Episode 1927 Scott Adams: Are We Headed Toward The Most Entertaining Election Outcome? Maybe Yes
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
A conversation with your AI aged self
Busted with 20,000 Fentanyl pills
WEF's government penetration
Elon Musk vs Senator Ed Markey
Dave Chappelle on SNL
Checking if you voted
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Coffee with Scott Adams. And I promise you, today is a content-filled extravaganza.
Some of the best, coolest stories I've heard in a long time.
And not all of them bad.
Actually, a lot of it's kind of cool.
And you will be part of this experience.
An experience of...
Let's say togetherness and simultaneity like nobody's ever seen in the history of humanity.
But if you'd like to take it up to that level, and I know you do, all you need is a cup or mugger, a glass of tanker, chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jugger, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
Go. Savor it.
Savor it. Good.
Very good. My favorite story of the day, of no particular importance, is, you know actor Ed O'Neill?
He was on Modern Family and married with children.
You all know him. He was at an airport recently, and a fan came up and asked if she could take a photo with him.
And so he, you know, being a public figure, but, you know, people ask this all the time, he's like, yeah, okay.
So he's sitting in a chair at the airport, and this young lady, like, leans over him and gets a little too close.
And they take the picture, and he's just like, it turned out to be Britney Spears.
He didn't notice who it was.
So he's acting unimpressed that Britney Spears wants a picture with him.
He's like, all right, you want one.
Somebody said, that's an old story.
Well, it's not old to me.
I just heard it. All right.
Today's Dilbert is getting blocked for dangerous content by some VPNs.
And when Dilbert gets blocked for dangerous content, you know I'm going to read it to you, don't you?
So here's today's Dilbert.
It's Dilbert talking to his boss.
You can see him at Dilbert.com.
Dilbert says, the trial data says our new product is dangerous and doesn't do what we claim.
The boss says, have you showed anyone else the data?
No. Dilbert says, no.
And the boss says, whew, that problem solved itself.
So, it's dangerous content.
Danger, danger, danger.
Watch out for that dangerous content.
Alright, here's a technology I just heard about that has a lot of potential.
I'd heard a long time ago that people did an experiment where they showed a digitally aged version of a person to their young self and apparently it had an impact on how much they saved for retirement.
Because once they could see their real selves, at least the digital form, they could imagine themselves in the future and then they would take care of themselves in a way that they wouldn't if they weren't thinking about the future.
Well, it turns out that VR is going to be even better for that because there's a group in Indianapolis where Oberlin, some guy named Oberlin and his colleagues, they're doing a pilot study Where they'll take a person who has a variety of mental problems, but they're working on addiction in particular.
And I guess this works for a variety of things, but they're testing it for addiction.
And they'll actually put you in the virtual reality goggles.
And here's the thing.
You will have a conversation with your older self, a fully immersive, photorealistic version of you, aged, And the you-aged will have AI, but it will talk in your voice.
Yeah, you've seen some examples I've tweeted around where the AI can talk in your voice.
Machiavelli's Underbelly, that account, he does a bunch of examples of that all the time.
So we know the AI can talk in your voice, because I've heard AI talk in my voice, and some of you have heard it as well.
Now, uh... Shut up, old man.
I don't know if you're talking to me or the troll.
So here's the thing.
Do you think it would work to have somebody encounter their future self talking to them in their own voice?
Do you think that would work?
Here's why I think it would.
I have a strange quality, or let's say a strange relationship with time.
And I always have.
I just have this weird relationship with time.
Part of the relationship is I'm usually on time.
You've probably noticed I'm usually on time for this.
And I'm also good at guessing time.
Like, I can guess what time it is pretty well, and I can, you know, plan things that they'll fit into a certain amount of time.
So I have a good relationship with time.
But beyond that, beyond that, and this is not a joke, when I was a kid, I had a 60-year plan.
I literally could imagine myself in 60 years, and then I imagined a pathway to that, and the plan when I was...
You know, probably 10 years old, was that I would become a famous cartoonist, and then I would leverage that to make me more a general, you know, a general helpful person.
So I thought I would be a public figure, but that my contribution would be something past cartooning.
This is literally exactly what I planned 60 years ago.
I'm actually sitting and modeling the culmination of a 60-year specific plan.
Just the way I planned it.
Now you might say to yourself, Scott, why don't you plan your personal life a little bit better than that?
You know, I never had a plan for my personal life.
And I never imagined I would be married for life.
I always saw marriage as a rental.
For a variety of reasons we could talk about later.
But I don't really see marriage as something that could last for most people, you know, in a good way for most of their life.
20% of the public?
Totally works. So, here's my contribution to this VR technique.
I think if you could take people who can't imagine the future The way I did automatically, even as a child.
Because everybody's different, right?
Every natural ability is distributed in varied ways across people.
So it makes sense that there's some people who just can't imagine the future.
So you give them a way to imagine the future by bringing the future to the present, essentially the ghost of Christmas future.
I think it would work.
And who would be the most influential person To convince you to do something.
Yourself. The most influential person, one would assume.
I mean, without testing it, I assume this.
But I feel like listening to yourself talk in your own words and looking like you, you would have the most empathy, the most pacing and leading naturally.
That would be the most influential thing I could imagine.
I wouldn't know for sure unless you tested it, but reasonably you can imagine that.
So that's a really big deal.
Do you know how big a deal that is?
If you were to add, there are three things that have happened recently that all seem related and good.
Number one, this Andrew Huberman breathing technique, the two inhales through your nose, two sharp inhales followed by a deep exhale out of your mouth.
That definitely works.
Have any of you tried it enough to know that it works, like, right away?
You can actually feel it right away.
Yeah. Looking at the comments, there's enough people who have confirmed that it works.
That's probably a bigger deal than you think.
I mean, it's almost like the invention of exercise or something.
It's probably that deep in terms of its importance.
So you've got that going on.
Now you've got this virtual reality thing going on, which I think has amazing potential, specifically because the people who can't imagine themselves going wrong in the future are the ones making the bad decisions today.
And apparently it works on some other mental health issues as well, they think.
And then you add to that the legalization and let's say the normalization of mushrooms.
And I don't think there's any doubt at this point that mushrooms are a mental health miracle.
So if you add the breathing exercises, if you add the virtual reality maybe, and you add the mushrooms, We might be on the verge of taking a big bite out of mental health problems.
Maybe. I want to see if an experience I had yesterday rings true with any of you.
Do any of you have the experience that you can't handle people as much after the pandemic?
Does anybody have that experience?
That just people are different.
Like how you react to them.
It's not the same. Right?
Okay, I'm seeing a lot of yeses on the locals platform.
But let me tell you my experience yesterday, alright?
