Episode 1910 Scott Adams: Twitter, Paul Pelosi Attacked, New Ivermectin Study, Ukraine Update, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Paul Pelosi brutally attacked
Joe Biden photo with 8 top TikTok influencers
Elon Musk's Twitter
Fetterman, the generic democrat
President Putin will not use nukes
Mike Goodwin stories
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
I'm sorry. I can't get the smile off my face or the song out of my heart.
Come on.
Come on. Get back in the game.
Get back in the game. Good morning, everybody, and welcome.
To the highlight of civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and everything is trending positive for the first time ever.
Ever! And if you'd like to take it to a new level that nobody's ever seen before, What do you need?
Well, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's happening now.
Go. Tastes like freedom.
Tastes like freedom. I feel like I'm going to have another.
Anybody? Anybody?
Going in for number two.
This is very unusual.
This is breaking precedent.
This has never happened before.
Oh, and I'm glad I did.
Well, I hope your day is as good as mine.
We will get to, of course, Twitter and Elon Musk.
But let's start with some fun stories.
I have some advice for you about when to change your name.
When to change your name.
You know a lot of people who become movie stars?
They'll often change their names when they get into the business.
For example, here's a good example.
The actress and producer you know as Olivia Wilde.
Is that an awesome name?
It's pretty awesome. Wild with an E on the end.
That's a great name. What was her original name?
Her original name was Olivia Coburn.
Coburn. Yeah.
But she changed her name from Coburn to Wild.
And you think to yourself, Coburn?
Well, that sounds like a pretty good name, too.
How do you spell Coburn?
C-O-C-K... B-U-R-N. Well, suddenly I feel sorry for her school days because I've got a feeling that was tough.
Her grandfather was Claude Cockburn.
Who wrote, Beat the Devil, oh, under his pseudonym.
So he didn't use his real name, Claude Cockburn, or Coburn, some people would pronounce it.
He changed it to James Helvick, which is probably a good move.
Yes, so if you're an attractive woman, do not continue with a name called Cockburn.
That's just my advice.
I was delighted and horrified today to see that an AI could take my Dilbert comic and create a human version of the comic just by asking it to do it.
So it took a...
This was Machiavelli's Underbelly, the Twitter account, who does a lot of fascinating AI stuff, so you can see what's coming.
But he took my comic and just had the AI... Recreate it with imaginary real people.
I think they're just created by the AI. So two people who look like real people having a conversation that look like the Dilbert characters having the conversation.
And apparently this is something you can do in like a minute.
I'm telling you where my business is going to go.
Here's where it's gonna go.
I'm gonna be able to speak into the AI, and it will just draw a Dilbert comic, and then I'll say, well, can you make that fourth panel a little more interesting, you know, and change the angle?
And then it'll automatically redraw it as if you were looking at it from another angle.
It shouldn't be that easy.
In fact, movies should be that easy in just maybe a few years.
Imagine being a scriptwriter And writing the movie visually.
You start with, you describe the characters, and then the AI shows you the characters you described.
Then you tweak them a little bit.
Oh, give that one a mustache.
And they change as you're talking.
Then you say, all right, there's this car chase, and it's in the city of Las Vegas.
It's the middle of the day.
There's a lot of traffic.
And in the first scene, he cuts across an intersection at a red light.
And then you watch it.
You just watch the scene.
It would just appear on the screen.
And you say, no, no, add more cars.
No, make the collision at the intersection a little bit closer.
Am I wrong? I'm pretty sure that's what writing a movie will look like if anybody watches movies.
I saw a Jeff Pilkington tweet this morning.
He said that the Hollywood sign...
is old and decrepit and no longer represents Hollywood well.
To which I said, I feel like an old, decrepit Hollywood sign is exactly right because when was the last time you watched a movie that wasn't made by Tom Cruise that you also enjoyed?
I can't think of one.
I actually can't think of a movie that wasn't made by Tom Cruise that I've actually enjoyed.
In years. I couldn't think of one.
Not one. In years.
I mean, Star Trek hasn't come out in a few years, right?
Anyway. Paul Pelosi, husband of Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked in his home in San Francisco.
Now, number one, there's nothing funny about that.
Can we do some...
We're going to have to do some compartmentalization here.
Is everybody ready for compartmentalization?
Because you're good people, I can tell.
I can tell by your comments.
You're good people.
Because you're good people, you know that there's nothing funny about anybody, no matter what you think of them.
There's nothing funny about anybody being brutally attacked.
Put it in the compartment.
Put it in the compartment where we all agree.
Alright, now take that compartment with all of your empathy, which proves you're a good human being, and let's put that aside for a moment, because there's something funny about it.
It's just a different compartment.
Number one, will Nancy Pelosi announce that the Pelosi's are moving out of the crime-riddled Democrat city of San Francisco before or after the midterms?
What do you think? Will she announce her move before or after the midterms?
Because I'll tell you one thing.
If I lived in the middle of a crime-infested hellhole and somebody got past my security and beat the shit out of me, I would never sleep there again.
I mean, assuming you could afford it, I would never sleep there again.
Not once. I would not spend another night in a bed in that house.
Would you? I mean, if you had the resources like he does, I mean, he could just stay in a luxury hotel until his new house is purchased, right?
He doesn't have to do anything.
He's got enough money to do anything he wants.
This is not a joke.
I think they're going to move.
No joke. I think they're going to move.
Because of the crime. Now, she'll probably do it after she retires or something, but I don't think they're going to spend a lot of nights in that house.
Just a guess. I'm also wondering if the perpetrator yelled, this is MAGA country.
Because we haven't heard much about the perpetrator, have we?
In fact, nothing.
Nothing about the motive, nothing about the person.
But I'm just going to guess it probably was some Nigerian guys yelling, this is MAGA country.
That's just a shot in the dark, but I think that's what it was.
Nigerians yelling MAGA country.
Well, Carrie Lake continues to impress with her communication skills.
Maybe the best I've ever seen, actually.
It's a little early to say that, but it's hard to say who's the best communicator of all time.
Reagan was amazing.
It's tough to beat Reagan.
Trump, I think, one of the greats of all times.
But also gets people mad, right?
So there's a little price that comes with Trump.
But Carrie Lake seems to be so on point on some of this stuff.
And as was pointed out to me, she used the really persuasion.
So they asked her about Katie Hobbs, her opponent, Katie Hobbs' office had been broken into, and the reporter tried to ask a question that couched it like somehow that was Carrie Lake's fault, you know, for either rhetoric or something else.
