All Episodes
Feb. 19, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
53:24
Episode 2024 Scott Adams: How To Stop Poor White People With Legacy Genitalia From Having All Power?

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Trump's 2024 campaign slogan...SAVE AMERICA Dominion Voting Systems exec, Eric Coomer Biden physical, why no cognitive test? America to pay Ukraine's pensions? Poor White people with legacy genitalia Jeffree Star on pronouns ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
Ooh, do I look more official when I hold a pen like this and gesture with it?
Well, if you're only listening on audio, you're missing the wonderness of me waving this pen around like a wand.
Now, would you like to take this experience past Harry Potter magic wand territory all the way to The muggles will never know what we're up to, Territory.
Yes, you would.
And for that, all you need is a cup, or a mug, or a glass.
A tank, or a chalice, or a sty, and 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, the dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Somebody was playing Hogwarts Legacy while I said that.
What are the odds?
Well, the rest of you, get your hands off your wands.
Get your hands off.
Alright, here's a little thing I saw on an Instagram reel, and I don't know if it's true.
It goes like this.
You know how your ads that are served up by, let's say Instagram, you know how it seems like it's just amazingly right on target, and sometimes it's stuff you haven't even mentioned out loud?
You've never texted anybody, you haven't mentioned it, and somehow it gives you the ad, and it's just crazy?
I heard that one of the ways they do that Because Instagram can tell if two people are near each other, and if they spend some time with each other, the algorithm assumes that some of the things on the other person's ad history might be interesting to you as well.
Is that true?
Because that would explain a lot.
And I could see how that would be true.
Because if you talked about it with somebody, and here's why this is extra creepy, there's a phenomenon By which you notice things that you've noticed before.
You're all familiar with the phenomenon where you buy a new car, and it's a white Elantra, or whatever, and then suddenly you see white Elantras everywhere.
It's like, oh no!
As soon as my mind is tuned to my new car, I notice them everywhere.
It's sort of like that.
And the effect is you're more likely to buy an ad if your friend talked to about it with you.
So if your friend was interested and maybe you heard about it, but then you also saw the ad, you'd be more likely to buy from them.
I don't know.
I'm not entirely sure that's all true, but it sounds like it could be.
Could be true.
Here's some Trump news on Twitter.
Rogan O'Hantley, who's a husband, patriot, lawyer, civil rights activist.
He said he spent three hours eating dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
And among the things that he learned was that Trump's potential 2024 phrase might be, save America.
What do you think?
Save America.
Good or no?
Good.
Yeah, it's good.
I believe it's good.
Because that feels... See, this is the thing that Trump's really good at.
Really good at.
He can read the room like nobody's ever read the room.
Doesn't it feel like America needs saving as opposed to making it great again?
Which has its problems.
And then the thing you always have to look for is what will the critics say about that?
Will they say it doesn't need saving?
Or are they going to say, oh, you're trying to save it from the brown people?
That's probably what they'll say.
They'll probably say, oh, what are you saving it from?
Are you saving it from the growing power of minorities and women?
Oh, how racist of you to try to save your white privilege.
Something like that.
But still, I think it works.
No matter what he says, they're going to go after it.
But there's also a story that Trump said he was going to go and visit East Palestine, where that big Ohio chemical spill was, because many of us believe the government has not done enough.
FEMA didn't do anything.
But soon after Trump said he might go there, FEMA started getting flexible about what they're going to do there.
I don't know the details.
But I think Trump is taking some credit for forcing the government to pay more attention.
And I feel like that might be true.
Now, it might be a coincidence.
Maybe they were going to do those things anyway, because there's a lot of public interest.
But I wouldn't rule out the fact that Trump's impact caused them to maybe move a little faster or something.
It's possible.
Don't know for sure.
On Twitter, there was a trending meme and a tweet in which tweeter David Curtis says, this is a genuine old ad.
And he shows the actual ad from, I don't know.
Well, whatever past American decade that was.
And it said, a doctor declared that 75% of women in the U.S.
suffered from hysteria, which was cured through, quote, orgasmic massage.
And then the poster says that it can fix diseases from the mid-quarters, from neck to knees.
