Episode 1945 Scott Adams: Ye Goes Full Raelian, Musk Destroys Free Speech, Doctors Are Guessers
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Qualified doctors with opposite opinions
Ye on Alex Jones & banned from Twitter
Promoting "good violence" is okay?
DEI and diversity of interests?
President Biden's 1st term successes
Plastic recycling is complete BS?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Hi everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
And civilization is getting pretty wonky today.
We're going to have a good time talking about all the craziness.
But if you would like to take this experience up to stratospheric levels, And I know you would.
That's the kind of people you are.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, filling with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
if it happens now.
Go!
Yeah.
That'll put you all on the same page.
Well, of course, we're going to talk about...
yay.
But before we do that, let's talk about some interesting good news.
Number one, scientists have used quantum computing to make a coding for glass that will make it maybe up to 30% more...
More, what do you call it?
Insulating. So it will reduce your heating and cooling by maybe 30%, or at least the window part will be 30% more efficient.
Now, they did that because they had quantum computing, which I didn't know was commercialized yet, but apparently it was.
Now imagine what will happen when the singularity comes.
Now the singularity is when computers are so smart that they can program themselves and become smarter and smarter on their own.
Quantum computing is still just a fast computer.
That's still just a human telling a computer what to do, it just does it fast.
I don't think we have any risk whatsoever from climate change.
Like none. Because this is just a trivial example, and this was before the singularity.
This is when we just have really fast computers, and it already made glass 30% better.
Do you know what part of your house is the big risk for insulation?
It's all the windows.
Doors a little bit, but it's mostly windows, right?
So this is like one little tweak, just one little tweak, It has this enormous implication for energy usage across the world.
So just a little bit of good news.
We'll see if that gets commercialized.
You know, I don't like to laugh at the hardships of other people.
Do we agree? That's not the kind of people we are.
We do not take cheap shots at people who had a bad day.
Well... We don't do that, but fortunately, the ex-executive producer for The Modern Family TV show, Danny Zucker, does not have this limitation.
And while we find it very unseemly, in fact, it's below us.
It's below us to insult people who are having a bad day for reasons not their fault.
And so... Thank goodness Danny Zucker is here to do it for us, because we're not that kind of people.
But apparently Chris Saliza got fired from CNN. Do you know Chris Saliza?
He writes a lot of opinion pieces, and they have a certain vibe to him.
Here's what Danny Zucker said about it on a tweet.
Quote, how firing Christopher Silliza may actually help Chris Silliza, muttered a stunned Chris Silliza to himself over and over again as he approached his parking space one last time.
I have reopened that tweet now at least five times just to laugh at it again.
It's so well written.
You know, Danny Zucker's executive producer of Modern Family, which is, in my opinion, the best written show of all time.
So he's, you know, he's a key person in the best written show of all time.
So it's not an accident that he knew how to write a funny tweet.
But thank goodness we don't have to be mean Chris Salisa because Danny did it for us.
So, have you ever spent five minutes on Twitter and looked at any doctor's opinions on vaccinations?
And have you noticed a horrifying pattern?
That you can find a fully qualified working doctor who says, oh, you better get those vaccinations because...
You know, it's better for you.
But you can find other qualified doctors who say, no, no, do not get vaccinations.
It's clearly bad for you.
And then you can find other qualified doctors who say, whoa, wait a minute.
It might not be so good for you if you're below a certain age, but it's probably good for you if you're above a certain age.
Now, here's my question.
Whose job is it to stay up to date with medical science?
Whose job is that?
Is it your job?
Is it your job?
No, no. Is it my job?
My job? No, no, it isn't.
Is it the doctor's job to stay up to date on studies?
Yes. Now, can we conclude with no doubt whatsoever that doctors cannot do that?
Have we proven that That a basic function of the doctor profession is to stay up to date.
And if staying up to date is something that they can't do, and by definition they're not doing it, because we can't tell which one's got it right and which one's got it wrong, can we?
If I look at two doctors and they have two different opinions, opposite, how do I judge which one is right?
I don't have those skills. So even if some of the doctors are right, and presumably some are because they're all over the place, how could you possibly tell which ones are right?
See the problem? It's the same problem with the financial industry.
There are 10,000 stocks-ish that you could choose, but there are probably 100,000 financial advisors.
What's harder, picking a good stock or picking the right financial advisor?
It's actually easier without the financial advisor, because they just add another thing that could go wrong, and they charge you for it, right?
Now, I was having this conversation on Twitter just before I came on here about doctors, and a guy with a PhD in nutrition, Argued, Scott, Scott, Scott, you can't expect the doctors to know how to read new research.
To which I agree, because that's my entire point.
My point is, if doctors were qualified to look at research, they would largely have the same opinion, wouldn't they?
They're looking at the same stuff.
So obviously they're not qualified, because otherwise most of them would have the same opinion.
So who is qualified?
Well, according to this PhD, there are people who are qualified to look at the science and then they can tell the doctors what to believe.
Do you think such a group exists?
Yes. Doctors don't have to make the decisions themselves.
There are professional organizations and experts they can look to to see if the study was done well.
Do you believe that there is such a thing As experts, not doctors necessarily, but experts who can look at research and tell if it's good or not, and then inform the doctors.
Do such people exist? No, of course not.
