Episode 1969 Scott Adams: Nothing Happening In The News But That Will Not Stop Us From Sipping
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Jimmy Kimmel's audience
Kari Lake lawsuit loss
Maggie Haberman?
ChatGPT Q: is marriage a good idea?
Russian propaganda technique sounds familiar
Wet streets cause rain
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization and it's Boxing Day.
Is that right? Boxing Day.
For those of you who like to, I don't know, box or live in a box or something.
But it's a day for you.
We don't know why it's called that.
If you'd like to take your experience up to almost God-like levels, I can help you.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it's going to happen now.
Go. That's good.
Yeah, that's good stuff.
Well, let's talk about stuff.
I saw an article about Jimmy Kimmel.
He's got that late-night show that's being destroyed by Gottfeld!
But Kimmel was saying that his executives hinted at that he should maybe do fewer Trump jokes because Jimmy Kimmel lost...
Half of his audience by making, you know, so many Trump jokes.
And he said that if they asked him to stop doing it, they sort of hinted around, they never asked, but if they asked him to stop making Trump jokes, he would quit.
He would quit. Do you see what's wrong with Hollywood people?
It's sort of everything's in the story, isn't it?
Does he understand, did Jimmy Kimmel understand that he was part of a business enterprise that really likes to serve all of its customers?
And that he was hired to do a specific job and he decided not to do it.
And they still renewed him.
They should have fired his ass immediately for losing half of his audience.
His only job is to maintain his audience or grow it, right?
He has one job, maintain your audience.
He decides to get rid of half of it and he keeps his job.
What employer doesn't fire you for that shit?
Am I wrong? That was a firing offense.
He tried not to even do the job for which he was hired, which is entertain the general public.
He wasn't hired to entertain half of his audience.
But the funny thing is that the article is written as though he's the hero of the story, because he stayed with his principles.
He said, I will quit if I can't make fun of Trump and lose half of my audience.
He has every right in the world to say anything he wants privately, which is why he's at it.
He can do it privately.
But why do we treat that like it was smart and good and holy?
And by the way, the same would be true if he reversed it, right?
If he lost his liberal audience, I'd say the same thing.
He was hired to do a job.
He wasn't hired to tell us his opinions.
That would be the opposite of what he was hired for.
Anyway, how was it?
Was it because it was Christmas?
How did I miss the fact that there was a Cary Lake Maricopa lawsuit decision?
Do you all know that there was even a decision?
It was like there was a lot of silence about it.
Yeah. She lost. She lost.
Was there anybody who predicted that she would lose?
Yes. Probably a lot of you.
I predicted she would lose because they did not show intent.
They showed that things went wrong, and I think they did a good job of showing that enough went wrong between the chain of custody question and the things printed on the wrong ballots, etc.
I think there was good evidence that it could have changed the result.
And there was good evidence that things went wrong.
But there was no evidence that it was intentional.
I think the closest they got was speculation that the administrator had to do it intentionally.
But that's not really evidence.
It's more speculation. So, how many people were surprised at the result?
Nobody's surprised, right?
What I predicted, after you'd seen how clear the evidence was that there was a problem, because that part seems to be not disputed, I don't think there's a dispute that there were major problems that could have changed the outcome.
But I just don't see the courts willing to overturn any kind of election.
Broke a thousand viewers.
Yeah. So here's what the court said in part.
A court setting such a margin aside, meaning the number of votes, so a court setting such a margin aside, as far as the court is able to determine, has never been done in the history of the United States.
Should that matter?
Should it matter that an election has never been set aside before?
I'm a little bit on the fence on this.
Because I can see it both ways.
I like the instinct of the court not to interfere.
You like that, don't you?
Don't you like the instinct of the court not to interfere?
Like they need a really, really good reason?
Like really, really, really good reason?
I think I'm okay with that.
Even though it maybe didn't go the way I would have preferred.
I feel like that's responsible and yet also not legal.
Why does a judge take the non-law into consideration?
Because that's not the kind of precedent that they...
It's not a legal precedent, is it?
I suppose it is.
A legal precedent of non-action?
Can you have a precedent of non-action?
Or does a precedent have to be an action?
Or is it the same thing?
Non-action is a decision.
I don't know if that's a detail or not.
Anyway, so I'm not surprised.
I also don't mind.
I don't mind that we move on.
I do mind that we don't fix it for next time.
Have you heard the stories about all the things you're doing to make sure these problems don't occur again?
No. No.
It looks like they plan to do it again.