And Carrie Lake, instead of answering that dumbass question, she looked at her and she goes, really?
She only said it once.
I would have liked to hear it three times.
Really? Really?
Really? It's that third one that really drives it home.
Really? But she did something as good, maybe better.
She said that she looked at the journalist and said, you're the people who dragged the public through so many BS stories like Jussie Smollett.
That was perfect.
Just to throw in the Jussie Smollett reference when they're asking her a dumbass question, just think how much better that response was than if she'd actually answered the question.
That was a question you do not answer.
Do not answer that question.
You say, really? Really?
Really? And then you move on.
Anyway, she handled it perfectly.
Joe Biden was colluding with China recently.
He did some campaigning, I guess you'd call it, without really calling it that.
But he did a photo shoot with eight TikTok influencers who collectively control 67 million followers.
If you want to know how big that is, that's eight TikTok influencers, collectively 67 million followers.
Compare that to the viewership of the news, and they're in the 1 to 5 million range.
Network news is nowhere near as big as these eight influencers in terms of reach.
So there's that.
But does Joe Biden know That once that picture is taken, literally China gets to decide who sees it.
Did you know that?
Literally. Not in a hyperbolic way or, you know, if something happened, this could happen.
It's not hypothetical.
TikTok is a Chinese company.
All Chinese companies must do what the CCP tells them to do.
If the CCP decided, hey, suppress that picture, or, hey, make sure everybody sees this picture, they have that choice.
If they choose not to use that power, well, that's a choice too.
Because then they'd let the algorithm do what they imagined it's going to do.
But if they had any incentive to stop it, they could do it.
They would just have to make one text or one phone call, and the entire algorithm would be modified on demand, and they would decide what you saw.
67 million people.
Now, do you think that's enough power to change an election?
Well, not with one photograph of the president, no.
But this is just an example.
They can do that any time they want.
They can take every political statement and decide to do more of it or less of it.
Now, I don't know if they have a preference for president.
It's entirely possible that they don't want Biden.
But they might not know who would come in besides Biden that they might not like more.
They might think everybody's just as bad, in which case they would not be an influence.
But does that matter?
If you say to yourself, well, yes, China could totally change the results of our election, but they don't seem to have a reason to do it, so I'm not too worried.
You okay with that? That the only reason they don't make a change is they don't have a reason?
That's the only reason. What if they get a reason?
You don't think there's anything else they have a reason for?
Do you think there's any other persuasion category that they have a reason for?
Let me ask you this.
Here's a test for you.
If you checked TikTok, see how much anti-fentanyl messages there are, especially ones that mention China, and then compare that to Twitter.
And see which one has more messages suggesting, or just saying, that China is responsible for fentanyl.
Go ahead. Just do that test.
Let me guess what would happen.
Do you have any doubt which of the social media networks are blaming China for fentanyl?
Just guess. Now, if somebody did this test and proved me wrong, I'd be impressed.
I'd be willing to change my opinion and say I was wrong.
But I don't think I have. Do you?
What do you think?
Do you think TikTok surfaces as many complaints about China as Twitter or Facebook?
Now remember, Twitter and Facebook might have some pressure from China, too.
Facebook, I guess, not Twitter.
But Facebook probably has some China pressure.
So maybe Twitter's the better...
Oh, here's your...
I guess here's your test.
Twitter, in two months, let's say after the Elon Musk...
Influence becomes more widespread.
Twitter in two months, are you going to see more about China being bad with fentanyl or on TikTok?
That's all you need to know.
Am I right? Is that all you need to know?
There's nothing else you need to know.
And just think about the fact that Biden is not banning TikTok.
Now, this leads me to my next humorous story.
Do you run into people who seem to have slept through the last five years?
Have you noticed that?
It's like the Japanese soldier who was in a cave after World War II and stayed there for 30 years after the war was over.
I want to read one.
Because I'm pretty sure I wrote it down.
So this is somebody who has lived in the real world, And somehow managed to escape my notes.
But no, I have it here. Anyway, it was somebody who says, somebody who's questioned me and said this.
Let's see, I can take your word for it, that's meaning me, or the word of a dozen reputable publications.
So there's somebody who's like, I think an adult, an actual living person in 2022, who, with no sense of embarrassment, can state that there are at least a dozen reputable publications.
What are those?
What are your reputable publications?
Can you name them?
I mean, seriously. It's 2022.
Yeah, let me do this as you've suggested.
Really? Really?
You can find a dozen, a dozen, a dozen reputable publications.
Yeah. Well, good for you.
So I gave him the really tweet.
Really? In 2022?
Really? Really?
Yeah, that was good use of really.
Really? All right.
I hate to mention this, but would you be surprised to find out that there's a new study, a randomized controlled trial with placebos and everything, about ivermectin?
Would you be surprised to know there's a new study about that?
Just announced. The results are just announced.
How do you think it went? So, as is my custom now, when I see that there's an ivermectin trial, I no longer say, this looks good or this doesn't look good.
I just say, skeptics, do your thing.
Do you know how long it took skeptics to just rip that thing apart?
I don't know, a minute.
I saw a reference to 80 problems with it.
I think that's probably an exaggeration.
But I'm not going to mention all of the problems that were mentioned to me because I'm not really in a position to validate either the criticisms or the study itself.
I just think that's a little bit over my pay grade.
And I feel like I have more experience in that sort of thing than 99% of the public, but I'm also aware that there are people who are much better and I would defer to them.
They have more experience in this.
But people who seem to know what they're talking about tore it apart.
Are they right? I don't know.
I don't know. Is the ivermectin study right that it showed no benefit?
I don't know. Let me give you an example of one criticism.
They gave a three-day dose to people who were in the first seven days of their infection.
A three-day dose. One medical expert on Twitter said, well, I've never heard of anybody suggesting less than five days.
So does that mean they intentionally picked a dose that was going to be too small?
Or do you say what Scott says, which is, if you couldn't see any effect with three days, do you really think that extra two days would have been the difference?
I mean, is that common?
Is it common to have a drug that shows nothing for three days, nothing statistical?
Because remember, they've got a control group, so they'd pick up a 5% statistical difference, maybe more than 5, but anything over 5, they'd pick it up.
You don't think you'd get at least a 5% bump in the first three days?
Like all the goodness happens in the last two days?
Now, I don't know the answer to that.
I think I would agree with the criticism that I'd rather see five days than three.
Wouldn't you? But they'd also probably have a, you know, I don't know, problem with compliance.
It's probably more compliance problem the longer you go.
So there's probably other issues. Yeah, maybe it's a funding thing.