Of course not. Because if they existed, the doctors would all have the same opinion, or largely, because they would simply refer to those experts.
Those experts being experts would be all on the same page, because that's what they do, right?
Right? But we don't see that.
We don't see the experts agreeing.
We don't see the doctors agreeing.
So how in the actual fuck are you as a patient supposed to decide?
How the actual fuck?
Seriously. Anybody who tells you that you've made a good decision or made a bad decision, that's just nuts.
The only thing we know is that we don't know.
That's the only thing I know for sure is I don't know.
If you believe you know, why do you know when the experts who do this for a living can't tell?
I mean, collectively, they don't have the same opinion.
Nobody knows anything. Now, why can't the experts who are literally experts at knowing whether a study is well-designed, why can't they do it?
Why can't you depend on them?
Well, number one, experts always disagree.
So it wouldn't matter what the topic is, you're going to get experts disagreeing.
That's normal. Number two, who do these experts work for?
Yeah, you beat me to it.
The money. Can you trust an expert who probably needs to get money from the pharma industry one way or the other?
No, of course not.
That's the least credible source of all sources.
So you can't trust them because of money.
Then, but how about their expertise?
Suppose you found an expert who actually had expertise and did not have any money interests.
Could you trust them?
No. No.
Because they don't really know what's going on with the study.
They know what the people who did the study told them.
That's it. They only know what the people who did the study told them.
But if the people who did the study cheated, Nobody tells them.
So how are they going to make a decision without information?
So, anyway, we could argue all day about what is or is not dangerous, but you should know that nobody knows.
Right? Now, don't confuse this with the fact that there's some people who say yes and some people who say no, so one of them is right.
Do we agree with that?
It's not like there's no right answer.
Somebody's right. But how would you know?
It's unknowable. All right.
We'll get to yay. So the Wall Street Journal says that Twitter is offering some kind of a deal to advertisers to get them back.
So they'll get some kind of a huge...
I think they get... If they buy a little advertisement, they get a bunch of free advertisement for free.
Do you know why this might not work?
So in theory, if follow the money works, and the best advertising deal is on Twitter, then follow the money, right?
Because it's just pure money, and if you can get three times the ad value on Twitter that you can get somewhere else, then the ad people will say, oh, we'd better put it on Twitter, right?
Because you get more bang for the buck, right?
So that should work, right?
Do you know why it won't work?
Let's see if anybody knows why it won't work.
Because it definitely won't work.
Because advertising isn't real.
It's never been real.
Did you know that? Advertising is just something the advertising, the ad agency sells to a company so they can be doing something.
It doesn't sell more product.
Now, the exception would be if you're PG&E and you're so massively advertising that you're just brainwashing people.
Another exception would be if you didn't know a product existed.
So if you're trying to sell an Apple Watch and there had never been an Apple Watch, you've got to advertise, right?
But if you're just a brand, you're Chevron or you're BP or something, do you think their advertising sells them more product?
No. No.
So Musk has created a situation which is a little bit sketchy because if it becomes clear that advertising doesn't follow the money, it might be because getting three times as much advertising won't sell you any more products.
And then the people who are paying for the advertising are saying, I feel like you told me you were going to get three times as many ads for the same money, but my sales look exactly the same.
See, the trouble is, Then it reveals a little too much about the weakness of advertising as a useful thing.
Now, does Mike Lindell sell stuff on Fox?
Yes. That would be a case of advertising working, for sure.
Because that's something you didn't know existed, right?
And I do suppose you get some brand preference over time.
Maybe you start liking your Chevron gas more than other gas or something.
So a little bit. But for most of your generic stuff, advertising makes no difference.
Do you know how I know that? Ask me how I know advertising makes no difference.
Because I've been doing it for 30 years.
I get talked into it all the time.
So, you know, like I'm so stupid, I'll just always be talked into it.
When I owned two restaurants, we tried every form of advertising.
Radio, print, you know, special events.
No impact. None.
Just zero impact from advertising.
Every form. In any budget.
It didn't matter. And that's actually pretty common.
Do you think Apple needs to advertise?
Well, only if they have a new thing.
Otherwise, you go to buy a phone, and what are you going to do?
You already know. It's two choices, basically.
Yeah, Tesla doesn't advertise.
Tesla doesn't advertise.
Well, see, that's the other weakness with Musk's model.
He bought a company to sell the thing that he would never buy.
He's the most famous non-consumer of the thing he's selling.
That's a little awkward.
I never really put that together until just now.
All right. Well, as you no doubt know, Ye appeared on Alex Jones yesterday, and he said a few things.
He said a few things.
And everybody has a few things to say about the few things he said.
And, of course, everybody got it wrong, and that's why you waited for me.
You waited for me to sort this out.
Because do you know what? Everybody's getting this wrong.
Everybody got this wrong, I think.
Now, you would not be surprised to hear I have a contrarian opinion.
I don't know that I'm right.
It's a little too soon to know that.
But I'm going to put something new out there.
Something you won't see elsewhere.
I'll work into it slowly.
We're going to We're going to gradually ease you into it.
But I'd like to start the conversation with this notice.
I think Hitler was a bad guy.
Thoroughly. Fuck his little mustache.
Fuck the things he did when on office.
Fuck his clothing.
His eyelashes. Fuck his dog.
Fuck his chair, fuck his car, and the comb that he used for his little weird haircut.
