All Episodes
Nov. 20, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:05:30
Episode 1933 Scott Adams: Twitter Brings Back Trump And Lots Of Stories From The Simulation

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Relationship advice and The Lady Samantha Ray Epps vs Brandon Straka charges President Trump reinstated on Twitter Twitter reasons for banning Trump The need for immigration Children, 1800s vs 2022 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning everybody!
And wow! Wow!
What a day! Are you ready for today?
I'm gonna blow your head clean off.
Because you've come to the highlight of civilization, and civilization is serving up a good time today.
So, if you'd like to join in, the best experience of the whole Human civilization.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go.
Mmm, yeah.
Yeah, that was just as good as promised.
Well, I will of course get to Trump being brought back on Twitter.
We'll get to that, but some fun stories first.
Here's more evidence of the simulation.
I'm not sure how old this story is, but it was sort of new to me.
There's a professional...
Major League pitcher whose name is Brady Feigl, F-E-I-G-L. And he's six foot four and he was, you know, born on a certain date and he got a sports injury and he needed surgery on his elbow because he was a pitcher.
So he goes into the doctor and the doctor is, you know, prepping and at one point the doctor's assistant Needed to call Rady Feigl, the major league pitcher who had a problem, he needed surgery, a specific problem on his elbow, and she called the wrong one, somebody else with the same name.
The other person with the same name had the same birthday, five years apart, same name, same birthday, same job, they look identical, they're both six foot four redheads with glasses, They look identical.
Not to each other.
They look different to each other. But to you and I, they look the same.
And they have the same sports injury, not a genetic injury, a sports injury at the same time.
And they chose the same doctor.
Had the doctor's assistant not accidentally called the wrong one, they never would have known.
So naturally, they had their DNA checked, right?
No relation.
They were both 53% German, so there was at least a genetic, I guess, correlation there.
But if they don't have family DNA, have I told you that the simulation, if we're a simulation, The most likely thing you would find is code reuse.
The same program used over and over, but placed in separate places so you don't notice it.
So in other words, somewhere there's a dog that's exactly your dog, but you'll never meet that dog, so they can reuse the code.
Here were two people, it was just the same code, And by weird coincidence, they met each other, but in any normal situation, they would not have.
Now, it's not proof of this simulation, is it?
It's not proof. Of course not.
But every time you see code reuse, you've got to ask the question.
All right, this is going to be another one.
You want to see the weirdest one?
All right, this is a current story that is driving the Internet crazy.
There is an Instagram user named Javier who tweets in Spanish who alleges that he is living in the year 2027 and he's posting from there.
And people say, of course, no, you're not.
If you're in 2027 and you're posting photos from 2027, show us a photo of 2027 that's obviously not the same as this.
so then he does and specifically his story is this his story is that he woke up in a hospital in 2027 and that there was nobody else in the hospital but also there was nobody else anywhere on the planet and that he's on our planet but there are no other people And the way he proves it is people ask him to go someplace where there's definitely going to be people,
such as a police depot, a fire depot in the middle of the day, an airport, an airport.
He went to an airport and filmed in video walking through the airport with no other people.
Zero people. He drove down highways for miles.
No people. He went to the top of a hill.
There were no planes, no cars, no people.
Everywhere they challenged him to go, There's no people.
Now, of course, people are saying, Scott, Scott, Scott.
He just takes the videos and he removes the people.
Because you've seen the technology that does that, right?
That's the technology. But the people who know how to do that say, there's no way you'd be able to remove all those people unless it took, you know, weeks or months.
To which I say, no, probably somebody invented a technology that just removes people from video.
Wouldn't you guess? Wouldn't you guess that if you can do it manually, and I guess the way you do it manually is you forward each frame, and then you circle the little person you want to disappear, and then you do the next frame, and the next frame.
So the people debunking it would say, well, you could never do that fast enough.
But are you telling me you couldn't automate that?
Yeah, or remove anything that moves.
Yeah, remove anything that moves, exactly.
It's just a program.
So I'm pretty sure it's just a program.
But God, it's so fun.
I don't think there's any chance it's real.
But it's a really good prank.
So some are saying it's evidence of the simulation.
I think it's evidence that technology can do things we didn't know it could do.
Alright, did you see the photo that's on Twitter today?
It shows a before and after group photo of Twitter employees before Musk and after Musk.
Now this is also fake news, but the before picture is a whole room of young white women with one black woman.
This is part of what's funny.
The only diversity was one black woman, maybe 25 white women.
And that was before Musk.
And then the after Musk picture is entirely men and Musk.
They're all smiling. They're multi-ethnic, but they're all men.
And now I assume that one of the pictures might have been one department at Twitter that had a lot of women in it.
Somebody said it was the HR department.
And I assume that the picture with Musk was with the engineers.
And as you know, there's a difference in who goes to what professions, for whatever reason.
So I don't think it's real, but it's very funny.
It's very funny. So climate activists have ruined some famous automobile that Andy Warhol painted.
So they did the thing where they, I don't know, they put flour on it or some liquid or something.
And that was part of their climate activism.
