Episode 2059 Scott Adams: Trump Rally, DeSantis LKS, AOC Supports TikTok, Ye & Jonah Hill, More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump rally and legal issues
Ye tries a comeback
Trump tries a kill shot
Interacting with people who believe the news
TikTok and AOC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
This is the place to be.
You know, a lot of people have decided to be somewhere else, not watching this live.
Wow.
Do we feel sorry for them?
We should.
Yes.
I feel terrible for them.
Let me get that little wire out of your way.
There you go.
There you go.
Now, If you'd like to take your experience up to levels that only a Chinese weather balloon has ever seen, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, Charles or Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Seriously?
You just finished your coffee?
There's somebody on YouTube?
I mean, we're just going to mock you over on the locals platform.
Didn't time the coffee right over on YouTube.
Well, don't do that again.
You've been warned.
Well, the best and weirdest story of the day.
I guess this happened yesterday?
Or the day before?
Somehow I missed this story until just recently.
So Ye has command of hiding, with a post on Instagram, I'm not making this up.
Everything I say now about this story is actually true.
I'm actually, this is real.
Ye posted on Instagram, watching Jonah Hill in 21 Jump Street made me like Jewish people again.
And then he goes on, no one should take anger against one or two individuals and transform that into hatred toward millions of innocent people.
And then he says, no Christian can be labeled anti-Semite knowing Jesus is Jew.
Thank you, Jonah Hill.
I love you.
This is the craziest, best thing he's done yet.
Because, just changing the world, Just think about how you feel about it.
Just release yourself from the logic of it.
Don't think of the story, the details.
Just tell me how you feel about it.
It totally works.
This is the funny thing.
The funny thing is that we laugh at it, because it's just so weird.
And yet it totally works.
In my opinion, it would be hard to be mad at him after he said that.
Because, first of all, he's saying no one should take anger, so he's basically disavowing himself.
He's disavowing himself.
And he's giving this ridiculous reason why he's come to this conclusion.
And the reason that he's giving is so funny that you sort of believe it, even though it couldn't possibly be true, that it's the only thing that changed his mind.
But the fact that he went at it like this is kind of perfect.
Now, I can't speak for the Jewish community and anybody who supports them for how they might feel about this, but what do you really want from people?
What do you want from people?
If somebody had offended me or some group I'm with, and then later came at me with this, that Joni Hill cured him of hating my group, and then he says, as clearly as possible, no one should take anger about a few people and generalize it to millions, that's all you wanted to hear, right?
That was literally exactly what you wanted him to say.
No, you should not generalize it to people because you mad at a few.
I feel like he nailed it.
As silly as this is, I think he actually nailed it.
We'll see.
We'll see.
I suppose it depends what he does after this, but that could not be a more quirky, perfect, artistic way to approach it.
I just love that.
All right.
What do you think is the biggest source of racism in the country?
The climate change pushers who want to get rid of your cheap energy that minorities would love to use.
Teachers unions, mostly Democrats.
It's basically Democrats.
So Democrats, in their typical narcissistic way, have created an entire philosophy around projection.
Pretty much.
It's just projection.
So there are gigantic racists who only see the world through racial terms and they're trying to project that on everybody else and make everybody else the bad guy.
Now I'm not saying there aren't any conservative racists.
Of course there are.
But the fact that the Democrats have made it their main theme certainly makes race the big issue.
Now I want to push back on something that A lot of my audience says to me in various ways.
How many of you think that the election of Obama made race relations worse?
Let me see your actions.
Because if you trace the race relations line, I think Gallup tracks it, it looks like the election of Obama All right, but do you blame Obama for that?
Let's say the timing does seem to be around the Obama election.
But do you blame Obama for that?
I'm seeing mostly yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
All right.
I'm going to do something you don't like at all.
I think that was entirely the right-leaning media.
That wasn't Obama.
I think if the right-leaning media had not made a racist Kind of framing of him from the first moment, you wouldn't have noticed.
To me it looks like the media assigned people the opinion that Obama was going to be bad for white people, and then white people adopted that view.
And so I was watching it at the time, and to me it looked like a massive psyop against Obama.
That, you know, the whole...
I mean, I actually talked to somebody during Obama's presidency.
In the middle of his presidency, there was a Republican who told me that it's a known fact that Obama is a Muslim.
And I said, what?
And he said, yeah, I mean, everybody knows he's... And I said, you mean like an actual practicing Muslim?
As in, if you asked him, he would say, yes, I'm a Muslim?
He said, yes.
Everybody knows he's a practicing Muslim.
Now, where do you get that?
This is somebody who followed, you know, right-leaning news and came to the conclusion that Obama was a Muslim.
Somebody says he is a Muslim.
There you go.
Do you think that it's only the left that gets brainwashed by the news?
It's not.
It's not just the left.
Yeah.
To me, I think that Obama was a marker for, you know, he certainly marks the time that race relations started to plummet.