Fuck everything about him.
Thoroughly fuck him.
Everything. As somebody pointed out earlier, there is only one redeeming thing about Hiller, and I hesitate to mention it, but of all the people who say they hate Hiller, there's only one person who killed them, and that was Hiller.
So... I don't want to go full Kanye, or yay, but he had that one redeeming thing.
Although I heard a comedian the other day, I wish I could give credit because it's a great joke, and he said that Hitler went through six years of war and he survived that okay, but he married Eva Braun in the bunker and after one day of marriage he blew his brains out.
All right.
You have to do me a favor.
It's totally inappropriate that I can't name the comedian who has that joke.
So if one of you know, because it was on social media, it was going around.
If you know who said that, could you please give him credit in the comments?
Because you shouldn't be able to quote somebody who said something that funny without mentioning their name.
That's just wrong. Was it Dana Gould?
That might be right.
Was it Dana Gould?
I think it might have been. I think you're right.
So let's give him credit anyway.
He's very funny if it wasn't him.
He gets some credit anyway.
All right. So Ye appears on Alex Jones and he's wearing a ski mask.
So visually, he's impossible to look away, because it's not just a ski mask, but like a sock over his head or something, so his entire face is covered.
Not even his eyes are out.
Now, I don't know why, but it certainly gets your attention.
Now, of course, the big takeaway was that he...
Ye decided he'd say some good things about Hitler.
And even Alex Jones was shocked. - The look on Alex Joseph's face is like...
Now that was awesome entertainment.
All right.
Now, I think he said he actually liked Hitler, not for the bad things, but he had some good qualities according to Ye.
Like he built highways and invented a microphone.
So you know, I was pretty anti-Hitler until I heard they invented the microphone.
He invented the microphone.
I think he invented roads.
Because there hadn't been any highways until Hitler.
Then Yeh said something about questioning the Holocaust.
So that went well.
Yeh was explaining that the reason he was embracing the anti-Semite label He was trying to do what the black citizens of this country had done by appropriating the N-word.
In other words, instead of letting words hurt him, you know, like being called an anti-Semite, so instead of letting words hurt him, he's going to embrace it and own it and amplify it until the words can't hurt him anymore, or anybody else, I guess.
Now, I'm not so sure that's the best strategy.
But, we're going to talk a little bit more, and then I'll give you my opinion about the whole thing, right?
So you have to hear the details if you haven't heard all the details.
Now, I don't know if he's denying that the Holocaust existed in any form, or if he had some nuanced but, let's say, unwise things to say about the details of it.
I don't know. So who knows what he had to say about that.
And then Elon Musk suspends him from Twitter, not because Ye printed a very derogatory picture of Elon Musk in a bathing suit, apparently, but...
And Elon had to clarify that that wasn't the reason that he banned him or suspended him, but rather it was for inciting violence.
And the tweet that incited the violence was...
A logo that apparently Ye seems to be embracing that appears to be the Star of David, and then on the interior part it's modified to look like a swastika.
Yeah, it's a swastika surrounded by the Star of David.
So that was hate speech, or no, it was inciting violence, and so Elon Musk announced that he had to suspend Kanye for that.
All right. So that's one movie.
Do you know what's happening in the other movies?
Different stuff.
Completely different stuff.
Now, if you didn't know, the logo that Ye was using, That looks like the Star David with a swastika in it, has been the Raelian logo for years, like decades, I guess.
The Raelians are a group who believe in space aliens and UFOs, I guess, and some other stuff.
But I don't think they're too involved with anything about Nazi or anything anti-Semitic, are they?
I don't think they have any anti-Semitic things.
I think they just have a logo that's unfortunately provocative.
But correct me on that.
Now, here's the thing.
Do you think that Ye knew that this logo not only already existed, but it was already on Twitter?
Apparently the Raelians have been on Twitter since 2017.
And I assume their logo's been there.
I didn't see it, but I assume it has been.
Now... Let me tell you what I see.
Everybody's got a take on this and we're all guessing.
So anybody's opinion about what's going on in Ye's head is ridiculous.
Wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you agree it's sort of ridiculous to speculate what's in his head?
Because whatever's in there makes Ye, Ye.
And whatever's in your head made you, you.
And if you could know what was in his head, well, you would have been the The richest black man in America for a little while, too.
Maybe. So we don't know what he's thinking.
But here's what I would dismiss as the least likely explanation.
The least likely explanation is that it's only mental health.
It's just mental health.
I think that's the least likely.
But definitely it's involved.
Would you all agree that his mental health is part of the story, but we don't know what percentage?
Would you agree with that? It looks like it could be a lot, but we don't know.
It's hard to know.
Because here's the other possibility.
The other possibility is that he's just being gay, and that he's picking intentionally the single most provocative thing he could do on social media, Because that's the test.
That's the test.
It's the ultimate test of free speech.
Can he say his opinion on social media?
Well, if his opinion incited violence, would you agree that that would be inappropriate?
And that you should kick somebody off for inciting violence.
How many of you would agree that if it's very clear, let's say he said, let's all get together and pick up guns and go attack some other group, you would kick him off on social media for that, right?
If it's clear.
So in my hypothetical, everybody would say, oh, that's clear.
Nobody would argue about some hypothetical thing.
