Episode 1948 Scott Adams: Fake News Out Of China, Fake News in NYT, I'm Starting To See A Pattern
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
ChatGPT, the future of teaching
Pardons for Assange & Snowden?
NYT owner, a Hunter Biden investor?
China mfg orders down 40%?
Newest Ye controversy
Intentional HOAX to change an election
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I know. You'd probably like the birth of your children, maybe your wedding day.
But those are nothing compared to this experience.
And if you want to take it up to yet another level, and I know you do, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen right now.
Go! Well, let's talk about some things.
A Twitter user named Peter Wang.
Stop it. That's his actual name.
Don't make fun of him. Just because his first name and his last name are a penis, Peter Wang, that is no reason to mock him.
That's not kind. Don't do that.
Because that's not what this is about.
But Peter Wang had a very good tweet, which was neither about his Peter or his Wang.
But he said, quote, I just had a 20-minute conversation with ChatGPT, that's an artificial intelligence that's available to the public, about the history of modern physics.
If I had this shit as a tutor during high school and college, OMG, I think we can basically reinvent the concept of education at scale.
College as we know it will cease to exist.
AI will be your only user interface to everything, including education.
Yes. Yes, Peter Wang, you have nailed this.
The only thing I want for education is AI. Now you say to yourself, but Scott, AI will not be as good as a human teacher who's reacting and all that.
To which I say, you are right on day one.
On day one. What happens on day two of AI versus all the human teachers?
On day two, AI... Well, not technically day two, but let's say year two.
On year two, AI has already tried 3,000 different ways to explain something.
And it tracked who got the best test results based on which way it chose to explain the same topic.
Once it found out that people got much better test results when it explained it this way, it starts doing it that way from now on.
Maybe testing a little bit just in case it can do even better.
What did the human teachers do?
During that year, when the AI went from, I'll just guess what will work, to, oh, I have great data and I know exactly what worked and this gets better test results.
What did the human teachers do differently?
They introduced...
Some gender reassignment classes or something.
I don't know. But I'll tell you what they didn't do, is know exactly what worked and what didn't, and then change to what worked.
But AI did.
By year three, no human classroom would be able to compete with AI, because AI would have tested You know, very completely, all the way through test scores, to know what worked and what didn't, and then it would be over.
The only interface I want for anything is AI. I don't want to do a Google search where I open a web page and there's a little box.
I've got to find the box and type in my little thing and type it right.
I don't want any of that.
I want to be walking to my car, which is a self-driving car, and I want to say, I wonder when the next Warrior game is.
Hey, when's the next Warrior game?
The next Warrior game will be Tuesday at 7 o'clock.
That's what I want. I just want to say it and have the answer appear in my earpiece.
Yeah, it won't be my car, right?
I won't own the car and I'll be happier.
I don't think any of you quite understand How right Klaus Schwab is about not owning things and being happier.
If he's the one who said it, I think he did.
Let me give you a little insight from being rich.
You ready for this? So I've experienced not having money, you know, the first part of my life.
And I've experienced having lots of money.
And one of the things I like most about going on vacation Is what?
What do you think is one of the things I like most about being on vacation?
Getting away from my money.
Because my money bought all these complications.
I've got a car that's breaking down.
I've got 600 pieces of appliances that are not working at my house.
I've got leaks.
I've got shit. I've got mail coming in.
I've got to clean the house.
I've got a dog.
It's all because of money, right?
When I go on vacation, I'm not actually escaping my own money.
It's a vacation from my money.
So if you're telling me that, you know, I want to own a lot of things, like being in my name, because that's what will make me happy, you've never experienced going from poor to rich.
If you've ever gone from poor to rich, you know your shit doesn't make you happy.
You're still going to buy it, because you can, right?
I was watching a video of Andrew Tate buy one or three new Bugattis or something.
He's got some big fleet of expensive cars.
And he looked very happy.
He seemed very happy when he was doing it.
But I think only the buying it and the talking about it makes him happy.
And maybe driving it two or three times.
But then after he gets through his happiness and then is parked with his other Bugattis, does it still make him happy?
Or is it a little bit of work to have maintenance and storage and everything for yet another car?
I don't know. Maybe it does work for him.
He seems to have a good system.
But if you believe that having a lot of stuff makes you happier, I guarantee you it doesn't.
You'll still get them.
I'm not saying I'm going to stop buying things I want.
I mean, I just bought an electric guitar that...
Clearly, I did not need, and I liked it.
I really enjoyed it. Every time I look at it, it makes me happy, but it's also a pain in the ass, right?
It adds a whole bunch of complexity to my life.
All right. Yeah, AI will be everything.
I've got a question about the Snowden and Assange issues, about Assange mostly, but the question is whether they should be pardoned.
Why wouldn't we have a trial?