But I think that was almost entirely because of the way the news handled it.
That's my opinion.
Because, you know, I remember going through that period.
And thinking, oh my god, it's just every day something that's vaguely racially related, or race scare, or Obama's going to take away whatever white people like.
Yeah.
To me, when I tell you that the media assigns our opinions, you don't think I only mean liberals, right?
Everybody's opinion is assigned.
All of us.
I'm even saying it, and I know that my opinions are probably coming from the media.
I mean, I try as hard as I can to find some space between the media narratives and what I think.
But have you noticed how often I end up snapping into the narrative?
Like everybody else.
It's almost irresistible to get pulled into one of the binaries.
So I'm sure it's happening to me.
I'd be surprised if it's not happening to all of you.
But keep that in mind that you may be getting your opinions more from the media than you think, because that's how it works.
But let's talk about the race absurdity.
So we've clearly gotten to the point of race relations absurdity, because the race grifters have been running the show for a while.
The race grifters are anybody who makes money complaining about race, basically.
Here's the newest one.
CNN has an article about digital blackface.
So there's a complaint that white people have been using memes in which a black American is saying something that's witty or funny or something.
And it fits the story.
So a bunch of white people keep using these memes of black people.
Now white people also use memes of white people.
I don't know if you knew that.
But memes actually have lots of different Representation.
But apparently if you're a white person and you use one that has a black person in it, and I'm not saying these are insulting, they just are memes.
Memes always make people look silly, but it's not about the race.
And here, let me explain why this is digital blackface.
According to a CNN opinion piece, digital blackface involves white people play-acting at being black.
What?
If you send a meme around, are you play-acting at being black?
I was not aware of that rule.
I thought that a meme that featured a black American was like every other meme.
It was just a meme.
That's what I thought.
I didn't realize that I was play-acting at being black when I did it.
This is from some cultural critic.
And the cultural critic says, the internet thrives on white people laughing at exaggerated displays of blackness.
Don't we also laugh at exaggerated displays of Karen's?
I've seen as many Karen videos as anything else.
I mean, it's more about the people being interesting, not, anyway.
Reflecting a tendency among some to see, quote, black people as walking hyperbole.
Is that a problem?
You know, I woke up this morning and I thought, you know, I hope there's no big problems today.
And then I find out that white people are using memes and, and therefore seeing black people as walking hyperbole.
Have we run out of problems?
Are we completely out of problems?
That sending memes around that are not your own race is mocking people for being walking hyperbole?
I mean, you have to try really hard to make that racist.
You gotta try really hard.
But, I guess they succeeded.
I saw a tweet from Christopher Ruffo, who's a black mother who's doing a very forceful denunciation of ethnic studies curriculum in Minnesota.
And her complaint was that it was teaching black kids that there are obstacles, racism obstacles.
So she was worried that it gave them the idea that they can't succeed because it was telling them there are all these obstacles.
And she would rather have her children and other black kids, I guess, be told that they can succeed, which is pretty smart.
Then she went on too far.
It started out great.
I was going to tweet this thing.
I was like, oh, finally, somebody who can actually see what's good for black America is black, so maybe somebody will listen to her, and is making a real good point.
I was like, ah, yes, that's it.
That's exactly what I want to see.
And then she went further and said, quote, I can see why you white proponents of this bill might support it.
It's not your kids being told they can't succeed, and you get to shed some of your white guilt in the process.
Okay, so it turns out she's a huge racist, but she's not wrong about the message it sends to black kids.
I think she's right about that.
She just happens to be a racist.
Do you believe that white people are why the ethnic studies are being taught in school?
Now, I do believe that probably in this particular school there might be more white people, and therefore they might be the majority that are voting for it, right?
But let me ask you this.
If the black population of this same area in Minnesota, if the black population did not want ethnic studies, do you think that the white people would be pushing it?
No, no, you do want it.
No, we don't want it.
No, you really do.
No, no.
So even though the white people are the ones doing all the promoting and voting and they might have control of the levers of power, they wouldn't do it unless there was a demand for it.
So here she is blaming the white people for trying to do something that obviously they think is for the benefit of black people.
But the important thing here is that it's a white people's fault.
That's the important part.
I'm glad that this racist mother finally got to the important part that somehow it's still white people's fault.
That's the key factor here.
Well, speaking on more ridiculous race-related things, the Association of American Medical Colleges had some data on different ethnicities getting into medical school.
Now, I had heard for a long time That Asian Americans were being suppressed and discriminated against.
And I think there was a lawsuit that they won and they showed that.
But I didn't know how bad it was.
Did you have any idea how bad it is?
That the best Asian American student has the same chance of getting into medical school as the worst black student?
It's the same.
What?
Now, when I say the worst, these are all people who are within the range of getting into medical school, right?
So the worst person who gets into medical school is going to be smarter than the average person.
But there's a huge difference.
Now, as someone tweeted, it feels like they're trying to make you a racist.