I don't know. All right.
So here's my ironic...
My ironic observation for today.
I'm so proud of this, I might say it twice.
So listen carefully the first time, but it doesn't matter because I'm going to say it again.
In 2022, this really happened.
Ivermectin proved that science doesn't work.
Pat myself on the back.
I'm just so proud of that one.
Now I'm going to say it again. In 2022, ivermectin proved that science doesn't work.
That really happened.
I'm not making that up.
That really fucking happened.
Am I wrong? It did prove that science doesn't work.
Now, I'm not saying that ivermectin works.
So I want to be really clear.
If I had to bet my life on it, I would bet it does not work.
If you're gun to head, you've got to pick one.
I would think that one of those studies would have picked up something by now.
But is it possible?
Is it possible?
And somebody said this was funded by somebody sketchy who is associated with Fauci.
He's associated with a lot of stuff, so I don't know how to rank that.
But I'm not saying that it doesn't work.
If you want to tell me That you believe there's a massive conspiracy of the entire medical community that, you know, they use their financial incentives and everything else to keep all the doctors and professionals in line and that the result of that giant big pharma conspiracy is that every test has been rigged or you didn't hear about it if it wasn't rigged or something like that.
Do you know what I won't say?
Let's see if you can get ahead of me.
What would I not say to that if you told me it was a vast conspiracy and all the doctors were involved?
What would I not say?
Watch this. Really?
Really? You think that a big organization that's supposedly for our benefit would do something sketchy and lie to us?
Really? See, it doesn't work.
Right? It didn't work.
The really thing only works...
In the situation for which it is designed, when the situation is just crazy.
But if you tell me that it would be crazy that a major organization that exists only to help us has been doing the opposite for years, that is not even a little bit unusual, is it?
I wish it were. I wish I lived in that world.
But it's not unusual at all.
That said, I'd be really surprised if ivermectin works.
If you say the opposite, I say to you, okay, I respect your opinion.
I respect your opinion.
Because I'm guessing too. Because you know what would be great?
If any of us had access to this, you know what would be great?
Credible science. Wouldn't that be great?
The kind of science you could kind of trust a little bit?
Wouldn't you like some of that?
I would. If you see any of it, let me know.
I'll take a big helping.
All right. Today, I saw a tweet by Jack Dorsey.
Who of course is getting a lot of attention today as founder of Twitter and we'll talk about Twitter some more.
But I guess Jack Dorsey is working on a new social network that you can control your own data.
So I'm not fully informed yet, so I'll just give you the highest level guesses of what's going on here.
So I think they're in an advanced beta stage, so you might see something pretty soon.
And it's Web 5.0, whatever that means.
I think it means some blockchain is involved.
So I think what happens is, and I even saw some reference to anonymity, And easy sign-ons.
So the real challenge, as I tweeted, is getting people to understand this, or why they would want this, as opposed to any other social network.
And one of the feature advantages, as I understand it, is if you quit one social network, you could somehow take your data with you to another one.
Now, I don't know if that works with the legacy networks.
I don't see how it could. Maybe it could.
I don't know. So I guess I'm still confused what it does.
Yeah, it's called...
Isn't it called Zion?
I saw it called Zion.
Is it called Blue Sky? Or is that just maybe the technical name for the protocol or something?
All right. So here's what I don't know about it.
What I don't know about it is what's the good and the bad and what's the advantages.
But here's what you can know for sure.
There are very few people in the world who understand social media and what it can and cannot do and what it should do more than Jack Dorsey.
Would you agree? Nobody has a better understanding of the whole area and also a technical background and entrepreneurial success track record and all that.
So if he thinks it's a big thing, I'm pretty persuaded to think it's a big thing.
Or it could be, right?
It's all in the execution. But the execution looks like it's coming together.
Zion was a city outside the matrix.
Oh, okay. That makes sense.
Although I was thinking of it as some kind of, like, Israel reference, but that wouldn't make sense for a product name.
At least not this product name.
All right. So keep an eye on that.
Twitter, Elon Musk tweeted, the bird is free, which I believe means that the transaction has been completed at Elon Musk.
Now owns Twitter. Let's see if Twitter has stopped trading.
Twitter shows 0% change, stopped trading.
So I think that's official, right?
That's as official as it gets.
Elon Musk has already fired three executives, including the CEO and including the woman who apparently was in charge of, you know, who got kicked off of the platform.
So the woman who was in charge of kicking people off the platform got, finished my sentence, the woman who was in charge of kicking people off the platform got kicked off the platform, in a way.
Rob Reiner, who threatened to quit Twitter if Elon Musk took over, is tweeting more than ever.
And would you like to have a preview of something to come in the world of Rob Reiner?
Rob Reiner has something coming he doesn't know about.
There's a Dilbert comic that features him.
It's in the pipeline.
So he's going to see his name in a Dilbert comic pretty soon.
It's not terribly...
I don't go at him hard, but you'll enjoy the comic, I think.
Musk has claimed, I don't remember when he said this, but recently, that he pledged to, quote, defeat the spam bots or die trying.
Now, isn't that exactly what you wanted to hear?
It's not an accident when Elon Musk says something perfect.
That's not an accident.
He knows how to say perfect things, like he's really good at it.
This is perfect. It's exactly what I wanted to hear.
I didn't want to hear any bullshit.
I didn't want to hear about he was going to form a project.
I didn't want to hear there's going to be an independent, bipartisan commission working on it.
I don't want any, like, corporate, bureaucratic, sound-good, jerk-me-off bullshit.
I want him to hear, I'm going to defeat the spam bots or die trying.
Okay! Okay.
I'm on board with that.
Yep. That's as clear as you can get.
Here's my big question.
We all have big questions about what's going to happen, don't we?
Now, I would warn you not to get your expectations ahead of reality.
Because we don't know exactly what's going to happen, do we?
Europe has already warned Elon that...
At least one official has warned Elon that Twitter is going to have to play by their rules.
Meaning that even if Elon Musk wanted to make free speech a little bit more open in America, Europe has already warned, or at least a European official who's in the right job, has warned that don't get so cocky because Europe gets to decide what Europeans see.
That's right. So Europe has put a little slap on Musk saying, yeah, you're not in charge, we are.
Do you know I almost tweeted but didn't?
I almost but didn't tweet back to that European official, good luck with your land war.
Because if you don't have Starlink, it's coming to your house next.
You know, has nobody figured out that pissing off Elon Musk is just not a good play anymore?
It's just not a good play.
I mean, I get that everybody should be, you know, have their free speech and you should be able to criticize anybody you want.
