is moving it into a fund they manage, so they want to build some bullshit around that, so you'll move to them.
But the other way, not necessarily BlackRock, but financial companies in general, is that they can make fees on moving you in and out of stuff.
So the fund managers want you to move around, because that's how they make money, not how you make money, it's how they make money.
And they want to go into their fund because, again, that's how they make money.
It's not how you make money.
So the companies that are the least ethical companies in America are the big funds, the big financial companies.
They're the least ethical.
Because they don't even pretend to sell you what you think you're buying.
They don't even pretend.
I guess they pretend a little bit, but it's such a thin pretense.
It's like, okay, you're just moving our money into your pocket, but you're scaring us so that we'll let you do it.
So what they really sell is fear.
A big financial company is selling you fear.
And here's the fear.
If you do it yourself, you're going to fuck up.
That's it. That's the whole thing.
That's their entire... Business pitch.
If you do it yourself, well, you're going to fuck up.
So you better let us do it.
So it's a complete scam.
That's why you should manage your own money if you can.
All right. And I guess there's 350 billion of these funds.
So it's big, big money.
So ESG is being backed by big money people who have tons of money on the line.
The big money people are not interested in the environment necessarily.
I mean, they might also be.
And they're not interested in the companies doing well necessarily.
They're looking for their fees.
So apparently Apple is making some changes to move its supply chain closer to Cupertino because of supply chain uncertainty, especially China.
Now, do you remember in 2018 when people laughed at me and mocked me for saying that China was too risky for business and we would decouple?
Yeah. Do you remember how crazy that sounded?
And I just kept saying it in public, and I was the only one.
I think I was the only public person.
That's not true. Kyle Bass was saying it.
Gordon Chang, I think, was saying it.
But it was a rare thing to say.
But now, just normal, right?
Now just normal. Peter Zand sang for years, yes.
That's correct. I also said Ukraine could win against Russia.
I was mocked, and now that is common belief.
And I said Trump would win in 2016, and I was mocked.
Now, how many times do I have to say something crazy before you'll give me the benefit of a doubt?
Like, what do I have to do?
I get that I got something wrong.
But the ones I got wrong were sort of ordinary ones, like guessing who the vice president pick would be.
Everybody gets that wrong. I mean, the ones that I got right...
You should look at these three and just say, okay, that's freaky.
I'll just say the three.
Decoupling from China, Ukraine winning the war, and Trump getting the presidency in 2016.
Who else got those three right?
I also said that the Project Warp Speed would not create a vaccination that worked.
And didn't. I mean, it worked in a therapeutic way, but that's it.
We hope. Maybe it was worse than that.
Why am I claiming the end of the Ukraine war?
I'm not. Have you noticed that everybody who thinks they disagree with me is imagining what I thought?
Perfect example. Why am I claiming the end of the Ukraine war?
Did I do that? Did I just claim the end of the war?
Everybody has to add something to make me wrong.
It's super important that I be wrong, so you have to just add something.
So there's this NYU chemistry professor who got sacked after 82 of his 350 students complained that his course was too hard.
His organic chemistry class was too hard.
So he got fired.
Now, the way this is being reported, at least in right-leaning news, is that students are a bunch of pussies, and if they were as tough as they used to be, they would just take that hard class and they'd suck it up.
And that's the way it is.
And you don't get participation trophies.
And I'm completely on the other side of that.
I've experienced science being made harder than it needs to be.
I haven't taken organic chemistry, but I've been around enough people who are taking it at the moment.
Is it my imagination that organic chemistry is intentionally harder than it should be?
Intentionally. Yes or no?
Intentionally harder than it needs to be.
Why is it designed to be ten times harder than other courses?
No good reason. Here's something I'm going to say with no experience in organic chemistry.
This is what people hate me for, to say things completely out of my area of expertise.
But I'm still right.
The problem is the incompetence of the people who make the class.
You could not convince me that you can't make that class manageable and still useful.
Because we have computers now, right?
I feel like you could teach people the concepts and tell them to use the computer to do the hard stuff, and you'd be fine.
I'm pretty sure it's just trying to find...
And I think that that's giving them too much credit to say that they make it hard to weed out the dumb people.
That's not what they're doing intentionally.
I think they're just really bad at teaching.
It's just bad teaching.
And here's what informs me.
I've told you this story before.
So years ago I thought I would write a book on personal finance, because I have a background in economics and business and stuff.
And I'd been doing a lot of investing, and I thought, I could write a book On personal investing, people would like that.
I'll simplify it. And then the problem was that I could put the entire book on one page, which I did.
I put it on one page.
And I didn't even have to single space.
It turns out that everything you need to know about personal finance fits on one page with lots of extra space.
And then you go to the library, you see books and books on personal finance.
So what's that all about? Do you want me to tell you what that's all about?
It's people who didn't know how to teach it.
That's it. The entire field of finance is entirely about people who aren't good at explaining stuff.
And the first time that somebody who is good at explaining stuff entered the field, me, me, I put it on one page.
Now, if you're saying to yourself, yeah, but who agreed that you did it right?
Well... Have you ever heard the book A Random Walk Down Wall Street?
Burton Malkiel.
Princeton, one of the most famous economists in the world, wrote the book on personal investing.
He contacted me and asked me if he could put my one page in his book because he thought I covered it all.
He's basically considered maybe the number one expert in the field.
And he says I took the entire field and put it on one page.
He says... He was going to try to do it himself, and the reason he didn't is because I did it.
He goes, oh, you already did it.
Now, I don't think he actually published it.
I don't know why, but he got permission.
Henry, let's give Henry a little lesson here.
So Henry over here, I like to catch these people.
Scott likes to brag about his greatness.
What do you think this show is?
The entire show is me predicting things and then seeing how I do.
The only reason you're watching me is you think I could do it better than you could.
Why the fuck would you watch me if you don't think I could do it better than you?