And I thought, has it always been the case that you can match your mental illness to a story in the news?
Or is that like a new thing?
Because it's like perfectly matching.
These are clearly mentally ill people.
I mean, am I wrong?
They just seem mentally ill to me.
Now, they would say, oh, we're brave protesters saving the world.
But, I don't know, it just looks like mental illness to me.
And it's great that now we have a news narrative that you can match to every mental illness.
Suppose you had a bad case of Trump derangement syndrome.
Could you match your mental illness, your TDS, to something in the news?
Yes. January 6th.
Perfect. And I feel like we have a new story that matches every form of mental illness.
Are you paranoid?
I got something for you.
It's in the news. How about that, Trump?
That'll set you on edge.
And I don't know if it's true, but it just feels like every mental problem now has a story that goes with it.
Just something I noticed.
Anyway. You know, what's weird is, even though I'm allegedly an artist, I probably have less respect for art than any of you.
Maybe it's because I do it.
You know, I create art, sort of.
But I'm not sure I care that an Andy Warhol piece of art got destroyed.
I mean, I don't want anybody destroying anybody's property, so...
On a property level, on a crime level, of course, it's disreputable completely.
But is the world worse off because of that Andy Warhol car?
I don't know. I'd miss the Mona Lisa, but I didn't even know there was an Andy Warhol painted car.
I suppose if they got his soup can, his famous Andy Warhol soup can, at least I've heard of it.
I don't care too much if art I've never even heard of gets destroyed.
Again, on a property level, it's completely disreputable and the law should do what it needs to do.
But on an art level, that art wasn't affecting me.
Now, if my art got destroyed, I'd say, so you don't have to call me a hypocrite.
I know I am. Let's talk relationship advice.
I am so fascinated by all the good and bad relationship advice on Instagram.
I'm completely hooked on it.
Like, every time I see new, like, relationship advice, I'm like, ah, this is gonna be good.
And some of it is so bad.
That I wonder, like, how damaging it is to the rest of us.
Now, this is not an example of bad relationship advice, but just an exchange I had on Twitter this morning with a woman named the Lady Samantha, a very thoughtful and fun user.
We had an interesting exchange.
Now, I don't want to make it sound like I'm I'm mocking her, because she seems very nice, so I only have positive thoughts about her.
But she was describing the things she's looking for in a man.
And it's, you know, a list like you might expect, you know, from somebody who leans to the right.
So she wanted a man who could be, you know, a partner, active partner, and Loved her and somebody that she respected and honored, and vice versa, presumably.
And also she preferred traditional relationship arrangements.
Very normal stuff.
And here's what I noted.
Other relationship experts say that the number one thing a man wants is...
Can you film the bank? The number one thing a man wants, besides sex, of course.
After sex, what's the number one thing a man wants?
After sex. Well, that's interesting.
Literally, almost none of you have the right answer?
How is this happening?
Okay, this ruins my whole approach here.
The number one answer is appreciation.
Appreciation. Now, I asked the Lady Samantha after she put her list of what she was looking for in a man.
I challenged her, as I'm seeing a lot of people challenging women on Instagram.
I said, what is it you offer?
That's a pretty good list of what you're looking for.
Nothing to complain about that.
It was a good list. But what are you offering?
So then she listed the things she was offering, and it was a good list.
Sort of things you would very much be looking for in a wife.
But here's the interesting part.
I said the number one thing, which wasn't on her list, was appreciation.
So I said, number one thing guys want is appreciation.
This is based on other experts telling me this, right?
And she said, and again, I'm not ragging on her, because she's a very nice person who is, I think, very brave, and I appreciated that she did an exchange.
So this isn't about this one person.
I'm making a general point.
So I said, you know, would you be willing to offer appreciation?
And she said...
That she had offered, I believe she said that she had already said in her tweet that she wanted somebody that she could honor and respect, and that that's basically synonymous.
Do you accept that?
So she said I would honor and respect the man, so that's one of the things she's offering.
And she says that's, you know, basically the same as appreciation.
So good, right? So we're all set?
Alright, let me give you some relationship advice.
And this would work male to female or female to male.
So there's no gender assumption here, right?
Your partner says, there's only one thing I care about.
The number one thing.
Of course you want all the other stuff.
You want to get along and have some laughs.
You want to be physically compatible.
Those are pretty much baseline getting married stuff.
But my number one thing is appreciation.
What is the worst thing you can do if your partner tells you exactly what they want?
And forget about whether it's appreciation or something else.
What's the worst thing you can do?
Lawyer it. Lawyer it.
It's the worst thing you can do.
Don't lawyer it.
And again, this is not about one person.
This is advice for everybody.
If your partner says, I want appreciation, appreciation is my number one thing, and then your partner, again, doesn't matter male or female, and then your partner says, well, I'm giving you honor and respect, that is the wrong answer.
Do you know what I want to hear if I say I have one thing that really matters to me?
Yes. Yes.
As soon as you lawyer it and say, oh, yes, you're getting that, but you're getting it with these other words, it just sounds like you didn't even hear it.