Is the belief that our justice system is so unfair that we can't have a trial that the whole country watches?
Because that's what I... Yeah, I've seen a lot of yes.
So... Now, I agree with you that our justice system can be biased and not get us the best answers.
But we use it for everything else.
Why would you make an exception for this one thing?
Don't you think the government itself would be on trial?
You know, here's my take.
I don't know the whole details of what Assange and Snowden did.
I haven't really heard the argument from, let's say, whoever wants to prosecute him, the CIA, etc., So, I mean, I've heard the basic argument that it put people at risk and it was theft of materials and stuff.
And then the counter-argument is it was just journalism.
So, I'd like to see this case played out in public.
Now, I get that you don't trust that this specific case would be handled right.
However, I feel like if the whole country is watching, it's a lot harder for anybody to play fast and loose with the rules.
So, as much as I don't want to see somebody put at risk if they have not committed any crimes, I don't know what they have done.
I'm a little hesitant to go full pardon without knowing exactly the whole details of the arguments.
But I'd like to know the arguments.
So you're saying the government on trial would be a closed-door trial.
I'm seeing somebody shouting at me that it would be a closed-door trial.
Do you think it could be?
Do you think that you could put Assange on trial and say, we're going to show some things to, let's say, the jury, but the public can never know these things because they're secret?
Well, if that's the case, then there's no way to have a fair trial, because I think transparency would be pretty important.
Now, that would be interesting.
I would think that that would be a Supreme Court situation, because that would not be equal justice, would it?
I would argue that equal justice requires some amount of transparency for the entire public, not just the people involved in the trial.
But of course there are plenty of cases where you do have to have that privacy.
So, I don't know.
I'm biased toward having the trial.
Because I think it's terribly unfair to Assange if it turns out no crimes were committed.
It's terribly unfair.
But... But he put himself in a position where he was trying to create a public good and put himself at risk.
Would you agree that he knew he was doing that?
That Assange knew he was taking a risk.
He was doing it for the public good.
Maybe his own reasons, too.
And I think this is more of that.
I would like, you know, I hate to put other people at risk.
You know, he should make his own decisions.
But he did make his decision to be in this domain.
And if a little bit more risk on Assange could produce yet more benefit of the kind that even Assange would like us to have, I don't know.
I don't know. It would be real interesting to have the trial.
I understand the argument for just pardoning him.
I totally get it.
But I feel like there's more benefit the country could get by just knowing more about this situation.
All right. The Iran protests, apparently the New York Times is reporting fake news on this.
So Iran has this thing called the Morality Police Unit.
I guess they're the ones that make sure the women are wearing their proper headgear and stuff.
And they were the sparking point that caused the protests, because they arrested some woman and she died in custody, I think is the story.
So the protests are raging, and they started with You know, being against the morality of police, but I think it generalized now to the regime.
So now the protests are as much about the regime as they are about this specific problem.
So what the regime is doing, wisely, is they're saying, oh, oh, now that it's about the entire regime, maybe we could go back and solve that little problem you were complaining about.
You know that morality police problem?
Let's get back to that. Let's not overthrow the whole regime.
Let's just go back and talk to that thing.
We weren't going to talk about it before, but maybe we can talk about it now, because you seem to be protesting so much.
So Iran apparently said they would sort of reconsider or they've suggested that they're going to put this morality police unit on pause or suspend them.
The New York Times, I guess, reported that like it's true.
And I think people who are a little more wise about Iran, including the Washington Post, are reporting it as something they said they'd do, which is a big difference.
Something they say they'll do versus something they'll do.
Big difference. Big difference.
So we'll see if that works out.
But it looks like the regime is pretty worried about their survival, or they wouldn't be giving up anything, would they?
It seems like the regime is pretty hard-nosed about this morality stuff.
I mean, it's pretty central to the whole theme.
I can't see that they would back down on the morality stuff unless they genuinely thought the entire regime could be overthrown.
So we might be closer to a total overthrow.
Now, here's the most interesting story.
It's a few days old, but maybe you didn't see it.
When Iran played the US in the World Cup a few days ago, and the US won, the Iranian protesters cheered the defeat of their own team.
Because they viewed their team as really being a tool of the regime, not really a team for the people of Iran.
And so they were actually chanting and cheering America's victory over an Iranian soccer team.
Did you ever think you'd see that?
And you know how the Iranians like to do the death to chant?
You know, death to America, death to Israel.
You know, it's always death to somebody.
Everybody's chanting, death to somebody.
I just had this image in my head of the Iranian protesters chanting, death to ourselves!
Death to ourselves!
Yay, America! And I thought, who predicted that?
Like, show me somebody who predicted that the Iranian population would be chanting death to ourselves this time.
They didn't literally say that, but there was a sense of it.
