Episode 1912 Scott Adams: A Nonzero Chance The Pelosis Were Getting Hammered At The Same Time
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 attack story evolves
Hillary blames MAGA, Elon Musk replies
No golden parachutes for fired Twitter top execs
Russia's starve and freeze strategy
Ivermectin, another flawed study
Kari Lake's impressive skill set
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, the highest achievement that humanity has ever accomplished.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there is nothing better.
And luckily, you're here, so good for you.
Your day is starting off right.
And if you'd like to take it up another level, and it's possible, I know, seems unlikely, but it's possible.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a cantine jug or a flask, 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 of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Yeah, finally on time.
You're finally on time.
So, is it hammer time? - Yeah.
True story? MC Hammer's first home was built by the same builder who built the home I'm in.
True story. Just a weird coincidence.
Well, let's talk about all the things.
Funniest tweet of the day is that Biden's poll numbers are up in four states.
Does anybody understand that reference?
You had to watch all the news yesterday to know how funny that is.
Biden's poll numbers are up in four states.
Biden said in public that there are 54 states.
Now, the joke's on you.
You thought he misspoke, right?
You thought he didn't know the number of states and he misspoke.
No. This is the Democrat plan.
They're going to try to get four extra states recognized before the midterms.
It's their only chance. They've got a few days to do it.
We'll get D.C. in there and maybe Guam.
I don't know. A few other things.
Maybe some Indian reservations.
Whatever it takes. Whatever it takes.
We'll get to 54 by the midterms.
No, not really.
I have to give you some background to this story first.
There's a bad...
That element of my personality, which I confess I'm not proud of.
I'm not proud of this at all.
It's just true.
When I hear a story about a serial killer who built an underground torture chamber that his neighbors didn't know about for decades, I say to myself, well, it's terrible that he did these crimes.
I feel bad for the victims.
But it's also true, that is one industrious serial killer.
And part of me is thinking, wow, there's a person who had a plan and executed a plan.
Executed more than that, as it turns out.
But I always think, you know, you've got to look at the positive part.
There's somebody who had a system, put it together, was dedicated, made it work.
Well, I take that story and move to this story, which is there's a homeless man in Los Angeles Who is tired of the city asking him to move or take down his tent.
So he built a wooden structure on wheels.
So he built basically a wooden tent.
It's not a tent.
It's like a little house. So basically he built his own ADU. That means additional dwelling units or something like that.
Like people put in their backyard to put the mother-in-law in.
So he built one. Apparently he's even got electric.
He's got an electric generator.
I think he might have running water in there.
But the funniest part is that it's on wheels.
So if they tell him to move, he just picks up his house and he pushes it down the sidewalk.
And I'm thinking to myself, this is not the worst idea, right?
So imagine, if you will, that we had a place that all the homeless could go where they would be left alone to do what they want.
Drugs, live on the street, do whatever they want.
But you also gave them, let's say, some instructions on how to build their own little structures.
It might be a fun experiment that's good for them and good for us.
Just see what they could come up with.
What would happen if you let the homeless build the world that they want to live in?
See, the trouble is that the non-homeless have built this world and then the homeless don't want to live in it.
So maybe give them just a little bit of help To build the world they want to live in.
Maybe they could do a good job, I don't know.
This guy seems pretty happy with his little mobile sidewalk home.
There's something like amazingly human and inspirational about this, as weird as it is.
Alright, we have to talk about Paul Pelosi.
When was the last time a story was exactly what it looked like?
You know, you hear a story and you go, well, that's the story.
And then a year later, that's still the story.
It feels like that never happens now, right?
If politics are involved, especially.
So here are the weird things we know about this story.
There's so many weird things about this.
So you know that the police came when Pelosi was in his underwear...
And the breaker-inner guy was in his underwear, and they were wrestling over a hammer.
Police said, put down that hammer, and Pelosi did, but the other guy didn't, and the other guy beat him with a hammer.
So here's the new stuff that I'm finding out today.
And when I say I'm finding out, that just means I'm a little slow on it.
Number one, apparently there was at least one more person in the house, but we don't know anything about that person.
Because somebody answered the door for the police, and it wasn't those two people.
Now, I heard that normally the house would be staffed.
So I'm guessing it was a staff member who was asleep until that point?
Maybe a staff member who just didn't know what was happening until it was sort of too late or something?
I don't know. The next question I'd ask is, was the staff member in his or her underwear?
I just want to know if everybody who goes to that house just wears underwear.
I mean, you can't rule that out.
I only know two people who have ever been described to be in the house, and both of them were in their underpants.
If a third person was also known to be in the house, should we follow the pattern?
Let's see, first one was in underpants, second one was in underpants, third one, well, I don't know, maybe underpants, possibly.
I'm not ruling it out.
There's no evidence of that fact.
Then the other funny thing was, and I didn't know this yesterday, I think I saw Cernovich tweet about it, but I didn't connect it to the story.
So Cernovich was on it right away.
The broken glass for the window that allegedly was the access point for the homeless guy, the broken glass was on the outside of the home.
That's not how that works.
If you break glass, it goes in toward the hammer direction.
Or if it was a hammer.
But if you were having any kind of an altercation inside the house, you could imagine something getting broken and landing outside the house.
So we don't know anything about that broken glass.
That's something. Now Hillary, of course, wanted to immediately get in on the action.
And before we knew much about the story...
When people were saying, this homeless guy was radicalized by MAGA. Hillary gets in on it and she tweets that the Republican Party and its mouthpieces now regularly spread hate and deranged conspiracy theories.
It is shocking but not surprising that violence is a result.
As citizens, we must hold them accountable for their words and the actions that follow.
We must hold them accountable.
We must hunt them down.
She didn't say that, but I read between the lines.
Gotta hunt those Republicans for doing this bad stuff.
Now, here are stories I've heard this morning, but I can't put any credibility on them.
I'll just tell you this is what's going around.
The stories that he was MAGA are based on social media or website postings.
Those appear to have been created when he got caught.
In other words, they were fake.
So do we have a confirmation that his postings about MAGA were fake?
Or were some of them real, but there were also some fakes?
We don't know. So some people are saying he's MAGA, but apparently he also was a Black Lives Matter, or he lived with a Black Lives Matter supporter who supported LGBTQ, and he was a Berkeley nudist, hemp-making nudist.
