Episode 2029 Scott Adams: I'm Trending On Twitter. Was It Something I Said?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Was it something I said?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a better time to be alive.
There are times to be dead, probably, probably good times to be dead, but this is the best time to be alive, and that's what I'm dealing with, just that domain right now.
Dead people, they can watch their own entertainment.
This is not for them.
This is for the living.
And if you'd like to take this living experience up to levels that could only be reached by a Chinese spy balloon, well, you're going to need something to make that happen.
What you're going to 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.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Has anybody noticed anything in the news about me lately?
Anybody notice anything like that?
I might have another sip to that.
Well let's begin with, "Oh no, my enemies are sending me lots of energy." "Oh no, what will I do with all of that attention?" It seems that the hate for me at the moment has reached new levels.
New levels of hate.
I'm hated so much today, I'm trending.
I'm trending.
Let's drink to that.
Trending.
Ah, that's good trending.
Thank you.
Well, let's talk about the news and we'll get to Why I might be trending.
Yeah, I'm going to make you wait.
Because I know some of you bastards came in here just to see me get in trouble.
I'm going to make you wait.
Oh, we'll talk about it.
We'll talk about it.
But for the people who are the regulars, I know you'll stick around.
But for those of you who are only coming in to hate on me, and maybe like get another article to write, you bastards are going to have to wait.
You're going to have to wait through all the other excellent entertainment.
To get to that part where you can attack me.
But it'll be good.
It's worth the wait.
It is.
Well, as I often like to tell you, if I were the author of this reality, which I believe is a simulation, I would give people funny names just so they could figure out they were in a simulation.
For example, if somebody worked as a baker, I would name them Baker.
If somebody worked as a dentist, I would name them Dr. Chu.
That's an actual dentist, by the way.
And I noticed that there's an accused murderer in the news.
And what is the accused murderer named?
Murdaugh.
M-U-R-D-A-U-G-H.
Which is weird, because he's accused of murdering his wife and son, and not his daughter.
It would have been a little bit more on the nose if he'd murdered a daughter, because then he would be a murder-tor guy.
It was close.
It was close.
Very, very close.
Yeah, bank-man-freed?
Yeah, bank-man-fried?
Exactly.
If I had somebody who did something in the monetary domain that burned everybody, It would be bank man fried.
Or fraud.
Bank man fraud.
That's pretty good too.
Alright.
Saw some fake news on Fox News.
Fox News website.
This is in the category of headlines that don't match the story.
Now this is not, of course, limited to Fox News.
Usually I'm talking about CNN.
But everybody gets in on this once in a while.
The headline that does not match the news.
And I always wonder, is the headline writer just the provocative one?
They sort of know what they're doing.
Or do they not have time to read the article before they post it and come up with it?
Because it looks like maybe they didn't read the article.
It's almost like what they expected it to be.
I don't know.
So I don't know what the internal processing is, but let me give you the story.
So the headline says this.
Popular AI bot forced to admit Democrats talking point doesn't add up.
Do you think the story supports that headline?
It's about chat GPT.
So popular AI bot forced to admit Democrats talking point.
Now the topic is about climate change.
But do you think that when I read the article, I'll find out that it admits that their talking points don't add up?
No, they totally add up.
According to the story, I don't know.
But the story goes that junk science founder, that's an organization, I don't know, I guess it's either an organization or it's just one guy, I don't know what it is.
But junk science founder Steve Malloy, so he published a lengthy exchange in which he was talking to the chat GPT and asking it, is CO2 warming a hoax?
Now, The AI started out by saying, no, it's not a hoax.
It's a proven thing that CO2 raises the temperature.
So far, so good.
I would agree with that statement.
That from a laboratory scientific perspective, pretty much all the scientists agree that warm, what do they call it, the greenhouse effect is a thing.
Now, it's not the only thing.
So it doesn't mean that if the greenhouse effect is agreed upon, that you can therefore predict good or bad that will happen in the future.
There are too many other things happening.
But scientists generally agree that that's true.
So, so far I think that's not a problem, but then it goes on and Steve pushes it on the fact that the theory is that the more CO2, this is my own summary of it, these are not his words, but the
Since the theory is that the more CO2 you add, the warmer it gets, how does the AI explain that for the past five years it hasn't gotten warmer while a record amount of CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere?
And the chat AI Says, well, you know, any five-year period... Again, this is my summary.
Not their exact words.
But the AI explained that, you know, a brief period does not describe climate.
And it wouldn't be that... Apparently it would be normal and allowed to have a five-year period where things didn't quite go in lockstep in one direction.
So it could be zipping up and down, but the average over time would be up.
would be the defense of that.
Now, then I guess Steve Malloy got it to admit that more CO2 is going in the air at the same time that the temperature is not going up.
So do you find that in conflict?
Do those things seem to conflict to you?
So it says that any five-year period doesn't mean anything.
And then when Steve says, this five-year period is opposed to the theory, That's covered under the fact that the theory allows that any five-year period doesn't mean anything.
And the AI explained that.
And then Fox News said that the AI was forced to admit Democrats talking point doesn't add up.