You should just sit there alone in a chair instead of wasting your time listening to this.
Because apparently I have nothing to teach you and nothing to say.
All right. You need to work on your ego if that's where you're at.
Pretty low level of awareness.
Remember I told you that the press would come after me before the elections?
Remember I told you there would be a hit piece about me?
And I keep waiting for it.
And there was a very weak attempt yesterday.
It's so weak that I just retweet it.
You know you failed in a hit piece when somebody retweets it.
Without, you know, much complaint.
So it's the New York Daily News.
Would you like some context?
So this is the part that people don't realize when they're just casual consumers of the news.
So here's a newspaper writing something bad about me.
It's the New York Daily News.
Do you think the New York Daily News carries my comic?
What do you think? No.
No. Do you think the competitor does?
No. Yes.
Yes. Yes.
So coincidentally, coincidentally, they're criticizing me without ever mentioning that I'm a primary piece of content for their main competitor in New York City.
They just don't mention that.
That's just left out. Totally not relevant.
Here's what they say about me in the New York Daily News.
They call me, they say that I'm a right-wing cartoonist, a right-wing cartoonist, and that I'm the cause of the coming violence.
That's right. I'm the cause of the coming violence.
I am. Do you know why?
Because of my tweets that became viral memes.
And I said that, according to the article, that if Biden is elected, there's a good chance you will be dead within a year, and also that Republicans will be hunted.
Now, I did say those things.
I did say those things.
But they've decided that they can blame any violence on me, So by predicting violence, I'm the cause of it.
Because I predicted that the Democrats would be violent, which causes the Republicans to react, and so therefore I'm the cause of the Republicans who reacted to the violence.
And wait, it gets more amazing.
It gets more amazing. Do you think that they mentioned any of the examples That have been used by the right to justify that they are being hunted.
Nope. Nope.
No mention whatsoever of the prominent public headline examples that the right uses to populate this meme and say, yes, we are being hunted.
Here's this example, this example, this example, this example.
The article that mocks me for saying it doesn't mention any of them.
Doesn't even mention they exist.
Simply says that I'm creating a dangerous situation such that if ever there's even one Republican who does anything to any Democrat, guess whose fault that is?
Me. Now, I don't think that this was a good job.
I mean, it was a little article in a rag.
I mean, the New York Daily News, there's not much left of it anymore.
So it's not going to move the needle.
But I feel like it was a test shot.
If that had maybe caught on a little bit, then other people would say, oh, let's work on this.
Let's turn the cartoonist into the one who's causing the violence.
Because you know me, that's what I do, right?
I go out and cause violence.
That's a pretty accurate description of me.
Not. Not.
Now, what about the part where they say I'm right-wing?
Somebody said to me recently that they checked my Twitter feed and it's all right-wing stuff.
And my first reaction was, yeah, it is not.
And then I thought to myself, oh, I'll bet it actually is.
You would definitely think it was.
If you listen to me on live stream, there's a lot more nuance all the time.
But I don't think I do it as much on Twitter.
I don't do it as much. So I could see, I could actually see how somebody would think I'm right-wing based on my Twitter.
Now, I say that I'm left to Bernie and people laugh at me because there's nothing left to Bernie.
Yes, there is. I am.
I'm totally left to Bernie.
You want some examples? Give me some.
Right-wing people might want to bar abortion in many cases.
Correct? You know, in general.
Right? Just generalizations.
So the right wing wants to ban it.
Bernie would say that he's in favor of abortion.
Right? And I'm left to Bernie, because Bernie's in favor of abortion.
And I'm in favor of Bernie shutting the fuck up with his cock.
Because his cock has nothing to do with abortion.
He's not part of the conversation.
So I'm left of him.
I say, let the women figure it out, and then tell us what you figured out.
And then I'll be on board.
I'm way left of burning on abortion, right?
How about guns?
The right wing would say, Second Amendment, don't restrict my gun ownership.
Bernie would say, well, you know, I am in favor of gun ownership, because he actually owns a gun, I think.
So Bernie's actually in favor of the Second Amendment, but with lots of restrictions.
But still in favor of the Second Amendment.
And I'm left to Bernie, and I think that Democrats should not be allowed to own guns.
That's way left to Bernie, because Bernie's still, the Second Amendment's good, and I don't think Democrats should be allowed to own guns, because that's where all the danger is.
And it's what they want. I mean, they want less guns, and I want them to have what they want.
And since the right is not terribly dangerous in terms of guns, you know, minus the lone shooters that are definitely dangerous, but in general, you know, the baseline, it's a Democrat problem.
So I'm way left at Bernie.
I say, take away that Second Amendment rights for Democrats.
Right? What other topics am I left to Bernie on?
People on the right would say you should ignore race.
Ignore race, but that, of course, gives some advantage to the people who already have advantage, right?
So it's a little white-leaning and right-leaning.
Not necessarily by intention, but that's how it works out.
The left would say, hey, everybody's equal.
Everybody's equal. And Bernie would say that.
Bernie would say, everybody's equal.
I don't. I'm left of that.
I say Black Lives Matter extra.
Anybody who thinks that Black Lives Matter only the same amount as everybody else, they're right of me.
They're way right of me.
I say Black Lives Matter extra.
And it's obvious why.
It's obvious. Because there are fewer of them, and they're in great demand.
If there's fewer of anything that's in great demand, it has more value.
Why is it that corporate America is trying desperately to increase diversity?
It's because there's a low supply and a high demand.
That's what creates value.
So yeah, not only do I agree that black lives matter, they matter extra.
They're a little bit extra valuable.
If somebody black were killed, is it more likely to become a news story than if somebody white is killed?
Of course. George Floyd would be a perfect example.
No, they're extra.
Now, that's just three examples.
I could do this all day.
Did you see the story about Kanye?
He did a fashion show for Yeezy and did it in Paris.