So 100% of the way the guy lived, Suggests he was a Democrat.
Or leaning left, right?
100% of the way he lived.
But there's this sketchy website, social posting thing that some people are saying was fake, and I don't know.
I don't know or not.
Now, if we had not heard from Michael Schellenberger about how this guy really lived, I don't think the news was going to cover it.
Watch how many times you get your news from just somebody on Twitter.
Right? He's not just somebody, but people on Twitter who are not part of a news organization are telling us more than the news.
That's like a real thing that's happening now.
So what else is funny about this?
Let's see. Then Elon Musk responded to Hillary Clinton's tweet, and Elon, I'm paraphrasing, but he said, there's a small chance there's more to the story.
And then he tweets a story that was so fake news about, you know, some gay bar kind of a thing.
It was so fake news that I think it was already taken down nine minutes after he tweeted it.
I couldn't even read it because it was taken down so fast.
Now, if the head of Twitter tweets something that looks very sketchy, he would have known it looked sketchy, but he said there's a small chance If somebody says there's a small chance, are they signaling that it's a low credibility?
Was he just having fun with it?
Did he believe it might be possible that her husband was gay?
Or that Pelosi's husband was gay?
Was he just putting it out there?
I don't know. We don't know what Elon Musk was thinking.
But I saw some pushback that it was deeply irresponsible for Elon Musk to tweet an obviously, in some people's opinion, obviously untrue source.
What do you think?
Do you think it was irresponsible to tweet an obviously untrue source?
Well... The first thing you'd have to ask yourself is, who was he replying to and what was he replying to?
What he was replying to was an obviously untrue tweet.
Hillary Clinton was making a statement of fact about this guy being a MAGA guy, and that is definitely not proven.
It might be proven.
Later it might be proven.
But at the time that Hillary was tweeting it, it was closer to bullshit.
I mean, she was just making a stand so that that would be in your head, whether it was proven true or not true in the long term.
What Elon did was tweet some bullshit to match your bullshit.
And when I saw that, it was like, oh, good.
Some bullshit to match the bullshit.
That feels like a step forward.
Because here's why it's a step forward.
Because probably the left actually sees Elon Musk's tweets.
But they don't see anybody else's tweets.
So he's one of the few people who can actually call bullshit on the left, and the left will actually even see the tweet.
So calling bullshit on Hillary Clinton was fun.
The fact that he used some bullshit to call bullshit is double fun, in my opinion, because if there's anything we know, he's not taking this too seriously.
I mean, he's taking the business seriously, but he's not taking himself seriously.
We know that because he tweeted a dick joke already.
I don't know if you missed it, but you have to check his feed every day now.
He literally tweeted a dick joke with no political purpose whatsoever.
It was just a dick joke.
That's it. Now, if you tell me I could be happier, Knowing that the new owner of Twitter is using Twitter to tweet dick jokes, there's nothing that would make me happier.
No, nothing. You could try to make me happier today, but good luck.
That would be hard to top.
So, that's awesome.
Here's the next awesome thing.
You know what bugs me a lot in life?
Probably bugs you too. It's a thing called Terms of Service.
You know how companies have terms of service and...
I hate it when this company makes me have to bow down to their terms of service.
Don't you hate it? Don't you wish there was some way you could flip it around?
Don't you wish that the company would have to bow down to your terms of service...
But impossible, right?
That's like a crazy thing.
That could never happen in the real world.
There'd never be a company that would bow down to your terms of service.
Interestingly, do you know what the terms of service are for Tesla employees?
Elon Musk's rule at Tesla, if you didn't know this, is that they're specifically instructed, I'm not making this up, Tesla employees are specifically instructed to not do something that could show up in a Dilbert comic.
That's like a real thing.
It's in writing. Now, suppose the person who came up with that terms of service, Elon Musk, suppose he took that to his next company.
I mean, why wouldn't he?
I mean, it's still the rule of Tesla.
So is there any reason he wouldn't bring it to Twitter?
If he does, which is a reasonable assumption, right?
It's a reasonable assumption.
If he does, Twitter employees will be living under my terms of service.
Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Now, is that simulation perfect or what?
Am I right? Remember Elon has told himself that reality tends to move in the direction of greatest entertainment value?
Is this not the greatest entertainment value that Twitter might be under, that Twitter employees might be under my terms of service?
That's like a real thing!
How much more perfect could that be?
Not? Couldn't be more perfect.
And here's more to why I think that.
So the other thing that Elon tweeted today is he got an automatic message, which I assume you get when you're a new manager at Twitter.
And the message was that he needs to sign up for Twitter's Management 101 workshop.
So Elon tweeted, he thought it was funny that he's being asked to sign up for a Twitter 101 workshop, Management 101.
But then he tweeted that Management 201 is such a tantalizing carrot.
And I thought, I want to name my band Tantalizing Carrot.
Now when I tell you that he's good at this, This is sort of a Trump tell.
And the tell is, can you ever come up with a phrase like tantalizing carrot that just by itself is just so fresh and, I don't know, you just want to say it, don't you?
So this is what Trump does.
When Trump says, you know, crooked Hillary or whatever, you just want to say it.
It comes out of his mouth and then you want to repeat it.
But when I heard tantalizing carrot...
Tantalizing carrot. That must be my new band name.
All right. I saw LeBron was concerned because there are reports that the N-word usage is up 500% on Twitter since Elon Musk took over.
Now, let me ask you.
I have seen zero occurrences, and I spend a lot of time with some rough customers on Twitter.
Right? If your content leans right in any way, you see some rough customers.
I haven't seen that word.
Have you? Has anybody even seen it once since Elon Musk took over?
I haven't. Now, don't you think that the algorithm is suppressing it?
And, you know, probably should. I wouldn't have a big complaint about that, would you?
I mean, some people may say, free speech, free speech, but hate speech is not exactly free speech.
There is a line.
If the algorithm blocked or suppressed anything that had that word in it, that would be an exception to free speech.
Let me say this.
If it were overt, I'd be fine with it.
I'd be less fine with it if I didn't know it was happening.
See what I'm saying? I mean, if Twitter said, we're just going to suppress that word.
Use it all you want, but it's just going to show up on your own feed.
