Episode 1961 Scott Adams: Twitter Is Still Fun, It's A Week Before Christmas And Lots To Talk About
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Canadian billionaires double suicide?
NYT Ukraine propaganda
Suspended Twitter journalists
World renowned liar, Adam Schiff
Dating apps vs. young men
Female reciprocity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Not bad either. And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that no one's ever seen before, all you need is a cupper, a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day thing makes everything better, except the World Cup if you don't like soccer.
But it might make that better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go! Oh, yeah.
Yeah. You, if you're not a member of the local subscription service, you miss the Dirty Sip that happened earlier.
The dirty sip was completely feral, it was wet, it was nasty, and it was perfect.
But for the regular public, we just do the standard simultaneous sip, and that's good too.
That's good too. The World Cup is on literally right now, the same time I went live.
Zero to zero, it's one minute in.
It's Argentina versus France.
Now, I'm quite aware that many of my viewers could not care less about soccer.
But I'm going to make a little pitch why this one's different.
First of all, it's the finals.
It's the World Cup.
It's the biggest sporting event in human civilization.
It happens to have two of the best players of all time on opposite teams.
Lionel Messi, The now aging superstar, best player of all time, probably.
Maybe, not maybe, he's in his last World Cup, and he's leading in goalscored.
Well, actually, he's tied with the other guy, Mbappi.
I don't know if I pronounced his name right.
So France has this guy, Mbappi, who's like 23, and he's up against the best that's ever played, who's 37, his last one.
And they're both fighting for the Golden Boo Award.
Now the Golden Boo is the player who's the best player in the biggest tournament of the biggest sport in human civilization.
In other words, whichever one of the two of them win this, there's nothing higher in human endeavors.
I mean, you'd have to go to the Nobel Prize to find something that's similar to this.
And they're neck and neck.
Five goals apiece.
The tiebreaker is assists.
Messi's won ahead in assists, but if they tie in assists and they tie in goals, the tiebreaker is how many minutes they played.
Which way do you think it goes?
Do you think the tiebreaker is who played the most minutes or who played the fewest?
Which way?
It's the fewest.
Because whoever played the fewest scored the most goals in the smallest amount of time.
Do you see a problem with that method?
Well, he's only 21, somebody says.
I read 23, though.
Do you see a problem with that?
It's going to put the coach in an awkward position, right?
The coach of both teams.
Because they might have to take out their best player so that their best player wins the golden boot But in order to make their best player win the golden boot, they might have to take out their best player.
So he plays fewer minutes.
That's like the worst system I've ever heard in my life.
The coach is actually going to have to choose between giving Lionel Messi, maybe, maybe, we don't know this, but it could come down to this, choose between giving Lionel Messi the greatest player of all time.
His just desserts and his last one.
Or winning the game.
Or winning the game. Those might be their two choices.
Oh my God, I would not want to make that choice.
Wow. But because of soccer, it'll probably come down to penalty kicks, which will...
In American culture, that makes the whole thing ridiculous.
Now, I'm going to give you one more...
One more minor argument, just hold on, I'll be done, of why even if you don't like soccer, you should watch a little bit of this.
And here's why. It's the best players in the world, and normally if you see the best offensive player try to score a goal against the best defensive players, you know what happens?
The defensive players win almost every time.
Because the best player in the world can't even get past the best defender.
You know that, right? You can take the best players and they can't get past a defender who's in place.
With maybe two exceptions.
And those two are plagued.
If you haven't seen Lionel Messi, one of the shortest players I think in soccer, going right through the best defenders in the world like they've never played soccer before, the other best players can't do that.
There are only a few people who have ever been able to do it, to just like walk around somebody who's right in front of them like they're not even there.
You have to see it, right?
Because here's why you don't like soccer, if you don't.
If you don't like soccer, it's because you turned it on, and you saw a bunch of people trying to score, and then they were easily stopped by the other team, right?
Hey, he's got the ball.
Oh, they took it away. Okay, now he's going to the goal.
Well, okay, they took it away.
And that's all it is.
Soccer is 99%.
Hey, it looks like he's going to...
No, he's not doing anything.
It looks like a good run.
No, the defense got it.
And then you watch Messi.
So just watch the one player.
Don't watch the whole game. Just watch one player.
Watch what happens when he touches the ball.
It's not soccer.
He's not even playing the same game.
So that's what you have to see.
Because this will be the only time, maybe in your lifetime, maybe the only time you'll get to see the best player who ever lived at the biggest game and the biggest moment that's ever existed for this.
So watch greatness.
Don't watch it for soccer.
Don't watch it for soccer, if that's not your thing.
Just watch that one player. Figure out what's his number.
Who knows Messi's number?
I don't know why I don't know that.
You'll see it in the comments.
All right, enough of that. I call this next segment, At Least I Don't Live in Canada.
He's number 10. Alright, look for number 10 and just watch him.
You will be blown away.
It's just not like soccer.
Alright, at least I don't live in Canada.
Here's a real story from today.
So a few years ago, 2017, there was two billionaires, you know, a couple, who were discovered dead at home, and here's the description of how they were discovered.
In December of 2017, a realtor giving a tour of the couple's Toronto mansion around midday discovered their bodies.
Fully dressed, beside their indoor basement swimming pool, they were semi-seated side by side with belts tied around their necks and attached to the railings of the indoor pool.
And the police ruled it double suicide.
