Episode 1978 Scott Adams: Representative Gosar Talks To AOC. Not Much Else Going On Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Jordan Peterson forced into reeducation?
False memories
Rep. Gosar and AOC talking
Twitter censorship criteria revealed
Trump endorses Kevin McCarthy
Matt Gaetz clever strategy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adamson.
Today will be probably the least important livestream I've ever done, but possibly the funniest.
Possibly. I've got a joke that I've been saving for you that I think you'll appreciate.
It has to do with something that happened in the headlines today.
But before we get to that, I need to prime you.
We need to be on exactly the same level.
And to do that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go. Oh yeah, that's good.
That's some good stuff.
Well, you know, I like to tell you about technological breakthroughs.
That are going to change the world.
And I saw one today.
This is real. This has already been created.
It's a commercial product.
So sometimes I'll tell you stories about, oh, something happened in a laboratory, and maybe in 20 years it'll be a product.
This is an actual product.
You can buy it now.
It's a propeller-driven showerhead.
And removable. You know, it could be handheld as well.
And what they did was they put a fan behind the water pressure so that you're not depending on just the water pressure from your pipes.
It shoots out what water you have.
Now the benefit of this, of course, if you can make a small amount of water act like it's a lot of water, You can see that that would be very huge for women who want to use it for masturbation.
No, actually, also it's good for the environment.
A secondary benefit, I hear.
A secondary benefit is it reduces water by 50%.
Now, who saw that coming?
Reduced water usage by 50% and actually makes your experience better.
So, good news there.
All right, absolutely my favorite story today.
It's not good news, but it's going to be funny news.
And funny news is better than good news.
Well, maybe that's just me.
But Jordan Peterson tweets, he says, Breaking.
The Ontario College of Psychologists, of which he must be a member, has demanded that I submit myself to mandatory social media communication retraining with their experts for, among other crimes, retweeting Pierre Paulyev among other crimes, retweeting Pierre Paulyev and criticizing Justin Trudeau and his political allies.
Do you suppose that the Ontario College of Psychologists don't really understand who they're talking to?
Does it seem to me like there's a major disconnect between what they're demanding and the person they're demanding who does it?
Do they understand that there are 8 billion people in the world?
8 billion people!
There's exactly one of them who's going to destroy them for saying that.
There's only one person in the world who can actually destroy them.
And I think it's going to happen.
Now, if you know anything about Jordan Peterson, you know he's not going to comply.
But what we don't know is what form of noncompliance he will choose.
And I would like to suggest, embrace, and amplify.
Anybody? So, Dr.
Peterson, if you're listening to me, this is my suggestion.
Tell them you would be happy to participate voluntarily and enthusiastically under the condition that their organization is sufficiently representative by trans people.
Eh? Eh?
Eh? Are you with me?
I'd like to see a breakdown of your organization because I don't think it would be fair to be judged by a non-diverse entity.
Eh? Eh?
Are you with me? And how about, I believe that your process is so important, I'd like permission to record it and let the world in on this training, which I think is so valuable that it should be something that everybody should be exposed to, not the lucky few psychologists who get the benefit of these resources.
I would like everybody to be aware of this excellent program, but only, only if you can guarantee that you're a diverse group and I can count on you representing all forms of Canadian society.
Anything less would be an insult to the public.
Now, the other way he could play it is simply resisting, but I imagine they would lift his certifications, or they would try to punish him professionally, and it might work.
I don't know if they've noticed, but He's a gazillionaire, and I don't think he needs his certifications anymore.
I'm sure he would like to keep them, and I'm sure he wouldn't want some government entity to yank him away for a stupid reason.
But I don't think it's exactly essential to his lifestyle anymore.
Would you agree? If there's anything that he would be willing to give up at this point, you know, I mean, emotionally and maybe at a conceptual level it's an insult, But it won't have any real effect on his business, I can imagine. I don't know how many individual clients he's still seeing.
I got the sense he's, you know, more a public figure now.
But we'll keep an eye on that.
But Dr. Jordan Peterson, embrace and amplify.
We would love that show.
Oh, my God.
Would we love that show.
All right. DeMar Hamlin, football player who took the hard...
They took the hard hit and went down.
He's still on life sport.
And they're still trying to figure out how to get his lungs going, etc.
So we're hoping the best for him.
But have you noticed it made the whole world crazy?
Made the whole world crazy.
Did you watch Tucker last night, Tucker Carlson?
He was angry that there were so many doctors who were sure it was one kind of thing, this comoditis, whatever it is.