So Musk says, okay, this is clearly inciting violence with his logo, and maybe with his rhetoric as well, but mostly the logo, because that's the part that was on Twitter.
And so Musk, and probably consulted some other people, decided that was against Twitter's long-established rules about inciting violence, and so he kicked him off.
Are you comfortable with that?
You know it's the end of free speech, right?
It's the end of free speech.
You couldn't even pretend there's free speech under this condition.
You know why? In the law, and I'd say with terms of service as well, there has always been a reasonable person standard.
Do you know what that means?
It means that you have to make laws and also terms of service with the understanding that there is such a thing as a reasonable person.
Now, you could argue whether such people exist, but you have to have that standard that any reasonable person would look at this other reasonable person and that all the reasonable people would say, yeah, that's reasonable.
Without getting into all the details of all the different things that could ever happen in the world, can we all agree that if we all look at it and it looks reasonable, we'll just treat it like it was reasonable?
Now, that standard, I would say, has worked for maybe hundreds of years.
I'm not sure when it became a legal standard in this country, but it's a long standard that's worked really well.
So why not keep using it?
Why not keep using the standard that's worked forever?
Let me tell you why.
Do you know where that standard doesn't work?
When you're all woke.
You can't have a reasonable person's standard when the environment is wokeness.
Because you know what? Wokeness is not reasonable.
It's not. It's opinion.
And so, Elon Musk's opinion that this logo was inciting violence differs from my opinion.
Which one of us are right?
My opinion is that it did not incite violence.
Very offensive.
Very offensive. Provocative.
He may have intended that.
But did it incite violence?
Well, here's the problem.
At a deeply conceptual level, yes.
Right? At a conceptual level, yes.
Anytime you identify a group and then you throw some shade at them, You're making it easier for someone else to say, well, everybody's throwing shade at this group.
I'll bet I could slap this person on the sidewalk and people would cheer me because everybody's saying bad stuff about these people.
Watch. I'll just go up to this person and just slap them and put it on video and everybody's going to laugh.
This will be viral. Right?
So you would agree that putting shade on any group incites violence.
So by that standard, Musk is correct, because he puts shade on the Jewish community, and by definition, that makes it easier for somebody else somewhere to abuse them because they think they've got some cover.
Here's the problem. It would apply to everything.
It applies to everything.
You would have to take everybody off of social media.
Do you know how many times I've said something that threw shade on an identifiable group?
Like every day? Democrats?
How many times have I said...
How many times have I put shade on leftists or Democrats?
I put shade on all kinds of people, including yay.
I'm putting shade on Musk right now.
I'm saying he's got a standard that can't work.
Twitter is nothing but people throwing shade on people.
I'm literally calling for an armed attack on the cartels on Twitter.
I'm not just inciting violence.
I'm trying as hard as I can to create violence.
But I guess I'm okay.
Why? Presumably because people think that's good violence.
Oh, that would be the good kind of violence.
Or I have an argument for it or something, so that's okay.
Is it too direct?
Yeah. See, the problem here is that as soon as you allow that somebody can decide what incites violence, and there's no standard for inciting violence because everything looks like it does, you have no free speech.
That is the end of free speech.
The only thing you can say on Twitter are things that Elon Musk personally believes will not incite violence.
You trust that? It doesn't matter if it's Elon Musk.
It doesn't matter who the fuck it is.
It's somebody else's opinion of what will incite violence, and you're done with free speech.
That's it. But the important point is, the standard did work until recently.
The reasonable person standard was perfectly fine until wokeness made all speech violent.
As soon as all speech is violent, you can't use that standard anymore.
And that's what's happening here.
I believe that Musk is essentially trying to guess what other people would have thought was reasonable.
Right? He had a guess of what other people would think was reasonable because he's doing things for public appearance as well as his own opinion.
You think he was told to do it?
In a sense, yeah. I think there was so much immediate pushback.
Now, here's why my take on Ye is a little different than the rest.
Is mental illness involved?
Probably. Probably.
Because Ye says that himself.
I mean, he's not hiding it, right?
And I think his actions suggest a non-standard personality.
Now, non-standard can be good, right?
Right? You know, people with mental illness make great art.
So it's not necessarily a bad thing.
But here's what I'm going to add.
I would not rule out the fact that Ye is trying to break the system.
And he might. Like, instead of...
He's not trying to win the game.
He's trying to throw the board up.
You know what I mean? He knows he can't win the game because he didn't make the rules.
The rules are made by other people, and he doesn't have an advantage there.
So if he plays the game by its rules, he loses.
But Ye is not the person who loses.
It's not in his nature to not think he can succeed.
So he just takes it to the next step.
What is the next step?
The next step is you throw the whole board over.
So he came into Twitter with a Raelian logo That he might have known was not provocative in that context, or as provocative.
He may have tested the limits of Musk's free speech and broke it.
In my opinion, he broke Elon Musk.
Elon Musk fucked up.
He fucked up.
And it wasn't because Elon Musk is dumb, because he's not.
It's not because Elon Musk is uninformed.
Because he's not. It's not because Elon Musk has bad intentions.
Because he doesn't.
It's not because he doesn't like Ye.
Because that doesn't seem to be the case.
It's because it's an impossible fucking situation.
Elon Musk has chosen a standard that cannot be enforced.
It cannot be enforced.
And Ye just broke the whole fucking game.
Because he just proved it.
