Episode 2032 Scott Adams: Dilbert Is Fully Canceled, Wuhan Virus Leak, Katie Hobbs, Lab Leak & More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Governor Katie Hobbs allegations
Jackson Mississippi justices
Dilbert is now fully cancelled
Whiteboard1: Narrative Poisoning
Whiteboard2: Media Cover Up
Media narrative poisoning Black Americans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's one of the finest things you'll ever experience.
Yeah, we'll talk about all the cancellations and all that stuff and other news, too.
But first, wouldn't you like to take this experience up to a new level?
Well, if you do, 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.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's a dope media, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go.
Ah.
All right, well, I know some of you here are here to hear about the fireworks of Dilbert being canceled.
I'll give you the headline, but then I'll talk about it in detail after I do some other stories.
So the headline is, That the way comics are distributed, there's a syndication company, and then they distribute to the newspapers that buy it.
So a number of newspapers individually cancelled Dilbert.
But there was a lot of pressure on the syndication company.
So the syndication company decided to part ways with me, completely.
Immediately.
And that means that there is no syndication vehicle to get Dilbert to any customers.
So I don't personally have any contracts with newspapers.
That goes through the syndication company.
Now, just to be clear, the syndication company didn't really have any choice.
Because their clients were hopping mad, and I think the artists, the other cartoonists were mad, and their staff was mad, and basically everybody was mad.
So they made a business decision, which I don't consider anything like censorship or anything like that.
So I like my syndication company.
No, no, no.
They are not cowards.
You could blame the newspapers for being a little, you know, a little skittish.
But the syndication company didn't have any choice.
They were just forced into it.
So don't give them a hard time, okay?
It's actually a great company.
I've been very happy with them for a very long time.
Mark Dice just did something?
Well, that's nice.
All right, we'll get to more of that and the whiteboard and all, but let's talk about the headlines.
So apparently there's now a general government agreement that the COVID came from a lab leak in Wuhan.
Do I have that story right?
That the government is now saying it's like the Department of, was it Defense or something?
Or Energy?
I don't know why it's a... But anyway, the government's saying, yeah, probably.
Are they saying probably or definitely?
It was a little ambiguous.
Is it probably or definitely from the Wuhan lab?
Probably, right?
Yeah, we're only at probably.
Here's the strangest thing about that story.
I thought we already knew that.
We keep getting news about things that I thought had already happened.
Am I the only one who thinks the news keeps telling me things that's already happened?
Like sooner or later, there'll be a celebrity who dies and you're going to say, I thought that celebrity died a long time ago.
It's like news of things you're pretty sure already happened, but it really didn't.
All right.
Does it make any difference that it escaped from the Wuhan lab?
Well, It does say that Anthony Fauci has some explaining, doesn't it?
Now, as Elon Musk pointed out in a tweet, when Fauci said that he did not fund or was not involved in funding gain of function in Wuhan, apparently it went through EcoHealth And then went there.
So basically, it was like, no, I didn't fund the lab.
I funded this third party.
Who funded the lab?
So I don't know if that's going to be his escape plan for not lying to Congress.
Because it certainly looked like he lied to Congress, didn't it?
But maybe he's got some technical out where he can say, well, technically, I only funded this other thing.
Yeah, I don't know that he lied.
He may have been technically correct because he chose his words carefully, which is nothing to celebrate, but maybe.
I hear choosing your words poorly can get you in trouble.
I hear that's a thing.
All right.
So I don't know what to say about that, because it doesn't change anything.
Because what is not in evidence is that anybody was doing something intentional.
Meaning they were doing gain-of-function, which is dangerous enough, but it doesn't mean they were necessarily trying to create a weapon.
Don't know about that.
Maybe they were trying to defend against a weapon?
I don't know.
Maybe.
But as Michael Schellenberger points out, That the theory that is now essentially backed by the government, the mass media condemned the lab leak theory as a, quote, debunked conspiracy theory.
And Facebook censored people who dared suggest it.
You know, it's so easy to forget what happened, you know, just two years ago.
But, oh my God, did the government abuse us.
In every possible way they could abuse us, they abused us.
You know, in hindsight.
Also, Michael Schellenberger in a tweet points out, it's clear that the scientists who claimed in Landsat, that's a respected publication, on February 19th, 2020, quote, we stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
So as Michael Schellenberger says, they were misrepresenting their unfounded opinion as a scientific fact.
Does that sound familiar?
Doesn't it sound just like the 50 Intel officials who signed a document about Hunter's laptop and they were all lying but not technically?
They weren't lying because they said, well, it has all the hallmarks of.
All right.
So do you think these scientists were lying And they knew it when they said, oh, it's a conspiracy theory.
Yeah, I don't know.
I think it depends on the wording.
So they said it was a conspiracy theory suggesting that it came from, suggesting it didn't have natural origins.
But that was just because there wasn't enough evidence yet.
So I'm not sure it's evidence of a lie.
All right.
Well, it looks like the local audience is pretty big today.
All right.
Is China collapsing?
I just read a long thread.
And who knows?
I think it's impossible to know what's happening in China.
But there was a long thread talking about the demographic collapse and Some say that the population of China is going to start decreasing really, really fast.
Like by 2050, there could be half as many people living there.
I don't think that doesn't sound right.
But they're in real trouble.
They don't have enough young people.
And I didn't realize how many... Maybe you could do a fact check on this?
You know those ghost cities that are in China?
There are a whole bunch of skyscrapers that are just empty?
And one of the things I learned, and I don't know if it's true, but it might be true, did you know that they were all purchased?
And why?
So, I am private.
Oh.
Okay, now I'm private.
So the reason that Real estate is all purchased, even if people don't want to live in it, is it's one of the few stores of value that the Chinese citizens trust.
So they're not trusting their regular investments, maybe not even trusting their banks.