Now, I didn't see anybody do that, did you?
I thought Tucker may have set up a straw man.
I didn't see anybody who said, short of actually a medical diagnosis, I didn't see any doctor say it's definitely this thing and definitely not these other things.
But Tucker acted like that was happening in a widespread way.
Did anybody see that? You saw several people say that they were sure what the cause was.
I don't think you did.
I think you might have misinterpreted that.
There might have been a lot of people saying there's no evidence Of, let's say, vaccine-related problems.
I'll bet you saw people saying there's no evidence of one versus another, but check your false memories.
I think it's a false memory, because I don't believe there's any doctor who would say in public, without examining a patient, I don't think any doctor would say that in public.
Do you? So I think you might have imagined That they had certainty when they couldn't have possibly.
Yeah. They couldn't have possibly.
Do you know what percentage of your total memories are false memories?
What do you think? What percentage of all of your memories are false?
I don't know the answer, but it's way more than most people think.
Most people would say, well, that seems like a rare thing that would happen.
It's not rare at all. It's a common way we operate.
Do you know why we have false memories?
Does anybody know why we have false memories?
Because that's a weird thing, isn't it?
Why would you have evolved a sense to fool you consistently, like just all day long, just fooling you about what's real?
Well... There might be an ordinary biological explanation, but I'll tell you the more obvious explanation.
The more obvious explanation is it would be probably impossible to create a software simulation of this reality and have everybody remember everything correctly.
Because that would mean that my subjective story in the simulation would have to be consistent with yours and with all other 8 billion people.
The complexity of that model would be so overwhelming that probably no computer could do it.
Now, it might be an advanced civilization who could but it's unlikely that you could ever handle that level of complexity.
And this also makes the assumption that our hypothetical creators were something similar to we are now, because we're very close to being able to create exactly that kind of simulation.
So somebody not too far from who we are now, maybe what humans are in 100 years, essentially the same as now, but plus 100 years.
So see if this...
Point makes sense. So first I want to see if it makes sense, like if I'm communicating it right, and then I'll ask you if you agree with it.
If you're a programmer, and you say to yourself, I want to build this simulation, but my computer couldn't handle every character Being consistent with the truth of every other character.
It's just too complicated.
So instead, I'll have everybody living almost like a little bubble reality that only sometimes needs to be consistent with other people, just on the big stuff.
Like, what is the law?
The big stuff. But on the individual stuff, like, who said what yesterday?
Did you say that or did you say the other thing?
Were you there or were you not there?
That sort of thing. That all turns into just illusions, so each character in the simulation can have its own illusion and it never needs to be consistent.
And you don't see it in normal life.
In normal life, you're just going about your business and other people have different ideas in their head than you do of what is real, but you don't notice.
Like, there's somebody walking around in the store who believes that God is talking to them right now, like having an actual conversation.
But you don't.
So it's totally different realities.
So that reality in mind don't need to ever correspond.
We don't need to make them fit.
They can just be different forever.
And then your computer code can be quite simple.
Each character is a little bubble.
They don't have to be consistent with the other characters, except in just the biggest stuff.
It's totally the most likely explanation.
Doesn't mean it's true.
But if you had to bet on it, by far that's the most ordinary, common, obvious explanation of why our memories are routinely false.
See, it'd be one thing, I would call it just a mistake, if we were sometimes had false memories.
But almost your entire memory of your childhood at this point is mostly false.
It's been reiterated by, not reiterated, but it's been modified by photos of your childhood that you saw.
Try having this experience.
Sit down with a childhood friend and discuss a specific event with a childhood friend or a family member.
Watch how different they are.
And it could be this different.
Hey, do you remember Bobby when you threw that rock through the neighbor's window?
And then Bobby looks at you and says, that was you.
You threw the rock through the window.
I did. And you'd be like, what?
How could you possibly, how could we disagree on that?
No, you threw the rock.
No, you did. Your disagreements would be that fundamental.
All right. So, what are we talking about, DeMar Hamlin?
So, this is just another two-world thing.
So, part of the world has decided that there's some certainty about what happened, and another part of the world has decided there's a different certainty, and another part has decided, how would you know?
I'm still in the how would you know category.
So there are people who are yelling at me, but Scott, don't you know, it could have been just the blow itself, but that would be rare.
But rare things happen.
That doesn't rule it down at all.
But it could have been, it could have been, maybe some vaccination injury made it more likely that there would be cardiac damage with a hit.
To which I say, Maybe.
Why would I rule that out?
Can you imagine me ruling that out?