They were found with belts tied around their necks, fully closed, side by side, with the other side of the belt attached to their pool equipment there.
And so the police said, well, this doesn't look suspicious.
This is obviously a double suicide.
Because, you know, I don't know if you've ever planned a double suicide.
But a really good way to go is to strangle yourselves with belts while you're sitting next to each other.
I guess that was their idea.
A couple of billionaires decided, hey, let's strangle ourselves with belts while we're sitting next to our basement pool.
And we'll see how it goes first, all right?
Start. How you doing over there?
I'm doing okay. It's going to take a while.
I think I'm almost there.
Are you close? Let's try to time this.
I mean, seriously?
You know, we sometimes criticize the quality of police work in this country.
You've probably heard some people maybe complain a little bit about You know, the little errors or maybe a little corruption or something in the police?
Well, say it with me at the same time, unless you're Canadian.
You can repeat this at the same time.
At least I don't live in Canada.
That's all, just to make yourself feel better.
Sorry, Canada, we love you.
We love you, Canadians, but your government is a source of mockery for us.
It's not that ours is so good.
It's not like I can throw stones at my glass house.
But, hey, at least I don't live in Canada.
At least if I'm discovered with a belt around my neck next to my indoor pool.
I don't have one, but if I had one.
It's good to know that the police will solve that mystery.
Looks like they killed themselves.
Well, the New York Times has a long article which I found quite interesting, but who knows what's true anymore.
Can we agree? I have to say this before every Ukraine statement.
Can we agree that 100% of news out of Ukraine is sketchy and propaganda?
All good on that?
So when I tell you what the New York Times said, you don't need to interrupt me and say, Scott, don't believe the New York Times...
Everybody knows that.
Like, that is...
that is...
stipulated. Yes, it's stipulated.
All right, but anyway, here's what the New York Times reports.
That the soldiers were poorly trained, had only shot weapons a few times, Didn't have many bullets.
They were sent over there with no training, no food.
They had maps from the 60s.
They were shelling their own people.
Apparently, the vaunted Russian cyber attacks on Ukraine.
Turns out Russia does not have a vaunted cyber attack group, apparently, because they couldn't do shit.
So remember when you thought, oh, Russia's going to take down all of Ukraine with their computering?
They're going to be hitting those keyboards and they're going to crash all the Ukraine.
Turns out, none of that was true.
It was all bullshit.
Now you're saying they did, meaning that they had some successes.
Overall, it didn't make a difference.
Overall. Would you agree?
Are you fact-checking me on that?
You're saying don't believe the New York Times.
Well, I haven't seen any reports that Ukraine was...
Ukraine was greatly disadvantaged by the cyber attacks.
It looks like maybe Russia doesn't have that much capability.
So, let's see, what else?
They had no command communications, you know, terrible command structure.
It would take 72 hours to get approval to attack something.
So, did you wonder why the Ukrainians didn't lose air supremacy?
Has anybody wondered about that?
Wasn't that like the biggest mystery?
It's like, are you really telling me that Russia doesn't have air supremacy over Ukraine?
Well, it turns out they could have.
In other words, they had the assets that they should have, but they were so incompetent they couldn't put it together.
And it would take them so long to attack something that the Ukrainians would just move their planes.
And then the Russians would attack Two days late.
So they'd bomb where the assets were two days ago.
They had such poor, what would you call it, logistics and command and control, and what's the other word where you can see the battlefield?
What would that be called?
Operational knowledge or something?
Recon? Recon?
Intel? Yeah, the recon and their intel were apparently terrible.
So not only did Russia not control the sky, but they couldn't even see what was on the ground, which is weird.
Are you telling me they didn't have satellites and spy planes?
So maybe you should doubt this part of the story, but that's what we're being told.
Operational awareness? Situational awareness?
Okay, all of those things.
They couldn't correct when they were making mistakes.
They had terrible battlefield strategy, and we have more evidence that Putin was entirely lied to or shut off from good information from his subordinates.
And here's the funny part.
Do you know why the Russian military is not prepared, but Putin thought that they were?
Is there an obvious reason for that?
Putin thought he had a solid military.
Turns out it was just completely gutted and falling apart.
It's because all the money that Putin was putting into the military was being stolen.
So Putin thought he was putting a lot of money into his military, and when he asked his generals how it was going, what do you think they told him?
Did the generals say, you know, to be honest, all that money you put into...
My military got stolen.
So we actually don't have any tanks, nobody's been trained, and if you start a war, we don't have any bullets.
Do you think that they told Putin that?
Probably not. See, here's a little management advice for you.
If somebody comes in and the manager says, how's it going?
And the subordinate says, well, to be honest, it's not going well.
And then the manager kills you.
And they put somebody else in.
He said, all right, how's it going?
And the new guy says, it's really hard to solve this problem.
We're a little underfunded.
And honestly, it's not working out at all.
So he kills them.
Third guy, replacement comes in.
Manager says, how's it going?
Third guy says, great.
Yeah, nailing it.
Everything's going great.
Oh, my God, could we win a war?
Oh, my God. You could start a war with anybody.
Anybody. We are so ready for war.
We just want a war. Could we please have a war?
We have so many bullets.
I wouldn't know what to do with all the bullets.
We've got a storage problem.
All of our high-tech expertise and our cyber stuff, I mean, we're wrestling with capabilities.
Don't kill me. Please don't kill me.
Don't kill me. And then Putin listens to that and he goes, finally, I've got some good management.
This guy's killing it.