I mean, let's be honest here.
If you knew that one group of people was getting in with lower qualifications than the other, on average, averages do not apply to any individual, but do you interview your doctor?
Do you say, well, this is just a first interview.
If things don't go well, I'm going to talk to a few other doctors.
Some of you do.
Some of you do.
But would you actually know how to judge your doctor's qualifications?
Based on one conversation?
Because if they have a degree from the same school, what do you know about them?
Nothing.
You don't know anything about them.
How many of you think that it would be, let's say, Morally suspect, but wise to discriminate in choosing a doctor.
How many think it would be to your best interest, although we don't like to discriminate, I'm not recommending it.
How many think it would be to your best interest to discriminate wildly in choosing a doctor, given this data?
Yeah, it's mostly yeses, of course.
Now, nobody can recommend discrimination, but I would give you this following guide.
If it's something about, let's say, hiring, hiring and firing, you should really judge the individual.
You really should.
If it's life and death, though, you should do whatever you need to stay safe.
Would you agree?
If it's life and death, discriminate all you want.
It's not even illegal.
Would you go into a neighborhood that looked dangerous statistically?
Or would you say, well, I'm going to judge all the individuals in that neighborhood individually.
No, you'd say that looks like a dangerous neighborhood.
I'll stay out of it.
So, yeah, I do think that if you're not discriminating for your own well-being, you're not doing it right.
Scott doesn't know what discriminate means.
Pretty sure I do.
That's like the dumbest comment I've seen forever.
All right, so that was disturbing, that there's such a difference.
All right, there was a Trump rally in Waco, and the Trump rally, as the news likes to tell us, is in the shadow of his many legal problems.
is many legal problems.
So shall we summarize Trump's many legal problems?
Yeah, there are four of them, and oh boy, oh boy, the walls are closing in.
There's a Stormy Daniels thing that even Mario Cuomo, the ex-governor of New York, says, quote, I think it's all politics.
And that's what I think the people of this country are saying.
Cuomo continued.
It just feeds that anger and that cynicism and the partisanship.
Cuomo continues.
It's a coincidence that Bragg goes after Trump and Tish James goes after Trump and Georgia goes after Trump.
That's all a coincidence.
I think it feeds the cynicism and that's the cancer in our body politic right now.
If you can't convince Mario Cuomo That this Stormy Daniels thing is real?
Even Mario Cuomo, very Democrat, says no, it's not real.
It's just political.
All three of them.
All three of them.
So, the Georgia find the votes?
Do you really think there's any chance that Trump is in legal trouble for saying find votes?
No.
You don't have to be Dershowitz to know you couldn't possibly prosecute him for using the words of fine votes.
You know, the news is trying to say he pressured, he did all these things.
But when you come down to it, you have to look at what he said.
And what he said does not indicate a crime.
So there's no risk of that.
The January 6th protest, protest peacefully.
He's been looked into completely.
There's nothing there.
There's no prosecution that's going to happen there.
How about those Mar-a-Lago documents?
Well, it's a little awkward now that Joe Biden has some documents, isn't it?
So there are four legal problems for Trump, and all four of them help him.
All four of them help him.
Because there's no way he's getting prosecuted for any of this.
Or if it is, it would be a misdemeanor or something.
All it does is, as Mario Cuomo says accurately, it just feeds the anger and cynicism.
Do you think that has anything to do with why his Waco rally was huge?
Very successful Waco rally, apparently.
Yeah, I feel like these attacks on Trump are making him stronger at the moment.
I also feel that the only reason that DeSantis was looking so good is that Trump was removing himself from the news for so long.
Have you noticed that the moment Trump gets close to powering up, he's just starting to power up into full strength, as soon as he does, DeSantis disappears, doesn't he?
And I mean in terms of the wattage, just the energy.
Trump is just infinitely interesting.
Love him or hate him, he's interesting.
And DeSantis, I try to be interesting.
I try to be interested in him, but I have to work at it.
Would you agree?
I want DeSantis to be interesting, but I have to put a little effort into finding out what he's up to.
But with Trump, it's like, yeah, do some more Trump, entertain me.
Like, I'm just automatically drawn to that energy.
And it doesn't have to do with policy.
It's not about policy.
Because I don't, you know, I don't have some big difference in policy between the two of them that's animating me right now.
Well, so I would say that if Trump just stays healthy and doesn't create some new Some new issue, he should waltz right into the nomination.
What do you think?
Yeah, now I'm still endorsing Vivek Ramaswamy, because I think we need somebody younger.
And I think that Trump is insanely divisive.
Now he's divisive not because of what he says, exactly, but because of the way the Democrats are going to treat him.
So Trump is divisive the same way Obama was.
You put Obama in office, and you know Fox News is going to go crazy on him for eight years.
You put Trump in office, you know CNN and MSNBC are going to go crazy on him for eight years.
But I don't know that that would be different with anybody else.