It sounds like nothing I said made any difference to you.
It was like I was talking to a wall.
If I say the word I want back is appreciation, and you give me back some other words you think I should accept, I'm gone.
I am so gone from that relationship.
That's over.
Let me give you another example.
Analogies don't work, but...
Hey, spouse.
Do you still love me?
What's the proper answer?
Anybody? What's the proper answer?
Do you still love me? Okay, here's the wrong answer.
Well, it depends how you define love.
I appreciate you, and I honor and respect you, and we're very compatible.
And then you say, I asked if you loved me.
And you say, I just answered your question.
Every part of love is in that answer.
You know, I've got the togetherness, I like spending time with you, I've got an emotional connection, I've got, you know, physically, we have common goals, you know, spend good together.
I go, stop.
I only want to hear one word out of your fucking mouth.
Yes. Everything that's not yes is no.
Alright? So if somebody says, the number one thing I want is appreciation, everything you say that isn't the word appreciation or yes is no.
That's how it feels. So don't lawyer it.
And again, much respect and appreciation to the Lady Samantha for, you know, interacting on this topic.
I think it was useful. Don't you?
Do you think we can thank her for like a meaty, sort of a meaty conversation?
And I appreciate her for that.
All right, follow-up from yesterday.
So I had made the claim.
Is it a claim? I said that Ray Epps is probably, this is my speculation, in a category with a lot of other people who were there at January 6th who also did not get arrested.
So the point was that he wasn't necessarily being treated as special because, in my opinion...
There must have been plenty of people who were doing roughly what he was doing who also did not get arrested.
And my speculation was that he had to do something more than that.
Whatever Ray Epps did, he'd have to do more than that to get arrested.
Now, some of you pointed out that Brandon Straka A specific person that many of you are familiar with from Twitter and elsewhere was one of those people who did get arrested and he did not break any laws.
This was what you told me.
So I guess a number of people got to Brandon and said that I was talking about this topic.
So he DM'd me and we had some exchanges.
I was just trying to figure out if he was doing something different From what Ray Epps was doing.
And unfortunately it gets complicated because, as Brandon points out, he says he was accused of things that he actually didn't do.
You know, there's a claim that his voice is on a video inciting people, but he says that's not his voice.
So he did go to jail, and I guess the charges were, this is not the official words, but roughly speaking his charges were, I hope I got this right, Something like trespassing.
You know, but they use different words for it.
So something like trespassing.
Something like interfering with Congress.
Now, don't you think there were thousands of people who were trespassing and interfering with Congress in the same sense who did not get arrested?
Would you agree? Were there not probably hundreds of people Who trespassed a little bit, interfered with Congress a little bit, and did not get arrested.
There must have been, because there were so many people there.
But then the third charge, which is the one disputed, was interfering with law enforcement.
Now, the problem is, I don't have an opinion about what did or did not happen with Brandon Sprocket.
So his claim is that he didn't interfere with any law enforcement.
And that the evidence, you know, including his voice, is not his voice.
Now, I hope he prevails.
I hope that, you know, there's probably a way to check a voice print, isn't there?
So it seems like he could probably prevail in this, but what a horrible situation.
Actually jailed, you know, reputation ruined, maybe a criminal record.
Grotesque. A grotesque American experience.
So, but the point is that we can't use any other specific person to compare to REIPS because they'll never be quite in the same situation, right?
So, you know, could it be...
And I also understand that it wasn't so much about people arrested that day as people who were rounded up because they were on video.
Is that your understanding, too?
That the people arrested were mostly arrested after the fact because they were on video?
Now, Ray Epps is on video, but I'm not aware that the video shows anything beyond talking about what people should do, and he moved a fence.
Maybe it wasn't enough.
Maybe it wasn't enough.
There wasn't enough of a claim.
Because I have a feeling that if Brandon had not been accused of interfering with law enforcement, That maybe the other two things wouldn't have been enough of a thing to arrest him.
But I don't know. Just speculating.
Yeah. Moving the fence is trespass, you say.
Yeah, but here's the point.
I see what you're saying. It's not that he did nothing bad.
I'm just saying that an accusation of interfering with the police that day would have to be seen as more serious.
And if he was one of the trespassers, but not one of the ones who was in the building, not one of the ones who said anything violent, not one of the ones who allegedly interfered with police, maybe he was in a larger group of people who were not that important to the process.
So here's the only thing I want to say.
We all have a right to know what is the situation with Ray Epps.
So like you, I definitely want to get more information on that.
But here's the thing that I think that some of you have gone too far on.
At the moment, he is just a citizen of the United States.
And he is right-leaning.
Must have been a Trump supporter.
And he is not accused of any serious crime that I'm aware of.
So I feel like I need to defend Ray Epps because if it were me, I'd be pretty fucking pissed if I were innocent.
Just hold in your head for a moment the possibility that he didn't do anything except what you saw on the video.
You know, no connection with the feds, whatever.
Suppose he's innocent.
It's possible, right?
I would argue it's probable if I had to bet on it.
By the way, let me say this.