You know, as long as you're, you know, within the terms of service, I guess.
But, I don't know.
I think if I'm actually in a land war, And you could argue that Europe is as involved as you could possibly be.
If I'm in a land war and Elon Musk is one of the keys to keeping the Russian bear from my door, I feel like I'd be nice to that guy.
I mean, Europe can still do all the censorship they want.
It's Europe, right? It's not up to me.
I don't care. But instead, I just tweeted that I'm glad that America will be more competitive than Europe.
Right? Imagine Europe with the kind of censorship that I imagine this European fellow has in mind, and then imagine America with a more open system.
Let's say that Elon Musk is successful and gets a little bit more freedom into our platforms.
Who competes better?
I think we out-compete them.
I think that's just a competitive advantage.
I think. But I don't know.
We'll find out. I mean, I would think that it puts a huge risk on Europe because they could get manipulated by whoever owns the algorithm and maybe we'll be less manipulated in the future.
We'll see. And Moscow's also very cleverly said he's not doing it for the money.
Which completely eliminates all of the economic criticism he would get, right?
Because all of the people who have business backgrounds, and I'm one of them, I want to weigh in and say all the reasons that he's going to have trouble.
Yeah, it's going to be hard to make money on this thing if Jack Dorsey couldn't figure it out, and the new CEO couldn't figure it out.
Why does anyone must think he could figure it out?
You know, so it'd be easy to criticize him on the economics, but he just takes that off the table.
Well, I wouldn't do this to make money.
And then I look at it and I go, oh yeah, that's true.
You wouldn't do this to make money.
But here's the fun part.
It's possible this will make more money than all the other things he's doing.
It's possible. Do you know why?
Because he might do it well.
That's all it would take. He just might do it well.
Imagine, if you will, that he adds Rumble to it, for example.
I mean, even just showing their videos, doesn't have to buy a stake in it or anything.
I'm a shareholder in Rumble, so...
Imagine this small change, and here's what I recommend to...
...an edit button.
A little flag on any tweet that has been edited...
And you hit the tag, then you see the original, then you see the real one.
Because you can always, you know, you can find the original if somebody deletes it and whatever, but I always want to see the original.
Don't you? Or maybe for blue members or something else.
But I think editing has some problems.
Because you can make your badness disappear too easily.
I'd rather it's just somebody who shows their work.
Yeah, I'd be happy with that.
So imagine a world in which Elon Musk simply builds a better product.
He makes it sort of like Weed Hat, where you can do payments on Twitter, you can see all the news on Twitter, and you can see the other argument.
How about this? How would you like to see people be able to tag any tweet with a counter-argument?
Because right now, if you want to see the counter-argument, where do you have to go?
And to the comments. And the comments are a sewer pit of badness.
You don't want to spend any time there.
But wouldn't it be nice if people who are tweeting, let's say, a counterargument from Substack or a counterargument from one of those 12 credible publications, wouldn't you like to see, oh, there's a little banner on it where I can see the opposite argument from an actual journalist or professional writer on Substack?
Right? How much would you like that?
Now, would that be censorship?
Would it be censorship that you could see, maybe not one source, I think you'd have to see a collection, because everybody should be able to show their countersource.
So you should have a countersource button where you could go see a countersource.
And then, that might be abused somehow, too.
But, you know, everything's testable.
You can test everything small.
So imagine a world in which Elon Musk brings to Twitter the product sensibilities that he's brought to other things and just makes it work better for everybody.
That is huge.
The size of that benefit to the United States as a competitive, free nation, I just don't think it can be underestimated.
And I do think that you could make Twitter essential.
Right now, Twitter is like crack.
Unless you're in the business I'm in, which is talking about the news, it's not essential.
It's just crack. But he could make it essential, too, if you just did your daily business there and did all your stuff there, like WeChat.
So it could be big.
Bigger than you imagined.
Let's talk about Ye.
So I noticed that CNN just calls him Kanye, but then they put the obligatory whose name is legally changed to Ye.
And I think I have to disagree with Ye when he says it's disrespectful that people don't use his new legal name.
I think it's disrespectful to have a legal name that is confusing to people when they talk about you.
Because yea sounds like a word, it doesn't sound like a name.
And if I start a sentence with yea, don't they sound like a Bible verse?
Yea, though I walk through the Twitter comments, though verily through the mountain of death comments, Right.
It just sounds like a religious thing.
So I disagree with the utility of his name.
I certainly agree with his ability to change it to anything he wants.
And it does work to give him attention, and it's kind of a cool name and everything.
So there's lots of good about it.
But don't impose on us that we call you a certain thing if you've made it intentionally confusing.
All right, well, he went into the Skechers' company, the shoe company, And he insisted that he talk to the head of it, and I guess he didn't have an appointment, and some executives took him out of the building.
Now, I heard a separate story that I think is not true, right?
Something about New Balance, and I don't want to say it, because I'm pretty sure that was a fake news, right?
I saw it on social media.
He did not visit New Balance, right?
That was just a joke?
Okay, I think that was just a joke.
But this is not looking good for Ye.
I think he believed that even with his current problems, he could just waltz into another deal.
But all of the big companies have the same brand reputation problem.
It would be hard to imagine anybody at this point wanting to take on that brand risk.
Do you think his brand risk will get worse?
Well, here's what happens when you go after the Jewish community.
Here's a story in CNN after Ye went after the Jewish community.
And here's the question to you.
Why have you never heard the story that I'm going to tell you now?
I'm going to tell you a story, as CNN reported it, and you ask me why you never heard this before.
Allegedly, with like capital A on allegedly, this is the biggest allegedly I'll ever say in my life.
Allegedly, Kanye West has long been fascinated by Adolf Hitler.
Of course! But wait, then what else do they say about people who have long been fascinated by Adolf Hitler?
What's the next thing they say?
Here it comes. Here's the next thing they say.
He read Mein Kampf.
He was very impressed with the Nazis.
Oh, my God.
Now, the news, and apparently there's somebody on TMZ who he talked with, who confirms that he said, you know, sketchy things about the Jewish community.
Not these things, not about Hitler.
But other people are now confirming that allegedly he was a Hitler admirer, and it gets worse.
Wait a minute, hold on. His album that was titled Yeh, So in the end, they titled it Yay.
The story says that his first suggestion for the title of his album was Hitler.
Right.
I just saw a comment on local.
I give up. Is today the best day ever?
I mean, not for Ye.
It's a terrible day for him.
But for the watching, all the things that you knew were wrong are now coming into this sharp contrast where you can really, really see everything clearly all of a sudden.