Maybe less wattage.
You know, DeSantis would be more of a boring, muted attack or something.
But I think we're at the point where it's going to be full-scale war, no matter whether it's a Democrat or a Republican.
Probably doesn't matter.
All right.
Trump is getting some pushback because he's saying that if he gets indicted or arrested for this Stormy Daniels stuff, That there could be, quote, what is known by all that no crime has been committed, talking about the Stormy Daniels payments, and also known that potential death and destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our country.
So Trump is basically saying that his supporters might turn to death and destruction if he is charged.
That's not ideal, is it?
That's not ideal.
But you know what else?
It's also honest.
It's hard for me to get, like I want to not like this, because it seems so unproductive.
But I can't fault him for being honest.
There is a risk of death and destruction.
And I don't mean, and I certainly don't mean that to be any kind of like warning or anything like that.
I'm just saying it as a objective fact.
It's probably true.
Now, I don't think it'd be massive.
You know, he uses hyperbole.
But I think there could be trouble.
And the trouble would be, because the charges would be so obviously political, as Mario Cuomo points out, everybody can see it's political.
So, do you want to live in a country where, let me ask you this, would you be happier living in a country where Trump could be arrested on an obviously false charge, to take him off, and there would be no violence?
No violence?
Is that the country you want to live in?
That somebody can be taken off the field for obviously not legal means.
Obviously not legal.
Now, I think you want to live in a country where violence is on the table.
I don't recommend it.
Do not recommend it.
I want to be as clear as possible.
Do not recommend violence.
But I don't want to live in a country where it's not on the table.
So I'm going to say it's on the table.
It's just on the table.
I don't recommend it, but let's not kid ourselves.
If you take down a president on bogus charges that are obviously bogus, yeah, there could be some violence.
And I don't want to live in a country where that's not true.
At the same time, I don't want any violence.
All right.
I don't know if you noticed that Trump is Jumping on the Bill Maher comment that DeSantis is the tribute band, you may remember I told you that once you hear that DeSantis is the tribute band, that's like a kill shot.
I was wondering how long it would take Trump to repeat that.
Didn't take him long.
He was on it.
So he's definitely echoing that tribute band thing.
He's quoting Bill Maher, which makes it stronger.
So, if you're wondering if Trump still has that keen political instinct that got him to be president the first time, well this would be one indication, yes.
Yeah, it's not everything, but we do see the spark of having basically a higher gear than the people he's competing against.
That's what I see.
I saw an article by Julie Kelly in American Greatness, and I was not up to date on how many FBI agents have been outed in various operations, but apparently the Proud Boys' involvement in January 6, according to this Julie Kelly story, was almost entirely set up by the FBI.
So here's what we know.
The leader of the Proud Boys was not there on January 6.
The leader wasn't there.
Which tells me it wasn't coming from leadership.
It was coming from somewhere else.
Now we know that apparently there was a map, I think a map found with the Proud Boys that would show sort of an angle of attack for the Capitol.
And if you thought that the Proud Boys had a map for an insurrection and how to get to the vulnerable parts of the Capitol, did you know that that came from the FBI?
That was an FBI map.
The FBI was giving it to the Proud Boys.
Like, that's in the news.
I mean, I think it's true.
I don't trust the news anymore, but I think it's true.
Now, when you hear stuff like that, and I don't think there were any Proud Boys.
Were there any Proud Boys that got picked up for violence?
None of them were armed.
They weren't armed.
So more and more it looks like January 6th was, you know, an FBI operation, some kind of an op.
And more and more it looks like the Democrats are basically a criminal organization at this point.
They are a criminal organization.
I think you could use a RICO law to take down all the Democrats at this point.
Like actually?
Like actually literally?
Couldn't you?
Is there any lawyer who can tell me?
I feel like the collusion that's been used against Trump should be a RICO violation, right?
Because they're acting like a criminal organization.
They're not acting like a political organization.
They're actually committing crimes under an organized umbrella of associations.
That's RICO, right?
Sovereign immunity?
Do individuals have sovereign immunity?
I don't think a member of the intelligence agency have sovereign immunity.
I'm talking about, you know, maybe Congress has some immunity, but there's still enough people as part of the operation.
Who would charge them?
Yeah, that's a problem.
RICO is just politics.
State actors have immunity.
Well, what is a state actor?
If you're an elected official, you have the beauty, or probably an appointed official, right?
But what if you're just working for a paycheck, or you're a political pundit on TV, or you're the news?
Because I think you could find a web of Rico-type connections with members of the media, Employees of the Department of Justice, employees of the FBI, are they all immune?
Yeah, I don't think they have immunity for illegal actions, do they?
They probably have only immunity for civil suits.
Would that be true?
Because, yeah, if you do a criminal thing, it doesn't matter if you're elected.
That's the whole point of the stuff against Trump.
They're immune from, yeah, they're not immune from criminal law.