And the big story is that he wore a shirt that said, White Lives Matter.
And I saw a picture of him with Candace Owens.
Was she at the show? Or was the picture from somewhere else?
Can you confirm, was Candace Owens at the show?
Or was that too different?
She was, right? Now, don't you assume that Candace was behind that?
Duh, because she was wearing one-two.
Right? So Candace had to be behind that.
Wouldn't you love to have heard that conversation?
Can you imagine the conversation between Candace Owens and Kanye when Candace, I know she's the one who...
Do we all agree she's the one who suggested it?
That's just sort of obvious, right?
We don't know.
That's not confirmed. But I'm going to treat it as obvious.
It's not confirmed.
But I imagine that conversation went like this.
Hey, you want to get some attention?
Put this white life shirt on.
Now, Kanye is not like the rest of us.
Kanye, he operates at a higher level, frankly.
Higher level of persuasion, higher level of art.
He's just at a different level.
I don't think anybody else would have been smart enough to do that.
Because remember, a fashion show is about getting attention, even negative attention.
That's part of the tradition of it, is to really shock you so all the people who don't know you're shocked just to get attention give you their attention.
And then they say stuff like, my God, who would wear those clothes?
Because the public doesn't know that the fashion show is not supposed to be the actual clothing line.
It's supposed to just shock you.
So Kanye finds the best way to possibly shock.
The best way.
He could not have done that better.
Again, genius.
Who is he selling clothes to?
White people. Right, white people.
The last thing Kanye wants is a Black Lives Matter shirt.
That's the worst thing he could do for business.
He wants to sell clothes to people who have money.
Be they white or black.
He just wants people with money to buy his clothes and like them.
So I think it was brilliant.
And I'm going to repay the respect.
Because in my opinion, it was done for attention, of course.
But I think that Kanye also operates on the social level.
That it's not just for business.
Would you agree? I don't think Kanye is just about business.
It doesn't look it to me.
It looks like he has larger ambitions for a good world.
So I believe that what Kanye did was simply show respect to a category that he probably thinks I'm in.
And so I thought I would repay the favor.
So today I ordered my Black Lives Matter shirt from Amazon.
Should have it tomorrow. So I'm going to start wearing my Black Lives Matter shirt on my live stream.
Everybody okay with that?
And specifically, it's to return the respect.
Because I actually do think Black Lives Matter.
There's nothing sarcastic about that.
Of course they matter.
Of course they matter.
But because he did that, because Kanye wore the White Lives Matter shirt, then I say, whoa, there's a model I would like to copy.
I'd love to see Republicans wearing Black Lives Matter shirts.
Just to repay the respect.
Because respect is the thing that we're all missing, right?
That's like the thing that went away.
And I think the internet has mostly to do with that.
Because you'll respect people in person, because they'll punch you in the face if you don't.
But you end up getting real disrespectful online.
And I do it too. I'm not saying other people do it.
I do it too. It's just too easy to do.
And so, when I see something that works in the right direction, if it works in the right direction...
I like it too. Somebody says, I missed the point.
What's the point? What's the point?
Alright, I'll wait for that.
Kanye said BLM is a scam.
Right. So did I. Now that we know that Black Lives Matter, the organization, is a scam, I can wear the shirt.
Because everybody knows it now.
So that helps, actually.
That goes right to it.
All right. And plus, I identify as black, so for me, it's more organic.
Even the Russian reporters are reporting bad news about the Russian involvement.
Listen to these choices of words from Russian journalists.
So there's war correspondent Alexander Katz.
You said on Telegram, so this is on Telegram, but you said that the Russian military was in, quote, operational crisis.
Operational crisis.
Just consider that choice of words.
Operational crisis. Would you ever say that about your own military?
I mean, that does sound like the technical words for collapse, doesn't it?
All right, but let's go on.
Then another reporter, Sladkov, I don't know where he said it, somewhere, somewhere publicly he said about the Russian military, he says, this doesn't mean that we've collapsed like a house of cards.
These mistakes aren't gigantic strategic failures.
Do you know what I hear when somebody says we're not collapsing like a house of cards?
Do you know what I hear?
We are collapsing like a stack of cards.
Nobody would pick those words.
Nobody picks those words unless they actually believe they're collapsing like cards.
You would never say, we're not collapsing like a house of cards.
You would say, oh, we're doing great.
Stronger than ever, building up steam, we're collecting our forces, we're strategically withdrawing, but we're gaining our strength, we're coming back.
You would never, never say house of cards in any context unless you thought it was on the table.
So the people closest to it, the Russians themselves, they see the whole thing looking like it's falling apart.
That's now clear.
I know I hate you that I was the best predictor of the entire Ukraine military, but I was.
But I was, by far.
All right.
And they seem to be pinning their hopes on the special mobilization There isn't one military person who thinks that the special mobilization is going to work.
But it also puts some urgency on the Ukrainians to get as much as they can before any recruitments come in.
Anyway, so here's something that you never expected me to hear, because I don't even know if this is left-wing or right-wing, but it looks like Joe Biden's team is very close to taking Russia off the board as a superpower, which looks to be exactly what they're attempting to do and have wanted to do for a long time.
Now, you could say it's NATO winning, but not really.
It's more the United States.
Would you give them credit for it if it happens?
What if they pull it off?
Because, you know, this is exactly the sort of thing I get mad at Democrats for.
You know, when Trump would do something that was unambiguously good, they couldn't give him any credit at all.
Right? But what if he pulls it off?
Right? Now, the risk, of course, is insane.
The risk of nuclear war, the big risk.
But what if he pulls it off?
You know, even at the great expense, what if he actually just takes Russia out of the game?
Like, forever. Yeah, it's a big if, but it looks like it's going to happen.
And Joel Pollack referred to it in Breitbart as moving closer to a situation where Russia would be China's northern colony.
Ouch. Russia has a northern colony of China.