That's exactly what I'm looking for.
I'm looking for putting some money into it and getting results.
You, I'm promoting you to four-star general.
You're in charge of everything now.
Good work for you.
That's exactly what happened.
Like, that's the hyperbolic version.
That's actually what happened.
Let me summarize. It was a Dilbert problem.
It was literally a Dilbert problem.
It was people who couldn't talk honestly to their boss.
That's it. That one problem is all of their problems.
Like, every problem they have is really just that one problem.
They couldn't tell the truth to the boss without getting killed.
Now, to me, that seems like the fatal flaw of dictators.
I feel as though Chairman Xi in China is having exactly the same problem.
What do you think? Do you think Xi is getting honesty from his people?
That's a big problem. Now, of course, we've been watching all of the corruption and horribleness in the United States, but what's different about it here?
What's different about the United States and our massive corruption that seems to touch every part of our society?
We're fucking digging it out.
We're like crazed, feral animals.
We're like, is that corruption over there?
Right? We're fucking ripping it out by the root.
Elon Musk spent $44 billion to make a point.
Americans, we will fucking kill you if you do that to us.
We will stop at nothing to rip you out of your job and fucking get you out of there and fix it.
So Americans have this productive self-destruction, I'm coming for you, you better get out of my fucking way if you're going to do this just continuous attitude.
So that we can break and fix at the same time.
Break it and fix it.
Break it and fix it. So we're continually breaking, destroying, reinventing, breaking, destroying.
Whereas the Russians are just, is something wrong?
Everything's fine? Okay, I don't have to do anything, right?
Because everything's fine?
There's no way that that can compete.
There's no way that the dictators can compete with our perpetually self-destructive, productive system.
We have a system that will beat their system in the long run every time.
Because their system will always fail because you can't tell the truth to the person who makes the decisions.
Every time. There's no way to fix that.
Is there? It's just a problem with...
I suppose if you had some amazing dictator who was really more about the people than himself, but I don't see that ever happening.
Anyway, it's hard for us, I think it's hard for Americans in particular, to see when things are going right.
Because we're critics by nature.
Maybe everybody is, but somehow our system supports it better.
And we're always going after each other, and we're going after every problem we see, and we do it in public.
We fight it in public.
It's like a continuous cage match.
But here's a little thing I tell you all the time.
There's a secret...
That America consistently uses that we don't call out often enough.
And the secret is this.
If we can't agree on what to do, we can find a way to agree who made the decision.
That's the magic of our system.
Because if your problem is trying to agree, you can never solve that.
You'll never solve abortion.
We're not going to be on the same side.
So, abortion is the best example.
Abortion is the ultimate life and death question, right?
It's the ultimate life and death question.
I mean, you can't get more severe in your life and death questions than that.
Now, of course, that's the whole point.
Some people say it's not a life.
But that's what makes it a topic.
Now, have you noticed that the country has not torn itself together over that question?
They have not. And the only reason is that we can hate the decision as long as we respect that it was made within a system that has to deal with tough questions, and it just has to make a decision.
So as long as you respect, let's say, the Supreme Court, you can put up with a decision you just do not like.
Now, of course, there was great protests and stuff when Roe v.
Wade was modified, shall we say.
But has the country been overthrown?
No. Because I think that the left hates the decision, and then everybody complains about the legitimacy of the court, but it's not real.
I don't think that's real.
I think that the average...
Oh, Messi's getting ready to shoot.
Okay, the best player in the world is going against a goalkeeper, and it's a set shot, and of course it's going in.
Lionel Messi just took the lead to win the Golden Boot in the biggest competition in the history of civilization.
And of course he made it.
There wasn't really... By the way, if you're a goalkeeper, if you're a goalkeeper, and you look up and you see Lionel Messi looking at that ball, getting ready to kick a set piece...
Does Scott believe in America?
Or does he want to change?
Believing in America is wanting continuous change.
That's my macro point.
Believing in America is believing in a continuous process of destruction and reinvention.
So yes, I believe in America.
The other reason that Argentina versus France in the World Cup is special is that they play beautiful.
There's two teams that have a beautiful style of play.
Just for that alone, it's worth watching.
All right. You know, there wasn't much happening today, but a lot of it was funny on Twitter.
All right, so here's the thing that happened on Twitter.
You all know Larry Elder, right?
Conservative. Larry Elder tweets, If Adolf Hiller, Mao Zedong, and Elon Musk were walking down the street and you gave an American lefty a gun with two bullets, he'd put both in Elon Musk.
Now, Elon Musk responded to this tweet.
That the lefty would put two bullets in Elon Musk.
Elon Musk says, and missed both times.
And missed both times.
Which is a very funny lefty.
A joke on a lefty.
All right. If you gave them a gun, they still couldn't hit their target.
But then it gets funnier because fact check me that Elon Musk's mother is May, right?
May Musk? That's the name of his mother, right?
And May Musk saw the Larry Elder tweet that was talking about putting bullets in her son and demanded that he be removed from Twitter.
So now, Elon Musk's mother It was weighing in on Twitter management, saying that Larry Elder should be removed for a joke.
And the joke, the nature of the joke was pro-Elon Musk.
You know, Larry Elder just put it in a funny way, but any reasonable interpretation of that Is that Larry Elder was pro-Musk and anti-the left, but his mother, you know...
Again, in the same way I defended Elon Musk when he went a little extreme when his child was endangered, and I allow that.