So, when I go to the gym, and I think most of you would agree with this, when I'm in go-to-the-gym mode, I really, really, really don't want to talk to anybody.
It has nothing to do with the people.
People are fine. But it doesn't fit with exercise, right?
Once you're in that energy, and especially if you've started your exercise routine already, do you want to stop your weight routine in the middle to talk to somebody for 10 minutes?
It's a killer, right?
So I go to the gym yesterday, and on the way in, I spot a friend of mine, somebody I've known a long time, tennis partner, who I happen to know is going through a tough time.
And I knew that he would want to talk about it.
And I thought, oh shit, I like this guy.
He's a great guy. And he's also, you know, he probably needs some support because he's going through a tough time.
And I thought, oh no, no, no, no.
But he was on his phone.
When I walked by, you know, toward the entrance, I thought, oh, good, he's on his phone.
So, you know, he's doing his thing, and I get into the club.
And then there are two major exercise areas, and I thought, if he catches me in one of the same exercise areas, and in case he watches this, let me say again, this is a really good guy, right?
I like talking to him.
I've spent a lot of time with him.
Totally great guy. But I really, really that day did not want to talk.
So I'm sitting in this little area that's between the two major rooms, and I've managed to avoid him by spotting him and working around so I don't get into a conversation.
And I go to check my phone.
I'm still in the middle of my routine.
I'm just checking my phone on the way from one machine to another.
And I've got my earbuds in, and I'm sitting on a bench, And I'm in a cocoon.
I'm almost curled up in a fetal position so that I can't see anything except straight down.
Looking at my phone.
So I can't hear anything.
And I can't see anything except straight down.
My own feet.
I'm safe, right?
There is no way.
There's no way anybody's going to be asking me to talk.
Because I'm sending the signal so clearly.
So as I'm looking at my feet, on the carpet, I see my friend's head appear.
He actually got down at carpet level to get underneath to wave to me to get my attention, because he couldn't get my attention otherwise.
And so I took out my earbuds and I had a long conversation.
And then my workout was completely ruined.
Now, how do you feel when your workout is ruined?
It's terrible, right?
It bothers you more than it should, because it's actually, it's like the most minor problem, right?
If you're a regular exercise person, you know, losing 20 minutes one day is nothing.
But, you know, it sets you off in a little snit, right?
So I said to myself, all right, screw this.
I'm going to take my laptop and I'm going to go to Starbucks and at least I'll get some work done.
So I go to Starbucks.
There are two Starbucks to the left and the right of me where I live.
So I go to the one to the right of me and I get in line and there's an older couple in front of me.
Now, have you ever been behind an older couple at Starbucks?
Now, I am an older person now, but we don't all act the same.
And these older people, very nice people, they looked like the kind of people you'd love to hang around with, but they had questions.
And they continued to order things that weren't available.
And once they realized it wasn't available, they didn't just say the next thing they wanted.
They had to go back and shop again.
So they had to go back to the counter with the pastries, and they had a little eyesight problem, so they'd have to get right out to it.
I don't know, what am I seeing in there?
Looks like some kind of a turnover.
Ah, the turnover thing.
What's the turnover thing?
I don't know. And so it was very obvious.
They kept adding things and changing things, and there were details.
And I said to myself, if I have to wait here one more minute, I am going to slay these people, and they'll have a lot to explain.
So I said, I think I'm going to leave here before I slay these elderly people.
So I took my laptop and I got out of line, got in my car, and yeah, as luck would have it, there's a Starbucks everywhere.
So I go, you know, two miles in the other direction, get in line, and there's two lines.
So, you know, a two-line Starbucks, you know, you've got options, you're in good shape.
At both lines in the front, We're double Karens.
They both had double Karens.
And I looked at the...
After listening to it for a while, they had details and issues and concerns.
They had things they needed to talk about.
There was information they needed, and there were things they needed to be a little bit different.
And I listened to it a while, and I looked at the face of the Starbucks employee, and she was just...
Like, completely defeated.
And I waited for a while, and then I realized that if I didn't get the fuck out of Starbucks, I was going to kill four Karens.
One of the odds there would be two Karens, you know, like there were pairs, at each cash register.
So in one day, I managed to not be able to work out, not be able to go to Starbucks, not be able to go to Starbucks.
What was the common reason for all of it?
I couldn't fucking stand human beings.
I couldn't stand them.
I just couldn't stand being around them.
Now, is that just me?
Or do you feel that since the pandemic?
Does anybody else feel that?
So he says, Mike says, not wondering why I'm divorced.
Let me ask you this.
Alright, I was just going to go off on you for a moment, but I think I won't right away.
Yeah, I am. Fuck it.
I'm just going to go off on you.
How the fuck do you think you could guess what happened with my personal life?
I mean, seriously.
How many of you assholes think you have a real good idea what happened?
You don't have any fucking idea.
And there's no way you ever could.
There's nothing you could guess.
There's nothing that's obvious.
There's nothing that happened that would be on your list of top ten things that are likely.
Fucking nothing. You don't know fuck anything about me.
So your speculations about my personal life are pure assholery.
We're going to talk about you a little bit more.
Not that I care, it's just I wondered if you know how stupid you sound.
Only it doesn't bother me per se, but how stupid you look just like bothers me that I have to live in a world with fucking people like you.
Right? The fact that you would come on this live stream and insert in the middle of the show something about my fucking marriage.
You fucking asshole.
You piece of shit.
You absolute garbage.
What were you trying to accomplish?
There's a topic that I was going to cover, and I'll hit it now.
Did any of you see the Pierce Morgan interview with Jordan Peterson?
It was awesome.
But one of the things that Jordan Peterson talks about is that the problem with social media is that about 3% of the country are like this asshole.
They're actually just toxic fucking pieces of shit.
Roughly 3% of the public.
But what social media does is it makes the 3% piece of shit people the prominent ones because they make the most trouble.
So Jordan Peterson was mentioning how bad a system it is because it promotes the worst people.
He was talking about Instagram in particular and how the Instagram, the people who spend the most time on it, are just completely damaged women.
There are narcissists and psychopaths and sociopaths and stuff.
And I have to mention, I have to notice that I've been spending more time on Instagram.
And when I see the Instagram women, I don't think of them as beautiful anymore.
I see them as mentally damaged.
Does anybody have that experience?
And that's new, I'd say, in the last year or so.
And I know what you're going to say, blah, blah, blah, your marriage.
No, it's not because of that. It's not because of that.
You're going to be an asshole and you're going to say that.
No, it's not because of that.
It's because I look at them and I go, oh my God, in order to act the way you're acting, that this is your big payoff?
That's clearly mental illness.
Am I wrong? All I see is mental illness now.
