Episode 2061 Scott Adams: Trans Shooter, TikTok Ban Bill Is Fake, Dem Goals vs. GOP Systems
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Standardized test for wokeness
"No one is above the law" is moronic
democrat goals versus republican systems
TikTok ban bill is fake
Trans versus guns
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Coffee with Scott Adams, the best thing that's ever happened to you.
I don't know what's wrong with my voice today.
What's wrong with my voice today?
Well, we'll work that out and we'll work out everything else that's important.
It's all going to happen today.
You will get reframed and excited and stimulated in ways you didn't even think possible.
And all you need for that is a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tank, or a chalice, or a styrofoam, 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 of the dope beans.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's gonna happen now.
Go.
Oh, that's good.
That's some good stuff there.
All right, well, let's look at all the news.
I heard that Elon Musk says that Twitter might be on a fast lane to bankruptcy.
But that doesn't mean Twitter would go away.
I always have to remind people when they hear anything about bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy means the courts give you some, let's say, relief with creditors, meaning that you don't have to pay them right away necessarily.
So that you can stay in business.
So I wouldn't be surprised, but it wouldn't affect whether Twitter stays in business.
So I guess the blue check people will lose their blue checks on Twitter unless they buy it.
And already somebody who bought a blue check is impersonating Monica Lewinsky.
So apparently the blue check will no longer work as a way to know if somebody's the real thing.
So in theory, there should be a whole bunch of impersonators of me in a week.
There'll be a whole bunch of racist looking impersonators of me.
Can't wait.
Can't wait for that.
Probably already making their accounts.
So I don't know if this is the right answer.
I do think that everybody who has a blue check probably needs to be paying for it.
I mean, that's not crazy.
And I think that Twitter is better as a subscription service.
Because if you're not willing to pay a few bucks a month, maybe you're not thinking it's adding value to you or you're adding value to it.
So I think Musk is on the right track.
And I think that losing his advertising revenue, which apparently he did, 70% of it or something, maybe that was good.
Because I'm not sure I would trust or want to be in a system that, you know, no friction of getting on or getting off.
All right, here's a disturbing story.
Matt Taibbi, a journalist who was testified in Congress about the Twitter files and all that.
Apparently the IRS visited his house the same day he was testifying in Congress.
It was a surprise visit.
There was no announcement.
The IRS agents just showed up at his door.
Now, I can't, in a million years, you would never convince me that was anything but a political intimidation.
It was political intimidation, right?
I guess Jim Jordan, Representative Jordan, has asked the IRS to explain themselves.
And Matt Taibbi has wisely said he's not going to comment until the Jim Jordan letter gets a response.
So he doesn't appear to owe any money.
In fact, he thinks the government owes him money.
A lot of money.
So it looks like it was just political.
Oh my God.
I mean, I don't know what could be scarier than that.
It couldn't possibly be a coincidence, is it?
It doesn't feel like it.
But that's just jaw-dropping.
So there's your problem.
The government is being weaponized against the public.
It looks like it.
Now remember, we're in the Fog of War on this story.
So the odds of this story turning into something different in the next days or years are pretty good.
So I wouldn't bet you know what's happening yet.
So far, we probably don't know what's happening.
But scary.
Well, of course, there was another mass shooting at a school and I usually don't talk about these because I don't like to give them attention.
But the interesting thing about this, if I could call it interesting, given that it's more tragedy than news, is that the shooter was trans.
Now, if ever there was a story that was made for the headlines, It's mass shooting, children victims, as well as adults, and a trans activist.
This has, I don't know if it was an activist, this has everything.
But you have to look at the way the various news sites are covering it.
When I heard the story, I heard it was a female trans.
And so I didn't know what I was dealing with.
Because I don't, what does that mean?
Does that mean you were born female?
And transition to male.
Or does it mean you were born male and transitioned to female?
So when I hear female trans, I'm like, that's not even a term.
I don't even know what that means.
So, here's what I think I know.
When I look at Fox News coverage, they refer to the shooter as she.
She.
But the shooter has he and him pronouns.