Well, in my opinion, it's gone to the level where it looks like just a criminal organization.
That's not hyperbole.
I don't intend that to be hyperbole.
I think the Democrats have actually reached the level, collectively, that it looks like a RICO case to me.
Now, I don't think there's any chance of that happening.
But I don't see them as just a political party anymore.
Think about all the things that Republicans have been blamed for.
Mostly, they're blamed for crimes that didn't happen.
Obviously, there are lots of lower-level officials of all types who get convicted for everything.
So I'm not talking about the state official you heard about that one time.
But in national politics, It seems to me the Republicans have not committed any major crimes.
I guess you'd count, you know, people like Michael Cohen or something, but are they political?
I guess they are, sort of.
Yeah, to me it looks like one is a criminal organization, the other's not.
All right, AOC came out against banning TikTok.
Would you like to know the reasons that she gave?
For wanting to not ban TikTok.
Here's AOC.
She looked into it and the reasons she gave are, I'll just summarize them.
I don't understand anything about the topic.
That's my summarization of her reasons.
Her reasons showed she didn't understand the topic at all.
She actually ignored the influence part of it.
Where China can just decide how to influence us by Tweaking them.
Acted like that didn't exist.
Now what have I told you about the people who act like the big risk, the influence part, is, is the, it doesn't exist.
And they act like the data security part is real, and then they take it to the next level of obviously they're lying or bought off.
Which is they say, well other, other American companies have, you know, data problems.
So why would we be racist against China?
So imagine, if you will, that in public, she's acting like an American company should be treated the same as an adversarial country, China.
Acts like there's no difference between our own country and an adversary country.
That, what is that?
Now I can't even tell if that's stupid or just bought off.
I mean, nobody would be that stupid, right?
Except that there are a number of politicians who are acting exactly that stupid.
And I really can't tell if they think the data security problem is the big problem, and they just don't know the other one is there, or are they lying?
Are they lying?
So here's my take on TikTok.
100% of the people who can explain the risk want to ban it.
100% of the people who can explain the risk want to ban it.
In other words, if you see somebody say, well, there are two risks.
One is they get our private data.
Correct.
Correct.
And the other is that they can influence our opinions through the algorithm.
Correct.
There's nobody.
Here's my claim.
Nobody who can even explain the risks is in favor of keeping TikTok.
Nobody.
You won't see it.
Everybody who is in favor of keeping TikTok will be unable to explain the situation.
And they'll say stuff like, well, Facebook has your data too.
If you say Facebook has your data too, you are either stupid, you know, so uninformed that I think I'd have to call you stupid, or you're lying.
You're lying because you think it's good for your, I don't know, your politics or something.
Yeah, or both.
Yeah, she could be stupid and lying, that's true.
Mahat, are you really saying that?
Facebook has your data too?
I can't tell if that's a joke.
Oh my God, there are people on YouTube saying, what's the difference between Facebook having your data and China?
I want to see you say that out loud.
Say it in the comments.
I want to see how stupid you are.
Ask me what's the difference between an American company having your data and a Chinese adversarial company.
Ask it again.
I want to see you put that in writing.
Go ahead.
There it is.
Facebook is as bad as China.
There's somebody willing to say that out loud in public.
That Facebook is as bad as China.
Are you a Chinese troll?
I mean, nobody with a brain could think that.
All right.
So, here's a question for you.
Has AOC ever been in favor of a policy that wasn't good for China?
Now, I don't know the answer to this, but I'll say, so AOC is big for climate change, which is mostly good for China, bad for the United States.
Did she oppose tariffs?
Did AOC oppose tariffs on China?
Because Trump's the first one who brought it up, so I feel like she probably did.
Is she in favor of ESG, which is terrible for America?
Yes?
Yep?
Yeah, I don't think there's anything that she's in favor of that isn't good for China and bad for America.
Has anybody not noticed that?
Am I the only one who's noticed that all of her policies are pro-China and anti-American?
It's a little bit hard to miss the pattern at this point.
That's a pretty good pattern.
Well, Professor Scott Galloway was on Real Time with Bill Maher.
And TikTok came up.
And I like to call Scott Galloway one of the better Scots.
I keep track of all the people named Scott.
You know, in case one's a murderer.
Was it Scott Peterson?
Was it Scott Peterson who killed his wife?
That's a bad Scott.
So you have some bad Scots.
And you got some good ones.
So Scott Galloway, he's right in the, he's at least in the top five of Scots.
He might even be in the top three.
He's an excellent Scott.
He does a very good Scott.
And I'm happy to have him on board.
But when he was asked about TikTok, he accurately described the risk.
He accurately said, would you want something jacked into your brain where your adversary could push a button and change your opinion?
Because that's what you have.
That's what TikTok is.
I mean, it's effectively jacked into your brain, and China can push one button and change your opinion.
They could do that.
Now, the way he put it was even better than I put it, which is they can make sure that every day their app makes Americans feel a little bit shittier about their life.