Could it be that the combined actions of the several administrations that have had this weird hands-on, hands-off approach to Iran Could it be that it worked?
Could it be that the young population of Iran is so pro-American that, you know, even though the sanctions are a hard touch, I think the Iranian people came to see it as a war against their regime and not against them.
I don't know how that could have been better.
Name me any American outcome, or even Israeli outcome.
Name me a better outcome Then the citizens protesting their own government and being in favor of the United States.
I mean, at least, you know, specifically in terms of the World Cup.
But you have to think that generalizes, right?
They're not going to do that unless they've got some general good feeling about the United States.
And the Iranian protesters are directly asking for US support for the protests.
So... Maybe, maybe just staying the course, putting that consistent pressure on Iran, but not going too far.
Could it be that it was exactly the right play?
I mean, when was the last time you ever heard me say that?
And could it be that it was exactly the right play across multiple administrations?
You know, both Democrat and Republican.
Because I don't think it hurt to have a little Trump tough love in between some Democrat administrations.
I don't know. It looks like it might have been exactly the only thing that could have got us to this place that maybe is a better place.
Maybe. You never know.
All right. There's news out of China...
That manufacturing orders for Chinese manufacturers are down 40%.
Now, this is widely reported.
Manufacturing orders down 40%.
I'm going to call bullshit on that.
Yeah, that sounds like bullshit.
And here's why.
And see if anybody has the same background...
Number one, remember I've got a degree in economics and an MBA, so on economic stuff I'm a little bit better than guessing.
There's a lot of domains in which I'm pretty much guessing, but in economics I'm not totally guessing.
I've got a little bit of insight there.
And I also did a lot of financial reporting for years in my corporate life, so you get a feel about numbers that usually you can call bullshit on stuff Before you know why.
Like you can just look at it and say, no.
I don't know why this number is wrong, but that number isn't wrong.
I mean, that number is wrong. So I saw two different numbers.
One is that something like there's a 21% decrease in U.S. orders or something.
And I would believe a 20-something decrease in business in China.
That feels about right.
But a 40% collapse?
If this were true, and the manufacturing orders for all of China's manufacturing, if that were down 40% suddenly, there wouldn't be any other news.
There wouldn't be any other news.
We would be in a global depression at a scale we've never seen ever.
Am I right? Is there anybody who knows enough about economics?
And, you know, they have enough, let's say, facility with numbers, that that 40% number seems obviously wrong?
Wouldn't you agree? To me, that seems obviously wrong.
Like, way wrong. Now, my...
So I'll make another...
Here's another very outside the mainstream...
outside the mainstream prediction.
My prediction is just the data's wrong.
That's all. My prediction is the data's wrong.
Now, apparently there are multiple entities who are confirming it, you know, it's not just one company with data, but that's not good enough for me.
That number is so obviously wrong, it's really obviously wrong, that There's something that might be affecting all of the reporting.
I don't know what it is.
But there's no way 40% is true.
Do you buy the premise that if that number were true, the whole world economy would have collapsed by now?
It just can't happen that fast.
So, I mean, we're going by feel here.
Right? We're just going by experience and by feel.
My experience and my feel is that number can't be real.
Can't be. I wouldn't want it to be real.
I want us to pull out of China as quickly as possible, but that's faster than possible, in my opinion.
So I don't want to go that fast.
I just want to make sure it's happening.
All right. Yesterday, midday, I was already commenting to friends that Ye was being too quiet.
And I didn't think we could go a day without some new controversy.
Well, he did not disappoint.
So by the end of yesterday, Ye had used Instagram to post a lengthy message in which he said, I'm sort of paraphrasing it here, but he said, this is Ye talking about Elon Musk.
He goes, am I the only one who thinks Elon could be half Chinese?
That's the first sentence.
His first sentence.
Am I the only one who thinks Eli can be half Chinese?
Now, is he insulting China or Chinese people?
Or is he complimenting them?
Let's finish.
He goes, am I the only one who thinks Elon can be half Chinese?
Have you ever seen his pictures as a child?
I have not seen his pictures as a child, but I don't know, does he look Chinese?
Which is hilarious, because it's going to make me look for his pictures as a child.
You know I'm going to look for those pictures now, right?
I have to see it.
Because, you know, I just have to see it now.
And then Ye goes on, take a Chinese genius and mate them with a South African supermodel, and we have an Elon.
And then, if this wasn't bad enough, he goes, they probably made 10 to 30 Elons, and he's the first genetic hybrid that stuck.
And then he goes, well, let's not forget about Obama, and then he makes an Obama joke, like Obama was a hybrid as well.
Now, do you see the pattern?
Do you notice the pattern yet?
So this was the audio that's from my earlier presentation where I talked about the pattern of Ye is picking, you know, whatever is the most outrageous thing you could say and then saying it, but he's also consistently doing the following thing.