So is Fox News in trouble for referring to somebody with he and him pronouns, who transitioned I guess, as a she?
I don't know.
What are the rules?
So I went over to CNN to see how they were handling it.
Do you know how CNN handled it?
Never mention gender.
No pronouns.
The shooter did this.
Then the shooter did that.
And then the shooter did this.
Yep.
I think they said at some point the shooter is trans, but they just like stayed out of the whole thing.
The shooter.
Yeah.
Now, do you think that the trans element to the story is why the shooting happened?
We don't know.
We'd just be guessing.
I'm guessing no, actually.
Some of you guess yes?
I mean, we're just guessing, because we don't know.
I'm guessing no.
But I could easily be talked into yes.
So it was a student, yeah.
So, how many of you think this is a story of mental illness as opposed to a story about guns?
To me it looks like mental illness.
I mean, I think you have to be mentally ill to go shoot up a school.
So, kind of by definition.
All right, so I don't want to talk about that too much, except that, oh my god, it was just made for TV news.
We're going to hear a lot about this.
Well, we saw yet another Democrat, Rachel Maddow, saying some version of no one is above the law.
Talk about Trump.
Now, what is that when somebody says no one is above the law?
What is that?
What would you call that?
It does sound like what an NPC says, but it's actually persuasion.
It's making you think past the sale.
Did you know that?
If you're talking about whether somebody is above the law, you've already decided that they're guilty.
That's what that means.
I've decided they're guilty, so if they're not already in jail, well, maybe you're acting like they're above the law or something.
So never fall for the above the law thing.
That's just somebody trying to say they're guilty without using the words they're guilty.
And it never is on point.
It's never on point.
When you're talking about Trump's legal situations, does anybody say he's above the law?
Does anybody say that a law should not be Prosecuted?
Nobody says that.
But the Democrats act like there's some argument with imaginary people who think that some people should not be prosecuted.
Now here's what else is wrong with that.
Nobody's above the law, but also nobody is below the law.
If there are trumped up charges, no pun intended, Should you be sent to jail because you're not above the law?
If the charges are BS?
I mean, that's what people are acting like.
It's like, even if the charges aren't real, well, you're not above the law, though.
How about the facts?
Are we above the facts?
Or equal to the facts, I guess.
Yeah.
So it's never about being above the law.
It's always about You know, an imaginary crime that didn't, in many cases, is a crime that didn't happen.
So is nobody's above the law?
Does that apply to a crime that didn't happen?
Or a person who wasn't guilty?
But the Dems will make it look like it is.
And then, of course, there's a whole class of laws that could be broken.
And even the prosecutor believes it's not worth pursuing.
What's that?
That's not somebody being above the law.
That's about the law that was broken is too trivial to be worth the effort.
So I think Trump falls into a few of those categories.
But whenever you hear this, no one is above the law, that is pure partisan BS.
So here's my bottom line on Democrats versus Republicans.
Now of course there are no absolutes and there's no such thing as all Democrats being alike or all Republicans being alike.
That's not a thing.
So it's just a generalization.
But I think it holds as a generalization.
That Democrats like grievances and goals.
Grievances and goals.
I have a grievance and my goal is equity.
I have a grievance and my goal is reparations.
That sort of thing.
Whereas Republicans are far more likely to talk in terms of systems.
Like the free market system, traditional family systems, religion as a system, the Constitution.
Basically systems.
Now of course Democrats also look at systems and talk about it.
Of course Republicans have goals.
But there's a really clear distinction and emphasis.
And I see the Republicans default to systems.
Like okay, not everybody could have everything, but at least we could have a system that makes you feel like you were treated fairly in terms of opportunity.
It's the best you can do.
It's a good system.
And the Democrats have this completely irrational view that you can go right to the goal.
Give me money and then we're equitable.
Hey, it's pretty simple.
You have money.
I don't have money.
That's not equitable.
Give me some of your money.
So that's not really a system.
It's just like going right to the goal.
And I would argue that when they do have something that looks like a system, it's destructive, such as CRT.