No, that never happened.
That's not in the story at all.
All right.
You have to see, this is one of those stories that without the audio or the video, you just have to go see Kamala Harris talking to some small group about her love of Venn diagrams.
Now, there seems to be a pattern developing that if there's a really, really big topic such as, let's say, having no border security, She's, you know, interested in doing the job and talks about it.
Seems to take you seriously.
But it's not what she loves.
You can tell from her reaction that what she loves is charging ports on school buses.
She loves that.
I mean, that makes her giddy.
But also Venn diagrams, as she was describing, while giggling and showing so much excitement about overlapping circles that I thought she was going to have an orgasm.
I don't know, maybe that's just me.
But she was really, really happy about it.
But if you watch the video, there's something I want you to watch for in particular.
Watch for her host that's sitting in the chair up on the stage next to her.
And as she goes into her Venn diagram craziness, the host just sort of is looking at her and just sort of scratches her nose.
And I don't know if I'm reading her body language right, but the body language I felt was, oh god, this is embarrassing.
Like, it feels like that's why you scratch your nose.
You know, a lesser nose itched, I suppose.
That's a possibility.
But if you're looking at somebody talking and, like, you're really into them, and you're really agreeing, you're like, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
You sort of look like that.
Here's how you'd look at somebody if you wish they would stop talking because they're embarrassing you.
Yeah.
Look for it.
It's fun.
All right.
Rasmussen did a poll.
Has that ever gotten me in trouble before?
A Rasmussen poll?
Hmm.
But they did a poll on Ukraine asking people, Americans, American voters, likely voters, who they think is winning in Ukraine.
46% say they see the war as a stalemate.
19% believe Russia is winning.
21% think Ukraine is winning.
Basically a tie.
But these numbers have changed.
Actually, more people thought Ukraine was winning in December.
So it's actually way down from December.
Interesting.
But it's also the winter.
So it's sort of a winter stalemate.
So I'm not sure that that's not telling you what you think it is.
I think it's just telling you it's winter at the moment.
But does that track with what you thought?
Is roughly a tie how many people think Russia's winning versus Ukraine?
I think most people just think it must be a stalemate.
Yeah.
I know, it tells you something about the state of news, doesn't it?
That you can't even tell who's winning a war?
No, it could be because Nobody knows and it's completely mysterious.
But it's a weird thing that something as big as a war, we couldn't agree if we know who's winning.
Because remember, if you add up the people who think Russia's winning and the people who think Ukraine is winning, that's a lot of people who don't have the same opinion on whether the war is going one way or the other.
I mean, that's the most basic question, who's winning the war?
It's strange that we can't figure that out.
I realize there are a lot of variables, and war is unpredictable by its nature, but I feel like by now, we'd have a bead on it.
It's kind of weird.
But, yeah, war is unpredictable.
I saw two more videos today that I think are so racist.
We keep seeing these anecdotal videos that are not representative of the whole and are highly, let's say, brainwashing kind of material.
Because every time you see a video of, well in this case, it's a video of black women, I think, beating up a female Asian American on a bus.
Now, and then I saw earlier a black student beating up a white teacher in a school.
There was just two of them I saw today.
Now both of them had that same flavor to them, and it's super racist.
I think you'd agree with this.
Super racist that the algorithm is serving me up only black people beating up Asian Americans and white Americans.
Super racist.
Because it's not based on any kind of science.
It's not based on any kind of statistics.
It's based on either the algorithm or maybe some human who's decided that you should get an unending diet of black Americans beating up other people to make you feel more racist.
Now, since obviously the number of people getting beaten up is the same across all domains.
There are two ways to handle this.
One way would be to ban these kinds of videos, which I'd be in favor of.
Just ban them.
Ban them totally.
But that would be, you know, sort of a First Amendment, you know, kind of thing.
You could make an argument based on safety and health and stuff.
But, you know, probably we wouldn't like that, right?
Would you agree?
That banning them would be just another problem.
That'd be a First Amendment problem, right?
Yeah.
So we don't like banning stuff unless it actually causes you to go cause a crime or something.
Unless it's literally dangerous.
So the other solution, and this is the one I would recommend, is we need to start releasing the videos, and they must exist, of Asian Americans beating up black people.
Now, if you only saw that, that would also be wrong.
Super racist.
Because you'd be like, oh, Asian-Americans, why are you always beating up black people if that's all you saw?
If all day long you're saying, Asian-Americans beating up black men all day long, you'd be like, damn, I don't even want to live near these racist Asian-Americans if they're beating up black people all day long.
And that's what you would think.
That's what you would think.
If all you ever saw was these videos, then you would be sort of brainwashed into thinking that a lot of it's happening, when in fact it's just, you know, selective stuff.
So, since I don't think we want to ban any speech, so we don't want to ban the ones we're seeing, we need to balance this out.
So I need to see, for the benefit of everyone, And I think you'd agree everybody would be better off if the algorithm would release the videos of the Asian Americans beating up black people.
So at least there's some balance.
Now I'm not saying I want to see anybody get beaten up.