I don't see, ooh, I'd like to get naked with that girl.
She's got a good body. Nope.
I see somebody who would be the biggest pain in the ass I've ever encountered in my life.
Do you know what those girls are like when they're not on camera?
Well, I'll tell you, nothing matters except them getting on camera.
That's going to be the thing that's their top priority.
Anyway, enough of that.
Phoenix is testing these Waymo driverless taxis now.
So if you're in Phoenix, you can actually use their app.
They've been in testing, but this is the first time the public can actually use it.
So you can get an app for Waymo, and you can order a driverless taxi in the city of Phoenix.
Now let me ask you, would you try that first?
Would you be in the first wave of people who got in a driverless taxi?
You know, I suspect the data says it's safer, not more dangerous.
But then you've got the second question, who believes data?
The entire argument for self-driving cars is that if you really look at the data, the data says unambiguously that the self-driving cars will be safer.
Maybe not yet, but it's obvious that they will be.
But we don't believe data anymore, do we?
And we should not.
Data is mostly bullshit.
That's what we've learned in the last two years.
You can't believe the data the company produces, could you?
I mean, you can't believe any data a company produces.
So, I don't know. I think I would be tempted to try it, but I'd probably try a pretty short trip.
I think I'd try, you know, like four blocks or something to see if I survive.
I'm sure they're safer, though.
So that's amazing. Self-driving cars, in theory, would fix everything.
If you think about it, it would take a while.
But if you had all self-driving cars, you know you could do away with streetlights, right?
Streetlights and stop signs would just be unnecessary because presumably the cars would be networked so they'd know if they could go or not based on where everything is.
Plus a vision.
That would be scary.
Imagine going through the intersection at full speed and nobody's slowing down.
That's where we're heading. I think I'd have to close my eyes to be in that car.
Well, the Ukrainians got, let's say, 850 Black Hornet micro-drones from the UK. Now, a Black Hornet micro-drone is a tiny little helicopter.
That I think is just used for surveillance.
It doesn't blow up or shoot anything.
It's just looked to be about six inches long.
It looks like a tiny little helicopter.
Now, if they work, and apparently they're undetectable because they're too quiet and small, that would give the Ukrainians basically complete vision over their enemy.
And let me ask you this.
Half an hour battery, that's probably all you need.
Let me ask you this. Didn't we expect that the Ukrainian drones would not be that useful because the Russians would have so much anti-drone technology?
Wasn't that what all the smart people told me?
And I said, there's no way you're going to get enough anti-drone technology to be enough for all the drones that could be in your vicinity.
So all the experts who said, oh, that anti-drone technology will make those drones useless, none of that was true.
Literally none of that was true, right?
Absolute, completely wrong.
Did you see the story that Lavrov, is he the Putin's, what's his job, foreign secretary or something?
What is Lavrov's job in Russia?
He's the Secretary of State?
Okay, something like that.
So he got taken to a hospital and I guess released, and then the rumor was that he was actually going to defect.
But I have a different rumor I want to add to that.
But he's already out of the hospital, so my rumor doesn't work.
My rumor is that if you were Lavrov, And you left Russia?
The odds of you being poisoned seem really high.
Am I right? How would you like to be Lavrov and just order room service in your hotel?
Would you trust room service if you were Lavrov?
I wouldn't. Because I don't know how the Ukrainians can't get at him.
If I were a Ukrainian, I would poison Lavrov and make it look like Putin did it.
If they could figure out how to poison Lavrov with the polonium tea, if they could kill him with the same technique that Putin allegedly kills his enemies, that would be a pretty effective psyop.
But he's out of the hospital, so nothing like that happened.
There's a huge fentanyl bust in New York.
The man had 20,000 fentanyl pills, so of course he was released without bail.
Here's a question for those who like to do math and data.
Could we make an estimate that, on average, 20,000 fentanyl pills would cause X number of overdose deaths?
Is that a big enough number that you could say, oh yeah, you put 20,000 pills into an area, you're definitely getting five dead.
Could you do that? Now, I spent five minutes Googling, and I didn't see the data that would allow me to do that calculation.
But maybe you've seen it.
Or maybe you could make a reasonable assumption.
I'm going to make an assumption that 20,000 pills probably kills five to ten people.
So here's a guy who's literally a mass murderer, I believe, or attempted mass murderer, and he got released without bail.
Probably he's going to kill five to ten people, or they stopped him from.
But when they release him, what's he going to go back to?
His job as an accountant?
Will he go back to his job as an accountant?
No. Presumably he will go back to his job of carrying fentanyl and having lots of fentanyl pills.
And then he'll kill five to ten more.
If I found this guy in the street, I would be very tempted to kill him.
Like, actually kill him.
Like, I'm not joking.
Kill him. I mean, if I thought I could get away with it, I would stab him to death personally.
That's not a joke. It would only require that I knew I could get away with it, which you could never get away with murder these days, so it would be a bad idea.
But honestly, honestly, if I could kill him with my own bare hands, I would do it.
I would strangle him with my own hands, if I could.
And I wouldn't even lose sleep.
Honestly. Would you lose sleep if you killed Bin Laden?
I wouldn't. I wouldn't lose any sleep.
I don't think O'Neill, who actually killed Bin Laden, I'll bet he didn't lose a lot of sleep over it.
Killing is actually pretty satisfying if you're killing the right person.
I imagine. I haven't killed anybody.
I would kill him personally.
I'd love to do it.
I would enjoy it. Apparently, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum guy, he said that the World Economic Forum has, quote, penetrated the cabinets of Canada and Brazil, meaning that he has a number of ministers in their cabinets who will take his phone call in our pro-World Economic Forum.
And he actually said that in public at a big event.
I wonder if he knows how that sounds.
You know, in his mind, yeah, I know that's old news, but in his mind, that probably sounds like, oh, isn't this great?
Lots of governments are becoming more concerned about the climate and equity and stuff.
That's probably what he thinks it sounds like in his mind when he says it.
Here's what it sounds like in my mind.
We didn't elect you motherfuckers.
Get the fuck out of our government.
If we elect you, fine.
Otherwise, stay out.
Stay the fuck out.
You can be an advisor.
You can make your opinion heard.
We like that. But if you're bragging about getting your people placed in my government...
Now, he wasn't talking about my government, but you can see how this is going to extend.
No good. This is the same problem as ESG. If you're trying to explain why ESG is bad, don't go beyond.
You don't want to put somebody between a business and their investors, and you don't want to put anything between a business and its customers.
You don't want anything in between stuff.
That's always bad.
So if you have a political system that you're happy with, you don't want to put something in there that wasn't part of the system, and it suddenly becomes an active variable, and it's not even from your own country.
Everything about that's a bad idea.