If I had to place money on it, I would bet that he wasn't an instigator for the Feds, if I had to put money on it.
But I wouldn't rule it out, because you can't rule out anything, can you?
It's just one of those times when nothing can get ruled out.
But I want to defend him, because there's a really high chance that we are screwing this guy, and he doesn't deserve it.
Do you agree with me that there's a good chance that's happening?
You're saying no. Most of you are so convinced.
I'm seeing some yeses, but a lot of people are saying no, no.
No, there's no way that he is legit.
Well, let me ask you this.
For those of you who say there's just no way he's legit, I realize he allegedly was an informant at one time, but that doesn't mean he was now.
Those of you who believe that you know...
Has there been any other story in the past few years that you believed was true, and you were sure of it, only to later find out it wasn't true?
Has that happened to you at all?
Has anybody had that experience yet in the last few years?
Something you were pretty sure was true, and then, ugh, the news just took it back.
Said, no, that didn't really happen.
Of course you have. You all have.
Those of you saying, no, I don't believe you for a second.
Of course you have. Because the news has changed its own stories.
It's not like you knew the story before it got changed.
Sometimes maybe you did.
But I would ask you to be a little bit humble about how certain you could be about anything.
I will give you that the Rayab stuff looks super sketchy.
And we need to know what was real and what wasn't.
But I'm going to demand, I'm going to demand that you treat him like innocent until I'm proven guilty.
I demand it.
Not like my demanding has any impact on you, but I demand it as a citizen of the United States.
Because if I were him, I would want him to demand it for me.
That's my standard, right?
So Ray Epps is allegedly a patriot.
I mean, if he did something else, that's a separate question.
But he seems to have been a right-leaning, patriot kind of guy.
So am I. Without the right-leaning part.
But I'm a patriot. If I were a patriot and I did not do any serious crime and I'd been accused, who would I want to defend me?
Ray Epps. He'd be one person.
Because he apparently is politically active and He would probably disagree with me being accused or guilty without trial.
All right. But can I say this?
If it turns out there is something to his story that we don't know about and it sounds bad, you can't blame me for being wrong, okay?
You can't say I was wrong, because I'm saying anything's possible.
The most interesting story of the day is that Elon Musk ran a Twitter poll about bringing Trump back.
Last I saw it, he was ahead by 52% to 48%.
And indeed, Musk used the Twitter poll as his justification for bringing back Trump.
Now, on one hand, the absurdity of using a Twitter poll To decide whether Trump comes back is like peak absurdity because a Twitter poll is the least scientific poll you could ever have.
On the other hand, it was perfect.
It was perfect.
Because the people who cared the most and were also on Twitter were the ones who voted.
So it's not just measuring the number of people who have an opinion.
It's also measuring the strength of the opinion because people acted on it, right?
And so it gives him this little bit of fake because, you know, this little bit of cover to do what maybe he was inclined to do anyway.
We don't know. But Trump is allowed back.
Now, do you think Trump is going to tweet?
I don't see how he can.
Because if he does, if he tweets regularly, it's the end of Truth Social, and he's got a billion dollars riding on that, probably, assuming it went up.
So I don't think he can.
Maybe he'll tweet once and say, come see me on Truth Social.
Just one tweet.
Hey, come join me on Truth Social and nobody gets kicked off or something like that.
But on the other hand, Trump is probably very favorably disposed to Elon Musk at the moment.
You know, even if they had any prior disagreements at the moment, he's probably kind of pro-Musk.
So you never know. And the beauty of Trump is that he knows a moment.
So he's probably asking himself, how much publicity can I get with one tweet?
It would just be through the roof, right?
It would be insane. So he's probably really trying to judge, you know, what's the first thing that he does?
Does he talk about it?
Or does he just tweet? One tweet from Trump would set the world on fire.
Heads would explode.
So you know Trump knows that.
And it would sort of be deflating if he said...
Let's say he does a press release.
I appreciate being let back on Twitter, but I'm going to be over here on True Social.
It would be just so boring, wouldn't it?
But if he tweets it...
Alright, now to make your heads explode.
Thanks to Viva.
Can somebody fix my stupid head?
How the hell do you pronounce his name correctly?
F-R-E-I. Fry or Frey?
Like, I get this wrong every frickin' time.
Fry, right? Okay, now you're not helping me at all because you're giving me both answers.
How in the world have I never...
I feel like I've never heard it pronounced out loud.
Like I read it all the time.
Alright, most people are saying fry.
But Viva, you have my sincere apology for first of all forgetting your name.
Pronunciation of your name.
I didn't forget your name.
And forgetting every time I'm corrected on it.
So, I can't promise I'll do better.
I wish I could. So I apologize for that.
Alright, so Viva pointed to Twitter's own blog post.
I guess this was written on January 8th, 2021.
So two days after the infamous January 6th stuff.
And this was their explanation of why Trump was suspended.
Have any of you heard this before today?
How many of you heard the detailed explanation from Twitter?
Of why Trump was suspended.
Because it existed. It existed.
It was on this blog post. And none of us...
I never... I didn't even know it existed.
Why did I find out this today?