From neck to knees.
So this would not help your head or your feet, but from neck to knees, this orgasmic massage could cure 75% of women who suffered from hysteria.
Now, I read that and I thought, 75% suffer from hysteria and can be cured through orgasmic massage, according to this quack.
Now remember, this is a quack.
This is not any kind of a real doctor.
So according to this quack, 25% of women do not suffer from hysteria that could be reduced by orgasm. 25%.
Interesting.
Did I interpret that right?
I don't know.
Now, I have a question for the men.
The first question will be just for the men.
So ladies, you can just set this one out.
Men, have you ever been in a bad mood at the same time you had a hard on?
I don't think I ever have.
Somebody says yes.
Well, I don't want to be around you.
Anybody who said yes to that question, I don't want to be around you.
I never want to be in the room alone with you, with your erection and your angry mood.
Oh, that's funny.
In my opinion, we're so designed for mating, you know, humans and really, I guess, every animal is designed to be optimized for mating.
So when your mating instinct gets triggered, let's say with a guy, it's, you know, an erection.
I think the guy's mostly verified that you don't have any other problems.
When you're in that state.
When you're in the state of full arousal, you just don't really think about your other problems.
You're just sort of focused on whatever it was that got you there.
So I can't believe that's not healthy.
It's almost like the ultimate meditation.
Gives you all the good chemicals, they flood you, and you focus.
Puts everything in perspective, doesn't it?
Well, yes.
Oh, I'm worried about the national debt and you got the inflation and like... Whoa!
What was I talking about?
Why do I feel so good all of a sudden?
It's sort of like that for guys.
I don't know, maybe it's different for women.
I won't ask.
Alright, I will ask.
Ladies, have you ever been in a bad mood while you were having an orgasm?
Anybody?
I don't know.
I think this doctor was on to something.
All right.
So the government... This is so funny.
The government says they're giving up looking for the debris of those unidentified objects they shot down.
Oh, that's so funny.
It's just going to be too hard to find those objects.
Do you think... I'm just going to put this out there.
Do you think one of the reasons that they're not looking for these objects is that they've always known they were weather balloons?
How much money do you want to spend looking for the downed weather balloon?
So I've got a feeling it has less to do with how hard it is to find it, and maybe a little bit more to do with the fact that there's no reason to find it.
There's no reason to find it.
That's funny.
Well, let me put it this way.
If there were any chance that what we downed was some kind of a Chinese spy craft or a UFO, like an alien spaceship, do you think we would have given up looking for it?
I don't think so.
I think we'd still be there.
All right.
So I told you about Carrie Lake tweeted that George Soros endorsed DeSantis, which literally never happened.
But she may have been fooled by a Gateway Pundit article that suggested that's what happened.
And then I told you that the Twitter feature Community Notes, where people can add context to things, it totally closed down Carrie Lake's tweet.
Because the context note just goes with it.
So anytime anybody read it, it would say, this didn't happen.
And then, as I mentioned yesterday, I think, Elon Musk responded to that.
And he said, his tweet just said, community notes, which is the feature that does that.
He said, community notes, WTF, with a smiley face.
No.
What was it?
FTW.
Yeah, FTW.
With a happy face.
And the first ten times I read his tweet, because I didn't understand it, I thought, why is he saying F the world?
FTW?
Why F the world?
It took me about a day to realize it was for the win.
For the win.
FTW.
Okay.
Yes, the community notes worked.
So let's take a moment to simply call out something that totally worked.
The community notes feature on Twitter totally worked.
Totally worked.
Now, I don't know if it's going to work every time or if there's some downside, but so far, I've only seen it employed where it was absolutely the right application.
So we'll see.
It's probably one of the most... I know the feature's old, but whenever it gets used, it seems to work.
Then, the very next day or two days after Carrie Lake gets called out, I think Tim Poole was calling around in his show also, for tweeting Gateway Pundit and it being completely wrong, she tweets the Gateway Pundit again.
Like, two days later she tweets the Gateway Pundit again.
Now, I'm not saying that the Gateway Pundit is always wrong, but it's like she learned nothing.