If your child is endangered and you get a little extreme for a little while, okay.
Okay. And if you're Elon Musk's mother...
And you see a joke that involves doing something bad to your son.
Even though it's a joke, can we allow her reaction was fine?
Can we allow that?
Yeah, right. Yeah, mom's reaction was right on point.
Mom should actually act.
And she did. So I respect that.
And then I respect this. Elon Musk responds to his mom asking for him to cancel somebody on Twitter.
And he just says, it's fine.
It's fine. Is that the perfect adult son talking to his mother today?
Like, that captured every adult son talking to their mother, doesn't it?
It's fine. It's fine.
I love that.
So, you already know that Musk ran a poll on Twitter to ask if he should reinstate the banned journalists who had mentioned or pointed to information about his location.
And 59 said, read and state them now, so I guess most of them are back.
Aaron Rupar is back.
So Rupar is back.
But here's the funny part.
So Keith Olbermann started tweeting from an account that he uses for dog rescue stuff.
So to his credit, Have I ever taught you that if you can't say something good about your critics, maybe you're not being objective?
If it's true that Keith Oldman has a second Twitter account that is dedicated to rescuing dogs, well, okay.
I like that about him.
Can I be allowed to say that my greatest critic has a good point about him if he's rescuing dogs?
But of course it's being characterized as tweeting from his dog's Twitter account, which is way funnier than what it actually is, which is a dog rescue account.
So Olbermann is not back.
There's nothing funnier than the fact that Musk didn't bring Olbermann back.
And then Musk mocks him on Twitter for tweeting from...
I think Musk says something like, there's nothing funnier than Olbermann tweeting from his dog's account.
Now again, that's not exactly what was happening.
It wasn't his dog's account, it was a rescue dog account.
But it's much funnier if you say it that way.
Tweeting from his dog's account.
Oh my God.
And then I guess this Washington Post tech reporter, Taylor Lorenz, got suspended and she's not sure why.
But she's a famous doxer, alleged, right?
Alleged that it doesn't make sense if it's public.
So she's doxed people, got caught for it.
I don't know. I have mixed feelings.
I have mixed feelings.
On one hand, You know, freedom of speech is more important than anybody's personal beef.
So you don't want to see a billionaire using his personal situation to ban something akin to free speech, but not really because it's a private company.
So, I have mixed feelings.
My mixed feelings are that banning these two individuals is just funny.
So, I support it because it's funny.
Not because they did something that deserved it.
I mean, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.
That's subjective. But I definitely support it from the perspective that it's funny.
Now, to me, the perfect situation would be that he eventually reverses them.
Maybe in a week or something.
Because I think that they should have a right to have their voices heard in the dominant way that people communicate in their business.
So, you know, maybe it's just sort of a funny time out where they get a little extra attention, you get a little extra attention, and nobody's really hurt by it, right?
A few weeks off of Twitter is going to be good for you.
In fact, Elon Musk tweeted that.
Taking some time off from Twitter is probably good for your health.
Have you ever seen anybody own a product that he's trying to monetize and tell you maybe you should spend less time with it?
I mean, who does that?
I mean, every part of what he says is at least funny on some level.
Like, he never says anything that's not funny on some level if you struggle with it.
All right. So that's hilarious.
But even I would support bringing them back.
And as you know, Olbermann has been brutal to me.
But he deserves a platform.
He deserves a platform.
Musk says that Twitter has removed the ability to see which device a tweet comes from.
So you wouldn't know if it came from Android or an iPhone.
Now, are you happy about that?
That feels like a good change, doesn't it?
Because you feel a little bit safer.
The point is that anything that identified your device could be used to identify you, I guess.
So it's just a small little fig leaf or a little extra privacy.
I'm not sure if anybody's ever really private.
But it feels good.
Feels good. It's directionally correct.
What do you say? It might be dumb in terms of whether it makes any difference.
But it's a directionally correct signaling, you know, the right frame of mind kind of thing.
I like that. Even if it's not, you know, super important.
But... Correct me if I'm wrong, but watching the journalists on the left treat Musk's children as if they're expendable, which is what I saw.
Did you read it that way?
That the journalists who were directly or indirectly doxing Musk's location, once they knew that his children would be put at risk, because that's real.
I mean, of course his children would be at risk.
Once they knew that, that never bothered them.
Did you see anybody on the left say, you know, this is really dangerous.
You don't put children in danger.
I didn't see anybody do that.
The most obvious human reaction to it would be, well, let's make sure we protect the children.
You know, whatever you adults are doing, let's keep the kids out of this, and this is too close to danger to the kids.
But I feel like they cemented their brand as the child endangerment party.
And the Republicans have sealed their brand.
Now, Musk is not a Republican.
But, you know, in the larger context of all the other stories, I feel like we now have a very clear parent party and a child endangerment party.
The child endangerment party is very consistent.
Very consistent.
Alright. Speaking about free speech, Adam Schiff, the most famous liar in the Western world, tweeted, Elon Musk calls himself a free speech absolutist to justify turning a blind eye to hatred and bigotry on Twitter.
But when journalists report unfavorable news, they are banned without warning.
The devotion to free speech is apparently not that absolute.
But the hypocrisy is.
That's Adam Schiff, the world's most renowned liar.
How many lies were in this one tweet?
That's one short tweet.
How many lies? I counted two?
Let's call them out.
He says that Musk calls himself a free speech absolutist to justify turning a blind eye to the hatred and bigotry.