And you don't need to say what's bad about the World Economic Forum.
You don't have to argue the details.
Just say, no, there's no case where that's ever a good idea to insert somebody between the people who have voluntarily said, let's work with each other.
Never. That's all bad.
All right. There were two, let's see, what do they call themselves?
Plus-size models?
What is the polite way we say models who are curvy?
I think they're being called curvy.
In the old days, you would say morbidly obese.
Yeah, they're more than obese.
They're like extra. So...
So I'm not making a judgment call here.
So I'd like you to know that what I say about this story is not judging them or being fat-shaming.
Because I don't do the fat-shaming.
I'm opposed to that.
Some of you think, oh, that's okay because it's their choice to eat or not eat.
I don't believe that. I don't believe in free will of that type.
I think if I liked to eat as much as they did, I'd eat as much as they do.
I just don't like eating that much.
Otherwise, I'd be 400 pounds.
That's my view. So just know that you might disagree with me, but I'm not shaming them for weight.
However, let me tell you the story.
They went to this lounge, you know, sort of a popular night spot.
And it was one of those lounges where the bouncer decides that the special people can get in and the ugly people cannot.
And when these two models, who felt that they were, like, high-value people in society, because they were models, and they tried to get in, the bouncer said, hmm, not today.
And he rejected them, based on their appearance.
Now, they're very mad, and they say this is very fair, unfair.
Do you think that they're missing something in the bigger picture?
Here's the bigger picture.
The reason they went to this lounge and expected to get in was...
Why did they expect to get in a lounge that had an obvious, you know, bouncer filtering system?
Because they believed they were higher value than the average person, right?
Their entire theory was, I'm going to go have a good time in the place that other people can't get into, because only we special people can get in.
Well, bitches, live by the sword, die by the sword.
You got stabbed by your own fucking bigotry.
If you'd like to go where the awesome people are, guess what?
They don't want to be with you. It has nothing to do with fat shaming.
I don't do that. But seriously, open your fucking brain.
If you go to a place that is noted for its bigotry against people who look different, and you go there looking different, what the fuck do you expect?
The problem is not that they turned her away.
The problem is that she thought she could get in there in the first place.
Because she thought she was special.
She wanted to discriminate against other people.
And then when it came her way, she's like, oh, unfair.
Oh, unfair. No, bitch.
That's exactly what you wanted to do to other people.
You wanted other people to sit out there with their dicks in their hands because they weren't as special as you when you walked past them in line and got into the place because you're a famous model.
No! No!
Fuck you! I'm blessed you don't get into that fucking place.
Do you know why I don't stand in line at one of those places?
Because I'm not going to get in.
You know, when I was married, in both cases, to women who could get into any club, then you have to staple yourself to their...
To their pencil dress.
It's the only way you can get into anything.
Because they'd be like, you can get in.
Well, you're attached to that.
Well, we really want you.
All right. So that was my experience.
Elon Musk continues to be the funniest tweeter in the Twitterverse, which is a wonderful development.
And he tweeted this this morning.
He said, by the way, I'd like to apologize for Twitter being super slow in many countries.
The app is doing over a thousand poorly batched RPCs, whatever that is, just to render a home timeline.
And so I guess, I didn't know this, but I guess Twitter works well on Apple devices, but not so well on Android.
And then an either current or recent Twitter employee, Eric Fronhofer, replied.
He goes, hot take.
I have spent six years working on Twitter for Android and can say this is wrong.
And then in the most wonderfully transparent act, which is just the beauty of this whole Twitter thing, Musk replies to him and says, then please correct me.
What is the right number?
Now, don't you love him doing his business in public?
And when he said, please correct me, what is the right number?
Was he serious? Was that a serious question?
Or was he being, you know, yes, it's Elon Musk.
That was a serious question.
And if he had been wrong, he would have said, I'm wrong.
Thanks for the help. Right?
Oh my God, this is just what you want to see.
It's everything you want to see, but it gets better.
So after he tweets, you know, then please correct me, what is the right number?
And this is from a guy who worked on the Android app for six years, and I think Elon Musk thought about it for a second and followed up with this tweet.
Twitter is super slow on Android.
What have you done to fix that?
This guy complains that he worked on Android for six years, and then Musk says, well, what the fuck were you doing?
Now, I've been laughing about this all morning, because you see this line between humor and reality has completely disappeared.
This is funny, because it's just the real world.
All Elon Musk did is just point to the real world and then you laughed.
That's what humor is now.
Humor is just real things.
It's not punchlines so much.
All right. I love that.
But it gets better.
So Musk wasn't done.
So Senator Ed Markey...
Reports that a Washington Post reporter managed to impersonate him, impersonate the senator.
Now it was done as a test to see if it could be done.
So some Washington Post person just put together a way to impersonate Ed Markey.
And Ed Markey is complaining about it.
And he said, Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.
And Elon Musk replied to that on Twitter, perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody.
And then I went and looked at Ed Markey's real account because I kind of wondered, does it look like a parody?
It does. And wait, it gets better.
I'm not done. We're only halfway there.
And then Elon follows up with...
I think maybe this will be like the pattern that we see, that Musk will do one thing that's pretty funny, and then he'll think about it for another 10 seconds, and his second tweet is the one that will put you over the edge.
Are you ready for this? This is his second tweet on the same topic.
After he said, perhaps it's because your real account sounds like a parody.
Remember he said that to a sitting U.S. senator?
Then he follows up with, why does your profile picture have a mask?
Oh, no.
This sitting senator is trying to argue that somebody is treating him like a parody and his own profile picture has a mask on it.
And Musk doesn't even have to make a comment about it.
he just says why is your profile picture of a mask oh oh my god And what I love about, I guess, Musk's sense of humor is he lets you connect the dots, right?
He just says the thing that's true, and then you have to fill in the rest of the funny stuff, which you do automatically.
It's really diabolical.
I actually had to do some research this morning To find out if people who are on the spectrum joke the same way everybody else does.
And there is a difference. Now, Musk says he's on the spectrum.
I'm a little suspicious of that, because he's the highest-functioning person on the spectrum, if he is.
But, I don't know.
Well, anyway, I think the way Musk jokes is less punchline-y, but he does do puns.
And that would be a little out of character for being on the spectrum.
But people on the spectrum do have a good sense of humor, in case you wondered.
Pretty much the same sense of humor as everybody else, but they might find scripted jokes less funny than natural humor.
And Musk is giving you two examples of really natural humor.
All right.
So here's another example of what Jordan Peters was talking about, the sociopaths.
So Cindy Sweeney is a young actress, and she's on a TV show in which she did some nude scenes.
The TV show is called Euphoria.
And on Twitter, people screenshot her nude scenes and then tweeted it to her family members.