But if you buy real estate, And apparently you don't even furnish it or even finish the construction because it's worth more if you can sell it and somebody can customize it themselves.
So apparently the Chinese built all these cities, sold all the apartments, but nobody wanted to move in because they were just investments.
And they didn't want people living in their apartment because it would make their investment worth less.
Talk about a problem.
So I've seen the videos of the skyscrapers being destroyed.
But then I saw a reference to hundreds of these cities across China.
Can anybody fact check that?
I always assumed it was one or two.
I just thought it was, oh, there's this one or two cities that are ghost cities.
But there are hundreds of them.
People are saying that's true.
Hundreds of them.
Hundreds of instant cities that are empty, and they're just owned, I guess.
Wow.
Oh, you're in China?
All right.
Buildings are made of chalk, so the building... Oh, are they also building them so they're unsafe?
Because they know they can sell them anyway?
Oh, interesting.
Yeah, they overbuilt.
But did they overbuild?
Because people bought them.
Yeah, overbuilt in some sense, yes.
All right, well, I'm suspicious about whether China's population will collapse, but all the signs are pointing to it.
Wouldn't that become one of the biggest problems in the world?
I don't know.
Or maybe it would solve a problem for China.
I don't know.
There was a Rasmussen poll This one probably won't get me in trouble.
In which the EPA is saying that the tests in that Ohio, East Palestine town where the train derailed, they're saying that the drinking water quality, there's no quality concerns.
But Rasmussen asked people if they'd be willing to drink the water.
Only 23% of voters say that they would feel safe drinking the water.
If they lived near the site where the train derailed.
23%.
That's roughly a quarter.
Roughly a quarter.
So a quarter of the people would feel comfortable drinking the water around a toxic cesspool.
Well, good for them.
I applaud their confidence.
I don't know, how about you?
How many of you would feel comfortable because the science says the water's good?
Science says it's good.
Trust it.
Would you feel comfortable?
I might drink it, but I would never feel comfortable.
The water doesn't come from there.
Oh, is that true?
Is it true that the water doesn't come from anywhere near there?
It's like pumped in from somewhere else?
I'm seeing some no's, but I think that's no's to the other question.
Still better than Flint.
Yeah, maybe.
All right, well, let's talk about Katie Hobbs.
So apparently there's some kind of hearing or investigation by some private lawyer.
I assume they were working for somebody, I don't know.
There are all these allegations of the Sinaloa cartel funneling money to politicians in Arizona, including Governor Katie Hobbs.
Now, I googled again to see this story.
Correct me if I'm wrong, there's no major media covering it.
Am I right?
No major media is covering this.
But the hearing is happening, right?
There's an actual hearing?
Yeah, so it's not a rumor.
There's an actual hearing with these specific allegations.
And correct me if I'm wrong, some of the allegations were about a company that handles their elections.
Is that true?
Now, does that sound like it's likely to be true?
Do you think these allegations are likely to play out as true?
Here's my problem with it.
It's a little too on the nose.
Yeah, it's too on the nose.
It's a little too much like what you expected it would be.
And that, I'd never trust that.
It's like, yeah, that's exactly what you would make up if you were going to make it up.
It would sound just like that.
So the real world is messier.
So whenever you see something, yeah.
Have you listened to the information presented?
I have not, but I also don't trust it, so if I listen to it, I don't know if that would be helping me.
So here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to kind of wait to see if the major media picks it up, because even Fox News is not reporting on it, as far as I know.
Is that right?
So if you can't get even the right leading media to bite on it, I would hold off on my confidence.
So I'm going to do, for Katie Hobbs, the innocent until proven guilty.
I mean, it's a disturbing allegation.
How does it feel to lose all of my money?
Do you think I lost all of my money?
There's almost nothing about this story about me that's true.
It's almost entirely, it's now devolved into like a fantasy story.
Alright.
Mississippi is, the state is looking to appoint justices in an area where normally they would be elected.
And the reason they're doing that is that they think the elected ones must be corrupt.
So there's nothing good happening.
Where is it?
It's one area of one community.
Where is it?
Why in the world is that not the first thing that I say?
No, it's a district within Jackson, which CNN reports is a majority black city.
So here's my question.
If the state has decided that Jackson, Mississippi, is so lost that they need to appoint judges, and by the way, it's being resisted by the locals who think it's white supremacy, but would you recommend a young black man move to Jackson?
Would you recommend that?
If you were giving advice, hey young black man, would you move to Jackson?
Now, right, one says yes.
One says yes.
Now, is this a racial comment or an income or a class comment?
How do you interpret it?
Well, here's how it would be racist.
It would be racist if you said, don't go there because there are black people.
That would be clearly racist.
I don't know how it could be anything else.
But if you said, don't go there because there are poor people, and that breeds crime and you don't want to be around that, would that be fair?
Could you say, don't go to a place with a lot of poor people and high crime?
You wouldn't be cancelled for that, would you?
So what if you said what I said?
That because of systemic racism, Things are so bad in the black community that they're disproportionately likely to be in poor neighborhoods.
And it's so correlated, unfortunately, nobody wants this to be true, that you could use it as a proxy of where there's problems.
In the inner cities, we're not talking about some rural, suburban place.
Now, using it as a proxy, is that racist?
I need an opinion here.
If you use it as a proxy, it's just one way to know where there's going to be a lot of crime for systemic racism reasons.
So if you make that correlation, but you're very carefully saying, I'm not saying anything about black people.
I'm just saying that there's a proxy situation where, so in terms of information, it would be one rule of thumb.
Could that prevent you from going and living in a place that's majority black and also high income and no crime?
Well, it would.
It would.
Does it sound like I'm apologizing?
There are so many hallucinations that people are having about me.
You should look into, well, never mind.
So let's talk about Dilbert.