He just proved that free speech is gone.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, was exactly what he was fucking trying to do.
Now, that doesn't mean he wins.
That doesn't mean, yay, He becomes president.
Doesn't mean he goes back to his old reputation.
But he had a goal.
He fucking did it.
He did it. He did it.
Now, you can hate him.
That's fine. I wouldn't argue with you at all.
You can say he's really anti-Semite, and that's the whole story.
Okay. I think he's given you that.
In other words, he's walked into your trap, and if you'd like to spring the trap...
I say, okay, but so does he.
So does Ye. Ye says, spring the trap.
That's what he says. He says, go ahead, spring it.
Let's see how this plays out.
But he did turn over the board, and the rules just changed.
And did you think I would be arguing that wokeness makes the reasonable person's standard extinct?
I didn't think so. I didn't think I'd wake up this morning and say that he broke Elon Musk, but he did.
He did. Now, let's be really careful here, because somebody's going to watch this and say, Scott supported Ye, who supports Hitler, so Scott's a Nazi, blah, blah, blah.
To which I say, are we really talking about Black Ye becoming the leader of the white supremacists?
Because that's what people are acting like.
They're acting like the white supremacists are going to rally around Ye.
And that's our danger.
Because what if everybody listens to Ye, all the white supremacists, and they say, Ye, you're our new leader?
Are we really talking about we want to reduce the risk that the white supremacists will start following a black man in America?
I mean, the whole thing has become so ridiculous that Ye's point is really being made.
He is making his point.
And whether you agree with it, you hate him, you know, I'm...
Just to say it again...
I don't approve of any level of anti-Semitism.
Period. But here's an interesting question.
If you were to ask Ye if white people should be allowed to use the N-word, what would he say?
Has anybody ever asked him that?
Because he's basically making the stand that he can say whatever he wants about the Jewish community, even if it's offensive.
I feel like that's what he's trying to make the point.
He's trying to make the point that free speech extends to where he wants to extend it, I guess, as odious as that feels.
But if Ye says, no, you can't use the N-word, but I can say anti-Semitic things, Then he's either crazy or just a fucking asshole.
If you ask Ye and he says, you know what?
I do think you should be able to use that word in public.
Then he has a point.
You can disagree with it.
You can disagree with it.
There's plenty of room to disagree.
But it's not crazy if he's consistent.
So I'm only looking for consistency.
I'm not saying I agree with him.
I'm just saying, is that crazy?
Like, crazy would look inconsistent.
But if he has a consistent point of view where he actually just broke open the conversation about free speech, then what I saw on Alex Jones was 80% performance art, the good kind, The good kind.
And 20% mental illness.
And here's what I mean by performance art.
It's supposed to shock you.
It's supposed to make you say, this couldn't possibly be art.
This must be something else.
It's piss Jesus.
Do you remember a piss Jesus?
It was the artist who made a crucifix that was contained in a container of urine.
Yeah, Piss Christ. It was Piss Christ.
And everybody said, no, no, that's the worst thing in the world.
And other people said, welcome to art.
Welcome to art.
It's the worst thing in the world.
Sometimes. So, is Ye a good guy?
I don't know. Is Ye right about his criticisms of the Jewish community?
I doubt it. It just sounds like he has problems with individuals that he's generalized.
I can't support that.
But did he do a performance piece of art that changed the conversation in a meaningful way, in a way that could be positive?
Because good art makes you angry, but maybe there's something good that comes out of it.
I don't know. It looked like performance art to me.
Now, if you say, but he's also crazy, I say, yeah, I give you that, like 20%.
But I think he actually moved the needle.
I don't know. But those who have been watching me for a long time, can you confirm that I've always said the following thing?
Because this is important. I've always said that Ye is not somebody who creates art.
He is someone who is art.
He lives it.
He lives art.
Every time he walks outside, he is the art.
He dresses the art, he talks the art.
He's never not the art.
There are people who are artists.
I guess I would be one. So I'm a perfect example of an artist, so to speak, who is very different from my art.
Like, when I'm drawing my art, I'm an artist, and when I'm standing outside, I'm just...
Ordinary guy standing outside.
Like, I'm not an artist when I leave the house.
You know what I mean? But Ye, he's an artist all the time.
He's not the artist who was something else on the Alex Jones show.
He just took his art to Alex Jones.
And I saw art.
And I also saw the highest level of art I may have ever experienced.
Does that mean I liked it?
Not exactly. Because it was odious.
Right? But did I recognize it as art?
Yes, I did. In my opinion, that was art.
And the fact that you hated it doesn't make it not art.
Because you didn't like Piss Christ, either.
Is cartoonist different from artist?
Well, that's another conversation.
Somewhat. So, can I be very clear on this?
Ye is not trying to make us like him.
So I don't. He's not trying to get us to agree that Hitler was a good guy.
He's not trying to do that.
Do you think he was trying to convince you Hitler was a good guy?
No. To me, it looked like he said to himself, what is the thing I'm least allowed to say?
Watch me say it.
And then he did it. He found the one thing that he's least allowed to say, and then he said it.
He's the only free person in the country.
Do you know the old Janis Joplin song from the 60s, in which she said, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose?
Nothing left to lose.
That's yay. He lost his wife, his kids, you know, custody, his reputation, his fortune.
He has nothing left to lose.