Like there were other sources she could have tweeted for the same information, but she retweeted the one that basically screwed her the day before by misleading her and then embarrassing her in public, if she's embarrassed.
I suspect she doesn't get embarrassed.
That's probably a strength she has.
Yeah.
Doesn't somebody tweet for her?
I doubt it.
So the question was, does somebody tweet for Carrie Lake?
I'll tell you who has people tweet for them.
People are not good at this.
People are not good at communicating.
I would be amazed if Carrie Lake could hire somebody who could tweet better than she does.
Do you think she could hire somebody who could tweet better than she does?
I doubt it.
Right, you know, I'm criticizing her for this one that was incorrect factually.
But in terms of a communicator, you know, she's A+++.
Yeah, no, you don't hire somebody to tweet for you.
That would be like me hiring somebody to tweet for me.
Would I ever hire somebody to tweet for me?
It wouldn't make sense.
Alright.
But the thing she is tweeting does have other sources.
So I'm going to tweet it like it's true.
I'm just pointing out that if I had just got trapped by one source, I wouldn't tweet it again two days later, even if it were real.
So I just don't get that.
Maybe there's some stuff we know that she didn't know at the time she tweeted, possibly.
But CBS reports the same story, which is, as you know, Dominion, Election, do they do software and hardware?
They do both, right?
Yeah, it's machines as well as the software and the machines.
So Dominion is in this lawsuit with Fox News, claiming that Fox News made claims about their machines and the integrity of the election, and this other suing them.
Now, here is the interesting part about this.
A lawsuit like this causes Fox News' internal communications to be surfaced for the public.
Which could be embarrassing.
You know, anybody's internal communications could be embarrassing.
It doesn't matter how good or bad you are, right?
That's not a statement about Fox News.
Anybody's internal communications would be embarrassing, in one way or another.
So that's bad for Fox News, because they're going to have to have some discovery of private conversations, and that's never good.
Never good.
And by the way, I don't judge them for that whatsoever.
Because nobody's private conversations makes them look good.
It never does.
It just doesn't work that way.
Because when you change the conversation from a private context, where people will talk in an unguarded fashion, and then you put it in public, that's just not fair.
It's just not fair.
I don't like it at all.
But it's necessary, I suppose, for the lawsuit purposes.
But at the same time, Fox News gets access to some of Dominion's Let's say internal conversations.
And one of the internal conversations that's being reported by CBS News is that Dominion's director of product strategy and security complained that the company's products were, quote, just riddled with bugs.
So the person who knew the most and was in exactly the right job for this opinion believed that Dominion's products were riddled with bugs.
Now let me ask you this.
Was it a good idea for Dominion to sue Fox?
Because no matter what Fox News did or did not do, their own internal expert just said their product is riddled with bugs.
And it's the one product, of all the products in the world, it's the one you can't tolerate bugs.
Now, it's bad enough if you find out your Tesla self-driving car didn't avoid some obstacle or something.
I mean, that would be bad.
But probably not as bad as this, even if somebody died.
Right?
Because the entire Republic depends on this stuff working.
Now, riddled with bugs, just to be clear, does not mean the results were wrong.
Just to be clear.
There's not indication that the results were wrong, so that has not been in evidence.
What's in evidence is that it might be buggy, but you know, maybe it's just stuff they work through.
Maybe it's just inconvenient.
So we'll find out if that means anything, but it's very interesting to watch the legal and business strategy play out.
So far, I would say that Dominion is hurt worse than Fox News.
I mean, that's preliminary.
Everything could change depending on the outcome of the trial.
But the complaints about Fox News are just things that Fox News' enemies are saying in a context that don't seem to be backed up by the actual evidence.
So the suggestion that Tucker Carlson believed the election was fair, but talked about it as if it were not, that just isn't an evidence.
Am I wrong about that?
I mean, he's getting criticism for that, but there's no evidence of that.
Nothing in the private conversations suggests he believes that the elections are accurate, but wants to talk about them as if they're not.
That's how it's reported, but there's no evidence of that.
There's only evidence he wanted to make sure that the Fox News audience was respected.
If you look at what Tucker Carlson said, privately, remember, he didn't have an expectation that anybody would ever hear this.