Oh no, that's right.
There's no evidence of intention.
No evidence of intent.
Let me remind you again that whenever there's an opportunity to do something sketchy that has a huge potential gain, such as winning an election, We're making money.
And there are lots of people involved and it's possible to get away with it.
How often do bad things happen?
All the time. Every time.
Maybe not on day one.
That's the only question.
But eventually, yeah, 100%.
That situation is a breeder for bad things to happen.
So I don't know if any bad things happened, but could they have done bad things and hidden it easily in this context?
If somebody did do, let's say, the ballot printing, if they had done it intentionally, would they be able to hide their intention?
Easily. It could have been a maximum of one personal conversation.
It might have been one person who talked to one other person who said, you know, if you just change the setting, all hell will break loose and conservatives won't get to vote on voting day.
It would only take one person whispering to one other person.
No documentation.
You don't even need to collude.
Like after the first person gets the idea in their head, there's no extra meetings, no conversations.
It just happens. Now, let's do a reality check.
Do you believe that anybody is smart enough To know that the election results would change if they changed the size of the printed ballot.
Do you think that it's likely that that was an intentional plan?
So most of you are saying yes.
Where do you think that opinion came from?
Why do you think you have that opinion?
Was it assigned to you? Or do you think you would have come up with that on your own?
It's a tough question.
To me, that looks like an assigned opinion.
Here's why. If you tell me that somebody is smart enough to know that that plan would work, I say, I haven't met that person yet.
There's just like one degree of sort of cleverness and uncertainty that just feels a little bit more than what real people do.
Right? I'm not saying it's impossible, and I'm not saying that you're wrong if you think it was intentional.
I don't know. I'm just saying that the nature of it requires a little bit more cleverness and thinking than I expect In politics.
Now here would be a straightforward plot.
I have no evidence to happen, but suppose it was a straightforward plot of collecting ballots from various places that were sketchy and then voting.
Does that sound like something that real people would do?
Yes. I'm not saying it happened, or in big enough amounts to change anything.
I'm saying that would be like an ordinary, yeah, people would do that.
How about people filling out ballots for dead people?
Does that sound like something that would actually happen?
Yeah. Yeah, because that's sort of easy and just straight ahead.
Yeah, yeah. Now maybe not enough to change the election, but yeah, you'd believe that.
But somebody gets into the machine and they know enough to change the size of the printing because they know that the Conservatives vote on voting day, they know it'll slow it down.
Maybe. Maybe.
But I think you're in coin flip territory at the very least.
Like, if you could say that situation is 50% or more likely to be a conspiracy, I would say, I don't know.
I don't think it's 50%.
If you told me there's a 25% chance that it was intentional, I'd say, that sounds about right.
Now, again, we're all just using our totally subjective...
My 25% has no basis, in fact.
It's just that when you hear anything that's a little too clever, I always discount it.
Just too clever, boom, take down the odds that it's true.
Which doesn't mean I know it's true.
That's my little rule.
So what the heck is going on with Maggie Haberman?
I keep reading the stories and I'm all confused.
So Maggie Haberman...
Was with Politico and is now with the Washington Post, right?
And she is famous on the right for having Trump derangement syndrome and writing continuous anti-Trump stories.
But because what we learned recently is that I guess it was the January 6th committee, found out that one of Trump's lawyers referred to, you know, was talking to something else, said that she was a friendly.
In other words, that she was friendly to the Trump organization.
Does that sound realistic?
Because the left now believes that Maggie Haberman is some kind of a I don't know, a Trojan horse or a trick or a plant or something, and that she's really working for Trump.
And their evidence includes the fact that Maggie Heberman's mother works with Jared Kushner.
Does that even sound true?
I mean, that's what I'm saying, that there's some connection with the Trump world.
Now, and then I saw Cernovich tweet that people on the inside know that Trump talked to Haberman on the phone, you know, fairly often.
Which doesn't make sense for all the bad things she writes about him.
Now, what do you think is going on there?
Because it can't be true that she is anti-Trump and pro-Trump at the same time.
And we're looking at exactly the same stuff.
How can we not tell...
How could we not tell if she's pro or anti?
All right.
Well, I'm confused by the story, but I'm going to give you one hypothesis that has not been mentioned, which is that the story that she was friendly to Trump was incorrect.
So, the entire evidence is one reported evidence Statement by one person once.
That's the whole evidence that she's friendly to Trump.
Now, whatever Mike Cernovich has is based on information he has.