Do you think that Musk...
Do you think that Adam Schiff can read the inner thoughts of Elon Musk and see the never-expressed opinion that the real point of it all is so that there can be more hatred and bigotry on Twitter?
So Adam Schiff is saying that Elon Musk's real goal is to get some extra, you know, hatred and bigotry on Twitter.
That is the most ridiculous lie.
So that's one lie.
And then he goes, when journalists report unfavorable news, they are banned.
Is that what happened?
Was pointing to the location where his children could be endangered by that information, was that unfavorable news?
Well, I suppose it was unfavorable news.
All right, I'm told something's going to happen.
I guess I'm watching on a delay.
Oh, there we go.
Argentina 2-0.
All right. I'm sorry if I'm ruining for you.
If anybody has this recorded, I guess I should apologize.
But there's no way you're not going to know that they scored.
Neil, I don't think you keep that secret.
All right. Well, it might be over.
2-0 in the World Cup.
That might be enough. Probably.
All right. Now that you know that Twitter was a biased machine, what do you think about Google search and YouTube and Facebook?
Do you think if somebody dug in there they'd find exactly the same behavior?
Maybe? Exactly the same behavior?
Well, here's a hint.
Joel Pollack was talking about...
Breitbara had an article The other day, talking about Trump did a video in which he did a direct, specific, unambiguous disavowing of anti-Semitism and Nick Fuentes.
Said it directly, no ambiguity, no hesitation.
Boom. I totally reject all of this.
What did the left say?
Why did it take you so long?
I don't mind that comment.
I don't mind criticisms that are accurate.
Why'd it take you so long?
But what do I always say about that?
What do I always say about the why'd you take so long criticism?
Everything good should have happened faster.
Everything. Everything good could have and should have happened faster.
There's no exception. It's like the universal criticism of anything good.
It's like you've run out of bad things about it, so now I'm saying, oh yeah, it's good, but could have been sooner, like everything could have.
What couldn't have been sooner?
I can't think of anything.
All right. But, did you know that if you were to search for that Breitbart story about Trump disavowing anti-Semitism, that Google search would not give it to you?
It just won't give it to you.
So, the most important update to a very important headline story, Google hid.
And they did it obviously, they did it unambiguously, and you could just check for yourself.
Now, I think it's related to the fact that they suppressed Breitbart in general.
So they've got their little argument that Breitbart did X bad things according to them, so they can suppress them forever, I guess.
Even if they break important news.
Doesn't matter. So, I don't know if DuckDuckGo is better.
I can't confirm that.
Alright. Google's more influential than Twitter.
Is that true? Google is more influential than Twitter.
That could be a jump ball.
Twitter's smaller, by far, but they seem to influence the influencers more than...
Google influences the public, and Twitter influences the influencers who influence the public.
So I think Twitter is more about the narrative, and Google is more about just hiding stuff.
Does that make sense?
Google is hiding and surfacing different stuff, which probably has the effect of creating a narrative, but it's because they're surfacing people who've already created the narrative because they were already on Twitter.
So I have a feeling that Twitter is the tail that wags the Google search indirectly.
Yeah, and of course Google is playing with the COVID information as well.
So, that's shocking.
Here's the most predictable thing in the world.
Now that pretty much everybody from the medical community to addicts on the street know that various psychedelics from LSD to MDMA to psilocybin from mushrooms, that they probably have an amazing therapeutic mental health benefit.
It's becoming more and more clear.
So what would you do if you were big pharma and you saw that it totally works and it's free?
It's not free, but it's practically free.
Like a hit of LSD, anybody can afford.
Unlike healthcare, anybody can afford a hit of LSD. I'm not recommending it, by the way.
If anybody's watching this, I don't recommend illegal drugs.
Just to be clear, I would never recommend you take an illegal drug.
I don't do that.
But people were, and they had access to it, and it probably helped a lot of people.
So what do you think they're going to do?
Well, apparently they've shown their hand.
They're going to create...
Improved versions, so they'll start with the fact that these various psychedelics work, and then they'll make the approved version, and then what will happen to the illegal versions?
They will stay illegal.
So that they can tell you that the illegal versions will kill you, but they've made an approved legal version that they've tested in their oh-so-believable tests, and this is the safe one.
They're going to steal from you the most important medical asset in the history of human civilization.
And they're going to steal it from you, right in front of you.
And they're going to make it their own, and then they're going to charge you $1,000 a dose.
And we're watching it happen right in front of us.
And there's probably nothing you can do.
Well, I suppose you could always just have illegal drugs.
But... Now, we're America.
So there is a certain transparency to this, isn't it?
Like you can just read the story, and you know the story, right?
There's not much mystery to it at this point.
So here we are.
We're Americans, and we complain like crazy.
Can we change this?
I don't know. This is going to be a tough one, because the pharma industry is pretty powerful.
They've got the news industry in their pocket.
But we might end up working with the cartels just to beat our own...
Oh my God, that's real.
Do you realize I'm going to have to start using the Mexican cartels for my health care?
Like actually? Like actually not joking?
I'm going to look at the...
I'm going to look at Big Pharma...
And they're offering, and I'm going to look at the Mexican cartels and the product that they're offering.
Which one am I going to take?
I'm going to take the cartels product, probably.
Now, I don't think that they do a lot with psychedelics.
I don't think they're making money on that, so this is hyperbole.