We're not going to show it to other people.
I'd be fine with that. As long as I knew that's what they were doing and why.
Then I could choose to be on the system.
People could say, I don't want to be on a system that can't use that word.
Well, okay. It's a free market.
Go nuts. Now, if you extended that...
You know, be careful how you extend it.
You might extend it to other known, obvious hate words, but, you know, I wouldn't go much further.
All right. So I did a little Twitter poll, and I asked how many people had seen this N-word or even an uptick in badness, is the way I said it.
Only 6% of the people who follow me say they've seen an uptick in any badness recently, that it's much worse.
What?
What?
All right.
The other news about Twitter, Twitter is just so interesting this week, is that the executives that Musk fired right away, including the CEO, Parag is that the executives that Musk fired right away, including the CEO, Parag The report is that Musk fired them as opposed to retiring them or something that would allow them their large severances.
So the early report was That they would get these huge multi-million dollar severances.
But then today's report, and neither of these are credible, right?
So far we don't have any confirmation of any of this.
But today's report is that because they were fired for cause, meaning that bad performance, that Elon Musk would not have to pay that because it was not because of the takeover.
It was for cause.
I don't know. I don't know.
I mean, I don't think any of them are going to end up poor, but do you think it would be reasonable that the CEO of Twitter could be fired for cause?
I would say, yeah, if anybody had cause to be fired, it would be that guy.
At least, you know, if you're the new owner.
I certainly would have fired him for cause, right?
Wouldn't you? I mean, you wouldn't have lasted a minute if I bought the company.
And I'm not sure any CEO would have, right?
You don't really want to have a co-CEO or anything.
Yeah, I mean, if you have an ugly takeover like that, you just have to clean out the negativity as soon as you can.
So I think that's going the way it should have.
So the New York Times is reporting that Ukraine has a distinct artillery advantage over Russia now.
Did you expect to hear that?
Didn't we hear from the very beginning, well, sure, Ukraine is plucky, and they've got some advantages, and sure, they've got Starlink, and they've got better morale for fighting, and they've got some Western stuff.
But didn't we always believe that the artillery advantage was just clearly Russia?
No doubt about it.
Now, Russia still has the numerical advantage by, I don't know, 100 to 1.
So it's a gigantic military advantage in numbers, artillery numbers.
But apparently the U.S. has provided, or the West, has provided enough of the accurate stuff, including some drones, that Ukraine is actually doing more damage to Russia than Russia is doing to Ukraine.
Do you believe that?
Now, remember...
I give you my disclaimer for all news about Ukraine.
All news about Ukraine should be considered low credibility.
Doesn't matter if it comes out of my mouth or anybody else's, right?
That's our deal. Our deal is the only way we can talk about it is if we all agree that every fact that we allege is low credibility.
As long as you'll give me that freedom, then we can talk about it and have some fun.
So, there are two narratives out there competing.
One is that Russia will freeze and starve Ukraine, take as long as they want.
They have such an advantage that eventually they'll just grind them down and take over.
And there's nothing you can do in the long run.
That's one narrative.
The other narrative is that Ukraine has such better morale and better weaponry That the Russians ultimately are going to get beaten back and their morale will collapse and things will go very bad.
Do you think that we could really tell which of those is true?
Do you think from our position today you could tell me that Russia won't mount a massive counterattack that works?
Could you tell me that can't happen?
I mean, I'd bet against it.
But I wouldn't tell you it can't happen.
Are you a fucking idiot?
Jesus, Shanika.
Why the fuck are you on here?
Could you listen to one fucking thing I say before commenting?
Listen to this asshole.
Scott, we just don't get why you always believe pro-Ukrainian news.
Oh, why do I always believe pro-Ukrainian news, you fucking idiot?
How many times do I have to tell you I don't believe it?
Don't believe it. You shouldn't believe it.
I don't believe it. You shouldn't believe it.
Fucking idiot. Jesus Christ.
Seriously. It's so frustrating to live with people who are such fucking idiots in the world.
Isn't it? It's like you try to have any conversation about anything, and there's always one fucking idiot.
Have you noticed that if you work with like five people in your day job, one of them is always a fucking asshole.
Always. Have you noticed that?
And here's the weird part.
If that person leaves, they're always replaced with another fucking asshole, aren't they?
Just like a different one. Because there's no such thing as five people without one.
And if you tell yourself, Scott, that's not true.
I'm in a group of five people and there are no fucking assholes in my group.
You're the fucking assholes.
I hate to tell you.
Because it's like a universal rule.
Five people? One's going to be bad.
So Shinikwa's the bad one there.
Anyway, so no, we don't believe anything that comes out of Ukraine.
Let's see. So Russia is reportedly going to suspend its deal about grain so that they can put pressure on Ukraine to starve people.
So it does look like Russia's strategy is to starve and freeze anybody they can to get some kind of advantage.
Do you think that'll work?
And why isn't that a war crime?
At what point does targeting the population centers turn into a war crime?
Are you telling me that it's completely militarily valid to knock out the power before the winter for a civilian population?
I get why it would be a war crime to round up people and just shoot them.
But why is it not a war crime to cut off their utilities so they die?
Is it because it's slower?
So, oh, that's okay, because it's slower.
Yeah, no, I realize siege warfare has been, let's see, standard warfare forever.
But it's still a war crime, isn't it?
Is it not? Like, it's a weird place to draw the line.
I've always been curious about how we avoid using our best weapons in a war.
Like, how we actually get away with not using nuclear and chemical weapons.
I'm glad we don't, of course.
But it's weird that war has rules, isn't it?
How weird that war has rules.
And that people obey them.
Now, I get that if they feel like if they don't, then everybody will turn against them, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But still, I'm surprised.
It's not how you expect people to act.
All right. Here's my call for fake news.
I'm going to call some fake news.
Have you seen the reports about the plucky Ukrainian citizens who have started their own drone-making little factories?
And they're taking the smaller hobbyist drones and they're weaponizing them?
And the news is reporting that it might be changing the tide of the war?
Okay, Bob, you fucking, cock-sucking idiot, who says that's a bit naive, Scott.
Bob, wait a fucking second, will you?
Wait a fucking second.
The context of this is I told you it's fake news.