Now, when I tell you what the reasons they gave are, could you make sure there's nobody near you to punch?
Because you're going to start punching stuff.
Like your hands, you'll be like this.
You're going to be so worked up when I read you what the reason was that he was knocked off of Twitter.
So make sure there's nobody within punching range, just for safety, okay?
Read it, damn it. Here you go.
So this is from the body of the document.
President Trump's statement that he will not be attending the inauguration, because he tweeted that he would not attend Biden's inauguration.
So Twitter's reason for suspending him, among others, is that he tweeted he would not attend the inauguration.
That's pretty good, right?
That's a reason to kick somebody off of Twitter.
Well, you can see the reason, right?
Like the obvious connection of why that...
Oh, you don't see it?
Oh, let me explain it to you, because Twitter explained it.
You see, his supporters would see that as a reason to do a terrorist attack...
On the people who did attend, because Trump is saying he won't be there.
So since Trump himself wouldn't be at the inauguration, it's really a secret terrorist whistle to his supporters to attack it, because he won't be there.
And that's probably what he meant when he said he won't be there.
A secret message to attack.
I'm not done.
It gets worse.
It gets worse.
That's just one reason.
It wasn't the only reason.
Second, referring to a second tweet, may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the inauguration would be a safe target as he will not be attending.
But, yeah.
Let's see, what else is that?
It's being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate.
Oh, so not attending the inauguration is a message that It wasn't legitimate, so that's a mark against it.
And it's seen as him by disavowing his previous claim made via two tweets, which I think were tweeting people to be safe.
So he does have two tweets that look to be about some of his last tweets, telling the January 6th people to not do violent stuff.
So it was the opposite of inciting.
So the things he said directly were, don't do anything violent or illegal.
The things they believed they heard when he said he wouldn't attend an inauguration was activating a terrorist attack on the inauguration.
All right, there's more.
He also used the words, and damned him for this, quote, American patriots.
I feel like I just used those words.
So I might be on some kind of a terrorist watch list now.
So apparently American Patriots, to describe some of his supporters, according to this Twitter blog, is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the U.S. Capitol.
So if you refer to your people as Patriots...
You're condoning violence.
It's obvious, right? Direct connection.
All right. The mention of his supporters having a, quote, giant voice long into the future and that they will not be respected or treated unfairly in any way, shape, or form, according to Twitter, is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an orderly transition.
What?
Has anybody punched anything yet?
Like, you're punching, right?
Are your arms just doing this?
God damn it! God damn it!
And then they summarize, as such, our determination is that the two tweets above are likely to inspire others to replicate the violence that took place on January 6th.
It is our determination...
So it was actually based on mind reading, and they just admit it.
They actually read his mind, and they could see that he was sending secret messages, and then they read the minds of the recipients, To know that the secret messages that they read in Trump's mind were received in the other minds.
So they not only read Trump's mind, but they read the minds of his supporters to figure this all out.
Because none of it was in evidence in any other way.
It was only once you read between the lines, or read their minds, then, well, then you've got them.
Now, How many of you had heard those reasons for Trump being kicked off of social media?
Because honestly, I never heard a reason.
Like, I thought it was something about January 6th, but not, you know, anything specific that says, here's our terms of service, here's what you did.
Try not to use the Lord's name in vain.
I can't promise that.
Alright, by the way, since I'm not a member of that religion, I have free speech, so I can say anything I want.
But I respect the religion and the people in it.
Alright, so here's what's going to happen.
So the January 6th people shot their shot, right?
And Liz Cheney tried to protect herself by stupidly tweeting the entire January 6th videos.
How many of you are going to go watch the entire January 6th Liz Cheney videos to debunk whatever people are saying today on social media?
None. How many people are going to read The thing that Viva tweeted around, which is Twitter's only explanation of why Trump got kicked off.
Probably everybody who watches conservative-leaning news today might not be on CNN. Maybe.
I mean, CNN might actually run this, which would be fascinating.
And boy, would I give them some props if they do.
Here's a good test.
If CNN runs...
Twitter's explanation of why Trump got kicked off as part of the context for today's story of him being put back on, would you agree that that is an important part of the story?
That a legitimate news organization would include the actual text of why he was kicked off to give you context as he comes back on?
Here's your test for CNN. If CNN never mentions the context for which he got kicked off in specifics, then they have not made their turn toward legitimate news.
Would you agree? Would you agree that that's a very clean test?
Because there's no way they wouldn't think of it, right?
There's no way that nobody at CNN would think, maybe we should revisit the reasons they gave.
There's no way that could happen unless they would have to choose to not tell you the context.
Will they? Let's watch.
Now, I'm not going to give MSNBC the same challenge because they're not a legitimate news organization.
They're not even trying to be.
So that wouldn't work for them.
Of course they're not going to mention it.
Of course not. But in my opinion, what this has done, quite accidentally, has made Trump look like he was unfairly kicked off of social media and unfairly treated in general.
And I don't think...
I'm not even sure the Conservatives thought that until now.
You know, honestly, if you had asked me should Trump have been kicked off of social media, I would have said I don't know.