He's consistently treating groups like you can talk about them as if they're one group without the obvious knowledge that all the individuals are individual.
Now, he just did it again.
And he just slipped it through.
Because you're thinking about Elon, and you're thinking...
Basically, you're thinking about the accusation that Elon might be half Chinese.
But you also say to yourself, wait a minute.
Did he just say that Chinese people are smarter than average?
He didn't really say that.
But... You know, the sort of Chinese genius reference kind of said it, kind of said it.
Now, what do we do with the fact that, once again, he has treated a group of people like they're one entity?
You know, like the Chinese people are extra smart.
What do you do with that?
Yeah. He's basically already pushed you past the Overton window.
He just treated an entire group of people like they were one thing and you didn't even notice.
Because he's done it to such an extent that now he can just make you think past it and you don't even notice.
You don't even notice.
If you don't think he's making his point, you're missing the show.
He's totally making his point.
That he can say whatever the fuck he wants as long as he's willing to pay for it.
And he's willing to pay for it with his whole career.
So as long as he's willing to pay for it, he gets to be the only person with free speech.
And he's going right at it.
He's going right at the third rail, and he's just standing on it.
And just, like, daring you to question him because he's ready for the fight.
And he actually has the...
He has the high ground argument in a weird way.
It seems completely opposite.
But he is somehow...
Completely unexpectedly taken the high ground, which is, if it's freedom of speech, he can say unpleasant things, if he believes them.
Nobody's ever accused him of lying.
Has anybody ever accused Ye of lying?
We just think we don't like his opinion.
It's a little dangerous.
But so is a lot of free speech.
Pretty dangerous. Now, what did Elon say in response to being accused?
Maybe accused is even the wrong word, because that's like a biased word.
Let's say the suggestion that he's half Chinese.
Well, Elon is, I don't know if you've noticed, he's smart.
So what did Elon say when he was accused of being...
Accused is the wrong word, because then it sounds like I'm saying that that's somehow a bad thing, and that's the opposite of the point.
The point being it would be potentially a good thing.
So the suggestion, he took it as a compliment.
He said, I take it as a compliment.
Is that the right answer?
Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
You know, the thing about...
The thing about Musk that you don't notice, here's more dog not barking stuff.
You know, you always notice when anybody makes a mistake, right?
Just stands out.
The thing you don't notice about Musk is how often he doesn't make a mistake.
Like where other people could have easily stepped in it, and he'll just boop, just misses it.
That when you watch how often he doesn't make a mistake that a smart person could have made, That's where his real genius is.
A little of that in engineering, I guess.
But when you notice how deftly he handles these things, like the way he handled his ex-wife's comment with just the little weird icon, it was just perfect.
Again, there were a hundred ways he could have done that wrong.
But he picked the one way that wasn't wrong.
And he does that fairly consistently.
All right. Were you aware...
All right, how many of you know the following facts?
Tell me, who owns the New York Times?
Go. Who owns the New York Times?
This is a test of general knowledge.
Big family, some people saying.
A big family. Somebody says Murdoch.
Somebody says Mexico.
Somebody says Carlos Sims.
The answer is...
not Bezos, not Sulzberger.
The answer is the richest guy in Mexico.
Carlos Sims.
Now, does he own all of it?
Or like a controlling interest?
Yeah, Carlos Sims.
If you haven't heard of him, he's like the big billionaire, one of the richest guys in the world.
And he owns it. Now, that's the first question.
Carlos Sims owns the New York Times.
Now, I want to see if you can answer the second question.
Who was a famous notable investor who invested in Hunter Biden's entities?
Carlos Sims. Same guy.
So, the same billionaire who owns the New York Times, which is very friendly to Biden, is also investing in Hunter Biden's entities.
Now, can you give me a fact check on that?
I just saw it on social media yesterday, and other people were mocking me for not already knowing that.
But somehow I missed that.
That somehow had slipped by.
Yeah. And now tell me, how many of you did not know of that connection?
Tell me if you didn't know of both of the connections, that the same person owned the New York Times as invested with Hunter.
Some of you knew, but only a few, right?
And somehow that slipped by me.
Here's what you can learn when you spend a little time behind the curtain, as I like to call it.
When you see the news, the news reports what happened, generally.
They try a little bit to tell you why, but they don't get that right.
But sometimes they can at least get right what happened.
The part that they never report is The personal connections and the business connections below the hood.
So if you open up the hood, everything is a different story.
Because you can say, oh, this billionaire runs this politician, but also owns this entity.
And then this politician said something good about this entity.
Oh, now it makes sense.
It's just the politician working for their boss.
So it's a whole different picture as soon as you know who knows who and who's investing with who and all that stuff.
Completely different. Everything you think you know about the news, it's all wrong because of that.