So if I say I'm going to tell you something that's fucking fake news, and then I describe it, and you say I'm gullible for believing it, how about listening to the fucking fake news part about it before you comment?
Idiot. Sorry, I'm just having fun with them.
So yes, my call is that all those stories are fake news to hide the following speculated possibility.
I'm just speculating this.
I'm speculating that the Ukrainians have such good drones from the United States, like the really good stuff?
And maybe some of them are small, too, that they have to cover for the fact that they have advanced weaponry from the U.S. And the way they cover it is by showing this bullshit story of these plucky Ukrainians who are making their own drones that are changing the course of the war.
Does it seem to you that the people in the little factory making their own hobbyist drones, are they the ones changing the course of the war?
I don't think so. Now, I believe they probably exist.
I believe they probably are making their little drones that try to drop a hand grenade or something.
And it probably makes a difference.
A little one. It feels like a cover story, doesn't it?
Who's with me that it feels like a cover story?
Don't know. If I said I knew, that would be going too far.
But doesn't it feel exactly like a cover story?
Right? Once I tell you, you see it, right?
You probably didn't see it until I mentioned it, but as soon as I mentioned it, you go, oh, God.
Obviously, these little hobby drones are not making a difference.
Obviously, it's a cover story for the good stuff.
Yeah, it's a little too on the nose.
Somebody on YouTube says, I'm dealing with low information viewers.
You know, that is so wrong.
I would argue, I don't know how you could test this.
It would be interesting if you could.
I would argue that my viewers are probably the best informed of just about anywhere.
Because I don't know anywhere else that even tries to show you both sides, you know, if there is a both sides.
Do you know any other source that even tries to tell you what's real?
I don't know. I'm not aware of one.
I mean, usually they're either just having fun or they're one-sided.
You get a little bit of Bill Maher, but that's it.
All right. I saw Andres Backhouse, who says lots of provocative things lately.
Let me give you some advice.
And Andres, if you watch this, this is for you specifically.
So this is advice for Andres.
People follow me and they see me use profanity and attack people on Twitter and generally be a flaming asshole in public.
Don't be like me.
I think Mike Cernovich gave the same advice, if I remember correctly.
Don't be like me, right?
So if I can make it work, it has more to do with my specific situation, right?
Now part of it is I have F you money, so I have more freedom.
But if I thought I needed a paycheck someday, I wouldn't act like this in public.
You know that, right? I would never act the way I do if I had to get a job.
It's only because I don't need a job that I can be profane and do whatever the hell I want.
But if you're trying to get through, let's say, the early part of your career where you really depend on other people to treat you right, don't be provocative on social media.
It's not to your advantage, not even a little bit.
It's fun, and it gets you retweets, and I can see why you do it, but it's just a bad life strategy.
Don't do it. You should delete your account.
Get rid of all the tweets. For sure, you should get rid of all your provocative tweets.
For sure. I forgot what his point was.
But his point was, that's provocative, he says it's probably fair to assume that the Ukrainian army also has an IQ advantage over the Russian military.
IQ advantage? Now they might have a professional in some cases.
Well, alright, let's think it through a little bit.
I don't know the answer to the question, but let's think it through.
So, if you're a Ukrainian, what is the requirement for you to serve?
If you're a Ukrainian, the requirement for you to be in the military is to be male, and not even male, I think women are serving as well.
But let's say, stick with the average.
You have to be male within a certain age.
What is the Russian requirement to be in the military?
I don't know exactly, but it seems to me that the ones that were in the military probably were the ones who didn't have options.
Am I right? If you were to compare a volunteer army of people who didn't have any choice, they're defending their country, you end up getting...
Don't you get the, like, Benjamin Franklin and, you know, you end up with George Washington and, you know...
You end up with the founding fathers, right?
I mean, this is an exaggeration to make the point, right?
But the people who volunteer to save their own country that they live in are going to be the cream of the crop.
Am I wrong? Isn't it the smart people who are staying to fight in Ukraine?
And in Russia, only the dumb people are getting into the war.
Now again, these are wildly exaggerated because the conscription is picking up just anybody they can get.
But you tell me that the smartest people in Russia are in the military.
Can you tell me that?
Seriously. Are the smartest people in Russia in the military?
Now ask the same question about Ukraine.
I'll bet they are. I'll bet they are.
I'll bet the smartest people are in the military in Ukraine.
Yeah. Along with everybody else, right?
But I'll bet there is actually a noticeable IQ difference in the Ukrainian military.
And there is some report that the American trainers or the DATO trainers were impressed with the Ukrainians' ability to quickly pick up the weaponry, etc., The smartest are in the US. The latest evidence that ivermectin proves science doesn't work,
and what I mean by that is I'm not saying ivermectin works or doesn't work.
I have no idea.
What I'm saying is that the way we dealt with ivermectin proved you can't trust science anymore.
Would you all agree with that?
It was the most stark case of where no matter which way it goes, no matter what we learn in the long, long run about ivermectin, that it worked or didn't work, the one thing we can agree on is it ruined science, because we can never trust it again.
That's how I feel. And here's just the perfect example.
When I talk about ivermectin, I'm saying the same thing I say about Ukraine, which is everything I say about Ukraine or ivermectin, no matter how confidently I say it, just assume that I don't know that's true, because you can't know anything about either one of those things.
But this was fun.
I tweeted this. So you knew there was this new study that purported to be a credible study that purported to say ivermectin doesn't work.
And then the skeptics tore it apart and said, here are all the problems with it.
And they did look like real problems to me.
I mean, I'd like to hear the counterpoint, but it looked like the skeptics did a good job of tearing it apart.
But then, this is just the best part.
Somebody who is real good with statistics says that if you look at the study, it proves it does work.
And that the people who did the study don't know how to do their own statistics.
And he showed his work...
He showed where in the study he was referring to.
He says if you actually knew how to do, I don't know, Bayesian, whatever.
He said if you actually knew how to do it right, you could take their own numbers, and it shows something like over 90% certainty that ivermectin works.
According to the study that says it doesn't work, If you did their own numbers correctly...
So he's just using their own numbers.
He's not adding any numbers.
He's just doing the math correctly, he claims, on their own data.
He says, if you do the math correctly, it works.
It looks like it works fine.
Now, which would be unusual because the other critics...