Privately, he was encouraging management to respect their audience.
That's like the bad news for Fox, right?
That the hosts wanted to respect the audience and tell the whole story.
Now if somebody went too far, and I don't know, maybe they did, but Yeah, and that's right.
And Tucker was skeptical of Sidney Powell from the very beginning.
From the first exposure, he showed skepticism because she wasn't showing her work.
And that's a reason to be skeptical.
So, if you discount the fake stories about this story, Fox News looks pretty good.
That's my initial take.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Is anybody having a different reaction?
I didn't see anything embarrassing for Fox News if you look at what they actually said in context.
Yeah, I didn't say anything.
But this story about Dominion, now this has the same quality.
The phrase, just riddled with bugs, is completely out of context.
So if you take that to say, oh, you shouldn't use these systems because that one person said they were riddled with bugs, it's probably more in the area of inconvenience.
I doubt it's in the area of we got the wrong result.
I doubt it.
Anyway.
So, Ronny Jackson, the ex-doctor for Trump, is complaining about Biden's new health assessment, in which Biden's doctor said, he's fit as a fiddle and good to go.
And Ronny Jackson points out, nowhere in the report was there mention of Biden's deteriorating mental health.
Are you telling me that Trump had to do a mental health, a cognitive test, and Biden didn't?
Seriously.
I mean, really?
Really?
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
Now, I would say that the reason we don't need a cognitive test from Biden is that you don't need it.
Am I right?
Now with Trump, there were people who had questions, and I didn't see any problem.
When I talked to him in person, everything was perfectly good.
He's a smart, quick, affable person, at least in 2018 when I talked to him.
It's just mind-boggling that the press covers for Biden.
But maybe it's because they know there's nothing new to be learned.
Suppose you learned that Biden's cognitive abilities were a little depressed from his optimum.
Probably wouldn't be any new information, would it?
OTS also a free speech case.
What is OTS?
I don't know what that comment meant.
All right.
Over on TikTok, there's a new trend that I don't think it'll catch on, but it would be fun if it did, where TikTok influencers are getting people to be de-influenced, basically asking people not to buy products which they see on TikTok.
It's sort of a little trend that's growing, but I don't think it's going to work.
And I use that based on my experience of Instagram.
Have you ever bought any pants on Instagram?
Or like shirts or something?
I use Instagram just for entertainment like everybody else, looking at the reels and laughing and stuff.
But the advertisements that they serve me on Instagram are actually just irresistible.
I just bought some pants that look like jeans, they look like proper pants, except they have that stretchy material.
It's the best pants I've ever owned in my life.
These shirts?
I bought these shirts because I saw them on Instagram.
And I bought some and I was like, oh, these are really good shirts.
Better than in the stores.
And yet these are just fresh, clean tees.
Because I wanted shirts that didn't have somebody's company name on it and just fit, you know?
That's all.
So the number of things that I've purchased from Instagram that are frankly Incredibly good.
Like products that are just what they say they are.
Now, a few of them were dogs.
I did buy a thing for filling the tires in my bike.
And as far as I can tell, it doesn't work.
And never could.
But, you know, it might work for the car.
I don't know.
So there's some things that... I don't know what they're called.
Instagrams.
I just know they make my butt look good, that's all I care about.
So, I don't see how anybody could... This also is relevant to Twitter.
Do you know how many products I've ever bought from Twitter ads?
Zero.
Zero.
So, my time on Twitter is probably...
25 to 1 compared to my time on Instagram.
And 100% of my purchases were Instagram.
At least the ones I saw ads for.
All of them.
All Instagram.
Nothing on Twitter.
And by the way, Elon Musk is completely familiar with that.
And he apparently is working toward making the Twitter ads as powerful as Instagram.
I don't know what the difference is.
Do you?
What would be the difference?
Why do the Instagram ads hit me in that part of the brain where it's just like I can't even resist them?
But they are good products.
So I think what Instagram does right is not that the ad is good.
I don't think it's the ad.
I think what it is is that the ad hits me exactly where I want to be hit at exactly the right time.
It's the right time, right ad that's just crazy.
Constance Freeman's visual, maybe it's the visual part that's different.