And then I ask you, why?
Why? Why?
Why? Did this poor actress offend somebody?
So this is what Jordan Peterson is talking about.
He's talking about the 3% of the world who are genuinely horrible people.
And they're actually just dangerous.
And they're on a tool that maximizes their danger potential by a million times.
That's probably the purest example of evil that I've seen in a while.
Because in the political world, people can be mean to each other, but it feels like maybe there's something good that comes out of the You know, the fight, maybe.
I mean, you could argue that it's part of the political process.
But if you're just picking a random actress who's minding her own business and trying to embarrass her in front of her family, why?
Why? Except that you're literally a broken person.
The fact that people would get pleasure out of that is just mind-boggling.
All right, CNN fact-checked Biden so hard today that I'm not even going to give you the details.
Let me summarize it.
If Biden said anything to do with money, finance, economics, or taxes, it was a complete lie.
Basically, CNN said that directly.
I think there were nine points...
Of the things, nine, major things that Biden said about economics and whatever, and they were all just completely false.
Especially, and there's one about him traveling for 70 hours on a train with President Xi that never happened.
Yeah. Yeah, and let me tell you, if you read the fact check, it's brutal.
There's no...
It's Daniel Dale, the same guy who was, you know, pretty tough on Trump.
And again...
I'm going to applaud CNN. That is genuine benefit to the country.
Would you agree? Have I convinced anybody that CNN is on the right track?
Because I know you've got some bad feelings about them.
Yeah, they're definitely on the right track.
There's no doubt about it. I would consider this a service.
So as a citizen, I'd say, thank you.
Thank you. It wasn't like that before.
Here's another question for you.
Have you ever seen anybody tweet a positive opinion about ESG unless they made money from it?
Go. Have you ever seen it, even once?
Have you ever seen even one citizen of the world say ESG is a good thing unless they were making money from it?
Can you think of anything else like that?
Have you ever seen anything like that?
I can't think of one topic where there isn't anybody on the other side.
Except the people making money and you can discount them, right?
Have you ever seen that? Name one other thing.
Just one other thing where there's nobody on the other side.
I can't think of any.
Nothing. And still it's alive.
Barely. But I wouldn't trust anybody who said they supported it, even though, let me say, just in case you need to hear it, obviously I support a good environment and people being treated as people and all that stuff.
But it's just a system of how they do it that doesn't work.
But here's what I would like.
I'd like to see, instead of an ESG score, or maybe in addition to it, a fraud score for finance companies that are pushing ESG. So should we not have a rating system for the people who promote ESG? Because I'll bet there are some of them that maybe are ratings agencies that do a good job.
You might not want them to do the job, but probably some of them just do a good job.
And there might be BlackRock.
BlackRock is the biggest promoter of ESG. Should they not be rated as an investment entity?
They should be rated, right?
If they're rating other things, and it's all part of the investment world, and you want to know if you should trust or believe BlackRock, should BlackRock not have a score like everything else?
Yeah, I'd like to see the people in the ESG business scored for their own corporate, I don't know, quality or goodness or something.
Let's talk about Dave Chappelle and his Saturday Night Live podcast.
Which I was told got taken down maybe on YouTube or something.
You can still see it on Twitter.
Thank you, Elon Musk.
You can still see it on Twitter.
And I noticed the New York Times had a tweet on it, and here's what they said in the tweet.
They said, Chappelle's act involves a...
I'm sorry, that's me, not them.
I'm sorry, that was my quote, not the New York Times.
What did the New York Times say?
They said in a tweet, on Saturday Night Live, host Dave Chappelle commented on Kanye West's recent anti-Semitic remarks.
And then they quote Chappelle saying, I learned that there are two words in the English language that you should never say together in sequence, he said, and those are, quote, the and Jews.
Um... So that was the tweet, and then it linked to a story which gave you more context so you could see the whole thing.
Now here's my problem.
It's bad when anybody's taking any context.
That's always bad. But when you take Chappelle any context, it's extra bad.
Does anybody know why? Do you see it?
Why is it extra bad to take Chappelle any context?
You know, even relative to other comedians.
Because Chappelle is a more complex writer.
And when he writes, he provokes you, and then, you know, that's the joke, because he went too far.
But then when he's woven together a larger whole, the larger whole softens the individual jokes, and then you can see it as just fun.
But if you take any one provocative comment and a context, you miss the whole, and you miss the softening, which is not just extra.
The softening of the provocative messages is the magic.
That's the act. In my opinion, what puts Chappelle and, say, Bill Burr above most comedians is that it's not a bunch of jokes, It's a story, it's a theme with a point, and then it's populated with jokes.
So you pick one of those jokes out of there, and it's not like picking out a joke from somebody else's act.
Do you all get that? It's really a disservice to him.
It's very unfair, because he has the only act that has to be seen completely.
Bill Burr would be the same, I think.
Let me use Bill Burr as the better example of this.
So Bill Burr will do some, like, race-related jokes, and you hear him, and you think, wow, he may have gone a little too far.
Like, I wonder if black people will find this went a little too far.
And then maybe later in the act, he'll just mention casually that his wife is black.
Like, that won't even be part of the joke.
That's, you know, like part of the setup or something.
And you're sitting there, and it's ten minutes later, and you're like, oh, shit.
That changes everything, right?
You know the old joke when people say, oh, I have a black friend, so I can't be a racist?
And I always laugh about that, because the right answer is, you know, it's a good start.
Maybe you should have more black friends.
But mocking somebody for having a black friend is like the most unproductive thing you could do.
But if you're actually married to a black woman, that's a free pass.
Isn't it? Am I the only one who says that?
I mean, if she's okay with him, what do the rest of us have to say?
I don't think anything, right?
Like, whatever he says on stage isn't going to be nearly as true as whatever he says in his own home.
If she's okay with him, I'm okay with him.
That's the end of the story for me.
So imagine seeing his jokes taken out of context.
That's the ultimate out of context.
This happens to Chappelle, but in a different way.
So for example...
Yeah, he flew really close to the sun here.
So probably his biggest punchline joke, and again, I'm quoting him, so don't cancel me.
He noted that there are, in fact, he's observed a lot of Jewish people in Hollywood.
And he sort of makes a joke about how he's noticed there are, in fact, a lot of Jewish people in Hollywood.
But then he follows up with, but there are also a lot of black people in Ferguson, and it doesn't mean they're running the place.
So he says directly, as directly as you could, that the idea that the Jews are operating as a powerful entity is not in evidence.
There's no evidence of that.
So doesn't that soften it?
I mean, he said directly that, yeah, there are a lot of them working in the town, but that you cannot conclude anything from that.
But Kanye went a little further.
He concluded something. So that's a little too far.