Because I didn't know what he did to get kicked off.
I had never heard the argument.
So I don't think I ever said he should or should not get kicked off because I hadn't heard why he got kicked off.
But now I've heard. And now it's fucking ridiculous.
Am I right? It's fucking ridiculous.
Now those of you who say that because he was a sitting president or an ex-president he should not be kicked off, I don't agree with that.
I don't agree with that at all.
I think his standards shouldn't be that different, maybe a little bit different, because he's a public figure, but it shouldn't be that different from our standard.
You know, if he did something that was truly, you know, horrible, maybe it deserves to be in the news and not on social media.
I could see that. You know, if it violated the terms of service, same as us.
But that didn't happen.
He did not violate the terms of service in the least.
Not even close, did he?
Not even close. I'm applying my principles equally.
Does it look like I'm applying my principles unequally?
I'm trying to do the opposite.
I'm saying that I should not be kicked off of Twitter unless I violate the terms of service.
Same thing with him. But, if I said something that was, you know, truly dangerous, probably I should get kicked off.
Same with him. I just think you should be treated like the rest of us.
Scott is incorrect, but you still should have been kicked.
Okay. What?
What are the terms exactly?
Well, the terms that matter would be if you hate speech or inciting violence or something like that.
But Trump didn't do anything close to that.
They just imagined it so they could get rid of him.
All right. He was actually tweeting on January 6th, please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement.
They are truly on the side of our country.
Stay peaceful. Now, that's the tweet that everybody's going to see when his account becomes active again.
I think he deleted some tweets.
But the ones you're going to see are completely, like, clear him.
And if you see the blog post, it totally clears him.
And people are going to really wonder what was the real story of this, and it's pretty sketchy.
All right. Apparently, Twitter, according to one human trafficking activist named Eliza, Eliza Blue, I guess, noted today that, quote, the popular hashtags used to sell child sexual abuse material on Twitter is almost completely cleaned out.
So, here's another thing that's going to make your head explode.
There were well-known hashtags for human traffickers on Twitter.
Well-known, often used hashtags just for human traffickers.
And it took Musk to get rid of them.
Was that hard?
Was that hard to get rid of a hashtag?
Because I can't think of anything that would be programmatically easier than suppressing a hashtag.
Can you? Like, you don't have to be a programmer to know that's the easiest thing you can do.
Literally, nothing would be easier than that.
I could do it myself. Just show me the code, and I'll say, all right.
I don't even know the language it's written in.
I could do that. I could figure it out in about an hour.
How do you explain that?
How in the world do you explain that it was a huge problem, it was easy to fix, and so Musk just fixed it, apparently.
I mean, there may be more to the story here, so like everything, wait two days or more.
But I don't know what to make of that.
Like, I don't want to make that, you know, somebody was on the side of the bad guys, because I think that would be going too far.
But how do you explain it?
Like, don't you want to know?
I think we need answers.
All right. So when I said the other day that we need more immigration, not less, because we are not producing enough babies in America, I got some pushback that I wanted to talk about.
One gentleman said that...
Let's see.
He didn't want to let all the brown people in because of replacement theory.
You've heard of replacement theory?
Sort of the Charlottesville Nazis saying, Jews will not replace us.
So it's the idea that immigrants of every type will replace Americans.
So we're bringing them in to replace us instead of having our own babies.
And after I looked at his ugly tweet, I tweeted back that, yes, I would like to replace him.
Because you could pretty much throw a dart anywhere in the world and hit an immigrant who would be a better American than that asshole.
So yes, I do want to replace him.
But not like in general.
Like I'm not looking to replace people in general.
But him. Like that one person.
I would replace him. Yeah, he wasn't adding much.
But here's something I'd like to add to you.
And this is a reframe that will be in my upcoming book.
So I guess I'll test it in live.
And it applies to this situation, but another situation, which is decision not to have children.
Such as I've made.
I've made the decision not to have children.
I was never really in a situation where it was an option.
But, you know, I wasn't really pushing for it either.
What's the reason to have children?
Tell me. What is your reason to have children?
You crave something to love you or to love back.
Oxytocin? Well, you're going scientific.
I like that. It's just instinct.
It's nature. Legacy.
Legacy. A lot of people here want their DNA to be...
Sort of special and preserved.
How many of you are on that team?
The ones who think that their DNA, you know, they want to have their own children as opposed to adopting, let's say, or having stepkids.
So here's my argument against the DNA argument.
If you think you want to have your own children versus just supporting children in general, because there's something about your children that will be, like, a little special and make you live forever, Do you know that your DNA will be basically diluted to nothing in about three generations?
Roughly three generations and you won't even exist anymore.
There's not a hell of a lot of your great-grandparents and your kids, right?
Because every time it gets cut in half, right?
Because you're adding the spouse, so your DNA gets cut in half.
Next generation cuts in half.
Next one cuts in half.
You know, it only takes a few generations before you're erased.
So your whole legacy, you know, I will live forever through my descendants, well, yeah, I mean, in a way, I guess Genghis Khan has lots of descendants.