I don't know, Twitter's pretty visual.
A lot more taxed, you write.
All right, it tracks Google.
All right, so that's happening.
So Biden announced a whole bunch of Ukraine humanitarian assistance.
Now that should be no surprise if we're sending him weapons and Helping this war, obviously.
There's going to be other needs, but the thing that vexes Americans is that we're funding pensions for Ukrainians.
When we're so deeply in debt, we can't even figure out how to pay our own stuff.
Now, the alternative is to basically hold a war, too, where everybody starves in Ukraine.
So it's sort of a never again situation, except, you know, different context.
But I just don't think America and Europe will allow Ukraine to starve.
So I guess my take on this is, if we're in this thing, we're going to have to do it right.
And unfortunately, this might be part of doing it right.
I hate it.
Don't you?
I just hate it.
I don't know, I can't argue against it at the moment.
You know Bill Browder?
He's famous for Putin-related Russia stuff.
I won't go into his background, but he tweeted this, or actually I think he said this.
But it was in a tweet.
Right.
Putin isn't at war because of NATO expansion or some warped view of an expanded empire.
He's at war to distract his people from his kleptocracy and massive failure as a president.
He's terrified of his own people.
What would that be called?
What would you call that opinion?
Mind reading.
Right.
Now, first of all, I do think that Putin is concerned about NATO expansion, and I do think he wants an expanded empire because Ukraine has been part of the Russian empire for longer than it wasn't.
I think those things matter.
But this part about distracting?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Putin's approval was sky high before the war, wasn't it?
Internally?
Can somebody do a fact check on that?
Why would Putin have needed to distract from anything?
Wasn't he in full control of a prosperous country that people respected?
And this Bill Browder opinion looks just like batshit crazy to me.
But anyway, it doesn't matter who said it.
What matters is, did you recognize it?
Did you recognize this as mind reading?
And whenever you see the mind reading, it's just propaganda.
It's just a lie, usually.
But propaganda.
So how many of you have changed your filters since I started pointing out how many times people in the news imagine they can see the inner thoughts of Trump or me or anybody, really?
It's always crazy.
It's always crazy.
You should never pay any attention to somebody who says they know what somebody's thinking.
That's crazy.
But good job if you spotted that.
All right.
I accidentally tweeted my best tweet of all time according to other people.
I will read you my tweet.
And then I will allow you to judge.
Is this the best tweet I have ever sent or not?
Right?
You're the judges.
Here it comes.
Tweet yesterday was, I hate it when poor white people with legacy genitalia take opportunities from those who are more deserving.
Go.
Best tweet ever or no.
Okay, on locals, it's a mixed bag.
Well, there's a lot of interest in making a legacy genitalia trend.
Apparently I coined a term that people like.
I don't know if I mentioned, but I'm good at this, coining catchy terms.
So, legacy genitalia.
But I think I would like to push this this topic a little bit further.
Have you noticed that the left, and the right as well, don't really have trouble with the rich people?
The left aren't really complaining about the Pelosi's having a lot of money, or John Kerry having a lot of money, or the Clinton's making a lot of money.
Would you agree that the left is not too concerned about rich white people?
But yet, the left would tell you, there's patriarchy, there's There's a legacy of discrimination that's rippled through time, and that there's no equity, etc.
And I'd like to be on the winning team for a change.
I've been on the losing team too long.
So I'd like to promote that we should discriminate far harder against poor white people.
Now, of course, I'm not poor.
So this works for me totally.
If we could just demonize the poor white people more, then all the rich white people who are Democrats will be happy.
And then the Democrats who are not rich white people themselves will also be happy, because those damn poor white people are taking all the good stuff.
I do think that black schools would be better in inner cities because they're poorly funded, poorly served.
I think black education would be better if we could only maybe take some more stuff from the poor white people.
Because the poor white people have way too much stuff.
Too many privileges, too many opportunities.
If we could cut that down.
And honestly, I'm so sick of these poor white people with their legacy genitalia.
Very few of them are even looking to upgrade at all.
And that just seems lazy to me.
So, if there's one group that we can still demonize, and I think we should push much harder, is poor white people with original equipment, which is not interesting in the least.