But in terms of the public information, one statement by one lawyer that she's friendly.
What are the odds that that was misheard, heard out of context, or misremembered?
Don't you think that the most likely explanation is it never happened?
The most likely explanation is that conversation didn't happen.
Or that he said she's not friendly and somebody missed the word not.
Or maybe he said she acted friendly, so I'm hoping for the best.
Or maybe he said, I'm going to act friendly, and maybe that will hope.
Or maybe he said it was a friendly conversation, which is different from saying she's a friendly.
Don't you think the most likely explanation for this clear opposite of reality situation we have is that it was just reported wrong?
What do you think? Now, I'm not saying I know that.
I'm saying it's the most likely explanation.
Because it seems weird and complicated that she would be some kind of weird double agent working for Trump at the same time.
Now, do you think it's true that Trump would have multiple conversations with her, even though she was anti-Trump?
I think so. Because at the very least, he would want to get his version of events out there.
Right? So he should definitely be talking to the enemy.
Because if there's anything you can do to add a fact or some context to help him out, if she's going to come after him anyway, he should try to influence it.
So, I don't know. Maybe we'll find out what that was all about.
Maybe not. I asked ChatGPT, the AI, what it thinks of marriage.
Whether marriage is just, statistically, whether it's a good idea.
What do you think AI said?
Do you think AI said that getting married is a good idea or a bad idea?
Well, I'll tell you.
It says the overall divorce rate in the United States has been declining in recent years.
Is that true? Is it true that the divorce rate has been declining?
It might be. Do you know why?
Fewer people getting married.
If fewer people get married, Probably it's the ones who are pretty sure they get married, right?
And the religious ones. And they have maybe a better chance.
Could be that. Anyway, I didn't know that was happening.
But the AI says the divorce rate was about 2.9 per thousand people.
This suggests that the odds of a marriage in the United States working out well may be relatively high.
What? 2.9 per thousand?
That means every year.
Right? That's how many people out of all of them get divorced every year.
Am I wrong that AI doesn't know how to look at statistics?
I thought that would be one thing it would be good at.
Because the right statistic is you have a 40 or 50% chance of getting divorced.
Or you might not get divorced, but the statistics say you might not be happy.
But somehow it picked the annual number and compared it to some big number and concluded that it was a good risk because it's bad at looking at statistics.
It didn't know what to compare.
It actually compared the wrong thing.
Am I wrong? I mean, you see it, right?
They compared the wrong numbers.
The AI compared the wrong numbers.
So that's just yet another thing.
That you can't trust the AI on.
Because the AI might know all of the facts and still compare the wrong things.
Do you know why AI would maybe compare the wrong things?
Because the people who program it don't know how to compare things.
I assume it'll learn.
But programmers aren't necessarily economists.
They don't know what to compare.
So AI wouldn't know what to compare.
It's a big problem. Alright.
There's a Rasmussen poll that says 63% of likely US voters believe Congress should investigate whether the FBI was involved in censoring information on social media.
Is that even worth doing?
Because the answer is yes, right?
What are we going to ask?
Now, I suppose there might be some deeper question about whether the FBI had orders to change the political landscape, but that's not an evidence, right?
Is there any evidence that the FBI was doing it with the intention of changing politics, except for the laptop thing?
The laptop thing is obviously...
You need to look into that.
So maybe that's enough.
Maybe just because of the laptop thing, It's so sketchy.
But I think that has more to do with the 50 intel people who signed it.
Yeah, but the FBI was also involved.
Okay, so they're also culpable, it looks like.
All right, so a little pattern recognition.
As you know, my YouTube feed often gets demonetized.
Now, we've been watching what kind of content leads to demonetization, and it turns out it's the swearing.
It's not the opinions.
You'd think it'd be some kind of...
I think I'm also probably being throttled in some way.
But the thing that demonetizes me is the swearing.
So probably the F word, probably the C word.
So I've decided to make a...
A new rule of no swearing going to the next year.
So 2023, no swearing.
But it's not really 2023 yet, is it?
And I saw something today that...
I just have to give you one more.
So there's going to be a little demonetization going on in a moment.
All right? It goes like this.
You might be aware that I get a lot of pushback from people who say, why did you get vaccinated, Scott?
You know, getting vaccinated is like promoting vaccinations, say people.
Like, if you're a public person and you got vaccinated, it's like you're promoting it, because you said it's okay for you, so, you know, that influences people.
And then people usually say, and then I say stuff like, But you know that nobody knew at the time whether the COVID was more dangerous or the vaccination.