Let me clarify.
I'm opposed to violence.
Completely.
I don't want to see anybody getting beaten up.
But If it's free speech and we're going to see, right, Dr. Funk Juice, you agree.
Thank you for the support.
By the way, thank you for the support all the time.
I always appreciate you, but I don't say it enough.
So that would be my solution.
More videos of Asian Americans beating up black people so that we have some balance and then we don't feel like we're being brainwashed by the algorithm.
All right, did anybody notice that there was a video that featured me going around the internet yesterday and today?
Did anybody see that?
I guess the Daily Beast picked it up, and Something Cause picked it up, and a bunch of people.
Now, some of it might have been out of context.
And so some of you might be saying to yourself, Scott, Did you say something racist?
And I'll just... Well, the answer is yes.
Yes.
So let me start out with the answer.
The question is, Scott, did you say something super racist the other day?
Yes.
Yes.
Everybody agree?
Well, let me tell you what I said.
I don't know how you could interpret it any other way.
So what I said was, that based on a Rasmussen poll, In which black Americans were asked the question, is it OK to be white?
And I noted that if you added up the people who said no opinion, that they were unwilling to say it's OK to be white.
And the people who said it wasn't OK to be white, it was nearly half.
And so what I said was, if there's any group In which the data, not your opinion, not your personal opinion, but the data shows that half of them have a bad opinion about you, that you should avoid that group completely.
And people said, but Scott, that is so racist.
Well, of course it is.
That's exactly what it is.
That's exactly the definition of racist.
Now, is that a problem?
What's the problem with that?
Is reparations racist?
What about reparations?
Are reparations racist?
Yes.
Yes, reparations are racist by definition.
Are reparations bad?
Well, it depends who you ask, right?
It's an opinion.
But simply the fact that it's completely racist doesn't automatically make it bad.
How about, what do you call it?
Affirmative action.
How about affirmative action?
Is that racist?
Affirmative action.
Yeah, it's racist by definition.
It's racist by intention.
It's overtly racist, and it's supposed to be.
In fact, it wouldn't work if it were not racist.
Would it?
Now I've tentatively been in favor of, I'm forgetting the word, but I've been tentatively in favor of affirmative action historically.
So I've been in favor of it, which is pretty racist.
Wouldn't you agree?
Wouldn't you agree that for all the years that I was in favor of affirmative action, because I think probably there was a point in history where you needed a sledgehammer to get things, you know, roughly equal.
And it was very bad for people like me because I lost two careers because I wasn't black and I wasn't female.
My bosses told me that directly.
If you don't know those stories, you're going to doubt that they're true.
Trust me, they're true.
I was told twice that I couldn't be promoted during my corporate years because I was white and male.
They told me that directly, not hinted at it directly, in direct words.
Now, during those times, I was also in favor of affirmative action.
Because it was also clear that, you know, something needed to be done, and I didn't have a better idea.
So I thought, well, you know, I lost two careers, but I still had so many options that I went off and got rich a different way.
So I didn't feel like much of a victim, even though I was targeted.
I don't really have a victim mindset.
So I had plenty of opportunities, so I just said, well, this sucks.
I'll go somewhere where things don't suck so much.
So I went where you could succeed just with talent.
I didn't need to be a certain color or gender.
But when I was in favor of affirmative action, which by the way, I'm currently not in favor of.
I'm currently not in favor of affirmative action.
But only because the gap has closed enough.
Not completely.
It's not like we have equality.
But we've closed the gap enough that the best thing you could do for the black community would be to get rid of favoritism.
Because you want to do that short of actually full equality.
Like you want to end the favoritism just before you get, or not even just before, but well before you get to total equality.
Because the affirmative action causes bad feelings on its own.
Right?
Affirmative action, by its nature, isn't a clean win for black people.
It's a big advantage, clearly.
But it's not a clean win because there's a little taint.
There's always the suggestion that, well, maybe you were one of those kind of hires.
Maybe it wasn't totally your talent, which is completely unfair.
That's something that white people don't have to deal with.
It's completely unfair.
So what's fairest For successful, let's say, black people who want to make something of themselves and make a dent in the corporate world and succeed and everything, we need to get to the point where everybody agrees they did it on talent and hard work.
Wouldn't that be cool?
That seems like the least racist place we could be.
But at the moment, if you have any kind of, you know, quotas or preferences, it's just purely racist.
So I think we've gotten to the point in society where racist is no longer a bad word.
Because we actually design things to racism.
You know, both ways.
Yeah.
So I would agree, for example, that the school systems are racist.
Because they very much favor people who have money.
Because the people with money can go to a better school, they can go to private school, etc.
And because of, in my opinion, systemic racism forever, black schools are inadequate.
Totally inadequate.
So, you know, there's tons of racism happening, and tons of, let's say, racism that's engineered in to correct other racism.
But we have now a thoroughly racist society.
So all yesterday, people were calling me a racist, and I thought, well, that's true.
That's exactly what I said.
It's also exactly what everybody else is saying.
I mean, different topics, but we're at the point where 100% of people are racist.