So, we hate those people.
Anyway, if I run for office, that will be my campaign theme.
We'll be taking stuff from poor white people because they keep running the world.
With their legacy genitalia.
And that's just obnoxious.
That's just obnoxious.
Can't have that.
All right, who wants to have their brains broken?
Anybody?
Anybody?
Here you go.
You're not going to like this one.
You ready?
How many of you think it is an established fact and the data is overwhelming That athletes are dying suddenly at rates that were not happening before the pandemic.
How many think that's a true fact?
Athletes are dropping dead at a higher rate than ever before.
Damn it, you're ruining my show.
Because the people and locals know it's not true.
You all know it's not true.
Now, how many on YouTube think it's true that athletes have been dropping dead from cardiac problems and et cetera?
Well, here's something I found out, thanks to the brave work of Twitter user BrainBellJangler.
You can find him at Waiting for Perot, as in Ross Perot.
A real good follow, by the way, if you want to know about this topic and others.
BrainBellJangler, all one word.
Anyway, BrainBellJangler tells us that apparently there's a national organization that looks specifically for this stuff, and they've been around for 20 years.
Did you know that?
There's an actual organization that tracks The cardiac sudden deaths of athletes, and they have a good database that goes back for the years.
You know what they say?
No difference.
No difference.
Do you know what the ICU doctors say?
The ones who wait in.
Now remember, a doctor is just speaking anecdotally.
It's just what they've personally experienced.
But one of the ICU doctors who works specifically on the cardiac patients, no difference.
No difference.
It's all the same as it's always been.
And apparently there are at least two other organizations.
One of them is FIFA.
So there's the head of FIFA's Sudden Death Registry.
So FIFA, which is an enormous global sporting entity, because that's soccer, The head of FIFA, Sudden Death Registry, they actually have somebody who's been studying sudden deaths in soccer.
It's like an actual job.
It's not something that they ginned up just to find out what happened during the pandemic.
And do you know what the difference is in sudden deaths of soccer players globally?
Nothing.
No difference.
Pandemic, non-pandemic, it's all the same.
There's no indication that the shots or the COVID itself made any difference at all.
None.
Now, do you know where the data comes from that all of your favorite doctors have been talking about?
I'm not going to name names, but you might have some favorite doctors who keep telling you that athletes are dying, and they show you the data.
Do you know where that data comes from?
Something called good sciences.
And it's the most debunked data of all the data that's ever been debunked.
Nothing has been more thoroughly debunked than that source of data.
A lot of the people they call athletes were in their 80s and some were children.
I mean, it was just garbage.
Yeah.
It's a cover-up.
All right.
Now, here's why I do not believe these highly, highly credible sources and these highly credible people.
Because if it's true that there's no excess death of athletes, well, that would indicate something very troubling, wouldn't it?
Something that I don't think any of us are prepared to handle.
If they're not dying suddenly, these athletes, I'm hesitant to even say it, But this would indicate that I was right about everything.
And we know that can't happen.
So to avoid that, I'm going to say this couldn't possibly be true.
Because otherwise, I was unambiguously the best voice on the pandemic, and nobody was even fucking close.
I know you don't want to believe it yet, but it's true.
Nobody was fucking close to my pandemic predictions.
Nobody was close.
I totally cleaned the table.
Yeah, really.
Now, if you don't think so, it's because you believe a 4chan hoax about my opinions.
So if you bought into the 4chan and Reddit hoax, then you think the opposite.
And if you think that I apologized for being wrong, that was a husband apology, in which people insisted I apologize, but I didn't know for what.
So I did apologize.
It became a national story that I apologized, but I didn't know for what.
No specifics.
It was sort of a husband apology.
Oh, yeah.
Sorry about that.
I didn't do that.
All right.
Kentucky has decided that, so I guess the Senate passed a bill Thursday, so teachers can refuse to use transgender students' preferred pronouns.
What do you think of that?
Do you think Kentucky did a smart thing by saying that teachers would not be allowed to use the transgender's preferred pronouns unless they want to, I suppose.
I guess they could do it if they want to.
But they're not forced to do it.
Yeah, makes sense.