What's that do to your country?
Every day you feel a little bit shittier about yourself and your country.
Yeah, that's what it's doing right now.
Now, given that Scott Galloway, one of the better Scots, could accurately describe the risk, what side do you think he was on?
Well, I think I broadcast that.
Everybody who can accurately describe the risk is on the same side.
Everybody.
Everybody who is either lying to you about the risk or leaving it out They could be on the other side.
It's that simple.
And you could actually do this test.
I'd love to see somebody like Matt Gaetz or Thomas Massey do this if they have some kind of thing.
Say, you know, I've discovered that anybody who can describe the risk is against it.
Can you describe the risk in your own words?
Can you describe the risk?
And then when they fail to do it, say, are you not aware of the biggest risk?
All right, did you actually come prepared for this hearing?
You're all prepared and you're here and you don't know the biggest risk of TikTok?
That it's the persuasion, not the data?
How in the world could you come here and not know the biggest risk?
I'd love to see that.
All right.
As you know, AI is going to change everything.
You know that all of your apps are going to be obsolete in about a year, right?
Dating apps might be an exception, because you need an audience of people on both sides.
It's not just the app.
You need the audience.
But your phone is just going to be you telling it what you want.
I don't even think it needs software.
It just needs to connect.
I mean, accept minimal software to connect to AI.
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, If I had AI on my phone, and let's say it was a phone designed around the AI interface, so I could either type in a message or I could say it.
But if I wanted to make a spreadsheet, and the only software I had was AI, don't you think I could already say to it, all right, create a spreadsheet, and I'm going to start putting some numbers into it.
All right, put 200 into the top of that column.
You don't think you could just talk to it and it would form a spreadsheet without ever having any spreadsheet software natively in it?
I think it would.
It would just have to look at what a spreadsheet is and then just make it itself on the fly.
And suppose you wanted to send somebody a message.
The old way is you're typing your message and you've got typos and bad grammar and all that.
The new way is going to be, hey AI, Send an email to Bob, tell him I'm sorry I missed the meeting.
And then AI would make up a more polite version of sorry I missed the meeting.
And you would never even look at it.
You just say, go send it.
All right.
So here's why I mentioned that.
It's not because the future is fun.
It's that every one of your tech companies is obsolete.
Did you see that coming?
It might be the most existential problem in the country right now.
Meaning the one that could kill you the fastest.
Is that 100% of the economy that depends on having all these different apps and softwares, it might all be obsolete in a year.
All of it.
It could be that only hardware is what we sell after a year from now.
Because software is just AI.
And AI will do everything.
So you don't need other software.
Here's how I want to post to Twitter.
Send a tweet out that says something like this.
Post it to all my social networks.
And then it just posts to all the social networks.
I never have to put in a password.
Imagine not having to use passwords.
Because the AI knows who you are.
Because I don't think the AI would ever be surprised.
You know, the AI is listening to your voice.
It might be looking at your face.
It knows the patterns that you type.
Your AI would know if you were a fake right away.
So does it ever need any kind of credentials?
Do you ever have to put in a password?
My bank already uses my voice.
But I guess that's going to be dicey because you can fake voices now.
You just use your face for your password, yeah?
I think it's no passwords, just faces, biometrics.
And no apps, just AI.
We can't even imagine what this is going to be.
When the experts say, you can't imagine what's going to happen like really soon, you really, really can't imagine it.
It's literally beyond imagination.
And I don't think we've ever been here before.
Because even when the internet was formed, there's this famous video of David Bowie.
When the internet is just formed, David Bowie is saying, you have no idea what this is going to do.
It's going to connect everything and everything will be different.
So David Bowie could see it 20 years before it happened.
But I think everybody could see that with the internet.
The internet's sort of easy to understand.
It's just, oh, everybody's connected.
That's an easy concept.
And as long as you know everybody's connected, you can kind of intuit What that might look like.
But you cannot, you cannot intuit what AI is going to do.
I have no idea.
And when you combine AI with robots, and when you combine AI with virtual reality, imagine entering a virtual reality world, so it looks real, and the people that you meet there are fully sentient.
And all of your conversations feel like real people who remember you.
Imagine having a real friend in the virtual world that has no human connection.
They're just AI.
But they get to know you intimately, and over time, they're more and more personal, and they say more and more of the things you like to hear, fewer of the things you don't like to hear, and you just fall in love.
That's 100% going to happen.
100%.
Guaranteed.
Alright.
Do you keep seeing these horrible videos of people in the Congo and various parts of Africa mining for these rare earth minerals and it's just this big dirty pit With people who are covered head to toe with, you know, whatever the dirt is that they're digging through.
And I saw one yesterday, there was a, you know, a cobalt mine.
And some people were being dug out that there's been a collapse, but they got them out and everybody's cheering and stuff.
I had two takes on that video.