And it would be kind of stupid to act like it's not true.
So let me ask you this.
Do you think you should spend time with a group if half of the group dislikes you for some reason?
Let's say half of the group has a bad feeling about you because of racism.
That's what the Rasmussen Poll said.
Why would you spend time with a group half of whom don't like you?
Why would you do that?
Wouldn't that be stupid?
Now, what people said is, you're being racist.
And again, I'm saying, that's exactly what I'm being.
No, not even a little bit not.
Precisely exactly racist.
Because any group that half of them who get polled say that it's not okay to be me, I don't want to spend time with them.
Why would you?
Now, some people, the dumb people, who want to cause trouble, imagine that I meant That all white people should stay away from all black people in all scenarios?
How many of you are dumb enough to think that I thought that?
Is there anybody who wants to admit they're dumb enough to think that I meant that all white people should avoid all black people?
Come on, you can admit it.
You can admit you were dumb enough to think that's what I said, because all of our social media people are saying it.
You can admit it.
Just admit it in public.
Admit that you're dumb enough to think that I meant all white people and all black people should act just the same.
You can admit it.
There you go.
There's somebody who's willing to admit how dumb they are.
And I appreciate that.
That's honest.
That's honest.
All right.
So let's see what else people said.
So the way it's being portrayed is, of course, because the media is dishonest.
The way it's being portrayed is that I don't want to be around black people because I don't like them.
Have I ever said anything like that?
Does that sound like anything I've ever said?
No.
I've actually identified as black for years, until this week.
Why?
Because I like them so much.
I love black people.
Like, literally.
Literally love them.
Now that's, again, a bigoted statement, is it not?
Isn't that racist?
Yes, yes it is.
I just said I love black people, which is true, and that's a racist statement.
And I'm proud of it.
Now, individuals should always be judged as individuals.
Did anybody think that I was opposed to judging individuals as individuals?
Of course not.
Of course not.
I don't know, did you see Hotep Jesus did a video response to my video?
I was just listening to it this morning.
It was kind of brilliant.
And I love this guy.
I love Hotep.
I've been on his show.
Terrific guy.
And he has some speculations about me.
I'll let his speculations speak for themselves.
So I won't comment on them at the moment.
Now he invited me on his show and invited me to respond.
Do you think I don't love that guy?
Do you think I don't love Hoteb Jesus?
I love that guy.
He's terrific.
Yeah.
Dr. Funk Juice?
You think I don't love him?
I love Dr. Funk Juice.
He's a regular here.
Yeah.
So anybody who thought that it, like, that it applied to individuals, well, how dumb was that?
I mean, you have to look at yourself and say, whoever said something that applied to everybody?
In any context.
It never applies to everybody.
And it never applies to every situation.
Here's another test to see how dumb you are.
And you can admit it if you're this dumb.
Did you think that if I visited a historically black college, like, I think that's where Kamala was, that I would be afraid or would want to run away or wouldn't like the people I met?
No.
No.
I would trust that all of you are smart enough To know that sweeping statements are, of course, always open to lots of exceptions.
Everybody should know that.
You're all adults.
I shouldn't have to explain to you that generalities don't apply to all people.
That should be the most basic thing you know as an adult.
And I hope you do.
I got some support from Kim Creighton, I'm judging, based on the profile, that Kim is a black American woman, she calls herself an anti-racist economist, and her pronouns are she and her.
And what Kim said about this situation was, quote, talk about me, he cited a recent poll, he said, shows that nearly half of all blacks are not okay with white people.
And then Kim goes on, this is so funny to me, that white folks, spelled F-O-L-X, folks, that's interesting, are surprised because blacks are not okay with white people.
Given history and today, why should we be?
Exactly.
Exactly.
I agree.
So here's a black woman who's agreeing That I should feel uncomfortable around populations of black people because some large group of them would have a reasonable, historically based, bad opinion of me.
Now this was my point, right?
My point is that some large percentage, and I'm not sure that the Rasmussen Poll had exactly the right percentage.
One of the things that Hotep Jesus pointed out correctly is that the nature of the question was so open to interpretation that you don't really know where that would have fallen out if they'd asked the question differently.
But whether or not nearly half of all black people have the opinion or If it's only 25%, it's still way too much.
Way too much!
Would you hang around in a group where 25% of them had a bad feeling about you?
I recommend getting away from any group where 25% of them have a bad feeling about you.
That's just not a safe place to be.
And it doesn't matter who you are, what ethnicity you are, etc.
If you're a black, let's say you're a young black person, and you had a chance to hang around with a bunch of white supremacists, it's probably a bad idea.
I'd say run away.
I'd say run away.
Now let's say they're not all white supremacists, but let's say they're not condemning them.
You know what I mean?
They're not white supremacists per se, But let's say there's a group of people who refuses to condemn them, for whatever reason.
If you were black, would you hang around with that group of people?
I wouldn't.
I would recommend that you don't either.
Alright, now there's a second part of this so-called controversy that isn't really a controversy.
The reason this is not a controversy is that nobody disagrees with me.
By the way, you've caught that, right?
Nobody disagrees with me.