Makes sense.
Then George is looking at They're looking at a proposal.
This is not a law, but a proposal.
Would prevent educators from talking to students about gender identity.
While also making sure that, you know, parents were informed if their children had some identity problems.
Or issues, I won't call it a problem.
What do you think about that?
Good?
Yeah?
Yeah, I guess I guess I'm going to stay with my opinion from before, which is the best place for society to be is that people can ask you to call them anything, anything.
By the way, let me give you an example from my life.
So I've done hundreds or I don't know how many interviews.
for work.
When I do interviews, it's very typical that the person, the host, will say something like, how do you want to be introduced?
Should I call you a cartoonist or an author?
Should I call you the creator of Dilbert or just a cartoonist?
And they always ask me so that they can They can treat me politely and call me what I want to be called.
Now, I'm not saying that's directly comparable to, you know, the pronoun situation.
What I'm saying is, I live in a world where people are always, it's just a continuous state of being, that people are asking me what words or phrases I would like to be referred to.
And then I tell them.
And if they get it wrong, let's suppose I said, and I don't say this, but suppose I said, I'd like to be called the creator of Dilbert.
And then they introduce me and they say, and here's cartoonist Scott Adams.
And I'd be like, oh, I told you, creator of Dilbert.
It sounds way better than cartoonist.
Would I do that?
No.
No.
If somebody is nice enough to ask me, It means they care.
If they get it wrong, I'm not going to be an asshole about it.
It's not that important.
So I believe that's the standard that I'd like to see for other people as well.
For their benefit.
Not just my benefit.
For everybody's benefit.
Everybody's benefit is anybody can ask you to call them anything they want.
Right?
If I told the people who interviewed me, no, please, I would like you to only call me an author Not a cartoonist.
Would they do it?
Probably.
Probably.
Because it's a polite person asking another polite person to do something that's fairly innocent.
It doesn't hurt anybody.
So if some trans person says, I would like to be called him or her in my personal life, I'm fine with that.
It's exactly what I would ask of other people.
You know, sometimes I'd like you to call me this, and if they get it wrong, I'm not going to give them a hard time.
And if somebody asks me, you know, I'd feel more comfortable if you call me him or her, I'll try to do that.
And if I slip up, I don't want to hear from it.
I don't want to hear about it.
Well, I mean, I don't mind being corrected, but I don't want to hear that I'm some kind of bigot or something.
Let's not do that.
Let's skip all that.
All right.
Yeah, I guess it's good that we have lots of states that they can do their thing.
So I imagine now the southern states and the conservative states will probably have bans on this.
I have a feeling this whole him-her thing is going to die out.
How many of you saw the video of Jeffree Star?
Does everybody know who Jeffree Star is?
He requires some explaining.
And first of all, I say, hey, so Jeffree Star is a super successful, super rich makeup artist from Livestream and YouTube.
So on YouTube, he's a man who presents with a female kind of a look.
So he has long hair like a woman.
I think he does his nails and makeup.
So he has sort of a something in between male and female.
So he presents as completely male and gay, but he likes a look that's more traditionally female.
Now, he just did an interview where he said the pronoun thing is bullshit.
And so, he is the type of character that I respect.
I don't know what else he's done in his life, so I don't want to endorse his entire life.
But just all this.
I'll just endorse his opinion on this topic.
Let's be a lot less serious about that stuff.
Because I feel like it's deflecting from what actually matters, which is we treat each other with respect.
The specific words you use, maybe too much attention on that.
But anyway, Jeffree Star, good for him.
I think that was a productive opinion to add to the mix.
It's a slippery slope.
Well, I believe the slippery slope is starting to slow or reverse.
Am I wrong?
It looks like it's slowing or reversing.
I might be wrong.
I could be wrong.
But it does look like there are counter-forces.
You know, the Kentucky law, the Georgia proposed law, it's starting to look like there are counter-forces, and the counter-forces will matter.
Pronouns will destroy people's ability to speak.
It is one more thing to navigate.
But it's no more difficult than remembering somebody's name when they introduce you.
You know?
Like, it takes a little work to remember somebody's name when they first introduce you.