Dilbert's now fully cancelled.
You probably heard the news that hundreds of newspapers, or some big ones, were cancelling.
But as of yesterday, $100.
Wow.
Thanks, Greg.
That's nice of you.
Just a compliment there, and an overly large dip.
Appreciate it.
So Dilbert is now fully cancelled in all newspapers, calendars, books, because my syndication company, who does the newspaper syndication, they sell it to the newspapers, and they also provide it to all the... they also do the calendars and the books.
So they decided they couldn't take the heat.
By the way, I don't blame them.
It's not a terrible decision, by the way.
I don't blame them at all.
And I expect them to be professional about it, and I will be professional, too.
So it's a very long relationship that's ending.
But don't give them a hard time.
It's the newspapers who pressure them, and they have a business model.
They have a responsibility to the people who work there.
So there were a lot of complaints from other artists.
Have you ever heard the artists say bad things about me?
Have you ever heard that?
It's the most consistent thing.
Artists say bad things about me.
Anyway, so Dilbert, whenever that winds down, I don't know how instant it is, it will not be available at Dilbert.com, I don't think, because I'm not going to manage it.
And it won't be available in any form except whatever's already in stores, I guess.
Or already in the pipeline.
The media has untethered me.
I'm untethered.
I'm not sure if they want that, but that's what happened.
Anyway, Dilbert will be available still every day on the Locals platform for subscribers, along with lots of other content, including these livestreams.
So if you'd like to support, let's say, I don't know if it's supporting me or it's Putting a thumb in the eye of the newspapers.
Canceled.
One or the other.
If you'd like to be part of that, the locals, community, five bucks a month if you buy an annual membership.
All right.
Well, let's talk about this issue.
So the cancelling, if you look at all the newspapers and also my syndicate, I would characterize them this way.
It was a bunch of rich white people, you know, the leaders of newspapers and head of the syndicate.
So it's a bunch of well-off white people who do not live around black people.
And they decided to cancel me because I thought that what they're doing is a good strategy.
So I agreed with their strategy and then they cancelled me.
Because nobody wants to ask them where they live or why.
Now again, I'm not saying that any of these people are racist.
I'm saying that they probably used a proxy and said, well, that's one of the ways you know where to live.
And you want to avoid crime.
Not avoiding black people.
That would be racist, but just avoiding low-income crime areas.
So they've all done that, as I've recommended, but they cancelled me for recommending it.
And now there are a bunch of made-up reasons, because the actual thing that people are mad at me about, they all agree with.
So nobody disagrees with my two main claims, that you should treat all individuals as individuals, no discrimination.
Everybody agrees with that.
Except racists, I guess, which I disavow.
And then the second point, that you should avoid anything that statistically looks like a bad idea for you personally.
Nobody's disagreed with that.
Have you noticed?
The actual claim, nobody's disagreed with.
Not black people.
In fact, the main supporters I've seen lately were black.
And they were saying, yeah, if you listen to it in context, it makes perfect sense.
And a number of black people are telling me they did the same thing.
They looked at their neighborhood and said, you know, I think I'll live over here.
It looks safer.
So I'm getting agreement from black pundits From white pundits.
And then when I asked the people who were mad at me, and mostly it's name-calling, I asked them, what is it you're actually mad at?
I'll give you an example.
When my syndicate cancelled me, they did a press release, I guess, on social media, and they said that they oppose hate and discrimination.
Do they know that was my point?
My point was to try to avoid hate and discrimination.
That was my entire point.
Is if somebody, if you believe that there's a group of people who have a statistical likelihood to discriminate against you, not any individual, but just collectively there's an impulse there, then you should get away from that.
And I would call that, I specifically called the people I wanted to get away from, but this was hyperbole.
This is overstating it.
Everybody who understands hyperbole knows this was hyperbole, meaning an exaggeration.
When I said that black people were like a hate group.
And that was based on, I'll talk about that in a moment.
But it wasn't because I hated anybody.
In fact, hate wasn't even part of the conversation, was it?
Has hate been any part of the conversation?
I don't think so.
Because I don't hate anybody.
But I was concerned that somebody hated me.
Nobody specific.
So I'm not even sure that hate was the right thing.
How about, yeah, and discrimination is the other thing I was trying to avoid.
So if you avoid discrimination, you are discriminating.
Is that true?
If you avoid discrimination, you're discriminating.
It is true.
It's definitely true.
Here's some other things people said.
They know what's in my racist heart because of all of my years of racist tweeting, which is zero.
There is zero any other thing that you will find anywhere in my Twitter that would suggest any racist thing.
There's nothing there.
And believe me, believe me, If there were anything there, you don't think you'd be seeing it on social media by now?
It's the first thing they do.
They go through your old tweets, and then they show that your new tweet is part of the pattern.
Have you noticed that that doesn't exist?
Have you noticed that where they go and they find part of my pattern is not there?
So there are people who think that I went my entire career and just, like, snapped or something.
So, no, there are not years of racist tweets.
There are zero of them.
Other people say, my big problem is that I conflated class and race.
They said that after I tweeted, everybody knows that class and race are not the same thing and I treat them differently.
Who doesn't know that?
In fact, that's one of my biggest, yeah, one of my biggest Public Statements is agreeing with Dave Chappelle, basically, that we're treating race as the primary variable, but it's always been economics.
Every time we treat race as the way to understand anything, it doesn't work.
I've said that forever.
But class does.
If you look at class, it explains everything.
So there's a PhD Fellow who I'm going to talk to, a black gentleman, who wants to talk to me.
And his complaint was, what?
That's not true.
Somebody's sending me that my Twitter account was suspended.
That can't be true.
Let's see.
You're joking, right?
No, it's still there.
All right, that was a good prank, though, but it's still there.
It's still there.