Because you don't know who knows who and who just had coffee with who and who's talking about starting a business with whom and all that.
Who's married to him. Yeah, marriages.
Marriages are a big part of it.
Wall Street Journal, to its credit, did report on the Hunter Laptop story, both before the election.
Credit. Wall Street Journal.
Give them a little sitting ovation.
Credit where credit is due.
We spend a lot of time on this live stream mocking the news organizations.
But in this case, the Wall Street Journal got the correct story at the correct time.
They were not bamboozled and they did not try to fool the country.
So good on them.
My highest praise for just doing the job they're supposed to do.
Now, open up the hood.
Oh wait! What's under the hood?
Murdoch. So it's really a story about one guy.
Right? It's not really a story about the Wall Street Journal.
It's a story about one guy who allowed his publication to write that story.
That's about basically what happened.
But, to his credit, he did allow Real News to come out.
So that was a service to the country.
And here's something that the Wall Street Journal reported.
So this is the editorial board.
And they said, we now know, and know is the key word, So this is the Wall Street Journal saying, we know this.
We're not guessing.
We now know that the Clapper-Brennan claims were themselves disinformation and that the laptop was genuine and not part of Russian operation.
CBS News recently waddled in two years later with a forensic analysis of its own and concluded it is real.
Now, I would like to give a second sitting ovation to the...
To the board at Wall Street Journal for using the word waddled in the sentence.
CBS News recently waddled in two years.
Okay, that was the right word.
Now, let me give you a little writing tip.
This is in my mind because I was just writing this tip somewhere else in my upcoming book.
One of the filters I use for writing Is that if I'm writing a humor piece, first I'll write it just to say what I want to say, and then I'll go back and I'll change the words into the funny versions.
So here you can see instead of CBS News recently entered the conversation, waddled would be the word that you put in if you're trying to make that funny.
Now here's the second part.
If you're not writing a humor piece, and this was not a humor piece, Use just one in like maybe the page.
Just one funny word that sticks out like waddled will make your brain spend a whole bunch more time on their point.
So that one word bought them 40% more attention.
One word. And so that's my writing tip for you.
If you're writing humor, go back and look for all the funny words you could replace with your ordinary words.
If you're writing for a serious point, one good waddle, you know, one good interesting word can really put a little flavor on a good point without detracting it into humor.
So, very good tip there.
And also, by the way, if you'd like to become a better writer, you should read good writers.
The Wall Street Journal is very famous.
Very famous. Damn it.
They're famous.
Get rid of the very. The Wall Street Journal is famous for good writing.
If you want to learn how to write well, read the Wall Street Journal.
All right. But here's my question.
How do Clapper and Brennan ever show their face in public again, now that the Twitter files revelations have come out?
How do they ever appear in public again?
Now, everything they did, as far as I know, is legal, right?
Because lying to the public is legal.
It would be too much of a problem to arrest everybody who lied, so you can't really have a law like that.
So it was probably completely legal.
But can you think of any examples where the things that would be legal for every citizen except somebody who maybe had some job?
That's a thing, right?
Aren't there examples where...
Something is legal for me, but maybe it wouldn't be legal for an ex-person of Congress.
There's talk about limiting Congress from, let's say, doing some kind of lobbying for a few years.
But that wouldn't apply to the rest of us, right?
It would be a law just for a person of a certain job.
Here's a law I would like.
I think that if leadership, not rank and file, but if leadership of our intel agencies run an intentional hoax, even if they're ex-leaders, if they're ex-leaders too, if they run an intentional hoax for the purpose of changing an election outcome, that should be the death sentence.
Now, I'm not recommending anything happen to Clapper and Brennan.
As far as I know, what they did was legal.
And I'm a stickler for the Constitution.
No matter how disreputable it was, no matter how awful it was, and it was as bad as anything I've ever seen, it was legal.
And I'm never going to leave that standard.
If it's legal, you don't touch them.
But we really need to reassess the law.
Let's make a law that says if something like this happens again, it's the death sentence.
Because it's not like regular people.
When your own intel agencies turn on your country, that's got to be the death penalty.
That's not the Department of Agriculture lost the money.
That's not the head of, you know, HUD, you know, expense some things he shouldn't have expensed.
This is the worst thing that anybody could do.
Because, you know, our trust in our system is very importantly connected to trust in our intelligence agencies.
You can't separate that.
So having the heads, not just people who work for intelligence, but having the very heads of them run a hoax against the American people that changed, probably, had an effect on the election outcome, that's as bad as any kind of treason I can imagine, short of actual physical violence.
Yeah, it's a violation of oath, even if they're in office, I think.
So, let me ask you.
How many of you would approve, not retroactively, that's no fair, you can't punish those two guys, because they followed the law, unfortunately, but how many would agree with making that the death penalty if it happened again?