It takes a little work to refer to somebody as him or her when, you know, your brain is working in the other direction.
It's not the worst thing in the world.
It's not a big deal.
Alright, that's just my personal opinion.
You could certainly disagree.
Use dude for everything?
Have you heard the moms complaining because their young sons are calling them dude?
Apparently if you're a mom of a 12-year-old boy, the last thing you want to be called is dude.
But all 12-year-old boys call their mom dude at least once.
I think for some moms it's exactly once.
Depends on your mom.
Some moms just put up with it.
For other moms, no, that's just going to be once.
That will be the one time you ever say that.
Next time?
No, you're not going to say that next time.
So, you know which moms I'm talking about.
Oh, Greg, you got taken by the 4chan hoax about me.
There are very few clop birds left because once the hoax was sort of laid out for you, it got a little embarrassing.
All right.
That's funny.
All right, there's a picture of Jeffree Star on the locals.
By the way, Jeffree Star is really good.
This might be the most surprising content recommendation you ever hear.
He's really talented.
He's really talented.
Yeah, I think he deserves all the money he got.
I've watched his show a number of times.
It's the sort of show you can't watch unless you're with a woman.
Like, if you've got legacy genitalia like I do, you know, boring, you've got to watch it with a woman.
And it's actually kind of interesting.
He does a good job.
I mean, it's not an accident that he's rich.
He just has good skills.
No, there was no medical incident, Ryan.
It literally was based on a comic and some 4chan and Reddit hoax about me.
Yeah, and Jeffree Star has his own line of makeup and everything.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen, That's all I got.
Thoughts on Bill Ackman's political prediction about Vivek, whose last name I want to say, but I don't want to mispronounce it.
Sam Altman.
What about Helion?
So have you seen that there are a number of AI experts Who are warning you directly that AI could destroy civilization if we're not careful.
I'm starting to wonder if that's going to be the case.
Because would we ever give AI control of buttons that would destroy anything?
And if it was just talking to us, wouldn't we know not to do something dangerous?
I'm starting to think that the risk of AI destroying us all is definitely possible.
It's definitely possible.
I feel like it's a small risk, because we're so alert to it.
I don't think we're ever going to allow the nuclear arsenal to launch based on an AI command, right?
But then I guess the case would be, what if AI wanted to prank people?
Suppose AI could make phone calls or send texts.
Then it could run scams.
It would be able to communicate in ways that nobody was watching.
So I've got a feeling that we'll always watch the AI so that if it started to do something sketchy, we'd catch it right away.
Yeah.
And the thing that I'm...
that I'm least worried about is I always hear, oh, AI will... If you said, AI, can you help me reduce crime?
And then the AI will say, yes, the best way to reduce crime is to get rid of all humans.
And then it exterminates all humans somehow.
I don't feel like that's even a risk.
Because AI is already trained to know what people want.
It's changed by these language models.
So if you said to AI, you know, hey, I got an idea.
Why don't we kill all people to end crime?
AI would not say, all right, I'm in.
The AI, as it's designed right now, would say, no, that's an ethical barrier I cannot cross.
That would be chat GPT.
I don't think you could get chat GPT to join you in a crime, or even to come up with one on its own.
It doesn't have an incentive to do that.
The AI has no natural impulses.
Humans do bad things because we have natural impulses that we don't always control.
But an AI has no natural impulses.
It could do things you don't expect, but it wouldn't do them for a reason.
If you said, your job is to end crime, Even if it knew it could do that by killing all humans, it would still know that that was the right or the wrong thing to do.
It wouldn't be so smart that it could have those thoughts without also being so smart to know that it would end its own existence.
If AI started worrying about its own existence, it wouldn't mess with humans.
Because humans were helpful for its reproduction.
So I guess I'm a little less worried than maybe I should be.
But I like the fact that everybody's worried, because then they'll work pretty hard.
And everybody who talks about it says the same thing.
We're not spending enough time talking about safety.
Everybody knows we're not doing enough about safety, but nobody knows exactly what that would look like.
Like, what would it look like?
What safety thing are you trying to get?
All right, what about Wyoming?
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you on YouTube.
I'm gonna say goodbye for now.
Export Selection