Based on what?
I have no information that would rule in or out anything.
So I'm completely open.
We'll see what happens.
I wouldn't be surprised.
So let me say this as directly as possible.
If a week from now the doctors say, you know, we looked into it, and it looks like our best hypothesis is it's vaccine injury.
Now, I don't think that's likely to happen.
But if it did, I want to tell you now that I'm mentally prepared to accept that.
So what I'm not going to do...
By the way, this is a lesson in cognitive dissonance.
In order to protect myself from cognitive dissonance, which this would trigger me, If you're sure of something, and then you get proven wrong in front of other people, or even in front of yourself, you'll be triggered.
So I want to make sure that even if things go away I don't expect, I won't get triggered.
Because I'm saying in public, that wouldn't surprise me.
Wouldn't surprise me. So whatever it turns out, wouldn't surprise me.
Now let me ask you this.
If it turns out that he's vaccinated, of course he is, because the professional athletes are.
But if it turns out he also had COVID in the past, does anybody know that?
Do any of you know if he's actually had COVID? Because the shots wouldn't prevent it.
You don't know that, do you?
Think about the fact that you don't know that.
Just think about that. Just think about the fact that we got to today and nobody knows if he's had COVID. Doesn't matter?
You think it doesn't matter if he's had COVID? Have you heard a long COVID? Do you know what it could cause?
Cardiac issues. Right.
Potentially. Now, some of you are going to say, no, there is proof that long COVID does not cause any problems and it's not real.
No, there's no proof of that.
And by the way, I'm not saying that long COVID is real or causes anything particular.
How would I know? How would I possibly know?
Because I don't think science knows.
So how the hell would I know?
So I want you to just hold this in your mind.
And by the way, I have to confess, I heard this from somebody smart.
This is not my own realization.
I'm not going to name names just because I don't have permission to talk about a private conversation.
Just think about the fact that you went through more than 24 hours with this story, and it never occurred to you to wonder if you had COVID before.
Because long COVID would get you into the same risk category as the vaccine itself, in the sense that you can't calculate the risk.
I'm not saying they're the same, only in the sense that you can't calculate either one, so you'd just be guessing.
Martina and Vachalovic, yeah.
So, of course, because the news likes to serve up a confirmation bias, Martina Novotrilova, who is very, very pro-vaccine, has double cancer.
This isn't funny, right?
So my point is, it's very unlikely it's because of what she was saying in public that got her double cancer.
I'm sure it's a coincidence that But of course, once again, if I turn down to be wrong about that, I'm prepared to say, yeah, you know, that was a possibility.
So people are saying, wait a minute, the most outspoken pro-vaccine person just got double cancer.
Two different cancers at the same time.
I don't know how often that happens.
But it doesn't mean it happens rarely.
I just don't know how often that happens.
And then... Djokovic, who famously refused the vaccinations, is perfectly healthy.
So what does that prove?
It proves nothing.
It's just two athletes.
It just proves nothing.
All right. There's big news about...
There's a video of Representative Gosar...
Who is identified with the far right.
He's one of those 19 or so Republicans who are resisting Kevin McCarthy for a speaker.
And there's a video of him chatting away with AOC. And everybody was like, oh, what's happening?
How can they talk?
It's like fire and water.
They cannot be in the same place.
Now, they have a history because Gosar did a...
I guess he spread a meme showing him murdering AOC and Biden.
I don't remember seeing the meme, but it couldn't have been too serious.
It couldn't have been that serious.
But I don't disagree with AOC if she says that a representative spreading a meme that shows her getting murdered is too far.
I think that would be a reasonable opinion.
Free speech still allows it.
But I think if she wants to scold a little bit on that, that's maybe not the worst thing in the world.
Maybe you need a little pressure to keep people civil.
Pepsi man spent $2 to say that Ben Garrison owns me.
That was $2 well spent there.
I didn't know NPCs had money.
I just found that out.
All right. Who pays me money to tell me that somebody owns me?
You know, I would invite the rest of you.
If you'd like to mock me, And be sure that I saw it.
You can do a super chat on YouTube that allows you to pay money to guarantee that your cutting insults are noted.
And that would really show me.
I mean, if you really want to dunk on me, You do it that way.
You dunk on me with money so that it shows you mean it.
Otherwise, I don't know if you mean it.
How can I take you seriously?
Put some money behind it, damn it.
Put a little money behind it.
Let's see you really insult me.
Come on, come on!
Come on, you bastards.
Come on, bring it on!
I guess it was only one of them.
All right, another story.