Like, didn't you wake up thinking that the clouds were clearing?
Like, there's something happening, right?
You know that if I were to defend Ye at this point, I would become a Hitler admirer, right?
You know that, right?
So now they've made him so toxic that you can't give any defense of him without being a Mein Kampf Nazi person.
So, I'd like to give my defense of Kanye because I'm not supposed to.
That's the only reason I'm going to do it.
You ready for that? It is suicide, career suicide, to defend him.
You all agree with that, right?
So that's why I'm going to do it.
You ready? I have never read Mein Kampf, but I'm going to.
Do you know why? It's probably really important.
Because I've heard a number of people, very smart, who said they read it and they learned a lot.
You don't want to know what your enemies are doing?
You wouldn't read a book about how your enemies are trying to destroy you?
Because that's what you would learn.
You would learn what techniques the Nazis used, in case somebody else uses it on you.
You would also learn about persuasion.
Would that be useful? Yes, no matter where you got it, it would be useful.
Does that mean you'll become a Nazi?
No, it does not.
Does it mean you love the Nazis?
No, it does not.
It means that there was something you'd like to know about the Nazis that could protect you in the future or make you stronger.
It has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
So, number one, If there's anybody you hear who ever read Mein Kampf and learned something about it, about persuasion, your thought about them should be, well, there is a free-thinking person who went wherever he needed to go to learn whatever he needed to learn.
All right? Number two.
I don't think it's true that he decided to, or he ever noodled with the idea of calling his album Hitler.
But if he did, I'm going to defend it.
Because he's a creative person who, in the end, did not use that title.
He did not use that title in the end.
He is a creator who comes up with ten bad ideas for every good one.
Do you know what you call that?
What do you call somebody who has ten horrible ideas for every one that's a home run?
You call them a fucking genius.
That's what you call them. You call them a genius.
So if you tell me that he floated the most radical idea I've ever heard, but then rejected it, I say, oh, you just described a genius, that sounds like.
Somebody who would consider absolutely anything.
Absolutely anything. You will consider absolutely anything.
And he did it right in front of you.
Now, the fact that he chose not to go that way is evidence that he has control of his decisions.
It's possible it never would have been published if he didn't change it, so there's always that.
All right, so the Hitler thing, to me, is just the...
To me, this is proving his point, basically.
So Ye's point was there's something, let's say, coordinated about the Jewish community that is organized against Ye.
I would say that if this Hitler thing gets legs, that that's a strong argument in his favor.
Again, I'm not saying there's anything special about any group of people, so I'm not echoing his complaint.
I'm saying that if I were him, and I had made that complaint, I'd be very happy to see that it had been proven true.
That's what I would claim.
If I were him, I'd claim, well, there it is.
There's the proof. They just basically put the Hitler brush on me, and there's only one group that can do that.
That's what I'd say. Now, that's not true.
Let me be clear. There's not one group that can do that.
But if he claims it, it's going to sound pretty convincing to a lot of people.
So I don't think he can recover from this.
I'm going to make a prediction he cannot recover from this.
What do you think? Can he recover?
And by the way, it's not my opinion that he should.
Let me be clear about that.
I do think that he crossed the line that society can draw that line.
I think that's a line you can draw.
Somebody says Mel Gibson did, but did he?
Did he really? I mean, Mel Gibson has never been Mel Gibson since.
He's a guy who still has a job, sort of, but he's not Mel Gibson anymore.
Mental illness? Let him off the hook?
No. No.
No, I think he's actually done forever.
Honestly. I don't think he can come back.
If I could defend him, if I had any way to defend him from his comments which painted Jews as one kind of group of people who were causing them trouble, if I could defend that in any way, I'd take a shot at it.
Because I think Kanye did enough for free speech and for goodness that if there were any way I could defend that, I'd do it.
I'd do it for him. But I don't see a way.
I see nothing. He just has to own that, right?
Would you agree? Ye has to own that.
There's nothing we can do.
If I could help him, like in an ethical way, if I could help him in any ethical way, I'd do it.
I think he's earned it.
I think he's earned that kind of help.
But there's nothing I could do.
There's no door open there.
You've got to leave a little crack in the window.
Give us something. But we can't support that.
Well, I can't.
Can't speak for you.
All right, Rasmussen. Latest poll on the midterm says that the GOP has a seven-point generic lead.
I think that's...
Has it been up to nine at some point?
But seven is an increase, so more of a gap.
Are you surprised by that?
Because I was expecting that as we get closer and closer to the day of the election, the polls would narrow to no difference.
But it could be that the Democrats are doing so poorly that even the polls won't operate the way I'd expect them to.
Now, different pollsters are going to have different...
I think there's at least one pollster who says it's dead even.
Mein Kampf was required reading in the Atlanta school system in 2017, somebody says.
Yeah. I don't know about that, but it sounds like it could have been.
All right, and in a key indicator of midterm possible results, when asked, when voters were asked what they think of having the Congress be at least split, So when voters were asked, would you like Congress to at least be half Republican and half Democrat, 62% said yes.
62% of the country prefers a split this election, this upcoming election.
They prefer to get a split. So something like two-thirds of the people wish that the Republicans would win at least one of the houses.
How does that not translate into Republican wins?
How does that not become one?
But as McConnell said, quite wisely, in the Senate races it's more about the individual candidates.
I think that's true.
Do you know how, what's his name, Fetterman could win?
I'm going to tell you how Fetterman could win the election.
Can you give me a fact check?
Are there more Democrats than Republicans in Fetterman's race?
Do me a quick fact check while I'm talking.
But fact check me while I'm talking.
So there are more Democrats than Republicans, right?
So if all the Democrats voted for Fetterman and all the Republicans voted for Oz, Fetterman wins, right?
So here's how Fetterman can win.
You know, honestly, I was a little too optimistic about my recovery.
And I apologize for that.
However, my recovery is on schedule.
It's just taking longer than I hoped.
And I think that this election is too important to let the Republicans get control.
So I'll tell you what I'll do.
For the first year in office, I will vote the same way as these three prominent Republicans, or maybe Republicans in his area or something like that.
You say, I'll just match their vote for a year.
After that year, I'll release my doctor's opinion about whether I'm suited to lead in the normal way that you would like me to lead.
And if I'm not, maybe I'll step down or make a change or something.
But Democrats would accept An apology, which they're not even asking for, but they would accept an apology, and they would accept his idea that voting for a Democrat is more important than the individuals, and that you can have that choice of you just voted for a generic Democrat.