Now, here's where it gets interesting.
The other critics were saying that, for example...
Here's, like, one example of what's wrong with it.
The people were supposed to start the ivermectin within a few days of symptoms, right?
And if that were not true, then everything is ridiculous.
Do you know how the people who started within a few days of symptoms, do you know how they got the ivermectin?
I'm just going to wait for your head to explode.
I'm just going to put this together slowly, so your head just goes BAM when I'm done.
So it was a test to make sure that people who had just got the symptoms, like really early, if they took ivermectin, to see if that made a difference.
And how did they get the actual ivermectin medicine?
It was mailed to them.
It was mailed to them through the regular mail.
I don't even know if it was priority.
Come on. Come on.
That's like not even trying.
So none of the people in the study ever saw the people who ran the study.
It was all done remotely.
They just mailed them.
And then here's the second thing they didn't do.
There was no monitoring of whether they actually took the drug, or if they took the right amount, or if they took it at the right time.
None of that. So that was the study that people were pointing to and saying, proof, proof that it doesn't work.
Now, again, if you're listening to me and saying, you know, Scott is telling you it works or it doesn't work, I'm not telling you that.
I'm telling you that ivermectin proves science doesn't work.
So I'm not going to use science to give you an opinion when ivermectin proves science doesn't work.
It can't tell me if ivermectin works, so therefore science doesn't work.
And I don't think it's a hard question either.
You know, if you're looking at all the things that science has tried to determine, where on that list would be, does ivermectin work against COVID? That would be near the easiest thing that science could do.
Am I wrong? What could be more easy for science than showing whether ivermectin, which has already developed and worked and it's in the marketplace and we already know the safety profile, right?
If you already know the safety profile and you're testing against this one specific virus, you tell me that science can't figure that out in two years?
I mean, clearly science doesn't work.
it's just broken so there's that I feel like there were some other funny stories that I didn't get to.
Was there something funny that happened today that I forgot?
Ivermectin is a promising anti-cancer drug.
Yeah, I talked about Ligma and Johnson, that hoax.
The slaughter meter.
I think I'm going to stay away from the slaughter meter.
Has Gottfeld announced his dog?
Well, that would be...
Alright, well I did see it.
I saw a picture of it. It's the most adorable little dog.
Does it have a name?
What's the dog's name?
Does it have a name yet?
All right.
We'll let the audience do it, I guess.
Oh yeah, what is wrong with Madonna?
Do you know Madonna scares me more than most people?
Let me tell you why. If you're not following the Madonna thing, she's had enough...
Looks like cosmetic surgery on her face, at least, that she is no longer recognizable.
Like, you literally wouldn't recognize her on the street.
She doesn't look like Madonna even a little bit.
And it doesn't look good. Like, she's sort of a creature-looking thing now.
Now, obviously, that suggests that she doesn't have anybody giving her advice that she follows.
And she's doing these cringey TikToks that are just awful.
So here's what I worry about.
Who in the world can tell her to stop doing whatever she's doing?
It's nobody, right?
Like literally nobody.
She's completely uncontrolled.
And I was worrying that about myself.
Because, you know, I do seem to have some influence on some things in the world.
But what happens if I lose my mind?
Like, who's going to stop me?
Seriously. Like, who could stop me if I decided to go evil?
I mean, you know, if all I were doing was talking, you know, and basically that's what Madonna's doing.
Madonna's just communicating.
If all I was doing is communicating, how would you know I had turned into some, like, evil...
Like, mentally insecure person.
I don't know.
So I do worry that I could be dangerous if I lost my mind, because there wouldn't be anybody to stop me in time.
Yeah.
I wrote a book about this called The Religion War, And The Religion War was published in 2003, maybe?
It was a sequel to God's Debris.
And it was a time in the future in which small drones could be carrying munitions.
And, you know, it sort of starts from there.
The cities are unsecure.
Cities are unsafe because of drone attacks.
But there was a character in there Who hired somebody to kill him if necessary.
So part of the plot is that the main character who had a lot of power, one of the main characters, actually had a person he hired as an assistant to kill him if it ever got to the point where it had to be done.
Yeah. If I lost all my followers from being insane, you would look into the cause?
Well, I think I would have more followers if I were insane, don't you?
Because it depends how insane I went.
If I went full, you know, hammer in my underpants insane, then yeah, I get that.
But suppose I just sort of turned in some way.
I don't know. That's what I worry about.
I worry about having too much freedom.
Isn't that weird? I literally worry about having too much freedom, because there's some point where that's going to be dangerous.
Yeah, I don't want to go full yay.
All right. Depends on where you place the hammer.
You know, there's a non-zero chance that both the Pelosi's were getting hammered at exactly the same time, just on different coasts.
God's debris should be turned into a...
Oh, my God.
I just figured it out.
Oh, no.
All right. Here's what probably has to happen.
So God's Debris is a small book which features primarily two characters talking.
And I always imagined that it would be turned into either a play or a video in which the two characters talking would have what they're talking about somewhat animated at the same time that they're talking.
So you could hear their words, but you could see it visually while they're talking.
And I thought that AI is right at the point where you could just feed it the script and tell it to build the visual.
And AI could probably come very close to designing two characters, putting them there, and then showing you what they're thinking above.
Yeah, that's the perfect...
I think it needs to be an AI creation.
Now, I'm not authorizing that yet, so there would be a copyright problem if somebody makes it on their own.
But I'd be real interested to see if it's doable.
I'll tell you what I will authorize.
I'll authorize a test, like one chapter or something.
Yeah, the power of God's debris is that the reader casts themselves in the role.
It's true. Yeah, it might come across different in a different medium.
That is true.
All right.
All right.
Another Fed hike.
Ask the AI to throw in some free A-B testing.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay, Rizzo. So over on...
Let me fix the broken egos over on YouTube.
On YouTube, Dr.
Umar is saying, Scott's ego is out of control lately.
And Frank Rizzo is saying, time and time again, he just keeps doing the same comment.
Time for more ego jerking.
Cover yourself from Scott's splooge.
Now, Frank is saying this over and over again.
So his comment about my ego, he really needs you to see it.
So could you all give Frank some attention?
Because he seems to be suffering some kind of a narcissistic supply problem.