We're not done with AOC and Gosar.
And I saw somebody tweet they were looking for a body language or a lip-reading expert so that we knew what they were saying.
Well, fortunately, I'm here for you, because I'm both.
And I examined the video, and I determined that AOC really wanted to get away.
So AOC starts out, Gosar is sitting on her right, and he's leaning in.
So Gosar is totally leaning in and, frankly, maybe getting a little too close to her personal space.
But he looked like he was just friendly and political.
It didn't look weird.
But she looked like she was very uncomfortable.
Like, she didn't turn toward him.
Had she been comfortable, she would have opened up and turned toward him.
But she stayed facing the other direction and just turning her head.
And at some points, her face looked uncomfortable.
And at one point, she did this little mouth thing.
Like, you know, God, why am I listening to this guy?
It was sort of like this. You know, just a little mouth thing.
It was sort of like dismissing him and he's chatting away.
But then you keep watching.
If you keep watching, she starts to engage.
I'm not going to take the L unless you pay me money.
Pay money, you cheap bastard, if you want to keep complaining.
How can I pay attention to you otherwise?
Put your money behind it.
Put your money behind your mouth.
If you want to say, the idiot Ben Garrison owned me, I'd like to see you pay for that.
Come on. All right.
I'm sure there's at least one more dumb person who will pay for that.
I'd like to see if I can encourage him.
All right, but...
So Gosar tweeted, once it became a headline, he tweeted what he was saying to AOC, and his tweet was funny.
It goes, so, then I says, quote, the combustion engine was actually a miracle of engineering that people take for granted today.
That's pretty funny.
Good line. But I have another theory based on my lip reading.
And my knowledge of Representative Gosar, I don't know if you know he's a dentist.
So prior to being a representative in Congress, he was a dentist.
Still is a dentist, I guess.
And I read his lips and it said he was offering to fill AOC's cavity.
He was offering to fill her cavity.
Okay, come on. That was worth you attending today.
That was your payoff.
All the rest of it is filler.
That was just one good joke to make it worth you coming today.
There you go. One good joke.
Some people say that the dentist was talking to her because she looked sad and, you know...
No, I ruined the joke.
I was going a different direction.
Let me back up like I hadn't said that last few sentences.
I forgot how the joke goes.
You know, Representative Gosar seems sad, but that makes sense for a dentist because dentists are often looking a little down in the mouth.
Yeah. Dentists often look down in the mouth.
If you're not American, that's a famous American saying.
Looking down in the mouth means you're sad.
So, and it's interesting that a person who does cosmetic dentistry for a living is being blamed for a meme about capping AOC, capping her.
Okay, that wasn't my leading joke.
I'm now down in the list a little bit.
We're in the lesser puns.
Maybe I should just... Should I pull out now?
Should I back up?
Stick with my winner and just get out?
Yeah, quit. That is good advice.
You don't always give me good advice, but that's good advice.
Pull out. Quit.
Cut your losses. All right.
Speaking of that, You might have seen the story about the Ukrainians pulling off a massive, successful strike on a base of Russian soldiers who were all huddled indoors in some building that they had been for some other purpose.
So they, I think it was a HIMARS probably system, just destroyed the entire base.
Ukrainians say it killed hundreds.
The Russians are admitting 89.
And this is interesting.
That the Russians say that the way the Ukrainians identified the place to attack is that the soldiers were, against orders, were using cell phones.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that's actually how they were found?
Maybe. I have to think that you can't really tell the difference between a Ukrainian and a Russian when you walk down the street.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think where the Russians are camped out for the winter, do you think that area, if a Ukrainian citizen walked by in the snow with a snow hat on, versus a Russian citizen with his snow hat on, could you tell the difference? I mean, and is there even any documentation that you could check?
It's not like everybody's being stopped in the street, right?
They don't look different.
Come on. Somebody say they look different.
No. So don't you think that the Ukrainians have totally infiltrated the Russian positions with citizens, right?
Because they're citizens sort of all around where the Russian troops are, are they not?
So it seems obvious to me that the Ukrainians have eyes on the ground.
Do you think the Ukrainians couldn't notice where hundreds of troops sleep every night?
All they have to do is find one troop, like one soldier, say, I found him, and then just follow that one soldier until it's bedtime.
And then they know where he goes to sleep.
And then you call in a strike.
Right? I feel like there could be nothing easier than identifying the indoor places that soldiers are camped for the winter.
Am I wrong about that?
It would be the simplest thing you could do.
Because all the soldiers have to come out of that building during the day, and all you have to do is watch where they go at night.