So basically, Fetterman can say, I am the generic Democrat, and I'll give you that for one year.
I'll just vote with the Democrats, period.
You will never have to wonder about my vote for one year.
It will always be with the Democrat majority.
After one year, I'll reassess.
But I have to apologize.
I really did think I was...
I thought I was doing better than I was.
That's the same sort of optimism I want to bring to the state.
I think it was a little misplaced in me.
And I'd like to be a little bit more frank with you and tell you what we can do that really makes a difference.
And what we can do is make sure that the Democrats win, and I'll be a little more transparent about my situation, but in the meantime, you'll get all the Democrat votes you want.
And then it's over. Right.
Yeah. I feel like he could win with that, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, I don't think he'll do it, but I think that persuasion-wise, that would work.
Well, here's Zelensky being persuasion perfect again.
As you know, the Russians are turning off the lights in Ukraine as the winter is coming.
And of course, the big issue is they'll freeze to death in the winter.
And Zelensky's response to Russia's threats are, quote, we are not afraid of the dark.
That's really good.
That's really good. This fucker is so good at persuasion.
I'm not on his side.
I want to be clear. I don't trust Zelensky at all.
I don't know that our fate is tied to his.
I'm not a fan.
But I'm just talking about his skill.
You can't deny his skill.
This is good. We're not afraid of the dark.
That's really good.
Really good. Anyway, the news is reporting, I don't know if it's accurate, that Russia is not using their cruise missiles and ballistic missiles to target Ukraine's military anymore because they don't have enough, reportedly.
So they don't have enough of their precision munitions, so the only thing they can use it for is turning out the lights because there are fewer power plants than there are Ukrainian military assets.
Allegedly, yeah.
It could be they've got a big pile of them.
They're waiting to shoot any moment if they need them.
That's possible. But I don't see much movement.
I don't see the Ukrainians gaining much, and I don't see Ukraine backing down because the lights are being turned off.
Boy, you know what Ukraine could really use?
Tesla Powerwalls.
I'm just spitballing.
Anyway, do you believe that?
Do you believe that what's going on over in Ukraine is that it's all about the power plants now?
And here's my question.
How hard would it be to turn off the power in Moscow?
How many power plants keep Moscow's lights on?
Because, you know, it would be, of course, an amazing provocation to attack Moscow.
But if they turned all the lights off in Ukraine, I would certainly send a terrorist force after their power plants.
It would cost World War III? Let me give you a contrarian opinion.
Contrarian opinion.
Putin can't use his nukes.
And he knows it. Under any scenario.
That's my opinion. My opinion is that Putin...
See, you have to put yourself in his shoes.
If you put yourself in your own shoes, you say, oh, I don't trust that guy.
He could do anything. But you put yourself in his shoes.
Now, physically, he could launch a nuke, of course.
He could probably get it done.
But there's no way it would work.
Like, there's no scenario which he could imagine where, okay, I use this tactical nuke And then the war turns in my favor, and then I roll up and I take over Ukraine, and then people trade with me again, and they'll be good with that, because they'll get over it.
For a while they'll be really mad, but they'll get over it.
Do you think that? Do you think that Putin is so out of it that he could even imagine a scenario where nuclear weapons would be to his advantage?
Can you? Really?
Really? Really?
Some of you can.
But now, keep in mind, I'm asking the question very specifically.
If you believe he's crazy, then anything's possible.
But I'm giving you the assumption that he's not crazy.
If he's not crazy, there's no way he'll ever use a nuke.
Now, I'm waiting for somebody to tell me how wrong I was about Putin before.
That would be the obvious thing to say now.
But I'll criticize myself in case you forgot to do it.
All right, so that comment threw me off.
Yes, I was so wrong about Putin before, so I said that Putin would not invade Ukraine even when he'd massed his forces for the invasion.
Because I said to myself, well, Putin's not so stupid that he thinks this could work out well.
Because I didn't think it would work out well.
But then he invaded.
So we do know that Putin can be fooled by a risk-reward situation in which he read the risk and the reward incorrectly, right?
We know that Putin can read the risk-reward incorrectly, because he did once already, recently.
But that was almost certainly because he was getting bad information from his own military, don't you think?
Does anybody have any doubt about that?
Whatever Putin believed about his own military came from the military.
Now, so that he can't trust his own military, but...
Does he need to ask the military what would happen if he used a nuke?
No, he does not.
That does not require military advice.
He knows exactly what would happen.
It would be the end of him.
And if he doesn't know, let me spell it out for you.
If Putin uses a nuclear weapon, then a decapitation strike of Putin is on.
Am I wrong? The response would be a decapitation strike.
Wouldn't it? We would kill Putin.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Tell me I'm wrong.
I don't think we would even attack the Russian military.
So what Biden says, or the experts are saying, is that the US would do a massive attack on the Russian military.
Possible. It's possible.
But if a guy uses a nuke, you only have one mission.
You only have one job to get rid of that one guy.
That's your only job.
And I would tell all the other generals, I'd say, get the fuck away from him.
We're not after you.
I would tell all of the other generals and all the other leaders, we're not after you.
Do not be within a city block of Putin.
Get the fuck out of there, and you've got one day.
You've got 24 hours to get out of the blast zone.
Because we know where he is, and there's going to be a big hole there in 24 hours.
We will do nothing else to Russia.
There will be no other impact.
If you're not standing next to Putin, you will be completely safe.
Do not stand next to Putin, because the next week is going to be a big hole in the ground where Putin used to be.
That's how I'd handle it.
I would tell the Russian people they don't have anything to worry about.
We're going after one guy, and we're going to make sure nobody uses a nuke again.
Now, imagine this turned around the other way.
Imagine an American president used a nuclear weapon when it didn't have to happen.
Just imagine that.
And then imagine the other side says, look, we're just going to kill your president.
Stand down. I might let him do it.
I might let him do it.
If my president launched a dirty nuke when it didn't have to happen, and somebody says we're going to kill him for it, I'd get out of the way.
I mean, I'm not sure I would reveal his location, because I don't want to go full traitor, but I wouldn't care if he got killed.
Not at all. So I think nuclear is just different in every way.
So everything you know about everything else is completely different as soon as you're talking nuclear.
Nobody has a country when you're talking nuclear.
You know what I mean? As soon as you say nuclear, I don't care about the name of the country.
You're just going to stop that stuff.
Whatever it takes.
All right. Anything else happening?
We're all trying to guess what's going to happen with Twitter.
I saw a paid comment here on YouTube that you're waiting to see how extreme I'll go now that I can get away with it.