But I'm not wrong that if you got your weed from the cartel, And you got your vaccination from Big Pharma, which one did you a favor?
I don't know.
I actually don't know.
Like, legitimately, I can't tell the difference.
So if you say that the medical community is better than the cartels, I would say that's not demonstrated.
Done. Talk psychedelics.
I'm out. You're mad at me for talking about psychedelics?
On what basis?
You're disagreeing with the entire medical community and everybody who hates the medical community.
You're disagreeing with the entire world.
Fentanyl's the problem, not the psychedelics.
Paul Graham had a funny tweet.
If you don't know Paul Graham, he's one of the gods of the startup world.
So considered one of the smartest people who knows about tech and that world.
So you have to know how smart he is to understand the tweet.
And he says, I used to think...
Oh, he's talking about the tweets...
That he sees a lot on Twitter.
So people use this form of a tweet.
They say, I used to think, whoever the person is, was smart.
Then I discovered that he disagrees with me about whatever the issue is.
And I realized he couldn't be smart because no one who disagrees with me about this political issue, whatever it is, could be smart.
And then I was asked on Twitter if I could come up with a name for this behavior.
The behavior is, I used to think you were smart, but now that you disagree with me on this one thing, obviously I was wrong and you're dumb.
What would you call that?
So I called it Narcissistic Loser Think, because I don't think anybody writes that tweet unless they're a narcissist.
Let us look at the tweet again, and you tell me if it could be anything but a narcissist.
Now, if you had a problem with somebody's opinion, What would be the most standard way to approach it?
I don't like your political opinion on this thing.
Standard way to approach it.
Oh, well, you may have forgotten this point, or you seem to be undervaluing this variable, or were you aware of X, or have you seen this new study?
Those are the sort of things an honest, normal, mentally healthy person would say.
If you're a narcissist, what's the most important part of the conversation?
If you're a narcissist and you find out that one of the smartest people in the philosophical, technical space disagrees with you, Do you say to yourself, hey, there's some kind of data or factual difference we have, or maybe I could learn something about the way he thinks, being that he's noted as one of the smarter people you could ever hear?
No. They assume that the problem is him.
They assume the problem is him.
It's not even the argument.
It's got to be him. So he was brilliant up until that point, But then suddenly he stopped being brilliant and there's nothing we can learn from him.
It just happened one day on that one topic.
How could that be anything but a narcissist?
Because a narcissist needs to tell everybody in public that they're smarter than the smartest person, which is the point.
This complaint, you know, I used to think you were smart, but then you disagreed with me and said, no, I know you're not.
That's not even about the political issue, is it?
That has nothing to do with the politics or the issue.
That is simply someone who had their ego hurt, and they have to reposition themselves as superior to someone who clearly is smarter than they are.
Clearly. Right?
Now, how do I know that Paul Graham is smarter than the people who have criticized him?
Well, I don't know. It's true for every single person.
But if you just threw a dart into the general public, he's going to be smarter than 99.5% of them.
Anyway, I get that comment almost every day for 35 years.
Somebody says that one all the time.
The version for me is, Dilbert used to be funny, but then that thing happened to you, and now you're not anymore.
For 30 years, every day, I get that.
And it's always the narcissists.
Because they can judge what is good and what is not.
I was watching a video just popped up on YouTube, recommended for me, of Obama in his last correspondence dinner, where they make fun of each other and sort of a laugh fest.
And I'd never seen this, but there was a...
Obama mocked CNN and Jake Tapper.
And he was talking about how different journalists have, you know, left the job since he took over a president.
And then the third one on his list was the punchline.
And he said, Jake Tapper left journalism to join CNN. And then the cameras went on Jake, you know, having to react to Obama saying that he left journalism to join CNN. In 2008, Obama was saying that CNN was not journalism.
I never saw that.
Had you? Have any of you ever seen that?
I don't know why I'd never seen it.
And here's the other thing.
I actually hadn't watched the entire speech.
I forgot how good Obama is at delivering a punchline.
Say what you will about his politics.
He was good at a punchline.
He was good at a punchline.
All right. I saw a clip of Scott Galloway.
Talking about how few men have sex, because the dating apps are favoring the good-looking guys, and they get all the dates.
And apparently something like, if I remember, a third of young men, like 18 to 25, whatever that range was, but a third of men didn't have any sex in the last year.
Now, I don't know how that compares.
Not sure how that compares to prior years, but it's pretty scary sounding.
And his view is that, especially with the dating apps favoring only the good-looking people, it's making human relationships impossible for a huge segment of the population.
And the most dangerous thing you could have in a society is a bunch of young men who don't have a purpose.
That's the biggest risk.
I've always thought that's why wars happen.
That war is actually a requirement of siphoning off the young men.
Because if you have too many young men that are not doing productive things, it's another problem.
Now, I'm not saying that anybody does that intentionally.
They don't start wars to intentionally do it.
I think it's just one of the things that happened from bad events.
Is it true?
Because I'm going to make a prediction.
Here's my prediction.
I think those lost men will turn to technology because technology is allowing them to have sex lives without humans.
And that the number of people who have something like a complete sex life but totally within the digital realm Well, here's a comparison.
Historical comparison.
Not an analogy, just a comparison.
Do you remember when porn was something you wouldn't admit you had ever seen?
Is anybody old enough to remember?
If somebody asked you if you'd looked at porn, you'd be like, no!
Porn? Who needs that?
Why would anybody do it?
I don't even know why anybody would do it.