He's the only free person in the country.
Because he's not in jail, and he can say anything he wants anywhere.
Because he's willing to pay the price.
And the price is extreme, and he's still willing to pay it.
I don't know. There's something horrifying about this whole situation, of course.
Holocaust denial and any anti-Semitic stuff is horrible and has to be disavowed.
But there's also something happening about free speech.
There's also something happening about art.
And those are very big things also at the same time.
All right. So we're all going to see a different situation there.
I wonder what the Raelians are doing today.
It's a tough day for the Raelians, isn't it?
They just woke up today.
It's like, oh, it's another day in my Raelian life.
Let's see what's happening in the news.
Bad day for the Raelians.
All right. Now, when we're talking about inciting violence, one of the things I'm glad about is that we don't have a culture in which our movies and our video games glorify violence.
Isn't that lucky? Because if any of our video games or movies or TV shows, if they glorified or showed a lot of exciting violence and made it look really cool to kill people, that would be terrible.
And that should be banned completely.
Because it incites violence, doesn't it?
Can you argue with me that 100 hours of...
100's a low number.
Can you argue that 10,000 hours of gaming that involves killing people has no impact on the person who did it?
No impact at all.
Of course it does.
Now, whether it does or not, whether it does or not, Wouldn't you agree that reasonable people would probably argue it does?
So who gets to say who has free speech?
Do the video game companies get to create their art?
Because a video game is art as well.
Do they get to create their art?
Or does Elon Musk say, I think that incited violence.
So you can't advertise that on Twitter.
Who gets to tell them that they can make that game?
I don't know. It looks like it incites violence to me.
Well, on another topic.
As you know, ESG is dying on the vine.
That's the idea that BlackRock and some other financial entities could grade public companies for how well they're doing for the environment and governance and equity.
And, of course, all the smart people now from...
I think everybody from Bill Gates to Dilbert have now debunked ESG as a horrible idea because it gets between the business and the customers, and you never want to do that.
There's never a good way to do that.
But now that it seems to be on its sort of a dead man walking, should be dead at any moment now, people said to me, Scott, can you do DEI next?
And that's the corporate programs in which they try to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Now, I said to myself, well, I've been out of the workplace, so I didn't personally experience this.
I need to read up on it. How would you like to know what are the key elements of this diversity, equity, and inclusion?
Well, sounds pretty good to me.
So I'll tell you the things that sound good.
So this is just from the internet off of Google searches.
So DEI is a policy or practice designed to make people of various backgrounds feel welcome and ensure they have support to perform to the fullest of their abilities in the workplace.
Anybody have a problem with that?
Wouldn't you like everybody in your workplace from various backgrounds to feel welcome and to have the most, you know, the best chance of doing a good job and to be mentored?
All good, right? Yeah.
Does anybody have any problems with that?
No, we're all on board with that.
So I don't see any problems so far.
And the DEI team would work towards these full-time strategies that really incorporate it into the processes of the company to make sure that the hiring, retention, and unbiased recruitment happen.
So they've got systems that make sure that they're diverse and everybody feels comfortable with the situation.
Any problem with that?
Wouldn't you like all the employees to feel comfortable?
I would. All right, how about this?
They formulate policies and nullify old ones to get to their DEI initiatives.
Now, here are the types of diversity that they recognize.
See? Here's the part where you're going to say, hey, they're not including all the types of diversity.
Or do they? Or do they?
So here are the ones that they list.
Cultural diversity, of course.
Racial diversity, of course.
Gender, of course.
Physical disabilities, of course.
Does anybody have a problem with any of those things being treated as special categories?
Well, they also add this last one, diversity and interests.
Diversity and interests.
Does that cover everything else?
Because interests and preferences are...
Kind of the same, right? An interest and a preference?
Almost the same.
So, wouldn't this include Republicans?
Wouldn't Republicans be people who had different interests?
It should, right?
It should cover everybody who's different.
Now, I don't know if it actually accomplishes that, but All right.
And then why do some companies fail at it?
So what are the problems with it?
This is again from the internet.
There are three reasons, three key reasons, according to Google search.
Failure to explicitly connect the DEI objectives to the corporate mission.
Okay? Vision and values, lack of sustainable support, blah, blah, blah.
So sometimes it fails because it's not being supported enough, it looks like.
And let's see. So what do you think?
Should I kill it?
Because it sounds good to me.
Where's the problem? Why would I kill it?
Because people keep asking me to kill this, but I like diversity.
Why would I kill it?
But don't you think everybody should be comfortable at work?
Somebody says it's racist.
What part of what I read would make it racist?
Because they're not saying make white people uncomfortable.
They're saying make everybody comfortable.
Who disagrees with that?
No, no, I think you're all acting a little bit bigoted here, and let me tell you what we should do.
We should embrace it and amplify it.
And I'd start first at the places where there's a big problem.
So I would go to professional sports first.
And I'd say to the Warriors, Golden State Warriors, they're struggling this year.
They were champions last year.
Struggling a little bit. And I'm not positive, but I think the problem with the Golden State Warriors is that their coach, Steve Kerr, He's not wrapping diversity, equity, and inclusion into his systems that are managing the team.
I don't know if you noticed, but a lot of the people on the Warriors, they seem to have the same interests.
They don't seem to include people who have different interests.