They were both complete unknowns.
So that's my defense.
And then my critics say, Scott, listen to Dr.
Robert Malone. If you would listen to him, he would explain to you what these mRNA technologies are and all the dangers of them.
Right? Now, what do you think of that?
Do you think if I'd paid more attention to Dr.
Robert Malone, I would have known not to get vaccinated?
Yes or no? If I had taken him more seriously, do you think I would have not gotten vaccinated?
Because he was very clear about the warnings, wasn't he?
Very clear about the dangers.
And he got a lot of attention.
Why are you saying no?
If I paid attention to the guy who says they're dangerous, you don't think I would have skipped it?
Why wouldn't I? He's the expert.
Everybody tells me he's the expert.
He's like, he invented it.
That's what they say. Why wouldn't I listen to him?
Okay. Well, I'll give you one reason, maybe not.
Did you know he's vaccinated?
How many of you know that the biggest critic of vaccinations, Dr.
Robert Malone, is himself vaccinated?
Did you know that? So I would like to just say something to my critics who are suggesting that if I'd listened to the people they listened to, such as Dr.
Robert Malone, chief among them, that if I'd listened to him like they did, that I would have made a different decision.
But he's vaccinated.
And so I'd like to say to all my critics who say that I should have listened to Dr.
Robert Malone, I might have made a different decision.
Fuck you. Fuck your fucking balls.
Fuck your stupid faces.
Fuck your tiny brains.
Fuck your opinions.
Fuck you until you disappear into the fuckness.
Now, I didn't need the C word there.
This is sort of a little test as well.
I'm seeing if the F word is enough, so we're holding off on the C word here.
Now, Dr.
Robert Malone says it probably was a mistake.
That's correct. Did he say that the day he got the vaccination?
Because probably was about the time I did.
So all of those who said that I should have listened to the guy who made the same fucking decision I did...
Fuck all of you. Which, by the way, doesn't mean you're wrong.
Doesn't mean you're wrong. If I drop dead tomorrow with, you know, vaccine-related complications, well, you win.
You win. But if I live a long, healthy life, then I took a risk so I could fly to Bora Bora, I did not get sick, and I had a nice vacation.
I win. But we don't know yet.
So we'll see. I'd say the vote is still out whether I die or not.
The RAND group, R-A-N-D, RAND. Is it a think tank?
Sort of a think tank situation, I think.
But they had an article on Russian propaganda and how they're doing it.
Kind of interesting. So apparently the Russian propaganda method is not to be surgical.
So they're not coming up with the perfect meme or the perfect rumor.
They're just flooding the zone with bullshit so that you can't tell what's true.
And apparently it's working.
So the Russians are just, you know, it's just overwhelming, continuous, but it's also inconsistent.
So even the messages they give are not all the same because they don't care what you believe.
They want to overwhelm you.
This would be the Rand point of view.
Now that's interesting, isn't it?
They're not trying to persuade you necessarily.
They're trying to wear you out.
So you can't tell what's true.
Because if you can't tell what's true, you can't act on it.
And that's as good as anything else.
So they're just trying to make America ineffective.
They don't need to make us believe a specific thing.
They need to make us not believe anything.
And then we're toast.
But here are some other persuasion-related things from Rand that I thought were worth mentioning.
Now, this is based on experimental psychology, so this is tying the technique to actual scientific studies.
And Rand says, experimental psychology literature tells us that first impressions are very resilient.
So the first thing the Russians do is they flood the zone with their own rumors, you know, false stuff, before you've seen the correct reporting on something.
Because your first impression is really sticky.
So that's the first thing they do right.
And I would agree that that's good form.
It says an individual is more likely to accept the first information received on a topic...
Just because it's first.
So that's the same thing. When faced with conflicting messages.
So if you have more than one message, they're going to favor the first one they heard.
For no logical reason.
Just going first matters.
Furthermore, repetition leads to familiarity.
The more you repeat the fake news, the more people will believe it because they say, oh yeah, I've been hearing that.
Everybody's saying that. That's probably true.
Couldn't be so many people saying it if there's nothing to it.
So, be first, repeat it until people think it's familiar.
Then, the illusory truth effect is well documented.
This is where people raise statements as more truthful And believable when there are new statements.
Those statements previously...
Oh, then when they were new.
So a new statement will be considered a little bit sketchy, but if they keep hearing it over and over again, there's nothing else that happens.
They'll start to believe it just because they keep hearing it.