You could pick any one of them and just follow them.
And you wouldn't even have to follow them all day.
You would just have to wait till like 5 o'clock at night, you know, when it's getting dark, and just follow one.
And you don't think that they have aerial, you know, aerial surveillance?
Dr. Ben is just yelling, you're wrong at CAPS. All right, but here's my larger point.
Regardless of how they're spotting the soldiers, do you think that, given that the Ukrainians can send a HIMARS missile to exactly where they want, anywhere in that occupied territory, won't they eventually take out all of the barracks?
Like, all of them?
Because here's my assumption.
There's no way that the soldiers can spread out because they can't sleep outdoors because of the weather.
If you can't sleep outdoors, you're going to be clustered in large groups indoors.
I don't see how you can avoid that.
So it seems to me that the Ukrainians are going to be able to pick out all of the above-ground buildings anyway and just pick them off all winter long.
That seems like a really...
Well, building, yeah, I suppose they could be distributed and force people to let them in their homes.
But I don't expect the Russians to be that capable.
The Russians have so far shown that they just do what they always do.
And I think they would just keep doing what they always do until they're all wiped out.
They don't seem to adjust.
So we'll see. All right, so I'm going to make a prediction.
Prediction. Prediction. The Russian troops' barracks will be exposed and there will be multiple attacks over the winter because it would be the most devastating thing to attack.
All right. For one thing, it causes the news to get back to the homeland, where if Ukraine attacks, you know, if they attack an anti...
Let's say they attack Russia's artillery position, There's nobody in Russia who cares.
Oh, Russia lost an artillery position.
But if you hear that several hundred of your Russian young men just got wiped out for no good reason, that makes you feel different.
So the Ukrainians have a strategy that, to me, looks like they will win the winter.
So let me make the prediction this way.
Ukraine will win the winter.
Scott Ritter is having a belly laugh.
That's right. You know Scott Ritter...
Well, I'm not going to say it.
But let's just say you should check the affiliations of all your sources.
Doesn't Scott Ritter write for a Russian publication, RT? So you would be taking Russia's national magazine as your counterpoint?
Okay. Fact check that for me.
Well, Missouri carried out, this is the headline in CNN. CNN didn't know how to handle this story.
It's a little awkward.
It's a little awkward, but I'll tell you how they handled it.
So, Missouri carried out the first known U.S. execution of an openly transgender person, Tuesday.
And they noted two things.
The first thing CNN noted is, besides the fact it's the first trans person to be executed, they noted that it's very rare for a woman to be executed for murder.
Very rare for a woman to be executed for murder.
Hardly ever happens. So that was worth noting, because the rarity of women being executed for rape, especially.
So part of the crimes were rape and murder, But the number of women who have ever been prosecuted and executed for rape, as CNN quite helpfully noted, quite helpfully noted, very rare, very rare that women have been executed for rape.
It's good to know. That's good context.
It's totally insane.
Now, the insane part, the insane part is how CNN is trying to handle it.
Because they're trying to make a point about the first woman, because that's a big thing they do.
First woman this, first woman that.
You know, hardly any women.
So anyway. That's rare.
So I'm pro-trans, but I'm glad that they've reached a level of equality where they can be executed possibly at the same rate.
As everybody else.
Because you're not really in any kind of a fair system if you're not executing any of your downtrodden minorities.
You've got to get the ratio up so they're being killed by the state at roughly the same level as white men and black men and women.
I'd like the state to be killing people at something in parity.
Because it seems unfair.
There's just not enough killing of some groups.
Need a lot more killing.
Now, you might say, well, we would do more killing, but they would have to commit more crimes.
I think that's short-term.
That's short-thinking. Short-sighted.
Well, the Twitter files are back in the news.
And as Elon Musk tweeted, the U.S. government agency demanded suspension of 250,000 accounts, including journalists and Canadian officials, in what I think they were trying to get rid of Russian interference.
But then when Twitter looked at the accounts, or Chinese interference too, some foreign interference, but...
But Twitter found, you know, very few accounts that actually looked like there were problems.
But one of the criteria that Twitter was using is if you were following at least two Chinese diplomatic accounts, then you got flagged for, you know, maybe removal.
But I don't think Twitter used that rule.
I think that's what the... Was it the GEC? It appeared based on DHS data.
So two government agencies involved, directly and indirectly.
And imagine that.
Imagine if you followed two or more Chinese diplomatic accounts, you would be put on a list to maybe be banned from Twitter.
Now, you know what I said when I saw that?