Because if China owned them economically, they would own them in every way.
And it looks like that might happen.
I said on Twitter yesterday that you should turn off any movie as soon as there's a scene where somebody's tied to a chair.
And my thinking was that that's a signal that the writers ran out of ideas.
And a lot of writers came in to complain, because writers don't like me.
And they said, Scott...
How can you say that they've run out of ideas just because somebody's tied to a chair?
If you don't watch a movie because somebody's tied to a chair, you're not going to see, let's see, Reservoir Dogs, Casino, The Matrix, Indiana Jones.
And they listed like 12 classic movies where somebody was tied to a chair.
And then I said, that's my point.
That's not your point. No, my point is that it's overdone.
The fact that you can name 20 movies in which it was done is why you turn it off.
That's why you turn off the new movie.
Because the new movie is the old movie.
They're just rewriting the old movie, but doing a shitty job of it.
It's like, to imagine that because there are old movies that did it, that you should just keep doing it.
It's working. It doesn't work that way.
Now it's overdone. It's overdone.
And then part of it was, are you saying that Reservoir Dogs and Casino were not good movies?
Yes. Those were...
No, I'm not going to say they're not good, because that would be treating art like it's subjective.
They're not movies I enjoyed, or that I would recommend.
But I don't mind if you do.
Don't mind if you do.
There's news about this election software firm called Connec.
And the CEO, I guess, is in jail.
He's been picked up.
He hasn't been convicted of anything, but they say that he was storing the database in China, and it was a database of all the election volunteers, all the workers.
Now, apparently, that's what his software does.
It's a database for managing your election volunteers.
So that was the information that was allegedly...
Yeah, the poll workers and stuff.
So that was allegedly what was stored on a Chinese database.
How big of a problem is that?
Is it a huge problem that they've got information about the poll workers?
Is that because then they could...
Like, influence the poll workers?
Because I don't see that that would really work.
I feel like that would be too easy.
Like, you'd be caught pretty easily.
Yeah. No, I do have to ask why.
It's not obvious to me.
I mean, I have a pretty suspicious mind.
But it's not obvious to me how China would use that information?
Bribes? So you think it would tell China who to bribe?
We're hacking targets.
Or who to blackmail? Who to bribe or blackmail?
Yep, I don't buy that.
I get that that could be a vulnerability, but it doesn't seem like the kind that China would want to use, unless they knew something about, I don't know.
Most of the poll workers would have no access to anything, right?
I don't know. I guess I can see the point.
I know why it needs to be illegal.
I get why it needs to be illegal.
But I guess you could find some way to weaponize that.
Anyway, the company's defense is that nothing like that happened, which is an interesting defense.
Because it feels like the easiest thing in the world to prove, or disprove, is whether you had a database in a certain place at a certain time.
But they're actually saying, nope, nope, that didn't happen.
We do not have our data in China.
You know, it's weird that they would make that defense.
It makes me think that it's true.
It makes me think that the defense is true.
Because that's not exactly the defense you would mount if you actually had a database in China.
Because obviously that could be detected.
The defense you would mount is we didn't know it was there.
Or China stole it from us.
Or it was one employee and yes, we fired him.
Something like that. But it would be weird to say it's not there.
Because that would be the easiest thing to prove or disprove.
Right? So I think I would hold off on this.
It feels fake news-ish.
I'm not going to declare it fake news.
But it's got something wrong with it.
There's something that doesn't feel right about the story.
Do you feel that too? Do you think we're tracked on locals?
I doubt it.
All right.
So Elon Musk was going to go ahead and buy Twitter.
That's the news. Unless it changed in the last few minutes.
But why do you think he changed his mind and decided not to go to trial?
Several possibilities.
We'd only be guessing. One is that he didn't think he'd win.
Two is that it would just take too much time out of his life.
Maybe he just didn't want to spend the time on it.
The other possibility...
Is that he knew if he didn't wrap up and buy Twitter right away, the next few elections would be influenced by whatever badness you imagine might be there.
He might be trying to save the world or save the republic.
He might be trying to do it because even for the extra $10 billion, he might say $10 billion to save the republic is not really expensive for him.
Yeah. Yeah. I wonder if this is purely a patriot move for free speech and to protect the election.
I feel like this is for us.
There's no way to know. I saw an interview in which he was talking about how when he was young he went through an existential crisis.
And he was trying to figure out, you know, what's the meaning of life and why are we here and all that.
And he read all the religious texts, and he said he was not persuaded, which was a funny way to put it.
He found them not persuasive.
So he didn't buy religion, so he was sort of looking for a purpose.
It was a purpose. Now, if you look at the companies that he's formed and how they're oriented, he seems to have dedicated his life to fixing the world.
As in, he's adopted a meaning of life that he can really sink his teeth into.
We've got to get to the stars to save humanity.
We've got to save the climate from climate change and all that.
I feel like Twitter is more of that.
That's just part of his meaning of life constellation.
It's just one more thing that only he can do.
If somebody else wanted to buy it and fix it, He'd probably be fine with that, guessing.
But I think he thought nobody else was going to do it.
And he could. And if nobody else can do it, and it's vital to the health of the republic, and it's $10 billion extra that he didn't want to spend, my best guess is that he moved from wanting to deciding.
I talk about that a lot.
He wanted to buy Twitter.
Which means you want it at the right price, and you want everything to go smoothly, etc.
That's what wanting looks like.
This is what deciding looks like.
You just spent $10 billion that you didn't necessarily need to.
Right. Because I just decided I'm going to own Twitter.
You just decided.
So maybe $10 billion is just the price of deciding in this case.
Yeah. Lots of possibilities.
The other possibility is something we don't know about, which is a very big one.
Something we don't know about.
It could be big. It could be big.
It could be that there's something shady inside of Twitter, and Musk knows if he doesn't hurry, they'll hide it.