All right, now, so I have never conflated race and class.
And people imagining that I did, nobody does that, do they?
Or if they do, that's pretty dumb.
I'm also accused of, they know that I'm a racist, they say, because of my right-wing politics.
Would any of you who have watched me consider me right-wing?
What's your opinion?
Do I present as right-wing to you?
Yeah.
Everybody who knows me knows the answer is no.
I'm not right-wing.
Left or Bernie?
All right.
The other thing they say is, I called black Americans a hate group, as I said.
But that was hyperbole.
And within context, everybody knows what that means.
But it's hyperbole.
And that I espoused racism.
Did I espouse racism or did I say you should try to get away from it?
I said you should try to get away from it, which apparently is racism itself.
But what do you do if you if you can't discriminate?
How do you get away from it?
Or do you just accept it?
Is that a requirement?
All right, here's my big question to you.
Let me see if there are any black Americans watching right now.
I have a question for you.
Could you identify yourself?
Any black Americans who are watching the live stream right now, just if you're willing, identify yourself.
because I have a question for you.
All right, we've got a few.
Thank you.
Here's the question.
If you were looking for a home, let's say you were shopping for a new home or an apartment, and the place that you were looking at had Republican political signs around it, and let's say you saw the neighbors wearing MAGA hats or something, would you feel comfortable living there?
Go.
Would you feel comfortable in a neighborhood of red hat wearing Republicans?
I'm saying no.
So, there's some yeses and there's some noes.
Now, suppose, and I know why there's a difference.
Let me tell you why there's a difference.
The difference is that conservative blacks already understand conservatives.
So if you're actually a conservative yourself, you understand that they're not judging you by your color.
If you're not a conservative, you think they are.
Am I right?
But black conservatives know that's not happening.
In fact, it's the opposite.
They know that in the Republican side, Republicans are really, really strict about it's not about anything but your contribution.
You know, what are you doing?
It's about your activities.
Now that's not to say that there aren't a bunch of racist Republicans.
You know, they're racist in all groups.
But you saw that in the comments there were a number of people who said, I wouldn't feel comfortable.
I'm going to make...
Let me talk about the victim narrative in a minute, because that's the NPC comment.
There are two NPC comments, I'll just say this now.
One tried to explain the difference between the First Amendment and private companies deciding to cancel me.
And a lot of people tried to explain that to me this week, because they think I don't understand that.
Now only an NPC, like a non-person, you know, Non-player character.
Would believe that I don't understand that.
And that when I say that free speech is expensive, that somehow I've lost the distinction between private companies acting and a government rule that says what you can say and what you can't say.
I do understand that.
I do.
Secondly, the other NPC comment, like the lowest level of analysis, is that I'm playing the victim.
Playing the victim.
How could I describe this situation without you saying that?
How in the world could I simply objectively describe what happened without it sounding like you think I'm a victim?
Have you heard me say, oh, now I won't be able to eat?
No.
No.
I'm kind of the opposite of playing the victim, but I am describing what happened.
For example, I incorrectly tweeted today that I'd lost three careers by being white.
And somebody corrected me.
I was like, shoot, I was pretty sure I had that right.
The first one was Crocker National Bank, where my boss told me that white men could not be promoted.
Directly.
Now some people question whether that ever happened.
And you just have to ask anybody who lived in San Francisco in the 80s or 90s.
It happened to everybody.
It was more like a universal thing than some weird thing that happened to one guy.
So Crocker Bank said I couldn't be promoted.
And then I went to Pacific Belt.
And after a few years they called me in and my boss told me directly You can't be promoted because you're white and you're male.
So I left to become a cartoonist where it wouldn't matter what color I was.
How'd that work out?
Do you think I would be cancelled if I were not white?
I know the answer, but just answer.
Do you think if I were not white that I would be cancelled for saying exactly what I said?
Saying exactly the same words?
No, there's not even a small chance.
There isn't the slightest chance.
No, this is purely racial.
This is purely racial.
You all know it.
There's not a single yes going by.
There's not a single person who believes I would have been cancelled if I had not been white.
Nobody.
Somebody says yes if Asian, I suppose.
Turn on MSNBC?
Are they talking about me?
All right.
So I think we got agreement that it makes sense to not live near a population of people who have been primed to have a bad opinion of you.
Does anybody disagree with the statement that it's good personal, let's say, strategy To go where you don't think people are going to have a bad attitude about you.
Kurt says, no agreement.
Let me explain one dissenter.
I had one dissenter who said, yes, I would go to an area where I was skeptical of the people there.
Did anything I said sounded like skepticism or a little bit of questioning about him?
Is that really what we were talking about?
Because it's a matter of degree.
And the people who can't understand it's a matter of degree are really missing the whole story.
Right?
Now, there are plenty of neighborhoods where I might be skeptical or suspicious, but they don't rise to the level where it would matter.
But then there are other neighborhoods where you're not just skeptical, you're scared to death.
So if you replace skeptical with scared for your life, then you might get a closer answer.
But... The trolls on YouTube are pretty active and pretty funny today.
You all go to Chicago and tell them you're colorblind, somebody says.
Yeah.
Anyway, so I'll go to the whiteboard in a second.
I asked on social media if people are considering cancelling their newspaper subscription because Dilbert got cancelled.
You want to know a fun economic fact?
It would only take about three people to cancel their newspaper subscriptions for the newspaper to lose money.
Because the amount that they paid for Dilbert is so small per newspaper that it would only take a handful of people cancelling that they would lose more money than they gained by cancelling it.
I also wonder if newspapers are so close to being completely done that it wouldn't take much to push them over the edge.
If, for example, by the way, this is a possibility.
This is an actual possibility.
If, for example, newspaper income went down 10% because, let's say, there was a big cancellation.
I don't recommend that, by the way.
I'm not in favor of boycotts.