But I guess you knew that.
When people are less interested in a topic, They're more likely to accept familiarity.
So if you don't know much about it, whatever you hear the most is going to be your truth because you haven't looked into it.
Consumers save processing, you know, resources.
In other words, their brains don't work so hard because they use a frequency heuristic, a rule of thumb that if they've been hearing the same thing over and over again, That must be true.
Of course, that is weird.
Even with preposterous stories and urban legends, those who have heard them multiple times are more likely to believe that they are true.
So no matter how ridiculous the story is, if you hear it enough, you think it's true.
And that's all it takes.
And by the way, this is all stuff that hypnotists all know, right?
This is hypnosis 101 stuff.
So none of this is surprising to me, but maybe some of you.
If an individual is already familiar with an argument, they process it less carefully.
Right? So if you've heard the argument, you don't rethink it.
You just say, oh yeah, yeah, that old argument.
So your brain doesn't click in again once you've decided what's going on.
All right. And let's see.
So it's high volume, continuous...
Oh, I guess the Russians also, they use fake accounts that look like they're on your team.
So if you saw a fake account that was all MAGA, pro-Trump, American flag, and it says, oh, Bigfoot is real, and you also are in that same camp, you're a MAGA-loving person, you can say, oh, this MAGA person, I trust them. They say Bigfoot's real, so I think so too.
So that's part of how they do it.
All right. Marc Andreessen had an interesting tweet today, a quote from Michael Crichton, famous author, some of you know.
And this was Crichton's quote.
Often, talking about the news and how unreliable the news is, often the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward, reversing cause and effect.
I call these the wet streets cause rain stories.
Paper's full of them.
I might start using that.
Wet streets cause rain.
Because almost every vaccination mask-related story is one of these.
Where they did something and something happened, so therefore that caused the other thing.
Or you can't tell the difference between cause and effect, basically.
And they act like they can.
It's everything. It's like, probably 30%, well, not everything, probably 30% of all study news-related stories literally just get correlation and causation mixed up.
And readers can't tell the difference.
In case you're wondering, over there on YouTube, The Clank is a reference to Sticks and Hammers show.
I think he clanks a spoon in a cup or something.
So they're basically making it known that they're in that club and they're coming over here to watch the show.
L Green says, Scott took the jab because he was scared.
Now, do you think that's what it was?
Now, is that something you'd bet on?
I took the jab because I was scared.
So I took the jab so I could get in a big metal tube and fly across the ocean to a small island because I was scared.
So I did something that you didn't trust and you were afraid of, but because you were afraid of it and I wasn't, that made me the afraid one.
Now, my decision, I think, by the way, if anybody saw me at the time, did I mention how loud or was this just my private thinking that I was going to take the hit because at the time they lied to us and said it would reduce transmission?
I think Ben Shapiro said the same thing.
That part of the decision is that you're protecting other people.
Now, We're, of course, lied to about the effectiveness of the so-called vaccination.
But we were operating on what we were told, because that's all we had.
So do you think it was that I was afraid that I took an experimental drug with the hope that it would protect people I don't even know, because there's no elderly people around me, but that I was protecting people I don't even know at great personal risk to myself, And that's what you're calling afraid.
Is that your point of view?
And you were so afraid of the shot, with good reason.
With good reason. I'm not saying that your fear was unfounded.
You were afraid of the shot, and so you didn't get it.
Now, are you telling me that you're brave because you are not afraid of the COVID? Is that your argument?
Anyway, the...
Anybody who accuses you of making a decision and of fear, they're just assholes.
You don't need to answer them.
Because everybody is looking at it and saying, what scares you the most?
What's the upside? What's the cost of the benefits?
And what is the downside of any decision?
Everybody considers it.
Everybody considers the downside.
Yeah, you know what?
I'm really sad that I didn't buy stock in the vaccination companies.
I always thought I got into...
I would have been getting in too late, but at the same token, it would have bothered me.
Well, Ukraine says that...
Well, Ukraine doesn't say this, but Russia says that they shot down a Russian drone that was attacking deep into Russia, and three Russians were killed in Russian territory...
And how many of you thought that Ukraine would attack mainland Russia?
Because I've been predicting it for a long time.
I don't see there's no way around it.
Ukraine has to put maximum pressure on Russia.
It would be ridiculous not to attack mainland Russia.
In fact, I think they should attack Moscow.
That's what I think. Because I think attacking Moscow would reduce...
Let me say what I said.
I only mean that from military strategy.