So if you could all give Frank some attention and his weak, pathetic little ego that is destroying his life, maybe you could resurrect it.
Because he has a problem when people whose job it is to tell you what they do tell you what they do.
Frank, you realize that my whole fucking act is telling you what I think is going to happen and then comparing it to what happened.
That's all I do here.
If you can't handle that, you really need to be somewhere else.
Just fuck off. So, Frank, if you'd like to stay here with your tiny little ego, you have been promoted to mascot.
You know what that means, right?
Now you're my bitch.
So, Frank, you're my new Shelly, because you're such a fucking asshole that I'm going to use you as the butt of all of my jokes of small-egoed tiny little troll piss-ants.
All right. You know, tell me the truth.
How much do you enjoy seeing somebody push back at trolls?
Is it unpleasant because it's sort of a negative energy?
Or is it fun because I'm just using it for entertainment?
It doesn't stay with me, right?
The moment I'm done with it, I'll never remember it again.
Yeah, it's pure entertainment.
Pure entertainment. Time for Scott's booster.
How many on YouTube, let's see how many stupid people there are.
Alright, here's a test for stupid people.
Stupid people, how many believe that I promoted vaccinations?
Go. I know on the locals platform they're smart, so I don't have to ask that question.
But on YouTube, how many believe I promoted vaccinations?
Go. Stupid people, show yourself.
Okay? Gordy is stupid and is proud to admit it.
Go ahead. Steve wanted to mention some fake news from a long time ago because he couldn't get anything new.
So... What?
Really? Really? Yeah, I thought there would be more stupid people on YouTube.
I'm actually a little impressed.
Is it because you're too shy?
Stupid people? Where are all my stupid people?
You're all smart.
All the ones commenting are smart.
Yeah, interesting.
All right. Too shy.
Sparky says, listen to this comment.
Sparky paid $5 for this comment.
Scott, you're a busy man.
Why do you waste your time using the MSM, mainstream media, as a source after they've continually misled you?
Sparky, you're very close to mascot territory here, but you did pay $5 for that comment.
So I'm going to call that a break-even.
Your comment did not rise to the level of good, but you did pay me $5 for it, of which I think I get some of that.
So I think I made $3, pay taxes, $1.50.
All right, so I'm probably $1.50 ahead for that comment.
Okay, more of those. Sparky, I give you a pass.
I came out ahead. Keep going.
Keep going with that. More of that.
Has anyone checked in on Keith Oberman?
Has anybody actually quit Twitter because of Elon Musk?
And Dr. Umar says, but Scott believes the science on climate change.
Yeah.
Oh, Dr. Umar Samir, I don't know if you're real, because I can't imagine real people being such a dumb cunt, but...
Let me address that. Does Scott believe the science?
What do you think? Do I believe the science of climate change?
Those of you who have been watching me, do I believe the science of climate change?
I'm seeing a mixture.
No and yes. The answer is no and yes.
So it depends what you call the science.
I believe, now I don't, usually I don't, with science I usually give it a likelihood.
So the first part is that you're a dumb idiot, and dumb idiots are the worst kind of idiots.
You would be an idiot to think that I say science is binary, that it's right or wrong, because I can't tell.
What I usually do is say what the odds are.
And so what I say about climate change is that the basic science, Has a good chance of being right.
Very high chance. And the basic science is if you add CO2 to the environment, it is likely to warm.
All other things being constant.
I think that's true.
Probably. Now, if it turned out that that was not true someday, would you say, Scott was wrong?
Well, you couldn't say that.
Because even if I said it was a 90% chance of being right, and then it turned out to be wrong, you couldn't even say the odds were wrong.
Think about it. If I say there's a 90% chance of something is true, and then later we find out it's not true, was I wrong?
That's the question for you.
Was I wrong if I say there's a 90% chance it's true, but then later we find out it's not true?
No, I was not wrong.
There's no way to determine whether I was right or wrong.
Because I wasn't talking about whether it was true or false.
I was talking about the odds.
The odds allowed it to happen or not happen.
Because 10% is a healthy odd.
So, no. There's no way to determine if my estimate of the odds was wrong.
All we know is what happened.
That's all you know. Now, if you did lots of iterations of that, I suppose you could tell something.
Yeah, Jason, I'm going to agree with you there.
So then the part of the science I don't believe is that we can estimate the so what.
You know, is it going to be a catastrophe or not a catastrophe?
That part of the science is bullshit.
So how many of you would agree with my assessment, number one, When you're saying about the basic science of adding CO2, would you agree with the statement that you can't know, but you could put a guess on it?
Like, is it 10% or 90%?
And even that, you will never know if you're right about it.
Is that a more reasonable way to approach it?
Because ask yourself, have you ever been positive something was true to find out later it wasn't?
And how many times has it happened this year?
Ha! How many times this year were you positive something was true to find out it wasn't?
It's the most common thing in the world.
So if you think that you're positive about climate change, either that the basic science is accurate or not, if you're positive, well, then you're definitely not part of the reasonable crowd, right?
The reasonable crowd would put a percentage on it.
If you were the most ardent pro-climate change scientist...
If I trapped you in private, I could get you to say, okay, 99% chance I'm right.
But they're never going to say it's binary.
No real scientist would say that.
All right.
All right.
Higher CO2 is a blessing for the planet, somebody says.
Now, would you say that...
That's 100% true?
Or do you just think it's more likely true?
Somebody said that more CO2, and again, there's no limit on what more means, so I guess more would mean there's no limit to how much more, that more CO2 with no limitations is just good for the planet?
How many people would say that there's no limit to how much CO2 we can add to the planet?
How many say that's 100% sure, no limit?
That would be a crazy opinion.
That would be the craziest opinion of all.
There's a limit to just about everything except too much money.
I'm not sure you can be too attractive or too rich or too healthy, but you can be too much of everything else, practically.
Dr. Umar, Samir, I'm going to block you because you don't add anything.
You don't add anything to this conversation.
I'd be very surprised if you add anything to life in general based on the poor quality of your comments.
Put you in timeout.
Somebody's asking me the thermal conductivity of CO2.
I'm pretty sure that that discussion is not going to go anywhere useful.
Thank you.
Yeah, let's not talk about it.
But when it comes to climate change, I don't think people want to be rational about it.