I don't like boycotts.
I don't like it when it happens to me, so I don't like it when it happens to anybody.
But if, hypothetically, newspapers lost 10% of their audience because of this, That would push most of them into the negative because their margins have shrunk and shrunk and shrunk.
The only reason they're still in business, I don't know if you know this, the reason that newspapers are still in business is they used to have gigantic margins and they've shrunk to almost nothing, but there's still a little bit there for some newspapers.
Other newspapers, especially the chains, are running at a loss.
And it's because some hedge fund owns them, they don't mind the loss or whatever it is.
But a 10% drop in newspaper subscriptions might put half of the industry out of business.
It's a possibility.
So it's possible that Dilbert canceled the entire newspaper industry, but not a high chance.
Not a high chance.
Maybe a 20% risk.
a 20% risk.
All right.
So I gave an NPC assignment, as I mentioned, on On Twitter, I said, write a tweet explaining how the First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies.
And I actually labeled it NPC assignment.
And then in the comments, you have to see how many people sincerely tried to explain to me that the First Amendment doesn't apply to private companies.
After I'd give them an NPC assignment to do it, they did it.
And not ironically.
They thought I needed to know.
All right.
And then this is my favorite critic.
Some individual who thinks he's going to... Kyle Parrish, who's running for Congress, I guess North Carolina 5th District.
And I don't like his chances.
Based on his tweet, I don't like his chances of getting elected.
So he said, how long before Scott Adams It posts a rant about men needing to separate from women because they all hate him.
And I thought to myself, well, I've sort of already done that.
You know, not the hate part, but I've already endorsed the Mike Pence, don't have a meal with somebody who's not your wife, unless your wife is there.
And it's for the same reason.
It's exactly the same thinking.
The thinking is, well, any individual woman is fine.
But the class of the category of people called women have been very much, let's say, programmed by the Me Too narrative, which is a healthy thing for society to have that.
But if you're trying to avoid a class of people who have been programmed by society, Women would be one of the groups.
So I do recommend that you stay away from women, certainly in a work environment, where you're alone.
So I wouldn't spend a time alone with women, because women have been radicalized by the narrative to look for me-doing, and they're going to find it where a man won't.
If you spent the same amount of time with men, Your odds of being MeToo'd would be practically zero.
If you spend a lot of time with women in the workplace, what are your odds?
Actually, I'll ask you this.
If you have a job where you personally spend a lot of time with women, what are the odds you'd be accused of misogyny or sexism?
I think it's close to 100%, isn't it?
Yeah.
If you're surrounded by women in a work environment, For an extended period of time, I would say the odds go to 100%.
So, would it be good advice to ignore that?
Or would it be good advice to do what Mike Pence does?
And make sure everybody has equal opportunity.
Don't treat any woman as if there's something wrong with her.
That's not fair.
But just treat it like a statistical fact.
How about that?
So that's bad critiquing if I agree with you.
All right.
Let's go to the whiteboard.
I was reading CNN's takedown of me today.
And I think so far the press has done the same trick.
And the trick is to use just my quote and to ignore the context which I helpfully added afterwards.
So if you only concentrate on the quote, you can make it mean anything you want.
But if you look at the context, it's harder.
So I don't believe, let me tell you what the Washington Post did.
Oh my God, thank you.
I don't encourage you to do gigantic super chats, but Ryan, I appreciate it.
All right, here's what the Washington Post did.
If you heard my comments in context, They're much easier to go down, right?
That's why a number of black pundits have looked at my comments in context and then concluded, oh, that's fine.
I don't know if you know that, but black people who are looking at it in context are fine with it.
And they're telling me every day, privately and also on Twitter.
Now, the ones who haven't looked into the context, they're pretty worked up.
Pretty worked up.
So here's what the Washington Post does.
They start with a story of what I said, which is the thing that gets everybody riled up.
They do add a little context, but it's at the end.
If you add it at the end, that's a hit piece.
Because they could have added it at the front.
All you'd have to do is cut and paste.
Just cut the end, put it up at the top.
Here's how the story could have read.
Adams made the following comments, then just show the comments.
People interpreted it to be racist.
Adams addressed those comments the following way, and then people who saw the comments addressed decided it was actually helpful.
Did I lie?
Is any of that a lie?
It's not.
If you just said, here's the context, here's his additional explanations, people who've looked at it are happy that it wasn't racist, or not what they thought it was anyway, and that's the end of it.
But there's still an outrage.
Would any of that be untrue?
It wouldn't be.
Now, the way they wrote it was also completely true.
But it was written to mislead intentionally.
So, look at the stories today.
Story number one.
The media, and social media especially, lied to you about the source of the Wuhan virus.
Right?
That's the media.
And now they're lying to you about me, but they're doing it in this clever way where they just arrange the information so it's presented as a lie, but there are no lies in it.
There are no lies in it anywhere, but it's organized to present a lie.
All right, so here's the thing, and you can check this yourself.
Check any of the major media coverage of me and see if you can find them describing my explanation of why the Rasmussen poll wasn't the important part of the thing.
So, by the way, a number of people have said, hey, that's just one poll.
Yeah, we can't rely on one poll.
And they're right.
And I should have been more clear that I was using the poll as a, let's say, an introduction to the topic.
But the bigger reason is not the poll.
You could take the poll end of the story and my point would be the same, but my messaging would probably be better.
So here's the real messaging.
Which I didn't do a good job of, you know, in my off-the-cuff stuff.
We know we have a situation in this country in which there are indications of racial discontent.
So there's a Rasmussen poll, which we all agree cannot be relied on just by itself.
But suppose the Rasmussen poll was off by 100%.
That'd be pretty big, wouldn't it?
A poll that's off by 100%.
So let's say that instead of nearly half of black respondents not being willing to say that being white is okay.