Critical race theory is about, at least its roots, were in getting rid of the family structure and getting rid of anything that supported the civilization the way it was, basically.
Because it all needed to be ripped up, because it was all systemic racism.
So I saw a psychologist A video clip was saying that grievance-based philosophies lead to violence.
So if your filter on life is grievance, you're far more likely to do something violent.
Does that make sense?
It kind of makes sense, right?
If you're not super unhappy about other people, you're probably not going to get a gun and shoot other people.
You have to think there's something wrong externally and it's affecting you in order to go kill that external stuff.
So yes, I would say that critical race theory pretty much guarantees that some number of people who go through that training will have grievance-based violent actions.
So I do think CRT creates violence.
What do you think?
I think you agree.
Alright.
Utah has put on some kind of limits for social media for kids.
I didn't even know that was possible.
Did you know that a state can put a limit on social media?
So I guess the social media companies will be required, if the person signing up is in Utah, that if you're under 18 you have to have permission from parents to have an account.
I like that.
You also need to be able to prove you are who you are.
You can't just lie and say you're 18, I guess.
And won't be able to show children ads.
And won't be able to use it between 10.30 p.m.
and 6.30 a.m.
I like all of those.
I like all of those.
It would have been, you know, maybe I would have preferred it if the parents didn't have to decide on social media, but rather it was just banned.
Because the parents are kind of helpless.
If you say it's up to the parents whether the kids get social media, then 95% of kids will have social media.
I don't think that's what they were trying for.
I think they were trying to get that number down.
But just having to ask parents won't work.
Because the kids will just badger the parents until the parents say yes.
Yeah.
Yeah, but it's good.
I like the states trying something.
Well, Tucker Carlson illuminated the question of the TikTok ban.
I was under the impression that Congress was considering a ban on TikTok.
Turns out that's just a lie.
They were considering a power grab over all social media.
And then they would use it for TikTok.
No, not acceptable.
Not acceptable.
If I had a choice of a TikTok ban or new powers over all of social media, I would rather have TikTok stay in business, as dangerous as it is.
But no, I do not agree with the... And maybe it's a poison pill.
It could be that Congress, or at least the Democrats, really do not want TikTok banned, but they can't argue it because it makes it look like they have something, you know, personal in it.
And they probably do.
Because personally it can help them get elected, etc.
So I've got a feeling that your government is pretending to argue about TikTok, but really it's just a power grab over social media.
And I don't support it at all.
Here's what I support.
A bill targeted at TikTok only, or whatever it becomes.
Give me a TikTok only bill and I will promote the heck out of it.
But this general power grab over social media?
Absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
That is no, no, no, no, no.
And if any Republicans vote for that, they're going to have a lot of explaining.
So it could be that the Democrats sort of lured the Republicans into a trap by saying, yeah, yeah, let's all get together and do some bipartisan work on banning TikTok.
And I've got an idea.
Why do we not limit it to TikTok?
Every part of this is wrong and creepy.
I hope they don't get away with it.
Well, the probe into the Stormy Daniels things is now brought into the mix.
An ally of President Trump, his name is David Pecker.
So as John Thompson tweeted, Pecker enters Pecker becomes part of the probe.
So, I don't think you could have a Stormy Daniels story without Pecker being part of the probe.
That's all.
Pecker is part of the probe.
Alright, that was important.
Do you remember when Joe Biden Said that if you elect him, you'd finally have an honest president.
Finally, we could have a president who doesn't lie to us.
Like that evil orange menace.
Well, how's that working out?
As Dan Crenshaw said when he was reacting to Biden's State of the Union, quote, the president has devolved into just lying shamelessly about GOP positions to frighten senior citizens into voting for him.
And that's what he's doing.
He's literally just making stuff up now.
And Biden's saying that the border problem or the number of crossings is because of Trump.
I don't have to read that story.
He's literally just saying that whatever the Democrats did, they didn't do.
It was the Republicans.
And the news is so segmented that his base won't know the difference.
He can actually say anything.
His base will never be exposed to the other argument.