Some people have misinterpreted it so they'd have something to jabber about.
But nobody disagrees with any of my points, black or white.
That the temperature of the country has gotten so bad that it's actually dangerous to mix across ethnicities in some cases.
Not every case.
But there are some cases where the temperature is just so high that I would just stay away.
I'd say, it looks a little dangerous to me.
So, the second thing is, I said separately, but then I think I've combined them, so these are two things that got kind of conflated, that things are so bad in the black American communities, in my opinion, because of systemic racism.
So the, you know, economics are bad, that's always a breeding ground for crime.
Crime is high, there's a lot of racial hatred, etc.
And so, as a proxy, just as a, like a flag or an indicator, you don't want to go where there's a high percentage of urban black population.
And you should run away from that as fast as you can.
But here's the part I think was missing from my analysis.
You should do that if you're black.
You get that, right?
Let's say you're a single mom.
I'll just paint a picture here.
It doesn't have to be a single mom.
Put the single mom away, because that's a distraction.
Let's say you are black parents, and you've got a kid who you think has some potential.
You're like, I think my kid can get out of this place.
What would be the best thing for you to do as black parents to support your black son or daughter Move, yeah.
And where would you move to?
Well, unfortunately, because of years of systemic racism, finding a mostly black neighborhood that would be really focused on education and advancement and low crime, it would be hard to find.
Now, I don't know that there are none.
There might be.
But the correlation is so strong Because of systemic racism for years.
In my opinion.
That's why.
That you could actually use it as a decision making gauge.
And that all white people do.
They just don't talk about it.
All Asian Americans do.
They just don't talk about it.
And all black people do.
They just don't talk about it.
Yeah.
I'm going to tell you something that happened to me yesterday to make my point.
I got a phone call from somebody I worked with professionally.
who is very disturbed about my statements because he was married to a black woman and she was very disturbed about it.
And she said that they lived in an upscale white neighborhood and she was concerned that my attitude might, you know, catch on and she would be ostracized in her white neighborhood.
Have you ever met anybody who would ostracize a black woman in a high-end neighborhood?
Like, I don't think that's ever happened.
Like, maybe in the history of the entire world.
Not a woman, and not in a high-end, upscale neighborhood.
So, I have great empathy, and I'm sorry that her feelings were hurt, but she doesn't have any risk.
You know, let me explain how white people work.
If you're a black woman living in a high-end white neighborhood, you are completely accepted.
Completely.
That's my experience.
Like, I can speak for my own neighborhood, right?
So, you know, there's like literally zero, any kind of discrimination that you could find anywhere.
It just doesn't exist.
In my neighborhood.
And I think that's not that uncommon.
But here's the punchline.
They were complaining about my point of view that you should get away from black people.
Now remember, that was in context.
If you're in any context, it sounds completely different.
But they had done the same thing.
They had moved away from black people to live with white people.
That was my point.
So the very thing that they did to organize their life was exactly what I recommend.
It wouldn't matter if you're white or black.
You should get away from concentrations of inner city, you know, terrible schools and whatever culture is not working.
Now, I don't know why it's not working.
I think systemic racism is, you know, the base reason.
Then here's the other thing that is why the response to me is not as big as you might expect.
Did you think there would be more pushback to what I said?
I mean, there's a lot, but didn't you think there'd be more?
Do you know what they don't want to hear?
They is all white people, you know, I'm not talking about black people.
Do you know what all white people don't want to hear?
Everybody who ever succeeded did it the same way.
That's like, that's the most dangerous message in America.
Everyone who ever succeeded did it the same way.
Five things you got to get right.
Number one, stay in a jail.
Number two, don't be addicted to alcohol or drugs.
Number three, don't start a family too young before you're ready.
Right?
And if you do, stay married.
Number four, make education or training, you know, any form of learning, your top priority through life.
Number five, show some character.
And that would include everything from showing up on time to being a good person, etc.
100% of the people, I won't say 100%, but everybody who succeeded pretty much did it that way.
Now which part of that is unavailable to black America?
None of it.
It's all available.
It's all available.
We are treating black Americans like infants to imagine they're the only group who can't do the most obvious thing that everybody knows how to do.
Everybody.
And it's the only group that can't do it?
Well, that's pretty racist, isn't it?
To imagine that there's only one group that can't use the same formula that everybody uses.
They're the only group that can't use that simple, easy formula.
That is super racist.
Is it not?
I mean, almost our entire structure is built around black inferiority, which is not demonstrated by anything I'm aware of.
Right?
Because I know somebody's going to say, oh, it's IQ, it's IQ.
But that doesn't explain any of this.
It doesn't.
It just doesn't.
Because black Americans do great when they have good situations.
They do great.
Everybody does.
Basically, everybody does great if they follow the five rules.
Now, not everybody's going to be doing rocket science.
See, the thing that white racists get wrong all the time, and I'll have to explain this to you again.
I feel like I explain this all the time.
Among men in particular, there's such variance in IQ that if there are a bunch of people at the top or a bunch of people at the bottom, it skews the average.