Now, if you showed Chappelle's comments in context, who would be offended by that?
I can't even imagine anybody would be offended by that, if you saw the whole context.
Now, but if you take any part of that in a context, of course, it sounds bad.
Now, let me say the thing other people have said this, but it's fun because it's dangerous to say.
So Katya got in trouble because he said, you know, the Jews.
So instead of saying there are some individuals who are giving you problems, he made it seem as if the, quote, the Jews were operating as some coherent whole.
And then he got cancelled.
By the Christians?
I feel like his point was made.
Was it not? The fact that he got cancelled proved his point.
Now, I don't think that the people in Hollywood who are in charge are having meetings.
But clearly, people know what is good for them as a whole and what's good for them individually, and they act that way.
So do you think there's any truth that there's any coordinated or even just understood relationship that's giving him a problem?
I don't know. I have no reason to believe one way or the other.
But the fact that he was cancelled is a pretty strong confirmation of his point.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Like anybody. Literally does anybody disagree with that, that he made his point.
But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if he's right.
Well, I'm not going to say he's right.
I would say in that minor way that wasn't really related to what he was complaining about, he made a minor accurate point that groups will sometimes act in a coordinated way.
Doesn't mean they're calling each other.
Doesn't mean they're colluding, per se.
But he went too far.
I disown Kanye's comments.
But it's interesting to look at the dynamics.
All right, let's take the assumption that reality will take the most entertaining path.
And see if this prediction method works.
If reality were to take the most entertaining path, which for some reason it seems to on a regular time, this is what Raoul Davis on Twitter, who's a CEO branding expert and also a good follow, you should follow Raoul Davis on Twitter.
So here's his take on what could be the most entertaining path.
Now, this is something that is well within the possible range, okay?
Watch this blow your mind.
You ready? Step one, Biden steps down for some reason after January.
Could be health, could be something else.
So do you think it's possible that we would see Biden stepping down?
Yeah. Yeah.
You know, just because health reasons alone suggest that.
That would put Kamala Harris in the president's job.
But here's the interesting part, as Raul points out.
Because Republicans have the House, let's assume they do, they refuse to accept anyone who would be appointed as vice president.
Is that possible? If the Republicans control the House and Kamala moves from Vice President to President, can the Republicans just refuse to help, what do you call, approve another Vice President?
And if they do, if they refuse it, and let's say Walker wins the runoff in Georgia, because there's no VP, there's no tie-breaking in the Senate, And there's no way to determine the majority.
You would have the first ever Senate that couldn't have a majority.
And every bit of that is possible.
Am I wrong? There's nothing on that list that isn't, you know, at least 20% possible.
I mean, I think, you know, Biden stepping down is not 80% possible, but it's 20% possible.
This could actually happen. You could actually have a Congress with no majority.
All right, I'll give you my take on the most entertaining outcome.
I believe this is the most entertaining outcome.
Would you agree that Trump appears to be in his third act if this were a movie?
He would be in the impossible position...
That he's gotten so much heat for the outcome of the midterms that he couldn't possibly be elected.
So that's the third act.
In the movie, that's where your hero is in so much trouble, nothing can happen.
So he's lost the support of many of his...
who had been traditionally his top supporters.
I mean, it's a really, really deep hole for Trump.
But what if...
What if these mysterious delays in Arizona that Harmeet reported on today, apparently the Department of Justice got involved in the Arizona election, and they've been looking into it, and they've been real quiet.
Too quiet. As if maybe there is something going on there.
All right, so there's no evidence of any impropriety in the election in terms of some real rigging or something.
So let me be clear.
There's no evidence of anything like that that I've seen.
But what if some of it developed?
The most entertaining path Would be that they find real rigging in the 2022 election, which would mean Trump was right about 2020.
Now, could the world handle that?
I don't know.
The world would just go crazy.
And here's my part for the, like, just to put a cherry on top of the most entertaining news.
So imagine Trump's in his third act, but the election, there's some rigging that's discovered that hasn't been discovered yet, if ever.
Imagine they do.
Imagine that...
Here's the fun part.
Imagine if CNN reported it straight with no bias.
Yup. Yup, the election was rigged.
And probably that means that Trump was right about 2020.
That could actually happen.
Now, again, if you're just joining me, there's no evidence of anything being rigged anywhere for 2022.
I haven't seen any evidence of that.
But in the hypothetical most entertaining outcome, Trump would be proven right.
Now, let me ask you this.
Has Trump ever said something that sounded batshit crazy And then he was later proven right.
Any examples of that?
Yeah. Yeah.
There are not only examples of that, but he does it regularly.
Right? Who's the one person who told you that Putin would use energy to blackmail Germany?
Trump was literally laughed at for that.
Literally laughed at.
Most right person. Who told you that climate change is a hoax, a Chinese hoax?
Now, I'm not claiming that's true, but it's a lot truer than you thought before in terms of what you do about it.
If you watch Germany building nuclear plants and stuff, at the same time, we're limiting our economic growth voluntarily.
That does look like a hoax.
The hoax is not the science.
The hoax is how we're handling it.
We'd be handling it in the way that China would want us to handle it, which is poorly.
So if you tell me that there's no chance that Trump would end up right about the 2020 election, I tell you I wouldn't bet a lot on that.
Honestly, if you made me put a bet today over whether Trump will be proven right about 2020 indirectly, By finding something that's a big problem in 2022.
I think it's a coin toss.
I think there's at least a 50% chance that will happen.
Put some odds on it.
Let's see your odds. What would you say?
50% chance?
And, of course, this gets to my larger theory about major organizations and systems, that if something can be rigged, it will be.
If there's a high value to rigging it, and there are lots of people involved, and there's lots of complexities so you can hide your mischief, it will be.
So we don't know if any of these elections were rigged in any important way, but we do know they will be if we don't change the system.
That's guaranteed because the incentives are pretty clear.
So here's a question.
Can you check that you voted?
Did you know that...
I don't know if it's in every state, but it might be.
There's a portal, and California has one.
So I went on it this morning, and I checked to see if I had voted.
Because if I had voted, it would be a surprise to me.
Because I don't have any memory of voting recently.
And so I went online, and in California you have to know your driver's license, and you have to know your social security, which you know.
Now here's the problem.
You can't really check dead people.
Because I don't have a driver's license for a dead person.
Right? So that's what I want to do.
I want to go on that same site and put in my deceased parents' names.
But actually, they were in New York, so I'd have to use a different site.
But in New York, in other states, you don't need your driver's license.
In other states, you just need name and address.
Yeah, and California requires a driver's license.
That's right. To check your vote.
Let me ask you this. In California, do you need a driver's license to vote?
If you go to the polling place and you don't have a driver's license?