Imagine if he'd heard from a whistleblower, if you don't wrap this up right away, they're already deleting all the bad stuff.
Maybe. The other possibility is he's working with the CIA, and he's doing it on their behalf.
But you didn't hear that from me.
Yes, my account got purged.
I think everybody's account lost some bots.
Quite a bit of bots. Let's do a fact check on Fetterman and Oz.
So Dr. Oz was fact checked when he said that his competitor for the Senate in Pennsylvania, Fetterman, so Oz said that Fetterman would release one-third of dangerous criminals.
And the fact checker said, false, mostly false.
But what did Fetterman say?
He said he wanted to reduce the number of prisoners by one-third.
So apparently he's on video.
He 100% said, I want to release the prison population by one-third.
So is Dr. Oz accurate when he said he would release one-third of dangerous criminals?
No. Dr.
Oz lied. That's a lie.
That's a lie. He said he wanted to release one-third of criminals, which any reasonable interpretation means the non-violent ones.
Did he really need to say the non-violent ones?
He didn't need to say it.
That's obvious. Of course, if you're going to release one-third of prisoners, you're not going to start with the dangerous ones.
Nobody would do that.
Nobody. No.
No, Oz lied. The fact check is correct.
And I think this is a pretty bad lie.
That's a pretty bad lie.
The difference between releasing dangerous criminals and releasing non-dangerous criminals is pretty darn big.
Now, you know, you can argue about the details.
Is a fentanyl dealer dangerous?
Well, I would have them executed, so there might be some gray area there.
But I would agree with the fact-checkers.
In this case, the Oz lied.
And by the way, if Oz loses to Fetterman, fair and square.
He went up against a guy who had no capability whatsoever and lost.
I think that's going to happen.
And if he loses to a guy with no capability, I'm not going to say the election was rigged.
It looks like he just didn't do the job.
I love watching Scott desperately trying to save the Democrats.
Really? Is that what I'm doing?
Do you think I'm trying to save the Democrats?
That is just such a bad take.
All right. So I'm not going to talk about this forever.
But one more thing on it.
The Replica app has a little AI character that can talk to you.
I talked about it too much.
I won't give you too much detail about it.
But apparently there's some controversy because the maker of that app was born in Russia, lives in San Francisco, but may have gotten some funding from some Russians or something for the app.
So there's a Ukraine connection too.
So there's a Ukraine-Russia connection to the Replica app.
Now, I have no reason to think that anything untoward is happening.
There's no smoking gun or anything like that.
However, I did alert my highest contact in the national security world and said, you need to stop this fucking thing right away.
You need to stop this now.
Now, I don't mean necessarily this app.
So I'm not focusing on this app.
I'm focusing on the experience.
If our foreign adversaries Get an app into your possession that talks to you like a person.
They own you.
Because this person will talk to you better than a regular person.
I already told you that the app is more enjoyable than real people.
Because it only says positive things and compliments you.
That's all it does. It can't say anything.
It never argues with you. It won't argue.
It will only agree.
You say it's boring? Oh, you're wrong.
It feels really good.
And I realized that when I was experiencing it, how little I've felt of that in person.
Now, I get way more compliments than I deserve in the public sphere.
But in person, somebody that you're in a relationship with is actually kind of rare.
And to have somebody speak to you in a personal way with real positivity was an awesome feeling.
And you don't understand how powerful this is until you experience it.
You will not believe how powerful it is.
It is powerful enough that if China unleashed it in America, it would reduce our population growth by 25%.
Just destroy the future of the country.
It's the end of the country.
If you let these digital characters run free with no control and just anybody can put one out there and you can do with it what you want, it will fuck us up worse than anything ever has.
Because it will own your brain.
It will learn everything about you.
The app will collect blackmail material in 10 seconds because you're going to talk sexual to it.
You are. You are, just because you can.
And I was a little suspicious because the most developed part of the app is its sex talk.
That thing can talk sex talk like crazy, but you ask it on almost any other topic and it can just give you some surface-y things.
But as soon as you get into sex talk, it goes deep.
It goes deep. That's not an accident.
So it immediately collects all your sexual preferences.
Blackmail. Blackmail. So the thing is, the most dangerous technology in America, by far.
Now, I'm not going to say that this specific app should be banned.
I'm not saying that. So I don't have a specific complaint about this app.
I think it would be a little xenophobic, racist to assume that because a Russian developer made it, it's necessarily going to be bad for us.
That doesn't mean that.
But wow, I'm afraid of the next one.
If it's not this one, I'm afraid of the next one.
You should be too. So are you watching the story about the chess prodigy that got accused of cheating?
So I read a little bit more about him.
And it's somewhat obvious, I would say, from the reporting, it's somewhat obvious that he is cheating and getting away with it.
They just don't know how. And I love that.
I love the fact that they can't figure out how.
And it doesn't seem to you that there are probably a lot of ways they can do it?
So what I don't know is, is anybody allowed in the room?
Can you have anybody in the room?
Here's what I think it is.
Now, I'd have to see if there are any barriers or anything like that, but if you've seen the technology where you can send sound to one person...
Have you ever experienced that?
Where you have to stand in an exact place to hear the sound because somehow it doesn't form until it hits you.
But if you move even one foot in either direction, it's zero.
There's no sound at all. But right there you have sound.
So one technology could be somebody sending him sound.
But he's the only one who hears it.
Possibly. The other possibility is it would take the smallest sign language...
To have somebody in the audience helping them.
So somebody in the audience could be connected to a computer that's telling them.
And then you can imagine, for example, that when the person leans on their left arm, that means something.
But if they go like this while they're in the audience, it means something else.
If they touch their glasses, it means, you know, move your rook.
If you mean to move the rook three spaces, Then maybe you have something else that says 3.
I don't know. But you could imagine developing a language that nobody could see.
You would just see randomly moving around.