I don't mean that that would be moral or ethical to do.
I don't want any civilians in Moscow to die.
The Russian people are awesome.
This is only about Putin.
We like the Russian people.
We like them a lot.
And ideally, I think we'll be allies at some point.
Someday, after Putin, we'll be allies, I think.
So I don't want to kill any Russians, but if you're talking about strategy, I think that Russia has now shown they're not going to use nukes, because I feel like it would have happened by now, or at least they'd be threatening it more.
And Putin is weak, and a little bit more domestic pressure on him would probably be good.
And it seems to me that attacking the mainland of Russia is probably just good strategy.
But I don't know. The other possibility is that, you know, it ramps things up and makes it worse.
But I think it makes sense now when you can see that Putin is weak, the military is weak.
It wouldn't have made sense if you thought they were strong, because then they would say, oh, we're going to crush you twice as hard as we were because you did that.
You're charmingly delusional.
Well, fuck you. How about telling me what you disagree with, you asshole?
Goodbye. Scott has the MSM view of Putin.
Asshole. Good comment, asshole.
If you don't mind, I'm going to get rid of some assholes.
So I'm just blocking the assholes.
Anybody else? Anybody else want to say a ridiculous thing?
The two most NPC comments that I get are that I did something because I was afraid, like I'm the only person in the world who figures out, who looks at the costs and the benefits.
Or that you're backing some team because you said something.
Or have some weird intention.
Those are all the dumb comments.
No, I don't block dissenters.
I block assholes.
Have you ever seen me block somebody just for disagreeing with me on fact?
That's never happened.
Have you ever seen anybody disagree with me on opinion?
And I blocked them?
Never happened. No, I only block the people who make personal and erroneous comments.
What's the tire pressure on my BMW? 32 in the front.
Well, it depends on the season.
Putin is not losing.
In all caps. Now, do you think that's a Russian troll?
So somebody in all caps is shouting, Putin is not losing.
Does that sound like a real person?
So all caps shatter.
Oh, and here's another one.
No, you were afraid, Kalin.
Kalin. No, you were afraid.
That's such a dumb comment that I won't even comment about the comments.
That's like the lowest level of awareness.
Anybody else? Anybody want to show themselves for their chew?
I'm having fun today just getting rid of assholes.
Skari...
Sticks name?
What?
Somebody says, imagine listening to someone who took gene therapy for a cold.
Now is that a real person?
Or is that just a troll?
Do you know who else took gene therapy for a cold?
The inventor of it.
Asshole. Go on.
Does anybody have any good comments?
There's an asshole.
Goodbye. You know, this is weirdly satisfying.
You can't tell on the locals' platform.
But it's sort of satisfying to block people in real time.
It made everybody quiet.
All right. Potential peace negotiations at this point.
I don't think there will be any peace negotiations that are real.
So here's my prediction on Ukraine and Russia.
2023, the same.
Like, there'll be some back and forth.
There'll be more, you know, nuclear threats and stuff like that.
But I think at the end of 2023, it's going to look just like it looks now.
Two sides shooting each other and hoping the other one gives up.
But I don't see it ending.
Does anybody see a negotiated end?
Just because you and I can imagine what a deal would look like, I don't think Putin can do it.
You need a birthday shout-out?
Well, you didn't put your name there.
Mighty mutt. But happy birthday anyway.
I block the mind readers too.
Oh, thank you. Changed your life.
That's good to know. Negotiations start?
Yeah, they'll start negotiating, but nothing will happen.
How do you really negotiate with Putin when you know he's not going to keep his...
Let's be...
I was going to have like a trick ending to that.
But I'll just start it out straight.
How in the world can the United States and Russia negotiate anything when both sides cheat on everything?
Am I wrong? Hasn't the United States basically broken all of its deals?
And Russia has too?
I don't think we're the good ones on this, are we?
I feel like the sane people are doing something else.
Logan Paul is the Scott Adams of autonomous thought.
Okay.
I need to negotiate with Biden, yeah.
Yeah, I don't see any way that there's going to be no negotiated settlement.
All right. Here's my economic forecast for 2023.
The press will call it a mild...
Mild recession. Others will say it's not mild.
So just remember this exact thing.
Some of the press will say it's mild in the middle of next year, and others will say, that's not mild.
Look at this or that.
That's way worse than mild.
But a lot of people will call it mild, and I'm going to call it mild.
Inflation will continue, but we'll start to recess a little bit.
So it'll be a little bit better, but not a lot.