Damn it. Chen!
Chen! Chen!
Chen! Now, if you don't know, I have a favorite nemesis named Chen on Twitter.
Now, Twitter puts a little notification on his account that he's affiliated with the Chinese government.
Now, he says no, that he's a citizen just with his own opinions, but Twitter labels him as an affiliate.
Now, I follow him because I'm fascinated by him, because he's so good.
He's really, really good at being, let's say, an advocate.
I don't want to characterize him beyond that.
But as an advocate, he's just a really good tweeter.
He tweets really well.
So I follow him, and we've had some humorous interactions because of his affiliation with Chinese government.
But think about it.
I might have been one follow away from being labeled a Chinese spy.
Now, I'm not sure if his account qualifies as being diplomatic.
Probably not. But you could so easily end up on a list for completely the wrong reason.
And let me ask you this.
Do you think that I got shadow banned because I follow a known Chinese operative on Twitter?
Maybe. Right?
If they were looking into the accounts that followed two or more diplomatic accounts, you can imagine that the algorithm might suppress people who had a little too much Chinese government following going on.
And that might have been me.
So I might have accidentally got myself into an algorithmic shadow ban.
There's no confirmation that that happened.
Yeah. But, you know, it's a weird world.
Could have happened. All right.
And it's a super slow news day.
Is there anything happening?
Oh, we didn't talk about McCarthy.
So Congress is noodling about who to make their Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, the leading candidate.
Trump actually endorsed McCarthy today from his truth account.
So the Trumps are on board with McCarthy, and the small group of Republicans who are trying to oppose it may end up with getting a Democrat elected to the role that the Republicans believe they won.
So let's see, who are the resistors?
We've got Representative Matt Gaetz, We've got Andy Biggs of Arizona and some other people, Bo Burt, etc.
Yeah, Bo Burt is in there.
And let me ask you this.
What do you think of Matt Gaetz's strategy?
So Matt Gaetz seems to be the primary name who's opposing McCarthy and Chip Roy as well.
What do you think of the strategy?
Who owns atoms? Let me stop here.
Here's a critic who I'm going to agree with.
So I don't disagree with all my critics.
So this one is saying, who owns atoms?
That's exactly the right question.
That's exactly the right question.
You should look into it. You should ask that question about everybody.
Okay. Here's what I think of Gates' strategy.
I don't think it's understood.
I don't think people know why he's doing it.
Why do you think he's doing it?
Do you think it's because he doesn't want McCarthy to be the speaker?
Some say attention.
Some say to improve what appointments he gets so he could...
to push right, to get leverage, Negotiate for something.
But, you know, they've been offered things that they turned down.
So it's almost as if they're not negotiating for special benefits.
Apparently, they're not that interested in committee assignments.
I'm not sure that's true, but...
Drain the swamp.
Wants to be king. All right, I'll give you my best-case scenario.
Okay. Gates was sort of, let's say, he had a couple of accounts against him.
One is he was too close to Trump, which could be politically disastrous after January 6th.
And the second was he was accused of some, I don't know, trafficking or something, which he's been cleared of.
So he's a politician who probably wants to stay in politics, who was pushed down to the lowest level of, let's say, I don't know, credibility or political viability or something.
Sexual impropriety he was accused of, but that all went away.
So innocent until proven guilty, same standard.
So here's what I think.
And none of us can read his mind, so let's agree that we don't know, right?
But I'm going to take the point of view that he's a very good persuader and a very good strategist.
Now, if that's not true, then what I'm saying wouldn't make any sense at all.
But here's what I think.
I think he found, just Gates himself, I think he found a path toward credibility.
I think he's rehabilitating himself by picking a fight that only the outcasts can fight.
Boebert's kind of similar.
Boebert's a little bit of an outcast, but she can take on a fight that you can't, because she can take the slings and arrows, and a regular person doesn't want to.
Matt Gaetz can take any blow at this point, any arrows, any attacks, because it won't get worse.
The most dangerous person is a person who's backed into a corner.
And I would say that Gates was politically backed into a corner where he had nothing to lose.
So he can go big.
Gates can go big.
He can simply take a bigger risk than a normal politician, not by choice.
It wasn't his choice to be in this situation, it's just he ended up there.
So instead of just weakly going away because his political fortunes got diminished, you know, just say, oh, I think I'd like a job in the private sector, he's decided to go right at it.
And in my opinion, his strategy for his own career Is really good.
Really good. That's different from agreeing with what he's doing, right?
We'll talk about that.