It's amazing.
So, let's see, how many people in a recent Rasmussen poll, let's see, how many people would agree with the statement that Crenshaw's, how many would agree with Crenshaw's statement that Biden is just lying about stuff?
Turns out 56% of voters agree with the statement that Biden is just lying about stuff now.
That means a lot of Democrats, that's a lot of Democrats, joined, you know, pretty much all the Republicans, saying that their own president is just making stuff up.
He's just making stuff up.
But let's see, how many people do you think would strongly disagree With the idea that Biden is lying.
How many would strongly disagree?
Oh, there it is.
25%.
25%.
You're very good guessers.
25% say no.
No, Biden lying?
Are you kidding me?
I don't see any Biden lying going on.
Maybe you're the liar.
Maybe you're the liar if you say Biden's lying.
How about that?
Alright.
I was trying to think, which of Trump's 20,000 lies made any difference at all?
What do you think?
Did any of Trump's lies during office, now January 6th and the election I'm going to talk about, but if you don't count the election and January 6th, is there anything he lied about that made any difference?
Because typically it was hyperbole.
It was just in service of some policy that you liked.
If you're a Republican.
Now, here's the thing.
I don't think Trump lied about the election.
I think he believed what he was saying.
And it was not accurate in a number of cases.
But I believe he actually believed the election was stolen.
He acts like somebody who believes it.
I mean, I can't read his mind.
Don't know.
But he looks and acts like somebody who really believed him.
Is that lying?
Or is that just being wrong, if he's wrong?
We don't even know if he's wrong.
Yeah.
So, I would argue that nothing that Trump said made any difference.
Whether it was accurate or not.
I don't know if that'll be true with With Lyin' Biden now.
Maybe his lies won't make any difference either.
We'll see.
Well, Florida voted, and Ron DeSantis signed the bill, to give all Florida families school choice.
How big a deal is that?
Is that the only state with universal school choice?
How many states have that now?
Six total?
Somebody had that answer right away.
Six or seven?
Good.
A lot of this, I wonder how much is Corey DeAngelis just going around and just, you know, working on this issue full time?
He seems to be super effective.
I don't think it's a coincidence that his work is correlating with all these changes.
Very interesting.
I'd love to know how he gets paid.
Wouldn't you?
Who pays Corey D'Angelo?
I don't know.
But he's doing stuff that I want him to do, so I guess I don't care who pays him.
All right.
So then we'll see how school choice works in Florida.
It's a good experiment.
So Biden is still referring to Republicans as extreme MAGA Republicans.
Is that good persuasion?
Do you think it works to say extreme MAGA Republicans?
Unfortunately, I think it does.
Yeah.
You're going to say no, because maybe it doesn't work on you.
But I think it does.
If you just keep saying it over and over again, people are going to be like, oh, he's extreme.
Now, that's what Newt did, right?
Remember Newt Gingrich?
I think he was the one who kept saying, you know, extreme liberal, extreme liberals, those liberals.
I think that worked.
Don't you?
Don't you think that the right sort of rallied against the extreme liberals?
So extreme.
I think that extreme thing actually works.
Politically.
Because nobody wants to think they're extreme.
Well, I'm sure somebody does.
But the average voter doesn't want to be involved with anything extreme.
Extreme?
Take that away from me.
I want ordinary, don't give me extreme.
Yeah, unfortunately it works, I think.
Here's a statistic I saw that I guess I just need to check this.
Is it true that 21 out of 22 major cities in America are run by black elected officials?
Is that true?
21 out of the 22 biggest cities are run by black elected officials?
I don't know.
That surprised me.
I would have thought it'd be more like half of that.
But 21 out of 22?
Does that suggest that diversity was more important than effectiveness?
Because the cities are pretty much a mess.
It feels like diversity hiring, doesn't it?
With the incompetence that you'd expect from that.
Now, I don't say unexpected because the people who got hired are black.
I say that as soon as you focus on diversity instead of capability, you limit the pool of applicants and therefore logically, based on math, You would have fewer chances of getting the right person.