We're going to be disappointed at how quickly manufacturing comes back to America.
Biden will talk it up, but there won't be much happening.
A lot of people will be making plans, so I think we're moving in the right direction, but won't be much happening.
And I think the stock market will be flat until toward the end of the year.
So I think the stock market will limp along up and down until the end of next year.
And then if nothing new is on the horizon, it's going to look like we got through the recession.
So we'll be seeing the end of the recession by the end of this year, the end of the coming year.
So that's my prediction.
Turn over my stream to AI. Oh, I need to make another minor announcement.
So I had said that I was going to abandon YouTube or at least do Rumble in addition for live streaming.
But I was looking at the instructions for live streaming on Rumble.
And there's 16 pages.
I mean, it's big pictures.
That's why it's so many pages. But there's many steps involved.
And this is only for the Rumble software.
You have to use a third-party software that's much harder than this.
Maybe 10 times harder than this.
This just is a bunch of steps, but it's not hard.
So it's not... It's just not doable.
So I changed my plans.
I can't use Rumble because you need to use a third-party software, OBS or StreamYard or something, and both of those add a level of complexity.
It's completely impractical.
So if Rumble upgrades their live stream option so you can do it without the third-party software, then I will go there immediately.
But right now it would It would add probably an hour a day.
It would add probably an hour a day to my process.
It's a complete non-useable process.
Now, it's still on Rumble recorded, right?
So we've always been upgrading to Rumble the recorded show.
So you can still see that.
An assistant could configure it?
No. No. No, it's well beyond practical.
It's not something you could work with.
Because my assistant would have to be here in the room with me at 4 a.m., and that's not going to happen.
How long does it take?
So the two platforms I'm streaming on now are both on an iPad.
So that's the first problem with Rumble.
You need a laptop, I think.
I might be wrong about that, but I think so.
And all I have to do is put it in the titles and the description.
That's it. And on YouTube, I pose for a picture that happens automatically.
That's it. So it takes me less than one minute to put up two platforms.
But if I had Rumble, it will add an hour a day because it will never work.
See, when you go through the third-party software, half the time it doesn't work.
Scotty Appleseed, ChiCom supporter.
There's somebody out here who's so clueless, they think that I'm a China supporter.
How much of a troll would you have to be to think that?
Malone almost died from the shot.
No, he didn't. If Viva Fry can do it, why can't you?
I could do it too.
I just told you I could do it.
It would take me an hour a day.
Now, I don't know what Viva Fry has going on besides live streaming, but you know live streaming isn't my main job.
It's just one thing I do.
If it were my main job, oh, I'd do it.
If live streaming is all I did, I'd do it.
Because then an hour a day wouldn't seem like so much.
But I don't have an hour a day I'm going to...
Now, the hour a day is because it won't work.
Not because that's how long the process takes.
The hour is because you try it and it doesn't work because of the third-party software.
You don't know why.
You have to figure it out.
You have to reboot. Then you've got to reboot this one first, but maybe it was the other one that had to be up first.
Then you've got to put in a new code because you don't know if the old code wore out or why isn't this code working.
Is it my third-party software or is it Rumble?
It would be that every day.
Whereas I just fire this up in two minutes and I'm done.
Yeah, reboot your router.
Yeah, all that stuff. What's going to happen with Taiwan?
I'm going to say that China will not attack Taiwan in 2023, but they certainly do seem bent on owning it.
It affects the quality of your screen.
you Does your doctor recommend boosters?
No. Well, let me be more specific.
My doctor did ask me if I had been boosted, and I said no, and offered it as sort of, you know, a company...
You know, the HMO offers it.
So it was made available. My answer was, I don't believe scientific studies, so no.
Zero pushback.
I just said, I don't believe the studies.
So there would be no reason to put it in my body.
And she just said, okay, next topic.
No pushback. All right.
Would A-hole get me demonetized?
Well, we'll find out.
Probably not.
I don't know what that's about, but I'll hide you.
Was I vindicated?
You are vindicated?
Vindicated by what? What vindicated me?
Why are you denying the experts?
See, all of my critics are not actually criticizing anything that I did.
100% of the vaccine critics, they just have wrong information, or they're somehow illogical.
It's not even about me.
It's like, I think I trigger some feelings in them that they have to work out.
It just doesn't seem about me.
I think Styx kind of proves Scott's point with that.
I don't know what that is. Right.
Yeah, people believe that, because I'm a public figure, that anything I said is interpreted as supporting it or not supporting it.