One assumes. But I'm not sure it'll be that different.
Because I actually don't have any views that I would want to say on Twitter that I can't, even in the old regime.
There was nothing I could say that I couldn't say.
I've always said that getting kicked off of Twitter takes work.
Like, you'd have to do some work.
And usually they just tell you you have one problem tweet, and if you take it down, you'll be fine.
I would just take it down.
It's not that hard.
All right.
Two metal canisters.
I would not believe any false flags about radiation injuries in Ukraine.
I wouldn't believe anything about anything on that topic.
Could Oz capitalize on a Fetterman apology?
Well, not if he said, "Just make sure you vote Democrat." Jenny Jackson, who was a bit of a fucking cunt, says that, "Scott, duped by Kaiser Medical, remember you bragging about how great they were for years, only to realize they're trash once you need them.
Typical for Scott to get duped, just like Ukraine.
Well, Jenny, you stupid piece of trash cunt.
I'm going to hide you.
I'll give you no more attention.
Biden mocking.
There's a video on Twitter of some, I think it was a Ukrainian woman who slapped a Russian guy in a bar.
or They were getting a verbal disagreement.
She looked like she was drunk.
And she just walks up to him from across the room, walks up to him, just slaps him in the face.
And then he just lays around.
With a slap, not a punch.
But I have to admit I enjoyed watching it.
Several times. Because every time somebody thinks that they're invulnerable and they learn that they're not, that is so entertaining.
And why did this white woman think she could assault a man in public?
Why did the white woman think she could assault a man in public?
Because white women can get away with everything.
They can get away with anything.
And there was one Russian guy who taught her that he wasn't born in America.
Hey, guess what? This guy's not born in America.
Bam! Yeah.
All right. Let's guess who will be brought back onto Twitter.
I say Trump will be offered, but will not come back to Twitter.
What do you say? Because he needs people to join truth.
I think Twitter will run for president.
I'm sorry. I think Trump will run for president, and I think he can win two ways.
Either by forcing people to be untruth to find out what the candidate says, which I'm already untruth, but I don't use it.
If Trump tweeted every day running for president, then I would have to be untruth and I'd have to check, as a number of people would.
So I think his best play is to help his media entity by running for president, and he probably wants to run for president anyway.
So I'm going to say that Trump will be invited but will not come.
So that's my first one.
I think some of them are interesting.
Because, you know, Carpe Donctum, what did he get kicked off for?
Was it for a copyright violation?
Because I think it might have been a copyright violation.
Or was it about trans?
No. The Babylon Bee got kicked off for making fun of a trans person.
Little kids hugging? I don't know.
Whatever it was. But I think it depends why they got kicked off.
I would be in favor of no permanent suspensions.
No permanent suspensions.
There should be just a three-year penalty, maybe.
If you did something that was Holocaust bad, I still think you should get three years.
You know, and be able to come back with full privileges.
Or maybe come back with some kind of limited, you know, we're watching you kind of thing.
Yeah, Babylon got kicked off for satire, but the satire was targeting a group.
As all satire does.
Alright, so we'll see who comes back on Twitter.
Project Veritas, seems like that one would come back.
What did they do that violated any terms of service?
Alex Jones, I would expect him to be back.
Oh, is Jordan Peterson kicked off of Twitter?
Is that real? What?
For saying that the Sports Illustrated model didn't look healthy?
No. That can't be true.
Oh, he deleted the tweet and he's back.
Okay. Wow.
See, now, I would have done that too.
On one hand, you think, well, I'll make a point of it and I won't delete the tweet because it's what I mean.
But I don't think that's worth it.
In the real world, if Twitter is part of your business model, as it is with Jordan Peterson, and it is with me, I think you just delete the tweet and live to offend another day.
Yeah, live to offend another day.
I just wouldn't die on that hill.
He is not back. I guess there's some disagreement whether he's back.
He dead-named the actress?
Was that what it was? Was it Ellen Page?
Or was it...
He dead-named Elliot Page and called Elliot by the original name.
That's what happened. He dead-named someone and said, how is that bad?
Oh, okay. Well...
Let me see if I can be as open-minded about this as possible.
I generally agree with Jordan Peterson.
So I'm generally on his side.
Not all the time. That's probably true of our ability.
But let's say his argument was there should be nothing wrong with using somebody's original name, especially if that's how people know to refer to them.
If you're talking to other people, and that's how you refer to them, like Kanye versus Ye.
But imagine...
I'm going to do devil's advocate here, okay?
Here's a little devil's advocate.
Imagine if you were that trans person.
And a famous person went on Twitter and used your original name, which has the effect to you, of mocking you.
Or maybe not mocking, but let's say disrespecting your identity.
How much would that bother you?
Is that a crime?
Okay, here's where I think you have to be a little bit more human.
You are all judging this from the perspective of not being a trans person.
If you're not trans, how could you possibly imagine what it would be like?
How could you possibly imagine that?
I don't think you can.
Now, should our standard be That what we're allowed to say is based on how hurt another person is.
Is that the standard?
Because that's a pretty dangerous standard, isn't it?
It's the whole reason that we have free speech is so you don't have a standard like that.
So, let's say we imagined that she was hurt by the comment.
Is that reason enough?
And let's say that even Jordan Peterson might have known That she would be at least offended or feel disrespected, maybe even get mocked by Jordan Peterson's followers or something like that.
Does she have a reason to complain?
Well, she has a reason not to like it, for sure.
And if she said some horrible things about Jordan Peterson because of it, I would certainly want her to be able to say all those things in public, and so would he.
Pretty sure. I'm not a mind reader, but pretty sure he likes free speech.
He says it a lot. Mind trans.
That was funny. All right.
So I'm going to say it probably is pretty tough to be trans, and maybe we should be a little bit more open-minded about You're hurting an individual who's just in a different space than you are.
But on the other hand, you can't have free speech.
You can't have free speech if you're worried about hurting everybody.
So I guess I would defend his right to say it and maybe encourage him to soften it a little bit.
How's that? And of course, he isn't under no obligation to take my advice.
I wouldn't even expect him to.
But I think as trying to be a good human, I think you could say, I respect your free speech completely, but just be a little bit knowledgeable that not every trans person is the same.
Let me ask you this.
If 100 trans people decided to transition, what percentage of them do you believe will end up happier?
I don't know the answer myself, but I'd love to see your...
Just guess. What percentage of trans people do you think end up happier?
Now, I'm seeing very low numbers on the locals, like, you know, zero to 5%, 10%.
I don't think that's true.
Has anybody ever done a study on it?