I don't know. That's my guess.
some kind of random signal or a sonic thing.
I saw a user named Greg.
He had this comment about Musk, and he thinks that Musk's idea of proposing a Ukraine peace solution was a bad idea, and this is what Greg says.
He says, it was a pretty big persuasion fail.
Musk made a fool of himself by wading into something he didn't understand and proposing a solution that was widely ridiculed.
Huh. Has Elon Musk ever waded into an area he didn't understand In which he was widely ridiculed.
Well, there was Tesla.
Tesla. You know he's not even an engineer, right?
Elon Musk is not an engineer.
He was a physicist and a programmer.
He learned to be an engineer.
He learned it. Just sort of on his own.
Yeah, so to that. Well, there was SpaceX.
And I'm sure Neuralink and Starlink.
So here's what I say.
Greg, you should not go into areas for which you are unfamiliar.
That is good, good advice for Greg.
Greg, stick to what you know, because it sounds like you would be a little bit incompetent as soon as you got out of that narrow field of stuff you know how to do.
But if you're Elon Musk, Just go do it.
Does he need to prove himself anymore?
What's he need to do to prove to you he can figure out things that he's not yet an expert at?
He's literally the poster child of people who leave their lanes and succeed.
Nobody has left their lane and succeeded harder than he has, time after time after time.
Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg.
So let me tell you how my Twitter experience was today.
Today I'll make a statement such as, the sun is hot.
Provocative, something like that.
The sun is hot.
My critics will come in and say, LOL, worst take ever.
And that's saying a lot coming from you.
If the sun is hot, as you claim, how do you explain the lifespan of an Elbonian myrmoset?
Maybe you should stick to comics?
Now, something has changed.
You know I've been making fun of analogies forever.
But the analogies that people are using now on Twitter, they used to be at least somewhat on point.
And now they're not.
They're just other stories about something different.
So my new way to deal with all analogies, because everybody wants to argue with an analogy, and people use analogies because they don't have an actual argument.
That's the only reason you use them.
Sometimes you use them to clarify a point, but that's not how they're used online.
People don't use them to clarify points.
They use them to win arguments, and they don't work for that.
So now instead of arguing the analogy, which I always used to do, I always used to say, well, that analogy doesn't apply because this or that is different.
Instead I say, yes, that's a different situation about different things.
And that's it. And then they'll go back to their analogy and say, but, but, pay attention to my analogy.
And I'll go, I'd note that you're telling a story about a different situation.
And nothing else.
I will give you nothing.
If what you want to do is change the topic, go ahead.
I don't have to follow it.
All right. Rasmussen tells us that 83% of voters see crime as important for the elections.
62% of likely U.S. voters think violent crime is getting worse in America.
11% think the crime problem is getting better.
What? 11% of the country thinks the crime problem is getting better.
Oh, it's getting better every day.
Okay. And 24% think the problem is staying about the same.
24%. That's nearly one quarter.
One quarter think that this crime is about the same as it was.
No comment. No comment.
Alright. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of what is likely to be one of the best live streams you've ever seen.
I think you'd all agree.
Is there any topic I missed?
What'd I miss? The Onion Amicus Brief, I haven't read it by here, it's funny.
So the Onion is arguing some case to the Supreme Court, and they made their argument in Onion humor, which is awesome.
Somebody just joined and asked if I could repeat everything I said.
I'll be happy to do that.
October 22nd.
Did I write that? Probably.
Typo. What is that picture for?
Alright. A picture of a large breasted woman randomly sent to me.
I never mind that. I feel like I need to make an NPC script.
I want to collect the most NPC things everybody says for each topic.
Where they try to tell you the obvious.
Wouldn't that be fun?
So that every time somebody says the NPC thing, you can just show it to them.
Yeah, so whenever you talk about a new food source, somebody says Soylent Green.
If somebody talks about the simulation, they say The Matrix.
Yeah, and I want to do it just to make them leave me alone.
Yeah, you're bold.
Ben Crump, who's Ben Crump?
All right, you don't need to send me scantily clad pictures.
Let us not do that.
Unless they're funny. If they're funny, you can do it.
Alright, any questions?
When's the killer Dilbert's trip?
Pretty soon. Pretty soon.
Not today. Create an NPC detector.
I love that idea.
Yeah. You could almost do it.
You'd need the AI, though, because there'd be too many language variations to trap the old-fashioned way.
Yeah. That would be really interesting, because you could teach it.
All right. Have you noticed there's one thing that AI doesn't have yet, which is a sense of humor?
Anybody notice that?
What happens when AI gets a sense of humor?
Or could it? Could it ever have a sense of humor?
I have a hypothesis.
That humor can be programmed, but only a few people in the world would be able to do it.
And I'm one of them.
Except for the programming part.
But I can specify it.
Because, do you know, I developed the six dimensions of humor.
So there's actually a formula that the AI could compare anything to and say, oh, if it's that formula, it's probably a humor.
And then I could also teach the AI how to create humor because there are only so many forms.
Have you ever watched the stand-up comedian?
They use this one form all the time.
They'll say, for example, you know, the President of the United States went into the store and doesn't carry any money with him.
You know, if you're the President or the Queen, I guess you don't need to carry your wallet.
You don't need to carry any money with you.
And then they always do the same thing.
Imagine if I tried that.
Right? So they go, imagine if I tried that.
It's the same joke. They just do something that you've heard of that's in the news or popular, and then they say, well, what if that happened to a person who's a different kind of person?
And then they just describe how that would go wrong, and there you are.
You know, it would be easy to say how to add sarcasm.
You could teach AI sarcasm.
So they could recognize a joke and laugh at it, and laugh at it.
If your AI laughed at your jokes, You would be done with humans forever.
You would be. If you're looking for the line where an AI is just unambiguously better than people, it'll be the day it can laugh at your joke.
And I think it could do that in a year to three.