Leadership only, not rank and file.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if treason...
Treason is still the death penalty, right?
That hasn't changed, has it?
I mean, if treason is the death penalty, how is this different?
And to me, it looks like treason.
Now, the difference, of course, is that it wouldn't be treason in favor of a foreign country, but if it's overthrowing an election, it's not that different.
All right. Did you know that there were two Antifa groups that had, until recently, been allowed to operate with abandon on Twitter?
One of them is the Antifa feces group, and the other is the Antifa A urine group.
I'm using the technical names.
And each of them were dedicated toward getting their people to collect their own feces and urine to use in protest and throw at people and leave in places.
So Elon Musk, I guess, banned them.
So if you wondered what is the purpose of Antifa, It's apparently to produce...
So they're not useless. You know, you think of Antifa as, like, not part of capitalism, because what are they producing?
Well, they're not producing any products.
They don't make any iPhones.
But apparently the Antifa people, they do eat food that was purchased with the work of other people, and then when that food that was purchased with the work of other people are put into their bodies, then they can manufacture it into a valuable component, either Antifa feces, Or Antifa urine.
And those two things are valuable commodities and protests as part of the democratic process.
So if you thought that Antifa was worthless, you're so wrong.
They're like little factories for making protest materials, Antifa feces.
Now, if you'd like to get a good jar of Antifa feces for your protest, they don't have a website now.
Because they're off Twitter. Well, they probably have a website.
So I think you could find them.
So it makes a good gift.
If you're looking for a gift for somebody in your family who leans left, and you're thinking, oh, they have everything, what they don't have would be a big jar of Antifa feces to use at their next protest.
And maybe they need that.
So that's something you could do.
Has anybody noticed more racists getting back on Twitter?
I've noticed it a little.
Have you? Like just a little.
But it was like, I felt like it was fleeting and hasn't really affected my consciousness since then.
So what I noticed when Musk first took over is that there were some people who wanted to immediately test the limits.
So some racists said some racist stuff.
Maybe they got kicked off, maybe they didn't, but maybe they got bored.
I don't know. I would say my overall Twitter experience is kinder and gentler.
What would you say?
But the left might say it's because it's people who agree with you that got back on there.
So far, Twitter does not set my stomach on fire like it used to every single day.
My brain would just be on fire from something I saw on Twitter, like, every day.
Usually it was some Trump-related thing.
But that hasn't happened in a long time.
Who has blocked more people, Sam Harris or Scott?
Do you think that you could embarrass me into blocking fewer assholes?
Do you think that there's something you say here about free speech that would make me want to listen to a greater percentage of assholes compared to nice people who have something useful to say?
There's somebody over on YouTube who's trying to shame me into unblocking people that I wanted to block.
No, I wanted to block them.
And you know that I also block my supporters, right?
I block my supporters on Twitter who say I'm finally waking up.
Because you're not my supporter.
That's the last thing I want to hear from you.
So I do block people for saying that.
I don't block them on locals because they're usually joking.
On locals, I know you're joking.
But on Twitter, you're not joking.
So I block those. And by the way, if you do joke about it on Twitter, I'm still going to block you because I can't tell the difference.
Yeah. All right.
I was looking at the Twitter Terms of Service, and I was wondering specifically about Elon Musk's suspending of Ye.
Now, Ye got suspended because of that logo, right?
It looked like the Star of David with a Nazi logo on the inside.
What do you think the logo was supposed to represent?
Interpret the logo in your opinion.
It was a swastika.
Anything else? So you saw some violence, maybe?
Maybe some suggested violence?
But what about the Star of David part?
Was that just to further insult the Jewish community by doing the most offensive mash-up you could possibly do?
Was it art? Some people say it's art.
No? Here's how I interpreted it.
Now, I'm not saying my interpretation is correct, but that's how art works, right?
If you look at art, people interpret it differently.
So I'll tell you my interpretation.
When I saw, if you look at the larger context of what Ye is doing, a Nazi symbol surrounded by a Star of David says to me, That Ye would like to bring together the people who are least likely to ever come together.
That's what it looked like to me.
Now you might say, Scott, that's the stupidest.
But that was how I interpreted it.
That was actually my first impression.
My first impression was it was the opposite of hate.
It was, hey, even the worst people should at least be able to come together.
I'm going to take the two most objectionable things, at least together they're objectionable, not individually, in one case.
And I'm going to make you think about, could the worst, least likely people ever find a way to come together?
Now, if you say to yourself, well, Scott, that couldn't possibly be the message.
He was sitting next to Nick Fuentes.
He's a black rapper who's partnered with Nick Fuentes.
He literally is his logo.
He's the star of David with a swastika.
Now, in a general sense, the comparison there is unfair, I know.