So, there are a whole bunch of white people who are super, super smart and inventing technology and stuff.
But I'm not one of them.
I'm not one of them.
Chances are you're not either.
So to lump me in with these geniuses that are not me, how does that make sense?
How do you take these freaks of nature who are super smart and then average them with you and me?
And then think you have something.
Oh, I've got something that's useful because I average people who are completely different.
It would make sense to compare IQ of any two groups if all of their IQs were the same within the group.
Well, then you'd have something.
But otherwise, all you're doing is averaging things that don't make sense to be averaged.
Right?
It just doesn't make sense.
Because everybody gets treated as an individual, ultimately.
So, you know, that, the IQ thing, whether it's true or not true, it doesn't have, it doesn't translate into real world action and it just doesn't work in the real world.
So it wouldn't matter if it were true.
And it doesn't matter how smart white people are on average, if you're not one of them.
Right?
It doesn't matter how smart I am, it does not accrue to any other white people.
If I'm very successful, no other white people get to take credit for that.
That's just me.
If Michael Jordan is successful, that doesn't mean all black people can play in the NBA.
Right?
You can't average Michael Jordan with everybody who plays basketball and say that that gave you something useful.
It didn't.
That's not useful.
Anyway, so if you learn to stop averaging things that don't make sense being averaged together and compared, just know that it doesn't make sense.
Yeah, so everybody has the same path out.
And it usually takes one generation.
The black America could be back on path.
If schools could be fixed.
So right now, black America is completely handicapped by a system which is broken.
And the school, the teachers unions in particular, I would point out as the main source of systemic racism.
The main source.
All right.
Let me ask you this.
How many How many black viewers do I have?
Is anybody black besides Dr. Funk Juice?
A few?
Alright, so let me see if I can ask this question.
I'm only going to ask you if you're black, okay?
So if you are black, if you identify as black, let's say, say, you know, black colon, and then give me the answer so I know that it's not the white people jumping in here.
Because you know the white people ruin everything.
So white people, don't ruin this poll!
Here's the question.
If you're black, And you knew that, let's say there was a poll that said white people, half of them would not agree with the idea that black lives matter.
Now not just because they want to add in all lives matter and be political about it, but what if the way it was asked was you really, half of them said they don't matter.
Would you want to spend time with that group?
What would be your best strategy?
For dealing with that group of people.
If you knew that half of them, roughly, were not okay with black lives mattering, would you want to spend time with them?
Black people?
I'm only looking for black answers right now.
Which is racist.
Can you agree?
Pretty racist, right?
Favoring black opinions.
But everything's racist.
Black and no.
Dr. Fung-Chu says yes.
No.
And Dr. Fung-Chu says, I believe you.
And I believe the others as well.
"I'm black and you all sound racist, but I don't blame you." See, now that is such a high awareness opinion.
I don't know if you caught that.
So, a black viewer just said, I'm black, you all sound racist, but I don't blame you.
That's like the perfect summary, isn't it?
That's exactly what I'm saying.
We should stop separating things by racist and not racist, because it is all racist.
It's all racist.
From top to bottom.
I mean, it's turtles all the way down.
Christian Watson says, you uncritically accepted the Rasmussen poll without any further investigation.
Well, I wouldn't say uncritically, but your comment is valid.
It's the same one Hotep Jesus made.
So can we agree That if the poll had been completely invalid, and let's say the number of black Americans who would say such a thing would be like 5%, you know, sort of trivial, would I change my opinion?
Or should I?
Or should I?
And I would think, yes, that would influence me.
Because remember, it's a data-driven opinion.
So if the data is wrong, But I will point to Kim Creighton's, who is a black woman, whose opinion was that black people should have, I mean it's normal and nobody should be surprised, that black people are not okay with white people.
And I would say that the Rasmussen poll is consistent with, but this is not a science, consistent with, anecdotally, the fact that the media is anti-white.
So if you have a non-stop education and media system which is consistently anti-white, which I think everybody would agree with, would the black viewers agree with that statement?
That the media is skewing anti-white?
Or is that just an impression?
Implicit bias is...
If you have a brain, you have a bias.
Yeah, there's no such thing as not having a bias.
I think we treat ourselves like children when we act like some of us are unbiased.
That's kind of dumb, isn't it?
Right?
So, this is why I so agree with Kim Creighton, who said, based on history, based on, you know, what society has put forth as information.
She says that black people should have a bad opinion of white people.
That's what I was saying.
Now, so to your point about the Rasmussen Poll, I accept that the nature of the question was vague enough that people could have answered it with other understanding of the question.
For example, and this is Hotep Jesus' point, one of the ways you could interpret that was, because of the media nature, have they made it seem like it's not okay to be white, which might not be your own opinion.
So some people could have answered it not as their own opinion, But rather, they could be answering it as, has society decided it's not okay to be white?
And might actually be answering in a way that was, I would consider, positive.
In other words, if you were black and you answered that question, but what you were thinking internally was, well, I like white people.
But, you know, the society is sort of treating them like it's not okay to be white.
So I'm going to say it's not okay to be white because I'm answering like for society.