Is that helping him in some way?
Is Genghis Khan dead and happier because there are trace elements of his DNA all over the place?
I don't think he really came out ahead in any way that I can see.
So the whole idea that you can take something of yourself in a DNA sense and put it into the future forever kind of doesn't pass scientific muster.
But let me tell you what you can put into the future that would be more, let's say, impactful than that.
And that's what you do.
Your life. Your example, the accomplishments you make.
In my opinion, we all have an immortal soul.
Because, as I like to say, every act of kindness can never be small.
Because everything you do has a ripple effect forever.
Everything. Everything you do is forever.
It's just you don't notice it, because the effect moderates over time.
If you live a life that makes people better off, makes them healthier, happier, causes them to do more successful things, maybe they remember those things and pass them on to their kids as well, that's a pretty big effect.
And I would argue that Steve Jobs, just to pick one example, Steve Jobs had more effect on everybody's kids than his own kids.
How many did he have? One or two?
So Steve Jobs didn't really do much in terms of his DNA. He did have a natural kid or two.
But his DNA will get diluted out in a few generations.
But what he did with Apple, he could never erase that.
It's like just this major thing that ripples through civilization.
Maybe it's not all positive.
You could argue that.
But his impact is big.
Alright, here's Here's the other argument.
I don't believe...
Oh, the other argument is you should not do immigration.
You should encourage Americans to have more babies.
To which I say, I don't know if there's any way to do that.
And the reason is, I said, and I probably wish I hadn't said this, on social media I said, you can't fix that because people are too selfish.
What I should have said is that normal people are selfish, But our system is basically optimized for not having kids.
Would you agree that the system is currently optimized for not having kids?
The incentive system is to not have kids, because you can't afford them.
You can't afford them, and society is serving up all these alternative entertainment options.
If you had kids in the 1800s, were you worried about who would watch them when you traveled to Europe?
No, because you weren't traveling to Europe.
Right? So, in the 1800s, kids were an economic asset.
They are not now.
Would you say kids are an economic asset or an economic cost in 2022?
Follow the money. It's an economic cost.
College is expensive.
Raising kids is expensive.
Now, if you had a kid in the 1800s, is there a good chance that kid would grow up and take care of you in your old age?
Yes. Pretty good chance.
How about today? Well, also today.
Children also take care of old people today by putting them in the nursing home, signing the paperwork, So, the value of a child whose benefit in your old age is to put you in the nursing home?
Take me, for example.
At my current income, do you think if I had a natural kid who, let's say, was in charge of me when I started losing my mind, do you think that kid's going to, like, leave me in the house and, you know, take care of me 24 hours a day?
Or, since I have resources, would that kid just say, okay, use your resources to get some professional care?
Which, of course, I would do.
Yeah. So, our system is set up so it doesn't make sense to have kids.
Working against that is our natural urge to have kids.
So we have a system which strongly discourages it.
Accidentally, I think.
You know, nobody designed it that way, but that's just how it worked out.
So, what do you expect?
Follow the money. Now, if you say, but Scott, you've told me now it's easy to fix.
Because if you were to change the incentive system, then you're back to normal, right?
Then people have a natural ability, natural desire to have kids.
You make the system support it.
Boom! Fixed, right?
How are you going to do that?
How? How?
Say, oh, we were just kidding.
Women should not have careers.
Just kidding. Women shouldn't have careers, but we'll double the pay for the men so that the women can stay home and raise kids in the old-fashioned way that everybody liked back in the 50s.
It's just not going to happen.
You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube.
We have created a system that you really can't move backwards on.
The only way I can see it working...
is if the government offered huge financial incentives for having children.
And those incentives would have to last like 18 years, or maybe more for college.
So basically, the government would have to just take the financial burden of your kids away from you.
And then you might say, well, if it doesn't cost me anything, and I can afford a babysitter so I can get away from them once in a while, Okay, I'll have some kids.
But I don't see that happening.
Do you see the government deciding to pay for your kids?
I don't. I don't.
So, give me a fact check.
Has any modern, industrialized country reversed their...
Somebody says Hungary.
But what did Hungary do to reverse their...
What did they do? How did they reverse their decline?
Somebody's saying Israel.
Tax system.
So you're saying that the Hungarians just changed the financial incentives via the tax system, and that was enough.
All right, I'm going to call bullshit on this.
I'm going to call it bullshit. I do believe incentives work.
Because remember, friction always works.
Incentives always works. But how much is always the question.
And Israel as well.
They said it was patriotic to have kids.
That was enough. Because I think the money is going to have to be the thing.
All right. Well, let's do a fact check.
I'm going to say I don't disagree that Hungary tried to increase its birth rate.
I do disagree that they were successful in a big way.
So that's without doing any research.
I'm going to tell you that I don't think they could add enough financial incentive to make that make sense.
Now, in Hungary, maybe you don't assume that your kid is going to go to a half-a-million-dollar college, right?
So it could be that Hungary has a whole different cost structure on top of whatever they changed to incentivize.
Eric says, I see the demographic issue with China, but do you see an issue with Japan?