But in terms of raising his profile as the strongest voice for the slightly more right, you know, slightly more combative part of the Republican Party, it's a pretty good play.
It's a good play. Because there was a void there.
There wasn't a credible, good voice that was more right than the party.
You know, a little bit more right.
And he is really good at communication.
If you saw his speech, I tweeted around, and as I said in the tweet, Forget about personalities and forget about the policies and the politics for a moment.
And just look at the skill level that Matt Gaetz brought to his little speech he gave on Congress about who should be speaker.
It was tremendous.
It was like A double plus, triple plus.
It was as good as you've ever seen.
If he establishes himself as that person who's a little bit more right than the Republican base, or the Republican's Congress, not the base, he might be closer to the base, I don't know.
But he becomes that person, and then he does an unusually good job of it.
Suddenly, his past problems start to dissipate.
Now, it gets even better.
He's now publicly disagreeing with Trump.
Because Trump said today, yeah, let's get it over with, elect Kevin McCarthy.
And Gates is still resisting.
So this is the best thing Gates could have ever done.
He's doing something that's popular with the base, which is being tough on his own Republicans.
That's very popular right now.
And he's also disagreeing with Trump in public on a very big issue.
So he's got some distance now.
Because he also had to get rid of...
He's Trump's lapdog, right?
So he's definitely not Trump's lapdog, because he's disagreeing on a really big issue.
So politically, this is one of the most clever...
Plays that you'll see.
And I'll tell you, if you underestimate Matt Gaetz's political instincts That would be a mistake.
Like, I don't know how far he'll go, and I'm not saying, you know, I back him in all things or anything like that, but just in terms of skill level, if you underestimate him, that's a big mistake.
It's the same thing I say about AOC, right?
You can dislike AOC for political reasons, blah, blah, blah, but don't underestimate her.
That's just a mistake.
So, I think it's a brilliant play.
Secondly, I would agree with Tucker Carlson's take on this, that this fight that the Republicans are having with each other feels like the right fight, doesn't it?
Isn't that the fight you want?
Because we act like disagreeing is always bad.
It's not always bad.
It's what drives the system.
So you see a bunch of people honestly disagreeing.
I think it's an honest disagreement.
I think this is coming from the right place.
They're playing it down in public.
Thank you. Thank you for doing this in public.
Transparency high. Disagreement high.
The probability of settling it one way or the other, good.
Good. It's not doomed in any way.
This is the best.
Literally, this is the best of America right now.
This is exactly what I want to see.
Now, it's ugly. It's messy, but that is our system.
It's ugly and messy. That's what Tucker said, so I'm mimicking him a little bit.
So, I don't know.
We can find something to complain about anything, but it's really hard to find something to complain about the system.
You can complain about the outcome, but the system looks kind of solid at the moment.
The free speech is happening, right?
All the members of Congress do not seem, they're not holding back.
They're saying exactly what they think.
The public sees it all.
And I love the fact that there's infighting within a party, because that's what makes any party better, right?
That's how they improve.
It's all good. To me, this is just all good news, however it turns out.
And I like the fact, I know you hate it, but Matt Gaetz actually said directly, yes, I will accept a Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, as the Speaker of the House if that's my alternative.
If my alternative is to bend to the Republicans, I will bend all the way to a Democrat Speaker, if that's what you want to do.
Now, does he mean it?
Does he mean it? Don't know.
Don't know. The fact that you don't know if he means it is what makes it work.
Right? If you're sure he didn't mean it, it wouldn't work.
But I believe he sold it.
In my opinion, he sold it.
At least to the public.
Maybe the members of Congress are a little more savvy.
But he sold it to me.
I actually believe.
If they don't get their way, they will allow Hakeem Jeffries to be in that office.
I think it's possible.
Now, if that happened, I think Gates' political futures would be in real trouble.
Real trouble. So I think he's saying it for effect, and it's working.
So it's a really good thing to say for effect, because there's no point in bluffing if you're going to say it's a bluff.
They basically asked him, wait a minute, are you bluffing?
Well, what's he supposed to say?
Yeah, oh, you caught me.
I was hoping nobody would ask, but now they've asked, yeah.
I don't want to lie. It's just a bluff.
Now, I think it's a bluff.
I do think it's a bluff.
But he totally sold it as at least possible.
But it's probably a bluff.
All right. Which is what Trump wanted with January 6th.
Alright. What?
I don't know what some of these comments are referring to.
They're all confusing.
But there's nothing else that's interesting about that.
It'll probably be settled today, I guess.
Alright, did I miss any stories?