Do you? I don't think people want to be rational about it.
Because what people want is that the changes that would be driven by a belief either happen or don't happen.
So there are people who want their gas price to come down, and there are people who want their taxes to go to this or that.
How many times do you think Scott's father called them, well, growing up?
What?
Zero. Pretty sure my father never swore at me.
So here's my mascot, Frank.
Listen to this comment. Scott, do you think if you spent equal time on Justin, who's my stepson who died of a fentanyl overdose, as you did stroking your ego on the internet, that he might be alive today?
Honest question. Now, you see why I've promoted him to mascot?
Because this is a whole other level.
That's a whole other level.
You're hidden on this channel.
So Frank has been deleted.
But, you know, do you wonder if Frank is real?
Because I feel like he's been making it his hobby to troll me for a long time.
I don't think Frank's real.
Could be a bot.
Well, the bots always take the steps on approach.
So the bots always go after, ha ha ha, you're the Garfield guy.
If you're so smart, why is your stepson done?
If you're so smart, why did you get married or divorced?
So the bots always have like three or four approaches.
Please silent Chuck Monk.
Somebody else on there who's being bad?
Alright, I will if I see it.
Oh, I did a comic today about Rob Reiner.
How would you like me to read that to you?
You'd love it. So I don't go hard on Rob Reiner.
I went a different direction, which may surprise you.
So it's Dilbert and the Boss talking.
If you were on Locals, you'd already see this.
And the boss says, it's time to tweet at actor and producer Rob Reiner and call him a meathead.
And Dilber says, why?
And the boss says, because he once played a character on TV who was called meathead.
And Dilber says, and?
And the boss says, and I disagree with his political opinions.
Dilber says, so?
And the boss says, therefore he must be punished.
And Dilber says, and that will accomplish exactly what?
And then for two panels, the boss thinks.
So I like these panels where he's just thinking, because I don't have to write anything.
And then the last panel, he's walking away thinking, I just realized I'm a jerk.
I think that's what Frank Rizzo was realizing.
Frank decided that coming and tweeting the worst things in the world at me on a livestream to try to ruin the fun for everybody else, he decided that was a good use of his time.
Does he know why?
There's only one reason, Frank.
Frank, I just realized I'm a jerk.
I just realized I'm a jerk.
Yeah, so my problem with calling Rob Reiner a meathead is that it is too NPC-like.
It's just too boring.
I kind of like responding to him in clever ways.
That's fun. That's what Twitter's for.
But just calling him a meathead and saying, well, there's meathead's opinion.
Please don't do that.
Because it bores me to the point of pain.
It's like, ugh, another person thinks that's the first person who thought of that?
If it's the first thing you think of to say, just assume everybody else thought of it too.
Just assume that.
What about calling them a beta?
You know, I think I'm ready to retire this whole beta-alpha thing.
Frank Rizzo is the name they used in the Jerky Boys album.
Oh, that would make sense. You know, I'm ready to retire the alpha-beta thing.
Because I'm not sure the alphas are really alpha.
You know what I mean? I'm not sure it means what it used to mean.
Let me ask you this.
Say you're a woman and your biological impulse is you want a mate who can protect you, like physically protect you.
Who could protect somebody better?
Somebody who's 6'4", an MMA fighter, or me?
If you're going to marry an MMA fighter who's 6'4", or me, which one of them is going to keep you safer for the long run?
It's not even close. It's not even close.
Now, let's take me out of the equation, right?
So instead of me, let's just say Elon Musk.
Elon Musk. So who would keep you safer?
Well, I mean, he's a special case because he's famous.
I'll just say a billionaire. Who would keep you famous, a nerdy billionaire or an MMA fighter?
So it's not me, it's just some nerdy billionaire.
Nerdy billionaire or MMA fighter?
Who keeps you safer if you're a woman?
Okay, it's a trick question.
It's not even close. The billionaire.
Because the things that could threaten you in terms of somebody beating you up, they exist.
Those are real risks, but they're kind of rare.
Relative to all the other risks like being poor or being unfairly jailed or hanging around with the wrong people.
Just all kinds of stuff.
Health problems. Living in a dangerous neighborhood.
All the things that the billionaire can protect you from.
Legal problems, you name it.
Probably live longer.
Jar Jar Sphinx says, Scott equates himself with Elon.
I often talk about that kind of comment as one of the dumbest.
It's actually in LoserThink as one of the examples of LoserThink.
So good for you for doing a chapter of my book called LoserThink.
So congratulations on that.
All right. So...
Who's the alpha in the situation where you've got the MMA fighter or the billionaire who made his own money?
So let's say it's a billionaire nerd who made their own money the honest way.
They were just smart. They worked hard.
Made their own money. Who's the alpha?
I don't know. So I think the whole what is alpha is all mixed up now, isn't it?
Oh, Jar Jar was joking.
Okay. The MMA fighter is the alpha because he could beat up the nerd.
Could he? And the nerd wouldn't have him killed after that?
Well, let me ask you this.
What would happen if an MMA nerd cornered me and beat me up?
But I knew his name.
I knew who he was.
How would that turn out for the MMA fighter?
What would I do?
You don't think I'd kill him?
Of course I would. One way or another.
If somebody actually just captured me and beat me to hospitalization, but I knew their name and where they lived, I would kill them for sure.
There's not the slightest chance I wouldn't kill them.
I mean, I'd do it one way or the other.
But of course I'd kill them.
I might do it legally. I might do it cleverly.
I might hire somebody. I might do it myself if I got mad enough.
But I would definitely kill them.
So the thing is, you can't tell who the alphas are.
Yeah, you can't tell who the alphas are.
Talk about a post-truth world.
That's all we talk about.
We live in a world where you can't trust anybody's truth.
Arkanside, yeah.
Your husband thinks exactly this way.
Exactly. Exactly. Alright.
You'd go to prison, though?
Not necessarily. You think I'd go to prison for murder?
Do you think I would murder somebody in a way that I was likely to be caught?
I wouldn't do that.
Unless I was willing to take myself out at the same time.
Now, in the real world, it's nearly impossible to kill somebody and get away with it.
Wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you agree that murdering somebody, if you have a connection to them, if it's a random murder or a gang murder, you can still get away with it.