All right, here's everything I know about people.
Cognitive dissonance should make everybody who does that think they made the right decision.
Almost. Let me say it again.
Whether or not it's the right decision, that's separate.
There's like a reality part, you know, what is true?
Is it actually right or is it actually not right?
Did they actually get happier? But cognitive dissonance would almost guarantee that you would believe you were happier.
Do you understand cognitive dissonance enough to understand that statement?
Almost every one of them would say they're happier.
If I understand anything about the world without seeing any kind of research, no research whatsoever, I haven't seen any, but I'm going to bet that the vast majority of them will tell you they're happier and believe they're happier, even if objectively you look at them and say, I'm not so sure. But I believe they'll think they're happier.
And shouldn't they have that right?
Well, they have the right.
So, let me ask you this.
For the people who said they think only 5% were happier, if you could be shown that 95% are happier, and I don't have a reason to believe that's true, but if you were shown that, would you change your opinion? Would that change how you feel about the whole situation?
Because my opinion is probably closer to 90% than 5%.
I don't know where it is, but I'll bet it's a lot closer to 90% than 5%.
Yeah, let's say after five years, right?
Yeah, after one or two years, that's when the cognitive dissonance would be the strongest.
So, as Erica suggests, you weigh five years and then maybe people have, you know, really settled into whether this is a good or bad idea.
Studies have been done, but how come nobody has quoted a result yet?
Usually when I say something like this, somebody says, oh, it's been studied and the percentage was this or that.
But why are we getting all...
Well, let me bring this back to something practical.
How many of you are embarrassed that you have a strong opinion and you don't know if 5% are happy or 95% happy?
Isn't it embarrassing to have a strong opinion on this?
Now, I'm not talking about kids.
The kid question is more cut and dried.
I think with kids, you let them decide when they're 18.
Or 21, maybe.
18, you don't even have a fully formed brain yet, so maybe 25.
I don't know. There's no right answer, because somebody's going to be disadvantaged no matter which way you go.
And disadvantaged a great deal.
Yeah. I think most of you probably only care about the kids doing it, right?
Otherwise, live and let live.
Most Republicans are like, I don't care what you do.
Just don't do things to kids.
Yeah. So I think that's where we could agree.
That's where we could agree. Because if I say I don't think kids should transition, I'm not really saying anything about trans, am I? Is that a comment plus or minus about trans?
If you say people should wait to a certain age to do something?
It has nothing to do with any opinion about transitioning.
It's just when you make the decisions.
All right. Greg Speed says his philosophy is don't touch me and don't take my stuff.
Nicely done. That's as good as my old boss's philosophy, the cleanest political philosophy I've ever heard.
Because I asked him how he voted on all the various propositions and the smaller laws and candidates you've never heard of and stuff.
And he said, I just vote for whatever will lower my taxes.
Or I'd vote against anything that would increase my taxes.
And as soon as I heard that, I was like, okay, but I pushed back a little bit.
I said, but some of them are still good ideas, right?
And he said, and listen to this, they already have enough money.
So it didn't matter whether it was a good idea.
If it's a good idea, take the money from one of your bad ideas.
He shut me down so fast.
I've never been that shut down with a political argument.
Normally, if I'm in a political argument, I'm like a pit bull.
Like, I'll make my point way beyond the point where it's useful.
But the moment he said, they already have enough money, I was like...
And...
But let me...
But have you... On the other hand...
I had nothing.
That was the end of the conversation.
Let me give a little love to the person who said that.
He was my boss, Mike Goodwin, who passed away this year, tragically.
He passed away this year.
And he was also famous as the person who named Dilbert.
His name is Mike Goodwin.
And he named Dilbert.
True fact. He was my boss.
And an excellent person.
One of my favorite people.
I'll tell you a joke he told that also summarizes all of human behavior.
Would you like to hear one statement he said?
So he did one thing that summarized all of politics.
But he also summarized all of human behavior.
So we're working in a small room that was a laboratory.
And the laboratory had limited storage space, so we had a little debate among the staff.
There were just five of us, or three of us, or whatever.
And we were trying to decide if one drawer should be the one where we keep the screwdrivers, because we're always looking for screwdrivers for stuff, or should it be where we kept our snacks?
So was it the snack drawer, or was it going to be the screwdrivers drawer?
And I thought I was pretty clever.
You know, pretty clever. I was already a professional humorist.
And I said, well, snacks or screwdrivers?
I guess it depends if you want to eat or screw.
And I thought, well, end of the story.
I've just closed down this conversation.
Pretty clever. Pretty clever.
Do you want to eat or screw? And then Micah Goodwin listened to me say, it depends if you want to eat or screw.
And very calmly he looked at me and he said...
Depends how hungry I am.
We're done.
We're done.
He just described all of human behavior.
A little tactical problem.
He just described all of human behavior and left nothing unsettled.
There's nothing else you need to know about the entire world that you live in, except that if you have to choose between eating and screwing, it depends how hungry you are.
Now think about that.
It doesn't depend how horny you are.
And once you understand that, the entire world makes sense.
It just depends how hungry I am.
Yeah, total mic drop.
And that's why his name was Mike, because he was the mic drop guy.
Anyway, I do that just to honor his legacy, which actually lasts to this day.
Remember I've told you that...
I'm not a believer in an afterlife, per se.
So I'm not a believer in a supreme being unless it's some entity that created a simulation.
But I do believe in eternal life.
Because the ripple effect that Mike Goodwin had on the world not only ripples through his family, which will ripple forever, But he changed me.
He changed me.
And that's permanent.
And then whatever I do to change other people, well, there's a little bit of that ripple that comes through me.
The name Dilbert, every time you use the name Dilbert, that was Mike Goodwin.
Mike Goodwin is the reason you know the name Dilbert.
And it might also be the reason it succeeded.
Because names are really important.
And Dilbert was sort of the perfect name, so it probably did make a difference.
Anyway, as you can tell, I am full of love and hope and optimism and excellent health today.
This is the most optimistic day I've had in the longest time, maybe since 2016.
And it really does feel like things are starting to change in a positive way.
Does it? Does anybody else have that feeling?
But I feel like Twitter isn't the only thing.
I feel like there's a whole bunch of things that are starting to line up to show us we're heading in the right direction.
And that is the thought I'd like to leave you on today, because I think we've done our job here today.
And thank you again to all the people on Locals who were so good to keep me alive, maybe literally.
And thank you to YouTube for joining and Spotify and everybody who's listening.
Sorry for all the gaps where I wasn't saying anything, but I was doing hilarious visual art.