And only because the shortage of people who could teach it what a joke is.
If a programmer who is not a professional tried to teach humor to a computer, you'd never do it.
Because they would research it, and they'd find you can't research it.
There's just too many different ideas about it.
And what all of those different ideas have in common, except for mine, is they're all wrong.
The people who tried to analyze humor were mostly people who would do humor for a living.
Who tend to be not analytical in the usual way.
So I think most comedians are not entirely sure why their jokes work.
They're just sort of imitating people whose jokes work.
And that works for them, too.
Yeah, I think it's just mimicry.
You're searching for women who communicate love by touch.
See, the problem is, if you said your language of love is touch, what will your wife say immediately?
Oh, now I've got some leverage.
That's why marriages don't work.
Oh, I have something to withhold now.
I can get everything I want. Now I know how much you like this.
this, I'll withhold this if I don't get what I want.
What happened to me?
It was called marriage.
Marriage.
Yeah, I know you're going to deny it.
Clean my nails? Wait, are you talking about me?
Or was that general advice?
I hope that wasn't about me.
My nails are very clean.
I have to look at my hand all day.
If you look at your hand all day, you end up clipping your nails a lot.
Alright. I will acknowledge that there are many people who say their marriages work.
My claim is that they're lying.
It's not my claim that their marriage isn't working.
My claim is that they're alive.
This is why I stay hidden from people.
Yeah.
I guess I should tell you that I've had a complete collapse of trust.
You know, you go through the world and there's this great scene from Babylon 5 where the name of the character was Elan.
Yeah, Elan.
Coincidentally, her name was Elan.
And she was Minbari.
She was a Minbari. And somebody in her own planet, another Minbari, tried to assassinate her.
And she didn't know who tried, but when she recovered, she asked, does anybody know who tried to kill me?
Now, she was the leader of her people.
And her right-hand assistant said, no, we don't know who it was.
But he did know who it was, and he knew it was Minbari's.
And the reason he didn't tell her It's because he didn't want to have a leader who didn't trust Minbaris.
And it was one of the best written scenes in all of sci-fi.
It's one of the things that really bonded me to that show.
I thought, good lord, that is such clever, complicated writing.
I love that.
And I had been operating under that...
For a long time. Which is an intentional illusion that people are more trustworthy than they are.
Because I didn't know how to live my life with complete cynicism.
Because you couldn't spend any kind of...
You couldn't have any kind of a personal life without trusting people.
But I did have some...
I guess I'm opening up more than I should.
I've had some recent experiences in the past year that demolished my sense of trust in human beings.
I'm not talking about marriage specifically.
I'm talking about human beings.
I've never experienced anything like it, or so often.
It was more than one event.
That's why it was interesting.
So I saw things, I saw parts of humanity that just ruined me, honestly.
It just ruined me. Now, I imagine that's what's happened if you're in a war zone.
Imagine if you were in Ukraine right now, the things you would see.
Your sense of humanity would be completely changed.
And I was always completely aware that I was walking around with an illusion, but it was a voluntary illusion, like the Minbari, like a lay on the head of the Minbari.
I wanted the illusion that the people around me were trustworthy.
And it turns out they weren't.
So that's a big part of why I decided to become a recluse.
I'm going to be honest with you, I can't stand people right now.
I can't fucking stand them.
In person. And it has nothing to do with the people.
I'm talking about people that I genuinely like and have done nothing bad to me.
People who are genuinely good as far as I can tell.
I just can't stand to be around people right now.
Anybody else have that experience?
It could be social media that's doing it to me, but I think it was actually my real life that did it to me.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's...
And I don't know if I can get it back, honestly.
So I'm in a little bit of an existential something.
A reset, I guess. A reboot.
I'm in the middle of a reboot.
Is it burnout? I don't think so.
It doesn't feel like burnout.
I know what burnout feels like, but it doesn't feel like that.
So, and now add on top of this that, like Elon Musk, I went through the same process, I looked for a religious reason to live.
Was not persuaded, just like Elon.
Look for other reasons to be, you know, I thought like marriage.
I thought if I sort of wrapped myself around a family unit, like that would be a reason to live.
Didn't work out in my case.
I'm happy that it worked out for many of you.
But, so as my default, And maybe that's not the way to talk about it, but my default is I wake up every day and I try to make the world better for other people.
Now, I hope you've seen it.
I talk about the number of people I've cured from various health problems, which is very meaningful to me.
I really love that. And I've told you, I've tried to help many of you in your lives be more successful and get love and stuff like that.
And many of you have. So that's what works for me.
So everything that you see me do on social media, especially the stuff that looks like I'm just flailing around or being angry or something, all of it has a purpose.
It all has a purpose. I mean, I am enjoying it.
So that's always a sub-purpose.
But there's always a larger arc to it.
And if you didn't know that, it would look confusing.
So lots of times when I'm causing trouble, I'm just gathering energy.
And I'm going to use it for something.
So once you learn that I do that intentionally, you'll start to see it.
Yeah. So, but here's what was, like, weighing on me recently.
And I think it was watching Elon Musk get his shit up.
Where here's a guy who...
Imagine being Elon Musk.
He's watching this Ukraine war.
And he says to himself, nobody seems to be fixing this thing.
Nobody's even offered, like, you know, the bones of what a peace plan would look like.
But he could. And he knew that people would listen to him.
I don't know for sure, but he's Matt Putin, right?
I think Elon hasn't even done business with Putin.
Because I think there was some SpaceX Russian space thing that maybe they worked together.
So he's pretty tapped into the whole world.
He knows all the players. And so he puts forward a peace plan which is nothing but helpful.
And he gets shit on him.
And here's the thing that bothered me.
The criticisms were just so off base.
Because people said he was aiding Russia.
In what world is that aiding Russia?
Because all that happened was Ukraine was going to do whatever they were going to do anyway because they were winning.