Nope. Nope.
But you need a driver's license to confirm you voted.
How does that make sense?
Now, when I say you can vote without a driver's license, that doesn't mean you can vote without an ID. Just to be clear.
So in California, you can vote, but they'll put it in a special box to confirm your identity later.
It still has to be confirmed, but you can go ahead and vote if you don't have it with you.
But they're still going to check that you're really you, in theory.
All right, so I think there should be a national or a federal law that all states should provide access to confirmation of whether you voted.
And that confirmation, and I think that would be legal because the states handle the voting, but I don't think confirming that you voted has to necessarily be part of the voting responsibility.
I feel like that could be carved out as a federal law.
Now, telling you who you voted for would be a problem.
And it's not obvious, but I'll tell you why.
If I could go online and show you who I voted for, then I could show anyone who I voted for, right?
I could just say, here it is.
Look for yourself. I voted.
If I could do that, I can sell my vote.
If I can prove who I voted for, I can sell my vote.
If I can't prove it, I can't sell it.
Right? So, yeah.
So you don't want that. You just want...
So here's what I'd like to check.
I heard from an individual who I consider credible that this individual has several friends who checked to see if they had voted and found that they had been voting for several years and they had not voted for several years.
I think they had been in the military or something.
So there was some reason that they voted in the military when it was easy, I guess.
But when they were out of the military, you know, they were out of the habit and didn't vote.
But it turns out they've been voting every year since they were in the military.
And they can confirm it.
They'd looked up their own name and, yep, I voted last year, but I didn't vote last year.
Now, that's anecdotal.
That's anecdotal. So you shouldn't put any weight on it at all.
I got it from a good source, but the source is talking to people I don't know.
You know, three levels of telephone involved.
Who knows if you're even on the same topic, right?
So I'm not asserting that that's true.
I'm just asserting I heard it, and it suggests we should have a way to check that sort of thing.
So wouldn't you like to be able to check your own parents who are deceased to see if they voted?
Wouldn't you like that? I mean, maybe you could limit it to your own parents.
Like, if you are the child, I don't know if you could prove that anyway.
Probably not. But maybe you should be able to check if anybody voted.
It's a little bit of a privacy issue to me.
I don't like the fact that someone can check to see if I voted, but in California you can't, because you would need my driver's license number to do that.
So in California I have more privacy.
Yeah, there's something we do, right?
How about that? How about that, California and its privacy?
Didn't see that coming, did you?
Yeah, we have more privacy than other states in this one little area.
All right, well, I'd like to see that change.
I believe if we could check to see if dead people voted, we'd know everything we need to know.
Maybe. But you also have the people who did not have...
Let me make a point that a number of people have made, so I guess I'm just agreeing with this point.
The election was determined by...
Fill in the blanks. The 2020 election was determined by...
And then everybody fills in a different answer, right?
It's because of Trump.
It's because of alleged fraud.
It's because of the bad messaging.
It's because of bad candidates, right?
You've got 100 reasons. There was only one reason.
How the rules are designed tells you it wins.
And the rules keep getting tweaked.
So every time the rules are tweaked, that's your vote.
The rule changes are the vote.
Because the rule changes are made with the knowledge of how it will change things.
So they don't change the rules for no reason.
They change it to get an outcome.
So in every way, the tweaks in the system are what determines who wins.
Now, if we had a system that was never tweaked, eventually that might even out, like the two teams would figure out how to work within the rules that they have.
But as long as you keep tweaking them, every tweak, at least for that next election, is the tweak that determines who gets elected.
Ten years from now, the other team has figured out how to deal with this new reality and they can compete.
But as soon as you make the tweak, it's in favor of one team and not another.
Now, the tweaks that are most important are voting by mail, Democrats for reasons I don't understand, like voting by mail, and Republicans for reasons I don't understand, like voting in person.
And as long as that's true, And as long as the voting tweaks are favoring mail-in voting, Republicans really can't win.
Because of the rules. Not because of how many people want to vote or who they vote for.
All right. Let's see.
Rasmussen did a little poll on who thinks that cheating affected the election.
And 57% of likely U.S. voters believe it is likely that the outcome of some elections this year will be affected by cheating.
Now, affected by cheating doesn't necessarily mean it changes the outcome.
It might change the vote count.
And that includes 30% who say it's very likely.
But that's basically... Republicans, I think.
It's mostly Republicans and the independents who vote Republican.
14% of respondents said voting by mail makes it harder to cheat.
That's a little low.
I was expecting maybe 11% more would say that.
But 30% say mail-in voting doesn't make much difference in terms of election cheating.
I guess that depends what cheating means.
If you're doing it within the rules, it's not cheating.
All right, so when elections are close and rules are being changed on a fairly regular basis, it's only the rules that determines the outcome.
Would anybody disagree with that statement, that our outcome was determined by the rules?
It wasn't determined by the voters this time.
Would you agree? And would you agree that over time, if you could keep the rules the same for a few years, over time, then the two sides would even out because they would learn how to compete within the new rules.
So there's an analogy to this with economics.
I think even maybe Trump has commented on this.
In economics, it's more important to stay the same than it is to be better.
Like if you said to yourself, you know, this economic system would be better if we change this one thing.
But if you do, everybody has to adjust and then you get some disruption.
But the people will adjust to whatever the rules are, especially real estate.
If you change, say, the real estate depreciation rules, the whole industry is just like in trouble because they're playing by a certain set of rules.
So generally speaking, changing the rules in the middle of the game is a really bad thing.
So it doesn't matter what the context is.
Let's see what else is going on.
A group called the Zionist Organization of America.
So I guess these are Jewish groups that are supporting Israel.
They just had an event in which they honored Trump.
And he got a standing ovation.
And for the Jerusalem embassy, this was reported by Joel Pollack.
So he got a standing ovation because they liked him moving the embassy to Jerusalem, they liked the Golan Heights, the stand against Iran, the defunding of the Palestinians paid a slave, the withdrawal from the corrupt UN Human Rights Council, and the fight against terror, among other successes, and being strong against Iran.
Now those all sound like all the right reasons, right?
Those are all the right reasons.
That he's being honored by the Jewish community in the United States.
But here's my question.
How did the people who believed the fine people hoax process this news?
Like, what kind of mental gymnastics do you have to do?
Because do you think that if it had ever really happened that Trump had said that the group marching and saying anti-Semitic things That he said they were fine people?
Do you think that they would be honoring him?
Of course not. Of course not.
So they obviously know it wasn't true.
So if you do think it was true, how do you explain that the Jewish community knows it's not true?
Because if they even thought it was true, like maybe a little bit suspicious it was true, they would act that way.
But they act like it's not true.
So why do the non-Jewish people think he actually...