Number one, I looked at it and it looked like the saddest, worst, you know, criminally dangerous situation I've ever seen in my life.
And then I heard the people cheering all happily and laughing when they got their co-workers out from under a collapse.
And I thought to myself, have you ever studied the theory of happiness?
That people have this baseline happiness that even if you have an amputation, a month later you go back to your baseline of happiness.
I wonder if the people there were substantially less happy Than somebody who was just, let's say, low-income living somewhere else.
I don't know.
There's something about this story that isn't tracking with me.
Which is, why would so many people do it if it were not their best option?
I mean, isn't their other option worse?
You're saying they're doing it for the pay because there's nothing else that would get paid.
Well, that's my point.
If the other option is you don't get money, then they think it's their best option, even if it's unhealthy.
So I don't know how to think of something where it's their best option.
But here's the point I'm going to.
Everything that they're doing... Did you ever see like a video of all the... It's like just thousands of people like milling around in this big dirty hole.
Have you ever just tracked any one of them?
Just look at one of them.
They're not doing anything.
Most of them are standing there with a shovel and looking at somebody else.
It's like 99 out of 100 of them are doing absolutely nothing.
They're just milling around.
I don't know why.
But is this not the perfect situation for robots?
Why are there any humans in those holes in the first place?
What is it that the human can do that the robot can't do?
Sarah says, in all caps, Scott thought COVID would collapse civilization, LOL.
Sarah, you know that never happened, right?
Are you having an episode?
Sarah, you OK?
You should see somebody about that.
You have some kind of disease that's making you shout, in all caps, things which only you remember but never happened.
That's something you should look into.
Yeah.
If you start shouting, in all caps, a memory of something that didn't happen, To the person who knows it didn't happen, there's something wrong.
You need to seek help.
So go take care of that right away.
All right.
Well, anyway, I think we could mine rare earth minerals if we used machines to do it.
I think if we use machines, we could do it even in the U.S.
safely, I think.
All right.
Were you expecting, when the Ukraine war kicked off, weren't you expecting the Russians to use their advanced cyber capabilities to take down all the networks in Ukraine?
And then it sort of didn't happen?
They had a few easy wins that apparently were not lasting.
And here's the, I guess, the takeaway from this.
Turns out it's really hard to conduct a cyber attack.
That's the takeaway.
Oh, well, it turns out it's really hard.
So Russia tried as much as they could, but it turns out it's hard.
Couldn't pull it off.
Did we miscalculate everything about Russia?
Did Russia actually have a paper military and a paper cyber ability?
Because you know what else we overestimated?
Do you remember when we said Russia interfered with the 2016 elections?
And then we looked into their valuable memes from their troll farm.
And they spent $100,000 on some memes that weren't even all in the same direction.
Some of them were like pro-Hillary, some were pro-Trump.
And then you saw the quality of the memes that looked like they were made by high school kids with no persuasive anything.
So we know Russia can't do memes.
They can't influence an election, even if they tried.
They can't do cyber attacks too well.
And their military is kind of lame.
So maybe we're wrong about everything.
You ever think about it?
Maybe just everything's wrong.
And we're no closer to nuclear war.
Yeah.
Now in my opinion, we're not closer to nuclear war.
Not even a little bit.
Because nobody wants it.
The minimum requirement for a nuclear war is that somebody wants it.
And we have exactly zero people who want it or are crazy.
Nobody.
Nobody.
And as the Wall Street Journal in an opinion piece said today, I think that's where it was, Putin does have an escape.
He has an escape route.
If he had no escape route, that'd be different.
But he actually can just say, oh, we got what we wanted.
We kept Crimea in.
We maybe kept them from entering NATO or something.
So he could definitely negotiate from this point and get something he didn't mind keeping, as long as NATO stayed out of Ukraine.
So yeah, he could just negotiate anytime he wants.
Now there's one theory that I'm not going to endorse, but the idea is that Russia would run out of fighters before Ukraine.
Now the argument goes that even though Russia has more people, and would be willing to throw more fodder at it forever, that the Ukrainians are never going to quit, because it's their homeland.
So no matter how few there are left, and no matter how irregular the army, and no matter if they have to turn it into a guerrilla war, the Ukrainians will keep fighting.
I don't know.
I'm not sure that's true.
But that's a current opinion of somebody.
Sarah is yelling in all caps again, something that didn't happen.
LOL, Scott thinks Ukraine is winning.
Really sort of the opposite of what I just said, Sarah.
You can't tell what's happening over there.
So Sarah, you need medical help.
I'm going to hide you on this channel so that you'll be yelling at yourself from now on.
But that's just a cry for help.
I think you need some medical attention here.
All right.
So cyber war is hard.
Let me ask you if any of you are having this problem.
Do you find that it's harder and harder to interact with people who still believe the news is real?
Have you had that problem?
Every time I talk to somebody who says something, they heard it on the news, and I think, really?
You still don't know the news is made up?