So they should. And I think that would improve their performance greatly to get those different interests in there.
Now, the second, I would go for the teachers' unions, which are largely women.
And I think that they need to implement some DEI so that we can get some more men in there and more black teachers and more Jewish teachers, maybe.
Maybe more of everything that's diverse.
We should get them in there, see if that makes a difference.
And then the Biden administration.
You know, one part of DEI, and actually one of the most important parts, is measuring and reporting.
If a company says, oh, we're doing DEI, but you say, can you show us your reports?
And they say, well, we don't have any reports.
Are they really doing DEI? No, they're not.
No, they're not. Because the reporting and the measuring are just so vital to the whole thing that if you're not measuring and reporting, you're not really doing it.
And that's true of management in general.
If you're not measuring it, you're not managing it.
So wouldn't you like to see the Biden administration's report on DEI to see how well they're doing?
I'd like to see if they're doing a good job encouraging the people with different interests to be part of the administration.
Or do you think the government is trying to get people who have similar interests because the government is trying to act similarly like Democrats, which would be pretty bigoted?
Just because the Democrats got elected, I don't think that's a good enough reason that they should ignore the interests of the people who didn't get elected.
So, you know, if it's good enough for businesses, I think it's good enough for teachers' unions and professional sports, which is business.
And certainly good enough for the government.
And I would like to see all of the reports right now so that we, the public, can make sure that they are putting the proper amount of emphasis in DEI. What do you think?
Wouldn't you like to see a lot more of this DEI stuff?
A lot more. Now, I'd like to see a list of all the different interests, because we have a sense of what different ethnicities look like and what different genders look like, although it's a little confusing at the moment.
But wouldn't you like to see the list of the different interests?
So, for example, could the teachers' union, do they have enough people in the teachers' union who think that homeschooling is better?
Because homeschooling would be an interest, right?
So the teachers union should be represented with, you know, a good chunk of people who would prefer homeschool over public school.
That would be an interest.
And shouldn't the Democrats have plenty of people who want strong border security and lower taxes?
Because those are definitely interests.
So where are those interests?
And if DEI is good for a business, why wouldn't it be good for a government?
Just because the government got elected to pursue some interests over other interests, that's still discriminating, isn't it?
Because if diversity includes people with different interests, you can't just pick one set of interests and say, oh, these are the good ones.
We'll favor these interests.
That's the opposite of DEI. So I think we should push this DEI thing everywhere.
I'm going to start sanctioning myself, because I don't know if you noticed, but there's almost no diversity on this live stream.
And that's on me.
That is on me.
Because I try to be two people, but I'm only one.
I'm only one. I was planning to Become non-binary or something, just to have a little bit more inclusivity.
But I thought that was sort of a big sacrifice, so no.
All right. So you'd all agree then, right?
More DEI? Should we push this thing to the max and get as much of it as we can?
And how about BlackRock?
Has BlackRock published its DEI? Because I know BlackRock thinks that ESG is good, and there's a lot of Venn diagram on there.
So don't you think BlackRock should give us a report on whether BlackRock is a bunch of white guys?
Do you think BlackRock has a lot of white guys working there?
I don't know. I'm just guessing.
What do you think? A bunch of white guys?
And don't you think that BlackRock needs to address that pretty quickly?
I think BlackRock should look like the rest of the country.
They're so influential and so big that they do have an impact on the country.
I think, just like the government, they should not only have a DEI program, and so should Steve Kerr at the Warriors, but they should be reporting on it on a regular basis to the public.
Because it's a public...
It's a public interest, right?
We don't say, hey, you companies, you should do DEI because it's good for you.
That's not why. It's good for the public.
So it's the public that needs to know how you're doing.
So let us know. How you doing on this DEI? I'll give you a report on mine.
I'm failing. I've got basically my whole organization is run by a white guy and it's starting to bug me.
Although that white guy does identify as black, so...
Okay, that softens it a little bit.
Newt Gingrich is, I guess, on Fox News, he was giving people the bad news.
I've said a version of this, but news says it's stronger, so it's more provocative.
And he says the Biden administration has been a huge success.
Its first term is like gangbusters, basically.
I agree. I agree.
For what Biden wanted to do, he did get a lot of stuff.
He did. So, I mean, it's hard to hear, but things happened.
It may not be things you like, but did the Democrats not open up the border?
Yes, they did. They did a lot of things they said they were going to do.
You can't ignore that.
Carpe! Yes.
Newt also reported, I guess he had in his podcast, Dr.
Colin Hale from the University of Houston's Drug Discovery Institute, who has, we think, a fentanyl vaccine.
A vaccine that would negate the effects of fentanyl.
So if you took fentanyl, you wouldn't get the high that you hoped.
Now... See any problem with that?
Why the hell did it have to be a vaccination?
Of all the things it could have been, of all the ways you could address the fentanyl problem, did it have to be a vaccination?
Really? Really?
It had to be a vaccination?
Of all the possible things, it had to be that.
I mean, if you tell me that reality is not following the path of most entertainment, then I can't explain yay, and I can't explain this.
This is clearly following the path of most entertaining story, right?
Really? The fentanyl story turns into a vaccination story, and that's an accident?
I don't think so.
Clearly something's going on here.
I think this is scripted in some ways.
But here's your problem.
What addict who goes and buys fentanyl every day because they really like that fentanyl?