And you're right. I was never on the supporting it or not supporting it.
Let me ask you this.
The people who've been watching me, is there anything I've said more often than don't get your medical advice from me?
Can you think of anything I've said more often than don't take any advice from me medically?
It's like a mantra.
And literally, I'd be willing to bet nobody in the world Says that publicly as often as I do.
I'll bet nobody in the world says don't take my medical advice more often than I do.
And yet, what is my biggest criticism?
Why are you giving medical advice?
That's the world we live in.
When are we going to accept that there are no experts?
Well, no experts you can trust, that's for sure.
Scott, would you have gotten the jab if you didn't go to Greece?
It was Bora Bora, and...
Oh, it was Greece.
Oh, you're right, yeah.
I think I conflated the two trips.
Yeah, I think Greece was the first one, you're right.
I've been saying Bora Bora, but that came after.
It was the same thing. I had to be vaccinated for both.
So the question was...
What was the question?
Oh, if I didn't have to travel, would I have gotten them?
Well, you probably know that I waited as long as possible to get as much information about it as possible.
So I think because I was doing a good job of socially distancing, probably would have continued waiting, and I don't know how long I would have waited, but at some point the information changed, right?
So if I had waited long enough, I would have seen the opinion about it change.
I don't know if I would have gone that far, because I feel like that would be complimenting myself too much, right?
Like, I love to tell you, if I didn't have to take that trip or want to take that trip, if I didn't want to take the trip, you know, I could have waited long enough to know that it was a bad idea, you know, get all the way to Omicron.
But I don't know. I can't promise you that would have happened.
But maybe. But I do have, it's well documented that I wanted to wait as long as I could before I did it.
So that's well documented.
Because I didn't trust it.
Then why did I call it a pandemic of the unvaccinated?
How many times do I have to explain that?
You seriously never heard me explain that in public, like 15 times?
The rest of you have, right?
Do you need it again? Well, I'll explain it to you.
I didn't say that.
So the first thing you have to do is quote me correctly, right?
If you quote me correctly, it's a little easier.
So what I said was, it feels like.
So once you got vaccinated, the day I got vaccinated, I could travel anywhere for the first time.
So for me, it was over.
Because the only thing that was bothering me was I couldn't travel.
Otherwise, you know, I mean, I didn't really have to wear a mask because I didn't go to a job.
I didn't have to go anywhere.
I could have my groceries delivered.
So for me, the pandemic was over when I got my vaccination.
Now, some people have said that they disagreed with my opinion about how I felt.
Do you think that's fair?
Do you think that you should fact-check how I felt?
Because the tweet was how I felt.
Why are you fact-checking my feelings?
I felt like my problem was over.
And was I correct?
Was I correct that that was the end of the pandemic for me?
Basically, yes. Selfish.
Are you late?
Never mind. Yeah.
Yes, fair to disagree.
It's fair for you to have an opinion about yourself, of course.
But people fact-checked my opinion about myself.
How does that make sense?
Do I think Lex Friedman is a good fit for a Twitter executive?
Well, I don't know his management capabilities.
We know he's intellectually capable, but managing is a different skill.
And Paradigm is arguing my opinion.
So there's actually somebody who's so fucking stupid that they're arguing my opinion.
So this says, the pandemic was not over for you.
You realize that it was an opinion of how it feels.
And you're literally fact-checking me on my internal feelings.
That's actually happening here.
If you say it wasn't over for you, do you think I would argue it?
No. No.
Because you'd be saying how you felt.
Well, I wouldn't fact-check your feelings.
Yeah, I said Dr.
Dr. Shiva wants to run Twitter too.
"You're blocking people for calling you selfish now?" Yes, because that's just a personal insult.
And goodbye.
You're gone.
All right.
Okay.
Joel's fact-check opinions for the gotcha factor.
Anybody else want to fact-check my personal opinion?
All right. There is almost no news today, and there will be probably no news tomorrow.
We are so newsless that, you know, we're going to have to figure out something else to do if we're going to meet here every day.
But things will pick up at the beginning of the year.
Cheney's on vacation? Yes, I did know the chat GPT can...
By the way, GPT version 4, I understand, is available maybe this spring, before spring, and it's 100 times more powerful than the existing one.
I'm not sure if you'll notice, because I think maybe it has to be 10,000 times better to, you know, like really impress us.
All right.
Yes, I plan to be happy all week.
Thank you.
Did cursing at people sound like it wasn't happy?
I was totally happy when I was cursing out the trolls.