Hungary and France have tried unsuccessfully to subsidize.
Oh, so Eric is saying that Hungary tried it unsuccessfully.
It wasn't just taxes, it was direct benefit, and both nowhere near target.
All right, that's what I thought. So we have to fact-check Eric.
So Eric spent $34.56 to get his message to the top of the list, which was money well spent, Eric.
Well, let's check on that. My assumption is that you could not incentivize enough.
It might make some difference, but I don't think you could incentivize enough in America.
If Hungary has a whole different cost structure, then that's a new question.
Mortgage forgiveness, really?
So it's really just a...
And Russia is trying to?
Well, maybe we should all do a little more digging on this and we'll figure out what's going on.
But I would like to say this, that I don't believe there is any economist who would say that keeping your population stable is good for the country.
How about that? Is there any economist here who would disagree with that statement?
That a growing population is a stronger economy than a stable population.
Right. I think all economists agree with that.
Now, you know, a weird exception would be if 100% of the new people came in were just a drag on the economy.
But remember, the thing about...
If you were going to remember one thing about immigration from below the border, here it is.
Like, the one thing They will tell you everything about economics and everything about the people coming over the border.
You ready? The one fact.
None of them are homeless.
I don't know how they do it.
Somehow, millions of people crossed our border, but they were all the type who didn't become homeless.
Why? Why?
Well, obviously, They were high enough character that somebody was willing to let them stay with them.
Think about it. Millions of people from south of the border came in.
Millions. I think two million.
And all of them were a high enough quality character that somebody said, you can stay with me.
Those are the people you're worried about.
Five million? Was it five million?
And But, you know, here we have our own people who are, you know, homeless and on the streets, or a real problem.
But the people who are not homeless are probably not a drag on the system.
They're probably eating, they have shelter, and they're looking for jobs as hard as they can in an economy that needs workers.
I don't know, that's about as positive as you can get.
Now, to put a negative on that, you've got to go full replacement theory, you know, and you just don't like brown people, and you think they're going to dilute your awesomeness.
I want more of these, not less of them.
You know, at some point there's such a thing as too many of anything.
You know, you could drink too much water and die.
So there's too much immigration, could be too much.
But we're not there. And if you had told me a year ago that I would say we could let 5 million or whatever immigrants in and it wouldn't even cause like an economic strain, I would have said that's crazy.
Because that feels like too much, doesn't it?
It just feels like way too much.
But again, they're not homeless.
And until you see homeless immigrants, I don't know that there are too many.
I mean, if you had just one thing you were going to track, that's a pretty meaningful data point.
If you see them on the street, sleeping on the street, you're going to have to shut the border tight.
So let me say to you, the day you see immigrants sleeping on the street...
You need to close that border, like really fast, like today, right?
Because every person who comes across after that point is probably more likely going to be a negative than a plus.
But as long as they all have somebody who's willing to take them in, there's something about them that's worthy.
And somebody who's judged them worthy, took them into their home.
Now, that doesn't mean there won't be some MS-13 people slipping through the cracks.
Of course there will. And we should, just to be clear, in case there's anybody new to my livestream, my opinion is we should have the tightest, best border security we could possibly afford.
All the time. And then separately, we should decide who gets in and how many.
And we just don't do that right.
And by the way, Trump could win the election on that alone.
All he'd have to do is just say what I did.
Let's separate the decision of how many people get in from whether or not we have border security.
And then he's fine. And then he's fine.
He can make the whole problem go away.
The problem is he put border security, he tied it to people.
As soon as you tie border security to people, you lose the argument.
You've just got to say, it doesn't matter if anybody's coming in.
We need total border security, and then we need our economists to tell us how many of what types of people to let in.
And then we'll let them in.
Obama did. That's why Obama got elected twice.
Right? Obama, whatever you want to say about Obama, he knew how to say...
He knew how to describe something in a way that didn't make your head catch on fire, necessarily.
So he was good at that.
He had the big, beautiful gate.
But, you know, Trump didn't...
He didn't say it as cleanly as I did.
And he needs to. All right.
Ladies and gentlemen...
That might have been...
Let's see if I have anything else.
Oh, Musk tweeted soon after he let Trump back on Twitter, should Trump decide to go back on, Elon Musk tweeted this, the most entertaining outcome is the most likely.
My variant on Occam's razor.
The most entertaining outcome is the most likely.
He tweeted that after putting Trump back on Twitter.
Is that... Like, how much do you love that?
I mean, I just love that.
Yeah, he said that, he's been saying that for a while now.
Some people believe he got it from me, but it could be we're thinking the same in this.
All right. What else have we got going on here?
Yeah, I think that's about it.
Ladies and gentlemen, the best livestream you've ever seen.
I'm going to lock off the locals' users from the outside.
We're going to subscribers only over on Locals.
YouTube, I will see you later.
If anybody's on YouTube because they couldn't find the Locals feed yesterday, that was my fault.
There's a button that I push that puts it to the top of the feed, and I probably didn't push it yesterday.
So it was there, you just couldn't find it.
Export Selection