So it looks to me like the cities are destroyed by diversity, or response to diversity.
Is that fair?
That's what it looks like.
That's what it looks like.
There's no way to know for sure, but it has all the markings of destruction by diversity.
So I would say get away from the inner cities as far as you can.
But you already do that.
All right.
How do you ignore the fact?
Now, are we at a point where we can say that The goal of diversity and DEI and CRT have created a level of incompetence in the country, both in the government and private industry, that is now too much to support the system.
I feel like our basic, let's say, adherence to capability and merit have all fallen away.
In theory, companies should be failing from diversity.
And again, not because the candidates would be lower quality, but as soon as you start favoring diversity, there are fewer people to pick.
And everybody's going to be trying to pick those same few people who are just perfect for the job.
So in theory, you should end up with lower quality employees, and the whole system should fall apart over time.
And is that why the young people see no future?
Because they don't see any competence being applied to anything that's future-oriented?
Took away the job of the black mayor.
Okay.
Well, I do think that we have a competence crisis.
And we have a population crisis.
And it all seems to be coming from the same place, doesn't it?
So there's an anti-white, anti-family set of beliefs that have taken over.
And those will drive you to more racial division and less competence, necessarily.
Again, it has nothing to do with the individuals and their capabilities.
It's just if you're looking at a smaller pool of applicants, It's just math.
You're going to get worse employees.
There's no way around that.
So, yeah, competence is no longer part of the job.
Guess who made this happen, you say?
Well, it's not one person.
What can we do before it's too late?
You know, I've been spending a lot of thinking about that and I think we need to let the cities deteriorate into basically prison cities and just stay away from them and build new cities with like-minded people and new communities with like-minded people.
So I think you just have to escape that which can't be fixed.
I think the inner cities can't be fixed.
I don't see any hope for that.
Yeah.
Yeah, I would just let it go.
I would just let the cities deteriorate.
I wouldn't give them any money.
I wouldn't do anything.
I'd just let them go.
But I don't have a better idea.
Definitely don't have a better idea.
I wish I did.
Yeah.
San Francisco is gone, yeah.
You can imagine Snake Adams.
I don't know why I remember that it was Snake Plissken, Escape from New York.
Why do I remember the hero's name in that movie?
Of all movies, I don't typically remember the name of the hero of a movie.
Alright.
Escape from New York, yeah.
Optimism is natural and pessimism is taught?
I don't know.
I think optimism is natural too.
But you can learn to speak in optimistic tones.
So you can teach yourself to act like an optimist.
Extra special guilt.
Yes, gee, that's not bad.
Alright, that's all I had for you today.
Not a lot of news.
Did I leave anything out?
Did I forget anything?
What did I forget?
Is the golden age gone?
Well, I don't know if you noticed, but there's a lot going right at the moment.
There's a lot going right.
It's easy to lose it when everything's going wrong.
Now, AI is sort of a wild card.
AI will either be good or bad, I don't know.
But here's what's good.
So what's good is employment is still high.
That's good.
I don't think we're any closer to nuclear war.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I think that we're divesting from China.
That's good.
I think the odds of a Republican president are high, coming up.
I think that the border is a mess, but it happens to be a mess at the time when our population is declining.
Sort of a mixed situation there.
So I don't know.
We got out of Afghanistan.
There are some things going right, but inflation is the macro thing going wrong.
So I think banks will be okay.
I think banks will be okay.
I just think inflation will just keep chipping at us.
I mean, I'll lose maybe a third of my net wealth just to inflation.
What do you think?
Do you think you'll lose a third of your net wealth to inflation?
Yeah, we all will, right?
It shouldn't be the same for everybody.
About a third.
Now, if most of your net wealth is in your house, and your house doesn't go down in value, then you're in good shape.
But if you just have, well, Are you?
I don't know.
But if you own stocks and the stocks get killed by inflation, you're all in the same boat.
Would Jimmy Dore make a good president?
No.
That's all I'll say about that.
No.
No.
Will people pull money from banks to see higher returns?