But you see what I'm doing.
So, if my interpretation was that it was a It was a very challenging way to say, we need to figure out how not to be enemies about everything.
That's what it looked like.
Now, Elon Musk interpreted it as a sign of hate.
So he took him off.
And so I wondered, what does the Twitter terms of service say?
Well, did you know that the terms of service of Twitter specifically prohibit hate symbols being in your profile?
Did you know that? You can't put a hate symbol in your profile.
Now, it's not prohibited in your feed, which makes sense, because you could put a hate image in your feed because you're talking about it.
See the point?
That doesn't mean you're necessarily supporting it, because other people tweeted Ye's symbol and they were not kicked off, because they were talking about it.
But if you put it in your profile, you're saying, this is me, right?
I associate with this symbol.
So that's banned. Now, did Ye put his symbol in his profile?
I don't think he did.
Did he? He may have tried.
No? It was only in his feed.
So which Twitter terms of service would apply to that?
None. That I'm aware of.
Well, did it incite violence?
Because inciting violence is your interpretation.
My interpretation was it was a call to unity, even with the people who were the least likely ever to find unity, the number one least likely group to find unity.
That's what I saw.
So why does one person...
Elon Musk, why does his opinion of a symbol that had never existed in that full mash-up form, well, I guess it had existed with the railians, but that's a different story.
Why does one person get to decide that's a hay symbol, where if I had been the head of Twitter, I would have said, no, no, no, that's ambiguous, and it's in the feed, it's not in the profile.
So if it's ambiguous and it's in the feed, terms of service don't touch it.
You say it's not ambiguous?
I told you I interpreted it a different way.
How can you argue it's not ambiguous?
Do you think I'm lying to you?
Do you think that I really didn't interpret it that way?
No, I actually literally did.
So you can't argue that it's not ambiguous.
I just told you I have a different view of it than you do.
Thus proven ambiguous.
Now, you can say that most people don't see it as ambiguous, and that's why Musk could ban it and everybody agreed with him.
I agree with you that most people would not see that as ambiguous.
I agree with that. But it is ambiguous, because I disagree.
So that's a fact.
Yeah, if you buy Twitter, you get to decide the content.
Alright, so here's my bottom line on this.
If you own Twitter, you have more than one master you have to serve.
One master is Twitter.
It's a company and needs to run as an entity that can survive.
But you're also a human being.
You're a citizen of Earth and a citizen of this country.
So you have a different responsibility that's even bigger than your own company, which is to the citizens.
I think Musk made the right citizen decision.
In other words, he saw something that could be hate, that most people interpreted as hate, and he took an anti-hate stand.
And as a human, very good.
Very good. I support Elon Musk as a human being who took a strong and fairly rapid stand against what looked like hate.
As a human being, A+. As a protector of free speech, a little less clear.
So when I said the other day that he fucked up on this decision, Elon, I do think it's wrong on a freedom of speech level.
How many agree with my take that he was wrong on a freedom of speech level?
A number of people agree.
All right. Now, do you think freedom of speech, in this case, should have overridden what I think is a genuine good intention to keep people safe?
Do you think freedom of speech should have been the higher standard?
I think reasonable people can say, yes, it should be the higher standard.
So I respect that opinion, and I'm not going to disagree with it.
But I'm going to say that I also respect somebody who would put humanity above a concept.
I respect anybody who would put a...
I just might have...
I might have chosen differently.
I might have. But I do respect that opinion on a human level, but I don't think it's technically the right freedom of speech decision.
Then I would be especially happy if some day Ye clarifies what he was up to and it turned out to be an acceptable clarification and then he was let back on.
Then I think the loop would be complete and I would be happy with everybody's performance.
I'd be happy with everybody.
I'd say, okay, you did what you thought you needed to do.
You had good intentions.
We fought it out.
And here we are. And maybe we learned something in the process.
That's the most optimistic thing I can say.
And there's not much else going on.
Can we get some new news?
Please. Could we have something else going on?
Well, Yeh did mention loving everybody, yes.
But he didn't complete the circuit and say how loving everybody can be made compatible with the things he's been saying and tweeting.
He hasn't quite done that.
Intentionally.
I think intentionally, because he would know how to do that, of course.
Someone should announce for the presidency.
How many of you think that Trump can still win?
How many of you think Trump can win?
I would say that he's not demonstrating a will to win.
If he were demonstrating a will to win, I think that I would say, well...
You can never count him out and no obstacle is too big.
If he survived, grab him by the pussy and all the legal challenges and two impeachments.
If he survived all of that and he still had the fight in him, then I wouldn't count him out.
But the evidence suggests he doesn't have the will.
For whatever reason. I don't think he has the family support either, and that probably makes a difference.
So I don't think he has the will to push through it.