I'm not talking about my own.
No, I do know what it means to be of a low IQ.
I do know what that means.
I think you're missing my point though.
Everybody knows what that means.
Have you noticed that when people disagree with me, They usually assign an opinion to me that's ridiculous before disagreeing.
So here's somebody who's saying that I don't understand what it's like to have a low IQ.
I'm pretty sure everybody understands that.
Now, did I say that if you had an IQ of 80, you could become a scientist?
Did you imagine that I thought that?
If only you had all the opportunities and went to a good school, your IQ of 80 would be fine.
You could be a doctor.
Is that what you imagined about my opinion?
Do you see the consistency?
I'm assigned ridiculous opinions because my actual opinions you agree with.
My actual opinions you completely agree with.
That's what's dangerous about this, isn't it?
What's dangerous is not that you disagree.
The reason I'm trending is because of how many people agreed, not because of how many disagreed.
All right.
So that's that.
I'm switching my endorsement from Trump to Vivek Ramaswamy, because as I've been telling you for a while, I'm a one-issue voter.
And while Trump has said clearly that he would attack the cartels for fentanyl, Vivek is making a much bigger emphasis on it.
So I'm going to go with the bigger emphasis.
But I also like the fact that he's not white.
Because that would just help.
Because everything turns racist, right?
So if white old Trump is attacking Mexico, people are going to call me a racist.
You get that, right?
If Trump were president, and I supported him because of fentanyl specifically, and then he attacked Mexico, it would be this white guy attacking brown Mexicans, and I support him, therefore I'm a racist.
Am I right?
But if Vivek Ramaswamy, if he's president and he attacks Mexico, that all goes away.
So, for my personal selfish interest, I'd rather have a brown president attacking a brown country.
It's a better look.
And he seems pretty serious about it.
So, I like that.
Oh, Vivek?
I'm pronouncing his name wrong.
Really?
It's Vivek?
How did you let me go this far without correcting me until now?
You probably did and I didn't see it.
Is that correct?
It's Vivek, not Vivek.
I've been saying it wrong the whole time?
I'm not sure you're right.
I guess I'll have to go listen to it.
Vivek?
No.
He's probably used to it being pronounced anyway.
If you had a name that people couldn't pronounce, wouldn't you just sort of get over it after a while?
And just give up?
OK, whatever.
I'll be whatever you want me to be.
All right, well, Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 16 years in prison today, guilty on three counts of sexual assault.
And here's the strangest part of this story.
Oh, somebody's saying that Vivec is correct.
All right, well, we'll find out.
The strangest thing about this Harvey Weinstein being sentenced to prison is I thought this happened a long time ago.
Was he only awaiting trial?
Or was he already convicted and then they just added some new stuff?
Oh, multiple trials.
So he was already in jail, right?
Didn't make any difference.
We're just adding some to it.
All right.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, Is my prepared presentation.
I will now entertain your questions.
Does anybody have any questions?
By the way, how many of you came here to watch me get cancelled and were surprised?
Are you a racist, Scott?
I accept that everybody's a racist.
I think it's ridiculous to act like some people don't think in racial terms.
People think in different racial terms.
But the news has programmed us all to be racists.
So I think you should just all embrace it at this point.
Racism is like multimedia.
Are you old enough to remember when new computers, they were usually PCs, pre-Windows, when they first were able to do video and sound, they were sold as multimedia computers.
But now we don't say it's a multimedia computer, because every computer is multimedia.
And it's like the racist stuff.
If you're calling one person a racist, that's sort of like Slicing it a little too little.
Everybody's a racist at this point.
Because everybody thinks in racial terms.
If you treated everybody as an individual, then you would not be a racist.
But if you ever talk about black Americans, or you ever talk about white Americans as a group, you are a racist.
As soon as you talk about them as a group, you are a racist.
That's what it is, by definition.
If you could ignore that and treat everybody as an individual, well then you would not be.
But we live in a system in which you're forced to think in those terms because that's how stuff is coming at you.
You have to at least deal with what's coming at you.
And affirmative action is something that comes at you.
It's not your fault, it just came at you.
Snickers is doing great.
Old and tired, but she's much better to use as a pillow when I try to get to sleep.
If I wake up at 2.30 in the morning, as I always do, and I have to decide whether to get up for the day or not, if I don't want to get up for the day, I'll go get a Snickers, and she's always sleepy at night, so she doesn't move around too much, and I'll take her to my bed, and I'll use her as a pillow.
Not on top of her, but on the side.
Her calmness puts me to sleep.
Because she's sort of warm and fuzzy and she's happy because she's sleeping.
And I just like, I pick up her vibe.
So I'm kind of using the effect where every once in a while if I drop something on my foot at home, if I yell, the dog will be so upset that I'm upset that she has to like go hide in the backyard.
So she's so connected to me emotionally That when I get upset, she gets upset.
If I'm happy, she's happy.
So basically, my mood affects her mood completely.
But it works the other way as well.
So when she's so sleepy that she just wants to, like, snore, I just put her up to my ear and just relax.
And I can actually feel her, like, emotional state of relaxation.