What addict is going to get vaccinated?
Zero. No addict is going to get vaccinated because they want the high.
They would just have to do some other drug.
Now, maybe it would cause them to go get heroin instead.
I don't know. I don't know what they do instead.
But it might work.
It might work for parents making their teens get it.
That might work. So this does have a pretty high potential.
But not for the serious adult addicts, but more for a parent telling their teen.
Because the teens accidentally get the fentanyl.
And if you can make the accidental fentanyl deaths go away, that's a big deal.
That's a really big deal. I don't think it would block all opioids, because they were pretty specific about fentanyl.
So I guess that would still give you plenty of...
Oh, then I guess the question is, would you have painkiller options if you went to the hospital?
Huh. That would be a problem, right?
So they'd have to find some kind of painkiller beyond fentanyl.
And even carfentanil would probably be affected by the vaccination, I think?
Unless carfentanil is different enough.
Because if you have carfentanil, then that's all you would need for pain relief, right?
But probably the vaccination affects carfentanil and fentanyl.
Because the only thing I know about them is they have similar names, so I'm just guessing there's some similarity there.
I don't know. Did you all know that plastic recycling is complete bullshit?
How many of you knew that?
You know, I knew it was a little bit of bullshit, but Palo Alto looked into where their plastic goes after they recycle it, and apparently it's sold to a company who doesn't have to tell you what they do with it.
I'm not making this up.
Palo Alto, in the middle of the greenest state, the greenest people in the greenest state, and also Palo Alto, home of smart people, you know, very smart people, Palo Alto.
And very green. And for years, they've been having a company take their plastic away, and they won't say where.
Because the answer is, they ship in all the Asian countries that have low standards, and they dump it there.
It's literally just being dumped in Asia.
Or Africa, too, I guess.
And then it gets into the water system, and then it kills us all.
So it turns out that the worst thing we've ever done is recycling plastic.
Do you know how many hours of my life I've spent recycling plastic?
All a waste of time.
And not just a waste of time, it made things worse.
Because if I'd thrown it in the landfill, I guess at least it's in the landfill, and it's less likely to get into the water supply.
But if it goes to Laos or something, it's going to end up in the ocean.
So... The whole thing was bullshit.
Now, let me ask you.
In the past few years, have we discovered that anything we thought was real was really real?
Is it my imagination, or is literally everything fake?
Like every organization, every drug?
I heard somebody else tell a version of this story, but I'll tell you my version again if you haven't heard it.
In the past two months, On two occasions, I've talked to doctors in my own doctor group, and they've recommended meds for various things.
And in both cases, I said this directly.
No, I'm not going to take those meds because I don't believe in medical science.
I said that to two different doctors.
I said, I'm not going to take those meds because I don't believe in medical science.
I think it's all fake.
Do you know what both doctors said to me?
No pushback.
Just absorb that.
No pushback. Totally agreed.
They actually agreed.
Now, they didn't say it directly, but the context was no pushback.
If that's your opinion...
As a doctor, I don't have an argument against it.
Can you believe that?
Actual doctors cannot give me an argument for the meds that are routinely prescribed.
Because if you actually push them on it...
And I said directly that it looks like astrology to me.
It doesn't look like there's any science backing the recommendations.
And neither doctor pushed back on that.
Just think about that.
Do you think that would have happened five years ago?
Do you think five years ago I could have said to my doctor, you know, I don't believe in medical science because I think the studies are all bullshit.
Here's how I think that would have gone.
I think it would have looked like this.
You know, there are a lot of smart people who do these studies.
It is not smart to ignore medical science.
Right? Don't you think that conversation five years ago would have been, you idiot.
You absolute moron.
How could you be so dumb that you would ignore the best medical science that we have?
But in 2022, I can say it directly, I believe your science is made up, so I'm not going to take those pills.
And they will look you right in the eye and say, okay, next topic.
I mean, it's just so mind-boggling that we've reached a point where everybody understands that everything is a lie.
All of it. Everything the government says, everything a company says, everything pundits say, it seems to be.
It's just all a lie.
Nothing was real.
Everything we thought was real was bullshit.
All of it. Yeah, China, Russia, all of it.
It's just all bullshit. This is a good comment, even though it's an insult to me.
MB says, doctors know how to deal with narcissists.
I'm not going to push back against that comment.
I'll do what the doctors do.
I will not push back on that comment.
You may accept that for what it is.
That's not a bad comment.
I have to give you credit for that.
You might be right.
All right. - All right.
Gotcha. All right, well, that is the conclusion of my live stream, the best thing you've ever seen today.
Wait till tomorrow. It's going to be even better.
Wow. So...
What do you think?
Did I sell you on the idea that...
Yay is performance art?
Some yeses, some noes.
Now, do you think none of it is performance art?
Do you think it's all mental illness?
Yeah. Did I sell you on the point...
That incitement of violence cannot be our standard when we're in the woke era.
Would you buy that?
I got some more yeses on that, I guess.
Yeah. I think so.
Now, I don't know what the standard would be, because we're sort of without a standard.
We're uncharted territory.
But I think Ye pushed us into uncharted territory.
And I think that's what performance art does.
If you do it right, your performance art pushes your brain where your brain had never been, and then you have to find your way back.
That's what he did. He put us in uncharted territory, and we have to find our way back.