I think he might be able to get the nomination, but he doesn't have any chance of winning in a general.
I don't think. That's my prediction.
Now, if he runs in the primary, I don't think DeSantis will run against him, even though DeSantis could beat him in the primary.
Because DeSantis would be so wounded by the fight that, I don't know, it would be like a, what do you call it, a Pyrrhic victory.
The kind where you win, but in the long run you wish you hadn't because you got so crippled in the winning that you end up dying in the long run.
So I guess the real question is whether Trump goes ahead and gets into the primary.
What do you think? Do you think Trump will actually run in the primary all the way through to nomination?
It would be his character to not quit, wouldn't it?
It would be within his character to not quit.
And it would be good for true social, probably.
So probably just for his business interests, he probably has to play it.
So I think he's going to get into the...
Primaries. Now, here's another wild card.
We imagine Trump at full speed, but when we think of DeSantis, we think of him running his state.
When you think of those two things, you think of Trump winning easily, right?
Trump at full strength versus mostly we've seen a governor at full strength that's just a governor.
But what we haven't seen is DeSantis going full strength at Trump.
What would that look like?
Because I don't think anybody's ever done a good job of going after Trump.
Because the left goes after him with hoaxes.
And the right says, okay, that's just a hoax.
Okay, that's just fake news.
Okay, that's just leaving out context.
So when the left goes after him, you just dismiss it because it's just silly.
They're usually missing the point.
They're lying. But if DeSantis goes after Trump...
It's going to be on solid Republican, you know, argument.
And that we haven't seen.
We haven't seen any conservative make the good argument against Trump.
But DeSantis could, I think he could bring it home.
So you don't know what kind of impact that would have.
Here's the other thing you don't know.
What kind of advisers DeSantis would have.
Because if you're looking at DeSantis, his native ability is very high.
But you also don't know who's advising him.
If his advisors also go up to the presidential level, he gets maybe even better advisors.
You don't know what that turns him into.
You could turn into anything.
I don't know. It would be...
I think it would be a disservice to the people of Florida if DeSantis ran, because they're pretty happy with their governor, and it would take him out of the job for a long time.
So, Trump's advisers have been either bad recently, or he doesn't have any, or he's ignoring them.
Yeah. So, we'll see.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, is there anything I've missed?
Any big story that's happening that I forgot to talk about?
I don't think so.
The World Cup?
Well, what about it?
U.S. lost, right?
To... Who did we lose to?
We lost to...
Netherlands, the Dutch, yeah.
Did you watch the US play the Netherlands?
The US looked like a high school team playing a professional team.
Every time the U.S. team would have the ball and you'd say, oh, here's the part in soccer where the U.S. team makes these clever passes and beats their defender and does something you didn't even think was possible and then they make an attack on the goal.
And then you'd watch the Dutch just take the ball away from them.
Like they weren't even playing somebody at the same level.
You saw that too, right?
As soon as you turned it on, you said to yourself, uh, these don't look like the same level at all.
Not at all. North Carolina substations attack.
So there's a story about a bunch of power substations in North Carolina that were attacked as if it were some organized attack.
But, I don't know, that sounds more like individuals...
Yeah, that sounds like drunk rednecks or something.
That doesn't sound like the beginning of a revolution to me.
Uh... Uh-oh.
Kyle Rittenhouse is going viral after asking if Twitter files will reveal any hidden censoring against him.
You think Kyle Rittenhouse was censored?
Or accounts talking about him.
I don't know.
I didn't notice it.
I saw massive tweeting on his...
you know, in his favor.
You didn't see massive pro-Rittenhouse tweeting?
Like, it was everywhere.
Like, I didn't see any...
So I'm not saying it didn't happen, because what we know now suggests that it did.
It suggests that every major topic probably had a little bit of that problem.
But I didn't notice it.
Oh, you were suspended for tweeting free Kyle?
No, you weren't.
No one was suspended for hashtag free Kyle.
That didn't happen.
So don't tell me that happened, because that didn't happen.
So I'm going to tell the locals people something dog and tree related after I get off of YouTube, because I can't tell the YouTube people...
I give the locals people their subscribers, so I give them the secret stuff that so far they have not shared outside of locals.
Which, by the way, do you know how amazed I am?
So this will amaze you, YouTube people.
So I've got over 6,000 subscribers on the Locals platform.
And I often ask them not to tell anybody the things that I'm telling them.
And so far, I don't think it's ever happened.
I can't think of one example where I told somebody on Locals, you know, don't tell anybody, and that it actually got on Twitter.
I haven't seen it once. And I am so impressed.
I am so impressed about that.
The odds of that are just shocking.
And I think I have sort of the perfect size of a subscriber base because it's still very personal.
You know, I see the same characters and we interact.
If it were 100,000, I don't think it would be nearly as fun.