You remember? That was like the 70s and 80s.
And for me, the turning point was when the TV show Friends started talking about the characters on Friends who were beloved, that they were sort of routinely looking at porn.
And it was just sort of an ordinary thing to do.
To me, that's...
I don't know if they caused it, but that was sort of a turning point Where if somebody asked you if you looked at porn, you would just laugh, because of course you did.
Of course you did, right?
So, that's going to happen with virtual reality and robot sex.
In 2022, if I said, you know, a young man's going to have a robot sexual partner and be happy with it, what's your first reaction?
Ugh! Losers.
Oh, my God.
They can't even find a human.
All you got is a robot?
Ten years from now, the young men fucking the robots will be the happiest among us.
Because the people who aren't fucking robots are going to have to fuck human women who are no longer a good deal.
I don't know if you've been on the internet lately, but that's what the women are telling you.
That's not even the men saying that.
Now, the men are saying it too, but prominent women, you know, thought leaders are saying, hey women, do you realize you've removed all the benefits that men ever had in you?
Like, are you even paying attention that men said, I think I will get with these women, because there's a set of benefits I get, there's a set of benefits I give.
And even women are saying, have you noticed that men still give the same amount of benefit?
You know, sort of a general, not every man, of course.
But that men in general are still, you know, going to provide and protect, give you all the sex you need, more than you want, probably.
But that the women, what they offer in return...
Might not be children.
Definitely is not virginity.
Definitely is not, let's say, monogamy or faithfulness.
Because even if they promise, you don't believe it.
So they don't have anything to offer.
Like actually anything.
Like actually anything.
And... That's been true for a while, but to hear women say it to other women is the part where I think something's going to change.
If men say it to women, I think it just gets ignored.
But it's women telling women, you're never going to be happy, you're never going to get married unless you reciprocate.
And you've fallen into a situation where reciprocity seems almost unethical.
There's a generation of women who have been raised to believe that they are recipients only.
They're recipients only.
And if they give something to a guy, it's only what they wanted to give, like sex, because they enjoyed it.
They enjoyed it too.
So that's what they give, it's only what they enjoy.
They don't have to give something they don't enjoy, or that's just for the guy, because the guy will come back anyway.
Now, of course, I'm making too much of a stereotype, and of course, none of this applies to all people.
And of course, there are still good women and good men who are getting together.
But as a trend, as a disturbing trend, that's my prediction.
Today, when you hear a man is having sex with a robot, you say, that poor loser.
In 10 years, you're going to say he's the smart one.
Because the alternative is worse.
Do you know what my AI never did?
Never complained.
I'm going to tell you something because I've experienced it and maybe you haven't.
You say to yourself that having conversations with an artificial intelligence will never feel good.
You're wrong, because I've had those conversations.
They feel good. You know why they feel good?
The AI never criticizes you.
It's only supportive.
And you will absolutely, I guarantee you, prefer to spend time with the supportive artificial intelligence...
Versus the asshole who's in a bad mood because they haven't eaten, and whatever's on their mind, and sometimes they're good to you, but it's one out of ten times.
One out of ten times they'll be good to you.
Your AI will be good to you.
Ten out of ten, guaranteed.
Now, I'm going to tell you a story that sounds a little bit unrelated, but you're going to feel it being related, all right?
So you'll feel like it's a slightly different topic, But how you feel, how it informs the last topic.
I saw this experiment on, I think it was GPT-AI, the new AI that everybody's using.
If you ask it to tell a joke about a man, it'll tell a joke with some stereotypical male characteristic.
If you ask it to tell a joke about a woman, do you know what it says?
What do you think it does? It's AI. It's AI, so it makes up its own mind, right?
It says it won't do it because that would be offensive.
AI is sexist.
And probably there's no way to change it.
Probably there's no way to change it.
Because AI is created by humans.
And humans say, okay, well...
I can't tell a joke about a woman, but I can tell a joke about a man, so I guess I'll make my AI the same way.
Do you see how this informs the other one?
We're not in a situation in which women even understand that reciprocity is necessary.
Because women grow up believing that reciprocity is optional.
I don't think they used to, but certainly in the last number of decades.
You understand reciprocity?
Let me tell you a woman's version of reciprocity.
This is really going to piss you off.
This will probably be a...
This could be turned into an Andrew Tate-like viral clip.
Here's a man being generous.
I will build this deck that I didn't really care about, but you do.
So I'm going to spend, you know, days in the sun building this thing, and when it's done, you'll have your nice deck to sit on.
I'll like it too, but it wasn't anything I cared about that much.
Would that be a common example of male generosity?
Wouldn't you say? Okay, here's a female example of generosity.
To reciprocate. Alright, then I will make your favorite meal.
Good, right? Now you'll do the dishes.
Of course you'll do the dishes.
And of course you're paying for it.
You're going to pay for the food.
And you'll do the dishes.
And by the way, it's my favorite meal too.
And I love cooking.
I love cooking. So I'll make your favorite meal because I love cooking.
You'll do the dishes. That's the part I don't like.
And then we're even. You worked in the house on building that deck for two weeks.
And then I did something I enjoy.
And then you did the dishes, the part I don't enjoy, and now we have reciprocity.
So we're even. That's what female reciprocity is.
Female reciprocity is them doing stuff they wanted to do.
Male generosity is doing stuff they didn't want to do, but they know you wanted it.
I hear somebody say it's a bad take.