Probably.
But I think we'll figure out a way to keep the banks alive.
Yeah, food prices are crazy.
If we switch to a digital currency, well, here's the problem.
Do you know why it took so long for Some kind of background check system for illegal immigrant hiring?
I don't know the answer, but I think that the government knows that if all the illegal immigrants were taken out of the businesses that they were working for, that the economy would collapse in some places.
So I think there's sort of a turning the other way about illegal employees.
Because it's just easier to have illegal employees.
Because those jobs were not getting filled by anybody else.
So, there are some problems that people don't try to fix.
They just act like they are.
Yeah. - Yeah.
So here's what, here's the problem.
If you introduce the digital currency, Then people who cheated on their taxes wouldn't be able to do it.
So your server at your restaurant would have to claim all of their taxes, because the government would presumably see the transactions.
And that would destroy, you know, the restaurant business would end, basically.
Alright.
National Sales or Vat Techs?
Maybe.
Yeah, how do you sell your car?
Well, you sell it with digital currency.
Use your app and sell your car.
Do I prep?
I mean, for the end of the world?
No, I just do some basic stuff.
Vivek and Tulsi?
Yeah, I don't see that.
I don't see that.
Would we even need banks if we had digital currency?
No.
You know, banking only exists the way it does because banks can bribe politicians to keep things the way they are.
We're at a point where one app should do all your banking for free.
You know, for $8 a month for the app or whatever.
Yeah, you should just have one app that does all your banking.
Did it ever make sense that you would have two different accounts?
A checking account and a savings account.
How did that ever make sense?
It never made sense.
You should just have money.
You just put money in the bank, and if you have money in the bank, they pay you interest.
And if you take a loan for more money than you have in the bank, you pay them interest.
That's it.
That should be the whole story.
You could also imagine a world where your loan application is evaluated by your neighbors.
You could have the app, you know, ask all the questions, and then talk to the neighbors, and the neighbors would be like, hmm, no, that's a known scammer there.
I'm just throwing out some ideas.
But no, banks are obsolete.
There's no reason for a bank.
But they will remain for a long time because they can bribe politicians to stay in business.
put up walls against competition.
I seem off today.
Am I tired or depressed?
Well, I got up at 12.30 a.m.
and I fell asleep for a minute and got up at 2.30 and racked in pain.
As I wake up in pain every day.
Part of the reason that I have trouble sleeping is it's painful.
It hurts.
Does anybody else have that?
The longer I stay in bed, the more it hurts.
My body starts itching.
My back hurts.
It just all hurts.
So I have to get out of bed.
So at 3.30, I just called the game and said, all right, I'm not sleeping anymore.
So at 3.30, I got up.
That's probably what you hear in my voice.
Senior living?
Yeah, maybe.
No, I overdosed on coffee yesterday.
I know exactly what I did to myself.
It was just coffee.
Yeah, age is part of it, for sure.
No, I've tried every mattress.
They're all the same.
I mean, I've really tried every mattress.
This has been my whole life.
So the screaming pain when I wake up It's not because of my age.
That's just always been there.
It takes about 15 minutes before the pain goes away.
I don't like getting up and I don't like sleeping.
My two least favorite things.
Is diet?
I don't think so.
Yeah, it's all lower back.
Transcranial devices.
I don't have a problem getting to sleep.
It's just that when I wake up, I'm done sleeping.
Start eating meat.
Why is it that no matter what is going wrong with me, somebody will say I should eat meat?
Like, no matter what it is.
You gotta eat some meat.
Alright.
Did I have a childhood injury?
No.
No, and my back doesn't hurt most of the day.
It just hurts when I sleep and when I get up.
Sleeping in a chair?
Yes.
I sleep in my massage chair sometimes.
But for some reason, since you can't move around to different positions in a massage chair, you can only stay there for like an hour.
All right, that's enough about this.
Enough about me.
Enough about me.
Elevate my knees?
My God, that sounds...
Sexual.
All right.
Bye, YouTube.
I'm going to talk to the lovely people and locals a little extra.