That was the poll.
Suppose it was only half of that.
Or let's say I take out the part of people who are just unwilling to answer it and just say, well, that's something different.
So suppose it's half that size.
Suppose it's a quarter of black Americans thought about it and said, yeah, I'm not willing to say being white's OK.
Would that change my point?
Would the larger point be different if the Rasmussen poll was off a lot, like just way off?
It wouldn't be any different at all.
But it also is very much in agreement with the Gallup poll from a few years ago that shows that race relations took a dive, I think around the time of Trayvon Martin, When the media found that they could get a lot of money by ginning up racial hatred.
So if you look at the Gallup poll of race relations, it's flat for years, just years.
Flat, flat, flat.
Trayvon Martin, and then it stays low after that.
Why did it stay low?
Was it just because of one story?
No, it's because the media decided that that kind of story was the kind that really gets people going.
So the media decides to feed us non-stop white people are racist stories because it's really good content.
Then you add to that the EIS and the DEI and the training that is now the major narrative.
The thing that schools are teaching the kids and the things that corporations are talking about.
And they're creating a narrative Collectively, and then social media is a big part of this, of course.
So if you add the media, I should have said media, not social media, but if you add all of these forces, they create a narrative, and I won't say what the percentage is, but there is some amount of the black population that's poisoned.
They're just poisoned by the narrative.
They are victims.
They are literally victims.
Now, the white population is just as much victims You know, in a different way.
Because the media is not telling us anything like the truth.
They didn't tell us about the Wuhan virus, right?
Pretty much.
Wasn't there another story?
Oh, the Katie Hobbs story.
I'm not sure that that's even true.
We'll find out.
Don't know if the collapsing China is true.
We don't know if the Ukraine war stuff is true.
Basically the media is unreliable.
I guess you know that.
So no matter what percentage of the black population has been poisoned by this narrative, would you agree with the following statement?
That all of these forces are pushing it into more.
Like whatever it is now, there's going to be more of it.
Because the forces that caused it are all in play.
Agreed?
All right.
So, if you imagine that the black population is victim, which I believe they are, victims, of programming that is not in their best interest.
It looks like it's in their best interest, because, you know, the equity and the fairness and stuff.
And there's a lot good.
There's probably a lot good in there.
I'm not going to say it's all bad, right?
I'm just saying if you haven't accounted for the cost of it, then you're not done with the analysis.
The benefits are obvious.
A, we'll treat everybody better.
I like that.
The cost is that there's a cost on the white population, because they're demonized by the collective forces here, and that there is a predictable response.
The predictable response, at least one of them should be, to put some distance between people who have been victimized and are therefore weaponized.
Here's another word for it.
I would say that the media and our education system are weaponizing part of the black population.
And not necessarily physical weapons.
I'm talking about intellectually weaponized.
To have a Have an immediate racial frame on things that maybe you don't need a racial frame on.
So that's the story.
So everybody who says, Scott, you relied on Rasmussen, they are correct in their criticism that the way I presented it looked like I was relying on that.
That's a good criticism.
But it's not, I wouldn't have brought it up except for this, right?
This is the reason I'm talking about it.
The Rasmussen was, you know, just a sideshow.
It was just an introduction to the topic.
So, here's what happened.
See if this sounds familiar to anything else you've ever seen happen in public.
Here was the initial crime.
I advised, I gave some advice that everybody agrees with.
I gave some advice that everyone agrees with.
Black people, white people, poor people, rich people.
Everyone.
Literally everyone.
And was it useful?
Was it useful?
Is it useful to know the costs and the benefits of your policies?
Or do you only want to know the benefits?
It's useful.
Right.
Well, actually, let me say, maybe it didn't turn useful.
But the intention, the intention of everything I do on Livestream is to allow people to think more productively so that their lives are better.
Does anybody doubt that?
Is there anybody here who thinks that I'm doing any of this for money?
Like this stuff.
It would be the worst way to make money.
Do you know how I make money?
Or I used to.
Keep my mouth shut and make Dilbert comics.
That's how you make money.
That was a really good way to make money.
I mean, it ended yesterday.
So I'm unemployed at the moment.
I guess this is monetized, so sort of a little bit.
Ego.
So he says ego.
Am I doing it for ego?
It's a trick question.
Do I do this for ego?
No, you're too kind.
The answer is yes.
But as I've told you many times, I never do anything for one reason.
I never do anything for one reason.
I mean, there might be some exceptions.
But I wouldn't do this for one reason.
So people are saying, hey, ego.
To which I say, yes, if I do good work that people appreciate, my ego will be satisfied.
See, that's looking at all the variables.
So I'm trying to be consistent and look at all the variables.
So I gave some advice that everyone agrees with, that if there's a population of people that has been programmed, this is the important part, has been programmed to have a feeling about you, this would include women in the Me Too era.
So in the Mike Pence sense, you should avoid them.
It would include people who have Trump signs and MAGA hats if you're black.
I would say maybe avoid that neighborhood.
Is that bad advice?
Now, I know most of you who are, if you're Trump supporters, you say, but wait, we're not racist.
Don't do that.
And I agree.
Virtually, I don't know.
You don't meet many racist conservatives.
You just don't.
At least not in the sort of public sphere.
But is there anybody who would say that there are no racists in the Republican world.
Would anybody say that?
There are no racist Republicans?
Now, remember... One.
Now, there are racists in every group.
There are clearly racists in every group.
So, if you are black, should you take into consideration that your neighbors have Republican signs in the yard?
Should you take that into consideration?
Well, if you're a black conservative, it's a plus, because you actually probably would be treated better than most people.
If you're black and left-leaning, you might have some hesitance, wouldn't you?
Now, in all of these questions, it's got to be a matter of degree, doesn't it?