Anything else happening? I didn't see Fetterman get sworn in.
Some people say he wasn't looking good, but I think that's probably subjective.
We sort of made up the stories today.
Okay.
Thoughts on McCarthy? You know, how many of you have a strong feeling about whether McCarthy would be a good Speaker of the House?
Do many of you have strong feelings about that?
Because I'm not sure how you would get a strong feeling about that.
Like, how would you know he would be better than Jim Jordan or whoever's up for it?
How would you know? I feel like that's unknowable.
Now, again, I hate to copy Tucker Carlson again, but let me credit him for the good opinion.
He basically gave a nuanced opinion on McCarthy.
And I think that's exactly right.
And the nuance is that Kevin McCarthy is really good politically.
And you need that. He did the work to be in this position.
I don't like to use the word earned it, because that has no place in politics, in my opinion.
But we understand what he means, right?
He did the work to be the person that should be considered.
That's worth saying. I just don't think it should be the deciding factor.
And apparently he's great at fundraising.
He's great at fundraising.
The Claw Adams people, like, what would cause you to spend time doing this?
Like, was that comment useful enough that, like, that was worth, I think I'll go over there and start some rumors and put them on this feed.
Like, did that pay off?
Did you get, like, a little dopamine hit from that?
Yeah. Yeah.
Claw Burt. Matthew the NPC says, Clopbert.
You know, Matthew, that's interesting, because in my 33 years of doing Dilbert and drawing Dogbert and Ratbert, you're the first person who ever thought, I can own him by putting Bert on the end of another word.
Yeah, nobody's ever thought of that before.
I think I'll put Bert on the end of a word, and that'll be a real clever way to mock him.
Is it because you couldn't spell Garfield, Matthew?
Could you not spell Garfield, the other NPC comment that people make?
What's the matter? You had to go for the most obvious NPC one, Matthew?
All right.
Bo Burt, yeah.
I know you want me to swear, but we don't need to do that, do we?
Do we, YouTube censors?
Your plant died yesterday?
All right.
I'm just wondering how many people come over here just to say clot?
There's a whole cohort of people who...
I think they're masturbating when they do it, but I don't know.
That's just a guess. They come over here, and they get insane amount of fun from writing clot, cloth births, clot atoms, vax atoms, clot, clotting, clot clot.
How about clotting and clot birth?
And they'll do it the entire program.
And I think to myself, There must be some payoff for that, right?
There must be a payoff for it.
Because they wouldn't do it.
I'm just finding all the people to hide.
When did you start believing long COVID was real?
Never. Never.
When did you start believing When did you start being an NPC? So, you'll notice that the NPCs always have the same problem.
They think there are two worldviews, and if they don't recognize you fitting into the one, you must be in the other.
That was the payoff.
Oh, okay, so I got an answer.
So the trolls say the payoff was giving them attention.
So somebody's happy that I called them out to give them attention.
Now, is your life that small?
Is your life so small that bothering a celebrity, or let's say a public person, is bothering a public person To disrupt the quality of the experience, did that give you actually like a little thrill?
So making a whole bunch of lives a little less good was actually gave you a thrill.
Because you know if that's true, and apparently you're admitting it is, as read here, so more people coming in to do it.
Now if that's true, and obviously it is, you should examine how much you suck.
Because, I'm going to say this directly, those are people I wish would just not be here.
I was going to say something that would get me banned on social media.
But let's just say, if a meteor killed you all, I would not feel as badly as I do about DeMar.
Hamlin, who seemed like an awesome guy, and we all feel bad that he's in a bad situation.
The trolls, however, seem to live, they feed on other people's unhappiness.
If you feed on other people's unhappiness, we think evolution will eventually get rid of you, but that's not up to me.
And still, the trolls are coming in to say clot.
That's the lowest level of entertainment I've ever seen.
Now my feed on YouTube is just filled with people with trolls.
so I can see how many there are.
All right, clank or clot.
Oh, is it all the sticks and hammer people coming over to be trolls?
You know, I would love to actually have a conversation with one of the trolls, would you?
Like, to actually see a real person and say, what exactly were you trying to get out of this?
What was the payoff here?
Because I'm actually kind of curious.
Did you hear somebody built a robot that operates on organic matter?
So that started the rumor that it's gonna eat people for fuel?
which apparently it could.
All right.
All right, well, there's nothing else happening today, So, YouTube, I'm gonna turn you off and all of your trolls.
I'm gonna talk to the nice people on the locals platform.
Where you should all be to see the extra special stuff.