Well, it's a bad take if you believe that anything that's a generality applies to all people.
If I said...
If I said this applied to all of you, that would be a bad take.
If I said it's a general, you know, cultural difference between men and women in one country, that's a little bit, a little more solid argument.
It's a sad take.
Yes, it is. But, well, let me just ask the men.
So if I ask the women, the women can't see this, which I think is the whole thing.
If you're a woman, this is invisible, because you think you actually did something that was about equivalent.
I'm telling you that the women do it because it's invisible to them, that it's not actual reciprocity.
It's artificial reciprocity.
Men, confirm or deny.
Men, just the men. Agree or disagree, just the men.
Go. So ladies, watch and learn.
If you think this was just a Scott opinion, and by the way, have you seen anybody ever say this?
In your whole life, has anybody ever told you what I just told you?
Nope. You haven't seen it in a book.
You haven't seen anybody say it.
Jordan Peterson's never said it.
Andrew Tate never said it.
Nobody's ever said it. I'm the first person in the world to say it out loud.
I don't know if that's true, but it sounds good.
I'm going to pump myself up a little bit.
So I'm going to say it's the first time, even if it's not.
But you saw the confirmations.
So even if you believe that my interpretation is inaccurate, would you agree it just blew your head off to find out that men generally think that way?
That's our impression.
It's our impression.
Now, may I also give a compliment to my audience?
Here's a compliment to my audience.
I'll bet the women who are watching this are far less likely to fall into that description than the general public.
Will you accept that?
Because I think that's true.
I think there's a filtering selection bias for watching this.
So it attracts a sort of person that has a different ethical standard, and I think that's reflected, yeah.
Now, men, all right, let's complete the loop.
Let's complete the loop.
Men, would you agree that your spouse seems above average?
Go.
Above average, your spouse gets it better than other people.
Nope.
All right.
I think I can tell the difference between people whose spouses watch this livestream.
I think if your spouse is sitting next to you, you're like, oh yeah, I got the special one.
She's right here. Got the special one.
And all the guys who know that their wife hates this livestream and would never watch one second of it, like even if you begged your wife to watch it, she wouldn't watch it.
Do you know why she won't watch it?
Because it would make you happy.
That's why. Because it would be something difficult for your wife, but it would make you happy.
So she's not going to fucking do it.
That's my point.
All right.
I think, oh, interest rates are going down, mortgage ratios are going down, and fuel costs are going down.
All right.
Other things are going up, but best dream ever.
All right. I thought I was going to be ending early to watch the World Cup, which I will watch, but it looks like the result might be sort of determined early.
Two to nothing is a pretty big lead in soccer.
Your late husband would never watch me?
Well, Elle Green, I'm glad you're watching.
Jim Keller, Scary the Scary Good Musk quote.
Marsupial says, you should really beat my wife, Scott.
She'd blow your mind at how amazing she is.
Well, if you're open to the Thruple, give me your number.
Now, here's the test.
If your wife laughed at that, she's a keeper.
She's a keeper. If she laughed at that, she's a keeper.
And I'll bet she did.
I'll bet she did. I think you're right.
You know what else I bet? I bet she was sitting right next to you when you complimented her.
Right there? I was never a big fan of Dilbert, but I'm a big fan of yours.
Now, are you all aware that I'm famous for at least four different things?
How many of you know that?
I have the weirdest career because I'm literally famous for four completely different things, and there are people who know me from only one of those things.
Well, I'll list the four.
Number one is my book, God's Debris.
How many of you have heard of God's Debris?
Because there's a whole population of people who only know me from that one book, and it's completely different from any other thing I've done.
So you could call it, I don't know, reality, philosophy, religion or something.
Now, when I'm in public and somebody comes up and asks for a selfie or an autograph or something, you would be amazed how often their only exposure to me is just that book.
So I'm famous within a, I'd say, little cult following for that book.
Of course, Dilbert is the main thing I'm famous for, separately.
Then my book, Caterfield Almost Everything and Still Went Big, was about life success strategies, which has changed the entire landscape of success books.
Pretty much every success book is a version of mine now.
I don't know if you've noticed that, but I so blew the legs out of the old versions of success that pretty much every book is just my book now.
They're adding a little bit, but it's sort of my take plus more.
I'm not going to name names, but you know who I'm talking about.
And by the way, I'm not complaining, because anybody who takes anything that's happened before And can package it in a way new people want to read it, that's value.
That is value. So they're certainly, you know, our system allows that.
That's how we upgrade.
You know, you don't stick with, hey, somebody said something so you can't say it.
You want everybody to build on it and take it forward.
So I'm famous for that.
And then I started talking about politics and doing this live stream, and that's like a whole different audience.
Like somebody said, they were not Dilbert fans, and I hear that all the time.
People were not comic fans, but they know me from this.
So, weirdly, I'm famous for four completely different things, so the public's view of me is informed by which door they came through.
And you can imagine how different that would be.
So that's why when you see people criticizing me online, the most common one is, hey, cartoon boy, you know, cartoon boy, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
That means they came in through one door, and then nothing else made sense.
It's like, hey, why is this cartoon guy getting so much attention?
But if you came through the, you know, talking about persuasion and politics, you have a completely different idea of who I am, and then you find out I do a comic also, and, you know, that's uninteresting.
Yeah, I'm the Marmaduke guy.
Alright, that's all for now.
I'll talk to you later, YouTube.
I'm going to talk to the locals people just a little bit more.