And it just goes right through me.
It's so immediate.
And then I just fall asleep.
So, one of the most useful things you could ever learn about how humans are wired is that we're wired bi-directionally.
That, you know, I affect my dog's feelings, but of course she affects mine.
If you're happy, you smile.
But if you smile more, you become happy.
If you're successful, you feel whole.
But if you're whole, you can make yourself feel successful.
Like, everything works bi-directionally.
As soon as you learn that, everything works out better.
Alright, so what do you think?
Am I going to get cancelled?
Canceled?
See, here's what's interesting about this situation.
Anybody who knows my actual opinion, the full opinion that you're hearing right now, anybody who hears my actual opinion doesn't want to give it more attention.
So it's going to be sort of a dicey situation if they cancel me.
Because you don't want to give me more attention.
That's not going to work for whatever Whatever you're trying to achieve.
But I like it.
Is it hard for you to believe that I woke up in a good mood and I thought, "Well, today's gonna be fun." Yeah, poking the bear.
So, Hotep Jesus' take is that I'm trolling.
What do you think?
Yes or no?
Is this a giant troll?
I'm just looking at your answers.
I'm seeing yes's and no's.
More no's on locals.
I'm seeing both.
I'm seeing yes.
Well, let me ask you this question.
What's the difference?
What's the difference?
Tell us what its need is.
I don't know what that is.
Are you ever not trolling?
Well, I'll tell you the way I think of it.
I think of it more as being provocative, which draws energy toward the point.
Now, if you want to call that trolling, Because it gets people all excited and you know they'll take it out of context and you know they'll look stupid?
Well yeah, it's that too.
It's definitely that too.
Did I know that it would surface people acting racist and stupid?
Of course I did.
Did I think that would be fun?
Yeah.
Yeah, I did.
I thought that would be fun.
You grifted after-- oh, let me finish my point.
So about the Rasmussen poll.
First of all, Rasmussen does have a good reputation.
You should research that.
But I think their presidential polls are among the top.
You know, they're in the top, I don't know, top quarter or so of polling.
And I don't think that anybody's had a super big problem with their methodology.
So, I mean, compared to polling in general.
Because all the pollsters are having some trouble getting people to be honest.
But here's my take.
Suppose it was off by, I don't know, 100%.
It doesn't matter if it's off by 100%.
My point would be the same.
If 25% of the group, you know, has a bad feeling about you, I'd feel uncomfortable around that group.
as you should, as any normal person would.
So it wouldn't matter if it's way off.
It's so striking that it could be half that degree and it would still mean the same thing.
And even if people were answering that, you know, not for themselves, that they were answering for the system, if the system says that, it's still kind of the same.
Scott Wilson fell for the 4chan hoax about me.
Did you also fall for my husband apology?
You got double hoaxed.
A lot of people got double hoaxed on that.
But they don't know it yet, so it's funny.
Lend you a million.
You don't have to say that too many times.
I think I'm going to make you go away, because you're just saying the same comment over and over.
You are now hidden on this channel for being repetitive.
All right.
Scott, don't hide this comment.
Right.
All right.
I will hide that comment.
I'll hide the whole user.
Yes, I am mocking all racists, but I'm also saying that everybody is one.
Where would you go?
To the mountains? - No.
No, the idea is not to avoid all individuals.
So I think some people also assumed that I meant avoid all individuals.
No.
No, I would never say that.
All individuals should be treated as fully respected humans with no exceptions.
So of course I'm going to be just the same as I am in person to everybody.
Like, that doesn't change.
The difference between racist and biased, I think, I don't know.
I don't know if that's a useful distinction or not.
Is it?
Book update?
Oh, I've got to do some more edits in the next couple weeks.
Then most of my work will be done for my book.
All right.
Yeah, I didn't get a blizzard in Northern California.
It's just raining.
All right, well, I was really expecting a lot more action this morning.
But it turns out that when I tell you my actual opinion, nobody has a problem with it.
Let me ask, does anybody have a problem with my actual opinion as it was described this morning?
Anybody?
No?
But you realize there's going to be a whole other world that didn't hear the full context.
And everybody who didn't hear the full context will use me as a political football.
Now, how much of this do you think is just trying to cancel me for being a presumed Trump supporter?
Do you think that the Daily Beast would have run the article about me except that it hurts Trump?
I think it's just a way to hurt Trump.
I think that's their pride.
And getting clicks, that's about all they care about.
Anyway, but if you see something in the Daily Beast that looks like, my God, how could anybody have that opinion?
It's probably because they don't.
Or you haven't heard the context.
You're going back on your word about Trump?
No, I'm not.
No, I've always said that all of my endorsements for this time around, any endorsement I make is going to be on one topic, and then I'll change it in a heartbeat To the next person who has a better take on it.
So Vivek's current endorsement is temporary.
If somebody has a stronger take, or even just a better take, then I will switch my allegiance immediately.
I don't have any allegiance this time.
I'm a single topic voter.
All right.
So I guess that's it for this, and I will go do some other stuff.
I'm going to talk to the locals people separately.