But if it's like a direct, planned murder of somebody that you have a connection to and a motive, well, that's going to be really hard to get away with.
Because as soon as they have a suspect, they can get you.
So you'd have to make sure that you would never even be a suspect.
I don't know how you do that.
I don't know any way you could murder somebody in 2022.
So let me say this clearly.
Don't murder anybody unless you're willing to go to jail.
Because I don't think you can get away with it if they know you.
Just give the cops a better suspect.
Yeah, Epstein's sort of a special case.
We don't know the story there.
There's a Seth Rich laptop?
That can't be true. Really?
Alright. How does this fit with your simulation?
I don't know. I think it all fits.
You would snitch on me?
Walking back now? I'm not walking it back.
I'm telling you, I can't think of any way to do it.
But I would think of one.
I'd figure it out.
I just haven't put enough time into it.
One way or another, I'd figure it out.
Talk about the Jimmy Kimmel response to Elon.
I haven't seen it. Can you paste that in the comments?
So Jimmy Kimmel said something funny to Elon?
If you know what that was, let me know.
How would Carrie Lake do in a debate with Hillary? - Yeah.
As far as I can tell...
Let me pause for a moment before I make this statement.
I think Carrie Lake would be 100% of all American politicians in any debate.
Is that too strong?
At the moment, there's nobody on her level.
She... So here's the thing.
If you're looking at all the persuaders and you're asking yourself, is Carrie Lake, like, one of the best or the best persuader, you're actually underselling her.
All of the other persuaders are in their own, like, league, and she's the only one who's in this other league.
It's empty except for her.
Now, she's better than Trump.
Because she's provocative without going too far.
He goes too far into the, you know, maybe there's a dog whistle there.
Did I hear a dog whistle? But I don't think I've heard it from her critics.
I don't think she's gone anywhere near anything that's dog whistly, right?
Not that I've heard of.
I would have heard it by now. So, in my opinion, she actually occupies a zone that nobody's in.
She's actually alone. If you say DeSantis, I would say DeSantis is the best of the people who are in the lower league.
She would destroy him.
This is very much like, you probably saw this on the internet, there was some discussion about how good women's professional soccer is, and some high school, I think some high school team beat them or something, of boys. So when I say Carrie Lake is in a different league, I mean it would never be a fair fight.
It would just never be a fair fight.
I think DeSantis and Trump are very similar in persuasion ability with Trump having that extra glitz and firepower and everything else.
Whereas DeSantis probably is better at staying out of trouble.
So that could work either way.
But right now, there's nobody in Carrie Lake's league.
And, you know, for a while there, I thought AOC would be, you know, among one of the best communicators.
And I think she is one of the best still on the left, but she's not in Carrie Lake's league.
They're not in the same strata.
And by the way, I'm...
Let me be clear.
When I talk about Carrie Lake's skills, that's all I'm talking about.
Okay? So this is one of those cases where somebody's going to say, I'm promoting Carrie Lake.
I'm promoting her in the same way I promoted AOC. That her skill level is unusual.
It's unusual. And that's really worth pointing out.
But I didn't support AOC's policies.
I'm not sure I know exactly what Carrie Lake's policies are.
I have a pretty good idea. But for example, I would disagree with her on fentanyl.
So I think her first line of policy on fentanyl is build the wall.
And I say that's somebody who is acting like they don't understand the problem.
Which is unusual, because her game is very strong.
So on fentanyl, I don't agree with her.
And I would back anybody who had a better idea on fentanyl, basically.
Where do you put Tulsi?
In terms of communicators?
Well, Tulsi's communication and persuasion style is, you know, commercial grade, you know, national politician level.
So she has, you know, all the tools.
But she doesn't have the...
Carrie Lake has an extra gear that just nobody has.
So Tulsi, I would say, is, you know, one of the better communicators within the standard world.
But I don't think she has, like, an extra gear.
She's just really solid commercial grade, you know, national politician grade, which are all pretty good.
Scott was duped by AOC. Duped?
Really? Duped.
I have exactly the same opinion I always had, which is that she's good at getting attention, which is good persuasion.
You agree with that. You have the same opinion of her that I do.
Exactly the same. Would you put Candace on par with Carrie Lake?
No. Candace would be another example of the very best in the normal universe.
Right? Candace is up there in the DeSantis realm.
I think she's Maybe just a notch below DeSantis.
Because the thing that Candace does is she'll go a little bit further into the speculative than DeSantis does.
And I think she goes a little bit too far into it, and that's where she'll lose some people on the other side.
So I think Carrie Lake...
It goes pretty far, but she seems to stay with the provable, like the easily, demonstrably, obviously true.
Actually, that's what's the strongest thing about Carrie Lake.
The strongest thing about her is she doesn't say crazy shit.
We've all been waiting for that, right?
Someone who's just like a really strong politician who doesn't say crazy shit.
Now, maybe she did, and I missed it, but I haven't heard any.
Am I right? She staked out aggressive sensibleness like nobody could.
See, the trouble is you can't sell reasonableness because nobody wants to see it.
It's boring. Here's what she did.
I think I finally figured it out.
She solved the puzzle that nobody ever solved before, which is how can somebody who is sensible get a lot of attention?
Nobody's ever solved that before.
That's the secret.
I just figured it out. She's making sounding sensible exciting.
All those examples we keep seeing where she tears down the people asking the questions, when she goes after the media, she does it so sensibly and, say, clinically, That it's really entertaining, and all it was was sensible.
Who's ever done that before?
Well, you know, Reagan was the great communicator, but he still was...
It was a different vibe.
Different vibe. Yeah.
She actually made sensible sexy.
Right? She made being sensible sexy.
Because let's be real.
She's sexy. She's sexy.
I would be surprised if she doesn't appeal to both men and women and all of LGBTQ as being sexy.
And here I'm not talking about even just her looks.
Her looks are strong.
But it's more about her.
Am I right? It's more about her vibe.
That I would bet appeals to across the entire spectrum of different people.
And she pulls that off by being sensible.
It's a weird thing.
Yeah. So, I think it's the combination of being so skilled and being a, you know, Republican, and then being sexy, and then also being sensible, we haven't seen.
Haven't seen that before.
And not that smart. She sticks to undeniable facts.
That's what I've observed, but I haven't watched...