You know, favor the marching racists while the Jewish people are like, hey, here's an award.
Yay for you, standing ovation.
It's just hard to explain.
But it does, I think, is more evidence that, you know, people are hoax-driven.
I saw an interesting reframe here by Twitter user Daily Sunshine.
And here's the reframe.
The Democrats have shifted their election strategy from a voter strategy to a ballot strategy.
These are not the same, and the ballot strategy is far more effective.
Whereas the GOP, as always, are trapped in last cycle's election.
In other words, the GOP is trying to get voters...
And the Democrats are trying to get ballots.
And you would approach those things differently.
And getting ballots is more important than voters.
Because you can get a voter who doesn't vote.
But if you get a ballot, you get a ballot.
So the more ballots you get, that's a more effective strategy.
I kind of like that reframe.
Does that fit with you?
Does that sound about right?
Yeah, when you hear it, you're like, oh man, that's true.
The Republicans appear to be doing nothing about improving the ballot collection, I won't call it harvesting, whereas the Democrats are obsessed with it, and it works.
So, you know, Republicans do have to look at their strategy, for sure.
All right. Here's what Mike Cernovich tweeted about the election.
So I think a lot of people are having similar thoughts.
That's why I'll read this. He tweets, every election day metric that had to be hit, got hit, then exceeded.
Betty Marcus saw the GOP wins.
Regime propagandists were melting down.
Democrats were already cooking up a stolen election narrative.
And then he says in all caps, against all odds, Democrats pulled the Senate and maybe the House.
Now, is it against all odds or is it exactly what should happen because Democrats focused on ballots and Republicans focused on the wrong stuff?
So one explanation is it's actually completely normal.
It's exactly what you'd expect, right?
The other explanation is that there was massive cheating.
Which one of those is better supported by the observed data?
So two hypotheses that the Democrats just outperformed, especially they got more ballots turned in, or is obviously a fraud.
You can't tell the difference.
You can't tell the difference.
There's no way to know. It might have been they just did a good job.
You can't rule that out.
Because the most common explanation fits.
The most ordinary explanation fits perfectly.
They did a little better job on ballot collection.
Now, I'm not telling you that's my opinion.
Because we live in a world in which every entity seems to be corrupt.
So it would be quite the miracle if our election system is the only one.
It's the only one with no corruption, right?
It's the only thing. Maybe.
It's not impossible, but it would be pretty unlikely.
Yeah. Let's see.
And there's a college, Gettysburg College.
They had to postpone an event.
There was a painting and writing event, so people wanted to paint and write.
And it was hosted by the Gender, Sexuality and Resource Center for people who are, as they put it, quote, tired of white cis men.
And they offered the event as part of a peace and justice senior project, but the fact that the sign said, come paint and write about how you're tired of straight white men, that didn't go over as well as they'd hoped.
Here's what... I think cis means you're just straight, right?
It just means you're a straight male.
Cis? Is that what it means? Cis?
I don't even know what it means. Yeah, cis is just straight.
But here's what's shocking about this.
The shocking thing is that there's somebody in college...
Who thinks you can make a poster and publish it that is anti-white male directly.
And that that's fine.
Does that just blow your mind?
Apparently there are a number of people who thought that's just fine.
That's shocking. It's shocking.
I don't know if there's ever going to be a major pushback by white males, but if there is, let me tell you what it's going to look like.
It's going to be a sex strike.
It's going to be a sex strike by men.
I think men are going to say, you know what?
Fuck every one of you.
You're on your own. And it'll take about two weeks before things will, you know, get back to normal.
But at some point, white men are just going to go on strike.
You know it's going to happen.
We're not there. Like, I don't think we're, you know, knocking on the door of that.
But at some point, we're just going to say, fuck all of you.
Do it yourself. You know, help yourself.
Go nuts. Just see what happens.
What would happen if adult white men stopped protecting people in public?
Absolute chaos. Men in general, it doesn't have to be white men, but we're talking about men here, white men.
I don't think that the public knows the contribution of men in general.
I think that it's taken for granted.
And if they withdrew their contribution, it would be noticed pretty quickly.
Pretty quickly. University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
I don't know what you're talking about.
Open your own doors.
I don't know. I just have a sense that straight white men are done.
Probably the characteristic of straight white men is that we're so flexible it hurts.
Like, okay. Alright, we'll put up with that.
Alright, you can have a little of this.
Okay. But we reach some point where it's just too far.
I don't think we're there.
But it could happen. UVA, there's a shooting.
Yeah. No wonder I haven't.
No wonder we haven't heard of that.
So somebody's saying that we haven't heard it in the news because it was a black shooter, five people dead?
Suspect in custody?
Oh, okay. Well, we'll keep an eye on that.
What's Coulter's Law?
You find people much nicer after the pandemic.
Good. He was an ex-football player.
I did not thank my husband near enough.
Took him for granted.
All right. 25 minutes ago.
Wow. All right.
Wednesday, coffee with Scott Adams Cruz.
Hey, that's an idea. Should we do a Cruz?
Maybe. Alright, that's all for now.
Is there any topic I missed?
And can we agree that this was the finest live stream of all time?
Yeah, I think it's unanimous, it looks like it.
Yeah, I've talked about FTX yesterday.
Elon fired Eric.
Yeah.
Oh, did he fire him today or had he already fired him?
Did he fire him today?
Well, give me today or not today.
Yesterday? Yesterday?
He fired him by Twitter?
No way! Are you serious?
If I look at my Twitter account, I'm going to see Elon Musk firing?
Oh, stay for a moment.
We gotta do this. Alright, this we have to do together.
Alright. Really?
Alright, Musk.
You'll probably post it in the comments before I get to it.
Alright, that would be in his tweets and replies.
He's fired.
Oh my god.
But when Elon says he's fired, it doesn't mean he just fired him.
When he says he's fired, that could mean he was one of the people who was fired in the first wave.
So don't be so sure he fired him on Twitter just now.
I'm not sure that's what happened.
But I like the fact...
He's fired.
Let's see if somebody asks him for a clarification.
Well, apparently, I guess the guy's Twitter profile, as of this morning, is still at Twitter. as of this morning, is still at Twitter.
So apparently he did survive the layoffs.
And Musk just fired him for admitting that he couldn't make Android work in six years.
Oh, my God!
This might be the best thing all month.
I can't even tell you how much I enjoy this.
Oh my God.
I've got to show you a picture of the guy.
Here he is. So, if you think something bad is going to happen to you sometime in the future, Make sure that your profile picture isn't the kind of picture that's exactly the wrong look for something bad happened to you.
Like, that's just not the right look.
All right. I've got to go do some other things.
There's some fun things brewing I can't tell you about.