Because I think people still think that it's only the news from the other side that's made up.
No.
No, it's all of it.
All the news about public figures and politics is made up.
Let me say it as clearly as possible.
All of the news, all of the news about public figures and politics is made up.
And what I mean by made up is, usually in the early stages, the facts are wrong.
The source wasn't real.
The thing somebody quoted didn't really happen.
So in the beginning, stories are just wrong on the facts.
But they're always wrong in the context.
They're always wrong in the context.
Always.
There's not a single story.
I've never met anybody involved with a story.
Who is willing to say, yeah, they got that story right.
Never.
That's not even a thing.
And when I meet people who think that the news is still sometimes correct, I don't know what to do with it anymore.
Because I used to argue, well, if you'd read this source or check this source.
But I know that doesn't make any difference.
So here's what I've decided on.
And it seems to disarm people.
I show empathy for them being victimized by the news.
I just say, I'm sorry the news did this to you.
And I'm never going to have a conversation with somebody who thinks the news is telling them anything useful.
That would be the biggest waste of time.
You should start your conversation with this.
Do you believe the news is real?
If they say yes, or they say, well, if you do your own research, or you watch your own things, just walk away.
As long as somebody thinks that the news on one side is real and the other side is not real, you can't have a conversation with that person.
The minimum requirement for an honest conversation is both sides of the news are presenting narrative, which is not real.
It's just a narrative.
I treat them as somebody who's been victimized by the press.
Yeah, as Mark Twain said, if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed.
If you do read it, you're misinformed.
Exactly.
I hate when I just recreate what Mark Twain figured out a hundred years ago.
Democrats voted against the appearance right bill.
All right.
Reframe to reframe.
Ha ha ha.
How vivid is Dave Chappelle showing up unannounced?
That's funny.
Have I ever gotten the Mark Twain Award?
No, that's for much higher profile people.
I'm not high enough profiled to win an award like that.
Oscar Wilde says the real news is in a year-old paper.
Yeah, one to five years is how long it takes the news to come out.
Mexican cartels?
I'm not sure that the TikTok CEO brought Mexican cartels with him.
Have you ever won a Pulitzer?
No, I don't want a Pulitzer, my God.
The Pulitzer is a completely discredited award.
How many Pulitzers did the New York Times get for the fake news about Russia collusion?
Now, a Pulitzer is a sign that you're A political operative at this point.
Unless it's nonfiction.
Unless it's fiction.
Now I would not want a Pulitzer.
There was a time when I wanted one.
Because I thought that would be a good award to have in my line of work.
But at the moment I would just be embarrassed if I had one.
It would just be kind of embarrassing.
Liberty says, we could not match Russia in the Continental War.
Are you Russian?
You sound like a Russian agent.
Because I don't think anybody believes what you just said.
The Russian forces apparently would last about 25 minutes if they attacked the United States, unless they used nukes.
I don't even know if their nukes work.
If I ever saw a man who wanted a Pulitzer, it's Scott Adams, says a mind reader.
If I don't win, it's not worth winning, the mind readers are out.
I'm getting mind read quite a bit.
If I can't win... No, you don't win unless you apply.
Did you know that?
You can't win a Pulitzer unless you submit for it.
If I were trying to win, I would be submitting.
But you don't see me doing that.
I do not submit my work for the Pulitzer.
Oh, you were joking?
Okay.
You're forgetting they're allies.
No, I'm not.
Alright.
Yeah, I wanted Pulitzer until I found out how they were awarded.
But more, they're awarded just, you know, a small group of people.
It's just their opinion.
So it doesn't have any real weight.
If five people decide that you should get a Pulitzer, who are those five people?
Oh, I won the prestigious random five people award.
What's that?
Five randomly chosen judges for your category.
And they change the judges around every year, I think.
Oh, Trump gave out fake news awards. - Daily Wire is increasingly sneaky anti-Trump.
Scott is not sneaky.
Okay.
Oh, I realized that I should have turned my iPad upside down.
So there's a step that, remember I told you that every step you add to the process increases the rate, the chances of failure by like 25%.
Any little change increases your risk of getting it wrong.
And one of the things I had to add was I have to flip the iPad over right before I go live.
And when locals didn't work, And I had to redo it and re-up the app and stuff.
I lost that part of the process.
So, the camera is up here.
Where is it supposed to be?
Down in this corner down here.
And then I would be looking here to see both of the cameras in the same place.
Garden flag, yeah.
I don't know what that is.
Mark Twain never won the Mark Twain Award.
That's funny.
Could you inform your audience about Biden's bringing TikTok back, or at least tell me I'm wrong?
Well, I don't know what you're talking about.
Because nobody brought TikTok back.
It's always been here.
Do you have a clearer view when Scott is looking at which stream?
Can you tell that I'm looking at the locals comments right now?
This is what my eyes look like when I'm looking at the locals comments.
This is my eyes when I'm looking at the YouTube comments.