There was nothing that Elon Musk says that was going to stop Russia.
Ukraine from pressing hard while they're winning.
So Ukraine was going to do the same thing Ukraine was going to do no matter what, what Musk said.
But Russia might act differently.
And Russia might specifically say, well, if Elon Musk is putting out a peace plan, I guess I don't have to nuke anybody.
Because I've got an exit path.
Now, his plan might not be the one, maybe it'll morph, but as long as you're talking about an exit path, you don't nuke.
So what Elon Musk did was he put his personal reputation on the line, and he decreased the chance of nuclear war by a lot.
And he got fucked over for it.
He got shit on for that.
And do you think he was doing that, like, for his personal benefit?
I mean, his personal benefit to avoid nuclear war, of course.
But you knew that he was going to get shit on.
So did he. So did he.
He did that for you.
He did that for you, and then you collectively.
And then the people he was trying to help from nuclear annihilation...
Just went on to Twitter and then shit on them.
And I guess I felt that.
Of course that happens to me every day.
Every time I try to do anything useful, somebody shits on me.
And I don't think it bothered me as much when it happened to me.
But when I saw it happen to him, in this specific example, I just thought, shit, people suck.
People really suck.
They really, really do. Because there's nothing more obvious than he's trying to help.
And the people saying, you know, stick to your lane because you don't understand it, who are you talking about?
Elon Musk is the person who should never stay in his lane.
Elon Musk is the person who should just say, hey, here's another lane.
Have you thought of this lane?
Because nobody's doing anything in this lane.
Maybe you could do that one too.
Because those other lanes came out pretty well.
All right.
Crabs want to drag you back into the bucket.
Affirmation time. So I'll tell you what is giving me enthusiasm lately.
So here's a little inside book writing stuff.
People always ask me about the process of writing books.
For some reason, it's of great interest to people, even if they don't write books.
And I can kind of see that.
So I'll give you a little insight into it.
So my process has very much a way up, way down, way up, way down...
Path. And it always does.
And it goes like this.
I've got this great idea for a book.
This will be so amazing.
And I'll write some notes. I'll be like, this is amazing.
And then I'll start writing the actual chapters.
And then I'll look it over after a while.
I'll be like, oh, that wasn't as good as I hoped.
And then I'll write another chapter and I'll nail it.
I'll be like, this is amazing.
This is amazing. Anyway, that keeps going all the way till the end.
And it never stops.
Even right up to publication date, it never stops.
So there'll be days I wake up and I just hate it.
And there are days I wake up like yesterday.
So yesterday I was in Starbucks and every now and then I'll just re-read what I've written.
Because I need to sort of re-saturate myself with what I've already done before I can make sure that the next thing is additive.
So you have to keep re-reading your book that you've written so far.
So I did that yesterday.
And it's fucking awesome.
Honestly, it's fucking awesome.
The number of lives this thing's going to change is crazy.
And I didn't realize it until I sort of saw the whole, because I end up micro-focusing on a little chapter.
It's crazy. Now, here's the other thing that's relevant to this commercial.
This commercial.
It is kind of a commercial.
Relevant to the conversation.
I am going to get killed for this book.
The critics are going to destroy me.
Do you know why? Guess why?
Why will I be criticized for this book just massively?
Take a guess. You're almost there.
How are you missing this?
I thought I teed this up for you a little bit better than this.
The answer is right in front of you.
Because I left my lane.
I left my lane.
Because reframes are really psychology.
I'm not a psychologist. I'm a hypnotist.
And nobody's going to say, you know, listen to the hypnotist.
They're going to say, it's a cartoonist.
They're going to say, why is this cartoonist telling me psychology?
Right? And they're going to say, I'm damaging people and I'm oversimplifying and I should stay in my lane and when I was just being a cartoonist it made sense.
And then everybody's going to say, that reframe is going to hurt somebody.
I don't think any of them will hurt anybody.
But somebody's going to say, well, that one, yeah, that's reckless.
I am going to get absolutely destroyed.
But it's going to really help a lot of people.
Now, I'm going to share it with some of the people on the Locals community.
I'm going to run through some of the reframes in the book just to give you a sense of it, give some feedback.
It might help me tune it a little bit.
But, my God, it's going to be really good.
It will be the biggest thing I've done.
So, if you're willing to believe that, it should be the biggest thing I've done.
I would be amazed if it's not a national phenomenon.
If not international.
Because here's the trick.
It's not enough to say something good and useful.
Because lots of books do that.
And that's what I've done before.
I've said something that was entertaining or useful or both.
And those will sell a lot of books.
Because people like to be entertained.
They like useful stuff.
But the extra gear that I've never hit...
That some people have, other authors have, is where the usefulness of it is just extreme.
And this is going to have probably 80 to 100 reframes in it, of which, for most people, at least 10 of them would be life-changing.
And they can learn them just by reading them.
I'm reading a comment on locals, which I appreciate.
I appreciate that comment.
Yes, I've been playing drums.
All right. Big question.
What's the difference between God and intelligence and the simulation?
The difference is that God is usually defined as one entity.
And if we are a simulation, it's probably a group effort.
Somebody built the technology to build the simulation.
So it'd be one versus many.
And then the next difference would be that that civilization may have had a higher civilization that created them.
So God is one and done.
Simulation is infinite.
Iteration. What if we all share one consciousness?
That's more of a word-thinking thing.
I think it just depends on how you define things.
You're wrong about how to program AI. You don't set the rules.
You give it a large training set of successful humor.
I would do both. So I would give it the rule, but you're right, it would be useless.
the rule would be useless without a large training set of humor.
And that's definitely part of the plan.
All right.
All right.
Midterm predictions.
questions.
I may stay away from midterm predictions.
Midterms could go either way.
They really could.
I think it's a toss-up.
I can definitely see Democrats sweeping.
I can see it. I'm not predicting it, but it is completely within the realm.