If your problem with another group was just what somebody said, skepticism, I wouldn't change where I live because of some vague skepticism.
And likewise, I would say that Republicans are actually a pretty good group to live around.
So if you used your, you know, for most people it would be a good place to live.
But you might have feelings that that group had been, let's say, weaponized by the media.
Because a little bit of that is happening.
There's so many videos going around of black people beating up non-black people.
If you were black, does that worry you?
Oh, let me ask that question.
This is a good question.
The videos that get viral, they seem to be, there's one going around of a black student beating a teacher nearly to death.
It's all over the place.
Wouldn't you agree, those of you who are black who are watching this, wouldn't you agree that's bad for you?
It's like programming white people to have a view that's not representative.
So wouldn't you say that the problem is people being programmed with bad thoughts?
Now, if you saw more and more, just hypothetically, let's say you're black, and you saw more and more of these videos, and every one of them it seems like, oh my God, it's like they're really going after us now.
Wouldn't you think twice before you moved into a neighborhood that you thought had been programmed with that frame of mind?
I mean, it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
And yet that would say nothing about all Republicans, would it?
It would say nothing about all Republicans.
It would just say that this is a group of people who have been programmed, and especially lately, They've been programmed to have a, let's say, a reflexive bad feeling about me.
So wherever there are groups of people who have been programmed, programmed by the media, to have a reflexive bad feeling about you, I would avoid them.
Does anybody think that's a bad idea?
Anybody?
No matter what color you are, and no matter what is the characteristic of the group you're talking about, if they've been programmed to not like you by the media, is that a factor you should consider?
So, here's what happened.
So now you can see how the media works.
So I said something that literally everyone agrees with, once they see it in context.
I will accept the criticism that I was not as clear as I could have been.
Does everybody agree with that?
I'm accepting that criticism.
That I gave too much attention to one poll, didn't change the message, but I gave too much attention to it.
And I wasn't clear.
Yeah, those things I can just be guilty of.
That's fine.
But once you saw the context, and especially people who know me personally, they were pretty sure that it was just good advice.
Alright, so I got cancelled everywhere.
There will be no more Dilbert except on the locals subscription platform.
And then what happened?
Then the cover-up starts.
Because little by little, more voices are saying, wait a minute, what did you cancel him for?
OK, I feel like I'm not getting the whole context here.
So I'll just tell you that a prominent member of the media, somebody whose name you would know, who is black, contacted me today and said, OK, there's something going on here because my interactions with you suggest that what you said in public doesn't make sense.
Like it was somebody who thought that the person that they had interacted with, me, was inconsistent with the story that's in the media.
That's a media expert.
Somebody who literally lives and breathes the media every day, and looked at it and said, this doesn't look right.
Right?
Now, as I told him, his instinct was good.
There's something wrong here.
Here's what's happening.
So the papers and everybody who's cancelled me, they cancelled me from their first impression, which I admit was awkward and could have been done better.
Once they realized that within context I was simply giving advice that anybody would agree with, black or white, the cover-up begins.
Because they're not going to change their minds.
You know they're not going to change their minds.
That would be too dangerous.
So now they're saying that he said all black people are haters.
Did anybody hear me say that?
Because that's what the news is saying now.
Or the people who believe they've seen the news.
So now they've turned it into all.
Is there any scenario where I've ever said that all members of a group have one thing in common?
Ever?
Who would say that besides stupid people?
Like, this isn't even racist.
That would be just stupid.
Wouldn't it?
Like, wouldn't that be literally just dumb if you believed all of the members of a group are thinking the same?
In fact, how many times have I said out loud or tweeted That all black people are not the same.
We've talked about all Hispanic voters completely varied, white voters all over the place.
Do you believe that I would imagine the Hispanic voters are diverse and white voters are diverse, but black people are not?
I mean, who would have that opinion?
Nobody, right?
So if you believe that I had said this, something about all black people, you really need to check your reading comprehension.
And your news source.
Because nobody would say this.
If you could imagine that somebody in 2023 would have this point of view, that there's something about all black people that's negative.
Like all of them.
Literally nobody has that point of view.
Nobody.
But yet, people have imagined that I could have, and said it out loud.
The one poll is unreliable, but it doesn't really relate to my point.
So they have to artificially make it seem as if the poll is the only thing I was keying off of, which it wasn't.
But I didn't clarify, so that's a good point.
And then here's their best trick.
They introduced the topic by calling it a racist rant or a racist tirade.
If the title of the article says racist rant or racist tirade, is the media telling you the news?
Nope.
That's not the news.
That's a narrative.
That's an interpretation.
Is what that is.
And so the Washington Post went full, not fake news, but intentionally misleading news.
I don't know what you would call that.
Is it fake if the facts are true, but they leave out context to reverse the meaning?
It's kind of a fake news situation, but not exactly.
Right.
So this is what my week will look like.
So all week, nobody will disagree with me, I predict.
Because nobody's going to disagree with this.
In private, nobody disagrees.
Black or white.
Nobody.
It's completely agreed.
But they're going to turn it into something I didn't say, or something I didn't rely on entirely, or they're going to label it so nobody does any thinking.
That's how it works.
So if you're wondering how the media cancellation machine works, that's how.
Anthony, you're not wrong.
Explain how that's a hate group isn't referring to all.
Do you know what hyperbole is, sir?
So I was asked the question, explain how it's a hate group Does not refer to all of them.
It would be the same way that I believe that whites have been called a hate group.
Am I wrong?
Have whites been called a hate group because there are allegedly so many white supremacists?
Can anybody find, do you think if you looked on social media, you'd see anybody referring to white people as a hate group?
Now, if they did, how would I interpret that?
Let's say, theoretically, somebody said white people are a hate group.
What is the reasonable way to interpret that?
Is the reasonable way that it means everybody?
Is that reasonable?
Is that good reading comprehension?
I think it means every person.
Or, would you recognize hyperbole and say, oh, he's making a point.
That there are too many people in that group who have negative views, I don't know what the percentage is, but it's too many.
Right?
So does anybody else have a question on that?
Is that unclear?
That hyperbole is an exaggeration that people are supposed to recognize.
In other words, when you use hyperbole, you're saying something that's technically not true, but you assume that everybody's a good enough reader that they know what you mean.
So let's say I say, Republicans like God.
Does that sound like all Republicans to you?
Let's say Republicans are religious.
If I said that in public, would you take that as all of them?
That's an actual question.
Would you take that as all of them?
It's the way people talk.
It's just a shorthand, hyperbolic way to talk about a group to make a point.
Now, it sounds like you do.
Ha, ha, ha.
Yeah.
Exaggeration is nearly 100% of political discourse.
That's true.
Yep.
It's the way people think.
I don't think anybody thinks in 100% anything.
So generally the thing I get in trouble for is 47% context.
47% contacts, yeah.
Jet Magazine.
I mean, I would ask, do you mean most Republicans?
Yeah.
But would you even need to ask?
Would you need to ask me if I meant most Republicans?
So that's my point.
It's completely clear hyperbole, or exaggeration in this case.
It's very clear what it is.
So you shouldn't have to explain something that is ordinary conversation hyperbole.
But I do understand that people Can't be fooled by it.
No, my art director is still employed.
So Dilbert will still be created.
I'll just be putting it on the Locals platform.
So you can find that at scottadams.locals.com.
dot scottadams, one word, dot locals dot com.
It's a subscription platform.
Ba says, admit you felt like that your whole life.
Felt like what my whole life?
I never felt like the narrative was poisoning black Americans.
And that's really the catalyst for the entire opinion.
So it's more like what things have become and where they're heading.
All right.
47 is too high?
Do you know that there's no, apparently there's no research on that.
Did you know that?
Apparently there's no research on the actual black attitudes of white people, except the Rasmussen poll.
Which, I agree.
You know, one poll doesn't tell you everything you need to know.
Five minutes to post on Twitter.
Yeah.
So here's why there's going to be a little time lag in what's happening.
Has anybody noticed that the punditry is starting to turn my way?
Has anybody noticed that yet?
Day one, it's all negative.
But have you noticed that people are starting to deal with the actual question?
Yeah, the punditry, at least on the right, is turning my way.
But also both black and white.
And honestly, this is going to sound super racist, but I'm going to say it anyway, because why not?
The black men who have looked at this situation have been the closest to understanding it.
The black men.
For some reason, the black women who are weighing in have very different opinions from the black men.
Maybe sort of generally in the same direction, but the way they express it is totally different.
And the black men are mostly saying, I want to hear more.
They're actually interested in the content.
They'd actually like to know.
And then when they hear it, they're like, oh, that's a good point.
That's the way it's going.
So I guess that's racist, because the black men have been generally the quickest to figure out what's going on here.
And I have a theory for that, which is that black women have more risk than black men, in terms of just physical, social risk.
So if it sounds like you're in a group that's getting some bad press, if you're a woman, I think you'd be more concerned, just because you have physical safety as well as everything else.
And I think if you're a man, you just worry a little less about physical safety.
So you can engage with the content a little bit better.
Just a theory.
It might be a misogynistic theory.
Remember, it's just a hypothesis.
So if it were a statement of fact, I would have no grounding for it.
All right.
Putting his own interests first.
What?
I said out loud that I'd be putting my own interests first.
Oh.
No, I said everybody should.
I said everybody should put... Is that wrong?
That everybody should take care of their own business and their family?
Disney just removed the TV series.
Disney didn't have the TV series, did they?
Are you saying that Disney had the TV series?
Hulu?
Might have been on Hulu.
You mean on Hulu, right?
Not on Disney.
But here's a little fun fact.
The Dilbert TV show didn't make me money.
I mean, after the initial, some initial money.
But all of the reruns, that money gets Hollywood stolen.
And when I mean Hollywood stolen, they calculate that their expenses were greater than their revenue and they give you nothing.
But everybody knows that's going to happen.
Yeah, it's not on Disney+.
Maybe you met Hulu.
Might have been there.
And he backed onto Dill Burrito.
Yeah, Disney and Hulu.
What was it?
All right.
On YouTube.
Did you see some commenters slam you for quoting Don Lemon?
What way were they slamming me?
me because they don't like Don Lemon.
Yeah we'll get past all this business pretty soon.
Let's see, Jackson says, you're basing this off of liberal polls and viral videos.
We mostly get along.
So you're missing everything I just said.
Jackson, you spent $20 but you missed everything I just said.
You're saying this, you're basing it off a liberal poll.
No.
That was like the last 10 minutes saying I wasn't doing that.
And viral videos, and I'm saying that the viral videos are misleading.
Which is what you're saying.
So here's the pattern.
The pattern of the people who think they're disagreeing are imagining something to disagree with.
And they're generally just agreeing with me.
Did I watch Greg and Bill?
No.
Oh, my God.
Oh, yeah, we got a lot of viewers today.
Thank you.
Good for that.
All right, is there anything else going on that I haven't talked about?
Are you tired of talking about me?
You are free now.
Now bring down the entire establishment.
How many hours of sleep do I get?
Usually four-ish.
Four hours or so.
Yeah.
The media picked up Elon Musk's comment and associated that with my story, but I saw his comment as more an opportunity to comment about the media and less about my specific comments or my situation.
But I appreciate that he made a comment that enhances the conversation, so to speak.
Yeah, so my Twitter users are going crazy.
So I might reach a million users maybe in a few months.
We'll see.
All right.
I think that's all for you on YouTube.
I'm going to go talk to the locals people for a little bit.
